/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Repentance means just changing your mind.

Instead of relying on your works you're putting 100% of your faith in Jesus.

Doesn't give you a hall pass to sin nonstop though where some people get hung up on.

Belief. True belief on the sacrifice of Jesus will make you want to sin less and less.

>>764775

Because they ignore James 2:24 and think that is in line with their sola scriptura

>>764790

In their line of thinking it's the faith that saves, not the works themselves, but a saving faith is one that inspires the believer to do good works. I'd say that James 2:24, when taken in context with the rest of the chapter, seems to be in line with their beliefs. Read James 2:21-24, the faith of Abraham (when he was sacrificing his son) was completed by his works, but he had the faith first. It is the works that justify the salvation, which comes by faith, because the works are an outward sign of that faith. They are a definite indicator that the believer has a true belief.

>Why do Baptists claim works and repenting isn't necessary for heaven?

Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The works come after salvation when you're indwelt with the holy spirit. You're already saved once you believe. If by "repent" you mean "start to believe", this is what most baptists believe. Some people just avoid the term because of the dual meaning

You should also know that there's great variation among baptists on "repentance", and plenty of non-baptists who hold the same view.

>>764775

They are either mis-communicating or unbelieving of scripture, no works whatsoever can grant a man salvation, it is his faith in God that does, but true faith is expressed through and with works.

The thief on the cross is a good example; he believed, truly, that Jesus Christ was the son of God, he acknowledged what he did was wrong and his punishment was just, humbling himself he repented of his sins, and Jesus said to him in Luke 23:43 "Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

He didn't have any time to do any works other than repenting because he was nailed to a cross, yet he was still saved through his faith in the Lord.

To put it simply, God knows everyone's heart, good or bad, a good heart will bring about good works despite it not helping salvation in the slightest, it does it because it is a good heart.

>>764840

this is consistent with the usual baptist presentation, I think you're reading the OP backwards

>>764841

Ok, let me add onto that

If the thief on the cross, through whatever manner escaped his fate and then went back to his old life of sin, he most likely not of entered into heaven, whereas Baptists would say that because he believed in Jesus for 1 nanosecond he would still enter into heaven.

His faith did not produce works so it was dead

Just keep on reading OP

<Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

>>764860

I'm curious, what made you choose to be a Baptist instead of any other denomination? After reading a bit of Baptist beliefs I see myself agreeing with some of them, but at the same time I see a few ways in which they align with catholic teaching.

>>764775

Wellllllll

They're kinda right, but they're kind of wrong. I think an illustration is in order.

The Baptists believe that you are saved by faith in God and not by works. Which is true because all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. However faith without works, like the body without the spirit, is dead. Works are the way you prove your faith.

So let's say that hypothetically, you owe me 8.9 trillion dollars. If you're like most people, you could never hope to repay your debt to me. Your debt to God is the same, you could never hope to absolve yourself of your sins by works alone.

But now let's say that I make you the offer that I will completely forgive your debt if you mow my lawn next weekend. So you show up to my place next weekend and mow my lawn and I forgive your debt.

Mowing my lawn isn't what forgave your debt, if you had mowed my lawn without my offer, you would still owe me 8.9 trillion dollars. Your debt was forgiven by me, not by your actions.

In the same way, we are absolved by God, not by our actions, but God will only absolve us if we attempt to follow after him and his ways.

>>764775

>Why do Baptists claim works and repenting isn't necessary for heaven?

You're conflating different Baptist sects, allowing the fringe to speak for the all in order to malign the entire group. Some baptists, such as Andersonite cultists, make no distinction between salvation, justification, and sanctification. They lump it all into one atomic instant of "got saved", and tie it all together with contextually dishonest proof texts e.g. Romans 4:5. - "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For by grace you have been saved by faith, and not of yourselves; it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast." However they won't read the very next verse: "or we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Basically, anti-repentance baptists and you seem to have the same misunderstanding about cause and effect.

>>764849

The law in Romans refers to the Jewish law of the Old Testament. Romans 2-3 is talking about how the Jews who have come to believe in Jesus do not have preferential status above the Gentile converts. The law, the law of Moses, means nothing because Jesus has come. It doesn't matter whether you follow it or not. This is what he talks about in Galatians more thoroughly, specifically Galatians 3 where he says that "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Galatians 3:13) and then later that "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). But taking Bible verses out of context like this can change their meaning drastically. I'm sure someone could come up with a verse which counters this argument from within Galatians itself. The epistles aren't a series of pithy truisms from Paul, John, etc. They're letters and should be read as such.

>>764775

>repenting isn't necessary

No Baptist says this.

>works

Evidence of faith. Works does not save.

>>764775

>Why do Baptists claim works and repenting isn't necessary for heaven?

It's a cart before the worse thing. You have to be repentant and bear fruit etc., but those things are the result of salvation not the condition upon which you are saved.

>>765138

>It's a cart before the worse thing.

"horse" oops

>>764893

Best explanation of Justification I've seen in /christian/

Salvation comes through the grace of God and its an unmerited gift.

>>765286

Shhh don't tell Baptists.

>>765143

>Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Romans 9:5 From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven. All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Clement or Rome epistle to church in Corinth chapter 32.

Also, I believe in Peter being the rock and any attempt by protestants to say it was another rock is simply brought out by a prejudice towards Roman Catholicism. But a belief in Peter being rock does not entail to modern romist belief.

I grew up Independent Fundamental Baptist, different than Southern Baptist. I don't remember the name of that guy in OP's pic but I know he's said a lot of extreme things and personally I wouldn't consider him "Baptist" in the sense that I understand Baptist, he's too full of hate and violence. I don't think my church would support him or his views.

The way I have always understood it is that faith is good yes, and yes faith saves you, but if it's real faith there HAS to be more, there HAS to be a change, or else you are "backslidden". If there are no fruits, there is no reward for you in Heaven.

Recently I've decided to take the plunge and investigate Catholicism, it's hard overcoming my knee-jerk PAPIST!!!! reaction that's been ingrained into me since birth, but I just find Baptist theology and church so blase and unfulfilling, I feel like I am just going there to make my parents happy.

Anyways, just wanted to give my two cents as someone who was raised in the IFB denomination. God bless.

>>765307

What kind of protestant are you then?

Or are you orthodox since you quoted a Church Father?

>>765320

I'm a Presbyterian

>>765374

And you guys read the church fathers?

Well if I'm not mistaken you guys are an offshoot of the Anglicans right?

>>765384

Baptists read the church fathers too bro

>>765397

But they ignore everything they say.

>>765401

Strawman

>>765399

>>765400

Because /papist/ hates the truth.

>>765318

I'll say a prayer for you, anon, the Catholic Church is true. It will be very hard for you to convert, I imagine, as most Protestants are hostile to the Church. But Christ told us that we are not to be of this world, and that he would bring a sword to pit people against each other in His name.

>>765384

No, we are a Scottish brand of Calvinists that originated in Scotland by the theologian John Knox. John Knox did have some connections with the royal family so there might be some connections but for the most part since even at my church there are Anglicans. But the reason why they are there is because they accept the Westminster confession of faith. But then again I do not know how orthodox he is in his Anglicanism because both of us differ in our Sacramentology.

>>765384

Also, mainly reformed Christians read the church fathers. It's important to know historical Christianity but our faith in scripture as the ultimate authority in our church leads us to believe that the Calvinist soteriology and our ecclesiology to be the true way. But this isn't to say that all of church history has gone into error but just that they have gone in the wrong direction since they have abandoned their ultimate authority and fallen into error. And this is why the reformation had to happen.

>>765402

Its true. Otherwise your theology would be the cathodox one.

>>765413

Thanks for the insight.

>>765407

Thanks anon, I would appreciate prayers right now. I've just begun to come back to Christ after years of pain and confusion away from Him, I still remember a lot of bible verses and stories but I'm trying to decide where to go from here and all this hatred between the different denominations is driving me nuts. I don't understand why Christians seem to hate each other so much or why hatred is such a powerful human emotion and why it controls society with such an iron grip. It's exasperating but at least I have faith and the Holy Spirit on my side again and I'm not trying to fend off the darkness alone anymore.

>>765488 (checked)

>I don't get the inter-denom hate

It certainly is disheartening to see siblings in Christ bicker like children amongst themselves or even worse, make war over it i'm looking at you, Europe. This is just what happens when each denom is the arbiter of truth. If a different denom is right about something while your's isn't, than the implications of it means that your faith may not be the one true faith. Which can stir up emotions.

I wish you the best of luck in becoming apart of Jesus' Church the Orthodox Church obviously, begome :p

>>765143

Jesus never created any church governance. That's a lie that the cult of Babylon (AKA church of Rome) created so they could exalt themselves to the status of Godhood. The child rape that has been a defining tenant of catholicism for its entire existence should be enough to tell you that the religion is satanic. All satanic religions throughout history have the trait of child abuse/sacrifice as a sacrament. You continued defense of the Satanic church of Rome is just partaking in the rape and murder of children. Though you may not engage in the practice personally, you act as the primary line of defense shielding your luciferian leaders from ever facing justice for their evils

>Luke 8:10 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. no one comes to the father except through me"

To this, the Catholic church responds-

>"Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)

The catholic church have pushed aside Jesus and declared themselves to be "the way, the truth, and the life". All the while they rape children, foment wars, subvert societies for their gain, and practice witchcraft thinly veiled as Christianity. You watch documentaries on scientology and as evil as that church may be, it's the nutrasweet of evil compared to the church of Rome. Catholic clergy makes the scribes and pharisees look holy in comparison. The church of Rome is a vehicle of satanism and it will be utterly eradicated when Jesus returns.

>>765414

> our faith in scripture as the ultimate authority in our church leads us to believe

That's what every church says, and then they all follow that up by presenting different beliefs that they swear up and down is just the bible truth. The fact that people still buy that shit would be funny if it weren't so disturbing.

>>765495

If that's the case, tho, aren't all churches "idols" in your eyes? Aren't churches your way to Jesus?

>inb4 "you can learn from a single person, you don't need a church"

"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." Matthew 18:20. Two people are, in the eyes of God, a church. And that means the path to Salvation is always You->the Church->Jesus.

As for the first paragraph, I don't know where to start. The Catholic Church, whether you agree with it or not, sprang from the Early Church. To say it has "child rape" as "a defining tenant" would imply that the Messiah diddled kids. If you're referring to Christ, the Messiah, then this is sacrilege. The "messiah" you'd be thinking of in that case is Mohammad.

>>765048

this

>>765492

Haha so I've seen the meme thread, apparently the Catholic and Orthodox faiths are "bros"? Can you explain this to me? I honestly can't understand as a protestant how two different faiths could coexist the way that Catholic and Orthodox do. I'm baffled.

Also my dad tries telling me that Baptists go "all the way back to the beginning", that they've been around since the dawn of Christianity, but I when I tried to find a source for that all I could find was some random article written by like John R. Rice in some random newsletter from decades ago….so yeah needless to say I rather doubt that assertion.

>>765545

They are only "bothers" because their beliefs are almost the same as the Catholic Church, they have valid apostolic succession and all of their sacraments are valid.

But it doesn't change the fact they are schismatics and borderline heretics.

>>765546

>Also my dad tries telling me that Baptists go "all the way back to the beginning"

The Mormons also say the israelites came to America centuries before the Europeans. Doesn't make them right.

Also if anyone reads the church fathers from the very beggining finds out their beliefs are Catholic.

>>765048

this, why is it so hard to understand? Yes, if you are a Christian there will be good works, but that is a result, not a CAUSE.

For what it's worth I'll leave this here if anyone wants to discuss it: https://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/the-early-church-and-sola-fide/

>>765689

>implying it wasn't the Patriarch of Constantinopole who wanted to be the new pope

Muh New Rome. winnie the pooh Latins.

>>765718

>forgot that the Roman Emperor moved Rome's capital to Constantinople

>forgot what ecumenical means

>forgot that St. Peter was still equal to the other apostles

>gets arrogant and wonders why prots rebel

The absolute state of papism.

The absolute state of the Latins

>>765727

>forgot that the Roman Emperor moved Rome's capital to Constantinople

Politicians rule the church now. Well done orthodoxes. No wonder the USSR and Putin have you on their hands.

>forgot what ecumenical means

The title ecumenical Patriarch wasn't used in the first centuries of Christianity as well as the title pope.

But all the church fathers say the church of Rome was the cornerstone of faith not Constantinopole. And all the major issues were dealt with Rome not Constantinopole.

>forgot that St. Peter was still equal to the other apostles

Matthew 16:18, John 21 and the first part of Acts say you are wrong. Even St. Paul went to see Peter, not James or John or Andrew etc.

>gets arrogant and wonders why prots rebel

Prots rebelled for the same reason as you did. The hatred of authority. although you guys still keep some in the Bishops, while prots have 30000 little popes each to each one's taste

>>764775

Jesus Christ made the ultimate sacrifice for all by shedding his blood to give every person in the world the opportunity to have their sins washed away, through His blood. If you think that works are required, you are spitting in Christ's face by thinking his sacrifice wasn't enough. To be saved by grace, you need to have faith in Christ's blood. Every person is a sinner, no matter what. Sin is not allowed in Heaven with God. Even one sin. No matter how many works you do, it is still not enough to make up for one's sin. The only thing that can wash one's sin is the blood of Jesus Christ.

Steven Anderson is probably a Jesuit. If you are trying to understand what Baptists teach by 100% truth in the Bible and dispensationalism, Anderson is not the one to observe.

>>766396

It has nothing to do with "spitting in Christ's face". People simply believe in Christ's words themselves. How could they be spitting in Christ's face for simply taking his demands seriously? This is the opposite of spitting in his face.. to sit down and humbly listen to him. Over and over again, he urges us to take up the cross with him, to deny ourselves, to give up riches and build treasure in heaven, to love, to serve our fellow man, to turn the other cheek, to fear hell, to not commit adultery, to not commit fornication, etc..

What you're doing is putting a model of Soteirology above Christ's own words. But have you ever considered that it's actually the model that's manmade, and not what other people are saying? These other people simply want to take Christ seriously, but you hold up an distilled Bullet Point of view of Salvation that isn't the Bible.. and then you tell them they're the ones not reading the scriptures! When that's all they're simply doing.

If ALL that mattered was Christ's sacrifice, it actually renders everything else Christ did as meaningless. I actually respect one Protestant teacher for being consistent here, but he illustrated plainly and honestly just how insane this view is. It was RC Sproul.. and I ran into a teaching once where he said Christ could have very well incarnated as a grown man and just immediately shed his blood on the cross and died for our sins. It would have made no difference. His main purpose was to die for the world's sins. Everything else was apparently a waste of time.

The only difference between him and others though is that he fully admits the conclusions of his Salvation doctrine. Others scoot around and beat around the bush and try to rationalize some reason why Christ had an actual ministry, actually preached instructions and ethics, actually did things other than simply be born and die. He's the only one I've heard that just bluntly states the insanity of his own doctrine.. and I have to somewhat respect that.

Either way, it's the whole life of Christ that some of us hold up. You say it's "spitting in Christ's face" for simply doing it. It makes zero sense… You're calling a good thing "evil". How about attacking actual evil? There's plenty of people who DO spit in Christ's face, but it's insanity to think the people who love and want to follow Christ's words are the ones spitting.

>>764775

Well, actually we do. Repenting for salvation IS believing in Jesus.

http://www.jesusisprecious.org/articles/acts_20-21.htm

Jonah 3:10 says "And God saw their ==WORKS,== that they turned from their evil way.

Romans 4, Ephesians 2, Titus 3:5, and many more passages say we are saved by faith, not by works; by faith apart from works; by faith apart from any righteous deed. Turning from sins is a righteous deed.

Your filthy rags can not save you. Only the blood of Christ do.

When you read the scriptures, learn how to distinguish eternal vs temporal judgment as well as what one is being "saved" from in the immediate context. (e.g. "endure to the end to be saved" is speaking about deliverance from persecution).

>>764790

>I bet protestants haven't heard this ad nauseum.

<Yea a MAN (not God) may say…

James 2: Justification in the eyes of men

Romans 4: Justification in the eyes of God

Conclusion: dead faith is saving faith.

>>765302

Based

>>765286

The even scarier thing is the threat to take lampstands away. These are clearly churches and not average sinners.. and the ones who fail gets extinguished. And Christ has and does do this. Heard anymore of the Church of Laodicea? I didn't think so.

So it's not individuals, but collective bodies falling out.. be it from active sin or bad teachings. The Letter to the 7 Churches is a template for all of us. And we should fear it.

Here's the greatest lesson though: "Remember thy first love." Never lose the spark and love and zeal you had for God in the beginning. Even if it was childlike (although that's precisely what Jesus tells us what we must be like as well).

>>765689

So what's the difference between "supremacy" and "primacy" with the bishops? So the Catholics say you are schismatics while you say the Catholics are schismatic? Who am I supposed to believe?

Does the orthodox faith have their own pope or something? Or is the Pope really the real pope that goes back to the dawn of Christianity?

>>769944

Orthodox are a Church of Councils. No Popes, but Bishops are honored and obeyed, as long as they keep the teachings of the Church. They could just as easily not be that way, unfortunately. For example, Nestorious was once Bishop of Constantinople.. wouldn't be good to honor a heretic, would it? And St. John Chrysostom was once the rightful bishop of Constantinople, but was kicked out and exiled by Arians. Wouldn't be good to honor Arians just because they held high office, right?

This is the quandary Rome can be danger from btw. They could easily have a heretic at the head of their church, but there's no "failsafe" button with "Papal Infallibility". They're all left in either cognitive dissonance pretending things aren't as bad as they seem, become schismatic sedevacantists themselves (people who believe the seat of Peter is vacant, but still honor the seat of Peter), or get lost in fantasy, like hoping some day a "Good pope will come and wash it all away" or some "Great Monarch will cleanse the world and get us all back to the pure expression of faith". I'm not trying to insult them. I think many are good people.. I just feel bad that they have to experience this.

Verses proving salvation to anyone that believes and not of works.

https://youtu.be/WDEBz25lGdY

John

1:12

3:15-16/18/36

4:14(John 6:35)

5:24

6:28-29/35/38-40/44-45/47

7:38-39

8:24

10:27-29

11:25-27/40

12:46

14:1-3

16:27

20:31

Matthew

5:19

7:21-23(John 6:38-40)

8:10-13

9:2

12:37

21:31-32

Mark

1:15

2:5

10:24-25

16:16

Luke

3:3(Acts 19:4)

5:20

7:48-50

8:12

18:10-14/42

19:42

23:40-43

Acts

2:21

3:19

10:43

11:16-17

13:38-39/48

15:7-9

16:30-31

19:4(Luke 3:3)

26:18

Romans

1:16-17

3:20/22/24-28/30

4:2-14/16/24

5:1/15-18

6:14/23

8:31-33

9:30-33

10:3-4/9-10/13

11:6

1 Corinthians

1:14/17/21

3:14-15

15:1-2

Galatians

2:16/21

3:6-11/14/21-22/24/26

5:3-6

Ephesians

1:13-14

2:8-9

4:7

Philippians

3:3/9

1 Thessalonians

4:14

2 Thessalonians

1:10

2:12

1 Timothy

1:16

2 Timothy

1:9

3:15

Titus

3:5

Hebrews

4:3

10:38-39

11:7

1 Peter

1:3-5/8-9

2:6-7

3:21(Colossians 2:12)

1 John

4:2-3/15

5:1/4-5/10-11/13

Revelation

2:11

3:5

21:7

>>765497

I've been reading a lot of arguments for both Protestantism and Catholicism a lot in the last few days and I am convinced that 90% of their disagreements are purely semantic. They both have cartoonishly one dimensional understandings of each other's beliefs. I don't think they even mean the same thing when they talk about Sola Fide or even Sola Scriptura for that matter. It's like some guy saying "You stole my newspaper!" to his neighbor who replies with "That's impossible, the mail hasn't even come today!"

>>772671

C'mon this is totally false. The real reason is that Protestants have been backing away from their actual "doctrine" over centuries actually cause it's so hard to make any logical sense. The OSAS Baptists are real and that's not cartoonish. They literally believe repenting is a work and you shouldn't do that.

As for other lukewarm Protestants they still sort of quasi believe they have a license to sin. They think sins are just guidelines. You sin and just say you're sorry to God and then you're fine or well I mean it doesn't really matter to them in the end. The core doctrine of Protestanism is that the pope is the antichrist and that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and most Protestants have sort of given up on that. Other than that they don't believe in communion, or prayer to the saints or statues or real presence (except for anglicans). So what do you mean it's semantic.

We literally worship a piece of bread. That's not semantics lol. We pray to people who have died from this earth, those are not semantics.

Because it's easier not to work and not to repent

>>764775

CS Lewis explains it best, what follows is a paraphrase;

Christians have for thousands of years now insulted each other based on one of two caricatures.

1) That a certain group believes that since charity is the best virtue, and the best kind of charity is given to to church, just hand us £1,000 and we'll see you through (this is classic muh indulgences).

Alternatively 2) You are saved by faith, even if you are a horrid person, just believe and you'll be alright (this is a classic counter-reformation talking point).

The truth, as CS Lewis points out, is that this is like asking which blade of a pair of scissors is more important. Nevertheless, some sects and people proclaim the value of works, whereas others exalt faith.

Titus 3:4-7 gives a good idea of the Baptist idea of salvation, I think.

>>764845

God forgives all sin. If you’ve lived a life of crime, are dying, TRULY regret and TRULY believe that Jesus is God, then I’d imagine you’ll be saved. You can’t just become a Christian last second to avoid hell.

>>776858

Some good verses here, thanks. It's been a while since I've read the new testament, I'm trying to work my way through the old testament right now but it's going slow since I'm busy with college stuff. I'm definitely going to reread the NT once I finish it though.

>>772235

>>776858

Deuteronomy 15:10

Deuteronomy 24:14

Proverbs 12:11

Proverbs 14:23

Proverbs 18:9

Matthew 25:31-46

John 6:27

Acts 20:35

1 Corinthians 4:12

1 Corinthians 15:58

Colossians 3:23

Hebrews 6:10

1 Timothy 4:10

>>766649

>dead faith is saving faith

Romans 2:6

"God will repay each one according to his deeds."

>>764775

Why do Catholics rape children?

>>776994

We don't.

Men do.

We are not a hive mind.

>>776990

They don't care how many times the validity of works are affirmed in scripture. They see faith and works and assume they are distinct rather than one and the same, and so put priority on faith over works. You could show them whatever passages you want, and they'll show you passages about faith, and the conversation will never progress because their perspective itself is errant.

We view works as physical manifestations of faith in and obedience to Christ, based on the entirety of the NT and OT. They hear the Paul affirm faith in his Letter to the Romans and assume works are entirely unrelated, and as such seemingly ignore any other mention of them even if it is by Christ himself.

I know they believe that good works are born from faith, but I don't know how they explain away faltering. You don't suddenly lose belief in Christ when you sin. That's not how the mind works. It may be a lack of response or receptiveness to the will of God, but it's not pure abandonment. That's not how the mind works.

That's the same reason why they have to say we don't actually believe in God/Christ/the Holy Spirit. Because that's the only way in their mind that we could supposedly disobey Christ's will. Faith/belief and sin seemingly cannot exist simultaneously.

>>777002

>We are not a hive mind.

Neither are all "Baptists".

>>777010

I can show you the Catholics who aren't rapists

Can you show me the baptists that don't believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura?

>>777010

This is a terrible equivalence, and the fact that you're willing to go to such a low level is not only insulting to all Catholics, it's incredibly insulting to the victims of such acts. Apparently they're just something for you people to throw in our face and mock us rather than actual people. We in the church actually want something done, you'd rather it perpetuate so you have something to point at.

>>777014

>>777019

I literally used the same association fallacy as the OP:

>Why do Baptists claim works and repenting isn't necessary for heaven?

<pic of Steven Anderson

Anderson is a whackjob who doesn't understand the role of works or the concept of regeneration.

True faith is accompanied by works. Anderson explicitly rejects that. You can see some real Baptists confronting fake Baptists in the embed (start watching at about 58 minute mark for the meat of this topic).

>>777024

I never said I was 100% on board with OP, I was just responding to a comment I found disgusting and insulting… I don't think rape is on the level of a minor misunderstanding dude.

>True faith is accompanied by works.

>You can see some real Baptists confronting fake Baptists

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy built into the foundation of your church.

Faith needs to be accompanied by works because works are an extension of faith. But you can still believe in and profess Christ without doing good works. It won't get you very far, but it is doable.

>>777028

He's not being fallacious, Anderson is an outlier. He's identifying the standard Baptist view in the same post.

>>772923

We don't literally worship a piece of bread. You should spend more time studying before speaking with confidence about things you don't understand, with all due respect.

>>777028

>no true Scotsman fallacy

Am I using ad hoc reasoning to delineate what a Baptist is? You should learn what that actually means.

>>776971

Matthew 19:26

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

>>777019

Just wanted to mention, in case it wasn't clear: I have no ill will towards Catholics and don't lump them all in with every bad thing one of them does. It was just a rhetorical device I was using to show the problem with the way OP was formulated. I don't like inter-denom bickering, tbh. We have a lot more in common than not.

He cute

Slightly off topic, but I'm curious as to what Baptists (and other Protestants) here think of how the Orthodox view the relationship between faith and works. From Met. Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Church":

>As we have seen, the fact that the human person is in God's image means among other things that we possess free will. God wanted sons and daughters, not slaves. The Orthodox Church rejects any doctrine of grace which might seem to infringe upon human freedom. To describe the relation between the grace of God and human freedom, Orthodoxy uses the term cooperation or synergy (synergia); in Paul's words: 'We are fellow-workers (synergoi) with God' (I Corinthians III, 9). If we are to achieve full fellowship with God, we cannot do so without God's help, yet we must also play our own part: we humans as well as God must make our contribution to the common work, although what God does is of immeasurably greater importance than what we do. 'The incorporation of humans into Christ and our union with God require the cooperation of two unequal, but equally necessary forces: divine grace and human will.' The supreme example of synergy is the Mother of God.

>The west, since the time of Augustine and the Pelagian controversy, has discussed this question of grace and free will in somewhat different terms; and many brought up in the Augustinian tradition - particularly Calvinists - have viewed the Orthodox idea of 'synergy' with some suspicion. Does it not ascribe too much to human free will, and too little to God? Yet in reality the Orthodox teaching is very straightforward. 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in' (Revelation III, 20). God knocks, but waits for us to open the door - He does not break it down. The grace of God invites all but compels none. In the words of John Chrysostom, 'God never draws anyone to Himself by force and violence. He wishes all to be saved, but forces no one.' 'It is for God to grant His grace,' said St Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386); 'your task is to accept that grace and to guard it.' But it must not be imagined that because a person accepts and guards God's grace, he thereby earns 'merit'. God's gifts are always free gifts, and we humans can never have any claims upon our Maker. But while we cannot 'merit' salvation, we must certainly work for it, since 'faith without works is dead' (James II, 17).

>>764775

Your typical prod will tell you that works are a necessary component of faith, which in a roundabout way means that they do believe works are necessary for salvation. This debate is largely one of semantics. The notion that you could just never do anything good for anyone and still get into Heaven is so unbelievable that even those who claim to believe in Sola Fide don't really believe it.

>>781051

>which in a roundabout way means that they do believe works are necessary for salvation

No, you're still not getting it. Your salvation comes from faith in Christ alone, and any good works that you do are simply a consequence of the Holy Spirit working in you. It's not just a semantic disagreement.

>The notion that you could just never do anything good for anyone and still get into Heaven is so unbelievable

<One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!

<But the other rebuked him, saying, Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?

<And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.

<And he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.

<And he said to him, Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.

<(Luke 23:39-43)

>>781051

I believe >>781124 said it pretty well. The faith comes first, and is what saves you, and once you have a saving faith and the Holy Spirit dwells in you you'll start to do good works. That's why the Bible tells us that faith without works is dead. If I just say that I believe in Christ, but don't actually put my faith in him like I would a parachute, then I'm not saved and good works will not be manifest in me (or very rarely so, driven by happenstance instead of the Holy Spirit guiding my heart to do good).

>>781099

Nice strawman you got there. Protestants do still celebrate communion with bread and wine (or juice in some cases), we just don't believe in transubstantiation. Jesus told his disciples "do this in remembrance of me". We don't "go to confession" with a priest because we believe that God, being omnipotent and knowing the content of one's heart, can hear our prayers and confession without needing an earthly vessel to act through (a priest). When Jesus died, the veil of the temple was torn, which symbolized how God was now allowing anyone to come to Him, not just the high priest of the tabernacle who would make the sacrifices. Jesus is our new high priest, and with Him being fully God he is able to hear our prayers and forgive us directly, "for there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". We don't want to lead Christians astray, we just believe that the Roman church has moved away from the Bible and has started to place too much authority in its traditions and clergy instead of scripture, which is the breathed word of God. I hope this helps you understand our position a bit better, if you have more questions I'll gladly try to answer them but I warn you I'm still just a bit new to protestant theology myself.

>>781099

You are kidding me if you are going to tell me that there is unity among the 1.3Billion professing Roman Catholics in the world. This current Pope is pretty much a Universalist. Do you think we should have fellowship with Muslims? You had better, because ol' Francis certainly thinks so. What about the many so -called Catholic women that support abortion 'rights'? Why is Vatican II so far removed from traditions Catholicism? Why does it seem that the majority of Rome's Ecclesiarchy is filled with theological liberals?

And to address the apparent disunity among Protestants. Yes we disagree on peripheral issues, even important ones such as pedo vs credo baptism. But we still consider each other brothers in Christ because we agree on the fundamentals of the faith. Luther himself had many disagreements with many other reformers, and that's ok, because he still considered them brother's in Christ.

As for works, any Protestant who knows anything about theology (and admittedly there are many that don't, particularly among my Evangelical friends) will tell you that you are saved by grace through faith in Christ, apart from works. However, as James points out, if a man calls himself a Christian, yet his life is steeped in unrepentant sin and he doesn't seem to care, then his works show that he probably isn't really saved. BUT his works did not save him. A truly saved man will, because of the Holy Spirit working in his heart to sanctify him and renew his mind, begin to mortify sin and live out the fruits of the Spirit. A saved man still sins, because he isn't fully sanctified (something that only happens in heaven), but he gradually overcomes those sins, he seeks after Christ in all of his ways, his thinking is changed and he begins to perform those good works. Those works have not saved him, but a saved man will ALWAYS display good works. Good orthodoxy (doxy meaning doctrine) will inevitable lead to good orthopraxy (praxy meaning practice). A truly saved man, one who is filled with the Holy Spirit will produce good works; a false convert may for a time perform works that outwardly seem 'good', but inside he is unregenerate. His heart is cold and his very essence is still hostile to God. This many (though he may fool you and himself for a time) will eventually show through his lack of good works that the Holy Spirit does not reside within him and he is not a true believer.

On a side note, this is what you say to the atheist who posts memes like "I asked god for a bike but he didn't give it to me so I stole one and asked for forgiveness instead." The person who does that is (obviously) not a true convert, and his still still rests upon him.

>>781046

Baptists aren't Protestants.

>>781227

wat

>>781227

yes they are, they draw direct line from protestants.

>>781163

lol, thought this was a SSPX or sede post at first.

>>781227

You did not answer.

>>781232

Thanks? I don't know what that means.

>>781231

>The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Vol 3, p.251 (1830)

It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.