No, what you're saying is your church with its man made traditions is the key to salvation. That is a big problem.
You are free to reject A church. What is condemning is rejecting THE gospel and THE Lord. It's condemning to reject THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE. That should be your focus. Instead you're focused on rejection of extra-biblical traditions.
I learn from a Fundamental Southern Baptist preacher, Sam Adams, that doesn't mean you cannot be saved outside of Southern Baptist education. I wouldn't dream of saying such a thing.
What? I can't read that sentence without my interpreter present. Are you speaking Chinese?
Another one of your posts with the predictable foil character DresdenFirebomber disagreeing with you in some absurd fashion to make you look like the good / sane person.
But anyway, socialism doesn't work, whether you print notes "with interest" or not, it's the printing in the hands of an active government that is the problem. It always ends up the same way.
Can Turkey blame their hyperinflation on the Jews or is it fiscal dominance (government controlling fiscal policy)? Believe it or not a central bank is a slight improvement to that even worse situation, and neither situation is good.
So you couldn't answer the questions. You know where that logic leads, to trusting in scripture and not the traditions of your religion.
You don't answer questions with more questions, that's deflection. You can answer and then ask questions to open up another line of thought, but otherwise you are running from the truth.
Do you think for example the word "kid" points to the same concept every time
This reminds me of the Muslims who use the phrase about even the first drink of alcohol being evil, and then they pour out the first cup to then drink the rest.
Do you have trouble stopping at a stop sign by any chance? After all you don't have an interpreter there other than yourself. Or are some messages clear and God is capable of making a point clear to those willing to hear the truth?
Wow Church worship, that's demonic. God alone! By grace, through faith. Amen.
Nobody forced Hitler to invade Poland. Nobody forced him to make an agreement with Stalin. He let his PRIDE and EGO win.
As for the people he purged, of course the government always tells you they only kill the bad guys. They do that now. "It was only terrorists we killed, it was only the drug cartel members". BS.
Glad you didn't deny the gulags, because yes they used slave labor. Yes they put those people's lives in danger which led to many deaths, even assuming no mass killings by gas. And I wouldn't rule out their capability for mass killings, not when dealing with a bunch of race worshiping eugenicists, not for a second. It's only a matter of means and opportunity for such prideful men as that.
You are lawyering away God's clear commandments. This is exactly what Jesus and Paul warned about regarding traditions.
Notice in the New Testament that times tradition is brought up, it is to warn against it's effects.
You're quote mining as every protestant in existence,
"You're using the scripture as its intended and it proves me wrong, Therefore I will listen to a man's weasling out of God's word because it's what makes me feel better"
This is outright lying or willful ignorance of the Scripture
The word "saved" is clear as day. You are outright gaslighting me to try to prove your point.
True protestant pastors (which I listen to) are searching the Bible diligently to be certain on the instructions. They find no instructions for a separate church based set of practices to keep you hooked on the church's power. If so they would be first in line to do them, because THEY ARE SINCERE.
For the fifth time - Scripture doesn't interpret itself. No text does.
Can God communicate to man, yes or no? If so can he enshrine that in scripture in language people can understand? Is the English language, or any language, sufficient to transmit important ideas? If not why are we having this conversation at all?
If Jesus says call no man father, but my church has a tradition calling priests father, in direct violation of this clear declaration, do you require an interpreter to tell you you cannot do that?
You don't trust the Pope or the Church holds the correct interpretation. You trust that you do.
You trust the words coming from a human, but don't think the words coming from God can transmit the idea properly. How dangerous is that? Very.
It's possibly the real ending, but it's an anonymous post on 4chan which could just be confirmation bias.
I think Kubrick might have had more class than to have the line "suck it like a lollipop", and would have just implied something sexual without the trashy dialogue.
Nope they hates them for both socialist and nationalist reasons. Double whammy.
So socialists who found a new scapegoat. Marxists aren't against singling out a troublesome minority opposing them (Kulaks, Colonialists), so they aren't that much different.
The only difference is that Nazis hate Jews for both socialistic (rich guy bad) and nationalistic (they are morally and culturally subversive) reasons. Although Marxists could also make the moral and cultural arguments against any minority opposing them, in this case the Jews really were pushing degeneracy and backstabbing the nation.
The point was that everyone ultimately has to appeal to an authority for interpretation of Scripture.
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
So yes that brings up the glaring issue that you put a layer between yourself and God's word. You claim there is a need for an interpreter beyond the Holy Spirit. You claim that your church fathers (Popes) are able to communicate with you in a way that you can understand but God's word cannot.
Period. That is the truth. That's what you're saying.
It's weird you believe this, because the OT and its continuation in the NT is literally a tradition that is upheld by rituals and sacraments. Denying tradition is sawing off the branch you're sitting on. It is this tradition of the Church that has produced the Bible (remember that there was no Bible until 4c.)
We are saved by the reality of the situation, by God's grace through faith. By God's gift to us. That's not a tradition or a ritual. Period.
Tradition didn't produce the Bible, that is the work of the prophets and apostles who authored it from divine inspiration.
You've twisted everything I've said to fit your tradition and religion. Jesus specifically warned about the "traditions of men". It was in this same context of religious traditions. I'm merely echoing the warning that Jesus clearly gave to you but you resist the truth. Nothing to do with needing an interpreter, it's you resisting the truth in unrighteousness.
You have no leg to stand on against the documented words of Christ himself. "Call no man father", and don't put "traditions of men" on the same level as God's commandments.
Notice he didn't say "God's traditions" or "God's rituals".
He literally purged members of his own party when he felt like it. And nobody disagrees that he teamed up with USSR to split up Poland (that alone means a lot of killing).
We also agree that soviet gulags are responsible for many deaths, so even if Nazis "only" had gulags, they killed alot of their slaves who otherwise could have lived.
You faggots came here together holding hands and both won't stfu. Probably all the same guy.
Propaganda for another unsaved despot who killed millions.
You made that "strawman" happen because saying "be your own pope" presupposes that's a legitimate role.
The early church, i.e early christians, maintained scriptures. Did specifically the people calling themselves "Orthodox" do so? I mean surely that's what you guys say, but either way the scriptures are written by the original authors.
I will take a look at your Sola scripture stuff later, but to me that line of thinking is a strawman. It's never "scripture alone", it's God who saves us, by grace, through faith. But one thing it is not, is by ritual, by tradition. That's superfluous.
Your arguments were all taken apart in my previous comments, using clear passages from scripture.
We understand salvation using scripture. We don't require a Pope as you imply (and as Catholics explicitly teach). Shame on you for twisting the gospel.
15“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
If you think this means salvation happens at the death bed after keeping all commandments daily, then you must think the Book of Acts is full of zombies. Because people are referred to as "saved", past tense. Not "maybe saved on their deathbed, we hope, maybe some day".
In Acts Chapter 16 we see the passage called "The Philippian Jailer Saved". Did they make a mistake, and it should be called "Philippian Jailer could be maybe saved many years later on his death bed?" "Philippian Jailer was moved in the right direction, no idea if he got saved, who cares?"
Acts 15 also deals with salvation. Peter states to the council:
giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; ...purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Where is wake up everyday unsure and maybe when you die you are saved?
Your only out is attacking scripture. "Well who compiled these texts..." argument.
acting as your own popes
Please show me where Jesus or any Apostle said you require a pope to read scripture. Also check with the prophets in the OT. Let me know what you find.
Secondly why haven't you addressed a single argument from the pastor in the video?
Jesus said "He that heareth my word and believeth on he that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation" John 5:24
We see the Apostle Paul write "saved" in the past tense. "unto use which are saved, it is the power of God" 1 Corinthians 1:18
And we are to know a "peace which surpasses all understanding" from God. That makes sense in the context of being saved already.
Far from a license to sin, Paul who said we are saved "by grace... through faith" showed complete devotion. If someone else uses a superficial faith in Jesus to justify a worldly life of sin they were never transformed and saved. Simple as that.
Imagine attacking God's word while following after traditions of men who admit they might not be saved. What utter madness! Repent!
If the Bible tells you that you can be saved as a certainty, and your church "father" tells you he can never know, then run.
The Bible is clear, it talks about "saved" people in the past tense. Not might be saved, or could be saved. Please watch the video.
Now God can't preserve his word in the Bible but the traditions of men from your church and their word are true gospel. Even though they don't assure salvation. Make it make sense.
You should actually watch the video and study the arguments presented.
As mentioned in the video, your church leaders don't even claim to know they are saved, so how can you say that is THE church to follow? The church whose members aren't even sure they are saved, that's how you know you can be sure of this church?
Praise God we have the Holy Scriptures and don't need to rely on these uncertain men to be saved.
Those of us trusting in Christ as Lord are saved. It is sanctification that is the ongoing process.
Who the hell are you though? You only showed up with the Nazi guy you supposedly oppose. And you and this other alt post retarded arguments that only make the Nazi character look better.
Fake af.