Is Christianity, in its truest New Testament form, actually that bad if its most vocal opponents are tranny enablers and civilization deconstructors?
I. PROTESTANTS ARE HERETICS, NOT CHRISTIANS: THEY ARE SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH.II. CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IS NOT REDUCIBLE TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, NOR TO THE HOLY BIBLE.
>>18473221You aren’t a Christian, papist. Your so-called church is a counterfeit
>>18473221>PROTESTANTS LE BAD, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE POPE TO PROTECT THEM IF THEY MOLEST A CHILD
>>18473278A classic case of ignoring the plank in your own eye while remarking on the splinter in another's.
>>18473282This plank isn’t in my eye. My church follows the word of God, submitting to Christ’s authority, leaving His gospel, sacraments, and worship uncorrupted. The church of Rome does just the opposite. Not only is it not the Catholic Church, it is not a member thereof.
>>18473285Your religion (proper sense, not colloquial) literally did not exist before modernity. That counter church is explicitly defined in opposition to the orthodox east and west simply does not have any apostolic blessing because you reject the apostolic succession through which the ordinary blessing of a ministry is delivered.You do not submit to Christ's authority, because he delegated the apostles to have power and authority over his flock through the Holy Spirit, and they in turn related this charge through the laying of hands.The mode in which the Father sent the Son is the mode in which Jesus sent his apostles. That mission never ended just because the apostles no longer walk the earth, because as Jesus sent them so too did they send others in their turn, perpetuating this down through the ages until this very day.You actually believe in the great apostasy but probably don't quite realize this yet.The "reformed" tradition in protestantism is hands down the singularly most schismatic sect of the original protestant hemorrhage. Far and away, they are primarily responsible for spreading confusion widely and scattering Christians down through the centuries until today. You have a widely popular figure like Doug Wilson who is open about being "self-ordained", representing "reformed" "orthodoxy" for you at influential levels of government at the moment.Ordination cannot be self conferred.You'd think someone like that would be aware, but I don't think he cares too much. And neither does his congregation apparently.Do you say his sacramental ministry is "valid"? Do you even need to be ordained to administer the sacraments?Disastrous, yet you can do nothing because you explicitly desacralize ordination.>word of GodYou don't have a coherent definition for this because you limit it to the bible alone. I can refer you back to a thread we discussed this in, I'm certain it's you who abandoned the discussion when your position became untenable.
It's really quite simple.The sacraments are commonly defined as being instituted means of divine grace.God's grace moves through the church via these means through the power of the Holy Spirit.The sacraments therefore derive their miraculous efficacy from the power of the Holy Spirit, which is conferred on one by his ordinary, who likewise received this power from another, and so on until you have Jesus visibly breathing on his apostles as a visible sign of their inspired and living ministry telling them that they receive the Holy Spirit. There is no other body on earth who can bestow this power. Only the one holy catholic and apostolic church can.If one does not have the blessing from this body, they cannot rightfully claim to be a legitimate extension of it.And what is an essential and core facet of this ministry you might ask?To forgive sins in the name of Christ through the same Holy Spirit that had just been visibly breathed on them. That's why the two verses that say this are literally right next to one another. Hence, ordinary reconciliation is essentially the task of those so ordained to the church's ministry of forgiveness.They likewise empowered others with this gift through the laying of hands in blessing, which Simon Magus tried to purchase, not fully discerning it's sacred character which cannot be bought with filthy luchre but *must* be freely given.Meaning that ordination in that same vein is a means of grace, by definition. Since it literally puts you in touch with the Holy Spirit.Ergo, ordination is a sacrament. Augustine identifies it as such, saying it imparts an indelible character on the very soul of one so entrusted by the visible church. A real, permanent, spiritual seal. It's very strange how some people can read the bible saying the literal Holy Spirit moves through the laying of hands, and yet somehow come away with the idea that ordination does not actually confer the grace which marks a truly inspired ministry.
>>18473163Ngl you'd have articulate what the "truest New Testament form" of Christianity is according to you. That's not an univerally accepted category of Christianity.>actually that bad if its most vocal opponents are tranny enablers and civilization deconstructors?Who opposes something is irrelevant to its overall value, in real terms. So it doesn't matter.
>>18473326>Your religion (proper sense, not colloquial) literally did not exist before modernity.My religion has existed since the first time God graciously called sinners back to Himself, saying “Where are you, Adam?”>That counter church is explicitly defined in opposition to the orthodox east and west simply does not haveLearn English>any apostolic blessing because you reject the apostolic succession through which the ordinary blessing of a ministry is delivered.1. Your use of the term “apostolic” is erroneous, what for you is “apostolic” is not anything that has to do with the apostles, but what the cult leaders who control your mind have told you to believe in your false Christianity 2. Case in point, the “apostolic succession” of priests and prelates you imagine has nothing to do with the apostles, indeed, it is not compatible with their religion.>You do not submit to Christ's authority, because he delegated the apostles to have power and authority over his flockAnd this is the proof your masters are Antichrist, since they falsely claim the name of Christ as they arrogate His authority to themselves.>You actually believe in the great apostasy but probably don't quite realize this yet.I don’t live in the alternate universe where sacramental priests were running around performing the sacrifice of the mass under an infallible pope in the 1st century.>Do you say his sacramental ministry is "valid"? Do you even need to be ordained to administer the sacraments?I don’t know anything about Doug Wilson’s personal history, or what it has to do with anything, but the sacraments are only validly administered by an ordained minister of the word and sacrament. Your church on the other hand teaches any layman may validly baptize.>you explicitly desacralize ordination.You’re arguing with your imagination.
>>18473326>You don't have a coherent definition for this because you limit it to the bible alone.The definition of it is God speaking which today exists only in holy scripture.>>18473403>The sacraments therefore derive their miraculous efficacy from the power of the Holy Spirit, which is conferred on one by his ordinaryThe Holy Spirit is not some bauble you can throw around and hand out at your leisure. The sacraments are made efficacious by His working through them, not through His divine power being stolen by the minister like some magician. >Hence, ordinary reconciliation is essentially the task of those so ordained to the church's ministry of forgivenessThere is very little in this post that is directly objectionable, most of it on its own terms being true. The problem is the context, as you are assuming a Romanist sense to these things which makes them untrue, assuming (but not stating) that the Catholic Church is the church of Rome, that sacramental grace is ex opere operato, and that the minister is a priest with an indelible mark on his soul and the ability to give “sacramental” forgiveness through auricular confession, restoring the state of grace to one who destroyed the grace of justification through mortal sin. All of which is a doctrine of demons and has not a shadow of resemblance to the religion of scripture. We say, however, that the sacraments are means of grace not because of an inherent power in them, but because God works through them as the visible word, the Catholic Church is all believers throughout the world, among whom alone are found the means of grace, and the ministers of the word and sacrament have the ministerial authority to forgive sins by assuring the one who believes of his forgiveness in Christ. In this sense and no other is what you have said true.(cont.)
>>18473403>Meaning that ordination in that same vein is a means of grace, by definition.>Since it literally puts you in touch with the Holy Spirit.This assumes the ordained is a priest in a special relationship with God through whose mediation the believer must draw near. That actually makes you anathema under the New Testament, because there is only one priest and one mediator under the new covenant, who is denied when others are pretended alongside Him.But ordination cannot be a sacrament, since 1. It lacks matter, having no visible sign 2. It lacks form, having no sacramental word containing a promise of grace attached to it. Ergo, nothing of a sacrament corresponds to ordination.>Augustine identifies it as such, saying it imparts an indelible character on the very soulThe indelible mark of the soul is unmistakably medieval language, so either you are drawing from a forgery or you are badly misunderstanding him due to anachronism (both are very typical of Romanist apologetics)
>>18473163An idea, like a man, may be measured by the quality of its enemies
>>18473221You're so fucked. I can't wait to hear your screams. :)
>>18473282calling out the weak link of Christianity when it comes to accuracy is a good work.
>>18473221Find yourself
>>18473163Christianity is bad because it is false, not because it has ethics. The average foid and queer degenerate doesn't hate Christianity because of its falsehoods as they don't give the slightest of fucks about truth, they only care about whether or not it approves of their prurient lifestyles, which it does not. So they hate it for that reason alone.
>>18474070That presupposes it’s possible to distinguish between true and false, which is impossible apart from the Christian God.
>>18473535>any layman may validly baptizeIt's true, but licit only in emergencies.Augustine again also recognizes this undisputed fact, that lay baptism is valid so long as the proper formula, elements, and intent are present.The fact you disagree with Augustine on this matter indicates your grasp on sacramentology is superficial. That you delude yourself into believing you are part of the same church he advocated for against so many calumnating heretics is unfortunate, since you stand in for those same slanderous heretics. The difference is, Augustine recognized they really did have the sacraments *because* of their apostolic succession. While I suspect he would say your counter church does not, since it is manifestly deprived of and explicitly rejects apostolic succession.>nooooo you need to get a fake ordination which has no connection to the real apostolic blessing before you can baptize according to a formula with proper elementsnope>learn Englishdisgusting >You’re arguing with your imagination.You literally deny ordination is a sacrament.This is called "desecration". You have made it not "sacred".>the sacraments are means of grace not because of an inherent power in them, but because God works through them aThe bread and wine *as symbols* have no true power in themselves, by their own virtue of being bread and wine.It is only through the institution of consecration empowered through the Holy Spirit, which power is literally a gift from God passed down through the body of the church for all time, that these host effectively become and the real body, soul, and divinity of Christ.>>18473539>you are drawing from a forgeryAugustine's refutation of the Donatists is a forgery, trust me.That spiritual brand or seal he's talking about which ordination and baptism impart, that's not actually real. He didn't actually compare ordination to baptism in this way, because that's a big no no and wrong and I would be embarassed.
