I don’t get it, Luther launched a revolt against guilttripping, bondage of works, and uncertainty of salvation, only for Calvin to reintroduce these follies back into the reformed Churches? What was the whole point?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>bondage of works
>Calvinism
Something tells me you have no idea what you're talking about lol
Never seen Paul Washer?
Who?
Some irrelevant nobody?
Calvinists have historically pursued self-holiness to insane lengths, we even derived the word “puritan” derived from them.
Puritans are a small group of Calvinists, not the whole.
>Calvinists have historically pursued self-holiness to insane length
So did the Essene israelites, which Jesus Christ himself was. I don't see how that's really a knock against Calvinism.
Any good readings about the relation of Jesus to the Essenes? They were a cool group, but I’ve never heard this connection before.
>People disregard completely fundamentals of what they say they believe
Many such cases
Nice Satanic trips but Paul Washer self-identifies as an Evangelical who just takes bits and pieces from Calvinism wherever it suits his own purposes.
>what is Lordship Salvation
Bondage of works?
>dood this catholic cartoon proves my theological position
It’s an Evangelical cartoon and it’s right, that’s exactly what scripture says.
See
Galatians 5:6
Yes, like I said, the Bible contradicts itself on this point.
There can’t be any contradiction.
Nta
Yet, there are. Developing convoluted cope to try to get around contradictions is not an answer to them.
Is God perfect?
Do you not see how your own argument contradicts itself? The Bible both posits works as essential to salvation (James 2:14-16) and faith as being the sole determination of salvation - which is explicitly "not by works" (Ephesians 2:8-9)
There can’t be any contradiction. The Bible is always to be regarded as a whole with an entirely unified message due to the unity, perfection, and constancy of its divine author. This means that each part must always be understood as belonging to the whole, and that the true context of any given passage must be regarded as the Bible in its entirety.
The Bible was still written by human beings who had differing opinions. That's why there's over a hundred contradictions inside it.
http://media.isnet.org/kmi/off/XXtian/101ContradictionsInTheBible.pdf
If you can't explain why it's not a contradiction, it is. You haven't.
>Works don't matter but you can't be faithful without them
Might want to work out those mental gymnastics.
I precisely didn’t say they don’t matter. They matter, they just don’t earn. It’s about making an effort, short as it may fall.
But James says "faith without works is dead" whereas Ephesians says, "salvation is entirely predicated on faith - which is not by works". Both points can't be true simultaneously as these two arguments are innately at odds with one another (because they were written by different authors who differed in opinion)
Paul also says non-working faith is useless. The Christian Bible is remarkably harmonized across authors.
>Paul also says non-working faith is useless.
Which, again, directly contradicts:
Ephesians 2:8-9
>For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can.
>so that no one can boast*
So now you’re saying Paul was contradicting himself and confused. As I said, it’s about making an effort, short as it may fall.
I'm saying Paul contradicted the author of Ephesians, just like the author of James contradicted the author of Ephesians (and vice versa). L2reading comprehension
It’s not a contradiction to say that works don’t earn you heaven but they still matter. Think of a teacher giving a makeup exam after everyone failed the first one.
The idea that "faith without works is dead" fundamentally negates Ephesians point about faith being separate from works (not from yourselves)
God gifts people with a faith that wants to work, silly.
Let me break it down like this:
>Ephesians: salvation is entirely dependent upon faith, which is explicitly described as being disconnected from works.
>James: faith is nothing without works.
There's the contradiction you've yet to address.
In the first case, it’s works of the law. Old Covenant vs New Covenant. It’s like I said, professor giving a makeup exam out of mercy. Even if you succeed on the makeup exam, you passed thanks entirely to the mercy of the professor.
Nope. The Bible’s divine author is still God. And due to the perfection, unity, and constancy of God, there can’t be any contradiction. The Pauline epistles and the ot make it clear justification is by faith alone.
See
You can't just bury your head in the sand as an argument
There’s nothing contradictory between faith alone and James 2 and I’m not hiding from it. The Pauline epistles are clear about justification.
>whatsoever is not of faith is sin.(Rom. 14:23
>man may exert himself as he will, he is a child of wrath by nature.(Eph. 2:3)
A faith that is not thus connected with holiness is the dead faith of which St.
James speaks, and which is just as little justifying as it is sanctifying. To ascribe justification to such a lifeless thing betrays an utter want of understanding in spiritual matters. But while the truth is undeniable that a living faith is never sundered from the sanctifying influences of the Spirit who dwells in the hearts of believers, it is equally certain that the holy affections which accompany it are neither the ground nor the means of justification. A grosser misunderstanding of the precious doctrine which we teach can scarcely be conceived than that which, when faith is mentioned, assumes that works are meant. It overthrows the very foundation of our salvation, which is Christ, to substitute the latter for the former. For if our holy emotions or performances effect our acceptance with God, then has Christ become to us of none effect. What need have we for a Savior if we can save ourselves? Why speak any longer of the merits of Christ as the ground of our hope, if that ground is the sanctification which we ourselves possess?
Works don’t earn anything, they make faith perfect and there is no justification without them.
The fact that works are a prerequisite eliminates the idea that faith is the sole determinate. Jesus and Paul contradict each other on this issue. Jesus tells us that every jot and tittle of Torah law matters in the most pinnacle sense. Paul tells us to a law doesn't matter at all anymore. In fact you don't even have to circumcise your foreskin anymore.
And trying to mesh these contradictions has manifested a lot of rationalization.
There is no contradiction, a shallow/dead faith accomplishes nothing except self-satisfaction, only a working faith counts. So you need to work to be justified.
This statement just said that faith alone is not enough.
Ephesians 2:8-9
>For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can.
To be fair, the Bible does contradict itself on the point of salvation. Calvinists aren't in the wrong for assuming that the deterministic view of Ephesians is the correct one. It's just as likely to be as any other verse that contradicts it.
Lutheranism is Christianity. Calvinism is Judaism.
That primitive Baptists have been the only true church of God, but not the universal church. Zwingli had Hubmeyer killed. You can identify the church by which group was suffering the most persecution.
primative baptists are calvinists, moron. You’re thinking about anabaptists.
Both Luther and Calvin focused on reforming worship and sacrament
it was the israelites, why germany was the revolutionary point since the fall of israel by rome?
jews, the first european country they move is germany
from luther to the weimar republic it was all israelites
he was a schizophrenic
Some people tend to think it was Calvin but he hasn't, the English Puritans are the ones who went reintroduced penitence and preparationism. Calvin was closer to Luther than the English Puritans and the continental reformed documents prove it when you compare them with the English ones
True, and pietism is a corollary development among Lutherans
>uncertainty of salvation
Assurance is the most moronic thing to obsess over.
It does precisely *nothing* to make you a better Christian.
Knowing whether or not you're saved changes *nothing* about what Jesus told you to do on earth.
It exists *only* for the sake of protecting your precious feefees.
Like, "oh why would I be a Christian if I don't get a guaranteed pass into heaven?" If I don't get to go to heaven being Christian is pointless. There's nothing else to Christianity except my heavenly reward. What do you mean I'm supposed to do what Jesus told me to do just because it's right?"
You're completely missing the point.
Stop pretending you know how Jesus will judge you and start building up his kingdom.
Nice
The way biblical interpretation seems to work puzzles me. I'm mildly convinced you can conclude that Jesus, Paul and the Apostles were just shit testing goys and open minded israelites if you just read the NT hard enough.
>Luther
Was correct. The people of England, and whites in general do not need the Catholic church because they are people of the Kingdom of Heaven by right of birth by blood. A very long time ago the Catholics had it right but somewhere along the way they got subverted and their practice was perverted. Today even they bow down and worship the flesh, shameful.
.