>>8 Nope, protestants, at least those who hold to historic protestant positions and aren't just the unwashed masses of Christo-gnostic non denominationals, would reject that formulation. It honestly sounds more like an Eastern Orthodox position, although pinning down what the EO position on any topic is can be tricky since they have a more fluid understanding of theology in general than western Christendom (except on the Trinity, they are autistically Trinitarian, to their credit) A protestant take would be that God does in fact judge a mans life based on his deeds and he finds them all wanting. Only by the incarnation of the Son and the Son's propitiatory sacrifice as a substitute for man and the imputation of the Sons righteousness to that man does God find a man blameless. It is because we are in Christ that God passes his wrath over us and gives us His mercy because Christ was perfectly righteous and give himself as a ransom on our behalf. It's almost correct to say we aren't judged at all, Christ is judged and Christ being God is sinless and being Man can represent men in the court of God's law. Because we have our faith in Christ we are justified and counted among the people of God but the actual mechanism for being found to be blameless and saved from our sins is entirely in the hands of Christ and faith itself being a gift from the Holy Spirit our salvation entirely from start to finish is the work of God not in anything God has found in us apart from what He has done. What that poster said would be considered almost heretical from a protestant viewpoint. It borders on Pelagianism or at least semi-Pelagianism

>>13 But I thought human deeds and faith were required to at least hope for salvation, not just faith. Isn't Sole fide central to Protestantism? And again, what is glory versus vain-glory? >>9 That's what I thought, but I still want to make sure.

>>18 >But I thought human deeds and faith were required to at least hope for salvation, That is the traditional Roman Catholic and EO position. Historically protestants are strictly monergistic, meaning all of the work of salvation is done by God and we are recipients according to His grace and for the accomplishment of His purposes. > Isn't Sole fide central to Protestantism? It is, by Faith Alone we are justified. The natural question thereafter is what induces faith? Is it something which we exert on our own accord? Ephesians 2:8-10 tells us >8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— > 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. >10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Our faith and our works both are from God, we cannot boast in and of ourselves of our own righteousness because apart from Christ we have none and indeed what righteousness we do have either in faith or in works are those which were prepared for us by God and not out of our own will. > And again, what is glory versus vain-glory? I'm not sure if you have some kind of point you're trying to make with this but by simple vernacular usage glory is honor and splendor which somebody possesses rightly and vain-glory is honor and splendor which is claimed but not earned or properly deserved.

>>20 What does it mean to say that Man was created to honor and splendor God? What does honor and splendor mean in this context?

The french revolutionary were commies

>>260 I see. Mind defining 'off topic' in more detail, BO? For example, what would you think about something like this response? >>257 We don't even have to ban anyone. The simple relocation of the sperging almost always does the trick. And obvs. it's fun to trole troons tbh.

>>262 offtopic to me would mean a post that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread i dont think i will ban for >>257 because the post after him pretty much made the same point but better and it would seem hypocritical of me to ban him but not >>258 i think your right about the need for a thread to contain this stuff with threads like >>263 popping up

>>258 Jewsus taught in synagogues. Cope

>>264 >Change in Management . . . It's obviously the same anti-Christ moron, BO. If you want a sample of more of this, just visit this thread. >>>/fascist/181 I admire your decision to take over /christian/ here. But given the Anoncafe administration's decision to allow these retards in, you're going to have to take a hard line with them if you want to have a board that can thrive in peace. Ironically, I'm a White male Christian, very fashy in my leanings and I love my race. But when someone wants to put a knife to your throat saying 'lol, i was only kidding!' you can't just take it lightly. W/e, it's your place. I'd like to participate here and have a lot of interesting insights about the Bible, Christianity, the Christian lifestyle and trials. But I won't participate on the anon.cafe one as long as these one or two rabid drones are allowed to run roughshod over everyone else. Cheers.

>>266 Considering that /christian/ is literally next to /fascist/, of course it's going to be raided by (fellow neopagans). I would advise for payback in the form of christian counterraids on /fascist/. But I don't care one way or another. /fashbois/ can raid /christbois/ and viceversa, I don't care, you don't care, nobody cares.

>>329 Cringe!

>>331 Yikes!

Kikes!

>>327 You have no power here LARPagan!

>>338 >doos bolt die for Israel Yikes

Merry Christmas from /co/ as well!

Jesus was a kike. I spit on him

>>297 Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas /christian/!

Merry Christmas from /fascist/ nope, we aren't all pagan

I know it's been months, but I just found this thread. I hope you see my reply anyway. >God is omnipotent. >Omnipotence implies foreknowledge of all events. >Free will is your ability to choose otherwise. >Therefore, your decisions cannot be free as you can only choose what God has already foreseen. God has not foreseen anything, at least, if understood literally. God is eternal; and eternity, as defined by Boethius, is "possession, without succession and perfect, of interminable life." Or in other words, God lives (without beginning, without end, and without succession) perfectly in every moment. God's knowledge is eternally present to him, which is why He can't be said to foresee anything; nothing is future to God. Now, there isn't a contradiction between knowledge of a present event and free will, because knowledge of a present event does not impose necessity on it. And what appears future to man is not so to God. t. Catholic

>>221 >God's knowledge is eternally present to him, which is why He can't be said to foresee anything; nothing is future to God. Because I've spent my whole life basically eagerly pursuing new knowledge, it can as a real revelation to me when it dawned on me that God hasn't ever learned anything. Ever. This is an amazing journey we're on. For those of us heading to eternal life, it will be fulfilling beyond description, or even imagination!

>>222 >This is an amazing journey we're on. For those of us heading to eternal life, it will be fulfilling beyond description, or even imagination! Agreed.

>>221 >your decisions cannot be free as you can only choose what God has already foreseen. So if a guy travels into the future and learns what people will do in the future, they don't have free-will unless he tells them what they will do? The way they've defined free-will is retarded. Knowing the future doesn't mean you're mind-controlling anyone.

>>21 >God is just and good >you do not have free will per normalfag argumentation >ergo God is evil for holding people accountable for actions that are not their own will This is why its retarded op, when youre judged youre held accountable for your actions; if your actions were not your own, you cant be held accountable and God is evil Normalfags effectively arguing that God sent people to hell just cause it was a wednesday

>>268 y e s

>>268 cringe fag posting

>>268 this is a shitpost anon >>267

looks like Count Dooku

>>198 >being so insecure in your beliefs you have to constantly shitpost cuckchan garbage on a dead Christian board Does it bother you inside that Kyle, a Christian, killed more Jews than any pagan or fascist you consider "based"?

>>203 Kyle was not a Christian: >You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39) >Put your sword back in its place… for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52) >Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9) He should have put down his gun and not resisted, loved these rioters, prayed for them, and allow them to ravage his corpse. Praise Yahweh

>>204 >not knowing turning the other cheek in those times meant outright assault punishable by law, making that verse's meaning not what you think >Luke 22:36-38 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[a]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” >Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9) If he had done nothing, that wouldn't be making peace but condoning violence. Slaying people trying to kill you is not prohibited. None of which matters, since you don't believe the verses you quote anyway, only in vague pagan traditions that were conquered long ago by the very christcucks you hate. I hope you repent someday.

>>205 >If he had done nothing, that wouldn't be making peace but condoning violence Resist not evil.

>>206 >quoting earlier verse makes later verses irrelevant

>>79 It does forbid it, but only specifically by Paul in the New Testament. In Old Testament times it was sort of a moot point because women were always under the coverture of a man; first their father then their husband. They generally would never have even got the chance to try lesbian sex even if they had wanted to.

>>81 >Paul in the New Testament Where?

>>81 Putting Romans 1:26,27 next to Deuteronomy 23:17,18 indicates it's refering to whores.

>>84 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. It says "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:". Obviously their natural use refers to natural sexual relations. If this isn't obvious then verse 27 makes it so, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman". What the men were doing is like what the women were doing. This is a clear condemnation lesbianism.

test