/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>650397

is that a executioner's sword?

>>650397

>Baptists, why do you adamantly deny that you are protestant?

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/why_baptists_are_not_protestants.htm

read this and you'll get a good understanding why.

Do Catholics believe protestants are going to hell?

>>650426

We believe that they have some of the graces of God, but that those graces are corrupt and partial form. Therefore, they are liable to unwittingly follow false teachers into hell, see nonsense like eternal security and unconditional election If they are faithful, hopeful, and charitable, however, then by the grace of God they should make it.

>>650397

(((Baptists)))

>>650430

Odd. My Catholic friend (who's trying or already is in Opus Dei) said that they basically make it into heaven if they never know about the full truth or have heard the gospel of the Catholic Church. If they do know about the right path and willingly don't follow it, it's Hell for them.

>>650443

This is technically true, but what actually constitutes ignorance is a bit harder to define given the amount of distortion and denial floating around. What I will say is that when a distraught catholic woman asked the clairvoyant miracle worker St. Padre Pio whether her pious jewish father would be saved, he responded "Yes, but we will need a lot of praying."

>>650413

Not this guy again. Can't you'all find a better spokesperson?

>>650410

Historians trace the earliest church labeled "Baptist" back to 1609

>>650468

I'm not sure what you're looking for. Our adherence to the word of God as the final authority for all doctrine should be the proof above anything else. The Catholics aren't doing it, and the Protestants also took some Cath doctrine with them. So that leaves Baptists as the sole successors to the church.

>>650469

Then why did Zwingli write a diatribe against "Catabaptists" in 1527 in Zurich? Obviously from this we see your information source is withholding facts. They are strictly limiting themselvs to "confessional" Baptists.

>>650608

Anabaptist traditions can be traced back to the 1400's. Aside from that though there isn't any evidence of a baptist christian tradition, save for a few ordinances forbidding rebaptism from around 400-700 that were more likely a reaction against compulsory baptism, and I only mention those because I've seen people swing that tidbit around on this board before.

>Our adherence to the word of God as the final authority for all doctrine should be the proof above anything else.

A firm adherence to sola scriptura just serves to further define you as protestants.

baptists worship the bible and their leader Prophet Andersteine (((pbuh))) says it is literally God and he uses John 1 to back this idea up.

Not even protestants are this kooky

>>650615

>worshipping a demonic, monster version of God that allows no room for true free-will and sends people to heaven or hell just for his pleasure

No thanks.

>>650672

Stay a while

Robert Barclay, The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth, pp.11-12

As we shall afterwards shew, the rise of the "Anabaptists" took place long prior to the formation of the Church of England, and there are also reasons for believing that on the continent of Europe small hidden christian societies, who have held many of the opinions of the "Anabaptists," have existed from the times of the Apostles. In the sense of the direct transmission of Divine Truth, and the true nature of spiritual religion, it seems probable that these Churches have a lineage or succession more ancient than that of the Roman Church.

>>650734

Is there a followup to this? The unsubstantiated claims of a 16th century protestant, of a sect that doesn't even practice baptism mind you, is pretty flimsy as far as historical evidence goes.

>>650743

I will use whatever evidence that I have as I see to accordingly. Wouldn't want people to just do gymnastics all at once, would we?

>>650688

>demonic, monster version of God

Blasphemy is a sin, anon

>>650775

k just stretch first

>>650415

>>650413

Fanfiction does not replace real historical facts I'm afraid.

>>650426

Yes, but like >>650452 says it depends on their ignorance.

You mostly recognize them when they twist real historical facts to justify why their denomination is the real one.

>>650688

Doesn't Romans say this in no uncertain terms?

>>650685

>All Baptists are Andersonites

You must be 18 or older to post on this site.

reminder that Augustine would be a Calvinist if he was here in modern times

>>650685

>Baptists, totaling more than 100 million people worldwide, are all represented by a small fringe cult of 20 people in Arizona who are unknown outside of Youtube and this board

>>650442

>Doesn't even mention Orthobros

Eh, I think they think that we are Roman Catholics too.

>>651568

We’re in the same ballpark.

>>650672

>>650608

Where is the proof that Baptists were the original church?

>>652861

In the pudding.

>>652861

Jesus (30 A.D.)

->

->

->

paster anderson (2018)

proved it xD

>>653372

>Jesus (30 A.D.)

>->

>->

>->

>pope francis (2018)

>>653379

B-b-but muh apostolic succession

>>653379

-> Jesus christ

-> penetcost

-> 2,000 years of apostolic succession

-> Pope Francis

fixed XD

>>650415

>Anderson & Jimenez tagged on the end

Audible kek

The Romish church wants to claim ownership of everything, and destroy everything which escapes this claim. The spiritual descendants of Nero are just following in the footsteps left for them.

>>650401

> coming from a catholic

>>650420

> Implying Catholicism is the root

>>650615

I have been considering going to a Reformed church recently, but I don't know if it would be dishonest. I basically have beliefs in line with Jacques Ellul. He seemed to be able to fully participate in the Reformed church while not holding double predestination ideas. Am I going to just end up getting mad all the time? Cause otherwise, I'm just going to begome baptist.

>>657196

Most people calling themselves reformed are infralapsarian, even though Calvin himself was supra. But either way, the view is relying on same false dichotomy always being presented between Calvinism and Arminianism, when the correct view of soteriology is neither one. The truth must take into account both predestination as defined in scripture and individual accountability at the same time.

We understand already why Arminianism is incorrect and unscriptural. As for reformed theology, it doesn't truly ascribe accountability to the individual. The condition of election is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that is a condition, as one must follow the other. God has foreknowledge of who will meet this condition and also provides grace to make it possible.

But some people instead will resist God's grace, that's why Jesus rebuked some in John 5:40. They did have the possibility in front of them but they willfully resisted it, and it's the same for every person that goes to hell, thus accountability. This falls back on God's righteousness, God always judges right.

1 John 2:2

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Timothy 4:10

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.