Theres no Bible verse supporting a spiritual view of the Eucharist, nor any church father.

There’s no Bible verse supporting a “spiritual” view of the Eucharist, nor any church father. Pull one verse allegedly supporting this view and I can pull a dozen more saying otherwise.

If you’re an evangelical or a Calvinist, you can’t be considered Christian as you deny the sacrifice of Jesus Christ since you don’t understand the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the connection to Passover.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus was a prophet of Allah
    The bible was made up centuries after Jesus by random people

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >allah says to christians to follow their bible
      >actually no, use the quran
      what did he mean by this

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        also
        >the word of God cannot be corrupted by man
        >but the Bible is corrupted, just take this new one that actually can't

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      the koran was given wholesale to mohammed by a larping israelite from Alexandria

  2. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    The bread is bread.

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If you’re an evangelical or a Calvinist, you can’t be considered Christian as you deny the sacrifice of Jesus Christ since you don’t understand the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the connection to Passover.
    Are you Roman Catholic. If so you are going above what your church says here.

  4. 9 months ago
    Dirk

    >spiritual isn't real
    Good one
    Let me guess, transubstantiation IS found in scripture and the early church fathers?

  5. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is it about Calvinism that makes other Christians seethe so hard? Perhaps it's just that they know they are not predestined to enter heaven so they try and prove their ''faithfulness'' by coping

    • 9 months ago
      Dirk

      It's autistically well sourced so it's very hard to argue against a calvinist

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, it isn't.

        Denying free will makes obedience meaningless. Obedience is a core biblical virtue.

        • 9 months ago
          Dirk

          Calvinism doesn't deny free will

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry buddy, but unconditional election means obedience is empty and in vain. You must choose obedience, you cannot be compelled otherwise it becomes untrue. The mere appearances of true obedience and fidelity, a slave in shackles may appear outwardly to obey commands but in his heart he yearns for freedom and obeys the directives of conscience.

            A stone rolling downhill is compelled by physics, it doesn't obey. Men aren't stones, we can climb mountains because we choose to. Climbing a mountain isn't sinful, but Calvin maintains that the only things we can freely choose are evil.

            Moving on, Sola Scriptura isn't strictly Calvinist but they affirm it IIRC.

            SS means that scripture is the highest authority in the church for practice and the articles of faith. If this were true you could receive rightful authority to interpret and teach scripture just by reading scripture with no blessing by any other member of the church.

            Well that's just not true; if two men read the bible they will come away with two different understandings of the words. Are both authoritative just because they both read scripture? No, of course not. Authority to teach comes from Jesus, who conferred it to his apostles, who passed it down through their respective churches.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if two men read the bible they will come away with two different understandings of the words.
            >but if those two mean were were Apostolic™ clergy members, instead they condemn each other to hell and start centuries-long schisms, which is actually way better.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The apostles themselves disagreed about what Jesus teaching meant, how best to accomplish the mission he gave them, even about who exactly the mission was for.

            It's literally in the bible, how they debated and corrected one another. That's why there are passages that contradict, like between parts of the letters of Paul and James, they were in disagreement over many things. But what they agreed on was more important than any of their squabbles, so they worked it out.

            It's what we're supposed to do. We only know in part right now. When he comes again we'll know in full. It really is that simple, we are only human.

        • 9 months ago
          Worker

          >you can’t be considered Christian
          Cool opinion. You can tell that to God when you meet Him on judgement day, when you have to give an account for your lack of faith in Jesus Christ alone (and trusting in your weekly consumption of a piece of bread to save you instead).

          Sorry buddy, but unconditional election means obedience is empty and in vain. You must choose obedience, you cannot be compelled otherwise it becomes untrue. The mere appearances of true obedience and fidelity, a slave in shackles may appear outwardly to obey commands but in his heart he yearns for freedom and obeys the directives of conscience.

          A stone rolling downhill is compelled by physics, it doesn't obey. Men aren't stones, we can climb mountains because we choose to. Climbing a mountain isn't sinful, but Calvin maintains that the only things we can freely choose are evil.

          Moving on, Sola Scriptura isn't strictly Calvinist but they affirm it IIRC.

          SS means that scripture is the highest authority in the church for practice and the articles of faith. If this were true you could receive rightful authority to interpret and teach scripture just by reading scripture with no blessing by any other member of the church.

          Well that's just not true; if two men read the bible they will come away with two different understandings of the words. Are both authoritative just because they both read scripture? No, of course not. Authority to teach comes from Jesus, who conferred it to his apostles, who passed it down through their respective churches.

          Thinking that "free will" is the issue with Calvinism shows that you're completely ignorant of the Bible. There are other valid criticisms of Calvinism, but "free will" isn't one of them.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            there's no denomination that does not hold to the Lord's Supper/Eucharist.

            also picrel is a mastercourse in how to twist a verse out of context.

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >there's no denomination that does not hold to the Lord's Supper/Eucharist.
            Uh, yes, obviously... the point is that only false-churches will teach that you need to partake of the Lord's Supper (specifically their Lord's Supper, other churches don't coiunt) on a weekly basis or else you're going to hell. Which is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

            And you can claim that it's "twisting the verse", but each Roman Church has a tabernacle/shrine for keeping the bread, and so they claim that this enables you to be in the presence of Christ when you come to pray, which is literally idolatry.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Which is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.
            no? you can take orthodox communion if need be. (i.e. distance/danger of life).

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >24:26
            >In the secret chambers.--The word is the same as that translated "closet" in Matthew 6:6. What is meant is that the pretenders will in some way or other shun the publicity which would test their claims. There would be whispered rumours that the Christ was concealing Himself in the wilderness beyond the Jordan, or in the inner recesses of some zealot's house, and would at the last moment appear to claim the throne of His father David. (Comp. Jos. Wars, vi. 5, ? 2). Believers in Christ would hear such words with a calm indifference, for they would know that such was not to be the manner of His approach.
            it's out of context.

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            Biblical prophecies have more than one fulfilment, kid. I've been studying Matthew 24 for like 10 hours a day for the past two days.

            What aspect of Calvinism do you take issue with now as opposed to before, and what changed your mind? Any of the 5 points?

            I do remember you mentioning "hyper-Calvinism" in another thread.

            My primary issue is that Calvinism it teaches a version of Lordship salvation. After months of being an ardent "fan" of Lordship salvation, I've come to realise that it is entirely unbiblical and extremely harmful to the gospel message.

            A secondary issue is that I feel that many Calvinists spend too much time trying to explain away verses, just to fit with their systematic theology. For example, I've long since found the Calvinists arguments in favour of Limited Atonement to be very weak. I still hold to a version of Limited Atonement, but the version of Limited Atonement believed by most Calvinists is just not Biblical.

            Third issue is that Calvinism will almost always lead to confusion. Just look at this thread; people don't understand Calvinism. Even a lot of Calvinists don't understand Calvinism. I feel that this confusion can (not always, but can) lead people astray from the gospel. Therefore, I don't wish to promote it any more. And yeah, this confusion almost inevitably leads to hyper-Calvinism among many Calvinist churches.

            But overall, I don't feel like Calvinism is a big issue at all. But I believe that the growing trend of an increasing extreme version of Lordship salvation is a very big issue.

            >Which is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.
            no? you can take orthodox communion if need be. (i.e. distance/danger of life).

            Cool, another anti-Christ church that teaches a works-based path to heaven.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am glad you are continuing to grapple with these issues, Worker. I will pray for you.

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            My advice, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Reformed theology is the "big tent" as compared to fundamental Baptists, Lutherans and others who are particularist. The reformed approach to the regulative principle, apologetics, worship, liturgy, sacramentology can all be valid even if you have gripes with the leading calvinistic view of works.
            I'm guessing you're under 25. In my honest evaluation, having come into reformed theology late, the problems are worse outside than in it.

            Answer the question.

            I don't share your view so I'm not going to answer a question that supposes it. I'm reformed because it's exegetical. If it's not, may I see it. In any case let the name Calvin perish but Christ be glorified.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Lordship salvation

            Got me there, I don't usually think about salvation in these terms. What I do know about salvation is what Jesus said about those who call him Lord. He calls us to do his Father's will obediently. Calling him Lord in fullness of belief is not sufficient for salvation.

            A quick appraisal of Lordship salvation seems to fly in the face of his words, but on closer inspection there is one parallel. It is pointless to proclaim Jesus as Lord if you do not render the services due to him as Lord in fealty. Lip service, works done not truly in his name as it were.

            You can accept someone as Lord, but if they do not recognize your vassalage services rendered in his name do not avail you.

            >Limited Atonement

            This is one area where the Puritans actually are in line with some of the early churches. Their confessions of sin were public before the congregation, and they didn't generally let you get away with it twice. Even though Jesus said he would forgive 70 times 7. Thankfully ours is a living tradition, and the sacrament of penance is abounding in grace.

            As for understanding Calvinism, some religions for super arcane and complicated theologies because they're trying to synchronize opposing elements or presuppositions. I can discern this tension in Calvinism.

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >He calls us to do his Father's will obediently.
            And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40)

            The will of the Father is believing on the Son. It's faith alone. Trust in anything other than Christ for your salvation and you WILL spend an eternity in hell for refusing Christ's righteousness.

            Does this mean we can go on sinning no problem? Obviously not, because God will cut our lives short by death or give us other punishments, as seen throughout the Bible. We work to please our God and for an eternal reward, but we never work for salvation itself.

            This is fundamental that you understand this, because right now it sounds like you're trusting in your works to save you. I could go further into Matthew 7 right now on this topic but I think you get the idea (hopefully).

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            You must DO the will of the Father, the Lord expects his vassals to obey his command.

            Belief is not deed. We have to literally follow him obediently, respond viscerally and spiritually to his call, as the flock follows the shepherd.

            It's not enough to believe. You must literally know Jesus personally, not just his name or title, you must have a relationship with him. The relation of Lord and vassal, of master and disciple, of husband and wife.

            I see it. He means puritan piety is more in line with the early church, not limited atonement.

            No, I mean many of the early churches atoned publicly for their sin. And once they repented, relapse could very well get them expelled from the congregation. It happened. Private confessions came from the practices of the Desert Fathers, through the monastery church communities of Britain and Ireland.

            Just as the Puritans did. But what the Puritans did in deed, they lacked the same virtues of those early churches IMO.

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >You must DO the will of the Father, the Lord expects his vassals to obey his command.
            You don't seem to understand that I was fully into that Lordship salvation garbage for months, and so know what you're saying. In fact, I could argue in favour of your current position better than you could. But it's simply not true. Thinking that you need to do good works to "prove how good your faith is" is a damnable false doctrine, because it seeks to establish your own righteousness, rather than surrendering to Christ's righteouness.

            >3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
            >4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
            Romans 10:3-4

            Again, does this mean we can go on sinning after trusting in faith alone? We will, because no one will stop sinning in this life. But if we go on wilfully sinning, then God will chastise us with punishments (illness, depression, death etc.). And also, we work because we love God, and to receive a greater reward in heaven.

            I love working for God, but I know that my work will never save me. Only my faith in Christ will save me.

            >No, I mean many of the early churches atoned publicly for their sin.
            That's completely unrelated to Limited Atonement.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            What I just described is not "Lordship salvation". It's about knowing Christ personally, being in a direct relationship with him.

            Relationships *necessarily* entail reciprocation from both parties, husband and wife swear to uphold their marital duties to one another. Lord and vassal swear oaths of fealty and uphold them through all tribulation. Master and disciple are defined through teaching and learning, you can't separate these actions from the relationship.

            >months

            You are like seed scattered on a stone.

            20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

            21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

            How old are you tripgay? Just curious, a few months isn't a long time at all.

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >What I just described is not "Lordship salvation"
            It literally is. You admitted that you didn't know what the term "Lordship salvation" meant earlier, and then you showed that you don't even know what Limited Atonement means.

            The fact that you're arguing about this while knowing that you're ignorant is very confusing to me.

            I've shared the gospel with you, so it's up to you to either accept or reject it. I won't answer again unless you have a specific question relating to the gospel. I won't engage in any further argumentation.

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            Yeah but that's not what limited atonement means

            Did listening to James White's radio show convince you?

            No I wasn't a big fan of white. I didn't like how he handled it with Leighton Flowers. I listened to a ton of rc Sproul at an old job. I really changed my mind after reading van til and John Owen.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >According to Limited Atonement, Christ died for the sins of the elect alone, and no atonement was provided for the reprobate.[3]

            Wow, that has to be the most moronic thing I've ever read. I can see why Puritans were such terrible people and banned Christmas. They literally hate everything the Incarnation stands for.

            >What I just described is not "Lordship salvation"
            It literally is. You admitted that you didn't know what the term "Lordship salvation" meant earlier, and then you showed that you don't even know what Limited Atonement means.

            The fact that you're arguing about this while knowing that you're ignorant is very confusing to me.

            I've shared the gospel with you, so it's up to you to either accept or reject it. I won't answer again unless you have a specific question relating to the gospel. I won't engage in any further argumentation.

            Once again, when you have nothing useful to say you point fingers.

            I accept your concession, you never had an argument to begin with.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Demons recognize him as lord, and obey him more readily in the book than most modern people do. They also show fear and trembling, respect.
            Are the demons saved, or do you wish to modify your view?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            An excellent point. I do not recant what I say. Not all who call call him Lord are saved, as he has said.

            A house divided among itself cannot stand.

            Demons do not obey anyone; they are compelled by powers, dominions, contracts. That is their nature. The power of Christ compels them to quit us.

            Legion begged him not to throw them into the abyss, he sent them into a herd of swine instead because his hand is mercy, and executes judgement. Did the money changers obey him when they quit the Temple, or were they compelled to leave their tables and their scales?

            Our covenant with him is not like that, God expects obedience of us, he told us to follow him. That is the way of salvation, the bearing of the cross.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Very well, then I'd like you to draw a distinction, if you can, between what they experience and grace. Grace may not be irresistible, but it is a compulsion sent by him via the HS.

            I can foresee you saying that its different because (depending on your theology) grace may be resistible. If that's so, then why does that distinction matter so much soteriologically? Ultimately, neither humans nor demons chose to obey him, but it must begin with some compulsion which they themselves are incapable of.

            I still think there's something you're missing. The demons who went into the bigs are clearly not saved, but they approached him in the most respectful way of anyone in the book, and one could almost call their demeanor penitent.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Grace may not be irresistible, but it is a compulsion sent by him via the HS.

            Grace isn't a compulsion. Grabbing someone by the hand and dragging them to church isn't very graceful, and is counterproductive.

            You can resist compulsion, but you can't resist grace. That's why it's graceful; it flows right through you, it's power doesn't come from being heavy and inflexible but from being yielding and light. Ultimately, it's a gift freely given that manifests unbidden in our own lives and is received in the sacraments. We become filled with it, it pours out from God in abundance.

            That doesn't mean you can't reject grace, or fall away from a state of grace. I want to be very clear about how I mean resistance, I mean it in the temporal sense, like electrical resistance. You need to accept grace spiritually.

            To be clear, this is not one of the subjects I'm well equipped to speak about at much length.

            >they approached him in the most respectful way of anyone in the book, and one could almost call their demeanor penitent

            IDK about that, but demons have been known to ask for intercessory prayer. I remember that happening in 1 Enoch.

            As for how demons experience anything, I hesitate to imagine how. Can't say for sure.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it flows right through you, it's power doesn't come from being heavy and inflexible but from being yielding and light.
            this sounds like a poetic obfuscation, an aesthetic difference. if Jesus is compelling both demons and people irresistibly, I'm not sure there's much difference there.

            I'm just saying I don't think your soteriology is sufficient. I think all of those things you mentioned apply to demons. There must be something else it is missing.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is absolutely within our power to obey God, that's why when God created Adam he told him what not to do. We fail time and again, but sometimes we get it right.

            Jesus compelled humans physically at one point sure, expelling them from the Temple grounds. He exercised compulsive spiritual authority to cast out demons too.

            That doesn't mean he compels anyone to follow him. On the contrary, he tells them to follow him because he expects them to obey of their own volition. And he leaves them behind if they don't follow.

            I don't really have to rigorously define salvation or explain exactly how it works, not a theologian or even that well studied in general, but I consider the sacraments to be mysterious and sufficient.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is down the road. But initially, it still requires grace, according to the theology of all non-heretical Christians, including Catholics. From then on, there are disagreements about how much compulsion is going on.

            I'm not asking you to if you don't want to. Just chatting about your views. I think there is something missing. I also am not a pro theologian, I am sure there is a defined existing theology for what I think is missing, but i do not know it.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >initially, it still requires grace

            See, now that I'm thinking about it I'm pretty sure it's a step by step process whereby you gradually prepare your body and soul to fully accept the gift of grace and the indwelling of the Lord. You can't be in a state of mortal sin and effectively receive grace, at least how I'm understanding it.

            That's why Jesus ministry had the form it did. He had to gradually prepare his disciples for what he was about to give them, and the mission he would send them on. It's why he uses parable to help us grasp his message, it's too monumental for mortal minds.

            I agree works are part of it somewhat, but I think you're overstressing them. You seem to be quite humble about it and I suspect you're either old or a femanon, but on a lot of internet places where christies conglomerate, the works people tend to be insufferably proud and believe they are incapable of sin.

            But thats just my experience.

            I feel old. And I appreciate you pushing me on this point, nobody ever seems to talk that much about grace here.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >See, now that I'm thinking about it I'm pretty sure it's a step by step process whereby you gradually prepare your body and soul to fully accept the gift of grace and the indwelling of the Lord. You can't be in a state of mortal sin and effectively receive grace, at least how I'm understanding it.
            You can believe as you like, but this, as I understand it, is heresy in protestant, orthodox, and catholic circles. All agree god must pick you at the time to go for it.

            The ministry is a good analogy. He didn't do any prep on them. He just said "come follow me", fallen men, who then just dropped their stuff an came. I think that is a good analogy of grace. They still chose I suppose (although that is an assumption), but he had to call them. That is how most denoms view grace beginning, I believe.

            >i feel old
            world weariness is pretty normal

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            I say step by step because I mean it literally, you have to walk with God. As Adam did in Eden.

            Believe me, I have tangled with heresy before. I don't fear heresy, I fear God. I know full well how overthinking things can lead you into darkness. I retain the consideration of certain things I know for a fact are considered heretical by most orthodox Christians. It's my conscience, I don't think it's my place to judge but rather apprehend, and will accept correction as soon as I find it.

            I also know that most orthodox Christians consider most other Orthodox Christians subscribed to one thing or many they consider heresies. I can't even begin to mention protestants.

            To me, most of these are trifles. Miaphysitism, really?
            They really do have bigger fish to fry IMO.

            I wouldn't call his disciples "fallen" if I were you. They're literally alive, because they have a relationship with Christ. They were born into a fallen world, death foretold by God, born the same way as Jesus incarnate.

            They each on their own volition and without want chose to follow Christ when he called them.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            but he had to call. that's the metaphor. they didn't seek him out.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Bruh, it's not a metaphor. He literally called out to them with his man voice and they heard him with their ears and recognized.

            Yeah, it's call and response. Real basic.

            Think about it like this. You are the lone sheep lost in the wilderness, if you cry out for your shepherd to hear, the wolves will detect and eat you alive.

            You hear the voice of your shepherd calling for you, who is not afraid of the wolves, and you go to him silently and vigilantly. You find him, and he takes you home.

            That's a metaphor for your relationship with Jesus.

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >Limited Atonement
            >This is one area where the Puritans actually are in line with some of the early churches. Their confessions of sin were public before the congregation,
            What on earth are you talking about...? You're on a level of cluelessness that it literally jaw-dropping

            What do you want to argue?

            Are you seeing this?

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            I see it. He means puritan piety is more in line with the early church, not limited atonement.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Uh huh, sure. You're very quick to call me ignorant. It's because you have nothing better to say.

            When God told Adam not to eat the fruit and he disobeyed God, he didn't freely choose it.

            Cain never freely chose to murder Abel. The fallen angels never freely chose to take wives of the daughters of men. Noah never freely chose to build the ark. Abraham never freely chose to sacrifice his only son, Issac. Lot never freely chose not to look behind him when God destroyed Sodom. Pharaohs daughter never freely chose to take Moses from the river. Samson never freely chose to lay down with Delilah, never freely chose to take the oath of the Nazarite. David never freely chose to face Goliath. Ahab never freely chose to go into battle at Ramoth-Gilead.

            Right.

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            I don't know if I'd even be considered a full Calvinist now so I don't really feel a need to defend, but I have to tell you that you don't have a clue on what Calvinism teaches on human free will. There's no point wasting your time attacking something if you don't get it.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            What aspect of Calvinism do you take issue with now as opposed to before, and what changed your mind? Any of the 5 points?

            I do remember you mentioning "hyper-Calvinism" in another thread.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Calvinism is well sourced because I, a Calvinist, say so
        >using Oyish lingo to refer to your chief expositor as "autistic" by proxy
        Uh huh. Calvinism is a muscular set of presuppositions that appear strong at first sight because they support one another, but they're still suppositions. You have to actively read into the text in order to come up with something like TULIP, emphasising certain parts of the scripture whilst deemphasising others. At which point one must ask - why ought the believer trust in the interpretation of Calvin ahead of other denominations?

        • 9 months ago
          Dirk

          Your impression

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Answer the question.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you almost never seem to argue in good faith? It's always either snarky, arrogant one line retorts or a series of quickfire, largely irrelevant questions. I don't think I've ever seen you discuss a passage from scripture in earnest and in detail with another poster without you resorting to bluster and scorn at some point in the conversation.

            It seems increasingly likely to me that you love Calvinism because its claims about scripture are unfalsifiable. Adhering to it means you get to feel superior whilst never having to run the risk of being proven wrong. You act like a troll more often than not; such prospects of superiority are probably attractive to people like you in particular. The fact that you're an older poster doesn't surprise me. You type like a terminally online, self-impressed man in his late 50s.

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            What do you want to argue?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            You intimated you came to Calvinism late. What were you before?

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            An unreflective baptist

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did listening to James White's radio show convince you?

  6. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Election is elective. Electives are optional.
    The word itself implies conditionality and choice.

    Ergo, unconditional election is a contradiction in terms.

  7. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh…And the mixture of both - of the water and of the Word - is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father's will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.2 pg.242

  8. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can claim Christ is your Lord all you want, but if he doesn't agree to be in that kind of relationship with you then you're out of luck.

    You will go on believing he is your Lord, and that the works you do are in his name and of the Holy Spirit. Belief in vain, works in vain, because he never knew you and those works were iniquity in his eyes.

    You may have done these things in his name, but he never gave you that authority. They are not his works, they are your works and falsely attributed to him even if you really believe they really are his.

    You may have believed in him, known his name, but you did not know him personally. And he will tell you as much.

    • 9 months ago
      Worker

      An excellent point. I do not recant what I say. Not all who call call him Lord are saved, as he has said.

      A house divided among itself cannot stand.

      Demons do not obey anyone; they are compelled by powers, dominions, contracts. That is their nature. The power of Christ compels them to quit us.

      Legion begged him not to throw them into the abyss, he sent them into a herd of swine instead because his hand is mercy, and executes judgement. Did the money changers obey him when they quit the Temple, or were they compelled to leave their tables and their scales?

      Our covenant with him is not like that, God expects obedience of us, he told us to follow him. That is the way of salvation, the bearing of the cross.

      You know, a lot of people talk a big game about faith. But they don't really know the full meaning of the word.

      It comes from the Latin word, fides. The same word we get the English word fidelity from. It's opposite, infidelity.

      Now what does fidelity mean? Well roughly it means faithfulness, loyalty, obedience, fealty, trustworthiness. A wife is faithful to her husband, and she has faith that he reciprocates that devotion and does not commit infidelity.

      When we say something is high fidelity it means it was copied exactly, pixel for pixel, letter for letter.

      We are supposed to be faithful to Jesus in this way, obediently following his example. It gives an entirely new meaning to the phrase "faith alone" don't you think?

      One thing I'll add, got a bad habit of not finishing thoughts before posting.

      When we live in the way Jesus tells us to, when we partake of the sacraments, we become graceful. When we deviate from his instructions, we fall back into sin of this world and out of the state of grace.

      The way of life is a thing of subtlety and balance, it takes time to cultivate grace but it is saving grace that allows us to navigate the way that leads to life. To lead others along that same path.

      I say step by step because I mean it literally, you have to walk with God. As Adam did in Eden.

      Believe me, I have tangled with heresy before. I don't fear heresy, I fear God. I know full well how overthinking things can lead you into darkness. I retain the consideration of certain things I know for a fact are considered heretical by most orthodox Christians. It's my conscience, I don't think it's my place to judge but rather apprehend, and will accept correction as soon as I find it.

      I also know that most orthodox Christians consider most other Orthodox Christians subscribed to one thing or many they consider heresies. I can't even begin to mention protestants.

      To me, most of these are trifles. Miaphysitism, really?
      They really do have bigger fish to fry IMO.

      I wouldn't call his disciples "fallen" if I were you. They're literally alive, because they have a relationship with Christ. They were born into a fallen world, death foretold by God, born the same way as Jesus incarnate.

      They each on their own volition and without want chose to follow Christ when he called them.

      The Bible disagrees with you at every point. We are saved by believing in Christ. If you try to add anything else to this salvation, then you are damned. Does that mean we don't do good works? We should do good works, but they will never save anyone. It's our faith alone that will save.

      That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
      Romans 10:9

      Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
      Romans 3:28

      And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
      John 6:40

      And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
      Romans 11:6

      Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
      Galatians 2:16

      Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
      John 6:47

      But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
      Romans 4:5

      28Then said they unto him,What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them,This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
      John 6:28-29

      Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
      Titus 3:5

      For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
      Romans 4:3

      • 9 months ago
        Worker

        Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
        Romans 5:1-2

        8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
        Ephesians 2:8-9

        I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
        Galatians 2:21

        For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
        John 3:16

        Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
        Galatians 3:24

        And he believed in theLord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
        Genesis 15:6

        But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
        John 1:12

        Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
        Romans 4:16

        And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
        Acts 16:31

        For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
        Romans 1:17

        Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
        Romans 3:24

        For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
        Romans 10:10

        • 9 months ago
          Worker

          Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
          Romans 5:9

          But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
          Galatians 3:11

          Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
          Romans 3:27

          Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
          Galatians 5:4

          But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
          John 20:31

          For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the israelite first, and also to the Greek.
          Romans 1:16

          And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
          Luke 7:50

  9. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Calvinists have the same attitude the Pharisees did, they considered themselves holier than thou. They separated themselves from other israelites, that's what the name Pharisee really means, separatist.

    When they claim Jesus only died for them, for the elect, that's what they're doing. Separating themselves from the rest of humanity, trying to separate the sacrifice of Christ from all of humanity.

    Too bad it's blindingly obvious to everyone who isn't a reprobate Puritan that he died for ALL our sins.

  10. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    You know, a lot of people talk a big game about faith. But they don't really know the full meaning of the word.

    It comes from the Latin word, fides. The same word we get the English word fidelity from. It's opposite, infidelity.

    Now what does fidelity mean? Well roughly it means faithfulness, loyalty, obedience, fealty, trustworthiness. A wife is faithful to her husband, and she has faith that he reciprocates that devotion and does not commit infidelity.

    When we say something is high fidelity it means it was copied exactly, pixel for pixel, letter for letter.

    We are supposed to be faithful to Jesus in this way, obediently following his example. It gives an entirely new meaning to the phrase "faith alone" don't you think?

  11. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    One thing I'll add, got a bad habit of not finishing thoughts before posting.

    When we live in the way Jesus tells us to, when we partake of the sacraments, we become graceful. When we deviate from his instructions, we fall back into sin of this world and out of the state of grace.

    The way of life is a thing of subtlety and balance, it takes time to cultivate grace but it is saving grace that allows us to navigate the way that leads to life. To lead others along that same path.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      I agree works are part of it somewhat, but I think you're overstressing them. You seem to be quite humble about it and I suspect you're either old or a femanon, but on a lot of internet places where christies conglomerate, the works people tend to be insufferably proud and believe they are incapable of sin.

      But thats just my experience.

  12. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Luke 10:3 - Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

  13. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

    2But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

    3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

    4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

    5And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

    6This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.

    7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

    8All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

    9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

    10The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

    11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

    12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

    13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

    14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

    15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

    16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

    17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

  14. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Luke 12

    46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

    47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

    48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

    >For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

  15. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Luke 14

    26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

    27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

    28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

    29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

    30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

    >whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

    Luke 15

    4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

    5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

    6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

    7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

    • 9 months ago
      Worker

      Difference between a disciple and being saved. Many people were saved by Jesus during His ministry, but only a very small minority became disciples.

      But yeah, I guess you're saved because of how great you are.

      • 9 months ago
        Dirk

        “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” (Joh 6:66, ESV)

        • 9 months ago
          Worker

          Exactly. The people in John 6 claimed to be disciples, but went away when they realised that they must believe on Christ to be saved. They were too prideful to accept salvation through faith alone.

          >But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
          John 6:64

          Meanwhile, many other people believed on Christ, but did not become disciples. Only a very small minority of true believers became true disciples (and these would receive the greatest reward in heaven).

          >And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
          Matthew 19:29

          The only requirement for salvation is believing on Christ. But further eternal rewards require works.

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            They were disciples (while not the twelve) yet they were not saved. Disciple isn't a subset of the saved.

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            That's partly true. However, they proved themselves to be *false* disciples. So, a *true* disciple must actually be saved in the first place. And not everyone that's saved becomes a disciple (one who bears the cross, evangelises etc.)

            But yeah, many self-proclaimed disciples/servants of Christ are not saved because they are relying on their works to save them, and have not taken hold of the free gift of faith. Parable of talents, workers of iniquity etc.

          • 9 months ago
            Dirk

            I get what you're saying but those aren't categories found in the text

  16. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Romans 2

    6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

    7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

    8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

    9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the israelite first, and also of the Gentile;

    10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the israelite first, and also to the Gentile:

    11For there is no respect of persons with God.

    12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

    13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

    15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

  17. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Matthew 25

    14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

    15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

    16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

    17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

    18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

    19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

    20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

    21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

    22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

    23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

    24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

    25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

      27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

      28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

      29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

      30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

  18. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can you homosexuals stop arguing over bread? There's a whole bunch of other shit further up the tech tree which is far more interesting.
    Being stuck on "agriculture" doesn't really fill me with confidence your Abrahamic shit is really all that.

  19. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.

    29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.

    30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

    31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

    32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

    >The publicans and harlots are the first son, who repents and does his father's work.

    > The Pharisees are the second son who lie to look good but don't really do any work.

    • 9 months ago
      Worker

      >> The Pharisees are the second son who lie to look good but don't really do any work.
      This is utterly ridiculous. So the first son wasn't saved, despite the fact that he's a literal son of the father, and never leaves?

      The point of the parable is that God will always forgive his sons if they repent. The prodigal son never stopped being the father's son, despite his sins.

      I get what you're saying but those aren't categories found in the text

      I disagree. The fact that there were false disciples who refused to believe, and also true disciple who believed, show that there clearly are two categories of disciple. And furthermore, we know that there are believers who did not become disciple, allowing for a third category. And finally, there are those who never believed and never became disciples, allowing for a forth and final category.

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's not the parable of the prodigal son, which is found only in Luke. It's the parable of the two sons, found in Matthew.

        You need to reassess your presuppositions and read the words of Jesus a little closer.

        • 9 months ago
          Worker

          My apologies, that was ignorant of me.

          You're right, the first son does represent the Pharisees/hard-hearted israelites. They claimed to follow God, but refused to do the work of God, which is believing on Jesus Christ. The second group are the gentiles, who did not follow the Law, but then believed on Christ when the time for their salvation came.

          There's nothing about repentance from sins, except for the sin of unbelief in Christ.

          >And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
          John 6:40

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            The parable of talents is about a Lord giving his servants gifts, talents, before leaving.

            His servants do works to add onto his bounty proportionally to what each was given, but for one slothful servant who doesn't do works and simply holds onto what he was given.

            When the Lord returns, he takes that gift from the servant who couldn't or didn't manage it, and gives it to one who has shown he's up to the task. And then he casts the slothful servant into the abyss.

            >unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required

            I noticed here

            That's partly true. However, they proved themselves to be *false* disciples. So, a *true* disciple must actually be saved in the first place. And not everyone that's saved becomes a disciple (one who bears the cross, evangelises etc.)

            But yeah, many self-proclaimed disciples/servants of Christ are not saved because they are relying on their works to save them, and have not taken hold of the free gift of faith. Parable of talents, workers of iniquity etc.

            that you seem to believe this parable supports Sola Fide. Care to explain how that checks out? He calls faithful those servants who of their own volition multiplied what was given them, because they obeyed his will. To me, his judgement of the lesser servant indicates that merely receiving a talent isn't sufficient to fulfill his will.

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >To me, his judgement of the lesser servant indicates that merely receiving a talent isn't sufficient to fulfill his will.
            1. The talent represents the gospel.
            2. When the servant throws the talent in a hole in the ground, the servant is rejecting the gospel.
            3. Jesus says that the servant should have put it in the bank, at the very least. Does putting a coin in a bank so that it generates interest sound like work? Or does it sound like Jesus is saying that the servant should – at the very least – put his faith in the gospel.
            4. The servant did not believe on the gospel, and the reason the servant gives is because he knows God is a "hard man" – this shows that the servant is scared to trust in faith alone, and instead decided to deny the free gift of faith by throwing his talent in a hole.

            Right now, you are the faithless servant, who refuses to believe in the saving gospel of Jesus, because you fear that God is a "hard man". But once you put your faith in Christ alone, you'll be given eternal life. At that point, you can leave your talent in the bank, or you can go out and offer the free gift of the gospel to others.

  20. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Missed the whole John 6 bread of life discourse?
    And you are lying about the Church fathers too, for starters, St.Ignatious of Antioch, direct disciple of the apostle John says “those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ … refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up”

    Another early and blatant example is St.Justin Martyr description of hte mass in which he says 'For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.'

  21. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is a disgrace that Oyish is not split into Oyish and /rel/.
    At least according to https://4stats.io/ , Oyish has similar daily average posts per day as /gif/ , and they're wasted on such inane garbage as religion/anti-religion "debates".
    Even if splitting off /rel/ would take half the traffic, it would still be above Oyish.

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