/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>532547

>What do? Do I literally just move to 'murica?

lol no. Not unless you want to attend Israel-worshipping fundigelical congregations or rock-concert megachurchs.

>>532550

>Not unless you want to attend Israel-worshipping fundigelical congregations or rock-concert megachurchs.

No, that's not really in my plans. Then again, you have to know that the type I was thinking of would be something firmly grounded in the Scriptures and fellowship of believers, not some satanic money-grabbing scheme where you don't know the person sitting next to you.

>>532547

In what church were you baptized?

>>532554

Evangelical Lutheranism. I believe they recite the standard "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" and sprinkle some water on your forehead. Afterwards as a 16 year-old you generally go to christian camp after which you confirm your faith. I confessed what I think didn't exist at that time yet, truly

>>532555

If you were baptized with the Trinitarian formula in a church that was then truly Christian, then your baptism is valid and not to be repeated, regardless of whether you actually believed yet or not.

>>532562

Not really. Baptism has no supernatural power to it and is just a statement of belief.

>>532547

The gospel of Mark tells you what to look for.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Mark chap 16

>>532562

>>532573

I believe it as 4b495e stated

>>532550

The thing with 'Murca is that we have plenty of shallow, theologically illiterate churches like that but plenty of great ones too.

>>532547

Terve! I hope you're not driven away from Lutheranism because of the liberalism of your state church.

>I can't help but think that it went in the wrong order, that I should have come to belief first and then baptism.

If you let the texts speak for themselves apart from any reformed presuppositions about OSAS it's pretty clear that Baptism is more than just a symbol or confession of faith. In the case of infants Baptism grants faith; in the case of adult converts faith comes by the word first and Baptism follows, uniting you to the Body of Christ.

i chuckled

>>532573

>>532583

Baptism isn't just a bare sign, it signifies regeneration and thusly confers the same grace, though sacramentally. 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 5:26.

>>532589

>Baptism is more than just a symbol or confession of faith

But the thing signified isn't so attached to the sign that its reality is always present with the sign.

>In the case of infants Baptism grants faith

Water baptism never grants faith, faith is granted by baptism of the Holy Spirit alone. The grace provided by baptism is an increase to faith as it is an increase to regeneration.

>>532547

>catholicism-lite

whut

>>532573

Fuck off

>>532547

this one looks like what you're looking for if you're near oulu and speak english

https://ouluchurch.com/where/

https://ouluchurch.com/vision/

(tl;dr: 5 solae & credobaptism)

>>532589

>Terve! I hope you're not driven away from Lutheranism because of the liberalism of your state church.

It is somewhat liberal, but mainly I just don't believe in lutheran theology, that's the issue. I don't have ill will against it really except for the tax they take from its members, while it doesn't really preach against the common evils of our society today. Then again, if it did it would lose its state funding and be even more wildly unpopular. Finns are a quite secular society

>it's pretty clear that Baptism is more than just a symbol or confession of faith.

I agree as far as ceremony goes, because after all it is the event that marks your death and resurrection to Christ in the visible realm among everyone, however that's as far as I believe it. To say how I think of it, it would be like getting married. You don't want to miss the wedding ceremony, but you're married none the less even if you missed it. And I don't want to miss "my wedding", which is why I'm struggling right now

> In the case of infants Baptism grants faith.

I have doubts about this as most everyone before the 2000s got baptised as infants and yet the vast majority are unbelievers or nominal "christians". In fact, my belief came from hearing the gospel preached outside the church from the internet after having grown up close to it, ironically enough.

>>532597

Lad, don't be so rude to others please

>>532596

Our church had a lot of "Roman Catholic" practices, of course diluted, but still. Take it as a small jab.

>>532612

Sadly that's halfway up the country for me, and I'm bound to where I'm at because of studies. I thank you for the effort though.

jakobstad (reformed baptist):

http://agapechurch.fi/our-church/statement-of-faith/#election

tampere (reformed baptist):

http://www.ibctampere.org/about/what-we-believe/

>>532550

>OP is reformed

>Looking for a reform baptist church

<lol no. Not unless you want to attend Israel-worshipping fundigelical congregations or rock-concert megachurchs.

>first poster thinks reformed baptist churches are Israel-worshipping fundigelical rock-concert burgerchurches.

>OP is a pretty cool guy

>first poster is a faggot

Wew

>>532547

>What do? Do I literally just move to 'murica?

If you are that desperate and there literally is not one righteous person left in Finland besides you, then yeah. But I don't God has abandoned Finland.

>I can't help but think that it went in the wrong order, that I should have come to belief first and then baptism.

You could always be re-baptized, but I wouldn't dwell on it too much. As long as you belief, faith, and love for God and fellow believers, you should do fine.

I've found this church, first result. It came from a historical/reformed baptist directory:

https://ouluchurch.com/

This church is not explicitly reformed, but it is evangelical and orthodox (little-o):

http://www.maallikkosaarnaaja.com

Very small congregation:

http://www.ibctampere.org/

Another wee congregation, run by a foreign ministry:

http://www.agapechurch.fi/

Good luck and God bless!

>>532589

>In the case of infants Baptism grants faith

Whoa partner! Really close to heresy there. One too many Presbyterian churches here in America have fallen due to that belief. No offense to any truly Reformed Presbyterians lurking here. Still love ya' <3

>>532639

>>532624

I appreciate all the help. It seems as if there's a vacuum of reformed churches with little pockets of them here and there. It's not as if there's no christians at all in Finland, but it's certainly exceedingly rare for anyone to confess faith in public outside the church. All in all, I would have thought Helsinki would have an explicitly reformed one due to its size I'm going to study there but I only found a couple baptist ones that don't really say what they believe in on the webpages there.

>If you are that desperate and there literally is not one righteous person left in Finland besides you, then yeah. But I don't God has abandoned Finland.

It simply gets somewhat lonely when none of the friends I already have believe, when the state church behaves like a state church and all of that. I'm not really one for lots of ceremony and churchgoing in the first place, but it would probably be nice to have an actual christian friend.

>Good luck and God bless!

Thanks, bless you too.

>>532547

how about this church in Helsinki?

http://www.ucclife.fi/

>>532547

You could try not being a Calvinist. Calvinism is based on a selective picking of Bible verses that ignores all the verses to the contrary and also makes God into a monster. There are solid refutations of Calvinism floating around the Internet, and you could also consider talking to your local priest about your concerns. The state church believes what it does for a reason.

>>533316

>Calvinism makes God a monster

>Apostle Paul literally rebukes this objection in Romans 9

>God is the creator, we are the created

>God creates us for HIS purpose

>God creates us for HIS pleasure

>There is no unrighteousness in God

It's that simple. God asks us to TRUST Him that whatever His purpose for man, there is no evil or unrighteousness in it. If your reaction to Calvinism is "that makes God evil!" then you need to read Job 38.

What about this one? https://ouluchurch.com/

>>535043

Oh i saw someone already posted. Sorry my bad

Arn't there maybe online reformed churches though? That livestream services etc?

>>532595

The distinction between Baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism is not a biblical one. It fits very well into reformed theology but not so much into the texts that actually talk about Baptism.

>>532617

>To say how I think of it, it would be like getting married. You don't want to miss the wedding ceremony, but you're married none the less even if you missed it.

Baptism isn't a mere ceremony. As a comparison to marriage I would say that the order of service around Baptism could be analogous to the wedding ceremony, and the actual baptism with water in the name of the Holy Trinity would be analogous to the consummation of the marriage—it "seals the deal", is physical, and creates an inseparable ontological unity.

>>532642

Lutherans and reformed do in fact consider each other's sacramental theologies to be heretical. :^)

Sorry, I don't mean to turn this thread into a Baptism debate thread. Good luck finding a church, OP. Kristus nousi kuolleista!

>>535070

>The distinction between Baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism is not a biblical one

<I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

>>535078

This ain't the slam dunk verse you think it is. The "but" in Mark 1:8 (de) is a somewhat ambiguous conjunction and often means "moreover" or simply "and". So in isolation this verse very well could be saying that the Baptism instituted by Jesus is a Baptism with water and moreover the Holy Spirit. Since you don't interpret the clear passages in scripture by the unclear ones, we look to the other verses that discuss Baptism to see what reading of de makes more sense. Nowhere else in scripture is this distinction even conceivably made, and taking the other clear passages about Baptism (1 Pet 3:21, Rom 6:4, etc.) at face value without reformed theological assumptions you can't come to any conclusion other than that Baptism is efficacious.

>>535070

>Sorry, I don't mean to turn this thread into a Baptism debate thread

It's fine, the thread has more or less run its course, I have learned more about my surroundings and we can now turn to arguing what we think is doctrinal truth, per /christian. It does serve to teach us after all It seems as if /christian is my "church" in the absence of a physical one right now, silly enough.

>Kristus nousi kuolleista!

Amen

>>535088

>1 Pet 3:21

<not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

>Romans 6:4

<we too might walk in newness of life.

>Baptism is efficacious.

I do agree baptism is efficacious, but in what sense? Faith (which does save) we already have before baptism, and baptism as an appeal to God for a good conscience would serve to bolster our faith, bringing more powerful fruit to bear then.

<Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

<The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.

I would argue there then that if God wills it, the person receives the Holy Spirit as they hear His gospel.

Relating to being born of the Spirit

<Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

But the natural man does not believe (Romans 3), so how can it be that they say Jesus is Lord before baptism, if you imply that the Spirit is given in water baptism? That is, if you say indeed that it is not given before water baptism, if I understand you correctly.

<The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

<You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

<By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God

Finally there is Acts,

>While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days,"

And then, to the matter of salvation, we can surely argue that if we receive the Holy Spirit before baptism, is not God with us, as we do have the Holy Spirit? Then I say according to John 3 and Romans 8,

<Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

<Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

< What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?

I don't mean to swamp you with text, but that's the nature of language, you have to have lots of it to point to what you wish to sasy.

>>535088

>The "but" in Mark 1:8 (de) is a somewhat ambiguous conjunction and often means "moreover" or simply "and"

There are many sentences in English in which 'but' and 'and' mean the same thing. This is one of them. Whether we render it "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" or "I baptize you with water, and he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" makes no difference, the meaning of the verse is identical. It still creates a distinction between John's baptism with water and Christ's baptism with the Holy Spirit.

>1 Pet 3:21

Why does he add "not as a removal of dirt from the body"? If he is merely clarifying it is not the water itself that saves, but the grace that comes through it, this verse is redundant, because baptism is "the washing of water with the word". Peter's clarification is that it is not the sacrament which saves us, but what it signifies. Hence he further adds "but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

>Rom 6:4

This isn't about water baptism.

>at face value without reformed theological assumptions you can't come to any conclusion other than that Baptism is efficacious

The orthodox Reformed doctrine is that baptism is efficacious. The question is not whether the sacrament has efficacy, but if the efficacy works ex opere operato so that the sacrament is always efficacious.

>>535117

>I hear you brother. It's time to come home.

Sorry, I just believe the orthodox have a lot of unbiblical practices the way I believe the RCs do, not that they're the exact same. What is this coming home meme about anyway?

>>532547

>don't like Evangelicals

>don't like Lutherans

>don't like Catholics

>don't like Orthodox

>I do like Baptism because I've never had any experience with it and it sounds nice

Alright, if you really want to get into Baptism there are a few.. alternative methods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2d904ev2Qw

A whole channel for you, also Roblox is free and he uses text chat not voice chat.

>>535173

>

Not that I have anything against them, but I do take issue when one says I should believe my sins are absolved by confessing them to a priest One could get into an argument of the (non)-existance of priests in the NT instead of taking it up with Christ directly, or other such things. There's a lot of rotten fruit in baptist churches too, but one should always strive for perfection.

>vid/channel

10/10

>>535174

Yeah, there's some really cool churches around.

>but if you're looking for credo-baptists with low views of sacraments you're going to be pretty much out of luck.

That's pretty much what I've learned through this and recent past experience searching. It's almost nonexistent here.

>liturgy, sacraments, high/low

I would say it depends on your point of view what a high or low view of them is. I regard the communion and baptism as very important, but am I saved by keeping them? Do I think more highly or lowly of them based on that question? There is a way of thinking to my mind where, you can have a higher view of something because it is voluntary participation for example in communion that is not necessary to save you as opposed to the other way around, but brings you closer to Christ and the brothers and sisters.

With this I believe I give absolutely all glory and power to God in my salvation, but an RC can say that you are damned without eating Christ in bread (or the inverse) in their interpretation of John 6.

>high and low church

I've seen too much abuse in history from high church oriented groups to ever trust it again, at the cost of sounding triggered.

>megachurches

Reprehensible

>Become a standard American non-denom who adopts TULIP but little else from Calvinism.

I'm partial to those groups, I believe one can be saved and still believe some wrong things, even the reformers. I as well, but I strive for perfection under God's grace and guidance. It certainly helps that we have so much more material today available of the apostolic and early church ages than hundreds of years ago.

>Covenant vs dispensationalism

I haven't gotten around to learning much between these yet, but I'm not planning on calling unsaved folks the people of God. At some point the jews might get saved by coming to Christ, we'll see.

Stone and brick churches are best churches

>>535174

That's a gorgeous church right there.

>>535196

> I regard the communion and baptism as very important, but am I saved by keeping them?

Of course not.

>There is a way of thinking to my mind where, you can have a higher view of something because it is voluntary participation for example in communion that is not necessary to save you as opposed to the other way around, but brings you closer to Christ and the brothers and sisters.

Sacraments aren't a magic elixir you take to get enough EXP points to reach heaven. But they also shouldn't be seen as "voluntary" as they are the very means by which we commune as the Body of Christ. Why would treating that as voluntary make it a higher view? I think I understand what you're saying, though. If you think the sacraments are just your magic way into Heaven and you don't actually live in the sacramental reality (that we are all in Christ), then yes, that's bad.

>I've seen too much abuse in history from high church oriented groups to ever trust it again

That's fair, they have their own problems. Still, I think that you're missing a crucial part of worship if you're not being liturgical. In America, a lot of church services have devolved into self-centered music concerts.

>I haven't gotten around to learning much between these yet, but I'm not planning on calling unsaved folks the people of God. At some point the jews might get saved by coming to Christ, we'll see.

Dispensationalism is a lot more complicated than this, which only really describes the hyper-dispensationalist camp. It really has more to do with how God interacts with His people across history.

>>535196

> I regard the communion and baptism as very important, but am I saved by keeping them?

Of course not.

>There is a way of thinking to my mind where, you can have a higher view of something because it is voluntary participation for example in communion that is not necessary to save you as opposed to the other way around, but brings you closer to Christ and the brothers and sisters.

Sacraments aren't a magic elixir you take to get enough EXP points to reach heaven. But they also shouldn't be seen as "voluntary" as they are the very means by which we commune as the Body of Christ. Why would treating that as voluntary make it a higher view? I think I understand what you're saying, though. If you think the sacraments are just your magic way into Heaven and you don't actually live in the sacramental reality (that we are all in Christ), then yes, that's bad.

>I've seen too much abuse in history from high church oriented groups to ever trust it again

That's fair, they have their own problems. Still, I think that you're missing a crucial part of worship if you're not being liturgical. In America, a lot of church services have devolved into self-centered music concerts.

>I haven't gotten around to learning much between these yet, but I'm not planning on calling unsaved folks the people of God. At some point the jews might get saved by coming to Christ, we'll see.

Dispensationalism is a lot more complicated than this, which only really describes the hyper-dispensationalist camp. It really has more to do with how God interacts with His people across history.

>>535196

>abuse

What about Joel Osteen, or the fact anyone's interpretation of the bible is taught.

Church organization is a good thing, it makes sure the same interpretations of the Bible are used instead of people creating their own ideas and twisting scripture.

>>535469

>What about Joel Osteen, or the fact anyone's interpretation of the bible is taught.Church organization is a good thing, it makes sure the same interpretations of the Bible are used instead of people creating their own ideas and twisting scripture.

I understand, but there's a point where people forget the point of liturgy, and worship becomes so much ritual. At worst, the priests I do not believe there are priests in the NT as one isn't described or the role appointed, seeing Christ as the once-for-all sufficient sacrifice, but that's another days debate become some sort of corrupt elite who you have to bribe and rely on to have "a chance of salvation". One can see this in the past where the church laity were not given both the bread and the wine, and where you neither had mass printing nor translations in the common language.

One could argue that Joel Osteen, in all his ridiculousness, is still less of a deceiver than the "churches" of the past that had free reign to fleece the flock, when the flow of information and the scriptures among the people was a whole lot more limited. Of course I believe God will save every and each of His people regardless of what happens in which agehttps://bible.org/seriespage/10-sovereignty-god-salvation-romans-91-24 couldn't up a screencap, yet I still do have to say and affirm these things are reprehensible, whichever way of the spectrum they go.

>>535486

I see what you're saying and I agree. I've heard this a lot when I went to Southern Baptist churches. However it's the same there, some people just go for appearances, it seems more like a social event then worshiping God.

But it is a Holy Ritual/Tradition, the same can be said for the Bible if you're not looking to become closer to God the Bible is useless. The same can be said about Holy Tradition, it's just as easy to not learn anything from Holy Tradition than just going to church every Sunday because of reasons other than God.

Definitely a deceiver, but he has brought more people into Christianity than anyone else in America.

>do not believe in Priests

All I will say is that as a Protestant I understand that, because the Pharisees were the ones who were corrupt and were Priests.

However food for thought, Jesus recognized the Pharisees had authority (which they corrupted) but that's not in the OT and something of oral tradition.

>>535495

Jesus condemned Pharisaic tradition and never once affirmed it

>>535495

>However it's the same there, some people just go for appearances, it seems more like a social event then worshiping God.

I can't speak of Southern Baptist churches since I've never been to one, but I think it'll be the same wherever one goes, to be honest.

<24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. 27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ 28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ 29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

>But it is a Holy Ritual/Tradition, the same can be said for the Bible if you're not looking to become closer to God the Bible is useless. The same can be said about Holy Tradition, it's just as easy to not learn anything from Holy Tradition than just going to church every Sunday because of reasons other than God.

Naturally so. "We love Him, because He first loved us", so I would personally say though that unless one exhibits at least a small desire to learn of God and His teaching, one belongs to the weeds.

>Definitely a deceiver, but he has brought more people into Christianity than anyone else in America.

I could see him working as a vaccination to the few that escape and discover Jesus. For example, Osteen calls himself "christian" and someone looks up the bible, starts reading it, hears the gospel and notices Osteen is the very opposite, repents and accepts the Lord. "All things work together for good."

>However food for thought, Jesus recognized the Pharisees had authority (which they corrupted) but that's not in the OT and something of oral tradition.

What I meant mostly was that while this is in NT literature, before Christ died and rose the old covenant was still in effect with its laws. There then, of course you had the repetitious sacrifices and priests, but once Christ went to the cross as the sacrifice, it all ended and then He was the high priest always interceding whose one sacrifice was sufficient for all time. This is the reason I disagree with the RC mass for example, they will say it's the same sacrifice, but I would argue that since Christ's was finished and has ended, and theirs is not continuous by its very nature, it can not be the same.

To give to a "priest", when we only see elders and deacons in the new covenant, the power to administer salvation smacks offensive to me, since I do think God has the sovereign power He uses to His pleasure, not going through intermediaries other than Christ and the Holy Spirit. To say it in an example, it wouldn't strike me strange if the world went through a nuclear apocalypse and a random lone man found a tattered bible in the desert poking through sand 30 years after and got saved through reading it.