/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>666840

>banning the followers of the apostles to lift up a book as an idol

>>666842

Blasphemy. You just proved that Apostolics hate the Bible and that's why you introduced so many fraudulent versions like the (((Vulgate))). You claim to follow the Apostles but you actually follow devils and false bibles. The Apostles wrote the KJV and we follow them.

Baptists also follow the traditions of man. We should follow only the word of God and the example set when Jesus founded his church.

>>666842

<the traditions of man are more important than the word of God

>>666846

Blasphemy. Jesus founded the Baptist Church and we follow Jesus alone. The apostles wrote the New Testament KJV and we follow that alone. The so called "Apostolics" persecuted Baptists for centuries starting in the 2nd century when they first came about. Apostolics then gained control of the Roman Empire in the 4th century since they are a mixture of pagan and Baptist beliefs and the Romans like that. Rome is the Whore of Babylon. She drinks the blood of the saints. They actually believe this. Ever hear of transubstantiation? They call it the "Communion of Saints" since they believe they are drinking Baptist blood. It's a fact.

>>666849

Now where in the Bible does it say Jesus founded the baptist church?

>>666851

Matthew 28:19 KJV Bible

>>666854

Baptists aren't the ones who baptize people

>>666855

Yes we are. Infant sprinkling is not baptism. Full body immersion in water of a person 13+ in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Ghost is baptism. Jesus only gave Baptist churches the authority to baptize as well. No one else can baptize. Only a Baptist Pastor or Deacon may baptize. Only they have the authority from Christ connected through a long chain of succession to the very first Baptists.

>>666856

No, you're not. I'm not baptist and my church does believer baptism by immersion. Baptists actually ignore Acts 2:38 where the baptism is for the remission of sins.

>>666856

>baptists teaching apostolic succession

That moment when you've become so heretical that you're orthodox.

>>666858

But you're not a Baptist so your ministers are invalid have no authority from Christ to baptize. They have no linkage to the Baptist Pastors/Bishops and Deacons of the 1st century. Acts 2:38 is only talking about identifying with forgivness, the Greek grammar confirms this. The preposition "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Greek is "eis," unto or into, and it is in the accusative case (direct object). It can mean "for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins."

>>666863

>the Baptist failed to realize he had just justified infant baptism

>>666860

>That moment when you've become so heretical that you're going to hell :)

>>666840

t. falseflagging papist

>>666840

You're really late to the party, m8. Your friends started without you >>>/kjv/

>>666867

We're going to make this board Baptist.

>>666864

Absolutely not.

>>666866

Blasphemy.

>>666863

Where on earth did you get this lineage stuff from? The Bible says to avoid complex geneologies. And don't try to pull this stupid "go back to the greek" stuff, you don't speak greek and from your other posts it should seem you consider the kjv inerrant and good enough.

>>666869

>It can mean "for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins."

Almost like some kind of indelible mark

>>666875

Ah, the KJV is only not good enough when it contradicts your views on baptism. "For the remission of your sins" seems clear enough to me but obviously you're smarter than the translators of the KJV. I'm really thinking you are a false flagger because of your ridiculous heretical baptist bride trash. Let me ask you, am I not saved because I wasn't baptized by a baptist, even though you don't think we are baptized for the remission of sins?

>>666875

Kek. You claim descent from Gnostics. Why didn't you check that before you posted?

>>666875

how on earth do the cathars get thrown into the orthodox christian half

>>666872

Wrong. It's about identification not actual remission of sins.

>>666875

>puritans

>400 ad

this is mormon tier church history

>>666877

I use the KJV since it's the best translation for English speakers and uses the majority texts. What are you trying to prove here? Baptist is a manmade denomination and didn't exist 500 years ago, and is nowhere in the Bible.

>>666877

remind me, who preserved those manuscripts

>>666878

YOU DARE BLASPHEME THE KJV!???!!!?????? BLASPHEMY ANATHEMA ANATHEMA ANATHEMA!

Baptism is in no way for the remission of sins! The KJV Bible nowhere says it is you just twist it! Paul says he came "not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV) and that "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Where does he say we need to be baptized to be saved? NOWHERE! That is work! Paul says that we have been saved through faith, not something of ourselves, "NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST" (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV).You make baptism a work for salvation which is against the KJV Bible.

I do believe non-Baptist can be saved including non-denomns and good hearted Methodists and the like. But anyone who believes in that Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox crap or especially that STUPID Pentecostal stuff which is the worst of all, you are in no way saved at all. But even if you're saved you still don't have true Baptism since only Baptist ministers have that.

>>666880

None of them were Gnostic that is just RCC slander.

>>666887

False. The Baptist church has existed since 33 A.D., founded by Jesus himself.

>>666893

Baptists. Sure some of you Apostolics had them but it was truly the Baptist.

>>666857

Ha you haven't even read the Bible

James 16:11

But these things are written in the King James Bible.

>>666899

people*

>>666899

I was telling the truth. Blaspheming the word of God.

>>666897

The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good and the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, contrasted with the evil Old Testament God—the creator of the physical world whom many Cathars, and particularly their persecutors, identified as Satan.

not even a little gnostic?

>>666904

That was made up as slander by the RCCs. There is no reason to believe in any of that. Cathars were KJV Baptists.

Waldensians were KJV Baptists.

http://libcfl.com/articles/walden.htm

I have refuted all heretical beliefs. None of you can stand against me or against my Baptist brethren because we are of Christ. We have been sent by God to preach the gospel to the nations and to baptize. Amen.

>>666897

If the baptist church was founded in 33 ad why is it not in the Bible?

>>666914

It is. Read it.

>>666915

Can you show me anything about the baptist church in the bible?

>>666916

See >>666854

>>666920

I already read that, I posted the question the first time. That verse says NOTHING about a baptist church.

>>666920

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Where is the baptist church???

>>666923

john the baptist not john the catholic!!!!

>>666925

John was a Baptist because he baptized people, since baptist means one who baptizes. That has nothing to do with a baptist church and I am not catholic.

>>666922

>>666923

Are you illiterate? We baptize. Jesus is establishing our church here. What other church has baptism? Tell me, what other? Literally none. The Baptist church is the only church that practices the ordinance of baptism. I have demonstrated this to you already. Once again, baby sprinkling is NOT baptism.

>>666927

uh, excuse me, after john the baptist there came a long a line of IFBs, until the reign of steven anderson

>>666927

John was the first Baptist but the actual Baptist church wasn't founded until Jesus.

>>666929

The churches of Christ

>>666934

They believe that their ritual forgives sins. That is NOT baptism. They are a heretical sect and have NOTHING to do with the Baptist church.

>>666937

Oh, the kjv was lying when it said for the remission of your sins :D do you know what baptizo means from the greek since you love going back to the greek and don't trust your kjv new testament? it means immersion, and if you are immersed in water are you not baptized? is immersion in water not the life, death, and resurrection showing that you are saved by Jesus' grace?

>>666940

The Greek text IS the KJV it is the Greek version of the KJV. The English KJV is simply the English version of the KJV. You are literally stupid.

And no where, not in any place at all ever ever does the KJV say that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, not in the English nor the Greek.

Baptism is an outward identification with Christ and a public expression of faith in Jesus.

>>666946

There is no Greek KJV. There's a textus receptus, if that's what you're thinking of. I will again refer you to Acts 2:38, is it not the word of God? It's very clear

>>666946

greek is actually another word for ye king's english, it's in shakespeare!

>>666947

But Acts 2:38 does not say baptism forgives sins. The word for in English = identification. You are illiterate confirmed.

The Textus Receptus is the KJV.

>>666949

for means identification, and king james a british king in the 1600s authorized the textus receptus that came 1400 years before him. this has to be a false flag.

>>666951

Yes exactly, it means identification. I have shown in plain English that Acts 2:38 does not say baptism forgives sins.

You can say this is a false flag all you want, ad hominem and proof you have been refuted.

>>666952

I guess you dropped your king james made the textus receptus thing, but really you think for means identification because of your eis garbage :D

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/for

please watch the video embeded here if you are serious >>666871

>>666951

Just stop there is no reasoning with a Baptist.

>>666955

Video is blasphemy, there is no reason to watch it.

>>666957

There is no reasoning with "Apostolics".

>>666958

epic

>>666960

That you're probably going to hell. No epic. I hope you accept Jesus as your Lord and savior one day because clearly you have not. But maybe you're reprobate. Actually you know what? It's probably the latter. You sound like a homosexual.

Good night everyone. Please become Baptist or leave this board.

I am gonna pray the rosary for Baptists tonight.

>>666955

If someone has a sign by the cash register that says "tip for good service" does that mean you must tip in order to receive good service?

Or does it mean you should tip if you got good service. Because that's ordinary English right there. Baptized for the remission of sins is the same thing. You baptized because you got the remission of sins, not in order to receive it.

>>666971

And I should also add, I got baptized this way. Others teach that you should be baptized simply for breathing or baptized for being an infant in this family. But that's not Biblical baptism. Only baptists teach baptism for the remission of sins, instead of baptism for being born in some guy's family.

>>666840

>Meme thread

I would say go to hell, but I see you are already there, and exporting the brimstone.

t. Apostolic

>>666971

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins". I'm no grammar expert but by your way of twisting the scripture that would mean "be baptized if you got remission of your sins", does that sound right? remission of your sins is not a past tense verb, where as "good service" could be. I was baptized biblically, after I believed on Jesus Christ and repented of my sins. I don't know why you guys keep bringing up sprinkling instead of the Bible, I never talked about sprinkling.

>>666976

Baptists don't teach baptism for the remission of sins, whereas the Bible does, that's the point

>>666990

it doesnt. acts 8:36-38

>36 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?

>37 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.

>38 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.

>>666993

we've been talking about it all thread, I can also find some verse that doesn't say anything about Jesus being the son of God, does that mean he's not?

>Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

>for the remission of sins

>for the remission of sins

>for the remission of sins

>for the remission of sins

>for the remission of sins

>for the remission of sins

>>666988

>I'm no grammar expert but by your way of twisting the scripture that would mean "be baptized if you got remission of your sins"

No, it just plainly means be baptized for the remission of sins, as opposed to "be baptized for being an infant in some guy's family."

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.

>>666996

Again, why are you bringing up sprinkling when I said nothing about sprinkling??

Yes, being baptized is something you do after recieving God's word, and it is for the remission of sins. That is what the Bible says. If you can find something that says baptism is not for the remission of sins please post it, because I've shown you something that does.

>>666995

>prooftexting

oh yeah?

>And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

>baptizeth with the Holy Ghost

not with water.

>>666998

It literally says sent to be baptized with water in that verse. I hope you know baptizo means immersion, since baptists at least got that right. Some people in the early church did recieve the holy ghost, but you don't have the holy ghost.

>>666997

>Yes, being baptized is something you do after recieving God's word, and it is for the remission of sins.

Baptism is something done for the remission of sins, it's not what causes it. You do it because you received the remission of sins, and so it's done for that reason. If you haven't believed the word of God and become saved yet then there's no point in baptizing, you'd be doing it for some other reason at that point. Like maybe because you think you need to be baptized to be saved, instead of believing on the word of God to be saved, for instance.

>>667001

>Baptism is something done for the remission of sins

>it's not what causes it

just re-read this a couple times. you ate some man made doctrine hard and you're desperately trying to act like it's saying something it's not. the bible is very clear about how to be saved. mark 16:16 says he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved, so yes, it is part of salvation as well as believing.

>>667002

John 11:26: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

>>667003

do you know what living in christ means?

>>667004

>do you know what living in christ means?

What does that question have to do with the scripture I linked?

>>667007

well in that scripture it says you have to do it to never die, so it is very related. what do you think it means?

>>667008

It doesn't say that though. You're adding the words "in Christ" where they don't exist to create an new meaning personalized just for you. So I don't see what your added words have to do with John 11:26.

>>666999

>but you dont have the holy ghost

ok, chef.

>>667008

Anyway to answer your unrelated question, it means a lot more than believe and be baptized. So I guess according to your logic you must do a lot more than those things, to work your way to salvation.

>>667015

And I'm not really expecting any more response at this point but I was eventually going to bring up the point in Acts 10 in case you had still thought to gainsay it.

Acts 10:43: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

>>666969

>>666968

200% Kek

sage. I think people should just stick to the teachings of Jesus and live in some similarly ideal manner. This all sounds way too complicated.

>literally worships a bible

>claims to be holier than thou over people praying to Saints

>>666887

>and uses the majority texts

Actually, it does not. The TR is not the majority text.

>>671434

Right, it's the received text. That's what TR stands for in fact.

>>671426

>nice headcanon, degenerate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Under_Soviet_rule

>After Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. On September 4, 1943, Metropolitans Sergius (Stragorodsky), Alexius (Simansky) and Nicholas (Yarushevich) had a meeting with Stalin and received a permission to convene a council on September 8, 1943, which elected Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and all the Rus'. This is considered by some as violation of the XXX Apostolic canon, as no church hierarch could be consecrated by secular authorities

>Can you also list countries where faggots can be married and how many of them Catholics and how many of them are Orthodox?

I wouldn't care, because I'm not Catholic.

>just because you are some polish LARPer who hates russians

>Noting the obvious and well documented connections between the atheistic russian government and the state-sponsored church means I hate russians

Besides, not all Russian Christians are Orthodox.

>and due to this trashtalks about Orthodoxy even if it includes other peoples such as Georgians and Greeks.

Except I wasn't. I brought up turks for a reason.

According to the Board Rules, Baptists are not even Christians.

>For the intentions of the board, a Christian is one who believes in the Nicene Creed (Specifically the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) and the Chalcedonian Definition.

1. Baptists don't believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

2. Baptists don't believe that baptism os for the remission of sins.

3. OP said he rejects the Church Fathers, which implies he rejects the patristic creeds.

>>666840

OP is a DC’ing Pharisee/CIAtigger.

>>671586

This is true and I agree that Baptists should be banned from the board just like the Mormons and the Gnostics are. Baptists need to find their way to >>>/kjv/

>>671590

Nah, just OP being a faggot DC shill, CIAtigger, Jews, or their lackey trying to divide us up. They have bern working overtime as of late due to their lack of results.

>>671586

A lot of them are also Nestorians. Anytime Mary is brought up, they are quick to point out that Mary was not the Mother of God, therefore denying the incarnation. They say stupid $hit like “Jesus existed before Mary,”as if that has anything to do with motherhood. All souls are created by god via ex nihilo, so no one has a mother according to their bizarre logic.

>>666844

>tfw you realize that pre-Constantine Christians didn't even have a Bible and got by just fine

>for the most part

>>674886

Homeboy does a whole sernon on it

>>671586

It also has Theotokos in it

Clearly the only correct position is Douay-Rheims Onlyist Independent Fundamentalist Catholicism