THE IRA DID NOTHING WRONG

The IRA basically didnt exist by the late 50s into the 60s.

The native, Catholic Irish were discriminated against widely, and began a civil rights movement in the 60s.

The Ulster Protestants, really more Jew than Christian, started the violence, burning literally thousands of Catholic homes.

The first British soldier to die in the conflict, Hugh McCabe (home on leave), was killed by RUC gunfire. The first RUC officer to be killed, Victor Arbuckle, was shot dead by loyalists, probably the UVF.

historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/1969-the-north-erupts/


the Catholics initially actually welcomed the British Army out of a sheer hope of protection.

The tendency of the Brits to side with the 'Loyalists' however resulted in a resurgence of Loyalist violence.

Bombings in England by the IRA were not very different from Jewish bombings in Palestine- only those Jews were recent immigrants to Palestine while the Irish were fighting for their own homeland.

mepc.org/jewish-terrorism-israel

unz.com/article/terrorism-how-the-israeli-state-was-won/

The rapid rearming of the IRA from the US and UK stopped the ability of Judeoprotestant gangs to murder and bomb at will without repercussion.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/YO1FthyChu4
youtube.com/watch?v=QZjcjKGTSE0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

>t. John Murphy III, loyal supporter of ireland

americans should be banned from making any posts related to muh heritage

>potato niggers
>discriminated against

Gee I wonder why....
If you think the IRA did nothing wrong you don't know shit about history. Bunch of scum. Taigs out.

>we wuz discriminated against so we terrorized innocent people and it's justified

fuck off papist scum

You stupid fucking left foot Catholics will get yours in time. You have a heretic that sits in the Vatican, he even licks the boots of mongrels

shut fenian retard. you are papist, socialist crybabies.

They started because you Marxist scum would not leave the Ulstermen to live in their lands in peace. When they reacted to your terror, you took your murderous rampage to the streets of mainland Britain. You will burn in hell for all you did.

Why then? Tell us

sort yourself out before you try to blame others.

But everyone can talk american politics right? Fuck off

Raised from a Nationalist Family. Had plenty of members of my family who were volunteers in the PIRA. Situation could have been dealt with peacefully. Even with the civil rights issues, it's not as if the death of 4,000 plus people was necessary. Live in Northern Ireland and talk to the people who lived through it. I don't think the people who were shot dead at the side of a road in Bessbrook in the Kingsmill shooting would have thought the IRA were justified.

Inb4 cuck for not wanting to start brother wars.

my name is tadhg, my mom named me that as a way of combating the insult. although i actually want peace and tradeing with the uk.

why would you use such an insult anyway. even though you invaded our home we still want peace.

There's autistic unionists and Republicans. I can get prods looking out for fellow Ulster Scots and wanting to stay in the UK because they aren't Irish exactly. Some Prods are just black bastards who want to larp as the Black and tans and slag off Irish people. Prods have people like that lad and we have Sinn Féin.

The IRA is pretty based.

Maybe the war of Independence IRA. As you get further and further along in history the shitter they get. Also have a troubling history with Marxism.

I'll look into that bong. I could see them becoming compromised with faggotry.

Shut your autistic burger mouth about things you have no idea about.

The IRA is not some edgy /ourguys/ bullshit meme to be glorified, anyone in Belfast who went through the troubles would tell you to shut your stupid face.

Sinn Fein **inhales Helium** the IRA is a legitimate political party, your tone is antagonistic and you're making me very angry.

>shut your stupid face.
not an argument

I'm Irish actually. From the North, a lot of my family was actually in the Provisional IRA in the 70's-90's. They do have a marxist issue. In Northern Ireland we also have this retarded thing were we like to sympathize with the Palestinians. Sinn Féin is literally a cultural marxist party. Pic is Gerry Adams with Antifa. Sinn FEin only want a United Ireland at all costs, even if it's 51% Irish.

>civil rights movement in the 60s.
Niggers confirmed.

The Irish are more white than your family has been in 500 years.

Get out of my country potato LARPer.

fuck off mick, you lot were the first wave of foreigners that started the slow decay of the usa.

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

Romans 4:4-8: Proof for
Justification by Faith Alone?

By: Matt1618

This is a posting I did in response to a message board on an anti-Catholic web site, who posted the idea that Rom. 4:4-8 is conclusive evidence for justification by faith alone. I am responding to a Protestant Apologist by the name of Wayne. I had earlier posted a response that can be found here. We discuss the issue of whether the Protestant position of a purely forensic, alien righteousness is a legal fiction or not, and whether Rom. 4:4-8 gives credence to that idea. We also touch on what Paul's citation of David's life proves. My first response will start with a > and will not be italicized.. Wayne's responses start with a > and are all red. My second response has neither a > or red font.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a response to Wayne, but while I was writing, I also saw Mr. White enter the fray, and bring up Romans 4:4-8, so this would also respond to his post 'Justification.'

> Or if you are upset about me stating that your position being that God does a legal
> fiction and just turns away from the filthiness of man, let us consider what RC Sproul
> asserts in his book. Sproul writes "By imparting or imputing Christ's righteousness to us
> sinners, God reckons us as just. It is "as if" (Sproul's quote) we were inherently just.
> But we are not inherently just.... We are just by imputation even while sin still remains in
> us,though it does not reign in us...He quotes Calvin "To justify is nothing else that to
> acquit from the charge of guilt, "as if" innocence were proved"...When God justifies
> us...he does not acquit on us on a proof of our own innocence, but by an imputation of
> righteousness, so that "though not righteous in ourselves", we are deemed righteous in
> Christ" (Sproul,102).

> So, are you denying that there are forensic declarations made in the redeeming work
> of God?Then I suppose the legal declaration that the sins of man was inputed to Christ
> on the cross is a "legal fiction." You'll never make that case here.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus was "imputed with sin." I deny that Jesus was filled with sin, as he is God. Sin can never touch the person of Christ. Christ did not suffer our punishment because our deserved punishment, apart from his grace, is hell. Christ is currently not suffering in hell, as he is reigning at God the Father's right hand. His sacrifice is a sin offering to God. Wayne's position on faith alone is biblically contravened by the context of Romans 4, passages in Romans 2, 5, 6, 8, that I gave in earlier threads, and makes Paul a distorter of the life of Abraham and David.

In my demonstration of the errors of Sola Fide in reference to the life of Abraham, I showed that the Calvinist understanding that is put forth on the BBS of the Accounting of Abraham as righteous in the forensic way would make the bible a pile of contradictions in relation to Gen. 12-15, Psalm 106, Heb. 8, James 2, plus the context of Romans 3 and 4.

Wayne doesn't like me saying that his concept is a legal fiction, because God supposedly actually imputes (or credits) the believer with the alien righteousness of Christ. As I originally wrote, I acknowledged quite clearly his understanding that God actually imputes Christ's righteousness to our account, and that Calvinists are supposedly clothed with this alien righteousness that can be the only thing that will stand before God on judgment day, and the works that we do are only the fruit of that righteousness. Wayne unfortunately still fails to account for the fact that his magisterium (his own understanding of scripture, heavily influenced by the rebels of the 16th century) has God, though looking at the perfect righteousness of Christ, still justifying one who is inherently sinful, or as Luther put it, a dunghill covered with snow. Thourgh God is perfectly righteous, and perfectly holy, Wayne's magisterium (himself, heavily influenced what seems to be the Calvinist magisterium) has God pretending someone is righteous, who is inherently unrighteous.

> I elsewhere state that your view does assert that Christ's righteousness is actually
> imputed to the individual. Nevertheless, Sproul and Calvin unhesitatingly assert that
> God reckons us righteous "as though" and "even though we are not righteous". You
> declare all along in your book the forensic (legal) basis of justification. Reformed (so-
> called) theologians admit that God justifies those people who are > not actually righteous.

God does not justify the righteous. God justifies the ungodly. That's what the Bible says. RC dogma has twisted that truth beyond all recognition.

He says the church makes a mockery of this verse. Really? His view makes God contradict the bible in more ways than one. First, it makes God take part what scripture terms as an abomination as will be later shown. Waynes position is that the one who is justified stays inherently wicked, and though God's grace most definitely will work through love, it won't cut the mustard before God's judgment. RCC dogma has twisted beyond recognition? Protestant dogma has twisted beyond recognition the scriptural accounts of Abraham & David's life, to maintain a dogma. Let us look at the context and surrounding verses of Rom. 4:5 from which you get that verse.

Romans 4:4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."

wrong thread popish retard.

Now on Friday when I demonstrated the Catholic character of Abraham's justification, found here, I wrote that the Catholic Church denounces any attempt for people to earn their justification. The language that Paul uses here is that of condemning those who try to obligate God to owe them justification. Paul shows in v. 4 one who tries to put God in an employee-employer relationship (saying that God is obligated to pay someone or justify them, i.e. works of the law, be it Mosaic or trying on their own power to earn justification) will not be justified. It is only through God's graciousness that one will be justified (For more info, see my 4 point demonstration of this on Friday). That is exactly the Catholic position. We are his adopted children who God pours his own divine life into at justification.

The main problem is that Wayne's belief is that the one who is justified, not only is ungodly at the outset, but remains ontologically ungodly at the point of justification (even though he must and will bear fruit in sanctification). The problem is that this view not only distorts the life of Abraham a few verses earlier, but also the life of David, which Paul uses as an example to prove in verses 6-8 what he is saying in Rom. 4:4-5.

Protestantism is wrong

Sola Fide is for moron

Get out of my country, parasites. Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, William Richardson Davie and Robert Morris were all born in Ireland.

To prove his point Paul quotes a Psalm of David from which he elucidates his theology. Let us examine the background and the context of the psalm that Paul is quoting from. The Protestant understanding must be that here is where David is justified, and his righteousness is credited (forensically imputed alien righteousness). Since this is the point of David's justification, this must be the first and only time that David is justified. Anything done before this point of time, David is an unregenrate man, and anything after Psalm 32 David is merely for the fruit of justification, or sanctification. If David had already been justified beforehand, and here is again justified, defacto it shows that justification is a process. Any response must take this into account:

Psalm 32:1 "Blesses is he whose transgressions are forgiven, who sins are covered. Blessed is the man who sin the Lord does not count against him."

David is rejoicing here, (as in Psalm 51) that God is here forgiving him for his sins of adultery and slaying of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite. The time of the events that he is getting forgiveness for is 2 Samuel 11-12.

An important question that concerns us, is this the time of David's one and only justification, as a Protestant of the Calvinist leaning must hold? On the contrary, David since his youth called on the Lord to defeat Goliath. He was not unregenerate then. In 1 Samuel 13:14, years before 2 Sam. 11-12 and Psalm 32, David is called a "man after God's own heart" a distinction given to no other man in the bible. The Psalms prior to Psalm 32 were also written well before the events of 2 Sam. 11-12, which were the occasion for Psalm 32. This shows indeed that David was a true child of God before the events of Psalm 32. Otherwise, we would have Psalms written before Psalm 32 to be written by an unregenerate pagan who had no real relationship with God.

Although David earlier in his life was a true child of God, he did something to make himself ungodly. He committed major sin with Bathshebe and Uriah to make him become ungodly (2 Sam. 11-12). That is how he was ungodly coming into Psalm 32. How was he forgiven? By sincere repentance given in the grace of God as so heartfelt put in Psalms 32 and 51. He did not earn his way back through law, as Paul clearly states. In this state of mortal sin, he responds to Gods' grace and is rejustified. He is put back in God's grace. However, it is not David earning his way back into God's grace, not as an employee from an employer. It is a Father-Son relationship. Paul shows that works do not earn his grace back, but his justification is won back by repentance, the point of Rom. 4:4-8. Paul's sees David's acknowledgement and confession of his sin, a total reliance and recognition of God' benificience, grace and mercy, reflecting the Catholic position. He is here credited as righteousness. The fact of David's earlier Godly life, with the fact that he put himself outside of God's grace, and the fact that his repentance led him to justification shows several things fatal to the Calvinist understanding of justification that has been put out on the BBS.

1) The language used here is not meant to imply a forensic view of a one time justification. David already was a believer well before this point in time.

2) David, although he was quite clearly a believer who loved God with all his heart, fell out of God's grace by mortal sin. That is why he needs to be forgiven to be put back in God's grace. David's grace-driven repentance puts him back into God's favor.

3) The crediting of righteousness is not based on an acceptance of an alien righteousness. His repentance was needed to get back into God's righteousness. When one is in this state, then one has a Father-Son relationship at the heart of justification. Then, under the auspices of grace, out of love, the Son responds with works of love that is necessary for ultimate justification (Rom. 2:6-13, 6, 8:1-39, Gal. 5-6) and one becomes a doer of the law in a state of God's grace.

4) The next question that must be faced is when it says that God justifies the ungodly, does it mean that justification is not based on an infusion of grace, as Calvinists maintain? In other words, when one is justified, does the person stay ungodly, although he will do good works afterwords? Let us examine Psalm 32 itself, which Paul is directly using to elucidate his conclusion. Does justification mean nothing inherently changed in David, when he is restored to his righteousness, and is it an alien righteousness that he is credited with, as you maintain?

At least the Irish aren't cuckolds and actually fought and won their independance from Bongs

Scotland will keep getting treated as a London vassal state forever

You're a nigger. You have no country save for whatever one you currently squat in. You're a part of nothing because you are nothing.

Catholic Irish are the Palestinians of Europe, fuck them.

Psalm 32: 1A Psalm of David. A Maskil. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. 3 When I declared not my sin, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. 4 For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. [Selah] I acknowledged my sin to thee, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD"; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin. [Selah] 6 Therefore let every one who is godly offer prayer to thee; at a time of distress, in the rush of great waters, they shall not reach him. 7Thou art a hiding place for me, thou preservest me from trouble; thou dost encompass me with deliverance. [Selah] 8 I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. 9 Be not like a horse or a mule, without understanding, which must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not keep with you. 10 Many are the pangs of the wicked; but steadfast love surrounds him who trusts in the LORD. 11 Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart!

\

They're marxists who sucked muslim cock to the point of blowing up pan am flight 103 to please their libyan paymasters. Daddy khaddafy rewarded their loyalty with semtex and rifles. Douchebag Americans, like you, kept them going before that by giving money to noraid. You, and anyone else who gave a penny to noraid should have done federal time.

>You're a nigger. You have no country save for whatever one you currently squat in. You're a part of nothing because you are nothing.
Get out of my country, immigrant. I'm with Hamilton.

Protestants are niggers

Fuck off taig cunt. DUP & Tory.. putting Ulster on the map

We see that in the very verse that Paul quotes from, it says that in the one Lord does not impute iniquity, David's spirit has no deceit!! Thus, David has an inner quality, spiritual essnce, of righteousness. Hardly David ontonlogically staying ungodly. God now looks at David through his eyes of grace. He has went from godly (the life he lived earlier as a man after God's own heart) to ungodly (his mortal sins separated him from God and made David ungodly), back to the state of godly (and remaining in his grace via his obedience), when he repents through God's grace. David has an inner changed nature. In an earlier critique of Mr. White on his book "The Roman Catholic Controversy", I referred to this part of his book, his commentary on Rom. 4:4-8 in relation to David. I had addressed this critique to Mr. White, but this would be for any Calvinist (or Lutheran) who holds to a one time justification for a person who at justificaiton is ontologically still unjust (though reckoned as just). I will repost that paragraph from my site:

Interesting comparison.

"Is the quoting of Psalm 32 in Rom. 4:6-8, a quoting of one who is actually unrighteous, but declared righteous, solely through God's imputation just as you claimed Abraham was (though we've disproved).? Or does it quote David as though recognizing himself to be a sinner, who through God's grace and forgiveness becomes a righteous person. As you would agree Paul would not wrench scripture out of context, the best way to figure this out is looking at Psalm 32 itself. Paul quotes 32:1-2. David thanks God for his forgiveness and acknowledges himself to be a sinner. He shows his utter reliance on God's grace, no question. We both agree on that. The question is whether now that David is forgiven, is he an actually righteous person, or is only declared such. You declare that there is no subjective change in the individual (pp. 154-155). He is only righteous in the sense of being declared so. Let us look at the context of Psalm 32, which Paul uses. David writes that his sin is covered, and not imputed (vv. 1-2a). When David was a sinner outside of God's grace he admits that his spirit was wasted away. However, David acknowledged his sin and confessed them to God. The question - "Is David and God's people unrighteous sinners who are only declared righteous?" Not only does he have no deceit (v. 2b), but every one who is godly offers prayer to God (v.6). God preserves David from trouble and is the means of deliverance (v. 7), not merely a covering. David next contrasts the wicked from the righteous (vv. 10-11).

Proddies are morons

deal with it

Do you think Scotland would even be able to govern itself successfully? Not English btw,

. The question - "Is David and God's people unrighteous sinners who are only declared righteous?" Not only does he have no deceit (v. 2b), but every one who is godly offers prayer to God (v.6). God preserves David from trouble and is the means of deliverance (v. 7), not merely a covering. David next contrasts the wicked from the righteous (vv. 10-11). He uses absolutely no courtroom language. Your theory holds that there are none intrinsically righteous before God. According to David "Steadfast love surrounds him who trusts in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord, and rejoice, o righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart." God's people are actually righteous, godly, and have no deceit. God's people are actually upright in heart! Apparently when God imputes his righteousness, it is not external. He imparts his own life into the individual. You asked in your book (p. 155) "Where is the subjective change taught by Roman Catholic theology?" In the very text that Paul quotes from! We see in this very psalm a man who is not only declared, but actually upright in heart. That is Catholic theology at heart. God's grace transforms, makes this change in the individual, and is part of justification."

It shows that at the time of justification, inherent righteousness is a part of this justification. This belies Waynes view, and shows that his view makes Paul distort David's life, not something inspired scripture is likely to do. David is credited with righteousnes here in Psalm 32. His acts of repentance thus give a crediting of righteousness. Thus, a crediting of righteousness is not a one time thing. When God justifies David, he returns him to a state of actual righteousness. The Catholic position is this in Trent. No, we do not dispute that God justifies the ungodly. As Trent says one is born a Child of Adam (and ungodly) but at the point that the ungodly child of Adam is justified, this ungodly person becomes godly:

Trent session 6 Chapter 4 says exactly this.

CHAPTER IV A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

"In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior."

He no longer is a child of Adam, he is an adopted child of God, at the point of justification. When God declares, he does. Wayne's position is that what God justifies, he only declares, he does not actually do what he declares, he does not actually make one righteous. Actually, Wayne's position that God justifies the ungodly who stays ungodly elsewhere in scripture is called an abomination to God: Prov. 17:15: "Then He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD." It is not in God's character to do such a thing. In contrast to that the bible teaches that God transforms in the act of justification this ungodly person to a godly person.

> When something terms as true something
> that is not actually true, that is fiction. I
> read Sproul's argument that it is not a legal
> fiction (pp. 105-108), but any way you term it,
> God reckons one righteous even when he is inherently
> unrighteous. The term legal fiction is thus justified.
> Thus when I say "He does not do some legal
> fiction, and then just turn his eyes away from
> the filthiness of man" I am not creating
> a straw man at all.

It really, really bothers me when the prophets of man-centered religion attribute no
> reality to a work of God. When God imputes something to a man it is actually true. The
> Bible says if any man is in Christ he is a NEW CREATION.

Exactly, a new creation is one infused with righteousness (2 Cor. 5:17). Catholicism gives to God more reality to what he actually does. In the Catholic view, God actually undoes the fall of Adam. A new creation is not just being covered with an alien righteousness. Christ pours out his own divine life into the individual. We become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4).

>There is nothing fictional about that. When you try to make the case that you will,
> become righteous enough through your own works (whatever you think those may be),
> to become just before God, WITHOUT the imputation of Christ's perfection, you are
> out of the realm of straw-men and into the realm of making God out to be a liar.

Romans 6:7 says that one who has died, has been justified from sin (same word as was used in Rom. 4:5). Set free from sin, actually, not only declaratively so. Justification involves a real separation from sin, not a mere forensic declaration of a separation. When Christ came to set us free from sin (John 8:32-36), he gives us his own grace to purify us from all iniquity (Tit. 2:11-14). The whole Protestant analysis of Paul in Romans 3, 4, and 5 has been shown to be a fiction. God pours out his own divine life into the individual, a greater gift than just looking away from someone who is inherently unrighteous. God looks upon his adopted children as a Father to a Son, intrinsic to the Catholic concept of justification. The Protestant concept of justification has God taking part in what scripture has termed elsewhere an abomination (Prov. 17:15). That would make God a liar.

Matt

Catholicism is the only real form of christianity. Everything else is LARPing.

Sola Fide

BTFO

>pakistani's
>going to ireland

no, only england desu. we dont want to go to scotland or wales either, we want to be comfy in england. the conservatives and UKIP welcome us.

>were all born in Ireland

yea and they were all memebers of the anglo/ulster scot protestant population, they sure were no papist paddies you retard.

the proper "irish" arrived in the usa only after the potato famine. they brought with them the mob (mafia) terrorism, alcholism, papism, socialism.

you guys are a cancer.

Not really, Brits and Israelis are white and civilized, while Palis are Muslim savages and Fenians are papist savages, that's why they had arms agreements with Libya and other Arab shitholes.

Salvation Past, Present, and Future

by James Akin

I."Have You Been Saved?"

This is a question Protestants often pose when they are doing evangelism, but it is a question which takes many people by surprise, including many Catholics. Some people are surprised because they never think about salvation, but Catholics tend to be surprised by it for a different reason. Catholics tend to focus on salvation as a future event, something that has yet to happen. As a result, the Protestant question, "Have you been saved?" can sound presumptuous. But the question sounds very natural to Protestant ears because Evangelicals tend to conceive of salvation as a past event, something that happens to the believer at the very beginning of his life as a Christian.

Both of these conceptions of salvation

"even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (all Scripture quotations NKJV)

Since this passage speaks of salvation in the past tense, something that has been done to us, it is conceiving of salvation as a past reality.

But this is only one aspect of salvation. There is an ongoing aspect to salvation as well, as is indicated in 1st Peter 1:8-9, which states,

" . . . Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving . . . the salvation of your souls."

The same idea of salvation as something that is taking place presently is found in the writings of the St. Paul as well, for example, in Philippians 2:12 he states,

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"

>potato nigger is suddenly the fruit of Scottish Hamilton and his mongrel wife
My ancestors were here before this was a country potato nigger. Fuck off back to your shitty island LARPing IRA democrat cunt.

Protestantism is false

deal with it

>taigs

Protestantism brings ruin

Protestantism is for morons

>nothing wrong

Salvation Past, Present, and Future

by James Akin

I."Have You Been Saved?"

This is a question Protestants often pose when they are doing evangelism, but it is a question which takes many people by surprise, including many Catholics. Some people are surprised because they never think about salvation, but Catholics tend to be surprised by it for a different reason. Catholics tend to focus on salvation as a future event, something that has yet to happen. As a result, the Protestant question, "Have you been saved?" can sound presumptuous. But the question sounds very natural to Protestant ears because Evangelicals tend to conceive of salvation as a past event, something that happens to the believer at the very beginning of his life as a Christian.

Both of these conceptions of salvation

"even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (all Scripture quotations NKJV)

Since this passage speaks of salvation in the past tense, something that has been done to us, it is conceiving of salvation as a past reality.

But this is only one aspect of salvation. There is an ongoing aspect to salvation as well, as is indicated in 1st Peter 1:8-9, which states,

" . . . Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving . . . the salvation of your souls."

The same idea of salvation as something that is taking place presently is found in the writings of the St. Paul as well, for example, in Philippians 2:12 he states,

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"

Salvation in the Bible is therefore also a pr

"And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed." (Romans 13:11)

"If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1Corinthians 3:15)

" . . . deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1Corinthians 5:5)

These verses all speak of salvation in the future tense, as something that will happen to us in the future. Therefore, salvation has past, present, and future aspects or dimensions.

If we were to offer a general definition of salvation, including its past, present, and future dimensions, we would say something like, "Salvation is a process which begins when a person first becomes a Christian, which continues through the rest of his life, and which concludes on the Last Day." This definition allows the faithful Christian to do justice to all of the Biblical data by saying, "I have been saved; I am being saved; and I will be saved." It embraces all three of the aspects of salvation which are present in the biblical literature.

This is the truth but historically illiterate morons won't know it.

II.Other Aspects of Salvation

In addition to salvation as a whole, Scripture also speaks of individual aspects of salvation called redemption, forgiveness, sanctification, and justification. These share the same past, present, and future dimensions that salvation as a whole does.

A. Redemption

First of all, redemption is sometimes spoken of as a present possession of believers, which means that they were redeemed sometime in the past:

"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7)

"He has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Colossians 1:13-14)

>shilling for popery
Britain will never submit to the foreign yoke of Romish Popery. BEGONE, ye foul taig!

>My ancestors were here before this was a country
Mixing it up with niggers and injuns, go back to the fields where you belong, half breed

Like Protestants who are so dumb they hate science

Sola Fide is shit

deal with it

beautiful

NO POPE OF ROME
youtu.be/YO1FthyChu4

II.Other Aspects of Salvation

In addition to salvation as a whole, Scripture also speaks of individual aspects of salvation called redemption, forgiveness, sanctification, and justification. These share the same past, present, and future dimensions that salvation as a whole does.

A. Redemption

First of all, redemption is sometimes spoken of as a present possession of believers, which means that they were redeemed sometime in the past:

"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7)

"He has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Colossians 1:13-14)

>Contradict the bible
>Contradict early christians
Proddies are morons

Drink yourself to death as is your "proud" tradition.

These verses indicate redemption was given to the Christian at the beginning of his life with God, when he first entered Christ ("in" him and "in" whom we have redemption). But there is yet a future redemption awaiting us, for we also read in Scripture:

"Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near." (Luke 21:28)

"And not only they, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for . . . the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23)

[The Holy Spirit] "is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:14)

"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." (Ephesians 4:30)

Therefore, redemption, like salvation in general, is something that occurs at different points in the Christian's life. There are no references in Scripture to redemption as a present process, but given the past and future dimensions of redemption, one may wish to infer that there is a sense in which we are "being redeemed" at the present time.

You're a scab on the pope's syphylitic pedophile dick, thank fuck I have a filter to get rid of your pasta

B. Forgiveness

There are numerous places in Scripture which speak of our forgiveness as something which has already occurred to us. For example:

"In Him we have . . . the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7)

"And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32)

" . . . in whom we have . . . the forgiveness of sins." (Colossians 1:14)

" . . . bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do." (Colossians 3:13)

These passages show that forgiveness is something that has happened to us in the past, but there are also passages which speak of forgiveness as something which we must continue to appropriate. For example,

"And forgive us our debts [present tense], As we forgive our debtors." (Matthew 6:12)

"And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." (James 5:15)

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1John 1:9)

ULSTER IS BRITISH
youtube.com/watch?v=QZjcjKGTSE0

>I hate the truth

Popery is the latest in a long line of sttempts to enslave Britain and Ulster and bind us in chain, to be thrown in front of the ANITCHRIST, he who is known as the Pope.

Therefore forgiveness, like the other aspects of salvation, is something which is both a past event and a present process. And we know that this process will not ultimately reach its fulfillment until we finally find mercy from the Lord on the Last Day, when our sins will be firmly, finally, and forever declared forgiven. This is mentioned by Paul when he says concerning Onesiphorus,

"The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day . . . " (2Timothy 1:18)

As a result, there is a sense in which forgiveness (God's mercy in this passage) is something that has yet to be realised. Therefore, forgiveness is therefore something which has past, present, and future dimensions.

C. Sanctification

Evangelicals often place a great deal of emphasis on sanctification as a present process which Christians undergo. However, many in the Wesleyan tradition (Methodistism, Holiness churches, the Church of the Nazarene, and some Pentecostal churches) tend to emphasize sanctification as a single event which occurs in the life of the beliver. Both groups are correct in this. Sanctification is both a process and an event in our lives.

First, let us look at verses which indicate sanctification as a past event in the Christian's life:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1Corinthians 6:11)

"By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)

"Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:29)

How many children's asses did your priest rape in the name of science?

THIS

Except Protestantism is the antichrist

This proves it

Therefore forgiveness, like the other aspects of salvation, is something which is both a past event and a present process. And we know that this process will not ultimately reach its fulfillment until we finally find mercy from the Lord on the Last Day, when our sins will be firmly, finally, and forever declared forgiven. This is mentioned by Paul when he says concerning Onesiphorus,

"The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day . . . " (2Timothy 1:18)

As a result, there is a sense in which forgiveness (God's mercy in this passage) is something that has yet to be realised. Therefore, forgiveness is therefore something which has past, present, and future dimensions.

C. Sanctification

Evangelicals often place a great deal of emphasis on sanctification as a present process which Christians undergo. However, many in the Wesleyan tradition (Methodistism, Holiness churches, the Church of the Nazarene, and some Pentecostal churches) tend to emphasize sanctification as a single event which occurs in the life of the beliver. Both groups are correct in this. Sanctification is both a process and an event in our lives.

First, let us look at verses which indicate sanctification as a past event in the Christian's life:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1Corinthians 6:11)

"By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)

"Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:29)

>I hate reality

These verses indicate the occurrence of sanctification as a past event in the life of the believer. But it is not only a past event, but also a present, ongoing process, as the following verses indicate:

"Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God . . . For this is . . . your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality . . . " (1Thessalonians 4:1, 3)

"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1Thessalonians 5:23)

"For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Hebrews 2:11)

"For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14)

(In addition to these passages, see 12:2, 13:14, 2Corinthians 4:16, and Ephesians 4:21-25.)

There is therefore abundant reason to say that sanctification is an ongoing process as well as a past event in the life of the believer. But what about sanctification as a future event in the life of the believer? It is harder to come up with verses for this kind of sanctification, but that such sanctification exists may be easily deduced.

We know from various places in Scripture that we continue to stumble and sin all the way through the rest of this life, but we also know that we will not sin after we have been made perfect either at the Last Day or at our deaths, whichever comes first. Therefore, when that event occurs, we will be made holy in the sense that we no longer sin at all, and since sanctification is being made holy, when this even occurs we will be sanctified. Therefore, there is a future event of sanctification in the life of the believer as well as a past and a present sanctification.

Don't drink, half breed. Shuck and jive for me nog. Your people are known to be musical

/THREAD
PROTESTANTISM BTFO

D. Justification

In future sections, we will examine the nature of justification and how it relates to redemption, forgiveness, and sanctification, but here we should note that it, like the other aspects of salvation, has past, present, and future dimensions.

1. Justification in the Bible

First, here are some verses showing justification as a past event:

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand..." (Romans 5:1-2)

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." (Romans 5:9)

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1Corinthians 6:11)

Justification is therefore clearly a past event in the life of the believer. Unfortunately, most Protestants have camped out on verses which imply this and have concluded that justification is a once-for-all event, rather than also being an ongoing and not yet completed process.

But however attractive the single, once-for-all view of justification may be to some, there are serious exegetical considerations weighing against it. This may be seen by looking at how the New Testament handles the story of Abraham.

One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul's discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham "believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3). This passage clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants.

Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both.

First, the book of Hebrews tells us that

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8)

Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith

But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it "when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive." The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4 three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.

But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.

But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us,

"Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23)

James thus tells us "[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified . . . when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Abraham therefore received justification The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18 seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.

exactky. irish larpers claim everyone who was born in ireland as irish, not recognizing anyone of worth until very recently was a member of the protestant british elite that ruled the irish masses.

f.e. the duke of wellington, the one who defeated napoleon at waterloo, who was an anglo-protestant noble born in ireland said it best; "If a man be born in a stable, that does not make him a horse"

Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.

As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer's life. In fact, it is even a process which extends beyond the believer's life. This is shown by passages in Scripture where Paul indicates that there is a sense in which our justification is still future:

" . . . for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;" (Romans 2:13)

"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20)

Commenting on the second of these passages, the famous Protestant exegete, James D.G. Dunn points out that Paul's statement alludes to Psalm 142:2 and then remarks,

"The metaphor in the psalm is of a servant being called to account before his master, but in the context here [in Romans] the imagery of final judgement is to the fore . . . Against the view that Paul sees 'justification' simply as an act which marks the beginning of a believer's life, as a believer, here is a further example [in addition to 2:13] of the verb used for a final verdict, not excluding the idea of the final verdict at the end of life . . . "

>Shuck and jive for me
I'm not your father nigger. Go dance with someone else.