Baptist Thread

People Usually bring up 3 verses to "prove" you need baptism for salvation. I'll debunk all three.

Mark 16:15
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
This verse does not say what happens to a person that belivees and is not baptized, only someone that believes and is baptized and someone that does not believe. Let's say Person A believes and is baptized, Person B believes and is not baptized, and Person C does not believe. According to this verse A goes to Heaven and C goes to Hell, but says nothing about B. According to 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." Person A and B go to Heaven and C goes to Hell.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
They will say being "born of water" is being baptized. No, being born of water is being physically born, and they will usually leave out verse 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." which Jesus compares being born of water with being born of the flesh, and being born of the spirit with being born of the spirit.

1 Peter 3:21
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:
They will take the part where it says "baptism doth also now save us" and say that proves it, but no, it's "The like figure" that saves us, not baptism. And the like figure is the death, burial, and ressurection of Christ. Colossians 2:12 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."

Attached: 1756ad1ab77f5019422959ff3a944660ccb9147df46c30d41e1d285643d15bbc.png (400x763 499.16 KB, 275.39K)

Attached: wO7AetD.png (1024x864 1.08 MB, 115.85K)

Where did all the Baptists go? I know the mods got ban crazy, but wow.

Baptist theology is correct because it is most faithful to the Bible
There are many other groups who get the primary issues right but follow some other ecclesiastical structure or don't call themselves baptist, like the Bible church movement

Just to compare with your catholic background, I as a baptist reject that the Bible alludes to such a concept as one institution holding exclusive or special power in interpretation. I think this is proven by clear contradictions between catholic doctrine and the Bible, especially on sacramentalism as a condition for salvation

copy pasting a wall of text is not compelling because it's impersonal and kinda cringy tbh

Baptists are not Christians and are going to hell.

explain

Do you believe the holy spirit proceeds from the father only, or from the father and the son?

When it comes to once saved always saved, what stops a person from doing bad after they've been saved? Like I could say I believe in Jesus (which I do), and then I'm saved, but what if I then go on to do horrible sinful things? Would I still be saved, despite turning away from God?

So if the is all we need for salvation, what did people do before the Bible was written? In the days of Jesus and just after his death they only had the church that was led by His apostles, not a Bible to follow. Would you say that the Bible includes the teaching of these early church fathers, and my point doesn't stand?

you don't need the bible for salvation, you need the gospel. The gospel comes from the Bible, but you can just tell someone.
The church fathers are not part of the Bible.

Baptize you're babies

Attached: baptize your babies.jpg (640x631, 67.05K)

The Holy Spirit
Yes. In this completely impossible hypothetical scenario, you would still be saved.

So your belief is that a person who believes in Jesus can never give up their salvation, no matter how much they sin, God will always forgive them? Then what's the point in avoiding sin if you're saved anyway?

See, that's why I said 'completely impossible': because it is. This is like asking about the practical implications of monkeys materializing out of thin air and falling from the sky.
In short, the reason you don't sin isn't because God is holding a gun to your head and He's gonna pull the trigger if you do, it's because He's given you a new heart, and you're grateful that He saved you.

Somebody made a Baptist bot, possibly to get all the Baptists banned.

Papal/\/iggers stop stealing our women REEEEEEEEEE

Why do you think that the New Testament warns us so many times about not enduring to the end and losing your salvation then? 80 passages are warnings about that.

I understand you're saying that after the Holy Spirit starts guiding a Christian, they can't lose their salvation without their knowledge. However, if they continue to murder and steal again knowing full well that it's wrong, they are willfully choosing to not follow God, and a person like that can't go into the Kingdom.

People still have their own will even after they become followers of Jesus Christ, He doesn't strip us from our free will after we have made the decision to follow Him.

Can you prove this wrong?

Just some examples of the warnings: 2 Peter 3:17, Matthew 24:13, Matthew 10:22, Hebrews 10:26-29

Can't blame the guy too much… 90% of the Catholic dating profiles I've come across have cleavage showing, among other red flags, whereas even Protestant girls are more modest. That being said, I remember not too long ago there being a thread created by a lonely Catholic "girl" that led to Cats screaming at Prots to stay away from her, and that interdenominational relationships are wrong, which I agree with. If he's going to pursue this girl, he should convert her, be converted, or break it off.

That's actually one of the reasons I'm curious about the Baptist faith. Compared to a lot of the catholics my age that I know, she's a lot more modest. There are only a few diehard trad catholic women I know, but most are very lukewarm. We're not far enough in our relationship yet to even begin trying to convert each other (at least I think she's not trying to convert me), but for now we're just trying to each love God and follow His will for us whatever that may be. We connect really well, so I pray the whole interdenominational thing gets sorted out sometime along the way.

no u

If baptists don't baptize their babies, what happens to people who die before their baptism? Or is your view on baptism different than the catholic view, that baptism cleans us of original sin?

I noticed you mentioned in your previous post that you both went to "church" (with a lowercase C) together. I take it you went to your girlfriend's church at her request? At the very least, it sounds like she's trying to offer you a different perspective that is the Baptist faith, if not outright win you over to it. Nevertheless, I hope the relationship works out for you.

I'm the same guy you responded to btw. Forgot to disable my VPN when I made that other post.

Yeah, I didn't really intend for the lowercase c to have any meaning but I went to her southern Baptist worship service this past Sunday. She had a few friends there that I'd met before, as well as some others, and after the service we went to a little Christmas party with other people from the church. It didn't feel like she was trying to convert me, just that she wanted to spend some time with me and let me see what her faith is like. We've talked about our faith a few times, mostly surface issues and not deep theological debate or anything like that, and we at least agree on the big picture things.

They go to heaven, just like David's baby in 2 Samuel 12
The baptist view of our name-sake ordinance "baptism" is that it is an instruction to follow after salvation with no special salvific qualities, because that would be works salvation. Baptists do not view "original sin" in the same way as catholics.

So how do you view original sin then?

From the BFM2000
III. Man

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11.

So to interpret, you do not inherit guilt from Adam that needs cleansing, but everyone will choose to sin in their lifetime.
"Original sin" should only be used to describe that first sin in Eden which prompted the fall

It does not, however it does warn of the consequences of apostasy, which is what I assume you're thinking of. Perhaps, you might wonder, why should scripture warn of the eternal penalty for apostasy if no man having once been justified can again fall into a condemned state? Because, unlike those who deny the doctrine of perseverance, the holy authors did not presume on the hearts of their audience. Even with a Christian, his heart is an unknown quantity, and biblically we must recognize that not all those who are with us are truly of us. Thus, the apostles warned against apostasy, knowing that some in their own day and countless in the future would be these unbelievers, and they needed to be warned that coming out of the Church and denying Christ was a grave and damning sin, even if they will not heed the warning. But even so, it certainly was not intended to override their explicit didactic teaching about the permanence of justification for the saints.
Now, preempting that you will simply repeat that scripture does warn us about losing our salvation, would you kindly show me even a single verse of scripture that acknowledges someone as beyond a shadow of a doubt in the state of grace, and then proceeds to warn them that they will lose their justification before God if they commit this or that sin? And before you search for that non-existent scripture do keep in mind that the dogmatic Council of Trent anathematized anyone who should claim to know they are in the state of grace.
Weird, coulda sworn I said this circumstance was impossible
Of course. In fact, it's freer than Adam's was before the fall, because their wills have been purified to never fall under the bondage of sin again.

What does /b/aptist think of Calvinism?

False gospel

Check out beyond the fundamentals on YouTube

Can someone point to me what verses talk about once saved always saved?

Also, where does it say anything about repenting of sins (or not).

John 3:16

Stupid

How so?

Calvinism is a false gospel because it requires the rejection of the free will choice of man to believe and be saved. The gospel is the "good news" about Jesus Christ, that he died for your sins and by choosing to believe you will have eternal life. If you believe in calvinistic unconditional election, the issue of your personal salvation is totally out of your hands.

Additionally, there'r regular calvinist debates about saying "Jesus died for your sins", because calvinist doctrine requires that he might not have died for your sins if you aren't elect.

I would like to watch and discuss this with you bros.

Would someone be willing to make a new thread for this? (I dont know how to embed videos properly)

youtube.com/watch?v=DAzkstD8aJk

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-01-02 at 10.27.11 PM.png (1960x982, 1.12M)

bump

Attached: spicy memes.png (1586x450, 753.36K)

Little did you know the ante nicene period is actually filled with Papist doctrine

Yes I am aware that Roman Christians did copy Carpocrate's idolatry.

Meanwhile in reality:

Chapter 17. The Christians are refused Polycarp's body

But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive 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 possessors 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 that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!

newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

Irenaeus contra Gnostic

3. For this purpose, then, he had come that he might win her first, and free her from slavery, while he conferred salvation upon men, by making himself known to them. For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judæa, when he had not suffered. Moreover, the prophets uttered their predictions under the inspiration of those angels who formed the world; for which reason those who place their trust in him and Helena no longer regarded them, but, as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through his grace, and not on account of their own righteous actions. For such deeds are not righteous in the nature of things, but by mere accident, just as those angels who made the world, have thought fit to constitute them, seeking, by means of such precepts, to bring men into bondage. On this account, he pledged himself that the world should be dissolved, and that those who are his should be freed from the rule of them who made the world.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxiv.html

Anderson Pro Gnostic

The title of my sermon tonight is Once saved always saved. It’s about the eternal security of the believer, the fact that once we get saved there is nothing we can ever do to lose our salvation

faithfulwordbaptist.org/once_saved_always_saved.html

Here are your early Baptists

[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

Meanwhile in reality

Attached: Screenshot_20190112-103742_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (1075x1200 521.25 KB, 553.54K)

Be honest and accept your are just an innovation, not succession of the early ante nicenes

Attached: Screenshot_20190112-104404_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (1080x932, 401.33K)

filtered ;)

Reality can never be filtered

...

Do you even know what a "Lutheranizing Reformation" is? It's the complete opposite of Baptists and even Calvinist. What you want to say is a Genevan Reformation to solve the problem. Why? Because a "Lutheranizing" direction is only a movement towards Catholicism as that direction is Sacramental in nature to the point even the concept of faith is viewed under those terms.

Yes, I know Calvinists have a higher view of Sacraments than many Baptists, but they are never considered to be Salvific in the manner where Baptism becomes part of justification or somehow it takes the logic of Catholic Penance.

Okay, let's pretend for a sec this heretical & late interpolation of Polycarp's martyrdom is authentic-Is this exactly what we'd expect if Irenaeus of Lyon was correct regarding the Carpocratians spreading their ways to the Roman Christians?

Except of course Irenaeus is literally the one who provided the author information on this text. Even worse for Baptists, there is literally ZERO description of any Gnostic sect in Irenaeus that critiques them for venerating martyrs and relics at all. Which only shows how little you know of Irenaeus and early Christianity in the first place.

Saying "what if" is not an argument. It just shows your projection and ignorance because literally NO ONE says the text has been interpolated. At best all that is claimed is it dates to the 3rd century and isnt historical!

Even worse for Baptists, the real Irenaeus opposes Baptist theology. How do we know this? From simple things like:

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,4462 from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?—even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.”4463 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh;4464 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,4465 because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness,4466 in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.iii.html

More Irenaeus against the Baptists:

Here Irenaeus contradicts Baptist doctrine by stating there is only ONE church contra the Baptist and Andersonite denial of a single unified church. Whoops, Irenaeus says here those who sow schism in this Church, not a bunch of autonomous IFB churches will be judged. And like a proto papist, Irenaeus says the following right after:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxiv.html

Baptists reject apostolic succession and any view of the Church or churches as dependent on bishops or pastors or clergy to preserve God's Word or the infallibility of the Church, which Irenarus takes for granted when he says only the Church can sustain the reproach of those who suffer persrcution

Irenaeus the Baptist? More like Irenaeus the Papist. Showing Baptists as so hating the early christians, they have to "pretend" and blatantly act like they dont know the source

BTW everyone, this is what I'm referring to:

I've been noticing that a lot of people (especially catholics) attack us for believing the Bible and wanting it to be interpreted by "The Church".

They also tend to lump Baptists in as Protestants, but I'm fairly certain baptists have been around since day 1. Why do the Catholics act like Baptists started to exist ONLY in the 1500s-1600s?

Attached: Holy Bible and Cross.jpg (431x383, 23.72K)

Because whenever Baptists try to prove it they can't even cite a single group that conformed with their beliefs aside from the anabaptists, and often they go so far as to cite the donatits, who only deviated from catholicism on a single point regarding the sacraments, or worse, the gnostic cathars. Why Carroll thought it wise to include these groups I'll never know.

How can Catholics be deviated from when their religion started in the 300s with Constatine?

Figures like Pope Clement, who began writing in the 1st century, were already refering to the need to defer to the priesthood for penance. Irenaeous was refuting gnostics and those who denied the Eucharist in the second century. The claim that the Church was formed AFTER the Apostles and the bulk of the Church Fathers had set down their writings has always been ,quite frankly, a weird and silly hypothesis.

What verses do Catholics use to say that the church is universal, that salvation is by works, amd the need to pray to others that aren't God?

I know right, it's not like Baptist perpetuity AND Baptist successionist theories have been rejected by the majority of academics and professionals or anything. I am a Baptist as well, but too often we lie to ourselves with talk of KJV superiority and ideas of being the new testament church. We're not. Baptists are Protestant. They come from England, a Protestant country, and flourished in America, a Protestant country.

What were the 1st century Christians then?

Go read the first century christian writings like the Didache and the Apostolic Fathers and find out.

Baptist stupidity 101

Baptists cant even agree with the Bible on the most basic of things

One example from 1Peter 3:21 on Baptism

καὶὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦνσῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Although the verb ἐπερωτάω is common enough in the New Testament and wider literature, the passive cognate noun ἐπερώτημα is very rare. However based on early papyri that we got(i.e such as in P.Oxy. 9.1200, the registration of a deed dated to 266 CE,and in P.Oxy. 9.1208, the public acknowledgement of a contract of sale in 291 CE) it carries the sense of a contract or covenant, perhaps also equivalent to the Latin applicatio ad patronum, whereby one entered into a client–patron relationship.

This is against how Baptists see Baptism

Why not just go with what the Bible says?
What if those people you're talking about are wrong?

the problem with that is some parts of the Bible are obscure and could fool people into falling into heresy.

Take John 10:34
>Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
(Emphasis mine)

What did Jesus mean by this? Without embed related (or even a spiritual apostolic father) one could conclude that the New Age Gnostics are right and ever human has the ability to be like God.

Thats why it is important for your soul to read about the early apostolic fathers and what they did, for they are the ones that were closest to Jesus. The Diadache has a fascinating history as it is the early catechism of Jesus' Church.

I don't think that justifies not allowing people to interpret the Bible on their own.

Except that it does. You are rejecting the traditions of Jesus' Church and substituting it with your own. It's like you know more than Jesus and his Apostles. You know what happened to the last being that thought they knew more than God? lake of fire

You'd be like a talmudic Jew, adding and removing things from the Torah that doesn't conform with your personal interpretation of God's commands.

I don't think Jesus Christ forbade people from reading the bible. Aren't we encouraged to go spread the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Can you please provide verses to support your statements?

The Bible =/= the Gospel.

You are moving the goal post.

Jesus does want you to read the Bible, but He also doesn't want you to fall into the same trap Adam & Eve fell into when they decided to do their own personal interpretation of God's commands for humanity.

Attached: download (12).jpg (550x373 57.72 KB, 63.6K)

Yeah, exactly, and the Christians from the book of Acts as well. So it goes from these churches directly to those who were wrongly termed "anabaptist" by people who had founded a state church. The problem these sacerdotal entities ran into is that they could never change the scriptures from their original words despite their attempts to destroy it and create a new standard. Those words of scripture stand in contradiction even to this very day to their numerous personal teachings, their attempts at wiping it out rendered useless.

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

I don't know an exact answer for the first two, but I can answer the third. You don't need to ask others to pray for you to be saved or anything, but does it really hurt to have someone else praying for you? It's not a requirement, but rather an option. And that option is extended to saints as well since we are all one body in christ, and the saints are alive in heaven. At least that's the argument I've heard, I'm sure I'm not doing it justice since it's been a while since I heard it.