/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5691556]

How do Protestants defend "sola fide" ( faith alone ) when James 2:24 states:

>You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

?

Moreover, if faith is really the best thing ever, why does the Bible say love is greater than faith in Corinthians?

Also, if Protestants say "sola scriptura", how come the Bible nowhere teaches "sola scriptura"?

And why would the Bible be the only authority, if 1) the Church preexists the Bible; 2) it was the Catholic Church itself that selected the books and compiled them into a "Bible" (so Protestants are actually worshipping a Catholic product)

It seems only Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism make any sense to me?

Your perspectives on this, if any?

[Anonymous No.5691571]

>>5691556
>righteous
Righteousness is a Jewish relationship with God. Paul overrides (unless you're both Jewish and Christian).

Fuck you Saul.


Early protestants found the text surmounted many Catholic "innovations" that were indefensible except as acts of man, and thus unnecessary.

Early anabaptists found that love, the love of God, was everywhere and superceded the text. Unlike the early protestants, early anabaptists did not have the monstrous horde of princes behind them.

[Anonymous No.5691593]

>>5691556

If only the Catholic Church didn't stray from the true path and remained with the Orthodox, the protestant bullshit would've never happened.

[Anonymous No.5691613]

>>5691593
>>5691571

[Anonymous No.5691618]

Do protestants even care about authenticity?

[Anonymous No.5691639]

>>5691618
>holy spirit in interpretation

If you trust men to name saints, then you can trust men to name the word of god.

EISEGESIS, EISEGESIS EVERYWHERE

[Anonymous No.5691640]

>>5691613
So apposite, especially when I'm obviously advocating an anabaptist radical communist interpretation of love. Community of Saints.

p.s.: I know real Cathar perfects.

[Anonymous No.5691646]

>>5691640
>Cathar perfects.

report them to the grand inquisitor immediately.

[Anonymous No.5691648]

>>5691646
>asking an anabaptist to cooperate with the inquisition

God is within me, I can feel him, and I fear not for I know God.

[Anonymous No.5691709]

its bona fide
like in the Aladdin song with Genie

bona fide certified

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5691735]

>>5691556

>How do Protestants defend "sola fide"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Passages_used_to_defend_sola_fide

>how come the Bible nowhere teaches "sola scriptura"

the bible teaches what one need to do to achieve the salvation though
what it definitely doesn't teach about it's about the pope, worshiping saints etc stuff

>the Church preexists the Bible

more precisely it preexists the compilation of both the testaments into a single canon and the written down texts of the new testament

also protestants are followers of the very first church as well as catholics, like two rivers (or rather a river and multiple rills) have the same source regardless that they divided

>it was the Catholic Church itself that selected the books and compiled them into a "Bible" (so Protestants are actually worshipping a Catholic product)

no it wasn't, the catholic church didn't exist till 11th century, the church was united and the compilation (by de facto usage and consistency) was done by representatives of the western and eastern churches of it.

[Anonymous No.5691748]

"the church" to me, seems to be a structured manifestation of the "oral tradition".

There is always an oral tradition at work, a meta-narrative that guides our interpretation one way, otherwise people wouldn't know what they are looking at when they read the bible.

Even protestants subscribe to this pre-established oral tradition, this nameless church, without knowing it.

[Anonymous No.5691933]

>>5691556
>It seems only Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism make any sense to me?

This is what I think too. I'm neither though

[Anonymous No.5691964]

bump

[Anonymous No.5692056]

>>5691556
Luther hated the book of James. More importantly though, 'sola scriptura' known by lay people today is not the same doctrine that Luther put forth.

The Catholic Church did not select the books of the Bible, the canon was basically established in the second century.

[Anonymous No.5692061]

>>5691556
>dis nigga thinks he's smarter than 500 years of theologians

underage pls leave

[Anonymous No.5692105]

>>5692061

>500 years of heretics versus 2000 years of legit theologians

[Anonymous No.5692163]

>>5691618

lmao

[Anonymous No.5692756]

The whole issue is ridiculous to me.
The Bible talks a lot about good works and a lot about faith. Christ stresses good works to achieve salvation all the time, but he also stresses faith, and Paul does more of it.

The only sensible explanation is that one can't go without the other and selarating them is pointless, which is what Churcj Christians held since the start.

[Anonymous No.5692788]

hey guys where can i get a free copy of the bible

i saw one at barnes and nobles but it was like 8 dollars

[Anonymous No.5692807]

>>5692788
The Gideons or literally 5 seconds on google.

[Anonymous No.5692811]

>>5692788
order a KJV from the Mormons' website

[Anonymous No.5692913]

>>5691556
>It seems only Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism make any sense to me?

You are correct. Protestantism (all branches) is blatantly illogical.

[Anonymous No.5692922]

>>5691556
>Protestants defend "sola fide" ( faith alone ) when James

They pretend it doesn't exist. Martin Luther wanted to remove James from the bible then shred and burn it.

[Anonymous No.5692934]

>>5691735
>worshiping saints etc stuff
Catholics don't worship the saints.

[Anonymous No.5692942]

>>5692934
but m-muh whore of babylon m-muh idol worship

[Anonymous No.5692950]

>>5692942
Yeah... Protestant propaganda.
Protestants managed to convince people about stuff like that the Inquisition killed a lot of witches, while the truth is, the Inquisition was the most civil and reasonable court of the times, and punished with death only a few. While the truth is, Protestants were the ones who burned most of the witches (in villages).

[Anonymous No.5692964]

>>5692950
>>5692942

see >>5691613

[Anonymous No.5693008]

Sola scriptura is unscriptural, as you say; it is also religious anarchy.

Christ said he would found a Church upon St. Peter, not upon a book.

The Bible is a Catholic Church document and I honestly don't think Protestants have the right to read it.

[Anonymous No.5693017]

>It seems only Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism make any sense to me?

As soon as you hear the Orthodox go back and forth on which hierarchies claiming Orthodoxy are legitimate, you will realize that only Catholicism makes sense. There has to be a Pope to hold together the unity of the Church, to serve as a final authority on what is truth and what isn't. Without that final authority of the Pope the Church eventually dissipates into a subjectivist "what ever makes me feel nice, that is God" religion.

[Anonymous No.5693019]

>not considering ONLY the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation to be canon
>believing the Jewish Testament has any relevance
>believing a bunch of letters are the inspired word of God

[Anonymous No.5693023]

>>5693019
uh oh, looks like another Protestant sect is about the be spawned

[Anonymous No.5693027]

>>5693017
>you will realize that only Catholicism makes sense.

Catholics were the schismatics and they continued to make arbitrary ecumenical councils after the schisms...with redactions and even more schisms in the catholic church...which lead to things like luther and his ilk

The orthodox maintain the original teachings without divergence, without coming up with new bullshit like Vatican 2, indulgences, etc...

[Anonymous No.5693029]

>>5691618
This (image) is why Protestantism is indefensible. God does not contradict himself; he can't say a thing is true and at the same time affirm it as false. So God could not have sent BOTH Luther and Calvin into the world (or the rest of the leaders of sects) because they preach contradictory gospels. So the Protestant claim is that God abandoned the Church for 500-1500 years and then decided to rectify the situation with a bunch of self-appointed prophets preaching contradictory gospels, none of these men being particularly saintly (especially not Luther or King Henry VIII). Not only did the Protestant Reformation fail to be an actual religious reformation, it actually watered down religion and the nations that adopted Protestantism were the first to become secularized and (ultimately) godless. God is supposed to be the cause of this? And you have to ask, if God did not send these prophets, then who did?

Luther's "you can interpret the Bible as you please" is the start of modern thought: relativism, subjectivism, individualism, etc.

[Anonymous No.5693030]

>>5693023
No, I'm Catholic, although thinking about converting to Orthodoxy so I'm not stuck with the Whore of Babylon when the end times come.

[Anonymous No.5693035]

>>5693030
>to avoid the Whore of Babylon I'm going to join one of the lesser whores

Doesn't make sense mate.
btw I can't make sense of Vatican II either.

[Anonymous No.5693037]

>>5693029
>Luther's "you can interpret the Bible as you please" is the start of modern thought: relativism, subjectivism, individualism, etc.

bingo bango

[Anonymous No.5693042]

>>5693035
I don't give a shit about Vatican II; whatever makes religion more accessible to the masses is fine by me. It's just pretty clear to me that what Revelation calls the Whore of Babylon fits the description of the modern Roman Church.

[Anonymous No.5693044]

>>5693042

>taking anything in Revelations seriously

[Anonymous No.5693045]

>>5693042
Well, there are Catholic prophecies predicting that Rome will be taken by Antichrist.

[Anonymous No.5693047]

>>5693035
>btw I can't make sense of Vatican II either.
It's the 20th century, you people wouldn't understand

[Anonymous No.5693048]

>>5693045
Exactly. It's already happened. Francis is clearly the wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Anonymous No.5693049]

>>5693047
Not sure what you're implying.

[Anonymous No.5693057]

>>5693048
Yeah probably.

[Anonymous No.5693060]

>>5693057
>>5693048
but converting to Orthodoxy in that situation would not make sense at all

[Anonymous No.5693076]

>>5693060
>>5693060
>but converting to Orthodoxy in that situation would not make sense at all

Orthodoxy doesn't follow Rome or Francis...

[Anonymous No.5693080]

>>5693076
Neither do the Buddhists or the Hindus.

[Anonymous No.5693084]

>>5693080
>>5693076
And by converting to Orthodoxy you wouldn't just be denying Francis, you would be denying the papacy itself and all the popes since St. Peter.

[Anonymous No.5693089]

>>5693084

that's a good thing. "papal supremacy" was not part of the early church doctrine...

They have a form of primacy for leaders but it's not what the Catholics try to do.

[Anonymous No.5693093]

>>5693089
>"papal supremacy" was not part of the early church doctrine...

Catholic dogma says otherwise. You are saying that the Catholic Church is capable of promoting error (for centuries) and that, therefore, the Holy Ghost does not protect the Catholic Church from teaching errors on faith and morals.
It's basic Catholic ecclesiology that papal supremacy began with St. Peter and that the apostles new at that time that Peter had supremacy.

[Anonymous No.5693094]

james is explaining that righteous works come from faith, and that works without faith are dead works. faith operates through love/life/spirit

[Anonymous No.5693097]

>>5693093
all believers constitute the body/church of christ. there is no clergy/laity distinction in the bible

[Anonymous No.5693098]

>>5693093
>new at that time
knew*

[Anonymous No.5693100]

>>5693097
>all believers constitute the body/church of christ.

If you don't believe in the papacy you are not a believer.

[Anonymous No.5693104]

>>5693100
if you believe in christ you are a believer

[Anonymous No.5693105]

>>5691556
>being surprised about the numerous inconsistensies in organized religion
Is this the first time you've opened the bible?

[Anonymous No.5693106]

>>5693104
Yes, but if you don't believe that Christ founded a Church upon St. Peter then you don't believe in Christ. You believe in your own fabrication.

[Anonymous No.5693112]

>>5693093
>It's basic Catholic ecclesiology that papal supremacy began with St. Peter and that the apostles new at that time that Peter had supremacy

ya, its wrong, but not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

all the apostles were just as qualified to teach and be the foundation of the church, as Peter. Peter and Paul taught the same as each other. All the Apostles were the foundation (rock) of the church. Nothing was withheld from any of the Apostles. When they preached they did so with equal knowledge. Peter preached to the Jews as Paul preached to the Gentiles; Galatians 2:7.

Anyway the historical record does not support the idea of popes having "supremacy" in how affairs and decision making. If there is any sort of primacy it's just one of honor/ceremony, not power/authority.

[Anonymous No.5693114]

>>5693106

it was founded on St Peter, but he had no higher ranking or authority than Paul or any other apostle. They were all bishops basically.

[Anonymous No.5693116]

>>5693106
he founded the church at the day of pentecost

[Anonymous No.5693125]

Why would you read the bible. It's a knock-off of a knock-off of a knock-off. It's like reading fanfiction about fanfiction about Twilight which is fanfiction of Vampire the Masquerade and taking it seriously.

My little Pony or Harry Potter has more original content than the bible.

[Anonymous No.5693133]

>>5693037
tingo tango. Saul wasn't inspired.

[Anonymous No.5693136]

>>5693133
>Saul wasn't inspired

Of course he was, it says so in the NT.

[Anonymous No.5693138]

>>5693136
>Of course he was, it says so in the NT.

In Acts, which isn't a Gospel. All of which are works of men. And for you to correctly interpret the works of men requires that you are divinely inspired: a saint or a perfect. Are you in and of God, Anonymous?

[Anonymous No.5693139]

>>5693138
>In Acts, which isn't a Gospel.

The Bible is more than the Gospels.

>All of which are works of men.

Men can speak the truth, specially when guided by the Holy Spirit*

>for you to correctly interpret the works of men requires that you are divinely inspired: a saint or a perfect

We must all work to purify ourselves and get closer to the truth...that's why we have the power to reason, to refine our understanding and to have faith.

[Anonymous No.5693156]

>>5693048
I'm Catholic and I agree.

[Anonymous No.5693269]

>>5693139
Protestants get rekt

[Anonymous No.5693314]

>two factions of intellectually crippled theology fighting over which of their ideologies are least crippled

If you aren't going to discuss this in an academic context, you'd might as well just go back to trying eachother for silly shit like heresy.

[Anonymous No.5693319]

>>5693314

Also, in before damage control and fedora memes.

[Anonymous No.5693322]

>>5693314

Nope. See this pic >>5691613

[Anonymous No.5694579]

>>5693139
>>All of which are works of men.
>Men can speak the truth, specially when guided by the Holy Spirit*

And guess what? You need to be guided by the Holy Spirit to be able to detect those guided by the Holy Spirit. Only the community of saints, or perfects, can actually know the word of God with any certitude—only the community of saints, or perfects, can actually know if another knows the word of God in order to take instruction thereof. All those claiming to be saints can only be treated as men, unless you yourself are a saint and can discern the nature of their connection to God.

Get behind me Augustine.

[Anonymous No.5694600]

>>5693139
>We must all work to purify ourselves and get closer to the truth...that's why we have the power to reason, to refine our understanding and to have faith.

This is a lesser point: reason cannot interpret the divine. It cannot partly interpret the divine, for to partly interpret the divine reason would have to be capable of segmenting the divine and reducing one of its elements of parts to that comprehensible to man. You cannot analyse the totality via its parts, nor can the totality be reduced.

Reason is useless to the interpretation of divine texts unless illuminated by faith. Exegesis of the works of men will be works of men. Only Eisegetic approaches (fully informed by faith) can produce accounts of the divine texts hidden behind and within the works of men. And guess what status such eisegetic works would possess, given that they are written under the inspiration of faith? That's right, they would have an equal status as revealed texts.

The closer I inspect the necessary hermeneutics, without you running behind Petrine cover*, you become more and yet more exposed to the fundamental problems of limited men interacting with supposedly divine texts.

Cross the line, become inspired, we live without sin, incapable of sin, perfect in the grace of God. Join the community of saints.

* An irrelevancy: either the Petrine line of interpretation is inspired, in which case only the inspired can detect it; or it is a work of man, in which case it bears no status. The acknowledgement of the limited infallibility of the popes is an acknowledgement of this—but relying on statements about infallibility without being a saint means you are trusting a work of man fallible in its reason (whether the one in your head, or that of the then pope's).

[Anonymous No.5694611]

>>5693314
>>two factions of intellectually crippled theology

ITT we seem to have Orthodox going, "What's your problem mate?" and Cathars!!? expounding tips on reading. The Calvinists and Lutherians seem to be napping.

[Anonymous No.5694628]

>>5691571
The lack of clarity here make this sound like a bullshit rationalisation

[Anonymous No.5694699]

[Anonymous No.5694719]

>>5694628
I'm sorry you're so unfamiliar with the history of the church that you're unaware of popular and princely dissent against the works of man in the reformation. Indulgences, which everyone agrees now were an innovation unsupportable as necessary, created great dissent without clarifying the divine.

[Anonymous No.5694737]

>>5693139
>Men can speak the truth, specially when guided by the Holy Spirit™
ftfy

[Anonymous No.5695162]

>>5691735

>no it wasn't, the catholic church didn't exist till 11th century, the church was united and the compilation (by de facto usage and consistency) was done by representatives of the western and eastern churches of it.

Are there bigger hacks than protestants ?

[Anonymous No.5695195]

>>5692950
Is it really surprising ?
Protestants are somehow convinced that Catholics must be worse than them, so they "boost" random evils done by catholics to astronomical proportions to even out the situation.

Up until Ranke in the mid-19th century, people in many regions of the protestant world were still convinced that the St barthelemy massacre had killed 400 000 protestants in Paris alone in one night (there were less than 200 000 people in Paris and it has always been one of the most solid Catholic city).

Hell, even someone like Schopenhauer still thought the Spanish Inquisition killed 300 000 people in Madrid alone over one affair. The Inquisition didn't kill this many people in the whole world in 250 years.

[Anonymous No.5695246]

>>5692756
No. You cannot achieve salvation by good works. The New Testament cannot come down on this idea hard enough. You are saved by grace through faith. However once you ARE saved, you are called to do good works. Ephesians 2:8-10 is one of many places where this is explained:

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

[Anonymous No.5695371]

>>5695246
You can not BUY your good works with a big enough check to charity but with the intentions you do them with. Thus it is through only god's grace that good works are received and hollow works are ignored.

There's nothing about once being "saved" or not. Truly good works shall always be good works and selfish works shall always be selfish acts.

[Anonymous No.5695392]

>>5691735
/lit/ has the worst tripfags of any board by far.

[Anonymous No.5695524]

No sect of Christianity ever made any sense to me.

I'll stick with Judaism , thank you.

[Anonymous No.5695650]

>>5694579
>>5694600

Every person already has the necessary tools to begin their path, to detect the divine, to interpret the word -- it's just a matter of putting your intellect and heart to use.

Some will get closer than others, but it's not 0% vs 100%. It's on a spectrum.

[Anonymous No.5695680]

>>5695524

The Old Testament is pretty nasty and awful, but it was a necessary setup for Jesus...the Old Testament and it's ethics never made sense to me without the New Testament to temper it.

[Anonymous No.5695686]

>>5695680

The Old Testament God is a disgusting failure who fails even by his own standards

[Anonymous No.5695718]

>>5695680
But if the OT is so bad, then why do Christians still keep such things as the Ten Commandments and some of the Leviticus laws?

[Anonymous No.5695723]

>>5695686
So are you the old testament God?

[Anonymous No.5695804]

>>5695718

Because some of the OT coincides and is justified by the NT...

most of leviticius is irrelevant and not followed by Christians though...a lot of the OT is specific for hebrews in a certain time/place, it's not universal.

[Anonymous No.5695811]

>>5695686

OT God was created for political reasons, to justify genocides for example and conquering land by the Hebrews.

I think a lot of it was written after the fact, to give their settlements a pretense of "legitimacy"

[Anonymous No.5695829]

>>5695804
But who decides which parts of Leviticus to keep?

[Anonymous No.5695841]

>>5695829

It's pretty obvious from the context of the New Testament, the early Church fathers, the apostolic tradition.

The only people who might get confused are protestants who don't know how to read the bible, and atheists who just wanna make goofy arguments.

[Anonymous No.5695861]

>>5695841
But why do Christians only keep the first Ten Commandments, but ignore the other six-hundred and three?

Why would God create a whole new religion if it contradicted the original religion?

[Anonymous No.5695877]

>>5695861

Why did God provide continuous revelation to the Hebrews in the OT? Why didn't he just stop at 1 book or 10 commandments and then be quiet?

Continuous revelation was already part of the Old Testament...it just continued into the NT.

Because he has a plan and because things change and develop, and over time he reveals more and more to us...

He wasn't contradicting anything. The OT was always a setup, a precursor to the New Testament.

[Anonymous No.5695894]

>>5695650
Divinity bears no spectral analysis. It is, or it is not. By suggesting you can use reason to detect the divine, you are reducing the scope of divinity to the rationality of man.

Great demiurge bro. Sick gnosticism. I warned you about hermeneutics.

[Anonymous No.5695905]

>>5695686
Care to think for yourself for once

[Anonymous No.5695931]

>>5695894
>Divinity bears no spectral analysis. It is, or it is not.

>By suggesting you can use reason to detect the divine, you are reducing the scope of divinity to the rationality of man.

There is no saint or man that is omniscient with perfect knowledge of God. Their knowledge is always on a spectrum by definition, since they are not God.

[Anonymous No.5695937]

>>5692811
DO NOT DO THIS

[Anonymous No.5695938]

>>5695905

God even admits he regrets his actions, his failed experiment...he had to interfere and destroy it using floods, plagues, fires, etc

[Anonymous No.5695964]

>>5691748
that lady has a lovely bottom

[Anonymous No.5695966]

>>5695931
>There is no saint or man that is omniscient with perfect knowledge of God.
I see you're unaware of what a saint is. Let that guide us in trusting the remainder of your nonsense.

[Anonymous No.5695976]

>>5695966

Sorry but you aren't making any sense. No religion thinks a Saint's knowledge or mind is equal to God's.

[Anonymous No.5696018]

>>5695976
Saints are the only people touched by the divine and given a gift of comprehension of the divine.

[Anonymous No.5696033]

>>5696018

Every human has a divine spark in them that can be used to measure the truth.

Saints just are more in touch with the truth. NONE have ever claimed to be omniscient or have 100% understanding of God and his ways.

So you need to rethink your bizarre position carefully.

[Anonymous No.5696040]

>>5696033
>Every human has a divine spark in them
My god you are a gnostic.

[Anonymous No.5696069]

>>5696040

That's funny coming from you, who just claimed only magical people with secret magical omniscience can even begin to understand God or detect truth.

While I claimed everyone can by virtue of being human...

[Anonymous No.5696084]

>>5696069
>partial comprehension of a totality

Nice one, and how is this NOT THE WORK OF MAN.

>by virtue of being human

SOUNDS LIKE A FALLIBLE WORK OF MAN.

You can't have human interpretation of a divine text: the human interpretation removes the divinity.

[Anonymous No.5696091]

>>5696084
>>partial comprehension of a totality

yea, like every other form of comprehension non-omniscient beings have...it's always partial. Deal with it.

>You can't have human interpretation of a divine text: the human interpretation removes the divinity

According to your logic you can't make this statement, only God can.

So your position eats itself.

[Anonymous No.5696096]

>>5696040
how is it gnostic when it's directly said in the bible that human was made after the god image and pretty sure it doesn't mean the physical image

[Anonymous No.5696115]

>>5695861
To prevent people from dual faithing in Christianity and Judaism. If you really believe in Jesus, then prove it by worshiping differently from the rest of the Jews.

[Anonymous No.5696176]

>>5696091
>So your position eats itself.
Or demonstrates that the text cannot be divine. You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.5696191]

>>5696176

Not at all. You just showed that your requirement (only God can know what is true) is self-defeating.

You can't even claim your requirement is true in the first place.

[Anonymous No.5696219]

>>5696191
>You can't even claim your requirement is true in the first place.

If it is not, why call it a God.

[Anonymous No.5696240]

>>5696219

I don't accept your self-contradictory requirement.

[Anonymous No.5696273]

>>5693044
>being a heretic

[Anonymous No.5696588]

It seems to me that Catholics are the only ones who can keep true to their traditions and moral precepts in the modern world and survive.
They successfully engage with philosophy and secularism in a persuasive way. As someone studying Catholic thought for a while now I find it draws me very much.

Protestantism eventually leads to complete subjectivism and sect splitting, and I find it largely irrelevant apart from a few really intelligent thinkers.

The true debate is to be had with the Orthodox and I suspect that dialogue will be very revived during this century. However the Orthodox need to start engaging with the modern world or they face complete irrelevancy. Their poor missionary efforts don't help matters - it almost seems to me that you have to be a specific nationality to properly join Orthodoxy, it is too cultural and traditional.

[Anonymous No.5696616]

>>5696588
>The true debate is to be had with the Orthodox and I suspect that dialogue will be very revived during this century.
There's little debate to be had, the Catholics have already quietly withdrawn their most noxious heretical beliefs.
>However the Orthodox need to start engaging with the modern world or they face complete irrelevancy.
They're actually doing pretty good at this front.
>Their poor missionary efforts don't help matters - it almost seems to me that you have to be a specific nationality to properly join Orthodoxy, it is too cultural and traditional.
They really need to fix their problems at home before proselytizing abroad.

[Anonymous No.5696622]

>>5696616
>They really need to fix their problems at home before proselytizing abroad.

firstly they don't have a single home, there is a few orthodox churches and secondly it's a stupid conclusion overall, religion was largely separated from politics like in the late middle ages

[Anonymous No.5696632]

>>5696588
>Protestantism eventually leads to complete subjectivism
uh, what? sorry, but you're going to have to qualify that.

[Anonymous No.5696633]

>>5691556
because there are other verses that completely contradict the one you quoted. are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.5696638]

You could have skipped making a thread to collect Catholic ejaculate by reading Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Origin_of_the_term

[Oregon master race No.5696641]

You guys do realize that the whole jesus story was the ravings of a schizophrenic sand nigger who supposedly saw the :truth" 100 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

>Jesus supposedly dies for our sins
>No one cares for 100 years
The bible does not at all fit within the Historical record. (there were no jews in egypt exc)

The Romans kept excellent record of their executions and legal matters. There is no mention of the jesus myth in comprehensive record from the time and area.


Fuck all you christian child molesters.

Buddhism is the only true way. Learning and evolution baby.

[Anonymous No.5696918]

>>5696641
>the bible does not at all fit within the Historical record. (there were no jews in egypt exc)
No shit. Hence my post about the Jewish Testament not being canon.

[Anonymous No.5699088]

>>5696641
You're missing the point, it's historical validity is only relevant to someone who takes the bible as literal truth. Even if it is all 'fiction', one can sustain both a moralistic reading of the bible with the idea that the bible originates in divine inspiration, irrelevant of its adherence to historical fact.

[Anonymous No.5699114]

>>5696273
No, Revelations is a piece of apocalyptic literature. By definition, works in that genre are not meant to be taken literally.

[Anonymous No.5699130]

>>5695829

Quite aside from the actual topic of the thread, but Leviticus was actually a set of rules designed by God to let his people show their difference to everyone around them. The rules in Leviticus were used to show in reality the concept of God's "chosen people", which now has been changed to Jesus, and living with faith and works, which I guess brings it back to the topic of the thread.

[Anonymous No.5699419]

>>5696641

>Fuck all you christian child molesters.
>Learning and evolution baby.

I'm not even riled by this post.

You're just a conflicted and naive child.

[Anonymous No.5699464]

If you continue reading through James you see that what it's discussing is the idea of "fake faith". If you truly did have faith in Christ you would be doing good works because that's where your heart would lie. A person pursuing evil with his heart while simultaneously claiming belief in Christ does not really have belief in Christ. Your actions flow from your beliefs and demonstrate where your heart is. Thus, faith without works is dead.

The same principle is stated by Paul when he says that if one claims to know God but does not love, then that person is a liar. Also yes, love ultimately is the greatest force because it is the bond between God and man, and man and man, and also the defining trait of God's being.

[Anonymous No.5699466]

>>5691556
My school is a large public school but only offers an Old Testament course but not a New Testament course (they used to). My Old Testament Course is cross-registered Jewish Studies and Literature. The Jewish Studies faculty insist if the school were to offer the new testament as a class they would want it to be focused like on the gospels alone or something even though I had mentioned to the I think gnosticism is a fascinating aspect of it all and oft-ignored in academia and they said they aren't teaching it now because it would be "too controversial". I'm Jewish and I call bullshit on their arguments. What should I do? I'm already like friendly with the Comparative Religion Minor Director Head (who is a Jewish Studies Professor) but they don't even offer a Comparative religion major as a school with like 100 majors and tens of thousands of students. HELP.

[Anonymous No.5699470]

>>5692788
The librarian, well one of them, flat out told me she felt it was morally ok to take bibles from the university library if I felt they were specifically important to me spiritually as well as academically.

[Anonymous No.5699483]

>>5692056
How do I get into Luther? I wish I could take a New Testament class but should I just read something by him or do I need to slog through the New Testament, class or not, before I can understand him properly. Also, how important is it to be able to read the Septuagint in Greek if you are interested in comparative religion.

[Anonymous No.5699489]

>>5696588


>too cultural and traditional.

sounds like an advantage to me

[ No.5699879]

Salvation is not achieved through works nor faith, but gnosis alone.

[Anonymous No.5700174]

>>5696588
>It seems to me that Catholics are the only ones who can keep true to their traditions and moral precepts in the modern world and survive.

What is Vatican II?

[Anonymous No.5700193]

>>5699483

see >>5691618


protestantism and luther are the first steps away from God and towards degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.5700289]

>>5699483
The book of Concord is probably your best bet if you want to understand Lutheranism.

He was certainly well meaning but I dont think he realized just how far things would go. Its a shame the Catholics were so awful when it came to temporal matters and courruption in church practices.

[Anonymous No.5700296]

>>5700193
Luther and his reformation as well as those that perceeded it are some of the most important things for people seeking to understand the Catholic Church and its history to know.

[Anonymous No.5701927]

Hey Catholics, have you ever considered that maybe good works come effortlessly from having true faith in God? I don't understand all the Protestant/catholic hate. They should all be bound by faith and love in Christ instead of bickering with each other. You fucks sound worse than ISIS bitching about Shias.

[Anonymous No.5702450]

>>5701927
Faith comes from good works.

Love,
Anabaptists.

[Anonymous No.5702475]

>>5701927
>have you ever considered that maybe good works come effortlessly from having true faith in God?
Have you ever considered that good works don't necessarily follow? For example, I'm pretty sure there are and historically have been more Protestant usurers than Catholic usurers.

[Anonymous No.5702659]

>>5702475
>For example, I'm pretty sure there are and historically have been more Protestant usurers than Catholic usurers.
Such lack faith. As evidenced by their lack of works.

[Anonymous No.5702675]

>>5701927
this

good works without faith are dead works

[Anonymous No.5702683]

>>5702675
and faith without good works is nothing at all

[Anonymous No.5702694]

>>5702675
>>5702683
Jesus is quoted in Gospel that good works are all that's required to come to the Father. Your hankering after eternal life inside a magic dionysus beast is your own business, but here and now all that Jesus required of people was that they act good works.

[Anonymous No.5702695]

>>5702475
>I'm pretty sure there are and historically have been more Protestant usurers than Catholic usurers.
Proof? And what does it matter when all Catholics and all Protestants are usurers, and happy to be so, now?

[Anonymous No.5702906]

>>5702450
Not an anabaptist...what ever the fuck that is.
>>5702475
I am talking about genuine faith my friend. You think that sick paster Ted Haggard had genuine faith when he was sodmizing and smoking meth with another man? Do you think those priests who diddle little boys had genuine faith? If they did, they wouldn't have done what they did.

tl;dr
By their fruits ye shall know them

[Anonymous No.5702995]

>>5702906
>Not an anabaptist...what ever the fuck that is.

>In a Protestant thread
>No idea what anabaptism is or was

>tl;dr
>too long; doesn't read
>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.5703084]

>>5702995
>Not refuting my points
>picking apart how I said things instead of what I said.

Yup sounds like /lit/ to me

[Anonymous No.5703095]

>>5702906
There are a lot of Protestants who think that 'true faith' is justification for anything at all. John 3:16 is usually taken on its own and used as justification for anything they feel like doing.

[Anonymous No.5703100]

>>5702695
The Catholic Church forbade usury for like centuries, m8

[Anonymous No.5703149]

>>5701927
>good works come effortlessly from having true faith in God

Yeah, I agree.

[Anonymous No.5703150]

>>5703149
but they werent TRUE scotsmen

[Anonymous No.5703157]

>>5703095
I know what you mean. There are a lot of Sunday Christians out there. They ruin the image of what a true christian should be and that includes all denominations.

[Anonymous No.5703172]

>>5692788
Next time you meet a christian going around trying to convert people ask them for one. I did and the dude gave me his personal bible and almost actually bought me the KJV but I thought that would be a bit too far.

[Anonymous No.5703177]

Their heretics, they don't need to defend anything because they will always be wrong.

[Anonymous No.5703182]

>>5703149
>Look they printed it on their armor so they must practice what they preach!

>Look ISIS has the seal of Muhammad so they must represent moderate Islam!

[Anonymous No.5703200]

>>5703100
Is this wonder bread serious?

[Anonymous No.5703207]

>>5703084
I directly refuted your claim that knowing nothing about anabaptism was acceptable in this thread by referencing church history as essential knowledge for contextualising modern catholicisms and protestantisms.

I then subsequently indicated that your ignorance arose from your unwillingness to read. On a literature board.

[Anonymous No.5703229]

>>5703207
I was quoting the Bible not church history friend. I'm talking about doctrine in scripture. I guess not reading the history of the Catholic Church makes me a terrible person, shame of me.

[Anonymous No.5703234]

>>5703229
>Not an anabaptist...what ever the fuck that is.
>Not an anabaptist...what ever the fuck that is.
>Not an anabaptist...what ever the fuck that is.

[Anonymous No.5703279]

>>5703234
Great rebuttal. You wanna talk scripture or blab about denominations?

[Anonymous No.5703291]

>>5696918
>Old Testament isn't canon
>includes the Garden of Eden/Original Sin story

nigga wat r u doin

[Anonymous No.5703307]

>>5703291

OT is just symbolic

[Anonymous No.5703393]

>>5703279
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that you were a cretin so useless as to deny the gifts given to you to reason on works of men as a man.

Truly you must be perfect.

[Anonymous No.5703424]

>>5703307
Source?

[Anonymous No.5704507]

>>5702906
>Not an anabaptist...what ever the fuck that is.

A violent and extremely radical body of ecclesiastico-civil reformers which first made its appearance in 1521 at Zwickau, in the present kingdom of Saxony, and still exists in milder forms.

The name Anabaptists (Greek ana, again, and baptizo, baptize; rebaptizers), etymologically applicable, and sometimes applied to Christian denominations that practise re-baptism is, in general historical usage, restricted to those who, denying the validity of infant baptism, became prominent during the great reform movement of the sixteenth century. The designation was generally repudiated by those to whom it was applied, as the discussion did not centre around the question whether baptism can be repeated, but around the question whether the first baptism was valid. The distinctive principles upon which Anabaptists generally agreed were the following:

>They aimed at restoring what they claimed to have been primitive Christianity. This restoration included the rejection of oaths and capital punishment and the abstention from the exercise of magistracy.
>In a more consistent manner than the majority of Protestant reformers, they maintained the absolute supremacy and sole sufficiency of the canonical Scriptures as a norm of faith. However, private inspiration and religious sentiment played an important role among them.
>Infant baptism and the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone were rejected as without scriptural warrant.
>The new Kingdom of God, which they purposed to found, was to be the reconstruction, on an entirely different basis, of both ecclesiastical and civil society. Communism, including for some of them the community of women, was to be the underlying principle of the new state.