Why do Baptists claim works and repenting isn't necessary for heaven?

I'm curious, what made you choose to be a Baptist instead of any other denomination? After reading a bit of Baptist beliefs I see myself agreeing with some of them, but at the same time I see a few ways in which they align with catholic teaching.

Wellllllll
They're kinda right, but they're kind of wrong. I think an illustration is in order.
The Baptists believe that you are saved by faith in God and not by works. Which is true because all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. However faith without works, like the body without the spirit, is dead. Works are the way you prove your faith.
So let's say that hypothetically, you owe me 8.9 trillion dollars. If you're like most people, you could never hope to repay your debt to me. Your debt to God is the same, you could never hope to absolve yourself of your sins by works alone.
But now let's say that I make you the offer that I will completely forgive your debt if you mow my lawn next weekend. So you show up to my place next weekend and mow my lawn and I forgive your debt.
Mowing my lawn isn't what forgave your debt, if you had mowed my lawn without my offer, you would still owe me 8.9 trillion dollars. Your debt was forgiven by me, not by your actions.
In the same way, we are absolved by God, not by our actions, but God will only absolve us if we attempt to follow after him and his ways.

You're conflating different Baptist sects, allowing the fringe to speak for the all in order to malign the entire group. Some baptists, such as Andersonite cultists, make no distinction between salvation, justification, and sanctification. They lump it all into one atomic instant of "got saved", and tie it all together with contextually dishonest proof texts e.g. Romans 4:5. - "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For by grace you have been saved by faith, and not of yourselves; it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast." However they won't read the very next verse: "or we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Basically, anti-repentance baptists and you seem to have the same misunderstanding about cause and effect.

I had the benefit of being born into a Baptist family

The law in Romans refers to the Jewish law of the Old Testament. Romans 2-3 is talking about how the Jews who have come to believe in Jesus do not have preferential status above the Gentile converts. The law, the law of Moses, means nothing because Jesus has come. It doesn't matter whether you follow it or not. This is what he talks about in Galatians more thoroughly, specifically Galatians 3 where he says that "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Galatians 3:13) and then later that "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). But taking Bible verses out of context like this can change their meaning drastically. I'm sure someone could come up with a verse which counters this argument from within Galatians itself. The epistles aren't a series of pithy truisms from Paul, John, etc. They're letters and should be read as such.

No Baptist says this.
Evidence of faith. Works does not save.

It's a cart before the worse thing. You have to be repentant and bear fruit etc., but those things are the result of salvation not the condition upon which you are saved.

"horse" oops

- Canon XIV, Council of Trent

Attached: 1534091489958.png (640x640 183.77 KB, 100.62K)

Best explanation of Justification I've seen in Zig Forums
Salvation comes through the grace of God and its an unmerited gift.

OP here
I'm listening to Revelation as I lie in bed and Revelation is all about God judging your works. He made a lukewarm person burn.

Revelation 3

Attached: Bible_Cover (1).jpg (400x300, 11.54K)

Shhh don't tell Baptists.

Clement or Rome epistle to church in Corinth chapter 32.

Also, I believe in Peter being the rock and any attempt by protestants to say it was another rock is simply brought out by a prejudice towards Roman Catholicism. But a belief in Peter being rock does not entail to modern romist belief.

I grew up Independent Fundamental Baptist, different than Southern Baptist. I don't remember the name of that guy in OP's pic but I know he's said a lot of extreme things and personally I wouldn't consider him "Baptist" in the sense that I understand Baptist, he's too full of hate and violence. I don't think my church would support him or his views.

The way I have always understood it is that faith is good yes, and yes faith saves you, but if it's real faith there HAS to be more, there HAS to be a change, or else you are "backslidden". If there are no fruits, there is no reward for you in Heaven.

Recently I've decided to take the plunge and investigate Catholicism, it's hard overcoming my knee-jerk PAPIST!!!! reaction that's been ingrained into me since birth, but I just find Baptist theology and church so blase and unfulfilling, I feel like I am just going there to make my parents happy.

Anyways, just wanted to give my two cents as someone who was raised in the IFB denomination. God bless.

What kind of protestant are you then?
Or are you orthodox since you quoted a Church Father?

I'm a Presbyterian

And you guys read the church fathers?
Well if I'm not mistaken you guys are an offshoot of the Anglicans right?

Baptists read the church fathers too bro

Why on earth was this deleted
I honestly hate you faggots

Attached: Screenshot_20190202-135823_Clover dev.jpg (1426x421, 80.62K)

This too

Attached: Screenshot_20190202-140005_Clover dev.jpg (1439x923, 282.84K)

But they ignore everything they say.

Strawman

Because /papist/ hates the truth.

I'll say a prayer for you, user, the Catholic Church is true. It will be very hard for you to convert, I imagine, as most Protestants are hostile to the Church. But Christ told us that we are not to be of this world, and that he would bring a sword to pit people against each other in His name.

No, we are a Scottish brand of Calvinists that originated in Scotland by the theologian John Knox. John Knox did have some connections with the royal family so there might be some connections but for the most part since even at my church there are Anglicans. But the reason why they are there is because they accept the Westminster confession of faith. But then again I do not know how orthodox he is in his Anglicanism because both of us differ in our Sacramentology.

Also, mainly reformed Christians read the church fathers. It's important to know historical Christianity but our faith in scripture as the ultimate authority in our church leads us to believe that the Calvinist soteriology and our ecclesiology to be the true way. But this isn't to say that all of church history has gone into error but just that they have gone in the wrong direction since they have abandoned their ultimate authority and fallen into error. And this is why the reformation had to happen.

Its true. Otherwise your theology would be the cathodox one.

Thanks for the insight.

Thanks user, I would appreciate prayers right now. I've just begun to come back to Christ after years of pain and confusion away from Him, I still remember a lot of bible verses and stories but I'm trying to decide where to go from here and all this hatred between the different denominations is driving me nuts. I don't understand why Christians seem to hate each other so much or why hatred is such a powerful human emotion and why it controls society with such an iron grip. It's exasperating but at least I have faith and the Holy Spirit on my side again and I'm not trying to fend off the darkness alone anymore.

(checked)

It certainly is disheartening to see siblings in Christ bicker like children amongst themselves or even worse, make war over it i'm looking at you, Europe. This is just what happens when each denom is the arbiter of truth. If a different denom is right about something while your's isn't, than the implications of it means that your faith may not be the one true faith. Which can stir up emotions.

I wish you the best of luck in becoming apart of Jesus' Church the Orthodox Church obviously, begome :p

Jesus never created any church governance. That's a lie that the cult of Babylon (AKA church of Rome) created so they could exalt themselves to the status of Godhood. The child rape that has been a defining tenant of catholicism for its entire existence should be enough to tell you that the religion is satanic. All satanic religions throughout history have the trait of child abuse/sacrifice as a sacrament. You continued defense of the Satanic church of Rome is just partaking in the rape and murder of children. Though you may not engage in the practice personally, you act as the primary line of defense shielding your luciferian leaders from ever facing justice for their evils

To this, the Catholic church responds-

The catholic church have pushed aside Jesus and declared themselves to be "the way, the truth, and the life". All the while they rape children, foment wars, subvert societies for their gain, and practice witchcraft thinly veiled as Christianity. You watch documentaries on scientology and as evil as that church may be, it's the nutrasweet of evil compared to the church of Rome. Catholic clergy makes the scribes and pharisees look holy in comparison. The church of Rome is a vehicle of satanism and it will be utterly eradicated when Jesus returns.

That's what every church says, and then they all follow that up by presenting different beliefs that they swear up and down is just the bible truth. The fact that people still buy that shit would be funny if it weren't so disturbing.

If that's the case, tho, aren't all churches "idols" in your eyes? Aren't churches your way to Jesus?
"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." Matthew 18:20. Two people are, in the eyes of God, a church. And that means the path to Salvation is always You->the Church->Jesus.

As for the first paragraph, I don't know where to start. The Catholic Church, whether you agree with it or not, sprang from the Early Church. To say it has "child rape" as "a defining tenant" would imply that the Messiah diddled kids. If you're referring to Christ, the Messiah, then this is sacrilege. The "messiah" you'd be thinking of in that case is Mohammad.

this

Haha so I've seen the meme thread, apparently the Catholic and Orthodox faiths are "bros"? Can you explain this to me? I honestly can't understand as a protestant how two different faiths could coexist the way that Catholic and Orthodox do. I'm baffled.

Also my dad tries telling me that Baptists go "all the way back to the beginning", that they've been around since the dawn of Christianity, but I when I tried to find a source for that all I could find was some random article written by like John R. Rice in some random newsletter from decades ago….so yeah needless to say I rather doubt that assertion.

They are only "bothers" because their beliefs are almost the same as the Catholic Church, they have valid apostolic succession and all of their sacraments are valid.
But it doesn't change the fact they are schismatics and borderline heretics.

The Mormons also say the israelites came to America centuries before the Europeans. Doesn't make them right.
Also if anyone reads the church fathers from the very beggining finds out their beliefs are Catholic.

this, why is it so hard to understand? Yes, if you are a Christian there will be good works, but that is a result, not a CAUSE.

For what it's worth I'll leave this here if anyone wants to discuss it: apuritansmind.com/justification/the-early-church-and-sola-fide/

If you look back in history, you will see the East and West used to be one unified Church. Used to be. Than the Catholics schismed first by excommunicating Patriarch Michael I? Why? Because el papa wanted to be arrogant and have supremacy over all the other bishops instead of primacy with the other bishops.

Attached: 28d299467bc7f0febb41da8014d2ae7f.jpg (197x300, 22.6K)

Muh New Rome. winnie the pooh Latins.

The absolute state of papism.
The absolute state of the Latins

Politicians rule the church now. Well done orthodoxes. No wonder the USSR and Putin have you on their hands.
The title ecumenical Patriarch wasn't used in the first centuries of Christianity as well as the title pope.
But all the church fathers say the church of Rome was the cornerstone of faith not Constantinopole. And all the major issues were dealt with Rome not Constantinopole.
Matthew 16:18, John 21 and the first part of Acts say you are wrong. Even St. Paul went to see Peter, not James or John or Andrew etc.
Prots rebelled for the same reason as you did. The hatred of authority. although you guys still keep some in the Bishops, while prots have 30000 little popes each to each one's taste

Jesus Christ made the ultimate sacrifice for all by shedding his blood to give every person in the world the opportunity to have their sins washed away, through His blood. If you think that works are required, you are spitting in Christ's face by thinking his sacrifice wasn't enough. To be saved by grace, you need to have faith in Christ's blood. Every person is a sinner, no matter what. Sin is not allowed in Heaven with God. Even one sin. No matter how many works you do, it is still not enough to make up for one's sin. The only thing that can wash one's sin is the blood of Jesus Christ.

Steven Anderson is probably a Jesuit. If you are trying to understand what Baptists teach by 100% truth in the Bible and dispensationalism, Anderson is not the one to observe.

It has nothing to do with "spitting in Christ's face". People simply believe in Christ's words themselves. How could they be spitting in Christ's face for simply taking his demands seriously? This is the opposite of spitting in his face.. to sit down and humbly listen to him. Over and over again, he urges us to take up the cross with him, to deny ourselves, to give up riches and build treasure in heaven, to love, to serve our fellow man, to turn the other cheek, to fear hell, to not commit adultery, to not commit fornication, etc..

What you're doing is putting a model of Soteirology above Christ's own words. But have you ever considered that it's actually the model that's manmade, and not what other people are saying? These other people simply want to take Christ seriously, but you hold up an distilled Bullet Point of view of Salvation that isn't the Bible.. and then you tell them they're the ones not reading the scriptures! When that's all they're simply doing.

If ALL that mattered was Christ's sacrifice, it actually renders everything else Christ did as meaningless. I actually respect one Protestant teacher for being consistent here, but he illustrated plainly and honestly just how insane this view is. It was RC Sproul.. and I ran into a teaching once where he said Christ could have very well incarnated as a grown man and just immediately shed his blood on the cross and died for our sins. It would have made no difference. His main purpose was to die for the world's sins. Everything else was apparently a waste of time.

The only difference between him and others though is that he fully admits the conclusions of his Salvation doctrine. Others scoot around and beat around the bush and try to rationalize some reason why Christ had an actual ministry, actually preached instructions and ethics, actually did things other than simply be born and die. He's the only one I've heard that just bluntly states the insanity of his own doctrine.. and I have to somewhat respect that.

Either way, it's the whole life of Christ that some of us hold up. You say it's "spitting in Christ's face" for simply doing it. It makes zero sense… You're calling a good thing "evil". How about attacking actual evil? There's plenty of people who DO spit in Christ's face, but it's insanity to think the people who love and want to follow Christ's words are the ones spitting.

Well, actually we do. Repenting for salvation IS believing in Jesus.
jesusisprecious.org/articles/acts_20-21.htm

Jonah 3:10 says "And God saw their ==WORKS,== that they turned from their evil way.

Romans 4, Ephesians 2, Titus 3:5, and many more passages say we are saved by faith, not by works; by faith apart from works; by faith apart from any righteous deed. Turning from sins is a righteous deed.

Your filthy rags can not save you. Only the blood of Christ do.

When you read the scriptures, learn how to distinguish eternal vs temporal judgment as well as what one is being "saved" from in the immediate context. (e.g. "endure to the end to be saved" is speaking about deliverance from persecution).

Based

Here's my guess:

Good works come from faith. Without faith you can't have good works. Therefore, good works save insofar as they are proof of your faith. With faith, you want to sin less. With faith, you want to change your old sinful ways (metanoia) and metanoia is essentially the end result of confession.

Therefore faith = metanoia, works, confession, salvation all at once

Attached: 1548791433291.jpg (800x1107, 332.36K)

The even scarier thing is the threat to take lampstands away. These are clearly churches and not average sinners.. and the ones who fail gets extinguished. And Christ has and does do this. Heard anymore of the Church of Laodicea? I didn't think so.

So it's not individuals, but collective bodies falling out.. be it from active sin or bad teachings. The Letter to the 7 Churches is a template for all of us. And we should fear it.

Here's the greatest lesson though: "Remember thy first love." Never lose the spark and love and zeal you had for God in the beginning. Even if it was childlike (although that's precisely what Jesus tells us what we must be like as well).

So what's the difference between "supremacy" and "primacy" with the bishops? So the Catholics say you are schismatics while you say the Catholics are schismatic? Who am I supposed to believe?
Does the orthodox faith have their own pope or something? Or is the Pope really the real pope that goes back to the dawn of Christianity?

Orthodox are a Church of Councils. No Popes, but Bishops are honored and obeyed, as long as they keep the teachings of the Church. They could just as easily not be that way, unfortunately. For example, Nestorious was once Bishop of Constantinople.. wouldn't be good to honor a heretic, would it? And St. John Chrysostom was once the rightful bishop of Constantinople, but was kicked out and exiled by Arians. Wouldn't be good to honor Arians just because they held high office, right?

This is the quandary Rome can be danger from btw. They could easily have a heretic at the head of their church, but there's no "failsafe" button with "Papal Infallibility". They're all left in either cognitive dissonance pretending things aren't as bad as they seem, become schismatic sedevacantists themselves (people who believe the seat of Peter is vacant, but still honor the seat of Peter), or get lost in fantasy, like hoping some day a "Good pope will come and wash it all away" or some "Great Monarch will cleanse the world and get us all back to the pure expression of faith". I'm not trying to insult them. I think many are good people.. I just feel bad that they have to experience this.

Supremacy would reffer to The See of St. Peter having authority and final say over all the other bishops.
Primacy would reffer to the See of sharing authority with the other Bishops, but his opinion is held to a higher standard than the others. A first among equals as they say.

And in regards to bad Popes, while they are alive they still have to be respected. But once they are gone either resign or in the grave the successor Pope can judge and condem the previous Pope for heresy. A cadaver synod of sorts.
It's happened before (think Borgia Pope but even Alexander VI wasn't doctrinally a heretic, just a aweful person that had people assassinated and slept with whores) and hopefully the next Pope will see Bergoglio's liberal retardation and condem him for it. I won't hold my breath, but with God all things are possible. Just gotta keep on praying my dude.

A Catholic apologist said it to me the best:
>Don't condem Peter because (((Judas))) was a traitor

Attached: hqdefault (1).jpg (480x360, 27.87K)

baptists don't.
baptists never have.
baptists have done nothing but preach repent, repent for the kingdom of heaven is near for 1991 years. That is another meme
This is a grossly meme-tier meme invented by Zig Forums for shits and giggles because baptists refused to bow down before Mary or a Pope … I guess. I don't know why, folks just sperged out about baptists pretty much as soon as this board happened.

Because works are not the PRE-CONDITION for salvation.
Works are the AFFIRMATION of salvation, they are a sign that the Holy Spirit is sanctifying you, which is a sign that the Lord has sealed you, which is another way of saying "you're saved" or "marked for Christ".
Works are in no way the actual thing that saves you.

Cathbros have previously explained that they agree with this. But memes… memes are something else.

SOMEHOW, in the meme wars of 2015-16, we went from protestants (meme-)accusing apostolics of "you believe works save", to cathbros justifying and making clear what catholic teaching on this was, to apostolics turning around and accusing protestants of not believing in works at all and "you can go to heaven if you just say Jesus three times and spin around clockwise"
This is not actually founded in anything that resembles accuracy, much less truth, but I guess it makes the meme-tier butthurt cathbro brigade feel better. (I distinguish them from the regular Catholics, you understand.)

Never believe the memes. Memes are almost never true. They just germinate from something that was once kinda true.

Attached: memes-are-not-truth.jpg (430x265, 49.03K)

Verses proving salvation to anyone that believes and not of works.
youtu.be/WDEBz25lGdY

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
9:2
12:37
21:31-32

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

Luke
3:3(Acts 19:4)
5:20
7:48-50
8:12
18:10-14/42
19:42
23:40-43

Acts
2:21
3:19
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
4:2-14/16/24
5:1/15-18
6:14/23
8:31-33
9:30-33
10:3-4/9-10/13
11:6

1 Corinthians
1:14/17/21
3:14-15
15:1-2

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

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

Philippians
3:3/9

1 Thessalonians
4:14

2 Thessalonians
1:10
2:12

1 Timothy
1:16

2 Timothy
1:9
3:15

Titus
3:5

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

1 Peter
1:3-5/8-9
2:6-7
3:21(Colossians 2:12)

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

Revelation
2:11
3:5
21:7

I've been reading a lot of arguments for both Protestantism and Catholicism a lot in the last few days and I am convinced that 90% of their disagreements are purely semantic. They both have cartoonishly one dimensional understandings of each other's beliefs. I don't think they even mean the same thing when they talk about Sola Fide or even Sola Scriptura for that matter. It's like some guy saying "You stole my newspaper!" to his neighbor who replies with "That's impossible, the mail hasn't even come today!"

C'mon this is totally false. The real reason is that Protestants have been backing away from their actual "doctrine" over centuries actually cause it's so hard to make any logical sense. The OSAS Baptists are real and that's not cartoonish. They literally believe repenting is a work and you shouldn't do that.

As for other lukewarm Protestants they still sort of quasi believe they have a license to sin. They think sins are just guidelines. You sin and just say you're sorry to God and then you're fine or well I mean it doesn't really matter to them in the end. The core doctrine of Protestanism is that the pope is the antichrist and that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and most Protestants have sort of given up on that. Other than that they don't believe in communion, or prayer to the saints or statues or real presence (except for anglicans). So what do you mean it's semantic.

We literally worship a piece of bread. That's not semantics lol. We pray to people who have died from this earth, those are not semantics.

user…that heretical and literally artolatry. No Christian worships the bread at mass.

Attached: tenor (3).gif (220x165, 43.71K)

Because it's easier not to work and not to repent

CS Lewis explains it best, what follows is a paraphrase;
Christians have for thousands of years now insulted each other based on one of two caricatures.
1) That a certain group believes that since charity is the best virtue, and the best kind of charity is given to to church, just hand us £1,000 and we'll see you through (this is classic muh indulgences).
Alternatively 2) You are saved by faith, even if you are a horrid person, just believe and you'll be alright (this is a classic counter-reformation talking point).

The truth, as CS Lewis points out, is that this is like asking which blade of a pair of scissors is more important. Nevertheless, some sects and people proclaim the value of works, whereas others exalt faith.

Because they're willingly stupid and bitter towards others.

Titus 3:4-7 gives a good idea of the Baptist idea of salvation, I think.

God forgives all sin. If you’ve lived a life of crime, are dying, TRULY regret and TRULY believe that Jesus is God, then I’d imagine you’ll be saved. You can’t just become a Christian last second to avoid hell.

cool.
Nice list. Will review.

Attached: cool-story-bro-rambo-impressed.jpg (640x478, 78.33K)

I don't know about baptists, but how Luther put it when explaining "by faith alone" and how I've understood it:

(from the The Smalcald Articles)

Therefore, while we cannot say that "works are necessary for salvation", we can say that if somebody does not do good works, their faith is likely false or weak. And it is a tool of self-reflection, also: if I am incapable of good, how true can my faith be?

t. Lutheran

Do not simply apply this to baptists, btw. Lutherans and the Catholic church have managed to find some mutual understanding anyway, there is a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification.

Attached: tip.jpg (1200x1060, 226.72K)

Also these:

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:

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

Some good verses here, thanks. It's been a while since I've read the new testament, I'm trying to work my way through the old testament right now but it's going slow since I'm busy with college stuff. I'm definitely going to reread the NT once I finish it though.

Deuteronomy 15:10
Deuteronomy 24:14
Proverbs 12:11
Proverbs 14:23
Proverbs 18:9
Matthew 25:31-46
John 6:27
Acts 20:35
1 Corinthians 4:12
1 Corinthians 15:58
Colossians 3:23
Hebrews 6:10
1 Timothy 4:10

Romans 2:6
"God will repay each one according to his deeds."

Why do Catholics rape children?

We don't.
Men do.
We are not a hive mind.

They don't care how many times the validity of works are affirmed in scripture. They see faith and works and assume they are distinct rather than one and the same, and so put priority on faith over works. You could show them whatever passages you want, and they'll show you passages about faith, and the conversation will never progress because their perspective itself is errant.

We view works as physical manifestations of faith in and obedience to Christ, based on the entirety of the NT and OT. They hear the Paul affirm faith in his Letter to the Romans and assume works are entirely unrelated, and as such seemingly ignore any other mention of them even if it is by Christ himself.

I know they believe that good works are born from faith, but I don't know how they explain away faltering. You don't suddenly lose belief in Christ when you sin. That's not how the mind works. It may be a lack of response or receptiveness to the will of God, but it's not pure abandonment. That's not how the mind works.

That's the same reason why they have to say we don't actually believe in God/Christ/the Holy Spirit. Because that's the only way in their mind that we could supposedly disobey Christ's will. Faith/belief and sin seemingly cannot exist simultaneously.

Neither are all "Baptists".

I can show you the Catholics who aren't rapists

Can you show me the baptists that don't believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura?

This is a terrible equivalence, and the fact that you're willing to go to such a low level is not only insulting to all Catholics, it's incredibly insulting to the victims of such acts. Apparently they're just something for you people to throw in our face and mock us rather than actual people. We in the church actually want something done, you'd rather it perpetuate so you have something to point at.

youtube.com/watch?v=3lwwfCpvXnc

Attached: stevenAnderson.jpg (1280x720, 157.07K)

I literally used the same association fallacy as the OP:

I never said I was 100% on board with OP, I was just responding to a comment I found disgusting and insulting… I don't think rape is on the level of a minor misunderstanding dude.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy built into the foundation of your church.

Faith needs to be accompanied by works because works are an extension of faith. But you can still believe in and profess Christ without doing good works. It won't get you very far, but it is doable.

He's not being fallacious, Anderson is an outlier. He's identifying the standard Baptist view in the same post.

We don't literally worship a piece of bread. You should spend more time studying before speaking with confidence about things you don't understand, with all due respect.

Am I using ad hoc reasoning to delineate what a Baptist is? You should learn what that actually means.

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Amen.

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 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.

Attached: kjv_1.jpg (480x360, 9.29K)

Just wanted to mention, in case it wasn't clear: I have no ill will towards Catholics and don't lump them all in with every bad thing one of them does. It was just a rhetorical device I was using to show the problem with the way OP was formulated. I don't like inter-denom bickering, tbh. We have a lot more in common than not.

He cute

Slightly off topic, but I'm curious as to what Baptists (and other Protestants) here think of how the Orthodox view the relationship between faith and works. From Met. Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Church":

Your typical prod will tell you that works are a necessary component of faith, which in a roundabout way means that they do believe works are necessary for salvation. This debate is largely one of semantics. The notion that you could just never do anything good for anyone and still get into Heaven is so unbelievable that even those who claim to believe in Sola Fide don't really believe it.

It is semantics and mental gymnastics as Prots use the works aren't nesscary as an excuse to not take the eucharist, go to confession, or participate in other sacrments. The only type of works that matter in thier eye is to lead Christians astray and have them join their splinter factions of Christianity.

Attached: Sola-Scriptura-Unity.jpg (605x597 91.37 KB, 85.81K)

No, you're still not getting it. Your salvation comes from faith in Christ alone, and any good works that you do are simply a consequence of the Holy Spirit working in you. It's not just a semantic disagreement.

I believe said it pretty well. The faith comes first, and is what saves you, and once you have a saving faith and the Holy Spirit dwells in you you'll start to do good works. That's why the Bible tells us that faith without works is dead. If I just say that I believe in Christ, but don't actually put my faith in him like I would a parachute, then I'm not saved and good works will not be manifest in me (or very rarely so, driven by happenstance instead of the Holy Spirit guiding my heart to do good).

Nice strawman you got there. Protestants do still celebrate communion with bread and wine (or juice in some cases), we just don't believe in transubstantiation. Jesus told his disciples "do this in remembrance of me". We don't "go to confession" with a priest because we believe that God, being omnipotent and knowing the content of one's heart, can hear our prayers and confession without needing an earthly vessel to act through (a priest). When Jesus died, the veil of the temple was torn, which symbolized how God was now allowing anyone to come to Him, not just the high priest of the tabernacle who would make the sacrifices. Jesus is our new high priest, and with Him being fully God he is able to hear our prayers and forgive us directly, "for there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". We don't want to lead Christians astray, we just believe that the Roman church has moved away from the Bible and has started to place too much authority in its traditions and clergy instead of scripture, which is the breathed word of God. I hope this helps you understand our position a bit better, if you have more questions I'll gladly try to answer them but I warn you I'm still just a bit new to protestant theology myself.

You are kidding me if you are going to tell me that there is unity among the 1.3Billion professing Roman Catholics in the world. This current Pope is pretty much a Universalist. Do you think we should have fellowship with Muslims? You had better, because ol' Francis certainly thinks so. What about the many so -called Catholic women that support abortion 'rights'? Why is Vatican II so far removed from traditions Catholicism? Why does it seem that the majority of Rome's Ecclesiarchy is filled with theological liberals?

And to address the apparent disunity among Protestants. Yes we disagree on peripheral issues, even important ones such as pedo vs credo baptism. But we still consider each other brothers in Christ because we agree on the fundamentals of the faith. Luther himself had many disagreements with many other reformers, and that's ok, because he still considered them brother's in Christ.

As for works, any Protestant who knows anything about theology (and admittedly there are many that don't, particularly among my Evangelical friends) will tell you that you are saved by grace through faith in Christ, apart from works. However, as James points out, if a man calls himself a Christian, yet his life is steeped in unrepentant sin and he doesn't seem to care, then his works show that he probably isn't really saved. BUT his works did not save him. A truly saved man will, because of the Holy Spirit working in his heart to sanctify him and renew his mind, begin to mortify sin and live out the fruits of the Spirit. A saved man still sins, because he isn't fully sanctified (something that only happens in heaven), but he gradually overcomes those sins, he seeks after Christ in all of his ways, his thinking is changed and he begins to perform those good works. Those works have not saved him, but a saved man will ALWAYS display good works. Good orthodoxy (doxy meaning doctrine) will inevitable lead to good orthopraxy (praxy meaning practice). A truly saved man, one who is filled with the Holy Spirit will produce good works; a false convert may for a time perform works that outwardly seem 'good', but inside he is unregenerate. His heart is cold and his very essence is still hostile to God. This many (though he may fool you and himself for a time) will eventually show through his lack of good works that the Holy Spirit does not reside within him and he is not a true believer.

On a side note, this is what you say to the atheist who posts memes like "I asked god for a bike but he didn't give it to me so I stole one and asked for forgiveness instead." The person who does that is (obviously) not a true convert, and his still still rests upon him.