/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

arminian vs calvinist is a false dichotomy in baptist churches, and most baptists are neither

also john piper is a cuck

>>743617

>arminian vs calvinist is a false dichotomy in baptist churches, and most baptists are neither

I understand that those just represent the ends of the spectrum. But you'd be surprised how many Baptists are full blown Arminians, or five point Calvinists.

>>743621

to be "full blown arminian" you have to reject eternal security, which is only found in the free will baptist tradition

>>743623

Yeah, and Freewill Baptist is still Baptist. Not only that, but many SBC churches are inclusive of those who reject eternal security.

>>743625

no disagreement

>>743630

Most Baptists generally believe the 5 solas, once saved always saved, only baptize converted adults, also (at least IFB) independent churches and most claim not to be protestant.

>>743636

Also believe the trinity

>>743603

>Old Thread 404'd

Where did all the Baptists go? I know the mods got ban crazy, but wow.

>>743630

Baptist theology is correct because it is most faithful to the Bible

There are many other groups who get the primary issues right but follow some other ecclesiastical structure or don't call themselves baptist, like the Bible church movement

Just to compare with your catholic background, I as a baptist reject that the Bible alludes to such a concept as one institution holding exclusive or special power in interpretation. I think this is proven by clear contradictions between catholic doctrine and the Bible, especially on sacramentalism as a condition for salvation

>>743640

>>743639

>>743637

copy pasting a wall of text is not compelling because it's impersonal and kinda cringy tbh

>>743644

explain

>>743647

you don't need the bible for salvation, you need the gospel. The gospel comes from the Bible, but you can just tell someone.

The church fathers are not part of the Bible.

>>743646

>When it comes to once saved always saved, what stops a person from doing bad after they've been saved?

The Holy Spirit

>Would I still be saved, despite turning away from God?

Yes. In this completely impossible hypothetical scenario, you would still be saved.

>>743668

See, that's why I said 'completely impossible': because it is. This is like asking about the practical implications of monkeys materializing out of thin air and falling from the sky.

In short, the reason you don't sin isn't because God is holding a gun to your head and He's gonna pull the trigger if you do, it's because He's given you a new heart, and you're grateful that He saved you.

>>743641

Somebody made a Baptist bot, possibly to get all the Baptists banned.

>>743630

>I’m catholic

>My gf is Baptist

Papal/\/iggers stop stealing our women REEEEEEEEEE

>>743685

Why do you think that the New Testament warns us so many times about not enduring to the end and losing your salvation then? 80 passages are warnings about that.

I understand you're saying that after the Holy Spirit starts guiding a Christian, they can't lose their salvation without their knowledge. However, if they continue to murder and steal again knowing full well that it's wrong, they are willfully choosing to not follow God, and a person like that can't go into the Kingdom.

People still have their own will even after they become followers of Jesus Christ, He doesn't strip us from our free will after we have made the decision to follow Him.

Can you prove this wrong?

Just some examples of the warnings: 2 Peter 3:17, Matthew 24:13, Matthew 10:22, Hebrews 10:26-29

>>743817

Can't blame the guy too much… 90% of the Catholic dating profiles I've come across have cleavage showing, among other red flags, whereas even Protestant girls are more modest. That being said, I remember not too long ago there being a thread created by a lonely Catholic "girl" that led to Cats screaming at Prots to stay away from her, and that interdenominational relationships are wrong, which I agree with. If he's going to pursue this girl, he should convert her, be converted, or break it off.

>>743660

no u

>>743869

>at least I think she's not trying to convert me

I noticed you mentioned in your previous post that you both went to "church" (with a lowercase C) together. I take it you went to your girlfriend's church at her request? At the very least, it sounds like she's trying to offer you a different perspective that is the Baptist faith, if not outright win you over to it. Nevertheless, I hope the relationship works out for you.

I'm the same guy you responded to btw. Forgot to disable my VPN when I made that other post.

>>743987

They go to heaven, just like David's baby in 2 Samuel 12

The baptist view of our name-sake ordinance "baptism" is that it is an instruction to follow after salvation with no special salvific qualities, because that would be works salvation. Baptists do not view "original sin" in the same way as catholics.

>>744003

From the BFM2000

III. Man

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11.

So to interpret, you do not inherit guilt from Adam that needs cleansing, but everyone will choose to sin in their lifetime.

"Original sin" should only be used to describe that first sin in Eden which prompted the fall

>>743822

>Why do you think that the New Testament warns us so many times about not enduring to the end and losing your salvation then?

It does not, however it does warn of the consequences of apostasy, which is what I assume you're thinking of. Perhaps, you might wonder, why should scripture warn of the eternal penalty for apostasy if no man having once been justified can again fall into a condemned state? Because, unlike those who deny the doctrine of perseverance, the holy authors did not presume on the hearts of their audience. Even with a Christian, his heart is an unknown quantity, and biblically we must recognize that not all those who are with us are truly of us. Thus, the apostles warned against apostasy, knowing that some in their own day and countless in the future would be these unbelievers, and they needed to be warned that coming out of the Church and denying Christ was a grave and damning sin, even if they will not heed the warning. But even so, it certainly was not intended to override their explicit didactic teaching about the permanence of justification for the saints.

Now, preempting that you will simply repeat that scripture does warn us about losing our salvation, would you kindly show me even a single verse of scripture that acknowledges someone as beyond a shadow of a doubt in the state of grace, and then proceeds to warn them that they will lose their justification before God if they commit this or that sin? And before you search for that non-existent scripture do keep in mind that the dogmatic Council of Trent anathematized anyone who should claim to know they are in the state of grace.

>However, if they continue to murder and steal again knowing full well that it's wrong, they are willfully choosing to not follow God, and a person like that can't go into the Kingdom.

Weird, coulda sworn I said this circumstance was impossible

>People still have their own will even after they become followers of Jesus Christ, He doesn't strip us from our free will after we have made the decision to follow Him.

Of course. In fact, it's freer than Adam's was before the fall, because their wills have been purified to never fall under the bondage of sin again.

What does /b/aptist think of Calvinism?

>>748696

False gospel

>>748696

Check out beyond the fundamentals on YouTube

>>743636

Can someone point to me what verses talk about once saved always saved?

Also, where does it say anything about repenting of sins (or not).

>>748781

John 3:16

>>748696

Stupid

>>748701

>>749313

How so?

>>750529

Calvinism is a false gospel because it requires the rejection of the free will choice of man to believe and be saved. The gospel is the "good news" about Jesus Christ, that he died for your sins and by choosing to believe you will have eternal life. If you believe in calvinistic unconditional election, the issue of your personal salvation is totally out of your hands.

Additionally, there'r regular calvinist debates about saying "Jesus died for your sins", because calvinist doctrine requires that he might not have died for your sins if you aren't elect.

>>754695

Little did you know the ante nicene period is actually filled with Papist doctrine

>>754795

Yes I am aware that Roman Christians did copy Carpocrate's idolatry.

>>754988

Meanwhile in reality:

Chapter 17. The Christians are refused Polycarp's body

But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

Irenaeus contra Gnostic

3. For this purpose, then, he had come that he might win her first, and free her from slavery, while he conferred salvation upon men, by making himself known to them. For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judæa, when he had not suffered. Moreover, the prophets uttered their predictions under the inspiration of those angels who formed the world; for which reason those who place their trust in him and Helena no longer regarded them, but, as being free, live as they please; for men are saved through his grace, and not on account of their own righteous actions. For such deeds are not righteous in the nature of things, but by mere accident, just as those angels who made the world, have thought fit to constitute them, seeking, by means of such precepts, to bring men into bondage. On this account, he pledged himself that the world should be dissolved, and that those who are his should be freed from the rule of them who made the world.https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xxiv.html

Anderson Pro Gnostic

The title of my sermon tonight is Once saved always saved. It’s about the eternal security of the believer, the fact that once we get saved there is nothing we can ever do to lose our salvation

http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/once_saved_always_saved.html

Here are your early Baptists

[vi. 22] Wherefore, beloved, flee and avoid such observances: for you have received release, that you should no more bind yourselves; and do not load yourselves again with that which [[252]] our Lord and Saviour has lifted from you. And do not observe these things, nor think them uncleanness; and do not refrain yourselves on their account, nor seek after sprinklings, or baptisms, or purification for these things. For in the Second Legislation, if one touch a dead man or a tomb, he is baptized; but do you, according to the Gospel and according to the power of the Holy Spirit, come together even in the cemeteries, and read the holy Scriptures, and without demur perform your ministry and your supplication to God; and offer an acceptable Eucharist, the likeness of the royal body of Christ, both in your congregations and in (p. 119) your cemeteries and on the departures of them that sleep – pure bread that is made with fire and sanctified with invocations – and without doubting pray and offer for them that are fallen asleep. For they who have believed in God, according to the Gospel, even though they should sleep, they are not dead [cf. Jn 11.25]; as our Lord said to the Sadducees: Concerning the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which is written: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? And he is not the God of the dead, but of the living [Mt 22.31-33]. And Elisha the prophet also, after he had slept and was a long while (dead), raised up a dead man; for his body touched the body of the dead and quickened and raised it up [2Kgs 13.21]. But this could not have been were it not that, even when he was fallen asleep, his body was holy and filled with the Holy Spirit.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didascalia.html

>>754995

filtered ;)

>>755171

Reality can never be filtered

>>750555

>Calvinism is a false gospel because it requires the rejection of the free will choice of man

<it's a false gospel because my false idol isn't in it

>the issue of your personal salvation is totally out of your hands

Thank God. If my salvation were in my hands, I'd be going to hell.

>there'r regular calvinist debates about saying "Jesus died for your sins", because calvinist doctrine requires that he might not have died for your sins if you aren't elect

I wouldn't call it regular, but yes these arguments do happen, and frankly both sides are wrong. The biggest problem with the Reformed tradition today is ever since the 19th century we've drifted away from our Reformation roots and we need a Lutheranizing reformation to solve the problem. When you're sharing the gospel with someone, what's important isn't whether Jesus Christ died for the unbeliever (something which we do not know), but that there is a way out from the prison of God's wrath to all who believe, in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

>>755177

Do you even know what a "Lutheranizing Reformation" is? It's the complete opposite of Baptists and even Calvinist. What you want to say is a Genevan Reformation to solve the problem. Why? Because a "Lutheranizing" direction is only a movement towards Catholicism as that direction is Sacramental in nature to the point even the concept of faith is viewed under those terms.

Yes, I know Calvinists have a higher view of Sacraments than many Baptists, but they are never considered to be Salvific in the manner where Baptism becomes part of justification or somehow it takes the logic of Catholic Penance.

>>754995

>relying on text which early christian historians didn't record or the earliest Syriac version doesn't contain

>Excuses for idolatry

Okay, let's pretend for a sec this heretical & late interpolation of Polycarp's martyrdom is authentic-Is this exactly what we'd expect if Irenaeus of Lyon was correct regarding the Carpocratians spreading their ways to the Roman Christians?

>>755257

>interpolated

>late

Except of course Irenaeus is literally the one who provided the author information on this text. Even worse for Baptists, there is literally ZERO description of any Gnostic sect in Irenaeus that critiques them for venerating martyrs and relics at all. Which only shows how little you know of Irenaeus and early Christianity in the first place.

Saying "what if" is not an argument. It just shows your projection and ignorance because literally NO ONE says the text has been interpolated. At best all that is claimed is it dates to the 3rd century and isnt historical!

Even worse for Baptists, the real Irenaeus opposes Baptist theology. How do we know this? From simple things like:

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,4462 from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?—even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.”4463 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh;4464 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,4465 because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness,4466 in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.iii.html

>>755257

More Irenaeus against the Baptists:

>7. He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it,—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel.4280 For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism. He shall also judge all those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church; but he himself shall be judged by no one. For to him all things are consistent: he has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things, and in the dispensations connected with Him, by means of which the Son of God became man; and a firm belief in the Spirit of God, who furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which He dwells with every generation of men,4281 according to the will of the Father.

Here Irenaeus contradicts Baptist doctrine by stating there is only ONE church contra the Baptist and Andersonite denial of a single unified church. Whoops, Irenaeus says here those who sow schism in this Church, not a bunch of autonomous IFB churches will be judged. And like a proto papist, Irenaeus says the following right after:

>8. True knowledge4282 is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution4283of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body4284 of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved4285 without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system4286 of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love,4287which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].

>9. Wherefore the Church does in every place, because of that love which she cherishes towards God, send forward, throughout all time, a multitude of martyrs to the Father; while all others4288 not only have nothing of this kind to point to among themselves, but even maintain that such witness-bearing is not at all necessary, for that their system of doctrines is the true witness [for Christ], with the exception, perhaps, that one or two among them, during the whole time which has elapsed since the Lord appeared on earth, have occasionally, along with our martyrs, borne the reproach of the name (as if he too [the heretic] had obtained mercy), and have been led forth with them [to death], being, as it were, a sort of retinue granted unto them. For the Church alone sustains with purity the reproach of those who suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake, and endure all sorts of punishments, and are put to death because of the love which they bear to God, and their confession of His Son; often weakened indeed, yet immediately increasing her members, and becoming whole again, after the same manner as her type,4289 Lot’s wife, who became a pillar of salt. Thus, too, [she passes through an experience] similar to that of the ancient prophets, as the Lord declares, “For so persecuted they 509the prophets who were before you;”4290 inasmuch as she does indeed, in a new fashion, suffer persecution from those who do not receive the word of God, while the self-same spirit rests upon her4291 [as upon these ancient prophets].

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxiv.html

Baptists reject apostolic succession and any view of the Church or churches as dependent on bishops or pastors or clergy to preserve God's Word or the infallibility of the Church, which Irenarus takes for granted when he says only the Church can sustain the reproach of those who suffer persrcution

Irenaeus the Baptist? More like Irenaeus the Papist. Showing Baptists as so hating the early christians, they have to "pretend" and blatantly act like they dont know the source

>>754988

BTW everyone, this is what I'm referring to:

>Marcellina, who came to Rome under Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.

>>759913

Because whenever Baptists try to prove it they can't even cite a single group that conformed with their beliefs aside from the anabaptists, and often they go so far as to cite the donatits, who only deviated from catholicism on a single point regarding the sacraments, or worse, the gnostic cathars. Why Carroll thought it wise to include these groups I'll never know.

>>759933

How can Catholics be deviated from when their religion started in the 300s with Constatine?

>>759934

Figures like Pope Clement, who began writing in the 1st century, were already refering to the need to defer to the priesthood for penance. Irenaeous was refuting gnostics and those who denied the Eucharist in the second century. The claim that the Church was formed AFTER the Apostles and the bulk of the Church Fathers had set down their writings has always been ,quite frankly, a weird and silly hypothesis.

>>743642

What verses do Catholics use to say that the church is universal, that salvation is by works, amd the need to pray to others that aren't God?

>>759913

I know right, it's not like Baptist perpetuity AND Baptist successionist theories have been rejected by the majority of academics and professionals or anything. I am a Baptist as well, but too often we lie to ourselves with talk of KJV superiority and ideas of being the new testament church. We're not. Baptists are Protestant. They come from England, a Protestant country, and flourished in America, a Protestant country.

>>760761

What were the 1st century Christians then?

>>760769

Go read the first century christian writings like the Didache and the Apostolic Fathers and find out.

>>755369

>nothing stating any Christian stance on images

>literally ignores all the evidence given showing how the early Christians contradict the Baptists

Baptist stupidity 101

>>759913

Baptists cant even agree with the Bible on the most basic of things

>>760889

One example from 1Peter 3:21 on Baptism

καὶὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦνσῴζει βάπτισμα, οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Although the verb ἐπερωτάω is common enough in the New Testament and wider literature, the passive cognate noun ἐπερώτημα is very rare. However based on early papyri that we got(i.e such as in P.Oxy. 9.1200, the registration of a deed dated to 266 CE,and in P.Oxy. 9.1208, the public acknowledgement of a contract of sale in 291 CE) it carries the sense of a contract or covenant, perhaps also equivalent to the Latin applicatio ad patronum, whereby one entered into a client–patron relationship.

This is against how Baptists see Baptism

>>760774

Why not just go with what the Bible says?

What if those people you're talking about are wrong?

>>763505

the problem with that is some parts of the Bible are obscure and could fool people into falling into heresy.

Take John 10:34

>Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

(Emphasis mine)

What did Jesus mean by this? Without embed related (or even a spiritual apostolic father) one could conclude that the New Age Gnostics are right and ever human has the ability to be like God.

Thats why it is important for your soul to read about the early apostolic fathers and what they did, for they are the ones that were closest to Jesus. The Diadache has a fascinating history as it is the early catechism of Jesus' Church.

>>763523

I don't think that justifies not allowing people to interpret the Bible on their own.

>>763530

Except that it does. You are rejecting the traditions of Jesus' Church and substituting it with your own. It's like you know more than Jesus and his Apostles. You know what happened to the last being that thought they knew more than God? lake of fire

You'd be like a talmudic Jew, adding and removing things from the Torah that doesn't conform with your personal interpretation of God's commands.

>G-d said that we can't practice usury on each other, never said we couldn't do it to the goys.

>G-d says the 10 commandments are for us Israelites, not for you goyim, so fornicate and sin as much as you want.

>G-d said us Jews will rule the world and the goyim will be our footstools (ie slaves), so bend the knee!

>>763542

I don't think Jesus Christ forbade people from reading the bible. Aren't we encouraged to go spread the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Can you please provide verses to support your statements?

>>763545

The Bible =/= the Gospel.

>>760747

I don't know an exact answer for the first two, but I can answer the third. You don't need to ask others to pray for you to be saved or anything, but does it really hurt to have someone else praying for you? It's not a requirement, but rather an option. And that option is extended to saints as well since we are all one body in christ, and the saints are alive in heaven. At least that's the argument I've heard, I'm sure I'm not doing it justice since it's been a while since I heard it.