/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

No thats autistic

>>638721

Why are they wanting to rebaptize you? Seems odd since you are just moving over from another Baptist church.

>>638721

As long as you're saved (OSAS), and have been baptized after you got saved, then there is no need to be baptized again (Acts 8:36-38). Some Baptist churches have goofy terms of church membership, but if they are KJV only and preach the right salvation then it sounds like a good church to attend.

>>638751

>that painting…

“Jesus…if you give me another Indian burn, you get the hand!”

“Too late!”

>>638721

Asking "Should I do/become X" on any board, no matter how Christian, is probably not your best bet.

What you should do is read through the scriptures (not with a study Bible, they tend to be biased) and church fathers while praying for God to guide your interpretation. From there you can identify which church is most in line with the original church.

>>638721

Why yoke yourself to a specific church at all?

>>638721

It sounds like a decent church with the right Bible. Here are the questions I always have for a church I'm considering:

1. Do you do any soulwinning? And by soulwinning, I mean knocking on doors and giving the gospel, not dumping tracts everywhere and screaming in the street. Usually if they do door to door soulwinning and use a KJV they have everything else right.

2. What is the plan of salvation? Even in "faith alone" Baptist churches, you have to be careful, because a lot of them teach that you have to repent of your sins to be saved.

3. Here's a tricky one: what is the evidence of salvation? There are a lot of pastors who say they believe in salvation by faith alone, but then turn around and say that if you don't have works, you're not saved, which is just a sneaky way of teaching works-based salavation.

You'd be surprised at how difficult it is to find a church like this in the so-called Bible Belt.

>>638721

Just be sure they're not Andersonites, and always check whether the pastor is teaching according to truth.

>>638788

kek

>>638838

>you have to be careful, because a lot of them teach that you have to repent of your sins to be saved.

>but then [they] turn around and say that if you don't have works, you're not saved, which is just a sneaky way of teaching works-based salavation.

<Mark 1:14-15 KJV

(14)  Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

(15)  And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Acts 2:37-39 KJV

(37)  Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

(38)  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

(39)  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

<1 John 3:2-10 KJV

(2)  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

(3)  And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as He is pure.

(4)  Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

(5)  And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

(6)  Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

(7)  Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

(8)  He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

(9)  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

(10)  In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

>>638721

OP here, here are their doctrines on their website, what does /christian/ think?

1. The infallibility, inerrancy, and verbal inspiration of the Bible. (II Peter 1:21, II Tim 3: 16) We hold solely to the Authorized King James Version of 1611.

2. The belief in the Trinity, one God in three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19,

3. The eternal Deity of Jesus Christ. (John 3:16, Heb 13:8, Rev 1:8, Rev 1:18)

4. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ (Isa 7:14, Luke 1:27)

5. The sinless humanity of Jesus Christ. (Heb 4:15)

6. The substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. (Rom 5:6,8, I John 2:2)

7. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. (John 20: 26-28, Luke 24:39)

8. The personal, premillenial, pre tribulational second coming of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:11, I Thes 4:16-17, Rev 20)

9. Salvation by grace, through faith, without works. (Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5)

10. The powers of Christ’s blood to save and cleanse from sin. (Col 1:14, I Peter 1:18-19, Eph 1:7)

11. Every believer is indwelt with, and sealed by, the Holy Spirit upon receiving Christ, and that the believer is filled with the Holy Spirit for service. We believe that the Holy Spirit today bestows gifts for service upon believers, but that the sign gifts were restricted to the apostolic period. (Romans 8:9, 10:44, Eph 1:13, 4: 11-12, I Cor 13: 8-13)

12. The eternal bliss of believers in resurrection bodies. (I Cor: 15:51-57, I Thes 4:16-17)

13. The eternal damnation in hell of all those who reject Christ. (John 3:36, Rev 20:11-15)

14. The free offer of salvation, without limit to the atonement. (John 3:16, II Peter 3:9, I Tim 2:4, I John 2:2)

15. The eternal security of the believer. (John 3:16, 10:28)

16. We believe that the local church is a body of believers that meet together to worship God, to receive instruction, to observe the Christian ordinances, and to render whatever service the gospel requires; and that the local church is autonomous, directly responsible to Christ the Church’s head (Acts 2:38, 4 1-47; I Corinthians11: 17-34; Ephesians 1:1-2; 4:1l-16).

17. The Ordinances of the church are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is an act of obedience, a sign of faith, and a witness of salvation. In it, a believer in Christ follows Him by being immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a witness of the believer’s identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. There is no Saving Power in the act or the water, but it is a sign and symbol only. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial observation of that which the Savior did with His disciples on the night He was betrayed. It is in no sense a sacrifice, but is intended to commemorate His death and confirm the bond of communion of the Holy Spirit between believers and between Christ and His Church. (Matt. 28:19, Acts 10:48, Rom. 6:3, Col. 2:12, Gal. 2:16; I Cor. 11:23-29, Heb. 9:26-28, 10:12-14)

18. The Genesis account of creation, to be accepted literally, and not allegorically or figuratively. The direct creation of man in God’s own image and after his own likeness, man’s creation not being a matter of evolution or evolutionary change of species or development through interminable periods of time from lower to higher forms; the direct creation of all animal and vegetable life and God’s established law that they should bring forth only “ after their kind.” (John 1:1-4, Heb 11:3, Gen 1:1, 11, 21-27, 2:7, 21:23)

19. We believe that Satan is a person. He is the unholy god of this age, the prince of the power of the air, and the prince of this world. The Devil was a murderer from the beginning. He is a liar and the father of lies. There is absolutely no truth in him. He is the enemy of God and man and the author of all the power of darkness. He is a deceiver and blinds the minds of men to the end that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ may not dawn upon them. He is destined to the judgment of an eternal justice in the lake of fire. (John 8:44; John 16:11; Ephesians 2:2; II Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 20:10)

20. The command to evangelize all nations. (Acts 1:8, Matt 28: 19-20)

21. The one body of Christ consisting of all believers regardless of color, race, or standing. (I Cor 12:13, Col 1:18, Gal 3:28)

22. The imminent and personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ to take his Body unto Himself before the tribulation and to set up His kingdom on the earth after the tribulation. (I Thes 4:16-17, Rev 11:15)

>>638882

>We hold solely to the Authorized King James Version of 1611.

You can tell they're bullshit just from this. They most likely use the 1769 revision, the original 1611 text isn't widely available. They don't know their own Bible.

>>638737

Only churches who hold to all the doctrines of the IFB have valid baptism.

>>638815

The church fathers were heretics tbh. And stop calling them "fathers" since "one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9)

>>638842

They're definitely not. They believe in the rapture so that's one sign they're not. They're also ardently against the faggot agenda and anything having to do with faggots but they don't believe fags should be put to death or anything.

>>638838

>Do you do any soulwinning? And by soulwinning, I mean knocking on doors and giving the gospel, not dumping tracts everywhere and screaming in the street. Usually if they do door to door soulwinning and use a KJV they have everything else right.

As far as I know, they don't do any formal soul winning, however members of the church are encouraged to soul win within their family and neighborhood. In fact I'd say 90% of the people there were evangelized by the original members, either as family or friends or people in the same neighborhood.

>>638747

>Baptists can't even meme right

That's just sad.

>>638900

All of those "Baptist memes" aren't original, rather derivative of other works. I'm sensing a pattern …

>>638900

It's upside down. How can you not understand this?

It's like you are telling a joke wrong and you are proud about it.

>>638900

Baptists sure love their reddit memes

>>638910

>y-you're just upset!

Seems I've struck a chord.

>Once saved, always saved

>Complete Biblical literalism

Don't bother, really. If you're going for Protestantism, go for Lutheranism or semi-independent congregations with a common creed. Also, don't use the word 'based', it's really, really epin reddit meme tier

Don't being a Andersonite, your gonna go to hell with his flawed theology when it comes to being saved, and he just flaunts himself like Joesph Smith did claiming to be a modern prophet and he just wants attention for being edgy, become a Traditionalist Catholic because thats what Jesus intended.

>>638882

> We hold solely to the Authorized King James Version of 1611.

So what do baptists do about translations of that version? Is it not good enough because its in French or German? Are there any French or German baptists?

#18 made me chuckle, have fun with that one OP.

>>638721

>little too radical as in the case of Anderson

This really bugs me. Why do you consider it a bad thing to be a radical christian? To love Jesus and the Bible radically? Is there really such a thing as "too radical" when it comes to being a christian? I really don't think there is. Pastor Anderson preaches nothing but the Bible and he preaches the whole Bible, he's literally the most biblical preacher out there.

>>639034

With all due respect to Pastor Anderson, but he doesn't follow Ephesians 2:15

>>639037

Elaborate.

>>639038

>Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

<continues to follow Leviticus 20:13 as if it applies to the new covenant

<cites Romans 1:32

<does not understand that Romans 1:32 isn't talking about capital punishment but rather how sin makes us worthy of death and hell (which is the second death)

>>639039

verse 32 really seems to be saying physical death. But either way Lev 20:13 clearly js physically dying and sodomites being abominations is also in Jude and 2 Peter 2

>>638721

>KJV Onlyism

Absolutely debunked, my brother. Don't build your house on a false foundation.

>>639286

Do you believe a perfect English translation exists?

>>639288

>perfect translations

Translation in general comes with trade-offs, due to the localized cultural concepts behind the words and phrases of each language. For example, if I say, "Two in the bag is worth one in the bush", anybody in the Anglosphere will understand the metaphor and be able to apply the idea to whatever context the phrase is used in. If you were to translate the phrase literally to another language, its meaning might not be clear. In these circumstances, translations are reworded so that the original concept is communicated, rather than a literal sentence about bags and bushes. This is (one of) the reasons why there are multiple translations of the Bible; some are literal translations, some are conceptual. So no, there are no "perfect" translations into English, because there is no one-way to translate. This is why you should use multiple translations, and use a concordance like Strong's when discerning verses with significant translation variance.

>>639309

>Two in the bag is worth one in the bush

Got it backwards: "one in the bag is worth two in the bush".

>>639286

James White got absolutely roasted my dude

>>639320

Can't tell if you're joking. Dr. White is an expert on the subject and categorically shut Anderson down on every point. Anderson meanwhile squirmed away from particulars whenever he was cornered, and also demonstrated that he had no idea what circular reasoning was (literally asked what it meant during the interview, lmao). It was a bloodbath; I suggest you ask a college educated adult to watch it with you and give you the play-by-play.

>Anderson spergs out about personal interpretation

>completely ignores scripture warning about personal interpretation

…

>>639321

Dr. White isn't a real Christian though. He's arguing against Christianity since Christians use the KJV. Anyone who doesn't consider the KJV to be the only word of God isn't Christian.

>>639348

Circular reasoning: using the conclusion as a premise. You need to prove why the KJV is the only word of God. It is a strange claim to make, given that its a translation and not the original text.

>>639352

but the KJV says it's the word of God; and God does not lie!

…ust forget it wasn't originally delivered 1,500 years before the KJV, it's the catholics trying to trick you, ok

>>639357

Also just forget that 2 timothy 3:16 states that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God and that God said in 1 peter 1:25 He would preserve His word forever.

>>639352

<Circular reasoning: using the conclusion as a premise.

Hebrews 11:1

>NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

<but anon having faith that God can not lie in titus 1:2 isn't proof

<but anon, those authors of the word of God over 6000 years ago could be the only ones inspired by God

<God can't inspire anyone else to write scripture

But you ignore that all scripture is given by inspiritation of God and that is why you are supposed to know them by their fruits in matthew 7:15-20. For God is the only one good in matthew 19. All these prophets who keep claiming to be delivering the word of God in their translations must be tested. But this is circular logic requiring the faith that God is a rewarder of those that seek him in faith hebrews 11:6 also see 1 thesselonians 2:13

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

You either believe God exists and tells the truth or you don't. Plain and simple circular/faith based logic.

<but anon that doesn't mean we should only use the KJV

You would be right as no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretation in 2 peter 1:20. But as we have already established God can not lie in titus 1:2 so if these prophets make a thing claiming to be the word of God yet it would make God a liar if it were true, then it is bad fruit to be thrown out entirely in line with matthew 12:33

>Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

So unless you find another version the the KJV that wouldn't make God a liar if it were true, then explain your interpretation. As romans 14:26 applies

And OP this >>638725

>>639400

>Also just forget that 2 timothy 3:16 states that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God

does "all scripture" apply to that which was given to us by the Catholic Church, or does it refer to the Elizabethan translation 1,500 years later

>>639400

I wasn't able to make heads nor tails of anything you wrote. It seems like you might've conflated circular logic with faith (!!) and also put words in my mouth with the redtext, but I can't be sure. Maybe bring this post to a native English speaker and have them edit it for clarity, no offense.

>Plain and simple circular/faith based logic.

circular logic based on the KJV is not faith based though; in fact, it's against the faith, because this scripture was given to us by the Catholic Church

you want to take the Scriptures delivered to us through Christ's Church, and instead say the translation of a translation is what God intended!

that is anti-Christ, for what came first? Christ's Church or the Gospel?

>>639413

>for what came first? Christ's Church or the Gospel?

You are asking the wrong question, as God came first and hence His words also would have been so.

<circular logic based on the KJV is not faith based though; in fact, it's against the faith, because this scripture was given to us by the Catholic Church

Relying on what is supposed to be the word of God, and not the word of men as spoken of in 1 thesselonians 2:13

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

You either believe that God preserved His word forever, that God exists, and that God tells the truth. Or you don't. I am not saying use the KJV only, I am saying test the prophets to see if they are of God.

>does "all scripture" apply to that which was given to us by the Catholic Church, or does it refer to the Elizabethan translation 1,500 years later

"all scripture" applies only to that which is scripture. That is why you test the prophets to see if they are of God, whether it is the catholic prophets or the elizabethan prophets doesn't matter. If what they are saying is claiming to be the word of God you test them to see if their fruits are truly of God.

<you want to take the Scriptures delivered to us through Christ's Church, and instead say the translation of a translation is what God intended!

Either make the tree good and his fruit good or make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by his fruits matthew 12:33. Either these people have heard the word of God, which God said in 1 corinthians 14:21 that He would speak to us in different tounges/languages, a pre-requisite to faith as found in romans 10:17

>So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Or all these prophets claiming to be delivering the word of God by their translations are liars and not of God, which would make the whole religion defunct as you would be receiving it as the word of men, and not the word of God which effectually worketh in you that believe. But if they haven't heard the word of God then how will they have faith? For anything not of faith is sin as said in romans 14:23. But again this is circular/faith based logic as it requires believeing that God preserved His word forever, that He exists, and that He cannot lie.

>>639411

>ad hominim attack without scriptural backing, the post

>>639422

>ad hom

First of all, I wasn't attacking you at all. I was purely addressing what you wrote. I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi; it was simply unintelligible. Secondly, I find it ironic that you are accusing people of fallacies when you yourself just said that faith is based on one.

>>639425

What exactly is it you fail to understand? You weren't directly adressing any of my points. All you were doing was pointing out I redtexted what I assumed to be your points. Then you proceeded to state that you don't believe me to be a native english speaker and that you don't understand something about my post which you don't explicitly ask or point out. So what is it you don't understand about the post?

>I find it ironic that you are accusing people of fallacies when you yourself just said that faith is based on one.

And? Anything not of faith is sin. If you actually believed and had faith you would already be aware of that.

>>638891

>Only churches who hold to all the doctrines of the IFB have valid baptism.

>The church fathers were heretics tbh. And stop calling them "fathers" since "one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9)

1900 years of damned unbaptized Christians. Darn.

>>639429

This poster has valid point. As there is only one baptism that matters and that's the 1 peter 3:9 one

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

Hence why in revelation 7:14 the saints have their robes washed. But that hasn't happened yet.

Let me repost this for clarity. As the original poster has a valid point.

>The (((church fathers))) were heretics tbh. And stop calling them "fathers" since "one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9)

>>639433

Woops that quote is from 1 peter 3:21 not 3:9

sage for doublepost

That is rough OP. I know that feel. Went to a great church years ago, some messianic Jew from Israel came, started falsely prophesying, named my Pastor an Apostle and started introducing all sorts of kikery in a once wonderful church. Attendees got letters in the mail begging for more money. It was a total scam. The kikes name is Kurt Landry of Kurt Landry ministries. I've been wandering since. Can't find a new home and I feel more empty by the day. I pray you find what you're looking for op

>>639422

>You are asking the wrong question, as God came first and hence His words also would have been so

you literally didn't answer the question at all. which came first, Christ's Church, or the Scripture?

>Relying on what is supposed to be the word of God, and not the word of men as spoken of in 1 thesselonians 2:13

"And against my Church, hell shall not prevail". Christ did not write the Holy Scriptures during His time on earth, His Apostles did through the Holy Spirit a few decades after the Crucifixion.

Are you calling Christ a liar? He had no Church, despite that He said He did?

>You either believe that God preserved His word forever, that God exists, and that God tells the truth. Or you don't. I am not saying use the KJV only

I've already demonstrated that denying Christ's Church is denying Christ, you're calling Him a liar.

>"all scripture" applies only to that which is scripture

Which? The Greek or the Latin left to us by God? The Elizabethan translators weren't prophets.

>>639433

>The (((church fathers))) were heretics tbh. And stop calling them "fathers" since "one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9)

Christ was speaking figuratively. Otherwise, do you call your blood father, "Father"?

if you do, guess ur going to hell LUL

>>639596

>you literally didn't answer the question at all. which came first, Christ's Church, or the Scripture?

What is scripture? It's the written record of the words of God. Hence why what God says would have come first, but would be written down by men inspired by the Holy Spirit later. As in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth genesis 1:1.

<Christ did not write the Holy Scriptures during His time on earth, His Apostles did through the Holy Spirit a few decades after the Crucifixion.

Who you serve is who you worship and by extension glorify due to matthew 4:8-10 and 1 corinthians 1:31. These prophets, being moved by the Holy Ghost as spoken of in 2 peter 1:21, were clearly trying to give God the glory for such things. Hence we say these scriptures are the inspired word of God i.e 1 thesselonians 2:13, as God gets the glory for such and not these prophets who pen it down or speak it. And because of that it doesn't matter what prophet delivers this scripture, as long as it is of God and glorifies Him. Because by their fruits ye shall know them.

<Which? The Greek or the Latin left to us by God?

Any of which that in context wouldn't make God a liar. You would have to refer me to specific versions of the text, such as the septugant or KJV, to check if it wouldn't make God a liar if it were true.

>The Elizabethan translators weren't prophets.

Then why does it say throughout their translation that it is the word of God or has things such as "thus saith the LORD"? Are you saying that these people are liars and aren't actually delivering to us the word of God? If you are, then how did you come to your conclusion as no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretation 2 peter 1:20? Where might I read the word of God if the KJV is not it then? And how did you come to your conclusion the KJV would make God a liar if it were true? Lest 1 peter 1:25 not be true since God will preserve His word forever.

>>639598

>Christ was speaking figuratively. Otherwise, do you call your blood father, "Father"?

Nope, and neither should you call any man on earth your father.

>>639608

>What is scripture? It's the written record of the words of God.

The Gospels are the accounts of Christ written by His Apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit. Your very definition of scripture denies the New Testament.

>Then why does it say throughout their translation that it is the word of God or has things such as "thus saith the LORD"?

…

> If you are, then how did you come to your conclusion as no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretation 2 peter 1:20?

…you're insane

>>639609

>more ad hominim, the post

<The Gospels are the accounts of Christ written by His Apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, they recorded what Christ said, the words of God. You do realise that Christ is fully man and fully God, right? Otherwise what are you doing here if you aren't a christian who worships God in spirit and in truth i.e john 4:24 and don't believe Jesus came in the flesh i.e 1 john 4?

>Your very definition of scripture denies the New Testament.

How so? The new testament is just the written record of the words of God, delivered by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus clearly is also God and the Son of God due to philipians 2. Hence the written record of the words of God. Also Paul states in 1 corinthians 14:37

>If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

If you worship God in spirit and in truth i.e john 4:24 then you are claiming to be spiritual. Hence the above, and hence the asking if you are a christian as you seem not to be so.

<…you're insane

For asking you how you came to your conclusion? How is that insanity? I want to see it just like you would ask a author for their source of information.

>>639598

>Christ was speaking figuratively. Otherwise, do you call your blood father, "Father"?

He was talking about spiritually. I can my actually father father becayse he is my father by biology. And I call The Father father because he is spiritually my father

>>639617

He was speaking figuratively, otherwise Job, Joseph, and Elisha are guilty of…using the word Father in reference to others.

or about in Acts when Stephen calls Abraham our Father? That wasn't spiritually? Or Paul when he speaks of "our Father Isaac"?

How could it not be spiritual? Or are you a Jew, and deny that Isaac and Abraham aren't Christianity's spiritual fathers?

it's all about context, something which fundamentals love to destroy

>>639623

>Mat 28:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

>upon the earth

You talk about context but can't even read the whole verse…

>>639640

Because it does not change the fact that He was speaking figuratively. Prophets in the Old Testament still used "Father"; as did the Apostles' in the New.

Otherwise, those inspired by the Holy Spirit sin, as did the Apostles' called by Him, even down to those whom call their father, father.

In short, it's a WRONG teaching. I trust those who know Christ was speaking figuratively. There is no conflation with ANY FATHER ON EARTH, with OUR TRUE FATHER IN HEAVEN. At least, not in the authentic Church you hate.

>>639793

>Otherwise, those inspired by the Holy Spirit sin, as did the Apostles' called by Him, even down to those whom call their father, father.

First off Jesus did not give the command until matthew 23:9. Due to romans 5 where no law is, no sin is imputed. So there was nothing wrong with them doing it until Jesus had spoken those words. Secondly the apostles /=/ the Holy Spirit. They are flesh, and they can sin. But if they claim to be speaking by the Holy Spirit, then test the prophets to see if it is true. Third, where did a apostle call a man on earth their father after matthew 23:9?

<Because it does not change the fact that He was speaking figuratively.

matthew 5:33-37

>Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

>But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

>Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

>Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

>But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

How did you come to the conclusion that Jesus' yea, was not his yea? Or his nay, not His nay? As in matthew 5:33-37 Jesus Himself says to let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay. For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

>>639797

>romans 5

Should be

>romans 4:15

>>639963

<but the KJV is NOT a "clean" translation itself!

What does this even mean?

>>639286

>KJV Onlyism

<Absolutely debunked, my brother. Don't build your house on a false foundation.

<false foundation

>A Bible

Care to explain this (((debunking))) so I may understand how you came to this conclusion? Also care to explain why you are calling what God says in His word a false foundation? Also also mind explaining what a "solid" foundation would be then? As God did say He preserved His word forever in 1 peter 1:25.

>>640037

>What does this even mean?

Not him but it seems pretty clear to me. It is not a perfect translation. That's it.

>>640027

The great irony is that every time Anderson reads out of the KJV during his sermons, he will restate what he just read in modern English, and then give his interpretation, usually in the context of a sermon where he applies that interpretation to something happening in the world right now. He also excommunicates people who disagree with him, or screams at the top of his lungs during sermon. Here is the testimony of an ex-FWBC member of one such instance (starts at 22m 51s)

>>640037

<false foundation

>A Bible

The KJV is not THE bible. It's a translation. Yes God does preserve His word, and there is an entire field of textual criticism that operates on that premise. You are perfectly demonstrating why its so important to have a rational approach to the text, because someone with your KJV-Onlyism dogma may walk away from the faith when he encounters the evidence.

The Bible is totally reliable, embed related.

Reminder to ACTUAL Baptists in this thread to stop casting pearls.

>>640056

I already disliked him before but this honestly makes me feel sick.

Steven Anderson claims that his style of churches were the original style of church before the Catholic Church created a universal mega-church.

Where are the bible verses that say this?

>>644105

The Bible talks about different churches for example the 7 in revelation. And why would there be no epistles to The True Church Of God^tm

>>644115

Yes.

Even if every single word were to be echoed, it would still mean something.

It would still remind people of the jews.

>>655049

Nobody cares about your special snowflake rite, laddy.

I used to be Baptist and trust me, it sucks. No solid theology, barebones exegesis with zero regard for context, absolute hatred of church history and no sacraments. And worst of all, I only realized this after reading the Bible itself without my pastor telling me to do so and see through church history and biblical scholarship to wake up.

If you want a church, LCMS, ACNA, conservative Presbyterians, Reformed are all viable options without the stupidity of IFB

>>640056

>26:23

wow. what makes it more sad is that it's faith, then good works anyways.

>>655299

t. Jesuit

>>640056

still listening

at 39:23, anderson loses it over being called steve.

this guy is a baboon

OP here. Wow. I thought this thread died by now. Anyway, I'm getting baptized soon so I'm officially becoming apart of my local IFB congregation. I've also been getting used to reading the KJV, and I have to say, it's much better than any other so called "translation". There's so much proof that the KJV is the most perfect English translation from the inspired manuscript traditions it was translated from which God himself preserved over the centuries. Most days I read the KJV, pray, listen to Steven Anderson sermons, and on Wednesday go to Bible study and Sunday service.

>>640056

1:02:12

>this is bible teaching baby

Steve is a total joke, and completely unworthy to be a shepherd of anyone.

>>655323

Sorry I'm Christian not Eastern Orthodox.

>>655329

If you're not apostolic, then you're just LARPing as a Christian.

>>655321

It's like you didn't read the thread at all.

Their theology is absolutely horrifying, I'd be one, but no thanks. Like the first poster said, for me, their theology is pure concentrated autism.

'Once saved always saved' lmoa.

>>638721

No

>>644119

>what are communities of churches

Let's say I was writing an epistle to the part of the church in LA. I would say the Church in LA.

>>655332

>Not baptizing unbaptised persons

Did they really say no baptism upon membership? That isn't a baptist church, anon. Baptism is one of the key distinguishing features of the church, you can't not do it.

>>655532

I feel compelled to defend there integrity! They still preach Believers Baptism , and I would never be able to become say an elder without it, but they just would not force me to get one if I gave good reason to appear regenerative and sincere in my belief in covenant theology.

You would agree baptism , although a central rite , is a work , and is not the basis of salvation. I don't see this leeway as bad.

On the other hand you have accused me of being unbaptised. Is that a challenge? *unseathes bible* (jk)

>>655809

Well baptism is by immersion upon a profession of belief, that's the Biblical doctrine on which baptist churches operate. No, it doesn't mean someone is saved or unsaved due to this, but rather, it means that someone who is not saved categorically cannot be baptized. For this, see

>Colossians 2:12

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

So having no faith therefore means there is no baptism, that's all. It's nothing personal to anyone. So to follow the ordinance you would have to get baptized after you get saved, as it is not possible to do it before. If someone tried they were mistaken and it didn't "count."

Now of course they would not force anyone to get baptized, no one should, however at the same time being a church member would require conformity to the ordinance. Not to be saved, but to be a member of the church. I don't know of churches that prohibit guests from attending.

See also:

Acts 2:41-42

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 8:36-38

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

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

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

>>655817

Also, if you know you've been baptized accordingly, and you were by the authority of a church that practices orthodox baptism as I just described, that should be acceptable always even if you move. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

The only thing is neither sprinkling nor unconscious immersion is baptism at all, as the person in question is not saved. People these days really need to realize that.

Ephesians 4:5

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

>>656780

>Weakness to Electric

Wait a second.

>>640056

Pastor Andersen's use of the pulpit to state stuff that should have been gentle admonition to individuals feels very similar to Muhammed's writing verses in the Q'uran telling people to leave his tent right after dinner…

>>656780

Can you post rest of cards pls.

>>656814

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/quakers-may-cut-out-god-in-faith-update-55lb7pcgz

>>656895

Wow, even the Quakers have fallen. Modernism is knocking each denomination down like dominos.

>>656908

I think you misspelled cult there, anon

>>656911

Oh never knew that. I just thought they were gentle Christians that wanted to be left alone in order to pray, and make oatmeal.

>>656912

Maybe if you ask C.S. Lewis or one of the modernists that might be the case

You think we could meme like the Baptists if we had more potassium?

>>655817

>>655825

I'm back, sorry left you hanging there for a while.

>Well baptism is by immersion upon a profession of belief

>no faith therefore means there is no baptism

>follow the ordinance you would have to get baptized after you get saved

Leaving immersion aside (as I think that’s a separate debate), the issue I take with your case is that baptism must happen after belief and via a profession of belief.

From Colossians 2:11-12 , we find that Baptism and Circumcision have the same function, (‘ 11, In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism…’). Circumcision was a sign of Abrahams covenant with God while Baptism, as you rightly show is the sign of ones belief in Christ. However, circumcision was also a sign of belief as much as membership of a group, as Paul notes when commenting on Abrahams faith in Romans 4:11 -12 ‘And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.’. He goes on to note: ‘So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them’ and ‘And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.’ So just as there are those who are baptised but are not authentic believers, or authentic believers who are not baptised, there are those who revived the sign of circumcision but did not have faith, and those who were without the sign of circumcision but did have faith. So there is a similarity of functions.

However we note that male infants were circumcised (prior to any inward belief), therefore why can’t we apply the current sign (baptism) to infants? You would object by saying there is no instance in the NT I imagine. But I think we have warrant in Acts 2:39: ‘The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call.’ , If baptism was purely for professing adult individuals, then why would Luke write in Acts that the children of believers could be saved? Surly it would have just said ‘the promise is for you *and* all whom the lord our God will call’. Now note in Acts 16:14-15 (‘The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized’) how Lydia’s ‘household’ is baptised, without any mention (unlike the Philippian jailer) of them all professing belief. The word ‘household’ is a board category in ancient times, which included the leader of the house, the children, slaves and yes infants. Why use such a broad category if it means just professing adults? Because the sign of being part of Gods people, just like circumcision, can be applied to those under the family leadership of believers, for the promise is for them, their children and those who are far off.

Finally, I think this entire case is strengthened if when we find that the promise made to Abraham is continued through Christ, as shown in Galatians 3:29: ‘If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’. If it’s the same covenant, why change the application of the sign.

>>656814

i wish. Quaker theology really appealed to me and then, i like the Wesleyan tradition of protestant Christianity, but the quakes have fallen so very fall into modernism>>656912

I know Quakers, they are not really a cult they often do have tight communities thou. they have fallen into their communities as the means to their god's thou, they have their own colleges, and schools. but quakers are over-whelmingly liberal now and hardly even believe in god anymore.http://www.nontheistfriends.org/

I actually really wanted to be a Quaker for a time but their beliefs became too luke warm

>>657673

Same poster as before.

>why would Luke write in Acts that the children of believers could be saved?

Because children aren't infants.

>how Lydia’s ‘household’ is baptised, without any mention (unlike the Philippian jailer) of them all professing belief.

True, that's the least descriptive of the baptism events. But it is worded in the exact same way as the others, so why would we think this is a notable exception. The only difference is it's less descriptive.

>If it’s the same covenant, why change the application of the sign.

I think I see what you're saying, but remember what Jesus Christ said in John 3, you must be born again to enter the kingdom of God, which means coming to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. So if one could make circumcision a foreshadowing of something, it would be the fact that circumcision was the outward sign of being born the first time, whereas baptism is the outward sign of belief on the Word of God, which is being born again and should happens after being born again. Hope that makes sense.