>500 years of being proved that it is both faith and works and not either or >tfw no one listens and continues in rebellion
Wyatt Scott
works are an actualization of faith. surely someone has said this in 2000 years- but now we can move on!
Gavin Ross
Absolutely they are. One only needs to look at Matthew 25. Those who didn't *do* something with their faith were condemned.
Juan Mitchell
Why are you using Abel as an example? His interaction with God is good example of the need for works.
William James
Why are trying to separate works from faith. They are both necessary. Stop with your personal vengeance against the church, you are putting your soul in danger.
Ryder Martin
AMEN!
Catholics have no comeback to this.
>FOR BY FAITH ARE YE SAVED THROUGH FAITH, AND NOT OF YOUR OWN, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD, NOT MAN WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST!
Owen Nguyen
It's the whole "you will know them by their fruits." The only ones doing the actions are those who are already saved
Liam Williams
if you understood the real christianity just a bit you would see how stupid and irelevant this bickering is.
approach any orthodox monk and ask them about salvation through faith or works, they would look at you like you're retarded.
learn your faith if you want to larp as christian.
Brandon Sullivan
Do you believe that you eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ every Sunday?
Hunter Richardson
>who are already saved Salvation isn't merely a past event. It's an ongoing journey, carrying one's cross every single day. It's a past, present, and hopeful future event.
Gabriel Perez
No, it's not. Abel's his sacrifice is a picture of the lamb being sacrificed from the foundation of the world, Jesus Christ. The blood of the lamb is the image of Jesus Christ.
Cain grew his own plants and thought that would please God. NOT SO.
The Bible has so much power to it. Don't you think God feels disappointed when people just ignore it and invent their own doctrine? Like the Tower of Babel, picturing a works based salvation and the entire earth coming together to work their way to heaven.
NOT GOD'S PLAN!
Ethan Bennett
Hmmmm >not of works >created for good works I don't see how you fellas can't understand this.
Elijah Roberts
>Stop with your personal vengeance against the church The pope declared himself God in 1054. You can follow them all straight to Hell if that's your desire, Roman.
Jaxson Adams
What does it bother you that some christians like to help others? In what way does this diminish their faith? You protestants are just lazy, morally bankrupt fucks. Kys
Justin Perry
Symbolically, yes. Obviously it's not his actual blood and meat, that's cannibalism and warped heresy. And the proof is so simple, because in the exact same verse that he tells us to "eat my flesh and drink my blood", he says that when we do this we will "dwell in him". We aren't literally, physically dwelling inside Jesus Christ when we eat the flesh and drink the blood -- it's symbolic of receiving his sacrifice, the blood shed for our sins and his victory against death.
Adam Anderson
old testament is law, new is revelation. if you cant tell the difference youre a heretic.
Eli Young
"AND IF IT BE BY GRACE, IT IS 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 11:16).
Just stop it, you have no grounds to stand on my friend.
Juan Moore
Protestants believe in a separation of Justification and Regeneration which is false on its face. You don't even need to go into the whole faith/works nonsense to see that the whole business that Luther was on about is false.
Jackson Edwards
>gee I bet one day God will split into three parts and one will be himself and his son and will be human, sent here to to perform a mix of suicide and deicide thought zero Jews living in years ending with "BC"
Robert Robinson
Yeah, no grounds at all. Except Jesus Christ's and 2,000 years of Church teaching and history. cf. You're the fellas adhering to a Johnny-come-lately post-sixteenth century religion using the New Testament which doesn't even belong to your faith tradition.
Kevin Howard
you can't earn your way into heaven, but your behavior will be christlike if you have faith in christ. the faith v works debate seems like an excuse for people to act like shit until the day they die while pointing to jesus and saying "nah he's got this"
Nicholas Wood
This is not good my friend. You should keep reading the bible before you begin making judgements of your own. The Eucharist is not a symbolic ceremony. This is something that Jesus made sure that his followers understood.
Bentley Foster
>The book of James >what is
Wyatt Thompson
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, just as Peter was after the death of Christ. Since when is being a Roman an insult. They spread the word of Christ faster than anyone since.
Cameron Gonzalez
Jesus Christ taught salvation through faith all throughout the gospels.
Juan Cruz
Well said brate
Andrew Sanchez
Yes, he is plainly symbolic when he makes the comparison of his blood and flesh. This is what's so puzzling about Catholic doctrine. You ignore most of the Bible, but parts that are plainly and clearly symbolic, those you claim are literal in the strictest sense. I guess the woman clothed in the sun is literally taking on the sun as a dress and you're literally getting inside and living inside the body of Jesus Christ too?
You people need to find the Holy Spirit and let it speak to you in earnest.
Cooper Miller
Indeed. Precisely the reason Father Luther removed it. >Matthew 25 >what is >wherein the Incarnate Logos teaches those who didn't *do* something with their faith were condemned >but faith alone amiriteguys Seems we must do something.
Chase Russell
Based God! Saving by faith alone. That monergist madman!
Jace Diaz
Why would a Christian practice paganism? Tell us about that red candle you light that represents the presence of Jesus. And how if therr is no lit red candle Jesus isn't there. And how you are supposed to genuflect aka kneel/cower before a candle that takes the place of Jesus.
Fucking disgusting pagan Roman filth.
Benjamin Moore
You're showing your ignorance of history and Scripture. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John, knew Peter and Paul personally, was ordained a Bishop by Peter. He was writing his flock in Smyrna after being captured by the Romans and sent to Rome for martyrdom. He wrote them to stay away from the heretics (Gnostics) who did not receive Holy Communion with them because... they did not believe it to be the actual Body and Blood of Christ. This was 110AD. 110AD. Two hundred and fifty years before the Catholic Church put the New Testament into canon. earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-longer.html
Jonathan Davis
Why do protestants act as though those who don't believe in Sola Fide abide by the logic of "me doing good works will earn me a place in heaven"?
It is not the case and never has been for the vast majority of apostolic christians. We believe that you obtain salvation through both faith and works, and whilst it is possible to obtain salvation with simply faith, such as the thief on the cross and the prodigal son, it is our duty to be both faithful and do good works (James 2:14-26)
Jason Johnson
>MUH WILL OF THE FATHER Let's look what the Father's will is:
"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."
Adam Campbell
Why did so many of his disciples leave him if it was just symbolic. The 12 apostles believed that they consumed his blood and flesh because they believed Jesus to be God.
Thomas Evans
>They spread the word of Christ faster than anyone since. By the sword, because Catholics aren't Christians. Proof of this is the Jesuits and their murder of millions of Christian martyrs.
Thomas Reyes
The fact that you're appealing to extra-Biblical information tells me you're not being honest with yourself either.
Hudson Kelly
Indeed. Absolutely. We cannot take that Scripture and reject the rest, such as Matthew 25. It is both.
Noah Harris
I don't understand what you mean by this.
Kayden Flores
Christianity is a Joo psyop.
Landon Stewart
>extra-Biblical information >what is historical Church >what did early Christians believe >why did Protestants change doctrine 1,500 years after the fact
Jordan Gonzalez
Judaism came from Canaanite polytheism, if Christianity goes pagan then it's just the religion going back to its roots.
I seriously doubt there's nothing about your life/culture/religion that doesn't originate with the pagans though. Names of the days, holiday customs, groundhog day- its vestiges are everywhere.
Gabriel Wood
>t.bluepilled redditor interloper
Connor Lee
Jesus Christ is all consuming. His divinity trumps all of the pagan gods. We can use pagan symbolism because we have accepted that Jesus Christ is God and everything else has no power over us. Do you believe that Jesus Christ needs our protection? Or do you believe that he can transform heresy to righteousness?
Andrew Green
We didn't change any doctrine because we got all of it from the Bible, which has remained as it always was for 2000 years.
Really, don't talk to me about changing doctrine when you have a council every 10 years that changes doctrine all the time. The biggest change was in 1962 when you changed almost everything for whatever reason.
The thing about councils is so puzzling... some Jesuits get together and invent new doctrines.
Luis Brooks
did I trigger you somehow?
Luke Taylor
it's almost as if some "Jesuits" came together a long time ago and canonized specific scriptures and left out other scripture which they deemed unworthy.
hmm
Joshua Hill
Wheww. >didn't change any doctrine >what is faith alone >what is scripture alone >what is removing Holy Matrimony as a function of the Church and relegating it to the State >what is eternal security >what is Fr. Luther allowing the polygamy of Philip of Hesse, saying it is not against the law of God >what is divorce and "remarriage" (for the Anglo bros) >what is contraception circa 1930, Anglican bros
>10 years that changes doctrine all the time Doctrine never changed. Doctrine is clarified at Councils. That's like claiming along with the Arians that the Church created out of thin air that Christ was both Man and God at Nicaea. It was simply defined, not created. And the Second Vatican Council is a whole different animal since Paul VI and John XXIII themselves said that it was a different Council from all the rest in 2,000 years--it would be merely pastoral. A trainwreck of a Council which opened the door to all sorts of nonsense.
Luke Kelly
When Jesus asked his disciples to drink his blood and eat his flesh, many asked him if he was just being symbolic, just as he had before. Jesus said no, he is not being symbolic. Many of his disciples left and only his 12 apostles remained. If Jesus was just speaking symbolically, then why would he allow for so many of his followers to leave? If you believe the word God, then you should believe that every Sunday you eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ.
Joshua Powell
>salvation if you believe in this you are a satanist, period
Isaiah Butler
Jesus never existed you fool.
Oliver Perry
And I take my leave. Must tend to my five little ones.
Andrew Lopez
Get out of here Gnostic.
Oliver James
Most critical historical scholars would disagree with you. Little can be reliably known about him beyond his baptism by John and crucifixion by Rome, but it seems fairly obvious that there was a historical Yeshu(a) in Nazareth preaching about "the kingdom of god"
Robert Foster
Ok, how reliable is his baptism by John the baptist, for example? What are the sources?
Luis Young
The Bible itself. Not by reading it at face-value, but by using textual critcism. The criterion of embarrassment, to be specific. Arrange the gospel accounts of his baptism by date, with Mark as the earliest and John as the latest, and observe the results. It becomes evident that Jesus may have been a follower of John, and they kept downplaying John out of embarrassment.
Blake Thompson
Silence, satanist.
Jose Morgan
How reliable are the sources for Alexander the Great or for Julius Caesar's campaigns? When you start nitpicking historical validity, our history books wouldn't really start until the year 1000 CE. You are just being a faggot.
Christian Flores
>how reliable is his baptism by John the baptist lol it's not
Jacob Carter
Here's Mark:
>At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
>12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.
Jason Garcia
>many asked him if he was just being symbolic, just as he had before. Jesus said no Chapter and verse and interpretation.
Caleb Sullivan
i like hearing the escalations of hell, like hell got wore in the ground. now it's a super duper bad spot in hell. next week it will be a super super duper bad place in hell.
Sebastian Peterson
Josephus confirmed this externally if you're truly interested in it.
Sebastian Jenkins
John: >The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
>32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”
Jordan Hall
But what does it mean that faith without works is dead?
Josiah Edwards
>It becomes evident that Jesus may have been a follower of John, and they kept downplaying John out of embarrassment.
In other words, they were concealing and making things up to shape the narrative? And that's considered historically reliable?
Well, as for Caesar, we have his own writings, the writings of contemporary historians, inscriptions, that seems like a completely different level of evidence to me.
Josephus wrote about Jesus being baptized by John? Where?
Adrian Barnes
Question for all Christians from someone who is not super new to the scripture but new to faith As an example assuming that homosexuality is a sin and makes you a stain in the eyes of God: if somebody is a homosexual and they are told by their pastor that homosexuals can make it to heaven if they believe, but they continue to be a homosexual, do they go to heaven?
Zachary Martin
You hope.
Dominic Morales
If they repent before they die yes.
Oliver Gray
i think they might. but i don't have any proof. i can't imagine good condemning you for that. but he might be a stickler for the rules. oh well it would be a silly reason in m opinion.
Zachary Thompson
but they are deceived into believing that they need not repent. The hippy Jesus dogma that's spread these days by liberal churches imply that God loves you even if you unapologetically sin.
James Sanders
>should walk in Do you know what "should" even means?
Jace Garcia
John 6:53-6:57.
Nathaniel Williams
>doesn't know what the will of the Father even is Retard
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 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.
Dylan Williams
In other words, cross-analysis of multiple texts telling the same story, but written at different times, tells us how that story changed, or what was left in that we would otherwise expect to be removed.
For example, if Jesus was not historical, why was he born in Bethlehem? He had to be, because that's the city of David, and he was the Davidic messiah to his followers. The problem is that Jesus was actually from Nazareth, so the gospel writers had to invent an ahistorical census (and census practices where the empire has to return to their places of birth?) just to get Jesus in Bethlehem for the birth scene. If he wasn't a real person, why not just make your literary figure a resident of Bethlehem? Saves a lot of trouble. Unless it was already widely known that Jesus was associated with Nazareth, and certain facts about his life just can't be overwritten.
Nolan Phillips
Why did you use a Sim character for the one on the right?
Jose Hughes
Leviticus 20:13 Jude 1:5-7 and perhaps most importantly Romans 1:24-32
What a conservative protestant might say to you, through the use of extreme mental gymnastics, is that if you do not follow the teachings of God, you do not believe in God and thus don't have faith.
Regardless, simply believing is not enough. If you are deceived by a higher up, Proverbs 30:5
William Kelly
He literally said that the flesh profits nothing 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Jacob Barnes
All Truer Believers In I, Killed Self Of My Eyes. (Kill Yourselves, You Fucking Stupid $chan Posters) //
Zachary Bennett
>certain facts about his life just can't be overwritten.
But that's the thing, the differences between the gospels show us that all kinds of "facts" from his life can be overwritten. E.g. you mentioned Jesus being a follower of John the Baptist, but the gospels never mention that. And the gospel of John removes Jesus's baptism altogether.
