/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Because Stephen Anderson actually takes faith seriously and acts on it. He may be wrong, but at least he doesn't ignore large parts of his faith because it's inconvenient like protestants, and unfortunatly many catholics too

I just think it's funny when he goes off on faggots because he's the archetype of the American Protestant, a caricature of what a true Christian believes and how he acts. It is not a Christian virtue to sperg out like a child with wrath towards whatever sin he's talking about. A mature, wise, and pious Christian would emulate Christ's own controlled righteous anger that was qualitatively mean.

>>771527

You mean getting mad and whipping people?

Unironically became Catholic because of James White and his debates on Catholicism

>>771544

which of the debates would you recommend for convincing arguments from Roman Catholicism?

>>771550

The ones with a guy named Trent. But honestly they're all good. Except for this old one where the Catholic apologist loses cool, that one was embarrassing

>>771538

Our Lord very deliberately fashioned his whip and took it to the merchants in a calm, authoritative manner. He didn't scream and shout like an angry little girl.

James White might think he's better than Anderson and KJV onlyists but he's not as far above them as he likes to think he is. He just doesn't realize the fact he adheres to other slightly more reasonable Protestant garbage doesn't mean he has the right to dump on other Protestants who are simply following his own doctrine of sola scriptura and coming to different conclusions than he is.

If he actually possessed self awareness he'd be able to see "Whoa this Anderson guy is crazy…Wait, what seperates my views from his apart from the fact I disagree?" and move on from childish Protestant doctrines but unfortunately he's too arrogant. In his mind he is equal to ecumenical councils and his interpretation of scripture is infallible.

>>771550

This one. White gets dismantled by Horn and his theology is absolutely exposed. White sperges out about the difference between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" and claims that people needing to follow Jesus teachings to be saved limits Gods power. Horn points out that God doesn't want people to sin, and yet people do sin, is this a limitation of Gods power? And White can't muster up any response at all. It's a great debate.

>>771596

> sola scriptura

there is a critical distinction between Sola Scriptura of Reformed though and the King-James-Onlyism of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists

but if you feel comfortable with glossing over such differences, then you'll be similarly happy if folks on here reckon Eastern Orthodox mystics like Seraphim Rose to be good Roman Catholics, yeah?

>>771598

>there is a critical distinction between Sola Scriptura of Reformed though and the King-James-Onlyism of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists

They're different but equally dumb, that's the point.

>then you'll be similarly happy if folks on here reckon Eastern Orthodox mystics like Seraphim Rose to be good Roman Catholics, yeah?

Sure go ahead. Most Protestants don't even understand the theological differences between Catholics and Orthodox so they confuse the two anyway.

>>771600

>They're different but equally dumb, that's the point.

no friend, your initial point was that both the Reformed Church and the IFB adhere to Sola Scriptura, and thus you tarred them with the same brush, premising your whole critique of them on that assumption

as for being dumb, well let me ask you; if someone told you the eastern orthobros and the roman catholics were the same as each other, would you take them seriously?

no?

well tell me why i should hold your opinion as having any more weight?

>>771604

You completely missed the point. Anderson practices sola scriptura. White practices sola scriptura. They both have conflicting theological views. This should be enough for anyone with half a brain to realize sola scripture is a dumb doctrine. White thinks he's better than Anderson because Anderson is a KJV onlyist but sola scriptura is just as dumb as KJV onlyism.

I don't really care about the differences between Calvinists and Baptists, same shit different flavor.

>if someone told you the eastern orthobros and the roman catholics were the same as each other, would you take them seriously?

I never take Protestants seriously, a lot of them being unable to distinguish Catholicism from Orthodoxy isn't a big issue, even their best theologians like John Piper are brainlets.

>>771605

Why is there a Pope?

>>771605

no anon, you have missed the point, Anderson and the New-Independent Fundamentalist Baptists practice King-James-Onlyism

KJVOnlyism is a very different animal from the Sola Scriptura practiced by Reformed churches such as Reformed Presbyterians or like James White who is a Reformed Baptist

but now i see you saying that you don't really take Protestants seriously, and that you 'don't really care about the differences between Calvinists and Baptists' (sic); yet somehow you still feel qualified to voice an opinion on them?

so again i would ask, why should i - or anyone else - take your opinion seriously?

>>771524

>He may be wrong

>he doesn't ignore large parts of his faith because it's inconvenient

these two cannot mix. faith, true faith, is without error. if you admit he's spreading error, he is de facto not spreading the faith

teaching that sinners (homosexuals) cannot repent is heresy, a serious error

>>771610

>KJVOnlyism is a very different animal from the Sola Scriptura

The only thing that matters is that they are both erroneous doctrines and that someone who holds to one has no authority to point the finger at the errors of the other. You might as well claim that Arianism is a very different heresy from Macionism Technically this is true but if Arians and Marcionists get in a slap fight then it's relevant to point out that neither of them have any grounds to call the other heretic.

>yet somehow you still feel qualified to voice an opinion on them?

I am qualified. I know exactly why each of them are wrong, but I don't care whether they get into theological slapfights because they're both incorrect faiths. Sola scriptura as practiced by Calvinists is just as bad as KJV onlyism, whether you recognize that fact or not.

>>771527

>I agree with everything he's saying but not the way he's saying it!

In times as dire as these I'm starting to consider you people enemies.

>>771598

>there is a critical distinction between Sola Scriptura of Reformed though and the King-James-Onlyism of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists

Care to explain?

>>771871

It just comes down to traditions once again.

>>771597

If God prophesied the abuse and murder of the Messiah centuries before the Son entered into flesh, doesn't that mean He allowed those sins to take place in time?

Course Calvinists believe that the LORD will judge the world according to their sins, but it wasn't like He didn't know what would've and prevented certain atrocities.

I'm curious what your answer to this, as I have always struggled with this question.

>>771891

>doesn't that mean He allowed those sins to take place in time?

Yes but the question is did God want those sins to take place? White is trying to claim that if God cannot save a person against their own will then it's a limitation of his power, Horn is pointing out that God wants to save all people but He isn't going to impose it on them, it is not a limitation of his power much like the fact God wants all men to reject sin but clearly sin still exists is not a limitation of His power.

>>771544

Ironically, I had the opposite change after watching his debates.