/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

This thread has promise.

>>577494

I don't believe this thread for one second, false flagging is a sin

>>577494

Why are there so many threads about him in the catalog? He promotes miscegenation, hence is a bad pastor.

>>577509

>He promotes miscegenation

does he promote it or just say there's nothing unlawful about it?

>Now, let me give the other side and say this. If someone has a preference where they only want to marry a certain race, not that I believe in race, but if somebody says, "Hey, I'm White. I want to marry a White person," that's okay for them to have that preference, and you should not persecute that person because sometimes, the persecution goes the other way where if somebody is pressured and told, "Hey, why aren't you open to marrying outside of White people?"

>You know what? If somebody … Many people have said to me, "You know what? I'm White and I want to marry a White person," and I didn't say, "Oh, you filthy racist. You wicked scoundrel," because you know what? That's okay. So what? I mean, look, what if a guy just said, "I just want to marry a blonde because I just like blondes," is that okay? You don't think that's okay? What if somebody just said, "I like redheads."

>Look, I have a friend that's Black, and he is only open to marrying a Black woman. That's what he's saying. He's saying he's not interested in anything except a Black woman. He's Black, he wants to marry a Black woman. Is there something wrong with that? No.

>Look, this cuts both ways, folks. Don't try to impose your beliefs on other people when they're not biblical. The bible does not say that it's wrong for you to marry an Ethiopian or marry Hispanic or marry an Asian or whatever you want to marry, but the bible also doesn't say, "Hey, you have to marry, you have to mix, and you have to marry other nationalities." Does it say that either? No.

http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/transcript_interracial_marriage.html

>>577494

>I am really feeling pulled towards Andersonism

Heresy always has a strong pull. Christ teaches us to resist the pull and stay strong in Christ.

>>577494

>Should I show my church videos of Pastor Anderson and his sermons?

Absolutely. :^)

Real talk: Anderson's a heretic, but his edge is sharper than my machete. Most faggots/atheists think of Christianity as their pathetic friend that desperately wants their attention. Anderson turns the tables on that.

do protestants really call each other out during liturgy? sounds funny

>>577591

>he doesn't say AMEN and THAT'S RIGHT during his Sunday service

noob

>>577591

Yes, evangelical churches do. I grew up Reformed so it was pretty stoic for me but when I've gone to my gf's church there are people who scream "AMEN!", and the pastor yells "can I get a witness?!"

>>577621

DAS RITE!

>>577494

>For one, and worst of all, they believe homos can be saved!

You mean like Paul and every Christian before Anderson?

The belief that homosexuality is a curse or a sign of irrevocable damnation (as opposed to one of many sinful inclinations) is borderline Calvinistic in it's approach to salvation, and I really don't understand how Anderson can on one hand condemn predestination and on the other hand openly preach that God has shut the door to forgiveness on sinners. Jesus explicitly said that the only sin that would not be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Bible says that God gave homosexuals up to unnatural urges, and also says that God did literally everything that has been done and gave everyone up to sin at the fall. Anderson has gotten so wrapped up in a sense of God's justice and his revulsion for sin that, in this instance totally and in many others partially, he has concluded that there are those to whom God's mercy will not be extended, aka those homosexuals whose sexuality has been warped from birth regardless of their choices. Gays can be both born and bred; the number of people who fell into a trap fap habit after exhausting 4chan's depravities (along with the fact that everyone just fucked everyone in ancient Rome) is proof enough. And how many of them are in the nofap thread right now trying to cooperate with God's mercy. If you want to take a contemporary fringe interpretation of a passage in Romans over Jesus's words then be my guest, but don't drag two servants of god into sin with you.

>>577653

It’s really just kneejerk reaction + awful exegesis, no sane person could actually simultaneously hold that you can be an unrepentant murderer and your salvation is still guaranteed while if you suck dick you’re predestined for hell.

>>577656

>if you suck dick you’re predestined for hell.

i think his view is more like:

>if you're predestined to hell, you suck dick.

>>577658

It's really strange, at first Anderson claims to be against Calvinist predestination but magically switches from Arminianism to some sort of fatalism whenever he promotes this idea

>>577658

The other interesting thing is that Romans 1 describes God giving up people to a reprobate mind DUE TO THE THINGS THEY HAVE DONE, not because God hated them from the beginning.

>>577658

I'm pretty sure we're all predestined to Hell, for we all fall short of the Glory of God, and it is only through Grace we are saved.

I don't suck dick. Do you?

>>577659

i posted the same exact thing yesterday in a thread that's been deleted :^q

>>577660

yeah that's why his view would only be borderline meme-calvinistic/fatalistic/whatever, since free-will decisions are what put them into the state of being reprobate.

someone link me to a clear/concise presentation of anderson's reprobation doctrine.

>>577661

>I'm pretty sure we're all predestined to Hell

i know what you're trying to express, but that doesn't word doesn't fit there.

>>577661

>we're all predestined to Hell

no we aren't

do you know what the word "predestined" means? not the same as "destined" btw

>>577663

>someone link me to a clear/concise presentation of anderson's reprobation doctrine

I’m not convinced Anderson’s theology is even coherent enough for that to be possible.

>>577791

This. Just look up a youtube compilation of him preaching on homosexuality; a few sermons should give you a good idea of where he strays.

>>577653

>I really don't understand how Anderson can on one hand condemn predestination

I'm pretty sure he condemns TULIP, not predestination. After all, you have that very word "predestined" used in places like Ephesians 1. So the question then, is merely what does it really mean and do calvinist theology abuse this biblical term or not?

>aka those homosexuals whose sexuality has been warped from birth regardless of their choices.

How do you know this exists? What if the reality of what the Bible is conveying is that nobody is born that way and it is no accident when it happens? That God protects those that he has not given up?

>If you want to take a contemporary fringe interpretation

It's not only Romans 1. It's also found and draws support throughout the New Testament. Jude 1:7 and 2 Peter 2:6 being instances of their singling out as examples. 1 Corinthians 10:13, Hebrews 4:15 and especially 2 Peter 2:9 being further prooftexts that this condition is no accident, the saved don't accidentally fall into it. And John 12:39-40, Romans 9:18-22 show that the presence of some who literally can not believe is real. We all know that unbelief is condemnation, John 3:19.

The fact is that Romans 1:24-2:2 singles out the case of those "who commit such things." It is not a general statement about all people, because the facts are clearly presented as to who exactly it is talking about in the verses 24-28, and "commit such things" is mentioned again at the end of the sentence of Romans 1:28-32 and again at chapter 2 verse 2. The question is whether you will accept God's judgement here in Romans 1:24-2:2, or whether you will apply your own judgement about what is going on despite what Romans 2:1 says. Since we all are sinners as well, we can't trust our own judgement anymore, we have to rely on what God said in Romans 1:24-2:2.

>>577659

>but magically switches from Arminianism to some sort of fatalism

He is definitely not Arminian. That is essentially the belief that any decision can be reversed and that all consequences are temporary. Which is a sad fantasy. It would be more accurate to say from a Biblical POV that the sodomite had a chance in their life, before they became reprobate, and that from a spiritual perspective they might as well have died at that moment. So it was based on their actions in the end.

>>577801

>I'm pretty sure he condemns TULIP, not predestination.

I'm interested in hearing what exact part of TULIP he rejects, it seems like it should be compatible with what he preaches.

>That is essentially the belief that any decision can be reversed and that all consequences are temporary. Which is a sad fantasy.

Is "all consequences are temporary" not exactly what Anderson preaches? "If you're saved you can sin on a regular basis, God will just punish you on Earth." "Any decision can be reversed" is a bit ambiguous, but if you mean that anybody can repent and turn to God, that's pretty much the belief of everyone outside of Calvinists.

>It would be more accurate to say from a Biblical POV that the sodomite had a chance in their life, before they became reprobate, and that from a spiritual perspective they might as well have died at that moment. So it was *based on their actions in the end.*

So you can be bad enough that God permanently locks the gate to Heaven on you?

>>577823

Fucked up the formatting, but whatever.

>>577801

>I'm pretty sure he condemns TULIP, not predestination. After all, you have that very word "predestined" used in places like Ephesians 1. So the question then, is merely what does it really mean and do calvinist theology abuse this biblical term or not?

Anderson believes that people can choose their salvation (except where they can't), therefore he does not believein predestination.

>How do you know this exists?

Because I don't distrust the testimony of millions of people in regards to their sexuality because it conflicts with my exegisis, especially when many of those people are faithful, lifelong Christians.

>What if the reality of what the Bible is conveying is that nobody is born that way and it is no accident when it happens?

The reality of the Bible is that because romans living in the 1st century practiced idolatry (a grave, yet forgivable sin) and did not believe in God, God allowed them to fall into sin. It does not state that he directly plants homosexual thoughts in the heads of all of those he deems irrevocably damned in on earth, who, according to Mark 3:28-30, are only those who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that every homosexual in the Roman Empire and indeed throughout history has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit? Because otherwise have you to admit that your beliefs are unbiblical.

>Jude 1:7

>2 Peter 2:6

The Bible says that God condemned the citizens of Sodom and Gommorah because they wanted to rape an angel (which, among other things, is homosexuality). The Bible does not say that the citizens of Sodom and Gommorah could not be saved, because the Bible states that all can be saved (although obviously they are not among the 144,000). Yes homosexuals are made examples of in one story and one passage of an epistle. Certainly homosexual behavior is a sin. Dosen't mean they can't be saved.

>2 Peter 2:9

Mankind has the potential to suffer every kind of temptation because we are made in the image of Christ. If you actually think that Christians are preserved from temptation then you clearly haven't heard of a man named St. Anthony (or been to the nofap thread).

>1 Corinthians 10:13

See above. This passage states that the Lord knows how to deliver us from tempation. It does not say that the godly are not tempted, or that that deliverance does not involve battling the temptation.

>Hebrews 4:15

A further proof that even the saved have flaws and are liable to temptation. For that is all a flaw is, and inclination towards sin, which, if Genesis is to believed, all are given up to.

And if you need an absoultely definitive, Biblical proof of this (besides, say, Job), read Romans 7:23-25. Also these passages deal with temptation in general, they do not state that homosexual inclinations are reserved for the ungodly or that homosexuals cannot be saved.

The fact is that Romans 1:24-2:2 singles out the case of those "who commit such things." It is not a general statement about all people, because the facts are clearly presented as to who exactly it is talking about in the verses 24-28, and "commit such things" is mentioned again at the end of the sentence of Romans 1:28-32 and again at chapter 2 verse 2

Ok. Now tell me in this verse where it says that these people cannot be saved? Also you're literally cutting the verse at a huge list of sins also given up to the reprobate mind; just because Paul emphasizes homosexuality does not invalidate this list, making the singling out of homosexuality as a sign of damnation even more absurd.

If I sound crabby in this post it's only because I'm staying up at 4am on Christmas Eve to type it, I would go into much more detail in a much softer way on this topic otherwise, so forgive me if I offend. I know I hyperbolize your argument but that's only to point out how patently unbiblical it is. The fact is that you would not be saying that homosexuals cannot be saved if you were simply reading the Bible on your own because the Bible never says that, only that the sinful are given up to sin. Yes Paul singles out homosexuals as an example, but that in no way changes the fact that Jesus gave us two explicit lists of those who could and those who could not be saved, and homosexuals are firmly in the former category.

>>577830

Also fucked up the formatting, but whatever.

>>577823

I gotta go and this isn't the most savory topic for the time, but I will try to answer this very generally. I reject all of TULIP, because it basically removes all culpability or answerability for actions, in addition to some strange side effects that don't align with scripture, John 5:40, Acts 16:31, 1 John 2:2, 1 Tim. 4:10, Romans 4:5. Most zero-point Calvinists would agree on this.

However, believing in actual accountability doesn't inherently mean you reject monergism with respect to grace. Rather it's the fact that some decisions, once made, are not reversible; this is plainly true despite what Arminianism claims. However this is still a fine edge difference from determinism. If you decide to get on board a space shuttle, you can't later change your mind and decide to go to the bowling alley with your friends tonight once you are already in orbit. And yet that doesn't mean you somehow "lost free will". You definitively made this decision and it had consequences on future options.

>Is "all consequences are temporary" not exactly what Anderson preaches?

I'd say no because the reward in heaven mentioned in places like 1 Cor. 3:14, Daniel 3:12. In addition to the chastisements and scourgings during your life on earth. Hebrews 12:6.

>"Any decision can be reversed" is a bit ambiguous,

Some decisions can, but not all, which is my point here. To say all past actions can always be changed and be made well later is the fantasy. At some point, somewhere, there comes an end to these things. Some people have decided to draw the line at death, others have seen scripture like John 12:39-40 and Romans 9 (as well as John 5:24) and known otherwise.

>So you can be bad enough that God permanently locks the gate to Heaven on you?

It's more like God decides not to allow some people to believe or to see the truth because of the things they did which for whatever reason can't be forgiven. It's up to His judgement to do so, and as it says in Romans 1:28 they "did not like to retain God in their knowledge" as the reason behind it, so it really does say it is based on what they did, not just arbitrary.

>Anderson believes that people can choose their salvation (except where they can't), therefore he does not believein predestination.

This gets into a huge labyrinth of distinguishing between "of yourself" choices versus actions done by grace. See Philippians 2:13, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 15:10, 2:14 etc.

>Because I don't distrust the testimony of millions of people

You've seen millions of testimonies, or only heard someone claim they exist and trusted whoever made that claim?

>It does not state that he directly plants homosexual thoughts in the heads

Of course not, God doesn't tempt anyone. Romans 1 says He gave them up, though, meaning that He had been protecting them before. Even the Lord's prayer includes this concept never leading us into temptation, but protecting us from evil. Again 2 Peter 2:9 and 1 Cor. 10:13 are very relevant. There hath no temptation taken you BUT such as is common to man. So he protected the believers in Corinth from temptations that were beyond their ability to resist. But it doesn't say that to everyone, only to the saved. The Lord knows how to deliver the godly from temptations, AND to reserve the unjust to the day of judgement to be punished.

>Also these passages deal with temptation in general, they do not state that homosexual inclinations are reserved for the ungodly

2 Peter 2:6-9 is about sodomites. Verse 9 comes right on the heels of it.

>two explicit lists

Are you talking about 1 Corinthians 6? Because 1 Corinthians 10:13 is in the same book to the same audience. As for the other list, I'm not sure what you're talking about. But the list I always think of is Revelation 22:15. They are the dogs of that list, see Deuteronomy 23:17-18 in the KJV for the link. It equates sodomite and dog by using them interchangeable.

Also the list in Revelation 21:8 is identical to the list in Revelation 22:15, except instead of dogs, it lists "the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable."

Anyway, that's at least part of the basis for saying what he says. I realize the 1960's has changed a lot of perceptions on this subject and I don't really want to consume your time on it too much. But you're welcome to respond. Have a nice day today and tomorrow.

>>577834

Also "zero-point calvinists" aren't calvinists at all, just thought I would make that clear.

>>577834

>However, believing in actual accountability doesn't inherently mean you reject monergism with respect to grace. Rather it's the fact that some decisions, once made, are not reversible

Right, and according to Mark 3:28-30, the only sin that falls into that category is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Every other sin can be forgiven and the ultimate consequences forgotten, including homosexuality.

>You've seen millions of testimonies, or only heard someone claim they exist and trusted whoever made that claim?

It's the dominant view amongst both LGBT groups and every gay person I've ever known (although I'm bi thanks to 4chan :/ [can you see why I think this position is absolute bull]). Obviously opinions vary where nature and nurture are concerned but if you deny that a global movement of homosexuals have claimed that their sexualiy is and has always been immutable then you are living a fantasy.

>Again 2 Peter 2:9 and 1 Cor. 10:13 are very relevant. There hath no temptation taken you BUT such as is common to man. So he protected the believers in Corinth from temptations that were beyond their ability to resist. But it doesn't say that to everyone, only to the saved. The Lord knows how to deliver the godly from temptations, AND to reserve the unjust to the day of judgement to be punished.

I made my point on this and I'll make it again in a clearer way, the testemonies of Christians throughout history indicate that they are subject to temptation just as much as non-Christians. All temptation is within their ability to resist and all is common to man, and while the power of the Lord working through man can vanquish sin like no other power, temptation is still a part of every Christian's life. This is not for nothing, if Job had not been tested then Satan would not know righteousness, and that goes infinitely more for Christ's temptations. Nonetheless, the notion that homosexuality is an exclusive temptation reserved only for the irrevocably damned is nonsensical because the conditions for irrevocable damnation are incredibly specific, are not what Paul accuses the romans of, and could not possibly apply to every homosexual throughout history.

>2 Peter 2:6-9 is about sodomites. Verse 9 comes right on the heels of it.

Fair enough, excuse my 4am stupidity, but again it does not state that homosexual inclinations are reserved for the ungodly, only that the ungodly will be damned lest they repent.

>As for the other list, I'm not sure what you're talking about

"Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme (List #1) But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. (List #2)." -Mark 3:28-30

Understand that I am in no way defending homosexuality, just like the Bible does not. But do you believe that homosexuals are beyond forgiveness and beyond salvation like Pastor Anderson does? Because if you do you are dead in sin.

>>577509

top lel

>>577502

this tbh

>>577512

https://www.reddit.com/r/hapas

>>577494

He and his wife don't even sleep in the same room. Get the basics and only watch his sermons up until mid 2016 and then avoid. Everything after Orlando is trash.

>>577967

>these people on rebbit are whining about a thing

burp

he's still right that it's not a sin to have half celestial/half white kids

>>577970

Why are race mixed couples so offensive despite the state's perpetual attempt to brainwash it out of everyone? If you're white and you have a daughter and she wanted to date a black man, are you offended?

Why do Mongolians feel the same way about blacks?

>>577972

and if the mixed-race couple did it within wed-lock, and within the limits specified by the Bible, what sin do they commit?

and why should the world's opinion be held up over that of Christ's?

>If you're white and you have a daughter and she wanted to date a black man, are you offended?

Is the black man a virtuous man? Do they seek to fornicate? Is he a Christian? Does my daughter violate my will? Did she ask for my permission? If all is in perfect accordance with scripture, what offense is committed?

>>577977

Ah yes, good point, I have no further argument. Naturally the daughter should request permission from her father pursuant to exodus 22:16-17 to get married anyway. The father can utterly refuse. I was projecting ignorance of the appeal that the hypothetical harlot daughter can make to the state to subsidize her single motherhood by fornicating and using the state (you and I) to pay for her shit and the child who would statistically become a criminal anyway.

I'm in a bad mood this morning. Merry Christmas.

>>577982

Thank you, merry Christmas to you also.

>>577982

Why do many protestants refer to the Law for how to conduct these kinds of affairs when it is standard christian doctrine that Christ fulfilled the law and freed us from an obligation to follow it? Not that the fifth commandment should not be a guiding principle, simply that we are not bound to the particulars of the Law.

>>578017

>simply that we are not bound to the particulars of the Law.

The moral Law, Romans 7:22, and so forth. We might not be bound to follow the system of penalties or the ritual purity, dietary or the lunar calendar related scripture, because of Christ's fulfillment and passages like Romans 13, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with God's perfect law or wanting to follow it in your society, at least as far as precepts are concerned if not more.

>>578018

So every single person who is homosexual is guilty of blasphemy against the holy spirit, including the Romans, who had never heard of the holy spirit, and who Paul specificall6 stated were given up to unnatural urges for idolatry, which is a forgivable sin? Is that what you believe?

>>578076

Ok so you apprently don't, cool.

>>578080

Yeah, just that it applies to all sodomites. This passage is a warning to the Romans, not an accusation of them. As Paul tells the Romans about "them which commit such things." See 1:32 and 2:2. "Those things which are not convenient," that is: Romans 1:28. Are you still the same person as before? Because if so there is not much point in talking to you about it. I'm explaining this just in case you're not.

>>577967

source on this information? im pretty certain they sleep in the same bed, if not whatever who gives a f, the guy carries his wife every single morning across his estate that is baller dude

>>578121

>Yeah, just that it applies to all sodomites

Wait, just to be clear what "it" are you referring to? because if it's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit you are objectively wrong. Also yeah I'm the same dude.

>>577621

>>577592

>but you know what? Hes a FILTHY FAGGOT!

>AMEN DAS RIIITE!

lmao tbh

>>578132

>>578137

>source

And commentary

>>578590

And tell tooter to unban me pls. The cathodox modding cancer is getting ridiculous.

>>578590

When I moved out, my 70yo dad commandeered my room so they could sleep separate, because dad punches and kicks when he sleeps and mother's just a wee thing.

He sleeptalks about fighting muslims, it's pretty funny tbhfam.

>>578591

You're not getting unbanned from their discord server. Just accept that they aren't interested in reading the Bible over there, trying to seriously talk about it got me banned also.

>>578590

>the Bible says not to fraud your wife

the dude has 10 kids

>that includes sleeping in the same bed together

how?

>if you have to sleep in a completely different bedroom from your own house, then that's not ruling the house well

how do you know? maybe it was the best possible solution to a problem they were having

sidenote: cool chess set

>>578602

My grandma made it! The bishops look like little martin luthers! Lulz!!

Theyre not 80 though.

>>>578598

You know you guys only raise eyebrows when you say we don't read the Bible right? Make no mistake, a lot of Catholics don't read the Bible as much as they should, and average Baptist is certainly better than the average Catholic with their Bible readings, but it's clear that when you guys trot out this meme it's because have beef with our dogma, i.e. our interpretation of the Bible, first, and our habits second. Reading the Bible is a privilege that a majority of christians have only had for only for about a century or so, because universal literacy has only been around for about a century or so. The rest of christendom has had to depend on the clergy for education and guidance, and personally I think it's absurd to think that 99.9-100% of God's flock from, say, the Council of Nicaea to the Reformation, was lead to damnation by a church of false prophets. "…the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26 ) "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (1 John 4:13) We believe that the dogma of the apostolic church is not just correct but infallable because to deny that is to put the Holy Spirit's guidance on trial.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm bombarding you with text in this thread, I reprove you out of love for my Church and concern for your soul (and a hard on for theological debate). Also I should do a 180 and thank you guys for this meme, it made me realize how much I'd been neglecting the epistles. Just stop turning it into slings and arrows, otherwise the mods will never get off your backs. Merry Christmas!

That being said, mods don't be dicks. Like you just were.

>>578683

How do Baptists process that the liturgy is older than the canon and lex orandi lex credendi

>>578137

I agree with this. I disagree with him on a number of things but he's out there knocking on doors for Christ. My only major objection would be his sheep stealing from Rome, which is a scandal.

>>578687

To be fair the texts of the canon predate the canon by centuries, plus I don't think that there's a consensus among baptists or protestants in general as to when the Church went sour. I'd rather not turn this thread into a Baptist roast, it's derailed enough as it is.

>>578687

Not a Baptist, but God-ordained worship existed before the bible, and it was still God-ordained. The bible isn't the only word of God ever, it's just the only word which we have.

>>578689

>My only major objection would be his sheep stealing from Rome, which is a scandal.

Read Galatians

>>578690

>the texts of the canon predate the canon by centuries

Do you mean the books? Then it would depend on what you mean by canon. The true canon has existed as long as the books themselves, but lists of canon are from centuries later (even though the canon was still known when not put into a list).

>>578699

Exactly. Phillip, for example, was an anabaptist before the papists coined the term.

>>578703

Why anyone wants to be associated with the (((Anabaptists))) is beyond me

>>578708

Don't conflate criticism with execution dude, it's blatantly uncharitable. Also if anyone wan't a catholic's 2 cents on the matter baptism by water ≠ baptism by the Spirit, that's why we split the process into baptism and confirmation ala Acts 8 14-17. Not that we should have roasted people over it but still.

>>578708

Crap why do you keep accidentally being the one I reprove, I'm not a stalker I swear. Also did the mods get your last post or did you?

>>578710

>uncharitable

If I have to be banned from an imageboard over the lives of those lost, it's a small price to pay. Not that I mean to be, but if it somehow happens then that's just too bad. I already disputed rule 2 a whole lot in the meta thread, so it would be fitting to be banned over it as well.

>>578715

I'm don't want to quench your spirit on this one, even if I think your position is heretical. Just don't be a dick about it, even if they're being dicks to you.

>>578716

>I don't want to edify a brother in Christ

Fascinating

>>578721

I already edified the thread on this subject and you on several others, if you want me to tell you you're movement has probably sent a handful of kids to hell then sure, it probably has. This wouldn't be a problem if you guy just understood that we all need to be baptized twice like the Lord said.

>>578721

Wait not you bleh, why do I try and do things I swear. Also that should have been millions of kids, my bad.

>>577494

>I am really feeling pulled towards Andersonism /christian/, I truly believe Pastor Anderson is a prophet that has been sent by God to preach to the nations.

He thinks John 1 refers to his KJV.

He thinks Jesus burned in hell for 3 days.

>>578728

Once with the Holy Ghost (John 1:33) and then in water (acts 8:36-38). However not doing the second does not condemn (thief on the cross).

>>578683

>average Baptist is certainly better than the average Catholic with their Bible readings

to be fair, there's only about 40 millions Baptists compared to 1.49 something Billion Catholics, a comparatively tiny sect VERY based on Sola Scriptura for authority is gonna be like this

>>578768

>>>578683

>>average Baptist is certainly better than the average Catholic with their Bible readings

I dunno, i find they're equally wrong just in different ways

>>578768

>1.49 something Billion Catholics

Let's be honest, the great majority of these are modernists atheists

>>578766

Why switch the order tho? Jesus literally made a specific prophet to prepare for his coming by baptizing people by water before they even knew him. The Holy Spirit didn't even descend unto him before he was baptized in water. Why wouldn't we follow Jesus's plan and personal process where this is concerned? And why are you quoting passages that suppourt that order if you don't agree with it?

Also as for the thief, it's traditional catholic teaching that those who die as martyrs are "baptized in blood," just like we believe those who die repentent and intending to confess before seeing confession are still forgiven. Jesus isn't going to turn down a repentant sinner just because he can't get to a nearby river, and there were a slew of catechumins in the early church who gave their lives for Christ before baptism to whom the words "he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it" are very applicable. If he has the choice and he refuses, that's a different matter obviously, but "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Obviously the thief is a paradoxical wrench in this verse, and it's arguable whether or not he was a martyr because on the one hand he died professing Christ but on the other he did not die for Christ. Nonetheless if Jesus wants to make an exception he can, and unless you can provide an example apart from this exception John 3:5 still stands as the rule.

>>578768

My point exactly

>>578783

Everyone thinks that everyone else is wrong just in different ways. That's how sectarianism be.

>>578784

There probably some stats you can look up of practicing vs cultural catholics. Also I wouldn't discount catholics just for being modernists. Not that a great many aren't indefensably so, but I legitimately don't think there's any Catholic in the U.S. that follows 100% of Lamentabili Sane myself included. We all fall short of the glory of God, so just reprove them when you can.

Also I took this down and posted it again because I noticed I quoted the wrong guy again. Anabaptism still a fuck.

>>578786

>and unless you can provide an example apart from this exception John 3:5 still stands as the rule.

Yes you are right there, the thing though is that John 3:5 isn't about baptism in the first place. Jesus was explaining how being born the second time is not a physical process unlike the first time: see John 3:6. You need to be born both physically and then also of the Spirit, which is through faith. So this verse is perfectly in accord with John 3:16, John 5:24, John 6:47, and so on. I'm not sure where you got this idea, but it's not in the Bible that being born again is baptism. Baptism is, rather, typified like circumcision, which is something only done after the birth (or in this case after being born the second time).

>>579013

>Baptism is, rather, typified like circumcision, which is something only done after the birth (or in this case after being born the second time).

Then why did Jesus send John the Baptist, literally the last prophet sent before the Messiah, to prepare his way with baptism by water for repentance before he came with baptism by the Spirit? Why would Jesus invoke the exact same duality that his prophet used in describing baptism if he wasn't talking about baptism himself? And why did the Spirit only descend on Jesus in the Gospel only after he was baptized by water? In short, what is the purpose of baptism if not to wash away

sin in order to prepare us for the Holy Spirit, cleansing his temple so that we may receive him and be reborn in him? Isolated, these verses can conceivably refer to birthwater and physical birth, in fact there's likely a dual meaning at play here, but in context of the entire Bible this verse clearly refers to baptism.

>>579070

>Why would Jesus invoke the exact same duality that his prophet used in describing baptism if he wasn't talking about baptism himself?

Because in John 3 He is talking to Nicodemus about being born the second time. This is not the same place or time as John 1. He didn't become confused about the difference between John's baptism here, Nicodemus was confused because Jesus said born again and he thought it meant re-entering a physical womb. But that's only your first birth, the second time does not involve this as Jesus explained. It requires and is by the Spirit, and the one born is not physical but is spirit, unlike the first. That is the difference and it explains why Nicodemus' confusion was not informed. He wasn't confused about different forms of baptism or immersion here, that topic is not brought up.

Also the flesh and spirit duality can be used in more than one way and still be meaningful. Like in John 6, the eating and the drinking is truly in the spirit, not of flesh, as He says in John 6:63. You have to know of and look for things which are not seen are eternal, things which are seen are only temporary, 2 Corinthians 4:18. So it is also with the first and second birth, with the breaking of bread in communion and receiving of the word, with the water of baptism and the sign of the Holy Spirit, and with the well water and the water that He gives in John 4:14. Not necessarily as a before-and-after relation (we continue to eat and drink in the flesh), but certainly as a flesh and spirit duality with water representing the physical. Not only for baptism but other times.

>And why did the Spirit only descend on Jesus in the Gospel only after he was baptized by water?

I think we can agree the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is a unique case in ways, because for instance it pictures the persons of triune God in one place and time. But the Spirit (John 3:34) and grace (John 1:14) was always upon and with Jesus, it didn't all start there.

>In short, what is the purpose of baptism

The ordinance of baptism (by water immersion) is the answer of a good conscience toward God, 1 Peter 3:21. The like figure of it, being the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 6:4); and the answer of a good conscience, being the presence of faith (Colossians 2:12).

Let me know if you see any problems with how this relates together internally. Or if there is something unclear or something relevant being missing from this picture.

>>579081

>Because in John 3 He is talking to Nicodemus about being born the second time.

A.k.a. baptism by the Holy Spirit, which in the Bible always follows baptism by water. Yes, the flesh and spirit duality issue is explored extensively in the Gospel, but in this specific instance both John the Baptist and Jesus in John 3 are refering to events whereby the Holy Spirit decends onto the believer, and in both instances water precedes it. This isn't simply the same duality, it's the same duality and the same process, aka salvation. The parallels are just too prominent for a reasonable believer to dismiss them. Again, I don't deny that Jesus was likely refering to physical birth here as well, but if you can't concieve of the initiation process into of Christianity, baptism, as a new birth then you don't understand it the way a vast majority of Christians do.

>I think we can agree the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is a unique case in ways, because for instance it pictures the persons of triune God in one place and time. But the Spirit (John 3:34) and grace (John 1:14) was always upon and with Jesus, it didn't all start there.

Certainly, and I by no means intend to imply that. But also this begs the question of why a perfect man needs to undertake a ritual of repentance, for the Bible says that baptism is for repentance, in the first place. When John asks this question, Jesus answers that it is justice, aka that it is just to do so. Jesus, in undertaking the process that he saw just for all men to go through, shows us both the process and the effects of baptism, i.e. the descent of the Holy Spirit AFTER THE FACT.

>The ordinance of baptism (by water immersion) is the answer of a good conscience toward God,

Certainly, but that is describing the nature of Baptism, not the purpose. The purpose, as John the Baptist says, is repentance a.k.a. the cleansing of sin, and thereby the cleansing of conscience.

Also, if I can take a guess, a large chunk of this opinion probably comes from the fact that Jesus explicitly told hordes of unbaptized people that they were saved. As we covered before, if God tells you to your face that your are saved, then you are saved.

Nonetheless, Jesus's last order was for us to baptize, and Acts (along with the entirety of Christian history) attests to this baptism in the form of water baptism. God himself is sufficient for the privileged few who get to meet him, but for the vast majority throughout history we should follow God's ordinance.

>>579098

>baptism by the Holy Spirit, which in the Bible always follows baptism by water

But it doesn't. In fact, the bible says that the new birth can precede even the first birth, as in the case of John the Baptist.

>But also this begs the question of why a perfect man needs to undertake a ritual of repentance

Matthew 3:15

>Jesus, in undertaking the process that he saw just for all men to go through, shows us both the process and the effects of baptism, i.e. the descent of the Holy Spirit AFTER THE FACT.

Jesus is baptized because God commanded all men to repent and believe for the kingdom of God was at hand. The way to repent was to go to the forerunner in the wilderness and be baptized, since to reject this was to show your unrepentance by refusing to undergo the ritual of repentance. If Jesus had not been baptized, He would have sinned.

>Certainly, but that is describing the nature of Baptism, not the purpose

The purpose of baptism is its effect, how can you separate them?

>The purpose, as John the Baptist says, is repentance a.k.a. the cleansing of sin, and thereby the cleansing of conscience.

Baptism is repentance because baptism is the ceremony of induction into the Church. To be baptized is to repent because it is to enter the realm of repentance (even if one is already in said realm by confession of Christ).

>and thereby the cleansing of conscience.

Peter says that baptism saves 'not as a removal of dirt from the body', that is, not the water itself, 'but as an appeal to God for a good conscience', that is, as a proclamation of the gospel. Baptism saves because it points us to Christ, and only saves when conjoined with faith.

>>579168

>But it doesn't. In fact, the bible says that the new birth can precede even the first birth, as in the case of John the Baptist.

I'm not quite sure why you bring him up as an example, he was, after all, a miraculously conceived prophet, not your average sinner. I don't object to the notion that people can repent fully and change their lives before baptism, for non-infants that's the ideal and that's how the Church does it and has done it for two millennia. But these people are not born again because they were not baptized first, and John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 still stand. Repentance is wonderful but it is not the same as the literal Spirit of God descending unto you (yes, you) ala Jesus's baptism, Pentecost, etc, several saint's stories off the top of my head, etc., and that only happens to the baptized and is what baptism allows.

Everything else you said is correct, but it also doesn't contradict anything I say so I'm not quite sure why you bring it up.

>The purpose of baptism is its effect, how can you separate them?

I actually read that as "a good conscience's answer toward God," not "the answer toward God of a good conscience," so that's what I mean by nature. We both understand the purpose so it doesn't really matter, but my bad.

>>578590

Verity, stop pushing your crappy videos for views or you're going to get banned from the board as well.

>>579219

>But these people are not born again because they were not baptized first

The new birth comes by the Holy Spirit, not water

>John 3:5

I don't think this is baptism. No distinctives of baptism are mentioned in the context, and Christ's words would be objectively false if this baptism. I think it is more sensible to conclude, in light of the context of dialog with a pharisee, that 'water' is a reference to holiness itself, that is, the substance of Christ's words are that you must be made holy by the Spirit of Holiness.

>Mark 16:16

I'm surprised you cited this. Doesn't this support my point that baptism only saves when conjoined with faith?

>Repentance is wonderful but it is not the same as the literal Spirit of God descending unto you

Without the Spirit a man cannot even repent.

>Everything else you said is correct

I'm very surprised to hear that because one of the things I said was anathematized by the Council of Trent.

>>579242

>Mark 16:16

>Doesn't this support my point that baptism only saves when conjoined with faith?

Yes it does, absolutely. Acts 2:38 & Colossians 2:12.

Mark 16:16 creates two disjoint groups, if you do not yet believe, then it doesn't matter whether or not you get physically baptized in water. In such a case it was nothing but a dunk in water, and that whole group is clearly condemned whether or not it happened to them. If you do believe, then obviously you will allow yourself to be baptized because of faith and for the faith, That's just a characteristic of those believing what Mark 16:16 says. The precision of that statement is easy to grasp and appreciate. And it even attests to the fact that one cannot truly be baptized while in unbelief, so there is no need to mention it. Colossians 2:12 again.

>>579242

>>579253

Baptism saves, always. A person can receive the water to no benefit not because the water is useless but because they instantly or very quickly reject what baptism brings.

>>579242

>No distinctives of baptism are mentioned in the context, and Christ's words would be objectively false if this baptism

Christ says

>“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

When asked how a man can be born again Jesus states

>“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God

In response to a man asking how to be born again Jesus says he must be born of water and spirit. Some people attempt to claim the being born of water is the first birth. This is troublesome for a two reasons that I can think of. Firstly, it relies on the idea that phrases like a womans water breaking were existent at the time to be a reference to the first birth. Secondly, assuming that is true, everyone is already born of water, so mentioning it in how to be born again is nonsensical. John 3:5 is Jesus explaining what it means to be born again. If Jesus wanted to say "baptism by the Holy Spirit is to be born again" why would He even mention being born the first time? Why wouldn't he just skip the "born of water" part, since anybody who could be born again obviously was already born?

You further claim that no baptisms are distinctive in this context, but it really is. Jesus says a man must be born again, or born anew. Compare what being born again means to statements like

>Romans 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Baptism buries you in death so you might walk in the newness of life. How is this not to be born again?

>12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism raises you from the state of death as God raised Jesus from the dead. Who can deny these refer to the new birth? Who can then deny baptism grants the new birth, as the text states?

>Doesn't this support my point that baptism only saves when conjoined with faith?

The reverse statement is also true, faith only saves when conjoined with baptism. The text says "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved". You can't just ignore the necessity of baptism here any more than you can ignore the necessity of believing.

>>579274

In John 3, Jesus is talking to Nicodemus about being born the second time. Nicodemus didn't become confused about the difference between baptisms here, Nicodemus was confused because Jesus said born again and he thought it meant re-entering a physical womb. But that is only your first birth, the second time does not involve this, as Jesus explained. It requires and is by the Spirit, and the one born in this case is not physical but is spirit. That is the difference and it explains why Nicodemus' confusion about being born for the second time is like the first birth was not informed. He wasn't confused about different forms of baptism or immersion here, that topic is not brought up.

John 3:3— γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν → born again

John 3:5— γεννηθῇ → born

John 3:6— γεγεννημένον → which is born (x2)

John 3:7— γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν → be born again

In the originals, verse 5 does not contain the words to say born "again", but verses 3 and 7 do. Verse 5 only uses the word "born." This is because each of the births being mentioned in verse 5 are singular births, while if referring only to the second birth you have to add "again" to clarify you are referring to the second instance of being born, not the first. But as soon as you go to the extent of mentioning both the birth of the flesh and birth of the spirit in the same sentence, this is not necessary. In other words, if "being born again" included both being born of the water AND being born of the Spirit, Jesus Christ would have needed to say "born again of water and of the Spirit", but in fact he only says "born of water and of the Spirit," because being born again is the latter of these two, while born of water is the former birth, which is what Nicodemus just mentioned in the previous verse (which you skipped over for some reason). And in the next verse, which you left out, Jesus adds "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

So, maybe if you extract verse 5 all by itself, and maybe tinker with the wording a bit, you might be able to tease out a false meaning from this isolated statement. Which is what I sometimes see people attempt to do. But they always skip over verse 4 and 6 for some unexplained reason, like those weren't convenient so they got left out. It's similar to how in James 2 they will always quote verse 14 (usually just part of it), then jump down to later verses past 18 but they never fail to skip over verses 15, 16 and 18. Or in John 6, they always leave out verse 63. With John 3, it's verses 4 and 6.

>so mentioning it in how to be born again is nonsensical.

Nicodemus brought it up in verse 4.

>Baptism buries you in death so you might walk in the newness of life. How is this not to be born again?

In Colossians 2:11, it is actually compared to "circumcision made without hands." Circumcision happens after birth— which, spiritually, is faith: and so meeting the criteria of both Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, and John 3:16, John 5:24, John 6:47, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31 and so on. These statements are all true simultaneously with John 3:3-7.

>Baptism raises you from the state of death as God raised Jesus from the dead.

Colossians 2:12, it's through the faith of the operation of God. We can't forget that.

>The text says "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved".

The question here is there someone who wouldn't and yet believes? I can't see how that exists. In the truest sense, the belief and baptism are actually co-equivalent, since you technically cannot become baptized if you are still an unbeliever. That's information Jesus in Mark 16:16 is also getting across here.

>>579292

>Nicodemus didn't become confused about the difference between baptisms here, Nicodemus was confused because Jesus said born again and he thought it meant re-entering a physical womb.

In John 3:4 Nicodemus asks

>How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

In asnwering his question Jesus says

>Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus only uses "born" and not "born again" because it's plain in the flow of conversation Nicodemus is asking how a man is born again. So John 3:5 not using born again does not disqualify it from talking about the second birth, especially since John 3:5 says simply "born of water and of the spirit", not "born of water and born again of the spirit". The one born is applied to both water and the spirit, so if one of them is not to be born again then neither of them are to be born again. As John 3:6 states this being born again is not a physical but supernatural event. A man does not become a baby again but it is the inward renewal that is done by being born of water and spirit.

>In Colossians 2:11, it is actually compared to "circumcision made without hands."

Because circumcision was the method of entering into the old covenant. Baptism is the method of entering into the new.

>Colossians 2:12, it's through the faith of the operation of God. We can't forget that.

But it is still by baptism. By baptism through faith. Without the baptism burying you there is no raising of the man through faith.

>That's information Jesus in Mark 16:16 is also getting across here.

Jesus is getting across they are both necessary. You'll have to explain more on what you mean by belief and baptism being co-equivalent, since I don't follow you. If you mean a believer will always get baptized that is false, the salvation army rarely or never baptizes but they have faith. So if you mean faith always results in baptism that is false. If you mean baptism and faith are both necessary that is true, since that is what Jesus stated when he said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved".

>>579274

>Baptism saves, always

Not biblical. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

>A person can receive the water to no benefit not because the water is useless

The water is useless when alone. The water isn't some magical salvation juice, it is joined with a promise, and by faith in the promise a man is saved by it.

>In response to a man asking how to be born again Jesus says he must be born of water and spirit

Nicodemus does not merely ask how to be born again, he questions that such a thing is possible. Jesus then answers that a man be born again because the 2nd birth is not like the first, he does not crawl back into his mothers' womb because it is not a fleshly birth but a spiritual one.

>so mentioning it in how to be born again is nonsensical

Again, though I do not agree with that interpretation, Nicodemus does not ask how to do this. He asks about re-entering his mothers' womb because the idea of being born again sounds preposterous to him. This is why Jesus says what He says after, that the birth is spiritual (not baptismal) and not fleshly.

>why would He even mention being born the first time?

Because Nicodemus already did.

>Jesus says a man must be born again, or born anew

The new birth is when the Holy Spirit comes upon an elect sinner and grants them a new spiritual nature, when He takes out their heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh. For this reason it is called a "new creation" or being "born again", and even sometimes "death". It is when the natural man, who hates God, and loves sin, is put to death and replaced with a Spirit-led man, who loves God and hates sin. Verse 8 of the same chapter says "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." From this it is clear that the new birth is spontaneous, not baptismal, since the thing itself is not directly (and therefore not certainly) detected but only the signs thereof. But if the new birth were from baptism then you could know with absolute certainty if another person was born again.

>Baptism buries you in death so you might walk in the newness of life. How is this not to be born again?

Well, what you have not noticed is that Paul says "us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus". He is speaking specifically of those who have believed the promise in baptism, since they and they alone have been baptized into Christ Jesus, even among the baptized, who without faith are merely baptized. By "baptized into his death" he means "entered". He is saying that we were crucified with Christ in order to be holy. Thus the substance of his teaching here is largely the same as Ephesians 2:8-10.

>Baptism raises you from the state of death as God raised Jesus from the dead

It says through faith

>The reverse statement is also true

It is not. Scripture is perfectly clear about the sufficiency of faith to be right with God. How can you so judaize, when we are told that Abraham was justified without circumcision? Yet circumcision is substantially the same as baptism.

>The text says "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved"

And the text lacks condemnation for the unbaptized believers.

>>577621

I've never seen that in white baptist churches. I've been to far too many IFBs than I'd like to admit, but I never saw that.

The black churches on the other hand…

If I can perhaps clear up some confusion that I think both sides have added too, you guys do realize we don't believe baptism, the ritual, is sufficient alone right? A person can be baptized as an infant and still grow up faithless, die faithless, and suffer the consequences. But if they rediscover the faith the promise of baptism isn't somehow invalidated. That's how it was for me, and for more than a millennium belief and baptism were not co-equivalent and all born into the faith professed their faith after the fact ala confirmation. Most still do. To claim that these baptisms are invalid is to claim that the God just allowed false prophets to fuck up and fail at saving like 98% of his flock. >>579292 by implication certainly believes this, and if you don't then you must concede that infant baptisms actually meant something.

>>579347

>That's how it was for me, and for more than a millennium belief and baptism were not co-equivalent and all born into the faith professed their faith after the fact ala confirmation.

Ok first of all, nobody said baptism is what saves you. All that was said is that if you have two people, a believer and one who does not, only the former can become baptized. This fact logically implies that, if Jesus considers someone to be baptized, they logically must have been saved by grace through faith, by implication of this. Otherwise they are not considered to have been baptized.

Mark 16:16 creates two disjoint groups, but I did not intend to say jointly exhaustive. It logically shows there is no actual category of baptized but believing not. Without either of these two things, this would contradict basically the rest of the NT. So for those who don't care about that, this makes it another thing to be misused if applied backwards, just like with Acts 2:38. But the context of the entire rest of the NT sets these statements into their intended meaning. And the intended meaning objectively exists, see 2 Peter 1:20.

>fail at saving like 98% of his flock.

Aren't you begging the question here? If someone isn't saved, they aren't part of his flock.

>>577494

I say this with sincerity:

I am Orthodox, but I admire much about Anderson's approach to Christian ministry and his zeal for carrying out the final commission even if I disagree with him theologically and some of his weird idiosyncrasies. I don't think he is a prophet, but he is definitely authentic. I wish there were more Orthodox like him in the West. Instead in the USA we have Orthodox liberal intellectuals telling us how our European clergy and monastics, our most holy men, are backwards anti-semitic racists and misogynists who take the Gospel too seriously and how our liturgy actually advocates for gender fluidity. We need our own Andersons to counter this satanic insurrection.

>>579476

>This fact logically implies that, if Jesus considers someone to be baptized, they logically must have been saved by grace through faith, by implication of this

Do you re-baptize apostates?

>>579555

We don't believe in re-baptism. That's why I don't care for the appellation anabaptist. It makes no sense.

>>579476

>Aren't you begging the question here?

Yes, but you just confirmed I was right.

>If someone isn't saved, they aren't part of his flock

The implications of claiming that those who are baptized as infants aren't saved are simply malicious and unbiblical. We know that Holy Spirit has been sent to guide and teach the faithful. Do you honestly think that he would preserve the faith in those who believe in him yet allow all of those who were born into the faith and who profess faith in Christ to pass over an essential qualificatiion for baptism, and thereby salvation, just for following a tradition universally held from the time of the Church Fathers to the Reformation, and that only adult converts and minority sect that lived over a thousand years after Jesus's coming would actually benefit from this? If we trust Peter when he says that the children of those who are baptized will recieve the promise of the Holy Spirit, than we should trust that the vast majority of Christian children throughout history who ended up responding to God's call and faithfully serving him all their lives were not hoodwinked out of their salvation.

>All that was said is that if you have two people, a believer and one who does not, only the former can become baptized.

Under sola scriptura yes, but if you follow the history of believers it was tradition a little over two hundred years after Christ's ministry to baptize infants.

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." "For the Church received from the Apostles. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the sacred mysteries, there in everyone the innate stain of sin lies, which must be washed away by water and the Spirit." -Origen (both).

Origen had the exact same scriptures that you and I do and a body of believers much nearer the Apostles and their teachings in time than ours, and he confirms that infant baptism was not just present in his time but an established tradition. Tertullian confirms the same. Even if he isn't right about the Apostles, and he cites no source for this belief source so he very well may be, he is a devout Christian who can be trusted to describe the practices of Christians at his time. Many Christians also decided to let their children choose the faith, St. Monica for example, but if infant baptism is heretical/invalid then none of the early Church writers felt the need to point it out. Whose exegisis is more trustworthy?

>This fact logically implies that, if Jesus considers someone to be baptized, they logically must have been saved by grace through faith, by implication of this.

Certainly, because the Bible only shows the faithful being baptized as adults (and children but for the sake of argument and ambiguity we'll assume they are of the age of reason). But the Bible also only shows a handful of the baptisms that occured even during Jesus's age, so it would be folly to conclude infant baptism is forbidden because the Bible excludes it. The Bible certainly states that repentence and faith is necessary for one's baptism to be effective, and certainly no one decide to get baptized in the first place unless they arerepentant and faithful. But the Bible never states that believer who is baptized as an infant, raised in the faith, and who confirms this faith at the age of reason is not validly baptized, which is what you claim, and is the issue that the salvation of most who believe in Christ hinges on. The issue is never brought up and never was until the Hussites came in the 15th century. Mark 16:16 certainly says that one must be both baptized and faithful to be saved, but does it say these two must be concurrent or only that a believer must have both? You seem to think that this verse is explicit on this matter, and yet your private interpretation of it has never been close to mainstream. Same goes with 1 Peter 3:21.

That being said, in the spirit of fairness I can conclude that you've proven my interpretation of John 3 off, although Jesus's baptism still presents baptism, the remission of sins, and the decent of the Spirit, as assured in confirmation, as two separate things.

>>579598

If you believe someone can be baptised wrong, then you do believe in re-baptism.

>>579598

You said that someone needs to be saved to be baptized, so if someone turns out to have never been a Christian and then rejoins the Church later in life will you baptize them again?

>We don't believe in re-baptism

Yes you do. You will re-baptize Christians who once received proper baptism as infants. That is why you earn the title Anabaptist

>>579607

>The implications of claiming that those who are baptized as infants

What the word of God says is that is not a category.

>just for following a tradition universally held

If it was universally held, then why did they keep making more laws enforcing it on all citizens? I have laws from 405, 413, 529, and c.785 here that give various penalties for not recognizing pedobaptistry, the second two being the death penalty. I'm sure if I researched more I could find the same kind of laws being given in the HRE era as well. That's why it's quite easy to show it has never been universally held by all, only the rulers.

>If we trust Peter when he says that the children of those who are baptized will recieve the promise of the Holy Spirit,

I have no idea what scripture you're referring to here. If you mean Acts 2, read verse 41-42. It clearly says that only, and only those who gladly received the word were baptized. This is the go-to reference for that along with Acts 8:37 in fact.

>hoodwinked out of their salvation.

I couldn't tell you there. Only God can see our faith directly. He's the one who gives it after all. And it's never too late for a godly person to receive the knowledge of the truth on these matters and obey the ordinance.

>much nearer the Apostles and their teachings in time than ours

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Q.E.D.

>>579623

>What the word of God says is that is not a category.

That isn't an answer to my arguments. Only a small, modern minority hold that the Word of God supports anabaptist teachings and I've already shown you plenty of reasons why the the Bible does not oppose infant baptism so the burden of proof is on you to prove it your exegesis dude.

>I have laws from 405, 413, 529, and c.785 here that give various penalties for not recognizing pedobaptistry.

Because the Romans were enforcing christianization in general because it was their state religion, which is a separate issue. That's at least for the first two, i'll assume the others were in later European kingdoms. Trust me, I'm not unfamiliar with the Catholic Church's inquisitory nonsense, I actually wrote a term paper this semester on St. Francis Xavier and the Goa Inquisition. I'll take the correction but again, it was held as tradition in the early Church and not considered heresy like you claim so idk how this supports your stance.

>If you mean Acts 2, read verse 41-42. It clearly says that only, and only those who gladly received the word were baptized.

Correct, in Acts 2 only those who gladly received the word were baptized. Doesn't exclude infant baptism. Also I mention this verse it this regard because Peter promised that their children would be saved too. This verse is as applicable to these first converts of the Church (Catholics believe the Church began at Pentecost, bear with me) as all of them. Imagine then some random Jew in the 11th century converts to Christianity. Then his daughter is baptized as an infant. According to you, the promise is then lost. I know it's a bit of a stretch application, but I want to explore the depth of how truly horrid this doctrine's implications are.

>I couldn't tell you there. Only God can see our faith directly. He's the one who gives it after all. And it's never too late for a godly person to receive the knowledge of the truth on these matters and obey the ordinance.

That's not the point. It's not a matter of a person seeing the truth, it's the fact that nobody preached anabaptism as the truth until the 15th century and only a small minority do today. If some yokel in the HRE said that he wanted to get rebaptized he would have been branded the village idiot for the rest of his life, at best. If this doctrine is true, then you need to tell me why God would allow a most of those who would come to believe in him to be baptized this way and therefore not receive the salvation they were promised for nearly two millennia.

>That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Again, I'm not sure why you bring this up because it does not contradict my points.

>>579623

>I have laws from 405, 413, 529, and c.785 here that give various penalties for not recognizing pedobaptistry, the second two being the death penalty

Source? I know the Codex Justinianus has penalties for re-baptising (against Donatists and the like) but I’ve never seen any law actually about infant baptism.

>>579637

>why God would allow a most of those who would come to believe in him to be baptized this way and therefore not receive the salvation

I'm not seeing this logic here. The first of all the promise is to as many as the Lord shall call, as the word says there. The righteousness is of faith not of the law, and the promise is for as many as are called to it, as Paul made clear back in Romans 9:30-32 also. The same is told again in Romans 1:17, Philippians 3:9, Galatians 2:16, 2:21, 5:4-5, and of course Ephesians 1:11-14. And it is unto all, because His blood is sufficient for all, but few are chosen. 1 Timothy 4:10

>>579646

First Saxon Capitulary (A.D. 785), Law 19 out of 34. The first series of new laws passed following the expansion of Charles into Saxony. The deadline was one year, the penalty was to pay a heavy gold fine.

Also, the 529 law is just a restatement of Honorius' 413 law. This was not long before Justinian's reconquest of Africa and Italy, you will find it in CJ Book 1 Title 6. It is all by itself with just one other law against anti-trinitarians, also a death penalty. The fact all the other laws that were against Novatians, Donatists and Montanists (e.g. titles 16.6.4 and 16.6.6.1) were not re-instated, but this law against "rebaptizandi" specifically was seems significant.

>>579657

The logic is that despite all of that, Jesus also requires baptism for salvation and according to anabaptists the baptisms of everyone born into the faith minus a handful of small, relatively modern sects have been invalid because they were performed at infancy. This is an inherent contradiction in anabaptism because it paints God as callously indifferent toward his faithful. If God only wanted believers baptism, then we would be doing believers baptism, either because early Christians would havr interpreted the Gospel the way you do or the Gospel would be expliciy about it. I know you view faith as the key to salvation, and you would be right in that regard, but if you believe baptism must be concurrent with faith in order to be valid and if you believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation, then you must agree that if anabaptist doctrine is true than the faith of basically every christian who has been born into the faith has been fruitless.

Also the Law here that Paul refers to is the Torah, not Jesus's teachings regarding baptism, which are, as you said, ordinance, so if you are trying to use those in suppourt of your position then you are just openly bringing private interpretation into the mix.

And yes, few are chosen. Even at it's maximum a minority of the world population has been Christian, and probably much fewer have faithfully kept God's commandments. But that isn't the same as saying that almost everyone who grew up believing they were called to God was were still damned on a technicality and that God wouldn't fix this until the 15th century.

>this law against "rebaptizandi" specifically was seems significant.

It certainly does, although I'm curious what these people saw as invalid about the baptisms. Coercion seems muuuuch more likely than infant baptism but I don't know the context well so I can't say either way. I would like to know more though ig you know more.

Also man I gotta stop rewriting these posts and just proofread my shit already.

>>579657

So by "not recognizing pedobaptistry", you meant re-baptism

>>579657

>First Saxon Capitulary (A.D. 785), Law 19 out of 34. The first series of new laws passed following the expansion of Charles into Saxony. The deadline was one year, the penalty was to pay a heavy gold fine.

Yup, you can see a translation of all the law here: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/carol-saxony.asp

Of course it’s in the context of Christianising Saxony (the law begins by stating its purpose of elevating the Church above Pagan worship and the laws are explicitly directed towards Pagans), so not an indication that the practice faced Christian opposition, but nonetheless Charlemagne did convert Germans under penalty of death (these particular laws supposedly not being very effective) and that included commanding them to baptise their children.

>Also, the 529 law is just a restatement of Honorius' 413 law. This was not long before Justinian's reconquest of Africa and Italy, you will find it in CJ Book 1 Title 6. It is all by itself with just one other law against anti-trinitarians, also a death penalty. The fact all the other laws that were against Novatians, Donatists and Montanists (e.g. titles 16.6.4 and 16.6.6.1) were not re-instated, but this law against "rebaptizandi" specifically was seems significant.

The laws against Donatists, Novationists and other specifically named heretics faded into irrelevance with the named sects. The laws that generally opposed their practices have more reason to remain in law. Of course, it’s speculation either way, but no matter how you look at it none of those laws relate directly or specifically to the practice of infant baptism.

>>579667

>but if you baptism must be concurrent with faith to be valid and if you believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation, the, you must agree that if anabaptist doctrine is true than the faith of basically every christian who has been born into the faith has been fruitless.

I believe the first premise and not the second premise. But I also agree with the conclusion anyway because 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that only believers can know or "discern" the word, and this is because he just got done explaining in the previous verse that the Holy Spirit teaches all understanding in regard to spiritual things. So without Him, there are many blind people. But not all. Also I don't use the term born into the faith with regard to infants. It's not found anywhere in scripture, making it a manmade saying. 1 John 5:4 rather says "whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."

>damned on a technicality

I don't presuppose this technicality that you are speaking of.

>Also the Law here that Paul refers to

Is any works, including the Mosaic law: Rom. 3:27, the law of faith, which cannot include our works. Romans 11:6 covers this exclusivity thoroughly.

>And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Note the second sentence here. And of course, keeping consistent with all this, John 6:29 tells us that the work of God is, to believe on him whom he hath sent. Not my works, but God's—

Philippians 2:13

>For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

1 Corinthians 15:10

But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

>It certainly does, although I'm curious what these people saw as invalid about the baptisms.

I would look to scripture in any case. The word of God is what provides sufficiently for the man of God. Any other historical information is merely incidental, I wouldn't expect anyone to base their faith on such a limited understanding of history or require the knowledge to say for sure what percentages of people believed what, even today. But anything you find in Scripture can be guaranteed to have been known and it's correct to say that we have always had Scripture, because the word of God says so about itself in 1 Peter 1:23-25 and elsewhere, which is what I appeal to. But if I happen to have other information to refute historical claims that are demonstrable exaggerations, I might still answer those with the small amount of uninspired resources I have as well. I firmly believe God has continually kept his truth alive in the world ever since He brought it, John 17:8,17. Anyways I'm gonna check back later.

>>579677

You have to note the significance of the fact that in 529 Codex, the only two death penalty laws were for denying the Trinity, and for not recognizing the state's method and formula of baptistry. I think this by itself is already sufficient to question the claim that said method and formula was a tradition "universally held."

>>579305

>The water is useless when alone. The water isn't some magical salvation juice, it is joined with a promise, and by faith in the promise a man is saved by it.

The work of a sacrament does not depnd on the person receiving the sacrament, but on God who ministers it. It can be made useless if a person after time or immediately rejects what it brings, but the work done always occurs. Baptism always buries you. Whether you truly walk in new life or return to the mire is dependent upon your faith.

>From this it is clear that the new birth is spontaneous, not baptismal, since the thing itself is not directly (and therefore not certainly) detected but only the signs thereof.

Firstly, before this point you cited no scripture. I suspect that's because the only scripture that talks about this links it with baptism closely or directly, see Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38, Galatians 3:27 etc. The link between Baptism and the forgiveness of sins, baptism and receiving the gifts of the spirit, baptism and regeneration is entirely to strong to be handwaved away.

>". He is speaking specifically of those who have believed the promise in baptism, since they and they alone have been baptized into Christ Jesus, even among the baptized, who without faith are merely baptized.

No, everyone baptized is baptized into His death provided it is a proper form. The text doesn't even remotely support this conclusion, except as an argument for the necessity of baptismal form.

> 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

So long as someone is baptized with the proper form it is a baptism into Christ Jesus. Everyone who is baptized with that form is baptized into His death. There's nothing in the text to suppor the conclusion that baptism remains just pointless water if they don't believe in the promise of baptism.

>He is saying that we were crucified with Christ in order to be holy. Thus the substance of his teaching here is largely the same as Ephesians 2:8-10

Yes, and here is states it is by baptism that a person is crucified to walk in the newness of life.

>It says through faith

Firstly, without the baptism there is no raising. Second, to be raised through faith can mean that the things granted by baptism must be received with faith, otherwise they will not grow to bear fruit. The sow is washed only to return to the mire. You'd have to do more work to show otherwise. Most importantly, it does not deny that baptism "puts off the old" even without faith, so if you maintain that baptism only works on those with faith themselves you'd have people in some middle state who put off the old, but have not put on the new.

>It is not. Scripture is perfectly clear about the sufficiency of faith to be right with God. How can you so judaize, when we are told that Abraham was justified without circumcision? Yet circumcision is substantially the same as baptism.

Because the bible says baptism is needed but circumcision is not.

>And the text lacks condemnation for the unbaptized believers

There are four possibilities

Believe and baptized

Believe and not baptized

Not believe and baptized

Not believe and not baptized

Only one of these is said to enter heaven, believe and baptized. Two of these will not, since a lack of belief damns regardless of baptism. The group of people who believe but have not been baptized are not mentioned at all. It doesn't state they are damned, but it doesn't state they aren't either. This text can't be used to prove baptism isn't necessary since it doesn't support that conclusion.

>>579716

>The work of a sacrament does not depnd on the person receiving the sacrament, but on God who ministers it.

Amen. But I will go further and deny the source of its efficacy not only to the worthiness of the receiving party but also to the sacrament itself, as if the superstitions of the heathens were valid, that there lies some spiritual power in the elements of the world. Rather, the sacraments are efficacious because of the Spirit of God, who makes what they signify come alive by the promise through faith.

>It can be made useless if a person after time or immediately rejects what it brings

I protest, that scripture never so limits the efficacy of sacraments. The work of a sacrament is never vain, even if the sign is (even amounting to greater judgement). Baptism, once saving a man, amounts to the forgiveness of his sins forever.

>Whether you truly walk in new life or return to the mire is dependent upon your faith.

Then surely we will all be damned if our salvation will be placed on our own shoulders rather than being a free gift of God.

>Firstly, before this point you cited no scripture

So? Must we always give a cascade of citation? Is it never enough to express the teaching?

>I suspect that's because the only scripture that talks about this links it with baptism closely or directly

Your thesis is already defeated by the scripture I did cite, since it makes no mention of baptism. But I can meet this challenge and show numerous scriptures with no mention of baptism. In John 1:12-13 we are told that those who believe are born not of the will of man but of God. Baptism is not mentioned, but it does ascribe the reception of Christ to this new birth, since this birth makes a man inclined towards the true God, being a new holy creature. In Romans 8:15 Paul says that by receiving the Holy Spirit we are able to cry to God as Father. This means that being raised from spiritual death and given a new pious nature we are by that pious nature able to regard our sins with hatred and despair and God a loving Father against whom we have sinned. Still no baptism. 2 Corinthians 5:16-17 says that we no longer regard Christ according to flesh because we are new creatures, and then says the old has passed and the new has come. What is the old but the man who naturally regarded Christ with disdain, and the new the man whose prelapsarian heart is restored? Again, there is no mention of anything remotely like baptism. Finally, scripture plainly contradicts baptismal regeneration when it says we were circumcised without hands.

>So long as someone is baptized with the proper form it is a baptism into Christ Jesus. Everyone who is baptized with that form is baptized into His death.

You have read that into the text. Paul makes no mention of a proper form, but only baptism itself. Your emphasis on "all" is also vain, since it is immediately followed by "who have been baptized into Christ Jesus."

>Yes, and here is states it is by baptism that a person is crucified to walk in the newness of life.

A saint is crucified by neither baptism, nor faith, but only imputation.

>Firstly, without the baptism there is no raising.

The text does not say that. It says in baptism we are raised through faith. What if it said the gospel instead of baptism? Would there be no raising without those words? Is it not rather that by faith in the promise put forward in baptism, we were raised?

>Most importantly, it does not deny that baptism "puts off the old" even without faith

Baptism doesn't put off the old. The apostle connects baptism to regeneration since it is its sign and seal, he doesn't unite them as one.

>you'd have people in some middle state who put off the old, but have not put on the new.

Putting off the old is the same thing as putting on the new. This is why regeneration is likened to both death and birth.

>Because the bible says baptism is needed but circumcision is not.

Not even once does the bible say baptism justifies. But you do not seem to understand my argument; baptism and circumcision are the same sacrament, ergo since Abraham was justified apart from circumcision so too are we justified apart from baptism.

>There are four possibilities

This text recognizes but three; believes and is baptized, believes and is not baptized, believes not.

>Only one of these is said to enter heaven, believe and baptized

And only one is said to bar from heaven. It is fallacious to conclude a negative from a positive.

>>579683

>Also I don't use the term born into the faith with regard to infants. It's not found anywhere in scripture, making it a manmade saying.

To clarify, I don't mean they had the faithfulness that saves at birth or baptism, I mean that they were born into Christianity, raised with and taught the faith that saves, and that they confirmed it at the age of reason, allowing the Spirit to descend upon them.

>I believe the first premise and not the second premise. But I also agree with the conclusion anyway

The second premise is inherent to the first because if you don't believe the baptisms to be valid then you don't believe that these people are fulfilling the requirements for salvation set out in Mark 16:16. You can't believe the first and not the second because the second is simply the first taken to it's logical conclusion.

>1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that only believers can know or "discern" the word, and this is because he just got done explaining in the previous verse that the Holy Spirit teaches all understanding in regard to spiritual things. So without Him, there are many blind people. But not all.

Right but the Holy Spirit was and is with these faithful so I'm not sure how this verse applies. To not believe this is to simply believe that the Holy Spirit was not with most of the faithful. The necessity of faith certainly raises the question of what happens if someone dies before they are old enough to affirm their faith, and indeed that's how this practice got started in the first place. Quite frankly we don't know how God judges them and early Christians didn't want to take chances, they just knew that everyone was born into sin and that it should be washed away as soon as possible. And since none of the faithful thought that scripture excluded infant baptism it had become traditional by the mid-3rd century. This is why historical information is important in this case; because it is the history of how people have interpreted and what they have done with the Word of God. It isn't basing faith just on historical information but on the history of the living faith, so use it if you've got it. Also it should be noted that, in addition to being the Word of God, the Gospel is also a historical record. And again, if we were fucking up baptism throughout history God would have corrected us a long time ago.

>Is any works, including the Mosaic law: Rom. 3:27, the law of faith, which cannot include our works. Romans 11:6 covers this exclusivity thoroughly.

I don't want to let this thread stray into full catholic vs baptist squabbling any more than it already has. I actually made a post on misinterpretations of the Catholic perspective on justification in the Baptist thread and I should really follow up on on it because someone asked me to elaborate. Suffice to say Jesus said baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and therefore it shouldn't be counted among simple works, which do not merit salvation, unrighteous without grace, and Romans 11:6.

Also at this point do you guys just wanna make another thread for this? I don't even know how a train can travel this far without it's rails, it's kind of astounding.

>>579716

>It doesn't state they are damned, but it doesn't state they aren't either. This text can't be used to prove baptism isn't necessary since it doesn't support that conclusion.

Add John 3:16, it's just that simple. Now you have shown it. And all of the rest of scripture sets the context for Mark 16:16, which in fact says that non-belief cannot coincide with baptism, not in his eyes. Only by disregarding the rest of scripture can one attempt to apply either Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38 backwards in order to say something that it doesn't. By essentially denying the entire book of John and of Romans and many other statements it gives us. But 1 Corinthians 1 & 2 tell us the natural man is blind and unable to see, so, this has stopped surprising me. We would each be like that if by ourselves.

>>579878

>The second premise is inherent to the first

No it isn't or you wouldn't have needed to mention it separately. Those are two separate premises and have disagreed over the second one all along. So you can't simply use it now like this as if it were accepted, without someone pointing this out.

But again I don't see the problem with the conclusion anyway because "born into the faith" isn't a godly concept to begin with, unless you are talking about being born of God. Which I don't think you are. And lastly, the conclusion isn't even fully true anyway because there is always time to obey the ordinance later on. Being exposed to water doesn't preclude the observance of baptism. The Lord would not let nonsense interfere with his plans. If the Lord wants to baptize someone into his church, then he will.

>To not believe this is to simply believe that the Holy Spirit was not with most of the faithful.

You have pre-defined who is "the faithful." If the Holy Spirit isn't present there, then they haven't received faith or grace. So you would need to start there first in order to show this.

>And since none of the faithful thought that scripture excluded infant baptism

This cannot be proven, unless you define faithful this way by default which you have clearly done. So, presupposing the conclusion is one very useful way to prove it. But it still doesn't change anything I've said.

>>579914

>No it isn't or you wouldn't have needed to mention it separately. Those are two separate premises and have disagreed over the second one all along. So you can't simply use it now like this as if it were accepted, without someone pointing this out.

I don't think you understand what a logical conclusion is. If infant baptism is invalid, then most Christians throughout history have not been saved like they were promised, because mosy were baptized as infants. One logically follows from the other and if you don't see that then it's just because you haven't thought through your position.

>But again I don't see the problem with the conclusion anyway because "born into the faith" isn't a godly concept to begin with.

I've already explained my meaning in that regard, stop willfully misinterpreting it unless you are seriously stating that someone cannot be born into a Christian family and raised as a Christian.

>And lastly, the conclusion isn't even fully true anyway because there is always time to obey the ordinance later on

An interpretation of the ordinance that, as I said, nobody would have came to in ye olden days. If God want believers baptism then you have to explain why 99% of believers do not baptize this way, aka letting nonsense into his plan. If you don't you are never going to convince anyone of your position.

>You have pre-defined who is "the faithful."

I didn't define it at all because we all know the definition, I.e. people who believe Jesus Christ is their Lord and savior. They have faith and grace, so If your questioning the presence of the Holy Spirit in these people then you're the one who's questioning the definition.

>So you would need to start there first in order to show this.

"In these raptures, the soul no longer seems to animate the body, its natural heat therefore is felt to diminish and it gradually gets cold, though with a feel- ing of very great joy and sweetness. Here there is no possibility of resisting. . . rapture is, as a rule, irresistible. Before you can be warned by a thought or help yourself in any way, it comes as a quick and violent shock; you see and feel this cloud, or this powerful eagle rising and bearing you up on its wings. You realise, I repeat, and indeed see that you are being carried away you know not where. . .We have to go willingly wherever we are carried, for in fact, we are being borne off whether we like it or not. In this emergency very often I should like to resist, and I exert all my strength to do so, especially at such times as I am in a public place, and very often when I am in private also, because I am afraid of delusions. Sometimes with a great struggle I have been able to do something against it. But it has been like fighting a great giant, and has left me utterly exhausted. At other times resistance has been impossible; my soul has been carried away, and usually my head as well, without my being able to prevent it; and sometimes it has affected my whole body…" -St. Teresa of Avila

Like all born into the Catholic faith at her time Teresa of Avila was baptized as an infant, and this is her description of her experiences of prayer. She also wrote extensively on demonology and false appartions, so one cannot claim that these are just delusions. She is just one of the many saints who report similar experiences and if she didn't have the Holy Spirit within her, than I don't know who does.

>>577494

ehh he's really quick to judge and a little too fervent

by no means a bad preacher, but not my favorite

Just another modern using scripture to justify their own chaos. Foul.

>>580026

You said the following:

>but if you baptism must be concurrent with faith to be valid and if you believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation, then, you must agree that [conclusion]

Notice you said the word "if" twice, afterwards you said "then," The second "if" is the false premise. So the conclusion then does not logically follow. I just wanted to tell you this second premise is not accepted.

>unless you are seriously stating that someone cannot be born into a Christian family

They can. But this is not perfectly equivalent to having faith, which is where you originally misled in your argument. When you originally used the term "born into the faith," you used it as though this means that everyone who gets this upbringing (although I suspect you originally meant gets sprinkled) therefore has faith. No, it's actually the other way around, it is only a baptism if they have faith, otherwise it simply isn't a baptism. That's why in Mark 16:16 only if you believe, are you baptized, as far as Jesus Christ is concerned. All of the baptized on one side, and all of the unbelieving on the other. The only group that's left out here is the believing who haven't been baptized yet, they are also saved, according to John 6:47. So this truly is a meaningful statement which you have chosen, once the meaning of it is fully established.

>then you have to explain why 99% of believers do not baptize this way,

I don't know how you can prove this claim. But it doesn't matter how many people are stumbling in the dark without eyes to see, the truth is what it is. And it isn't decided by majority vote by the way. All these appeals to the flesh contrary to what the word of God says are corrupt fruits.

>I didn't define it at all because we all know the definition

Yes you did. When you said

"To not believe this is to simply believe that the Holy Spirit was not with most of the faithful."

The assumption in this statement is that most of the faithful in fact believed a certain thing. What if the people believing that thing are not really faithful but only claiming to be?

>>580049

>But this is not perfectly equivalent to having faith

You can't see someone's heart, you only know if they're a Christian by external evidence. Why isn't birth to Christian parents valid evidence of regeneration?

>it is only a baptism if they have faith, otherwise it simply isn't a baptism

To which I repeat my question; do you re-baptize apostates (people who have left the faith thus proving they didn't have faith)?

>>577885

Why has no one replied to me? Seriously just watch the video. He has some heretical beliefs

>>580055

>Why isn't birth to Christian parents valid evidence of regeneration?

Proverbs 20:11

Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.

>To which I repeat my question; do you re-baptize apostates

My church does not re-baptize anyone for any reason. And also I do not pretend to know someone's heart, I can only see their actions as you just said. Because outside of Biblical examples, the only person that eternal security applies to is yourself, because when you have the assurance of the word, you know, and God knows. The word of God is the rock on which everything stands, the stars could fall from the sky and civilization and all records of it could be wiped out, but I would still have the word of God to know the truth.

>>580049

>The second "if" is the false premise. So the conclusion then does not logically follow. I just wanted to tell you this second premise is not accepted.

>this second premise is not accepted.

>the necessity of baptism for salvation is not accepted

HWAT

MARK 16:16 MY DUDE

HWAT

I'm at a friend's house right now so I'll addess your post later, but if you're going to claim such a wild interpetation of Mark 16:16 that excludes a third of Mark 16:16 as crystal clear truth without even addressing my refutation of your interpretation from several posts up then I'm not even sure why I should bother.

>>580059

>Proverbs 20:11

Infants have no doings. How are they known? Or do you expunge them from the kingdom of heaven, even when Jesus said to them belongs the kingdom of heaven?

>My church does not re-baptize anyone for any reason

Ok, why? You said one must have faith for the baptism to be valid, but we know apostates never had faith (1 John 2:19).

>>580072

>MARK 16:16 MY DUDE

People who have not been baptized but who believe aren't mentioned here. I think that's maybe the fourth time this has been said. They are, however, mentioned in John 6:47, therefore they are saved as well. I'm being as patient as I can right now. At the fact you despise all the word of God that immediately prove your notion wrong and don't want to talk about it. Maybe instead of responding you should actually just read what has already been wrote since you clearly did not read it yet. I'll gauge your response based on what you have actually read and paid attention to, as to why you are really here right now.

>>580113

>People who have not been baptized but who believe aren't mentioned here. I think that's maybe the fourth time this has been said. They are, however, mentioned in John 6:47

Again I don't see a reason why if God himself says that a person is saved then that fact is worth doubting, this point was already addressed here >>579081 and I even anticipated it before you brought it up in some of the first posts of this debate so you should have addressed it if you had a problem with it. Catholicism doesn't teach that those with true faith are going to get damned on a technicality, but we also believe that the sign of the new covenant is so vital that it should be done asap, even at infancy (which, again, scripture does not explicitly exclude like you think it does), even if it's promise is nothing without faith. If you absolutely cannot get baptized then God understands, and if God tells you to your face that you are saved then God clearly understands, but the rest of us have no excuse.

Nonetheless, your post here has made me realize how blatantly uncharitable I've been with this argument here, and I should apologize for it. You've made it clear now that you're position isn't as absurd as I thought because I assumed that you were placing the same vital stress on baptism that most other Christians do. If you knew me you would know that I'm the kind of person who can go a whole argument without getting that, but that doesn't excuse it and I shouldn't be picking fights with Christians over opinions that aren't going to get them damned, so for that I'm sorry.

I enjoy a good chuckle when some dude in the back yells Amen!!