/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

of course

if done with the trinitarian formula:

catholic answer: valid but licit

orthodox answer: да

baptist answer: duh

pentecostal answer: yabbadabbadoo

>>587025

They do full immersion in the name of the Trinity, there is no reason to see their baptisms as invalid, although they won't accept baptisms done in other Baptist groups that aren't theirs.

>>587028

Unless they were Oneness.

>>587031

>although they won't accept baptisms done in other Baptist groups that aren't theirs.

Are you IFB? I’m pretty sure they accept adult baptisms following the trinitarian formula as valid, even if it’s by another baptist group

>>587025

Andersonites are not and their baptisms are not, but not all IFBs are Andersonites

>>587041

I'm not IFB but I've had contact with some IFB who say they'll only accept baptisms from groups that believe exactly like them. So even if another Baptist church has a slightly different take on something like dispensationalism, they won't accept their baptisms. I wouldn't say that's all IFB, but some of the more closed off IFB are like that.

>>587042

There's nothing wrong with Andersonite baptism. I've seen it on YouTube, it's full immersion in the name of the Trinity.

>>587048

>There's nothing wrong with Andersonite baptism

Heretics don't have valid sacraments

>I've seen it on YouTube, it's full immersion in the name of the Trinity.

While that's true, Anderson teaches there's nothing wrong with using a different formula or no baptismal formula at all. So there's a chance he's baptized someone without doing so in the name of the trinity.

>>587051

>Heretics don't have valid sacraments

what's your denomination?

>>587051

>Heretics don't have valid sacraments

They're not heretics though. They're Baptists. As long as a group does adult baptism by full immersion in the name of the Trinity then the baptism is valid.

>While that's true, Anderson teaches there's nothing wrong with using a different formula or no baptismal formula at all. So there's a chance he's baptized someone without doing so in the name of the trinity.

Proof? Even if Anderson does teaches that, clearly he does baptism in the name of the Trinity so his baptisms aren't invalid.

>>587054

>They're not heretics though. They're Baptists.

They believe that homosexuals are reprobates with no chance of forgiveness who should commit suicide, so yes they are absolute heretics. But as long as the baptism is trinitarian in nature it is valid, otherwise Catholics would never even accept a non-catholic baptism.

>>587061

>They believe that homosexuals are reprobates with no chance of forgiveness

Romans 1

>who should commit suicide,

Wellthey deserve the death penalty so they should just make it easier

Also I don't see how you would label someone as a heretic for believing that. I wouldn't call people that don't believe it a heretic.

>>587062

>Romans 1

And this chapter supersedes Matthew 12:31 how exactly?

>Well they deserve the death penalty so they should just make it easier

Yeah, as sinners we all do, so I see no reason why we don't all just kill ourselves. None whatsoever.

>>587061

Ok, maybe they hold some heretical things, but I still wouldn't consider them full blown heretics. I believe certain heretic groups do give valid baptisms as long as its adult baptism by full immersion in the name of the Trinity. So sometimes Methodist and even Eastern Orthodox give valid baptisms. But I wouldn't consider Roman Catholic baptism valid because they never immerse, not even adults. I still consider RC's Christians though, just very heretical.

>>587062

Romans 1 isn't calling for the death penalty, it's talking about how as sinners we're deserving of natural death, and we do die. That passage is theological.

>>587066

>I still consider RC's Christians though, just very heretical.

I mean I have every reason to disagree with you here, but your position is understandable for the same reason I see the FWBC and all protestants as heretics. But under no circumstances should a denomination be telling sinners to kill themselves, that is painfully obvious to any self-respecting christian, which is why I single that sin it out.

>>587051

>Anderson teaches there's nothing wrong with using a different formula or no baptismal formula at all. So there's a chance he's baptized someone without doing so in the name of the trinity.

That is false witness, that is textbook false witness. You are lying for no reason.

>>587069

Yeah, I agree that what Anderson preaches about gays is fucked up and that's why I wouldn't encourage becoming an Andersonite, but in my eyes, a Baptist is a Baptist. Baptists can hold heretical doctrines, but I wouldn't consider them full blown heretics unless they started believing/un-believing something super fundamental like the Trinity. If they went as far as to stop believing the Trinity though, I wouldn't even consider them Christians. This is why I fucking hate Mormonism and Jehovah Witness and do not see them as Christians in any way shape or form.

>>587075

>Baptists can hold heretical doctrines, but I wouldn't consider them full blown heretics unless they started believing/un-believing something super fundamental like the Trinity.

I mean if we all started calling each other full blown heretics again there would be another 30 years war, but Anderson's doctrine is morally reprehensible heresy to all denominations and an embarrassment to the faith, so the way I see it it would be unjust not to label and reprove it as such.

At least we can all agree on "fuck Mormonism."

>>587054

>They're not heretics though

<The bible is God

<Jesus burned in hell

<Repentance is bad

>They're not heretics

>Proof?

I mean, I can't just go find the sermon, but I distinctly remember Anderson saying to baptize in the name of the trinity just means on God's authority so it's ok to say nothing at all

>>587082

You're retarded. I've never heard him teach that shit.

>I mean, I can't just go find the sermon, but I distinctly remember Anderson saying to baptize in the name of the trinity just means on God's authority so it's ok to say nothing at all

So what you're saying is that you have no evidence?

>>587082

>it was real in my mind

Nice argument

>>587086

>>587087

>>587088

Idk where he said Jesus burnt in hell, although descent into hell is by no means heresy. The other two are in that generic webm that's floating around and inexcusably heretical. The last is sadly unsourced , although I suppose I wouldn't doubt it.

>>587061

Romans 1:26-32

>26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

>27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

>28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

>29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

>30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

>31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

>32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Being a homosexual is a symptom of reprobate mind, which is acquired by hating God. That is to say, that there are some people that are confused, who think they are homosexual but are not.

>>587091

im 90% sure I saw a webm of him saying as such, but Anderson is the sort of who speaks so many things he does not even really keep track of what he's supposed to believe in

>>587075

The reason he said "homosexuals should kill themselves as far as I'm concerned [sic]" is because there is no governmental authority to carry out the execution of pedophiles.

Most homosexuals are reprobate, so they simply CANNOT be saved.

>>587093

>>587095

To restate, this chapter supersedes Matthew 12:31 how exactly?

>That is to say, that there are some people that are confused, who think they are homosexual but are not.

Traps are gay if that's what you're wondering

>>587099

What should be said is first off, Romans 1 does not at all justify telling a sinner to kill himself, even a pedophile, because reprobation and degeneracy is by no means a permanent state and the verse never states that it is. And second it is worth noting that there are innocents, even good, justified Christians, who mature into homosexuality without discernible cause or means of change, so to state that all homosexualty is a sign of reprobation as Anderson does is nonsensical. I fell way too far into the traps aren't gay meme of my own cause and I still have no doubt that Jesus Christ is my lord and savior, even if I'm still like 30% gay to straight.

>>587104

>reprobation and degeneracy is by no means a permanent state

Degeneracy may not be in every case, but reprobation is the judgement of God. Big difference, see Romans 1:24-2:2.

>And second it is worth noting that there are innocents, even good, justified Christians, who mature into homosexuality

No, there are not

>>587106

>Degeneracy may not be in every case, but reprobation is the judgement of God. Big difference, see Romans 1:24-2:2.

And again, not a permanent one if we're going according to scripture. Big difference indeed.

>No, there are not

Unless scripture explicitly states that every single homosexual is a reprobate, instead of stating that some homosexuals of Rome were reprobates, then yes, as the testimony of many Christians states, there are.

>>587108

>Unless scripture explicitly states that every single homosexual is a reprobate,

That's the judgement of God in Romans 1:24-28. And in Romans 1:29-32 are given by the word of God other things to know about them (i.e. them which commit such things) besides the fact they are rejected and reprobate as said in the beginning of that sentence in verse 28. So reprobate in 28, and in verse 32, deserving of death and knowing that they which commit such things are worthy of death and not only do them but take pleasure in them that do them.

>>587119

>That's the judgement of God in Romans 1:24-28

Except that isn't. According to the judgement of God, every reprobate of Rome was a homosexual. According to no one but Anderson and you, every single homosexual is reprobate. This kind of overly-broad reading has lead to a lot of heresy, Anderson's included, so I encourage you to be on guard against it and to accept when it is proven wrong.

>>587128

Who are you responding to?

>>587128

Also does anyone have a source/context for that evil spirit bit? I really can't believe that any christian with a brain would say that nonsense unless I see the full video for myself.

>>587133

>what are your thoughts on IFBs?

<STEVEN ANDERSON IS A BIG DUMB MEANIE BANNED BANNED BANNED REEE

this is why we need more mods. Baptist mods. And modlogs

>>587128

Is this post a Catholic calling someone weird? You get rattled if someone drops your special crackers.

>>587137

I mean diversity would be nice for the peace of the board, and Baptists certainly could help there, but don't think for a second they will tolerate the stream of uncharitable posters that seems to consistently come from your denomination, see >>587143.

>>587144

>threatening others with Rule 2

The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.

The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.

Baptism is generally valid, if an appropriate form, intent, and matter are present. I would think that would be true here.

Can it be said they are Nicean? Do they deny a universal church?

>>587149

>>587040

>>587149

>What are you talking about?

The mod who made this pasta in the first place got caught editing it.

>>587145

If you don't see mockery and other uncharitable behavior as a sin then it's your loss, but remember that your behavior is representative of your entire denomination, regardless of whether or not others judge you fairly for it.

>>587160

People like their sins, which are all the rules are trying to prevent. Questioning the justice of the warnings and bans is perfectly valid, but the justice of the mod's decisions is self evident more often then not. Also srry I delete my post, I do that for arbitrary reasons way too often.

Also hi Frampt. Kaathe. Whoever.

>>587161

You're just absolutely wrong on every count and belittling the judgement of God, now you can turn to unreasonable behavior like banning with rules that you set up if you wish, it won't change the reality. There is plenty of precedent for denouncing idolatry and those who practice it as well, if only to show how unrighteous the workers of iniquity really are. I guess they would have to be banned too – breaking rule 2 – so no worries.

>>587128

The funny thing about this copypasta, is that the poster has a below huffington post level clip. Which I am fine with obvious shitposting. But I have a feeling that the wanting mind that post it actually think it means anything to others. Then to confirm this mindset the poster compares Westboro and Anderson, which just states openly they have no idea what they are comparing.

>>587088

He does say or strongly imply Jesus burned in hell. Whereas the harrowing of hell is about Jesus being victorious over hell, completely different. Watch his full interview with James White, it's somewhere in there where he states it. I don't have time to hunt down the exact quote for you.

>>587025

If they baptize "In the Name of the Father and of the Son an of the Holy Spirit", then their Baptism is a valid sacrament.

>>587028

>orthodox answer: да

*orthodox answer: Ναί/да/დიახ/da/

>>587310

Ps. 96:5

For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.