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


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: cant see the difference.png (707 KB, 1524x1800)
707 KB
707 KB PNG
The one true faith. The faith of the one holy catholic church founded by Jesus Christ in AD 33. What are some acceptable confessional lines? For me, it's Westminster. Book of Concord is not bad either.
>>
>>8963383
>great awakening
Prots were the original WOKE retards.
>>
Edify yourselves:

https://reformedbooksonline.com/
https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/
https://www.chapellibrary.org/
http://www.bunyanministries.org/
http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/luther.htm
http://www.spurgeongems.org/
>>
Is /his/ a Reformed board now?
>>
>>8963391
you wish
>>
>>8963386
brainlet take
>>
>>8963383
Liberal branch isn't Christian at all
>>
>>8964654
Except that's true though. They literally think that WE WUZ THE FURST KRISTIANS AND SHIET, despite there being a ton of literary, archaeological, cultural and linguistic evidence to the contrary, along with the fact that they can't explain why they cut out 7 books of the Bible if they were the OG Church or why Jesus allowed His Church to be thoroughly corrupted and destoryed. In essence they're just as delusional as Black Israelites.
>>
>>8965253
>they cut out 7 books of the Bible
Luther wanted to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew, which he considered to be the original. That is why he did not include those 7 books in his translation of the Old Testament.

They stayed in Protestant Bibles (including the English King James Version) for centuries, as a separate section. The Apocrypha had been criticised by British theologians and believers as not being truly scripture, and in 1825 the society decided not to finance bibles that contained the Apocrypha.
>>
>>8965319
>Luther wanted to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew, That is why he did not include those 7 books in his translation of the Old Testament.
I doubt that story. If they weren't in Hebrew, then why not work with the Greek and Vulgate resources you do have since while they aren't the original, the Septuagint does translate the Hebrew into Greek very well. Sure not perfect, but the ideas carry over well enough to give an extremely accurate picture of what the Hebrew would of said had it been preserved. It probably has more to do with the deuterocanonical books supporting traditional Orthodox/Catholic theology versus the his own. It's also why he wanted to cut out James because it directly states that it's not only by faith that we are saved, but faith and the grace to do good works, which contradicts Sola Fides.
>>
>>8965319
>Luther wanted to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew, which he considered to be the original.
he was wrong though. Jesus would have used the Septuagint canon. Rabbinical Canon comes from the 5th century
>>
>>8965439
>If they weren't in Hebrew, then why not work with the Greek and Vulgate resources
There were theological reasons to use the Hebrew canon.
Romans 3:2
>Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. They never accepted the Apocryphal books as part of their canon.
>>
>>8965467
>The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God
they were....before Jesus. After Jesus, they lost God's word....which is why they made the masoretic canon. The same canon Luther used. Masoretic canon is satantic.
>>
>>8965473
The Hebrew canon was fixed before that.
>>
>>8965497
"Hebrew" canon and Masoretic canon is the same. It is satanic.
>>
>>8965467
That was before they crucified Jesus and voided the Old Covenant between the Jews and God. Afterwards, the only part of Jewish tradition that is important to Christianity are fulfillment of the Old Covenant in Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments and the Old Testament. Literally nothing else matters about the Jews theologically. They're children of God, but they lost their special status. That's what the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD said effectively and that's why we can't go off of what the Jews did in the Old Covenant and why there were multiple Councils and Synods organizing the faith and the canon as well.
>>
Also want to state that one of the earliest heresies was the Judaizers, which I think relying on the Masoretic text in order to get closet to the Hebrew roots counts as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers
>>
>>8965501
Good to know that Romans 3:2 is satanic.
Go back to Catholic Answers
>>
>>8965547
no argument jew.
>>
>>8965552
Keep making a liar of St Paul
Put your name back on while you are at it. Not that you aren't already easy to spot.
>>
>>8965560
Paul would have never supported your judaizing elk.
>>
File: 1592687034574.jpg (77 KB, 848x800)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
>Paul would have never supported your judaizing elk.
>>
File: US_Christian_Tiers.png (1.41 MB, 2304x6218)
1.41 MB
1.41 MB PNG
Thanks for reposting my meme
These and more can be found at /christian/
>>
>>8965844
Where would ACNA fall on this?
>>
File: Baboonery.gif (2 MB, 250x172)
2 MB
2 MB GIF
>>8965808
>>8965560

He wouldn't. He didn't even put up with Peter's (who literally just said maybe it would be a good idea for Gentile converts to get circumcised) and that was mild as fuck compared to how Protestants unironically bend over backwards for Jews nowadays. This is an issue that has been settled since 50 AD: We aren't Jews. We aren't bound by Mosaic Law or the Old Covenant, thus we aren't bound by anything the Jews do or don't do.

Read Romans 2:28, 1 John 2:22 and Philippians 3:3 all of which talk about how basically the Old Covenant has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and how we don't need to turn to Jewish traditions for the Truth (barring theOT which talks about the coming of Jesus and his Mission here on Earth, the fulfillment of Mosiac Law in the Greatest Commandment and Sacred Tradition and the fulfillment of the Jewish priesthood in Apostolic Succession) in addition to St. Augustine's City of God which also touches on that subject in one section. How the fuck can you call ANYONE a false church when your church is founded on the oldest heresy that even the Apostles and Church Fathers repeatedly said was a fucking heresy? We're Christian. Other than recognizing the Jews as the former recipients of the Old Covenant, we are in no way bound to it nor should we be since we have the New Covenant that Christ gave us through his death. Protestantism is just a clusterfuck of blatant contradictions to the actual history of the Church and I'm not surprised they have to resort to fideism to defend their thought process.
>>
File: 1585288424088.jpg (68 KB, 473x809)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>He wouldn't. He didn't even put up with Peter's (who literally just said maybe it would be a good idea for Gentile converts to get circumcised) and that was mild as fuck compared to how Protestants unironically bend over backwards for Jews nowadays. This is an issue that has been settled since 50 AD: We aren't Jews. We aren't bound by Mosaic Law or the Old Covenant, thus we aren't bound by anything the Jews do or don't do.
>Read Romans 2:28, 1 John 2:22 and Philippians 3:3 all of which talk about how basically the Old Covenant has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and how we don't need to turn to Jewish traditions for the Truth (barring theOT which talks about the coming of Jesus and his Mission here on Earth, the fulfillment of Mosiac Law in the Greatest Commandment and Sacred Tradition and the fulfillment of the Jewish priesthood in Apostolic Succession) in addition to St. Augustine's City of God which also touches on that subject in one section. How the fuck can you call ANYONE a false church when your church is founded on the oldest heresy that even the Apostles and Church Fathers repeatedly said was a fucking heresy? We're Christian. Other than recognizing the Jews as the former recipients of the Old Covenant, we are in no way bound to it nor should we be since we have the New Covenant that Christ gave us through his death. Protestantism is just a clusterfuck of blatant contradictions to the actual history of the Church and I'm not surprised they have to resort to fideism to defend their thought process.
>>
>I have no actual argument, therefore I'm going to post basedjacks
Ebin.
>>
>>8965800
The word is ilk

>>8965848
I would place mid because of the women issue
>>
File: 1498304530682.jpg (165 KB, 1147x1200)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
>>8965877
>how Protestants unironically bend over backwards for Jews nowadays.
This is an ecumenical issue but it's worse in rome
>>
File: Soyboy_064de7_7296903.jpg (616 KB, 1200x1800)
616 KB
616 KB JPG
>>I have no actual argument, therefore I'm going to post basedjacks
>Ebin.
>>
Can someone define the term "classical evangelical orthodoxy" for me? I kinda get it, but I want to be precise with the term.

To describe myself I've used the term confessional evangelical protestant, but my assumption is that classical evangelical orthodoxy includes evangelicals from the revivalist branches?
>>
>>8965912
It's not a scholarly term with a particular meaning it's just what anon likes to say

I'm interpreting him as meaning the faith of the reformation, which was classical Protestantism and evangelical, is the orthodox faith (he's right)
>>
File: 1 second later...jpg (71 KB, 800x568)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>8965899
Okay, what's wrong with what Francis said? That's completely accurate: if we are part of the New Covenant with Christ, then technically we are grafted onto the tree of Abraham, like in the Vineyard parable. That's not the same thing as using a text as the basis for your Bible because it's the most Jewish and it was Hebrew canon in the Old Covenant. If you want to go down that line of logic, why isn't the Talmud in the modern Bible then since it is part of the Jewish canon now. And don't get me started on how Protestants fucking love Israel and pretend that's where the New Jerusalem will be at the End of Days.
>>
>>8965899
>This is an ecumenical issue but it's worse in rome
it's not worse in Rome. Protestants uniroonically think Jews are still the chosen ones.
>>
File: 1575146342998.png (112 KB, 247x345)
112 KB
112 KB PNG
Reminder that this seal of the Westminster Theological Seminary is based. Posted in the OP of the last thread.

Are there other based seminaries? What about based evangelical colleges? What's the skinny on approved versus secretly subversive ones?

>>8965928
Not him, but the term is used in the ESV study bible to describe the faith the editors affirm. It appears to have some precedent of usage:
All of the contributors hold to classical evangelical orthodoxy in the historic stream of the Reformation and affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness, and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. They also affirm that God’s Word clearly teaches that the only means of salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ. The message of the Bible is addressed to all men and women, and God’s revelation in Christ and in Scripture is unchangeable.
>>
>>8965933
That would be Catholics. Read you CCC:

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
>>
>>8965941
>Are there other based seminaries?
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
>>
File: catholic soteriology.png (430 KB, 807x576)
430 KB
430 KB PNG
>>8965930
He's substituting Jew for Israel and affirming the alt history that the Jews of today are specially descended from Abraham, especially European ashkenazi who are most associated with the Holocaust:copyright:

>>8965933
You're mistaken

>>8965941
I was unaware, thanks
>>
>>8965946
>>8965957
This isn't an argument that it's for living jews as opposed to the Jews of the OT, i'm not convinced.
>>
>>8965949
BASED
>>
>>8965971
Do you know how tenses work?
>>
>>8965941
Sbts
Swbts
Master's
DTS
Gordon Conwell
TEDS
>>
>>8965941
Not sure about seminaries, but the major colleges are
>Wheaton
>Pepperdine
>Baylor
>Calvin
>Gordon
With Wheaton and Pepperdine, maybe Baylor, being far ahead of any others in terms of prestige. Covenant College is presumably decent but not well known. Liberty and Bob Jones are the two non evangelicals like to hate on. I think at least Liberty is undeserved.
Taylor is a terrible, evil, leftist school that everyone should avoid.

I think Covenant Theological Seminary has some issues with SJW bullshit, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Calvin's Seminary is denominational for a Reformed church that ordains women, so I assume they're trash. Dunno about the rest.
>>
>>8965946
That's not bending over backward for Jews. That's just saying there is a connection between Catholics and Jews, whereby the Catholic is living in the Light of Christ waiting for His Return, meanwhile the Jew is still in waiting for a Messiah due to not knowing Christ. Paul talked about this often. What he condemned is saying the Jewish covenant was still valid after Christ's Death and Resurrection essentially, not that it never existed.

>>8965957
>He's substituting Jew for Israel and affirming the alt history that the Jews of today are specially descended from Abraham, especially European ashkenazi who are most associated with the Holocaust:copyright:
I don't believe you honestly. Post the full article then instead of a title blurb. He probably goes into more detail there that goes against your narrative.

Also, yes, Jews in the OT and Jesus' mother and his Apostles and his step-father do play an important role in God's salvation plan. That is unquestionable unless you just want to deny common sense.
>>
>>8965990
I don't know what any of these things mean
>>
>>8965992
>Bob Jones

Lmao, aren't they the university which taught electricity works because of God some shit like that?
>>
>>8965992
Baylor sucks

>>8965995
Here big boy
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html
>>
>>8965997
seminarycomparison.org
>>
>>8965995
What it's doing, at best, is intentionally obfuscating whether Jews go to heaven by virtue of their being Jews. The CCC and recent catholic teaching is rife with this shit. Luckily for us, we are not Catholic and don't have to pretend to tolerate intentionally vague language. You can go on about how it's "so clear" to you, but ultimately, the church could have written a clear statement about where Jews go in the afterlife if they wanted to.

Not interested in listening to your mental gymnastics about how this isn't the case. Remember that only brainwashed Catholic Answers trolls like you actually believe your own bullshit. The language is meandering, unclear, and intentionally so. And that's the BEST case scenario. The other option is it says Jews go to heaven without Jesus.
>>
>>8966003
>Baylor sucks
Why? Give details. It's important to catalog the ways in which these universities compromise evangelicalism.
>>
>>8966011
>>8965995
Another example of deliberately vague language to be political and play both sides:
>841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
Again, this is bullshit wording, and that's the best case. This is why Catholicism is a shitty, terrible religion for nutjobs. It's designed to let liberals read into it what they want and the for conservatives to contort themselves into a remotely orthodox reading. It's why neocon catholics are scum, and why Catholic Answers makes millions. You nutters have to run to them to have everything the church says explained, because at face value it's contradictory and heterodox. But then they calm you down with long essays on how the words don't mean what they appear to mean, so keep donating to that bishop who approves of abortion.
>>
>>8966011
>>8966033
>>8966003

>What it's doing, at best, is intentionally obfuscating whether Jews go to heaven by virtue of their being Jews.
They don't. The Church is ver clear on this: If they reject Christ, then they can't go to heaven (outside Christ, there is no salvation). If they don't know Christ and never had an opportunity to know him, it's possible but they have to be purgated first if they do go to Heaven and would have had to live a life in tune with natural law. It's not even special to Jews, it applies to all people living outside the New Covenant. Again, you're bullshitting. I've studied this shit for years and I have a bunch of seminarian friends. I know what I'm talking about more than you do. It's talking about the special relationship between Jews and Catholics and how the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New one.

Just because I'm not retarded enough to fall for your bullshit doesn't mean I'm a Catholic Answers troll. It just means I'm properly catechized.

This is why I have no respect for Protestants: they're uneducated and don't want to be educated. They just want to be right even though they live in darkness.
>>
>>8966018
It's a liberal University. They're very large and have basically moved past their Baptist heritage in culture, similar to tcu or on the track to the ivy new England colleges.
They outed a professor about a decade ago for teaching intelligent design. They're aligned with the establishment liberal/moderate state convention. Their new seminary is moderate, compared to conservative swbts (which used to be in waco 120 years ago, then moved to fort worth)
The football program covered up a rape scandal a few years ago.

If you're really getting a baptist education in Texas you'd go to ETBU, DBU, or even HBU or Hardin Simmons. There's also Scarborough college.
Evangelical higher education is actually propelled by the smaller Bible colleges (and liberty lol)

I have a bias because I went to a different Texas college
>>
>>8966052
>The Church is ver clear on this: If they reject Christ, then they can't go to heaven
And at the same time they explicitly contradict this. It's justified by appealing to mystery.

>That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.
>>
>>8966052
>The Church is ver clear on this
Ok then where does it say this in the CCC? Not where does it say it in some other obscure document that no one will ever read. The CCC is purported to explain the Catholic faith. So where does it say all this bullshit you just said?
>>
>>8966070
>>8966075
Thanks for standing up to the catholic retard. They think they can peddle this modernist bullshit on just anyone, not realizing that only their brainwashed cult members can be that stupid.

The CCC could say what they're claiming it says. It could say: Jews and Muslims don't go to heaven. Only Christians do. Instead it says all the horseshit.

But these Catholic Answers faggots never give up. They can always reference "some other document" or speech or quote. But their list of beliefs says this vague garbage.

And they don't see a problem with it, or at least won't admit it.
>>
>>8966056
Cool, will make sure never to reference Baylor with decent schools then. Sucks that they are such trash, but that kind of thing is to be expected, sadly.
>>
>>8966090
I don't think the insult is necessary. It would show he's a big person if he could accept he's wrong on this and adapt his religious worldview.

Imagine if you suddenly had to come to terms with undeniable proof that scripture is not inerrant. You would naturally resist at every turn. That's similar to a Catholic and the authority of the Vatican.

>>8966097
I'm being hyperbolic and there's a lot that's good about baylor, I just wouldn't send my own kid there unless it's for academic superiority
>>
>>8966070
Yeah. That's literally what the Old Testament is all about retard. Hell, even Mary, Joseph and the Apostles are Jews that were important to God's salvation.

>>8966075
It seems I was wrong. They go to Limbo, not Purgatory. My bad.
Natural Law: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P6U.HTM
Limbo: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1261
It doesn't really talk about who goes to limbo other than unbaptized children, but it stands to reason that God can't punish you for what you don't know as long as you are in good standing in terms of natural law.
>>8966090
t. retard
Again, Protestantism is a fideist meme

>>8966108
Excuse me but unlike you I'm properly catechized not only in my faith but in Patristics. i know what I'm talking about and I know what I'm saying is True. I don't need a jackass that follows a man that fell into the trap of Judaizers to tell me what's true or not thank you.
>>
>>8966141
Scratch that it does talk about it in part 1260.
>>
>>8966141
>That's literally what the Old Testament is all about
Romans 4:3
For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

You're exercising doublethink to see what you want to see. We've done nothing but put primary sources in front of you.

Jews are participants in God's salvation without confessing Christ. True or false? The Vatican says true
>>
>>8965844
Why is US religion such a joke?
>>
>>8966141
>Again, Protestantism is a fideist meme

Go tell that to Samuel Rutherford kek
>>
File: 1593578127115.jpg (93 KB, 900x600)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>8966183
>t. Post christian Bong
>>
>>8965844
Where is Church of God?
>>
>>8966175
I'm clearly not talking about modern day Jews and you are being disingenuous if you are saying that regardless. Even then they aren't anything but our brothers and sisters in salvation. They aren't necessarily saved by being part of the Old Covenant:
>15. Dialogue between Jews and Christians then can only be termed ‘interreligious dialogue’ by analogy, that is, dialogue between two intrinsically separate and different religions. It is not the case that two fundamentally diverse religions confront one another after having developed independently of one another or without mutual influence. The soil that nurtured both Jews and Christians is the Judaism of Jesus’ time, which not only brought forth Christianity but also, after the destruction of the temple in the year 70, post-biblical rabbinical Judaism which then had to do without the sacrificial cult and, in its further development, had to depend exclusively on prayer and the interpretation of both written and oral divine revelation. Thus Jews and Christians have the same mother and can be seen, as it were, as two siblings who – as is the normal course of events for siblings – have developed in different directions.
>>
>>8966216
Part 2

>On the part of many of the Church Fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favour until in the Middle Ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with Judaism: the promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel because it had not recognised Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, but had been transferred to the Church of Jesus Christ which was now the true ‘new Israel’, the new chosen people of God. Arising from the same soil, Judaism and Christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the Second Vatican Council.

>With its Declaration "Nostra aetate" (No.4) the Church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity. While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel. A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations. From an originally close relationship between Judaism and Christianity a long-term state of tension had developed, which has been gradually transformed after the Second Vatican Council into a constructive dialogue relationship
from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html
>>
>>8966216
Answer the question
>>
>>8966225
See >>8966223
The Magisterium says you claim is false.
>>
>>8966235
*your
>>
>>8966235
Why doesn't it say that in the CCC?
>>
>>8966235
I agree, false is the right answer. Do you acknowledge that the Vatican document in question teaches a heresy?
>>
>>8966247
It's a Papal Encyclical. It carries the same weight as the CCC since it's part of the Teachings of the Magisterium.

>>8966252
Interreligious dialogues isn't a heresy. Wasrte of time sure, but perfectly licit. Nor is recognizing Jews were the previous recipients of the Old Covenant . I swear, you retards don't know why Judaizing is a heresy. It's saying that the Old Covenant is still valid and ought to be respected is still a heresy, not saying that it's voided and the Jews were the former recipients of it.

None of these are even remotely gotchas. They're literally there for you to read if you want.
>>
>>8966296
To say that Jews are saved without confessing Christ is not heresy?
>>
>>8966304
>To say that Jews are saved without confessing Christ is not heresy?
> the Church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity. While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel.
It doesn't fucking say that you retard
>>
>>8966296
So why didn't they put it in the CCC? You didn't answer me. They put in a vague statement and expected every Catholic to go find this other document? Weird huh. I wonder why they did that...

Are you even capable of answering this question without changing the subject. IF THE TRUE TEACHING IS ELSEWHERE WHY DIDNT THEY PUT IT IN THE CCC?
>>
>>8966312
Yeah but elsewhere it says that. Are you being deliberately dense?
>>
>>8966316
Because the CCC is like 30 years old and this meeting happened in 2015. That's the best answer I can give you. Again, the teachings of the Magisterium encompass encyclicals and the CCC so... you're autistically focusing one aspect artificially just to win an internet argument because you are a petulant child. I gave you a good answer. It's really up to you to accept it or not.

>>8966323
Show me, don't just fucking tell me. I'll be glad to point out why you are an ignoramus.
>>
>>8966312
So you're admitting that if it did, it's heresy in a Vatican document right?

It does. I've shared it with you.

The Vatican has an official teaching on vatican.va this very moment that Jews are saved without confessing Jesus.
>>
>>8966316
>IF THE TRUE TEACHING IS ELSEWHERE WHY DIDNT THEY PUT IT IN THE CCC?
not him but if I had to guess it's because jews will put the banhammer on the Catholic Church if they don't curtail to Jewish power so they give a zionist statement in some document while *technically* speaking the traditional teaching on Jews remains as part of catholic doctrine. It's cowardly and will lead many people astray on the issue, I can't condone it, but it's still miles ahead of every protestant church around on the issue.
>>
>>8966339
SHOW ME FAGGOT. Don't just be a facetious dipshit and say it. Again, I only have these problems with my arguments with Protties. Even fucking Buddhists are more honorable than you lot when it comes to apologetics.
>>
>>8966346
What else can I possibly do? Hold your hand?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html
>>
>>8966346
Also, I've literally explained all the stupid clikcbaity bullshit you posted and debunked your ridiculous interpretations of them. Fuck off with that "I aLrEaDy PoStEd ThEm" nonsense. You didn't post anything that proves your fucking point, you heretical hack.
>>
>>8966340
>but it's still miles ahead of every protestant church around on the issue.
The Westminster Confession says this. Watch how easy it is:
>much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess
>>
>>8966304
>WITHOUT confessing Christ EXPLICITLY
>Not explicitly
>Somehow this means they don't
Do you not know the antonym of explicit? Every time a Protestant claims Check Mate, I see they have lacking grammar or reading comprehension. Maybe they try to read things into texts.
>>
>>8966366
It's pathetic that you can't admit your church's teachings are deliberately misleading. That's the real issue here. We know exactly what it all says. The problem is how it's said, where it's said, the contradictions it claims, the ways it obfuscates.

Pretending like this all isn't true doesn't help you. It makes you look like a cultist. Also, they are literally talking out of both sides of their mouth.
>>
>>8966366
Are you arguing that they're confessing Christ implicitly? Jews?
>>
>>8966356
they are FAR worse because they are hypocrites. Biggest zionist in the world.
>>
>>8966350
See fucking >>8966141.
It's talking about Old Covenant Jews, not Rabbiniacal Jews and I pointed this out you fuckwad.

> From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. Such a claim would find no support in the soteriological understanding of Saint Paul, who in the Letter to the Romans not only gives expression to his conviction that there can be no breach in the history of salvation, but that salvation comes from the Jews (cf. also Jn 4:22). God entrusted Israel with a unique mission, and He does not bring his mysterious plan of salvation for all peoples (cf. 1 Tim 2:4) to fulfilment without drawing into it his "first-born son" (Ex 4:22). From this it is self-evident that Paul in the Letter to the Romans definitively negates the question he himself has posed, whether God has repudiated his own people. Just as decisively he asserts: "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29). That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery. It is therefore no accident that Paul’s soteriological reflections in Romans 9-11 on the irrevocable redemption of Israel against the background of the Christ-mystery culminate in a magnificent doxology.

It's just saying that Jews hold an important place in salvation history (which is what the other document said for fuck's sake) since they were the recipients of the Old Covenant and the Temple Jews were the means through which Christ saved the world through his Death and Resurrection. I already fucking said that TWICE already. Do you have mental issues?
>>
>>8966373
That He exists and will come, yes. King David (OT) called Him Lord. The difference is that they don't recognize him on the cross, and as such don't confess Him explicitly like we do.
>>
>>8966372
No, the issue is you being duplicitous and actively denying what I'm saying because you can't handle the fact that what I'm saying is true. So you probe into minutia and try to get a gotcha moment, which I'm not dumb enough to do. This is why Protestants are so unworthy of trust, because that's what their heresy is built on.

>>8966373
No they're not. They don't believe in him and they actively degrade his Name. Implicitly confessing Christ would be like a virtuous pagan living in Roman times living according to natural
>>
>>8966378
Oh yeah?

>>8966390
Let me get this straight
You, a catholic, are arguing that Jews are saved because they're looking forward to a coming false Messiah?
>>
>>8966403
>protestants, who invented the "work ethic" which is publicly praised greed, accuse others of usury
MY SIDES
>>
>>8966398
*natural law. Jews actively deny Christ and even crucified Him. Maybe if you are a Jew that doesn't know about Christ at all and are living according to natural law you can be saved. But if you actively deny Christ, then you can't be saved period.
>>
>>8966398
So in what way are they confessing Christ so as to be saved?
They're not, so they aren't. This is the obvious and biblical answer.
>>
>>8966398
You know what's unworthy of trust? A Church where you can't trust their primary catechism to tell you actual supposed doctrine, but instead requiring a treasure hunt to find the "real" answers according to the guiding lights of some Catholic Answers shill
>>
>>8966413
Remember the time Francis changed the teaching on the death penalty? He now says it is contrary to the gospel. That means for 2010 years the Catholic church taught something contrary to the gospel. So either he is committing heresy or the Church isn't the real church.

Bear in mind that the death penalty teaching, being promulgated as a moral teaching in every catechism ever published in the world until 1990 or so, constitutes the ordinary and universal magisterium in the most explicit sense, and therefore the teaching that the death penalty is a moral good and right of the state, and that it's use is an instrument of God's vengeance that can bring the evil to him in their final moments through repentance, is an unalterable, infallible teaching.

If this can be changed, any infallible teaching can. The church is not the Church
>>
>>8966405
Weber was a sociologist you midwit
He just observed the relative behaviors of protestant and Catholic nations

Good word association though champ
>>
Remember when pope Francis allowed the divorced and remarried to take communion. He successfully violated two dogmas by doing this lol

AND THAT WAS IN A PAPAL ENCYCLICAL
>>
>>8966432
Source?
>>
>>8966428
lmao he was describing protestant greed, which they indeed invented by their own vice. Protestants worship mamon.
>>
>>8966436
Uhh Amoris Laetitia? And then when the pope allowed the German bishops to do exactly that, and said that this practice was consistent with the encyclical?
>>
>>8966439
You clearly haven't read it
>>
>NOOO THE HECKEN ZOOMERS DON'T KNOW THE COMPLEX THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MY PARISH IN BUMHUCK TENNESSEE AND THE PARISH DOWN THE STREET? DON'T YOU KNOW I KNEEL BEFORE FLOYD WITH MY LEFT KNEE AND THEY KNEEL WITH THEIR RIGHT?
>>
>>8966413
Ok retard

>>8966421
>>8966432

Neither of those are dogmas, and all the dogmas that were there since Peter became the Bishop of Rome are still in place. You can't change Sacred Tradition. I hope you understand that. You can change customs like priestly celibacy is not dogma since Eastern Catholic and some Anglican-turned-Catholic rites have married priests, but that was never a dogma in the first place. You clearly are just an idiot if you can't even bother to look this up but have the time to shitpost about it.

>>8966455
Okay that last part is funny ngl
>>
>>8963383

It's all nonsense.
>>
>>8966454
cope
>>
File: 1567470822125.png (15 KB, 310x414)
15 KB
15 KB PNG
>>8966462
>the eucharist isn't dogma
>taking the sacrament while not being in mortal sin isn't dogma
>adultery is mortal sin isn't dogma
Deciding whether someone in objective mortal sin can go to communion is not a matter of custom. That is a matter of dogma and doctrine. Neither of which can change. The infallible charism applies to the ordinary and universal magisterium too. Look it up, it's easy.

Turns out, your church isn't magical, and it does contradict and change it's mind. Explain how adulterers can take communion. Explain how this doesn't violate the dogmas listed above. If you can't, then it's a change.

So you know nothing about your own faith. Suddenly this all makes sense. Here's the fruits of your ignorance, denial, and belligerence btw.

Enjoy :)
>>
>>8966482
You literally posted this here you fucking retard and got thoroughly BTFO'd >>8966459 lmao. What sort of pathetic loser does this on a regular basis?
>>
>>8966511
Nice you didn't answer my post at all. That means you admit that you're wrong and your religion is false. Neat.

Also, post any evidence that Catholics aren't losing members rapidly at the same pace in 2020. I'll wait. Please go ahead.
>>
File: 1553901481463.png (264 KB, 1700x1353)
264 KB
264 KB PNG
Reminder
>>
>>8966519
Yeah, most people are going to hell and even if they cry out His name and talk about all the good deeds they did in his name, He'll say he doesn't know them . Even Jesus said this. But desu, I do admire the Protestant catechesis process since it seems to be you know good in terms of moral teaching. Shame it's wasted on a fucking heresy though.

>>8966518
Go to that thread, retard. Why should I repeat the same arguments twice? You lazily copied and pasted a response and you aren't going to listen because your heart id hardened against the Truth, so it's a waste talking to you about it.
>>
>>8966536
>Go to that thread, retard. Why should I repeat the same arguments twice? You lazily copied and pasted a response and you aren't going to listen because your heart id hardened against the Truth, so it's a waste talking to you about it.
This is what admitting defeat looks like. Remember this everyone. The Catholic could not refute clear evidence that dogma and doctrine had been directly contradicted in two infallible circumstances, proving UNEQUIVOCALLY that the Catholic Church is not the true church because it lacks the charism of infallibility.

They lose. They are wrong, objectively. They are outside the church.
>>
>>8966547
No it means I left a link to the thread and you can see me fight other proautists there. Imagine being this fucking intellectually effeminate that you have to lie, obfuscate and decieve in order to pretend to win an argument. Imagine thinking you are the real Church when you care more about results and winning arguments instead of spreading the Good Word and Truth to all men. This is why I hope God finds you and pulls you back to His Church from the clutches of Satan.
>>
>>8966612
Ctinge
>>
Has anyone attempted to define "classical evangelical orthodoxy"? Here is my stab at it:

>evangelical is obvious
>orthodoxy refers to the conservative, historical theology, as differentiated from progressives etc
>classical is the hard one. i believe it could have been replaced with confessional if the term were not meant to include revivalists as well. perhaps the term merely designates a historical connectedness with reformation history, thought, and practice to some extent?
>>
What's the opposite of confessional evangelical?
>>
>>8965844
based, post more
>>
>>8968268
non-confessional non-evangelic
>>
>>8968268
heretic
>>
>>8968268
Aren't confessional and revivalist evangelicals the two main camps? Revivalists include pentecostals and stuff like that. Confessionals include various Baptists and Presbyterians or anyone who subscribes to one of the historic confessions.

There may be more to it. Like, I don't know where nondenominational fits in
>>
File: 20190908_093848.jpg (1.67 MB, 2122x1080)
1.67 MB
1.67 MB JPG
>>8969604
>>
No one who argues about shit like this has Felt God
>>
>>8969773
Confessional and revivalist are generally different schools but not necessarily discrete. The old light/new light controversies were a long time ago.

Non-denominational is just an independent. Everyone knows that any given non denom church is Methodist or Presbyterian or (usually) Baptist theologically.
The Bible Church movement is almost a new denomination itself.

I was a member of a baptist mega church which was a member of the SBC but dropped "Baptist" from the title because they perceived it as off putting to the Catholics in the area they were trying to reach with the gospel. That wouldn't have been my vote but it's the state of things.
>>
>>8969773
baptists arent confessional, generally

confessional just means they adopt a historic confession as a standard of faith and practice to which pastors, bishops etc must adhere

baptists usually may adopt a confession (reformed ones usually do), but they don't call it (except the reformed) that because they believe that confessionalism establishes a man-made document as equal or above the bible and so on

a confessional lutheran accepts all doctrines taught in the book of concord as completely faithful to the bible

confessional lutherans have a quia (because) subscription to the book of concord rather than a quatenus (insofar as) one, which implies they believe the entire book of Concord (Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, Luther's Small Catechism, Luther's Large Catechism, Augsburg Confession, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Smalcald Articles, Treatise on the power and Primacy of the Pope, Formula of concord), while non-confessional lutherans leave open the possibility that Concord is not matter fact in agreement with the bible in some points and should be revised

confessional presbyterians/reformed are similar, but usually with confessions like the Wesminster Confession or London Baptist Confession

non-confessional doesn't necessarily mean liberal, it might mean they have a more minimalistic demand for members (like believing the apostolic creeds and a few other things) and accept some diversity of opinion on some matters (arminianism vs calvinism for ex), that they have confessions for clergy but not members, that they accept more than one confession in their denomination, that they're the type of people who wants more unity among protestans and don't necessarily believe that if you're not calvinist/lutheran/etc you're necessarily a heretic and so on
>>
>>8970156
What qualifies as historic then? Most Baptists have confessions, it's only independents who might not
>>
>>8970438
They might have confessions but most non-reformed baptists consider them more like statements of belief than creeds, so they don't think they're bidding on believers

it's more about "let's not treat anything as authoritative other than the bible" than anything else, and it also leaves some room for different views instead of being more certain of everything

the 1st LBC for example says the following
>Also we confess that we now know but in part and that are ignorant of many things which we desire to and seek to know: and if any shall do us that friendly part to show us from the Word of God that we see not, we shall have cause to be thankful to God and to them.

you can see here a pro-confessional baptist talking about some arguments baptists use against creeds and confessions
https://reformedbaptistblog.com/2018/01/09/the-validity-value-of-confessions/

in general, the distinctive baptist beliefs historically are freedom of conscience (against state compelled religion, probably because they were always minorities), two ordinances or sacraments (lord's supper and believers baptism, going from a symbolic view to a more reformed and sacramental view), believer's baptism by immersion (no child baptism), congregationalism and associationalism, the authority and sufficiency of scripture, priesthood of all believers, church made of baptized and saved believers, two offices only (pastor and deacon)

there are divisions on arminianism vs calvinism and other matters

when it comes to reformed baptists they're basically congregationalists who don't baptize children

it's not common for baptists to call themselves "confessional baptist" , they usually just say fundamentalist, evangelical or "bible believing"



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.