/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>572886

Why is he reading Beowulf?

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

John

1:12

3:15-16/18/36

4:14(John 6:35)

5:24

6:28-29/35/38-40/44-45/47

7:38-39

8:24

10:27-29

11:25-27/40

12:46

14:1-3

16:27

20:31

Matthew

5:19

7:21-23(John 6:38-40)

8:10-13

12:37

21:31-32

Mark

1:15

2:5

10:24-25

16:16

Luke

3:3(Acts 19:4)

5:20

7:50

8:12

18:10-14/40-42

23:40-43

Acts

2:21

10:43

11:16-17

13:38-39/48

15:7-9

16:30-31

19:4(Luke 3:3)

26:18

Romans

1:16-17

3:20/22/24-28/30

4:2-9/11/14-16/24

5:1/15-18

6:23

8:24

9:30-33

10:3-4/9-10/13

11:6

1 Corinthians

1:14/17

3:14-15

15:1-2

2 Corinthians

4:13-14

1 Thessalonians

4:14

2 Thessalonians

1:10

2:12

Ephesians

1:13-14

2:8-9

4:7

Galatians

2:16/21

3:6-11/14/21-22/24/26

5:3-6

Philippians

3:3/9

Titus

3:5

1 Timothy

1:16

2 Timothy

1:9

3:15

Hebrews

4:3

10:38-39

11:7

1 Peter

1:3-5/8-9

2:6

3:21(Colossians 2:12)

1 John

4:2-3/15

5:1/4-5/10-11/13

Revelation

2:11/26

3:5/20-21

21:7/27

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

>>600266

James 2:14 Geneva

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

James 2:18 KJV

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

>>600452

>>600266

Context matters.

>>600266

t. unsaved catholic

>>600466

TIL a bible verse is catholic

realllllllly makes me think

>>600476

context matters,

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

>>600478

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

:^)

>>600476

>>585289

Kid,

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

>>600517

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

>>600551

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

>>600552

>You still have to have works, though.

Ephesians 2:8 Tomans 4:5

>Even if we are saved by faith, we're saved by a faith that is alive and produces works.

No

>A faith that does not produce works is dead.

Yes

>>600552

>>600553

https://youtu.be/dPqSelVJvoA

>>600553

>Ephesians 2:8

Good jab. Did I say we save ourselves by our works? No, so stop acting retarded.

>No

Matthew 7:19

John 15:2

>>600556

You said we have to have works to get saved

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

Probably same as above

>>600572

Yeah because dead faith is worthless.

>Probably same as above

Imagine having no argument.

>>600553

>No

The correct answer is yes. If someone "believes", but that belief doesn't involve repentance, and doesn't lead one to desire righteousness, that "belief" is worthless, and that person wants nothing more out of Jesus than a get out of hell free card

>>600582

>dead faith is worthless.

To other people. "I believe you'll be fed!" says I, eating more than enough for both of us. "I believe you'll be clothed!" from under my layers.

>>600552

>>600556

Ephesians 2:8. No, we aren't saved by works, we're saved UNTO good works. The purpose God has for making us, and then making us Christians is so that we might do good works.

>>600583

Define repentance?

Don't forget that we're literally commanded to save people through fear if that's what it takes.

>>600589

>dead faith is worthless.

<To other people.

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

>>600589

>Define repentance?

Change of mind against sin

>Don't forget that we're literally commanded to save people through fear if that's what it takes.

We're commanded to command people to repent and believe for the kingdom of God is at hand. What happens in their hearts is the Holy Spirit's domain.

>>600607

Dead faith is false faith. So no dead faith is quite worthless to the one with it.

>>600611

>Dead faith is false faith. So no dead faith is quite worthless to the one with it.

Read James 2:14-16 and you'll see the context. Being dead is not actually the same as being nonexistent, but the two are indistinguishable for anyone else. That's the point. It is unrelated to the preservation of the saints (Jude 1:1). Perseverance of the saints however is backdoor Lordship salvation. See free grace. See >>558234

>>600611

>Change of mind against sin

What does that look like in practical terms? People "stop sinning" all the time. What's the difference between the Christian anon in the fap thread and someone enrolled in alcoholics anonymous?

>>600611

>We're commanded to command people to repent and believe

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

>>600614

>Read James 2:14-16 and you'll see the context

Ok

<Can that faith save him?

<But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

<You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

<You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.

It's settled, then

>Being dead is not actually the same as being nonexistent

When you die, your corpse will not be you. You will go off to your reward or punishment. Your corpse will still retain your name even though it is not truly you. In the same way, faith without works retains the name of faith, but without the substance.

>>600622

>What does that look like in practical terms?

Define practical

>People "stop sinning" all the time

No, I think no man ever has stopped sinning

>What's the difference between the Christian anon in the fap thread and someone enrolled in alcoholics anonymous?

Well, that would depend on whether the alcoholic is a Christian. If not, the difference is a righteous verdict.

>22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

>23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

I hope you haven't used this verse to consider casting a hex upon someone to fill them with fear. It isn't that you instill fear in them, but that one should share the gospel with some people in a gentle fashion, though with fear of falling prey to the non-confrontation.

>>600632

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

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

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

>When you die, your corpse will not be you.

It will be my body. Also, being dead is not the same as not existing anyway.

>It isn't that you instill fear in them, but that one should share the gospel with some people in a gentle fashion, though with fear of falling prey to the non-confrontation.

I would attest to the words of Samuel on telling others to fear the Lord.

Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:

Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you.

>>600644

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

>>600632

>define practical

>change of mind against sin

I'd really like to win the lottery. It's be amazing to wake up next week with millions of dollars in my bank account. I'd move someplace warm. I've got my mind set on winning the lottery, but there's one problem; I never buy lottery tickets.

So no matter where my mind is in regard to sin, true repentance "of your sins" is buying that ticket; it's actually ""turning"" from the sin, it's a work. That's the flaw with a faith+works gospel; it assumes our poor asses can afford lottery tickets. Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. We're not qualified to meet God halfway.

Repenting "of your sins" is something you do once you're saved. Once you're God's adopted son, you can, for instance, war against the flesh to kick an addiction to booze or porn, and glorify God thereby. An unsaved sinner can quit drinking, but it's practically worthless to him because if he offends in one point he's guilty of all.

When we're saved, we can say with David; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

>>561540

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

>>600644

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

No I didn't. I deliberately quoted the portions I found relevant.

>Who is he saying it to?

Very good question. In the text of James 2, the answer is no one. You must point out somewhere in the passage where James singles out the listener, and focuses on him. Of course, this does not happen, because by "say he hath faith", he simply means any profession of faith whatsoever. If someone were to describe themselves as Christian on a facebook page, that would qualify. What James' point is by "say he hath faith" is to point out this faith is merely spoken. A man claims to have faith, but can't show anyone any proof of this.

>It's to the guy he is trying to save

And where is he in the text?

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

Well, I don't think James intended this example to be a direct 1 to 1 parallel, but making it one really doesn't help your interpretation. Why? Because it says "If a brother or sister". Do you regularly evangelize Christians as if they're unbelievers?

>It will be my body

Right, so, not you.

>Also, being dead is not the same as not existing anyway

Didn't say it was

>telling others to fear the Lord.

So, merely evangelizing them?

>>600645

Feel free to explain what you mean instead of vague assertions

>>600659

>So no matter where my mind is in regard to sin, true repentance "of your sins" is buying that ticket; it's actually ""turning"" from the sin, it's a work

Repentance is not the same thing as actually stopping. Of course, true repentance will attempt to actually stop, but that doesn't mean it will succeed.

>Repenting "of your sins" is something you do once you're saved

Nobody ever has been or ever will be saved before they repent. Nobody wants salvation until they repent. Sure, they might want to escape hell, but if they're unrepentant, this will just be so they can defeat God against whom they war and who they still hate with their whole being. Someone who is truly born again is like Lot, they want to escape Sodom. A false convert is like his wife, they just want to escape the wrath, but they will turn back to their true love and suffer a worse judgement.

>war against the flesh to kick an addiction to booze or porn

Nobody wants to be saved until they already see the problem with these things. They must believe that these things are evil things to be ashamed of, otherwise they will not see their need for Christ, to save them from them.

>An unsaved sinner can quit drinking

But not for the same reason.

>When we're saved, we can say with David; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

I don't know why you spent so much of this post making points I agree with, like this one.

salvation is faith + works

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

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

matthew 19:16-17

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

matthew 7:22-23

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

im telling you, if you dont repent and stop sinning and have works you are going to be spat out

>>601084

Hello Ahmed

>>601085

*waves finder disapprovingly*

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

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

>>601027

>No I didn't.

Aye hol up…

Me:

>Read James 2:14-16 and you'll see the context

You:

>Ok

<Can that faith save him?

<[James 2:18]

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

>No I didn't.

Yes, yes you did. Dude, the only part you quoted from James 2:14-16 was the last part of verse 14, then you jumped down to verse 18. You DID skip over the first part of verse 14 (which starts "What doth it profit") and all of 15-16. You objectively didn't even mention those despite my claim that therein lies the context.

>You must point out somewhere in the passage where James singles out the listener, and focuses on him.

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

>So, merely evangelizing them?

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

>>601299

Noice

https://youtu.be/Wh1VU-_OF98

>>601500

>my claim that therein lies the context

Why don't you go ahead and make an argument for that claim?

>Verse 18, obviously

So we have James, and the person claiming to have faith apart from works… Which one is the listener?

>But also in verse 14 it already says "a man may SAY" so he isn't alone here

Why did you choose to ignore what I said concerning that?

>It's one guy showing another his faith

Yes, and that another is indefinite. It's not about anybody, because it's about anybody. There is no listener, this is about the person making the claim. They can exlaim it into a vacuum, it's still about them.

>So yeah if you were avoiding the context you should have skipped verse 18 also like most people do

Might be a sign I wasn't avoiding the context

How much should I put in the offering plate?

Why is 10% so disputed?

>>603321

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

>>603315

>Why don't you go ahead and make an argument for that claim?

Just pretending my point hasn't been made isn't an argument either.

>Which one is the listener?

I already explained. Read it again. >>601500

>Why did you choose to ignore what I said concerning that?

I already answered. Read again from the part of the post that I quoted. I quoted when you wrote:

>>You must point out somewhere in the passage where James singles out the listener, and focuses on him.

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

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

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

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

<Saved by being merciful?

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

<Eternal life is by grace through right living?

>>609014

Through Christ's righteousness, not ours

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

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

>>612889

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

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

>>612895

Do you mind if I ask what your reasoning is?

I'm asking because our missionary is visiting tomorrow, and I'm not sure whether I should put money in if they take up a special offering.

>>612898

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

>>558082

I know. Right?

>>612446

This famalam jam

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

>>616757

Yes, and quick.

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

Why is baptising babies wrong?

Acts 16:33 implies it.

>>616868

>>616757

>>622036

And no, Reformed Baptist don't baptize babies.

>>603321

10% TBQH

>>622036

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

>>628845

>the table talks are not a source

>>628885

>Searches table talks by keywords and nothing found

>searches Google and only claims with no reference

Really makes you think

>>533833

"King Saul & the Old IFB"

https://youtu.be/FIGpF12snU4

"Feminism in light of the Bible"

https://youtu.be/ruFnghl4W6E

These links don’t work just a heads up

>>628919

>>628885

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

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

>>629407

Independent Baptists do

The Bible

>>629419

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

>>629428

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

>>603298

>seperation from God

Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

God is omnipresent. You will never be separated from him.

>>533833

baptist discord server

discord gg/VkUGH5K

>>634375

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

>>622036

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

>>629428

>I guess I specifically mean the period afte the Bible took its final form to Thomas Helwys in England.

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

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

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

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

>>641614

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

>>641614

>his whole house were believing in God.

What about the children?

>>641638

Acts 16:32-34

And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

>believing in God with all his house.

>>641647

In the Greek it says he believed and they all rejoiced

>>635652

Probably Calvinists.

>>641653

Actually it doesn't.

>>641731

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

>>641731

With the black bucket being either

>what my (non ordain, non vetted) preacher told me one Sunday

>My personal interpretation of the text (which is in an outdated vernacular I don't regularly speak)

>>641745

So brave

>>641655

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/16-34.htm

>pepisteukōs

>having believed

>Gender: Masculine

>Number: Singular

>>641773

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

>>641849

>Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Can I go to my local independent baptist church for this?

>>641787

>he thinks I'm Catholic

Lots o laffs friend, but actually I'm conservative Presbyterian. When someone asks

>Why are you so rigorous with your standards for pastors?

>Why have oversight and outside doctrinal accountability for your congregations?

>Why is everyone here such a theology nerd?

It's because just look at what happens when you don't have those things, it just becomes a circus of plebs with the loudest blowhard as the ring leader. Pastor Vitamin K should be enough of an example of this. I'm not against Scripture Alone, but the way Baptists do it makes any fool with a pulpit a Pope unto himself.

>>641862

Trickle down corruption. Drip drip my friend.

>>641850

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

>>641879

>trickle down corruption boogie man

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

>>641887

So it can catch all the catholic tears

>>641889

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

>>641893

>what did he mean by this?

>>641894

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

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

>>641849

>no idols

Except their own ego it would seem.

>>642460

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

>>642468

They have to believe the word of God.

What the f**k, bapists?

>the increasing acceptance of polyamory by progressives and (soon-to-be former) evangelicals is a symptom of the state of the church’s witness to God’s normative pattern for sexuality after Obergefell (the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples).

>…whether pressured or free to come to terms with their accusers in the wider culture, these pastors and teachers have taken license with the biblical text to open up a path for LGBTQ and polyamorous persons into the church without confession and repentance of their sexual sin required by Jesus Christ.”

http://www.equip.org/pmr-podcast/episode-070-christian-polyamory/

>>644195

Okay okay. I don't want to turn this into a denom war - because it's a baptist thread and that's perfectly fine - but let me (I'm Catholic) ask you this (and I don't mean that in polemic way or as a bait or bantz): Do you believe that when the Lord offered His flesh and blood on the Cross - and as gifts in form of bread and wine at the last supper - do you believe that He did that and meant that ?

The Holy Mass - or in the Eastern case: the Divine Liturgy - is not just a fun ceremony like a concert. It's not pastime my friend. The Holy Mass is the celebration of the Sacrifice that the Lord made for us in order to be redeemed. The reason the Liturgy and Mass are as "fancy" (like you say) as they are is because we are with Christ. Literally. Bodily. He is present not only in the parish, he is present in the Holy Communion. It is Christ that you receive every Sunday (and every day you go to Mass and receive the most holy Eucharist).

Moreover, in the Mass, we're joining the heavenly choirs of angels to praise God who humiliates Himself again and again and again, infinitely often until He comes back, to be present in the most holy Eucharist to be with us, to commune with us, to strengthen us, because He is "the bread of life" - we're not just singing and having a snack. That is why everything is gold, everything is "fancy", everything is highly revering, everything is silent and everything is as it is in Catholic and orthodox churches.

When you're orthodox, then you well know about the tradition and why we do what we do. If you don't know that - and think you can jump to conclusions on your own (mind me, a pleb just like me) - then you should really get your butt up and have a talk with your confessor. Not that it's sinful in and of itself, but you lack a very important part - the most important part probably - of your catechesis - which is the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ on the Cross and His defeat of death, and our constant celebration of this Easter miracle that redeemed us.

>>644363

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

>>644367

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

>>644367

> That means you put faith in your own intellect and will, not God.

>he doesn't know what the Holy Ghost is

Read Your King James Bible

1 John 2:27 King James Version (KJV)

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

>>644363

>>644435

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

>>644565

John 14:16-17

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:13-14

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 Corinthians 2:9-13

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

Luke 11:9-13

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

Acts 5:32

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

2 Corinthians 1:21-22

Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

1 Thessalonians 1:5

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

1 Thessalonians 2:13

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

2 Corinthians 13:14

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

>>644666

If you called upon the name of the Lord and completely believe it's all faith and zero works then you're saved. Now you should get baptized, go to church, and read the Bible >>644200

>>644666

Once saved, always saved.

>>645835

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

Then move.

>>645835

>How can they reconcile this with literally the half hundred verses that state the contrary?

They don't. They dismiss them as just their (or our) private interpretation, or otherwise dependent on the pope. This is why sola scriptura is so important, because without it that other authority you try to replace the bible with will require you to abandon the biblical gospel.

>What is the gospel for them

That one must believe in Jesus (not because it brings His righteousness, but because to not is a mortal sin), be baptized (not as a sign of the covenant, but to be infused with saving grace which makes us actually righteous), keep the commandments (not as grateful obedience to a Savior, but to preserve the righteousness infused in baptism), partake the Eucharist (not as the reminder of salvation obtained by Christ, but as a sacrifice for sins), confess their sins (to a priest, for the recovery of the righteousness infused in baptism, lost or diminished in sin), and practice penance (to pay the temporal punishments obtained).

>where is the good news?

I think it could hardly be called good news.

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

If all you're looking for are Baptist churches try expanding your search to churches that are still bible believing but not Baptist.

>>645954

>churches that are still bible believing but not Baptist.

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

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

Critical text (ESV, NIV, NASB, NLT, etc.):

Acts 8:37 removed or put in brackets

1 John 5:7 removed

Mark 16:9-20 put in brackets

Matthew 5:22 "without a cause" removed

Matthew 7:14 altered (ESV, NLT)

Matthew 18:11 removed (ESV, NIV)

In Mark 1:2 claims Malachi 3:1 is written "in the prophet Isaiah," when it is not.

Mark 10:24 changed

Luke 21:19 changed to works salvation

Luke 23:42 "Lord" removed

John 3:13 "which is in heaven" removed

John 9:4 "I must work" replaced with "we must work"

Romans 3:25 "through faith in his blood" removed

Galatians 4:7 "Christ" removed

Ephesians 3:9 "by Jesus Christ" removed

Colossians 1:14 removes "through his blood"

Colossians 2:2 "and of the Father" removed

2 Peter 1:21 "men spoke" or "humans spoke" instead of "holy men of God spake"

NKJV:

Romans 3:25 "through faith in his blood" removed

Acts 2:47, 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15 shifted to future tense "are being saved" instead of present tense "are saved." But yet neither Luke 13:23 or Revelation 21:24 have this change.

Hebrews 10:14 "are being sanctified" similar change

Matthew 7:14 "difficult" instead of "narrow"

1 Peter 3:3 altered ("merely")

Hebrews 2:16 completely changed

Titus 3:10 altered (compare Luke 12:51)

Genesis 22:17 plural "descendants" and "their enemies" (note Galatians 3:16)

WEB Translation:

Hebrews 2:16 completely changed

Proverbs 13:13, "will pay for it" instead of "shall be destroyed"

Isaiah 26:2 changed

Hebrews 11:6 "diligently" removed

1 Peter 3:3 altered

Psalm 27:14 changed

Matthew 7:14 altered, "How narrow […]" instead of "Because strait […]"

Luke 21:19 changed

YLT:

Alters the words used in Isaiah 26:2 and Psalm 100:5

Isaiah 29:18 changed to past tense

1 Kings 15:12 and elsewhere removes the word "sodomite"

John 6:47 rendered completely incoherent

Proverbs 11:21 rendered completely incoherent

Philippians 3:2 rendered completely incoherent

Philippians 3:3 "worship" changed to "serving"

Hebrews 11:6 "diligently" removed

Micah 5:2 "from antiquity" instead of "from everlasting"— lessens the deity of Christ

MEV:

Psalm 12:7 removes the words "for ever"

Psalm 60:4 changed completely

Luke 21:19 vaguely implies works salvation in this version

Philippians 2:6 misleading, lessening the deity of Christ by implying he didn't even grasp it

1 Timothy 3:16 changed "God was manifest" to "God was revealed"

Genesis 22:17 plural "their" enemies (note Galatians 3:16)

DRB, (also RSV, NRSV, see critical text):

Jesus Christ removed: 1 Corinthians 15:47

Ephesians 3:9

Christ removed: John 4:42

Romans 1:16

Galatians 4:7

God removed: 1 Timothy 3:16

1 John 4:3— "is come in the flesh" removed

1 John 5:13— second half removed

1 Corinthians 5:7— "sacrificed for us" removed

Adds extra sentence to Acts 15:34 (RSV/NRSV remove entire verse)

Revelation 14:1 changes "his Father's name" to "his name" (and see Revelation 14:11)

EOB:

Matthew 5:32 changed "fornication" to "sexual immorality"

Matthew 7:14 altered

Mark 16:9-20 separated from the gospel

Romans 11:6 cut in half (footnote)

Romans 16:25-27 moved to the end of Romans 14

2 Corinthians 12:21 "humble" changed to "humiliate"

Colossians 1:14 "through his blood" removed

Hebrews 1:8 altered, does not show the Father clearly speaking to the Son

Hebrews 11:6 "diligently" removed

1 Peter 3:3 "merely" added

1 John 5:7 brackets

KJV-2016

Matthew 5:32 changes "fornication" to "sexual immorality"

Matthew 5:39 changes "resist not evil" to "resist not a wicked person"

1 Peter 3:3 adds the word "only"

1 John 4:3 changes "is come" to "came"

Jude 1:7 changes "strange flesh" to "other flesh"

>>644195

>should I convert?

Everyone should begome babdisd

>>647542

Unironically this

>>647580

>You have not fought against the maddening doctrines of gnostics and others,

That's what this whole "oral tradition" of Catholics is. It's the same as the Talmud of the pharisees. See Mark 7:7-13.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

>>647820

>pharisees

Funny thing people always forget is that, until the Crucifixion, their authority was legit:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

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

Also, a fun exercise:

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

What's unique regarding this passage?

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

What do you anons think about the site GotQuestions?

>>648032

Lordship salvationism and calvinism. Avoid.

>>647941

>their authority was legit

Have you ever considered reading the Gospels?

>tfw converted c*Tholic friend to begoming babdist

>>648041

what else do you take out of the whole "chair of Moses" thing, and "observe what they teach you, not what they do" thing?

Again, they rejected the Messiah, and then the Sanhedrin got smashed, so they lost all legitimacy in every way.

>>648082

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

>>647941

>His entire beef with the religious establishment was moral reform, not this autism

And did you read the rest of the passage or only this one bit? They are hellbound.

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

>What's unique regarding this passage?

It says they are ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just as modern day works salvation is never able to find the truth but always left unsatisfied and questioning.

1 Timothy 4:1-3

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

>>648075

BASED

>>648098

>And did you read the rest of the passage or only this one bit? They are hellbound.

Well, yeah.

But they were because of excessive legalism, hypocrisy and evil deeds, and sealed their fate after Jesus's trial.

>telling people to actually believe in the tradition of men would be saying Jesus told people to sin.

Again, you remind me of some teetotaler articles i read.

"It can't have been alcohol at the wedding, because drinking even a bit of booze is a sin, and Jesus wouldn't make people sin"

It's affirming the consequent.

>Just as modern day works salvation is never able to find the truth but always left unsatisfied and questioning.

And so you twist every bible verse to support your theology and preconceptions.

But that's not what i was talking about.

Look at the names.

Where else do they appear?

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

>>648403

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

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

>>649063

>Reformed

>Baptist

That's an oxymoron, anon. John Calvin would rightfully label all baptists as heretics.

>u r hate baptist

I was raised a baptist.

>>649227

>Been reading into Calvin and Luther about the real presence

They didn't believe the same thing

>maybe going back home to Rome.

>But I listening to the Orthodoxy and heterodoxy podcast as well

Read Galatians again

>>649256

going to copy pasta this while thinking about this

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

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

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

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

what do bros?

>>649346

https://youtu.be/sCkANfg9SgU

>>649346

>what do bros?

If you're asking for a refutation, I will gladly help

>How are you certain that you know what the passages in Galatians mean when they refer to “works of the law”?

Quite certain.

>The fact is, brother, you are not simply reading the “clear teaching of the Bible.” You are interpreting the Bible *through the Lutheran theological and philosophical paradigm*, which brings you to certain conclusions about what passages mean

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

>We all interpret the Bible through a paradigm, and we all have to be honest about that fact

The proper way to interpret the bible is to set aside our paradigms (traditions) and let the text speak for itself.

>>649346

>He took “the law” to mean *any works* at all– meaning that, none of them can contribute to our justification before God

Which, as above established, is right. It must also be noted that for any work to contribute to our justification before God, the sacrifice of Christ must be insufficient, and vain. Galatians 2:15-21

<We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ means that men can contribute absolutely nothing to their righteousness before God.

>If one looks at the surrounding context, the references are to circumcision and other rituals of the Mosaic law, not to any and all works, peri0d

It must be asked what it is about Mosaic rituals which are so fantastic that to keep them makes Christ's sacrifice unnecessary?

>They must be coupled with, and inspired by, the faith that trusts in God alone

This is a contradiction. Faith that trusts in God alone does not at the same time trust in human works to be saved. But that is because in a Roman Catholic context faith does not mean the same thing as it does in the bible. Faith is just another good work which one must have to merit eternal life, it isn't a pure trust which lays hold of Christ's righteousness, no, it is a righteous deed without which one is guilty of mortal sin.

>In actuality, the Catholic teaching is the Biblical teaching

An author cannot argue against themselves. If Paul's arguments against the judaizers also apply to Catholics, Paul is not a Catholic, and they are under his anathema. Romans 4:3-5 "For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.' Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness". Notice first of all the impossibility of this being just about the Mosaic law, since the Mosaic law did not exist at the time in question. The pasta told us that one cannot be justified without works, but Paul says that faith without works is counted as righteousness. Paul's arguments apply to Romanism, because works consist in doing, and Rome requires us to do to be saved.

>It’s not either faith or works, related to justification. It’s both/and

Begs the question of why Paul saw fit to pit them against each other if that were the case.

>Faith alone does *not* justify man before God

Faith alone justifies the sinner because faith alone acquires the perfect righteousness without which nobody will be saved.

>Without works, it is *dead*

James likens faith without works to a body without a spirit. A dead body may bear the name and the appearance of the person, but not the reality, since the person has moved on. Likewise, a faith which is merely claimed testifies to the falsehood of the claim, since God works in us both to will, and to work.

>As a former Protestant, I know the explanati0n, “Well, James is talking about a different kind of justification than Paul.” The explanation does not hold water. It is a case of eisegesis in the service of holding together a Protestant paradigm.

A weighty charge which requires no less weighty exegesis which unfortunately is not provided.

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

>>649546

>Amazon good enough?

Save some money and just go to any thrift store

>>649548

Too late. It was only $7 luckily.

>>649498

>I know the explanati0n, “Well, James is talking about a different kind of justification than Paul.” The explanation does not hold water.

Have you read Romans 4? Did you notice where it says in verse 2

>For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

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

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

>Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

>Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

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

<Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

>But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

>For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

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

>>649555

>Justification before man is what imparts faith unto other people.

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

Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the Fourth, XV Chapter, p.215

IV. What has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity,–the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast; a crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out; for if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.

I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate, in this respect, the delicacy of our English law, which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named: "peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum." (k) A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans :(l) "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis pænis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt rei." Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.

This the voice of nature and of reason and the express law of God(m) determined to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance long before the Jewish dispensation by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven; so that this is a universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our antient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burned to death,(n) though Fleta(o) says they should be buried alive; either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the antient Goths.(p) But now the general punishment of all felonies is the same, namely, by hanging; and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made felony without benefit of clergy by statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6, revived and confirmed by 5 Eliz c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et consentientes pari pæna plectantur.(q)

>>533833

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

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

>>650901

For your first time go with a friend or parent

>>650936

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

>>650901

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

>>650901

Same boat my man.

I haven't been to church (born and raised RCC) in a while until I started watching Anderson online and got the urge to visit an IFB church.

Luckily found one that wasn't far from home and went this past Sunday.

Best decision I've made in a long time.

Everyone was super welcoming and friendly, I was singing along with the hymns and had a blast (I've NEVER sang in public let alone church btw).

The pastor was great, loved the sermon, and drove home feeling like a million dollars.

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

I'm definitely going back next Sunday.

>>650901

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

>>651000

>baptism

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

>>650981

>the Apostles recommend or even order that prayer practice several times.

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

>>651117

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

>>651121

I noticed that it had to be connected to the context around it (Church discipline), but I'm still having trouble finding a connection between "bound/loosed in heaven" and witnessing to a sinning church member. I'd assume the Catholics correlate the sinner as that which is bound/loosed on earth; and therefor they're bound/loosed in heaven by the choice of whoever is witnessing to them.

I suppose one may interpret this as whosoever will not listen to his brothers, not repenting for their sin, will not go to heaven. Wherefore someone may loose another, not by his own choice, but the choice of the unrepentant sinner.

Maybe I'm just rambling, but I'd like your thought on this perspective.

>>651117

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

>>651143

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

>>651009

I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean by yes.

Is there a "too soon" period of joining a new church before asking for a baptism or is anytime fine?

I just started this past Sunday and plan on at least asking the pastor about it this coming Sunday but wasn't sure if it would be innapropriate or not.

>>651630

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>652591

*the fathers unanimous rejection of OSAS

>>652591

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

I'm pretty sure almost all of Galatians is about people thinking you had to follow the law to be saved. I f you think you had to follow the law then you weren't ever saved

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

Thou fool. The Bible literally gives the difinition

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

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

>traditions of men

dropped

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

>traditions of men

dropped

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

>traditions of men

dropped

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

>traditions of men

dropped

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

>sripture

no

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Uou're like Nicodemus that thought he had to crawl back into his mother's womb

>Protestant Bible commentaries

Most prots do not believe that and even if they did that would still prove nothing

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

Explain

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

>traditions of the elders

>t. pharisee

>>652591

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

That is good, however, it looks like you have worryingly replaced that bad influence with a bad Catholic influence.

>The Bible denies OSAS, plainly clear when Paul wrote how Grace has no effect onto the Galatians who were Baptized into Christ

To be sure no apostate can be considered a Christian, but this does not mean they were at a point. Paul never says they had been truly justified and then lost that rightstanding with God and now must give some good deed to rectify the problem. That would undermine his whole point in the epistle about the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.

>John's statements of Assurance easily ties to the reliability of Christ, not on the condition of a one time faith.

Absolutely, but how false that is if Christ's benefit can be lost. How reliable a savior is that, if He can "save" me, yet I still wind up in hell?

>It entails faithfulness and allegience.

That depends on what you mean. If by faithfulness you mean it connotes the performance of some action, that is contradicted by the consistent contradistinction in scripture between faith and works. If by allegiance you mean a dedication or devotion of the heart, that is more repentance unto life. When scripture talks about the faith by which we are saved, it fundamentally speaks of trust in Christ alone as savior, such as which moves one to cry out "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"

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

Are you saying this justifies idolatry? Or that because of an archeological find here and there with disputable dating that all who called themselves Christians did this, or that it was accepted or promoted by the true churches, and not rather relegated to the fringes, a consequence of folk religion being forced to merge with Christianity?

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

It is not really hard to distinguish between reading an interpretation into scripture and driving one's interpretation from it. It's simple really, what does it say? What does it actually say? Do the warnings say "you are right now truly right with God, and if you perform these bad works you will stop being right with God and again fall under His wrath"? Not in my bible it doesn't.

>>652616

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

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

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

>>652663

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

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

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

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

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

>>652677

>>652679

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

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

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

Psalm 22:22

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

Hebrews 2:12

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

>>652688

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

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

>>652691

>If not you are being holier than thou to those that actually spend their whole lives doing this

Doing what exactly?

>>652692

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

>>652694

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

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

>>652705

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

>>652673

>He refers to those already Baptized

Baptism is not equal to justification.

>even had spiritual experiences

Where do the words "spiritual experiences" appear?

>So he regards their experiences of the Spirit and even their own initiation as genuine

If you're claiming he asserted knowledge that they had been justified, not only did he not actually do that at any point (remember what I said about reading in and driving from), but it would contradict actual, explicit biblical teaching.

>Only a view that accepts that one who lacks faith or slips can fall away explains the language Paul uses. Had your view be correct, Paul would instead point out they were never saved to begin with, not appeal to their experience of Grace.

Paul appealed to neither. I find myself increasingly disinterested in arguments based on what scripture "should" say "if", or what scripture "could" say. The Arians make similar arguments. No, I am interested in what scripture actually does say, and what does Galatians say? What Paul actually appeals to is the impossibility of grace in the judaizing system and the perfection of Christ in Himself.

>If someone falls away it isnt the fault of Christ but the fault of the person

To attempt something and not succeed is the very definition of failure. If Christ seeks to save me, and I thwart Him, He failed. It doesn't matter what caused the failure, it is still failure. But I was pointing out the unreliability of a savior who fails. If He couldn't save them, why should I believe He can save me?

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

I don't think my point was incoherent so much as you failed to grasp it. So I will neglect a response since you clearly didn't understand me.

>Your attempt to reduce the significance of archeological findings is void, as ask anyone who is familiar with early Christian studies will tell you that things like these illuminate our understanding on it

If we find a scrap of papyrus with a prayer to Mary on it, that does not tell us whose it was.

>Plus, if these are false, it would be spoken out against by the church fathers

What makes you think we know everything they ever said? What makes you think we don't have some speaking against it (if I cite one of the texts I have in mind, you will simply repeat the standard reply that veneration is not worship, thereby evading any point I might make, even though it simply reads your position into them and ignores what they actually say)? Here's my question, if those things represented their devotion, why isn't it reflected in their writings?

>Martyrdom of Polycarp references martyr veneration

When it talks about adoring Christ but loving the martyrs, it's important not to commit anachronism and read the later latria-dulia distinction into it. When they receive his bones, it does not describe either showing or intending to show worship to them, but they place his bones aside to teach future believers a lesson about martyrdom.

>Hippolytus uses rhetorical techniques intended to make the listeners and readers feel present at the events narrated in Scripture

Don't know what that's supposed to prove

>Ignatius refers to honouring the Apostles by honouring the Presbyters a same logic used to honour the fathers by the Bishops

And that also seems totally irrelevant

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

And you haven't made an argument.

>>652723

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>652723

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

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

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

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

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xiii.html

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

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

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

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvii.html

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

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

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xviii.html

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

From the Disascalia dated 230AD:

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

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didascalia.html

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

>>652748

>This contradicts the notion that Baptism into Christ "puts Him on"

Again, reading into it. The apostle does not say that baptism puts Him on, but that there is a corollary between being baptized into Him and putting Him on. The full quotation is this "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ". When you read it in context as such, it is clear that what the apostle actually does is make a connection between baptism and faith, and says faith puts on Christ, which union is signified in baptism.

>In fact in Acts, when those that saw the disciples preaching at Pentecost asked how they can receive that Spirit, Peter answered that one must believe and be Baptized

So if we are to bring up apostolic question and answer, perhaps we can ask how they answered the question "What must I do to be saved"? Where is the mention of baptism there? The reason why Peter says to be baptized is because it is the sign of the covenant which is a necessary part of joining the covenant. Hence why 'be baptized' follows 'repent', since nobody may receive baptism save he who covenants with God.

>In 2Peter, we get a description of the Flood of Noah as a type of Baptism which through the waters, those in the Ark are Saved

Did the flood save Noah, or was Noah saved while going through the flood? One might by the same logic say that Paul says women must bear children to be saved.

>Baptism in that context provides the good conscience of appeal before God

Obviously not, since one must have the good conscience to receive baptism, which is the appeal toward God.

>Even the Calvinist, Douglas Moo agrees that when Paul refers to being buried with Christ in Romans, he is in fact speaking of union with Christ, which takes place at Baptism.

No, you evidently misunderstood him and Reformed sacramentology. It doesn't take place at baptism, it is offered there. Allow me to quote Calvin himself on this

<But the argument, that, because they have been baptized, they have put on Christ, appears weak; for how far is baptism from being efficacious in all? Is it reasonable that the grace of the Holy Spirit should be so closely linked to an external symbol? Does not the uniform doctrine of Scripture, as well as experience, appear to confute this statement? I answer, it is customary with Paul to treat of the sacraments in two points of view. When he is dealing with hypocrites, in whom the mere symbol awakens pride, he then proclaims loudly the emptiness and worthlessness of the outward symbol, and denounces, in strong terms, their foolish confidence. In such cases he contemplates not the ordinance of God, but the corruption of wicked men. When, on the other hand, he addresses believers, who make a proper use of the symbols, he then views them in connection with the truth – which they represent. In this case, he makes no boast of any false splendor as belonging to the sacraments, but calls our attention to the actual fact represented by the outward ceremony. Thus, agreeably to the Divine appointment, the truth comes to be associated with the symbols.

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

<"that we have been planted together into his death, so as to be also partakers of his resurrection."

(Romans 6:5.)

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

>As Richard Longenecker(Evangelical) notes in his commentary on Galatians, the "sufferings" that the Galatians went through can also refer to the experiences of the Spirit they have

The reason I asked is because "spiritual experiences" is so broad and vague as to be worthless, it could even refer to the "burning in the bosom" of the Mormons.

>It cannot be the usual Calvinist explanation that God allows some reprobates to have a taste of faith and then let them fall away. Otherwise it is nonsensical for Paul to treat their spiritual experiences as legit

They were legit, it does not mean they were justified. They were given a taste, the felt the Spirit of God, but many reprobates do without having faith. Again, Paul never says they were justified, and such knowledge is not ours according to scripture.

>Saying this contradicts the Gospel fails, as it only contradicts a specific interpretation.

Maybe it "fails" to say that sodomy contradicts the commandments of God, since "it only contradicts a specific interpretation".

>Because I fell away, it is I who is at fault, not Christ who offers His gift freely and without merit

This response fails to deal with my treating of the word failure.

>To follow your view is to end up with the conclusion that God commits evil, as if Salvation is completely monegenic, than Reprobation must also be

There is simply no logic in this. Noting the obvious fact that Christ fails as a savior if He fails to save does not somehow mean God works sin in a person's soul.

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

Clearly you still don't understand so I'll just spell it out for you. I explicitly denied that devotion is what scripture is talking about when it speaks of saving faith. When I denied that actions are a part of faith, this was in reference to something in addition to belief which must be added for it to be complete as faith. I defined faith as trust or reliance upon Jesus Christ and His priestly work alone.

>Except as I shown, the written record testifies to these things as well

Then you would have quoted fathers referring to the things found instead of them "alluding" to something.

>But none addressing Christian veneration of martyrs or prayer for and even to the dead

Which tells us they didn't practice it. If they had, it would be very hard indeed to avoid it in their words. Have you considered that perhaps it wasn't a big heresy, but a small one that grew with time?

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

The text says "Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold". This describes the esteem they had as they received them, i.e., considered more valuable than jewels. When does this happen? This is the emotional reaction of a church receiving the remains of their recently martyred beloved pastor. It does not describe their response as a continuous thing, or them putting up the bones for worship, but placing them aside for a memorial and for the education of believers. I imagine the congregations of Hus and Zwingli reacted with similar emotion when they received their martyrs.

>>652749

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

It should be proof that you are grasping at straws that you take a different style of preaching as proof of idolatry

>It is relevant because it shows that Ignatius is aware of honouring the Apostles, who are part of a Heavenly council

That doesn't mean worship. When we honor our parents, does that involve worship?

>No argument is given because no points are provided.

Actually, points were provided, and instead you chose to pretend they didn't exist and reiterate the same point. I guess my argument was too strong to even acknowledge.

>>652755

>do you offer the eucharist for the dead

It doesn't say that, you just read it in.

>pray for them

The prayer spoken of is for their joy in heaven.

>>652873

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>652874

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>652875

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

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

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

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

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

>>652909

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

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

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

WBC, vol 41, Galations, pg 135

>>652899

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

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

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

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

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

1/2

>>652928

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

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

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

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

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

>>652899

>Baptism is the means where one puts on Christ

You can go ahead and say that, but Paul doesn't

>Your answer on Acts is inadequate

Not an argument

>2Peter states that those on the Ark are saved through the water and that serves as a figure for how Baptism saves us which provides the good conscience of an appeal to God

Not an argument

>False

No, anon, it's true. Nobody gets baptized who isn't interested in Christianity.

>the symbols must in fact be in union with the signified

The term "sacramental union" is used in Reformed theology to describe the relation between sign and thing signified, which remain distinct.

>baptism is not the theme of the paragraph nor is it Paul's purpose to exposit his theology of baptism. Baptism, rather, functions as shorthand for the conversion experience as a whole

>nor is it that baptism is the place at which we die and rise with Christ

I feel vindicated in saying you didn't understand him

>What we don't do like Calvin do, is to destroy the union of the sign and the signified.

No, what you do is destroy the distinction of sign and thing signified.

>>652909

>As Moo states, Baptism represents an integral part of the process and experience of conversion

Yeah I also said that

>Paul writes to the Galatians as if they are converted

They were

>now fell away because of returning to the Law

They did. What does this have to do with justification?

>Paul makes no statement saying that they did not put on Christ

He also didn't say they put on Christ

>Your own explanation here that one cannot know whether others are justified is also ridiculous

No it's actually the explicit teaching of scripture

>link Baptism with conversion experience

Conversion is not justification

>not having grace be conveyed and apprehended by means of signs themselves.

Correct. It is by the thing signified. The sign without the thing signified is dead and worthless.

>This is not equivalent to the issue at hand

Not an argument.

>Your interpretation demands human beings be completely passive

What my interpretation demands is that Christ is the one in the role of savior.

>I don't

If you don't believe Jesus is the savior do not call yourself a Christian.

>my explanation shows why Christ is not at fault if one falls away, it is the fault of the person

Still not dealing with my argument.

>Under these conditions, no one have genuine agency.

You should probably read the bible, it's better than the human philosophy you're arguing from.

>No, you did not say that

Yeah, I did.

<If by faithfulness you mean it connotes the performance of some action, that is contradicted by the consistent contradistinction in scripture between faith and works. If by allegiance you mean a dedication or devotion of the heart, that is more repentance unto life. When scripture talks about the faith by which we are saved, it fundamentally speaks of trust in Christ alone as savior, such as which moves one to cry out "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"

>In fact no one would even understand what you state on the subject

Ha ha, what?

>BDAG's lexicon's explanation on faith, your point goes against the grammatical and linguistic intent given by Scripture, as they understand faith to also encompass allegiance and obedience

If something can mean something, that doesn't mean it does. Allow me to quote >>652679

<state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted, trust, confidence, faith

>Which I did

No, you didn't.

>I refer it to negative references, not references that show the practice done

That's nice. Care to actually deal with my argument now?

>so many prayers for and to the dead are recorded in Tombs and written literature

How many church fathers?

>Saying that describes emotional experience does not downplay the value of receiving the remains of Polycarp

Which would be relevant if my point was based solely on it being emotional

>shows that your attempt to downplay martyr veneration to be eisegesis of the text

Not an argument.

>>652914

>That is not an excuse, as no Baptist or Reformed would preach Scripture such that the events are present to them in mind and to take hearers to those events.

Not an argument

>I never say the Apostles are worshipped

So how is it relevant to your assertion the early church practiced idolatry?

>Nope

Still can't deal with my point

>Actually it clearly says that

Not an argument.

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

>>652936

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11)And..no Scriptural examples provided

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

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

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

15)And…no explanation given

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

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

18)And..no explanation given again

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

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

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

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

23)And…nothing is addressed at all

24)And…nothing is provided to the contrary

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

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

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

>>652943

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

Not that but

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Is not saved as in justified. It's saved as in not physically dying, the water is what lilled everyone besides Noah's family. Like when Peter was drowning he said "Lord save me" that wasn't calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation

Also in the next verse

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

doesn't say it's baptism that saved you. On first reading it seems to but actually it says the figure of baptism saves. The figure of baptism is the gospel.

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

>>652952

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

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

>>652952

>On first reading it seems to but actually it says the figure of baptism saves. The figure of baptism is the gospel.

Yep, and it even says at the end of the verse "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Again, THAT is what baptism figures. Consequently, that's what saves.

>>652963

>2Peter is saying Christian Baptism actually saves people from "physically dying"?

No, but Noah being "saved by water" was saved from physical death, whereas the resurrection of Jesus Christ is eternal salvation.

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

>>653000

Then you dont understand Typology

>>653091

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

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

>>653115

>The problem with this is that the observation does not respect the significance of the OT Flood narrative.

Baptism, which is a figure of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is by water. Water, and specifically passage by water, is the connection.

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

>>653118

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

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

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

>>653139

Same poster as before.

>After all, the provision of a good conscience of appeal towards God is instrumentally tied to Baptism.

I'm glad you agree with Baptist doctrine.

>Should your view be correct,

You don't seem to be representing it very accurately. Baptism is an ordinance, first of all.

>Peter would had not bothered mentioning the flood

Previously explained!

>or Baptism saving us

Allow me to quote this again:

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

First point: The figure of baptism— i.e. the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ— saves us. Not the baptism itself but what it figures. Notice where the verse says "the like figure whereunto."

Second point, even more specifically: The figure of baptism saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So then the specific part of the figure of baptism that saves is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

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

>by giving a good conscience of appeal

It doesn't give it, it requires it.

Colossians 2:12

<Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

So then, we are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God. So you see, without the person in question having faith it isn't a baptism. Even if there's water, even if you do a particular set of things, that isn't enough if the person in question has not faith. They must get it first. So, infant baptism is out.

>>653164

1)The "like figure" refers back to the example of the flood. This makes sense considering that both are done through water. Saying it refers to Baptism as a naked symbol essentially destroys the structure Peter presents. So repeating your point again does not work, as nothing is shown about how it matches Peter's structure, which strongly suggests the flood as a figure or "antitype" of Baptism. Hence the render "the like figure", intending readers to see the connection made with the flood. Peter would not had used that structure had he intended readers to see that Baptism is a naked symbol rather than to be a means of Grace and where union with Christ takes place.

2)Peter never uses "figure" or any language that indicates mere metaphor as your position posits. Thus, it is better that Baptism's effiacy be tied to the work of Christ. But this is easily accepted by Sacramentalists. Hence to reduce that to a mere metaphor that is naked is to do eisegesis.

3)Your point also neglects the Prophetic Symbolism where the actions and announcements of the OT prophets cannot be reduced to mere metaphor as they convey and affect the judgement of God. The act of Baptism falls into this category, showing how the ritual act prophetically symbolizes and affects the believer's union with Christ. This makes sense as Peter refers to the act of Baptism itself as that which saves. Paul refers to believers putting on Christ in Galatians, being the means where we are buried and risen with Him in Romans 6. These make sense under this view but cannot under yours.

4)Using faith as a way to advocate naked symbolism fails, because the verse you quoted refers to the faithfulness of God which…Sacramentalists accept. So this is simply a false dichotomy presented.

Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:

They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:

They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.

They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them. Psalm 115:4-8

The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not;

They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths.

They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them. Psalm 135:15-18

Isaiah 65:2-3

I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;

A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; Isaiah 65:2-3

And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Revelation 9:20

And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. Revelation 18:21

>>653960

Praise God, let his Name be glorified.

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

>>654648

Someone needs to edit this and make it "The Virgin(literally) Pope"

Acts 8:36-38 (KJV 1900):

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

>>655268

Baby baptizers BTFO

I want so badly to be a baptist. Everything about it seems right, except I have one problem:

The way Jesus talks about drinking his blood and eating his flesh in John 6, I don't know how (considering he keeps repeating it) it could be just symbolic.

And if it isn't symbolic, it can't be something individual. It has to be known by everybody. If the people serving it think it's just symbolic, there's no chance it can be real. And if it was to be real, it makes sense that it would require some kind of office bestowed by God (kind of like apostolic succession).

This is eating me up. If this one thing is true, a whole bunch of other things fall like dominoes and the only conclusion I'm left with is Catholic/Orthodox.

Help me.

>>656348

John 6:63

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Notice Jesus turns to his disciples to explain this in verse 63. His flesh is his words, anon. Also Peter understood this in verse 68.

Matthew 4:4

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Matthew 16:6-12

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.

Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

So in conclusion, John chapter 6 has nothing to do with the Lord's supper. There is no physical bread, or table or wine there. There is just the words of the Lord Jesus.

>Job 34:3

>For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat.

God bless.

>>656428

Good job brother. I'm always really nervous to bring it up but as soon as you ask all the nervousness disappears.

Some commonly raised scriptures defended:

>Revelation 16:5

Hosios is a nomina sacra, for the Triadic declaration that occurs here. Beza was correct to expand it to its true form. ὁ ὢν και ο εσομενος is well established in early Greek writers as the interpretation of the tetragrammaton, which is what the Triadic declaration represents. Also P47 has the word και giving και οσιος (sorry, textual critics)

>Judges 18:30

Easily debunked as the Manasseh mentioned here cannot possibly be Moses according to the chronology of events. Acts 7:30, Exodus 2:22, Joshua 14:7 and 24:29 taken together imply that Moses' son Gershom was at least 112 years old when Joshua died, which is before Judges 18. Then any son of this Gershom could not be described as a "young man" in Judges 18 (see 18:3,15). However, this isn't an issue, as Manasseh and Gershom were both common names in Hebrew that were used by several different individuals. So this is a different Manasseh and Gershom, who are mentioned here because of the infamy of Jonathan the Levite. To pretend as some do that Jonathan from Judges 18:30 later changed his name to Shebuel is equally ridiculous, as this same Shebuel is described as contemporary to king David in 1 Chron. 26, so the two cannot be the same person in this case either.

>Isaiah 19:10

Best explained here: http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/sluices-and-ponds-for-fish-or-who-work-for-pay-will-be-grieved-in-isaiah-1910

>2 Chron. 22:2

This verse is correct in KJV. Ahaziah began to reign in Jerusalem at age 42 but he also began to reign in the northern kingdom at age 22 which is a separate reign, since he was the biological son of Athaliah, daughter of Omri king of ISRAEL (not Judah). Ahaziah was thus the son-in-law of Jehoram/Joram, and not his biological son, exactly as the Bible tells us in 2 Kings 8:27. After the events of 2 Chron. 21:17, and if even Jehoram's last son Jehoahaz died after this (who is not to be confused with either Jehoahaz son of Jehu of the northern kingdom or Jehoahaz son of Josiah who came much later) then Ahaziah could well have been the youngest surviving "son" by right of descent from Jehoram's wife, even though Jehoram wasn't his biological father and he was even older than Jehoram.

If this is the case, the fact that Ahaziah is the "youngest" becomes a noteworthy fact, which would explain why it is mentioned.

>Acts 7:14

This doesn't contradict Genesis 46:27, because Stephen clearly delineates the 75 as all people whom Joseph "sent and called" for. Thus Joseph himself and his two sons are manifestly excluded from this 75 persons. Also Jacob is listed as separate. Yet the tally in Genesis 46:27 includes Jacob, Joseph and his two sons as part of the 70 persons. So they are part of the 70 but not part of the 75.

The discrepancy is easy to explain because the 70 persons is "all the souls of the house of Jacob" and it therefore includes Joseph and his two sons but it excludes Jacob's sons' wives (see Genesis 46:27). Whereas the 75 persons whom Joseph called into Egypt excludes Jacob, Joseph and his two sons that entered Egypt unborn, but it DOES include the wives, bringing the total up to 75.

The LXX attempts to make the numbers in Acts 7 and Genesis 46 match by rewriting Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 to say seventy-five instead of seventy, but they forgot to change Deuteronomy 10:22. And in the end, changing it makes no sense, because in Acts 7:14, the 75 persons that Joseph "sent and called" for does not include Joseph himself or his two sons but the Genesis 46 tally does include Joseph. But this is a great way to show the LXX version of Genesis was influenced by Acts 7:14.

>Luke 3:36

Cainan is mentioned as the son of Arphaxad. This appears at first glance to be an erroneous addition to the geneology of Genesis 11. However, note that unlike the Matthew 1 and Genesis 11 geneologies, Luke 3 is worded very differently. The former geneologies speak strictly about who begat whom, but Luke 3 is speaking in terms of sons, and also working from Jesus backwards instead of going forwards in time. This is the biggest hint that Luke 3 is different— What this is giving is a list of father-son relationships, not strictly who begat whom. Therefore, if in the days of Salah, Cainan was a man who was like a father to Salah, then this would be the one place in the whole Bible where Cainan gets his mention.

>1 John 5:7

See what happened with 1 John 2:23b.

>Nehemiah 7:5

You might wonder why the discrepancy between the list in Nehemiah 7 and the list in Ezra 2 and why the numbers in Nehemiah are different and don't add up correctly. Well the answer is in Nehemiah 7:5. In this verse, we read that the following is what he found written in the register. In other words, the register given in Nehemiah 7 had errors in it, and Nehemiah 7 accurately describes what that register said. Whereas Ezra 2 simply states what the real numbers were, therefore the numbers of Ezra 2 are correct.

>Exodus 22:28

"Gods" in this context means a position of government, in other words, do not revile the judges, the same ones spoken of in verses 8-9 of the same chapter. See also John 10:34.

>2 Samuel 8:4/1 Chron. 18:4

2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chron. 19:18 together shows that horsemen can also be called footmen. But the reverse does not follow: a footman is not necessarily a horseman. Therefore the horsemen are a subset of the footmen, and are counted among the footmen at the same time. So then, 20k footmen and 7k horsemen represents 20k total soldiers, with 7k mounted.

Also, a horseman may be counted as a horseman at the start of the battle, but if he is dismounted, he will cease to be a mounted unit. So the difference is explained that of the 7,000 initial horsemen mentioned in 1 Chron. 18:4, 6,300 were dismounted by the end of the battle and only 700 were left to be captured by David in 2 Samuel 8:4. The account of 1 Chronicles takes a broader view of describing the forces that went into the battle, and 2 Samuel tells us the number of the captured forces at the conclusion.

>2 Samuel 24:13

Why does Gad say seven years? Because 2 Samuel 21:1 tells us that three years of famine are already past, and by chapter 24 another year has passed. Therefore if three more years of famine are added to this (see what the Lord said in 1 Chron. 21:11), then the total number of years Israel would suffer the famine is seven years. The difference is that Gad himself is speaking in 2 Samuel 24, and he is tacking on the four years of famine that are already past by that point. Three more years of famine would make seven total.

>Exodus 4:24

This verse should be grouped with verse 23, not 25. In Exodus 4:23, the nearest antecedent is the firstborn of Pharaoh. This is who the Lord met and is seeking to kill.

After this, the narrative shifts to a new subject, the circumcision of Moses' son in verse 25. Again, look at the nearest antecedent in each case.

>Zipporah cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at HIS feet

His feet = Her son's feet.

>And said, Surely a bloody HUSBAND art thou to me. So HE let him go:

He let him go = Moses let his son go.

Moses was restraining his son during the circumcision, which explains why Zipporah had to be involved. Meanwhile the Lord was seeking to slay the firstborn son of Moses.

>>661553

I think he meant it in this sense.

1 Cor. 9:22

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

>>664488

>Last we barely

Last year i mean

>>664488

>>664489

Glad to hear it. Was it timed for the solstice?

>>664639

Yeah it's called the Oakdale Summerfest

>>664640

I vaguely remember going to some similar types of things in the 90's when I was a small kid. Brought back some good memories for me.

2 Corinthians 4:6

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Philippians 3:8

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord:

I guess most of us are waiting out bans by the biased moderators right now.

https://www.youtube.com/user/stack45ny

>A large video collection of classic hymns, contemporary Praise and Worship songs, and the works (audio books, devotional readings, and sermons) of men greatly used of God, such as: Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, A.W. Tozer, A.W. Pink, John Owen, Andrew Murray, John MacArthur, E.M. Bounds, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, and many more, covering topics on many aspects of the Christian life. May your time spent here be blessed.

"In fact, there is no worship of God that is better than the hearing of a sermon."

- Charles Spurgeon

"He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:30)

A great channel of sermons for those who follow Reformed and Baptist faiths

>>676502

Pope Leo X

>>676502

I don't doubt it, he was a scumbag

In the market for a study bible. Can anyone recommend one over the other? A few people at my church have Thompson chain reference bibles but I wasn't sure how it would be as a study bible. Thanking all of you in advance, God bless!

>>676687

https://www.amazon.com/Henry-Morris-Study-Bible-comprehensive/dp/089051657X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531867398&sr=8-1-spons&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=henry+morris+study+bible&psc=1

>>676502

The 15th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica in the article on the Renaissance authored by John Addington Symonds who was a literary critic, and gay pedophile. He gives no source, and himself admits that it was only what other people reported Pope Leo said.

The earliest source is probably from 'Acta Romanorum Pontificum' or 'The Pageant of the Popes' by protestant John Bale in the 1570s. The original line reads in Englis:

<"For on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testifie enough how profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie."

Could be true, but its pretty shaky. I wouldn't use it in any arguments, or even in just discussing history without qualification.

>>664488

Keep up the good work muh dude.

>>676908

>Question is where did the Encyclopedia Britannica guy get it from And whether it was a biased source

Probably John Bale who most certainly was biased. Although that does not disqualify it from being true, it just makes it near impossible for us to know with any meaningful level certainty.

>Take Trail of Blood (1931) for example

Even as someone who can sympathies with Landmark Baptists, I can tell you there is a big difference between a contemporary source like Bale, and a half baked work of prejudged history like TTOB.

Lets just leave it at this; that we don't know whether Pope Leo might have said it, and that he probably did not.

>>533833

do you baptist people have the Bible memorized and if yes, how did you do it ?

>>677082

>it just makes it near impossible for us to know with any meaningful level certainty.

Yeah my main interest with that one is finding any other possible source because it seems from the evidence like there might be another "common" source which both known sources drew it from. It seems less likely there wouldn't be one. And if there is, that's what I'd want to know.

bump

>>677083

>>655415

I started soul-winning at the end of May and have won five to the lord so far. It may be a few more than that, but I like to err on the conservative side.

>>677129

I was a Catholic. I got tired of constantly feeling guilty while the leadership indulges in non-stop degeneracy. I lost faith for a while and then started studying the Bible after finding Pastor Anderson's sermons. I found that the Baptists were much closer to the word of God than any other denomination, and at least didn't blatantly contradict it like the Catholics often do.

>>677514

Hey man I can get behind this post. Such a strange concept that maybe the Bible is objective, that it is the word of God and it's actually possible to follow it? I'm sure you were already told this but welcome aboard.

>>677129

Born and raised RCC, then I fell for fedora meme for far too long, ended up going back to a non-denominational church for a little bit.

Hated their barney-tier concept of love and constant praise of Israel.

Found an IFB church nearby after watching a few Anderson sermons online to see what it was about.

Loved it, got baptized, and now I can't get enough of it.

>>677784

Thanks. There's definitely room for various interpretations of scripture, but the RCC flat-out contradicts it in so many places that it's impossible to reconcile.

>>677129

Was l*Theran, now babdist.

Need help guys. https://8ch.net/christian/res/678216.html

>>678357

I don't know why, they even used the "Jesus was pro-pharisee" argument, which in my mind makes them instantly lose the 'debate'.

>>586871

Repent means to change your mind. God repented and also called turning from sin works in Jonah 3:10.

Repent is the change of mind from unbelief to belief.

>>678512

Repenting in the context of salvation that is

>>677487

Something makes me feel like he'll be exposed for watching porn. I'm just seeing something in his face that seems odd.

Hey guise, I never post on /christian/ anymore, but just dropping by to say

>do BA in Classical Languages

>start MA at prominent SBC seminary

>bury myself in textual criticism

>still come out preferring the Textus Receptus

>my academic advisor/Greek prof just grits his teeth, I think

>I buy a few other students copies of 19th Century text critic Edward F. Hills' The King James Version Defended

>They start asking hard questions, too

It's been a fascinating journey. My thesis ended up being on the New Perspective on Paul, so I didn't end up touching on the TR, but I plan on starting a post-grad program in OT studies (I've already applied, been accepted, and will begin in August, actually) where I want to confront some hard issues about OT text criticism. (Earliest extant copies of the OT we had during the 16th and 17 Centuries were over 1000 yrs removed from Christ, and from the textual data it's entirely plausible it was tampered with by Jewish rabbis.)

Also, I feel like my Baptist church robbed me of the richness of studying the great Baptist pastors and theologians from the 1600-1800s. We seem to forget about them and their theology and act like it was Jack Hyles from 1611 until now. (Not really, but you know what I mean.)

Here's a great podcast on the biblical teaching about faith, and works.

>the great Baptist pastors and theologians from the 1600-1800s.

New to the whole Baptist thing. Who is in that group? I'm guessing Spurgeon but who else?

>>684485

John Smyth

John Gill

Benjamin Keach

John Bunyan

Roger Williams

Charles Spurgeon

Oswald Chambers

John T. Christian

William Carey

Adoniram Judson

>>684619

>>684485

Also some would put John Owen as being an honorary Baptist because of his view of covenant theology.

>>684619

>>684620

Thanks. I don't know how I could have forgotten Bunyan.

Bump

>>684619

I thoroughly recommend this channel. It has sermons from many of the names you have mentioned.

>>680094

Is there a new server?

>>702657

not that I'm aware of, I think they all went back to the Christcord discord server after that one fell apart.

>>656348

This is what made me realize that all Protestantism is just straight up wrong, even if you don't understand Orthodox or Catholic viewpoints in other areas everything will eventually fall in place when you understand the Eucharist and what Jesus was stating here.

Once Saved Always Saved, Perseverance of the Saints, or Conditional Security?

https://www.strawpoll.me/16479452

>>656348

>>703136

Three words; real spiritual presence.

Is this common on IFB churches? Most of them or does it really depend? I don't see many people in suits in pastor Anderson's sermons for example

(yes, I know it's from plebbit but I wanted a summary in list format)

-Only the Authorized King James Version of the Bible is the inspired word of God

-Forbidding of indulgence in popular culture i.e. music, movies, dancing, etc

-Strict dress codes for men and women; no shorts for men and women must wear a dress when seen in public; Men are required to wear suits in church

-A woman must submit to her husband under all circumstances; she is forbidden to work

-Worm theology i.e. we are worms in the eyes of God as the song says "for such a worm as I". To children, this is basically the opposite of the self-esteem movement common in the public schools

-Forbidding the visitation of movie theaters (avoid the appearance of evil)

-Discourge friends and relationships between members and those outside the church body

-The belief that ALL forms of alcohol consumption is sinful, and that when wine is used in the new testament its referring to grape juice

-The belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis; God created the universe in 6 days 6,000 years ago and any other interpretation is heresy

-Strict rejection of science

-All forms of sexual activities outside of marriage and birth control forbidden

-Strict allegiance to the pastor

-Rejection of a secular education; many churches have their own school at the church for K-12 and smaller churches without schools generally have a large amount of parents who homeschool

-After high school, men are to go to Bible college, usually at the church or associated with the church, to train for ministry

-Politically active and strong emphasis on American exceptionalism

-Strong focus on corporal punishment

-Southern Baptists are liberal apostates who have compromised with "the world" and use a corrupted Bible

https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/5bp0kp/was_anybody_else_here_raised_independent/?st=jmghq6xc&sh=f1908256

>>706263

Most of these are just seen as a good idea, there is no enforcment arm of the church that will crack down on you for these. Only exceptions are:

>-Only the Authorized King James Version of the Bible is the inspired word of God

As far as English goes.

>-Worm theology

No idea what this is.

>-Discourge friends and relationships between members and those outside the church body

False. But rather be closer with saved believers regardless of whether you go to the same church sure, that much is practiced.

>-The belief that ALL forms of alcohol consumption is sinful, and that when wine is used in the new testament its referring to grape juice

Not universally taught

>-Strict rejection of science

False.

>-Strict allegiance to the pastor

Completely false. But if you have real disagreements you should either let him know up front and/or find another church, rather than spreading doctrine and/or gossip behind his back. That much is definitely true.

>-After high school, men are to go to Bible college, usually at the church or associated with the church, to train for ministry

Nope.

>-Politically active and strong emphasis on American exceptionalism

That's up to each person's opinion.

https://pastebin.com/R4kgCprC

How does it feel knowing that the Bible is against OSAS?

>>709824

>sorry man, you had your eterrnal salvation but lost it because you swore when you stubbed your toe

>>709828

>reduction to absurdity

You lose the argument. Dishonesty is also a sin.

Are there any books that do a meta analysis of the kjv, analyzing why particular words were chosen and comparing the Greek originals?

>>709979

So what constitutes losing your salvation then if you could kindly explain.

How do I know if someone is reprobate? I have a 10 year old nephew who I fear is reprobate. He has a mom and a stepdad. He displays behavioral problems where he likes to talk back to his (career woman) mom and she gets overly angry and has him on meds for his supposed adhd. How do I know if it's too late or not? Please answer

>>703138

OSAS wins every time

>>711339

It's not likely that a 10yr old is a reprobate. Reprobates are characterized primarily by an intense rejection of God and the destructive behavior follows that.

My guess would be that he just hasn't been taught properly how to behave or is exhibiting misbahvior because of the medication.

Another factor here could also be an issue with having a stepfatherdoing the disciplining rather than his biological father.

Does your nephew have a strong Christian influence? How is the relationship with the biological father? Does he resent his stepfather? There are a lot of factors here that could contribute to bad behavior.