Baptist General

Elijah Hill
Elijah Hill

SALVATION

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The Bible Way to Heaven
youtube.com/watch?v=WDEBz25lGdY

INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST SERMONS

"King Saul & the Old IFB"
youtu.be/FIGpF12snU4

"Feminism in light of the Bible"
youtu.be/ruFnghl4W6E

"Antichrist Bible Versions"
youtu.be/SEXmPB-ksEM

PSALM 23
1 Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name.
2 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
4 Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;
5 Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's.

6 The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.
7 He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel.
8 The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
9 He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.

10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.
14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.
16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.
17 But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;
18 To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.
19 The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all.

20 Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.
21 Bless ye the Lord, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure.
22 Bless the Lord, all his works in all places of his dominion: bless the Lord, O my soul.

Attached: baptist.png (2.57 KB, 360x240)

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=dPqSelVJvoA
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PA2.HTM
textuploader.com/dlrfw
evidenceunseen.com/
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxvi.html
youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo
youtube.com/user/onearmsteve4192
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
messengerofpadrepio.com/testimony);
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_scatology
youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo/videos)
youtube.com/user/onearmsteve4192/videos)
youtube.com/channel/UCVdGX3N-WIJ5nUvklBTNhAw/videos)
youtube.com/watch?v=dmsa0sg4Od4)
youtube.com/watch?v=zC3_i6EaVqQ)
youtu.be/dPqSelVJvoA
lumina.bible.org/bible/Ephesians 2#constablesNotesHolder
youtu.be/Wh1VU-_OF98
youtu.be/FIGpF12snU4
youtu.be/ruFnghl4W6E
biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/16-34.htm
youtu.be/BXMA4xOS5BY
militarygetsaved.tripod.com/findachurch0.html
equip.org/pmr-podcast/episode-070-christian-polyamory/
youtu.be/sCkANfg9SgU
shamelesspopery.com/did-the-protestant-bible-exist-before-the-reformation/
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xiii.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvii.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xviii.html
earlychristianwritings.com/text/didascalia.html
nleaven.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/rethinking-colossians-212-and-baptism-with-douglas-moo/
kjvtoday.com/home/sluices-and-ponds-for-fish-or-who-work-for-pay-will-be-grieved-in-isaiah-1910
youtube.com/user/stack45ny
amazon.com/Henry-Morris-Study-Bible-comprehensive/dp/089051657X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531867398&sr=8-1-spons&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=henry morris study bible&psc=1
zigforums.com/thread/678216/christian
discord.gg/Xw4V7Jb
strawpoll.me/16479452
reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/5bp0kp/was_anybody_else_here_raised_independent/?st=jmghq6xc&sh=f1908256
pastebin.com/R4kgCprC
fbcwakefield.org

Sebastian Adams
Sebastian Adams

550382
make argument
support it with scripture
every denomination does this, especially when explaining doctrine.
i don't understand your complaint.

Alexander Jenkins
Alexander Jenkins

550380
Someone post the image where it says "What you doing x?" "Just independent fundamentalist baptism"

Michael Kelly
Michael Kelly

540046
542706

Attached: Luther2.jpg (81.34 KB, 1000x559)
Attached: Luther1.jpg (74.49 KB, 1000x559)
Attached: Luther3.jpg (76.82 KB, 1000x559)

Isaac Cox
Isaac Cox

The point is that he is taking stand-alone sentences (sometimes sentence fragments) and placing them together to form a doctrine that was never there in the first place

Paul's letters, Revelation, a bit from the gospel… at least they're all from the new testament I guess.

Also, this is what atheists do when explaining why the bible is (insert negative attribute here) or how God supposedly changes from old to new testaments

Charles Cooper
Charles Cooper

The point is that he is taking stand-alone sentences (sometimes sentence fragments)
just to make it easier for presenting, again, every denomination does this, look at any statement of faith or even your catechism.
that was never there in the first place
disagree, and it is possible to take and interpret the whole of scripture consistently without any contradiction to support this view.
(i think you can take and interpret the whole of scripture consistently without any contradiction to support incorrect views too though.)

Xavier Carter
Xavier Carter

550391
What happens if I believed authentically, but then I stop believing slowly, say over the course of a couple of decades?
According to perseverance God will cause a person who has true faith to endure in that faith till the end. Even though it may weaken at times it will never disappear.

Grayson Gomez
Grayson Gomez

Salvation by faith alone
John
1
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
3
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
4
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
5
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
6
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
7
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
8
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
11
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
12
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
14
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
16
27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
20
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

OSAS
6
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
10
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
14
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Attached: 37F78D83-938E-43D1-9664-1380BC1F67E5.png (137.11 KB, 250x664)

Jaxson Ward
Jaxson Ward

Just the verse numbers

Faith alone
John
1:12
3:15-16/18/36
4:14
5:24
6:28-29/35/37/38-40/44-45/47
7:38-39
8:24
10:27-29
11:25-27/40
12:46
14:1-3
16:27
20:31

OSAS
John
6:37/44-45
10:27-29
14:1-3

Evan Stewart
Evan Stewart

sorry, but you're wrong on multiple accounts

Go ahead and show me a similar case in the catechism, I'll wait

Kevin Murphy
Kevin Murphy

I always have a mingling suspicion that those quotes aren't literal as you make them to be.
But since you believe they are, then you can please explain:

1 Corinthians 13:2
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
James 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Both KJV, even though KJV-Onlyism is a meme.

Blake Sanchez
Blake Sanchez

1 Corinthians 13 is in the context of success in ministry, and gifts of the Spirit. Its not about salvation.
James 2 is similarly about demonstrating your faith to others by the fact that true faith does always produce good fruit in a person's life.

Liam Green
Liam Green

So yiur just going to throw out verses where Jesus literally says "he that believeth on me hath everlasting life" for two unclear berses that don't even say "saved" or "damned"?

pathetic

also
MMUUUUUHHHH JJJJJAAAAMMMMESSSSS TWWWOOO
m.youtube.com/watch?v=dPqSelVJvoA

Jackson Cooper
Jackson Cooper

I'll wait
i was away from keyboard, grabbed this in 5 seconds off google
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PA2.HTM
look at the footnotes

Kayden Brown
Kayden Brown

grabbed this in 5 seconds off google
And I'm assuming that you think you've proven something here? If you can't see the differences (of which there are many) between the post I originally replied to and this section of the catechism dealing with relating to God as Father, then there isn't much left to discuss here.

Zachary Hall
Zachary Hall

And I'm assuming that you think you've proven something here?
you:
jajajaja baptists present arguments with prooftexts that consist of only one verse
me:
everyone does that when they're just presenting something, look at anyone's statements of faith or even your catechism
you:
prove it!
me:
here, look at the footnotes that point to 1 verse prooftexts used to support a thing it's presenting

there isn't much left to discuss here.
agreed

Charles Anderson
Charles Anderson

Attached: Baptist.png (63.33 KB, 1729x1832)

Chase Mitchell
Chase Mitchell

<jajajaja baptists present arguments with prooftexts that consist of only one verse
<only one verse
what?

Also, I think you're missing the point. The post itt was basically a doctrinal statement on OSAS. Taking verses from here and there and pasting them all together to form a linear argument in favor of OSAS is not a coherent position. You can't take random excerpts from various letters of Paul, a gospel and revelation and paste your favorite parts and say "see it was there all along".
The page you linked to the catechism is CITING various sources which show examples of how we related to God as Father.

You haven't convinced anyone of anything, and you've actually done a lot to reinforce the notion that this is standard Baptist theological rhetoric. (disappointing) Maybe someone else can provide a position with a little more substance?

Andrew Peterson
Andrew Peterson

The post itt was basically a doctrinal statement on OSAS
in what way? it's more like the text of a tract you hand to someone rather than a statement of beliefs.
Taking verses from here and there and pasting them all together to form a linear argument in favor of OSAS is not a coherent position.
why not? and is that what was actually done? the meme text ( >>533847 ) had commentary in between the verses referenced.
The page you linked to the catechism is CITING various sources
why is it okay to do it in this context? what's the difference?
You haven't convinced anyone of anything
what was i attempting to convince you of?
you've actually done a lot to reinforce the notion that this is standard Baptist theological rhetoric
my heart weeps

Eli Sullivan
Eli Sullivan

Attached: 8476d040ce95ac7148d711217bb7a4b82c74dc9c0c2c4b4b47b823bbe8eaea21.png (158.01 KB, 657x1145)

Aaron Russell
Aaron Russell

550391
What if God decided to lie? ironic question

Or more likely what if you thought it was authentic but it really wasn't because it was for the wrong reasons? That could happen too. It has to be for the right reasons.

John 5:24: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Kayden Collins
Kayden Collins

There are a few things I wish to leave with you before I leave this board semi-permanently, I don't how long until that'll be, but there studies, work, etc I wish to attend and this site is taking a load of my time.
First off in the face of doubt and atheism, I want to have this link at all times: textuploader.com/dlrfw
Although, I admit I that there a few evidences I forgot to add into the list, you can find at evidenceunseen.com/
But where people find most encourage in the faith is by setting an example. So please, the sake for both God and our family share your salt with those in need. If you see someone who's starving in the streets give them some nutriment and liquids. Someone who's having a difficult time, seek to comfort them just Christ sought you first. And if you're questing God, then place yourself in position where you need to depend on Him, fasting helps.

As for the veneration of icons, it's important to note that throughout church history people and councils discourage this action until it became popular within monasticism, but for now I want you to know that it originated with the Carpocrates, a gnostic group. Read section 6.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxvi.html
Which also explains why there are icons in the roman catacombs. The pathetic attempt to refute this by others is the letter of the martyrdom of Polycarp. Know that Polycarp was dead, thus cannot reject any practice of worship towards, so to say he would support this is lunacy. Irenæus is just reporting what happen during Polycarp's martyrdom, no one can truly say he was supporting a practice of worship. Foremost, where Polycarp's martyrdom took place was at Rome, the location Carpocrates was preaching their heresy, therefore one of the locations we should expect to find the "honoring" of saints.

On the Septuagint, if you read about in Josephus's and Philo's works, all that was translated for King Ptolemy the Law of the Jews, which is the first, five books of the bible. Don't fear if anyone tells you that the Jews originally accepted the Septuagint, because in that sense-all Christians do. Of course, the reprobates will say Justin Martyr assert there were more books in the Septuagint than the torah, thus we should accept their heresy, but reading in context is their greatest antagonist, my brothers. Even if that the case non of apocrypha were written by prophets, as 1 Maccabees 9:27 will confess, and the only Jews that rejected the prophets were the Sadducees and Samaritans. More importantly, if the Jews were to remove any books from the holy scriptures it would've been the book of Isaiah because it affirms the trinity, has the nativity story, and it was the most quoted book of the NT and no one quotes from the apocryphal books in the NT. The leading bishop from the synod of Hippo and Carthage thought the Jew in the past had the apocryphal in their canon, then it must be superior than what the actual truth is. Top it all off, the Bryennios List is probably the earliest Christian canon.

Finally the Lord's supper, when engaging this topic always remember John 6:63, again, reading in context is the reprobate's greatest antagonist. Strangely the earlier one goes back, the more the Lord's supper's role is like memorial fest, oppose to a shortcut for temporal sacrifice. For example, the didache basically states that Lord's supper is rememorate the son of David (Jesus), and the thanksgiving prayer describe the Lord's supper as "spiritual food", not actual blood. The reprobate goes on with Ignatius of Antioch's letter discussing about people who deny the Christ's presence of the Lord's supper, you must know who Ignatius was referring as the gnostics-specifically the docetists, who didn't believe Jesus had a body and that natural world is evil. Marcianus Aristides, who strongly influential to Justin Martyr, says the Lord's supper was an activity just for thanksgiving. Of course, the church and with her sacraments became more corrupt over time, but keep in the faith of God strong, my family. Bye.

Attached: 2a6.png (592.9 KB, 1185x1029)

Juan Green
Juan Green

Remember 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and be well friend.

Anthony Perez
Anthony Perez

honest question lads;is it EVER ok to sin just so you know you can't trust your own works, but then don't do it anymore and start behaving actually ok?

Right now i didn't do it but Im not sure I can keep it up forever. What if I slip and fail? I even considered running away into the woods so i dont perfrom the deed.
gib advice,please.

Attached: Jean-Noblet-tarot-22.jpg (44.47 KB, 306x500)

Julian Johnson
Julian Johnson

is it EVER ok to sin just so you know you can't trust your own works,
No and besides, you've already sinned so you got that covered. All we can do now is live for Jesus, by his rules, that would include not sinning. But first and foremost you have to believe so that his blood can cover for you.

Ephesians 4:30
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Bentley Nelson
Bentley Nelson

Is it ever humanly possible to NOT sin?
or is like not coughing when you have dry throat,with sin being a virus?

William Rodriguez
William Rodriguez

With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Leo Parker
Leo Parker

You don't have to deliberately schedule sinning to recognize that you are not dependable enough to merit everlasting life.
You simply have to see that you have sinned in the past, and probably will sin again very soon. Simple faith in the truth of scripture ought to tell you that you cannot merit everlasting life.

(Romans 3:10-26)
{10}"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
{11} There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
{12} They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
{13} Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
{14} Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
{15} Their feet are swift to shed blood:
{16} Destruction and misery are in their ways:
{17} And the way of peace have they not known:
{18} There is no fear of God before their eyes.

{19} Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
{20} Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
{21} But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
{22} Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
{23} For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

{24} Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
{25} Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
{26} To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

There are various opinions on this, but it is enough to say that any time you do fall into sin as a believer, it was possible to you to have abstained from sinning.

Ian Cooper
Ian Cooper

i couldnt do it ;_;
today i sinned, I looked with lust and tried to talk to a girl, I didn't because I dropped the spaghetti but I wanted to.

I didnt plan it but it happened.
help me lads,is it OK?will it all be allright¿

Eli Murphy
Eli Murphy

help me lads,is it OK?will it all be allright¿
If you doubt yourself, look to the cross. In Jesus you will find peace.

Jayden Diaz
Jayden Diaz

I know you're shitposting, but this Repent, believe on Jesus this moment, and you will be saved.

(1 John 5:1-4)
{1} "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
{2} By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
{3} For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
{4} For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

Christopher Diaz
Christopher Diaz

how can catholics and other denomination still believe salvation is not by faith alone with all the scripture you have to back it up

William Brooks
William Brooks

different sources of authority for rules of faith and practice.

Attached: foundation.png (45.55 KB, 745x1053)

Dominic Miller
Dominic Miller

Because James 2:24 and various other places in the bible that are a variation of "those who do x will not inherit the kingdom of God"

Adam Rogers
Adam Rogers

catholics
scripture

Kayden Phillips
Kayden Phillips

Are there any good IFB Baptist podcasts? I'm a fan of Anderson and watch his sermons regularly but I would like listen to some radio shows or discussion type podcasts too. Please and thank you.

Attached: 8a16ad079e989071c75b4df24028760536c2e5f9e3a3c045ae2c89e75c8f0f5b.jpg (1.5 MB, 2400x3000)

Xavier Moore
Xavier Moore

These text's are not contradictory to sola fide when understood in the context of all scripture.
James is not contradicting the clear statements of Paul, and John about how all who believe will be saved. James is describing the fact that true saving faith will always produce good works.

Austin Wilson
Austin Wilson

See 1 Corinthians 1 and 2.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Juan Harris
Juan Harris

I would suggest Bishop Barron or Sensus Fidelium, they are better. :)

youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo

youtube.com/user/onearmsteve4192

Also I was there and saw when your pic related was happening in Warsaw lul

Attached: 65877.jpg (80.76 KB, 564x846)

Samuel Evans
Samuel Evans

i got interested in "believe on" vs "believe in" 10 minutes ago, i found this random site saying:

believe in:
is to hold as the object of faith
Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. (John 14:1)
believe on:
is to trust, to place full confidence in, to rest upon with faith
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12)

which is really interesting, but it's the same preposition in the greek everytime for "in" and "on"
someone educate me on this issue.

Attached: hububub.png (20.27 KB, 801x375)

Bentley Clark
Bentley Clark

Probably means the exact same thing

Logan Turner
Logan Turner

In the originals and in the actual English translations, it means the same thing. In contemporary English, "believe in" could have different connotations due to the way it has been used by various people. That form is used almost always, and when someone today uses "believe on" is usually just meant to be directly quoting somewhere in scripture that uses this variation. So the commonly understood meaning for "believe on" in current English hasn't changed as much.

But that's largely a development in the language since the translations were made, not affecting the way KJV was written. I'm pretty sure the cause for variations there have to do more with grammar and sentence structure in their form of English.

Easton Wood
Easton Wood

If there is no difference in the Greek then I wouldn't put any stock in there being a difference at all.
John wrote in Greek not English.

Mason Johnson
Mason Johnson

so if there's no difference in Greek it just seems that the whole "sola sola scriptura" thing is based on KJV only legalism.

Nathan Howard
Nathan Howard

that makes sense, thanks.
this guy thinks i'm retarded.
i don't know what this guy is trying to articulate.

Anthony Stewart
Anthony Stewart

533988
This claims that its impossible for a saved person to fall away from God, in terms of their works. Wrong. Its entirely possible for a saved person backslide into terrible sin; they cannot lose their salvation, but Calvinist claim that the act of backsliding means you were never saved to begin with. That's just plain wrong; its a works-based salvation in disguise.

that is just flat out a lie, that is not what Perseverance of the saints means at all.

Levi Hernandez
Levi Hernandez

that post was over a month old and a different baptist corrected him immediately afterward

Carson Moore
Carson Moore

you never to be extra safe to cure a case of being baptist.

Brandon Jenkins
Brandon Jenkins

that is not what Perseverance of the saints means at all.
He's right that as traditionally understood in TULIP framework, perseverance of the saints is a concealed works-based salvation. As I explained all the way back here >>534046 Because you're looking to your own works for your justification, therefore raising doubts as soon as anything goes wrong at any point. And I've known people who suffered and dealt with this. It's not faith in Jesus Christ. We believe in the preservation of the saints, Jude 1:1.

We are also told in the NT it may become necessary to even disfellowship a brother in some cases, but this is intended for his own benefit in the hope one may be restored to fellowship as one person was in 2 Corinthians 2. Someone who is hardcore perseverance of the saints would immediately jump to 1 John 2:19 in every case, even with themselves due to self doubt.

David King
David King

what does "preaching of the cross" mean?

Kayden Barnes
Kayden Barnes

He's right that as traditionally understood in TULIP framework, perseverance of the saints is a concealed works-based salvation. As I explained all the way back here >>534046 Because you're looking to your own works for your justification, therefore raising doubts as soon as anything goes wrong at any point
<this is what Baptists actually believe
wew lad, have you ever tried actually reading calvin or the westminster confession

John Cruz
John Cruz

you should actually make an argument since you're so well read and educated on this issue.
show him why what he's saying is incorrect so that he can learn the truth.

Connor Cruz
Connor Cruz

Love you too buddy.

Julian Phillips
Julian Phillips

Make an argument against what? He doesn't understand what he's talking about. He can learn what the position he's attacking actually is by reading this reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html
Chapters 17 and 18 being the relevant ones

Xavier Wood
Xavier Wood

Can someone post the pasta that contains all scripture that proves salvation by faith, I know an user made it a few weeks ago

Jacob Adams
Jacob Adams

This one? >>556214

Elijah Jones
Elijah Jones

indeed, thank you

Isaac Turner
Isaac Turner

What is the difference between Baptists and other mainline Protestants? Is it just adult baptism or is it other things as well?

Asking cause I'm new here and I'd like to just learn.

Dylan Lopez
Dylan Lopez

If you keep reading you will find it. I just took a single quote, you should really read the two chapters together, it's basically the answer to why they don't accept Scripture. All the way to the end of 1 Corinthians 2. And it means they think using the Scripture that God gave us is "foolish" and to seek after wisdom of words (i.e. church fathers) instead. More on that in 1 Cor. 2:5 and 2:14. That's why I just suggested reading the two chapters together because it addresses this.

1 Corinthians 1:21-25
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Adam Reyes
Adam Reyes

What is the difference between Baptists and other mainline Protestants?
you'd have to be more specific for a better answer, credobaptism (believer's baptism, what you mentioned) is a big one though.
another thing is church polity (basically the power structure of the church, pic related.)
i think almost all baptist churches are congregational in polity.
there's also soteriology (doctrine of salvation,) i think most (non-reformed) baptists hold to "Free Grace."

there is this silly unofficial acrostic that states some baptist distinctives to consider:
Biblical Authority (Bible is the final authority)
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of the Believer
Two Ordinances (believer's baptism by immersion, and the Lord's supper)
Individual Soul Liberty
"S''aved, Baptized Church Membership
Two Offices in the Church (Pastor and Deacon)
Seperation of Church and State

Attached: polity.jpg (55.96 KB, 638x479)

Carson Garcia
Carson Garcia

I could try my hand at this:
It means that those who will not accept the direness of the Passion of the Christ on the cross and recognise the authenticity of that message as revealing God in the flesh as the Word will not accept it any other way, it is foolishness to them, and as such they will perish.

Charles Perez
Charles Perez

Because you're looking to your own works for your justification
That's not the idea. We are looking for evidence of faith by looking for works which must grow out of faith. It is faith alone that justifies, but if a person has faith then that faith will also produce works.
What does 1 Peter 1:3 mean when it talks about our "lively hope?" It can only mean that our hope is a hope that is not only alive, but that it is an energetic hope. Christ has begotten us again in such a way that we will never die, and because of this we will do the things that people who are alive to Christ do.

<this is what Baptists actually believe
Oiy!

Evan Stewart
Evan Stewart

Think of it like this. A flower grows by turning itself towards the sun, and by doing so it blooms. Now, is the fact that the flower is beautiful the cause of its blooming? No, the sun caused it to bloom, and the flowers "faith" in the sun was the occasion for the sun causing it to bloom. However the fact that the flower has bloomed is evidence that it has turned towards the sun.
In the same way our faith towards Christ is the only occasion of our being justified by His grace, but our justification is also made manifest to the world by our works of sanctification.

Mason Roberts
Mason Roberts

The reason I know for a fact you're not getting the difference here is the fact you blend together first person and third person. You've described what faith looks like to another person. That's where Jesus said by their fruits you will know them and whereby we can avoid false prophets. You can't see into their mind, so that is the way by which you must discern. And it's also why a person can't profit anyone else without works to justify themselves to men like in James 2.

But this isn't how you know yourself are saved in the first person. You know why you believe. Whether it's because the word of God is truth which says that faith is the condition, or whether you're still looking at your own works as the measure to figure out if you have it because you're still not sure. So what you described would be like saying your faith is in fact conditional on your works, or even that faith is works since that's how you invariably describe it.

Adam Ortiz
Adam Ortiz

But this isn't how you know yourself are saved in the first person
Nobody says it is

Tyler Wright
Tyler Wright

Catholics admit they do. And many others don't want to admit but that's how they think as well.

Nolan Brown
Nolan Brown

This Some puritans believed that, but most reformed baptists don't. Assurance is of the essence of faith, but demonstration is of the essence of works.
And beside this, God will cause all those who are His to persevere in faith, and sanctification until the end.

Michael Price
Michael Price

Catholics admit they do
Catholics believe it's a mortal sin to believe you are "saved".

Oliver Gomez
Oliver Gomez

And beside this, God will cause all those who are His to persevere in faith, and sanctification until the end.
And is that how you know you have faith? Not already by your assurance?

The reason I ask is because you seem to have a hard time keeping these separate.

Yes, we shall know them by their fruits. And some will creep in unawares, with their unbelief being made manifest later. Because they professed belief falsely. You couldn't have known that until it was made manifest. But if you apply that doubt to yourself, then it can only mean you aren't fully assured in what the Gospel says, yet.

It's all about works to some. The more works you do meaning the greater likelihood of being found righteous.

Logan Green
Logan Green

can you cite any pre-reformation support for the OSAS doctrine?
I cant find refutations of it from early and middle ages period

Jonathan Wright
Jonathan Wright

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Chase Collins
Chase Collins

sure
<And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:40, circa 30-33 AD

Eli Gomez
Eli Gomez

561217
1. Works gospel (see Galatians 1:9)
2. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition
3. Performing baptism on unbelieving infants, thus trying to prevent them from actual baptism
4. Idolatry
5. Vain repetition/disfiguring their faces
6. Using the title "father"

In addition to these things, there are actually three prophecies that Catholics fulfill at this time:

1. Crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh (mass as a propitiatory sacrifice)
2. Forbidding to marry/commanding to abstain from meats (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
3. Thinking to change times and laws

Adam Gonzalez
Adam Gonzalez

561217
I'd rather not be a filthy pagan
(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

Daniel Brown
Daniel Brown

John
6:37/38-40/44-45
10:27-29
14:1-3

Matthew
7:21-23

Romans
8:38-39

2 Corinthians
1:22
5:19

2 Thessalonians
3:14-15

Ephesians
1:13-4
4:30

Hebrews
10:17
13:5

Revelation
3:5
21:7

Mark
9:41

Isaiah Johnson
Isaiah Johnson

Take out the one from Mark

Kevin Thomas
Kevin Thomas

561217
Also I know how to read

Attached: 2D11B46F-31E2-4D1E-9502-97714E2CE8EF.jpeg (122.64 KB, 637x817)

Isaiah Smith
Isaiah Smith

You could include 1 Corinthians 1:18, Acts 2:47, Acts 13:48, and Romans 8:30.

Isaac Brooks
Isaac Brooks

And is that how you know you have faith?
No, I know I have faith because I immediately experience my own faith towards God, and simply because I have faith, I can know with certainty that God will cause me to persevere in Him until the end.
But as you said, I can only know, with reasonable certainty, your faith if I see your good works, and perseverance. Because God causes all those who have faith in Him to persevere to the end.

(Jeremiah 32:38-41)
{38}"And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
{39} And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
{40} And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
{41} Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul."

561217
ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ

Tyler Barnes
Tyler Barnes

No, I know I have faith because I immediately experience my own faith towards God
Ok, so don't you think it's very important that people understand this distinction then, with lordship salvation types running around spreading misconceptions about this, confusing first and third persons and mashing them together in an incoherent mess? Surely I'm not the only one worried that people are getting genuinely confused because of this, and trusting in toworks.

Gavin Brown
Gavin Brown

Ok, so don't you think it's very important that people understand this distinction then
Absolutely, and I think a big part of the problem is that there are mountains of books misrepresenting every insight that Calvin ever had just to keep people from reading him.

with lordship salvation types running around spreading misconceptions about this, confusing first and third persons and mashing them together in an incoherent mess? Surely I'm not the only one worried that people are getting genuinely confused because of this, and trusting in toworks.
I think the term "Lordship Salvation" can have a Biblical definition depending on who you talk to. There are definitely those who use it to mean that we have to call on Jesus with the intent to do works, but the term doesn't need to mean that. I take the position that we must come to Christ knowing that He is Lord of all, but that we have already failed to serve Him unto life. Thus Christ's Lordship is the reason we must come for His mercy.

Brayden Walker
Brayden Walker

I think the term "Lordship Salvation" can have a Biblical definition depending on who you talk to.
Yeah, the fact that he is your Lord and you understand the implications of who he is. That is, you believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, not just on some misconception of him. He probably can't be explained properly in five minutes, to someone new. So with that said, the kind of doctrine I'm talking about here is basically openly confusing the first and third person distinction as I call it. And it's very dangerous to do so, every bit as bad as antinomianism.

Jason Martin
Jason Martin

Friends knowing if you're are saved is knowing in your heart you are saved but, if it be in vain in your heart then in vain shall the Lord see it;

“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭15:8-9‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The Lord goes on to say;
“But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭15:13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Therefore if the Sower has planted His seed on you and the other flower in you, nor the birds, take that seed from you but rather takes root in your heart that then you are saved, when the seed grows past the birds, past the rocky soil and heat, past the thorns of the life, when the heart truly believes beyond the mouth

Jose Turner
Jose Turner

What's the passage where it says Abraham repented, and God counted that repentance as works?
Can't find it.

Attached: C-0t-9BUQAA0ZOn.png (538.42 KB, 640x446)

Henry Williams
Henry Williams

this one?

Jonah 3:10
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Brayden Hernandez
Brayden Hernandez

i wanted to see what the baptist flag looks like in other languages, and not in times new roman font.
looks cool, thanks, google translate

Attached: china.jpg (105.46 KB, 716x430)
Attached: punj.png (105.16 KB, 716x430)

Ryder Turner
Ryder Turner

The text was that Abraham believed God, and He counted him as righteousness.

(Genesis 15:3-6)
{3} "And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
{4} And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
{5} And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
{6} And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

(Romans 4:1-3)
{1}"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
{2} For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
{3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

Connor Price
Connor Price

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?
And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?"
James 2:21-24.

Asher Jones
Asher Jones

James is using δικαιοω in a different way than Paul is using it.
If he were not than there would be a plain contradiction in scripture.

Attached: Screenshot-11.png (27.95 KB, 474x558)

Oliver Turner
Oliver Turner

that mental gymnastics

Probably the same guy that make a fuss about 1 Samuel 13:1 in the Septuagint.

Attached: 1439701884733.gif (1.28 MB, 186x238)

Easton Lewis
Easton Lewis

Its not mental gymnastics if you understand how natural language is used. We often use words in two different senses that effect meaning.
And 1 Samuel 13:1 isn't in the Septuagint (which I consult on occasion).

Jason Nelson
Jason Nelson

These were actually both of the ones I was looking for, but mixed up. Thanks a lot brothers.

Jason Cruz
Jason Cruz

go on sanderson1611 to partake in wholesome doctrine and memes
see this
truestory.bro

wat do?

Attached: weedtrek.png (1.07 MB, 1259x781)

Chase Sanders
Chase Sanders

top kale

Nolan Nelson
Nolan Nelson

those weren't even massive rips

Nolan Phillips
Nolan Phillips

yesterday I had a big chance to sin and i didn't even tho my wages of sin are already paid for.
I feel happy I didn't tho.
i feel clean.

Attached: 6ea6ae7cb3cbfcb793a680f991497fe66342e22c-hq.jpg (116.31 KB, 811x1024)

Jace Bell
Jace Bell

James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

It's about justification in the eyes of man, by showing him your faith, it is for his benefit more than anything. Not that you would easily understand that concept.

Grayson Brooks
Grayson Brooks

This place is, perhaps too polluted with too many denominations. Where can I find the Baptist “core” on the Internet?

Attached: CD810297-F2AC-48AC-A197-16E53C938B6B.jpeg (1.76 MB, 4032x3024)

Hudson Diaz
Hudson Diaz

sorry, for a split second you thought works justify u alone, you might as well become catholic

Samuel Robinson
Samuel Robinson

Where can I find the Baptist “core” on the Internet?
reformed baptists have a few thriving enclaves set up, i don't know of any for vanilla baptists though.
report back if you find one.

Isaac Long
Isaac Long

Feels good knowing you're in the same denom as this hunk'a love.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (61.89 KB, 752x520)
Attached: BAPTISTS-FOR-THE-WIN.png (18.09 KB, 605x232)

Ian Flores
Ian Flores

Where can I find the Baptist “core” on the Internet?
It's right here man

Michael Reed
Michael Reed

If you want more interaction I'd say get involved with your church. Get as much knowledge you can through study so you can justify whatever people try to sell you on and even be ready with a counter argument if it comes to that. You should study to show yourself approved, user.

Levi Lopez
Levi Lopez

What view of the Biblical text (KJVOnly, Trad Text, Eclectic, Majority, etc.) do you guys take?
I take a TR view similar to this cartoon protagonist, but I want to know your thoughts.

Ryan Barnes
Ryan Barnes

Received only. Since according to the word of God itself, the text of the word of God is eternally unchanging (the words themselves) and will never be actually corrupted, forgotten or lost. False versions made by those who try to corrupt the word (2 Cor. 2:17) may arise and be lost and rediscovered at later times, but the true original version from the Apostles will always be known and available in every time, which includes the time before we found the alexandrian manuscripts, therefore disqualifying them from being received. Time to throw out the ESV, NASB, NIV and similar modern versions that use them, and anything based on translations that are not even in the original languages like the septuagint, vulgate and their related translations. Those non-received are corrupted with Satan's lies, so into the trash with them. They have no further need for consideration, once disqualified, except as curious forgeries giving insight on the heresies that produced them, like how the Jefferson bible tells you he was a deist who wanted to remove what he considered mystical elements, how the people removing 1 John 5:7 were semi-arians, and so on.

Camden Campbell
Camden Campbell

DON'T WATCH YOU'LL BE CURSED

Attached: Cursed.webm (1.92 MB, 640x360)

Brayden Jackson
Brayden Jackson

So specifically which TR do you take as perfectly preserved?
I take Stephanus' 1550 because it doesn't have Beza's conjecture at Rev 16:5.

David Hughes
David Hughes

So specifically which TR do you take as perfectly preserved?
The one that was used. Because that's the only way the word of God can be true and align with reality. Also when I say received text, I'm talking even more generally about Old and New Testament together, "received" meaning the original words that we have today and have always had, in that sense of being received.

Eli Robinson
Eli Robinson

Can a Baptist explain 1 John 3:15 from a osas perspective?

Blake Hill
Blake Hill

So what physical document can you hand me that you believe is the preserved word of God?

<1 John 3:13-17>
{13} "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
{14} We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
{15} Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
{16} Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
{17} But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?"

Sounds to me like it is describing the fact that a person who has life in them will love their brother, and not hate him. That is perfectly compatible with a OSAS perspective that understands that we have been given a new nature.
This is a description of one who has life already, not a requirement for us to meet in order to attain to life.

Let me ask you what the Bible means when it says "eternal life" in:
<John 10:27-30>
{27} "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
{28} And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
{29} My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
{30} I and my Father are one."

Cameron Thompson
Cameron Thompson

So what physical document can you hand me that you believe is the preserved word of God?
I can type out the words of the KJV if you want. Those are the word of God in English. It won't be a physical document for you but it's still the words. The symbols still give you the words, whether they are in a physical document or not. Otherwise just find the original source that says the same thing in the originals. The point is we've had it always, it wasn't finally unburied in Israel in 1946 or revealed by Westscott and & Hort after thousands of years.

Number of things here that are important to understand. First of all, this is a clear reference back to the sermon on the mount where Jesus said that lusting in your heart is the same spiritually as adultery. Secondly, you should note that he refers to "brethren" in the passage, referring to those "my brethren" who it may be said "we have passed from death unto life." This is the context of not hating your brother, meaning spiritual brethren. And thirdly, as a saved person with faith of the operation of God, the murderer in us is crucified with him (Rom. 6:6) that henceforth we should not serve sin. So we are actually DEAD to the law (Galatians 2:19) and thus the new man can be at peace with and reconciled to God (Ephesians 2:15). And we should not walk according to the former conversation of the old man (Ephesians 4:22). But we are still counted as saved, if we have been thus born again, that is if Christ lives in you (Galatians 2:20). Even though it's a struggle with the flesh until physical death (Romans 7:20-25). That's also why in 1 John 1:8-10 it was also said that we are deceiving if we presently say that we have no sin or have not sinned.

Philippians 1:6
Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Jeremiah Brooks
Jeremiah Brooks

Oh yeah I forgot to add that it may be a struggle if we let it, it doesn't have to be, because we're no longer a servant of sin, just see all of Romans 6. But even Paul went through this in Romans 7. Chapter 7 verse 22 is a great scripture to remember in times of temptation.

Colton Cox
Colton Cox

Those are the word of God in English
I don't mean to single you out specifically considering there are many people on this board who hold the same beliefs, but how on Earth can you believe that the KJV is the only real word of God in English when every printed version included a preface that stated:
Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.
The rest of the preface (The Translators to the Readers) argues that imperfect translations can still be considered the word of God, and gives the examples of the LXX and the various Latin versions to defend their motives in creating a new translation where other adequate ones existed. Now I understand that many KJV-onlyists believe that God directly inspired the actual translation and so likely just ignore the preface, but that raises the question that if God himself decided to make the KJV His only authentic word, why would He let a preface that completely and utterly denies that position be published attached to every original version? That I do not understand.

Another point that is raised is that the KJV is based on the TR, and yet the TR was created by Erasmus (who sympathised with the Reformers, though never split from the Catholic Church) in the 16th Century. Erasmus got close to the Majority Text, but does disagree on some points (he used a mishmash of manuscripts that were not entirely Byzantine type). Surely if His word is truly preserved, close enough is not good enough, and you should either look at what the Greek Church preserved (the Majority Text, as used in the Eastern Orthodox Bible and the World English Bible) or swallow the bitter bill that is textual criticism.

Henry Green
Henry Green

how on Earth can you believe that the KJV is the only real word of God in English when
I don't, but any version that changes the words or their meaning from the received word of God is false. You asked for a "physical document" I could give you that is the preserved word of God, so I mentioned the KJV since you asked. That is a completely valid translation of the word. And that's why I said received-only, because when I say there is only one received word of God I mean it. Logically, there is only two possibilities. Either the one, singular, word of God is received and preserved unto all generations (like it says) and there is no valid alternative to it, or else there is none. I immediately take the former position. Anyone arguing that there are new "readings" or sources are permissible is actually in the latter position. And thus, a non-believer in the word of God itself. Such people think Isaiah 40:8, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25 are all not true.

So in other words, there could be a new translation in English but it would have to agree with what we already have and not bring in "new readings" or sources. But the case is, that every version I've encountered has problems and differs very significantly from the KJV, and all earlier translations for that matter. Millions of people are given heavily corrupted alexandrian versions (marketed as mere updated language) and I strongly suspect this is behind a lot of the falling away, as these people threw me off for many years as well. This reality makes me suspicious of any attempt to "improve" what we already have, but nevertheless if you have some new version in particular to propose we could inspect it and who knows, maybe one day I will find another translation using the received sources AND doesn't completely edit or remove 20 or more essential passages. Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath for this to happen. Right now all the scholars working on this pretty much are unbelieving.

and yet the TR was created by Erasmus
The earliest TR was, there were later editions that further brought in more of texts available at the time. The whole point of these works was to get these sources in one place so they could be mass produced. By the time 1610 rolled around, there were many other published TR's by others. Erasmus was merely the first person among many chronologically to start making TR's for (what was then) mass production.

Adrian Mitchell
Adrian Mitchell

I don't, but any version that changes the words or their meaning from the received word of God is false. You asked for a "physical document" I could give you that is the preserved word of God, so I mentioned the KJV since you asked. That is a completely valid translation of the word. And that's why I said received-only, because when I say there is only one received word of God I mean it.
Okay, but what is the received word of God? The Textus Receptus? The Majority Text? A critical version? If we acknowledge that the Bible wasn't written in English then we have to accept that there has to be a source text to critique translations on.
Logically, there is only two possibilities. Either the one, singular, word of God is received and preserved unto all generations (like it says) and there is no valid alternative to it, or else there is none.
And yet nowhere does it say His perfectly preserved word will be rendered perfectly in the tongue that the descendants of some of the Germanic people living near Jutland who will go on to conquer some islands to the West will speak. I believe this is the argument people use against the LXX (except without being used by the NT).
This reality makes me suspicious of any attempt to "improve" what we already have, but nevertheless if you have some new version in particular to propose we could inspect it and who knows, maybe one day I will find another translation using the received sources AND doesn't completely edit or remove 20 or more essential passages.
Well the OEB as I mentioned is based on the Majority Text and the WEB supposedly edited out any critical-based renderings, but considering KJV-onlyists critique with the a priori assumption that the KJV is perfect (a book that has had several revisions to fix such mistakes as "The servant is not greater than the Lord" instead of "his lord" in John 15:20 and "why then doth their king inherit God" instead of Gad in Jeremiah 49:1, and still has errors like "God is a spirit" in John 4:24 and "ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" instead of strain out in Matthew 23:24) and even explainable minor differences completely discredit the text, obviously that's never going to happen. Also funny when the KJV considers itself to improve on previous texts.
The earliest TR was, there were later editions that further brought in more of texts available at the time. The whole point of these works was to get these sources in one place so they could be mass produced. By the time 1610 rolled around, there were many other published TR's by others. Erasmus was merely the first person among many chronologically to start making TR's for (what was then) mass production.
Indeed; hilariously enough, the TR was the critical text of its day, challenging the idea that the Vulgate was a perfect translation (funny that) and so there was no need to consult the original manuscripts. The Majority Text is basically a considerably more refined version of their work, being based on many more manuscripts and much research using those same Byzantine text-type copies, where the critical versions consider all the available manuscripts, and that is why the TR is pretty well obsolete nowadays.

David Lewis
David Lewis

You asked for a "physical document" I could give you that is the preserved word of God
Actually that was me, and I was mostly just playing devils advocate my brother.

Jack Murphy
Jack Murphy

I believe this is the argument people use against the LXX (except without being used by the NT).
No the argument there is that it is a translation (Greek OT) and therefore categorically shouldn't be used as a source for translations. And it was only the catholic church that accepted the vulgate in the first place.

Which is a translation of a translation, allegedly from Hebrew to Greek and then from Greek to Latin, with all the previous ""sources"" for these alleged works of translation lost, and only much later, "rediscovered."

The difference is that we're accessing the actual original words to make every translation, not using alleged later translations of the originals as sources, because by principle the originals cannot be lost. Isaiah 59:21.

Okay, but what is the received word of God?
Whatever correct translation of the originals you have is considered the received word of God. It isn't limited to one language there. We see that even in Acts 2.

several revisions to fix such mistakes as "The servant is not greater than the Lord"
That's what it says in the 1611.
and "why then doth their king inherit God" instead of Gad in Jeremiah 49:1,
It says God in the 1611 edition. Maybe you're thinking of a later misprint.
and still has errors like "God is a spirit" in John 4:24
Do you teach that all spirit is God? The WEB says "God is spirit." So was God, for instance, the spirit speaking in 1 Kings 22:21?
the TR was the critical text of its day,
It wasn't based on non-received sources.

the WEB supposedly edited out any critical-based renderings,
No it didn't. For instance,
<Matthew 7:14 is altered to say "How narrow […] !" instead of "Because strait […] ."
<1 Peter 3:3 interpolates the word "Let your beauty be not just the outward adorning"
<Colossians 1:14 the WEB removes the phrase "through his blood"
<Acts 2:47 translates "those who were being saved" instead of the correct "such as should be saved"
This last change is inconsistent because the WEB simultaneously agrees with the KJV rendering of "ARE saved" and not "were being saved" in 1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15 and in Luke 13:23. Only in Acts 2:47 does it choose to differ.

Furthermore, Revelation 1:11 in the WEB removes the key statement of Jesus "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:" This is key because some have argued that Jesus is not the same person speaking in Revelation 1:8.

Also, the WEB muddles the statement of the Son's divinity in Hebrews 1:8. To be perfectly clear, It should read UNTO the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:

There's a similar situation in the WEB version of Philippians 2:6. This verse in the WEB could be argued to say that he didn't attempt to grasp equality with God.

Perhaps worst of all, the WEB places the name of Jesus Christ into Isaiah 14:12, in effect saying that Jesus Christ will be cut down from heaven. Morning Star is the name taken by Christ in Revelation 22:16.

Also, the WEB changes the meaning of both Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9. Compare—

KJV: Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

<WEB: Behold, I give some of the synagogue of Satan, of those who say they are Jews, and they are not, but lie. Behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

It also removes the phrase "that are saved" from Revelation 21:24, removes Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7. And it removes the word "study" from 2 Timothy 2:15.

The WEB also removes the word "truth" from the following verses: Psalm 91:4, Psalm 100:5, Isaiah 26:2; and it lessens the scope of Proverbs 13:13.

Noah Rogers
Noah Rogers

is it possible to become prison gay?
how AM i supposed to remain straight when all women i meet are so annoying and bitchy
help me bros,how do I avoid become a top gay?

Owen Russell
Owen Russell

the women i meet are all annoying and bitchy
???
therefore, i will put my penis into another man
meet different women.
lay off the soy products.
lower your expectations as far as acceptable ranges of annoyingness and bitchiness goes.

Jaxon Jackson
Jaxon Jackson

I eat mostly meat because plants are sentient(really), I tried it all and no result.
also I feel bad going to whores, I didnt do it NOT becasue it is bad, I didnt want to lower myself to liking a woman.

im too influenced by hindu-buddhist texts which say liking a woman is unsightly for a monk.
Maybe I just have to endure the horniness¿

Chase Torres
Chase Torres

lol'd irl, thought you guys might enjoy

Attached: gay.webm (2.41 MB, 640x360)

William Price
William Price

The sound seems to be messed up.

Ethan Watson
Ethan Watson

I think it adds to the sermon personally.

Juan Bennett
Juan Bennett

I kekl'ed a bit myself.
Top thanks cath boi.

Attached: ItWasSelfDefenceAgainstHeresy.jpg (219.71 KB, 1060x1060)

Jaxson Parker
Jaxson Parker

I'm not going to spark another debate in this thread unless someone wants to know more about the Catholic position, I just want to put this out there and see what people think. I feel like a lot of the criticism directed at us for our position on justification comes from people who know the Church's abuses but misinterpret it's dogma as denying the power of faith in salvation. Therefore, I'd like to lay out the Catholic Church's official position on justification in this thread so everybody can be properly informed and nobody can claim the excuse of ignorance in the future.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator. The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

While the Catholic Church teaches that our salvation is an unmerited favor, it also teaches that once saved, one is called to cooperate with God's grace through works of charity; voluntary expressions of good derived from a living faith rather than obligation. To abstain from these works is to fall back into sin and to be rendered spiritually dead, and in that regard they are essential to our salvation, not in the regard that they merit have merit and salvation in and of themselves.

Christian Gonzalez
Christian Gonzalez

what's the baptist general consensus on blessing objects?
for instance: say a buddy of mine gets a new house or car, would saying a prayer over it asking God to watch over my buddy while he's driving or to not have his house burn down and kill him be appropriate?
i'm not talking about burning sage brush over it and sprinkling it with holy water while chanting latin.

Brandon King
Brandon King

Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
Is this a compatibilist view of freedom?
Also could you describe for me in detail what Christ's role in justification is? Is it as a punitive substitution?

Perfectly fine, in fact I would encourage it.

Asher Perry
Asher Perry

Bless away.
As a side note, I try to say a quick prayer to consecrate those kinds of possessions to the Lord's use.
May I glorify your name with the use of this '05 mazda 3, and protect me while I drive it. May I never be tempted to recreate Initial D episodes etc,
that kind of thing.

Liam Williams
Liam Williams

May I never be tempted to recreate Initial D episodes
I had a hearty giggle

Nolan Howard
Nolan Howard

Made this today for James 2 posters

Attached: d09fd4473.JPG (520.79 KB, 862x2808)

Connor Roberts
Connor Roberts

Thankfully there's a thread of our own religion.
May King James bless you brother.

Levi Williams
Levi Williams

Right, it starts with grace but you believe that then you have to earn salvation from that point. It is contradicted by Galatians 3:3 and Romans 11:6

Jason Walker
Jason Walker

implying James is wrong
implying Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, Paul and Peter are wrong too.
implying you're not the ones who's wrong

Attached: wzVMlU1RQd.jpg (90.83 KB, 745x587)

Christopher Reed
Christopher Reed

Hey you dropped this

Attached: Screenshot-(2).png (58.9 KB, 683x459)

Matthew Hill
Matthew Hill

We've been getting a lot of non-Christian trolls shitposting as different denominations, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case here.

Xavier Fisher
Xavier Fisher

that pic
you're not Christian because you don't follow all these man's traditions(besides maybe Jesus being a loaf of bread) that God never talked about.

Isaiah Brooks
Isaiah Brooks

The "Jesus is bread" meme is just human tradition too

Kayden Bennett
Kayden Bennett

This is my Body, that is given up for you - God
God never talked about it! - You

Ryan Phillips
Ryan Phillips

that pastor jim/bob stuff some of you catholics do has always irritated me.
it's like what you're communicating is:
haha! your preacher has an anglo-american name like Jim or Bob, instead of something holy and apostolic like Iago or Roberto, viva la raza!

Attached: ayo.png (131.48 KB, 323x305)

Eli Smith
Eli Smith

I sure hope you're right.

Jordan Davis
Jordan Davis

Are you not able to read or something?
(besides maybe Jesus being a loaf of bread)

Ian Morgan
Ian Morgan

Right, it starts with grace but you believe that then you have to earn salvation from that point.
And where in the catechism does it say that? I can show you where the catechism contradicts this if you like.
With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

Isaac Moore
Isaac Moore

You pretend the statements are not equal; that "you yourself must do XYZ works to be saved" is different than "if you yourself do not do XYZ works, then you shall not be saved." And stressing the hard effort and personal struggle not to get disqualified by works and be dispossessed of salvation for not glorying enough in your flesh, the flesh of others and in a man's personally achieved works. Well those two are the same thing, but all this fancy wordplay is meant to mask this fact that these are yet the same. You realize saying the first is against scripture, but you try to say the second and badly want to act like it's somehow different. And this all goes back to enabling boasting in their personally achieved so-called spirituality and how great they are (not God, them), which many catholics like to do.

Cameron Clark
Cameron Clark

You pretend the statements are not equal; that "you yourself must do XYZ works to be saved" is different than "if you yourself do not do XYZ works, then you shall not be saved."
Tell me at what point the second statement even mentions works at all? Everything means everything, not everything but works.

Jack Russell
Jack Russell

So you believe in the eternal security of the believer?

Kayden Williams
Kayden Williams

Unless they throw that security away by flagrantly sinning or losing faith then yes, but not at all the way Calvin put it no.

Robert Powell
Robert Powell

It seems like you believe that God would cast away a son that He adopted and made a fellow-heir with Christ
If you and I can't earn His grace in the first place, what makes you think we have the ability to maintain it?

Daniel Cooper
Daniel Cooper

It seems like you believe that God would cast away a son that He adopted and made a fellow-heir with Christ
If he does not honor the responsibility to follow Jesus's commands then yes, otherwise how would God be truly just? And truly all men dishonor this responsibility, but the slate can always be wiped clean at any moment, it's just that some choose not to, and it would not be just to reward them for negligence and a hard heart.
you and I can't earn His grace in the first place, what makes you think we have the ability to maintain it?
As has already been stated three times it is a gift. I'm sorry to say but the more you talk about earning grace the more proof mounts up that you aren't internalizing what has already been said, so unless you prove you actually can internalize it this argument has no real point.

Brandon Lewis
Brandon Lewis

how would God be truly just?
It's entirely unjust that you or I would ever see Heaven, much less inherit it. The very best we could do with our lives would be in the eyes of a completely perfect and Holy God as filthy rags. Since Adam all sin. But God so chose to sacrifice His Son for us, "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." Acts 13:39
If a saved believer loses his salvation because he doesn't measure up to the responsibility of fulfilling Jesus' commandments and expectations, it's not a matter of God being truly just, it's an example of God rescinding His promise "that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:" Philippians 1:6
it is a gift
You make my point for me. If salvation is a gift, then it's not a loan. I'm saved right now.
slate can always be wiped clean at any moment,
Romans 4.
When a person is saved, the slate is wiped clean. We're adopted as sons, Christ stands in propitiation for us, taking the punishment that we deserve and he didn't. After salvation God imputes no sin to that record. Instead we come under the chastisement of our Father who will scourge any son he receives. Look at how David, (a man after God's own heart) was punished for sinning before an Holy God. Look at the punishment doled out to Abraham that lasts even to this day because he sinned against God.

Isaiah Torres
Isaiah Torres

If a saved believer loses his salvation because he doesn't measure up to the responsibility of fulfilling Jesus' commandments and expectations, it's not a matter of God being truly just, it's an example of God rescinding His promise "that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:" Philippians 1:6
Which is what the Catholic Church teaches yes.
You make my point for me. If salvation is a gift, then it's not a loan.
Which is what the Catholic Church teaches
After salvation God imputes no sin to that record.
And is not the final chastisement hell for the impenitent? Look at Job who sees how the wicked prosper and the just must survive on righteousness alone. The idea that God will fully chastise every single believer who sins by the time of their deaths is both unbiblical and unrealistic, it is not in this world but the next that justice is metted out in its entirety. Christ certainly takes the punishment for us, and blessed is he for that, but we can absolutely bungle out faith and servitude as Matthew 18:21-35 shows.

Evan Cruz
Evan Cruz

Isn't it the definition of not having faith that you believe God will go back on his word? To actually give a gift only to take it away. Rather, some never had it because God doesn't make mistakes. But I guess we both live in our own realities then, either working your own way, or repenting of the folly and allowing God to impute his own righteousness of His Son to you. I'm pretty sure we both know how it's gonna inevitably end up. You can't beat Jesus Christ at fulfilling the law. That doesn't mean knowing that it's not worth trying at all, but just know and respect that you need his righteousness, so do not make salvation about earning self-righteousness, like those guys in Matthew 7:22 who kept talking about their great works. Because it's never enough. And if you missed that point, I'm not sure where to begin with you.

Carter Cruz
Carter Cruz

God rescinding His promise
Which is what the Catholic Church teaches yes.
I really really hope I'm misunderstanding you, user.
Look at Job who sees how the wicked prosper and the just must survive on righteousness alone.
Pls don't take me for someone from the "best life now" crowd
Hebrews 11
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
fully chastise
It would take 100 times my lifespan to put a dent in giving my sins the meet recompense for them. Hell is forever, right? Our Father doesn't "fully chastise" us, he finishes our faith, with the rod of correction. It's in order to make us fruit bearing Christians.

You bring up justice again, but I feel that you're overlooking my point. God's mercy is when the judgement that we rightly deserve doesn't fall on us. We don't want a fair trail today or at judgement day. Thank God for loading the Jury.
Matthew 18:21-35
and delivered him to the tormentors,
till
he should pay all that was due unto him.
So he was punished until he made himself right with his lord. sounds about right

Samuel Barnes
Samuel Barnes

Isn't it the definition of not having faith that you believe God will go back on his word?
No, because if I go back on HIS word then I deserve what's coming to me, like the servant without compassion. The doors to heaven will never be shut short of the unforgivable sin, but God will not stop you from locking gates of hell from the inside if you so choose.
Rather, some never had it because God doesn't make mistakes.
Certainly, but even those who do have it are not free from mistakes and to neglect repenting of your sins is the greatest mistake of all. Perhaps you think those of true faith would never neglect this duty, but for anyone (and i'm not saying you, but anyone) make that kind of a blanket statement about the billions that have been a part of God's flock is quite the statement, and it just takes one man struck down with one grave error before repentance, or even the potential of that event that cannot be ignored, to prove it wrong.
But I guess we both live in our own realities then, either working your own way, or repenting of the folly and allowing God to impute his own righteousness of His Son to you.
A righteousness that will certainly save us when we in no way deserve it, but which will never protect you from the consequences of sin unless we repent at every error.
That doesn't mean knowing that it's not worth trying at all, but just know and respect that you need his righteousness, so do not make salvation about earning self-righteousness, like those guys in Matthew 7:22 who kept talking about their great works. Because it's never enough. And if you missed that point, I'm not sure where to begin with you.
Read my initial post, you are attacking a strawman and not at all what the catechism actually teaches, like a lot of Baptists on this board unfortunately attack and like even a few Catholics unfortunately propagate.

I really really hope I'm misunderstanding you, user.
Don't worry, you are.
God's mercy is when the judgement that we rightly deserve doesn't fall on us. We don't want a fair trail today or at judgement day. Thank God for loading the Jury.
And thank him again, yet the mercy of God is in the forgiveness of sins, and they will not be forgiven unless we ask them to be.
So he was punished until he made himself right with his lord. sounds about right
Just as 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 teaches as well, after death. Some sins do not warrant eternal damnation as Paul teaches, yet most certainly do and all warrant punishment.

Owen Walker
Owen Walker

but God will not stop you from locking gates of hell from the inside if you so choose.
If you're not saved, that's a very real possibility
make that kind of a blanket statement about the billions that have been a part of God's flock is quite the statement, and it just takes one man struck down with one grave error before repentance, or even the potential of that event that cannot be ignored, to prove it wrong.
There's at least six incorrect assumptions in this statement, more possibly. First of all, I didn't make this statement, because that would be the claim of P in tulip. Second of all, there's nothing wrong with making blanket statements if you can back them up with scripture and many seemingly impossible things are true only for the fact that God said them, such as the fact we have his word as it was then. Thirdly, we can't know the scale or number of how many have been a part of God's flock, you're assuming anyone who becomes a member of catholicism is rightly called that but this is a very wrong statement and it leads to a lot of other false conclusions. They're not the flock of God. Fourth, you act like being "struck down" is some kind of accident that just randomly happens when it isn't. Fifth, you act like someone's salvation or reprobation can't be decided before their death, which is another empty assumption. Sixth, even if all the above were true, you still wouldn't prove this statement wrong because you haven't even shown that turning from sins (which is a work, Jonah 3:10) is the basis of salvation as opposed to God imputing his own Son's righteousness to those whom he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, Romans 8:29-30.

Read my initial post, you are attacking a strawman and not at all what the catechism actually teaches,
The problem here is actually that a catechism is not the word of God, which is NOT of any private interpretation. But with a manmade and corruptible catechism the original meaning can be lost or twisted (and the meaning can be wrong to begin with since it's not inspired), it can mean basically whatever you want it to. It means one thing to some people, another to other. It's up for interpretation. Same thing with every word out of the pope's mouth. For every word there are a thousand interpretations. However no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Eli Butler
Eli Butler

Reminder: Verses proving salvation to anyone that believes and not of works.

John
1:12
3:15-16/18/36
4:14(John 6:35)
5:24
6:28-29/35/38-40/44-45/47
7:38-39
8:24
10:27-29
11:25-27/40
12:46
14:1-3
16:27
20:31

Matthew
5:19
7:21-23(John 6:38-40)
8:10-13
12:37
21:31-32

Mark
1:15
2:5
10:24-25
16:16

Luke
3:3(Acts 19:4)
5:20
7:50
8:12
18:10-14/40-42
23:40-43

Acts
2:21
10:43
11:16-17
13:38-39/48
15:7-9
16:30-31
19:4(Luke 3:3)
26:18

Romans
1:16-17
3:20/22/24-28/30
4:2-9/11/14-16/24
5:1/15-18
6:23
8:24
9:30-33
10:3-4/9-10/13
11:6

1 Corinthians
1:14/17
3:14-15
15:1-2

2 Corinthians
4:13-14

1 Thessalonians
4:14

2 Thessalonians
1:10
2:12

Ephesians
1:13-14
2:8-9
4:7

Galatians
2:16/21
3:6-11/14/21-22/24/26
5:3-6

Philippians
3:3/9

Titus
3:5

1 Timothy
1:16

2 Timothy
1:9
3:15

Hebrews
4:3
10:38-39
11:7

1 Peter
1:3-5/8-9
3:21(Colossians 2:12)

1 John
4:2-3/15
5:1/4-5/10-11/13

Revelation
2:11/26
3:5/20-21
21:7/27

Christopher Kelly
Christopher Kelly

If you're not saved, that's a very real possibility
And if you are saved it is just as real.
First of all, I didn't make this statement, because that would be the claim of P in tulip.
Yes and I went out of my way to say you didn't.
Second of all, there's nothing wrong with making blanket statements if you can back them up with scripture and many seemingly impossible things are true only for the fact that God said them, such as the fact we have his word as it was then.
Yes but in the view of human freedom and simple common sense that hilariously improbable statement cannot actually hold water. Perhaps in your interpretation salvation that cannot be rejected, but not in the interpretation of a vast majority of Christians.
you're assuming anyone who becomes a member of catholicism is rightly called that but this is a very wrong statement and it leads to a lot of other false conclusions.
If that were the case then every single catholic would certainly be saved, which I have been arguing against. Don't read your own theology into Catholic teachings.
They're not the flock of God. Fourth, you act like being "struck down" is some kind of accident that just randomly happens when it isn't.
Again, Job attests that justice is by no means properly meted out in this world. Do you quite honestly think that every death ever has not just been the permissive but the active will of God? Did God strike down Abel? Is God's will guiding the actions of every irrational murderer, or any for that matter? No? Then this statement does not hold water.
Fifth, you act like someone's salvation or reprobation can't be decided before their death, which is another empty assumption
Salvation is something you are given, reprobation is something you choose, and certainly is by no means final, for if it were that would be a limit on God's forgiveness. Jesus says that only way someone can be permanently cut off from repentance is through blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, any other interpretation is unbiblical heresy. But yes both are chosen before death and I'm really not sure why you would think I think otherwise because that's pretty darn nuts.
Sixth, even if all the above were true, you still wouldn't prove this statement wrong because you haven't even shown that turning from sins (which is a work, Jonah 3:10) is the basis of salvation as opposed to God imputing his own Son's righteousness to those whom he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, Romans 8:29-30.
Once again, salvation is a free gift. Certainly we are called by God to the image of the Son, and we by no means can conform to it purely of our own efforts, and our works are only good if through the Holy Spirit and while they lead us to purification they can never merit for us salvation while our evil works can merit damnation. But if you genuinely think that to repent, the first command that Jesus gave to us in the Gospel of Matthew, and even before through John the Baptist, is a useless work than I don't know what else I can say to you. What do you think Jesus would have said to Peter, who was assuredly saved, if he refused to apologize to Jesus by claiming that apology would be useless in Jesus's eyes and that Jesus had already saved him? Why on earth would Jesus teach the faithful to ask for forgiveness in the Lord's prayer if we didn't even need it past baptism? If you have sinned even once and have used that absolutely arrogant argument to reject repentance then you WILL be held accountable. Repentance is the only way we can accept of the gift of salvation, and the idea that it is a one and done deal is a modern, fringe idea that is foreign to the earliest Christians with only the scriptures and the apostles to teach them and certainly foreign to the Bible.
"Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy."-Proverbs 28:13
"When anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned."-Leviticus 5:5

It means one thing to some people, another to other. It's up for interpretation. For every word there are a thousand interpretations. However no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Welcome to the problems of sola scriptura, aka the reason God set up and guided the Church to preserve the correct interpretation of scripture for centuries as opposed to the countless private interpretations that arose after the Reformation, of which baptist theology is just a small, diverse collection.

Joshua Ramirez
Joshua Ramirez

Perhaps in your interpretation salvation that cannot be rejected, but not in the interpretation of a vast majority of Christians.
Grace can be received or it can be finally rejected, and then it's a done deal. That's what the word teaches. All of it's by the grace of God, including the ability to believe at all. His ways are far above our own ways, and God knows exactly what He is doing when He gives grace to someone, and the person who God elected knows the word of God with assurance when that happens. 1 John 5:13..
that hilariously improbable statement cannot actually hold water.
It doesn't have to because I didn't make it. But there are plenty of truths which I'm sure you might regard as hilariously improbable if you don't believe the word of God. That's my point. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Don't read your own theology into Catholic teachings.
You said there are "billions that have been a part of God's flock," I raised the question whether that is in fact known to be true. Someone out there claiming to be a Christian today might not be saved. Only you can know with full assurance whether you are. This matters because if you wrongly assume that someone is and it turns out they're not, you can get messed up ideas.
Do you quite honestly think that every death ever has not just been the permissive but the active will of God?
I don't get this reasoning. I honestly believe in the sovereignty of God and that God will protect us from evil however long He wants if that's His will, even eternally. And I do believe his children have been thus protected, whomever He chose.
for if it were that would be a limit on God's forgiveness.
Someone could argue for salvation after going to hell with an identical statement, but this is not true.
and I'm really not sure why you would think I think otherwise because that's pretty darn nuts.
Because you claim it's not in force when it is. Someone who is saved is saved. They are passed from death unto life, as stated in John 5:24, and they shall not come into condemnation. It's an absolute fact. You can't question the absolute.
and our works are only good if through the Holy Spirit
And that means they're no longer ours. But God working in the man. "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"
But if you genuinely think that to repent,
You didn't say what to repent from. Repenting from works-salvation is what one must do. Only then will it be possible to do anything else by the grace of God and not of our selves.
Why on earth would Jesus teach the faithful to ask for forgiveness in the Lord's prayer if we didn't even need it past baptism?
Because Ephesians 2:10. Once we're saved we have a purpose which is to to the end that we would keep the word of God, yet not us but the grace of God that is in us. And that we would live, yet not us, but Christ in us.
If you have sinned even once and have used that absolutely arrogant argument to reject repentance then you WILL be held accountable.
Hebrews 12:8-9
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Welcome to the problems of sola scriptura, aka the reason God…
The reason God sent the Holy Spirit.

John 14:16-17
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1 Corinthians 2:9-13
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 John 3:24
And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Ephesians 1:13-14
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Zachary Torres
Zachary Torres

I raised the question whether that is in fact known to be true.
It is only false if you doubt when a believer says so. And truly, we cannot get inside the head of someone, but I say billions simply to get the general size of a probable number, not as a definitive census of all the faithful.
I honestly believe in the sovereignty of God and that God will protect us from evil however long He wants if that's His will, even eternally.
And faithul Job would beg to differ. That was purpose of said story, to show that, as many faithful have observed, that while God's protection extends to our faith through our faith is not an invincible shield against all evil, it will not protect us from the iniquities of the world and it will not protects us from bearing our crosses, but it will absoultely protect our hearts. God wills to loosen Satan's leash if only to prove this fact, and if you continue to reject this fact then you are simply following in the footsteps of Job's erronious friends.
Someone could argue for salvation after going to hell with an identical statement,
Certainly, but I think we both know that we are talking about this world and you cannot contradict.Matthew 12:31 on this matter.
Someone who is saved is saved. They are passed from death unto life, as stated in John 5:24, and they shall not come into condemnation. It's an absolute fact. You can't question the absolute.
For those who can maintain their faith yes, there is no reason to question the absolute, but to claim that someone cannot loose their faith is to be wilfully ignorant the testemony of the faithful throughout the millenium. Tragedies happen, false prophets spring up, people who relied on God all their lives fall out of the flock for stupid reasons, perhaps ones thet think noble like romantic love, dust as it is, and then die before they can come back to God's will, and this verse simply does not and cannot exclude the reality of this ongoing tragedy. I don't personally doubt the promis of this verse because I spent five years arguing in vain against proper theology and eventually read undeniable testemony of the miracles of Fatima and Padre Pio, a stigmatic who came back from the dead to cure a man in my hometown of cancer (messengerofpadrepio.com/testimony); I know that the Holy Spirit is with us and at work in the Church and I can forsee nothing that can shake my faith because I have already beat it with a sledgehammer to make sure it was rock solid, but others, even if they may cleave to God, can be shaken free of him by nonsense as an untold amount of testemonies attest. If you hold the doctrine of OSAS to be true and scripturally obvious you need to ask why it was alien to faithful people like the Church Fathers who guided the early Christians with scripture alone, just a few generations away from the apostles, and why it only sprung up a millenia and a half after the Gospels, because if it is the truth see no reason Holy Spirit would allow it to go untaught for so long.
And that means they're no longer ours. But God working in the man.
As the Catholic Church teaches. What it does not teach is that we have no part in them whatsoever, for they would not even be possible were it not for the free will God has been so gracious in granting us.
You didn't say what to repent from. Repenting from works-salvation is what one must do
I don't need to because I do not practice a strawman version of the Church's teachings. Nothing I do is of any merit because it is all of God's grace, but I at least recognize that when God guides me to water to drink and then asks me to show others the way to it, I have a choice in the matter.
Once we're saved we have a purpose which is to to the end that we would keep the word of God'
This dosen't answer the question. You agree that the Word of God, which we are called to keep, calls for us to pray for forgiveness for sins, not out of obligation but out of a sincere desire that he have mercy on our broken souls. So why do you think that that the sincere prayer that God called us to is vain in the eyes of God?
Hebrews 12:8-9
If you are chastened through persecution and blood that you endure at the behest of the Holy Spirit like this verse speaks of then I see no reason why God would reject you as his son, yet this does not invalidate the fact that God called even the Israelites to confess all of their sins, and called all of us to do so through the Lord's Prayer, and that Jesus said that those who love him would follow his commandments.
The reason God sent the Holy Spirit.
Who has worked countless miracles both for and sometimes through the saints of the Catholic Church. I don't expect you to swallow this fact outright, not at all, but I would be remiss not to remind you of what the Holy Spirit has done for those who have kept the faith.

David Kelly
David Kelly

And faithul Job would beg to differ.
Ok first of all, Job repented of a lot of what he said in Job 42:6. And secondly, yes the Lord causes it to rain and shine on believer and non-believers alike. However I still believe in God being a protector from evil and from death without a cause.

2 Peter 2:9
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Certainly, but I think we both know that we are talking about this world and you cannot contradict.Matthew 12:31 on this matter.
Alright, are you one who can tell me when someone has blasphemed the Holy Spirit?
testemony of the miracles
The word is sufficient.
because if it is the truth see no reason Holy Spirit would allow it to go untaught for so long.
Of course, the truth has always been believed and taught. That doesn't mean it's ever been accepted by the world or ever will be.
So why do you think that that the sincere prayer that God called us to is vain in the eyes of God?
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. There are consequences for us like being chastised (or even be retired early by God, see 1 John 5:16) and having all the work be consumed as in 1 Corinthians 3:13. That's not a minor thing if you care.
yet this does not invalidate the fact that God called even the Israelites to confess all of their sins,
I'm not sure where you keep going with this specifically, but yes. 1 John 1:9 makes it clear you confess to God in prayer.
I would be remiss not to remind you of what the Holy Spirit has done for those who have kept the faith.
Like the most important fact that the man of God does receive assurance and all understanding from Him?

1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

The Holy Spirit gives the correct interpretation. Directly. So all you need to do is ask and receive the gift of God unto eternal life and you will understand Scripture. After all, He is the one who moved the men of God to speak the word firstly, it would be Him that teaches all things to us, and brings all things to our remembrance. That miraculously solves the interpretation problem, at least, provided that He the Holy Ghost really exists and that you don't deny this. Anyone who is misinterpreting Scripture can be known with assurance as false, if you have received the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. No need to trust anyone but God only. He is nigh unto all that call upon him and the Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.

Brayden King
Brayden King

Ok first of all, Job repented of a lot of what he said in Job 42:6
He repented of ever questioning God, he never repented of creating a book of scripture, never for putting his erroneous friends in their place, and never for stating the valid observations of a righteous man and pleading that God make him understand.
And secondly, yes the Lord causes it to rain and shine on believer and non-believers alike. However I still believe in God being a protector from evil and from death without a cause.
Certainly, but there is no evil and death that is without cause, no evil and death that we cannot overcome through our faith and use as a proof against the devil's tests. But that does not mean he will not test us and in incredibly arbitrary ways, including letting the devil kill our loved ones as scripture shows. Everything has a purpose, everything can be learned from, so everything is on the table.
Alright, are you one who can tell me when someone has blasphemed the Holy Spirit?
Oh I wasn't referencing that verse for it's teachings on that one sin, I was referencing it for it's teachings on every other sin, i.e that they can be forgiven, i.e. a denouncement straight from Jesus's mouth of reprobation being anything other than a choice on the sinners part to reject forgiveness for sin.
The word is sufficient.
For salvation, absolutely. Yet the ministry of the incarnate Word would just be one amongst many were it not for the miracles of the Holy Spirit. The apostles would just be random street preachers were it not for the miracles they could perform. Our lives would be nothing were they not miraculously sealed the Holy Spirit. Please don't discount the wonders that the Holy Spirit has shown us again, he wouldn't like it very much.
Of course, the truth has always been believed and taught. That doesn't mean it's ever been accepted by the world or ever will be.
Of course, and the Holy Spirit has showered the inexplicable and the miraculous on those who have kept it faithfully throughout history. Can Baptists claim the same?
I'm not sure where you're getting this from.
I am getting it from your own statements that repentance is a vain work, despite it's absolute centrality to the Bible, from your own mouth. God would not ask us to pray with sincerity for forgiveness after our baptism if we did not actually need it, if it did not actually have an effect on our salvation. If you don't see the error of your original statement then that simply shows that you have not fully thought through your position, and I need you to address the problems implicit in that claim directly.
The Holy Spirit gives the correct interpretation. Directly. So all you need to do is ask and receive the gift of God unto eternal life and you will understand Scripture.
That miraculously solves the interpretation problem, at least, provided that He the Holy Ghost really exists and that you don't deny this
And every protestant minister ever has made that same claim and every one of them has come away with different interpretations, even among Baptist ministers as the divisions in the Faithful Word ministry shows. The interpretation problem is much larger than you give it credit for and a cursory observation of Reformation history shows that it is not solved in the way you think it is, and an abuse of 1 John 2:27 by a countless slew of teachers is to blame. If we trust that the Holy Spirit teaches us then we should also trust those he teaches through, and the Church Fathers who sprung straight from the apostles, interpreted from the same scriptures that you have, and who assuredly had the Holy Spirit in them, never gave any credence to these interpretations that you believe in.

Mason Perry
Mason Perry

Everything has a purpose, everything can be learned from, so everything is on the table.
I'm glad you came around to the truth. There is no accidental death without a purpose. Which was your fourth assumption which I pointed out.
I was referencing it for it's teachings on every other sin, i.e that they can be forgiven,
Ok, but when can you know if someone has committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Are you saying you know if they have?
The apostles would just be random street preachers were it not for the miracles they could perform.
We should hear them, not false prophets today. Paul warned about them in Acts 20:28-32.
Please don't discount the wonders that the Holy Spirit has shown us again, he wouldn't like it very much.
You're the one who didn't even mention the fact He teaches us and indwells in the individual believer. But it's okay, I'm glad to be able to magnify His work.
Of course, and the Holy Spirit has showered the inexplicable and the miraculous on those who have kept it faithfully throughout history.
I count all things but loss for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. In that moment the faith will be manifest.
I am getting it from your own statements that repentance is a vain work
Repentance from works salvation is the same thing as believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. You've confused this with repentance from sins, which is something that requires God first.
it is not solved in the way you think it is
Yes it is. You don't need to observe history to believe the word of God and receive the Spirit of truth. That only requires God to open your understanding. If someone else is being untruthful, you will know then. 1 John 2:27 is true. As is John 16:13 and 1 Thessalonians 1:5. Don't let false prophets give you doubts about this, just trust God completely.

Xavier Rodriguez
Xavier Rodriguez

I'm glad you came around to the truth. There is no accidental death without a purpose. Which was your fourth assumption which I pointed out.
Which you only assumed that I actually believed. The permissive will of God does not equal his active intentions for this world. I feel like this entire point was a matter of poor communication though and yes I am glad we agree on it.
Ok, but when can you know if someone has committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Are you saying you know if they have?
I'm saying that that isn't relevant to the conversation and idk why you think it is. If someone commits that sin that is their business, but it has nothing to do with the notion that reprobation is a predestined thing that cannot be cured if the sinner chooses.
You're the one who didn't even mention the fact He teaches us and indwells in the individual believer.
Yeah because that's a given, but we also have very definitive proof that the Holy Spirit has worked miracles through the saints of the Catholic Church, so nothing would ever separate me from her.
I count all things but loss for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. In that moment the faith will be manifest.
As it is has been manifest and rewarded through the miracles of the Holy Spirit. Honestly, shame on you if you count the manifest works of God as a loss.
Repentance from works salvation is the same thing as believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
No christian denomination teaches that works can earn salvation, and repentance from one sin is nowhere near equivalent to faith that God became flesh and died for our sins
You've confused this with repentance from sins, which is something that requires God first.
And something God personally requested of his baptized, saved followers through the Lord's Prayer, am I correct?
Yes it is. You don't need to observe history to believe the word of God and receive the Spirit of truth. That only requires God to open your understanding.
Personally, I did, if only to squash the doubts that had been trying to kill my faith for years. My faith has come alive through prayer, and it was dead when I tried to live in dogma for dogma's sake, true as it is, but that doesn't change the fact that neither I nor you would have ever found the faith were it not for the efforts of the Catholic Church, nor the fact that those who claim that the Holy Spirit has taught them can come to wildly different interpretations of scripture.
If someone else is being untruthful, you will know then. 1 John 2:27 is true. As is John 16:13 and 1 Thessalonians 1:5. Don't let false prophets give you doubts about this, just trust God completely.
I won't, which is why I trust the Church that the Holy Spirit has proved he has been with over the thousands of personal interpretations of protestants throughout history and the dozens of personal interpretations of faithful Baptists in this thread.

Aaron Carter
Aaron Carter

made himself right
after death
Catholics confirmed for believing they can atone for themselves.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
Purgatory
In Corinthians the works pass through the fire that they may be judged. Not the believer. Our works will be burnt if they're of poor quality (wood, hay, stubble) and if they're of good quality (gold, silver, costly stones) they abide, and that christian will receive a reward. If he's a Romans 4:5 believer that doesn't work for God, "he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."
You don't understand that Jesus' one-time sacrifice was sufficient for all of our sins, major and minor, past present and future. (Hebrews 7:27)

Leo Watson
Leo Watson

I'm saying that that isn't relevant to the conversation and idk why you think it is.
You're the one who brought it up, I'm just naturally following up by asking whether you know who has committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
repentance from one sin is nowhere near equivalent to faith
It is possible to repent from things besides repenting of sins, which is where you have not understood the difference. Yes, repenting from sins is real and a good work, but right now I'm talking about repentance Jesus spoke of in Luke 14:28-33. Notice the last verse.
I won't
Alright, and we will trust John 16:13 and Luke 11:13 and the entire word of God, that it is true.

1 Peter 1:3-5
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Owen Jackson
Owen Jackson

Yes, repenting from sins is real and a good work
And I'm glad that you actually acknowledge that.
but right now I'm talking about repentance Jesus spoke of in Luke 14:28-33. Notice the last verse.
Certainly, and this is absolutely vital for salvation. It also does not discount the fact that God personally requested of his baptized, saved followers through the Lord's Prayer, am I correct?
Alright, and we will trust John 16:13 and Luke 11:13 and the entire word of God, that it is true.
Ok, just don't forget that you have failed to address most of my arguments, including the common sense observations about Baptist divisions in the interpretation of the Word of God in the process.
"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." -1 Corinthians 1:10

Catholics confirmed for believing they can atone for themselves.
For I think the sixth time, the fact that God gives us a choice in how we approach our salvation does not mean that the Church teaches that any works are of value and that any works can derive from anything but God.
In Corinthians the works pass through the fire that they may be judged. Not the believer.
Not if Matthew 18:21-35 is to be believed, for as already pointed out through Job the tormentors do not come for the wicked in this world but the next.
"But indeed for deceits thou hast put it to them: when they were lifted up thou hast cast them down. How are they brought to desolation? they have suddenly ceased to be: they have perished by reason of their iniquity. As the dream of them that awake, O Lord; so in thy city thou shalt bring their image to nothing." -Psalm 72;18-20 (Douay-Rheims, apparently the order is different in the KJV despite them being nearly the same translation go figure)

Jordan Price
Jordan Price

For I think the sixth time
You keep repeating yourself, but you're not refuting the point at all. A salvation that can be lost is a salvation by works, therefore not by grace, and therefore no salvation at all.
Matthew 18:21-35
Punishment on this earth, nothing in the passage to suggest otherwise
Corinthians 1:3 reward or losing out on a reward based on our merit, but the following verses are careful to explain that this reward isn't salvation

I don't know exactly what point you're making with Job and Psalms. Every bit of suffering a Christian endures in life is to edify and mould him for God's use. Not to settle God's justice which we can never settle.

Bentley Powell
Bentley Powell

A salvation that can be lost is a salvation by works, therefore not by grace, and therefore no salvation at all.
But you can only lose it if you refuse it. You cannot earn a gift, you can only throw it away if you refuse repentance, and the fact it would be pointless for Jesus to ask the saved to pray for forgiveness if they didn't even need it, and yet he did anyways, proves that.
Punishment on this earth, nothing in the passage to suggest otherwise
I don't know exactly what point you're making with Job and Psalms.
The point is to show that punishment does not befall the wicked, as the Scriptures attest to through Job and David, and that the true punishment is death and what comes after.
Every bit of suffering a Christian endures in life is to edify and mould him for God's use. Not to settle God's justice which we can never settle.
Exactly, and if you refuse the forgiveness that God asked you to pray for that can divert that justice then you deserve every drop of it.

Luis Clark
Luis Clark

You're right at the top of the list in my prayers user, you're so so close.
But you can only lose it if you refuse it
And if you accept it, you're saved. You and I agree on this.
Punishment does not befall the wicked
Exactly right, that's what they go to hell for. We're forever saved from hell because of what Jesus did. (John 3:16 etc)
Now that we're saved we are adopted as sons and are in an entirely new category. The carrot and stick (Jude 22,23) isn't our worry anymore. We're no longer precariously perched over the pit of hell.
Now we please our Father by following every commandment, because we love him, because he first loved us. It's not pointless to pray for forgiveness as saved people, because we're to mortify the deeds of the flesh every single day. We're called "unto" works (Ephesians 2:10), which is why we're on this earth, and why God's plan isn't just to immediately rapture every believer as soon as they're saved.

I'll give another example. Divorce is prohibited by God, right? Yet there's heaps of commandments on how a husband or a wife should behave themselves in marriage. If a woman isn't properly submitting herself to her husband, or a man isn't properly loving his wife (Ephesians 5) they're both displeasing God, and certainly displeasing each other. their marriage will suffer, they'll suffer as individuals, but the covenant before God cannot be broken. They're bound in matrimony. Yet how they behave in that covenant will directly affect their happiness and usefulness to one another.

Ethan Brown
Ethan Brown

and the fact it would be pointless for Jesus to ask the saved to pray for forgiveness if they didn't even need it, and yet he did anyways, proves that.
That's your sixth assumption revisited yet again, and it's still not true. And I've already addressed it. So evidently all you're doing here is parroting some false, unscriptural doctrine that you can't back up and not really registering what's being said. And I've already addressed it. You have not shown that turning from sins (which is a work, Jonah 3:10) is the basis of salvation as opposed to God imputing his own Son's righteousness to those whom he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, Romans 8:29-30. In fact repenting from the turning from sin as a basis of salvation is what repentance we're talking about. Because it's never enough. If you somehow missed that point, again, I don't know where to begin with you. No matter how much works and turning from sin you do, nor how much self effort, that won't cause salvation, repent. Go back to Romans 3 and 4 and keep reading it.

Michael Moore
Michael Moore

You're right at the top of the list in my prayers user, you're so so close.
No we don't because OSAS is absolute heresy for the reasons I have shown.
The carrot and stick (Jude 22,23) isn't our worry anymore.
This isn't a blanket statement against reproval, even Paul reproved the faithful.
It's not pointless to pray for forgiveness as saved people, because we're to mortify the deeds of the flesh every single day. We're called "unto" works (Ephesians 2:10), which is why we're on this earth, and why God's plan isn't just to immediately rapture every believer as soon as they're saved.
Exactly, and to reject this duty is to be a bad servant who will be cast into the outer darkness, meaning that our salvation, rooted in Jesus's righteousness, is dependent on God's forgiveness for our inevitable rejections of this duty and for us petitioning this forgiveness.

You have not shown that turning from sins (which is a work, Jonah 3:10) is the basis of salvation as opposed to God imputing his own Son's righteousness to those whom he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, Romans 8:29-30
Because John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter called for repentance from sin, not one specific sin of holding a view of fully works-based salvation. Repentance, as prophets of all ages attest too time and time again, is absolutely necessary to accept God's mercy and the righteousness of Christ (Jonah included), and Jesus calls for us to repent of our sins even after we are saved through the Lord's Prayer, not simply one sin of holding a view of fully works-based salvation but all sins. The gift of righteousness that God has prepared for us is only valid if we accept it for ourselves, and therefore it is not predestination in the Calvinistic sense. They are predestined because they choose, and if they did not choose they would not be predestined. Predestination hinges on choice, and that choice can be turned back on if the sinner so chooses.
In fact repenting from the turning from sin as a basis of salvation is what repentance we're talking about.
And that limited view of repentance is not what the Gospel is talking about, it's simply reading modern theological debate into the Bible. The saints of the Catholic Church attest that the more saintly someone is the more they recognize themselves as a sinner and that only through God's grace are they justified, it is the basis of true faith and faith is not faith without it, but this this doesn't invalidate the fact that we are called to turn from sin and that if we give in willingly to it without repentance, if we willingly turn from the image of the Son, as all inevitably do, dishonoring Jesus's commandments, but do so without remorse, that they will not be punished, for why on earth would the prophets be needed to correct the faithful of Israel born from Abraham otherwise? Everyone will err in this regard, there is no avoiding it, for we can never erase the law of our flesh, yet Paul never states that we have free reign in to sin as we please through justification. Faith demands that we pray for forgiveness as the Lord's Prayer shows, not by compulsion but by choice, for otherwise we are not faithful.

Hudson Carter
Hudson Carter

wow i need to proofread my stuff more. oh well.

Jaxson Bell
Jaxson Bell

The gift of righteousness that God has prepared for us is only valid if we accept it for ourselves
<So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Nolan Jones
Nolan Jones

Because all things are through God as the Church and all good Christians teach. That does not mean that God will save those who never repent and that is not what I am claiming.

Michael Davis
Michael Davis

Of course God will not save the unrepentant, but they are saved not because they repented and therefore deserve it, but because God chose to show mercy. Those whom God chooses to ultimately save He does so purely from His good pleasure and not because of anything they did.

Camden Flores
Camden Flores

586578
No that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. It teaches that God saves men because they co-operated with His grace instead of rejecting it, and that if they instead rejected, they would not be saved. In short, your church teaches that it is not of God that sheweth mercy, but of him that willeth and of him that runneth.

Chase Morales
Chase Morales

Man I was about to say that I'm glad that if nothing else a few baptists on this board won't be able to mock a strawman of the Church's teachings without bearing false witness but here we go. If you think that a completely unrepentant sinner who never accepts the mercy that God shows him will still be saved then idk what to tell you other than read the Bible again first and my first post again second.

Cameron Perry
Cameron Perry

A completely unrepentant sinner who accepts the mercy that God shows him will be saved.
You can phrase it however you'd like, turning a new leaf is works salvation.

Lucas Brown
Lucas Brown

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." -Acts 2:38
So, according to the Bible, how does one accept God's mercy?

Noah Phillips
Noah Phillips

A completely unrepentant sinner is a sinner who does not accept the mercy of God.
If you think that a completely unrepentant sinner who never accepts the mercy that God shows him will still be saved
I think that the attidudes of sinners are irrelevant to whether they receive mercy or not, I think it's a matter of God's will. Again read that bible verse, it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Aaron Rivera
Aaron Rivera

By faith alone.

Parker Martinez
Parker Martinez

And, according to Acts 2:38, by what means must one choose to accept that faith?

.I think that the attidudes of sinners are irrelevant to whether they receive mercy or not, I think it's a matter of God's will. Again read that bible verse, it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
God will show his mercy to everyone. Jew or Greek, everyone is called, but only few will accept. The mercy is on the part of God, not the sinner, and no good christian teaches otherwise.

Oliver Hill
Oliver Hill

And, according to Acts 2:38, by what means must one choose to accept that faith?
Define means
God will show his mercy to everyone
<Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
God shows His mercy to those whom He sees fit. His grace is free, it must be if it is to remain grace. Mercy is meaningless if it is hypothetical, we cannot in any meaningful sense say that God is merciful to men in hell.

Grayson Hill
Grayson Hill

Admit that you're a sinner
Realize the penalty for sin
Believe that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again for YOU
Trust Christ ALONE as your saviour.

Refer to anons post here
Acts 2:38
Repentance and baptism are alike in that they're not necessary for salvation.
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Carter Taylor
Carter Taylor

Admit that you're a sinner
Realize the penalty for sin
Believe that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again for YOU
Trust Christ ALONE as your saviour.
You're forgetting repentance. You can admit you're a sinner and realize the penalty for sin and just not care

James Carter
James Carter

Jonah 3:10
Repentance is turning from sin
That's a work, and something we do after salvation, daily.

Carson James
Carson James

Define means
I.e. the part of this verse that is dependent on the actions of the sinner.
God shows His mercy to those whom He sees fit. His grace is free, it must be if it is to remain grace.
Which is what the Catholic Church teaches.
Mercy is meaningless if it is hypothetical, we cannot in any meaningful sense say that God is merciful to men in hell.
Of course, because they choose to reject that mercy till the very end.

Admit that you're a sinner
An act on the part of the sinner, guided by the Holy Spirit
Realize the penalty for sin
An accaptance on the part of the sinner, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Believe that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again for YOU
A change of heart accepted by the sinner, guided by the Holy Spirit.
Trust Christ ALONE as your saviour.
Which is the truth that the Catholic Church has protected for two millenium.

Repentance and baptism are alike in that they're not necessary for salvation.
John the Baptist would beg to differ. Baptism perhaps, under extraordinary circumstances such as martyrdom, inability, or God in the flesh accepting you into the covenant (although the idea that those who Jesus personally saved in his ministry were not baptized is honestly absurd). God understands if you absolutely cannot enter into the new covenant, but the rest of us have no excuse to ignore Jesus's commands and wash away our sin. I'm not even going to argue that point on repentance because though because I've been showing the error of it for nearly a day now and even a fellow Baptist can see that error. Just remember that Christ's last commandment was to baptize all nations, a single line from Paul does not invalidate that.

Parker Foster
Parker Foster

accept Christ, but ignore everything He says because faith alone

ok

Isaiah Kelly
Isaiah Kelly

Repentance is turning from sin
Yes it is, and it is impossible to have faith without it
something we do after salvation
No one has ever or will ever be justified without having first repented
I.e. the part of this verse that is dependent on the actions of the sinner.
Now give a definition that makes sense
Which is what the Catholic Church teaches.
You just told me God gives His mercy to everyone, not just those whom He sees fit to save for His own purpose
Of course, because they choose to reject that mercy till the very end.
Mercy was never provided for them because God did not desire to show them mercy.
Baptism perhaps, under extraordinary circumstances such as martyrdom, inability, or God in the flesh accepting you into the covenant
The bible knows nothing at all of these multiple ways to be saved. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
God understands if you absolutely cannot enter into the new covenant
God is uncompromising. The only reason one cannot enter the new covenant is if they do not want to.

Owen Rivera
Owen Rivera

Now give a definition that makes sense
I genuinely don't understand how you do not understand that but ok. What part of the process of accepting God's mercy is dependent on the sinner's choices in Acts 2:38?
You just told me God gives His mercy to everyone, not just those whom He sees fit to save for His own purpose
Both are true because he sees fit to save everyone, obviously.
Mercy was never provided for them because God did not desire to show them mercy.
Such an arbitrary, inconsistent God does not seem like a God worth worshipping to me.
God is uncompromising. The only reason one cannot enter the new covenant is if they do not want to
And in all of these cases one wants too yet is unable so I do not see why a loving God would reject them on such arbitrary grounds.

Liam Sullivan
Liam Sullivan

No one has ever or will ever be justified without having first repented
So you repented of all your sins including lying and I guess you just never lie anymore?

Sebastian Gonzalez
Sebastian Gonzalez

What part of the process of accepting God's mercy is dependent on the sinner's choices in Acts 2:38?
That would be none.
Both are true because he sees fit to save everyone, obviously.
Then what does Romans 9:18 mean?
Such an arbitrary, inconsistent God
He isn't acting arbitrarily because it's purpose is His own glory, and I don't know how you can say He is inconsistent.
does not seem like a God worth worshipping to me
God is worthy of worship because God is God. You think God must show mercy to everyone? It's hardly mercy then, isn't it. And you find it objectionable for God to have freedom, to make of the same lump one vessel unto honor and another vessel unto dishonor? This is the God of the bible, that is the God you are now proudly proclaiming rebellion against.
one wants too yet is unable
That's a non sequitur. One enters the covenant by faith, there is no such thing as a person who wants to but is unable.
I do not see why a loving God would reject them
It isn't a question of whether God is loving, it is a question of whether God is just. These two things are not incompatible, in fact they are interdependent truths (1 Corinthians 13:6). He rejects them because they deserve to be rejected.
such arbitrary grounds
I don't think sin is arbitrary.
So you repented of all your sins
Yes, absolutely, without exception, and so has every true Christian. A Christian repents of all their sins in two senses, 1. generally, inasmuch as they repent from sinfulness itself, and 2. specifically, as they repent from each individual sin as they are aware.
I guess you just never lie anymore?
What is the logic behind such a ridiculous question? Do you just not know what 'repent' means? Repent just means 'a change of mind'. I lie, but I do not do so complicitly. Read Romans 7:15-25

Matthew Smith
Matthew Smith

view of repentance is not what the Gospel is talking about,
Yeah it is, actually. You have to repent of the attitude you have that a sinner can become righteous through any act other than believing on the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. It's his name that does everything. If you think the name of Jesus Christ is not enough, then you have not repented. And this is according to Acts 2:38. But there's still time for you I believe. We all deserve death, it's only by the name of Jesus Christ that anything is forgiven, not through doing acts of contrition. We are just as guilty before as after, without the Savior: and it's not like you're somehow "clearing your name" through your actions, that's not what is going on here. If you think it is, that means you haven't repented from dead works.

You can't say that being saved also requires you to pray a certain prayer or feel a certain feeling, because that would be corrupting the gospel into a works gospel, and it would be refusing to forsake everything you have according to Luke 14. Because you're still insisting you yourself have done these works to warrant being saved, and relying on those, in this case turning away from certain sins, to make yourself "righteous enough" and therefore missing the point that you can't reach that mark. Jesus has to do it for you, through His righteousness. Which is the fact Jesus Himself and the apostles hammer in repeatedly. And even if you work hard to couch it all in language that sounds less contradictory, that is in fact what it really is: a works gospel, pure and simple. And as such, it will produce nothing but corrupt fruit, as we see now.

Lincoln Nelson
Lincoln Nelson

Righteousness is not an act, it is a gift. How many times do I have to keep saying that that is what the Church teaches until you stop feigning willful ignorance to this fact? Your own personal interpretation corrupts and degrades the true meaning of repentance in order to attack a strawman, claiming that the Church claims that anyone can earn for themselves righteousness that is not given as a gift. Salvation requires repentance, not because it makes us more righteous, but because it is how we admit to ourselves and to God that we are not righteous, and are willing to allow Jesus, the only truly righteous one who has shared his righteousness to us wretches, to change us. I see no reason to abandon the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to work holy wonders too and through time and verifiable time again, and if you recognized those wonders for what they were you would repent as well.

That would be none.
Bzzzzt, try again. At what point does Peter, the speaker, request of the subject of the sentence, everyone, to act, aka the verb of the sentence.
Then what does Romans 9:18 mean?
It means that he offers mercy to everyone, and that if they reject it through sin he allows their heart to be hardened. What does Acts 17:30 mean?
You think God must show mercy to everyone?
No, but I thank him that he does anyways and has shown so through the Bible.
One enters the covenant by faith, there is no such thing as a person who wants to but is unable.
Which is my point exactly.
I don't think sin is arbitrary.
And I don't think that martyrdom is a sin.

Aiden Barnes
Aiden Barnes

How many times do I have to keep saying that
You say it but you don't mean it. Because right after finishing the sentence you claim salvation has more requirements beyond what God has done for you and believing that fact. Thus it's according to you not a gift that was in fact given. So by redefining what words really mean, this is the only way you can appear to coincide with what the word of God really says. Say one thing and mean another.

It's the same with a lot of other things as well like worshipping saints. Saying one word but deliberately meaning another, but speaking falsely so as to avoid the contradiction.

Aiden Nguyen
Aiden Nguyen

Bzzzzt, try again
Ok, this time I'll put it all on none
At what point does Peter, the speaker, request of the subject of the sentence, everyone, to act
There is a difference between people repenting, and reception of mercy being dependent on their decision.
It means that he offers mercy to everyone, and that if they reject it through sin he allows their heart to be hardened
Let's read the verse
<Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
It expressly says when He has mercy on someone it is just because He wanted to, and when He hardens someone it is just because He wanted to. In other words, it means the exact opposite of what you just said.
What does Acts 17:30 mean?
It means that God did not offer mercy to the Gentiles under the old covenant but was now proclaiming His gospel to all men.
No
So you retract your objection that God would be undeserving of worship if He had not shown mercy to all?
And I don't think that martyrdom is a sin.
I don't think martyrdom prevents faith

Adrian Perry
Adrian Perry

Because right after finishing the sentence you claim salvation has more requirements beyond what God has done for you and believing that fact.
You mean the action that every single prophet in the Bible, through the Holy Spirit, has called for so that the faithful who do it will escape God's wrath, God incarnate included? The action that, in totality in addition to in one theological error, is a prerequisite for entering into the new covenant, and is therefore a prerequisite for belief in the first place? The action that God asked us, the saved, to do daily through the Lord's Prayer? That action? Well yes, because prophets preach that too.

There is a difference between people repenting, and reception of mercy being dependent on their decision.
Would you care to explain that difference?
It means that God did not offer mercy to the Gentiles under the old covenant but was now proclaiming His gospel to all men.
all men
all
correct
It expressly says when He has mercy on someone it is just because He wanted to
Which, as you admit above, he shows to all men, whether or not they accept it.
and when He hardens someone it is just because He wanted to
And for what puropse? To show them the error of his ways. And is that a complete roadblock to salvation? Absolutely not if Matthew 12:31 is to be believed, which it is.
So you retract your objection that God would be undeserving of worship if He had not shown mercy to all?
I don't need to because a God who would not show mercy to all is an unmerciful contradiction that, thank God, does not exist, as scripture attests.

Aaron Bailey
Aaron Bailey

*their ways, blech

Carter Diaz
Carter Diaz

That action?
Well so far you've added to the list apologizing for every sin, praying the Lord's prayer some certain amount, feeling sufficient remorse, getting sprinkled with water in a ritual meant to resemble baptism. Is there any more you'd like to add? I'm sure you can look up the exact laws on what is needed and feel like you've accomplished a lot.

Joseph Wood
Joseph Wood

Well so far you've added to the list repentance, continual repentance when necessary, accepting repentance like God wants, and the repentance that the Lord has commanded us to do lest we suffer his wrath in full.
If you would just accept my first post you would see the strawman you obstinately cling too despite the reality in front of you, but I'll say a prayer for you anyways. I don't wish you evil and God forgive me for and fix the loathing that I do feel, but I genuinely will pray you come back to the Church that the Holy Spirit revealed himself unto, because I would never have truly found her were it not for him and his miraculous works.

Ryder Parker
Ryder Parker

I'm sure there's plenty more you can add. You're thinking of the results, not the causes of salvation. None of those things is truly possible without God and none will change the state of anyone's salvation because that depends on whether you can turn away from works salvation. Something people like many of the pharisees with their oral law and traditions could never do and they went to their graves still not understanding it.

Matthew 7:22-23
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

If you would just accept my first post
You say one thing and you mean another. Thank you and thank God for stopping by anyway.

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (27.2 KB, 320x240)

Benjamin Ross
Benjamin Ross

You say one thing and you mean another. Thank you and thank God for stopping by anyway.
Very well, but don't blame me or the Church when God holds you accountable for a faith that rejects the repentance, full repentance, that every prophet of scripture, from Jesus to Jonah, has demanded of the faithful. May he bless you anyways.

Evan Robinson
Evan Robinson

Sondo you think if someone sins but doesn't repent they aren't save kr lose their salvation?

Nolan Anderson
Nolan Anderson

Would you care to explain that difference?
One is the God-given means of salvation and the other would be human sovereignty over salvation.
Which, as you admit above, he shows to all men, whether or not they accept it.
Well, while God certainly proclaims His gospel to every individual, the point in Acts 17:30 is that God was now doing so to all nations, as opposed to just Israel. But God proclaims to all people, first for the elect to be saved, since the preaching of the gospel is the means He has chosen to glorify Himself, and secondly for the reprobate, to increase their judgement, since God does not provide the necessary grace for them to believe it. The gospel message never fails, it always accomplishes its purpose, whatever that may be.
And for what puropse?
According to verse 22 of the same chapter it is to make His power known and show His wrath.
To show them the error of his ways. And is that a complete roadblock to salvation?
The text says He does so to destroy them
I don't need to because a God who would not show mercy to all is an unmerciful contradiction that, thank God, does not exist
So to correct yourself, yes you do believe mercy must be given to all? Grace can and must be demanded?
Unrepentance after sin is to adore in sin and to despise God. It is to joyously make war on God. So if someone is unrepentant, that's a real good sign they're not a Christian yeah.

Eli Moore
Eli Moore

So do you think they lose their salvation or that all saved people will repent?

Grayson Hall
Grayson Hall

The latter.

Nathan Rivera
Nathan Rivera

One is the God-given means of salvation and the other would be human sovereignty over salvation.
You act as if repentance, even if compelled by the Holy Spirit and nothing without his action, cannot be rejected as proves, that is is just something that will be forced on the believer. If God asks us to repent, that means that even if it is an inevitable part of God's plan he requires action and cooperation on our part, and Calvninism denies the very free will by which we may do what God asks.
since God does not provide the necessary grace for them to believe it.
You say as if the Word of God is not grace and the acceptance of it is not enough for salvation.
According to verse 22 of the same chapter it is to make His power known and show His wrath.
Certainly, yet this does not exclude their forgiveness, only the hard heart does that.
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."-2 Peter 3:9
The text says He does so to destroy them
The text says that it is to make them vessels of destruction, which will certainly be the case if they are hardened in reprobation. This does not mean that theirs sins will not be forgiven if they so choose. You look at this entire problem as if humans have never had any choice in their salvation, as if God has never offered choice, when that is exacly the opposite of what the Gospel preaches.
Grace can and must be demanded?
God forbid that dust ever demand grace, but thank God it is given to all men anyways.

Ryan Russell
Ryan Russell

You act as if repentance, even if compelled by the Holy Spirit and nothing without his action, cannot be rejected as proves, that is is just something that will be forced on the believer.
What happens is God sets a sinner free that they may serve Him. The sinner does not wish to have their chains anymore.
If God asks us to repent, that means that even if it is an inevitable part of God's plan he requires action and cooperation on our part
God does not ask us to repent. He commands us to repent. He doesn't offer us to repent if we so desire, He orders us to repent regardless of our will. In our sinful nature, we would never repent, God must grant what He commands. Adam would never have returned to God if God had not called him.
and Calvninism denies the very free will by which we may do what God asks.
Man is free as a creature.
You say as if the Word of God is not grace and the acceptance of it is not enough for salvation.
They cannot accept it without God's grace.
Certainly, yet this does not exclude their forgiveness
It does unless God is as weak as the idols of the nations. If He is so unable to do anything as them, He is truly unworthy of worship.
2 Peter 3:9
The context is about the return of Christ. He is saying that Christ has not returned because the fullness has not yet come in. Therefore, 'anyone' and 'everyone' describes the elect. God is not willing that any of the elect should perish, but all of them come to repentance.
This does not mean that theirs sins will not be forgiven if they so choose
They cannot so choose, because God has not chosen them.
You look at this entire problem as if humans have never had any choice in their salvation
They never have. It has always been of God who shows mercy.

Liam Edwards
Liam Edwards

Do you have a verse to show that? Also what if they sin but die before repenting?

Elijah Wilson
Elijah Wilson

Do you have a verse to show that?
John 10:28
Also what if they sin but die before repenting?
They repent before, during and immediately after sinning.

Julian Morales
Julian Morales

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
And that proves it how?

Justin Lee
Justin Lee

If I am unrepentant, I have death in myself.

Jason Phillips
Jason Phillips

What happens is God sets a sinner free that they may serve Him. The sinner does not wish to have their chains anymore.
So you admit that it requires a willingness on the part of the sinner?
God does not ask us to repent. He commands us to repent. He doesn't offer us to repent if we so desire, He orders us to repent regardless of our will.
And as the Gospel shows our will is free to reject that. Literally nothing you say here is incompatible with that fact.
Man is free as a creature.
So then your entire argument is without grounds, as nothing you say about the necessity of God's action in salvation logically invalidates the fact that he permits man in the gift of freedom to reject it. Nothing else need be said on the matter other than repent.

"I exhort, therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." -Timothy 2:1–4

Hudson Hughes
Hudson Hughes

Now your just making stuff up. Shiw me a verse that says if you don't repent if your sins then you aren't saved.

Jayden Brown
Jayden Brown

John 10:28
So you admit that it requires a willingness on the part of the sinner?
No.
So then your entire argument is without grounds, as nothing you say about the necessity of God's action in salvation logically invalidates the fact that he permits man in the gift of freedom to reject it.
Man is not more free than God.
Timothy 2:1–4
All men means the same thing both times it is said. Since it is first defined as all kinds of men, the same applies to the second.

Aaron Lopez
Aaron Lopez

third pic
What the HELL is wrong with him and everything connected to anal? Seriously, first was this, then was scaring the devil with farts and so on. Or is it some kind of forgery and fake quotes?

Jason Wright
Jason Wright

He was German

Elijah Wood
Elijah Wood

i think quotes from table talk are highly dubious, but martin luther did have a fascination with butts/feces.
it's a german thing:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_scatology

Hudson Lee
Hudson Lee

All men means the same thing both times it is said. Since it is first defined as all kinds of men, the same applies to the second.
In what universe does that claim make any sense whatsoever? In what universe does "all men," in either instance, mean only "all kinds of men?" The fact that he calls kings and paupers does not mean that he only calls some kings and some paupers, but all kings and all paupers, and willful ignorance of God's word isn't going to change that.

Yeah false witness is false witness.

Angel Gray
Angel Gray

The fact that he calls kings and paupers does not mean that he only calls some kings and some paupers, but all kings and all paupers
Stop reading post-Enlightenment Individualism into my bible

Connor Anderson
Connor Anderson

Stop reading post-Enlightenment Individualism into my bible
Stop failing to put up a proper argument against the Word of God and the proper interpretation held by all Christians until the false prophet Calvin.

Ryder Harris
Ryder Harris

He has a huge superiority complex and actually thinks he has the authority to interpret Scripture in any ways he wants, that's why you've got so much weird stuff coming from him. He also calls himself a prophet.

Honestly, people give him too much attention. He's just like Westboro Baptist Church, where they throw anger tantrums and scream about homosexuals and people watch them. Except, most people are just laughing at people like Anderson.

tl;dr: he's a crazy guy who isn't worth your attention, I suggest tuning in to people like

(1) Bishop Barron (youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo/videos)

(2) Father Ripperger (youtube.com/user/onearmsteve4192/videos)

(3) Father Schmitz (youtube.com/channel/UCVdGX3N-WIJ5nUvklBTNhAw/videos)

Attached: Steven-Anderson.mp4 (13.91 MB, 1280x720)

Chase Morales
Chase Morales

Baptist thread
half of the post are from cucktolicks

Tyler Williams
Tyler Williams

this mod posting this again

Attached: 6E191913-8A59-41BB-BC56-D9F769C4FF6B.png (387.2 KB, 598x369)

Jose Foster
Jose Foster

Again nit that doesn't. That just proves OSAS

Angel Nelson
Angel Nelson

Do you guys have an recommendations for Protestant youtubers other than Pastor Anderson?

Attached: christ-chan-gun.png (345.4 KB, 1000x1000)

Michael Kelly
Michael Kelly

LOL, what did Brother Baker do?

Juan Garcia
Juan Garcia

not an argument

Xavier Wood
Xavier Wood

i like mary jo sharp
inb4 1 Timothy 2:12
uhhh uhh

ravi zacharias is great too, i think anderson loathes that guy.

James Sanders
James Sanders

He revealed himself to be an anti-trinitarian after apparently several years of serving there but he only approached a few people about it privately so it wasn't found out until later. He also never replied to an email I sent there two years ago.

Evan James
Evan James

So why should I become a Baptist instead of Orthodox? Honest question, no shitpost.

Austin Wood
Austin Wood

What points are you most interested in with both groups?

James Brown
James Brown

Baptists and protestants mistly follow only what the Bible says. Catholics abd Orthodox have other stuff that they follow instead of just scripture(a lot of them contradict scripture). So choose what God says or the traditions of men.

Angel Russell
Angel Russell

no u

John Morales
John Morales

Mark 7:7-9
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Jackson Wilson
Jackson Wilson

For some demographic self-awareness.

Attached: 469---Copy.png (52.83 KB, 511x451)

Matthew Ross
Matthew Ross

Attached: hp.jpg (120.71 KB, 398x352)

Wyatt Ortiz
Wyatt Ortiz

535828

Just because the Didache is from the apostle's time doesn't mean that they are right. The Didache contradicts the new testament by saying that prophets are high priests. But that's wrong. Believers are a nation of priests and Jesus is the great high priest. The Didache is an example of the New Testament warning of wolves which were present during their own time

Thomas Brooks
Thomas Brooks

Hmm does this remind you of anything?

Attached: 32128c969.png (67.28 KB, 674x336)

Michael Foster
Michael Foster

Why is he reading Beowulf?

Adam Rodriguez
Adam Rodriguez

I actually know this one. I think it was James White or one of the other ones like him was calling the KJV written in either Middle or Old English. But that's wrong, it's actually in Modern English (the 1611 edition is in early Modern English). And he was reading actual Old English just to prove how different it is.

Attached: wessex-gospel.PNG (60.32 KB, 652x652)

Logan Gonzalez
Logan Gonzalez

Verses proving salvation to anyone that believes and not of works.

John
1:12
3:15-16/18/36
4:14(John 6:35)
5:24
6:28-29/35/38-40/44-45/47
7:38-39
8:24
10:27-29
11:25-27/40
12:46
14:1-3
16:27
20:31

Matthew
5:19
7:21-23(John 6:38-40)
8:10-13
12:37
21:31-32

Mark
1:15
2:5
10:24-25
16:16

Luke
3:3(Acts 19:4)
5:20
7:50
8:12
18:10-14/40-42
23:40-43

Acts
2:21
10:43
11:16-17
13:38-39/48
15:7-9
16:30-31
19:4(Luke 3:3)
26:18

Romans
1:16-17
3:20/22/24-28/30
4:2-9/11/14-16/24
5:1/15-18
6:23
8:24
9:30-33
10:3-4/9-10/13
11:6

1 Corinthians
1:14/17
3:14-15
15:1-2

2 Corinthians
4:13-14

1 Thessalonians
4:14

2 Thessalonians
1:10
2:12

Ephesians
1:13-14
2:8-9
4:7

Galatians
2:16/21
3:6-11/14/21-22/24/26
5:3-6

Philippians
3:3/9

Titus
3:5

1 Timothy
1:16

2 Timothy
1:9
3:15

Hebrews
4:3
10:38-39
11:7

1 Peter
1:3-5/8-9
2:6
3:21(Colossians 2:12)

1 John
4:2-3/15
5:1/4-5/10-11/13

Revelation
2:11/26
3:5/20-21
21:7/27

Lincoln Reyes
Lincoln Reyes

James 2:24 King James Version (KJV) : 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Michael Hughes
Michael Hughes

James 2:14 Geneva
(14) "What availeth it, my brethren, though a man saith he hath faith, when he hath no work's? Can that faith save him?"

James 2:18 KJV
(18)  "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

Logan Walker
Logan Walker

Context matters.

Bentley Watson
Bentley Watson

t. unsaved catholic

Daniel Nelson
Daniel Nelson

Attached: 1.jpg (296.83 KB, 786x3099)

Sebastian Hall
Sebastian Hall

TIL a bible verse is catholic

realllllllly makes me think

Caleb Edwards
Caleb Edwards

context matters,
the verse isn't catholic, the person misusing it likely is

Noah Morgan
Noah Morgan

How is posting a verse misusing it? Since the topic at hand was faith alone, I thought I'd help you guys by listing the verses that mention faith alone in the bible.

:^)

Xavier Ward
Xavier Ward

He has a superiority complex and actually thinks the Holy Spirit has the authority to interpret Scripture in the ways He wants, that's why you've got so much true stuff coming from him. He also calls himself a prophet(one who proclaims God's word).

Honestly, people give him too much attention. He's just like Jesus in the temple, where He throws an anger tantrum and screams about money changers and people persecute Him. Except, most people are just talking bad about people like Anderson.

tl;dr: he's a crazy guy who isn't worth your attention, I suggest tuning in to people like

(1) Bishop Hell is Empty, R-right (youtube.com/watch?v=dmsa0sg4Od4)

(2) Father PingPong Excorsism (youtube.com/watch?v=zC3_i6EaVqQ)

(3) Father like, Jumpcut (youtube.com/channel/UCVdGX3N-WIJ5nUvklBTNhAw/videos)

Attached: He's-a-Faggot.webm (1.95 MB, 320x240)

Eli Bennett
Eli Bennett

Kid,

James 2:14, James 2:24, Romans 4:5, Philippians 3:9, Philippians 2:13, 1 Corinthians 15:10, Romans 3:27, 2 Corinthians 4:3, James 2:18 and 1 Corinthians 4:1-4, and the verse that guy pasted are all true. Take the whole truth, not just one verse like the devil did once. Thanks for joining our conversation.

Carter King
Carter King

Take the whole truth,
I sure will.

:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)

Attached: 1.JPG (469.59 KB, 1739x942)
Attached: 2.JPG (78.3 KB, 1714x173)

Jose King
Jose King

Some of those do seem to be saying that but almost all are just Jesus telling people to do works. No one says not to do works, you just aren't saved by them.

Aiden Scott
Aiden Scott

You still have to have works, though. Even if we are saved by faith, we're saved by a faith that is alive and produces works. A faith that does not produce works is dead.

Brody Cruz
Brody Cruz

You still have to have works, though.
Ephesians 2:8 Tomans 4:5
Even if we are saved by faith, we're saved by a faith that is alive and produces works.
No
A faith that does not produce works is dead.
Yes

Colton Cooper
Colton Cooper

youtu.be/dPqSelVJvoA

Robert Torres
Robert Torres

Ephesians 2:8
Good jab. Did I say we save ourselves by our works? No, so stop acting retarded.
No
Matthew 7:19
John 15:2

Camden Thompson
Camden Thompson

You said we have to have works to get saved

That's aboit false prophets. Trees are the prophets and the fruit are people.

Probably same as above

Colton Wright
Colton Wright

Yeah because dead faith is worthless.
Probably same as above
Imagine having no argument.

Isaac Stewart
Isaac Stewart

No
The correct answer is yes. If someone "believes", but that belief doesn't involve repentance, and doesn't lead one to desire righteousness, that "belief" is worthless, and that person wants nothing more out of Jesus than a get out of hell free card

Cameron Gray
Cameron Gray

dead faith is worthless.
To other people. "I believe you'll be fed!" says I, eating more than enough for both of us. "I believe you'll be clothed!" from under my layers.
Ephesians 2:8. No, we aren't saved by works, we're saved UNTO good works. The purpose God has for making us, and then making us Christians is so that we might do good works.
Define repentance?
Don't forget that we're literally commanded to save people through fear if that's what it takes.

Mason Williams
Mason Williams

dead faith is worthless.
<To other people.
Someone gets it. If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost! And if my faith is dead, how can it save him? I can't just say "I have faith" to him, he won't have see a reason to believe me. So works are true justification before man. And it's for their profit

Adam Nguyen
Adam Nguyen

Define repentance?
Change of mind against sin
Don't forget that we're literally commanded to save people through fear if that's what it takes.
We're commanded to command people to repent and believe for the kingdom of God is at hand. What happens in their hearts is the Holy Spirit's domain.
Dead faith is false faith. So no dead faith is quite worthless to the one with it.

Brayden Long
Brayden Long

Dead faith is false faith. So no dead faith is quite worthless to the one with it.
Read James 2:14-16 and you'll see the context. Being dead is not actually the same as being nonexistent, but the two are indistinguishable for anyone else. That's the point. It is unrelated to the preservation of the saints (Jude 1:1). Perseverance of the saints however is backdoor Lordship salvation. See free grace. See

Camden Richardson
Camden Richardson

Change of mind against sin
What does that look like in practical terms? People "stop sinning" all the time. What's the difference between the Christian user in the fap thread and someone enrolled in alcoholics anonymous?
We're commanded to command people to repent and believe
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Easton Torres
Easton Torres

Read James 2:14-16 and you'll see the context
Ok
<Can that faith save him?
<But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
<You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!
<You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
It's settled, then
Being dead is not actually the same as being nonexistent
When you die, your corpse will not be you. You will go off to your reward or punishment. Your corpse will still retain your name even though it is not truly you. In the same way, faith without works retains the name of faith, but without the substance.
What does that look like in practical terms?
Define practical
People "stop sinning" all the time
No, I think no man ever has stopped sinning
What's the difference between the Christian user in the fap thread and someone enrolled in alcoholics anonymous?
Well, that would depend on whether the alcoholic is a Christian. If not, the difference is a righteous verdict.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
I hope you haven't used this verse to consider casting a hex upon someone to fill them with fear. It isn't that you instill fear in them, but that one should share the gospel with some people in a gentle fashion, though with fear of falling prey to the non-confrontation.

Henry Torres
Henry Torres

Friend, you skipped right over the first part of verse 14 and the whole parts of 15-16.

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"

Who is he saying it to? It's to the guy he is trying to save. James 2:15-16 which you ignored goes on to describe how without profit it is to say "be fed" and not give any food to a brother or sister who is destitute of food. Because you haven't profitted them just by saying "be fed" even if you did have food. There was only profit for them if you actually gave them food or clothing. To them, whether or not you have food or clothing doesn't matter unless you give it, so if you don't do that, you seem no different than someone who has none and they have not profitted.

When you die, your corpse will not be you.
It will be my body. Also, being dead is not the same as not existing anyway.

It isn't that you instill fear in them, but that one should share the gospel with some people in a gentle fashion, though with fear of falling prey to the non-confrontation.
I would attest to the words of Samuel on telling others to fear the Lord.

Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:
Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you.

Adam Wright
Adam Wright

Also James 2:18 which you quoted reiterates my point about what 15-16 are saying.

Dylan Collins
Dylan Collins

define practical
change of mind against sin
I'd really like to win the lottery. It's be amazing to wake up next week with millions of dollars in my bank account. I'd move someplace warm. I've got my mind set on winning the lottery, but there's one problem; I never buy lottery tickets.
So no matter where my mind is in regard to sin, true repentance "of your sins" is buying that ticket; it's actually ""turning"" from the sin, it's a work. That's the flaw with a faith+works gospel; it assumes our poor asses can afford lottery tickets. Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. We're not qualified to meet God halfway.

Repenting "of your sins" is something you do once you're saved. Once you're God's adopted son, you can, for instance, war against the flesh to kick an addiction to booze or porn, and glorify God thereby. An unsaved sinner can quit drinking, but it's practically worthless to him because if he offends in one point he's guilty of all.
When we're saved, we can say with David; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Christopher Torres
Christopher Torres

Using a dictionary is a bit fancy for you, mate?

Brody Murphy
Brody Murphy

Friend, you skipped right over the first part of verse 14 and the whole parts of 15-16.
No I didn't. I deliberately quoted the portions I found relevant.
Who is he saying it to?
Very good question. In the text of James 2, the answer is no one. You must point out somewhere in the passage where James singles out the listener, and focuses on him. Of course, this does not happen, because by "say he hath faith", he simply means any profession of faith whatsoever. If someone were to describe themselves as Christian on a facebook page, that would qualify. What James' point is by "say he hath faith" is to point out this faith is merely spoken. A man claims to have faith, but can't show anyone any proof of this.
It's to the guy he is trying to save
And where is he in the text?
James 2:15-16 which you ignored goes on to describe how without profit it is to say "be fed" and not give any food to a brother or sister who is destitute of food. Because you haven't profitted them just by saying "be fed" even if you did have food. There was only profit for them if you actually gave them food or clothing. To them, whether or not you have food or clothing doesn't matter unless you give it, so if you don't do that, you seem no different than someone who has none and they have not profitted.
Well, I don't think James intended this example to be a direct 1 to 1 parallel, but making it one really doesn't help your interpretation. Why? Because it says "If a brother or sister". Do you regularly evangelize Christians as if they're unbelievers?
It will be my body
Right, so, not you.
Also, being dead is not the same as not existing anyway
Didn't say it was
telling others to fear the Lord.
So, merely evangelizing them?
Feel free to explain what you mean instead of vague assertions
So no matter where my mind is in regard to sin, true repentance "of your sins" is buying that ticket; it's actually ""turning"" from the sin, it's a work
Repentance is not the same thing as actually stopping. Of course, true repentance will attempt to actually stop, but that doesn't mean it will succeed.
Repenting "of your sins" is something you do once you're saved
Nobody ever has been or ever will be saved before they repent. Nobody wants salvation until they repent. Sure, they might want to escape hell, but if they're unrepentant, this will just be so they can defeat God against whom they war and who they still hate with their whole being. Someone who is truly born again is like Lot, they want to escape Sodom. A false convert is like his wife, they just want to escape the wrath, but they will turn back to their true love and suffer a worse judgement.
war against the flesh to kick an addiction to booze or porn
Nobody wants to be saved until they already see the problem with these things. They must believe that these things are evil things to be ashamed of, otherwise they will not see their need for Christ, to save them from them.
An unsaved sinner can quit drinking
But not for the same reason.
When we're saved, we can say with David; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
I don't know why you spent so much of this post making points I agree with, like this one.

Joshua Jenkins
Joshua Jenkins

what do you guys think of Dr. Thomas Constable's study notes/commentary?

sample:
lumina.bible.org/bible/Ephesians 2#constablesNotesHolder (right panel)

Attached: constable.jpg (49.15 KB, 354x490)

Justin Diaz
Justin Diaz

salvation is faith + works

wtf are you braindead mental cortortioninst going around thinknig you have a free lisence to sin as much as you want

paul was a false apostle and shouldnt be in the bible, please dont quote anything of paul, he literally says in 2nd corinthians that if you preach the jewish law you lose your salvation. john and matthew do contradict eachother…. i have no response to the contradicting nature of salvation of works by matthew and salvation of faith alone by john

matthew 19:16-17
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

matthew 7:22-23
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

im telling you, if you dont repent and stop sinning and have works you are going to be spat out
(USER WAS WARNED FOR HERESY AND RULE 2)

Ethan Long
Ethan Long

Hello Ahmed

Jackson Thomas
Jackson Thomas

*waves finder disapprovingly*

just a jew who accepts Christ and tries to follow the law, but nice try

maybe you should try calling me a fat ugly neckbeard virgin loser too, maybe that'll get me to shup up

Daniel Watson
Daniel Watson

No I didn't.
Aye hol up…

Me:
Read James 2:14-16 and you'll see the context
You:
Ok
<Can that faith save him?
<[James 2:18]

<Friend, you skipped right over the first part of verse 14 and the whole parts of 15-16.
No I didn't.
Yes, yes you did. Dude, the only part you quoted from James 2:14-16 was the last part of verse 14, then you jumped down to verse 18. You DID skip over the first part of verse 14 (which starts "What doth it profit") and all of 15-16. You objectively didn't even mention those despite my claim that therein lies the context.

You must point out somewhere in the passage where James singles out the listener, and focuses on him.
Verse 18, obviously. That's why I'm surprised you chose to include it. But also in verse 14 it already says "a man may SAY" so he isn't alone here. Verse 18 makes this explicit. It's one guy showing another his faith. So yeah if you were avoiding the context you should have skipped verse 18 also like most people do in addition to skipping verse 15-16.

So, merely evangelizing them?
As Jude 1:23 says, others save with fear. I'm justifying this here because to fear the Lord is a good thing. You were implying "instilling" fear of the Lord is bad and so the fear must be fear of your own inaction, rather than giving them legitimate fear of God.

Cameron Cox
Cameron Cox

Noice

youtu.be/Wh1VU-_OF98

Easton Roberts
Easton Roberts

my claim that therein lies the context
Why don't you go ahead and make an argument for that claim?
Verse 18, obviously
So we have James, and the person claiming to have faith apart from works… Which one is the listener?
But also in verse 14 it already says "a man may SAY" so he isn't alone here
Why did you choose to ignore what I said concerning that?
It's one guy showing another his faith
Yes, and that another is indefinite. It's not about anybody, because it's about anybody. There is no listener, this is about the person making the claim. They can exlaim it into a vacuum, it's still about them.
So yeah if you were avoiding the context you should have skipped verse 18 also like most people do
Might be a sign I wasn't avoiding the context

Robert James
Robert James

How much should I put in the offering plate?
Why is 10% so disputed?

Henry Carter
Henry Carter

I'm pretty sure the Bible says you should give 10%

Asher Jones
Asher Jones

Why don't you go ahead and make an argument for that claim?
Just pretending my point hasn't been made isn't an argument either.
Which one is the listener?
I already explained. Read it again. Why did you choose to ignore what I said concerning that?
I already answered. Read again from the part of the post that I quoted. I quoted when you wrote:
You must point out somewhere in the passage where James singles out the listener, and focuses on him.

See? I quoted that and wrote a response. I did not ignore it. So, making a person answer a question they already answered is not going to invalidate the answer you chose to ignore. You can't just keep asking for answers until you get one you like.

We've already established that not only did you skip over the relevant part of the passage, you then blatantly lied claiming you didn't skip over it by replying "No I didn't." Now you are blatantly claiming I didn't respond to your post. If this constant double-talk is meant to wear out the other person, then I can see that you're obviously not holding a conversation in good faith. Can't guarantee I'll keep replying.

Hunter Collins
Hunter Collins

Are you completely retarded?
Just pretending my point hasn't been made
Your point HASN'T been made, did you forget to make it?
I already explained
No you did not. That post does not explain which of the two characters is the listener.
I already answered
No you didn't. How is your reading comprehension this bad? 'that' refers to what I quoted
<But also in verse 14 it already says "a man may SAY" so he isn't alone here
So 'what I said" refers to this <Of course, this does not happen, because by "say he hath faith", he simply means any profession of faith whatsoever. If someone were to describe themselves as Christian on a facebook page, that would qualify. What James' point is by "say he hath faith" is to point out this faith is merely spoken. A man claims to have faith, but can't show anyone any proof of this.
This entire section was completely ignored.
See? I quoted that and wrote a response. I did not ignore it
Wrong
We've already established that not only did you skip over the relevant part of the passage, you then blatantly lied claiming you didn't skip over it by replying "No I didn't."
Are you just intellectually dishonest? I didn't skip over it, I found it irrelevant. Is it skipping over the context to quote just John 6:40 without quoting 22-39?

Attached: brainlet.png (74.68 KB, 645x729)

John Rodriguez
John Rodriguez

I would like to know what some interpretations of these two verses here are, which seem to talk about being saved by doing.

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. - James 2:12‭-‬13 KJV
<Saved by being merciful?

that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our LORD. - Romans 5:21 KJV
<Eternal life is by grace through right living?

Christian Ortiz
Christian Ortiz

Through Christ's righteousness, not ours

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Cameron Sanchez
Cameron Sanchez

Is it proper to take up a special offering when a foreign missionary visits your church?

Elijah Hall
Elijah Hall

I don't think it's a good idea.

If the church allocates funding to them in their budget, so be it, but I wouldn't put anything in a plate for them.

Luke Thompson
Luke Thompson

Do you mind if I ask what your reasoning is?
I'm asking because our missionary is visiting tomorrow, and I'm not sure whether I should put money in if they take up a special offering.

Wyatt Gomez
Wyatt Gomez

Our church prints update letters from missionaries in the bulletin. From what is described in these letters, very little soul winning is going on, which is what the primary task of missionaries should be. I'd rather not spend money supporting someone who's doing a poor job adding to the Lord.

Ryan Ramirez
Ryan Ramirez

I know. Right?

Cameron Robinson
Cameron Robinson

This famalam jam

Levi Davis
Levi Davis

My pastor calls Calvin a "great theologian". Should I start looking for another Church?

Easton Allen
Easton Allen

Yes, and quick.

Blake Phillips
Blake Phillips

Yes, a Reformed church that baptizes babies

Attached: reformer-frog-pepe.png (7.08 KB, 300x300)

Julian Reyes
Julian Reyes

Can a female baptise? I want to get baptised but our pastor is a woman (yea yea I know).

Caleb Hall
Caleb Hall

Why is baptising babies wrong?
Acts 16:33 implies it.

Henry Foster
Henry Foster

No, because it's true, even neo-orthodox Karl Barth understood Calvin's importance to theology.

Just because your pastor understands Calvin's importance doesn't mean he agrees with the fives TULIP points. Ask your pastor why he said what he said.

You should still pic related though tbqh fam

Attached: bgome-galvinist.jpg (23.08 KB, 660x517)

Alexander Moore
Alexander Moore

And no, Reformed Baptist don't baptize babies.

Bentley Mitchell
Bentley Mitchell

10% TBQH

Jack Hill
Jack Hill

No, you should read this though.

Attached: 51pt2DrJZVL.-SX326-BO1,204,203,200-.jpg (43.15 KB, 328x499)

Christopher Roberts
Christopher Roberts

No it doesn't. Do you have brain damage?

Gavin Cooper
Gavin Cooper

no sources

Attached: the-trouble-with-quotes-on-the-internet-is-that-you-29563445.png (49.11 KB, 500x300)

Oliver Sullivan
Oliver Sullivan

the table talks are not a source

Brandon Foster
Brandon Foster

Searches table talks by keywords and nothing found

searches Google and only claims with no reference

Really makes you think

Liam Richardson
Liam Richardson

"King Saul & the Old IFB"
youtu.be/FIGpF12snU4
"Feminism in light of the Bible"
youtu.be/ruFnghl4W6E

These links don’t work just a heads up

Oliver Stewart
Oliver Stewart

And besides even if he did think that, it was probably some left over catholicism. Hahaha

Adrian Morgan
Adrian Morgan

Is it a common thing for Baptists to not consider themselves protestants? I know that some say that they've basically been around since day one but is there historical evidence for that?

Asher Cooper
Asher Cooper

Independent Baptists do

The Bible

Christian Lee
Christian Lee

I guess I specifically mean the period afte the Bible took its final form to Thomas Helwys in England. History between 500-1600 AD.

Kevin Nguyen
Kevin Nguyen

I know there was pre-protestant reformation groups that believed close to what baptists and protetants do

Gavin Long
Gavin Long

seperation from God
Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
God is omnipresent. You will never be separated from him.

Liam Cox
Liam Cox

baptist discord server
discord gg/VkUGH5K

Caleb Kelly
Caleb Kelly

why are you lying there are only like 4 baptists in there and everyone else are roleplayers

Levi Hughes
Levi Hughes

The next verse states that his whole house were believing in God. So no, it doesn't imply this at all, It implies they all believed the word spoken in verse 32. Try to read things more thoroughly.

I guess I specifically mean the period afte the Bible took its final form to Thomas Helwys in England.
Well first of all, the Bible is the word of God. From the time it was first written and believed on, it was in its final form. Because God has said that his words will never pass away (Matthew 24:35), it means they never changed from that moment until now. Consider Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 119:152, 1 Peter 1:23-25, Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17.

So then the Bible took its final form as soon as its content became known: it is the word of God. Consider what it says in 2 Peter 1:19-21.

Now secondly, Helwys and Smyth were simply the first confessional Baptists, in other words the first people who tried to start a denomination. Independent churches believing as Baptists do, as found in Scripture have existed since the beginning. You found them spread out in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, England and Wales in the middle ages long before the confessional Baptists existed. Thomas Helwys isn't really the start of anything different, just another failed denomination, noteworthy for being the first in a long time not to sprinkle babies. The Anabaptists existed since before the Dark ages. They were mentioned by name in a law condemning them all to death in 413 AD. See Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6 (16.6.6). The law against Anabaptists was brought back in 529: see Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (1.6.2).

The Old Italic Bible was around in the extreme north of Italy since about 175 AD, it was a Latin Bible long before Jerome's corrupted Vulgate and it adhered to the received text of the Bible. This was actually one of the sources used in the making of the Geneva Bible 1560 in nearby Geneva, Switzerland. The Geneva Bible in turn became an early English predecessor of the KJV. It was referenced, along with the original sources of course.

Gavin White
Gavin White

I should also say that there were what you might call proto-denominations long before Smyth as well. Such as the "Swiss brethren" in 1523 whom the protestant Zwingli called "Catabaptists" and wrote a treatise debating them. You also had the Waldenses before that, Petrobrusians and other semi-political movements that may have had large numbers of anabaptists in them. Of course, their presence is generally downplayed by organized denominations, because denominations would like to claim everyone in the country as under them and believing exactly like they do.

Brayden Edwards
Brayden Edwards

his whole house were believing in God.
What about the children?

Hunter Murphy
Hunter Murphy

Acts 16:32-34
And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

believing in God with all his house.

Xavier Walker
Xavier Walker

In the Greek it says he believed and they all rejoiced

Dominic Moore
Dominic Moore

Probably Calvinists.

Jayden Hughes
Jayden Hughes

Actually it doesn't.

Brandon Barnes
Brandon Barnes

fixed

Attached: 2018-05-01-093552.png (42.8 KB, 745x1053)

Robert Long
Robert Long

Remove the "scripture" part from the catholic one then it's good

Levi Martinez
Levi Martinez

With the black bucket being either
what my (non ordain, non vetted) preacher told me one Sunday
My personal interpretation of the text (which is in an outdated vernacular I don't regularly speak)

So brave

Julian Gray
Julian Gray

biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/16-34.htm
pepisteukōs
having believed
Gender: Masculine
Number: Singular

Jose Martinez
Jose Martinez

I question your competency in both understanding that Greek sentence and in rendering it accurately in English. The Greek NT doesn't actually contain any of those English words that you have linked, it contains Greek words only.

Dominic James
Dominic James

muh catholic elders told me sodomites are the beloved children of God
muh catholic elders told me muslims have the same God as us
muh catholic elders told me we don't need to convert people
muh catholic elders told me atheists can go to heaven
muh catholic elders told me I can just pay money to forgive my temporal sins
muh catholic elders told me I should just listen to them and not read the Bible for myself

Attached: 3rxbvhy2jc9y.png (323.79 KB, 560x366)

Easton Lewis
Easton Lewis

So brave

Attached: 1436668992538.png (571.42 KB, 680x411)

Noah Young
Noah Young

Attached: poor-little-brainlet.jpg (6.88 KB, 216x233)

Brody Nguyen
Brody Nguyen

But you just replied to him when your image says not to

Attached: 2490582192493.jpg (57.69 KB, 800x652)

Carter Sanders
Carter Sanders

Plan Of Salvation(KJV)
youtu.be/BXMA4xOS5BY

You're a sinner and deserve Hell.
Romans 3:23
Romans 6:23
Revelation 20:14-15
Revelation 21:8

God loves you and Christ died for you.
Romans 5:8
2 Corinthians 5:21
Matthew 28:5-7

Saved by faith alone.
John 3:16
Acts 16:30-31
Ephesians 2:8-9

Once saved, always saved.
Romans 6:23
John 3:36
John 5:24

Still should avoid sin.
Hebrews 12:6

Call upon the name of the Lord.
Romans 10:9-10

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death;

Revelation 20:14-15
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Matthew 28:5-7
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Acts 16:30-31
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Hebrews 12:6
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

Romans 10:9-10
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Attached: D4C19A3D-E4F1-409B-AC23-0479FEEAFA3B.jpeg (42.61 KB, 254x489)

Jonathan Phillips
Jonathan Phillips

Attached: 59FFF94B-A552-445D-AF59-A453FA1793D6.jpeg (65.51 KB, 745x1053)

Brody Howard
Brody Howard

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.
Can I go to my local independent baptist church for this?

Cameron Young
Cameron Young

he thinks I'm Catholic
Lots o laffs friend, but actually I'm conservative Presbyterian. When someone asks
Why are you so rigorous with your standards for pastors?
Why have oversight and outside doctrinal accountability for your congregations?
Why is everyone here such a theology nerd?
It's because just look at what happens when you don't have those things, it just becomes a circus of plebs with the loudest blowhard as the ring leader. Pastor Vitamin K should be enough of an example of this. I'm not against Scripture Alone, but the way Baptists do it makes any fool with a pulpit a Pope unto himself.

Thomas Martin
Thomas Martin

Trickle down corruption. Drip drip my friend.

Sebastian Moore
Sebastian Moore

why are you using a picture of a bucket for the Baptists?

Jordan Johnson
Jordan Johnson

trickle down corruption boogie man
So oversight and qualification are bad because it might lead to corruption? Sure but it also means that standards can be put in place. As opposed to one man who has complete authority over a flock and no one can tell him if he's wrong? If I wanted that I'd look for a Pope. More like unchecked power, gush gush my friend.

Ethan Wright
Ethan Wright

So it can catch all the catholic tears

Christian Evans
Christian Evans

If I wanted a political party, that's probably what I would join. Where people can tussle for seats and all that.

Grayson Young
Grayson Young

what did he mean by this?

Lincoln Morales
Lincoln Morales

Hey I honestly don't want to be part of a liberal faction or a conservative faction trying to get changes into the standard. That's backwards. The Word of God is the only standard.

All your confessions and everything else is flawed and serves no purpose, they change often. I won't change with it— because that's politics. It is of the world. That's what I meant there.

Gabriel Cox
Gabriel Cox

no idols
Except their own ego it would seem.

Robert Evans
Robert Evans

Do you believe ministers should be able to believe whatever they want, including atheism?

Wyatt Hernandez
Wyatt Hernandez

They have to believe the word of God.

Gabriel Stewart
Gabriel Stewart

oops

Attached: Keesha01.png (218.75 KB, 475x460)

Nathaniel Jones
Nathaniel Jones

I've been a practicing and chrismated orthodox for a while now, and reading my bible more I think I start to understand more where baptist are coming from. Actually, I started feeling a kind of revulsion for the liturgy. You can say I jumped too fast into orthodoxy but I actually read a lot and it's easy to get caught up into intellectual justification. I rejected baptist and protestant mostly because it seemed to lack spirituality but now I realise how vain all the ceremony are…
Am I just wrong? I can't believe waving bells was part of primitive christians life. It seems it was so simple I passed by it and looked for something more complex. But now I realise God simply want us to turn back to him, believe in his only son, accept forgiveness and walk with him. All this is ofcourse part of orthodoxy, but what about all the fluff? Isn't praying all the time for mercy saying I don't believe Jesus saved us already? Isn't praying the Theotokos and saints implying that Jesus life wasn't enough? Where to go from now? I stopped going to church meetings and don't feel like going to church either. Yes its beautiful. Yes it is "spiritual". But what is a true christian faith? I seem everyday drawn more toward a baptist mindset… should I convert?

Attached: icon09-2.jpg (142.7 KB, 613x800)

Carter Young
Carter Young

Well first make sure you're saved
youtu.be/BXMA4xOS5BY

Then Read the KJV and go to an IFB church
militarygetsaved.tripod.com/findachurch0.html

Attached: 2A87F2C7-01DD-42BB-81B5-598F7A9A71A4.jpeg (96.94 KB, 500x497)

Joseph Hall
Joseph Hall

What the f**k, bapists?

the increasing acceptance of polyamory by progressives and (soon-to-be former) evangelicals is a symptom of the state of the church’s witness to God’s normative pattern for sexuality after Obergefell (the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples).
…whether pressured or free to come to terms with their accusers in the wider culture, these pastors and teachers have taken license with the biblical text to open up a path for LGBTQ and polyamorous persons into the church without confession and repentance of their sexual sin required by Jesus Christ.”
equip.org/pmr-podcast/episode-070-christian-polyamory/

Juan Bell
Juan Bell

You arent the only one that feels that way brother.

Attached: 06a.jpg (240.53 KB, 645x773)

Ayden Smith
Ayden Smith

What the winnie the pooh do I do? I feel like I'm betraying every one, including past saints. I received chrismation and was received by the church of these people, I chosed Seraphim of Sarov as my patron saint and now I just turn around and leave? If I mix up my judgement and orthodoxy is actually the true way, I'm winnie the poohed. Why is it so hard? Why do baptist teaching make so much sense? Only grace can save us and anything on our part is by grace also. Or else we boast of works which are not even of our hands. How can you claim that works saves? Why can't I confess to God directly? Why is it that these things of tradition arw justifies by maybe 1 or 2 verse, while baptist teaching has tons of verses and inter-reference? Is Orthodoxy and Catholicism really the religion of man, despite their FEEL of high spirituality? Is our idea of the sacred and the liturgy give us a false sense of God and his presence in it?

Attached: The-Futility-of-Man.jpg (473.66 KB, 2000x1026)

Anthony Collins
Anthony Collins

Okay okay. I don't want to turn this into a denom war - because it's a baptist thread and that's perfectly fine - but let me (I'm Catholic) ask you this (and I don't mean that in polemic way or as a bait or bantz): Do you believe that when the Lord offered His flesh and blood on the Cross - and as gifts in form of bread and wine at the last supper - do you believe that He did that and meant that ?
The Holy Mass - or in the Eastern case: the Divine Liturgy - is not just a fun ceremony like a concert. It's not pastime my friend. The Holy Mass is the celebration of the Sacrifice that the Lord made for us in order to be redeemed. The reason the Liturgy and Mass are as "fancy" (like you say) as they are is because we are with Christ. Literally. Bodily. He is present not only in the parish, he is present in the Holy Communion. It is Christ that you receive every Sunday (and every day you go to Mass and receive the most holy Eucharist).
Moreover, in the Mass, we're joining the heavenly choirs of angels to praise God who humiliates Himself again and again and again, infinitely often until He comes back, to be present in the most holy Eucharist to be with us, to commune with us, to strengthen us, because He is "the bread of life" - we're not just singing and having a snack. That is why everything is gold, everything is "fancy", everything is highly revering, everything is silent and everything is as it is in Catholic and orthodox churches.
When you're orthodox, then you well know about the tradition and why we do what we do. If you don't know that - and think you can jump to conclusions on your own (mind me, a pleb just like me) - then you should really get your butt up and have a talk with your confessor. Not that it's sinful in and of itself, but you lack a very important part - the most important part probably - of your catechesis - which is the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ on the Cross and His defeat of death, and our constant celebration of this Easter miracle that redeemed us.

Baptist teachings don't make sense. What you think makes sense is a line of argumentation that is comforting, because you can say "I read the Bible, it's in there, so it must be like it". That means you put faith in your own intellect and will, not God. See what I wrote above regarding your confessor.

Aiden Clark
Aiden Clark

In the last paragraph, I didn't mean that you somehow don't believe in God, very sorry for that. I mean putting too much faith in yourself so to speak, as in: relying on your own intellect to understand God's will etc.

James Howard
James Howard

My friend, I know how important the eucharist is and I believe it is His flesh and blood with all my heart. Which is why I feel so bad being drawn toward the denomination that lacks it. I guess it is only a shock, and I will only come back to the church even more informed and full of faith. I guess before I relied on my works thinking I could win my salvation when I understand it is all grace now. I guess it is my lack of knowledge that makes me see a lot of the things in the church as work or lack of faith in Christ's grace (ie praying our lady for intercession). I need to think more that's all. And you are right, it is thinking that I know more than all the fathers, which is pride.

Attached: repentance-.jpg (80.51 KB, 736x551)

Parker Nguyen
Parker Nguyen

What the winnie the pooh do I do?
Get. Saved.

Jason Richardson
Jason Richardson

That means you put faith in your own intellect and will, not God.
he doesn't know what the Holy Ghost is
Read Your King James Bible

1 John 2:27 King James Version (KJV)
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Gavin Moore
Gavin Moore

God ordered me to believe his word and take his word for truth. Part of that is the faith to believe that God can preserve his word down through all generations. Like he said he would. Another is to believe that only God can earn forgiveness of sins, like he said. I can never undo my sin, but the righteousness of the Son, Jesus Christ is able to make it right. I have to believe and know that is true because the Lord himself said it— and those words, that were once spoken, will never change.

John 14:16-17
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:13-14
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 Corinthians 2:9-13
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Luke 11:9-13
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Acts 5:32
And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

1 Thessalonians 1:5
For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Jacob Perry
Jacob Perry

uhh
Fail.

Nathan Jenkins
Nathan Jenkins

Does that entail only praying the sinner's prayer? Because that is already done. I know salvation comes from nothing but God's grace and it is a free gift I cannot earn. I do not rely on anything else anymore and with all my faith I rely on Jesus.

Attached: 4ad52889e89f43ea85c04394f064d527.jpg (161.97 KB, 564x1220)

Connor King
Connor King

If you called upon the name of the Lord and completely believe it's all faith and zero works then you're saved. Now you should get baptized, go to church, and read the Bible

Logan Smith
Logan Smith

Once saved, always saved.

Aaron Brown
Aaron Brown

Update: I become more and more convinced that orthodoxy and catholicism are preaching a false gospel.
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.
How can they reconcile this with literally the half hundred verses that state the contrary? What is the gospel for them, where is the good news? If Jesus accomplished nothing, that you still are condemn for all sins you commit, then everyone is damned. Why can a priest absolve me of my sin, but not the blood of Christ?
CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.
This canon contradict the whole book of romans. Orthodox are just as guilty, with their gospel of salvation through mysticism and good work.
Tbh I just wanna join a good biblical church by now but there is none near me because Canada is full of catholics.

Attached: st-francis-2-magnasco.jpg (74.14 KB, 262x645)

John Thomas
John Thomas

Tbh I just wanna join a good biblical church by now but there is none near me because Canada is full of catholics.
Then move.

Angel Ward
Angel Ward

How can they reconcile this with literally the half hundred verses that state the contrary?
They don't. They dismiss them as just their (or our) private interpretation, or otherwise dependent on the pope. This is why sola scriptura is so important, because without it that other authority you try to replace the bible with will require you to abandon the biblical gospel.
What is the gospel for them
That one must believe in Jesus (not because it brings His righteousness, but because to not is a mortal sin), be baptized (not as a sign of the covenant, but to be infused with saving grace which makes us actually righteous), keep the commandments (not as grateful obedience to a Savior, but to preserve the righteousness infused in baptism), partake the Eucharist (not as the reminder of salvation obtained by Christ, but as a sacrifice for sins), confess their sins (to a priest, for the recovery of the righteousness infused in baptism, lost or diminished in sin), and practice penance (to pay the temporal punishments obtained).
where is the good news?
I think it could hardly be called good news.
Tbh I just wanna join a good biblical church by now but there is none near me because Canada is full of catholics
If all you're looking for are Baptist churches try expanding your search to churches that are still bible believing but not Baptist.

Evan Edwards
Evan Edwards

churches that are still bible believing but not Baptist.
It would have to be KJV-using, and I don't know of many that aren't independent Baptist. In fact I don't know any. Even the SBC created their own gender-neutral translation lately.

Mention any English translation in use today other than the KJV and I will show you how and where it differs on major doctrine and is wrong. Here is a sample of some major differences in case you're curious.

Critical text (ESV, NIV, NASB, NLT, etc.):
Acts 8:37 removed or put in brackets
1 John 5:7 removed
Mark 16:9-20 put in brackets
Matthew 5:22 "without a cause" removed
Matthew 7:14 altered (ESV, NLT)
Matthew 18:11 removed (ESV, NIV)
In Mark 1:2 claims Malachi 3:1 is written "in the prophet Isaiah," when it is not.
Mark 10:24 changed
Luke 21:19 changed to works salvation
Luke 23:42 "Lord" removed
John 3:13 "which is in heaven" removed
John 9:4 "I must work" replaced with "we must work"
Romans 3:25 "through faith in his blood" removed
Galatians 4:7 "Christ" removed
Ephesians 3:9 "by Jesus Christ" removed
Colossians 1:14 removes "through his blood"
Colossians 2:2 "and of the Father" removed
2 Peter 1:21 "men spoke" or "humans spoke" instead of "holy men of God spake"

NKJV:
Romans 3:25 "through faith in his blood" removed
Acts 2:47, 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15 shifted to future tense "are being saved" instead of present tense "are saved." But yet neither Luke 13:23 or Revelation 21:24 have this change.
Hebrews 10:14 "are being sanctified" similar change
Matthew 7:14 "difficult" instead of "narrow"
1 Peter 3:3 altered ("merely")
Hebrews 2:16 completely changed
Titus 3:10 altered (compare Luke 12:51)
Genesis 22:17 plural "descendants" and "their enemies" (note Galatians 3:16)

WEB Translation:
Hebrews 2:16 completely changed
Proverbs 13:13, "will pay for it" instead of "shall be destroyed"
Isaiah 26:2 changed
Hebrews 11:6 "diligently" removed
1 Peter 3:3 altered
Psalm 27:14 changed
Matthew 7:14 altered, "How narrow […]" instead of "Because strait […]"
Luke 21:19 changed

YLT:
Alters the words used in Isaiah 26:2 and Psalm 100:5
Isaiah 29:18 changed to past tense
1 Kings 15:12 and elsewhere removes the word "sodomite"
John 6:47 rendered completely incoherent
Proverbs 11:21 rendered completely incoherent
Philippians 3:2 rendered completely incoherent
Philippians 3:3 "worship" changed to "serving"
Hebrews 11:6 "diligently" removed
Micah 5:2 "from antiquity" instead of "from everlasting"— lessens the deity of Christ

MEV:
Psalm 12:7 removes the words "for ever"
Psalm 60:4 changed completely
Luke 21:19 vaguely implies works salvation in this version
Philippians 2:6 misleading, lessening the deity of Christ by implying he didn't even grasp it
1 Timothy 3:16 changed "God was manifest" to "God was revealed"
Genesis 22:17 plural "their" enemies (note Galatians 3:16)

DRB, (also RSV, NRSV, see critical text):
Jesus Christ removed: 1 Corinthians 15:47
Ephesians 3:9
Christ removed: John 4:42
Romans 1:16
Galatians 4:7
God removed: 1 Timothy 3:16
1 John 4:3— "is come in the flesh" removed
1 John 5:13— second half removed
1 Corinthians 5:7— "sacrificed for us" removed
Adds extra sentence to Acts 15:34 (RSV/NRSV remove entire verse)
Revelation 14:1 changes "his Father's name" to "his name" (and see Revelation 14:11)

EOB:
Matthew 5:32 changed "fornication" to "sexual immorality"
Matthew 7:14 altered
Mark 16:9-20 separated from the gospel
Romans 11:6 cut in half (footnote)
Romans 16:25-27 moved to the end of Romans 14
2 Corinthians 12:21 "humble" changed to "humiliate"
Colossians 1:14 "through his blood" removed
Hebrews 1:8 altered, does not show the Father clearly speaking to the Son
Hebrews 11:6 "diligently" removed
1 Peter 3:3 "merely" added
1 John 5:7 brackets

KJV-2016
Matthew 5:32 changes "fornication" to "sexual immorality"
Matthew 5:39 changes "resist not evil" to "resist not a wicked person"
1 Peter 3:3 adds the word "only"
1 John 4:3 changes "is come" to "came"
Jude 1:7 changes "strange flesh" to "other flesh"

Andrew Walker
Andrew Walker

should I convert?
Everyone should begome babdisd

Easton Cox
Easton Cox

Unironically this

Nathaniel Richardson
Nathaniel Richardson

Orthodox are just as guilty, with their gospel of salvation through mysticism and good work.
For the billionth time, pelagianism has been condemned for 1800-1900 years.

This is why sola scriptura is so important, because without it that other authority you try to replace the bible with will require you to abandon the biblical gospel.
implying "bible-believing" churches aren't just as much a product of their history, traditions, and culture.
Remember how a lot of people talk about accepting Jesus as "Lord and Saviour"?
Where did such awkward phrasing come from?(and which sounds really weird in my language)
Well, it stems from something called the Lordship Salvation Controversy, which is an on-going dispute that has been going on since the 80's in evangelical circles over soteriology.
Kinda funny to see people that preach about the absolute certainty of salvation bicker for decades over who is saved and what even is salvation.
Or in my country, teetotalism is really popular, being a remnant of an american fad of absolute temperance believed to be the solution to creating a super-productive and moral society, filled with super-awesome people , that got stranded here after WW2, while it died out back home.

But i guess you can be excused.
You have not fought against the maddening doctrines of gnostics and others, nor have you struggled with the rise of apocryphas(and i mean real apocryphas, not nitpicking over english translations or being autistic about deuterocanonicals) to know important cleaving to antiquity is.

Attached: Traitor-Conclave-Erebus.jpg (209.31 KB, 459x359)

Noah Gonzalez
Noah Gonzalez

You have not fought against the maddening doctrines of gnostics and others,
That's what this whole "oral tradition" of Catholics is. It's the same as the Talmud of the pharisees. See Mark 7:7-13.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jonathan Torres
Jonathan Torres

pharisees
Funny thing people always forget is that, until the Crucifixion, their authority was legit:
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

His entire beef with the religious establishment was moral reform, not this autism(but then they rejected Him as a Messiah)

Also, a fun exercise:

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.(2 Timothy 3:8)

What's unique regarding this passage?

Chase Baker
Chase Baker

Im not Baptist, but why do Catholics think you hate Mary just because you dobt wanna pray to her or pray that she should pray for you?

Jacob Parker
Jacob Parker

What do you anons think about the site GotQuestions?

Levi Scott
Levi Scott

Lordship salvationism and calvinism. Avoid.

Isaac Bell
Isaac Bell

their authority was legit
Have you ever considered reading the Gospels?

Carter Sanchez
Carter Sanchez

tfw converted c*Tholic friend to begoming babdist

Noah Sullivan
Noah Sullivan

Attached: 493F04D6-32F6-45A5-BF7E-E947AF53BF35.png (158.01 KB, 657x1145)

Henry Nguyen
Henry Nguyen

what else do you take out of the whole "chair of Moses" thing, and "observe what they teach you, not what they do" thing?
Again, they rejected the Messiah, and then the Sanhedrin got smashed, so they lost all legitimacy in every way.

Ethan Nguyen
Ethan Nguyen

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.

Tyler Williams
Tyler Williams

His entire beef with the religious establishment was moral reform, not this autism
And did you read the rest of the passage or only this one bit? They are hellbound.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Jesus Christ told us to resist not evil. This would fall under that. They were one of the powers that be, under the Romans. But to imply that this is telling people to actually believe in the tradition of men would be saying Jesus told people to sin.

What's unique regarding this passage?
It says they are ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just as modern day works salvation is never able to find the truth but always left unsatisfied and questioning.

1 Timothy 4:1-3
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Cooper Lewis
Cooper Lewis

BASED

Michael Moore
Michael Moore

And did you read the rest of the passage or only this one bit? They are hellbound.
Well, yeah.
But they were because of excessive legalism, hypocrisy and evil deeds, and sealed their fate after Jesus's trial.
telling people to actually believe in the tradition of men would be saying Jesus told people to sin.
Again, you remind me of some teetotaler articles i read.
"It can't have been alcohol at the wedding, because drinking even a bit of booze is a sin, and Jesus wouldn't make people sin"
It's affirming the consequent.

Just as modern day works salvation is never able to find the truth but always left unsatisfied and questioning.
And so you twist every bible verse to support your theology and preconceptions.
But that's not what i was talking about.
Look at the names.
Where else do they appear?

Lincoln Mitchell
Lincoln Mitchell

Is there any Baptist here who isnt a Andersonite or KJV-onlyist?

Carter Jackson
Carter Jackson

If there's anyone not using the KJV they need to start using it.

Christopher Taylor
Christopher Taylor

Was an Andersonite but starting doing more reading into Church father's, real presence and read the KJV cover to cover; reformed baptist essentially is the church I attend.

Attached: elected-chuckle-lol-kek.png (584.56 KB, 688x418)

Adrian Jackson
Adrian Jackson

Why are you Baptists all so rude when arguing on here? More than any other denom, you guys resort to insults, slurs, and derision. Rebuking someone is one thing, saying someone is getting paid by homosexuals to spread lies is another.

Matthew Garcia
Matthew Garcia

Reformed
Baptist
That's an oxymoron, user. John Calvin would rightfully label all baptists as heretics.
u r hate baptist
I was raised a baptist.

Adrian Carter
Adrian Carter

I was raised catholic, and I realize it's an oxymoron but the meme protestant pope James White is a reformed baptist as well.
Been reading into Calvin and Luther about the real presence, my church feels pretty traditional but we don't beleive the real presence.
We even believe the warning if we go to the Lord's supper in a unworth manner, you can be cursed and even die as there as been documented cases.
I went fedora in cahtolic school, never knew any serious catholics growing up. Became baptist after watching pastor anderson; but the tradition needs to be there for Sola Scriptura, the bible didn't fall out of the sky.
I'm seriosuly looking into becoming Anglican or maybe going back home to Rome.
But I listening to the Orthodoxy and heterodoxy podcast as well, could give that a consideration.

Attached: ChadFundamentalist.png (332.32 KB, 680x473)

Justin Rogers
Justin Rogers

Been reading into Calvin and Luther about the real presence
They didn't believe the same thing
maybe going back home to Rome.
But I listening to the Orthodoxy and heterodoxy podcast as well
Read Galatians again

John Kelly
John Kelly

going to copy pasta this while thinking about this
How are you certain that you know what the passages in Galatians mean when they refer to “works of the law”? The fact is, brother, you are not simply reading the “clear teaching of the Bible.” You are interpreting the Bible *through the Lutheran theological and philosophical paradigm*, which brings you to certain conclusions about what passages mean. We all interpret the Bible through a paradigm, and we all have to be honest about that fact.

You keep telling us to look at context when it comes to Scripture. It is precisely because Luther *did not* carefully look at the context of Galatians that he misunderstood the passages about “the law.” He took “the law” to mean *any works* at all– meaning that, none of them can contribute to our justification before God. However, Luther was not looking at the *context* of these passages, which is that Jewish Christians were attempting to require Gentile Christians to be *circumcised*. This is primarily what is meant in Galatians by the statements that works of the law do not bring justification.

If one looks at the surrounding context, the references are to circumcision and other rituals of the Mosaic law, not to any and all works, peri0d. This does *not* mean that works, in and of themselves, justify though. They must be coupled with, and inspired by, the faith that trusts in God alone. Faith without works is dead, and by implication, works also need faith. Protestants misinterpret the situation being one of “Christians are justified by faith alone, while Catholics are trying to justify themselves before God by their works.”

In actuality, the Catholic teaching is the Biblical teaching. It’s not either faith or works, related to justification. It’s both/and. Faith alone does *not* justify man before God. Without works, it is *dead*. As a former Protestant, I know the explanati0n, “Well, James is talking about a different kind of justification than Paul.” The explanation does not hold water. It is a case of eisegesis in the service of holding together a Protestant paradigm.

what do bros?

Sebastian Fisher
Sebastian Fisher

youtu.be/sCkANfg9SgU

Justin Anderson
Justin Anderson

Begome gadolig again.

Attached: 2d012da31cf669c399bbd7c5f969f982dadd588dab46d5feb9e895a17d770e7a.png (129.38 KB, 500x383)

Jose Mitchell
Jose Mitchell

what do bros?
If you're asking for a refutation, I will gladly help
How are you certain that you know what the passages in Galatians mean when they refer to “works of the law”?
Quite certain.
The fact is, brother, you are not simply reading the “clear teaching of the Bible.” You are interpreting the Bible *through the Lutheran theological and philosophical paradigm*, which brings you to certain conclusions about what passages mean
This is false. My understanding of what works of the law means in Paul (Paul, not Galatians) is derived from the text. While he never explicitly defines the phrase, the surrounding context is sufficient. When interpreting the phrase, one musn't restrict themselves to Galatians, but look at all Pauline usage. Paul, being one author, is naturally consistent in how he uses terminology. In Romans 3 Paul says one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. But it must be noted that this is neither the first time works or law are mentioned. I posit that works of the law is not one phrase, but two conjoined, namely works and the law. To define the phrase therefore, we must define those two, which define it. There is no disjunction between the prior use and Romans 3, it is one consistent thought. The first mention of works is 2:6-8 "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury". It is not hard to see what work is being used to mean, it is deed, action, or most explicitly, exertion of human will. As for law, verses 13-14 say "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law", bearing in mind the consistency between this passage and the next chapter, does the law really mean Jewish ceremonies? Is Paul saying one will be justified by observing Jewish ceremony? Is he saying Gentiles naturally observe Jewish ceremony? Plainly not. But on the other hand, when he talks about works of the law, he is clearly talking about Jewish ceremony. How could this be? The law does not mean ceremonial law, or moral law, but the entire law of God, which includes ceremonial, moral and judicial. Therefore, works of the law means "actions done in accordance with the commandments of God". This is even more clear in Romans 4.
We all interpret the Bible through a paradigm, and we all have to be honest about that fact
The proper way to interpret the bible is to set aside our paradigms (traditions) and let the text speak for itself.

Carter Scott
Carter Scott

He took “the law” to mean *any works* at all– meaning that, none of them can contribute to our justification before God
Which, as above established, is right. It must also be noted that for any work to contribute to our justification before God, the sacrifice of Christ must be insufficient, and vain. Galatians 2:15-21
<We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ means that men can contribute absolutely nothing to their righteousness before God.
If one looks at the surrounding context, the references are to circumcision and other rituals of the Mosaic law, not to any and all works, peri0d
It must be asked what it is about Mosaic rituals which are so fantastic that to keep them makes Christ's sacrifice unnecessary?
They must be coupled with, and inspired by, the faith that trusts in God alone
This is a contradiction. Faith that trusts in God alone does not at the same time trust in human works to be saved. But that is because in a Roman Catholic context faith does not mean the same thing as it does in the bible. Faith is just another good work which one must have to merit eternal life, it isn't a pure trust which lays hold of Christ's righteousness, no, it is a righteous deed without which one is guilty of mortal sin.
In actuality, the Catholic teaching is the Biblical teaching
An author cannot argue against themselves. If Paul's arguments against the judaizers also apply to Catholics, Paul is not a Catholic, and they are under his anathema. Romans 4:3-5 "For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.' Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness". Notice first of all the impossibility of this being just about the Mosaic law, since the Mosaic law did not exist at the time in question. The pasta told us that one cannot be justified without works, but Paul says that faith without works is counted as righteousness. Paul's arguments apply to Romanism, because works consist in doing, and Rome requires us to do to be saved.
It’s not either faith or works, related to justification. It’s both/and
Begs the question of why Paul saw fit to pit them against each other if that were the case.
Faith alone does *not* justify man before God
Faith alone justifies the sinner because faith alone acquires the perfect righteousness without which nobody will be saved.
Without works, it is *dead*
James likens faith without works to a body without a spirit. A dead body may bear the name and the appearance of the person, but not the reality, since the person has moved on. Likewise, a faith which is merely claimed testifies to the falsehood of the claim, since God works in us both to will, and to work.
As a former Protestant, I know the explanati0n, “Well, James is talking about a different kind of justification than Paul.” The explanation does not hold water. It is a case of eisegesis in the service of holding together a Protestant paradigm.
A weighty charge which requires no less weighty exegesis which unfortunately is not provided.

Christian Turner
Christian Turner

Yes I've listened to this and about 30 other anderson sermons. But a clear reading will also include the "real presence" of Christ. Ultimately Sola Scriptura is wrong. In a world of objective truth, if two people read the same passages and both say they are endowed with the holy Spirit and come up with two different meanings, one is wrong or both.
I completely was on board with Pastor Anderson before as I thought anyone saved reading these scriptures would come to the same conclusions, but as I talk to more people who read the bible cover to cover, there are disagreements.
Anderson even in his refutation of Tyler Baker said that not any of the early church fathers thought God was just 1; trinity has always been. There has to be appeal to tradition, but we must make sure it is biblically sound.
On the apocrypha, Catholic theology makes a lot more sense if you have the 7 books.
If Pastor Anderson read 73 books, I'm sure he come with more catholic teachings.
The Bible I agree is the supreme authority, but the authorship and preservation has to be kept. That's why I also was a KJV only (still am although the case with apocrphya is convincing)
shamelesspopery.com/did-the-protestant-bible-exist-before-the-reformation/
I used these same arguments before as well
Pastor anderson is a great man, who takes things to the logical conclusion, no white-washing. But i feel I may be returning home to Rome. On OSAS, I agree, a truely saved person will preserve till the end in whatever form that may be. Pastor Anderson would say Tyler Baker was never truely saved; same thing Calvin would say or a Catholic would say. God will forgive all sin if we ask is the blessed assurance we have.
I will take my deep study of the Bible, soul-winning with me and marching to Zion knowledge with me

Attached: Baptist-tricks.png (127.94 KB, 365x343)

Adam Anderson
Adam Anderson

In a world of objective truth, if two people read the same passages and both say they are endowed with the holy Spirit and come up with two different meanings, one is wrong or both.
But what does that have to do with sola scriptura?
but as I talk to more people who read the bible cover to cover, there are disagreements.
The reason there are so many disagreements over what the bible means is most people pick and choose what they want to believe out of the bible.
The Bible I agree is the supreme authority
You can't believe that as a Roman Catholic
On OSAS, I agree, a truely saved person will preserve till the end in whatever form that may be
You can't believe that as a Roman Catholic
or a Catholic would say
Catholic is prohibited on pain of anathema from saying that, Council of Trent session 6 canon 23 "lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema."

It seems you are rather ignorant of Roman teaching. I think this documentary can help you

Gavin Kelly
Gavin Kelly

Where should I buy a bible guys? Is Amazon good enough?

Logan Sanchez
Logan Sanchez

Amazon good enough?
Save some money and just go to any thrift store

Joseph Evans
Joseph Evans

Too late. It was only $7 luckily.

Asher Jackson
Asher Jackson

I know the explanati0n, “Well, James is talking about a different kind of justification than Paul.” The explanation does not hold water.
Have you read Romans 4? Did you notice where it says in verse 2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

And did you see how Romans 4 continues on to explain how justification by works cannot stand in for faith, before God? Yet the concept of justification by works is clearly mentioned in this verse, and you may be wondering what purpose it might have. Well, that is where James 2:14-26 is relevant. Because there it explains how, you can profit others who have no faith. Justification before man is what imparts faith unto other people.

There is more scripture on this. See for instance the distinction in 1 Corinthians 4:1-4.

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

It starts off the statement here, let a MAN so account of us, and moreover that it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful. Found faithful? Yes, like James 2:14-26 explains. So then we ought to be found faithful exactly like that. But the next two verses in 1 Corinthians 4 continues.

<Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

So we see that man's judgement is not ultimately justification before the Lord. These are two distinct kinds of justification. Justification before man is what profits the man seeing the works, but let no man glory in their works before God, because justification by faith is what God requires.

Carson Reed
Carson Reed

Justification before man is what imparts faith unto other people.
And when I say that, I am talking with the understanding that only the saved person is able to accomplish this, because only good fruit can bring forth after itself. Also, you must have the word of God to do it, because as it says in Romans 10:17, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Isaiah Scott
Isaiah Scott

Why did you reply to me?
My post was mysteriously (((deleted))), so I'll just repost the important bit, which is this documentary. The jist of my post was that you don't understand Rome, and you would not in fact be able to believe in things like OSAS as a Roman Catholic. Vid related should help, it's worth the time

Lincoln Kelly
Lincoln Kelly

I was working on my laptop at a local (Catholic owned and operated, fwiw) coffee shop, when I overheard a group of four or five young people in their twenties discussing the plot of Far Cry 5 (which I haven't played).

They were essentially circlejerking about how harmful and dangerous organized religion is, and how the objective of "their generation" should be to root out bigotry and fundamentalism from their communities. It was honestly a little chilling, as they seemed to be well put-together and respectable members of society.

They specifically named the pastor of an IFB church in town - I'm not a member of a Baptist church, but I know the pastor, and I know that he has a kind, gentle spirit, a passion for the Gospel, and a desire to love the sinner but hate the sin.

I wonder how much, intentionally or not, media that presents distorted pictures of Christianity through the lens of fringe doomsday cults will cause harm for future generations of faithful Christians.

Attached: music-of-far-cry-5-dan-romer-head-720x720.jpg (57.43 KB, 720x480)

Juan Russell
Juan Russell

Well, if they're really swayed to root out bigotry, and fundamentalism. Just from playing far cry, then they never had any real grounded world beliefs. It's literally normie tier, people who make up their world views from Hollywood, video games, mainstream media etc. And part of this, is partly just as to how dumb downed western society has become. People seriously need to stop getting world views from the mainstream media, it's entirely cancerous. Also Coffee…….Shop, i know you said this was catholic owned shop, but still this is sjw centeral, fedora hang out central generally speaking, so i wouldn't take it to heart to much. Literally think about it dude, their basing their whole world view on just what mainstream culture tells them, a video game tells them, either that or they had an emotional knee jerk reaction to what they saw ingame. Don't get to bogged down in this stuff man, can't help people that aren't willing to listen. Sounds like their ingrained in fundamentalism themselves. I love vidya's too, but sometimes pic related is good also :/

Attached: 9000.jpg (31.01 KB, 400x600)

Grayson Young
Grayson Young

inb4 the papist Mods bawlete this thread out of "fairness" for the caths

Attached: download-(24).jpg (15.69 KB, 297x170)

Ryan Price
Ryan Price

inb4 the papist Mods bawlete this thread out of "fairness" for the caths
:p

Attached: download-(24).jpg (15.69 KB, 297x170)

Blake Gonzalez
Blake Gonzalez

Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the Fourth, XV Chapter, p.215
IV. What has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity,–the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast; a crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out; for if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.
I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate, in this respect, the delicacy of our English law, which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named: "peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum." (k) A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans :(l) "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis pænis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt rei." Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.
This the voice of nature and of reason and the express law of God(m) determined to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance long before the Jewish dispensation by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven; so that this is a universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our antient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burned to death,(n) though Fleta(o) says they should be buried alive; either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the antient Goths.(p) But now the general punishment of all felonies is the same, namely, by hanging; and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made felony without benefit of clergy by statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6, revived and confirmed by 5 Eliz c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et consentientes pari pæna plectantur.(q)

Ethan Diaz
Ethan Diaz

Why do Baptists wish to use the Lord? Why do you feel satisfied that your salvation should involve no effort on your part. Monks on Mt. Athos are being challenged by demons and you are going around with a salvation voucher? What is wrong with this picture?

Isaac Bennett
Isaac Bennett

kinda scared to go to the local ifb church what would a rather small church think about a rather autistic 25 year old kid showing up one sunday how should i act and is it normal to go to the bible study before the service

Carter Gonzalez
Carter Gonzalez

For your first time go with a friend or parent

Eli Clark
Eli Clark

don't have any christian friends and I don't live near any family

Matthew Cruz
Matthew Cruz

Why do these monks use vain repetitions to contact God? God can already hear you when you pray, no need to call out his name every 2 seconds. That gets annoying.

Attached: maxresdefault-(12).jpg (26.26 KB, 1280x720)

Mason Gray
Mason Gray

Why do these monks use vain repetitions to contact God?
Because they are weak and the Lord's name gives them strength to combat our fallen nature.

God can already hear you when you pray, no need to call out his name every 2 seconds
God surely can, God does not need that. They need that.

Buy the way, the Apostles recommend or even order that prayer practice several times.

Rejoice at all times. 1 Thessalonians 5:17

Pray in the Spirit at all times, with every kind of prayer and petition. To this end, stay alert with all perseverance in your prayers for all the saints. Ephesians 6:18

Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving Colossians 4:2

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. Matthew 11:12

Justin Perez
Justin Perez

At my church people just typically show up to service. You should be happily welcomed. Just go and worship the Lord with gladness

Adam Lopez
Adam Lopez

Same boat my man.
I haven't been to church (born and raised RCC) in a while until I started watching Anderson online and got the urge to visit an IFB church.
Luckily found one that wasn't far from home and went this past Sunday.
Best decision I've made in a long time.
Everyone was super welcoming and friendly, I was singing along with the hymns and had a blast (I've NEVER sang in public let alone church btw).
The pastor was great, loved the sermon, and drove home feeling like a million dollars.

My question though to others is when would it be appropriate to ask the pastor about baptism?

I'm definitely going back next Sunday.

Brandon Bailey
Brandon Bailey

Just do it. I did, but recently had to leave due to the pastor believing some wrong things I couldn't get past. Still, attending it for the while I did was a net positive.

baptism
Yes. Also, Baptismal classes, which some Churches have, are not scriptural (Acts 8:37).

Josiah Cruz
Josiah Cruz

the Apostles recommend or even order that prayer practice several times.
Sure, but also don't use vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. See Matthew 6:5-7. Vain repetitions involve much speaking, but prayer does not necessarily involve any speaking. If you want to follow 1 Thessalonians 5:17, you will have to pray silently at least some of the time. Hope that makes sense.

Jeremiah Murphy
Jeremiah Murphy

Matthew 18:18
"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
get into discussion with pastor about the meaning of this verse and how the Catholic church uses it to justify using confession as a pretext to get into heaven
What did He mean by this? I'd like to have your guys' inputs to bring them up as points when I go to discuss with my pastor again.

Attached: 62409e65f7fc2dc8724abb99276e04f15c33fb3f09c98984750ce028c8325493.png (50.9 KB, 325x198)

Kevin Foster
Kevin Foster

Sure, that's talking about church discipline. A proper church follows its leadership when it comes to deciding the case of whether someone needs to be removed from fellowship. Whatever the pastor says is final and it applies to the whole church. That's what all of these references are talking about.

Owen Cruz
Owen Cruz

I noticed that it had to be connected to the context around it (Church discipline), but I'm still having trouble finding a connection between "bound/loosed in heaven" and witnessing to a sinning church member. I'd assume the Catholics correlate the sinner as that which is bound/loosed on earth; and therefor they're bound/loosed in heaven by the choice of whoever is witnessing to them.
I suppose one may interpret this as whosoever will not listen to his brothers, not repenting for their sin, will not go to heaven. Wherefore someone may loose another, not by his own choice, but the choice of the unrepentant sinner.
Maybe I'm just rambling, but I'd like your thought on this perspective.

James Brown
James Brown

Either rewards for works. Or it's that you getting people saved, not you forving people of their sins but showing them how you get saved

Josiah Torres
Josiah Torres

Well Matthew 18 does an excellent job of connecting this with church discipline. I would look more to Matthew 18 to help explain the other instances of "bound/loosed in heaven." Don't turn down a perfectly good explanation when it's given to you.

Justin Edwards
Justin Edwards

I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean by yes.
Is there a "too soon" period of joining a new church before asking for a baptism or is anytime fine?
I just started this past Sunday and plan on at least asking the pastor about it this coming Sunday but wasn't sure if it would be innapropriate or not.

Carson Phillips
Carson Phillips

I would definitely ask the pastor on that. Every believer is expected to undergo their baptism as soon as possible, so I would not expect there to be any artificial "too soon" period or anything like that.

The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. Is. 60:19

Asher Ward
Asher Ward

I am an IFB Baptist but after months of reading material on church history and the Bible without my pastor's guidance and Anderson's influence, I am convinced that IFB teachings are wrong and staunchly unbiblical.

1)The Bible denies OSAS, plainly clear when Paul wrote how Grace has no effect onto the Galatians who were Baptized into Christ. John's statements of Assurance easily ties to the reliability of Christ, not on the condition of a one time faith.

2)The Greek for "faith" is shown to include a dimension wider than a one time belief in Biblical use. It entails faithfulness and allegience.

3)The Church Fathers never have the extreme Solo Scripture methodology. They constantly emphasize unity and have a high view of the church.

4)The evidence from early Christianity indicates that they are idol worshippers since they use images and pray to saints and for the dead.

5)The Fathers' unanimous of OSAS and Irenaeus mention of Valentinians holding on to that makes me uncomfortable.

6)The early Christians are realists on the Sacraments. Contra the mere symbolist approach of IFB

7)Scripture and even Protestant Bible commentaries agree that the Eucharist is more than a bare symbol. The space where it takes place is a sacred area where it is really Jesus who presides and offers the meal. Through the meal one participates in His sacrifice and not in a mere "I remember" way that IFB does

8)There is difficulty in downplaying warning and judgement passages throughout Scripture.

9)Early church evidence shows that Simon Magus is a heretic who deceived many. Yet to Pastor Anderson, he is saved!

Jaxon Russell
Jaxon Russell

*the fathers unanimous rejection of OSAS

Isaac Foster
Isaac Foster

1)The Bible denies OSAS, plainly clear when Paul wrote how Grace has no effect onto the Galatians who were Baptized into Christ. John's statements of Assurance easily ties to the reliability of Christ, not on the condition of a one time faith.
I'm pretty sure almost all of Galatians is about people thinking you had to follow the law to be saved. I f you think you had to follow the law then you weren't ever saved

2)The Greek for "faith" is shown to include a dimension wider than a one time belief in Biblical use. It entails faithfulness and
Thou fool. The Bible literally gives the difinition
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

3)The Church Fathers never have the extreme Solo Scripture methodology. They constantly emphasize unity and have a high view of the church.
traditions of men
dropped

4)The evidence from early Christianity indicates that they are idol worshippers since they use images and pray to saints and for the dead.
traditions of men
dropped

5)The Fathers' unanimous of OSAS and Irenaeus mention of Valentinians holding on to that makes me uncomfortable.
traditions of men
dropped

6)The early Christians are realists on the Sacraments. Contra the mere symbolist approach of IFB
traditions of men
dropped

7)Scripture and even Protestant Bible commentaries agree that the Eucharist is more than a bare symbol. The space where it takes place is a sacred area where it is really Jesus who presides and offers the meal. Through the meal one participates in His sacrifice and not in a mere "I remember" way that IFB does
sripture
no
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Uou're like Nicodemus that thought he had to crawl back into his mother's womb
Protestant Bible commentaries
Most prots do not believe that and even if they did that would still prove nothing

8)There is difficulty in downplaying warning and judgement passages throughout Scripture.
Explain

9)Early church evidence shows that Simon Magus is a heretic who deceived many. Yet to Pastor Anderson, he is saved!
traditions of the elders
t. pharisee

Elijah Bennett
Elijah Bennett

I am an IFB Baptist but after months of reading material on church history and the Bible without my pastor's guidance and Anderson's influence, I am convinced that IFB teachings are wrong and staunchly unbiblical.
That is good, however, it looks like you have worryingly replaced that bad influence with a bad Catholic influence.
The Bible denies OSAS, plainly clear when Paul wrote how Grace has no effect onto the Galatians who were Baptized into Christ
To be sure no apostate can be considered a Christian, but this does not mean they were at a point. Paul never says they had been truly justified and then lost that rightstanding with God and now must give some good deed to rectify the problem. That would undermine his whole point in the epistle about the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.
John's statements of Assurance easily ties to the reliability of Christ, not on the condition of a one time faith.
Absolutely, but how false that is if Christ's benefit can be lost. How reliable a savior is that, if He can "save" me, yet I still wind up in hell?
It entails faithfulness and allegience.
That depends on what you mean. If by faithfulness you mean it connotes the performance of some action, that is contradicted by the consistent contradistinction in scripture between faith and works. If by allegiance you mean a dedication or devotion of the heart, that is more repentance unto life. When scripture talks about the faith by which we are saved, it fundamentally speaks of trust in Christ alone as savior, such as which moves one to cry out "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"
The evidence from early Christianity indicates that they are idol worshippers since they use images and pray to saints and for the dead.
Are you saying this justifies idolatry? Or that because of an archeological find here and there with disputable dating that all who called themselves Christians did this, or that it was accepted or promoted by the true churches, and not rather relegated to the fringes, a consequence of folk religion being forced to merge with Christianity?
There is difficulty in downplaying warning and judgement passages throughout Scripture.
It is not really hard to distinguish between reading an interpretation into scripture and driving one's interpretation from it. It's simple really, what does it say? What does it actually say? Do the warnings say "you are right now truly right with God, and if you perform these bad works you will stop being right with God and again fall under His wrath"? Not in my bible it doesn't.

Hunter Carter
Hunter Carter

Galatians explicitly states that Grace have no affect onto them and what they experienced are all for nothing. Remember, I am not necessarily arguing against sola fide here. Only OSAS which many sola fideists can easily reject. You did not explain how OSAS is consistent with the language used by Paul in that letter. Saying "muh law" does not work.

Second, your definition of "pistis" neglects Biblical use. BDAG lexicon used by NT scholars makes it clear the dimension of faith when used throughout Scripture encompasses more than mere belief. It can mean "faithfulness" and allegience as I will show later. The verse you provide also shows nothing that implies the IFB definition. Saying faith is a belief in things unseen doesnt tell us that all is needed is a brief second belief and bam! saved. It just highlights a trait of faith that is trust.

Using John 6 to argue against the Eucharist fails, as it is accepted in NT scholarship that John alludes to the Eucharist. This makes sense when nowhere is the Eucharist mentioned in John but the other Gospels mentioned it. The best explanation for this is that John uses it to explain faith. This has implications as the Eucharist is now part of faith as it illustrates it.

Joseph Evans
Joseph Evans

1)You did not account for Paul's language in Galatians. He refers to those already Baptized and even had spiritual experiences. So he regards their experiences of the Spirit and even their own initiation as genuine. Only a view that accepts that one who lacks faith or slips can fall away explains the language Paul uses. Had your view be correct, Paul would instead point out they were never saved to begin with, not appeal to their experience of Grace.

2)If someone falls away it isnt the fault of Christ but the fault of the person. So your point misrepresent indeterminists on the issue.

3)A dedication and devotion of the heart already entails action. So your own point here is incoherent. As you deny acts of works as part of faith. Yet you include those as it.

4)Your attempt to reduce the significance of archeological findings is void, as ask anyone who is familiar with early Christian studies will tell you that things like these illuminate our understanding on it. Plus, if these are false, it would be spoken out against by the church fathers, which none do. In fact some even allude to the practice. Martyrdom of Polycarp references martyr veneration, Didascallia refers to prayer for the dead and celebrating eucharist at martyr graves, Hippolytus uses rhetorical techniques intended to make the listeners and readers feel present at the events narrated in Scripture and Ignatius refers to honouring the Apostles by honouring the Presbyters a same logic used to honour the fathers by the Bishops. So downplaying the archeological evidence is simply sweeping away what you dont like.

5)Warning passages which are plenty in Hebrews and reference to judgement cannot be downplayed. You havent shown how your view is consistent with Scripture

Wyatt Clark
Wyatt Clark

Attached: Screenshot-20180420-032545.png (642.35 KB, 1080x1920)
Attached: Screenshot-20180420-040207.png (616.39 KB, 1080x1920)

Thomas Nelson
Thomas Nelson

Attached: Screenshot-20180420-040216.png (671.78 KB, 1080x1920)

Jackson Gutierrez
Jackson Gutierrez

Attached: Screenshot-20180420-040227.png (626.6 KB, 1080x1920)

Levi Cox
Levi Cox

Is this supposed to be some kind of authority to us? You realize how kiked (((modern scholarship))) is? Not to mention Jesuitized?

Anyway, I guess when it says "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence" that is talking about "the universal husband," as if there is only one husband in the world. Namely THE husband. Man, how am I so blind until now?

Oh wait a sec, let me open my Bible really quick—

Psalm 22:22
I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Hebrews 2:12
Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

David Allen
David Allen

Here's a question, are you knowledgable in Koine Greek and how individual words are used throughout literature to discern what they mean?

If not you are being holier than thou to those that actually spend their whole lives doing this and are credible authorities on the subject.

Alexander Myers
Alexander Myers

If not you are being holier than thou to those that actually spend their whole lives doing this
Doing what exactly?

Charles Rodriguez
Charles Rodriguez

Boasting yourself as knowing the original language of Scripture without actually spending time learning and comparing it with the various literary use of the words as those who make Lexicons for the sake of making life easier for everyone does.

Carter Turner
Carter Turner

I mean they are spending their whole lives doing what exactly?

Anyway, If you sincerely put your trust in modern scholarship, I'm not sure what else to say. They don't believe in the preservation of Scripture, so they get no currency with me. Westcott and Hort were intellectually dishonest and willful corruptors and everyone following in their footsteps should actually recognize that, instead of compounding the error, mix & matching their own critical texts and also redefining words at will to bring it in line with sociological "advancements" and gender theory. I could say more but the point is made.

Cameron Brooks
Cameron Brooks

Yes. Because those like Kruger, Kostenburger, C.E Hill, Hutardo(who literally made a book showing how Christians differ from Pagans), Peter T O'Brien…etc are all liberals despite being conservative in their approach, dont bother with progressive liberalism and pretty much accept using the BDAG lexicon I provided, despite most of them being conservative Prots

Austin Price
Austin Price

He refers to those already Baptized
Baptism is not equal to justification.
even had spiritual experiences
Where do the words "spiritual experiences" appear?
So he regards their experiences of the Spirit and even their own initiation as genuine
If you're claiming he asserted knowledge that they had been justified, not only did he not actually do that at any point (remember what I said about reading in and driving from), but it would contradict actual, explicit biblical teaching.
Only a view that accepts that one who lacks faith or slips can fall away explains the language Paul uses. Had your view be correct, Paul would instead point out they were never saved to begin with, not appeal to their experience of Grace.
Paul appealed to neither. I find myself increasingly disinterested in arguments based on what scripture "should" say "if", or what scripture "could" say. The Arians make similar arguments. No, I am interested in what scripture actually does say, and what does Galatians say? What Paul actually appeals to is the impossibility of grace in the judaizing system and the perfection of Christ in Himself.
If someone falls away it isnt the fault of Christ but the fault of the person
To attempt something and not succeed is the very definition of failure. If Christ seeks to save me, and I thwart Him, He failed. It doesn't matter what caused the failure, it is still failure. But I was pointing out the unreliability of a savior who fails. If He couldn't save them, why should I believe He can save me?
A dedication and devotion of the heart already entails action. So your own point here is incoherent. As you deny acts of works as part of faith. Yet you include those as it.
I don't think my point was incoherent so much as you failed to grasp it. So I will neglect a response since you clearly didn't understand me.
Your attempt to reduce the significance of archeological findings is void, as ask anyone who is familiar with early Christian studies will tell you that things like these illuminate our understanding on it
If we find a scrap of papyrus with a prayer to Mary on it, that does not tell us whose it was.
Plus, if these are false, it would be spoken out against by the church fathers
What makes you think we know everything they ever said? What makes you think we don't have some speaking against it (if I cite one of the texts I have in mind, you will simply repeat the standard reply that veneration is not worship, thereby evading any point I might make, even though it simply reads your position into them and ignores what they actually say)? Here's my question, if those things represented their devotion, why isn't it reflected in their writings?
Martyrdom of Polycarp references martyr veneration
When it talks about adoring Christ but loving the martyrs, it's important not to commit anachronism and read the later latria-dulia distinction into it. When they receive his bones, it does not describe either showing or intending to show worship to them, but they place his bones aside to teach future believers a lesson about martyrdom.
Hippolytus uses rhetorical techniques intended to make the listeners and readers feel present at the events narrated in Scripture
Don't know what that's supposed to prove
Ignatius refers to honouring the Apostles by honouring the Presbyters a same logic used to honour the fathers by the Bishops
And that also seems totally irrelevant
Warning passages which are plenty in Hebrews and reference to judgement cannot be downplayed. You havent shown how your view is consistent with Scripture
And you haven't made an argument.

David Young
David Young

Luther's addition of the word "alone" in vs. 28 is hard to contest linguistically

Attached: think.gif (493.72 KB, 1080x1080)

Camden Clark
Camden Clark

1)This contradicts the notion that Baptism into Christ "puts Him on", which must clearly be part of the process of Salvation. In fact in Acts, when those that saw the disciples preaching at Pentecost asked how they can receive that Spirit, Peter answered that one must believe and be Baptized. In 2Peter, we get a description of the Flood of Noah as a type of Baptism which through the waters, those in the Ark are Saved. Baptism in that context provides the good conscience of appeal before God. Even the Calvinist, Douglas Moo agrees that when Paul refers to being buried with Christ in Romans, he is in fact speaking of union with Christ, which takes place at Baptism.

2)As Richard Longenecker(Evangelical) notes in his commentary on Galatians, the "sufferings" that the Galatians went through can also refer to the experiences of the Spirit they have. This is not surprising considering Paul also says that they have "tasted the Spirit". It cannot be the usual Calvinist explanation that God allows some reprobates to have a taste of faith and then let them fall away. Otherwise it is nonsensical for Paul to treat their spiritual experiences as legit. Saying this contradicts the Gospel fails, as it only contradicts a specific interpretation.

3)Because I fell away, it is I who is at fault, not Christ who offers His gift freely and without merit. To follow your view is to end up with the conclusion that God commits evil, as if Salvation is completely monegenic, than Reprobation must also be even if Calvinists deny this, their own explanations entail it as such acts are embedded deterministically as part of God's plan. Not just permission or using those evil to the end of Good but in fact authoring them as an author writes events in a Novel that end up attrocious.

4)Your response is incoherent because it includes human action in "faith" but you deny this as faith, evident in your reference to the personal devotion of the believer.

5)Except as I shown, the written record testifies to these things as well and we know that the fathers address the big heresies of their days. But none addressing Christian veneration of martyrs or prayer for and even to the dead are ever referred to at all. So this is simply an argument from silence. Silence is not a compelling argument, which is why I made note of written documents.

6)Your statement on the Martyrdom of Polycarp is inadequate and is eisegesis of the text. No Reformed ever say the remains of saints or martyrs are so precious they are gold. No Reformed ever say that one wants to possess the remains of martyrs to have "fellowship" with them and none ever say that it is ok to wanna touch the Martyr on the verge of their martyrdom, as Martyrdom of Polycarp does. So your own standard fails here, as the respect shown to martyrs exceeds how any Protestant would be comfortable with. When Calvinists want to be "possessors" of Calvin's remains to have fellowship with him, be obsessed with wanting to touch John Piper's or RC Sproul's skin, or treat the remains of Calvin and Sproul as jewels, then you can make your claim. Otherwise it is simply eisegesis you are doing.

Evan Gomez
Evan Gomez

7) This shows a lack of familiarity with ancient rhetoric, which part of includes being able to make the hearer "see" and experience that which the rhetor does. This is why ekphrasis is a thing and there are concerns that rhetors can go mad because of such a focus. Unfortunately for you, that focus which Hippolytus demonstrates, entails him making the drama of Scripture "present" and him conversing with its characters as if they are there. That is not how IFB or Reformed go about exegeting Scripture at all.

8)It is relevant because it shows that Ignatius is aware of honouring the Apostles, who are part of a Heavenly council. And this is not my assessment, it's an assessment by Charles E Hill who is a Reformed. That conception of the Apostle's role and having to honour them by honouring the presbyter as a "type" of them focuses on the active and transendent authority they exercise which further amplifies their veneration.

9)No argument is given because no points are provided.

Samuel Murphy
Samuel Murphy

This, then, was carried into effect with greater speed than it was spoken, the multitudes immediately gathering together wood and fagots out of the shops and baths; the Jews especially, according to custom, eagerly assisting them in it. And when the funeral pile was ready, Polycarp, laying aside all his garments, and loosing his girdle, sought also to take off his sandals,—a thing he was not accustomed to do, inasmuch as every one of the faithful was always eager who should first touch his skin. For, on account of his holy life,454 he was, even before his martyrdom, adorned455 with every kind of good. Immediately then they surrounded him with those substances which had been prepared for the funeral pile.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xiii.html

Can Reformed and Baptists accept this practice? If yes, Show me an example from any of your literature that approves of such a frenzied display of affection.

But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive463 nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors464 of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, “lest,” said he, “forsaking Him 43that was crucified, they begin to worship this one.”

Note 464: The Greek, literally translated, is, “and to have fellowship with his holy flesh.”

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvii.html

Do Reformed and Baptists consider the flesh of Calvin, Sproul or Turretin to be holy and to have fellowship with them when they touch it?

Gavin Carter
Gavin Carter

The centurion then, seeing the strife excited by the Jews, placed the body468 in the midst of the fire, and consumed it. Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified469 than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary470 of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course,471and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xviii.html

Do Baptists and Reformed consider the remains of Calvin and Sproul to be as valuable as gold and jewels? Show me such a treatment from your literature.

From the Disascalia dated 230AD:

[vi. 22] Wherefore, beloved, flee and avoid such observances: for you have received release, that you should no more bind yourselves; and do not load yourselves again with that which [[252]] our Lord and Saviour has lifted from you. And do not observe these things, nor think them uncleanness; and do not refrain yourselves on their account, nor seek after sprinklings, or baptisms, or purification for these things. For in the Second Legislation, if one touch a dead man or a tomb, he is baptized; but do you, according to the Gospel and according to the power of the Holy Spirit, come together even in the cemeteries, and read the holy Scriptures, and without demur perform your ministry and your supplication to God; and offer an acceptable Eucharist, the likeness of the royal body of Christ, both in your congregations and in (p. 119) your cemeteries and on the departures of them that sleep – pure bread that is made with fire and sanctified with invocations – and without doubting pray and offer for them that are fallen asleep. For they who have believed in God, according to the Gospel, even though they should sleep, they are not dead [cf. Jn 11.25]; as our Lord said to the Sadducees: Concerning the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which is written: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? And he is not the God of the dead, but of the living [Mt 22.31-33]. And Elisha the prophet also, after he had slept and was a long while (dead), raised up a dead man; for his body touched the body of the dead and quickened and raised it up [2Kgs 13.21]. But this could not have been were it not that, even when he was fallen asleep, his body was holy and filled with the Holy Spirit

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didascalia.html

Reformed and Baptists, do you offer the eucharist for the dead and pray for them? Prove to me from your own literature

Austin Stewart
Austin Stewart

This contradicts the notion that Baptism into Christ "puts Him on"
Again, reading into it. The apostle does not say that baptism puts Him on, but that there is a corollary between being baptized into Him and putting Him on. The full quotation is this "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ". When you read it in context as such, it is clear that what the apostle actually does is make a connection between baptism and faith, and says faith puts on Christ, which union is signified in baptism.
In fact in Acts, when those that saw the disciples preaching at Pentecost asked how they can receive that Spirit, Peter answered that one must believe and be Baptized
So if we are to bring up apostolic question and answer, perhaps we can ask how they answered the question "What must I do to be saved"? Where is the mention of baptism there? The reason why Peter says to be baptized is because it is the sign of the covenant which is a necessary part of joining the covenant. Hence why 'be baptized' follows 'repent', since nobody may receive baptism save he who covenants with God.
In 2Peter, we get a description of the Flood of Noah as a type of Baptism which through the waters, those in the Ark are Saved
Did the flood save Noah, or was Noah saved while going through the flood? One might by the same logic say that Paul says women must bear children to be saved.
Baptism in that context provides the good conscience of appeal before God
Obviously not, since one must have the good conscience to receive baptism, which is the appeal toward God.
Even the Calvinist, Douglas Moo agrees that when Paul refers to being buried with Christ in Romans, he is in fact speaking of union with Christ, which takes place at Baptism.
No, you evidently misunderstood him and Reformed sacramentology. It doesn't take place at baptism, it is offered there. Allow me to quote Calvin himself on this
<But the argument, that, because they have been baptized, they have put on Christ, appears weak; for how far is baptism from being efficacious in all? Is it reasonable that the grace of the Holy Spirit should be so closely linked to an external symbol? Does not the uniform doctrine of Scripture, as well as experience, appear to confute this statement? I answer, it is customary with Paul to treat of the sacraments in two points of view. When he is dealing with hypocrites, in whom the mere symbol awakens pride, he then proclaims loudly the emptiness and worthlessness of the outward symbol, and denounces, in strong terms, their foolish confidence. In such cases he contemplates not the ordinance of God, but the corruption of wicked men. When, on the other hand, he addresses believers, who make a proper use of the symbols, he then views them in connection with the truth – which they represent. In this case, he makes no boast of any false splendor as belonging to the sacraments, but calls our attention to the actual fact represented by the outward ceremony. Thus, agreeably to the Divine appointment, the truth comes to be associated with the symbols.

<But perhaps some person will ask, Is it then possible that, through the fault of men, a sacrament shall cease to bear a figurative meaning? The reply is easy. Though wicked men may derive no advantage from the sacraments, they still retain undiminished their nature and force. The sacraments present, both to good and to bad men, the grace of God. No falsehood attaches to the promises which they exhibit of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Believers receive what is offered; and if wicked men, by rejecting it, render the offer unprofitable to themselves, their conduct cannot destroy the faithfulness of God, or the true meaning of the sacrament. With strict propriety, then, does Paul, in addressing believers, say, that when they were baptized, they "put on Christ;" just as, in the Epistle to the Romans, he says,

<"that we have been planted together into his death, so as to be also partakers of his resurrection."
(Romans 6:5.)

<In this way, the symbol and the Divine operation are kept distinct, and yet the meaning of the sacraments is manifest; so that they cannot be regarded as empty and trivial exhibitions; and we are reminded with what base ingratitude they are chargeable, who, by abusing the precious ordinances of God, not only render them unprofitable to themselves, but turn them to their own destruction!

Adrian Sullivan
Adrian Sullivan

As Richard Longenecker(Evangelical) notes in his commentary on Galatians, the "sufferings" that the Galatians went through can also refer to the experiences of the Spirit they have
The reason I asked is because "spiritual experiences" is so broad and vague as to be worthless, it could even refer to the "burning in the bosom" of the Mormons.
It cannot be the usual Calvinist explanation that God allows some reprobates to have a taste of faith and then let them fall away. Otherwise it is nonsensical for Paul to treat their spiritual experiences as legit
They were legit, it does not mean they were justified. They were given a taste, the felt the Spirit of God, but many reprobates do without having faith. Again, Paul never says they were justified, and such knowledge is not ours according to scripture.
Saying this contradicts the Gospel fails, as it only contradicts a specific interpretation.
Maybe it "fails" to say that sodomy contradicts the commandments of God, since "it only contradicts a specific interpretation".
Because I fell away, it is I who is at fault, not Christ who offers His gift freely and without merit
This response fails to deal with my treating of the word failure.
To follow your view is to end up with the conclusion that God commits evil, as if Salvation is completely monegenic, than Reprobation must also be
There is simply no logic in this. Noting the obvious fact that Christ fails as a savior if He fails to save does not somehow mean God works sin in a person's soul.
Your response is incoherent because it includes human action in "faith" but you deny this as faith, evident in your reference to the personal devotion of the believer.
Clearly you still don't understand so I'll just spell it out for you. I explicitly denied that devotion is what scripture is talking about when it speaks of saving faith. When I denied that actions are a part of faith, this was in reference to something in addition to belief which must be added for it to be complete as faith. I defined faith as trust or reliance upon Jesus Christ and His priestly work alone.
Except as I shown, the written record testifies to these things as well
Then you would have quoted fathers referring to the things found instead of them "alluding" to something.
But none addressing Christian veneration of martyrs or prayer for and even to the dead
Which tells us they didn't practice it. If they had, it would be very hard indeed to avoid it in their words. Have you considered that perhaps it wasn't a big heresy, but a small one that grew with time?
No Reformed ever say the remains of saints or martyrs are so precious they are gold. No Reformed ever say that one wants to possess the remains of martyrs to have "fellowship" with them and none ever say that it is ok to wanna touch the Martyr on the verge of their martyrdom, as Martyrdom of Polycarp does. So your own standard fails here, as the respect shown to martyrs exceeds how any Protestant would be comfortable with. When Calvinists want to be "possessors" of Calvin's remains to have fellowship with him, be obsessed with wanting to touch John Piper's or RC Sproul's skin, or treat the remains of Calvin and Sproul as jewels
The text says "Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold". This describes the esteem they had as they received them, i.e., considered more valuable than jewels. When does this happen? This is the emotional reaction of a church receiving the remains of their recently martyred beloved pastor. It does not describe their response as a continuous thing, or them putting up the bones for worship, but placing them aside for a memorial and for the education of believers. I imagine the congregations of Hus and Zwingli reacted with similar emotion when they received their martyrs.

Jack Phillips
Jack Phillips

This shows a lack of familiarity with ancient rhetoric, which part of includes being able to make the hearer "see" and experience that which the rhetor does. This is why ekphrasis is a thing and there are concerns that rhetors can go mad because of such a focus. Unfortunately for you, that focus which Hippolytus demonstrates, entails him making the drama of Scripture "present" and him conversing with its characters as if they are there. That is not how IFB or Reformed go about exegeting Scripture at all.
It should be proof that you are grasping at straws that you take a different style of preaching as proof of idolatry
It is relevant because it shows that Ignatius is aware of honouring the Apostles, who are part of a Heavenly council
That doesn't mean worship. When we honor our parents, does that involve worship?
No argument is given because no points are provided.
Actually, points were provided, and instead you chose to pretend they didn't exist and reiterate the same point. I guess my argument was too strong to even acknowledge.
do you offer the eucharist for the dead
It doesn't say that, you just read it in.
pray for them
The prayer spoken of is for their joy in heaven.

David Lee
David Lee

1)In context, my point is proven. Baptism is the means where one puts on Christ. Saying Paul makes a connection between Baptism and faith does not work, as Sacramental realists like Luther and the Lutherans make the same connection. In fact such a logic is a blow to those that deny Baptismal Regeneration or that Baptism actually gives what it promises. To claim that Baptism is merely an empty symbol of "union" is also reading into the text, as the putting on of Christ is associated with Baptism. It is not a "figure" of it but described as part of it.

2)Your answer on Acts is inadequate, as Peter answers that one gets Baptized for the end of receiving the Holy Spirit. That was the question he was asked, and so his answer must be placed within that concern, which inserting Reformed dogma serves as eisegesis, as the context isn't just an "entry ritual" but how one receives the Spirit.

3)2Peter states that those on the Ark are saved through the water and that serves as a figure for how Baptism saves us which provides the good conscience of an appeal to God. Context also differs from Paul's own statement about women having to bear children to be Saved.

4)False, as 2Peter does not include that detail. Instead that detail is included as part of how Baptism saves.

5)This is also false and makes a misrepresentation of my point which is that Douglas Moo, a Calvinist makes the point that Romans speak of Union with Christ in Baptism. It makes no claim of Calvin's Baptismal theology. Secondly, for Sacraments to actually adequately exhibit the reality they signify, the symbols must participate in it, meaning the symbols must in fact be in union with the signified, not just an empty parallel as Calvin does in his Institutes when it comes to the Eucharist.

Since the main scholar I referred to is not used, allow me to quote Moo himself on this:

The theology of this paragraph is both profound and controversial. What makes for the controversy are the related questions of the meaning and importance of baptism (vv. 3-4) and the relationship between baptism and the "with Christ" language that is so characteristic of the paragraph (cf. w. 4, 5, 6, 8). I will explore these questions in some detail in the notes that follow, but a quick survey of the "lay of the land" as I see it may be helpful. First, it is clear that Paul refers in vv. 3-4 to water baptism; but baptism is not the theme of the paragraph nor is it Paul's purpose to exposit his theology of baptism. Baptism, rather, functions as shorthand for the conversion experience as a whole. As such, it is the instrument (note the "through" in v. 4) by which we are put into relationship with the death and burial of Christ. It is not, then, that baptism is a symbol of dying and rising with Christ; nor is it that baptism is the place at which we die and rise with Christ. Dying and rising with Christ refers to the participation of the believer in the redemptive events themselves; and the ultimate basis for Paul's appeal in this chapter is not what happened when we were baptized, but what happened when Christ died and rose again. That death of his to sin is also our death to sin (vv. 2, 6, 9-10); and that resurrection of his to new life, in which we will "participate" in the future (w. 5b and 8b), is even now working to enable us to "walk in newness of life" (vv. 4b, 11).-Douglas Moo, New International Commentary on the New Testament, pg.355

And also: nleaven.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/rethinking-colossians-212-and-baptism-with-douglas-moo/

From the mouth of Moo himself on Baptism in Romans and Colossians, it is clear that it goes beyond the very explanation from Calvin provided. Baptism in fact plays an integral role in the experience of the believer, it is not just a "symbol" as you put it but it is in fact an efficacious and vital part of the conversion experience of the believer. Truth is not merely associated with the symbols, truth is apprehended by seeing the Sign. That's Sacramentalist in logic. What we don't do like Calvin do, is to destroy the union of the sign and the signified.

Camden Jenkins
Camden Jenkins

1)Any Christian will have an idea of what spiritual experiences of the Spirit are. So this statement is void.

2)As Moo states, Baptism represents an integral part of the process and experience of conversion, so this means Paul writes to the Galatians as if they are converted and now fell away because of returning to the Law. Using the Calvinist explanation is eisegesis, as Paul makes no statement saying that they did not put on Christ but mere "tasted the spirit". Your own explanation here that one cannot know whether others are justified is also ridiculous, as that demonstrates you just made an incoherent accusation of my use of Moo, which I shown with his own words, link Baptism with conversion experience. So if the sign and the thing signified are not conjoined and linked inseparably, then it entails Calvin's own logic must be parallelism, not having grace be conveyed and apprehended by means of signs themselves.

3)This is not equivalent to the issue at hand as we even have Calvinist scholars like Herman Ridderbos warning against the typical Calvinist exegesis as he himself warns against determinism in his book about Paul. Douglas Moo, who is aware of the complications say that people should not act as if to "let god take the wheel" which only exposes the difficulty of the Calvinist take.

4)Your interpretation demands human beings be completely passive and posit dicotomy between human and divine agencies. I don't. in fact my explanation shows why Christ is not at fault if one falls away, it is the fault of the person, not the instrument. Even Baptist scholar, Andreas Kostenburger in his commentary on John makes it clear that Divine election permits human failure.

5)There is. Either God gives no agency to humans, or he does. Your soteriology demands a determinism of the Divine kind and even causal, as God works through His secondary causes. Under these conditions, no one have genuine agency.

6)No, you did not say that. In fact no one would even understand what you state on the subject. However given BDAG's lexicon's explanation on faith, your point goes against the grammatical and linguistic intent given by Scripture, as they understand faith to also encompass allegiance and obedience. This is also why Peter T O'Brien's commentary on Hebrews make it clear that believers are in fact under threat of falling away. And O'Brien is against the New Perspective on Paul view!

7)Which I did, from Martyrdom of Polycarp, Ignatius, Didascallia and Hippolytus.

8)This is false as I refer it to negative references, not references that show the practice done. The fact that so many prayers for and to the dead are recorded in Tombs and written literature shows that this cannot be small practice. To say so is to make unwarranted speculation to bury evidence against your view.

9)Saying that describes emotional experience does not downplay the value of receiving the remains of Polycarp or how it is treated. In fact, given words like "possessed" or "have fellowship with" are used earlier in the text shows that your attempt to downplay martyr veneration to be eisegesis of the text. There is zero Reformed or Protestant documents out there that use these descriptions for remains of their martyrs or key figures. Saying "I imagine" is an unhelpful conjecture, as nothing out there is present in your literature to show that the equivalence can be warranted.

Jonathan Walker
Jonathan Walker

1)That is not an excuse, as no Baptist or Reformed would preach Scripture such that the events are present to them in mind and to take hearers to those events. So this excuse is a non argument, as it fails to appreciate the rhetorical culture which many scholars like Carol Harrison and Frances Young has shown how they influenced early Christian practice,

2)I never say the Apostles are worshipped. They are honoured in a manner that goes beyond your level.

3)Nope. When you give zero examples of how a Calvinist might approach warning passages consistently, you give nothing that address what I state

4)Actually it clearly says that. It is so clear all anyone needs to do is to actually just read the whole section I quoted! Showing yet again an example of eisegesis.

All the text says is prayer and the eucharist are offered for the dead. And prayer for the joy of the departed in heaven is still prayer for the dead

Oliver Sullivan
Oliver Sullivan

Richard Longenecker on Galatians 3:1-5 on what "having begun in the Spirit" means:

Believers in Galatia had received the Spirit at the time of their conversion to Christ. That is evident by the use of the participle ἐκανλάιεκμζ (―having begun‖) in v 3 (see Comment there) and by the fact that Paul‘s whole argument hinges on their reception of the Spirit prior to the Judaizers‘ intrusion. Just how the Spirit‘s presence was manifest in their lives is uncertain from our vantage point, though, of course, it was well known both to them and to Paul. From 3:4–5, however, we may infer that there were outward signs of some sort (see Comment there), and from 6:1 that some of Paul‘s Galatian converts thought of themselves as ―pneumatics‖ (see Comment there).

Paul does not argue as to whether or not his converts had received the Spirit. His reference to their reception of the Spirit is stated in such an absolute manner as to signal a shared familiarity of that fact on the part of both him and them. Paul‘s argument, rather, has to do with the basis for their reception of the Spirit, whether on the basis of ἔνβςκ κυιμο (―works of the law‖) or on the basis of ἀημῆξ πίζηεςξ (―believing what you heard‖)—the antithesis which is picked up from 2:15–16 and which becomes dominant in Paul‘s argumentation down through 3:18.

WBC, vol 41, Galations, pg 135

Isaiah Reyes
Isaiah Reyes

More from Moo on Romans in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series:

(1) Many scholars think that this phrase is an abbreviated form of the more familiar "into the name of [the Lord] Christ Jesus." Paul would simply be making it clear that he is talking about Christian baptism — our baptism makes us Christ's disciples.40 (2) Other interpreters claim that the context, in which our incorporation into Christ is so prominent, favors a spatial meaning: we were baptized "into union with Christ."41 Two arguments favor this second view. First, the closest parallel to the language here is Gal. 3:27, with strongly suggests a spatial sense: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."42 Second, being "buried with Christ in baptism" (v. 4a) is a conclusion ("therefore") drawn from v. 3. But it is difficult to account for this sequence unless v. 3 has already alluded in some way to the concept of a union with Christ. Paul, then, argues that Christian baptism, by joining the believer with Christ Jesus, also joins him or her with the death of Christ43

In this verse, Paul draws a conclusion44 from the believer's incorporation into the death of Christ. If we have died "with" Christ through baptism, Paul reasons, then we have also been buried with him "through baptism [which is] unto [his45] death."46 And this burial not only marks the end of the old life but is also part of the transition to a new life, in which the believer is now called to "walk." This clause raises three interrelated and controversial issues: why has Paul introduced the image of burial, what is the meaning of the Christian's being "with" Christ, and how does baptism mediate this being with Christ?

A bewildering number of answers to these questions has been given, but the most important can be grouped into three general approaches.

(1) Many evangelical scholars understand "burial with Christ" as a metaphor for the believer's complete break with the old life and view baptism as a symbolic picture of the transfer from the old life to the new. Immersion represents death to the old life, submersion the "burial" — the seal of death — of that old life, and emersion the rising to new life. In this way baptism pictures what has taken place in the believer's life through conversion. As A. H. Strong puts it, "Baptism symbolizes the previous entrance of the believer into the communion of Christ's death and resurrection."47 Despite the popularity of this view, it does not, by itself, provide a sufficient explanation for the verse. The problem is with the prepositions in the first clause. Paul makes baptism the means by which we are buried with Christ (dia baptism), not the place in which we are buried with him.48 Indeed, although the interpretation can be traced to a fairly early date in the history of the church,49 there is no evidence in Rom. 6, or in the NT elsewhere, that the actual physical movements — immersion and emersion — involved in baptism were accorded symbolical significance. The focus in Rom. 6, certainly, is not on the ritual of baptism, but the simple event of baptism.50 Therefore, while not ruling out the possibility of a secondary allusion to the symbolism of the baptismal rite,51 we conclude that this cannot be the main reason why the Christian's burial with Christ is introduced. A second preposition also creates difficulties for a purely symbolic view: "with" (syn).52 While the force of syn with verbs of action can vary,53 it is questionable whether its normal meaning of accompaniment can be stretched so far as to embrace the idea of a being buried (in our lives) as Christ was buried in his. (pg360-363)

1/2

Ethan Russell
Ethan Russell

(2) A second way of relating burial with Christ to baptism is, as in the first view, to take "burial" as a metaphor for the believer's complete break with the old life but to understand baptism as the mediator of that break.54This interpretation compares favorably to the first in giving "through baptism" an instrumental sense, but we find the same problem as in the first with the understanding of the syn ("with") compound. Again, the "with Christ" must be taken to mean "as Christ, so we": as Christ was buried, so sealing his death to the old age, so we are "buried," sealing our death to the old age. We must say again that such a conception does not do justice to Paul's conception of what it means for the believer to be, or do things, "with Christ." Others try to do greater justice to this syn language by applying it to the general relationship between the believer and Christ; baptism brings us into union with Christ, so that we experience a baptism like his.55 But Paul says not that we have been joined with Christ, but that we have been buried with him.

(3) We come then to the third and, I would argue, correct approach. "Burial with Christ" is a description of the participation of the believer in Christ's own burial, a participation that is mediated by baptism. Paul's point, as Beasley-Murray puts it, "is not that the believer in baptism is laid in his own grave, but that through that action he is set alongside Christ Jesus in his."56 This approach interprets dia naturally and explains syn in a way that accords both with the normal meaning of the word and with Paul's larger conception of "with Christ." But what is the exact nature, or time, of this believer's being "buried with Christ"?

Since it is through baptism that we are buried with Christ, we might think of Christ's burial (and death and resurrection also; cf. v. 5) as being present in baptism. Baptism is then a sacrament that is efficacious because there is in it — as, it is argued, in the Eucharist — a "real presence" of Christ.57 While there are elements in this text that could support this view (see the notes on v. 5), it suffers from two fatal objections. First, it is questionable whether Paul's insistence on the "once-for-all" nature of Christ's death and resurrection (cf. v. 10) allows for them to be understood as present in, or repeated in, the act of baptism.

While freely admitting that the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are eschatological events whose significance transcends time, I think it is going too far to say that these events, as events, are "timeless." The second objection is that, by locating death, burial, and resurrection with Christ in baptism, a significance is given to baptism that does not fit the argument of Rom. 6 and that cannot be accommodated within Paul's general conception of what it means to be "with Christ." Thus, after mentioning baptism in vv. 3-4, Paul drops the subject, never to resume it in this chapter.58 Even in vv. 3-4, baptism is introduced not to explain how we were buried with Christ but to demonstrate that we were buried with Christ. And the subsidiary role of baptism in our union with Christ is confirmed by the fact that Paul can elsewhere claim a "being with Christ" that is not related to baptism (cf. Gal. 2:19-20; Eph. 2:5-6)

Baptism, then, is not the place, or time, at which we are buried with Christ, but the instrument (dia) through which we are buried with him.-pg 263-264

Ayden Rodriguez
Ayden Rodriguez

Baptism is the means where one puts on Christ
You can go ahead and say that, but Paul doesn't
Your answer on Acts is inadequate
Not an argument
2Peter states that those on the Ark are saved through the water and that serves as a figure for how Baptism saves us which provides the good conscience of an appeal to God
Not an argument
False
No, user, it's true. Nobody gets baptized who isn't interested in Christianity.
the symbols must in fact be in union with the signified
The term "sacramental union" is used in Reformed theology to describe the relation between sign and thing signified, which remain distinct.
baptism is not the theme of the paragraph nor is it Paul's purpose to exposit his theology of baptism. Baptism, rather, functions as shorthand for the conversion experience as a whole
nor is it that baptism is the place at which we die and rise with Christ
I feel vindicated in saying you didn't understand him
What we don't do like Calvin do, is to destroy the union of the sign and the signified.
No, what you do is destroy the distinction of sign and thing signified.
As Moo states, Baptism represents an integral part of the process and experience of conversion
Yeah I also said that
Paul writes to the Galatians as if they are converted
They were
now fell away because of returning to the Law
They did. What does this have to do with justification?
Paul makes no statement saying that they did not put on Christ
He also didn't say they put on Christ
Your own explanation here that one cannot know whether others are justified is also ridiculous
No it's actually the explicit teaching of scripture
link Baptism with conversion experience
Conversion is not justification
not having grace be conveyed and apprehended by means of signs themselves.
Correct. It is by the thing signified. The sign without the thing signified is dead and worthless.
This is not equivalent to the issue at hand
Not an argument.
Your interpretation demands human beings be completely passive
What my interpretation demands is that Christ is the one in the role of savior.
I don't
If you don't believe Jesus is the savior do not call yourself a Christian.
my explanation shows why Christ is not at fault if one falls away, it is the fault of the person
Still not dealing with my argument.
Under these conditions, no one have genuine agency.
You should probably read the bible, it's better than the human philosophy you're arguing from.
No, you did not say that
Yeah, I did.
<If by faithfulness you mean it connotes the performance of some action, that is contradicted by the consistent contradistinction in scripture between faith and works. If by allegiance you mean a dedication or devotion of the heart, that is more repentance unto life. When scripture talks about the faith by which we are saved, it fundamentally speaks of trust in Christ alone as savior, such as which moves one to cry out "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"
In fact no one would even understand what you state on the subject
Ha ha, what?
BDAG's lexicon's explanation on faith, your point goes against the grammatical and linguistic intent given by Scripture, as they understand faith to also encompass allegiance and obedience
If something can mean something, that doesn't mean it does. Allow me to quote <state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted, trust, confidence, faith
Which I did
No, you didn't.
I refer it to negative references, not references that show the practice done
That's nice. Care to actually deal with my argument now?
so many prayers for and to the dead are recorded in Tombs and written literature
How many church fathers?
Saying that describes emotional experience does not downplay the value of receiving the remains of Polycarp
Which would be relevant if my point was based solely on it being emotional
shows that your attempt to downplay martyr veneration to be eisegesis of the text
Not an argument.
That is not an excuse, as no Baptist or Reformed would preach Scripture such that the events are present to them in mind and to take hearers to those events.
Not an argument
I never say the Apostles are worshipped
So how is it relevant to your assertion the early church practiced idolatry?
Nope
Still can't deal with my point
Actually it clearly says that
Not an argument.

Sage because since you have interacted little there is litte for me to interact with.

Christian Flores
Christian Flores

1)Actually Paul does, collaborated by Romans 6. Moo explains why that reference is to water Baptism which I already posted.

2)Yes, because mentioning the specifics of the question that was asked to Peter at the Pentecost which is about reception of the Spirit is a non argument.

3)Because describing what the verse says is not an argument.

4)Non argument. My point is Baptism is an integral part of Union with Christ and is the means to it.

5)Hence why Reformed are inconsistent, as there is no true union between sign and symbol. Exemplified by Calvin's own description of how this works in the Eucharist. He does not say the sign is joined and participates in the reality it points to, it is only a pointer that parallels divine action. Hence bread nourishes our stomachs, as Christ nourishes our lives. That is only figurative, not a true sacramental union where they are conjoined together.

6)And no explanation is given as to why I don't understand him.

7)A distinction does not entail separation, as your view makes the Sacraments to be. Simple as that.

8)No, you only reduce Baptism to a symbol, not means or instrument to the union with Christ. In fact, Moo makes it clear that we indeed participate with Christ's death and resurrection by the instrumental means of Baptism. It's part of the conversion experience.

9)Hence, they are treated as justified, otherwise the sign and thing signified are not in union and provides zero assurance, jeopardising Sola Fide

10)My point is, Galatians deny any form of OSAS or view that says Salvation cannot be lost. Simple as that. The Galatians falling away proves it

11)And..no Scriptural examples provided

12)He does, and Moo also agrees with my point here when speaking about Baptism in Romans

13)Then therefore, you contradicted your own system, which states that conversion is possible because of Grace. So why Grace is now limited to a single moment contra Luther is beyond me.

14)The sign and signified are in union, your view denies it in practice.

15)And…no explanation given

16)And the complete lack of autonomy of human beings by implication of double predestination which is a variant of Stoicism, which the Church Fathers opposed when it comes to its determinism.

17)Contradicting your own logic that says you don't know if others are justified or not

18)And..no explanation given again

19)Because the Bible which also uses human language, human rhetoric is bad for doing so

20)Because " If by allegiance you mean a dedication or devotion of the heart, that is more repentance unto life" is ever so clear!

21)And misrepresenting my point, which is that "faith" in NT usage encompasses more than belief. So saying faith is defined as trust is a misrepresentation, as I never contested that to begin with.

22)Your argument have been dealt with, extensively with reference to Didascallia, Ignatius, Hippolytus and Martyrdom Polycarp

23)And…nothing is addressed at all

24)And…nothing is provided to the contrary

25)My assertion is they venerated martyrs and prayed for the dead. I clearly shown evidence for them. You only downplay and ignore when I refer to more of Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didascallia and Ignatius' views of the Apostolate

26)And meanwhile, you can't even show how the written records I provided disproves my point. I easily shown how they go beyond Reformed approaches to saints. Reformed don;'t consider the martyrs remains as Holy, they don't go into a frenzy to wanna be the first to touch the martyr, they don't want to "possess" the martyr's remains to be in fellowship with them, and the remains of their own martyrs, never described as gold or treature.

Reformed deny offering Eucharist for the dead, which the Didascallia does.

Carter Cox
Carter Cox

3)Because describing what the verse says is not an argument.
Not that but
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
Is not saved as in justified. It's saved as in not physically dying, the water is what lilled everyone besides Noah's family. Like when Peter was drowning he said "Lord save me" that wasn't calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation

Also in the next verse
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
doesn't say it's baptism that saved you. On first reading it seems to but actually it says the figure of baptism saves. The figure of baptism is the gospel.
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Owen Nguyen
Owen Nguyen

This explanation is a bad explanation to turn Baptism into a naked symbol as it destroys the correspondence between Type and Antitype. Given that Baptism is connected with the Flood of Noah there, does that mean 2Peter is saying Christian Baptism actually saves people from "physically dying"? This is the logic you now provide considering how you refer to Noah and his family being saved from the flood by the water. Especially when the "like figure" cannot be referring to the Gospel but to the Flood it just mentioned prior. It is in the likeness of that Flood which the author refers to Baptism.

That sort of exegesis does no justice to the OT narrative either, as the Flood was punishment for the wickedness of the world. It is a sort of 'recreation' and Noah and his family are chosen to be part of this new creation against the old wickedness which God drowns in the flood. This meshes better with Baptism as the means or instrument where we are buried in Christ and put Him on as part of conversion. The correspondence between type and antitype is smooth as butter in this interpretation, it allows the integrity of the OT Type to remain and not be trivialised as you do, and allows the antitype to have semblance with its type.

Liam Hall
Liam Hall

How would baptism represent the flood? You get dunked in the water then come back up. If it represented the flood then they would drown when you get baptized

Luis Gonzalez
Luis Gonzalez

On first reading it seems to but actually it says the figure of baptism saves. The figure of baptism is the gospel.
Yep, and it even says at the end of the verse "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Again, THAT is what baptism figures. Consequently, that's what saves.

2Peter is saying Christian Baptism actually saves people from "physically dying"?
No, but Noah being "saved by water" was saved from physical death, whereas the resurrection of Jesus Christ is eternal salvation.

Which resurrection of Jesus Christ is figured by baptism, which is of water.

Bentley Bailey
Bentley Bailey

Then you dont understand Typology

The problem with this is that the observation does not respect the significance of the OT Flood narrative. Peter appeals to it as a figure of Baptism for a reason.

The connection of Baptism to the Resurrection of Christ does not even use the term "figure" or "stands for" and so on. So at best a connection to the death and resurrection of Christ is made in Baptism which as NT scholar Douglas Moo shows, involves a real participation and union with Christ through Baptism as Romans 6 describes, making the naked symbol view unlikely

Brayden Bailey
Brayden Bailey

The problem with this is that the observation does not respect the significance of the OT Flood narrative.
Baptism, which is a figure of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is by water. Water, and specifically passage by water, is the connection.

And also, the thing which water baptism is the figure of— the resurrection of Jesus Christ— is whereby we are saved, an eternal parallel to the physical salvation of Noah from the flood

David Ramirez
David Ramirez

The text only describes how Baptism gets its efficiacy which is through the Resurrection of Christ. So therefore it is eisegesis to read into the text that it makes Baptism a mere naked and empty symbol.

After all, the provision of a good conscience of appeal towards God is instrumentally tied to Baptism. Not as being mere metaphor but because Baptism by water is truly a participation and ingraft into Christ.

Should your view be correct, Peter would had not bothered mentioning the flood or Baptism saving us by giving a good conscience of appeal before God. Instead it would had said it is a symbol of the union with Christ and figure of the resurrection. But the text does not speak of this.

Kayden Ortiz
Kayden Ortiz

Same poster as before.

After all, the provision of a good conscience of appeal towards God is instrumentally tied to Baptism.
I'm glad you agree with Baptist doctrine.
Should your view be correct,
You don't seem to be representing it very accurately. Baptism is an ordinance, first of all.
Peter would had not bothered mentioning the flood
Previously explained!
or Baptism saving us
Allow me to quote this again:

<The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

First point: The figure of baptism— i.e. the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ— saves us. Not the baptism itself but what it figures. Notice where the verse says "the like figure whereunto."
Second point, even more specifically: The figure of baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So then the specific part of the figure of baptism that saves is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It's right there in the scripture: Do you see where it says "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" in the above scriptre?

by giving a good conscience of appeal
It doesn't give it, it requires it.

Colossians 2:12
<Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

So then, we are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God. So you see, without the person in question having faith it isn't a baptism. Even if there's water, even if you do a particular set of things, that isn't enough if the person in question has not faith. They must get it first. So, infant baptism is out.

Camden Taylor
Camden Taylor

1)The "like figure" refers back to the example of the flood. This makes sense considering that both are done through water. Saying it refers to Baptism as a naked symbol essentially destroys the structure Peter presents. So repeating your point again does not work, as nothing is shown about how it matches Peter's structure, which strongly suggests the flood as a figure or "antitype" of Baptism. Hence the render "the like figure", intending readers to see the connection made with the flood. Peter would not had used that structure had he intended readers to see that Baptism is a naked symbol rather than to be a means of Grace and where union with Christ takes place.

2)Peter never uses "figure" or any language that indicates mere metaphor as your position posits. Thus, it is better that Baptism's effiacy be tied to the work of Christ. But this is easily accepted by Sacramentalists. Hence to reduce that to a mere metaphor that is naked is to do eisegesis.

3)Your point also neglects the Prophetic Symbolism where the actions and announcements of the OT prophets cannot be reduced to mere metaphor as they convey and affect the judgement of God. The act of Baptism falls into this category, showing how the ritual act prophetically symbolizes and affects the believer's union with Christ. This makes sense as Peter refers to the act of Baptism itself as that which saves. Paul refers to believers putting on Christ in Galatians, being the means where we are buried and risen with Him in Romans 6. These make sense under this view but cannot under yours.

4)Using faith as a way to advocate naked symbolism fails, because the verse you quoted refers to the faithfulness of God which…Sacramentalists accept. So this is simply a false dichotomy presented.

Nicholas Davis
Nicholas Davis

I realized that Colossians 2 would very well include faith as the condition that makes Baptism effective. But this is also what Sacramentalists easily accept. In fact during the Middle Ages and even after Trent, a moral causality view of Sacramental grace is spoken of by theologians such as Benard and the early Aquinas.

To add more on this, I would like to refer to Douglas Moo's commentary on Colossians regarding this mention of Baptism.

Attached: Screenshot-20180526-145734.png (493.48 KB, 1080x1920)
Attached: Screenshot-20180526-145842.png (502.38 KB, 1080x1920)
Attached: Screenshot-20180526-150008.png (519.51 KB, 1080x1920)

Kevin Perry
Kevin Perry

Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them. Psalm 115:4-8

The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.
They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not;
They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths.
They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them. Psalm 135:15-18

Isaiah 65:2-3
I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; Isaiah 65:2-3

And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Revelation 9:20

And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. Revelation 18:21

Joshua Wilson
Joshua Wilson

Hey all, just wanted to share an update to my journey to my lord and savior Jesus Christ. I had posted earlier asking about being baptized in a new church and I'm happy to report that I went through with it this morning.
I've been on cloud nine all day and just want to encourage others who were either scared or on the fence about being baptized to talk with their pastor and get it done.
Coming out of that water to an entire congregation happy and joyful for me will be a memory not soon forgotten.
Have a great memorial day weekend And God bless!

Attached: Baptism-1.jpg (327.53 KB, 1333x1000)

Tyler Rogers
Tyler Rogers

Praise God, let his Name be glorified.

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Robert Cooper
Robert Cooper

Gonverted another person yesterday

Attached: D324605D-1B0B-4CED-81C2-933BC39EE2C0.png (310.69 KB, 2518x1024)

Adam Myers
Adam Myers

Someone needs to edit this and make it "The Virgin(literally) Pope"

Ayden Young
Ayden Young

you guys are alright

Attached: 7d7da62af.png (54.12 KB, 575x205)

Blake Nguyen
Blake Nguyen

Acts 8:36-38 (KJV 1900):
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Sebastian Baker
Sebastian Baker

Baby baptizers BTFO

Jeremiah Carter
Jeremiah Carter

How many people have my fellow bros got saved? I got 5 so far and started getting people saved aboit a month ago. And hopefully I get some cute girl saved tomorrow.

Also jf you haven't got anyone saved then Jesus ain't happy with you.

Attached: 61F5EC1C-1158-4B66-B926-2BD2721CB4F3.jpeg (103.46 KB, 1280x720)

Anthony Carter
Anthony Carter

I want so badly to be a baptist. Everything about it seems right, except I have one problem:
The way Jesus talks about drinking his blood and eating his flesh in John 6, I don't know how (considering he keeps repeating it) it could be just symbolic.
And if it isn't symbolic, it can't be something individual. It has to be known by everybody. If the people serving it think it's just symbolic, there's no chance it can be real. And if it was to be real, it makes sense that it would require some kind of office bestowed by God (kind of like apostolic succession).
This is eating me up. If this one thing is true, a whole bunch of other things fall like dominoes and the only conclusion I'm left with is Catholic/Orthodox.
Help me.

Ian Perez
Ian Perez

Dude that's not even that big of a doctrine. I believe it's symbolic but I wouldn't at all call it heresy if one of my bros believed transubstantiation.

Jordan Young
Jordan Young

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Notice Jesus turns to his disciples to explain this in verse 63. His flesh is his words, user. Also Peter understood this in verse 68.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matthew 16:6-12
Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

So in conclusion, John chapter 6 has nothing to do with the Lord's supper. There is no physical bread, or table or wine there. There is just the words of the Lord Jesus.

Job 34:3
For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat.

God bless.

Camden Martinez
Camden Martinez

Led someone to the Lord for the first time today.

Attached: te.png (806.25 KB, 1001x823)

Charles Brooks
Charles Brooks

Good job brother. I'm always really nervous to bring it up but as soon as you ask all the nervousness disappears.

Connor Foster
Connor Foster

Some commonly raised scriptures defended:

Revelation 16:5
Hosios is a nomina sacra, for the Triadic declaration that occurs here. Beza was correct to expand it to its true form. ὁ ὢν και ο εσομενος is well established in early Greek writers as the interpretation of the tetragrammaton, which is what the Triadic declaration represents. Also P47 has the word και giving και οσιος (sorry, textual critics)

Judges 18:30
Easily debunked as the Manasseh mentioned here cannot possibly be Moses according to the chronology of events. Acts 7:30, Exodus 2:22, Joshua 14:7 and 24:29 taken together imply that Moses' son Gershom was at least 112 years old when Joshua died, which is before Judges 18. Then any son of this Gershom could not be described as a "young man" in Judges 18 (see 18:3,15). However, this isn't an issue, as Manasseh and Gershom were both common names in Hebrew that were used by several different individuals. So this is a different Manasseh and Gershom, who are mentioned here because of the infamy of Jonathan the Levite. To pretend as some do that Jonathan from Judges 18:30 later changed his name to Shebuel is equally ridiculous, as this same Shebuel is described as contemporary to king David in 1 Chron. 26, so the two cannot be the same person in this case either.

Kevin Rivera
Kevin Rivera

Isaiah 19:10
Best explained here: kjvtoday.com/home/sluices-and-ponds-for-fish-or-who-work-for-pay-will-be-grieved-in-isaiah-1910

2 Chron. 22:2
This verse is correct in KJV. Ahaziah began to reign in Jerusalem at age 42 but he also began to reign in the northern kingdom at age 22 which is a separate reign, since he was the biological son of Athaliah, daughter of Omri king of ISRAEL (not Judah). Ahaziah was thus the son-in-law of Jehoram/Joram, and not his biological son, exactly as the Bible tells us in 2 Kings 8:27. After the events of 2 Chron. 21:17, and if even Jehoram's last son Jehoahaz died after this (who is not to be confused with either Jehoahaz son of Jehu of the northern kingdom or Jehoahaz son of Josiah who came much later) then Ahaziah could well have been the youngest surviving "son" by right of descent from Jehoram's wife, even though Jehoram wasn't his biological father and he was even older than Jehoram.

If this is the case, the fact that Ahaziah is the "youngest" becomes a noteworthy fact, which would explain why it is mentioned.

Acts 7:14
This doesn't contradict Genesis 46:27, because Stephen clearly delineates the 75 as all people whom Joseph "sent and called" for. Thus Joseph himself and his two sons are manifestly excluded from this 75 persons. Also Jacob is listed as separate. Yet the tally in Genesis 46:27 includes Jacob, Joseph and his two sons as part of the 70 persons. So they are part of the 70 but not part of the 75.

The discrepancy is easy to explain because the 70 persons is "all the souls of the house of Jacob" and it therefore includes Joseph and his two sons but it excludes Jacob's sons' wives (see Genesis 46:27). Whereas the 75 persons whom Joseph called into Egypt excludes Jacob, Joseph and his two sons that entered Egypt unborn, but it DOES include the wives, bringing the total up to 75.

The LXX attempts to make the numbers in Acts 7 and Genesis 46 match by rewriting Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 to say seventy-five instead of seventy, but they forgot to change Deuteronomy 10:22. And in the end, changing it makes no sense, because in Acts 7:14, the 75 persons that Joseph "sent and called" for does not include Joseph himself or his two sons but the Genesis 46 tally does include Joseph. But this is a great way to show the LXX version of Genesis was influenced by Acts 7:14.

Gabriel Kelly
Gabriel Kelly

Luke 3:36
Cainan is mentioned as the son of Arphaxad. This appears at first glance to be an erroneous addition to the geneology of Genesis 11. However, note that unlike the Matthew 1 and Genesis 11 geneologies, Luke 3 is worded very differently. The former geneologies speak strictly about who begat whom, but Luke 3 is speaking in terms of sons, and also working from Jesus backwards instead of going forwards in time. This is the biggest hint that Luke 3 is different— What this is giving is a list of father-son relationships, not strictly who begat whom. Therefore, if in the days of Salah, Cainan was a man who was like a father to Salah, then this would be the one place in the whole Bible where Cainan gets his mention.

1 John 5:7
See what happened with 1 John 2:23b.

Nehemiah 7:5
You might wonder why the discrepancy between the list in Nehemiah 7 and the list in Ezra 2 and why the numbers in Nehemiah are different and don't add up correctly. Well the answer is in Nehemiah 7:5. In this verse, we read that the following is what he found written in the register. In other words, the register given in Nehemiah 7 had errors in it, and Nehemiah 7 accurately describes what that register said. Whereas Ezra 2 simply states what the real numbers were, therefore the numbers of Ezra 2 are correct.

Exodus 22:28
"Gods" in this context means a position of government, in other words, do not revile the judges, the same ones spoken of in verses 8-9 of the same chapter. See also John 10:34.

Thomas Collins
Thomas Collins

2 Samuel 8:4/1 Chron. 18:4
2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chron. 19:18 together shows that horsemen can also be called footmen. But the reverse does not follow: a footman is not necessarily a horseman. Therefore the horsemen are a subset of the footmen, and are counted among the footmen at the same time. So then, 20k footmen and 7k horsemen represents 20k total soldiers, with 7k mounted.

Also, a horseman may be counted as a horseman at the start of the battle, but if he is dismounted, he will cease to be a mounted unit. So the difference is explained that of the 7,000 initial horsemen mentioned in 1 Chron. 18:4, 6,300 were dismounted by the end of the battle and only 700 were left to be captured by David in 2 Samuel 8:4. The account of 1 Chronicles takes a broader view of describing the forces that went into the battle, and 2 Samuel tells us the number of the captured forces at the conclusion.

2 Samuel 24:13
Why does Gad say seven years? Because 2 Samuel 21:1 tells us that three years of famine are already past, and by chapter 24 another year has passed. Therefore if three more years of famine are added to this (see what the Lord said in 1 Chron. 21:11), then the total number of years Israel would suffer the famine is seven years. The difference is that Gad himself is speaking in 2 Samuel 24, and he is tacking on the four years of famine that are already past by that point. Three more years of famine would make seven total.

Exodus 4:24
This verse should be grouped with verse 23, not 25. In Exodus 4:23, the nearest antecedent is the firstborn of Pharaoh. This is who the Lord met and is seeking to kill.

After this, the narrative shifts to a new subject, the circumcision of Moses' son in verse 25. Again, look at the nearest antecedent in each case.
Zipporah cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at HIS feet
His feet = Her son's feet.
And said, Surely a bloody HUSBAND art thou to me. So HE let him go:
He let him go = Moses let his son go.

Moses was restraining his son during the circumcision, which explains why Zipporah had to be involved. Meanwhile the Lord was seeking to slay the firstborn son of Moses.

Owen Reyes
Owen Reyes

Got 5 more saved just today, God be praised.

Attached: ---1496628153104.png (238.92 KB, 400x763)

Isaac Gutierrez
Isaac Gutierrez

I got 5 so far and started getting people saved a month ago.
Got 5 more saved just today
I'm glad to hear that I have some new siblings, but you didn't get anyone saved, that's God's work.

Adam Scott
Adam Scott

I think he meant it in this sense.
1 Cor. 9:22
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Nicholas Fisher
Nicholas Fisher

How are my 🅱riends today? Posting some OC (although I did post it on here once before)

Attached: 0002b.jpg (113.04 KB, 590x332)

Carson Perez
Carson Perez

Our church handed out 10,000 water bottles with gospel tracts on them over today and yesterday. Last we barely did 3,000 over 3 days.

Attached: 28B4D7A9-DDBD-41C0-BC40-4320F95274D9.png (1.97 MB, 750x1334)

Asher Taylor
Asher Taylor

Last we barely
Last year i mean

Zachary Barnes
Zachary Barnes

Glad to hear it. Was it timed for the solstice?

Elijah Nguyen
Elijah Nguyen

Yeah it's called the Oakdale Summerfest

Dominic Morris
Dominic Morris

I vaguely remember going to some similar types of things in the 90's when I was a small kid. Brought back some good memories for me.

Leo Gutierrez
Leo Gutierrez

2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Philippians 3:8
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord:

Ryder Phillips
Ryder Phillips

I guess most of us are waiting out bans by the biased moderators right now.

Cameron Walker
Cameron Walker

Can anyone in here get me a source for this quote?

Attached: bdc43f2cf.jpg (41.13 KB, 850x400)

Isaiah Clark
Isaiah Clark

youtube.com/user/stack45ny

A large video collection of classic hymns, contemporary Praise and Worship songs, and the works (audio books, devotional readings, and sermons) of men greatly used of God, such as: Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, A.W. Tozer, A.W. Pink, John Owen, Andrew Murray, John MacArthur, E.M. Bounds, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, and many more, covering topics on many aspects of the Christian life. May your time spent here be blessed.

"In fact, there is no worship of God that is better than the hearing of a sermon."
- Charles Spurgeon

"He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:30)

A great channel of sermons for those who follow Reformed and Baptist faiths

Daniel Parker
Daniel Parker

Pope Leo X

Ethan Bell
Ethan Bell

I don't doubt it, he was a scumbag

Jordan Hughes
Jordan Hughes

In the market for a study bible. Can anyone recommend one over the other? A few people at my church have Thompson chain reference bibles but I wasn't sure how it would be as a study bible. Thanking all of you in advance, God bless!

Chase Collins
Chase Collins

amazon.com/Henry-Morris-Study-Bible-comprehensive/dp/089051657X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531867398&sr=8-1-spons&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=henry morris study bible&psc=1

Evan Ward
Evan Ward

The 15th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica in the article on the Renaissance authored by John Addington Symonds who was a literary critic, and gay pedophile. He gives no source, and himself admits that it was only what other people reported Pope Leo said.
The earliest source is probably from 'Acta Romanorum Pontificum' or 'The Pageant of the Popes' by protestant John Bale in the 1570s. The original line reads in Englis:
<"For on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testifie enough how profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie."
Could be true, but its pretty shaky. I wouldn't use it in any arguments, or even in just discussing history without qualification.

Jose Fisher
Jose Fisher

Keep up the good work muh dude.

Landon Myers
Landon Myers

Imagine my surprise when someone actually found a source. Question is where did the Encyclopedia Britannica guy get it from. And whether it was a biased source or not is the real question. Because it's hard to believe that it survived by pure word of mouth, or that a (seemingly) similar attribution spontaneously appeared again, after so much time.

I like trying to source these attributions because apparently some people were overzealous in their attributions in literature of that period. Take Trail of Blood (1931) for example, some of the quotations are downright wrong, like the Isaac Newton one. In that case I was able to track down the page it was allegedly written on, and that page had to do vaguely with the subject but nothing like the quote was there, which leading me to think someone acted very irresponsible.

Attached: anabaptist.PNG (208.03 KB, 780x200)

Jayden Hughes
Jayden Hughes

Question is where did the Encyclopedia Britannica guy get it from And whether it was a biased source
Probably John Bale who most certainly was biased. Although that does not disqualify it from being true, it just makes it near impossible for us to know with any meaningful level certainty.

Take Trail of Blood (1931) for example
Even as someone who can sympathies with Landmark Baptists, I can tell you there is a big difference between a contemporary source like Bale, and a half baked work of prejudged history like TTOB.
Lets just leave it at this; that we don't know whether Pope Leo might have said it, and that he probably did not.

Logan Lee
Logan Lee

do you baptist people have the Bible memorized and if yes, how did you do it ?

Thomas Martin
Thomas Martin

I have some memorized.
There are several ways to do it, but I just use the memory palace technique(Method of loci) along with repetitions. Audio Bible techniques are also useful like in shitty file related.

Attached: 1-John-5-v5-cut-3.webm (797.02 KB, 200x62)

Dylan Stewart
Dylan Stewart

it just makes it near impossible for us to know with any meaningful level certainty.
Yeah my main interest with that one is finding any other possible source because it seems from the evidence like there might be another "common" source which both known sources drew it from. It seems less likely there wouldn't be one. And if there is, that's what I'd want to know.

Jeremiah Mitchell
Jeremiah Mitchell

I'm interested to know how many people in this thread came to be Baptist from other faiths/denominations. If so how did that come about?

Attached: briggle-rig-stares-at-a-desk.PNG (1.12 MB, 832x618)

Colton Sanders
Colton Sanders

bump

Daniel Young
Daniel Young

I started soul-winning at the end of May and have won five to the lord so far. It may be a few more than that, but I like to err on the conservative side.

I was a Catholic. I got tired of constantly feeling guilty while the leadership indulges in non-stop degeneracy. I lost faith for a while and then started studying the Bible after finding Pastor Anderson's sermons. I found that the Baptists were much closer to the word of God than any other denomination, and at least didn't blatantly contradict it like the Catholics often do.

Easton Miller
Easton Miller

Hey man I can get behind this post. Such a strange concept that maybe the Bible is objective, that it is the word of God and it's actually possible to follow it? I'm sure you were already told this but welcome aboard.

Oliver Watson
Oliver Watson

Born and raised RCC, then I fell for fedora meme for far too long, ended up going back to a non-denominational church for a little bit.
Hated their barney-tier concept of love and constant praise of Israel.
Found an IFB church nearby after watching a few Anderson sermons online to see what it was about.
Loved it, got baptized, and now I can't get enough of it.

Mason Richardson
Mason Richardson

Thanks. There's definitely room for various interpretations of scripture, but the RCC flat-out contradicts it in so many places that it's impossible to reconcile.

Jonathan Baker
Jonathan Baker

Was l*Theran, now babdist.

Justin Evans
Justin Evans

Need help guys. zigforums.com/thread/678216/christian

Owen Butler
Owen Butler

I don't know why, they even used the "Jesus was pro-pharisee" argument, which in my mind makes them instantly lose the 'debate'.

Wyatt Anderson
Wyatt Anderson

Repent means to change your mind. God repented and also called turning from sin works in Jonah 3:10.

Repent is the change of mind from unbelief to belief.

James Morris
James Morris

Repenting in the context of salvation that is

Isaiah Gonzalez
Isaiah Gonzalez

Pharisees dindu nuffin

Attached: -50-am.png (237.37 KB, 470x316)

Hunter Thomas
Hunter Thomas

Something makes me feel like he'll be exposed for watching porn. I'm just seeing something in his face that seems odd.

Samuel Jackson
Samuel Jackson

discord.gg/Xw4V7Jb
christian server, baptist staff, minimal moderation

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (80.35 KB, 1280x720)

Parker Gutierrez
Parker Gutierrez

Hey guise, I never post on Zig Forums anymore, but just dropping by to say

do BA in Classical Languages
start MA at prominent SBC seminary
bury myself in textual criticism
still come out preferring the Textus Receptus
my academic advisor/Greek prof just grits his teeth, I think
I buy a few other students copies of 19th Century text critic Edward F. Hills' The King James Version Defended
They start asking hard questions, too

It's been a fascinating journey. My thesis ended up being on the New Perspective on Paul, so I didn't end up touching on the TR, but I plan on starting a post-grad program in OT studies (I've already applied, been accepted, and will begin in August, actually) where I want to confront some hard issues about OT text criticism. (Earliest extant copies of the OT we had during the 16th and 17 Centuries were over 1000 yrs removed from Christ, and from the textual data it's entirely plausible it was tampered with by Jewish rabbis.)

Also, I feel like my Baptist church robbed me of the richness of studying the great Baptist pastors and theologians from the 1600-1800s. We seem to forget about them and their theology and act like it was Jack Hyles from 1611 until now. (Not really, but you know what I mean.)

Mason Gutierrez
Mason Gutierrez

Here's a great podcast on the biblical teaching about faith, and works.

Easton Cruz
Easton Cruz

the great Baptist pastors and theologians from the 1600-1800s.

New to the whole Baptist thing. Who is in that group? I'm guessing Spurgeon but who else?

Wyatt Thomas
Wyatt Thomas

John Smyth
John Gill
Benjamin Keach
John Bunyan
Roger Williams
Charles Spurgeon
Oswald Chambers
John T. Christian
William Carey
Adoniram Judson

Nathaniel Perez
Nathaniel Perez

Also some would put John Owen as being an honorary Baptist because of his view of covenant theology.

Dylan Thomas
Dylan Thomas

Thanks. I don't know how I could have forgotten Bunyan.

Jayden Brown
Jayden Brown

Bump

Cameron Jenkins
Cameron Jenkins

I thoroughly recommend this channel. It has sermons from many of the names you have mentioned.

Cooper Sanders
Cooper Sanders

Is there a new server?

Leo Hill
Leo Hill

not that I'm aware of, I think they all went back to the Christcord discord server after that one fell apart.

Brayden Torres
Brayden Torres

This is what made me realize that all Protestantism is just straight up wrong, even if you don't understand Orthodox or Catholic viewpoints in other areas everything will eventually fall in place when you understand the Eucharist and what Jesus was stating here.

Luis Torres
Luis Torres

Once Saved Always Saved, Perseverance of the Saints, or Conditional Security?
strawpoll.me/16479452

Lincoln Bell
Lincoln Bell

Three words; real spiritual presence.

Noah Perry
Noah Perry

Is this common on IFB churches? Most of them or does it really depend? I don't see many people in suits in pastor Anderson's sermons for example
(yes, I know it's from plebbit but I wanted a summary in list format)

-Only the Authorized King James Version of the Bible is the inspired word of God

-Forbidding of indulgence in popular culture i.e. music, movies, dancing, etc

-Strict dress codes for men and women; no shorts for men and women must wear a dress when seen in public; Men are required to wear suits in church

-A woman must submit to her husband under all circumstances; she is forbidden to work

-Worm theology i.e. we are worms in the eyes of God as the song says "for such a worm as I". To children, this is basically the opposite of the self-esteem movement common in the public schools

-Forbidding the visitation of movie theaters (avoid the appearance of evil)

-Discourge friends and relationships between members and those outside the church body

-The belief that ALL forms of alcohol consumption is sinful, and that when wine is used in the new testament its referring to grape juice

-The belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis; God created the universe in 6 days 6,000 years ago and any other interpretation is heresy

-Strict rejection of science

-All forms of sexual activities outside of marriage and birth control forbidden

-Strict allegiance to the pastor

-Rejection of a secular education; many churches have their own school at the church for K-12 and smaller churches without schools generally have a large amount of parents who homeschool

-After high school, men are to go to Bible college, usually at the church or associated with the church, to train for ministry

-Politically active and strong emphasis on American exceptionalism

-Strong focus on corporal punishment

-Southern Baptists are liberal apostates who have compromised with "the world" and use a corrupted Bible

reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/5bp0kp/was_anybody_else_here_raised_independent/?st=jmghq6xc&sh=f1908256

Benjamin Sullivan
Benjamin Sullivan

Most of these are just seen as a good idea, there is no enforcment arm of the church that will crack down on you for these. Only exceptions are:

-Only the Authorized King James Version of the Bible is the inspired word of God
As far as English goes.
-Worm theology
No idea what this is.
-Discourge friends and relationships between members and those outside the church body
False. But rather be closer with saved believers regardless of whether you go to the same church sure, that much is practiced.
-The belief that ALL forms of alcohol consumption is sinful, and that when wine is used in the new testament its referring to grape juice
Not universally taught
-Strict rejection of science
False.
-Strict allegiance to the pastor
Completely false. But if you have real disagreements you should either let him know up front and/or find another church, rather than spreading doctrine and/or gossip behind his back. That much is definitely true.
-After high school, men are to go to Bible college, usually at the church or associated with the church, to train for ministry
Nope.
-Politically active and strong emphasis on American exceptionalism
That's up to each person's opinion.

Nathan Phillips
Nathan Phillips

So if Baptists are the ones that have been following the word of God correctly since Day 1, where did the Catholics and Orthodox come from?

Attached: Peter-vs-Popes.jpg (93.38 KB, 515x503)

Dominic Turner
Dominic Turner

Meanwhile in reality

Attached: 9783319748405.jpg (65.1 KB, 153x221)

Joseph Johnson
Joseph Johnson

pastebin.com/R4kgCprC

How does it feel knowing that the Bible is against OSAS?

Nicholas Baker
Nicholas Baker

sorry man, you had your eterrnal salvation but lost it because you swore when you stubbed your toe

Robert Fisher
Robert Fisher

reduction to absurdity
You lose the argument. Dishonesty is also a sin.

Lucas Diaz
Lucas Diaz

Are there any books that do a meta analysis of the kjv, analyzing why particular words were chosen and comparing the Greek originals?

Anthony Cook
Anthony Cook

So what constitutes losing your salvation then if you could kindly explain.

Thomas Clark
Thomas Clark

How do I know if someone is reprobate? I have a 10 year old nephew who I fear is reprobate. He has a mom and a stepdad. He displays behavioral problems where he likes to talk back to his (career woman) mom and she gets overly angry and has him on meds for his supposed adhd. How do I know if it's too late or not? Please answer

Cameron Cook
Cameron Cook

Local Baptist church was struck by lightning and burned down last night near me, if anyone could spare a prayer or few bucks to the GoFundMe it would be appreciated.

Link to church website, fbcwakefield.org

Feel terrible for the congregation.

Attached: 181022-cbsboston-church-fire-01.jpg (15.42 KB, 400x260)

Josiah Sullivan
Josiah Sullivan

OSAS wins every time

Dylan Morales
Dylan Morales

It's not likely that a 10yr old is a reprobate. Reprobates are characterized primarily by an intense rejection of God and the destructive behavior follows that.
My guess would be that he just hasn't been taught properly how to behave or is exhibiting misbahvior because of the medication.
Another factor here could also be an issue with having a stepfatherdoing the disciplining rather than his biological father.
Does your nephew have a strong Christian influence? How is the relationship with the biological father? Does he resent his stepfather? There are a lot of factors here that could contribute to bad behavior.