How does he cope with the fact that the earliest unearthed Synagogue had a beautiful, colorful tapestry full of old testament scenes all over, as well as the Christian catacombs being filled to the brim with colorful, vivid, ecclesiastic imagery?This completely kills all Calvinism/Baptism.
bump
>>18099888It was didactic not used in religious practice, he addresses it if you listen
>>18100149What a cope.
>>18099888He knows he is wrong. It's just sad st this point. Gavin has now resorted to lying and pretending he didn't hear arguments he personally engaged with.Bro is cooked
>>18099888Calvinists/Baptists don't need to believe in this discovery as it isn't in the bible.
>>18100144Source? Hopefully they got some scans of all the walls to see the art up close.
>>18101265kek this
>>18099888>>18100144The Temple as described in the OT literature has graven images of Cherubim. The sole issue is no images of God himself.
>acting like these churches were contemporary>300 CELol
>>18101347https://virtual-museum-syria.org/damascus/the-synagogue-of-dura-europos/>>18101359The catacombs were as contemporary as you can get
>>18101359Literally every single time.>my heresy is true because of one or two examples hundreds of years after Christ and his apostles did it
>>18102062>not supposed to pray to images>images not prohibitedAnglicanism once again proven to be the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church. Time to embrace true Christianity from Mother Mullally.
>>18100178>imagery exists>"sees this proves that it you don't bow and worship images you're damned to hell like Nicaea II says so!Orthobros are something else.A bigger problem is the lack of evidence of proper iconography and its practices for centuries, and the primary source evidence against it.Of course, the Orthobros just cope by saying the evidence would've existed if it wasn't destroyed... Nicaea II blatantly says icon worship was an Apostolic practice. Not one piece of evidence says so. And it's supposedly an infallible document.
>>18102078Read the homily against the peril of idolatry: https://www.reformedanglican.us/blog/2014/10/23/homily-against-the-peril-of-idolatry>TL;DR>idolatry can not possibly be separated from images set up in Churches and Temples>Wherefore God’s horrible wrath, and our most dreadful danger can not be avoided, without the destruction and utter abolishing of all such images and idols out of the Church and Temple of God
>>18102103Reformed Anglicans aren't true religion. They are seething dissentcels.
>>18102107The homilies in the articles of religion, to be reach in churches.
>>18102111Are they in communion with Canterbury?
>>18102117The articles of religion are in the book of common prayer.
>>18102120The articles are the creation of the Bishops for governing purposes. Are they in communion with said Bishops? Because otherwise, they have no meaning.
>>18102062Quotes taken completely out of context.
>>18102103I like how Anglican schisms are just recreations of Presbyterianism or Lutheranism with different costumes.
>>18099888>the earliest unearthed Synagogue had a beautiful, colorful tapestry full of old testament scenes all overI'm not familiar with this but it's irrelevant because this was obviously not typical of the Jews nor was what the Jews were doing very relevant in general>Christian catacombsThis was not a church, these images were not placed in a place of worship. Images depicting Christ are rare and late, and just because some Christians were doing something doesn't mean it was considered acceptable. When Christian iconography began to develop in the 4th and 5th centuries it was met with stern opposition from ecclesiastical authorities like Epiphanius and Augustine.>This completely kills all Calvinism/Baptism.Lol no, not even close. Stop looking for excuses for idolatry and repent sinner!
>>18102092Ortlund has said patristic rejection of iconography was "unanimous". Unanimous is a very big word in church history, and very few things were truly unanimous, but I think I agree with this. There has not been a single word raised out of the entire authentic patristic corpus in favor of icons, and the most likely reason why is because no such word exists.
>>18101359>CE
>>18102212Ortlund is a credo baptist so his views are immediately discredited.
>>18099888>demon who preaches Eternal Functional Subordination of the SonHow does he cope with knowing he is going to hell when he dies?
>>18102203It was a de facto Church/place of worship and Christ appeared early.
>>18102228>ad hom>>18102239Incorrect
>>18102258He is a pastor but he is wrong about a couple foundational theological positions. So all his other positions are inherently not worth listening to. He might as well be an Imam or a Scientologist.
>>18102265I would not call infant baptism "foundational", as though error concerning it excluded one from the kingdom of God, but even so this is still the ad hominem fallacy. I support baptizing babies and I say the patristic rejection of iconography is unanimous, so now the big bad Baptist is out of the way.
>>18102274Credo baptism means denying orthodox covenant theology.
>>18102276Yes.
>>18102277Which makes anyone who advocates for it no different from a Mormon or a Muslims. As they aren't a small o orthodox Christian.
>>18102283No.
>>18102287>nooooo the church isn't the new JerusalemThanks Rabbi.
>>18102295Meds.
>>18102124Are you going to make an argument, or...?
>>18102324Presumably that the images weren't being venerated. Same argument Presbyterians, Methodists, and Anglicans make for having stained glass windows.
>>18102228Early Christians were all credo baptists.
>>18102328Whatever Presbyterians you know that have stained glass in their church need a stern talking to.
>>18102328Better yet, a couple pictures here and there weren't the norm.Despite Christians smashing Pagan idols, we have so, so many examples of Pagan art from the Late Roman Empire. The fact Christian art is so rare corroborates Early Christian testimony that they did not/were not supposed to make "sacred images"
>>18102333Not to say I even think these frescoes were "Icons" in the sense Cathodox believe.Nor do I believe "all artwork" is condemned by the Word of God. Only that Cathodox are idolators and their claims of legitimacy deriving from Early Christianity are unsubstantiated.
>>18102330So the households in Acts did not contain any babies or small children anon? Also infant baptism was normative prior to the finalization of the New Testament canon.
>>18102341>So the households in Acts did not contain any babies or small children anon?what is this? "argument from incredulity?" You're arguing from a point of no evidence.
>>18102332Just drive around a look. You can see the windows from the outside.>>18102333>>18102339The catacombs also show depictions of various biblical scenes. Doesn't mean they venerated them, but it does mean they lay somewhere on the spectrum between full protestant churches with stain glass windows showing Noah, and Orthodox icon kissing.
>>18102352Well yeah.
>>18102346Anon. Irenaeus mentions infant Baptism as normative in Against Heresies.
>>18102352I've never seen a Reformed church with stained glass. My (continental) Reformed church has a single stained glass window, which contains no image, but only stylized patterns. However, normatively stained glass refers to windows which are stained as to create depictions of persons, which is a clear 2nd commandment violation.
>>18102359He also says Jesus was 50 years old at the crucifixion.Irenaeus was an enjoyable read. Not an authority. Nor do I care that certain superstitious persons believed water itself was efficacious in any way for an infant.
>>18102346Is that a yes? If there was a single infant in any of those households, that would imply the apostles baptized infants would it not?
>>18102367No, since the households "believed" and "spake with tongues" which are things infants don't do.
>>18102365You don't have to believe water itself is efficacious to believe either that baptism is efficacious or that infants should be baptized.
>>18102369That's true, but it only makes your argument more nonsensical. >yeah baptizing them doesn't do anything>why do it?>because
>>18102368So that is a yes, you are positively claiming not even a single infant was present in those households. In Acts 16:31-34 it does not say the household believed, it says he believed and his household was baptized (covenantal baptism). The Greek is unambiguous, Baptists endorse a mistranslation of plural "they" merely because the text undermines their theology.
>>18102372Baptizing does do something; it does not do something automatically. That's the difference between Reformed and Romanist sacramentology, it is not *whether* the sacraments are efficacious means of grace, but how. The thing signified is really received through the sacrament by faith in the promises affixed thereto.
>>18102365>what does the early church say>no the early church was wrong reeeeeKek
>>18102376>So that is a yes, you are positively claiming not even a single infant was present in those householdsI have no reason to believe there were when the converts were all "speaking with tongues" nor is there mention of an infant.>covenantal baptismyou have to taught this idea first and then you read it into the text.People did not bring their infants to be baptized of John. Everyone John baptized "confessed their sins" and "brought fruit meet for repentence" (i.e. showed they were sincere).
>>18102384"the early church" is not my authority because, for one, it was not a monolithic organization.Second, it is more important to show that those people who claim legitimacy from "the early church" are wrong anyways.
>>18102368>>18102376>>18102381Fun fact. The early Christian sources after Irenaeus on it are (1) Tertullian (apostate kek) who is against it because he is worried they might sin later and so it should be done at the optimal time (2) Cyprian saying it can be done before the 8th day even if its serving the same role as circumcision. But notice how even the apostate Tertullian himself isn't against it, he is just being weird either trying to game the system.
>>18102389>I don't believe the early church>I don't believe the councils>I don't believe the Medieval Catholic church>I don't believe in any of the major established reformation era churchesSo when did the church fall into Apostasy for you? Do you believe in the gospels or are you a Paul's letters only guy?
>>18102395What does it matter to me what a few bishops wrote out of hundreds (even thousands) of bishops and deacons? I don't claim there is an unbroken inviolate "holy tradition" which validates my specific denomination. You can find no end to contradictions between "church fathers."
>>18102387>I have no reason to believe there were when the converts were all "speaking with tongues" nor is there mention of an infant.1. There is no mention of speaking in tongues in Acts 16 2. There doesn't need to be a mention of an infant. A Baptist must conclude there were absolutely no infants, but the inverse is not true. The text favors a covenantal baptism of itself without necessity for infants to be mentioned, because he believed and his household was baptized. >you have to taught this idea first and then you read it into the text.I didn't put the singular masculine words into the text, it says he believed and his household was baptized. >People did not bring their infants to be baptized of John.1. There is not evidence to conclude this; infants would be counted as their parents for such purposes 2. People most certainly DID bring their infants to be blessed by Christ, and He said "suffer the little ones to come to me for of such is the kingdom of heaven".>>18102395An interesting point which distinguishes Tertullian from true credobaptists is that he does not reject the validity of infant baptism. His argument against the practice not only does not dispute the validity of infant baptism, but actually presupposes it.
>>18102399>So when did the church...There is only The Word of God, The Body of Christ, and "The Churches""The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church" isn't in the Bible, and the term was only coined after Gnostics became prolific, to distinguish between nominal Christians and Gnostics (who obviously were just false prophets). There have always been Christians who obeyed the Gospel. There was no "great apostasy" in the vein of Mormonism. Sola fide wasn't even a heresy, only a heterodoxy, until the Middle Ages (both Augustine and Bede make mention of "those who say... faith alone saves" and rather than calling them heretics call them misguided Christians).
>>18102403It's so obvious that if this debate had come up back then they would have clearly stated in an epistle that infant baptism is approved, but the atomization of society of the early modern period hadn't happened yet, and they didn't even conceive of infants as being separate from their household.
>>18102407What Church does Jesus refer to in Matthew 16?
>>18102412The Body of Christ. His congregation. >One two or three of you are gathered together, there am I in the midstHis Church is not a physical organization. It is a congregation defined by "obeying the Gospel," which requires no single earthly authority.>But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.>But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;>And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:>Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.>And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.>But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.>For he that is not against us is on our part.
>>18102401>>18102407The canon of the NT, the 27 books, was fixed at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. Without those councils you have fewer agreed books, plus a few extra and the Shepard of Hermas. You cannot claim the 27 books as scripture without those councils as the consensus scripture prior was not those 27 books. This is especially true for revelation. Credo Baptism was just a retarded sect founded by two swiss seminary dropouts that was only popular with uneducated peasants who didn't have access to anything other than a schizos quoting the Bible at them.
>>18102417>The Body of Christ. His congregation. And what precisely distinguishes this from the holy catholic Church? The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is the wording of the Nicene Creed. It does not belong to Rome, nor does it refer to the church of Rome.
>>18102403>People most certainly DID bring their infants to be blessed by Christ, and He said "suffer the little ones to come to me for of such is the kingdom of heaven".There's an entire New Testament to make mention of baptizing infants and it fails to do so.Yet it mentions infants anyways. Never being baptized though. But even so, Baptism is not the Gospel, and all who are mentioned to be Baptized received the Gospel first. Ergo, infants have no reason to be baptized.
>>18102419>The canon of the NT, the 27 books, was fixed at the councils of Hippo and Carthage>papists will literally never stop repeating this mythology
>>18102430This is the position of everyone single group of Christians except baptists anon. It's literally historical fact.
>>18102434Most people don't care what the Bible says so it's no surprise.
>>18102429>There's an entire New Testament to make mention of baptizing infants and it fails to do so.There's an Old Testament too. In reality rather than it failing to mention the baptism of infants it fails to mention the non-baptizing of infants, for their inclusion in the covenant as per Genesis 17 continues in the absence of clear abrogation. The burden of proof is on you to show their covenant status changed, not on me to show it stayed the same.>But even so, Baptism is not the Gospel, and all who are mentioned to be Baptized received the Gospel first. Ergo, infants have no reason to be baptized.1. Baptism belongs to the gospel, and not the law 2. All who are mentioned as believing first were converts, whom we do insist must profess faith before they are baptized. What we do not see is the deliberate neglect of the baptism of covenant children 3. The purpose of baptism is not for you to express your faith toward God, but for God to express His promises toward you. Therefore, there is very good reason for the baptism of covenant children.
>>18102434I'm not a Baptist and it's not my position. I'm also unaware of it being literally anyone's position except papist apologists, it is as ahistorical as it gets.
>>18102429They baptize households because the patriarch of said household believes in Jesus. This is a reference to the formulation of circumcision in the OT in covenant theology.
>>18102441Your denomination probably does believe this if you accept the Nicene creed. It just isn't pushed.
>>18102439>it fails to mention the non-baptizing of infantsBecause mentioning something that didn't happen is redundant. By not mentioning it when it mentions both infants being blessed as well as adults being baptized, we must infer infants weren't baptized, or else it would say it. The Old Testament absolutely mentions that infants are circumcised. >The burden of proof is on you to show their covenant status changedBaptism IS a sign of the NEW circumcision, which is "OF THE HEART." As the Bible states that infants know neither good nor evil, they cannot "believe with their heart.">The purpose of baptism is not for you to express your faith toward GodBaptism is literally "the answer of a good conscience toward God" verbatim. >What we do not see is the deliberate neglect of the baptism of covenant childrenYou don't have to. They weren't baptized and it's not relevant to the narrative to state "what didn't happen."
>>18102446No it doesn't.
>>18102448Do you guys accept the three creeds? And it's historical reality. They had competing different canons and so they all got together and set what was and wasn't in the canon by consensus. Notice how it's not Rome that set it either.
>>18102341They got baptised together when the head of he household converted, since they were tied to him, aka credo baptism. So the "Credo" part swept the other members of the household as well, but infant baptism was not common if the parents were already Christians. That's the argument Gavin makes, and it's historically correct.
>>18102461That's literally just not true. I don't know why Baptists just seem to accept being wrong as correct.
>>18102447>Because mentioning something that didn't happen is redundant.Au contraire, your position is not merely negative but actively refuses baptism to infants. It could very easily have mentioned refusal of baptism of infants, but did not do so. As established previously the extraordinary claim which posits a change is that infants are not to be included in the new covenant. If the text is silent about this question, it implies they are included, because Genesis 17 abides. Yet you cannot show me anywhere in the word of God where the children of believers were so excluded.>Baptism IS a sign of the NEW circumcision, which is "OF THE HEART." As the Bible states that infants know neither good nor evil, they cannot "believe with their heart."This does not address my objection. It seems however to presuppose the unbiblical overrealized eschatology of the Baptists, namely, that the new covenant now includes nobody except true believers. This notion can be found nowhere in the bible.>Baptism is literally "the answer of a good conscience toward God" This is said not of baptism itself but of its mode of efficacy (i.e. "baptism now saves you ... as the answer of a good conscience")>They weren't baptizedI've yet to see a word of proof.
>>18102454>Do you guys accept the three creeds?Yes.>They had competing different canons and so they all got together and set what was and wasn't in the canon by consensusNo, they didn't. This is mythology.
>>18099888>regional flood theory>bible is still inerrant somehowKek what a retard.
>>18102461>They got baptised together when the head of he household converted, since they were tied to him, aka credo baptismThat's literally the opposite of credobaptism and directly contradicts your following claim>infant baptism was not common if the parents were already ChristiansAnyway even saying it was not common concedes the whole game because it means the apostles baptized at least some babies, which means it was valid.
>>18102472We have primarily sources contradicting this. What grounds do you have for excluding the Shepherd of Hermas?
>>18102476They did so in defense so that if they get sick and died they would be "safe", this is where it got popular. Tartulian explicitly writes against infant baptism.
>>18102478The fact it was not inspired by God.>>18102480Yes, Tertullian writes against infant baptism, however he also writes against baptism of the unmarried. Tertullian did not reject infant baptism as invalid nor is there any reason to believe his position on the subject was representative of tradition rather than a repudiation of it.
>>18102478>We have primarily sources contradicting thisNo, you don't. For your claim to be true the following three things would have to be true: 1. that these councils claimed to have the authority to "decide the canon" 2. that anyone outside these councils accepted they had the authority to do such a thing 3. that their rulings in any respect had authority over the whole Church and not only their regional jurisdiction. All three of these are false, so it is unequivocally false that these councils did anything to "decide the canon". It was basically made up in service to Romanist apologetics and nothing more.
>>18102483According to who? Who other than the councils decided this? It stopped being in circulation following the councils. So when before the councils did this occur?
>>18102488See: >>18102492
>>18102492>According to who?According to the Church Catholic, according to objective evidences concerning it, and according to the testimony of the Holy Spirit.>Who other than the councils decided this?God decided this by inspiring some books and not others. See, I think the difference between us is that I believe in biblical inspiration, and you don't. When I say the bible is the word of God I'm not doing it as a lip service act of submission to a pederastic tyrant, I actually mean it. So, let's say a council, any you like, even irrelevant regional councils like Carthage, had actually included the Shepherd in the canon. Better yet, let's say they admitted some heretical Gnostic trash like the Gospel of Thomas. Would these books be canon scripture in this scenario? No, it would only mean the council had erred.>It stopped being in circulation following the councilsYou keep making claims that are based on Catholic Answers fantasies rather than reality. I have absolutely no reason to believe it fell out of circulation after that or because of that, and neither do you. Again, that these councils did not do this nor were received as having done this is historical fact, not my opinion. This isn't me vs you or Protestants vs Romanists, this is Romanists vs reality.>So when before the councils did this occur?When the books of scripture were written.
>>18102505Quick question, is communion memorialist, real presence (including both spiritual and sacramental union) for you? Does consecration require apostolic succession in the Presbyterian sense at a minimum or is their no need for anyone kind of organizational chain for you?
>>18102530Relevance?
>>18102539It's essential.
>>18102539say Christ is Lord
>>18102437So the Bible proves that the Biblical canon is correct? Not roman catholic, but that's just circular reasoning.
>>18102554I am the guy arguing with him and I am literally protestant and confused how exactly a council of bishops/overseers fixing the biblical canon by consensus is inherently Roman Catholic. If it was Roman Catholic it would have been fixed by the Pope, but the councils seem to prove the Pope was, at most, first among equals.
>>18102558The Vatican's own documents already concede that the Papacy never made infallible statements in the first millennium. So it's certainly not Vatican I Roman Catholic, which by their own definition is a doctrinal development. They just cope that it was "implicit" even though you have popes like Leo I and Gregory I outright contradicting each other on papal supremacy, so it's very clear that even 1st millennium popes disagreed on the role of the papacy.If anything it's a stronger argument for EO.
>>18102570Please provide the contradictory Papal quotes (NTA).
>>18102578https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.htmlThe last sentence is what's important here:>19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople,(16) and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.
>>18102590So... when did the Supreme Pontiff LARP start?
>>18102610NTA but it presumably developed over the Middle Ages and was set in stone by the council of Trent with infallibility being declared in the 19th century. Pope cult catholicism is post enlightenment.
>>18099888Evangelikikes only worship modern jews, not the ancient hebrews, and since modern jews tell them “only beutalist churches allowed”, that’s what they believe. If you stop listening to their rationalizations and explanations, and just observe their behavior, EVERYTHING that evangelicucks do is for and by the modern state of israel.
>>18102062I don’t see how painting art means that you are worshiping that art. You honestly seem jewish or muslim.
>>18102624What about when you go on pilgrimage to the art, get on your knees before the art, and chant prayers to the art?
>>18102618>Zwingli and Calvin did everything for the modern state of Israel/pol/tranny meltdown
>>18102610>>18102612Leo I genuinely believed he had universal authority and tried to veto Canon 28, raising Constantinople as New Rome and equal to the See of Rome, but his veto was basically ignored. But on the other hand, Gregory I called out the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time for trying to claim he had universal authority and could oust bishops outside of his jursidiction. Pic related.So the answer is "it's complicated" but basically more and more popes started supporting it as time went on. Up to the point where it's like "well the Vatican is too big to fail, why would any pope concede his supreme authority now?" Admitting to nearly a millennium of error collapses the whole western church. In a similar reason to why the King of Saudi Arabia couldn't possibly apostatize.
>>18102645What's amazing about Credo Baptists, and people absolutely against any imagery at all in churches, is that they don't really have that much to lose by accepting infant baptism, or letting some pictures be used. So it just shows how absolutely insane their egos are if they won't make concessions that cost them virtually nothing even when proven wrong by archeological or textual evidence.
>>18102645That's odd since Leo was pope before Gregory. I thought it would be a linear development toward Papal dominance.
>>18102634>pilgrimage to the artPeople travel to see the Vatican or other famous churches, this is the least offensive >get on your knees before the artbowing and kneeling isn't worship, it's honoring. I think this is more akin to a cultural shock rather than idolatry. We don't bow or kneel that much in the west, but I wouldn't say someone bowing in Japan is worshiping the other person. It's more of a "when in Rome" kind of thing. And you're supposed to be focused on the Christlike nature of the person, and see how it is attainable yourself. Imitate them as they imitate Christ, as Paul said. >chant prayers to the art?Not to the art, but to whom the art represents. I don't see an issue when the Bible says the saints receive these prayers and pour them out before God.
>>18102665You have the blessing of God to lose by putting images in churches.
>>18102665For what it's worth Gavin does 'accept' infant baptism.
>>18102676It trended towards papal supremacy as time went on, but that doesn't mean there weren't regressions. Especially early on in its development. It's like having a Democratic president for a while, then a Republican president steps in and really reverts course for a time. Another example, Julian the Apostate was the one non-Christian Roman Emperor after Constantine. The general trend within the empire was still towards a full embrace of Christianity, but there was still some final internal pushback from the ancient Roman religion.
>>18102677Ok, so then what's going on in pic related is ok because so what if they are (religiously) visiting a (religious) image, kneeling to it, and praying "not to the art, but whom the art represents"
>>18102690Don't get me wrong, you can still be idolatrous with icons. There's certainly a danger, and I have heard that there have been churches where the priest removed their icons because they were worshiping them instead of God. It's about intent and proper use.
>>18102685This was John Bunyan's position, and historically it is quite exceptional among the Baptists. Bunyan himself caught quite a bit of flack from the other Particular Baptists for not requiring re-baptism. Incidentally, I recall one time James White was responding to a tweet by R. Scott Clark where he said White isn't a Calvinist because he wouldn't be welcome at the Lord's table in Geneva, and apparently offended speculated that he still wouldn't be welcome at the table in Clark's church. I find this very hypocritical and ironic because White openly would refuse communion to Clark on the grounds he was baptized only as an infant.
>>18102684I guess as someone raised Lutheran seeing stained glass art of Jesus and the disciples makes me find no issue, because that just sounds incredibly Muslim.
>>18102693What does idolatry look like?
>>18102698"Don't obey the 2nd commandment because it sounds muslim" is not a valid argument.
>>18102701Presumably people praying at the stained glass windows? I can't imagine this happening in Europe or the United States, but maybe it's an issue in Asian, Africa and India.
>>18102705You mean like this >>18102634?
>>18102697Gavin also believes in the real presence, he is an intelligent man as far as Calvinists go.
>>18102707I am describing it in a protestant setting. I believe RCC are supposed to pray to statues?
>>18102702When Moses received the design for the Ark of the Covenant (at the same time as he received the second commandment) in Exodus 25, was it a graven image when it included instructions to depict the Cherubim on the mercy seat?When Solomon built the Temple in 1 Kings 6, was it a graven image when he depicted the Cherubim on the walls?Yes, iconoclasm is Islamic.
>>18102714It's simply orthodox Calvinism to affirm the real presence.
>>18102714It's sad his dad in in the ACNA which is like retarded Methodism/Presbyterians (depending on churchmanship) so he will probably just stay Baptist even if he fully becomes Presbyterian on all positions as it's clearly an ego thing.
>>18102732Well he is still a Baptist, a lot of them went on a tangent and stopped believing in it.
>>18102730No. You're attacking a strawman. There are four points upon which the Reformed tradition rejects religious images. 1. There is no command under the new covenant to make an image, 2. Images depicting the person of God are forbidden, 3. Images are not to be placed in churches, so that people are not led to idolatry 4. The worship of any image or any other created thing is forbidden>Yes, iconoclasm is Islamic.The second commandment was not written by Muhammad.
>>18102744Yeah but what is so bad about being a Presbyterian to these people? Like they will adopt those positions on everything but refuse to just become one. I am personally not Presbyterian so I can relate to not being one, but I am not one because I don't hold their positions.
>>18102746>There is no command under the new covenant to make an imageOh, but at the same time the second commandment from the old convenant is still valid?>Images depicting the person of God are forbiddenThen you deny the Incarnation of the Logos. It's written in Colossians 1:15:>The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.And are men not the imagebearers of God? You should be able to understand the difference between Aaron's golden calf and a drawing of Jesus.
>>18102469>It could very easily have mentioned refusal of baptism of infants, but did not do soSince the narrator of the Bible is infallible, when it says someone "believed" it means they truly actually believed in the Gospel. Therefore, they wouldn't have such silly ideas as baptizing unbelieving infants. Only someone who doesn't understand the Gospel would consider infant baptism. 1.) Infants are innocent2.) Jesus Christ atoned for out sins3.) Baptism is an outward sign of our inward faith in Jesus' atonement and the first act of obedience for a Christian4.) Considering 1, 2, and 3, a true believer wouldn't ask to baptize an infantWhen the Philippian Jailor "believed," it means he understood 1, 2, 3, and 4.>If thou believest with all thin heart, thou mayest [be baptized]Is implicit any time someone "believed" and was baptized, according to the infallible biblical narrator.
>>18102783>Oh, but at the same time the second commandment from the old convenant is still valid?All commandments are valid unless explicitly abrogated in the New Testament.In fact, this is John Damascene's argument for iconodulia. He says that iconodulia IS idolatry, but that Christ abrogated the commandment against it. Part of this is because Greek speakers aren't so easily fooled by the supposed distinction between "icon" and "idol"... in the LXX and NT it's apparent these are synonyms.
>>18102797The word believed is declined to be singular he in Acts 16:34. It refers to him individually believing.
>>18102783>Oh, but at the same time the second commandment from the old convenant is still valid?The second commandment is moral law. It isn't from the old covenant in which it was merely stated, but from nature. One of the requirements under this commandment is that God be worshipped only as He designs, and not ourselves. The very few images from the old covenant were all tied to the types and shadows of that dispensation, done away with in Christ, and destroyed. For religious images under the new covenant to be valid would require specific command; there is none.>Then you deny the Incarnation of the Logos.The Son of God did not become incarnate so that painters and sculptors could ply their trade. On the contrary, it is you who undermines the incarnation. Jesus of Nazareth and God the Son are one and the same person, so that it is impossible to depict one without the other, but it is clearly forbidden to depict God (see Deuteronomy 4:15-19). Therefore, Jesus Christ is not to be depicted in any form.>And are men not the imagebearers of God? The sense in which either men or the Son (who is God's perfect image according to His divine nature and not human) are the image of God is obviously not a literal, visible depiction like a painting, but by analogy.
>>180998881. Just like a body without a soul is DEAD,2. So faith without works is DEAD.prots have written 50000 books desperately trying to rationalize the 2nd statement to fit their cult.Can one prot write a 500 word essay on the meaning of the 1st statement? Because I've never seen/read one.
>>18102835Depends, but generally the idea of Sola Fide is that faith alone saves you but the saved will do good works. Also not all protestants are Sola Fide, Methodists don't believe in Sola Fide but believe in roughly the same thing as Eastern Orthodox.
>>18102841Sola Scriptura is also an asspull, like what institution do you think compiled and authorized your scriptura in the first place.
>>18102797>Since the narrator of the Bible is infallible, when it says someone "believed" it means they truly actually believed in the Gospel.It does not follow, for the biblical authors are fully permitted to use the word "believe" in an improper sense, meaning "to profess faith". So the disciples at Caperneum are said to "believe", yet did not in their hearts.>Therefore, they wouldn't have such silly ideas as baptizing unbelieving infantsIt is unjust to simply banish covenant children from the kingdom and call them "unbelieving" as though they were pagans. What God has made holy let no man call unclean.>1.) Infants are innocentA lie from the pit of hell, the heresy of Pelagius back from the dead. This error stands in stark contradiction with Romans 3 and 5, and fundamentally undermines the gospel itself.>2.) Jesus Christ atoned for out sinsWhat point you have in this I do not know, as if this was denied by your opponents. I question though, did He not atone for the sins of our children?>3.) Baptism is an outward sign of our inward faith in Jesus' atonement and the first act of obedience for a ChristianI deny it, baptism is a sign not of our faith but that which we have faith in. Not one word of scripture can be raised to the effect baptism signifies our faith; it is a sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and our washing in the blood of Christ.>4.)>When the Philippian Jailor "believed," it means he understood 1, 2, 3, and 4.Your error is not to be found in the New Testament, let alone being the gospel itself. What a deep confusion you have, now the gospel is to not baptize infants.>Is implicit any time someone "believed" and was baptizedThose who were baptized as adults in Acts were converts. They were pagans, strangers from the covenant of promise. Again, we insist such profess faith before they are baptized. This is a red herring.
>>18102835The body without the soul is still a body. Faith without works is still faith.Dead faith edifies not.Faith alone saves. Remember the lepers who were cleansed. Whether or not they returned and gave God the glory, they were saved.I wouldn’t want a dead faith. But even so, if you’ve obeyed not the Gospel in the first place, NONE of your good works will matter; they are “dead works”
>>18102850See >>18102505
>>18102850Methodists, Pentecostals, and Anglicans all don't believe in Sola Scriptura. That's like 80% of all Protestants in the world.
>>18102861>The body without the soul is still a body.>Faith without works is still faith.You forgot the DEAD part.
>>18102905The rest of the Bible elucidates the meaning of the “dead” metaphor. Your interpretation renders several entire chapters null and void. Mine does not. Read Romans 4 and James 2 in parallel.Faith alone does not make you a “friend of God”
In the scenario of faith without works, your salvation is belittled to what is described in Romans 6- where you can be increasingly sinful so that grace may increase.
>>18103033>God forbid>Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:>Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.>For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.>Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord....>where you can be increasingly sinful so that grace may increase.Revealing the secrets of your heart. If, at knowing the mercy of God, you retort >so that means I can sin all I want???you reveal that your heart only wants to sin. If you were aware of your wretched state, you'd thank God for his mercy. Logically, this is the truth, and people's reaction to the Gospel makes their heart manifest. Be thankful for the mercy of God, who, knowing no sin, became sin for us, and purchased us with his blood.
>>18103040Exactly, so if you have faith you'll do works
What's preventing him from saying: "Who cares? Those guys back then were heretics and are burning in hell."
As long as you verbally profess "Jesus is Lord" you are saved.
Even if you think your doing good thing and being a good person, after receiving the Holy Ghost, can help you, you will actually go to hell if you believe that, because the only way to go to heaven is to nominally believe in Christ Jesus, and there is no other way.
>>18103076>>18103096>ESL "solitaire" malding at the infinite atonement of Jesus ChristYour only argument is to be a dissimulator. You hate the Gospel so much you denigrate as "verbal profession.">For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.>For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.With the heart man believeth unto righteousness. This has been my argument the entire time.
>>18103105>bogus Solitaire bungles basic reading comprehension checkYou look at me. I am the Solitaire now.
>>18103117noo, YOU are the fake one!!
>>18103105>>18103117>>18103120Guys can we just chill out and agree, that namefagging is just as gay as tripfagging?
>>18103122based.
>>18103105>With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.So, righteousness is apart of the equation? I thought righteousness was considered a work.
>>18103134Obeying the Gospel in the first place makes you righteous in the eyes of God. Believing on (or, trusting in) the Lord Jesus means his atonement propitiates for your sins which made you unrighteous.Only then can your good works be laid to your account.If you trust in your own works for righteousness, you will judged by your own works rather than Jesus', which makes you unrighteous.A test, if you will, to see which you trust in, Christ, or yourself;Would you say, at this moment, that you HAVE eternal life?He that has the Son has eternal life, and has passed from death unto life.
>>18103141>A test, if you will, to see which you trust in, Christ, or yourself;>Would you say, at this moment, that you HAVE eternal life?>He that has the Son has eternal life, and has passed from death unto life.Eternal life is from the wellspring which is God's inspiration.
>>18103141>you will judged by your own worksThat is consistent with the Gospel as written>which makes you unrighteousThat is what false teachers will tell you to try to spiritually entrap you into following their own teachings they substitute for Jesus'. Abraham's works came from trust in God, faith in his inspiration, in the Holy Ghost. God is no respecter of persons; nominal "faith" attested in "Jesus" doesn't mean you actually follow him, when "Jesus" is misused as a symbol by false teachers.
>>18103150You don't have to "follow Jesus" to be saved.Jesus wants you to be perfect, as GOD is perfect (amen). God will hold you to that though; if you tell God at the judgement >I want to be judged for how well I followed JesusGod will judge you by that, find you NOT PERFECT, and cast you into hell. You asked for it. However, you DO have to follow Jesus so that you don't suffer the eternal shame of knowing you squandered your earthly life, all of your works being burnt up, as is written in 1 Corinthians 3. Imagine an eternity tainted with the knowledge of your own slothful doings.>That is what false teachers will tell you to try to spiritually entrap youAH! I'm trapped! Jesus Christ, the infinite God, made infinite atonement for a wretch such as I! I am so trapped in here!Oh wait, actually, that's REALLY GOOD NEWS! Like a "Gospel" even.
>>18103141The Christ scam timeline:You just need to follow the commandmentsActually you just need to have faith in Jesus all your sins are forgivenActually some sins are unforgivableActually faith without works is deadActually you need to do the will of GodActually you have to lose your life Actually you need to be active in a churchActually you have to support israel
>>18103161>Jesus wants you to be perfect>God will judge you by that, find you NOT PERFECTPure judaism.
>>18103165>You just need to follow the commandmentsYeah.
>>18103161>>18103168>>Jesus wants you to be perfect>>God will judge you by that, find you NOT PERFECTJesus saved us by giving us the way to God directly in our lives without having to follow after man-made doctrine.
>>18103165So we see that the denigrators of the Gospel (the free gift of salvation through the infinite atonement of Jesus Christ) are the same as the denigrators of Christ, generally. Satan's house is not divided. Though this post is particularly nonsensical. The truth is simply this:Jesus Christ's atonement alone is the only way to be spiritually regenerated; the only way to be counted righteous and enter Heaven.He pays for all of your sins and you are sealed until the day of redemption.Do good works so that you may have a happier, better resurrection, and so that you may be a profitable servant, ever thankful. If the only objection to such a doctrine is>Why aren't you threatening me with hell if I sinor>So you're telling me I can sin all I want??It simply reveals that this is someone who can't admit they're a wretched sinner. Someone who is not ready to actually be righteous for righteousness' sake. Do good because Jesus is good.
>>18103168Good thing salvation is a "free gift."
>>18103196The faith that "being perfect" as in, obeying the Gospel, is what God requires in this life to attain to his fellowship, and then acting it out by choosing to follow, is the requirement for salvation.
>>18103209This is probably a reading comprehension issue.If someone gives you good news, the way you obey it is to believe them. "I don't believe you" is how you disobey news.
>>18103196It's not.You literally have to become a slave of rabbi yeshua. You have to lose your life for his sake. Etc. This wording is in the bible they added fine print like jewsIt's literally a cult
>>18103192I denigrated the gospel by... quoting the gospel?>Satan's house is not dividedWhy did pagan nations go to war with each other then. Nonsensical >Christ atonement aloneJesus himself says you can get to heaven by following 6 commandments. No need to worship him. No need to even love god.>wretched sinnerSo does the perfect magical blood of Christ forgive all your sins or not. Can you make your scam more coherent
>>18103223>So does the perfect magical blood of Christ forgive all your sins or notobviously yes. I've been perfectly coherent this entire time.>erm what about le bad bad guys are THEY going to heaven... HMMMM?Psychopaths can't admit they're sinners. Does not compute for them. They aren't going to be saved because they CAN'T trust in Christ. the Bible calls them "reprobate"
>>18103215>This is probably a reading comprehension issue.Yeah, you should read the Bible more.
>>18103229>christ blood forgives every sinBut then I >some people cannot be saved they're reprobatesIncoherent Jew cult
>>18103231The life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the Gospel because it is the means by which we are saved.I challenge you to find any biblical reference to the Gospel being anything other than this. >For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.Not even baptism is the Gospel. Though it is drastically important. The Gospel is a very specific thing.
>>18103238>resurrectionThat alone is the whole Gospel; the Bible is the exposition of it.
>>18103234They won't ever believe in their heart. This isn't the same as saying "God can't save them."It's they who won't BE saved because they won't because they can't. I hope you're not like that, but maybe we can use you as an example.You COULD be saved, but clearly you won't be (at least at this present moment) because it is the choice of your heart. Someone who is pure evil will never believe on Jesus Christ. Similar to how you are being obstinate right now (though I wouldn't claim there's NO hope for you like there is for a psychopath).
>>18103242As far as I can tell, there are four books called>The Gospel according to Matthew>The Gospel according to Mark>The Gospel according to Luke>The Gospel according to JohnWhile it's true that all books in the Bible REFERENCE the Gospel, it is clear that these four books give a "Gospel Account" because they record the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.>Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;>By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.>For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;>And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures
>>18103249The Gospel is the truth that is derived from the whole Biblical witness
>>18103245Wrong.>also omnipotent powerful god>can't save people due to acting on biological impulse he designedlol
Enjoy hell credo baptists.
>>18103261Enjoy hell, contender against the Gospel.
Threadly reminder the one time Jesus was directly asked how to go to heaven he didn't say any of the gospel nonsense>>16And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”That's it. Just 6 commandments. No need to worship god. No need to have faith in jesus.
>>18103268If only you'd slow down to read.
>>18103272meawhile you don't read your bible at all
>>18103275You're starting point is that you don't believe the words of Jesus have eternal relevance.So when he says>Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.you simply don't care and assume there is no deeper relevance to this statement. Hint: there is.
>>18103281>ignores everything elseYour messiah said you could get to heaven with 6 commandments.Cope forever
>>18103284If you could keep the commandments perfectly you could go to heaven on your merit. You WONT keep them perfectly so you WILL need a savior. >I've never born false witness from my youth upyeah right!But bear in mind that Jesus says many other and smaller things than this are sin in the eyes of God.
>>18103287>didn't say anything about saviorsWhy would Jesus lie to that poor man? He just sent him to hell for giving shit advice!Cope
>>18103294He was already on the way to Hell for asking the wrong question. Since it's impossible to justify yourself by works. Jesus is cluing him in to this by telling him "there is none good but God"
>>18103295CopiumPerhaps your jesus narrative wasn't finalized yet by your jew grifters at that point
