/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

Open file (1.32 MB 1000x720 ClipboardImage.png)
Welcome to /christian/! christianjanny Board volunteer 09/08/2022 (Thu) 13:43:39 ID: ab0941 No.17677 [Reply]
GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST! Welcome to /christian/, the webring's hub for discussion of Christianity, faith, the hard questions, and the Gospel Truth! Rules 1. Follow the global rules; do not post illegal content. 2. Do not post pornography, lewd, or semi-lewd imagery of any form. If it's intention is to arouse, it will be deleted. 3. Do not spam threads or posts. 4. Do not advertise other imageboards. 5. Do not post anything that attacks/insults Christianity. Good-faith debate and discussion is allowed; make sure your posts are high quality, well-written, and well-researched. 6. Put effort into your posts. Low-quality threads and posts (including bait, off-topic, flaming, or nonsense/schizoposting) will be deleted. 7. One-liner questions that don't need their own thread go in QTDDTOT >>6836 . If your thread was deleted, there is a good chance it was moved here instead.

/christian/ Meta thread Anonymous 07/25/2020 (Sat) 09:38:59 No.144 [Reply] [Last]
Hello and welcome all to /christian/, the new church of the cafe. I'll be taking over from the old owner, so if there's anything you want to tell me about the board, go ahead and do it here. In addition, I'm looking for a few mods to maintain the status of the board. If you're interested, please, contact me at churchofanoncafe@airmail.cc to let me know. ^old BOs email, my email is saysh@cock.lu
Edited last time by sayshcq on 08/05/2022 (Fri) 21:34:19.
793 posts and 128 images omitted.
Open file (13.50 KB 380x285 barite-83.jpg)
>>18615 On behalf of /christian/, you're gifted Barite in honor of our wonderful white Savior Jesus. Let it serve you well as a symbol of your Divine Right.

Open file (437.17 KB 2048x1536 DDNXdpnXgAAKq_8.jpg)
Why do young adults protects Gays so much? Anonymous 09/10/2022 (Sat) 20:37:02 ID: 02a868 No.17783 [Reply]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXeU9nUs7I8 This Catholic found some research about what non-Christians think of Christianity and the five words that come up is Judgmental, Bigoted, Homophobic, Elitist, and Hypocritical. Do they not even look at it from the Christian perspective? Gays are not even a racial minority, it's a manufactured identity of a sin that they choose to indulge into (it's only recently that they became an type of personal identity). They also impose this identity into Christian churches despite going against Christianity itself.
33 posts and 2 images omitted.
>>18630 >killing faggots works and should be practiced in the west again. May God have mercy on your soul.
>>18629 This. I'm glad anons are able to see through subversive tricks.
Sodomy and promiscuous sex spreads disease, death, breaks up families, leaves children unattended and fatherless, and negates the God given gift of bonding that sex was meant to bestow upon a man and a woman. It leaves those without children to provide for them in a loving way. Because of this, it was a mortal sin (punishable by death) in the Excellent law of Moses. God did not change his mind on this, nor was the Almighty, our creator, mistaken! The acceptance of Sodomy is spread by the servants of the demon Moloch. It takes the human power of creation and perverts it into selfish pleasure. Pity the poor Sodomite: their lives are plagued by the natural curses of their sins. They get no relief in this life or the next.
>>18633 Which is why we must cut our support for the the "t" and divert it towards the lgb, in order to oppose the mudslimes.
>>17783 > Do they not even look at it from the Christian perspective? Do those who kill, lobotomize and expell their gay children? It all comes back.

Open file (128.61 KB 1000x1000 1634713837106.jpg)
Anonymous 10/02/2022 (Sun) 07:17:43 ID: b828aa No.18675 [Reply]
What is the best Orthodox Bible in English or Spanish for a curious Catholic? I really have no idea where to start. Bonus points for epub.
3 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>18677 >>18680 ya'll naive if u think le based ebin religion is gonna save the west when its liberalism that transmutates everything it touches to shit. You think muzzie immigrants in the west aren't gonna become westoids 2.0 after a few generations?
The Eastern Orthodox default is the Orthodox Study Bible, which is based on the NKJV. There really isn't a good, pure Orthodox translation available in English, yet. But they're working on it.
>>18677 I'm a lifelong Catholic from a Spanish-speaking country, and am pro-immigration and leftist. So that's not a problem for me, because I'm not religious for political ends. In fact I hate your type passionately.
Open file (45.83 KB 399x399 d2ji3asji.jpg)
>>18685 And in Spanish? That's what I use for religious texts most but there's very few Orthodox resources in it as far as I've seen. There's only one such church near me, but it's weird in that it calls itself Orthodox "in union with Old Rome"(???). So, that's confusing...
>>18688 >>18688 >There's only one such church near me, but it's weird in that it calls itself Orthodox "in union with Old Rome"(???). So, that's confusing... They sound like episcopi vagantes I would avoid but I don't have all the details, do they have a website??

Open file (156.29 KB 1200x1439 Jesus fren.jpg)
Meme Thread Anonymous 05/11/2022 (Wed) 11:43:06 No.10900 [Reply] [Last]
Please don't let this one die.
224 posts and 168 images omitted.
Open file (1.12 MB 719x783 Untitled.png)
>>10906 God loves us and tells us not to hurt each other and how to best live a happy life. If you love sin and wickedness, if you like hurting people, you won't like heaven. I have never died, so I have no idea what heaven and hell are like. I know God loves us and the wicked aren't in heaven. To me, that sounds like heaven. Don't blame God Almighty for giving YOU free will and expecting no bad to come from your defying the help of the LORD.
I just realized how memes use straw man fallacies and emotional appeals instead of human logic and reason. Humm.. no wonder so many of them, founded in ignorance and emotion, are so utterly ... wrong.
>>17865 top kek
>>18651 True that.

QTDDTOT Anonymous 03/28/2022 (Mon) 15:32:23 No.6836 [Reply] [Last]
Questions that do deserve their own thread. You know the drill. Questions that don't deserve their own thread go in their own threads. Questions that do go here.
495 posts and 110 images omitted.
Heya guys. I'll do my best to condense what happened to me. Basically my parents forced me to get vaccinated against my will, and I'm planning to run away from home. I gathered many things that I'll need to survive out there. > For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15 So forgiving others is a pre-requisite for the Lord to forgive me. But how can I forgive my parents after they forced me to do that? How can I comprehend that my TV-addicted parents were simply victims of propaganda? How can I gain such mentality to forgive them while I'm going to run away from them?
>>18679 Oh, are you the guy from the best thread on this board (that unfortunately slid off)? The one where you posted about how belief in Christ positively affected you?... It's good to see that you're doing relatively well! Anyway, it's hard for me to give a good answer, to the main question (if you have to forgive your parents, and how can you do it) but one thing I can say is that I don't think the vaccine is that bad. I didn't take it, but I don't think you have high chances of dying or getting paralyzed or something just from having taken it. And what's completely unlikely is the vaccine being "the mark of the beast". That's "Obama is the antichrist"-tier honestly. Also, I don't think running away is a good idea. If you really want to quickly get away from them, I think it's better to start flipping burgers and renting a small apartment, or something like that.
>>18679 Anon, regardless of if you are who I think you are, don't run away. I ran away from home as a kid and I was homeless for way too long. It's not fun being a homeless teenager. You'll be broke as hell and money will be the only way you can survive. You'll have to do some incredibly gross and embarrassing shit like going the entire duration of your homelessness giving yourself whore's baths in public bathrooms. I had to sleep on the floor of a pubic bathroom every night because it's all I had for me. Also, there's repercussions for being a runaway. You'll probably fail whatever semester of schooling you're in if you manage to be away long enough because as a runaway of you go to school they'll have police pick you up. Chances are, though, that your parents care about you a lot more than mine did. They'll look for you and what will happen when they find you, which they will? Will they make you start seeing a psychologist or even admit you into a shrink ward? Maybe you need those things if you can't ground yourself in reality enough to see the amount of peril you're putting yourself in over a damn shot. Don't do some shit you're going to regret, especially not for the rest of your life. My running away permanently ruined my relationship with my parents and especially my grandmother which, when she died sooner than expected, made me hurt so much more than I could've ever imagined. Don't do that to yourself.
>>18679 Or maybe you're a propaganda victim.
>>18496 > I'm actually questioning if Sodom and Gomorrah was really gay Bible doesn't say it was "gay", more like all types of sexual sin

Open file (888.37 KB 797x634 infant baptism.png)
Establishment of infant baptism in the holy scriptures Anonymous 08/27/2022 (Sat) 09:12:55 No.16755 [Reply]
Those of you not in the Reformed world and even some of those who are may not be aware that we are currently in the Great Baptist Butthurt of 2022 following the statement on Crosspolitic (mainly from their guest) that Baptist theology is the cause of trannyism. I would generally tend to agree with them; while the statement may seem silly on its own merits understood in its actual context I feel it is vindicated. But since this controversy has reignited the baptism debate I feel motivated to finally put in the effort as I have been meaning to to demonstrate the biblical practice of infant baptism. Many evangelicals are swayed heavily by the Baptist error, and many even who are members of churches which baptize babies take for granted that there is no scriptural license for the baptism of infants, and believe that it is done from human practice rather than divine command. This is a tradition of men, which proceeds from the human tendency to polarize, in this case against medieval tradition, for which cause the reformers called them radicals. This human tradition taken to its most extreme form leads inevitably to damnable heresy and separation from Christ, as it historically produced the heresies of the Socinians and the neo-Arians. This unfortunate Anabaptist influence is most concerning in its wider impact on Christian thought which has led many Christians in this dark age to develop grossly unbiblical ideas of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, soteriology and even theology proper, among other things. Of the Baptists the least consistent and yet the heftiest of all are the Reformed Baptists, who maintain biblical doctrine and appropriate thought processes generally speaking but inconsistently with that are influenced to reject the baptism of the children of believers. Some of them allege that the reformers maintained infant baptism not because they were convicted by the testimony of scripture but because of the command of the state, which used baptismal records as a kind of census. This explanation seems silly to me, since it can take us only a few seconds to solve the apparent problem (simply go through the entire process, but without sprinkling the baby) it seems to do little but insult those great men of God to suppose that they could not, and it was never their tendency to allow Caesar's whim to dictate their theology even when it brought them into conflict. Also as often they for some reason single out John Calvin and say that his doctrine of baptism was a theological novum of the 16th century; this irrelevance I feel is plainly contradicted by the support we have from many in the early church, most obviously Augustine. It is absurd to suppose that because John Calvin's argument for infant baptism was not the emphasis of ancient sacramentology that therefore it was inconsistent. But while we are on the note of Calvin I would like to segue by noting my agreement with him, that "Should it appear to have been devised merely by human rashness, let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord; but should it be proved to be by no means destitute of His sure authority, let us beware of discarding the sacred institutions of God, and thereby insulting their Author." I would begin by questioning the Baptists: whether baptism may properly be called a seal of the righteousness which the saint already has by faith? I think none but the most wily Baptists will deny it, for it is little more than an accurate description of the basic fact of baptism, but I think they are right to deny it for they know that such terminology when used in the bible is used not of baptism, but of circumcision (Romans 4:11). If this fact was no impediment to the children of believers receiving the sacrament of faith under the old law (Genesis 17:12), why should it be under the new? Seeing as God indeed ordered this sacrament be applied to children we must know when it was He was pleased to abrogate that command? But this brings us to a fundamental error of which all Baptists are guilty. They say that "baptism is an ordinance of the new covenant"; this I deny and instead affirm that baptism is a sacrament of the covenant of grace according to the administration thereof which is called new. While the accidents of the old and new covenants are very different indeed, the former consisting in shadows and the latter in the light of Jesus Christ, according to substance they are one and the same covenant of grace (Galatians 3:15-18), founded on the blood of Jesus Christ. For the old fathers always walked by faith in the heavenly promises of He who was to come, as when God first showed mercy to fallen man He did so saying "I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; and He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" and thereafter He sealed this promise to them by clothing them in slain creatures to save them from the consequences of their sin. Consistent with their hard distinction between the covenants the Baptists argue that the difference between the covenants consists largely in that while the old covenant included many unbelievers, the new covenant is now exclusive to the elect. Continuing they say that only those who actually do believe are to receive the sign of the covenant. Sometimes the wiser among them will clarify that it is they who profess to believe that are to be baptized, but since this is not actually consistent with their argument from the covenant they will still essentially say that we are to baptize those who do believe. At this point their ecclesiology has broken down entirely, and they pretend the ability to see into men's hearts. For if only those who do believe are to be baptized then they are guilty of injustice when they baptize one who falsely claims to believe, and out of sheer consistency with this absurdity a shockingly large number of them are guilty of a more outlandish absurdity in repeatedly baptizing the same men over and over following apostasy and recovery of faith or even of a believer merely when he backslides and lapses. I ask of the two views is this not the one that is more consistent with an ex opere operato sacerdotalism? In divorcing the efficacy of baptism from the objective giving of the promise regardless of its significance to the recipient at that moment, they seem to conjoin the grace to the external sign and make it depend more on a kind of subjective magic, so that if one falls away after having received it the incantation must have failed and needs to be applied again. Contrary to the previous view we maintain that they are to be baptized who are externally members of the covenant of grace, which is the same thing as saying those who are to be baptized are the members of the visible Church of Jesus Christ. This 'visible' and 'external' membership is the only sort which mere men are capable of perceiving, I sincerely hope I do not need to cite proofs for that. The question now becomes whether the children of believers are members of their covenant, and the testimony of scripture compels us to answer in the affirmative, for our Lord says "Suffer the little ones to come to me, truly I say to you the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" and with Him Paul agrees when he says that a believer's child is holy on their account (1 Corinthians 7:14). If it is objected that he also says the unbelieving spouse is holy, I answer that they are disqualified by any sort of true membership in the covenant on account of their active rejection of the truth which a baby is incapable of, but they are indeed counted as holy in a sense, as for the sake of their Christian family they are treated as if they were members of the covenant in this life insofar as they are made partakers of the same temporal and worldly blessings in the hopes that by them they might be led to repentance, just as old Israel was given the blessing of land to bring it to faith that would lead them to the country of heaven. And indeed we see from the consistency of the covenants that the children are members, for what God had promised to Abraham was "I will be a God to you, and to your seed after you"; likewise Peter after having preached "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins" invoked that same Abrahamic promise, which would not have been lost on any of his Jewish listeners, saying "For the promise is for you and your children". If it is objected that the sentence continues "and for all who are far off, all whom the Lord our God calls to Himself" I answer that the citation has ceased at this point because the relevance of the verse to this topic has ceased. All three groups are defined as being 1. those whom the promise is for and 2. those whom the Lord our God calls to Himself. Consequently we must conclude that "you" here refers to those Jews which were hearing his words that did believe, and "all who are far off" refers to those Jews and gentiles not present who would believe. Since "you" and "your" are identical, "your children" means "the children of you who are believing". If it is further objected that the promise being for these children is contingent on the same grounds as those who are far off, namely, that at some point in the future they must actually believe, I answer that indeed if they do not believe but reject the truth they will be cut off from the promise, but in this moment it is truly "for" them; Peter has not said "For you and for children" but "For you and your children", meaning specifically at this moment it is (ἐστιν) for them specifically on account of their parents, and I trust nobody thinks there is something more special about these Jews than other Christians to receive such grace. It is not to be protested that the promise also is presently 'ἐστιν' for those who are far off as well, because they may be included in the present on account of their having been predestined before the foundation of the world. Furthermore as this is the repetition of the Abrahamic promise I note that foremost the promise that is being made is here primarily for the parents rather than their children, namely that He shall not abandon them, but will be a God to them and to their seed after them.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

9 posts omitted.
>>18598 In the Bible, yes, but that was because people were converting as adults. You see, Jesus had just become known, and he was turning the people away from the man made religions of the Talmud. Why do you reject the traditions and teachings of the Church created by the LORD Jesus Christ? If you believe Christ to be God, you'd hang on his every word as true. And he promised that his church would be guided by his Paraclete, the Holy Ghost (not His mother. He never said he'd send His mother and Saint Paul, in the infallible Bible, says the Church would never use a woman for such things!)
>>18597 Confirmation is not a sacrament of the New Testament
>>18670 Acts 8:14-17 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 19:5-6 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
>>18672 And?
>>18673 Don't play dumb. Chrismation is found in the New Testament, as demonstrated by the cited scripture. The Bible describes people baptized who had not yet received the Holy Spirit. The baptized then receive the Holy Spirit after the Apostles "laid their hands" , or in other words, after the Apostles charismated them.

Open file (252.01 KB 411x600 wine-grapes-and-bread.jpg)
Anonymous 08/10/2022 (Wed) 14:49:23 No.16005 [Reply]
Can it work with any old wine and bread?
18 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>16049 >There is as no such thing as transubstantiation God says it's his body and his blood, and if you don't believe the LORD, you don't believe the LORD.
>>16067 No. It is not valid if the person is not ordained or says them in bad faith.
>>16005 It must be bread and wine as Jesus and the Apostles understood them. So, wheaten bread, either leaven or unleavened, and alcoholic grape wine. Anything else is not the appropriate matter.
>>18653 Read Hebrews
>>18653 We are not under the law of Moses pharisee. >>18654 Transubstantiation as taught by Catholics is a thing invented by Aquinas from the pagan philosophy of Aristotle.

Erotic imagery Anonymous 08/11/2022 (Thu) 03:22:24 No.16029 [Reply]
What does Christianity (Catholicism and Baptist especially) say about viewing fictional erotic imagery? Like, fictional pin-up girls, sexualized characters (whether viewed alone in or media like videogames or whatever), maybe even hentai (no masturbating, though). Not including examples in OP post cuz I don't want people who don't want to see that stuff to have to see it. (btw I'm going to bed soon, so I probably won't really be replying until tomorrow evening... if I still remember to check this thread by then.)
26 posts and 5 images omitted.
Open file (41.68 KB 700x616 1651567314114.jpg)
Sorry if I sound degenerate, but I find it silly how no one of thought of drawing those big breasted women feeding Sub-saharian African kids for fun and not for some disgusting man made horror schwarbage...
Open file (3.30 KB 250x250 2ytyz6.jpg)
>>16029 The enemy is standing and observing day and night directly against our eyes to detect which entrance of our senses will be open for him to enter. Once he enters through one of our senses because of our lack of vigilance, then this devious shameless dog attacks us further with his own arrows. We must also struggle to protect our senses because it is not only through curious eyes that we fall into sin of desire and commit fornication and the adultery of the heart as the Lord noted. There is also fornication and adultery of the sense of hearing, sense if touch and all of the senses together. Therefore st. Gregory Theologian wrote in his heroic counsel to the virgin " Virgin! Be truly virgin in the ears, the eyes and the tongue! Every sense that wanders with ease, sins!" St. Casian also writes "While the children of Babylon- by which I mean our wicked thoughts- are still young, we should dash them to the ground and crush against the rock, which is Christ. If these thoughts grow stronger because we assent to them we will not be able to overcone them without much pain and labor."
By the law of Moses, such images are a temptation to the venial sin of spilling your seed. The proscribed penance is to admit you are unclean and to walk around the perimeter of the camp of the faithful until nightfall. Then you are clean once again. Unlike adultery, it is not a mortal sin. To avoid such temptation, one should get married and produce lots of children, provide for their families and raise them in the faith.
>>18601 Where in the Bible does it say any of this?

Open file (184.56 KB 1280x720 1664502936714.jpg)
Anonymous 09/30/2022 (Fri) 09:25:26 ID: 3ea170 No.18592 [Reply]
It annoys me to see when Christians fight over each other like calling any Catholic pedophile or Protestant fag lover. That makes us hypocrites.
8 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>18634 >taking away the power of Rome leaves a huge power vacuum Cope. Even at the height of the Great Church Rome was but one of five patriarchates of the Pentarchy. That the Bishop of Rome was highly respected was out of the perennial orthodoxy of its office holders, and not due to some innate superiority. The Christian world did not wait for decrees from Rome to operate, and neither should it. The dogma of papal infallibility is the culmination of 1000 years of conceit from the Vatican when autocephaly was and is the ancient and orthodox mode of church governance.
>>18609 I think it's important to not mistake some mortal for the Lord Jesus Christ. Every word of the Lord in the Bible is important, nothing was idle banter or useless words. The LORD Says he gives the Keys to heaven to Simon and renames him Peter, so be it! The Lord has spoken. The LORD gives the Apostles the power to forgive sins on Earth, then that is needed. It means we cannot forgive our own sins. The LORD says feed his sheep, give to the poor, and love our neighbors, then we should do so. None of this "Faith alone (Luther said I don't need to be nice to people like the LORD said) LORD says don't divorce, then don't divorce. Simple as that. >>18610 What I mean by the Gospel of Aquinas is the Summa Theologica, a huge work done by Thomas Aquinas. I noticed that many Catholic catechisms conflicted; These conflicts were caused because one came from the Bible and the other came from the Summa. Things that were not a sin under the Law of Moses was a mortal sin according to Aquinas. The loving God, who gave us rules to live a better and happier life and rules to prevent us from hurting others were perverted by Aquinas into twisted devilish "everything is a moral sin, including your very thoughts! The God of Moses is a loving God, as affirmed by the LORD Jesus Christ. The god of Aquinas is some lawful evil god that sends all to hell unless they get the sacrament of penance every day. It got so bad that one priest's homily said if you help your fellow man and are doing it because you love people rather than out of fear of God that you've gained nothing. In a very real way, Aquinas created a new and false gospel. His logic is poor and his premises are only those that a human might assume. Too many priests believe this false gospel. But Catholic faith is from the Bible and the infallible pronouncements of the True Popes. NOT Aquinas and not Marion apparitions, >>18628 The Bible says we have a leader of the Church established by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18). Luther rejected the Words of God. The Lord Says we are to be kind to the poor. The words of God were rejected by Luther, who claimed he didn't need to do good works, but just have faith. But if you have faith Jesus is LORD then why do you not do as he asks?! The Bible says Christ established a Church lead by Simon Peter. The Church by divine guidance gave us the Bible in two forms: the Latin and the Greek. Luther throws out the religion of the Church established by the LORD and says all he needs is the Bible. I don't want to pick a fight, but if you reject the Word of the Lord, you reject the Lord.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

>>18648 >The Bible says Christ established a Church lead by Simon Peter. The Church by divine guidance gave us the Bible in two forms: the Latin and the Greek. Luther throws out the religion of the Church established by the LORD and says all he needs is the Bible. You rob Paul to pay Peter. Luther merely preached the Gospel as proclaimed by Paul who spread it across the whole world. And no one in the New Testament wrote in Latin.
Open file (134.46 KB 1000x563 pope-gaudy.jpg)
>>18648 >The LORD said the meek shall inherit the earth and that the rich man would find difficulty in getting into heaven. The Lord did not say that the Kingdom of heaven only goes to the rich and the (in)famous. And who is the richest man but the Pontiff of Rome? Who proclaims his manmade traditions in halls embossed in gold, gold robbed of innocents across the world?
>>18648 Why do you keep typing Lord in all caps? If you want to use the divine name then do so >The LORD Says he gives the Keys to heaven to Simon and renames him Peter Actually He gave the keys to all of the apostles >The LORD gives the Apostles the power to forgive sins on Earth, then that is needed. It means we cannot forgive our own sins. We never could forgive our own sins, nor can any man, the forgiveness is not theirs to give because they are not the one whom we have sinned against. The apostles (more properly the Church) were given the power to forgive sins inasmuch as they declare the forgiveness of sins. In the same way, they were given the power to retain sins. Does the Romish priest have the right to refuse to forgive the sins of the one who confesses to him? He surely does not, but to the one who does not repent of his sin, the Church retains it to him. >The LORD says feed his sheep, give to the poor, and love our neighbors, then we should do so. None of this "Faith alone (Luther said I don't need to be nice to people like the LORD said) Do you claim to have given enough to the poor or loved your neighbor enough? I sure don't, if I am to be judged on the basis of my own righteousness I can already smell the fires of hell. The only way I can stand before a holy God is by the mediation of another who suffered for my sins in my stead. >LORD says don't divorce, then don't divorce. Simple as that. But when He said that, He added an exception, "except it be for sexual immorality", which was also added by the law of Moses as the only permissible ground of divorce. >The loving God, who gave us rules to live a better and happier life and rules to prevent us from hurting others >evil god that sends all to hell Who will define the love of God? Will sinful man do it, or He Himself? An unjust weakling God that allows sinners to get away with their evil without consequence might be very appealing to those same evil sinners, but it isn't the God of the bible. Your God seems to be very wrapped up in man and pleasing him, but the God of the bible is concerned chiefly with His own glory and has little concern for evil men to whom He shows incredible grace and mercy just to allow them to exist in this world rather than to fall out of the womb straight into the pit of hell as they deserve, so great is their sin against Him. Do you expect to enter His presence and not have to answer for what you have done to His creation? The purpose of the law was never so that man could reach his fulfillment through it, it was always precisely the opposite, its purpose was to be a failure so that sinners could see their need for Christ who fulfilled it perfectly. Romans 7:7-11 "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! Rather, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law. For I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, worked out in me coveting of every kind. For apart from the Law sin is dead. Now I was once alive apart from the Law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; and this commandment, which was to lead to life, was found to lead to death for me. For sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me." >But Catholic faith is from the Bible and the infallible pronouncements of the True Popes It is amazing that anyone would put the word of God and the word of men on equal ground, let alone men as manifestly wicked and heretical as the bishops of Rome. Now Rome was once a true church of a true church, having been established by Peter and Paul who invested considerable effort into establishing its orthodoxy due to its central position in the empire, benefiting many churches alongside it through it. This archetypal quality preserved for centuries, which is why Irenaeus was still able to use it long after as the archetypal example of a Christian church in Against Heresies. Paul had prophesied the man of sin would sit in the temple of God (which is the Church) and declare himself to be God, exalting himself above all things which are called god. The pope's incomparable presumption in matters of religion are well known, how he essentially exalts himself as the font of religion above every object of worship, it makes no difference to him whether the god in question is Vishnu or Yahweh, he will suffer no competition. Likewise he has declared himself to be God by claiming for himself titles proper to the whole Godhead; he calls himself Holy Father (a title proper to God the Father), he calls himself Head of the Church (a title proper to God the Son) and he calls himself Vicar of Christ (a title proper to God the Holy Spirit). >The Bible says we have a leader of the Church established by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt 16:18) According to Matthew 16 this leader is named Jesus Christ. After questioning Peter who men said He was, the Lord then asked him "but who do ye say that I am?" and Peter answered "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" and Jesus blessed him, saying "Blessed art thou Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven". The Lord was not rewarding him when He followed by saying "and I tell you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church", as if though the declaration had no relation to the previous words, but was continuing the same thought. Now I can't deny that "petra" and "Petros" in this verse are one and the same, but while the papists conceive that petra is a reference to Petros in reality Petros is a reference to petra; that is, Peter (who was already called so before this moment) is only given such an esteemed title in reference to this moment where he is the rock, and every time he was called Cephas it was a reference to this moment. Peter is the rock not in his singular person but as the man who confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and it is upon this rock that the Lord has built His Church. It is as if the Lord said "I tell you that you are a rock, having been so blessed to have me revealed to him by my Father in heaven and to have rightly confessed me to be who I am, and upon this rock which you now are I will build my Church".

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

no cookies?