How do I know which form of Christianity is Biblical when they all say they're Biblical?

How do I know which form of Christianity is Biblical when they all say they're Biblical?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are religious forms for this nonsense, theology is not history and it shouldn’t be here
    Go away

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >& Humanities

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Humanities are academic disciplines that study aspects of human society and culture. In the Renaissance, the term contrasted with divinity and referred to what is now called classics, the main area of secular study in universities at the time.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Religion is part of human culture you fedora

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >fedora
            >literally arguing about archaic israeli rambling

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >archaic
            So you admit it's history

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc. Please use/lit/for discussions of literature. Threads should be about specific topics, and the creation of "general" threads is discouraged.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Forums

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Seethe

  2. 7 months ago
    Worker

    You'd obviously check which forms actually adhere to the Bible. For example, the Catholic religion holds to the doctrines of the Catholic Catechism, which contradict the Bible on key points.

    Arguably, the most critical point is that the Catholic catechism denies that Jesus is the only source of Salvation. They preach a different gospel. Paul warned of this:
    >But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
    Galatians 1:8

    Catholics have added many things onto the atoning work of Christ. Christ is no longer enough for Catholics. Paul warned about this, saying that if the early believers accepted just one more thing for their salvation (in this case, it was circumcision), they would be damned:
    >Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
    Galatians 5:2

    Catholics don’t know that only the blood of Jesus can purify sin. They offer alternatives, like:
    • Water baptism (405) – “erases original sin”
    • Purgatory (1030) – “a cleansing fire that purifies sin”
    • Sacrifice of the Mass (1414) – “reparation for the sins of the living and the dead”
    • Indulgences e.g., penance, rosary, doing good works (1471) – “remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven”
    • Eucharist (1393) – “cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins”
    • Catholic priests (1461) – “Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins”

    By claiming that these things save a sinner, they claim that Christ wasn't enough. Despite the Bible constantly warning us that we must look to Christ only for our free salvation (Acts 4:12, John 14:6, Ephesians 2:8-9), Catholics have created a new doctrine where Christ's sacrifice was insufficient.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics say they adhere to the Bible. So do Orthodox. So do Lutherans. So do Baptists. So do Armimians. Polemics are not arguments.

      • 7 months ago
        Worker

        >Polemics are not arguments.
        Polemics literally are arguments though. And it wasn't simply an empty attack; I cited numerous verses to explain, in simple terms, why Catholicism and Orthodoxy fall at fundamental levels of Biblical teaching.

        Furthermore, I have posted two informative videos which go much deeper into the topic:

        So-called "Protestantism" and Christianity are one in the same. Christians rely on the Bible as the sole infallible authority - this is Sola Scriptura. This DOES NOT mean that Protestants reject authority (for example, that they reject church leadership). Rather, Protestants teach that all leadership and doctrine MUST NOT be contradicted by the Word of God.

        Churches that hold their own traditions over the infallible Word of God are no churches at all. They preach a false and damning doctrine, which was warned of in the Scriptures.

        >But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
        2 Peter 2:1

        Christians want these deceived people to be saved, and to come to a true knowledge of salvation that is found in the Bible.

        Here are two informative videos explaining why Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not Biblical, and debunking many of their claims:

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well yes, but polemics are a form of rhetoric intended to support a specific position though, they're not actually meant to be a fair assessments of what the opposing side believes in. There are polemics against your position too. Worker, I highly suspect you lack many analytical skills likely due to having low IQ and openness to experience, judging by your behaviour.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    ye shall know them by their fruits

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      see

  4. 7 months ago
    Worker

    Likewise, the Orthodox church adds many things onto the gospel. For example, they state:
    If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
    If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
    If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
    etc.

    But this isn't Biblical. The Bible doesn't require you to salute icons to be saved. This is adding to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    >But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
    Galatians 1:8

    This is why the way is narrow. You must drop all of your self righteousness, turn from your sins, and believe in Christ alone. Give yourself to Him, as your perfect and only Saviour and Lord, and you will be saved.

    >For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
    Romans 10:13

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You'd obviously check which forms actually adhere to the Bible. For example, the Catholic religion holds to the doctrines of the Catholic Catechism, which contradict the Bible on key points.

      Arguably, the most critical point is that the Catholic catechism denies that Jesus is the only source of Salvation. They preach a different gospel. Paul warned of this:
      >But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
      Galatians 1:8

      Catholics have added many things onto the atoning work of Christ. Christ is no longer enough for Catholics. Paul warned about this, saying that if the early believers accepted just one more thing for their salvation (in this case, it was circumcision), they would be damned:
      >Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
      Galatians 5:2

      Catholics don’t know that only the blood of Jesus can purify sin. They offer alternatives, like:
      • Water baptism (405) – “erases original sin”
      • Purgatory (1030) – “a cleansing fire that purifies sin”
      • Sacrifice of the Mass (1414) – “reparation for the sins of the living and the dead”
      • Indulgences e.g., penance, rosary, doing good works (1471) – “remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven”
      • Eucharist (1393) – “cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins”
      • Catholic priests (1461) – “Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins”

      By claiming that these things save a sinner, they claim that Christ wasn't enough. Despite the Bible constantly warning us that we must look to Christ only for our free salvation (Acts 4:12, John 14:6, Ephesians 2:8-9), Catholics have created a new doctrine where Christ's sacrifice was insufficient.

      Catholics and Orthodox would say you are strawmanning their position. Worker I've seen you get btfo'd on many occasions. You're not convincing anyone, at best you're literally preaching to the choir.

      • 7 months ago
        Worker

        >Catholics and Orthodox would say you are strawmanning their position.
        Ok... But that's not a refutation of the points made.

        All "Christian" cults would claim that their positions are being misrepresented when faced with clear Biblical teaching which contradict their doctrine.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Catholics would claim that the Bible clearly teaches Catholicism. When faced with the passages you have cited, they would give an interpretation that supported their view. Why should anyone accept your interpretation over the interpretation of the Catholics?

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Consistency

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Catholics would claim their position is what's most consistent with what is written in the Bible.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Ok... and they're wrong. The historical record and the text of scripture are both open access resources.

            Catholics
            >communion in one kind
            >kneeling
            >crackers placed on the mouth
            >vestments

            Bible
            >two kinds
            >seated
            >common loaf
            >no vestments

            Reformed
            >two kinds
            >seated
            >common loaf
            >no vestments

            Easy

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Actually

            Bible
            >love-feast
            >in literal houses
            >female overseers
            >charismatic gifts

            I don't see many conservative Reformed Christians doing that.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            >female overseers
            Chapter and verse?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Council of Nicaea prescribed that prayer should be made while standing:

            >Canon 20
            >Forasmuchas there are certainpersonswho kneel on theLord's Dayand in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to theholySynod thatprayerbe made to God standing.
            https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

            Only the Orthodox have it right

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            how are the church councils not traditions of men?

          • 7 months ago
            Worker

            >Why should anyone accept your interpretation over the interpretation of the Catholics?
            Because:
            1.The Catholic church is extremely inconsistent in regards to their relationship with submitting to the clear teachings of the Bible.
            2. Catholicism requires an extreme level of mental gymnastics and "explaining away" to deal with almost all of their doctrine, when faced with the clear teachings of the Bible.
            3. Catholics, in open debates, consistently fall flat on their faces when attempting to defend their doctrine against Bible-believing Christians.

            Well yes, but polemics are a form of rhetoric intended to support a specific position though, they're not actually meant to be a fair assessments of what the opposing side believes in. There are polemics against your position too. Worker, I highly suspect you lack many analytical skills likely due to having low IQ and openness to experience, judging by your behaviour.

            > they're not actually meant to be a fair assessments of what the opposing side believes in
            That is why I cited the Catholic Catechism numerous times in that post. In fact, there's more citations from the CC than from the Bible in my post. And I'm sorry that you find the need to be rude to me; perhaps you can try to be more polite so that the thread doesn't degrade into a cesspool of petty name-calling?

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            I've got a puzzle for you. If a presbyterian church sings Watts' psalms, can they be called EP?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            How does quoting their texts make that a fair assessment of their position? Again, this is still polemics, you're going to be automatically biased regardless, this includes in how you assess and present their writings, that is a key feature of polemics.

          • 7 months ago
            Dirk

            Your position seems to be that the truth of the matter is unknowable, so why are you even posting? He's giving you an explanation because he assumes it's both knowable and that you are capable of grasping it if explained.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because I'm coming from an outsiders perspective and want to see a fair, clear cut assessment of each point of view without personal biases getting in the way that muddy the waters. Not saying there isn't any truth value to the claims, but the mode of presentation makes it abundantly less certain especially when the opposing side has its own polemics and explanations that are mutually exclusive to what Worker presents. There is a lack of perspicuity inherent in this which raises deep epistimic problems.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The only fall back extreme monergists have is something like divine illumination, which ends up leading to circular reasoning. Just sayin'.

          • 7 months ago
            Worker

            It's cool that you seem to have an open-mind about this and are legitimately interested.

            If you want to know the answer to your original question in OP, then read the Bible. Read it every day and study it. Try to understand each point that's being made. Then you will more clearly understand the points I've made in my initial posts in this thread, and you'll understand why they are so necessary for Christians to understand.

            Also, there are many Catholics and Orthodox on Oyish, and so they should be able to attempt to give a rebuttal to my points.

            In the meantime, you're free to ask me or Dirk any questions you might have. In the end, I don't want you to simply have a specific label over your head (like "Protestant", "Reformed", "Calvinist" etc.), but rather I wish that you place your faith in Christ alone, and be eternally saved.

          • 7 months ago
            Worker

            >How does quoting their texts make that a fair assessment of their position?
            What else would you like me to do? Have a Catholic priest come over to my house and type out half of the post for me? Lol.

            And of course I'm going to be biased. I want to guide people towards the gospel truth, so that they might be saved. And honestly, I couldn't really care if you call yourself "Protestant" or "Reformed"; all I care about is if you've placed your faith in Christ alone for salvation. Have you given your life to Christ, and do you have peace with God? That is the ultimate question.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Catholics, in open debates, consistently fall flat on their faces when attempting to defend their doctrine against Bible-believing Christians.
            You say this, but James White, arguably the most prolific and visible reformed Baptist today, has had debates with Catholics on the issue of Sola Scriptura where the general consensus has been that the Catholic side came out on top. It isn't anywhere near as clear cut as you seem to want to make out it is.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Posting videos where Trent Horn body slams James White.

            ?si=ltohoL30IKPY_y_p

            ?si=1_Z8LNcwAjyVdslv

            ?si=czaQp8tEjj1jWS5c

            ?si=cgM2K-4srDypjaex

          • 7 months ago
            Worker

            Posting videos where Trent Horn body slams James White.

            ?si=ltohoL30IKPY_y_p

            ?si=1_Z8LNcwAjyVdslv

            ?si=czaQp8tEjj1jWS5c

            ?si=cgM2K-4srDypjaex

            If you want to focus in on James White, then here is a very short video that cuts to the deepest issue between Christians and Catholics. Catholics can never claim to be the blessed man, because they can never have peace with God. This is heart-breaking and highlights the fundamental issue: how do Catholics have peace with God, which is what the gospel promises? They cannot.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is a pretty blatant case of you moving the goal posts, Worker. I am not watching your video; we are not discussing the finer points of one aspect of theology here. You made the claim: "Catholics, in open debates, consistently fall flat on their faces when attempting to defend their doctrine." That's a bold claim that you have failed to back up. If the most popular Reformed apologist of the day can't adequately defend Sola Scriptura against his Catholic opponents, such that the consensus falls overwhelming in his favour, then your claim that Catholics "routinely fall flat on their faces" seems fraught at best.

          • 7 months ago
            Worker

            Sorry, didn't see this post.

            >. I am not watching your video; we are not discussing the finer points of one aspect of theology here. You made the claim: "Catholics, in open debates, consistently fall flat on their faces when attempting to defend their doctrine."
            The video was directly relevant. And this isn't just "the finer points of one aspect of theology", this is literally the fundamental foundation that salvation depends upon; do you have peace with God or not ? Catholics cannot say so.

            The gospel message is the good news of salvation - it explains how we can have peace with God. And yet, a Catholic can't make the Biblical claim that all Christians can, which is that they have peace with God, and that God does not hold their sins against them, after having been justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course Catholics (the original Christians) can claim to have peace with God. Paul is not talking about eternal security in Romans 5:1 though, we already can see the intricacies of your systematic theological framework bubbling through even in your reading of a simple verse such as this. We primarily disagree about what justification is, what St. Paul and the other NT writers mean when they discuss the concept, which is why the controversy really isn't over "salvation by faith alone" but more particularly over whether or not justification is by faith alone.

          • 7 months ago
            Worker

            >Of course Catholics (the original Christians) can claim to have peace with God.
            No they can't. How can you have peace with God if you know that you can lose your salvation at any moment by committing a mortal sin? That's not peace with God.

            And you can't claim to be the blessed man, because Catholics believe that God is always holding sins against you. That's why Father Stravinkas was unable to say that he was the blessed man of Romans 4. That's the sad result of Catholic doctrine, which prevents you from receiving the free gift of salvation from God.

            Read this and think it over for yourself. I don't simply want to be arguing with you, but showing you the truth of the gospel. Read this over and wonder if it applies to you.

            "5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
            7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
            and whose sins are covered;
            8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
            Romans 4:5-8

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Read this and think it over for yourself. I don't simply want to be arguing with you, but showing you the truth of the gospel. Read this over and wonder if it applies to you.

            No, you want to convince me about a particular systematic theology which you hold to by over-emphasizing one part of scripture (or the deposit of faith in general) to the exclusion of other parts, which is generally the way heresies have historically operated (Adoptionism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Jansenism, etc.)

            >And you can't claim to be the blessed man, because Catholics believe that God is always holding sins against you.
            Where did you hear that? Because in the Catholic faith we believe the sacrifice of Christ on the cross makes it possible for all our sins to be forgiven, that this forgiveness is freely given by God to mankind, and is mediated through the Mystical Body of Christ which God invites all persons to.

          • 7 months ago
            Worker

            >How can you have peace with God if you know that you can lose your salvation at any moment by committing a mortal sin?
            Well that's not on God, that's on me. I've already placed my trust in God who I know justified me and works in me to sanctify me to leads me to the beatific vision, falling into mortal sin out of my own free will would be part of my own weakness, not God's, he won't let anyone snatch me from his hand. Yet I know that even if I do choose to walk away, to journey to a far country and herd swine, I can always choose to come back, to harken to my Father's call and once again freely receive his gift of salvation which his Son won for me on the cross and who perpetually re-presents this before him in heaven on my behalf, winning our reconciliation and peace.

            St. Augustine of Hippo speaks about the gift of perseverance, which I think any Christian in good standing can be reasonably confident they have, and if not, then as Augustine tells us, they can pray for it (not that we all shouldn't be praying for it anyway). I know that is your main concern though, your taking passages about justification and reading in your view of perseverance because of how intricately connected it is to your doctrine of justification and then drawing conclusions about how Catholics think about this doctrine which do not follow. It shows how fragile your entire theological system is, your own reformers have said it: "Justification is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls." For historic Christians (like Catholics and Orthodox) the pinnacle of orthodoxy instead rests on Christology.

            This is all avoiding the simple realisation that Catholics can't claim that God doesn't hold their sins against them. If you're Catholic, you must believe that God still holds your sins against them, which is why you think you will need to endure purgatory, why you need to do penance, why you need to take part in mass etc.

            You need to do all of these things because you deny the Bible when it says that you have peace with God due to a faith in Jesus Christ, which means that God no longer holds your sins against you.

            Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved. But continue to place your trust in your own efforts to cleanse yourself of sin and you will be damned for rejecting your perfect Saviour.

            >Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
            Romans 10:1-4

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >because the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible constantly.

            That's a very bold assertion on your part and the burden of proof is on you to show that, which so far you have not convincingly done.

            >Why you post that, when I agree with that completely and don't need to explain-away anything? But Catholics need to explain away passages constantly

            And I agree with the passage you posted in the post I responded to.0 I just don't agree with the way you interpret it or apply it, but I know that even if you're not intending to be uncharitable, clearly charity is not your prerogative right now, nor is intellectual honesty. It's sorta funny that you say that Catholics need to explain away passages (which we don't but for the sake of argument) when anyone can easily flip the script and show how Calvinists and Baptists have to explain away many passages which contradict essential Calvinist and Baptist doctrinal points like eternal security (John 15:6), limited atonement (1 Timothy 2:4), or denial of baptismal regeneration (John 3:5), of which there are many. I do know your reading of those passages, and let me tell you the mental gymnastics you guys do to explain away their plain meanings are clever but profoundly mistaken. But I smell a hint of anti-intellectualism from you and based on my other interactions wih you on this board I know you won't acknowledge anything which compromises your position.

          • 7 months ago
            Worker

            >Again, no Catholics can say that they have peace with God,
            Well I am Catholic and I just said it above, but I know how committed you are to your rhetoric, Worker, and frankly it's extremely manipulative.

            >Instead, Catholics must admit that God does hold sin against them, which is why Catholics seek after methods to cleanse themselves which are other than Christ.
            Obviously this is a non-sequitur and proof by assertion, which is a fallacy, so basically more rhetoric and talking points which anyone following this discussion can obviously see. As for the red-herrings you listed down below, which aren't relevant to the original discussion we were having, where you addressed none of my points, I'd still be happy to answer/discuss some of these with you on an individual basis.

            >This is all avoiding the simple realisation that Catholics can't claim that God doesn't hold their sins against them. If you're Catholic, you must believe that God still holds your sins against them, which is why you think you will need to endure purgatory, why you need to do penance, why you need to take part in mass etc.
            So you basically have a misunderstanding of how Catholics understand sacraments and temporal punishment, which are Biblically based concepts and I'd be happy to get in the weeds with you on if you are willing. I'm typing from a touch device so it's a little hard to consolidate information right now but I can try my best.

            > His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and excellence. Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust and may become participants of the divine nature. For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with excellence, and excellence with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love. For if these things are yours and are increasing among you, they keep you from being ineffective and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For anyone who lacks these things is blind, suffering from eye disease, forgetful of the cleansing of past sins.
            2 Peter 1:3-9

            You didn't address the most critical issue. I've not come here to talk about myself (which you seem to want to do), or to talk about Calvinism, or to talk about intellectualism. I'm here to talk about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

            You don't have peace with God through faith in Jesus Christ. Your sins are still counted against you. You cannot claim to be the blessed man spoken of by David, and quoted by Paul. And you will never be able to argue against what I'm saying, because your theology simply doesn't allow it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You didn't address the most critical issue.
            Yes I did in these posts

            >Read this and think it over for yourself. I don't simply want to be arguing with you, but showing you the truth of the gospel. Read this over and wonder if it applies to you.

            No, you want to convince me about a particular systematic theology which you hold to by over-emphasizing one part of scripture (or the deposit of faith in general) to the exclusion of other parts, which is generally the way heresies have historically operated (Adoptionism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Jansenism, etc.)

            >And you can't claim to be the blessed man, because Catholics believe that God is always holding sins against you.
            Where did you hear that? Because in the Catholic faith we believe the sacrifice of Christ on the cross makes it possible for all our sins to be forgiven, that this forgiveness is freely given by God to mankind, and is mediated through the Mystical Body of Christ which God invites all persons to.

            >How can you have peace with God if you know that you can lose your salvation at any moment by committing a mortal sin?
            Well that's not on God, that's on me. I've already placed my trust in God who I know justified me and works in me to sanctify me to leads me to the beatific vision, falling into mortal sin out of my own free will would be part of my own weakness, not God's, he won't let anyone snatch me from his hand. Yet I know that even if I do choose to walk away, to journey to a far country and herd swine, I can always choose to come back, to harken to my Father's call and once again freely receive his gift of salvation which his Son won for me on the cross and who perpetually re-presents this before him in heaven on my behalf, winning our reconciliation and peace.

            St. Augustine of Hippo speaks about the gift of perseverance, which I think any Christian in good standing can be reasonably confident they have, and if not, then as Augustine tells us, they can pray for it (not that we all shouldn't be praying for it anyway). I know that is your main concern though, your taking passages about justification and reading in your view of perseverance because of how intricately connected it is to your doctrine of justification and then drawing conclusions about how Catholics think about this doctrine which do not follow. It shows how fragile your entire theological system is, your own reformers have said it: "Justification is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls." For historic Christians (like Catholics and Orthodox) the pinnacle of orthodoxy instead rests on Christology.

            where you didn't address any of my rebuttals to yours.

            >I've not come here to talk about myself (which you seem to want to do)
            Criticizing your arguments is not a criticism of you personally. I can point out logical fallacies when present.

            >or to talk about Calvinism, or to talk about intellectualism. I'm here to talk about the gospel of Jesus Christ.
            You've equated Calvinism with the gospel in the past, which it most certainly is not.

            >And you will never be able to argue against what I'm saying, because your theology simply doesn't allow it.
            I don't even accept the premises of your theological framework that are incorrect because they are just that, incorrect interpretation of certain parts of scripture and the received truths of the deposit of faith.

            I will pray for you, that you come to the knowledge of the truth of the gospel.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, no Catholics can say that they have peace with God,
            Well I am Catholic and I just said it above, but I know how committed you are to your rhetoric, Worker, and frankly it's extremely manipulative.

            >Instead, Catholics must admit that God does hold sin against them, which is why Catholics seek after methods to cleanse themselves which are other than Christ.
            Obviously this is a non-sequitur and proof by assertion, which is a fallacy, so basically more rhetoric and talking points which anyone following this discussion can obviously see. As for the red-herrings you listed down below, which aren't relevant to the original discussion we were having, where you addressed none of my points, I'd still be happy to answer/discuss some of these with you on an individual basis.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is all avoiding the simple realisation that Catholics can't claim that God doesn't hold their sins against them. If you're Catholic, you must believe that God still holds your sins against them, which is why you think you will need to endure purgatory, why you need to do penance, why you need to take part in mass etc.
            So you basically have a misunderstanding of how Catholics understand sacraments and temporal punishment, which are Biblically based concepts and I'd be happy to get in the weeds with you on if you are willing. I'm typing from a touch device so it's a little hard to consolidate information right now but I can try my best.

            > His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and excellence. Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust and may become participants of the divine nature. For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with excellence, and excellence with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love. For if these things are yours and are increasing among you, they keep you from being ineffective and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For anyone who lacks these things is blind, suffering from eye disease, forgetful of the cleansing of past sins.
            2 Peter 1:3-9

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How can you have peace with God if you know that you can lose your salvation at any moment by committing a mortal sin?
            Well that's not on God, that's on me. I've already placed my trust in God who I know justified me and works in me to sanctify me to leads me to the beatific vision, falling into mortal sin out of my own free will would be part of my own weakness, not God's, he won't let anyone snatch me from his hand. Yet I know that even if I do choose to walk away, to journey to a far country and herd swine, I can always choose to come back, to harken to my Father's call and once again freely receive his gift of salvation which his Son won for me on the cross and who perpetually re-presents this before him in heaven on my behalf, winning our reconciliation and peace.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            St. Augustine of Hippo speaks about the gift of perseverance, which I think any Christian in good standing can be reasonably confident they have, and if not, then as Augustine tells us, they can pray for it (not that we all shouldn't be praying for it anyway). I know that is your main concern though, your taking passages about justification and reading in your view of perseverance because of how intricately connected it is to your doctrine of justification and then drawing conclusions about how Catholics think about this doctrine which do not follow. It shows how fragile your entire theological system is, your own reformers have said it: "Justification is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls." For historic Christians (like Catholics and Orthodox) the pinnacle of orthodoxy instead rests on Christology.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            As for you, consider these words from St. Paul in chapter 6:

            >Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies, so that you obey their desires. No longer present your members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that, if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that you who were slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted and that you, having been set free from sin, have become enslaved to righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of your limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and lawlessness, leading to even more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, leading to sanctification.
            Romans 6:12-19

          • 7 months ago
            Worker

            Why you post that, when I agree with that completely and don't need to explain-away anything?

            But Catholics need to explain away passages constantly, because the Catholic Church contradicts the Bible constantly. Again, no Catholics can say that they have peace with God, because they have been justified by faith, which means that God doesn't hold sin against them.

            Instead, Catholics must admit that God does hold sin against them, which is why Catholics seek after methods to cleanse themselves which are other than Christ.

            Catholics offer alternatives to Christ for this cleansing, like:
            • Water baptism (405) – “erases original sin”
            • Purgatory (1030) – “a cleansing fire that purifies sin”
            • Sacrifice of the Mass (1414) – “reparation for the sins of the living and the dead”
            • Indulgences e.g., penance, rosary, doing good works (1471) – “remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven”
            • Eucharist (1393) – “cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins”
            • Catholic priests (1461) – “Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins”

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Trent Horn specifically address the issue that comes with the Protestant point of view, and how it is logically inconsistent with what Christianity actually teaches:

            ?si=udyg2owI6SbywNIm

          • 7 months ago
            Worker

            >Trent Horn specifically address the issue that comes with the Protestant point of view, and how it is logically inconsistent with what Christianity actually teaches:
            I just watched the video and he didn't.

            I will tell you now that watching 10 minute long videos about theology is going to give you a very skewed understanding of what each side believes. Trent presented a caricature of Protestantism in that video.

            He failed to address the fundamental issue: that Catholics can never have peace with God, and are not trusting in Christ alone for salvation. He admits himself in the video that Catholics trust in baptism and "remaining in communion".

            His concept of "bending the timeline" could be applied to 1 John 2:19. If a Protestant made this comment, then he would say "You're bending the timeline!" or talk about "modus ponens".

            > They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
            1 John 2:19

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well of course a Protestant would say it's a caricature, that's a common characteristics of "Christian" cults.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
      >If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
      Sounds like an overcorrection for the Iconoclasm incident

  5. 7 months ago
    Dirk

    You compare the form to scripture. "Biblical" means conforming to the bible.
    >“Now these israelites were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” (Act 17:11, ESV)
    Pretty simple

  6. 7 months ago
    Worker

    So-called "Protestantism" and Christianity are one in the same. Christians rely on the Bible as the sole infallible authority - this is Sola Scriptura. This DOES NOT mean that Protestants reject authority (for example, that they reject church leadership). Rather, Protestants teach that all leadership and doctrine MUST NOT be contradicted by the Word of God.

    Churches that hold their own traditions over the infallible Word of God are no churches at all. They preach a false and damning doctrine, which was warned of in the Scriptures.

    >But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
    2 Peter 2:1

    Christians want these deceived people to be saved, and to come to a true knowledge of salvation that is found in the Bible.

    Here are two informative videos explaining why Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are not Biblical, and debunking many of their claims:

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    For me it's being asked which sect of christianity is the best and then immediately launching into a tirade about how others are wrong rather than how my particular sect is right.

    • 7 months ago
      Worker

      There are three main sects of Christianity: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. If we immediately understand why the first two are unbiblical, to the point of teaching an anti-Christ doctrine (one that cannot save a person, and denies the sufficiency of Christ), then, by the process of elimination, we are left with just Protestantism, which answers the question.

      However, you might ask, "But surely are more sects than just Catholicism, EO, and Protestantism?" Yes, and the same argument can be used against these false churches.

      As for what branches of Protestantism are the most Biblical, that's a whole other thread. But, by the clear teachings of the Bible, we can immediately realise that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in grave, grave error.

  8. 7 months ago
    Solitaire

    Hmmm... if only there was some "Bible" you could read and compare them to.

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm too dumb to follow along but I want to become Orthodox because I believe it to be the correct Church.

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Orthodoxy and Catholicism are almost identical and they represent the two halves of the original Church, but I think Catholicism is better because you need a centralized figurehead to unify everyone and to excommunicate heretics.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Orthodoxy and Catholicism are almost identical
      They're really not but Catholicism and Orthodoxy are far closer to one another than any other form of Christianity is to either of them, and arguably the two forms of Christianity with the most similarities.

    • 7 months ago
      Dirk

      How's that working out

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I had that question so I just read the works of the first and second century Christians. I'd recommend scroll publishing on YouTube. It's a contract lawyer who reads these works like he would a contract to figure out exactly what they believed, and those lectures on the findings by topic. It's pretty fascinating. A lot of it has nothing to do with modern Christianity. You find a lot of denominations are uniquely right about various things but it seems no one denomination is perfectly right.

    This, however, makes sense. The church is simply just the mass of people following Jesus. And a denomination is a synonym for a division. And since you can't divide the church, these divisions all having incorrect problems makes total sense. The actual church isn't a centralized hierarchical organization.

    AMA if you want to know more.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      What specific doctrines are correct in specific churches?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The actual church isn't a centralized hierarchical organization.
      Where does it say this in the Bible?

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Which one of them decided what books are in the Bible?

    That one.

    Which one literally just copied the rabbinic canon and tried to trash the Epistle of James?

    Not that one, obviously.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      would've joined RCIA if you hadn't been a reddit spacer tbh
      now I shall become mormon

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read scripture and compare it to the claims of each.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      scripture was compiled by saints though

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *