>>18515636
>going to heaven when you die
belief in after death fantasy lands is heretical

>>18515636
That face is extremely scary wtf, I thought seals were cute. Do demons show themselves as animals sometimes?

>>18515639
your ignoring what Jesus said in the scripture then

>>18515640
im not sure but if scripture contradicts it then no

File: jpeg.jpg (33 KB, 565x500)

33 KB JPG

>>18515636
Most people in the world operate on cargo cult logic rather than "faith."
I don't know the ramifications of the fact the only philosopher who seemed to understand "faith" was a Danish autist in the 1800s but they probably don't bode well for the human race.

What I am referring to is that people don't understand what Jesus is. They think everything is sort of like luck. And that by kissing statues or making prostrations or crossing yourself etc they can increase their chances of "Jesus luck." Similar to how cargo cultists would build effigies of planes to "bring" airplanes to the village delivering cargo. No idea *what* an airplane is. Not *faith* in an airplane, or they wouldn't need to build effigies at all. Just a sort of "increase the odds to win" logic.
They don't actually believe that Jesus Christ paid for their sins. They just want more Jesus-luck.

>>18515655
Great post, you just bodied all the christian freaks on this board

>>18515655
THIS IS SO TRUE AND PUT IN A WAY IVE NEVER HEARD BEFORE THANK YOU

>>18515640
Its just a photoshopped image meant to look scary.

>>18515656
>>18515657
please just try to not samefag so obviously

File: jpeg (2).png (105 KB, 1885x545)

105 KB PNG

>>18515656
I'm a Christian.

>>18515660
picrel

>>18515642
post the verse and I'll explain your misunderstanding

>>18515636
It doesn't matter if I rape and mutilate young children and then sharpen their bones for toothpicks.
Because I accepted Jesus into my heart. I'm going to heaven. I know I'm going to heaven because I accepted Jesus.
It doesn't matter that St. Paul said to work out our faith with fear and trembling because I have an interpretation of scripture that says I go to heaven no matter what.
What is my interpretation based on? On the scriptures dude. Nevermind that the ten thousand other denominations also base their interpretation on scripture. They're wrong and I'm right.

>>18515684
your hypothetical anecdote is a good example why belief in after death fantasy lands is heretical gibberish

File: 111.jpg (53 KB, 634x802)

53 KB JPG

>How do I know my interpretation of scripture is correct? Because it's in the scripture.

>>18515684
>It doesn't matter if I rape and mutilate young children and then sharpen their bones for toothpicks.
>Because I accepted Jesus into my heart. I'm going to heaven. I know I'm going to heaven because I accepted Jesus.

Interesting how your mind immediately went to that. After all, God is he who "searcheth the reins and the hearts" and "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

>>18515686
Heretical to actual Christianity, yes. Only protestants believe in "faith alone".
They literally believe that they are guaranteed entry to heaven by simply "accepting Jesus". After you accept Jesus (no one can define what this means) then it doesn't matter if you rape and murder because you still go to heaven.

Actual Christians don't believe in this nonsense. Protestants love their easy, lukewarm heresy which requires no repentance or struggle.

>>18515688
Interesting how you can't refute it because it is 100% an accurate depiction of Sola Fide.

>>18515690
Come off it, choncho, we know most catholics aren't exactly leading lives of struggle and penitence

>>18515690
>After you accept Jesus (no one can define what this means)
It is when you believe and accept that Jesus, as infinite God, has made an infinite atonement for your sins to the Father in Heaven.
Or do you think Jesus, infinite God, only atoned for a few of your sins? Is he lacking in ability?

>Actual Christians don't believe in this nonsense. Protestants love their easy, lukewarm heresy which requires no repentance or struggle.
You don't actually believe repentance matters. You believe eating a cookie matters. If you believed repenting of your sins was a requirement to go to Heaven you'd realize you'd never make it their, for "there is none good but one, that is God."
All sin is *worthy* of Hell, you must actually believe this in your heart before you can accept the propitiation which is in Jesus Christ.

>>18515699
I'm Orthodox, but you're probably right. Ultimately only God knows.

>>18515706
None of what you're saying matters because you can't justify your interpretation of the scripture.
Christianity is not a book based religion, only protestantism is. Orthodoxy has the deposit of faith passed down from the apostles through Holy Tradition. Protestantism was made up from nothing five hundred years ago.

>>18515713
>Protestantism was made up from nothing five hundred years ago.
I'm Anglican (ACNA) and our bishops have had hands laid on them in ordination tracing back to the Apostles. Most of our bishops publicly display their lineage documents. So if apostolic succession is your only concern, you can come off it.

>>18515713
>None of what you're saying matters because you can't justify your interpretation of the scripture.
You have to be over 18 to post here.
If you are, well then I'm not shocked you've read literally nothing on theology until you were exposed to orthotwitter and then glommed onto it because it was le exotic.
You already and easily resort to just going "nuh uh" because you've ran out of arguments.

>Orthodoxy has the deposit of faith passed down from the apostles through Holy Tradition.
This is what I mean. Which* orthodoxy? There's quite a few.

>Protestantism was made up from nothing five hundred years ago.
I don't 100% align with Martin Luther or John Calvin but you have read literally nothing they wrote if you believe this.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

>>18515728
Apostolic succession is not my main concern, otherwise the Catholics would have the true faith too. I'm concerned with the fact that the Catholics preach heretical doctrine, and so do the Anglicans considering that you ordinated a WOMAN to be your head bishop. If that doesn't convince you that Anglicanism is a total clown show joke heresy then nothing will.

>>18515730
>doesn't even attempt to justify his interpretation of scripture
I'll take that as your concession. You know it's true that your interpretation is relative and any argument you make after that point is irrelevant. Your whole worldview is based on nothing.

>>18515745
If I posted scripture you'd just say "nuh uh"
"There is none good but one, that is God" SHOULD be enough for anyone with an honest heart to further search the scriptures, but alas. "Many good works have I done in thy name, Lord!" will be a verbatim quote from you at the Judgement.

>>18515751
>my interpretation of scripture is true because... uhm... b-BECAUSE IT JUST IS OK??

>>18515753
You believe God can't write a book, but some guys in dresses can teach you about God. You actually believe in Jesus-luck, as previously discussed. Wizard robes = more magical = higher Jesus-luck. And so on and so forth.

>>18515756
Umm no. I believe in smoke-machines and rock concert rap church.
I go to RHYTHM church yo and my pastor has a broccoli haircut. We saved twenty people last week because they accepted the LORD.

Don't ask me who compiled the bible because I don't want to think about that.

File: jpeg.jpg (111 KB, 1024x682)

111 KB JPG

>>18515760
>Umm no. I believe in smoke-machines and rock concert rap church.
Good for you, but I don't.

>>18515745
>you ordinated a WOMAN to be your head bishop
ACNA, dude.

dualism is the only religion that makes sense and i'm fucking tired of pretending otherwise

>>18515788
Dude half of your dioceses ordinate women as deacons and priests. And you're supposed to be the "based" Anglicans. Give me a break.

>>18515807
Thanks for looking us up, at least. Why do you feel qualified to talk down about something you weren't aware of before you googled it 5 minutes ago?

>>18515807
You've got a lot of hatred in your heart, anon. You might want to pray on that. That's not normal for a saved man.

>>18515807
women were deacons, priests, and prophets in the first generations of Christianity
all are made one in Christ, unless you only care about the appearances of the world

>>18515810
Alright, forgive me. What are the opinions of people in your parish?

>>18515812
Here comes the faggot pharisees to tell the rest of us we're not pious like he is. It doesn't matter what I do as long as I already accepted Jesus, bro.

>>18515814
Name one female priest from "the first generations"

>>18515832
>Name one female priest from "the first generations"
St. Phoebe

>>18515839
Not a priest.

>>18515841
massive cope

>>18515844
Lol nice argument. I asked you to name a female priest and you couldn't even find a single one.

>>18515832
>It doesn't matter what I do as long as I already accepted Jesus, bro.
One who accepted Jesus repents. If you're not repenting, you didn't honestly accept Him.

>>18515854
Repentance is not a requirement for salvation according to Sola Fide

>>18515832
>Alright, forgive me.
Done and done, anon. Won't think of it again.
>What are the opinions of people in your parish.
We don't like the ordination of women in our church because it's explicitly in 2 Timothy that women are not to teach men. There is some question as to whether 2 Timothy was actually written by Paul or not, but we all agree on its validity.
In essence you can think of us more along the lines of Old Catholics, like before the whole, "The pope is infallible thing." We use the creeds, we take communion every week, we baptize babies and confirm them later in life when they accept Jesus as their savior.
What else would you like to know?

>>18515847
She was named a deacon, a role essentially interchangeable with priests in the early church (2 Timothy 4:5, where the same term means 'ministry')
but I guess you didn't even know that, which is why I said you are coping

>endless minutiae for anons to feel smart about

>>18515858
Wrong, repentance is necessary to accept baptism, through which salvation is granted through grace.
No repentance, no baptism. No baptism, no grace. No grace, no faith. No faith, no salvation.

>>18515858
Just say you don't understand the relationship between faith and repentance, my brother. I would be happy to teach you.

>>18515863
Before that, even repentance is necessary to be faithful to Christ.
>From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
You can't have faith in Christ in the first place if you don't believe Him when He says you need to repent.

>>18515860
The word 'deacon' is taken from the Greek word διάκονος (diakonos) which directly translates directly to 'servant' or 'helper'. Does not necessarily mean a priestly position, and St. Paul uses the word to refer to other people who are not clergy.

Saint Phoebe and other women in this role were designed to give pastoral care to women and children. They aided in baptisms, as they used to be done naked. But they were not priestly positions, so women still did not hold positions of clergy.

>>18515872
>>18515868
According to Lutheran theology, the work of repentance is not necessary for salvation through faith ALONE. Astonishing ignorance on display here.

>>18515874
There is no reason that it doesn't mean a ministerial position, especially how Paul uses it in the salutation in Romans. In fact, how she chief receives the first greeting of the section and how he asks for the church to receive her implies that she is indeed being sent in a ministerial role rather than a mere servant.
You're coping again.

>>18515882
There are exceptional cases - especially when it comes to holy people - where women can administer a pastoral or ministerial role for other women without being a part of the clergy. There is no evidence for example that she administered the sacraments, which would prove that she actually held the office of priesthood. Paul specifically wrote that women were not to teach men.

>>18515859
Well I hope the best for you. I wasn't aware of your jurisdiction of Anglicanism before you mentioned it but I'm glad that there are some of you who oppose the modern insanity.

>>18515885
>Paul specifically wrote that women were not to teach men.
Of the undoubted letters, he does not. 2 Corinthians 14:34 plainly contradicts his earlier discussion in 11 which flatly assumes women both praying and prophesizing in church, to the extent it is either a later addition by the ossifying Pauline school or a reference to the conflict in the Corinthian church which we will never know.
Again you are coping. Why do you think we are not equal in Christ? Do you think he does not unite all creation in Him?

>>18515699
that’s literally the point
it’s hard, few are those who find it, etc.

>>18515890
Dude your interpretation of scripture is literally as valuable as the schizophrenic homeless man taking a dump next to the bus station.
You're not in the historic church which is why you believe in some fringe marxist-feminist retardation that justifies itself by "doubting" the actual scripture that real Christians adhere to.

What even is your canon of scripture?

>>18515902
yawn and more cope
Worship the Lord Jesus Christ, not your delusions and presuppositions.

>>18515903
You don't even know what canon of scripture you adhere to. LMAO
You need clown shoes and a clown nose and you can walk around and pie yourself in the face.

>>18515892
>it’s hard
not in the text
>few are those who find it
because they are blinded by pride. "ears to hear," remember?
You really think that "its hard to get saved" is "literally the point" of the Gospel? the "Good News?"
Rather, it is few who are able to set aside their pride and admit that all their works are as "filthy rags" before God. Again, the cry of the multitudes of the damned on judgment day will be "many good works have we done in your name, Lord!"... do you think that the people who trusted in Jesus alone ("sola fide" etc.) would shout this?
Rather,
>And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
>For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
>But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

There is none righteous, not one, including you, I, and everyone. Let your deeds be reproved, that you may "do truth."

File: burning in hell.jpg (32 KB, 515x388)

32 KB JPG

>>18515639
You're so fucked. :)

>>18515907
Unrepentant murderers, whoremongers, and all liars will all go into the fire.
He who *overcomes* and holds fast will inherit all things.

Jesus doesn't give you permission to lie with the shedding of his blood on the cross, just because you believe.
His sacrifice is not a free pass to sin, it is the central tenet of the call to repent and the hope of life.

REPENT
SINNER

Hey Solitaire, how is it possible for those who through no fault of their own never heard the name of Christ, or his gospel, or knew of his church to be saved?

>>18516915
>Unrepentant murderers, whoremongers, and all liars will all go into the fire.
Correct. You don't believe the Gospel. Ergo, you have not repented, and you will be found a liar.

>Jesus doesn't give you permission to lie
Correct. No one ever gets permission to lie. The Saved never have permission. But so long as we have the "body of this death," sin reigns in our mortal members.
>shedding of his blood on the cross
You're right, Jesus didn't shed his blood to "give permission" to sin, so what did he do? Give remission for sins. Including all the sins you'd ever commit before you were ever born. But when you're at the judgement, and you tell Jesus "I do not trust that your blood covered me", he'll hold you to it, and send you to Hell.

The problem is that you do not understand the severity of your sins. You sin every single day without even knowing it. Everyone does.
For in the Psalms it is written
>Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
>Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

"all sin is transgression of the Law" says Scripture. In the New Testament, when a believer sins, they "transgress the Law."

And according to Paul
>For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
>But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Do you believe you are righteous enough to continue in all things in the Law? Do you believe you are righteous enough to not have secret faults? That you can understand your own errors?
"Yeah, let God be true, and every man a liar"
You're already a liar. Every man is. You either trust in Jesus and his omnipotence, or you trust in yourself, and use Jesus-Luck as a crutch.

>>18516931
>knew of his church
Irrelevant. People were saved prior to the New Testament Church.

>who through no fault of their own never heard the name of Christ, or his gospel,
The word of God has been preached to every nation and people on Earth. Either by the Holy Prophets, or the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Starting with Noah, God's Word was given to all nations of the Earth. The Prophets preached to all nations of the Earth. So too did the Apostles. There is no nation on Earth that is without excuse before God.
And every man's conscience contains God's Law written in his heart, which ought to compel him to seek the Word in the first place.

>>18515636
There is no once saved always saved. People who havent read the bible believe that nonsense.
A christian must keep the sabbath and stop eating pork or they are going to the lake of fire

https://youtu.be/aNjiG2NavR0

>>18516978
>lake of fire
it's the lake of poo on fire.

>>18516936
Born again Christians who have recieved the Holy Spirit will be cast into hell if they are doing the sins listed in Galatians 5:19-21 and Revelation 21:8 and no matter how much you try to jew around looking for loopholes, you will spend eternity in hell because you were decieved by a false doctrine called "eternal security". Jesus never preached it, he preached conditional salvation. No matter how much scripture I show you, you will never admit to being wrong because all you people are under a strong delusion.

>>18516936
If you have not repented of the lie, the truth is not in you.
You are not faithful to the truth, when you lie.

To faithfully tell the truth, it's necessary for you to not lie about it.
It is just like that.

You cannot live a lie, live by the lie and despise truth, and live in Christ at the same time.
Choose one. Fidelity is not in a spouse who lies to their partner about their affair.

It's Christ's truth, Christ's faith, that saves you.
Not your own faith, his faith. That has to be your faith, and his faith is true.
Taking up the cross truly, your own cross and following him, not just paying lip service to it but really walking the way.

>Jesus luck
you don't know what blessings are for
must mean nothing to you, an empty gesture with no true power behind it, no Holy Spirit

>>18516941
Not answering the question.

There are many people who died without hearing the name of Jesus, after his ministry on earth. They lived in different continents, died before any apostle or discipline could reach them, any number of things.
You seem to not want to say they are damned, even though they could not possibly have knowingly committed faith in him and his sacrifice.
The only way Jesus would ever save these people is if they believe on and glorify him? That he will save them, but only if they believe it. You would need to know his name for that, right? It's not just any guy.

Or is there some sense you could know him, without knowing his name. Some way you could know his name, even what he taught, but not him.

Might it be some are, that they actually lived according to or exemplified at some point his commandments in the spirit of love and forgiveness, because they listened to their conscience and despite not having the privilege of hearing the true gospel like many who have the opportunity and leave it behind, and he will have mercy on them.

That they are united to and in his body in the same sense that he is one with his Father, through love. Loving truth even.

haha actually the sign of the cross is idolatry you're in a cargo cult lol

oh wait it's 2000 years old soon and protestants refuse to make the sign of the cross because they're scared the devil will make them Catholic even though it's just as likely they might contract eastern orthodoxy instead

being crucified with Christ unto the world
nah, who needs that in their life regularly enough they would physically trace the cross over their own bodies to remember that we are conformed to his image

a little reminder
DIE TO SIN now

>>18517617
>how are people who never heard of Jesus condemned to hell?
He will never give you a clear answer to this question because he's under the protestant delusion that he's a modern "prophet" and literally has a direct line of communication with the holy spirit.
I'm not kidding. That is literally what this guy believes and the reason he made this thread is to stand on a soap box and preach because he believes that God has bestowed the grace of public evangelism on him.

He is literally possessed by a demon.

>>18516941
>The word of God has been preached to every nation and people on Earth.
False. Because YOU have not heard the word of God, neither have the majority of protestants.

>>18517617
>>18517649
>>18517744
I have been perfectly clear, making sound arguments from the Word of God each time (which you never address; you just use arguments from your own conscience rather than addressing the Scriptures I've shown). An impartial observer would realize. To accuse me of lacking clarity; well, I suppose you accuse the Bible of lacking clarity. So whatever.

>>18515989
you are a jew, jews don't believe in hell, and you still need to explain why you larp as a christian and threaten people with a hell you do not believe in.

>>18515636
God bless you, brother

>>18517785
You're being perfectly evasive.
I have only been in this thread for a few posts and really do not have any interest in your previous content.

Weren't you just denying original sin in another thread just a few days ago?
And yet here you are arguing that men are by their nature incapable of righteousness.
You want to have your theology cake and eat it too man.
Joseph is described as a just man, faithful to the law, in the very first chapter of Matthew.

Anyways the sign of the cross is an act that constitutes a minor exorcism.
You do believe in exorcism, right? You know, casting out demons.
Demons are real, yeah? They actually do afflict people, right.
This is an invocation of the Holy Trinity for protection against evil and temptation. It also serves as a consecratory seal.

Your characterization of the sign of the cross as "Jesus luck" betrays your superficial grasp of historical Christian praxis.
You do not know why they do that, but pretend to so you can mock them.
Christ crucified was mocked too, you are reiterating that mockery when you slander the faithful sign of his crucifixion.

>>18517744
There's nothing here to indicate demonic possession.
He's not demonstrating preternatural knowledge or anything, in fact much the opposite it's really embarrassing.

His failings are entirely his own.

>>18515636
That image is attacking a Protestant doctrine from a Protestant perspective. The Catholic position is different.
We don't claim certainty of salvation. The Council of Trent explicitly condemned the idea that you can know with the certainty of faith that you are among the predestined. Presumption is a sin against hope.
What we have is hope and trust, not certainty. You cooperate with grace. You persevere. You go to confession. You receive the Eucharist. You die in a state of grace. If you do that, you are saved. But you can't know you'll do that until you've done it.
The "once saved always saved" crowd is answering a real anxiety with a false comfort. The Catholic answer is harder but truer: work out your salvation with fear and trembling. The race isn't over till it's over.
The image is right to mock presumption. It's wrong to think that's what all Christians believe.

>>18515655
i think christianity is a jewish myth for the goyim, and i think you are partially correct here, but, the problem is you would be seeing the same type of things happening in the opposite case too, cases where a particular action in a particular system is done because its natural to do so.

for example you love your parents, therefore you hug them. do you hug them because you want to increase some "odds" or anything like that? you do it because thats a natural action to do while having a specific belief, you do it because you want to bond with them. you can do things that primarily or only also help others and not yourself or they even harm you.

so people doing actions cant help you deliniate between true and false systems, proving and/or disproving systems does that. (of course sometimes you can also show that an action done for X reason is logically inconsistent with the system and thus debunk the system through debunking an action but that still follows what i said because its a sub-thing of debunking the system.)

>>18518669
>Weren't you just denying original sin in another thread just a few days ago?
Everyone is a sinner. No one inherits the literal guilt for Adam's sin. Adam's sin is the reason we're all sinners, but we did not all literally sin the same sin.
Or else God would be commanding the children be put to death for the sin of the father. Do you see how that contradicts the scripture?
>Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
If we didn't pick and choose how we applied the logic, then you'd also have to say that all men are now unconditionally alive in Christ. This is not the case.
Rather, Adam was the occasion by which death (by each man's sin) entered the world. Jesus Christ is the occasion by which life (by each man's acceptance of the gift) has entered into the world. Do you see the difference?

The more you learn about the early church around the era of the Great Persecution of Diocletian, and the brutal disciples of penance they prescribed which could take years of dedicated fasting or other mortifications and not even being allowed inside for worship (the flentes, audientes, prostrantes, and substantes), the more you realize protties really don't have a leg to stand on when they claim to represent the true form of the ante-Nicene church.

The storied martyrs of that era simply would not recognize the modern prottie religions, and they would be frankly scandalized by how far Catholic penitential disciplines have fallen. They would be very confused as to how this conceited prot effort to reconstruct the early church could be missing so many critical parts and functions. Like the sacraments, which were so important to the Donatist bishops that they would separate from the rest of the church for quite a long time.

In fact, protties entirely repudiate the very idea of doing penance. Far from the multi year long process of education that preceded baptism historically with many voluntarily remaining catechumens until the end of their lives, they have no compunctions at all with administering the sacrament to basically anyone who can repeat the words "I believe".

>>18519030
>Or else God would be commanding the children be put to death for the sin of the father. Do you see how that contradicts the scripture?

You should have bothered replying to me in that thread. Maybe it's still up, haven't checked but I gave an at length response there if you want me to pull up the archive.
There is no contradiction. The death penalty literally applies to all his descendants until Jesus (the new Adam, an extremely important point you have to reckon with), that's bible 101. Until Jesus paid the price with his blood, all men were under the headship of Adam. Through the final sacrifice, we may enter into the headship of Jesus as newly born men, dead to the sin of Adam and our own sin so that we may live in Christ.

God did not originally create Adam with an inherently sinful or depraved nature, but rather one with inherent dignity as befits one made in his image. God created everything, and said it was good.
Adam chose disobedience, and so through the fall his nature and that of his progeny fell into sin.

You're confusing the tenets of the Mosaic law with the relationship Adam has with God.
Jesus paid the death penalty for Adam, and fulfilled the particular requirements of the Mosaic law too which were given because of the transgression of the Golden Calf as per Paul.

>death (by each man's sin)
This is confused.

Jesus didn't die because of his personal sin, but because of yours and mine.
Adam's sin does belong to both of us, which is why men die, though we have heaped up personal sins too.

>>18519144
>Jesus didn't die because of his personal sin, but because of yours and mine.
Utterly pedantic, we all know that “all have sinned” excuses “he who was without sin”
Anyways, everyone still deserves to die and burn in hell UNLESS they believe on Christ. It’s contingent.

>God did not originally create Adam with an inherently sinful or depraved nature, but rather one with inherent dignity as befits one made in his image. God created everything, and said it was good.
Adam chose disobedience, and so through the fall his nature and that of his progeny fell into sin.
Pedantics again. We are in complete agreement on this. Why bring it up?

>Until Jesus paid the price with his blood, all men were under the headship of Adam. Through the final sacrifice, we may enter into the headship of Jesus as newly born men, dead to the sin of Adam and our own sin so that we may live in Christ.
This is all congruent with my prior thesis and in no way disproves it.

Are you mainline prot? Well if so, God bless but I think this whole issue of infant baptism and original sin is something you will always cling to. I’ll call it adiaphora.

>>18519241
>everyone deserves burn in hell UNLESS they believe on Christ
They deserve it even if they believe in Christ. Even while Jesus is making you a better person through the fruits of his righteousness and infusion of grace, you still deserve to be punished for what you've done wrong.

It's just that Christ is going to recognize their faith, of which salvation is workes out in fear and trembling through repentance, and forgive them for the terrible things they have put behind them forever.
Someone forgiving you doesn't mean you never deserved punishment. Despite you rightfully deserving retribution, in their mercy it is remitted.

Do babies who aren't baptized yet "deserve" to burn in hell?
If you say yes, you still believe in original sin inside even though you deny it outwardly.
If no, explain to me at which moment someone becomes personally responsible for their wrongdoing. It can't to be the same for everyone, but it does have to happen for everyone.

>the fall his nature and that of his progeny fell into sin
That's original sin.
The condition of God's covenant with Adam was simple, don't eat fruit from *that* tree. The consequence, if you do you will surely die.

Every covenant God makes with man comes with conditions, penalties, and a promise. We are in the New Covenant that Jesus wrote in his blood through his absolutely perfect faith without which there is no hope of salvation. But that doesn't mean obedience, to forgive those who repent and love your enemies, is suddenly optional. Forgive, and you will be forgiven, sow and reap. It's not complicated, that does not make it easy.
Become like Christ, obedient unto death, and you will live. This is what the book means by, take up your cross. He's your example.

You don't really believe that baptism obliterates sin?

Also I'm ITT talking about how limp contemporary Catholic penitentials are compared to the documented early church praxis, I think it would do a lot of good if confessors were punitive again.

>>18519482
>If no, explain to me at which moment someone becomes personally responsible for their wrongdoing. It can't to be the same for everyone, but it does have to happen for everyone.
When that person first sins.
A way of looking at it: everyone sins, just like everyone breathes.
If I made a blanket statement "all have breathed" I am not actually saying that there have been no infants in history who died before taking their first breathe. If I say "all have sinned," I am not saying that infants (whose innocence is attested to in the scriptures) are sinners. But rather, so long as an infant continues in this mortal life, it will, sooner or later, commit its first sin. In the same manner, an infant, if it continues in this mortal life, will sooner or later take its first breath.

>>18519502
People can do all sorts of bad things without realizing they are wrong.
A lot of the time, parents have to tell their kids that is wrong and not to do it.

Normally, when a child keeps doing that anyways they are disobedient and their parents should punish them.
Please define "sin", as best you can. I understand that request is something of a jawbreaker.

>everyone sins, just like everyone breathes
Breath is life, God breathes. He is a living God.
God gave Adam his own breath, not sin.

Try again.

>>18515636
What's the point of listening to anything Jesus taught if you can invalidate him by just mooching off of him? Kind of a stupid religion.

>>18515670
He won't post anything.

>>18515642
Why didnt you post the verse for that other Anon? Are you having trouble finding it?

>>18519515
>Breath is life, God breathes. He is a living God.
>God gave Adam his own breath, not sin.

It's a metaphor, you dunce.

>Please define "sin", as best you can. I understand that request is something of a jawbreaker.
okay,
>Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Paul writes, of being a child
>For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
>Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
notice "that it might appear sin" which indicates the *understanding* of right and wrong. Yet there are "little ones" says the scripture, which "have no knowledge between good and evil," so we know that sin does not "appear sin" them.
You say that parents may explain right and wrong. Perhaps that is the case for many. Yet even if one does not have righteous parents, or if one does not even hear the Law itself out of the Word of God, Paul says
>For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
>For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
>Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Everyone will be convicted of right and wrong sooner or later, and after this they are liable to sin.

>>18519522
Thankfully, that's not really what the church is doing.
Holding fast to his holy teachings, as if they were the mast of a ship in the storm, is the sure way to salvation.

He opened the door for all, you have to go through.
Carrying the cross, like he did.

There simply aren't many people who are going to do that though.
Tough. Most folks aren't ready to walk the walk when it comes down to it. I struggle with that every day.

>>18519522
What's the point of posting in this thread if you don't believe in God?

>>18519534
It's not a good metaphor though.
Thought I established that, biblically.
The bible, as it is part of the word of God, is inspired. That is to say, breathed.
So you need a better schema.

>of being a child
Unless you become like one of these little ones, you will in no way inherit the kingdom of heaven.

In what sense did Jesus mean this saying?

And what did Paul mean when he said; when I was a child, I spoke as a child.
Children are governed by their parents with strict rules, if the parents are wise. As the child matures and learns to obey by their own volition, these rules and curfews are lifted because the child has proven they are responsible and can handle it.

That is the Mosaic law, which was given because of transgressions. Namely the idolatry of the Golden Calf.
When your kid disobeys you, do you let it slide or give them more leeway? No, you ground them. You restrict their access to favorite toys, don't let them play with friends especially the bad influence ones, set stricter limits until they learn to stop being little shits.

So that's the deal.
Now you can eat bacon and shrimp if you want to, congrats. You grew up, you're responsible for your own actions now.
As it is written God said, he intervened with the Israelites so that his name would not be in disrepute among the nations. Same kind of reason a parent would check a rebellious child, reflects poorly on them to the neighbors.

The works Paul is usually writing about, are the works of the Mosaic law. Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial requirements of *that* law.
Do you know what that means?

Do you know what the clean sacrifice, and burning of incense made, among the gentiles of whom it is said his name will be considered great, mentioned in Malachi 1 really is?
Cause Justin Martyr sure did, he made no bones about it either.

>>18519570
>That is the Mosaic law, which was given because of transgressions. Namely the idolatry of the Golden Calf.
oh, this again.
The Law is the Law is the Law. Do you just roll your eyes when David praises "the Law" as though it's meaningless for you? When Paul says the Law is "holy and just and good" do you roll your eyes?
The greatest commandment is what "the LAW and the prophets" hang on.
Always this cop-out with works-salvationists. Somehow God's Law isn't God's Law it's Moses' Law. It was delivered by Moses, but it belongs to God.
The priesthood being CHANGED, the Law is changed... in regards to the PRIESTHOOD. That's it. All the Laws on the sanctuary, Levites, Priests, and cleanness are abrogated because Christ is our High Priest and we are the priesthood.

>In what sense did Jesus mean this saying?
Little children do not have hearts full of prideful presuppositions. They rely on their parents/guardians for everything. You must rely on Jesus Christ for your whole salvation just like a child relies on adults to feed them.

>>18519575
Okay, it's pretty clear to me at this point where your confusion lies.
You don't truly understand the structure of God's covenant.

Think about it like a tree, which eventually bears fruit.
And if it does not, it is cut down.
The fruit is repentance, works meet for repentance, the blessed fruit of Israel's most holy virgin womb is Jesus Christ salvator. Mary's personal fruit, is her fiat. Everything in and of that is worked by God through her in the fullness of grace.

>The Law is the Law is the Law
The Mosaic law applies to a specific nation, not all of them.
Because God made that covenant with a specific nation, for a specific reason.

The law of Noah, however, applies to all men born of Noah and his sons.
This is why the apostles recognized that the gentiles, who are accepted under the new covenant made for all men that all might be saved, are not bound by the circumcision of flesh but of the heart. Of which that of the flesh was but a sign.

>It was delivered by Moses, but it belongs to God.
Paul writes that it was given because of transgressions.
You should know, that on Sinai God tempted Moses. He said, that he would destroy these children of Israel and make a new nation out of Moses as he did with Abraham.
Moses resisted this, interceding for his people, and for it God delivered this nation despite the fact they immediately violated the Ten Commandments almost to the moment God had wrought them.

The priesthood was never changed.
Christian priesthood comes from Christ, after the order of Melchizedek, not Aaron and Levi. Because he is of the house or David, the house or Judah. Not by blood is the compact of this priesthood made, but by the faith of Abraham.

>abrogated
The purpose of the Mosaic law was fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ, not made void.

>You must rely on Jesus Christ for your whole salvation just like a child relies on adults to feed them.
And how does Christ feed you, that you might grow?
Is it with his own body, or not?