/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>653889

Where does the deacon deny the Trinity, I just see some guy being thrown out? Give some time stamps for the rest of the drama.

>>653903

PSA has already fired him, so he obviously isn't there. The deacon made a video to explain his beliefs.

>>653908

No, the guy who got thrown out was just something else that happened during the service.

>tfw you remember today is Trinity Sunday anyway

Is FWBC becoming liturgical now?

>>653897

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." -1 Peter 3:15-16

Not that interrupting a public service to preach a false gospel is acceptable, whatsoever, but insulting him and having goons violently drag him out of the church is neither meek or god-fearing in my estimation.

>>653901

>bible

>Arian/Gnostic/Non-trinitarian

(You)

>>653901

>Gnostics

>Reading the Bible

Um, sweaty…

>>653897

I don't understand what happened here. What did the guy they threw out want?

I just want to say how deep bitterness and furious I feel hearing anyone deny the Holy Trinity, nothing else gets me this mad.

>>653935

The WEBM is cut in a weird way that implies Anderson himself denies the trinity, but in fact he was just making fun of the idea that people claim "oh God is just one person". The 'bozo' that rose was likely going to point out something he found in Scripture that he believes denies the trinity, so Anderson tossed him out

>>653922

I though the same.

>>653929

The guy was being intentionally provocative attempting in trying to disrupt the service. He deserved to be thrown out. What he was doing was theatre. No, "violence" was done. You're such a weak compromiser with modernity you see a few guys quickly pushing a guy out (so that he doesn't interrupt the service any longer) without doing any bodily harm to him, without causing him pain, keeping him perfectly upright and on his own two feet, as "goons violently dragging him out."

He already goes to Nestorianism to deny Theotokos so he's already up to 4 not a trinity anyway isn't he?

>>653901

>Catholics claiming the Bible teaches gnosticism

Oh sweatie, no.. :(

>>653901

He made him leave during a sermon. I did not see torture or burning at the stake. I do not see the commonality.

>>653897

GO PASTOR ANDERSON! GET THAT BLASPHEMER OUT! ALL HERETICS NEED TO BE PURGED!

So what's the truth about the Trinity then?

>>654071

The truth is that it's the quantum physics of theology. It's a truth cloaked in mystery by the limits of human understanding and observation.

>>654045

Do you usually believe every retardation pastor Jim tells you?

>>653933

You are missiong the point, my mentally challenged friend. People who read the Bible can understand it in any way they want when there is no authority. That is why there are 6 gorillion protestant denominations claiming to "just follow the Bible" while contradiccting each other.

>>654087

>People who read the Bible can understand it in any way they want

So we should force them to understand it in the way the pope wants? What if instead of understanding it the way some man wants we just believe what it says?

>>654045

>He made him leave during a sermon. I did not see torture or burning at the stake.

Heretics were just exiled out of office, if they didn't recant.

I pray for them because they hate. They hate incredibly. There is no love in them.

>>654128

Did you actually attend services there? can you tell us more of your time in that group?

>>654085

>>654092

>(((heretics))) weren't burned at the stake

Are you actually this retarded?

>>654085

LOL, to be this diluted with envy and pride. Make no false witness. Comments on a post that reflects no idea or concept of (pastor Jim), just watching a correct way to escort disruptive people out of any public gathering.

>>654087

Well we are all saved in the catholic church now since even atheist are accepted into their salvation in or out of the Official Church™. Thank you vicar of Christ on earth, Catholics and Mormons agree, The living profit is better then the dead ones.

>>653889

>Pray for FWBC

Maybe for the people.

Their church and their theology, however?

Screw them and let them rot.

>>654187

Lying is a sin anon.

I assume you aren't spreading falsehoods on purpose - but by being negligent and not checking the facts first you are still being careless about your action's effects. Through your carelessness in checking your sources you show that you don't care whether a falsehood will be spread or not.

>>654197

The pope literally saidbatheists can go to to heaven if they be a good boi

>>654202

and he said it was okay to be gay

>>654202

>>654204

He said there is noo hell so what's the difference, yay!

>>654202

He didn't, and you would know this if you spent five minutes on researching it.

>>654205

>>654204

See:

>>654197

And do your research first, post second.

>>654206

Seems like he did say it

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/04/19/was-pope-francis-right-tell-child-his-atheist-dad-may-be-heaven

>>654206

Imagine unironically defending this satanic psychopath

>>654217

>I like Jesus and all, but wouldn't it be great if he gave up on that crazy sword idea, then we don't have to live in fear of war!

>>654216

"God is the one who says who goes to heaven" in response to a small boy's question whether his atheist father is un Heaven, is a very, obviously and blatantly different thing than "Atheists go to Heaven if they are good".

>>654223

>lying by omission is okay if the pope does it.

This is why the no one likes politicians

>>654225

Perhaps it's lying by omission, I think it's defendable that it's not, but nothing he said was theologically wrong.

>>654222

>Jesus appointed this pope to his position

Jesus specifically gave Peter (and Peter alone) the key to the church, He didn't create this bastardized handed down bureaucracy known as the papacy.

>>654241

>hey take these keys

>don't give it to anyone else

I don't remember that part of the conversation

>>654227

But think about it. If some lay fedora saw that, he can conclude that

<all I have to do is be a good boy, not actually have to believe in God, and I'll still get paradise.

<checkmate, christcucks :p

Its dishonest and doesn't help spread the truth of God

>>654227

>it's not heresy when we do it

>>654246

Where did he say to give it to anyone else?

>Another one of their deacons denies the trinity

>Another

What are you people doing over there? Generally speaking, you don't wind up with multiple heretical deacons serving in the same church.

>>654270

>he doesn't know what attacks from satan is

Goy! He preaches hard on the trinity especially after he fired Baker

>>654270

Don't Baptists claim descended from Gnostic groups on the trail of blood.

>>654314

Yes, they put the Cathars as their ideological forefathers.

>>653889

Sad. Anderson is the most proud, hateful, tribal, mean, bitter, self-righteous man I have ever seen call himself a Christian. It brings me sorrow that anyone actually listens to what he has to say and then believes that he is a light-bearer of God and Jesus.

>>654310

>doesn't realise "RIP" is a Catholic saying in Latin

Baptist bigots btfo

>>653897

>Do you want to take over the service?

<No, I don't want to take over the service

>What do you want? What?

<I just want a prayer, [is that] alright?

>Get outta here!

<Can I get a little [bit of] grace?

>No you can't! You get outta here! Drag this bozo out!

Can an Andersonite here explain this one to me?

>>654401

1. He was probably a modalist

2. He completely interupted the service and when was told to sit down he didn't

3. If he lets him do it then more people will start to

>>654087

>6 gorillion protestant denominations claiming to "just follow the Bible" while contradiccting each other.

Did you come from the /pol/ thread on Christianity?

>>653897

either that guy was really dumb or this is staged drama

>>654407

>1. He was probably a modalist

No evidence for this

>2. He completely interrupted the service and when was told to sit down he didn't

Agreed, but Anderson did act too reactively.

3. If he lets him do it then more people will start to

Unless he explicitly tells the people not to do it again

Anderson should have just told him to wait until after the service.

Not so, he was denying Jack Daniels.

>>654434

>No evidence for this

Well he did right when Anderson was yelling about modalism. And he should have went up to him before or after the service instead.

>nless he explicitly tells the people not to do it again

>implying that would actually work

I dunno what kind of church you go to but I know my pastor kinda well but I could never imagine interrupting his preaching to talk.

>>654440

Butthurt modalists itt.

>>654087

>You are missiong the point, my mentally challenged friend. People who read the Bible can understand it in any way they want when there is no authority. That is why there are 6 gorillion protestant denominations claiming to "just follow the Bible" while contradiccting each other.

The pope thinks God makes people homosexual and atheists can go to heaven so is Catholic authority really doing any better? I mean you have 6 gorillion interpretations of Catholic doctrine, most of you Catholics on /christian/ probably interpret it differently than the pope.

>>654448

The Pope can think whatever he wants, we're not bound to obey him if he is in error, especially if nothing he says is ex cathedra.

Why do you heap calumnies on us?

>>653897

>this isn't a free-for-all

>this isn't an open mic

>this isn't a karaoke bar

well, it's not a real church anyway anderson

>>654440

>Well he did right when Anderson was yelling about modalism. And he should have went up to him before or after the service instead.

This is only speculation, and I agree with the second point, it was totally inappropriate for him to interject when he did. Then again, it was inappropriate for Anderson to react the way he did.

I wouldn't say that it is ever appropriate to interrupt a sermon, but obviously the guy didn't know that, so I think it would've been best to tell him to wait until the end of service and not to interrupt again. To throw him out and call him names is a bit extreme IMO.

>>654468

>I don't like it so it isn't real

>>654466

>it's not heresy when we do it

>>654401

Doesn't count. He wasn't speaking in ex baptismo

>>654194

SODOMITE DETECTED

>>654591

>implying that the Word of God within the KJV isn't necessary to knowing the Truth.

>using a reddit-tier meme of kiddy-diddlin', moloch-worshiping, Joe Biden.

I'll pray for you.

>>654436

Kek

>>654310

Oh shoot fam. Did anybody saved all of the vids from the sanderson1769 channel? I would be disappointed if those vids from Anderson alt channel where lost for good.

>>654651

Why did it get deleted but not his main?

>>653929

>having goons violently drag him out of the church is neither meek or god-fearing in my estimation.

Someone doesn't understand biblical meekness. Go read up on it.

>>654656

This

meek =/= weak

>>654656

>>654660

Yeah I get whips and table throwing and idol-smashing is a thing, that doesn't mean that the man wasn't even given the dignity of a response or even the ability to exit on his own two feet. Other congregants need to tell these guys to let him just walk. It is an excessively wrathful response through and through.

"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." -James 1:19–20

Meek does not mean weak, but anger is not automatically righteous if done in the name of God, especially when not tempered with patience.

>>654654

He used the 1769 channel to post more controversial sermons and videos. He's been keeping his main account free of that stuff ever since he was temporary banned.

>>654662

>or even the ability to exit on his own two feet.

Anderson told him to sit down or leave and he kept walking up.

Also either way Anderson didn't do it in ex baptisma so it doesn't count anyways

>>654672

>Anderson told him to sit down or leave and he kept walking up.

And Peter told Anderson to be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow in wrath. If he was just going up to point out a verse, Anderson of all people should have easily put it into context. If he was just going up to troll, as I'm 75% sure he was and I suspect he did, then pearls should not be given swine. That doesn't excuse Anderson and his followers were clearly too quick to wrath in this situation.

>>654662

Please stop this, it's degrading and pathetic. We know you would be making the same accusations no matter what happened. The guy was told to take his seat and he kept pressing forward, you can clearly see this. It's selective outrage.

Your remorseless, vicious attacks on the Trinity are the real affront here. You are speaking directly against God and I don't see nor understand why in the face of that you think it's nothing.

>>654677

If you don't even believe in God, then get lost!

>>654679

Son I literally said that this heretic was preaching a false gospel in my first post and said it was 75% likely he was a swine not deserving of pearls just one post above yours.

"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." -James 1:19–20

>>654675

Decisiveness is not wrath.

Did they take the man outside and beat him?

Did they desire his destruction?

No, they just used the minimum force necessary to expediently carry on their service. Wrath requires some uncalled for violence- they just took him outside.

>>654683

Exactly. A liberal Church would have probably let him disrupt the service for 15 minutes, leaving the "pastor" only 5 minutes to preach.

>>654682

>James 1:19—20

Is that what you tell people right after you mock the concept of God? Just leave us alone, we don't want your kind around here. This is a matter of more importance.

>>654683

This is fair and I suppose I can accept it, but I still see no reason why Anderson couldn't have taken a minute to refute what, if he was a unitarian, was probably just flimsy cherrypicking. Personally, that's what I would have done up until the point in which he started arguing in bad faith, even if, as I said, it's 75% likely he was starting off that way, and even then he would have got a warning.

>>654687

>Is that what you tell people right after you mock the concept of God?

Dude you aren't going to convince anyone of such wild, vicious accusations if you even want to explain them. I'm pointing James's advice regarding this kind of sin out for your own good, whether or not you want to swallow it is your choice.

>>654690

*if you don't even

>>654690

>Dude you aren't going to convince anyone of such wild, vicious accusations

You're not denying it. You said in theory preaching a false gospel is not acceptable, you never once implied the guy getting up is wrong. And so far you haven't denied anything. All you seem to care about is criticize the Trinitarian, and so far none of what I've said has actually been denied.

>>654690

>This is fair and I suppose I can accept it, but I still see no reason why Anderson couldn't have taken a minute to refute what, if he was a unitarian, was probably just flimsy cherrypicking. Personally, that's what I would have done up until the point in which he started arguing in bad faith, even if, as I said, it's 75% likely he was starting off that way, and even then he would have got a warning.

I understand your feeling. That feeling is common among people, including myself when I was younger, that have not had to control large groups of people. Judges have to pound the gavel sometimes.

If Anderson let this guy pull this crap, would he have to let the next guy? And the next? Suddenly everyone's shouting sermons from their seats.

I believe, like you, that dissenting opinions should be heard- but that was not the right place to express it. Anderson's office after the service was the right place to express it, or perhaps outside the door while the congregation filed passed if Anderson had already silenced the dude in the church.

>>654666

>Pastor Anderson temporarily banned

great, in era where having women behaving as prostitutes on youtube frontpage, and a guy making fun of someone who just suicided in Japan is seen as OK, observing/studying Protestant rants conserved in their 30 years war style is forbbiden

I'm so tired of this all. End of Times when

>>654694

>You said in theory preaching a false gospel is not acceptable, you never once implied the guy getting up is wrong.

Read my first post

>All you seem to care about is criticize the Trinitarian

Read the first phrase of my first post, along with the third sentence of my third post, along with my sixth post which summarizes the first phrase of my first post and the third sentence of my third post for you.

>so far none of what I've said has actually been denied.

Read my fifth post, my sixth post, and th first sentence of the second part of my seventh post.

Trinitarianism is the most basic doctrine of christianity imaginable, holding it does not automatically mean that anyone who rebukes you is attacking the holy trinity itself. If that were the case you would be just as guilty as me.

>>654448

I don't care about what the Pope thinks. I care about actual authority, which includes councils, extraordinary authoritative statements of the Pope, etc.

But it is no surprise that you, as yet another protestant snowflake, raised in some protestant dumpster, don't know this.

Somebody please explain the trinity to me, and why it's significant.

>>654706

Still not denying it. So what side are you on, exactly? Just tell me. This is an explicit dispute on whether you believe in the triune God or on whether you believe in a modalist god-figure, as the disruptor does. Stop pretending that isn't the issue at stake, which is exactly what both he and you stood up for. You have no other reason to object, and I'm tired of your distractions.

>>654710

>it doesn't matter that the leader of my church is a complete heretic

also

>It's bot heresy when we do it

>>654716

>This is an explicit dispute on whether you believe in the triune God or on whether you believe in a modalist god-figure, as the disruptor does. Stop pretending that isn't the issue at stake, which is exactly what both he and you stood up for.

It is not the issue at stake, I explicitly denounced the heretic, I object because Anderson is the epitome of what makes so many baptists on this board cancerously sinful, even if I recognize now that my specific line critique was erroneous, and I am in the middle of reading the De Trinitate by St. Augustine, my patron saint, as we speak. I am a trinitarian. Your stubborn, intemperate slander is a grave sin and completely unbecoming of a member of a member of the body of christ. I have no qualms with defending the trinity, my unitarian friend, the first unitarian I ever met, balked at me for plainly calling him a heretic when I rebuked him on the matter, but, I repeat, being a trinitarian does not automatically mean that anyone who rebukes you, even in your handling of heretics, is attacking the holy trinity itself. If that were the case you would be just as guilty as me.

>>654714

The trinity is the doctrine that God is not one person, but three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus, as both God and Man fully, can intercede for man to the invisible, infinite, incomprehensible God in a way that no other can. In baptism we are united with Jesus into the body of christ, and in Jesus's sacrifice, whereby God himself suffers the worst torments that this fallen world can throw at him, death included, the old man of sin, the fallen body and soul of adam, is killed, and the new man is resurrected. In baptism we become members of the body of christ, and become adopted sons and daughters of the Father, free from death as long as we keep Jesus's commandments in faith, hope, and loving charity. The spirit of love between the Father and Son, the unified spirit of God, is the Holy Spirit, and he works within each of us to guide us in the path towards holiness. The key to properly understand the trinity is to understand that each of the persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is distinguished from the other only in relationship, not in substance. There is only one infinite, eternal God, yet that one indivisible, irreplaceable essence is shared fully by the three. Yeah it's weird, so I hope that the embedded video can explain it a little better.

>>654725

Good.

>>654728

Is that all you have to say for yourself?

>>654728

>Spends multiple posts being a functional illiterate

>Finally understands what his opponent is saying

>GOOD.

>>654726

I don't know why but when I read this post I came across this idea(spoilered for theological blunder):

There is one God, and three individual beings that share that essence are fully God.

>>654516

Reminder: Arius spoke his side before getting smacked by St. Nicholas; Anderson throws this poor schlub out with a gaggle of goons because he doesn't want anybody on his podium. Simple as that. You can this reflected on what he says "this isn't open mic!". At least St. Nick smacked Arius in the name of defending Jesus as God.

>>654676

>Your remorseless, vicious attacks on the Trinity are the real affront here. You are speaking directly against God and I don't see nor understand why in the face of that you think it's nothing.

These are the bad fruits of ignoring the warning about personal interpretation. Imagine how mad we get when Anderson disparages the Holy Mother of God.

>>654651

I downloaded the entire channel back in March and I'm uploading them here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMWpDZ27qjIZewHfFKHKAjA

>>654745

There is no church that I'm aware of that lets anyone and everyone run up and overtake the service without an invitation.

>>654747

I'm speaking of Anderson's behavior during the removal; he fidgets around and starts yelling like an ape defending his territory. It's shameful.

>>654741

>spoiling theological blunder

Poohing kek. Remember, they are not separate beings, if they were they would be three supreme beings, not one, only separate persons. To be separate beings they would be like triplets, identical in every way yet independent, and as such their essences would be distinct in that they acted differently. The divine essence, indivisible and unchanging, cannot be divided into three individuals, and Aquinas goes so far as to say that it is not even a "being" in the traditional sense, but "the subsistent act of 'to be' itself. They are distinct in their relation to eachother and nothing whatsoever more.

>>654745

Fun fact, it turns out that story is super duper apocryphal.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/lets-stop-celebrating-st.-nicholas-punching-arius

>>654753

well also in the incarnation but you already knew that.

>>653942

These things come about from misunderstandings. I myself used to believe that Jesus was a literal son of God before I looked in depth into the scriptures.

>>654196

You seem to be advocating that we allow the fallible minds of the Pope and his clergymen to interpret the Bible. Is the interpretation true because of the Bible or is the Bible true because of the interpretation?

>>656276

>You seem to be advocating that we allow the fallible minds of the Pope and his clergymen to interpret the Bible

We advocate the Holy Spirit working through inspiration of the 2,000 year Catholic Church Jesus Christ founded.

Pope is a spiritual leader, yet only infallible in matters of faith and morals, in particular, infallible pronouncements (insured and inspired from the Holy Spirit) pronounced ex cathedra on faith and morals.

If you'd bother to look up instead of listening to anti-Christians, you'd know this.

>Is the interpretation true because of the Bible or is the Bible true because of the interpretation?

False dichotomy. You were never meant to rely on personal interpretation, you were meant to rely on the deposit of faith and authority left to the Apostle's and their Church.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - you defy Christ's body at your own risk. Rather than join the Church's enemies, why do you not protect her?

>>656266

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." -John 1:1-3

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." -John 1:14

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."-Philippians 2:5-11

>>656289

>inspired from the Holy Spirit

No, this goes against the Catholic teaching. He isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit like e.g. the Bible's writers were - he has only his own mind to work with. He doesn't have any greater access to truths of faith than we do. In terms of how a pope can arrive at some doctrine, he isn't in any better position than the rest of us.

Papal infallibility consists in that he would be unable to declare, in matters of faith and morals, as true something false. He doesn't have any special ability to judge what is true and what is not, and especially he doesn't have some special direct contact with God that the rest of us don't have. But if his conclusion is false, God will somehow stop him (strike him with a thunderbolt? make him unable to speak? give him graces so that he changes his mind?).

>>653889

i feel bad for the guy.

>the trinity has been a foundation of our doctrine for thousands of years

tradition huh

>>660325

If you call the writings of the bible "tradition", then yes.

>>660326

he is the one who said it not me

>>660330

Then are you saying that doctrine=tradition, thus FBC cannot have doctrines?

Because their is seriously no contradiction in your first comment.

>>660331

pastor anderson said it is a 1000 year old tradition and said that is why it is legitimate. that argument contradicts some arguments he made earlier.

>>656343

>He isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit like

I didn't say he was.

>>654686

THIS. i don't understand how it is fair for people to go to hell for just not knowing any better. if the trinity is true but you can't figure it out you are essentially going to hell for being stupid. if people can go to hell for being stupid than they need a church of educated people to tell them what to believe therefore a catholic, orthodox or some kind of high church is necessary, otherwise people would just go to hell for being incorrect in their interpretation. either you can be wrong about some ideas about god and forgiven for your mistakes or an authoritative church is necessary you can't have both and still claim faith alone you would also need the proper reading comprehension

>>654255

>HEY VSAUCE! Michael here…

>>660683

kek

>>660332

Anderson contradicts himself allot and never seems to realize it. I love meme pastor but he's meme pastor after all.

>>660664

Or maybe God just withholds the truth from those that choose unrighteousness and/or delight in their abominations. If that's the case then their inability to understand makes absolute sense.

See John 12:39-40, 2 Thess. 2:10-12, Romans 1:28, Isaiah 66:4, 1 John 2:19.

>>660794

so, for example anyone who doesn't understand the nature of free will vs god's sovereignty is going to hell or anyone who has had the wrong idea about a certain theological point and is wrong is going to hell. the passages you cited are examples of people openly rejecting god, not disagreeing on some theological dogma. this disagreements and misunderstanding happen all the time even among the saints, who have different theological views of all kinds.

>>653929

>insulting him and having goons violently drag him out of the church is neither meek or god-fearing in my estimation

Considering that a couple centuries ago you'd get chased out of town or even earlier chopped into little pieces, for less, I think that given modern laws it's a fair trade off.

>>654726

Also, is Barron the best person to post?

>>664460

We're talking about God himself right now, and if you choose actively to deny the personhood and/or the Godhood of the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit, then you are most definitely an unsaved nonbeliever, because at that point you are worshipping a false god that isn't the living God. Now it would be very much in accord with these scriptures, that God had determined to withhold the truth from such kinds of people. The fact that Jesus Christ is Lord and that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9) is not a doubtful disputation. That's what was in question here, you shouldn't start bringing in other examples now, because, that's not what we were talking about. What we were talking about was modalists.