[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: Folio 113v - Purgatory.jpg (671 KB, 1590x2212)
671 KB
671 KB JPG
Nowhere in the Bible or the early Church Fathers is purgatory mentioned. They obviously just made that shit up in the 12th century.
>>
2 Maccabees 12:41–46, 2 Timothy 1:18, Matthew 12:32, Luke 23:43, 1 Corinthians 3:11–3:15 and Hebrews 12:29
>>
>>13980672
prayer for the dead and intermediate states =/= purgatory would be the Orthodox response. Tollhouses are completely different
>>
>>13980669
How are you defining early church father here?
>>
No one imperfect can enter heaven.
However, the imperfect may still be righteous in the eyes of God.
>>
>>13980669
They used to make catholic families have to pay MONEY to get their family out of hell, and purgatory was just extra money business for that venture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZSJgMZQBWw
>>
>>13980669
i'm orthodox not catholic so i'm not entirely sure, but i take it to be an explanation of something seen in the bible not an invented doctrine
the bible makes it clear that death is not the same as afterlife
until the day of judgement comes and the gates of heaven are opened the dead will just be dead, but the catholics offered a different explanation of this death, that you would be in a place rather than simply not existing
those who are accepted into the kingdom of heaven before christ's return are the saints and the martyrs who's life have been cut short for his sake or that they have focused the fruits of their life toward god rather than their inheritance or the material world around them
the idea of paying through purgatory is retarded but its based on this idea of saints immediately going to heaven
>>
>>13980924
>I’m not sure but I am arguing for defense of it
Ok retarded ape priest.
The idea came from hell, saying no it’s cute, it came from sending saints to heaven faster, try it out because of this, is still hell and not biblical.
>>
>>13980750
Second Council of Nicaea at the latest.
>>
>>13980669
I made it up. Heaven, Limbo, and Hell too.

YHWH Allah
(LORD God)
>>
>>13980990
No, the lake of fire hell is eternal and it is biblical.
>>
>>13980924
Death =/= afterlife does not imply purgatory. Repentance occurs during life. There's nothing in the Bible which suggests you get a do over.
>live sinful life with no repentance
>die
>cast into fiery pit
>*pikachu face*
>oh shit God, I didn't know you were for real about that sin shit
>It's okay my son, just burn in there until you learn your lesson, then you will receive eternal life
>>
>>13980999
Trips, have safe Trips, lmao
>>
Purgatory is an example of the evolution of theology over many centuries. It is extremely medieval, and papists will desperately try to cram it into the bible and the early church. It's rather embarrassing
>>
>>13981004
That's not an accurate description of the heretical notion of purgatory. Only those who are in a state of grace go to purgatory, specifically those with "temporal punishments" which have not been expiated through penance or indulgences. They go to purgatory to be cleansed through their own suffering, so that they may stand in the presence of God. Consequently the doctrine constitutes a denial of the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ to save anybody, a denial of imputed righteousness and penal substitution, and an affirmation that people can satisfy the infinite wrath of God. They will object to this, but that's just because it's really accurate and embarrassing.
>>
>>13981004
What happens when someone doesn‘t fully make up for their sins (repentence), especially minor ones which no Christians would say merit eternal damnation. Minor acts of anger, knowingly overeating, etc.
Surely people prone to wrath or gluttony will not be in heaven - will they not be purified?
>>
but, the jew book says so! the jew book, written by jews, says so!! right here, in black and white, the jew book says so!!! hahaha
>>
File: Doctor VICTOR Denkenstein.png (422 KB, 1000x1000)
422 KB
422 KB PNG
>>13980669
Hail Satan
>>
>>13980669
>They obviously just made that shit up in the 12th century.
Christians? Believing in made up shit? No fucking way, dude.
>>
>>13981031
>What happens when someone doesn‘t fully make up for their sins (repentence)
Nobody makes up for their sins, Jesus does or they burn forever in hell.
>Surely people prone to wrath or gluttony will not be in heaven - will they not be purified?
They were purified once for all on the cross of Calvary, otherwise they will never be in heaven. "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for nothing."
>>
>>13981053
lol
>>
>>13981033
That’s right. If you don’t believe the Word of God, then get lost.
>>
>>13981053
So we aren‘t prone to sin currently because of Christ‘s sacrifice? Or is it you, in particular, who is free from attraction to sin?
>>
>>13981072
You misunderstand. In God's eyes, the believer is cleansed of all sin. There is no obstacle to their entering His presence since every punishment which they merited was already received in their stead by Jesus Christ.
>>
>>13981072
God literally defines disobedience. You pre-suppose God’s Will, pretending you are Him and can decide what that is; it isn’t generic sins anymore after the New Testament. You are treating it like salvation is required under the Old Testament.
>>
>>13981083
So the human race will continue to murder and steal in heaven, considering these are cleansed and inoffensive in God‘s eyes?
>>
>>13981091
>>
>>13981091
No.
>>
>>13981149
So I could comfortably torture your entire family to death and steal everything you own with sound confidence that I will enter in to eternal life with God, because I know that Jesus Christ has already received the punishments I merited by this?
Or is there something better expected of us?
>>
>>13981207
No, Christ profits you nothing because you are a heretic who believes a false gospel, for which you should repent and rely on Him instead. However for the believer, yes, there is absolutely no sin which is more powerful than the grace of God, there is nothing they can do to destroy the grace of justification.
>>
>>13981068
The Word of God

IN the beginning was the Devil, and the
Devil was with God, and the Devil was
God, the Same was in the beginning
with God. All Things were made by
him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made. G-D

God-Devil
>>
>>13981220
I was just asking you questions. How does that make me a heretic?

>However for the believer, yes, there is absolutely no sin which is more powerful than the grace of God, there is nothing they can do to destroy the grace of justification.
Got it. I actually understand now how pro-LGBT Christians justify themselves now; they can carelessly engage in homosexual acts confident that Christ has already made up for their crimes against nature. Thank you.
>>
>>13980980
Augustine then, and if you pray for the dead than it follows that it wouldn't do them any good if they are in Heaven or Hell, in Heaven because they achieved the ultimate reward and Hell because nothing will get them out
>>
>>13981237
>I was just asking you questions. How does that make me a heretic?
It doesn't, your adherence to Romanism does
>I actually understand now how pro-LGBT Christians justify themselves now; they can carelessly engage in homosexual acts confident that Christ has already made up for their crimes against nature.
No, the fags share the religion of your slavemaster, pictured here
>>
>>13981246
Asking questions makes you a Romanist?
>pic
So if the punishments merited by homosexual practices have already been received in our stead by Jesus Christ, why should you deny them?
>>
>>13981260
>Asking questions makes you a Romanist?
Has your priest told you that bearing false witness is a good work?
>So if the punishments merited by homosexual practices have already been received in our stead by Jesus Christ, why should you deny them?
Deny them what, sin? My God is not a fan of sin. Unrepentant faggots betray who their master is, though, and he isn't Jesus Christ.
>>
>>13981273
You said that they'll go to heaven because Christ already received the punishment they merit. Going by your standards, what's the problem with active homosexuals who continue in their ways because they have a firm faith that Christ has already saved them?
>There is nothing they can do to destroy the grace of justification.
>>
>>13981236
that's why christians worship the light-bearer,
bright morning star lucifer the devil satan,
their lord jesus christ the old serpent.
>>
>>13981288
>You said that they'll go to heaven because Christ already received the punishment they merit
Unbelievers will not be going to heaven, no
>Going by your standards, what's the problem with active homosexuals who continue in their ways because they have a firm faith that Christ has already saved them?
I'll assume that you said what's stopping a saint from going to heaven if he commits sodomy, since I think that's what you meant to say. The answer is nothing. Again, there is absolutely no sin which will cause the believer to fall under divine wrath. Your misapprehension however seems to be some idea that if justification and sanctification are distinct categories that this somehow means the God who justifies is not the God who sanctifies.
>>
>>13981338
>Unbelievers
What the other anon is saying is, that hypothetically, what if the person that is struggling with homosexuality professes and believes that Jesus Christ is his personal Lord and savior, at what point, if ever, his continued homosexuality impacts his justification
>>
>>13981361
Never.
>>
>>13981338
We don't have to follow the Ten Commandments, then, I'd gather?
>>
>>13981321
>DEVIL WORSHIPPERS THE LOT OF YOU
>>
>>13981374
So the other anon has a point, "they can carelessly engage in homosexual acts confident that Christ has already made up for their crimes against nature."
>>
>>13981375
To enter heaven? No.
>>
>>13981390
They could, and they won't, because the spirit of a regenerate man is grieved by his sin as the Holy Spirit is grieved. They are always repentant.
>>
>>13981220
>>13981246
>>13981273
Such good posts. Thank you God for them.
I even learned something from this absolute legendary postings.
>>13981338
Eh.. real saved christians don’t practice sodomy. Even if they did during sexual with their wife they still only doing it temporary. Idk why anyone wants to talk about this as if we want to practice anal as a lifestyle. There is more to life than that. Their dreams of anal lifestyle is unappealing and not even cool. Is anal something that might be fun during marriage and producing fruit for God? Sure maybe a few times. But it would have to be done under a lot of fasting first because I ain’t sticking it in a hole that eats spicy mexican food on a weekly basis.
>>13981236
Pic.
>>
>>13981391
So disobeying the Commandments can, actually, destroy the grace of justification?
>>
>>13981321
>>
>>13981413
I just told you no
>>
>>13981419
So there's no sin that can destroy justification. >>13981391
But disobeying the commandments bars us from eternal life, even while we're justified in the eyes of God?
>>
>>13981321
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGZ2WFn11Vg
>>
>>13981399
>They could, and they won't,
well reality shows us that some do
>>
>>13981416
https://biblehub.com/revelation/22-16.htm
you're right, jesus christ is lunatic lucifer.
>>
>>13981452
The Holy Ghost says that Christians worship Jesus Satan Christ
>>
>>13981375
Yes we have to. But we can't.
>>
>>13981453
No it quite apparent I am calling you crazy, and even these people are crazy:
https://www.experienceoxfordshire.org/maria-abramovic-gates-and-portals/
Like the Alex Jones court judge that wants to shut down free speech, we don’t fucking care that you think Jesus is the devil and that you are going to kill / and threatening to kill Christians and Jesus Christ. Jesus is going to KILL YOU, mother fucker, what’s it say?:
> Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
>>
>>13981419
not him, no you didn't
>>
>>13981438
>But disobeying the commandments bars us from eternal life
No. Open your eyes.
If you want to say you are justified because you did not break the 1st commandment then you are saying you are justified for your obedience to a law. But according to Galatians 5:2-6 if you will be justified for any act of obedience you will be obligated to obedience to everything. Either it is all of Jesus, or it is all of yourself, there is no third option. Either you are judged on your own merits (which are filthy rags) or on the merits of Christ (which are not your own). Either God is judging you, or He is judging Jesus. And since the believer is judged for Jesus' obedience which was perfect and his sins were nailed to the cross he will never be condemned.
Romans 5:1 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ".
>>
>>13981466
Be quiet
>>
>>13981473
>We don't have to follow the Ten Commandments?
>No (we don't)
>>
>>13981453
John Yahya Baptist said, "Go back to Purgatory."
>>13981466
Jesus Isa Christ said, "Go back to Purgatory."
>>
>>13981474
Was it another poster who said that disobeying the commandments does that, then? My bad.
>>
>>13981486
https://youtu.be/38JJU7nYm-0
>>
>>13981476
Fuckoff you evil Lucifer Devil Satan worshipfag. Leave tranny serpent.
>>
>>13981510
>>13981528
>>
>>13981482
>>13981492
Oh, misunderstood you.
>>
>>13981549
>Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods?
>these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness.
>>
>>13981482
newbie here. what are the ten commandments?
>>
>>13981596
Read Exodus chapter 20, since the exact enumeration might cause another argument altogether.
>>
>>13981586
Except the ark of God never left christians. It isn’t a physical box we have to carry around anymore or turn towards a physical location to pray like you do in your Islam.
>>
It's downstream from their view of justification, just like the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception are downstream from certain views of sex and sin
>>
>>13981338
>belief = whatever sounds come out of my mouth
Why do protestants never ask what it means to "believe"? It's kind of a difficult theological question, just an itsy bitsy bit difficult, and you just take the most simple-minded answer possible.
>>
>>13981260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUdA54Xk8cg
Ha ha he said you bearing false witness and it true.
>>13981288
>still asking why those who practice homosexuality can’t go into heaven
>>
>>13981799
>one anon
>no you dont have to follow the ten commandments
>another one
>acuses someone of bearing false witness

So which is it? Do we have to follow them to remain saved or not?
>>
>>13981817
I already have kept them because of Christ which is why I don’t have my life practicing homosexuality like you, who have already openly practiced to bear false witness.
>>
>>13981799
The anon I was replying to asserts that actively practicing homosexuals are justified in the eyes of God as long as they profess that Christ's sacrifice will get them in to heaven regardless of their actions.
>>
>>13980669

Augustine clearly believed in purgatory though.
>>
>>13981718
>It's downstream from their view of justification, just like the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception are downstream from certain views of sex and sin

Wrong on both counts.
>>
>>13980669
There's the purging fire that burns up all your bad works, including you, in Revelation.
>>
>>13981833
That's a complete misrepresentation.
>>13981766
Well that's pure projection on your part. Saving faith consists in three parts: notitia (understanding of the gospel), assensus (belief that the facts of the gospel are true) and fiducia (trust in the saving work of Jesus Christ).
>>13981822
>I already have kept them
You will be very surprised on judgement day
>>
>>13980669
They mistake shoel/hades for it. Shoel is where we all go after we die and wait for judgement day, which hasn't happened yet. There are good and bad places there. Like Abraham's Bosom, and the Lake of Fire -- all shown in the rich man/poor man story with Lazarus.

The Catholic institution has invented all kinds of dogmas that have nothing to do with Christ's teachings.
>>
>>13981907
>>
>>13981833
Nope, practicing homosexuals burn in hell unless they actually repent and get saved. You can’t do it while claiming you are already saved.
>>
>>13981929
>>13981907
>That's a complete misrepresentation.
It's exactly what you told me here: >>13981338
>...what's stopping a saint from going to heaven if he commits sodomy... The answer is nothing. Again, there is absolutely no sin which will cause the believer to fall under divine wrath.

This is consistent with everything else you told me, in that as long as someone understands, believes, and trusts in Christ's sacrifice, they are free to rape, murder, and destroy to their heart's content without any need for reconciliation or repentance before death.

>>13981934
>Nope, practicing homosexuals burn in hell unless they actually repent and get saved. You can’t do it while claiming you are already saved.
And I'd agree with you. The anon I'm replying to above asserts the contrary.
>>
>>13981934
>This is consistent with everything else you told me, in that as long as someone understands, believes, and trusts in Christ's sacrifice, they are free to rape, murder, and destroy to their heart's content without any need for reconciliation or repentance before death.
Not him but the way they get around this is saying that the person never had true faith to begin with. In the end, both Augustinians and Lutherans believe you should not be sinning all day every day care free. They come at the "why not" differently is all.
>>
>>13981822
Well thank you for the accusation, but im neither of those thankfully as I am also born again through Jesus Christ, im merely trying to understand you position as this >>13981940 anon is pointing out.
>>
>>13981940
No, you were the anon who claimed that. Not him. He is the anon who was based.
You were the one who bore false witness and questioned that, which thereby makes you the one who asserted it by incriminating yourself by the law of committing false witness.
>>
>>13981940
No, Anon, it's a complete misrepresentation. It is true and I Lord willing I will not deny it, that the saint is not under the law and no sin will separate him from the love of Christ. But I never suggested that this faith is a one-time tip of the fedora towards God before the reprobate goes back to their daily sodomite orgies. We see saving faith clearly in the parable of the pharisee and the publican. Whereas the pharisee approaches God with his hands full of his own works, sincerely convinced that all his good deeds, dependent on grave though they are, really make him righteous before God setting him apart from the filthy publican over there. He however stands condemned for all the sins of which he is guilty, and even infinite righteousness would not save him from the penalty of his error. The publican on the other hand comes forward with the empty hand of faith, he has no excuse and he knows it, and knowing his sin he throws himself on the mercy of God alone. This deep trust is saving faith, it is not a one-time thing, it is abiding and it will bear fruit.
>>
>>13981874
Why is the immaculate conception necessary in catholic thought?
>>
>>13981971
Works are completely irrelevant here - this is purely about the nature of faith with respect to justification.

>It is true and I Lord willing I will not deny it, that the saint is not under the law and no sin will separate him from the love of Christ.
So the active homosexual, understanding this, has no reason to falter in their faith. They know & believe that there is no sin that can destroy their justification. They will come to know more and more with every gross crime against God's design, that nothing they do could ever bring them under divine wrath. Presuming God's mercy, they are free to keep sinning.
>>
>>13982032
>Works are completely irrelevant here
They are not because the addition of a single work (Romanism adds many) is sufficient to destroy the gospel, severing one from Christ and cutting them off from grace.
>Presuming God's mercy, they are free to keep sinning.
I question the wisdom of attacking a strawman in direct response to my actual position. I don't think you will fool very many
>>
>>13981604
I see there are Twelve Commandments, possible Thirteen, what gives?
>>
>>13982053
>strawman
But you said:
>the saint is not under the law
>no sin will separate him from the love of Christ
>there is absolutely no sin which will cause the believer to fall under divine wrath.
>there is nothing they can do to destroy the grace of justification.
And "presuming" means to confidently expect something - the very definition of faith, in the case we're talking about.

>the addition of a single work is sufficient to destroy the gospel, severing one from Christ and cutting them off from grace.
So sin cannot destroy our justification, but charitable action for the love of God can? I don't *think* that's what you mean, but you've now turned back and asserted that something can sever us from God's grace.
>>
>>13982080
>But you said
Yes, I also said all the other stuff in that post you deliberately ignored in order to commit false witness
>And "presuming" means to confidently expect something
Presuming the mercy of God would be to claim it inappropriately, as if by right.
>So sin cannot destroy our justification, but charitable action for the love of God can?
No, but the grace of justification is conferred only on those with saving faith, which as we have established excludes all reliance on works. Saving faith consists in reliance on Christ alone, if you will be justified by your righteous obedience to God's commands then you should expect only to be condemned for your wicked disobedience to them. "All who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for "Cursed is every man who does not keep every word in the book of the law by doing them".
>asserted that something can sever us from God's grace
Not that the believer who is joined to Christ could ever be separated from Him, but one who believes in heresy is on a different path from His.
>>
>>13981994
It is now a doctrine of the Church because the Pope formally declared it so, and I accept his authority based on very good reasons found in the teaching of scripture and the history of the Church.

Was it strictly necessary for him to make this declaration? I can't answer that. But whether it was or it wasn't, the declaration was within the scope of his authority, and I accept that authority for the above-stated reasons. Roma est locuta, causa finita est.
>>
>>13982144
>Roma est locuta, causa finita est.
Wow that's interesting Latin Anon. Who said that?
>>
>>13982158

See: https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-origin-of-the-statement-rome-has-spoken-the-matter-is-finished
>>
>>13981951
>>
>>13982115
...Quoting you isn't "committing false witness". Just because your doctrine conflicts with your intent doesn't put me at fault.

>Presuming the mercy of God would be to claim it inappropriately, as if by right.
That's not what I meant, which I why I clarified myself.

There's nothing in your third statement that seems wrong or conflicting with any other serious denomination - besides maybe American televangelist grifters.
Catholic teaching, for example, condemns salvation by works. The Church teaches that salvation is by God's grace alone, but that grave disobedience (like purposefully violating a commandment) separates us from that grace, requiring true contrition and reconciliation offered by God through Christ that we cooperate with.
>>
>>13982162
That's right, it's a quote attributed to Augustine which he never said, one of many frauds over the centuries to prop up the decrepit hovel of the papacy, the most popular since the Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian decretals were discredited. The propagandists admit that to minimize the damage of their sheep learning the truth, but they clearly hoped their sheep would not bother to actually read the real quote (as you didn't) and would mindlessly trust them when they with utmost anachronism declare this to be an express teaching about the authority of the bishop of Rome, and supposedly that councils derive their authority from him. Yet his actual topic is 'the error', and the fact that not the mere decree of a pope but *two councils* have settled the matter. The point is that Pelagius had no support and because of that there was no reason to continue hearing him, not that the pope of Rome (an office which did not properly exist yet) has the authority to rewrite the Christian faith at will.
>>
>>13982210
>Quoting you isn't "committing false witness"
Yes sir, deliberately misrepresenting me *is* false witness, and you *will* be judged by Jesus Christ for it. Is there no fear of God before your eyes?
>The Church teaches that salvation is by God's grace alone, but that grave disobedience (like purposefully violating a commandment) separates us from that grace, requiring true contrition and reconciliation offered by God through Christ that we cooperate with.
This is the heresy which I was refuting. I am not ignorant of your doctrine, do not condescend to me again. I am simply aware that papists often affirm in name what they deny in substance, including here.
>>
File: Catholic Purgaatory.jpg (2.55 MB, 2400x9750)
2.55 MB
2.55 MB JPG
>>13980669
>Where did catholics get purgatory from?

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
> According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.
>If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
>If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

Among other things, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 describes a state of existence in the afterlife where souls are being purified in some fashion based on the works they’ve done in life, whether for good or bad.

This state of existence is not heaven, because the individual going through the purifying fire is suffering loss. And it can’t be hell, because the individual is guaranteed salvation.

That pretty much fits the bill of purgatory: “[The] final purification of the elect . . . so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” (CCC 1030).

1/2
>>
>>13982228

2/2

The idea of Purgatory is radically simple.

Revelation 21:27 says of the New Jerusalem that “nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

The difference between the Lutheran doctrine of “forensic” or "imputed" justification (in which you are declared clean) and the Catholic believe in "infused" justification, is that Catholics believe that God actually purifies you.

If you aren’t clean, and really clean not just pretend-clean or “declared” clean, you can’t enter Heaven, and you can’t enter the New Jerusalem.

That cleansing begins in this life. It is either completed during this lifetime, or it isn’t.

If it isn’t, then it still needs to be completed before entering Heaven. Hence: Purgatory.

But notice that this means that Purgatory isn’t a final place in the way that Heaven or even Hell is. It’s the state of being purified to enter Heaven.

http://shamelesspopery.com/why-n-t-wright-is-wrong-about-purgatory/
>>
>>13982217
I'm more confused than anything, because you're oscillating between saying that all punishment due to believers is already received by Christ, and then telling me I'll be condemned by God for not immediately agreeing with you.

>do not condescend to me again
Absolutely not my intent, sorry.
>>
>>13982212
>The point is that Pelagius had no support and because of that there was no reason to continue hearing him, not that the pope of Rome (an office which did not properly exist yet) has the authority to rewrite the Christian faith at will.

No. That's a falsification of history -- and evidently immediately after you read the truth of the matter in the linked article.

>In a sermon to his flock, Augustine informed them that the pope had ratified the condemnations of the Pelagian heresy pronounced at the councils of Milevi and Carthage. He said

>“The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See and the decrees quickly came back. The cause is finished; would that the error were as quickly finished.” (Sermon 131:10).

Thus, the formula of words was slightly adjusted over the centuries, but the *substance* of Augustine's remark remained unchanged: the cause was finished because the Apostolic See had spoken.
>>
>>13982228
>This state of existence is not heaven, because the individual going through the purifying fire is suffering loss. And it can’t be hell, because the individual is guaranteed salvation.
What is the fire that the man who builds with silver and gold goes through?
>>13982234
>The difference between the Lutheran doctrine of “forensic” or "imputed" justification (in which you are declared clean) and the Catholic believe in "infused" justification, is that Catholics believe that God actually purifies you.
You see, everyone, this is why purgatory is a denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a damnable heresy. Because there is nothing in our own righteousness which could ever make us right with God. This purification occurred once for all upon the cross, so there is no obstacle to the believer entering heaven because he is as permanently at peace with God as conceivably possible, since he has been justified by faith alone.
>>13982238
>hen telling me I'll be condemned by God for not immediately agreeing with you.
It's not about agreement with me, it's about saving faith. Do you believe you can commit a mortal sin, die in that state of sin and burn in hell on account of that sin? Then you must choose to obey whatever commandment you would be breaking in order to be saved? Then you are relying on works of the law and are judged according to your own merits. "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”
>>
>>13980669
Purgatory came to be some time in the middle ages after the gregorian reforms, inspired by the interpretation of earlier church fathers and scholars. This was the same period the adoration of the virgin Mary really started kicking off in full swing (though purgatory came some time after that, but still, it is post Gregorian).

In any case it only became a widespread concept in the 14th and 15th centuries, with Dante doing it a whole lot of publicity as you can imagine.
>>
>>13982255
I see only the confirmation of my statement in spite of the desperate attempt to cram the papacy into the 5th century. There is nothing here about the bishop of Rome granting authority to the councils only of supporting them, which is why Augustine makes the point that Pelagius has no support. It is the consensus of the Church, not the arbitrary decree of the singular person of the bishop of Rome. The point stands without refutation.
>>
>>13982228
That isn’t in the afterlife, that isn’t even purgatory. Lmao.

>>13982234
Lutherans? Why are you talking about them? That didnt even enter into the thread anywhere. We talking about the Bible and the demonic doctrine that doesn’t exist, called purgatory by antichrists.

People are either unsaved or they are saved. There isn’t a space in the gap, as Moses and Jesus both spoke of the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

A Christian is already a saint, it is you who murderers of the saints.
>>
>>13982264
>What is the fire that the man who builds with silver and gold goes through?

The fire of God's love.

> justified by faith alone.

But we are not. Even if your faith, anon, is strong enough to move mountains, it is useless if you have not love:

before that, he wrote:
>If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
1 Corinthians 13.

Obviously, the Bible does not teach salvation by "faith alone."

Indeed, it repeatedly refutes the idea. It is refuted in 1 Corinthians 13, and also in Galatians:

>"The only thing that matters is faith working in love." Galatians 5:6

James 2:24 also refutes sola fide:
>A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

>What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
James 2:14-17
>>
File: lokas.jpg (147 KB, 1224x689)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
>>13980669
same place they plagiarized everything else from, "paganism" or vedic knowledge. Purgatory is just midgard or bhuloka. It is literally what this plane of reality we live in now is, "purgatory" bhuloka etc
>>
>>13980669
It comes the Church Father Origen
>>
>>13982303
>The fire of God's love.
Is this "fire of God's love" purgatory?
>Even if your faith, anon, is strong enough to move mountains, it is useless if you have not love
This was not written in the context of soteriology. But I concede without hesitation, that our faith is utterly worthless before the throne of a holy God. The reason faith alone justifies is not that it adds to righteousness for which we are justified, but because it alone apprehends the foreign righteousness of Jesus Christ for which we alone are justified, and that righteousness will profit everything.
>Galatians 5:6
I find this text particularly noteworthy since this is immediately after he has declared "I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law". His point then is not to contradict himself by now suggesting a law which must be obeyed, but that "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters but only faith (which works through love)". For Paul there are two and only two options: be justified by your own works, or be justified by Christ's works. Choosing the former is choosing damnation, since you are obligated to perfection.
>James 2
This is about public justification whereby our brothers are revealed to us by their works, not secret justification which is in God's court alone.
>>
>>13982278
>I see only the confirmation of my statement in spite of the desperate attempt to cram the papacy into the 5th century.

You can't argue the facts - you don't even pretend to argue them - you just deny the facts, or pretend that they are what they're not.

> It is the consensus of the Church, not the arbitrary decree of the singular person of the bishop of Rome. The point stands without refutation.

Augustine's words refute you, and history refutes you. Sorry about that.
>>
>>13982282
>That isn’t in the afterlife, that isn’t even purgatory.

Okay, you don't know how to read.

>People are either unsaved or they are saved. There isn’t a space in the gap

Paul explains the "space in the gap," as you put it. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.

>>13982352
>Is this "fire of God's love" purgatory?

Yes.

>This was not written in the context of soteriology.

Wrong.

> But I concede without hesitation, that our faith is utterly worthless before the throne of a holy God.

That's fine. Paul, on the other hand, says faith strong enough to move mountains, without love, is useless.

>I find this text particularly noteworthy since this is immediately after he has declared "I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law".

I find it particularly noteworthy because Paul says "the only thing that matters is faith working in love."

> His point then is not to contradict himself by now suggesting a law which must be obeyed

He's not contradicting himself. He's contradicting the false doctrine of sola fide that you attempt to read into the text.

>>James 2
>This is about public justification whereby our brothers are revealed to us by their works

No, it is not. James compares his opponent's faith to his own:
>Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. James 2:18.

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?” (James 2:21)

“And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?” (James 2:25)

James isn’t saying that works, apart from faith, save. But he is saying that faith is “completed by works” (James 2:22), and insufficient in itself.

Abraham and Rahab were "justified by works."

And "faith without works is dead."
>>
>>13982941
Cope.
>>13983034
>Yes.
Does anybody go to heaven without going to purgatory?
>That's fine. Paul, on the other hand, says faith strong enough to move mountains, without love, is useless.
>I find it particularly noteworthy because Paul says "the only thing that matters is faith working in love."
>He's not contradicting himself. He's contradicting the false doctrine of sola fide that you attempt to read into the text.
This is pathetic. This is supposed to be argumentation? It's amazing your church still exists, praise God that won't be the case for long.
>>
>>13983034
>James compares his opponent's faith to his own
I'm sorry, opponent? What opponent would that be? James 2:14-26 is a hypothetical argument. He begins the passage by questioning what value there is in saying one has faith while they have no works. This then serves as the definition of faith in the passage, namely, profession of faith. In declaring this faith dead, he means it is empty, meaningless, false. Just as telling someone to be fed is not the same as feeding them (verse 16), saying you have faith is not the same thing as having faith. If you truly have faith, it will have an impact. Consequently the purpose of verse 18 is to challenge one who claims to have faith: prove it. It isn't good enough to believe the bare facts of the gospel are true, even the demons believe that. In invoking Abraham's justification he does not contradict Paul, who said Abraham's justification absolutely was before his circumcision. For both Paul and James 'justify' means 'to declare righteous', but whereas in Paul this justification is between the sinner and his God in the latter's court, in James this declaration is to the world, as when a judge issues his verdict of Not Guilty he finds the accused innocent at that time, and then this is declared publicly when it is announced to the world. Finally it is in this sense only when he says we are justified by works and not by faith alone, that we prove ourselves to be Christians by doing good works and not by claiming to believe, as this is how all of these words were defined and used in this passage up to this point, and their meaning has not been changed in this verse. Just as person is not really a person when their spirit is absent, faith which is workless is not really faith.
The difference then between dead and living faith lies not in the presence or absence of works but the substance of the faith.
>>
>>13982144
That doesn't answer the question at all. The pope had reasons for his decision, what are they? Hint: it's what I said
>>
>>13983034
Nope, already told you that isn’t what that is from the first post you made. The only burning that happens is things you did in your own fleshly power. Which would be all your theology from the Catholic Church. You are a demon doctrine holder and are headed straight to burn in the fire of hell. There is no purgatory. However, because you made purgatory up, God will stick you in there, and then into hell you go.
>>
One time, to witness to unbelievers as a teenager, I became as one by watching darkmatter videos and stuff on youtubes.
I had friends who also told me that they didn’t believe in God anymore, and they continued not to even long after I said I was done thinking about it. The same people accused and attacked me later because I told them that they are going to hell if they don’t believe.
Like Paul said, he became as a Jew to witness to Jews, and Jesus became as sin to witness to sinners. So Christians become as sinners to also witness to sinners because they are sinners but also sometimes God makes them become as certain sins that they have control over that others do not. It is here that Satan the accuser is hilariously pitiful demon reaching for anything at all that doesn’t exist.
Jesus Christ is the author of our faith, not Satan.

I also remember when Democrats started claiming that Christians and conservatives were useless eaters, and had too much wealth. And they got mad when we said they were greedy.

The useless eaters thing is still going even though that was back in like 2009-2011. They also got mad when we told them that Everquest isn’t actually realistic.

They just want to scream and rage that Christians can one day have everything under their own feet like God will make even death submit to Jesus Christ and us. Such as owning our own Star Wars droids that work for us, but can also have humans as workers.
>>
>>13980848
no they didn't.
>>
>>13983481
They did.
>>
>>13983481
as soon as the coin in the coffer rings the soul from purgatory springs
>>
>>13983157
>The pope had reasons for his decision, what are they?

Beyond what's stated in the declaration, I have no idea.
>>
File: 7d7dac958.png (546 KB, 662x657)
546 KB
546 KB PNG
>>13981012
It was taught by the gnostics and medieval Judaism and eventually made its way into Catholicism too.
>>
>>He's not contradicting himself. He's contradicting the false doctrine of sola fide that you attempt to read into the text.
>This is pathetic. This is supposed to be argumentation?

It's called a counter-argument: I refuted your claim that Paul's point in saying "the only thing that matters is faith working in love," was "not to contradict himself by now suggesting a law which must be obeyed."

To repeat, Paul was not contradicting himself -- although he *was* contradicting the doctrine of "faith alone."

But the Bible repeatedly contradicts that false doctrine, as I explained already. See: >>13983034

Now, the problem with your immediate response (i.e., "This is pathetic. This is supposed to be argumentation?") is that you don't know how to make a counter-argument. All you know how to do is spew blather and rhetoric. But blather and rhetoric does not a counter-argument make.

>>13983155
>The difference then between dead and living faith lies not in the presence or absence of works but the substance of the faith.

What is dead faith? Is it some great mystery? Does the answer turn on "the substance" of the faith?

Nope.

James gives us the answer: "Faith without works is dead."

Simple as.
>>
File: BibleKJV.jpg (14 KB, 320x240)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
>>13982228
That's talking about the fire trying the work of every man, not the man himself if he's saved.
>>
>>13980669
They didn’t have the truth of the Book of Mormon to guide them.
>>
>>13981012
>Purgatory is an example of the evolution of theology over many centuries. It is extremely medieval

Wrong.

>There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matt., xii, 32): “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” According to St. Isidore of Seville (De ord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life “some sins will be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire”. St. Augustine also argues “that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come” (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers (cf. Hurter, “Theol. Dog. Compend.”, tract. X).

Church Fathers on Purgatory:

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a105.htm
>>
>>13983539
>That's talking about the fire trying the work of every man, not the man himself if he's saved.

Yes, the man himself according to Paul:

>"but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."
1 Corinthians 3:15
>>
>>13983155
This basically. Justification before men is something via James 2, justification before God is explained by Paul in Romans 4. See 1 Cor. 4:1-4.
>>
>>13983528
>It was taught by the gnostics and medieval Judaism and eventually made its way into Catholicism too.

Nope.

See: >>13983552
>>
>>13983556
If all his works are burned then he is the only thing left, obviously, anon. Only those going to hell are burned themselves.
>>
>>13983563
>If all his works are burned then he is the only thing left, obviously, anon. Only those going to hell are burned themselves.

Paul's words refuted your first false reading of the text (>>13983539).

Paul's plain words likewise refute your second attempt.

>"but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."
1 Corinthians 3:15

The man "suffers loss," but he is saved, "but so as by fire."
>>
>>13983534
>It's called a counter-argument
If that's what papists call a counter-argument I can only repeat my astonishment that your church still exists and accept your concession. The same for the rest of your post
>>13983552
Romanists abusing scripture and history. Again.
Romanism is very much like a cult, not only is it a counterfeit Christianity with an all-powerful leader to whom all the sheep pay money, but it also relies on denial of reality and the strict control of information, as all of this re-writing of history you all keep doing would collapse as soon as you read any source besides your propagandists.
>>
>>13983574
>Paul's plain words likewise refute your second attempt.
See 1 Corinthians 3:13-15

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Notice what it says there. His work shall be burned, but he himself shall be saved.
>>
>>13983574
Both of these men go through the fire, one suffers loss and the other receives a reward. If this fire is purgatory, then does anybody go to heaven apart from purgatory? If this is purgatory, then what reward does the first man receive? If this is purgatory, then what loss does the second man suffer?
>>
>>13983576
>not only is it a counterfeit Christianity with an all-powerful leader to whom all the sheep pay money,
It's really not that powerful, and there are other alternate people declaring themselves popes, for instance there is a coptic pope, and various other people taking the title of "father" in their language, which is all against Matthew 23:9. There's nothing in the Bible that says there is anything special about Rome, or Moscow, Salt Lake City, or Alexandria for that matter.
>>
>>13983576
>>It's called a counter-argument
>If that's what papists call a counter-argument I can only repeat my astonishment that your church still exists and accept your concession. The same for the rest of your post

Once again, you fail to make a counter-argument, as if your rhetorical blather somehow refutes my arguments. It doesn't.

>Romanists abusing scripture and history
There is abuse of neither history nor scripture. The Church Fathers recognized purgatory.

How could they not, given 1 Corinthians 3:15?

And Malachi 3:3: "He will sit as a refiner and of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver till they present right offerings to the Lord."
--Origen, St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and St. Jerome all thought this was an exact description of purgatory.

And Matthew 5:26: "Truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny."
-- The “prison” alluded to in verse 25 is Purgatory, according to Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Origen, St. Ambrose and St. Jerome, while the “penny” represents the most minor sins that one commits.

And Matthew 12:32: "And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
--If this sin cannot be forgiven after death, it follows that there are others which can be, and this must be in purgatory: precisely the interpretation of St. Augustine, Pope St. Gregory the Great, the Venerable Bede and St. Bernard, among others.
>>
>>13983582
>Notice what it says there. His work shall be burned, but he himself shall be saved.

1 Corinthians 3:15: "he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire"

This passage describes a state of existence in the afterlife where souls are being purified in some fashion based on the works they’ve done in life, whether for good or bad.

This state of existence is not heaven, because the individual going through the purifying fire is suffering loss.

And it can’t be hell, because the individual is guaranteed salvation.

That pretty much fits the bill of purgatory: “[The] final purification of the elect . . . so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” (CCC 1030).
>>
File: zoomer tradcath.png (298 KB, 698x530)
298 KB
298 KB PNG
>>13983595
>Once again, you fail to make a counter-argument, as if your rhetorical blather somehow refutes my arguments. It doesn't.
I am not concerned with appeasing you. Anyone with eyes can see my arguments stand without response, while you have made no arguments but only asserted your beliefs. You are a fulfillment of this meme, "Can't debate, just states his own position and insults the other person"
>How could they not, given 1 Corinthians 3:15?
Very easily, considering this 12th century concept did not exist yet, nor does it have anything to do with a 1st century text.
>>13983603
See >>13983586
>>
File: 1468021106862.jpg (48 KB, 480x480)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>13983603
>a state of existence in the afterlife where souls are being purified in some fashion
I get that's what you have been saying, but that's not biblical. What you are repeating here is a gnostic tradition.
>This state of existence is not heaven, because the individual going through the purifying fire is suffering loss.
According to what Paul the apostle says, they themselves are saved. The fire is what hits their works if they are stubble or hay as opposed to gold and silver.
>>
File: Purgare.jpg (605 KB, 1080x1186)
605 KB
605 KB JPG
Foundation in Jesus christ = Having died fully repentant of sin and in a state of sanctity.

Built upon it using allegory of house building = after repenting from sin those who fully made up for their sins with good works would be the golden house guys who would immediately go to heaven.

But those who haven't made up for their sins fully yet(straw house guy) but died repentant and forgiven of sin anyways would still be saved but after being purified by fire.

So the early church prayed for dead people so that their prayers could help them just in case they hadn't fully made up for their sins. However there wasn't a full consensus on how the purification happened back then(some believed in temporary punishment, others said there could be another form of purification) until purification by temporary punishment was formally clarified by the medieval popes.

The orthodox and eastern churches also pray for dead people because they believe in purification for those who died repentant but who didn't make up for the offense caused by sin. But they don't have a consensus on how purification happens(some believe in the temporary punishment method others say its by other means)
>>
>>13983586
>Both of these men go through the fire, one suffers loss and the other receives a reward. If this fire is purgatory, then does anybody go to heaven apart from purgatory?

Yes, the individual described in 1 Cor 3:14 seems to be within that category.

> If this is purgatory, then what reward does the first man receive?

The person in verse 14 does not appear to pass through Purgatory. Purgatory is not a necessary state. It is a question of whether a person has been purified so as to be fit to enter heaven:

"But nothing unclean shall enter it [Heaven], nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life."
Revelation 21:27.

>If this is purgatory, then what loss does the second man suffer?
He suffers the loss of his works -- they are burned up. But the man himself is saved, "yet so as by fire."

C.S. Lewis believed in Purgatory. He does a good job of explaining it. His remarks are quoted here:

https://aleteia.org/2018/08/02/c-s-lewis-tells-you-why-you-should-like-purgatory/
>>
>>13982264
On your third point which is replying to me:

This goes back to what I was questioning you about earlier. You claim choosing *not* to obey God spares us from consequences; the only way to be justified is to believe that you will be held accountable for nothing. It's a complete inversion of reality, claiming disobedience is actually what God wants.
>>
>>13983610

Oh, boy. I see you're bringing out the heavy artillery. The dreaded TradCath meme. Yikes!

>"Can't debate, just states his own position and insults the other person"
You clearly understand your own style and approach, and summarize it nicely here. Well done.

>I get that's what you have been saying, but that's not biblical. What you are repeating here is a gnostic tradition.
Nah. It's not gnostic, it's rooted in Paul, and the other biblical verses noted here: >>13983595

>According to what Paul the apostle says, they themselves are saved. The fire is what hits their works if they are stubble or hay as opposed to gold and silver.

Yes, he does say that, but he also says, in 1 Cor 3:15, that the man "suffers loss." Further, it is not just the man's works but the man himself who passes through fire according to Paul: "he shall be saved, but so as by fire."
>>
>>13983507
Then don't tell someone else they're wrong
>>
File: commandment_groupings.png (17 KB, 751x373)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
>>13982068
Because some of them are multiple commandments grouped under one purpose. Here's a chart showing how everyone who follows the Ten Commandments sorts them.
>>
>>13983616
>Yes, the individual described in 1 Cor 3:14 seems to be within that category.
Then I must ask what the fire is and where purgatory is since according to the previous verse his works are also subject to this fire "each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done."
>It is a question of whether a person has been purified so as to be fit to enter heaven
As I said before this is what sets apart Romanism from Christianity: the one who is holy and clean enough to enter heaven is he for whom Christ died and to whom Christ's righteousness has been imputed. A sinner can in no way under any circumstances satisfy the wrath of God by his own suffering, the man who suffers for his sins suffers eternally. But for the elect when they enter the presence of God they remain as stainless as they were in life, and there is no impediment to their entering His presence.
>He suffers the loss of his works
What are these works he loses, and how does purgatory cause him to lose them?
>>13983624
This is still false witness as any can see. You will have to answer for it, sir.
>>13983630
Come back when you're 18
>>
>>13983657
>This is still false witness as any can see.
No, I'm legitimately convinced this is what you believe, because it's how you've answered all my proposals on the matter. You can explain yourself better it's not actually the doctrine you adhere to, and that would serve much better than just saying I'll be judged for questioning you.

Also, you're just insulting the other guy while ignoring his arguments with backing citations he's posting, so I get the feeling you're just trying to troll, or are helplessly backed into a corner with your doctrine here.
>>
>>13983672
>You can explain yourself better
No, my Lord commanded me not to cast pearls before swine.
>>
File: alexjonessad.jpg (41 KB, 600x450)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>13983678
I don't think you're swine, anon.
>>
>>13983690
I think I mistook you for this individual >>13983630 who is swine. If so, I sincerely apologize. See >>13981971 where I made myself clear.
>>
bump
>>
File: Alex_Jones_Revolver.jpg (79 KB, 400x397)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>13983616
>C.S. Lewis likes purgatory
People like his creativity on copying God’s Creation with his fantasy like in Lord of the Rings, inspired by the Lion of Judah. Not everything on his theology.

Your works are burned up what you do without God.
Sometimes people do things and Satan accuses them even though they were witnessing to the lost.
It is there that Satan likes to burn stuff up, but God will restore and avenge them from the enemy.
Roman Catholics are not Jews and they claim that they are. Neither are they Christians. They are Babylonian gentile pagans in Christian cloak they call Universalism in Latin, from Rome when the Romans had a World Empire, but lost it due to not being able to control everyone. Which they still seethe about today. They thought they could achieve it like how Jesus Christ does it in God, by trying to inhabit the spiritual seed of Abraham. But they don’t want God, they just want the sex, hence why they promote sexual perversion.

https://youtu.be/FTrwQvDeSPE?t=12613
What Should have actually been said at the Alex Jones Sandy Hook court case is that Americans are hurting from 9/11, wars, school shootings, and immigrant dragon floods, and city degradation with too much construction zones and traffic jams in what used to be small towns, and so Americans should be free to question when those things happen and try to understand them as God allowing it to happen without government backlash saying no that is defamation.

What they did in court is say Jones already lost and then said we aren’t here to actually focus on real hurting Americans, no, we’re only here to determine how much money the parents of Sandy hook shooting are going to get. Nothing else.

This is what exposes the democrat globalists for what they are. Throughout 2006-2016, they had sites like Reddit where you look for something good but they shove shocking things in your face instead, like wrecks, people dying, school shootings, paganism, etc, just shock content.
>>
>>13983595
>Roman Catholics blathering and accusing everyone else as blathering
The authorities will burn her with fire.
I remember that verse quite clearly, your fire you will go through is much worse, whore of Babylon,

You promote purgatory like that Christians will suffer loss, because you hope to involve real Christians with your own burning suffering.

Newsflash, Jesus Christ is repaying us all for any BS that you manage to destroy, whether it is the taking away of movies, news, video games, hacked computers or computer hardware, food supplies and supply lines, relationships, whatever it is you think you stole or burned up, God will repay the saved sinner.

And burn up the whores that going to hell. Smokin.
>>
Al I have ever done has been for the Lord. The Lord doesn’t burn himself up.
>>
>>13980695
im converting to orthodoxy and for me my problem with the tollhouses isnt the silly pagan origins or whatever but how well it fits into the kinds of ideas in samsara or other reincarnation
its too relatable, like were going through the tollhouses right now in this life with things like your friends, family, surroundings dragging you under. crabs in a bucket/ghetto culture
>>
>>13983498
>>13983489
That's purgatory not hell.
>>
>>13984475
Nope, they were trying to do it for hell. Go play videogames like Dark Souls 1-3 where you have to pay souls currency to cleanse your sins.

They were doing the same things where you could pay money to be forgiven like the mafia. And if you say but they never managed to pull it off officially, then you know that they wanted to. Purgatory is the same way where they set it up that you have to pray hard enough to get souls out.
It doesn’t exist and the only way out of hell is to be saved or for a lost person to be subservient to saved people in life till the day that they die, remaining with those lost people. It also is up to Jesus at judgement day.
>>
>>13984737
>>
>>13983642
>Then don't tell someone else they're wrong

I told you you were wrong because your post (>>13981718) *was* wrong.

And it's still wrong -- although you changed the subject in your second post.
>>
>>13985149
Why the doctrine of the immaculate conception if not roman catholic views on sex and sin?
>>
>>13985156

You wrote (>>13981718): [Purgatory] is downstream from their view of justification...

The doctrine of Purgatory developed long before the question of justification became the hot topic of the Reformation.

See the citations discussed here >>13983552, including the link.

>>13980672 is quite right in citing those passages of scripture as the source of the doctrine. The doctrine thus arose from scripture, having little or nothing to do with the question of justification. Indeed, the fact that there was no tension or conflict between the doctrine of Purgatory and that of justification in the early Church is not insignificant evidence that the faith of the early Church respecting justification was in line with the Catholic understanding set forth at Trent, rather than the Reformed understanding, which is indeed in conflict with Purgatory; but the doctrine of Purgatory was established many centuries before the Reformers developed their novel theories of justification.

In fact, Luther averred that Purgatory was "quite plain" from 2 Maccabees. See: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/11/luther-purgatory-quite-plain-in-2-maccabees.html

But of course, Luther rejected Maccabees.* In fact, it's a fair inference that Luther's rejection of Maccabees was downstream from his theology of justification.

*Which was indeed reckoned part of the canon of Catholic scripture, as established at the Council of Rome and the Council of Hippo. See: https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-old-testament-canon

>... just like the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception are downstream from certain views of sex and sin

That's simply not the case, nor does history bear out such a claim. The bootless charge that the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is somehow related to a supposed Catholic belief "that there’s something inherently sinful or dirty about sex" is addressed here:

http://shamelesspopery.com/why-care-about-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary/
>>
>>13982330
...Should we tell him, bros?
>>
>>13985881
You wrote "wrong on both counts"

But even on the purgatory issue I'm not saying it was part of the catholic/counter reformation, I'm saying the concept of purgatory arises from the prior catholic theology of atonement. Purgatory is a step of cleansing of venial sins prior to entry into paradise in catholic thought.
>>
>>13985881
And I did not say the text you put in quotation marks

In catholic thought, Mary must be immaculately conceived in order to bear the infant Christ. Mary must be perpetually virgin as befitting her role as theotokos.
When some, not all, protestant reformers objected to the former issue the latter issue became no longer necessary. I for one do not think Mary must have been ever virgin for my doctrine of the incarnation therefore I don't need to break my back to explain away what is the plain reading in scripture regarding Jesus' siblings and Mary's marriage.
>>
>I'm saying the concept of purgatory arises from the prior catholic theology of atonement.

The doctrine plainly arises from the scriptures cited here: >>13980672

Of course it's consistent with other Catholic doctrines because Catholic doctrine is all of a piece.

>>13985936
>therefore I don't need to break my back to explain away what is the plain reading in scripture regarding Jesus' siblings and Mary's marriage.

That's fine. But know that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, and John Wesley, Cranmer and Latimer disagree with you respecting what the scripture teaches about the perpetual virginity of Mary.
>>
>>13985958
It's very obnoxious that you've spent so many posts telling me I'm wrong without engaging what I've said, which apparently you ultimately agree with
>>
>>13985958
>The doctrine plainly arises from the scriptures
Romanists believe nobody knew what scripture taught until the high middle ages
>>
>>13986272
>It's very obnoxious that you've spent so many posts telling me I'm wrong without engaging what I've said, which apparently you ultimately agree with

Are you trolling me? I've engaged your remarks at much greater length than they warrant, quite frankly. As to whether I agree with you or not, the remarks speak for themselves.
>>
File: anabaptistc2.png (258 KB, 886x270)
258 KB
258 KB PNG
>>13985958
>That's fine. But know that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, and John Wesley, Cranmer and Latimer disagree with you respecting what the scripture teaches about the perpetual virginity of Mary.
They also disagreed with believer's baptism and generally wanted to kill Christians who strictly held this Biblical doctrine.
>>
>>13986474
>They also disagreed with believer's baptism
They weren't wrong desu
>generally wanted to kill Christians
The reason for the persecution of the Anabaptists was political, not theological. It was because the Anabaptists kept riling up peasants into violent uprisings, and they showed the world what happens if they actually win at Munster. Once they realized the Anabaptists had finally stopped chimping out in the 17th century, they stopped going after them.
>>
>>13986548
>The reason for the persecution of the Anabaptists was political, not theological.
Then explain why Honorius made a law sentencing all Christians to death who practiced believer's baptism in AD 413? The law is in Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6. Also Justinian revived the same anti-baptism law in 529 in Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6.

This was centuries before the Münster uprising. Also, the ringleaders of the Münster uprising included Lutherans and polygamists who believed they were receiving new visions from God. Furthermore, people historically were being executed in Zürich for believer's baptism all the way up to 1527, and this is years before Münster. The reformer Zwingli wrote a treatise against these believers, which he named "Catabaptists," in which he tried to justify why they should have been executed. Again this was still before any Münster uprising had ever happened.

The bottom line is that baptists had nothing to do with the Münster uprising, however they were blamed for it. And many law-abiding people were executed in a new wave of persecution after Münster, including in England and elsewhere, because sadly misled paedobaptists intentionally confused all of these peaceful people with a few madmen polygamists in Germany who had claimed they were receiving visions. They also slandered them by calling them the same name, "ana"-baptists, meaning they thought they performed multiple baptisms, which of course goes against Ephesians 4:5, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." This name was eventually shortened to baptists. So it's a name given to the Christians by their ideological opponents, similar then to how the name "Christian" first arose.
>>
>>13980980
Origen Adamantius, of Alexandria

why do I have to keep spoonfeeding tards
>>
>>13986609
You're misled about that Roman law. Unless I'm reading the completely wrong codex, it's about repressing Eunomians who believed that Christ was a creature rather than God, among other things, like repeated baptisms (I'm pretty sure all modern Christians agree there is only one baptism, since that's very clear from scripture).

https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Constitutiones/CTh16.html
>>
>>13986661
See Law 16.6.6.
"16.6.6 Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Anthemius, Praetorian Prefect.
No person shall resort to the crime of rebaptizing, nor shall he endeavor to pollute with the filth of profaned religions and the sordidness of heretics those persons who have been initiated in the rites of the orthodox... if after the time that the law was issued any person should be discovered to have rebaptized anyone who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Catholic sect, he shall suffer the penalty [of death], along with the person rebaptized, because he has committed a crime that must be expiated, provided, however, that the person so persuaded is capable of crime by reason of his age."

And in Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529) it says this
"1.6.2. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, praetorian Prefect.
If any person shall be discovered to rebaptize anyone of the catholic faith, he, together with him who has permitted this infamous crime -- provided the person persuaded to be rebaptized be of an age capable of a crime -- shall be punished by death. Given at Constantinople March 21, 413, C.T. 16.6.6. Revived April 16, 529, C.J. 1.6.2."
>>
>>13986680
Yeah, like I said, it's outlawing multiple baptisms that the Eunomians & Donatists were practicing, as mentioned in the codex.
Are you throwing your lot in with Gnostics & Christ-deniers, or am I confused on what you're trying to say?
>>
>>13980669
The made it up to reconcile their doctrine that God is all good with their doctrine that unbaptised babies don't go to heaven if they die. An all good God wouldn't subject babies to eternal torment, so the babies that didn't get baptised must go somewhere other than hell.
>>
>>13986732
>The made it up to reconcile their doctrine that God is all good with their doctrine that unbaptised babies don't go to heaven if they die. An all good God wouldn't subject babies to eternal torment, so the babies that didn't get baptised must go somewhere other than hell.

You're thinking of limbo, which has only ever been a theological theory, and not dogma.
>>
>>13986739
Yeah. I mixed them up. Not a catholic.
>>
File: 32128c92b.png (381 KB, 614x368)
381 KB
381 KB PNG
>>13986709
>Are you throwing your lot in with Gnostics & Christ-deniers, or am I confused on what you're trying to say?
Law 16.6.6 isn't dealing with non-trinitarians. It's dealing with what it calls "rebaptizandi." This is different from either Novatians or Donatists, who are named in law 16.5.2, and in laws 16.5.37-46, 16.5.49, 16.5.52-55 & 16.6.5, respectively. So, these are completely different laws against different specific groups of people, although maybe according to the interpreter they would accuse the innocent Trinitarian Christian of some kind of heresy, or confuse them with heretical groups as a way to slander them, as was done later on in the middle ages.

For all I know, those who wrote these laws were Gnostic and Christ-deniers themselves, since it was Constantine who established their traditions. I myself am certainly not part of any Christ denying group and I believe fully in Jesus Christ's divinity. Also, since infant sprinkling isn't Biblical baptism, it isn't recognized by the church, hence there is truly just one baptism, and it is that given by the church into the body of Christ. See pic.
>>
>>13986758
Who were the orthodox re-baptizers?

>it isn't recognized by the church
So you have your own dogma you assent to that makes it technically not re-baptism. Fine.
>>
>>13986768
Basically, whenever someone would convert to Christianity and join the church, they would be baptized into the church body, but if they had a pre-existing ritual infant sprinkling this would anger the practicers of Catholicism.

They then made it a death penalty to practice (Biblical) believer's baptism by wrongly calling it "re-baptism."
>>
>>13986609
>Then explain why Honorius made a law sentencing all Christians to death who practiced believer's baptism in AD 413?
The Anabaptists did not exist in 413. Laws against re-baptizers were just that, laws against re-baptizers. For example the Donatists who would re-baptize somebody who was baptized by a bishop they disapproved of, but had no issue with baptizing babies themselves. *Nobody* in the 5th century opposed infant baptism, and you won't find a serious historian who will say they did. Augustine took infant baptism for granted in his argument against Pelagius, essentially saying "if there's no original sin then why do we baptize babies?"
>>
>>13986777
I'm not asking for a creative narrative, I'm just asking which orthodox (Trinitarian etc) Christians practiced multiple baptisms at this time. Can you identify them?

The Theodosii codex names Donatists, Montantists, and Eunomians as explicitly doing this, for example, and none of those are groups you'd identify with.
>>
>>13986609
>the ringleaders of the Münster uprising included Lutherans
Not in any meaningful sense, certainly the word Lutheran was used very liberally early in the Reformation and practically anybody preaching reform was called that at the time, but ultimately everybody running the Munster uprising (and most certainly Jan of Leiden) opposed infant baptism and represented the Radical Reformation.
>people historically were being executed in Zürich for believer's baptism all the way up to 1527, and this is years before Münster.
But they weren't before the peasant revolts.
>The reformer Zwingli wrote a treatise against these believers, which he named "Catabaptists," in which he tried to justify why they should have been executed
I happen to possess this treatise, and I could not find any point where he uses the term "Catabaptist" (which would have been purely rhetorical and clearly was not his typical term for them), nor any point where he launches into argument in favor of their extermination. Keep in mind this man was a martyr for Jesus Christ, killed by the papists in cold blood for the gospel.
>many law-abiding people were executed in a new wave of persecution after Münster, including in England and elsewhere, because sadly misled paedobaptists intentionally confused all of these peaceful people with a few madmen polygamists in Germany
Was this not exactly my point? They were persecuted, not because it was believed refusing to baptize your babies was such an evil thing you deserved to die for it, but because they were perceived as insane terrorists that would destroy civilization if they weren't stopped.
>>
>>13986790
>*Nobody* in the 5th century opposed infant baptism,
Agrippinus did in the 3rd. There was no such thing as infant baptism until groups outside of the church started doing it in imitation of Biblical baptism. And you won't find any example of non-immersion baptism, or involuntary infant baptism anywhere in the words of Scripture, because it wasn't even invented until later. Philip required the eunuch to profess that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God before he would baptize him, in fact.

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."
- Acts 8:36-38
>>
File: Honorius, 16.6.6-.png (150 KB, 505x477)
150 KB
150 KB PNG
>>13986680
>See Law 16.6.6.
>...he shall suffer the penalty [of death],

That's not what it says.

It says "he shall suffer the penalty of the former statute." Scholars say that the reference is unclear.
>>
File: 32128c92a.png (416 KB, 698x378)
416 KB
416 KB PNG
>>13986799
>Not in any meaningful sense, certainly the word Lutheran
No, look up Bernhard Rothmann. The whole thing was started by a professing Lutheran. Here is an article on him. He was clearly a Lutheran, and only later did he change his views when some new charismatic guys showed up. https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Rothmann,_Bernhard_(ca._1495-_ca._1535)

Notice where it says,
>On 23 January 1532 he published his confession of faith (found in Kerssenbroch, 176-189). This confession contains thirty articles which include the main points under discussion by the Reformers. It is thoroughly Lutheran and divergent from Wittenberg only in the points dealing with the sacraments, where it shows clear influence from Capito and Zwingli,

That's what it says.

>I happen to possess this treatise,
The title is literally "In Catabaptistarum Strophas Elenchus." Published by Zwingli in 1527.
>>
>>13986798
>I'm just asking which orthodox (Trinitarian etc) Christians practiced multiple baptisms at this time.
None because there is obviously just one baptism according to Ephesians 4:5.

There were plenty of believers who were accused of being all kinds of different things. Before the Munster rebellion they were given different names, like Leonists, Catabaptists, and so forth. There were certainly true Bible-believing churches who were given the bad name "Donatist" as if they followed Donatus Magnus as their leader when in fact they didn't. Augustine even wrote to a Christian who, afaik, had been accused of being Donatist but denied the charge in letter 93 (titled "To Vincentius"). So yes, most certainly I think that the church was at one point slandered by being given the name "Donatist" by Catholicism, but I don't see any evidence to suggest they took that name for themselves or really followed Donatus Magnus in particular. We see reformers centuries later (See my above Pic, sorry, I accidentally attached it to the wrong post) comparing the baptists with the ancient Donatists and noting how similar they supposedly were.
>>
>>13986810
Right, that's why scripture is careful to exclude children from baptism. Or...

Acts 2:
>Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Acts 14:
>And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:
>Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Nevermind. But maybe Christ taught something that would let us know we should exclude children younger than an undefined age from baptism.

Luke 18:
>But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

On the contrary, I suppose.
>>
>>13986810
I guess you have conceded on the historical aspect, but biblically I believe the apostles did baptize babies. Baptists will make the point that we never see the apostles baptizing babies, but we also never see them refusing to baptize the babies of believers, waiting a decade, and only then being willing to baptize that kid after they personally profess Christ. It is not true that credobaptism is the default answer of scripture to this question, neither perspective is explicitly represented in the baptisms of Acts. The default of scripture would be infant baptism, since the children of believers were included in the covenant under the old law and Jewish believers like the apostles would have taken it for granted that it continued without an explicit abrogation, so the burden of proof is really on the Baptists to produce that abrogation. (also the baptisms of converts are irrelevant because nobody will baptize an adult without profession of faith)
>>
File: 1487357383850.gif (496 KB, 600x338)
496 KB
496 KB GIF
>>13986845
>Acts 2:39
Yes, the promise is to them. Where is baptism specifically mentioned though? Two verses later in Acts 2:41 it says all those who "gladly received the word" were baptized, rather than all.
>Acts 14
You are actually quoting Acts 16 there.
>Acts 16:33
Yes, I see you quoted that as well. Now see Acts 16:34 which is the next verse.

"33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."
- Acts 16:33-34

So it says here that the whole house was "believing in God" as well. This is the same group that was baptized according to verse 33, and in verse 34 it also says they all believed in God!

>Luke 18
Is this a reference to baptism or the kingdom of God, anon? I ask the readers this as a serious question.
>>
>>13986841
>Bernhard Rothmann.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Rothmann
Bernhard (or Bernard) Rothmann (c. 1495 – c. 1535) was a 16th-century reformer and an Anabaptist leader in the city of Münster.
>It is thoroughly Lutheran and divergent from Wittenberg only in the points dealing with the sacraments
Something which diverges from Wittenberg on the sacraments is thoroughly not Lutheran.
>The title is literally "In Catabaptistarum Strophas Elenchus." Published by Zwingli in 1527.
This treatise is titled "Von den Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und von der Kindertaufe" and is dated 1525.
>>13986868
>Where is baptism specifically mentioned though?
In the preceding verse
>>
File: 158ad75e.jpg (89 KB, 852x480)
89 KB
89 KB JPG
>>13986854
>we also never see them refusing to baptize the babies
It was never an idea until later, so obviously not.
>only then being willing to baptize that kid after they personally profess Christ.
See where Philip required the eunuch to make a profession of faith to be baptized in Acts 8:37, and where Paul asked the men unto whom they had been baptized in Acts 19:1-5. Clearly Paul expected them to know who they had been baptized to, so it couldn't have been an involuntary one. Such a concept just simply isn't an idea anywhere in the Bible.
It was those who believed who were baptized, in the Bible:

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
(Acts 2:41-42)

So we see that the order given is always baptism after the people hear the word and believe. It has to be the person's own belief by which they are baptized into the church - as it says, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13). This is the same order as always given in Scripture.

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized."
(Acts 18:8)

This is also the order always given by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

"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 alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
(Matthew 28:19-20)

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
(Mark 16:15-16)

First teaching them and preaching to them, and afterward baptizing. Never the other way around.
>>
>>13983595
>How could they not, given 1 Corinthians 3:15?
>
>And Malachi 3:3: "He will sit as a refiner and of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver till they present right offerings to the Lord."
>--Origen, St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and St. Jerome all thought this was an exact description of purgatory.
>
>And Matthew 5:26: "Truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny."
>-- The “prison” alluded to in verse 25 is Purgatory, according to Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Origen, St. Ambrose and St. Jerome, while the “penny” represents the most minor sins that one commits.
>
>And Matthew 12:32: "And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
>--If this sin cannot be forgiven after death, it follows that there are others which can be, and this must be in purgatory: precisely the interpretation of St. Augustine, Pope St. Gregory the Great, the Venerable Bede and St. Bernard, among others.
lol none of those are canon
>>
File: 1424048624143.png (681 KB, 518x878)
681 KB
681 KB PNG
>>13986885
>This treatise is titled "Von den Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und von der Kindertaufe" and is dated 1525.
You are looking at the wrong treatise, anon. Zwingli wrote more than one, and I am referring to the one written in 1527, where he attacked the "Catabaptists" which you apparently think doesn't exist.

>Bernhard (or Bernard) Rothmann (c. 1495 – c. 1535) was a 16th-century reformer and an Anabaptist leader in the city of Münster.
Are you being intentionally dense? Read the article I linked. He went from being Lutheran in 1532 to all kinds of different bizarre beliefs. He was absolutely and no doubt about it a Lutheran when he started all of this.
>>
>>13986918
>lol none of those are canon
what do you mean?
>>
File: munster.png (631 KB, 885x670)
631 KB
631 KB PNG
>>13986920
Another article on Bernhard Rothmann and his Lutheran views.
>>
>>13986904
>See where Philip required the eunuch to make a profession of faith to be baptized
Was the eunuch a Christian child or a convert?
>Clearly Paul expected them to know who they had been baptized to
It's pretty certain that everyone baptized as a baby knows they have been.
>So we see that the order given
There is never a case where an order is given. This is the most bizarre part of Baptist interpretation, they see things mentioned in the same sentence and conclude it is intended to be a temporal order. By this logic following the great commission we should not teach anyone any of Christ's commands until after they are baptized, which would make it very difficult to make them disciples or to explain why they should be baptized.
>>13986920
>He went from being Lutheran in 1532 to all kinds of different bizarre beliefs
So he wasn't Lutheran then
>>
>>13986810
>>*Nobody* in the 5th century opposed infant baptism,
>Agrippinus did in the 3rd.

Proof?

Agrippinus is famous for taking the position that heretics could not validly baptize, a position that was later criticized by Augustine.

"In days gone by," says Vincent of Lerins, "Agrippinus, of blessed memory, Bishop of Carthage, the first of all mortal men against the Divine canon [Holy Scripture], against the rule of the universal Church, against the sense of all his fellow-priests, against the custom and institutes of our forefathers, held that baptism ought to be repeated. . . .

"When, therefore, on every side men protested against the novelty of the practice, and all the priests in every direction, each according to his zeal, did oppose, then Pope St. Stephen, of blessed memory, prelate of the Apostolic See, assisted with the rest of his colleagues indeed, but still beyond the rest (prae ceteris); thinking it, I suppose, becoming that he should excel all the rest as much in devotion for the faith as he surpassed them in authority of place (quantum loci auctoritate superabat).

"In fine, in an epistle which was then sent to Africa, he issued a decree in these words: 'Nothing is to be innovated [nothing] but what has been handed down (nihil innovandum nisi quod traditum est).'

Source: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_2_7.html
>>
>>13986931
>By this logic following the great commission we should not teach anyone any of Christ's commands until after they are baptized
Nope, because it says "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 alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Notice how in Matthew 28, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ says "Teach all nations" before baptizing, and after this, it says "Teaching them to observe all things." So all nations are to be taught the Gospel, and only then are they baptized, and lastly they are to be taught "all things."

>In the preceding verse
And baptism is also mentioned in the next two verses as well. So clearly, baptism is for them once they are ready.
>This is the most bizarre part of Baptist interpretation
Just read the order of the verse, that is unless you want to deny the word of God, anon.

>>13986931
>So he wasn't Lutheran then
Yes he was. When it all started that's exactly what he claimed to be, that's the point.
>>
>>13986947
>So all nations are to be taught the Gospel
The word there actually means "make disciples" and is being used to speak of conversion, "bring into covenant" essentially.
>and lastly they are to be taught "all things."
There you have it, "all things" are to be taught only after being baptized, thus no things are to be taught before baptism. This interpretative method is incoherent and without justification in the text. There is no temporal order here, only a list things to be done in the process of Christianization, namely 1. covenanting (which includes covenant children, who are not excluded from any part of this command) 2. baptizing and 3. instructing
>And baptism is also mentioned in the next two verses as well.
Unlike verse 38 which is prescriptive those two verses are descriptive, 38-39 are what they were to do while 41-42 are what they did do. The reason no baptism of infants is mentioned is because no infants are present. It would be very inconsistent with v. 39 if they were not given the sign at earliest convenience. There is also no mention of women here, yet it would absurd to conclude their wives were not baptized.
>When it all started that's exactly what he claimed to be
Karlstadt also claimed to be that. Also "it all started" when violence occurred.
>>
>>13986987
>There you have it, "all things" are to be taught only after being baptized, thus no things are to be taught before baptism.
What on earth? This really isn't that complicated unless you try to make it. The order here is always teaching first, and preaching first, followed by baptism. We never stop being taught after this, though. Like it says in Proverbs 4, "But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." There is always more to learn from God. Praise the Lord.
>This interpretative method is incoherent
Your method is incoherent? Yes, it is. Just go with the order as written.

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." (Acts 18:8)

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 8:36-37)

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
(Mark 16:15-16)

>There is also no mention of women here, yet it would absurd to conclude their wives were not baptized.
Women can be believers so there's not an issue there. Or did you think not, by chance?
>>
>>13987005
Ok it looks like you ran out of arguments
>>
>>13987011
Glad we could have this discussion with you.
>>
File: Summers, Baptism (1874).png (853 KB, 2400x5006)
853 KB
853 KB PNG
>>13986810

None of the early Church Fathers opposed infant baptism.

Your claim that Agrippinus did is refuted here:
>>13986934

Pic related is an interesting discussion of infant baptism in the Fathers by a Protestant theologian, Thomas Summers, writing in 1874. Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=BmsMM01IRscC

Here are two quotes he does not include in full:

>"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them"
Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]

>"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born"
Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]

As Summers establishes, none of the Fathers reject infant baptism, nor is it prohibited in the New Testament.

As for the New Testament, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12):
>In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

In this passage, Paul refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.”

If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would hardly have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

The testimony of the Fathers, in turn, confirms that there never was a time when infant baptism was not practiced in the Church.
>>
>>13983595
>>13986918
>lol none of those are canon

Wrong. Those are all quotes from the canon of scripture.
>>
File: kjv_7.png (1.59 MB, 1920x1080)
1.59 MB
1.59 MB PNG
>>13987287
>If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would hardly have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism
According to Galatians 1:11-12, the Bible says "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

In accord with what Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:21, where the Bible says, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Therefore, inspired Scripture is given by the Lord our God, not just by men's intentions.

And the parallel between circumcision and baptism is simply that one must be born again first. So just as physical birth came before circumcision (circumcision never happened before birth), so being born again always happens before one is ever baptized into the church. Being born again is the same thing as being saved, see 1 Peter 1:23 and 1 John 5:1. So, one must be saved beforehand; that's the connection. Unless you were saying that babies were supposed to be circumcized before they were physically born, then neither does one join the church until being spiritually born.
As Christ says in John 3:5-6,
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

So then according to Christ's words, that which is born of the flesh is being physically born; while that which is born of the Spirit, this is what is referred to as being "born again." Hence, being born "of water" (physical) and born "of the Spirit" (spiritual birth, being born again) are in this way two different things. As explained in John 3:6, by Jesus Christ, a verse which is often, quite curiously, left out whenever John 3:5 is discussed.

Pedobaptism meanwhile, wasn't an idea at all until after the Bible was written.
>>
File: 1643097528154.jpg (29 KB, 640x480)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>13987365
Also, yes, before I have to go; the parallel between water, representing the physical and the Spirit of God representing the spiritual pre-exists S. John's Gospel. It is found, for instance, in Genesis 1:2 which says, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." And according to what we read in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, physical water represented something with a spiritual signification back during the Exodus as well. Indeed, in passages like John 4 and 1 Peter 3:20-21, in addition to John 3:3-7, we see physical water mentioned several more times as representing something else with a spiritual parallel. In fact, in 1 Peter 3:21, it is outright and literally stated by Peter that water baptism is indeed a "figure" of that by which we are saved, namely the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" - 1 Peter 3:21

That's all for now, hope that helped someone.
>>
File: ReturnToZork_TrollCave.png (1.56 MB, 1280x720)
1.56 MB
1.56 MB PNG
>>13987365
>that which is born of the flesh is being physically born; while that which is born of the Spirit,
Not quite so, when you are born you are born inside of a water sack.
You are born of the flesh when you are seeking fleshlyness. Fleshliness is worldliness, which is enmity with God.
Goats are worldly, as soon as a male goat gets of certain age, he starts attempting the act of mounting females. If only he were tall enough, he could mount and breed all he wants, but male goats in their youth can't get up there. It's like a feature that forces him to grow older to breed, otherwise he would.
That's the key word here, he would if he could. That's what God hates about the flesh, because God is a domesticator, a creator, and a God of shepherds.
David used to protect the weaker ones from predators, and he kept sheep, which came from goats, which came from domestication. Like they say we get domesticated cats and dogs from Egypt.
Being born of the spirit just means putting off your worldly lusts, your eyes of the bedroom after the pleasures of a spouse, and putting on the direction of God's Spirit.
Like taking a big sip of bitter herbal tea straight from the blood of the stems of living herbs. It annihilates the gut of activity, and there is peace. Activity, like the activity of goats. When goats spot a young one with a sprained hoof, they immediately begin preventing it from grazing, and headbutt it till it falls down, and they pick on it until it might die, or it separates from the tribe.
But you cannot be a good father of children if you do not sin (legally) and get married to a woman. Part of heaven for some people, this is what they want. So God would be denying them of that if there wasn't any of that in Heaven.
Meaning if you say eff the flesh, you lose it, and if you say eff the spirit, you lose it. The only way to heaven is by Jesus Christ's blood, in which you may have both.
https://youtu.be/1Ja0_nMB8PY?t=17
https://youtu.be/k-iKphQHxvY?t=3190
>>
>>13987402
And so we see by the linked explanation how it is that being "born of water" is supposed to represent the physical, while being born "of the Spirit" represents one being born again (see also 1 John 5:1, John 1:12-13, 1 Peter 1:23). It is thus a perfect explanation for Nicodemus' question in John 3:4. However, it must be noted the verse of John 3:5 has often been corrupted to say "born AGAIN of water and of the Spirit," (noticed the extra added word again in this verse, or renatus instead of natus in the Latin) as if to imply this is just one birth, rather than being a physical birth with a spiritual parallel presented side by side, as explained in John 3:6. However, if one looks at the Greek manuscripts for John chapter 3, one will only see John 3:5 saying "born of water and of the Spirit," and never, "born AGAIN of water, etc." in that verse.

So this change, along with the corruption of Matthew 6:11, found in some specific Latin versions, represents a great deception imposed by a few deceivers who sought to change the Bible text itself, in order to support manmade doctrine. Reading from the original version, and in full context - not just taking verse 5 out of context, as some brands of Catholicism does after it has corrupted it by adding a word - one sees therefore quickly what John 3:3-7 is really about, as explained in this post here: >>13987365 Amen.
>>
>>13987287
>As Summers establishes, none of the Fathers reject infant baptism
I know you Romanist guys don't do serious history but I would be remiss if I didn't correct you that at least one did explicitly reject infant baptism, namely Tertullian, who clearly argues against it in his treatise on baptism. What is interesting though is that he is no Anabaptist, there are no theological traditions today which would agree with him. While the Anabaptists received their name because of their repudiation of their baptisms in infancy, Tertullian takes for granted that infant baptism is equally as valid as adult baptism. Tertullian's objection to the practice is not theological as the Anabaptists' was, but practical (specifically, he makes the argument that should baptized children grow up to be unbelievers their parents will have done nothing but to increase the judgement against them, since they will be judged as covenant-breakers as well as unbelievers). Considering the entire passage as a whole it seems unlikely to me that Tertullian was the one representing tradition here, but seems as if he is knowingly arguing against the established habit of the church, which would also explain why he seems alone in opposing the practice.
>>
>>13980695
as far as I understand it, official catholic teaching isn’t that Purgatory is a “place” (this is more or less just a cultural belief held by a lot of catholics, but not mandatory teaching) rather it is a “state of being”. The *official doctrine* of purgatory is technically compatible with what Orthos hold—it’s just that some aspects of catholic teaching are vague enough to where tradition outside of the catechism can take a really deep hold mixed with the fact that orthodox christians are pedantic fucks who want to complain about anything that westerners do



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.