Can I just follow the Bible without having to worry about all of this denominationism?

It’s not worth it. Too many luciferians.

The problem is that you will end up in heresy because you won't have any context for alot of verses. Besides, Christianity has always been about community. No denom means you have no community to be with.

*Calvinist

Calvinism is rejected by the vey Bible.

No. Some larger body of collective interpretations and wisdom is better for you and for me; for the Catholics we have the Magesterium and for Orthodox we have the longstanding writings of the saints and holy men. Protestants too have their theologians and holy men, but the mass splintering and many denominations has demanded far more careful study for aspiring Christians if salvation is your endgame.

Attached: 3de6d58590d65c80f23a1a715293a5605025a613501932c4de8e39fa577fc38a.webm (420x360, 8.58M)

nice

The thing is that the Bible doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's the inspired texts written by the people of God, testifying of its experience of God, for the people of God. The people of God today is the Church, and so the Bible is not simply something to read but also a testimony of our current daily experience as Christians.
You cannot read the Bible apart from the Church, the community that wrote, discerned, and preserved it. And then the question of denominations inevitably appears: where is the Church? The Church is made manifest by its orthodox confession of faith:
The Church is also made manifest by the presence of the Holy Spirit, producing saints:
But how do we figure out what is the orthodox faith? There is primarily the interpretation of the Bible, but there is also the interpretation of what is implied by what the Bible says, even though it is not said explicitly. And how do we figure out saintly behavior, too?

So, the issue is complicated. But you also cannot read the Bible apart from the Church, and that means figuring out which denomination is correct. The Bible is made to be read from within the bossom of the Church, not from without.

The word church means assembly. And a type of assembly is a congregation. See Hebrews 2:12 "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." and Psalm 22:22 "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee." The word church and congregation are used interchangeably. So these and the people of God are two separate things.

The universal church concept is state-churchism, it isn't found in Scripture. There is no doctrine that being saved equals being in a congregation with other people. Salvation and being born again is not equal to joining a particular church and that's not what being saved is. The people of God are only those who are saved by the Son of God.

I have no clue what you mean. "Assembly" and "congregation" are the same thing so the Church of Christ isn't the people of God?

…
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, so let's take another angle. Is the Church Israel?

No.
Any church founded on 'The Bible and The Bible alone' is de facto the wrong church because Christ founded his church on Saint Peter, not a book of any kind.

You mean like Biblical context? You get Biblical context by reading further, hearing more, studying more.

I would agree, it is necessary to be a believer in the word of God and have access to instruction through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is given to the saved individual, who has been born again as Jesus explained in John 3.

Consider:

–John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

–John 16:13-14
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
"He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

–1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

–1 John 5:9-10
"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

Jesus did not found the Church upon Peter arbitrarily or for the sake of Peter's own person, though, but because of Peter's confession of faith that Jesus is truly God and truly man.
A confession of faith based on the ministry of Jesus, recorded in the gospels, and prefigured in the Old Testament. Therefore, the Bible. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." In fact, it is after Jesus tells Nathanael that He saw him studying the Bible ("I saw you under the fig tree") that Nathanael makes the same confession of faith as Peter, and even before Peter does.

My point is that you're making a false distinction.

This is also a reference to the Person spoken of as the Comforter in John 14:16 who is the Holy Ghost according to John 14:26. And in Luke 11:9-13 Jesus explains how it is that God may by grace give the Holy Spirit unto those that have asked. It has nothing to do with registering with or becoming a citizen in some empire, it has to do with whether you as an individual have believed and heard God's word or not.

–John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

–Acts 13:48
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

This is also a reference to the fact that as 2 Peter 1:20 states, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." The next verse explains how holy men of God originally spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This lines up with 2 Timothy 3:16 which adds that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. We therefore may have a better confidence than in the flesh (It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. Psalm 118:8) knowing that while we are in a fallible world that God has sent his Spirit and actually made it possible to know the one correct truth that we are meant to have, as John 16:13 stated and that this truth is based in a proper remembrance of Scripture, as John 14:26 says "he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." We can therefore be in a state of knowledge that there exists precisely an infallible reminder of the things Christ said, and one Person able to individually give remembrance of scripture to that individual who has asked who has believed in the word of God.

–2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

–Ephesians 1:13-14
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

This is also a reference to the fact that being a believer and having the Holy Spirit is like receiving true instruction directly from the Lord. It's like receiving his direct teaching every time you recall scripture to your mind. Because it isn't man that teaches these things but God.

–1 Corinthians 2:12-14
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

–Luke 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

(cont'd)

–Psalm 94:12
Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;

Also a reference to the fact that there exists the inward witness that allows the man of God to discern only by being guided into truth by the Holy Spirit through studying God's word, and not on some corruptible (1 Peter 1:23-24) and manmade tradition (Mark 7:7-13, Acts 20:28-32). This inward witness is present because of the fact the individual believed the record God gave of his Son and was saved by grace through faith.

–2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

–1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

–1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

This signifies the inequality between the words of God and those of everyone else. Because of this it is only possible for someone to be saved by the grace of God, not by eloquence or oratory performance by someone to expound these things in other words. It is only possible to believe the words written as an eternal unchanging record to bring about a reform and a repentance. That is because it bears the authorship of God.

–Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

–1 Peter 1:23-25
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

–Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

–Zechariah 4:6
Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

Where will you get sacraments though? You'll miss out on the most important ones. The Bible is what gives the basis for gathering in groups to celebrate Christ's sacrifice. This idea of practicing religion alone is a relatively recent innovation. One should also make note of all the ascetic orders of monasticism throughout the various churches. Maybe brushing up on some Christian history can be helpful. This channel has a lot of good lectures.
youtube.com/channel/UCrI5U0R293u9uveijefKyAA/videos

I'm going to take a guess and say an opposing perspective could be that what was said to Peter is not to be conveniently taken literally by Romans but that it is a declaration of where the position of the apostles, such as Peter, stands within the whole narrative. He also said go and disciple all the nations, and all the other ancient churches are referred to as apostolic as well.

Yes, and the Church got built on St. Peter because of this. Additionally, the "authority to bind all on heaven and earth", which the other Apostles were authorized to enjoin in later in Matthew 18; and St. Peter alone got the Keys to the Kingdom and the promise.

If you don't have Peter, you do not have the keys into Heaven. Pure and simple.

You must pick a Church because Christ built one in Matthew 16:18. There is no way to escape this charge, because St. Peter received the Keys to the Kingdom alone.

Only one Church has St. Peter my friend.

they should really just rename this board /Roman/ and be done with it

Lie

You are always free to migrate to /heretic/ no one is stopping you. If you don't like the truth that Jesus set up His church in Rome, thats your problem.

My issue isn't that this user said this, but that they threw the Bible under the train at the same time.

He appeals to scripture and then appeals to ignore it in favor of manmade traditions the same paragraph. It's really not worth responding to.

Excuse me? Unless you mean to say, "True God and True Man-made".

That's not all he said. He said one church has St. Peter, but that's not scriptural. He has just appealed to scripture on the one hand then taken manmade ideals on the other and mixed the two.

That doesn't even make sense in scriptural terms, one is not of Apollos and another of Paul and another of Cephas.
This is satanic injection of ideas after initially appealing to scripture. I'm not going to give it a response.

How are you going to take the eucharist? How will you take part in the liturgy? Christianity is a liturgical religion of worship and action, community, not a private thought experiment.

How will you know if your interpretations are accurate, what if you have questions on how to read certain passages and what the fundamental beliefs are? Who will you ask?

But he didn't. Jesus wasn't in Rome, nor did He mention Rome. Peter was bishop of Antioch first.

Keyword: first.
He died & left his authority in Rome.

This is what the Holy Spirit does

Which group was it that changed the Creed?

"on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

No, not "One" Church, "THE" church. Not a single fundamental baptist church in Tempe, Arizona, but (from His own words) "MY" Church.

There is no other Church Christ is building here. The geographic Churches were considered one institution in One Church tied by the apostolic succession.

???

Christ built His Church on St. Peter, open your eyes already.

It's not me or even the Catholic Church you reject, it's Christ Himself.

Hahahahahahahaha

Had we not added the filioque, Arians would still be thumping about making a stink of everything.

Are we talking about the same board?

Yup, the other board is pretty f*cked. Makes me appreciate the mods on here all the more.

Attached: 1555851916466.png (540x632, 672.72K)

Attached: not a mod.jpeg (550x433, 50.59K)

No, because the Bible isn't the Koran.

Heretics and ban evaders may find it hard to believe, but there are people that actually enjoy Zig Forums's mod team and everything they do.

I'd rather have a heavy handed mod team than a lazy one that allows satanists and Mormons to post.

That's fine for you, but that's a different position from acting defensive about it's recommendation and lying about it.
I notice that you've pivoted away from "full of mormons and luciferians" to "allows satanists and mormons to post"

Check the IDs, im also not the user.
Besides, satanists and luciferians are the same thing.

Here here

No. You need to be with other people of the faith. The bible clearly states that recluses are fools who refuse to listen, and Ecclesiastes 4:12 says that 2 people are better than one and a three folded rope is hard to break. Your faith is stronger with others

It's good that you agree on that. Now it's time to acknowledge the full truth of the word of God.

Not according to Matthew 16:18, actually, because that scripture is referring to the rock that is the Lord Jesus Christ. I have told you to stand with or apart from scripture, instead of weaving a thread of truth and lies based on injecting non-Biblical manmade doctrines. I was quoting 1 Corinthians 1:12. This alone overrules everything else you may try to say, and it will outlast all of its opposers. Heaven and earth will pass away, but his word shall not pass away. And that's where all this unscriptural stuff is going. That's why you can't even find a single passage that goes against it.

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
–John 12:48

Let me get this straight. Jesus renamed Simon to Peter, which means rock, and then declared himself the rock instead of the guy he'd just named rock? It makes more sense to say that he was referring to the literal rock that Peter was standing on. How has your interpretation escaped the minds of church fathers for centuries?

You're thinking of John chapter 1, and it means stone. It's not the same root word.

In Matthew 16:16, Peter who was already called Cephas, confessed that Jesus is the Son of the living God, and in response Jesus himself referred to "this rock" namely the Son of the living God, whom Peter had just confessed. Indeed it was intended as a pun, because Peter had just confessed "this rock." So he used two different words to refer first to Peter himself and then to Peter's confession. The grammar makes it impossible to confuse Peter with this rock because he would have said "thou art Peter and upon thee," he wouldn't have referred to the same person in the third person twice in the same sentence. That's not how you communicate that. It's like if I said to you your name is John and I'm trusting Johnny to watch my house, all in reference to the same person. The point of me saying your name is John is to differentiate you from the thing I'm talking about.

1 Corinthians 3:11
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

1 Peter 2:6-7
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

I should also add that it is even more clear what's happening in verse 18 because in verses 17 and 19 he refers to Peter as "thee," as those statements are indeed referring to him. It's only in verse 18 where we see a statement about this rock instead of "thee," because that's the one verse where it's singled out. He, the Son of the living God is that Rock. The church is constituted so as to be built on Him. That's why he is positioned at the foundation, the stone that became the corner of the head.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
–Matthew 7:24-25

And why is a house likened as being built on a rock? Because that represents the people who hear HIS sayings and do them. Get it? Jesus Christ is represented by that rock. You reject his word and listen to some fallible man, it's like you're building out on the sand. Anyone who does so will be let down. It will be like everything they built their life around will fall and collapse. All of the precepts they thought were good, which they took as a basis will shift, sink through and fall over.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
–1 Corinthians 10:4

It's not. If it was, Christ would have made it clear He was referring to Himself. As points out, this teaching and tradition would have been passed on, but nobody teaches it (outside of Protestants).

Even if the opposer is Christ Himself? I think not.

Goes against what? Matthew 16:18 is solidly in favor of Christ making Simon the Rock, and proclaiming the Church will be built upon him.

Tradition claims that Christ is the corner-stone, but that St. Peter is the Vicar, so the corner-stone chose His own rock.