/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Why do protestants hate christianity so much?

>>547653

Baptists are Protestants

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Baptist

>>547671

What would be an acceptable citation to you? 8chan? Scholars study. It's what they do. A scholarly study beats a meme any day.

Baptists are Protestant.

>>547671

>enyclopedia from 2 hundred years ago

wew lad. That's some high quality, up to date scholarship right there. What's it like living in a world without Germ theory? Have you found the aether yet?

>>547676

There's nothing wrong with scholarship. But ((most scholars)) today are hacks. Just find a good LGBTQ+ people history article on that website to find that out, or look at the Bible versions they recommend.

>>547677

Is there some new evidence proving that Baptists aren't Protestant?

https://8ch.net/christian/res/544310.html

https://8ch.net/christian/res/544310.html

https://8ch.net/christian/res/544310.html

>>547684

>Baptists are heirs of the Protestant Reformation.

That makes them Protestant.

>>547671

>>547676

>>547677

>>547679

>>547680

Those referred to as 'Baptists' are an amalgamation of Reformed Baptists(1689 confessions) and Anabaptists(not Protestant). It varies church to church from Calvinistic-Protestant to Anabaptist with everything in between. The crazier non-nicene trail of blood type 'baptists' have more Anabaptist influence.

>>547684

>>547689

Except for the obfuscated Anabaptists that blend in by calling themselves 'Baptist'

>>547691

>It varies church to church

I wouldn't say that here. This concept unsettles them.

Also the existence of a church independent of the Pope would go against what they have been told, so we had better leave things at that today.

>>547695

>>547691

>it varies church to church

If it varies church to church, then you cannot make a blanket statement that "baptists are not protestants. You've admitted that at least some are.

Let your yes be yes, and your no be no. Either your a sheep or a goat. Are baptists protestants or not?

>>547695

>a church independent of the Pope

What is Orthodoxy?

>>547700

I can answer that if you can answer this. Are humans protestant or not?

>>547705

It's a matter of the Church. If your church did not exist prior to the Reformation, then you're Protestant.

>>547711

You're still confused about what a church is. My church consists of the people I assemble with, and we were all born within the last century. That's why it legitimately varies from church to church. But if what you mean by "church" is going back in history, in which case all of the antecedents of my church have ordained overseers apart from the catholic church from the early church until now. Not like the Orthodox, but actually simply never recognizing the Pope.

>If your church did not exist prior to the Reformation, then you're Protestant.

That's also a poor definition, because what about all the cults that started later. That does fit the reformed Baptists though because they have taken Calvin's theology.

>>547721

If he wanted the facts he could have seen them already, instead he decided to focus on one part to the exclusion of anything else. That's why it doesn't seem worthwhile to try to bring them. Like I already regret putting a legitimate encyclopedia next to that "modern scholars" stuff. I had still thought he might be serious.

>>547721

He backs up his feels. Not good enough. There is nothing scholarly there and no real evidence. He has a narrative and he manipulates the "facts" to confirm his bias.

>Kid

Are you under 25? You're a Kid.

>>547716

>Baptistbasics.org

Defintely no chance of bias there.

>>547720

We're not talking about your local congregation. We're talking about the baptist denomination and its theology, which undoubtedly comes from the reformation. Even if from a corporate lense each church is independent, from a denominational and doctrinal perspective, you are related and you are the same. Otherwise you wouldn't be a baptist, but rather some other type of protestant. I meam, what's the difference between an Anglican and Methodist? Both are protestants who differ on doctrine and theology. Similarly, Baptists are Protestants with a particular theology and doctrine, unique from other denominations.

If individual, independent baptist churches have different doctrine or theology, then the term is worthless to defining anything.

Are you a sheep or a goat? You're either with Him or against Him.

>>547728

>We're not talking about your local congregation. We're talking about the baptist denomination and its theology,

In that case you have to distinguish between reformed, free will, and other smaller divisions of Baptist denominations. The political denomination activities can be traced back to 1523 in Switzerland, which also caught on simultaneously in Holland, Germany, England and Wales, and later the confessions of the 17th century. I tell you that my church is in no denomination, but it is Baptist, and churches like mine have always existed, which includes the antecedents of mine. This despite holding commonalities with many other denominations. If you want to get technical I'm not defined by who is in my church or by which denomination claims beliefs most similar to us, but by the word of God itself. Even if there were a denomination a hundredn percent in line with the faith, I would not be a part of it, nor would my church.

I would however still be fine with having it in my church's name so others can have some idea of what we believe. That doesn't mean I have to defend every other church claiming to be Baptist or that I'm somehow attached to that name, any more than I am bound to defend everyone claiming to be Christian. And I don't think that makes the term "Christian" worthless either.

>You're either with Him or against Him.

For he that is not against us is for us.

>>547738

>That doesn't change the fact that he's right.

Actually, yes it does. Scholarly study is meant to be 100% unbiased. If it isn't, then it is to be rejected. Period.

>>547738

>It's a baptist site, why shouldn't I use them to understand baptism?

For the same reason you wouldn't accept a Catholic website explaining the errors of the Baptist movement.

>>547739

>The political denomination activities can be traced back to 1523

Five years after the reformation started! GASP! Baptists are Protestant.

>churches like mine have always existed

Nominally, perhaps. Not in doctrine or theology.

>I'm not defined by who is in my church or by which denomination claims beliefs most similar to us, but by the word of God itself.

All Christians would say that.

>Even if there were a denomination a hundredn percent in line with the faith, I would not be a part of it, nor would my church.

There is one faith, friend. If you would not be 100% in line with the faith, why even call yourself a Christian?

The word Christian is an umbrella term for everyone who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Protestant is an umbrella term for a member of any of several christian denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth. Baptist is a specific denomination, that originated around the time of the protestant reformation, marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only. Baptist is not yet another umbrella term for a specific set of Christians like you seem to imply.

>For he that is not against us is for us.

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

>>547754

Him possibly having a narrative doesn't change that he shows plain facts. You're just being dishonest now.

>>547761

>For the same reason you wouldn't accept a Catholic website explaining the errors of the Baptist movement.

I'm not going to accept a Catholic website explaining the errors of the Baptist movement because they aren't baptist. Not because they aren't "le ebin centrist" enough.

>>547768

>I'm not going to accept a Catholic website explaining the errors of the Baptist movement because they aren't baptist.

Well presumably, someone who is a baptist wouldn't point out errors in the baptist movement, otherwise they wouldn't be baptist. Refusing to listen to potential errors because they're not on your side is called confirmation bias.

>>547768

If he showed plain facts, then he wouldn't need to interject his feelings. He would show the facts and let the reader decide. That's how scholarly articles work. Though it doesn't surprise me that a generation who balks at education would not know what "scholarly" actually means.

>>547761

>Five years after the reformation started! GASP! Baptists are Protestant.

In like manner humans are Protestant. Notice one doesn't include the word "all."

>Nominally, perhaps. Not in doctrine or theology.

Yes in doctrine and theology, that's why they had to make it illegal.

>If you would not be 100% in line with the faith, why even call yourself a Christian?

Because to be 100% in line with the faith you would have to disband your denomination and begome independent churches as found in the New Testament. That's why.

>Baptist is a specific denomination, that originated around the time of the protestant reformation, marked by congregational polity and baptism by immersion of believers only.

That denomination wasn't the first to do any of these things. It was rather some churches that decided to stop being independent and try to start a denomination for whatever reason they had. Before that they were still independent churches. Furthermore, some remained independent. Although they may share the same basic doctrines as found in Scripture, not all of our churches have joined in denominational activities, and I find this is objectively the right thing to do. Otherwise you get corruption.

>>547700

can you even read? I didn't make a blanket statement. I explained why the term is muddied in the first place. I guess that makes me a goat?

>Baptist isn't a cohesive denomination

>Reformed Baptists are Calvinistic Protestants that call themselves Baptists.

>Anabaptists are not Protestant and they call themselves Baptists.

>'Baptist' can mean anything from Calvinistic Reformed Baptist to Anabaptists.

>Some Baptists are Protestant some are Anabaptist some are syncretic.

>Baptist isn't a cohesive denomination

>>547728

Best to consider 'Baptist' as not a real denomination same as Evangelicals because it doesn't carry a concise theological implication and isn't a unified church.