I don't understand why this is so hard for protestants to understand. Can someone please explain to me why?
Gee I wonder why Luther tried to remove James.
>>1065841
this
>>1065809
I am not religious so I am assuming some definitions here. "Faith with works," I am assuming means belief in God through faith with the addition of prayer, following the commandments, going to church, etc. That is, someone who believes works are necessary for salvation would believe that faith is not sufficient for salvation. "Faith without works," I am going to assume means belief in God through faith without the addition of prayer, following the commandments, going to church, etc. That is, someone who believes works are not necessary for salvation would believe that faith is sufficient for salvation.
So to take up the defense of "faith without works" I will propose that faith itself is works. In this way, I would be supporting "faith with works" but in a way very much different than my definition for "faith with works."
Demons believe in God, but they do so for very different reasons than people do. Demons do not need faith as they themselves are proof of God. That is, demons only exist if God exists. I am also assuming that demons have most likely seen God, or the Devil, or have otherwise been involved in things that prove to them that God exists. A person, on the other hand, does not have proof of God. He must tackle his inability to prove God's existence through rationale and empirical evidence. This, I say, is itself a work and worthy of salvation.
>>1066503
>faith itself is works
'no'
>>1066503
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_4RFoknrwc
Both Catholics and Protestants are invalid anyways, they are anathematized since both changed the Christian doctrine and invented new things that did not existed before. Orthodoxy is the way.
>>1066981
Nice.
>>1066985
If you believe that works are necessary for salvation then obviously if you stop doing them then you're not going to achieve salvation. This is compatible with my argument. If you stop believing or having faith in God then you are not going to achieve salvation. My argument stands.
>>1066992
t. schismatic hipster
http://whynotcatholicism.net/view/the-early-church-was-catholic
>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:18-19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes#1st_century
>>1065841
this
>>1067092
>muh rock
It says nothing about papal succession.
>>1067068
Can a person reject the grace of God?
>>1067983
Peter = Petros
Rock = Petra
In french it's:
...tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre...
In italian:
...tu sei Pietro e su questa pietra...
etc.
It's a wordplay.
>>1067990
I don't know what you mean by the grace of God. As I said I'm not religious. If you explain this to me I might be able to give you an answer. I suppose you have something more you want to say, though?
>>1068012
ceci n'est pas une papal succession
>>1068012
Yes, Peter is the rock. Bible says that much. It however says nothing about his successors.
>>1068042
According to the Bible, the decision to believe in God is not your own. It's God who makes you believe through his divine grace, which is irresistible. And once you believe, you will do good works, that's how true belief manifests outwardly.
>>1068066
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE
>>1068068
So God picks and chooses who believes in him? Isn't free will a central tenant to Christianity?
>>1068126
Nope, it isn't, and honestly I don't understand where that meme even came from, considering so many people believe it's central to Christianity. You won't find free will in the Bible but you will find a lot of deterministic predestination.
>>1068140
Interesting. What are the ways in which God imposes his divine grace on you?
>>1068126
Don't listen to him. Free will is indeed an enormous part of christian philosophy. In fact, the very concept of free will never existed before christianism, and Saint Augustin, who's a major christian philosopher even according to Protestantism, was probably the one that worked the most about it. Sure, some schools of christianism are deterministic, but they are extremely minoritary. As for free will in the Bible, it is pretty obvious that it is everywhere, even in the Genesis with Eve's choice, and in the most important choice of Jesus Christ himself, being crucified.
>>1068167
God damn it, who do I believe? I suppose it doesn't matter.
Any thoughts on my argument? I made it with the thought in mind that it would get pummeled but nobody seems to be talking much about it. What are the common Protestant arguments for works not being required?
>>1068167
You know about the quarrel between Augustine and Pelagius, right? Neither protestants, nor Catholics, nor Orthodox think you can be saved through your free will. That's literally taking God's sovereignty away from him.
>>1068185
>What are the common Protestant arguments for works not being required?
You're looking at it wrong. Protestants (aside from some kooky new age American churches) generally don't believe that you can be saved without good works. However, the works are a byproduct of your faith, not the REASON for salvation.
>>1068201
Not at all. Catholics just think that you cannot be saved by your free will ALONE. Of course your free will is necessary. But the divine grace is absolutely necessary too.
>>1068204
Catholics are kind of half assed about it. For example they believe in foreknowledge, just like Arminians, but they reject predestination, although you cannot really have one without the other (see Newcomb's paradox).
From epistle to the Romans:
>Tose whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified
From the Gospel of John:
>No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him
>>1068227
>translations
Also, the Catholic position about it is pretty logical, it's simply occasionalism, there are two necessary criteria, none being enough alone; by the way, Malebranche didn't come from nowhere, he basically just rewrote Saint Augustin
>>1068234
>is pretty logical
Once again, Newcomb's paradox. You can't have perfect predictors and free will in the same setting.
>>1068245
You think as if God was a predictor. That's not the case at all. God is not IN the setting.
>>1068252
Of course he is, he himself put himself in the setting.
>>1068258
The Son. Not the Father. The Son is not all-powerful or omniscient, he even asks why God abandoned him.
>>1068258
>he
>h
>>1068267
The Son and the Father are both part of the Godhead.
>The Son is not all-powerful or omniscient, he even asks why God abandoned him.
Well that doesn't explain how he knew he would die on the cross, that Judas would betray him and that Peter would deny him three times.
>>1068270
Sorry anon.
>>1068280
>all-powerful
>somtimes-powerful
>omniscient
>mostly scient
As expected of Christos
>>1068280
The Father transcends all of existence, including time. Therefore he is not a predictor, he's just outside of our linear causality.He's the Absolute.
The Son is a man. God made himself a man to experience all of our suffering. This absolutely includes being a victim, that is to say lacking power and knowledge. However, as the Son of God (and God himself), he still is more than a simple man, which explains your examples.
>>1068308
>he
>h
>>1068390
>being so insecure about your faith that you have to put capitals everywhere
>>1068420
>everywhere
Is this belief not shared by Anglican protestants?
Fuck, 2:19 makes a lot of sense. Did any of the major protestant theologians comment on this?
The only justification I can think of is that it can be taken to mean that non christians can go to heaven so long as they live good lives.
>>1065809
>LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
>He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
-Psalms 15v1-5
your faith produces a Christ-like character, which is observable by the effect it has on others... it generates persecution from the wicked, ridicule and scorn from the fence-sitters, and love from fellow-believers.
Paul talks about Abraham's faith which was counted for righteousness - this was at the point in Abraham's life, when, although he was 100 years old and his wife was well past the age of child-bearing, he believed God when God told him he was going to have a Son. He was justified before God by his belief.
>>1067092
almost all the Early Church Fathers including Augustine are in agreement that the "rock" refers to Peter's confession of faith not to Peter himself.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html
>>1068140
>You won't find free will in the Bible
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live"
>>1068441
>Did any of the major protestant theologians comment on this?
Yep. Not true faith, as the only true faith comes from grace. Demons are not blessed with grace. There's a distinction between spiritual and intellectual faith.
Jesus said you know the tree by its fruit. In this case the tree is the saved believer and its fruit are the good works. So by dismissing people who don't do good works, James is saying they weren't true believers.
>>1068308
The Son has existed since before the foundation of the world, and the world (time included) has come to be through him.
God didn't "make himself a man", God's Logos (Word) BECAME flesh he didn't "make himself" a flesh. There's a difference.
>>1068563
I am a prot.
To clarify the protestant view:
You aren't saved because you do good works. You do good works because you are saved.
>>1068563
>just become Prots already you niggers
but Protestanism is an outgrowth of Catholicism. Think about it. All the original Prots were born Catholics haha.
>>1068596
And so were all the Orthodox
>>1068594
And how are you saved? Faith? What is Faith to you?
>>1068599
Nah. The Orthodox are far more like the early Church Fathers than the Catholics who hardly resemble them at all. Nice try, though.
>>1068604
The result of grace.
>>1068613
Nope
>>1068618
Is it allotted randomly? Do you believe in free will? Does grace come to people who do good works (generally)?
>>1068626
>Is it allotted randomly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_election
>Do you believe in free will?
Not when it comes to salvation. You can't will yourself to heaven.
>Does grace come to people who do good works (generally)?
Other way around, good works come to people who are blessed by grace.
>>1068613
http://whynotcatholicism.net/view/the-early-church-was-catholic
>>1068639
So what's the point of his commandments? Why command people to do things if grave will cause them to do it anyway?
>>1068653
Don't listen to that proddy.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_4RFoknrwc
>>1068529
That's literally impossible from a gramattical standpoint. Jesus in no was indicates he's talking about something several sentences earlier. He calls Peter Keffa and then says on that Keffa he'll build his church.
>inb4 b-but in the Greek :(
Petra is feminine and Petros is masculine. Christ and the apostles spoke Aramaic to each other so Keffa would have been used and it would be used both times for Peter and "Rock" (see St. Paul calling Peter Cephas later on which is just a transliteration of Keffa into Greek)
>>1068661
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/
Try not to shoot yourself after reading this
>>1068653
>Why command people to do things if grave will cause them to do it anyway?
You're implying those two things contradict each other, but they really do not.
>>1068665
Not him but what is it about?
>>1068685
Protestant hates Catholicism, starts reading the early church fathers and doesn't like how it shits on Protestantism, then starts reading Orthodox polemics against Catholicism and is happy he can be traditional and still hate Catholicism, then starts reading Catholic writings, and things from the latin fathers and saints and basically comes to the conclusion that Catholicism is right. His final conclusion that neither side needs to convert because we're in communion by way of us both having the Eucharist is wrong though. For starters that's flatly against Orthodox doctrine because he acknowledges Catholic sacraments as valid (which the Orthodox officially don't) and the Catholic church still holds that we're in schism.
>>1068702
Well, did he still convert to Catholicism?
>>1068724
No
>His final conclusion that neither side needs to convert because we're in communion by way of us both having the Eucharist
>>1068728
I read that, but did he become Orthodox then?
>>1068737
He became Orthodox after reading their Polemics (He literally admits everything he learned about Catholicism came from them). Which is why he says he doesn't need to become Catholic. Because dude we both have Eucharist schism over XD. He gets BTFO in the comments actually
>>1068747
He's probably a hipster.
>>1068770
He seemed more like a devout Lutheran that learned traditional apostolic Christianity was correct, but still hated Catholicism because he was raised to (which he admits), but gets lazy at the end when he finds out it's right. Then again I have no idea how long it would take for an Orthodox Christian to switch over.
>>1068785
He's probably an actual hipster though in the sense that he prefers to call himself ''Orthodox'' because it ''sounds patrician'' and because Catholicism is ''more popular''.
>>1068793
Possibly that
It could also be his community is still one full of anti-Catholics like he was. Protestants for the most part have either a). Never heard of Orthodoxy or b). Have, but don't know what it is and just assume they believe in the same principals that Protestantism is founded on
So becoming Orthodox would be easier for his place in the community than becoming Catholic.
But really I don't know anything for sure other than what he wrote.
>>1068785
Actually many Lutherans aren't that opposed to re-joining Catholic church (especially confessionalists), the problem is the RCC unwilling to budge and change their doctrines that contradict the Scripture.
>>1068810
Then they aren't interested in joining the Catholic church. They're interested in making the Catholic church just a larger version of their Lutheran church. I'm not particularly interested in my church abandoning the traditions and faith of the apostles in favor of the book of concords
>>1068821
What seems to be the problem is a lot of your traditions are made up and not actually apostolic.
>>1068659
Jesus is the Christ is the foundation(rock) of my saving faith.
Jesus was specifically asking Peter about who He (Jesus) was. Peter via divine revelation said Jesus is the Christ. To this statement Jesus replied. He said upon this rock (The divine and unshakable truth that Jesus is the Messiah) will I build my Church. The central message and focus of the Church is that Jesus is the Christ, our savior. If you believe Jesus was referring to the man Peter as that Divine foundation of Christs Church, then you'd probably end up following some old virgine in a dress and a funny hat! Haha, as if THAT would happen.... oh wait.
>>1068809
If in english it were ''Pravoslavian'' instead of ''Orthodox'', that it were common all over East Asia, that South America were Protestant and that Catholicism were concentrated only in Southern Europe, I bet my balls that he'd have converted already.
>>1068837
>He said upon this rock (The divine and unshakable truth that Jesus is the Messiah) will I build my Church
No.
Rock = Peter
>>1068837
>some old virgine
If you think virginity is bad or something to be mocked you aren't a Christian
Christ says "and I will call YOU Keffa and on this Keffa on will build my church"
No indication that he's not talking about Keffa 1 (Cephas, Peter)
>>1068857
*I will
>>1068841
Possibly, but I have no way of knowing.
Whatever his reasons he doesn't give an adequate reason to not join the Catholic church by the end. He acknowledges that it's correct and that papal authority isn't just something real as the Catholic church teaches it but is vitally important to the unity of the church (this is something the Orthodox like to sweep under the rug. The sheer amount of disunity between Orthodox churches is near Protestant tier).
>>1068847
It’s a matter of interpretation, neither side can conclusively prove from this verse their view is correct, so we must look to Scripture to determine who is the rock and who the church is built on.
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief corner stone;
-Eph 2:20
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
-1Co 10:4
Clearly the scriptures show that the rock is Christ
>>1068876
>neither side can conclusively prove from this verse their view is correct,
kek maybe you can't
Keffa = Keffa
>>1068876
>Clearly the scriptures show that the rock is Christ
You may be surprised but English wasn't the original language the Bible was written in.
Now I understand why arabs are so heavily against translating Quran, thanks for showing me.
>>1068012
The last time I checked Bible wasn't written in French.
To think that the Church is built on Peter is funny to me. Peter wasn't what you could call the most stable foundation. He is rebuked by Christ as satan for not having in mind the things of God but rather the things of man, he denies Christ,then he denies Christ,then again he denies Christ, and ostracizes gentiles from the faith if they don't adhere to Jewish law and then is rebuked by Paul for doing so. To me, this is NOT what I'd call a solid rock of foundation.
On the other hand we have the divine and saving revelation of Jesus being the Savior. Now, lets look at that as the foundation rock for all Christianity to be based upon. Here, Jesus is the focus. God gets the glory. The priority of our attention is Christ centered, not man centered and therefore our personal relationship with the Father and the strength we receive from it is secure.
>>1068961
>To think that the Church is built on Peter is funny to me. Peter wasn't what you could call the most stable foundation
You are biblically illiterate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE
>As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence.
I'm sorry but these guys have nothing to do with Peter.
>Unironically believing in a God in 2016
>>1069045
>Unironically believing that everything sprung from nothing, thus breaking the laws of physics, completely on its own
>Unironically believing 0+0=1
>>1069081
>Unironically believing 0+0=1
this, 0+0 does not equal 1. I'll start saying this now since ''everything can't come from nothing'' triggers atheists who don't understand why it's illogical and try to make you feel stupid for saying this.
>>1069081
>thinking that the laws of physics have to work the same at all scales, despite the fact we've already seen they work differently for the very small
Moron.
>>1069124
>my consciousness comes from an accidental epic explosion of nothingness which was caused by nothing
>>1069081
> Yeah! Actually it is a God who created everything from nothing! Now this is reasonable!
>>1069133
Educate yourself peon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
>>1069136
Not him but yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQUsK2eNkfc
>>1069133
I'll take things I never said for 400, Alex.
Also, you're still a moron.
>>1069133
> my consciousness comes from an magic act of fictional character from the old jewish book!
>>1069138
>A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos.
dude there's nothing lmao, oh shit wait for it...wait for it...wait for it..BAZINGA! /we conscious now/
>>1069155
kek after I hit post I heard firecrackers, at last I truly see
>>1069136
You can call whatever the universe came from whatever you like. The fact is that the universe came from somewhere, yet people try to claim that it came from nowhere. That is clearly less logical than the universe coming from somewhere. It's very simple
>>1069163
>yet people try to claim that it came from nowhere.
No one claims that. They just claim that there's no evidence to suggest that the somewhere was a sapient God who cares whether or not you masturbate.
>>1069139
> literally everything must have a cause
> except of a God because causality can be ignored when it is useful for me
Very weak logic here. There is a clear contradiction.
>>1069163
Universe can't come from somewhere because all that exist is the universe. There is no somewhere.
>>1069180
>special pleading
>its not special
>god is the reason for special
Can someone explain this meme to me?
>>1069180
1:34
>>1069194
There is no meme. If you believe that there can be something without a cause like a God for example then there is no problem if Universe doesn't have a cause because you are already ignore causalities.
>>1069213
Exactly. It's fine until you call it God for some reason. It triggers people and I don't know why
>>1069224
>It triggers people and I don't know why
Call it God and you will never convert fedoras.
>>1069203
Doesn't matter. Yes. God can be eternal. But you can also say that universe was eternal in its state of preexistence. So it doesn't really work as proof of God. What exactly was state we doesn't know. Because it could be a part of divine plan, physical singularity, endless circle of previous universes or some other even more fucked up shit.
>>1069224
I am fine with a God. Just logic here is clearly has contradictions to it. You either believe in universal law of causality or don't. You can try to prove God from both points but should do it in a correct way.
>>1069250
But don't you understand that the whole concept of God is that he's beyond our petty rationalizations? That's the whole point. We and everything else wouldn't exist unless something else put the whole thing in motion
You're basically saying to talk about God without talking about God
>>1069237
>you can also say that universe was eternal in its state of preexistence
Not really.
>>1069261
> That's the whole point.
If it is a whole point then you shouldn't prove that God exist. No logic can prove something beyond our petty rationalization. I am here against abuse of logic, and against abuse of a faith. If you really believe in such God then you should be a honest with that believe and stop apply logic to the God.
Trying to apply logic to something that beyond it would a blasphemy to both a Logic and the God.
> Something else put the whole thing in motion
Whole thing was always in a motion. Just try to name one moment when it wasn't. You can't do this. Because it was never started to begin with.
>>1069272
Both physical and religious explanations allow this.
>>1069306
It seems like you're being pretty dishonest if you pretend that acknowledging the possibility that there is a God is very easy using logic, I'm sure you're more than capable of following the same simple steps that I did. I just don't know exactly what God is or why he is. That's the part that is outside of our understanding
>>1069337
*isn't very easy
is what I meant to say
>>1069337
No logical system can prove something that exist beyond its logical boundaries. If you say that God exist beyond logic then you can't prove God using a logic. Basically it is a same as trying to explain something unexplainable using words. In the end, you just can't do it.
>>1069352
Literally nothing you said was true lol you literally just described something that's unexplainable using words right now
>>1069364
> described something that's unexplainable
It was unexplainable not indescribable.
>>1069384
No, you clearly explained the concept of God which is so simple kindergartener can understand. Please stop acting retarded. You've deliberately twisted what I said from the beginning. Just because we don't know the specifics of God doesn't mean we can't understand how he could exist using simple logic
>>1069406
If we can understand God using a simple logic then saying that he is beyond logic would be a pure lie.
>>1069410
Are you not even reading what I write or what?
WHY he exists and HOW he exists are beyond our understanding right now. Using the brain that's between our ears we can easily reason that something (God) that created us and the universe could exist
>>1069423
We can use the same speculation to reason any of other possibilities from the eternal recurrences to computer simulations. None of them including God are logical conclusions and factually proven from what is known to us. Possibility is here but that possibility grounded in a speculations not in any logical or factual reasoning.
>>1069453
Except you're literally wrong again. Nothing is proven. From what we know it's more likely that our universe came from somewhere instead of appearing from absolute nothingness
>>1069313
Not really.
>>1070813
this
