How can someone be this winnie the pooh based?
Pastor Steven Anderson
Brayden Ramirez
Noah Barnes
...
Carson Ramirez
...
Jason Gonzalez
...
Asher Wilson
nothing wrong with that
ebin
Jason Turner
Also anyone can be that based OP if they read their Bible
Matthew Howard
I'm not a big fan of Anderson but this is what every homosexual says about people they don't like.
Anthony Diaz
Isn't he a crypto-modalist, though?
Thomas Gomez
Alexander Wright
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Pastor Anderson is a heretic and a judaizer
Here's your (you)
Zachary Scott
So he's basically the anti-Shapiro?
Uhg, I'd love to see them two have a spiritual debate, Shapiro is such a (((neocon))) scumbag who can easily be crushed by someone who can actually quote the effing bible. I want to see it happen.
Ayden Garcia
VARG: CHRISTIAN EDITION
Gabriel Reed
David Robinson
ITT: butthurt apostolics triggered by Pastor Steven "give a man the hump, get a Bible thump" Anderson
Lincoln Lopez
Is this vitamin k general?
youtube.com
Asher Bailey
Statistically speaking, what are the odds of Pastor Anderson repenting his countless heresies and joining the Catholic Church?
Brayden Butler
On one hand, I know that will never happen. On the other hand I would absolutely LOVE for that to happen.
only so he can lead the inquisition to route out the sodomite filth in the Church
Jonathan Brooks
Pastor Steven "go down the sodomite path, than feel God’s wrath" Anderson
Pastor Steven "suck a man's dick, your butt we will kick" Anderson
Pastor Steven "be apart of the sodomite scene,face Leviticus 20:13" Anderson
Joseph Howard
Pastor Steven "become a gay porn buyer, roast in hellfire" Anderson
Daniel Murphy
Pastor Steven if you take in your ass, you'll be glassed Anderson
Christian Watson
I love Pastor Anderson, listened to his sermons and was convinced by the doctrine and read the entire KJV from being an atheist.
But, here is the thing that people that don't like him, he is the full stop SOLA Scriptura SOLA FIDE; he took it to the logical conclusion.
But looking into church history and how we got our Bible, I went back to Rome (baptized catholic even first communion and confirmation).
I realize that it can't be up to me for interpretation of the bible, as pastor anderson has even changed some doctorine(albiet small).
Him coming home to Rome would be amazing, sola scriptura is how we ended up with a post-modernist mindset. Pastor Anderson is 100% right in calling everyone that doesn't agree with him a heretic, because of at the end of the say, if it's sola scriptura; ultimately it's up to you to decide what is true or not.
If he went the route that you can lose salvation, I really do think you would come out with a catholic interpretation.
One case I make for catholic/orthodoxy teaching as being the true interpretation is the St Thomas Christians; the Indians who converted and kept the faith from the Apostle Thomas. The ceremonies are very catholic…
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
Zachary Baker
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 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.
Ayden Carter
Okay, which of the Reformers were right then, Calvin or Luther? They both loved Christ, both were sacramental and believed in a real presence in the Eurachrist. Or was the entirety of the church wrong for 1500 years?
How are we to know which interpretation is right if we both claim to have the Holy Spirit?
Hudson Lewis
Churches and people who baptized correctly were right for 1500 years. Pedobaptists were wrong during that whole time and now.
"We" do not share the same knowledge. I know what I believe and exactly what Scripture says. The Holy Spirit is the Person who guides the believer into all truth, the believer need not another man to teach him that truth.
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.
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.
Landon Perez
Okay, I was a true believer of Pastor Anderson's theology of OSAS and all that, i went around my campus sharing the gospel with people with that, I copied his tract and bought a KJV.
Verily Verily I say unto thee,my conviction on that was genuine belief.
But now, I believe in Faith and co-operative grace as Rome teaches.
Either I fell away from the the Holy Spirit(Jesus will never leave us and no man can pluck me out of his hand) or I was never truly saved. Or if I was saved and still am, and have the holy Spirit who guides me to all truth, you must be the heretic
That is the only"cop-out" you have; If I now disagree with a core doctrine you have, I must have never been truly saved.
The fundamental error in Grace alone is what warrants a whole new systematic theology like Calvin's or anderson's; both men who love the Bible, Jesus and want to know truth, but come to different interpretations.
This is the post/comments I have posted earlier that really made me change OSAS to accepting Rome.
calledtocommunion.com
pics non-related
Wyatt Morales
A more thought out article on it
ligonier.org
When I was a Baptist, I regularly heard it said that Baptists believed God’s Word concerning believer’s baptism while others did not. As a Presbyterian, I’ve heard it said that Presbyterians believe God’s Word concerning the promises to the children of believers while the Baptists do not.
I’ve heard this line of argument used in disputes involving the Sabbath, the days of Genesis, theonomy, the gifts of the Spirit, church government, you name it. In every dispute over the meaning of some biblical text or theological point, it seems that someone eventually throws out some version of the line: “The simple fact of the matter is that we believe what God clearly says here and you don’t.” When both sides in a given debate do it, the result is particularly edifying.
The one fundamental thing you can agree on is faith alone, and the Bible alone.
Charles Butler
How do you know that? But more importantly, if you do somehow magically know these things, are you trying to then conclude that therefore the Holy Spirit is unable to do what Jesus said? Do you even honestly believe in the existence of the Holy Spirit? I can see you trying to say He isn't working, and I can see you here doubting the fact that He is in the world working on believers just as Jesus said. That's also why you didn't bring him up until I did. If you believed the Holy Spirit was relevant to interpretation, you should have mentioned him before I came along to correct this. As it stands you seem to regard God as a non-factor; we apparently need groups of men to decide things.
Guess what? Them that are without God judgeth.
Joseph Powell
Bud aside from the anabaptists there weren't any churches before the reformation that practiced believers baptism. Where on earth did this fringe myth even come from?
Eli Gray
I do Believe the Holy Spirit accomplished it by setting up his church and guided us to the correct practices and beliefs.
By not having a continuity of consistent beliefs, aren't you the one who doesn't believe the Holy Spirit did his job?
Okay, how about when Jesus says:
I know my church and Pastor Anderson's see it as purely symbolic, but I and the RCC don't.
The Holy Spirit guides us to all truth, and everyone including the Reformers believed in a real presence. Either the Holy Spirit didn't guide the church and the reformers for 1500 + years to the truth that it was purely symbolic, or the church always had the Truth guided by the Holy Spirit.
These thoughts really hit me and I skipped my Baptist service today and went to Catholic mass today (still need a confession before I can partake in the Eucharist).
Charles Morris
Actually afaik you need to go through the full RCIA process beforehand. I'm only like 95% sure on that, but I imagine you would need to be confirmed before you eat God.
Tyler Williams
the thing about the Toma Christians is they basiclly had their entire religon changed to fit what the Portuguese Catholics taught, so they're basically in a weird limbo between being Eastern and Latin in liturgy and I assume theology.
Angel Davis
I thought they meet up with the other churches around the 4th century?
David Richardson
Was a baptized, first communion and then confirmed catholic. I became a fedora when I was 12 for 10 years and only a year ago I read apologectics to see the Christianity and the bible really were true.
I was a really weak catholic as most are in our post-modernist society, I feel betrayed by the school system or probably should my parents who only go to mass on chirstmas and easter.
. So I read the KJV and found Pastor anderson on Zig Forums and beleived his doctrines and teachings.
The mistake I made is thinking the Bible came out of the sky or something (his NWO bible versions really reigned me in after watching Marching to (((Zion))).
I'm glad to be back to Rome. I rejected rome for this year because of the memes; but the Church has endured. I willfully came back after knowing we have Pope Francis.
You can't leave Peter because of Judas.
Zachary Jenkins
I heard of a dude from my old catholic school that went a similar route. Apparently he's doing missionary work in the third-world so I hope he makes it. Also don't post that third pic, about half of it is blatantly false and slander, especially of the Pope, is a grave sin.
Ryder Edwards
Huh? What does that refer to?
My church is consistent. But isn't that strange, considering I didn't simply copy down everything some man said, I just followed the word of God and somehow other people are also sharing an understanding and obeying it consistently. I can't speak for nonbelievers or for anyone outside of my church, and I wouldn't reasonably ask anyone else to. I could just as easily ask someone to explain the 33,000 Cath/prot denominations, if I were of that sort of inclination. But there's no point, the search was over as soon as I found the word of God, and I'm not looking for men to agree with, all that matters is the word of God is true.
That would be the Baptists.
Do you know that if you died today whether you would go to heaven?
Caleb Reed
So why did it take over a millennium and a half for the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth?
Lucas Allen
Churches that believe just like mine have existed since the Apostles.
Dominic Hall
sauce?
Logan James
Matthew 16:18. See the rest of the Bible for proof also.
Mason Allen
The Bible didn't pop out of no where, also there is nowhere in the Bible that says Bible alone
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Yes Bible is God-breathed, but it does not make a case that it is alone suffiecent.
At the writing of the that, the Bible wasn't compiled, the Book of Revelation wasn't either, Paul is only making the case for the Old Testament (Torah).
Bible alone is a man-made doctorine and grace alone is referring to:
The people who make the so called false doctrines in the RCC is called the magesterium.
I know that Gospel tract inside and out; I gave it many times. I linked people to Pastor Anderson's how to be saved videos.
I truly believed it and that means I can be as heretical as I want and be saved (in that case it is better to hedge my bets and join the RCC), or I was never truly saved.
I can't lose salvation according to your interpretation.
Yea I figured as such way before, they were just memes though that I was showcasing I used to post.
Leo Wilson
Embed related
Did Christianity assimilate the pagans? Or did the Pagans assimilate the Christians? Really makes me think
Aiden Carter
That'd be the Catholic Church actually given that it has maintained apostolic continuity and baptists haven't. I knew that that would be the easy response but unless you can point to anyone from, say, 100 A.D. to 1400 A.D., that share's you're belief then you're "evidence" is the same as every other denomination's.
Sebastian Scott
...
Easton Gonzalez
If you want to recommend a proper work of scholarship on the subject then go ahead, otherwise, just… no.
Parker Richardson
...
Joseph Collins
Your claim is unfalsifiable, for any historical evidence I produce for you will simply redefine the terms to exclude it. And also, you already think that "the evidence is the same" as every denomination, and this already shows me that you have made up your mind in advance, so clearly this isn't worth the time to respond to. Thanks anyway.
Mason Williams
Ok so let's set out some easy ground-rules then. A baptist church is any church that is
A.)Firmly sola fide
B.)Firmly sola scriptura
C.)Believer's baptists.
There, no other definition will be offered unless you want to put it forward. All you need to do is convince me that Churches with these beliefs existed between 100 A.D. and 1400 A.D., not necessarily that they are Christians as Christ intended. I am an undergraduate history major so I would be an embarrassment to my profession if I did not accept primary sources when I saw them. Are you up for this task?
Eli Clark
No but the interpretation was
Eli Davis
Sure, for starters just look up Henricians and Waldensians. They are well attested to. Both were semi-political denominations that lasted a long time, in that span of years, among whom our same beliefs were taught.
The important distinguishing feature to remember is the congregational organization. Each church runs its own affairs independent. It doesn't (and doctrinally shouldn't) extend beyond that. Except for when some political situation draws in some of the churches, as in these cases. And such as in 1523 in Switzerland most prominently, but this isn't the start of the phenomenon by any means. In fact creating a denomination, which is just a political entity, is invariably the start of many problems.
Ethan Rodriguez
The problem with these threads is that Andersonites will ignore substantive criticisms of his theology. I've written many-a paragraph debunking teachings of this heretic, as a former follower of his. Sometimes I'll get a canned response, but never an in-depth engagement. I've become utterly exhausted with the topic. I should have copied all my posts and just dump them whenever this thread is made again. Maybe I will at some point, but I realize my pearls are always being cast before swine.
MODS
If I can find a clip of Steven Anderson denouncing the Nicene Crede, can we please ban these mormon-tier threads? I believe that clip is out there, but I forget which sermon. Let me know so I can start digging.
ANDERSONITES
Just go make your own board. Zig Forums is a cool site like that; anybody can make a board.
Chase Evans
Robert Reed
At a glance, I can't get enough information on the Henricians other than the fact that they were too short lived to say anything meaningful about them, but the Waldesians heretics definitely fit the bill and I may take a look at La nobla leyczon tomorrow if I can find a full translation. I will however say that the first lines of that poem encourage the faithful to fear the aproaching end times and that doesn't sound like an OSAS church to me at the very least.
To digress in the exact way you didn't want me too, though, I would me remiss not to point out that there's still a 1000 year period of prevailing gates that this worldview does not account for.
Lucas Richardson
(((shitstains))) are such autistic lolcows
Leo Murphy
You're not a Christian, you don't belong here. That's not splintering, it's cleansing.
Caleb Cox
Care to explain why the Church that Christ built himself had it wrong from day 1?
Benjamin Lopez
It's alright man, as long as you're sincere in your search for knowledge. Here's a few interesting sources worth looking into.
Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6 (A.D. 413)
Reinstated in Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)
16.6.6 Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Anthemius, Praetorian Prefect.
No person shall resort to the crime of rebaptizing, nor shall he endeavor to pollute with the filth of profaned religions and the sordidness of heretics those persons who have been initiated in the rites of the orthodox… if after the time that the law was issued any person should be discovered to have rebaptized anyone who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Catholic sect, he shall suffer the penalty [of death], along with the person rebaptized, because he has committed a crime that must be expiated, provided, however, that the person so persuaded is capable of crime by reason of his age.
First Saxon Capitulary (A.D. 785)
19. Likewise, it has been pleasing to insert in these decrees that all infants shall be baptized within a year; and we have decreed this, that if any one shall have despised to bring his infant to baptism within the course of a year, without the advice or permission of the priest, if he is a noble he shall pay 120 solidi to the treasury, if a freeman 60, if a litus 30.
Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius (1504-1579)
For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing.
The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Vol 3, p.251 (1830)
It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.
Jacob Ortiz
Zig Forums is officially an IFB board, and Anderson is our figure head. Andersonite memes practically made this board what it is today. We will not stop until everyone on Zig Forums uses the KJV exclusively and joins a nice Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church. We're soul winning. So winnie the pooh off with your traditions of men, because WE ARE PREACHING THE WORD OF GOD! AND I WILL NOT LET YOU DENOMINATIONALS (WHO ARE BASICALLY JUST ENDLESS VARIATIONS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM) STOP US FROM PREACHING THE WORD OF GOD! WE WILL FIGHT YOU IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES! WE WILL STAND UP TO YOU BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SISSY MAINLINE FAGGOTS! Zig Forums IS AN IFB BOARD! NOW COVERT OR GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Andrew Gutierrez
Dude if you're going to come in here to pollute the thread by uncharitably shitting on everyone can your comments at least not veer off topic mid-sentence?
Colton Hill
...
Juan Turner
Wouldn't it be funny if they changed the rules to exclude all IFB yet kept the sodomite bait threads coming like clockwork? Pure pottery.
Gavin Fisher
Varg's music sucks so f u c k ing bad. Why do people suck his dick so hard? Just because he echoes their hatred for Christianity back at them?
Jordan Martinez
I've seen those Roman ordinances get posted here before, and while they are no doubt as lamentable as they are signifigant, they also would not hold up as evidence of a baptist sect in any historical journal, at least not on their own. It has criteria C (the first one that is, that second one just seems reasonable and unrelated), just not A and B, or D as congregationalism. The same would seem to apply to that cardinal's statement of he is only condemning anabaptists and not true baptists; it seems like he's just refering to the standardization of infant baptism in the 3rd century. If you could find some evidence of a group with all four of those from the pre-nicene era then you'd be cooking with gas, but even then those gates would still a problem from Nicaea onward. I'm sorry to press that point but it's always been my biggest gripe with protestantism in general.
Levi Rivera
Despite anything else I don't think you can get anywhere without God's promise to preserve his words. The only necessary proof, necessarily, must be the Scripture itself, and the faith in the fulfillment of the prophecies. It's not like the church started out legitimate due to its long existence. So the essential reasons for its legitimacy haven't arbitrarily changed later, meaning anything outside of the bedrock of scripture is secondary value. Like Paul said, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Brayden Hughes
Very well, but according to Matthew 16:18 the bedrock on which the Church was founded as a bulwark against hell was certainly not the Word of God (cough cephus means stone cough)
Caleb Ross
Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and simultaneously, is this rock.
Eph. 2:19-20
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Carter Robinson
...