Biblecia.com
2.5K posts
Biblecia.com
@biblecia
Joseph Pittano | Christian| Reverend | Family man | PhD student Liberty B.T.S. | Army chaplain (ret) | Equipping & Discipling Manager @ https://t.co/AZTyrrO2gD | Nobody
Florida, USA Katılım Mart 2021
495 Takip Edilen1K Takipçiler
@biblecia @ProjectMysticDV So yeah, we are not christian, nor are we muslim, we are Christians, we actually believe what Christ left us, not what a demented 19th century pastor who didn't even know latin nor koine greek nor ancient sources nor any systematical theology said "Mah KJV Jesus said dis".
English
Mormons can become Christians.
Visit your local Catholic Church.
John Davis (Modern Parables)@jkdavis89
Different day same bigotry.
English
I understand your question. Not all are. Protestant is a broad title. The answer is: “The Christian ones.” Specifically any (and there are many) that credibly believe in and practice both sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura.
As a Baptist/Reformed guy, I’d say the best option will always be a Baptist church with a historically Baptist or Reformed confession. If they’re on the map search tool I shared above, it’s almost certainly to be the body of Christ at work there.
English
@biblecia Which protestant churches are christian?
English
This is the angle @RuslanKD and the Prot-toman Empire are taking against Orthodoxy. I wonder if they'll admit defeat when it fails or they'll pull the Matt Dillamonkey argument of "I'm just not convinced".
English
Online Conference hosted on “Revealed Apologetics” coming soon. Dates & Times to be announced 👊
English
@John32882368 @sspxcatholic1 The pope is always right unless he's wrong.
English
@sspxcatholic1 This is not based on authentic Catholic teaching.
This is the syncretic Church of the Freemasonic NWO.
English
This was way more scandalous than people talk about. Basically a repeat of Assisi and it went unnoticed?
English
One world religion
No thanks
sspxcatholic@sspxcatholic1
This was way more scandalous than people talk about. Basically a repeat of Assisi and it went unnoticed?
English
@ArdorNew I've read it. It affirms my Baptist and Reformed theology perfectly. Nice try.
English
The Didache is the Protestant’s worst nightmare.
Hughes de Payens 🇻🇦✝️📿@hdpayens
The Didache was written before most Christians had a "Bible." It had baptism rites. Eucharistic prayers. Bishops. Deacons. Fasting rules. A full liturgical calendar. The structure Protestants call "Catholic invention" was already running. A thread.
English
Christians didn't obey the apostolic imperative to "study" for approval, to teach sound doctrine if/as teachers, or meditate on the word of God as their daily delight? That was 4th century onward? So much for Paul preaching Jesus was the Christ (NT) from the OT Jesus loved? Would you have us forget the Muratorian canon fragment by 180 showing proper textual centrism with I think 22 of 27 NT books? Should we ignore the fact that the Rylands fragment of John was found in Egypt by 125 showing a wide textual propagation evident also in the extra-biblical discourses by about the close of the 1st century on? Though certainly not as abundant as in later centuries or fully collected, Timothy didn't have the OT (and drying out NT Scriptures (such as Luke’s Gospel Paul calls “Scripture”)) he was committed to by Paul to make him wise unto his NT salvation? The people weren't to heed the message of Peter *found in the prophetic Scriptures* “until the day dawned” in them until Athanasius' 39th festal? The letters of the NT writers didn't begin to circulate and be read by the 60's? Recipients in Galatia weren’t to judge men and even angels by what Paul preached and then wrote? Apologists weren't writing other documents repeatedly holding the known inspired texts up as the only infallible standard while advancing the Christian Faith immediately following the Apostles? Seriously? They just ate at the Table you say? And was that both elements as Christ gave it, or was it just one as later as others said? I digress. Funny, real history (limited as it is) shows us all these things and far more from the start. Read Acts. 39 books were guiding to 27 more in the hearts of the elect.
They did gather around the two ordinances (not seven). Such was delivered by mouth by the Lord and by his Apostles and codified in the again growing canon of inspired texts that accompanied the period/new covenant. And of course, no one in those early days taught or thought they were eating God (I've read the history un-filtered). Ideas of post-Aquinian but really post-Reformation era Romanism (Trent/later Vat. 1) like that wouldn't start being fought over for about 900 years.
Holden Cole@HoldenCCole
The first Christians did not gather around a Bible study. They gathered around the Eucharist. The New Testament canon would not be finalized for centuries, but the Mass was already the center of Christian life from the beginning.
English
Christians didn't obey the apostolic imperative to "study" for approval, to teach sound doctrine if/as teachers, or meditate on the word of God as their daily delight? That was 4th century onward? So much for Paul preaching Jesus was the Christ (NT) from the OT Jesus loved? Would you have us forget the Muratorian canon fragment by 180 showing proper textual centrism with I think 22 of 27 NT books? Should we ignore the fact that the Rylands fragment of John was found in Egypt by 125 showing a wide textual propagation evident also in the extra-biblical discourses by about the close of the 1st century on? Though certainly not as abundant as in later centuries or fully collected, Timothy didn't have the OT (and drying out NT Scriptures (such as Luke’s Gospel Paul calls “Scripture”)) he was committed to by Paul to make him wise unto his NT salvation? The people weren't to heed the message of Peter *found in the prophetic Scriptures* “until the day dawned” in them until Athanasius' 39th festal? The letters of the NT writers didn't begin to circulate and be read by the 60's? Recipients in Galatia weren’t to judge men and even angels by what Paul preached and then wrote? Apologists weren't writing other documents repeatedly holding the known inspired texts up as the only infallible standard while advancing the Christian Faith immediately following the Apostles? Seriously? They just ate at the Table you say? And was that both elements as Christ gave it, or was it just one as later as others said? I digress. Funny, real history (limited as it is) shows us all these things and far more from the start. Read Acts. 39 books were guiding to 27 more in the hearts of the elect.
They did gather around the two ordinances (not seven). Such was delivered by mouth by the Lord and by his Apostles and codified in the again growing canon of inspired texts that accompanied the period/new covenant. And of course, no one in those early days taught or thought they were eating God (I've read the history un-filtered). Ideas of post-Aquinian but really post-Reformation era Romanism (Trent/later Vat. 1) like that wouldn't start being fought over for about 900 years.
English
The first Christians did not gather around a Bible study.
They gathered around the Eucharist.
The New Testament canon would not be finalized for centuries, but the Mass was already the center of Christian life from the beginning.
English
@oliverburdick Her last recorded words are quite fitting for her legacy.
English
@nathancoxey Sounds like it from what little I’m seeing. And there isn’t a demon roaming that wouldn’t be cool with a condemned addiction free man.
subsplash.com/u/bibleciacom/…
English
Childbearing does too, right?
See 1 Timothy 2:15 where Paul says that it does if ladies, “…continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” He uses the word “save.” Theology matters.
Titus 3:5-7 alone is sufficiently clear. See Ephesians 2:8-9 for the same. Don’t break the law of the Gospel and try to add works to merit grace. See Romans 4:1-8 for God’s view on labor for this justification.
Peter is saying baptism sanctifies, just like child-bearing with Paul. We can use the word saved here just as he does so long as we don’t think it’s how we actually get in the New Covenant. Christ is saving me in one sense every day but what I do.
Fact: holy baptism didn’t live, die and raise again from the dead for anyone’s regeneration or anyone’s justification. Christ did though.
subsplash.com/u/bibleciacom/…
Bishop@BishopJaxi
Baptism saves
English
Childbearing does too, right?
See 1 Timothy 2:15 where Paul says that it does if ladies, “…continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” He uses the word “save.” Theology matters.
Titus 3:5-7 alone is sufficiently clear. See Ephesians 2:8-9 for the same. Don’t break the law of the Gospel and try to add works to merit grace. See Romans 4:1-8 for God’s view on labor for this justification.
Peter is saying baptism sanctifies, just like child-bearing with Paul. We can use the word saved here just as he does so long as we don’t think it’s how we actually get in the New Covenant. Christ is saving me in one sense every day but what I do.
Fact: holy baptism didn’t live, die and raise again from the dead for anyone’s regeneration or anyone’s justification. Christ did though.
subsplash.com/u/bibleciacom/…
English
A Protestant can condemn every council, reject every father, disagree with every historic Christian, start his own church in a strip mall, and still call it “biblical Christianity.”
That should terrify people more than it does.
The Catholic Church does not ask each generation to reinvent Christianity.
The Church guards what was handed down.
English
Anything else is as profitable? As able to equip? As exhaled by God? If Scripture is not unique then perhaps what you’re saying is true. If it is then what you’re saying is false. Paul writes elsewhere of what is and is not profitable, but nowhere can the word “inspiration” be used outside of how it’s used here of the texts.
“Theopneustos” is a hapax legomenon.
Peter emphasizes its same unique status in 2 Peter 1:21 when he speaks of men being “pheromenoi” in prophecy by the Holy Spirit…in speech…in the Scriptures. Other things may be profitable, etc. to a believer, sure, but none are inspired or moved by the Holy Spirit uniquely.
Paul’s words here show that Scripture is alone inspired and thus is all these things he says *uniquely* by virtue of their inspired nature.
Most Christians throughout history would agree with me without question.
You’re presently unable to appreciate the distinction needed, and we all know where this is coming from. If the Scriptures taught the post Vatican 1 style faith you loosely hold to, you’d be the Sola Scriptura guy.
Bishop@BishopJaxi
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable, so the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work. Protestants read that and somehow get: "Only Scripture is God-breathed, Scripture alone is profitable, and Scripture alone is sufficient." One problem. Paul never said that. Try that logic anywhere else: "All grapes were created by God and are profitable, so that a man may be nourished, healthy, and strong for every good work." Read like a Protestant, this means: "Only grapes were created by God, and grapes alone are profitable for nourishment." That is obviously absurd. Why? Because "all X is profitable" does not mean "only X is profitable." 2 Timothy 3 proves Scripture is inspired and profitable. It does not prove sola Scriptura. That doctrine has to be smuggled into the verse, because it is not actually in the verse.
English
Anything else is as profitable? As able to equip? As exhaled by God? If Scripture is not unique then perhaps what you’re saying is true. If it is then what you’re saying is false. Paul writes elsewhere of what is and is not profitable, but nowhere can the word “inspiration” be used outside of how it’s used here of the texts.
“Theopneustos” is a hapax legomenon.
Peter emphasizes its same unique status in 2 Peter 1:21 when he speaks of men being “pheromenoi” in prophecy by the Holy Spirit…in speech…in the Scriptures. Other things may be profitable, etc. to a believer, sure, but none are inspired or moved by the Holy Spirit uniquely.
Paul’s words here show that Scripture is alone inspired and thus is all these things he says *uniquely* by virtue of their inspired nature.
Most Christians throughout history would agree with me without question.
You’re presently unable to appreciate the distinction needed, and we all know where this is coming from. If the Scriptures taught the post Vatican 1 style faith you loosely hold to, you’d be the Sola Scriptura guy.
Bishop@BishopJaxi
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable, so the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work. Protestants read that and somehow get: "Only Scripture is God-breathed, Scripture alone is profitable, and Scripture alone is sufficient." One problem. Paul never said that. Try that logic anywhere else: "All grapes were created by God and are profitable, so that a man may be nourished, healthy, and strong for every good work." Read like a Protestant, this means: "Only grapes were created by God, and grapes alone are profitable for nourishment." That is obviously absurd. Why? Because "all X is profitable" does not mean "only X is profitable." 2 Timothy 3 proves Scripture is inspired and profitable. It does not prove sola Scriptura. That doctrine has to be smuggled into the verse, because it is not actually in the verse.
English
"As for the text, the interpreter must exercise the grammatico-grammatical method of interpretation. That scientific method demands various kinds of criticisms: historical criticism (in the derived [i.e., bastardized] sense of understanding a text’s historical context), literary criticism, form criticism, rhetorical criticism, and so forth. These tools were unknown throughout most of the church’s history, but Providence has given them to the contemporary exegete, and he or she has a responsibility to honor that Providence and not to ignore the tools God has given us."
Bruce K. Waltke, “Biblical Theology of the Psalms Today: A Personal Perspective,” in The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul, ed. Andrew J. Schmutzer and David M. Howard Jr. (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2013), 24.
English