Thread 17902947

>"NOOOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT! MUH HECKIN SAINTS, VIRGIN MARY, AND ANGELS WHO I VENERATE, WORSHIP, AND PRAY TO!!"

>"STOP SPLITTING UP MY CHURCH! NO!!! I WANNA SELL $1,000 WORTH OF INDULGENCES, RAPE KIDS, AND SHIEET! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!--AAAACCKKKKKKK!!"

>t. every Catholic nation which was conquered by Prottie-chads such as Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia, US, and UK.

>>17902947 (OP)
Gnosticism is not only the first Christian denomination — it's older than Christianity. The Sethians were named after Adam and Eve's first son and their belief system precluded Christianity by a long shot.

>>17902947 (OP)
Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary btw.

>>17902947 (OP)
You are protestant and believe in one of the following:
-Imputed righteousness
-No intercession of saints
-possibly Memorialism
-Once saved always saved
-No apostolic succession

Pick one so we can discuss. Thank you in advance.

>>17902999
Doesn’t Gnosticism refuse the necessity of sacraments for salvation?

>>17902947 (OP)
Gem

>my jew worship is more valid than your jew worship!!

TOTAL ABRAHAMIC DEATH

>>17903092
During the Reformation era this was considered a "pious belief" but not something that had any dogmatic weight. As they say, semper reformanda.

>>17903389
As a Reformed Christian,
>-Imputed righteousness
True
>-No intercession of saints
"Saint' in Scripture only means a Christian, including ones alive on earth. That being said, those who are in heaven do pray for us. The issue is whether we are to pray to them, or any being other than God.
>-possibly Memorialism
Negative
>-Once saved always saved
True but there are heavy qualifications to this and it's not as simple as you likely think it is.
>-No apostolic succession
All of our presbyters have apostolic succession.

>>17903389
Do two and four.

>>17903742
Pray means to ask.

>>17903772
Are you actively trying to be disingenuous by implying that's all that Christian prayer is, or does this type of dishonesty just come unconsciously?

>>17903389
Reformed.
>Imputed righteousness
Yeah, you guys just mistranslated that, and have been trying to cover that one with butchered theology for centuries. Embarrassing.
>No intercession of saints
They have the right to make an appeal, but no formal role.
>Memorialism
At no point have I felt like communion wafers and grape juice were skin and blood, so yes, unless there's some complicated trick and we're all secretly cannibals.
>Once saved always saved
Better phrased as, "The certainty of the Elect's salvation", as stated explicitly in Ephesians 1 and John 6:44, and reasoned in Romans 9, but yes.
>No apostolic succession
Why would anyone bother adding a temporal succession mechanism to a spiritual assembly? That's one of the dumbest thing you could do, for reasons the Catholic church has already shown us in its history.
Matthew 18:20 even spells out the nature of the Church. You all were so busy trying to use the Caesarea Philippi episode to justify your institution's existence that you completely skipped over the meaning of Christ's words and implied the Holy See is a den of sin... which wouldn't too far off, actually.

>>17903781
Pray means to ask. Words mean things and facts don't care about your feelings.

>>17904034
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss apostolic succession. The Catholic formulation of it is wrong, but the Reformed faith is in spiritual and temporal continuity with the Christian tradition before it, which includes a line of ministerial succession going back to the Apostles. When it was reasoned against the Reformers that they did not have succession, they could reply that they did have it, through their ordination as Catholic presbyters ("priests"). There was no intention to start the Church over from scratch or start a new, separate Church. Martin Luther and others like him did not need to re-ordained.

>>17904047
When you'd like to be honest in conversation let me know, and we can have a discussion. Even if the word had no other meaning but "ask" that would not ipso facto justify making a petition to a person in heaven other than God, but I assume you will say that it does since you believe that dissimulation is an acceptable form of apologetics.

>>17903772
>>17904047
I guess Catholics don't pray to give thanks since it just means to ask for things. The more you know.

>>17904052
That is a formal argument that's rooted entirely in 16th century temporal politics, not Christian theology.

I used to have the Holy Spirit and I have personally met Jesus Christ in 2018. I know the true doctrine of the bible. Ask me questions if you are serious about learning the truth.

And yes the covid vaccine was the mark of the beast, see rev 18:23 pharmakeia that removes the Holy Spirit. The nasal swab was the quantum dot needle in forehead mark

>>17903389
>You are protestant and believe in one of the following:
>-Imputed righteousness
>-No intercession of saints
Yes.

>>17904052
I add not only that they could affirm that but they did precisely affirm that, as virtually everything which we re-litigate with the papists was already litigated by them (the only exceptions being the Marian dogmas which were then free and not binding, nor as corrupt; the infallibility of the pope which was untenable in the wake of the Great Papal Schism; and inclusivism, which on its face is totally contrary to the older, medieval Romanism).
>>17904034
Note that "memorialism" is not the same as the Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist which is properly termed real spiritual presence or spiritual eating; memorialism instead refers to the Anabaptist idea that the sacraments are mere empty badges of profession which do not also confer the thing signified to worthy receivers.

>>17904052
>>17904102
Also, to add: the early church fathers were eminently influential on the early Reformed theologians of both the 16th and 17th centuries, and they cite their authority very frequently, they explicitly insist they are the true heirs of the fathers (see especially the preface to the king of France of the Institutes of the Christian Religion), and, I discovered in studying their works, they exclusively make use of that term "catholic" to refer either to the ancient Church or to themselves, never to Rome and its slaves whom they instead call papists or Romanists. This catholic tradition I think we should reclaim, both for its own sake as this word was once a byword for orthodoxy as it now stands for continuity with the ancient Christian tradition, and for the sake of evangelism, as we must continue to call Romanists out of the great whore, and they ought to know that true and ancient catholic religion which they rightly seek may be found only in the Reformed, Protestant and Evangelical churches.

>>17904967
>I add not only that they could affirm that but they did precisely affirm that, as virtually everything which we re-litigate with the papists was already litigated by them (the only exceptions being the Marian dogmas which were then free and not binding, nor as corrupt; the infallibility of the pope which was untenable in the wake of the Great Papal Schism; and inclusivism, which on its face is totally contrary to the older, medieval Romanism).
Well, I don't.
>Note that "memorialism" is not the same as the Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist which is properly termed real spiritual presence or spiritual eating; memorialism instead refers to the Anabaptist idea that the sacraments are mere empty badges of profession which do not also confer the thing signified to worthy receivers.
I can't be sure what communion actually confers, and I'll trust God keeps score.
>>17904984
Sounds like a LARP. The Church is a spiritual assembly. Leave it at that.

>>17905115
>I can't be sure what communion actually confers
>Take, eat. This is my body which is broken for you
That would seem to answer it.
>Sounds like a LARP. The Church is a spiritual assembly. Leave it at that.
I think it sounds like Christ building His kingdom over time. Yes, the Church is a spiritual assembly, and it has stood for thousands of years and we stand on the shoulders of giants.

>>17905125
>That would seem to answer it.
No it doesn't. How does that communicate anything?
>I think it sounds like Christ building His kingdom over time.
Christ is not a temporal figure, and he doesn't require one.

>>17905128
>No it doesn't. How does that communicate anything?
You realize these are the words of Christ? You think His words are meaningless?
>Christ is not a temporal figure, and he doesn't require one.
I don't know what you mean by "temporal figure". Christ is King, and His kingdom exists upon the earth, in time, among many people, and has been growing for thousands of years.

>>17905135
>You realize these are the words of Christ? You think His words are meaningless?
I think that sentence, out of context, doesn't communicate anything, and that we shouldn't try to force our own meanings with mindless speculation.
>I don't know what you mean by "temporal figure". Christ is King, and His kingdom exists upon the earth, in time, among many people, and has been growing for thousands of years.
When has he ever described a real, literal state ruling over a defined population before the End Times?

Luther was right in every criticism of the eventual Catholic Church. Though the repercussions weren't worth it. American Protestantism is practically a pagan religion

>>17902947 (OP)
>accept Christ as my savior
>have relationship with him
>do the best I can while adhering to his teachings
Why is anything further needed? Why would I need a mediator between myself and the lord? Why would I consult any other supposed “power” who’s name is not Christ?

Catholics:
>we're the real church, us and only us! i swear! look at our enormous cathedrals and big piles of money, only god's true holy apostalic catholic church, chosen by jesus christ himself in a specific interpretation of a single vague sentence of the bible, would be rich! we even follow the orders of an italian man in a funny hat, just like real christians are supposed to! look at our many rituals that come directly from pagan rome and not jesus or the bible, that proves we're the real one! us! us and ONLY US!!!!!

All other Christian denominations:
>lol

>>17905236
If we are basing what is the true Christianity on how much money the church has then Mormons are the real ones.

>Mama mia, i-a needa da money
>money for a new pietro, for da neapolitan whores, and bribe-a more cardinali
>I can-a even skim some of the top
>what the fuckerino, some germano dares criticise me, da popo?
>Carlo, you need-a to kill him
>Nobody gets infringe on my embezzlement scheme

>>17905212
>I think that sentence, out of context, doesn't communicate anything, and that we shouldn't try to force our own meanings with mindless speculation.
The context of the words of institution is largely contained in the words of institution themselves. Very little of the surrounding text is about the last supper. Otherwise there is some teaching on the matter by Paul, but not much else. Now, there is nothing speculative and certainly not mindless or forced about this doctrine, it is rather exegetical and derived from the text. We see from the words "which is broken for you" "which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" that He speaks plainly of the cross, and as the sacrament is "remembrance of me" it is clear that we are to find peace through the sacrament since it sets before us that great salvation which Christ won for us on the cross, and in such a sensible way that it ought to move us to a greater sense of peace and love for God than the very words of the gospel. But as Christ does not merely exhibit His body dead and crucified, for which it would be sufficient merely to set it on the table, but He bids us "Take, eat" we may find in the sacrament not only the promise of the forgiveness of our sins but also that union with Christ whereby from His true body and blood, imbued with the life of the eternal Logos, nourishes our souls unto eternal life and transmutes us into Him, of which He previously spoke when He said "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day". Brother, I highly recommend to you A Treatise on the Lord's Supper by Peter Martyr Vermigli

>>17905212
>When has he ever described a real, literal state ruling over a defined population before the End Times?
Matthew 28:18. He rules over the defined population of the entire universe, He rules in the midst of His enemies.

>>17905286
You are describing blatant eisegesis.
Even in the text, he calls the beverage wine.
The Eucharist at least makes sense for them while He's still alive, since they don't quite understand the nature or importance of the coming sacrifice yet. There's nothing in the text to indicate it plays any important role in salvation, and it gets glossed over without any of the expected input from the Disciples.
Taking into account the fact that these were all practicing Jews who understood the symbolism behind the Passover meal, Christ would here say, "Here is my body" (Matzah, whose preparation was concluded early because the Hebrews were run out of Egypt on short notice), "and my blood" (the wine cups signifying the covenant with God).
Essentially, "I'm going to be taken from this world in an abrupt fashion, and my blood shall become the new covenantal promise, released for the remission of sins".
Here, he recontextualizes the Passover meal. There is no institution of anything salvific.
>>17905288
>Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
>And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
>And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
>Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
>Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
This is not a state. This is him proclaiming authority superceding temporal authority.

>>17904109

I believe Luther was trying to rewrite the 10 commandments with his Theses.

>>17905354

The fuck? What happened to my trip?

>>17905356

Do different boards have different hashing algorithms?

>>17903644
Images are used in worship, see Psalm 138:2, 1 Kings 6:29, Numbers 21:8, Exodus 25:18-19.
>>17903742
Would you say that justification is only by imputed righteousness and not by sanctification/regeneration? The 1646 Westminster declaration of faith distinguishes between them. (See Chapters 11 and 13)
>to pray to them
Depends what you mean by “pray to them”. If asking them for prayers is “praying to them” it can be done. If worshipping them and serving (offering Latria) is considered “praying to them” than it cannot be done.
>negative
You accept consubstanation right?
>OSAS
What is your understanding of it?
>apostolic succession
I’m glad you accept it. Unfortunately many protestants today don’t have clerics and even “ordain” women.
>>17903761
>two and four
Alright, why do you oppose intercession of saints, and what is your understanding of OSAS?
>>17904034
>mistranslated
Yet your scholars all believe that righteousness is imputed.
>formal role
What do you mean?
>cannibalism
Did Jesus symbolically order us to commit acts of cannibalism? When they accused him of metaphor he used the word “trogo” ordering us to chew on his flesh. You believe that this is foreshadowed by the passover lamb right? The literal blood of the passover lamb was the blood of the old covenant. St. Paul also tells us that we would be profaning the body and blood of the lord. It should also be noted that the vast majority of the early church agreed with transubstanation.
>certainty
It should be noted that God calls everyone to election, but some have a negative (Like Pharisees in Luke 7:30 and some have a positive response). Also see Romans 5:18, Matthew 22:14, 22:8. The calling is universal, the elect are the ones who accept it. St. Peter also commands us to make our election sure, as in 2 Peter 1:10 so that we do not stumble. Simon Magus believed and was baptized yet he still fell to heresy. St. Paul warns us of departing from the faith. (1)

>>17905484
(2), as in 1 Timothy 4:1. If faith is the cause of salvation and one can depart from the faith than he loses salvation. The elect must secure their election.
>apostolic succession
>why would anyone bother
The apostles surely bothered to appoint a replacement for Judah.
>Matthew 18:20
You have read the context, he says this to apostles after giving them authority to bind. Verse 19 also helps apostolic authority which you refuse. Without apostolic succession this cannot even be applied since no one has the succession to the authority to bind anything in heaven. So it would be meaningless.

>>17902947 (OP)
But Luther believed those things too so your post makes no sense.

>>17905484
>Would you say that justification is only by imputed righteousness and not by sanctification/regeneration? The 1646 Westminster declaration of faith distinguishes between them. (See Chapters 11 and 13)
In Reformed theology salvation encompasses the entire process. We break it down into its logical components to clarify what each of these steps mean specifically and to make sure they aren't confused with each other. A person is elected by God, at some point they are given faith and are regenerated, Christ's righteousness is imputed to them and they are justified, they then undergo sanctification for the rest of their life. None of these can occur without the others and all are necessary. If you are regenerated then you are justified, and if you are justified then you will be sanctified, which means that your faith will necessarily produce good works. So we can say that good works are necessary for salvation, but they do not justify you, you aren't deemed righteous before God because of your own works.
>Depends what you mean by “pray to them”.
I would simply mean attempting to communicate specifically with them in any way through prayer. Reformed theology follows what it calls the regulative principle of worship, which means that we are to worship God, and conduct ourselves religiously, in the ways that God tells us to, and that anything is forbidden. A lack of positive affirmation that we should attempt prayer to those in heaven means that such a thing is not to be done. That's not to say that is the only objection to the idea, but for us the buck does stop there.
>(Lev. 10:1-2) Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.
1/2

>>17905484
>Would you say that justification is only by imputed righteousness and not by sanctification/regeneration? The 1646 Westminster declaration of faith distinguishes between them. (See Chapters 11 and 13)
In Reformed theology salvation encompasses the entire process. We break it down into its logical components to clarify what each of these steps mean specifically and to make sure they aren't confused with each other. A person is elected by God, at some point they are given faith and are regenerated, Christ's righteousness is imputed to them and they are justified, they then undergo sanctification for the rest of their life. None of these can occur without the others and all are necessary. If you are regenerated then you are justified, and if you are justified then you will be sanctified, which means that your faith will necessarily produce good works. So we can say that good works are necessary for salvation, but they do not justify you, you aren't deemed righteous before God because of your own works.
>Depends what you mean by “pray to them”.
I would simply mean attempting to communicate specifically with them in any way through prayer. Reformed theology follows what it calls the regulative principle of worship, which means that we are to worship God, and conduct ourselves religiously, in the ways that God tells us to, and that anything else is forbidden. A lack of positive affirmation that we should attempt prayer to those in heaven means that such a thing is not to be done. That's not to say that is the only objection to the idea, but for us the buck does stop there.
>(Lev. 10:1-2) Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.
1/2

>>17905484
>You accept consubstanation right?
Not quite, but that's the position we're closest to. Christ is present in the sacrament, truly but not physically, and only to the rightful partaker through faith. We don't think he's objectively present in the bread qua bread, such that you could place it in a tabernacle and worship it.
>What is your understanding of [OSAS]?
This gets back to the process of salvation that I was talking about earlier. An elect person, once they have been regenerated, cannot be un-regenerated, un-justified, etc. Christ cannot and will not lose his sheep, for any reason. That is not to say that a person cannot lapse or seem to fall away, but this a temporary thing due to their own sin. If they are elect then the Spirit is working within them even then and they will be brought back into the fold and repent.
>Unfortunately many protestants today don’t have clerics and even “ordain” women.
Presbyters are not "priests" in the sense that you mean because they are not performing a sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice was a one-time occurrence, for all his people throughout time, and it is not repeated and has no need to be. Women cannot be ordained and anyone who accepts this practice is a heretic. Unfortunately the only way to put a stop to such a thing would be the use of physical coercion by the state, which none of us (including you) have recourse to anymore.

>>17905352
>Even in the text, he calls the beverage wine.
Now brother, I wonder if you have been in the Reformed tradition very long, or have ever studied our doctrines of the sacraments. Because if you understood real spiritual presence (which I evidently did not sufficiently explain) you would never have made such an objection, seeing as it does not contradict but affirms our understanding. Hence I recommend Vermigli to you, since he explains and defends it so well. Now we do maintain and insist (famously) that the elements of bread and wine are unchanged and symbolic, representing Christ and His benefits. So I agree, the wine is just wine, but for those who receive it in faith it is more than just wine but a proclamation of the Lord's death (1 Cor. 11:26). The symbols stir the believer to greater faith in the Lord exhibited to them, and by faith alone they receive the thing signified (hence the true body and blood of the Lord is spiritually eaten and not physically). It is in this sense the sacraments are often said in scripture to be salvific, and why the Reformed tradition tends to call sacraments "the visible word"; the sacraments save us in the same way the gospel saves us. And this is the theology of the Westminster Standards.
>This is not a state
Amen, His kingdom is not of this world. But He is a true King and He reigns now ("for He must reign until every enemy is put under His feet") and the kings of the earth are rightfully His vassals, and every corner of the earth (and not just individuals pietistically) is to be brought into submission to Him by the preaching of the gospel. There is not one square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Jesus Christ, who is Lord of *all*, does not exclaim "Mine!"

Every single argument Tradcucks use against non-Catholic/Orthodox (mostly Protestant) Christianity can be used against Ancient Roman Christians
>MUH 40 GORILION DENOMINATIONS
What the fuck do you think pre-Nicene Christianity (and arguably even still after) was like? lol lmao read history
>MUH TRADITION MUHH ANCESTORZZ
What do you think Roman pagans thought about people converting to Christianity? They had the same exact lame arguments just apostatize to Hellenic paganism if you're one of these Tradcuck posters at this point lmfao

>>17905901
I like the ones who will tell you that you'll go to hell if you don't submit to the Pope, then also tell you that there hasn't been a Pope since Vatican II.

>>17905949
Also
>You'll go to hell if you don't submit to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the SINGULAR Church that Christ instituted on earth
>Also the entire Catholic Church is corrupted and run by heretics and I pray the rosary alone in my room and have never set foot in a Catholic parish *spits*

>>17905484
>Images are used in worship
There are a few things to be observed in the images of the Old Testament, 1. they were commanded by God. Now, all of these images were related to ceremonies of the old law and as such fell away in Christ, therefore this raises the question of where in the New Testament any license for any image is given? 2. These images depicted creatures and not God, which were strictly forbidden 3. They were not objects of devotion and worship, unlike Rome's idols which are religious foci and 4. If the images were "used" in worship, it was in a matter analogous to the sacraments of the new law, but as Augustine demonstrated this is not analogous to pagan worship in which devotion is heaped towards the object. That an object had any use in worship does not imply worship was sent towards it.
>Would you say that justification is only by imputed righteousness and not by sanctification/regeneration?
Justification, sanctification and regeneration are all strictly distinguished by us. Justification is a legal declaration of acquittal towards the sinner, the sole basis of which is the foreign righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to him, which is apprehended by faith alone.
>asking them for prayers
Now I have posted this prayer to Mary many times to dispel this fiction that the cult of saints consists solely in "asking for prayers", but also heaps on them praise and glory (which is idolatry). Your side never comments on it (probably because it's indefensible) so I want to hear it directly, the prayer which I will post after this, written by the doctor of the church Alphonsus Liguori: acceptable, or unacceptable?
>What is your understanding of it?
"OSAS" is not our way of speaking and typically not our doctrine. We believe in perseverance of the saints, which means that from the moment of their regeneration to the end of their life the elect will be preserved and retained in Christ by the Holy Spirit, and will never fall away.

>>17905484
>>17905970
Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary, to Thee who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate, the hope, the refuge of sinners, I who am the most miserable of all sinners, have recourse this day.I venerate Thee, great Queen, and I thank Thee for the many graces Thou hast bestowed upon me even unto this day; in particular for having delivered me from the hell which I have so often deserved by my sins.
I love Thee, most dear Lady; and for the love I bear Thee, I promise to serve Thee willingly for ever and to do what I can to make Thee loved by others also. I place in Thee all my hopes for salvation; accept me as thy servant and shelter me under thy mantle, thou who art the Mother of mercy.
And since thou art so powerful with God, deliver me from all temptations, or at least obtain for me the strength to overcome them until death. From Thee I implore a true love for Jesus Christ. Through Thee I hope to die a holy death. My dear Mother, by the love thou bearest to Almighty God, I pray Thee to assist me always, but most of all at the last moment of my life. Forsake me not then, until thou shalt see me safe in heaven, there to bless Thee and sing of thy mercies through all eternity. Such is my hope

>>17905484
>When they accused him of metaphor he used the word “trogo” ordering us to chew on his flesh
This specifically did not happen. Read the entire text, and read it from start to finish (and actually use a lexicon). Trogo in this context does not mean chewing but simply eating, which is why it's translated that way in all English bibles. Nor did they "accuse Him of metaphor" (which is absurd) but remarked "How will this man give us flesh to eat?" showing they made the same mistake you represent of interpreting His words literally, hence He concluded His rebuke by saying "The flesh profiteth nothing, the words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life". Now more must be said of the bread of life dialog. The Lord explicitly said the mode of eating and drinking was believing and spiritual (v. 35, 63). This is not done with the mouth. Furthermore, the Lord was placing Himself at the center of life (which is what the disciples found unacceptable) and it was in reference to this spiritual eating that the Lord said no one could come to Him unless drawn by the Father, those whom the Father draws will come to Him, and those who come to Him will never be lost (vs. 35-40) which is efficacious to salvation and exclusive to the elect. Now it is obvious that under transubstantiation both the godly and the profane receive the true body and blood of the Lord, but this is unacceptable under His words: how will they eat flesh which was not crucified for them and drink blood which was not spilled for them? Finally we observe that the sacrament of the Eucharist had not been instituted yet, which would render His words naturally unintelligible to all present were it to be the object; therefore it is manifest He was speaking only of the thing signified and not of the sign.

>>17905484
>The calling is universal, the elect are the ones who accept it
This issue was called by Martin Luther "the hinge on which [the Reformation] turns". For us and in scripture man is not weak or wounded or sickly, but stark dead. It would not avail him to be loosed from his chains unless he is also given soul and life, because he is a corpse. Sinners can no more choose to believe the gospel than dead men can choose to get out of their graves. Indeed, the gospel is preached promiscuously to all and all are held accountable to it, but it gives no grace to any save those in whose hearts the Holy Spirit says "awake, sleeper; rise from the dead". Those who were not chosen by God, for whom the Son did not die and whom the Spirit passes over, they will certainly remain in their sins and scoff at the gospel and persist in rebellion against God, "For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is at enmity toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God" Romans 8:6-8. Salvation is therefore the work of God from start to finish and man has no part in it; man can do nothing, and God must do everything.

>>17905484
>It should also be noted that the vast majority of the early church agreed with transubstanation.
Real presence and transubstantiation are not the same thing, transubstantiation is highly technical and derived from the philosophy of Aristotle, and was completely unheard of until well into the middle ages. When it finally did appear it was strongly opposed by orthodox theologians as Gottschalk and Ratramnus.

At numerous points scripture refers to the sacrament as "bread". This disproves transubstantiation because once the priest confects the eucharist, it is no longer bread, because its substance has changed to that of something else, and only retains the physical accidents of bread. If you say scripture is just referring to the sacrament based on its accidents, and not what it actually is, then none of these verses function in the absolute literal manner necessary to support transubstantiation. When Christ says "this is my flesh" he isn't necessarily saying that's is the substance of the object, because the text already is referring to the sacrament as something other than its substance.

>>17905484
>Yet your scholars all believe that righteousness is imputed.
Yes. I'm saying Catholics mistranslated a word and believed humans were somehow being made worthy.
>What do you mean?
It's essentially just the same as asking others to pray for you. There's nothing more to it. It has no real importance theologically.
>Did Jesus symbolically order us to commit acts of cannibalism? When they accused him of metaphor he used the word “trogo” ordering us to chew on his flesh. You believe that this is foreshadowed by the passover lamb right? The literal blood of the passover lamb was the blood of the old covenant. St. Paul also tells us that we would be profaning the body and blood of the lord. It should also be noted that the vast majority of the early church agreed with transubstanation.
If he ordered it, it's fine, and we're already doing the ritual, but I don't believe we're eating LITERAL skin and drinking literal blood when we partake in communion.
>It should be noted that God calls everyone to election
Election is the process by mere nominees are marked as those certain to receive salvation.
This open call synergistic nonsense is maybe the one theological point that actually stuck with protestants, and the knock-on effects of it have been disastrous for meaningful teaching of the faith and all moral principles.
Scripture is not vague. It is as perfectly explicit with the topic as it could be.
>St. Paul warns us of departing from the faith.
1 John 2:19. There is no departure.
Further, Christ is absolutely clear what the fates of each will be in John 6:44.
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
There is no slack here. Either you are one of those drawn AND raised, or you are not.
God does not whimper. He makes men and summons them to their respective ends.

>>17905492
>Without apostolic succession this cannot even be applied since no one has the succession to the authority to bind anything in heaven. So it would be meaningless.
I've been indifferent to that concept my entire life. The only ones who take that matter seriously are Catholics, and their own history shows us they have no business with God at all.
I'm ready to leave that there until God Himself feels like clarifying.
>>17905976
If this is an example of a real prayer you all offer, I'm not going to pretend it's possible for you not to see the glaring issue.

>>17906088
>It's essentially just the same as asking others to pray for you. There's nothing more to it.
This isn't true. It's a talking point that Catholics use to diminish what is going on, but "prayer to the saints" entails the entire cult of saints and all its attendant behaviors.

>>17902947 (OP)
Luther held to the dogmas of Mary, and prayed to her.

>>17906117
Why do Catholics think Luther is some kind of Protestant Pope and that Protestants are somehow beholden to whatever he said or did?

>>17906110
>If this is an example of a real prayer you all offer
Not him but that stuff is real.

From the "Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary" by St. Bonaventure
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/psalter-of-the-bvm-12537

Save me, O Mother of fair love: fount of clemency and sweetness of piety.
Thou alone makest the circuit of the earth: that thou mayst help those that call upon thee.
--Psalm 11

Hear ye these things, all ye nations: give ear, all ye who desire to enter the kingdom of God.
Honor the Virgin Mary: and ye will find life and perpetual salvation.
--Psalm 48

O Lady, save me in thy name: and deliver me from my injustices ...
O my Lady, help me! bestow thy grace upon my soul!
--Psalm 53

How lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lady of hosts: how delightful are the tents of thy redemption.
Honor her, O ye sinners: and she will obtain grace and salvation for you.
--Psalm 83

Behold, Lady, thou art my savior: I will deal confidently in thee, and will not be confounded.
For thou art my strength and my praise in the Lord: and thou hast become salvation unto me.
--Canticle on the Model of Isaias (XII)

O blessed one, in thy hands is laid up our salvation: be mindful, O loving one, of our poverty.
He whom thou wilt save, will be saved ...
--Canticle Like Habacuc's (III)

Whoever wishes to be saved, before all must hold a firm faith as to Mary.
Which unless anyone shall keep whole and inviolate: without doubt he shall perish forever.
--Marian Creed After the Manner of St. Athanasius

>>17905836
>Now brother, I wonder if you have been in the Reformed tradition very long
I'm a Monergist who learned through years of apologetics, with slight guidance from online Reformed, not some formal induction.
The beliefs of Calvinists are the only ones that don't wither when scrutinized. That's been at the center of my denominational thought.
>The symbols stir the believer to greater faith in the Lord exhibited to them, and by faith alone they receive the thing signified (hence the true body and blood of the Lord is spiritually eaten and not physically). It is in this sense the sacraments are often said in scripture to be salvific, and why the Reformed tradition tends to call sacraments "the visible word"; the sacraments save us in the same way the gospel saves us. And this is the theology of the Westminster Standards.
This is a very weird way to phrase it. Fundamentally I agree regarding the effects of the Eucharist as it relates to salvation, but I wouldn't use the term "save" so ambiguously in reference to a character-affirming reminder of the actual salvific element (Christ's death and resurrection).
>There is not one square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Jesus Christ, who is Lord of *all*, does not exclaim "Mine!"
That felt good to read.
>>17906113
What I mean is that, if it's just what they say, then there's no real importance. It's no different from me asking a fellow church attendee to keep me in prayer.
I don't know precisely all it entails, but it shouldn't ever go beyond that. That's not how we're to relate to each other.
>>17906132
I certainly won't blame Mohammed for getting the wrong idea.

>>17905760
>Christ’s righteousness is imputed to them and they are justified
>if you are regenerated you are justified
So you agree that salvation is a process right? It seems your understanding differs as it distinguishes between sanctification and justification, you seem to believe that sanctification follows justification, but that the two do not mix and that we are not saved by sanctification/regeneration. Is this right? I don’t want to misrepresent your position before proceeding.
We agree that good works are necessary for salvation but we hold the view that they do not justify you without the grace of God (2nd Council of Trent, Sess. 6, canon I).
>saints
But don’t you agree that saints can hear and us and pray for us? For Leviticus, the strange fire is not well described so we cannot say that asking saints for intercession is equivalent to it. >>17905778
>Christ is present but not physically
But when Christ calls the bread his body, isn’t he acknowledging that the physical bread is his physical body?
>once they have been regenerated
Doesn’t faith cause salvation? Than if one departs from the faith doesn’t he lose salvation? Or do you believe they cannot depart from the faith? I would add that in 2 Peter 1:10 we are warned not to stumble. For Christ not losing his sheep, they are given to him by the father, the precondition is that they believe in the father, if they depart from the faith of the father, they are no longer given to the son.
>priests
We do not believe that the sacrifice of the eucharist is a different sacrifice than the one on the cross. We believe it to be one sacrifice. I did not research this matter much.

>>17905970
>commanded by God
Would you say that God commanded idolatry? They also venerated the ark of the covenant which foreshadows the blessed St. Mary, if you want I can elaborate on this.
>depicted creatures not God
What is wrong with depicting the human body that God assumed?
>justification
Would you say that justification and sanctification/regeneration do not mix?
>acceptable
I’ve responded to it before that it is acceptable just as John’s description of her is acceptable in Revelations 12. I’ve read the prayer and it doesn’t elevate her to godhood. If you want we can go over all the points you have issues with.
>OSAS
But don’t you believe that the elect must work to secure the election given by God?

>>17906149
>So you agree that salvation is a process right?
Broadly speaking, yes. Narrowly speaking, a person is "saved" at the point of justification since they now are deemed righteous by God.
>you seem to believe that sanctification follows justification, but that the two do not mix and that we are not saved by sanctification/regeneration. Is this right?
I would agree with that statement in light of the broad/narrow distinction I made.
>We agree that good works are necessary for salvation but we hold the view that they do not justify you without the grace of God
Reformed believe that they do not justify you at all.
>But don’t you agree that saints can hear and us and pray for us?
Pray for us, sure. As to whether they can hear a petition we make to them, I do not know.
>For Leviticus, the strange fire is not well described so we cannot say that asking saints for intercession is equivalent to it.
What makes the fire "strange" is not that its content per se, but the fact that it was not a manner of worship that God commanded. God tells us how we are to worship him.
>But when Christ calls the bread his body, isn’t he acknowledging that the physical bread is his physical body?
I do not think so.
>Doesn’t faith cause salvation?
We refer to faith as the "instrument" salvation rather than a cause.
>Than if one departs from the faith doesn’t he lose salvation? Or do you believe they cannot depart from the faith?
A regenerate person cannot ultimately fall away from the faith.
1/2

>>17906149
>I would add that in 2 Peter 1:10 we are warned not to stumble.
As it should, for multiple reasons. One, any sort of lapse is sin which would invoke chastisement from God. Also our continuance in the faith is one of the things that acts as an assurance of our salvation. It is also possible for a person to be self-deceived and not actually have faith, or attach themselves to Christianity for some other motive.
>For Christ not losing his sheep, they are given to him by the father, the precondition is that they believe in the father, if they depart from the faith of the father, they are no longer given to the son.
If they are given to Christ then Christ will not lose them. Christ does not fail to save anyone.
>We do not believe that the sacrifice of the eucharist is a different sacrifice than the one on the cross. We believe it to be one sacrifice. I did not research this matter much.
I do know that you prefer to call it a "representation" or something along those lines. I do think that the fact that you believe that Christ's body and blood are literally present as physical entities calls that into question.

>>17906149
>For Christ not losing his sheep, they are given to him by the father, the precondition is that they believe in the father, if they depart from the faith of the father, they are no longer given to the son.

John 10:27-30 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”

>>17905982
>not chewing but eating
Eating would mean phago, he is doubling down on his saying as they thought he was being insane. By accusing him of metaphor I simply meant that they tried to understand what he meant if it was metaphorical what could he mean but that is besides the point.
>flesh profiteth nothing
It is quite obvious by reading the full text that he is not referring to his own text. He would be contradicting himself after calling his flesh the bread of life that comes down from heaven. It also contradicts the entire gospel, as what would his sacrifice mean? How can he say his flesh profiteth nothing if through it we are saved and forgiven?
>spiritual
He did not say that the eating was spiritual, rather he meant that the implications of eating it were spiritual, your physical body does not profit anything from eating it, it is your soul instead.
>not instituted yet
Well we cannot say that he wasn’t talking about what was to be instituted. We should also note that he claimed that what entered the mouth does not defile it which is contradictory to the Mosaic Law before the new covenant was established.

>>17905983
We both agree that salvation is nothing without God. But it should be noted that man can have a negative or positive response to the calling to election. 2 Peter 1:10 also commands us to do certain things in order not to fall and to secure the election. It is true that we are slaves of sin, but when you are freed from slavery, can’t you return to it if you wish? Which is why St. Paul warns us not to return to the yolk of bondage in Galatians 5:1, we must work to secure the election.
>>17905992
But the idea that the bread changing substance is found in the early church, not spiritual real presence.

>>17906187
>But it should be noted that man can have a negative or positive response to the calling to election.
Election is as certain as any promise of God can be. Christ's words on this don't hold any room for misunderstanding, and Paul's letters elaborated multiple times in ways consistent with even contemporary uninformed argument.

>>17906088
>mistranslated a word
Your own scholars also “mistranslated” the word.
>real importance
It is not obligatory but we cannot deny its importance.
>literal skin
We believe the bread literally becomes flesh but retains the appearance of bread. If you deny that it is his literal flesh aren’t you committing idolatry when you call it his body?
>election
But do you agree that we are all called to election as God desires all of us to be saved? You seem to distinguish yourself from protestants, what denomination dk you belong to?
>1 John 2:19
Works in the framework of a universal calling to election, those that were working to secure the election but departed were not of us (the elect).
>John 6:44
The precondition is belief in the father so that the sheep may be given to Jesus, if they do not have faith in the father than they are not to be Jesus’s sheep. >>17906113
No because we do not worship them.

>>17906110
>Apostolic succession
You didn’t really provide an argument to why you deny it.
>real prayer
Go through each point you consider idolatrous.
>>17905901
>pre-Nicene Christianity
We can still find from the apostolic fathers and ante-nicene fathers consistent tenets of the faith which Protestants do not adhere to. This only shows that Protestants cannot even decide who is right or wrong as any Protestant church can teach doctrines opposite to each other and there is no authority to condemn them. We can at least trace successors to St. Peter before Nicea.
>Roman pagans
>Hellenic Paganism
This is an extremely idiot argument. Is continuation with the early church the same as continuation to pagan religions? If the Roman still seed necessity to continue pagan religions than he cannot convert either way.

>>17906200
>Your own scholars also “mistranslated” the word.
Our theology doesn't hinge on it.
>It is not obligatory but we cannot deny its importance.
...Why?
>We believe the bread literally becomes flesh but retains the appearance of bread. If you deny that it is his literal flesh aren’t you committing idolatry when you call it his body?
Has no one ever thought to examine communion bread to see if God was playing tricks on us?
And no, that wouldn't be idolatry. That's just following the provided instruction.
>But do you agree that we are all called to election as God desires all of us to be saved?
I disagree with your reframing of Peter's words. Firstly, you can tell even from the context of that statement that he's referring to the elect, not to the whole of humanity, but even if you didn't have the context, you could know from the structure and declared end of salvation that God doesn't intend to see all saved, nor has He attempted to so render us.
Perhaps you think He just wants it sentimentally, but then, so might we. The fact remains, He did what He did, and didn't what He didn't; He made some with the eventual end of salvation, and others, without.
>Works in the framework of a universal calling to election, those that were working to secure the election but departed were not of us (the elect).
That makes absolutely no sense no matter how you run it.
>The precondition is belief in the father so that the sheep may be given to Jesus, if they do not have faith in the father than they are not to be Jesus’s sheep.
That's just a plain lie. Read the text. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
There is no room for faith to somehow be a "precondition" in any part of this. It's an absolute declaration: Men aren't even capable of aspiring to Christ without the Father's active intervention, and those who do (because of His act) WILL receive the benefits of salvation.
It's cut and dry.

>>17906208
>You didn’t really provide an argument to why you deny it.
Either Catholics have it and Paul is marked as "anathema" in the eyes of Heaven (among other things), or it's an obscure figure whose authority isn't worth seeking out.
>Go through each point you consider idolatrous.
I'll go with, the following:
>"...the Queen of the universe, the advocate, the hope, the refuge of sinners..."
>"...and I thank Thee for the many graces Thou hast bestowed upon me even unto this day; in particular for having delivered me from the hell which I have so often deserved by my sins."
"I promise to serve Thee willingly for ever..."
"I place in Three all my hopes for salvation; accept me as thy servant and shelter me under thy mantle, thou who art the Mother of mercy."
"And since thou are so powerful with God, deliver me from all temptations, or at least obtain for me the strength to overcome them until death."
"Through Thee I hope to die a holy death."

I couldn't write something half this damning if I WANTED to slander you. I can't accept this as real.

>"CATRLICK BAD!!!!"

Where are all of those soup kitchens, hospitals, and dispensaries, prottie?

>>17907275
>"On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"

>>17906157
>Would you say that God commanded idolatry?
No.
>They also venerated the ark of the covenant
They did not, what they were doing was worship and the object thereof was the God who was especially present at the ark.
>What is wrong with depicting the human body that God assumed?
Precisely the fact that God assumed it. In Christ there is a perfect and undivided hypostatic union, true man and true God in one hypostasis. Hence, it is impossible to depict the man Jesus of Nazareth without also depicting God the Son, which is forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:15-19).
>Would you say that justification and sanctification/regeneration do not mix?
That depends on what you mean by "mix", it is not our habit to speak like this. Regeneration and sanctification occur within the believer who is raised to spiritual life and conformed to the image of Christ, justification does not as legal verdicts do not occur within the ontologies of beings. However without regeneration nobody will believe, and without faith nobody will be justified, so justification is contingent on regeneration.

(cont)

>>17906157
>I’ve responded to it before that it is acceptable just as John’s description of her is acceptable in Revelations 12.
Revelation 12 contains no reference to Mary, and certainly contains no prayer to her.
>I’ve read the prayer and it doesn’t elevate her to godhood
It does in practice, as a man who acknowledges there is a God yet lives as though nobody controlled him but himself is a practical atheist, so too is this practical paganism. Not only is Mary the sole object of this prayer, but she is called queen, pledge is made to her service, thanks given to her, faith placed in her, supplication for grace from her, praise heaped on her, and devotion expressed to her. All which is worship which is strictly prohibited from being given to any creature, being the abomination of idolatry.
>all the points you have issues with.
All of it, literally every single thing about it is wholly objectionable including the very idea of directing prayer to a creature.
>But don’t you believe that the elect must work to secure the election given by God?
The bible speaks of making sure our calling not "securing our election". This is an example of something that will be emblematic of this subject, namely man-centered versus God-centered interpretation. It's not about me, and all the good I'm able to do, it's about the God who freely saves sinners for His glory. As I grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ and I am conformed to His image and I go on year after year without falling away this serves to increase my certainty of my election because I see the work of the Spirit who called me in my life, but I'm not doing good works to ensure I am elect, I am ensured to do good works because I am elect.

>>17906176
>Eating would mean phago
They both mean eat, again, look at a lexicon, this one for example https://biblehub.com/greek/5176.htm
This argument is primarily popular with tradcaths who are clueless about Greek but heard it on a social media website some time and thought it sounded really cool. However I don't know why you even press the point, as if the word "chew" could not possibly be used figuratively while the word "eat" could.
>they tried to understand what he meant if it was metaphorical
There is no indication they interpreted Him metaphorically, there is the opposite indication (v. 42, 52).
>It is quite obvious by reading the full text that he is not referring to his own text
I agree. He is referring to the Jewish misinterpretation which you share.
>It also contradicts the entire gospel, as what would his sacrifice mean?
The meaning of the words is very particular to the bread of life dialog and the misinterpretation of the Jews. These were the 5,000 who were miraculously fed, and the Lord rebukes them as unbelieving but following Him simply to fill their bellies. Therefore He says "work for the bread which comes out of heaven, which if anyone eats it he will never die". Hearing these words of the power of this food and still thinking of their bellies, they remarked "Sir, always give us this bread". He replies scandalizing them whose only gods were their bellies that He is the bread of life, whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. When they are turning away He concludes "The flesh profiteth nothing, my words are spirit and they are life". Therefore His meaning is that "the flesh, that is the physical food and physical consumption whereby you sought to be filled, that is worthless, but my words are spirit, that is the meaning of my words is spiritual, which really matters and through which comes eternal life, with which you are not concerned". It would do them no good to eat Him with the mouth, it would do no one any good
(cont.)

>>17906176
>your physical body does not profit anything from eating it, it is your soul instead.
But this is a contradiction in terms, for 1. the soul does not operate on physical food but the physical body does, and 2. the consumption of nutrition, even cannibalistically, *does* benefit the body; it does not profit it nothing. Indeed, one could survive entirely on the consecrated host. There is no room for it to be partly physical and partly physical, Christ's words must be wholly physical or wholly spiritual (and they are not physical).
>Well we cannot say that he wasn’t talking about what was to be instituted
Was it possible for anyone present to understand or believe?
>We should also note that he claimed that what entered the mouth does not defile it which is contradictory to the Mosaic Law
His intention was not to contradict the law of Moses but to correct pharisaical abuses.

>>17906187
>We both agree that salvation is nothing without God
We don't agree that with God salvation is accomplished.
>But it should be noted that man can have a negative or positive response to the calling to election
The "call" is either the call to believe the gospel (which is given through the preaching of the saints) or the effectual call (which is given by spiritual resurrection from the Holy Spirit). Neither one is a "call to election", election being the eternal decree of God to save a portion of mankind and therefore very abstract and subsisting in the mind of God. The call of the gospel is indeed responded to positively or negatively, but for those who are in the flesh they cannot choose of their own natural wills to repent and believe, as if a dead man could by his own natural will prepare himself for resurrection. And those who are effectually called cannot fail to respond positively, as if Lazarus could refuse Christ's call out of the tomb.
>It is true that we are slaves of sin, but when you are freed from slavery, can’t you return to it if you wish?
Those whom the Son sets free are free indeed.
>Which is why St. Paul warns us not to return to the yolk of bondage in Galatians 5:1, we must work to secure the election.
It is truly remarkable you should cite this for your point, considering the return to the bondage of the law is precisely that which you are preaching.

>>17906187
>But the idea that the bread changing substance is found in the early church, not spiritual real presence
Now it is perfectly plausible some in the early church represented something like consubstantiation. However, the majority of the ancient fathers held what we would now term the Reformed view, as can be seen from their interpretations of relevant scriptures, from their explicit statements about the nature of the sacrament, and from their Christology (Christ's bodily presence being denied to the Church). E.g. Augustine, letter 98: "For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith."
Now, 3 points are to be observed with respect to those quotations of the fathers which are asserted to prove them an antecedent to transubstantiation. Firstly, they are often brief and vague statements by fathers who otherwise make no comment about the sacrament. This is particularly the case for earlier fathers such as Ignatius or Justin, who clearly had more important things to worry about than providing us a treatise on Eucharistic theology. Second, similarly high and exalted language about the sacrament was also on occasion stated by the likes of Calvin, Vermigli, Turretin etc. which proves such things are not totally inimical to our doctrine. Third, the fathers lived well before the development of transubstantiation, which means unlike theologians of the middle and modern ages they were totally unconcerned with avoiding transubstantiation, indeed they did not even have a concept of what they should be avoiding.

>>17902947 (OP)
I love being Protestant. I am white, advocate for my people, and no papist error. What can the papist system offer That isn’t better than that.

>>17906160
>now deemed righteous
Can God not deem them righteous anymore if they fall off?
>I would agree with that statement in light of the broad distinction I made
How would you explain us being saved by regeneration?
>do not justify you
Do you at least accept that bad works such as mortal sins can damn you?
>hear us
They are still definitely aware of what is happening on earth, so won’t they know by our veneration to them to pray for us?
>not a manner of worship God commanded
>God tells us how to worship him
In your comparison, you are comparing the use of icons to the strange fire right?
>instrument salvation
That faith is an instrument to reach salvation? That without faith we cannot reach salvation?
>regenerate person cannot fall away
Wasn’t St. Paul also addressing regenerated people?
>Christ does not fail to save anyone
Yes but if one believed in the father, was given to Christ, and then unfortunately lost faith in the father and blasphemed him, what will happen in this case? Are they still Christ’s sheep?
>calls that into question
The objection that it is a different sacrifice?
>>17906173
John 10 simply means that no created being can snatch us out of Jesus’s hand. Like if you are in a fortress, no one can take you away from it, but you can still jump out of the window. If we continue John’s gospel it becomes clearer, see John 15:6.
>5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.
>6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.
No one can pluck you out, but if you do not abide you are cast out by Christ himself.

>>17906166
I don’t think I fully replied to you in my first reply.
>2 Peter 1:10
It seems that you believe that whoever apostatizes never had faith in the first place?
>Given to Christ
No one in creation can pluck them out, but as we see in John 15:5-6, Christ can cast them out.

>>17907497
>present at the Ark
But he was not the Ark itself, they bowed their heads down at the footstall.
>Deuteronomy 4:16
What differs a graven image from any image?
>without regeneration no one will believe
But don’t you believe you are justified or considered righteous before regeneration?
>>17907502
Who is the woman from Revelation 11:19 and 12:1?
>called queen
Where is the problem?
>pledge is made to her service
He didn’t pledge to server her as God is served. If you serve a King or Queen it is not the same as the service given to God.
>thanks given to her
If she prays for us why not thank her?
>faith placed in her
Not the same faith that is placed in Christ. In fact, he would only “place faith” in her because of Christ.
>supplication from grace to her
That the grace is supplied through her.
>praise
Not a problem.
>devotion expressed to her
Depends what is meant by devotion.
>do good works because I am elect
If you committed bad works or mortal sins would you still be in a state of justification?
>>17907592
>chew
Because it is a more graphic word, which is why he uses it to double down on his point.
>his own text
I meant his own flesh which he obviously does not refer to.
>spirit
>no good to eat him with the mouth
It does no good for them physically. Only spiritually. Wouldn’t he also be committing idolatry if he calls bread his own flesh?
>>17907619
>contradiction
For the first contradiction, baptism uses physical water, but it does nothing physically, it only helps you spiritually. So the use of the physical body does not indicate it cannot have a spiritual implication. Specially that sins of the flesh can damn your soul.
>Christ’s words are physical
What do you mean by saying “physical” words? He speaks words and they can call to physical action for spiritual gain.
(Cont.)

>>17908084
>to believe
Many of them did not believe in at the end of the passage like in 1517. But they could definitely understand he was speaking literally without knowing how it would happen.
>Pharisaic abuse of the text
He did not intend to contradict it, the same way St. Joseph did not intend to contradict it when he did not want to report St. Mary when he thought she adulterated. Yet according to the OT, eating blood and others would defile you. >>17907650
>with God salvation is accomplished
It is accomplished with God, but man has a role to play.
>choose to believe
But you can distinguish between the Pharisees respond to the call (Luke 7:30) and others having positive responses. If God wills the salvation of us all, will he only call a few to election?
>are free indeed
When he is free can’t he return to slavery if he wishes to?
>bondage of the law
How am I preaching this?
>>17907653
>some
I would say even more than some, see the following: St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7.
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:2:2.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catecheses 4.
St. Clement of Alexandria, Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3.
St. Origen, Against Celsus 8:33.
St. Tertullian, Prayer 19:1.

>>17902991
The guy who wanted to do missionary work among the sentilese was Protestant.

>>17908040
I think instead of going point by point I'll explain a different aspect of Reformed theology which might help you understand what I'm saying. We place emphasis upon the covenant that God makes with man, and this covenant is administered to anyone who is part of the church on earth. That is, anyone who is baptized. This includes the elect but also some non-elect, for example the non-elect children of Christians, or people who join the church for false reasons. If you are baptized, suppose as an infant, you now have covenantal obligations to God, which is to have faith, participate in the life of the church, etc. If you fail to honor these, forsake Christ, etc., then you can "fall away" though this is not in the sense of losing salvation, since a person like this was never regenerate to begin with. But being part of the covenant externally, they received the blessings of God thereof. They were instructed in the faith, took part in the church and its fellowship, received at least baptism if not partook of communion as well. To spurn this is the "sin unto death". This should explain how we view all of the things you're asking about in your post.

>>17908084
>But he was not the Ark itself, they bowed their heads down at the footstall.
Which is somewhat like being granted audience by a king, and "kneeling before the throne".
>What differs a graven image from any image?
In Deuteronomy 4:15-19 the focus is on not making depictions of God of any kind (which interpretation tends to be granted by the other side, seeing as they argue there was somehow a change making it permissible by virtue of the incarnation of Christ, which could not be a change unless it was actually prohibited).
>Who is the woman from Revelation 11:19 and 12:1?
An allegorical representation of the Church.
>But don’t you believe you are justified or considered righteous before regeneration?
No, you are only justified after, at least logically if not temporally, since without regeneration nobody will believe, and without faith nobody will be justified. John 3:5 "Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'"
>Where is the problem?
There is no ruler in heaven but God.
>He didn’t pledge to server her as God is served.
A distinction without a difference. Nor is it analogous to service to a worldly monarch, since they do not rule from heaven nor are they religiously entreated (and if they are such as in an imperial cult, it is the abomination of idolatry).
>If she prays for us why not thank her?
He does not thank her for supposedly praying for him, but for bestowing much grace on him and saving his soul from hell, which besides its expression of damnable heresy, is thanks given to a deity, no matter how much you want to pretend it's just because of her prayers.

(cont)

>>17908084
>Not the same faith that is placed in Christ
Again, this plea that it's not the same kind of worship which is given to God is meaningless, since biblically no worship whatsoever is to be given to any but God. Indeed the point is detrimental to you in this case, since the kind of faith he expresses in Mary is the kind which is required for Christ, which he implicitly denies for Him, since in her he trusts and hopes for salvation and mercy, while regarding Christ as angry and unapproachable. In that we clearly see the intent of the dragon betrayed when he designed the cult of Mary.
>That the grace is supplied through her.
Which is heretical and idolatrous.
>Not a problem.
It is a problem for God (Isaiah 42:8) and you should tremble at His wrath as long as you continue to provoke it.
>Depends what is meant by devotion.
Religious devotion.
>If you committed bad works or mortal sins would you still be in a state of justification?
Absolutely, because the basis upon which I stand before God is the foreign righteousness of another and not my own, I could not do anything to tarnish the merits whereby I am right with God because they are outside of me. I am at the same time righteous and sinful.
>everything about John 6
This was addressed in the post to which you are responding, with which you did not interact.

>>17908084
>For the first contradiction, baptism uses physical water, but it does nothing physically
Again, this is not true, baptism does and will remove physical filth from the body.
>So the use of the physical body does not indicate it cannot have a spiritual implication.
It does mean that because digestion is not a spiritual process.
>Specially that sins of the flesh can damn your soul.
This is not because there is some mystical power contained in the physical matter, but because the action is rebellion against God.
>What do you mean by saying “physical” words?
I mean words with a physical referent. Eating His flesh can either be physical or it can be spiritual, it cannot be both (and it is not physical).
>>17908115
>But they could definitely understand he was speaking literally without knowing how it would happen.
Indeed, they clearly did interpret Him literally to begin with, which He specifically corrects: "The flesh profiteth nothing, my words are spirit and they are life". If they had hacked off an arm and dug in, it would have given them nothing, Christ must be received spiritually with the mouth of faith.
>It is accomplished with God, but man has a role to play.
In other words no, we do not agree.
>If God wills the salvation of us all, will he only call a few to election?
He has elected only a few.
>How am I preaching this?
By saying we must do good works to be right with God, and not only trust in Christ.

>>17908115
>I would say even more than some, see the following
So do you have any thoughts or comments at all on the points I raised concerning the interpretation of the fathers especially as it concerned Ignatius and Justin explicitly? This is a good example of careless anachronistic misinterpretation, because for example Tertullian explicitly believed the bread and wine were symbolic representations of Christ: "Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body." (Against Marcion 4:40)

>>17903389
Do Prots not have reconciliation?

>>17902947 (OP)
What's with all of this "crusty krang" spam lately? Who's behind it?

>>17909382

jews

>>17902991
>kidnaps peoples children to brainwash them and then sets them loose into their native lands to undermine their own culture
>spend the next 200 years sad, alone, depressed, constantly inebriated and incapable of mustering the willpower to resist the most trivial of men's vices
i can has divine troof?

>>17902991
>>17909709
>meanwhile, life before jew on a stick be liek:

>>17906226
>does not hinge on it
It is not about the word, but the idea that righteousness is a legal declaration which Dr. James White and many other Protestant scholars agree with. Don’t you agree?
>why?
James 5 shows us that the prayers of the righteous are more effective, same for Job 42:8 (I think) where Job’s friend was accepted because of Job’s prayers. The Saints in heaven also partake in God’s divine nature, therefore they can hear us. So it helps a lot, but it does not mean it is obligatory.
>examine the communion bread
In my parish and other ones I visited it is usually all eaten during the liturgy, there are also eucharistic miracles but I don’t use them as proof. Either way it retains the appearance of bread and wine, the appearance of bread shouldn’t have blood appearing in it.
>following the instruction
Yes but if you call a random piece of bread the body of God, if it is not the actual body of God, wouldn’t you be idolizing it?
>doesn’t intent all to be saved
1 Timothy 2:4
>makes no sense
Yes, we are securing the election, the ones who secured it are the elect, the one who failed and left were not of us the elect.
>just a plain lie
Thankfully the rest of John helps us with this, see John 15:6, the branch will be cast out, but no one in creation can cast you out.
>>17906296
>Paul is anathema
St. Paul was appointed an apostle by Christ when he chose him. Either way his epistles mention the laying of the hands several times.
>Queen
Not a problem it is like Revelations 11:19 and 12:1.
>serve
Not the same service given to God.
>refuge of sinners
Yes because she intercedes for us in front of God.
>hopes for salvation
Again because she intercedes for us.
>powerful with God
This obviously shows God working through her.
>through thee I hope to die a holy death
By following her example and asking for her intercession in front of God.
It is also crucial to read the original language if possible.

>>17908451
No problem.
>not a sense of losing salvation
>they were never regenerate
But aren’t you in a state of grace when baptized? We are baptized into his death, Romans 6:3-4, 1 Peter 3:21. Isn’t this the start of our journey to salvation?
>explain well
Yes it surely helped, my only question is if you wouldn’t consider a baptized person to be in a state of grace before sinning mortally.
>>17908449
>kneeling before the throne
Would the Ark of the New Covenant also be considered the throne of God?
>Deuteronomy 4:15-19
They did not see a form when God appeared from the bush. Which is why they are not to make depictions of it. If God revealed in a form, this time a human body, why would it still be forbidden to depict it? Not to mention that many Protestant books for children do draw Jesus.
>representation of the church
The Church is inside the temple of God?
>regeneration
Do you adhere to the 1646 Westminster Declaration of faith?
>ruler
No one in heaven rules heaven but God, he isn’t saying that she rules heaven.
>rule from the heaven
If she rules an entity on earth from heaven where is the problem? She is not ruling heaven itself.
>bestows grace
God bestowed grace upon us through her, it is simply agency. Like Aron in the OT banged the well and it said that God banged the well.
>he denies for him
Not at all.
>kind required for Christ
No, but your idea of faith is so low that you consider the faith given in St. Mary to be the same as the faith given in Christ.
>religious devotion
Which kind? Worship or veneration? Devotion can also mean obeying their lifestyle.
>heretical and idolatrous
Didn’t God come to earth through her?
>Isaiah 42:8
Where did St. Mary’s glory become God’s glory?
>Absolutely
This is heretical. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 are clear that certain sinners do not inherit heaven. As restated by Jesus in Revelation 22.
>which you did not interact
I interacted with it too.

>>17908494
>physical filth
It does not, that is what a shower would do which you have to repeat.
>digestion
Digesting the literal body of Christ is a spiritual process.
>cannot be both
Depends what you mean. As I demonstrated earlier, your physical body comes in contact with physical water during baptism, but it has spiritual effects on you.
>the flesh profiteth nothing
It is quite obvious in context of the gospel of John and the entire NT that Jesus is not talking about his flesh. He would be directly contradicting himself if he called his flesh the bread of life and than said it profiteth nothing. How can his flesh profiteth nothing if it saved us and died for our sins?
>he has elected only a few
Only a few secure the election. But how does God will everyone’s salvation but only call a few to election?
>not only trust with Christ
If you trust in Christ you will do good works as he commands it. Either way certain works damn you like mortal sins (1 Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:18-21, Romans 2:4-8, Revelations 22:13). The only difference is that we believe you are saved by an infusion of righteousness while your scholars like Dr. White believe righteousness to be a legal declaration.

>>17908506
I apologize for not responding to them.
I also apologize for mistakingly referring to him as a saint. He is only a historian, either way I showed you that he did believe the eucharist to be the literal flesh of the Lord. The text you quoted does not strictly call them representations, he even says “made his own body”, saying a figure of his own body does not necessarily mean it is not his own body. As showed by Tertullian’s other writings.

>>17906062
Easily disproven:

In the Eucharistic discourse, he says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51)

Protestants don’t treat the entire quote as metaphor. They do not claim that Jesus didn’t suffer in the flesh or that giving up his life was anything but literal. So, they end up with a part-metaphor, part-literal predicament:

> I, Jesus, am metaphoric living bread
> you will literally live forever
> if you metaphorically eat this metaphoric bread
> which is me
> and which is also my literal flesh
> which I will literally give for the world.

This is untenable. It’s nonsensical. It's wrong.

The only logical path is transubstantiation.

>>17910784

Based.

>>17910784
Aristotelian Hocus pocus is not the most logical path. It is the Lutheran one.
>Jesus: this is my body and blood
>papists and the reformed: HOW! JESUS CANT POSSIBLY MEAN THIS. WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS WITH NONSENSE.
>Lutherans: It is a mystery how. Let’s just believe Christ’s words.

>>17905278
This isn't really a strike against anyone, Pope Peter III has around a thousand followers globally.

>>17912300
Your description of the "papist" position is not quite right, but I'll expand a bit.

Catholics are of the line of "Well it is transformed by Christ into His Body and Blood, but it still retains the appearance / taste / physical qualities of the bread and wine. Therefore it isn't a mere transformation, but something more, where Christ has changed the substance of it into His Body and Blood. Let's call it transubstantiation." It's still greatly considered a mystery.

That's not far off at all from the Lutheran "Let's take Jesus at His Word, it's His Body and Blood." Same conclusion - some different considerations, sure, but the same conclusion.

Vastly different from the "Well ackshually it isn't reeeeeaaalllyyyy his body and blood it's a metaphor despite all biblical and traditional evidence to the contrary."

I think your focus, as I would presume you are a Lutheran or similar, should be on invalidating this absolutely untenable position, rather than the small nuances and gaps between the Catholic and Lutheran positions.

>>17910706
>But aren’t you in a state of grace when baptized
I will respond to this part though I think you did not mean to pose it to me. In the Reformed tradition we regard the sacraments as efficacious signs and seals of the covenant of grace. They confer the grace they represent on worthy receivers, but do not contain it, and confer no grace on one who is unbelieving. Our reformers actually accused Rome of giving too little to baptism, because your church limits its efficacy to past and present sins, and not also future ones. So I would say no, one who is baptized is not placed into a state of grace until sinning mortally, the one who believes the promises of God given in baptism is rather in an indestructible state of grace, being imputed with the righteousness of Christ (for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ).
>Would the Ark of the New Covenant also be considered the throne of God?
The ark of the new covenant would be Jesus Christ in whom the fulness of God dwells bodily. Even if we were to accept Mary as the new ark, this could only be in relation to bearing God in her womb, which ceased as soon as He was born.
>They did not see a form when God appeared from the bush. Which is why they are not to make depictions of it.
God appeared in many theophanies under the old law, such as God the Son appearing as "the angel of Yahweh". The meaning of this scripture is not that they would be permitted if they had seen something, it is that they saw nothing to ensure they understood they were not permitted.
>many Protestant books for children do draw Jesus
This is a regrettable fact and a deviation from the Reformation, and a cause for reform.
>The Church is inside the temple of God?
I see what you're saying. The vision of the ark in the sanctuary is different from the woman in heaven, and connected to the wrath of God described in the preceding passage.
>Do you adhere to the 1646 Westminster Declaration of faith?
Absolutely.

(cont.)

>>17910706
>No one in heaven rules heaven but God, he isn’t saying that she rules heaven.
The notion you are describing is foreign to scripture, nor does anyone rule the earth from heaven save the Lord Jesus Christ, whose kingdom it is.
>Which kind? Worship or veneration?
This distinction is also totally foreign to scripture, and false, and as worship and veneration (in this religious sense) are totally identical it is not to be given to any created thing.
>Where did St. Mary’s glory become God’s glory?
When did any glory become not God's glory?
>This is heretical
No sir, this is the divine gospel which your church anathematized and in so doing brought on itself the anathema of God. Romans 4:1-5:1. Paul concludes that blessed passage, saying "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ". Are you justified by faith this day? Do you have peace with God? I say that if you can at any moment destroy the grace of justification by committing a mortal sin you could not claim to have peace with God in any meaningful sense. As long as you are threatened by the curse of the law you are under the law, and you are cut off from Christ you who are seeking to be justified by law, you are severed from grace.

>>17910715
>It does not, that is what a shower would do which you have to repeat.
>Digesting the literal body of Christ is a spiritual process.
This is a category error, you are conflating spiritual and physical. The physical water will wash as the physical organs will digest, and physical things are not spiritual things.
>How can his flesh profiteth nothing if it saved us and died for our sins?
It profits nothing in the grotesque physical sense the Jews conceive, as it profits us nothing to eat His flesh with the mouth. This worldly consumption is not what occurred on the cross, nor in the life of the believer, but He nourishes our souls by the instrument of faith, of which spiritual eating the sacrament is a sign and seal (whereby many theologians since ancient times have rightly called the Eucharist the food of immortality).
>But how does God will everyone’s salvation but only call a few to election?
God does not will the salvation of anyone save the elect. Now, note that we do not believe election was an impersonal decree to save anyone who fulfilled the condition of participating in the sacraments and avoiding mortal sin, but a personal and unconditional election, whereby God chose not a nameless and faceless group but the very persons of the elect, whom He chose from His mere good pleasure. These alone He chose to save, and these alone He worked to save.

(cont.)

>>17910715
>Either way certain works damn you like mortal sins
No, not "either way". It is impossible for one who has been justified to lose the state of grace by sin. Dr. White will tell you the exact same thing.
>The only difference is that we believe you are saved by an infusion of righteousness while your scholars like Dr. White believe righteousness to be a legal declaration
This is the foundational difference from which the others come, but it is not the only one. Because you believe you are infused with justifying righteousness, you believe you are made actually good in baptism, and become actually bad again in mortal sin. We do not believe this. Because we are imputed a foreign righteousness through faith, we remain actually bad in all of life, but irrespectively we are treated as though we were good. This is what Martin Luther meant, when he said the sinner is simul iustus et peccator.

>>17910715
>Either way certain works damn you like mortal sins
No, not "either way". It is impossible for one who has been justified to lose the state of grace by sin. Dr. White will tell you the exact same thing.
>The only difference is that we believe you are saved by an infusion of righteousness while your scholars like Dr. White believe righteousness to be a legal declaration
This is the foundational difference from which the others come, but it is not the only one. Because you believe you are infused with justifying righteousness, you believe you are made actually good in baptism, and become actually bad again in mortal sin. We do not believe this. Because we are imputed a foreign righteousness through faith, we remain actually bad in all of life, but irrespectively we are treated as though we were good. This is what Martin Luther meant, when he said the sinner is simul iustus et peccator.

>>17910720
Note that we do not believe such a thing as a "saint" as one whose personal merits are greater than their temporal punishments exists anyways. When Tertullian says He made it His body or when he referred to it as the Lord's body this falls far short of contradicting us. Hence my second point; it is not sufficient for them to sound like you, they must also not sound like us. Also, we could spend all day trivially arguing about the assertion that the sacrament could be both a figure and the genuine article (which we do not grant), but I will just point out that in saying it is the figure of His body he was both interpreting the words of institution and defining his meaning when he said "He made it His own body".

>>17910784
>Protestants don’t treat the entire quote as metaphor.
We read the entire passage according to its context and meaning. On other hand, the papists leap straight over verses 35-50, which they do not believe, and which could not be reconciled with their hyper-literal interpretation. The verse you quoted is literally Jesus defining the metaphorical bread of which He was speaking. A literal interpretation would be that the substance of Jesus is the substance of bread, which is not even transubstantiation.
>This is untenable. It’s nonsensical. It's wrong.
And it's a strawman. According to verse 35 the one who believes in Him will never hunger and the one who comes to Him will never thirst. Do you feel hungry sir? Maybe you're thirsty, you want some water? And since you've eaten the consecrated host, will your body never experience death? The eating and drinking are spiritual, and the life is spiritual, and all received by faith. We only receive physical life from Him after a real physical death, which is when He "raises us on the last day". These distinctions are right there in the text. When John wrote the passage, he expected you to read it from beginning to end.

>>17912707
>I will respond
Thank you for your time.
>confer no grace
But when we are baptized into his death, doesn’t this imply a state of grace? Since by Adam’s sin we all died and in Christ’s sacrifice we all lived.
>future sins
Our creed does state that we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
>Mary as the new ark, ceased after he left her womb
This would be the equivalent of saying that the Ark of the Old Covenant would no longer be the Ark when the manna was removed from it.
>appearing
I do agree that Jesus manifested as the angel of the Lord, but we should not forget that he did not manifest as a human. The angel is not a form and he is the pre-incarnate son of God. I would argue it were no form based on Deuteronomy 4:15, and that angel refers to a title and not a created medium.
>deviation from the reformation
Fair enough. But do you still approve of traditional Lutherans using icons?
>the vision is different
We must keep in mind that the chapters were numbered later. But when we read it we see Revelation 12 starting “And THERE appeared”.
>absolutely
As chapter XI states:
>Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness…
Wouldn’t you explain it that the justification itself is a legal declaration from God as scholars like Dr. White put it?
>>17912711
>foreign to scripture
Depends what you mean by “rule”, this is linked to our discussion on Revelations 12, if St. Mary has the sun and stars under her feet, she can be referred to as a queen especially that she also has a crown. This is linked to our previous debate, we can unite them into one point.

>>17912711
>worship and veneration
We see kings being venerated in the Old Testament it does not necessarily mean worship.
>any glory
The glory he is talking about is not the glory of God which he does not give to any but himself.
>been justified
This is what we call “initial justification”. The beginning of the process, when you first were justified, you had no works to offer. When you are baptized for example, you had no works to offer, you received this gift by God’s grace through faith not works. We should also note that St. Paul distinguishes between works of the law (Galatians 2:6, Romans 4, etc…), good works (Romans 2:16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 2:4-9), and works of the flesh (1 Cor 6:9-10, Galatians 5:21). St. Paul never denies deeds playing a role in salvation. The case of Abraham shows that justification is a process, he was justified 3 times, in Hebrews 11:8/Genesis 12:1-4, Romans 4/Genesis 15:6, Genesis 22:10/James 2:21. When you are initially justified, works do nothing, but in the process works are not meaningless.

>>17912715
>physical things are not spiritual things
Than how do you explain baptism? It is physical water that spiritually washes you. If your point was correct it would be a shower which has to be repeated.
>profits nothing to eat his flesh with our mouth
It is not received for the purpose of filling a hungry stomach which is why the flesh profits nothing. This is confirmed by the next point, which shows that even after His words in John 6:63, many of Jesus’ followers left Him over the “hard saying” about His flesh and blood. They realized that Jesus was telling them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, but they simply refused to accept it. How can eating his flesh literally profiteth nothing?
Jesus never once in the passage indicated that it was metaphorical, no difference here.
>these alone he chose to save
But does this mean that God gave No opportunity for the salvation of others? Did he just create them to be doomed without them even trying to be saved if they wanted to?
>>17912717
>Dr. White will tell you the same thing
I did not claim that Dr. White would agree with mortal sins damming you. I was saying he agreed justification was a legal declaration where God does not change us from inside. No change occurs in the man.
>infusion
We believe that God saves us by infusing righteousness in us. What do you mean by us becoming “good”, we are all sinners none of us is “good”.
But we believe as St. Paul warns his readers that mortal sins severe you. >>17912722
But our point can be made while saying yours. We can say it represents or is a figure of it, it would not mean it is not exactly it. Besides, as I showed you, the overwhelming dogmatic consensus in the early church is that the eucharist is the literal flesh.

>>17912723
I am not the anon you replied to, but I have some points to raise. The literal interpretation is followed by the last supper where Jesus indicates that the bread is his body. To continue, we still feel physically hungry, this means nothing. Think of water baptism, the material is literal water, it washes you, but your literal body gets dirty again. Physical matter giving you spiritual effects like in the eucharist. It should also be notes that according to Hebrews, Christ entered the holy places by his own blood, how would memorialism account for that? The Eucharist also fulfills Malachi 1:11 where the sacrifice is offered all over apostolic churches in the world.

>>17913385
>This is what we call “initial justification”.
The notion is alien and contrary to Paul's usage, wherein by faith alone one is justified in a moment, and held to be righteous by God from then on. When Paul is contrasting faith and works the meaning of 'works' is any action of human obedience to God. To abstain from murder was not any less part of God's law than to abstain from certain meats, as it is written in God's law "Thou shalt not kill". Hence it is proper to call good works works of the law. Nor can the phrase refer to Jewish ceremonies since the example Paul calls forth to show that justification is by faith and not works of the law is Abraham in whose day there was no law of Moses. Thus, Paul does explicitly deny there is any role of works in justification (which is not to be conflated with salvation in toto) when he says "We maintain a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Rom. 3:28). Abraham was justified once and once only, namely when he believed the promises of God. For Abraham to be justified repeatedly and especially after his circumcision would be to shatter Paul's argument and give the victory to the Judaizers, since Paul's argument is that Abraham was justified by faith without circumcision, so that it was not necessary to be circumcised to be justified. Now, I ask you, if Abraham had refused God's command to be circumcised and disobeyed, would he be justified? Or would it not be a mortal sin in directly refusing an express personal order from God, and thus it was necessary for him to be circumcised to be justified, which is precisely the thing the Judaizers asserted and Paul here refutes? And if he would have remained in the state of grace, how could anything be a mortal sin if to directly reject the voice of God is not? Nor is this justification even "initial" according to your schema, as you say Abraham was justified one time before this.

(cont.)

>>17913385
Now, as I stated before, you hold that a man is made actually good in baptism. My meaning is that you believe they are internally righteous and their sins are annihilated, and therefore are accepted into the presence of God precisely because they are actually, properly, and internally righteous. But Paul says "to the one who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness". How is it that God justifies the ungodly? Where is the ungodly man that is also justified under Romanism? There is none; the justified are by definition made godly either through baptism or penance, and one who is ungodly by mortal sin is not justified. But Paul says the ungodly is justified because "his faith is counted for righteousness", even though he does not do good works, and he is ungodly, he is counted as if he were righteous because of his faith whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him. Paul then proves this point by quoting David "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin". This is the ground upon which he concludes "we have peace with God", because our sins are not imputed to us; again, where is this man under Romanism? He is nowhere. If you commit a venial sin it is imputed to you, if you commit a mortal sin it is imputed to you, there is no peace with God but only the never-ending requirement of the law, which one must keep perfectly to attain the works-righteousness to stand before God.

(cont.)

>>17913385
And if there were no other controversies of religion this one would be sufficient to obey Christ and "Come out of her, my people" to maintain an absolute and unending separation from Rome, since this is the article upon which the church stands or falls, and the church of Rome in corrupting it is a false church and false religion with a false gospel in which salvation could not be obtained. Therefore, I plead with you, be reconciled to God. I ask you to put away the traditions of men and read this scripture not with a mind to making it conform to those human traditions, but of drawing out of it the genuine meaning which Paul intended you to see. I promise you that if you stop seeking to be justified through moral good but rely on Christ alone approaching Him through faith alone you will know peace with God and shall have no cause to fear any mortal sin again. Let me call you 'brother'.

If you want, I could also answer your other questions and explain our doctrines, but for now I wished to focus on the heart of the issue.

>>17909715
>White men create and innovate
>Indian men just hunt like a dumb animal
He should've been called Chief Selfown.