/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>785651

Maybe if you guys kept the insults down and your biblioltry to your selves there would be no need to ban you folk.

>>785653

point proven

>>785654

Your'e welcome

Now enjoy your new board, we won't miss you.

How does one reconcile the Once Saved Always Saved docrine?

I always hear people trashing on Baptists because of the faith alone and OSAS - They say that both of these allow you to sin as much as you want without fear because you're going to heaven anyways.

>>785692

Those people don't understand once saved always saved and faith alone so they make a strawman of it. They think that it's enough to just say "yeah I believe God exists" and then you're saved forever no matter how much you sin, but that's not it at all. Even demons believe that God is real, and they even fear Him, but they don't have faith in Him which is the difference. To have faith in God is to trust Him with your life, and to follow what He says. I always like to explain it using the parachute analogy: you have to believe the parachute exists, then you have to put it on, then you have to have faith that the parachute will save you from the fall, but after you have faith in it and you make the jump, you have to pull the cord like the parachute tells you. If you don't pull the cord (repent and turn from sin), then the parachute (the Lord) won't save you. Once you have faith in God, and you put your life in His hands, you are saved. You become a new creature in Christ, and though you aren't perfect you're now His, He has saved you. Sure, you might slip up and sin every now and then, but right away you'll apologize, you'll repent and feel terribly sorry for your sin, and you'll try your absolute best to not do it again. A degenerate person who is not saved feels no shame for their sins, they gladly fornicate and lie and steal and blaspheme and etc. As Romans 5:1 tells us, "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ", which shows us that we are saved by faith, and that we can have peace with God knowing that we are saved. 1 John 5:13 tells us "that you may know that you have eternal life", which is proof that we can know that we are saved, we don't need to work away in fear that we aren't good enough for God.

>>785705

>repent of your sins

This is another topic that is widely debated as well. I hear that repenting of your sins is considered works salvation.

>>785707

Repentance is not what saves you, it is what shows your faith. The baptist view of salvation is that we put our faith in God, and if our faith is a saving faith it will manifest good works, but the works are not what saves us. Good works are the outward sign that our faith is a saving faith, but it is our faith that saves us. Abraham is a great example of this, as it's mentioned in both the old testament and the new testament that he was saved because of his faith in God, not in any acts that he may have done as a sign that he had faith in God.

>>785715

Yep, and James 2 completes the circle on this perfectly because the outward works justified Abraham before men, whereas according to Romans 4:5, faith justifies and saves before God.

James 2:14-26 is about showing another man your faith by works in order to save him. That's why it asks can your faith save him. Can your faith save him or will you have to make it manifest is what verses 14-17 get into, and James 2:18 and onward is about how Abraham shows to us his faith by his works.

So these actions play a part in getting others saved, but faith is what justifies before God. See also 1 Corinthians 4:

1 Corinthians 4:1-4

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

Where can I find history of Baptists?

>>785647

I’m Baptist, but I’m no longer anti-Apostolic. I see them as our allies against Freemasonic f*ckery, since the only demons left that don’t ordain women and promote faggotry are apostolics, Southern Baptist, and Missouri Synod Lutheran. That’s it, every one else has fallen.

>>786026

Stop calling them "apostolic"

>>786025

baptisthistory.org

>>786026

I don't hate them either, I just don't agree with their theology. As a former apostolic, I'd say that converting them isn't too hard if you can manage to reach through the arguments from tradition they like to make and show them the truth of scripture compared to their traditions.

>>786039

I disagree as well. I just want them to know we’re not rabid.

>>786026

>I see them as our allies

Do you see muslims as our "allies" too?

>the only demons left that don’t ordain women and promote faggotry are apostolics, Southern Baptist, and Missouri Synod Lutheran. That’s it, every one else has fallen.

wew that ignorance

>>786026

>>786385

*Denoms, sorry.

And what ignorance? Those are the only denominations left that don't ordain women.

As for the Muslim comparison, I don't know if you've noticed but they are fellow Nicene Trinitarians.

>>786389

There are almost no Evangelical denominations that ordain women, and evangelicalism is the majority practice in the US

WELS

PCA

OPC

ELDONA

BMA

Free Will Baptists

Just off the top of my head

>>786398

T H E O P N E U S T O S

What are the rewards in heaven that God promised his ardent believers?

>>785715

this still sounds like work based salvation to me.I believe in salvation by faith alone and nothing else. You dont even have to do works or repent from sin. All you have to do is accept jesus christ as your lord and savior to be saved, anything else is works based salvatioin

>>787077

"Faith without works is dead," dubsman.

>>787077

I agree that it's our faith in Jesus as our Lord and savior that saves us. However, we may know that we are saved when we see the fruits of our salvation, which are good works. "You shall know them by their fruits", after all. The faith saves, but the good works that come after salvation are a sign that the faith is not a dead one, as >>787078 said.

If any non papists pulled a fraction of the shitposting that papists pull in protestant/orthodox threads we would be banned in a heartbeat.

Papists are more prideful than anyone else, shitpost more than anyone else, ruin more threads than anyone else, and still act like they're the victim even though the mods are blatantly on their side.

>>787234

Remember the baptist caricature spambot somebody made? The screenshot might still be in the meta thread, but I’m not sure.

Finally went soul winning last night and saw a couple people get saved. 10/10 would recommend.

If an anxiety ridden dummy like me can do it, anyone can. Dont ignore the great commission brothers and sisters.

>>787237

Hallelujah!

>>787237

May our paths be lightened by the Lord.

>>787237

That's great! I'll have to step up my game sometime and try my hand at soul winning, I've never done it but I know a ton of people who need Jesus.

>>785659

>Now enjoy your new board, we won't miss you.

Your attitude is uncharitable and unChrist-like. It's almost as if you're attempting to drive potential converts away from Christ.

>>787237

I've never seen conversion. Only gainsaying. That's why I don't bother "soul winning".

>>785653

>bibliotry

Didn't know that bowing down to God instead of a statue is worshiping a book. Crazy.

>>788201

I can see that, but you have to realize that some of these people literally don't know the gospel, they only see the lies that the world tells them about Christianity. It's up to us, as followers of Christ to spread the word and try our best to help other people find the love that He has for them.

>>788456

It seems to be pretty well spread now. If people wanted the gospel, they could literally google it.

>>788503

What's the great commission?

>>788503

That's just the problem though, people don't know how great the gospel truly is. They see lies about it and eat them up without thinking critically at all and doing their own research. They don't look up the gospel because they don't think they need it, so it's our job to help them find out how much they need it.

>>788539

>people don't know how great the gospel truly is

If someone's not going to listen, they're not going to. And that's what I've only ever seen. So I'm saving my breath.

>>788751

Joel 2:13-14

And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.

Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?

>>785707

Repenting of your sins is works, because you are doing the work. If you have to stop lying to got to heaven, you are putting forth effort to do something, eg works.

You go to heaven by believing that Jesus Christ’s death, burial and resurrection saved you forever and asking God the Father to save you in belief. You receive Christ as a gift, you don’t work for a gift.

>>789312

This guy gets it.

The formula most christians use is completely wrong.

>faith = salvation + works

Because if you remove works than supposedly you also remove salvation. Because faith without works is dead…right? wrong That formula is LITERALLY works based salvation and 100000% wrong.

Faith = salvation

No works needed.

What are the best biblical verses that help somebody overcome feelings of envy?

What are some good study Bibles with commentary/footnotes/etc. from a Baptist or general Protestant point of view?

In a similar vein, my Mom has neck and back problems that make reading a medium to hefty sized bible problematic. Is there a complete, non-pocket Bible that's small and light enough to be less taxing for her? One that also possibly has footnotes/commentary, or is a lack of commentary/footnotes a compromise that's simply unavoidable for a lighter physical weight and size Bible?

>>789543

> non-pocket Bible that's small and light enough to be less taxing for her?

Wouldn't it be better to get her a lectern or something similar that can keep a bible at an angle and height that doesn't put strain on her?

>>789543

>Is there a complete, non-pocket Bible that's small and light enough to be less taxing for her? One that also possibly has footnotes/commentary, or is a lack of commentary/footnotes a compromise that's simply unavoidable for a lighter physical weight and size Bible?

Audio bible or a pocket kjv.

>>789404

1 Cor 13:4

>>789543

Depends on your persuasion

Macarthur study bible if you're very reformed

Jerry Vines has a study bible, "Vines Expository Bible"

If your mom is a hardcore traditional (non-calvinist) baptist, esp. southern baptist, there is a W. A. Criswell and Paige Patterson study Bible "Baptist Study Edition"

If you're not familiar with any of those names or their teachings don't go with them.

ESV study bible is very popular, lots of "new calvinist" types involved (Mohler, Piper)

I have "The Open Bible" by Nelson publishers in NKJV, happy with it

The CSB is effectively the southern baptist translation, and Holman has a well recommended study bible called the CSB study bible.

honestly migrate this thread to >>>/christianity/ , we're enabling the overbearing mods here with our traffic

>>789550

What about feelings of envy if a guy was/is fornicating with a woman I had a crush on?

>>789567

>wanting damaged goods

Here's a biblical concept to meditate on: you should expect your wife to be a virgin for you. You shouldn't be envious because you shouldn't want a harlot.

>>789571

These are not feelings that I want. How do I overcome this situation.

>>789572

real talk you just tough it out

when you fall for a girl she gets deep in your mind until you find a better one who you actually become romantic with, and even then you'll have sporadic longing thoughts of what could have been.

>>789577

I appreciate this, but I don't like the idea that these feelings won't go away permanently…

>>789548

>>789550

Thank you both for the excellent suggestions! I find myself drawn to the CSB Study Bible in particular, and think that the Everyday Study Bible version of the CSB might be the perfect marriage of size/weight and footnotes/commentary for my Mom.

I'll also try to check out the other suggestions in the future as time permits (as well as finances, since the "Baptist Study Edition" is a bit on the pricey side due to being out of print.)

>>789547

Thank you for the suggestion, but she already has a similar style reading stand, and still finds the current size and weight of the Bible, that she got from a family member, discouraging to use. (Plus the footnotes/commentary in that one aren't particularly good, as we've both noted.)

>>789579

Honestly, from experience, such feelings won't last forever, especially as you get older and mature. Ultimately, getting over a crush is a classic case of the passage of time, focusing on other things in your life, and "out of sight, out of mind" (i.e. if you have a crush on her, don't try to be "just friends", otherwise those feelings will continue to linger longer than they should, based on a false hope that will just torture and prolong the process of moving on.)

Also, overall, you should center your life around God and his mission for your, primarily, rather than centering your life around getting a woman. I don't know for sure if you have this particular problem, but 9 times of of 10, when a guy has a hard time getting over a crush, it's because he at least subconsciously puts getting romantically involved with a woman on a pedestal, and makes it the focus of his life to a unhealthy degree.

>>789592

The Criswell one I always see in used bookstores, it's gone by a couple different names too

>>789596

I'll keep it an eye out for it then, thanks!

What other names has it gone by, btw?

>>789600

"Criswell study Bible" and "holy Bible: Baptist study edition"

>>789605

Thanks again!

>>789620

Dont forget this

Does 1Peter 3:21 mean Baptism is merely a symbol or public profession of faith?

Let’s find out, starting with its Greek.

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.

Also at issue is how one should take the genitive συνειδήσεως.If objective, then it would refer to the pledge of a Christian to maintain a good conscience, but if subjective, it would be the good conscience from which a Christian makes a commitment to God in baptism. The present consensus seems to be in favor of an objective genitive, with the ἐπερώτημα understood as consisting of the commitment or ‘pledge’ made at baptism to preserve a good conscience, that is, mindfulness of God or proper conduct, in one’s subsequent life.

For instance see:

Achtemeier, 1 Peter,pp.271–72; Elliott, 1 Peter,p.681. Also taking it as an objective genitive, referring to the baptizand’s pledge to maintain a good conscience, are Reicke, Disobedient Spirits,p .185; J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (BNTC; London: Black, 1969), p. 162; Roger Omanson, ‘Suffering for Righteousness’ Sake (1 Pet 3:13–4:11)’, RevExp 79 (1982), p. 444; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, trans. John E. Alsup (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 258; R. T. France, ‘Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples’, in I. H. Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 275. However, Michaels, 1 Peter,p.216, holds out for a subjective genitive.

On this reading the συνείδησις ἀγαθή refers to the content of the ‘pledge’ undertaken at baptism. Hence, the view of baptism as a formal and public contract with subsequent binding force on the parties involved

So wait a minute here, Baptism is like signing a deal to enter into a relationship with God? Isnt that different from views that see baptism as something done after this relationship is entered into?

Baptists are false prophets against Scripture

Why Galatians disproves Once Saved Always Saved?

1)What is Once Saved Always Saved?

Once Saved Always Saved, or OSAS is the view of some Protestants, usually Baptists, that once someone confesses Christ as Lord and Saviour, there is nothing that person can do to lose his salvation. In fact as the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist pastor Steven Anderson states in his sermon on OSAS, even if you try to sin and disbelieve, you are still saved. This possibility is also acknowledged in his sermon “Shall we continue in Sin” where he states that:

“Now here’s the thing, If I don’t talk to my wife and my wife doesn’t talk to me we are not going to have a good relationship. But are we still married? Yes we are, see what I mean? So if I don’t talk to God through prayer and He doesn’t talk to me through his work, we’re not going to have a good relationship (though I’m still saved).”

Notice that if one doesnt pray to God after one is saved, then he is still considered saved, although he wont have a “good relationship” with God. It means clearly this person isnt going to suffer Hell for this and other intentionally sinful actions.

Of course unfortunately for OSAS believers, Scripture proves them wrong and here we will look at Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians to see why such is the case.

>>789623

2)Galatians 1

In the opening of the epistle to the Galatians, Paul already post statements that would not make sense if OSAS is true as the following verses demonstrate:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Here Paul announces that he his “marvelled” at how the Galatians were “so soon removed” from the Grace of Christ. Anderson tries to avoid the implication of this statement by stating in his sermon on Galatians 1 that these Galatians arent Saved. But this view already makes Anderson inconsistent with himself. As him and many OSAS advocates believe, baptism comes after one is saved. It does not have any salvific significance, as Anderson mentions in his sermon “Easter: Fact and Fiction”,

You get saved, then you get baptized

Unfortunately for Anderson, he forgotten Galatians 3:27 which says:

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

OSAS advocates will have little wiggle room here, as even in the plain english used, “have” is used, indicating that the act of Baptism was accomplished. Had Paul wanted to emphasize this as a future act, he would had instead said “for as many of you as will be baptized”. Should v27 really entail water Baptism or even just the so called spirit Baptism of many Baptists and Evangelicals, it entails Anderson as guilty of painting Paul as inconsistent as only the Saved get both of these. Hence the only way to make his eisegesis consistent is to admit that OSAS is false and Salvation may be lost, as Galatians 1:6 would address Galatians who bewitched by the Judaizers and false brethren, had fallen away or are on the verge of doing so. We now analyse Galatians 3:27 first to show why this is such.

>>789624

Galatians 3:27 on Baptism

The context of this verse is one within the grand argument of Paul explaining how believers are to be justified by faith and not of the Law. He links believers(also his audience as the intended reader) to the blessings of Abraham and God’s promise to him where the gentiles shall participate in through faith in Jesus Christ. The Law, meant to function as a schoolmaster or pedagogue who disciplines the Israelites before the advent of Christ. These are connected to our main verse mentioning Baptism where we put on Christ, indicated by the use of “for” which serves as the connector.

This connection would also entail something about Baptism, that it is connected to the process of justification by faith, in this case being an explanation of why believers are called “Sons of God” in the preceding v.26. The motif here echoes the use of Baptism in other areas of the Pauline corpus, notably Romans 6:3 and Colossians 2:12 in which Baptism is used in conjunction with the benefits of union with Christ. It would also be part of one being grafted into Christ formally under this implication.

OSAS believers, Baptists and Evangelicals may simply push the view of the so called Baptism of the Spirit to avoid the implications of this. While conceding for the sake of showing Anderson’s and typical OSAS believers inconsistency would aid this refutation, an argument for why Galatians refer to water Baptism would be given, to further demonstrate the flaws in their eisegesis. For one, the updated form of Strong’s concordance and lexicon, the Bauer Lexicon opposes this in outlining the Scriptural usages of Baptism. One of the definitions for Baptism it gives is the “Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus’ death”.

Amongst the verses listed to use this definition of Baptism are the ones mentioned here. OSAS, Baptists or Evangelicals may object to this, stating that “it isnt the Bible”, but this only makes them inconsistent when they appeal to the dated Strong’s on Biblehub whenever they want to get the Greek.

Perhaps even despite these, OSAS believers would simply say that it is simply a statement about how one believes and then gets Baptized after one is Saved. Even here, other verses tell us to militate against this. We use Galatians 4:8-11 as one proof of this.

>>789625

Galatians 4:8-11

8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

To prevent this from showing OSAS and his views of the Galatians salvific status as false, Anderson claims in his sermon on Galatians 4 that it simply means that Paul simply thought they were saved when they in fact are not. So he doubts their salvation. This interpretation does not make sense as it does not match the very structure of the verse. Had Paul wanted to convey the idea that he now doubts whether they had even been Saved, he wouldnt had said that they known God or rather known by Him but rather express himself closely with his interpretation. But as the text in its english form shows, this is hardly the case.

Should this plain meaning be insufficient, a more in depth analysis of these verses will be given. First off we begin at the word “know” in reference to being known by God. This term in Biblical usage typically refers to one’s relationship with God(eg, 1John 2:3, 4, 14, 3:6, Hebrews 8:11). When used in the context of “known by God”, the same sense of intimacy is the case, alongside election(eg, Genesis 18:19, Amos 3:2).

“Turn ye again” in v9 or the Greek,epistrephete(ἐπιστρεφετε) is a verb that denotes a “change of mind or action for better or worse” according to the Bauer Lexicon. Indeed this term in Matthew 13:15 refers to conversion positively. In light of these positive connotations, it could be possible that Paul’s use here have an ironic sense, where the Galatians having a close intimate relationship with God but now seek after the works of the Mosaic Law. As the tense here is present in the Greek, this would indicate that the Galatians are in the process of turning and if they turn completely, Christ shall have no affect upon them. This makes the security and salvation of the Galatians conditional on their faith and in some sense even their actions, opposing the OSAS view.

To understand further the gravity of this statement, we must turn a chapter back, to Galatians 3:1-5

>>789627

Galatians 3:1-5

3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Anderson’s eisegesis here proves deficient. In his sermon on Galatians 3, his overall view can be expressed as: the Apostles preached the Gospel to the Galatians and ministered to them, they didnt follow and not Saved at all, they return to the Law.

By analysing these verses deeper, we will start to see how Anderson’s understanding of them doesnt conform to their flow.

The opening verse tells us the reason for the Galatians’ foolishness. Given the use of “bewitched”, it may be possible that their succumbing to the Judaizers could be due to an “evil spiritual influence”. Bauer’s Lexicon defines the Greek for bewitched(βασκαίνω) as to “exert an evil influence through the eye”. Usage here is metaphorical, no doubt referring to the influence of the Judaizing group. Yet this is foolishness as the Gospel was preached to them. The visual reference to Christ used here may indicate that Paul utilizes the rhetorical technique of ekphrasis which focuses on vivid imagery. This poses a problem for Anderson and those that are iconoclastic, as Paul is essentially admitting to preaching the Gospel in a manner that uses “word pictures” which create mental images. Given the main topic at hand, further explorations on this issue will be for a later time.

Next, Paul asks the question of how the Galatians received the Spirit. This unfortunately for Anderson blows his case out of the water, as such indicates that Paul presuppose that the Galatians actually received the Holy Spirit. Oddly for Anderson, he doesnt mention anything about the Spirit in v2, possibly due to this. Still, it must be clarified that this reception of the Spirit is through faith, or in this case, believing the Gospel preached and given what is stated in v27, Baptism as part of this.

Moving to v3, we see more confirmations that advice against taking the OSAS viewpoint. The phrase “having begun” is an aorist participle ἐναρξάμενοι(enarxamenoi) which its only other reference is Philippians 1:6 which refers to the very work God will do in the believer. Bauer’s lexicon notes that in both contexts, what is referred to here is the beginning of the Christian’s life. The two verses even parallel each other, with Galatians being more ironic given its pastoral situation. This detail is left out of Anderson’s own sermon on this chapter and it is quite obvious why, once this is considered, it would entail the Galatians as actually receiving a beginning from God who works in them and having received the Spirit. These are defeaters to his interpretation that the Galatians were never Saved in the first place.

>>789628

On v4, the “suffering” could invoke the sense that the Galatians went through some persecution, perhaps even due to the incursions of the Judaizers. In Anderson’s sermon, nothing of this is implied. In this verse, the particle γέ is used, as shown in the Greek render below:

τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ

This particle is meant to place focus on a single idea or place according to the Bauer lexicon. Thus this would suggest the Galatian’s experiences of “sufferings” to be the idea in focus. With v5 focusing on miracles and the ministering of the Spirit and the preceding v3 referring to the work of the Spirit in the Galatians, it is most likely that they also experienced the Spirit that aid them in these sufferings. Should they turn away now, all these would had be in vain. The tone of these experiences being in vain is one that may express a hope that they will reject the Judaizers in light of these experiences.

This again, nullifies the OSAS position, as the way Paul addresses the situation is one where he sees the Galatians in a real danger of making all their experiences of being Saved as being in vain. The danger of this situation with the Judaizers expressed in Galatians 2:4:

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

Had OSAS be what Paul had in mind, this and all we covered wouldnt be what we find when analysing the verses and letting them speak for themselves. Yet when we do, a contradictory picture of the OSAS eisegesis emerges. The context shows Paul persuading the Galatians through appeal to their spiritual experiences. Even if a baptism of the spirit is presupposed, we are still dealing with people whom by Anderson’s own beliefs would had been Saved but yet he preaches otherwise. We are left only with an inerrant Scripture contradicting itself. Yet when we look at the verses in their own proper order and context, we see a consistent Paul against the notion of OSAS

Thus, we see that Galatians in fact speaks against OSAS.

occurrences of πιστεύω as a participial identifier for Christians in the authentic letters include: Rom 1:16; 3:22; 4:5, 11, 24; 9:33; 10:4, 11; 1 Cor 1:21;14:22 (twice); Gal 3:22. The aorist participle is found in 2 Thess 1:10; 2:12. Wallace points out the NT writers opted more requentl or the present part c ple w th the aspectual orce n ew. He wr tes: “the present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary cond t on o sal at on” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 621, n.22).

This kills the OSAS

>>785705

>faith is trust and obedience

Well done for promoting works based salvation and destroying OSAS!

>>785715

>repentance is a necessary sign of faith that must be done

>repentance dont save you but faith does

Baptist contradiction 101

>>789641

Isnt it odd how the Bible opposes you?

>>789644

>t. Has never read the Bible

I'll pray for you.

>>789646

Nope. Let's use 1Thesselonians as an example.

Throughout this letter, Paul speaks of faith in such a way that reveals it as vibrantly active in nature. For example, at the outset of the letter Paul’s prase to the Thessalonians is not simply because of some generic declaration of faith. Rather, it is specifically because their faith generated action through good works.

If faith is the locus in the human from which work arises, it is clear that faith is not simply a one-off cognitive assent to certain truth claims. On the contrary, faith is essentially active and productive; good works are yielded as its fruit. The active nature of faith is also revealed in the participle ἱ πιστεύ ντες (1:7; 2:10, 13), which in the present tense emphasises the ongoing nature of faith. Wallace points out that although the aorist participle was sometimes used, the New Testament writers opted more frequently for the present participle with the aspectual force of continual belief in view.

The activity of faith is evident as well when Paul rejoices that their faith spread to Macedonia, Achaia, and all places (1:7-8). The intriguing statement, ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ π ὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν s expla ned b the act t that Paul summarises in the surrounding verses: 1) they became examples to believers in Macedonia and Achaia; 2) the word of the Lord sounded forth from them (v.7); 3) reports about their welcoming spirit to the apostles (v.9); 4) turning to God from idols (v.9); 5) serving a living and true God (v.9); 6) waiting for the return of Jesus (v.10). The importance of an active faith is evident in many ways throughout the letter

>>789621

Dont forget also that the statement that baptism saves through the resurrection of Jesus Christ in 3:21 holds together many expressions about transitions from life to death, from the old to the new reflected in other parts of the letter. In 1:3–10 salvation is something which the believers wait for, together with the revelation of Christ in his glory (1:7). The new birth to a living hope is based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1:3). Even if these expressions are not explicitly identified with baptism, they are associated with baptism as the main act in this process. Baptism is so to speak the crystallizing point for all the other ways to speak of this transition.26 It can have this function because it unites the baptised with the resurrected Christ and brings them into contact with God and the saving power of God manifested in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1:3; 3:21). This association between baptism and resurrection is similar to that in Paul and the Pauline tradition, where baptism meant to be included “in Christ,” that is in the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom 6:4–5, 8–11; 1 Cor 15:20–28, 29–34; Col 2:12).

>>789648

So…what you are saying is that if I do no work than I have no salvation?

>>789727

Literally yes. Because if you are not doing anything but laying passive, you are either a puppet stone moved by something else, some advance automaton(Calvinism) or you are just looking for a get out of jail free card, which ISNT the Biblical definition of faith.

Dont like it? Then stop being a Christian or grow some courage to accept God at his own WORD

>>790045

Except that explanation makes NO SENSE at all when Paul NEVER make any distinctions in his audience. It's addressed to the Galatians AS A WHOLE. So the Baptist explanation here fails.

Second, repentance in Scripture is about turning away from sin. The only reason why God "repents" is only because changing one's mind on something is within the semantic range of "repent", not because of your eisegesis tier explanations.

It's also been shown how Paul conceives of faith. Not as passive belief but ACTIVE. Believing is also DOING.

>>790254

You're conflating issues of salvation with issues of Christian living. The Baptist likewise affirms the active faith, to the point of being notoriously evangelistic.

>>790309

Except of course, this is not even true. Because of the fact the NT consistently appeals to FINAL VINDICATION and JUDGEMENT. The Baptist view only makes Christian living not necessary but only some optional thing for those saved which makes NO SENSE in light of all judgement passages. This also ignores the basic Greek use of "faith" throughout the NT which refers to CONTINUAL faith as the requirement. That makes active faith a NECESSITY, not AN OPTIONAL DLC and thus either Baptists are to be Calvinists on this issue(and contradict the warning passages and the description of the dangers of falling away), consider the Saved as just some passive puppet moved by the Spirit, or admit your own incoherence.

Here, one explicit example destroying the Baptist view from Matthew. Expectation of the final judgment is a central theme in Matthew, and the function of this motif within the narrative is primarily to inspire moral behavior in light of the coming judgment. The ethical motivation of Matthew’s judgment motif can be seen especially in Jesus’ speeches, where Jesus regularly teaches his disciples to live in the present in light of the reality of hell and the final day of judgment, when the righteous will be separated from the unrighteous (Matt 5:12, 21-30; 6:1-21; 7:13-14, 21-27; 10:40-42; 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 16:27; 18:8-9, 23-35; 19:27-30).

Throughout the narrative of Matthew, the practice of righteousness, including sharing resources with the needy, is grounded in the expectation that everyone will be rewarded or punished at the final judgement based on how they have lived in the present, one example is the parable of talents in The parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) which

stresses the importance of servants acting responsibly while the “Lord” of the household is away; the servant who is not faithful with the talent entrusted to him has his talent taken away and is thrown into “the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”

>>790311

But this is made even more evident in Matthew 25:31-46. The sheeps are rewarded because they have provided for the king himself by feeding the hungry, provisioning the thirsty with water, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and visiting those in prison (vv. 34-40). When the righteous express their ignorance regarding their performance of these merciful deeds, inquiring about when they have done the things for which they are rewarded (vv. 37-39), the king responds, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me” (v. 40).43 So closely linked are Jesus and his followers that showing material kindness to Jesus’ disciples is to do the same for Jesus himself. In a very real way, then, by caring for fellow disciples, the sheep embody the secret performance of merciful deeds advocated in Matt 6:2-4, for the righteous are not even aware of the extent to which their ἐλεημοσύνη has ministered to Christ.

Conversely, the goats are sent away “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41), cursed and banished to eternal punishment (v. 46) because of their failure to perform merciful deeds for followers of Jesus who are hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and imprisoned. Nothing is stated or implied about the motivations of those sheep who have acted mercifully on behalf of the destitute, although the motif of divine judgment on the basis of how individuals have cared for the marginalized strongly suggests that, here as elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel, ethics are motivated by eschatology.

The scene of the Son of Man’s judgment of the righteous and unrighteous in Matt 25:31-46 offers a fitting and evocative climax of the motif of divine reward for merciful deeds or punishment for their absence in the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew’s Gospel envisions a universal judgment of all people—including followers of Jesus—on the basis of deeds performed in this life, and an important measure of one’s righteousness is care for needy disciples of Jesus.46 In this sense, merciful action toward needy disciples in Matthew’s Gospel is primarily meritorious in the sense that practices of merciful care for the poor result in heavenly reward at the final assize, when the works of all people will be judged.

>>790313

At the same time, however, it could be argued that, because care for the poor in the Gospel of Matthew represents a significant element of Jesus’ proclamation, charity is broadly atoning in the sense that adherence to Jesus’ teaching of a better righteousness is one of several ways in which the alleviation of sin is narrated in the First Gospel. Certainly, Jesus’ identity as one who saves from sin is foundational in Matthew’s story. At a key moment in the narrative, after the record of the genealogy of “Jesus the Messiah, son of David, son of Abraham” (1:1-17), Jesus’ birth is foretold to Joseph by an angel of the Lord, and the angel’s prediction is punctuated by the declaration that Mary “will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (1:21). This statement in Matt 1:21, in which the main character of the story is named and his commission is identified, can be viewed as programmatic for the mission of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew.47 But what does it mean, within the literary framework of Matthew’s Gospel, for Jesus to “save his people from their sins”?

One common answer to this question connects the prediction that Jesus will save his people from their sins in Matt 1:21 with references elsewhere in the Gospel to the death of Jesus as an event that accomplishes forgiveness. The Last Supper tradition in the Gospel of Matthew, for example, records Jesus’ statement, with reference to the cup, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (26:27b-28). There is no doubt that Matt 26:28 frames Jesus’ death as a liberating, vicarious sacrifice that accomplishes the forgiveness of sins.48 Yet forgiveness of sin in the narrative of Matthew’s Gospel (as in Mark’s) is also made available before the crucifixion of Jesus takes place and often occurs or is promoted apart from, or at least without any direct connection to, the cross: John’s practice of baptism of repentance is accompanied by the confession of sins (3:1-12); Jesus instructs his disciples to pray for forgiveness of their debts (ὀφειλήματα) and notes that if they forgive others their trespasses (τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν), then the heavenly Father of the disciples will forgive them, but if the disciples do not forgive others, neither will they be forgiven by the Father (6:12, 14-15; cf. 12:31-32); Jesus himself offers forgiveness of sins to a paralytic man whom he heals, a proclamation of clemency that provokes the ire of scribes who observe the episode (9:2-8); and in response to a question from Peter, Jesus opines that a member of “the church” who sins against Peter should be forgiven seventy-seven times (18:21-22), a principle that is illustrated in the ensuing parable of the unforgiving servant (18:23-35). While the cross is the ultimate means of atonement in Matthew’s Gospel, it is not the only means by which forgiveness of sin is narrated.

>>790314

To raise questions about the dynamics of forgiveness in Matthew’s Gospel is also to raise questions about the reasons that forgiveness is needed. Matthew’s Gospel reflects an understanding, common among Jews of the Second Temple period, of “sin” (ἁμαρτία) and “lawlessness” (ἀνομία) as failure to obey the teachings of Torah. In Matthew, moreover, Jesus is characterized as the authoritative teacher of Torah whose instruction intensifies (but does not mitigate or transcend) the law by summoning his followers, as participants in the kingdom of heaven, to a more faithful obedience to Torah and a surpassing righteousness than that of the scribes and Pharisees (5:17-20). In this sense, it might be argued that Jesus’ teaching “saves his people from their sins.” That is, those who follow Jesus and obey Torah as it is interpreted and, notably, summarized (22:34-39) by him are saved from their sins in the sense that adherents to Jesus’ teaching do not violate God’s will as it is revealed in Torah. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus’ mission of saving his people from their sins is both preventative, in that those who follow Jesus’ instruction are saved from committing future sins, and restorative, in that Jesus’ death on the cross is a sacrificial offering that brings forgiveness for transgressions of Torah that have been or will be committed.

What these would imply is that like it or not, good works do indeed factor into our Salvation in some manner at the very least. Judgement cannot merely be for just "bonus rewards" but indeed based on a person's conduct. But if this is so, Baptists are dead wrong

>>790314

Matthew's Gospel is full of examples where we can see that reward for deeds, and

judgment according to works are very much in evidence. For example: `I tell you the

truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ

will certainly not lose his reward' is very typical of the kind of sayings that are included

in Matthew's portrait of Jesus (e. g. Mk 9.41/Mt 10.42). But there is also a very clear

affirmation of the soteriological dimension of reward:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny

himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will

lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if

he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange

for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his

angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. (Mt

16.24-27)

In the quotation from Psalm 62.12 in Matt. 16.27 here, the reward is soteriological, just

as it is when the Psalm is quoted again in Romans 2.6. The saying here in Matt 16

follows straight on from Jesus' description of those wishing to save their lives, losing

them, and vice versa. The reward cannot be for individual deeds within the future

Kingdom. In Matt 25.31-46, deeds of hospitality or justice are certainly the criterion for

judgment, however much disagreement there may be on the other details of the

parable. On the other hand, election and grace are prominent in Matthew's Gospel:

salvation is a matter of revelation purely by divine initiative (11.25-27) and is impossible

for people without divine activity (19.25-26). `At the same time, Matthew still believed

that salvation was God's gift'.

Protestant scholar: Simon Gathercole

>>790317

From the same on that same final judgement in John's Gospel

Despite the realised eschatology in John by comparison with the emphasis in the

Synoptics, there is still a good deal of reference to a `final' day. John 6 in particular

contains a Johannine `eschatological discourse' in which Jesus refers to a last day four

times. 283 There is also Martha's confession about Lazarus's final resurrection in 11.24,

and another saying of Jesus about a last day in 12.48. So there is still plenty of room for

a final judgment according to works, despite Bultmann's assertion that `the ecclesiastical

redactor has been busy in 5.26-30, specifically in 28-29, trying to conform John's

realised eschatology to the official eschatology of the church'. 284 In one of the clearest

statements in the NT about a resurrection for both believers and unbelievers, John's Jesus

exhorts the disciples:

Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their

graves will hear his voice and will come out-those who have done good, to the

resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of

condemnation. (5.28-29)

This resembles what we will see in Josephus: the' souls of the good passing into new

bodies at the revolution of the ages, whereas the wicked are punished. The raw material

in the Jewish tradition which is the basis of both John's Jesus and Josephus is that the

criterion for whether one is punished or receives life at the eschaton is the `doing' of good

or evil.

>>789779

So you believe in works based salvation?

>>790327

By your logic, the Bible teaches works salvation.

>>790331

You make it sound like it does. If I don't do work I have no faith but I only have salvation by faith alone? That doesn't make any sense.

What you preach is literally works based salvation.

>>790333

More like what the Bible does. Come back when you can explain how the Greek pistis in the NT isnt used in a manner that demands activeness or enduring faith. If you cant, you oppose Scripture

>>790360

1)Again repeating the point which is already addressed. Nothing is shown in Galatians of Paul DISTINGUISHING between those Saved and Unsaved. They are LABELLED COLLECTIVELY.

2)again repeating the same point which is already addrressed. Repentance in Greek use refers to A CHANGE OF MIND. This is why God can 'repent'. Clearly how God 'repents' isnt the same thing as how sinners repent. Acts provide one example. The rebellious Israel are to TURN AWAY from their rebellion to God. That rebellion is definitely sin. period!

3)As long faith is active and NO CALVINISM is espoused, the Baptist view is inconsistent. Either one is some lifeless drone MOVED or one is an advanced determined automata. This opposes Galatians and Hebrews and so is contradictory but LESS than Baptists.

4)Just because Grace is not given based on merit does it entail DETERMINISM or CALVINISM. Philo is a good example of this. In fact Qumran which has NO SOLA FIDE or OSAS doctrine at all and is wholesale double predestination shows one can even have a determinist view WITHOUT the baggage of Baptist nonsense and Reformed thought at all. Hence using verses that emphasize God's agency is simply insufficient, especially when it is shown clearly Galatians entails the possibility of falling away(remains UNREFUTED) and the judgement according to works as Protestant CALVINIST scholar Simon Gathercole agrees with my point.

5)As noted in 4) and even by Gathercole himself, a strong sense of God's agency doesnt negate final judgement or even works salvation. God enables the works to be done.

6) 2Corinthians cannot HELP you because thanks to Calvinists like Douglas Moo, one can say that INITIAL JUSTIFICATION is in view in instances like these where it describes the entry into the New Covenant. After entry, WORKS ARE REQUIRED TO VINDICATE GOD'S DECLARATION! This ironically requires that good works are Salvific. Especially as Wallace, A CALVINIST notes, Faith in the NT that is salvific is enduring!

7)none of what is posted about judgement according to works in Matthew is engaged with

NT Greek vs Baptist eisegesis on Repent

1)repentance, turning about, conversion

as a turning away μετάνοια ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων turning away from dead works Hb 6:1. Mostly of the positive side of repentance, as the beginning of a new relationship with God: ἡ εἰς θεὸυ μ. repentance that leads to God Ac 20:21. ἄξια τῆς μετανοίας ἔργα deeds that are consistent with repentance 26:20. Also καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μ. Mt 3:8; cp. Lk 3:8. βαπτίζειν εἰς μ. baptize for repentance Mt 3:11 (s. βαπτίζω 2a; also εἰς 10a). βάπτισμα μετανοίας Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; cp. Ac 13:24; 19:4 (alt. λουτροῦ … τῆς μ. Just., D. 14, 1) χρείαν ἔχειν μετανοίας need repentance or conversion Lk 15:7. κηρύσσειν μ. εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν preach repentance that leads to the forgiveness of sins 24:47 (μετάνοιαν καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν διὰ … λουτροῦ παλλιγγενεσίας Theoph. Ant. 2, 16 [p. 140. 8f]); cp. 1 Cl 7:6. ἔχειν καιρὸν μετανοίας still have time for repentance 2 Cl 8:2. τόπον μετανοίας διδόναι give an opportunity for repentance (Wsd 12:10; cp. ἵνα μετάνοια δοθῇ Did., Gen. 169, 4; ἀφορμὴν μετανοίας καὶ ἐξομολογήσεως παράσχειν Theoph. Ant. 2, 29 [p. 170, 17]) 1 Cl 7:5. μετανοίας τόπον εὑρίσκειν Hb 12:17 (cp. μετανοίας τόπον ἔχειν Tat. 15:3). διδόναι τινὶ (τὴν) μ. (cp. Wsd 12:19; M. J. Brutus, Ep. 7) Ac 5:31; 11:18; 2 Ti 2:25; 16:9; cp. Hv 4, 1, 3; Hs 8, 6, 2; 8, 11, 1.

SO Baptists, can God, turn away from HIS DEAD WORKS? Can God repent to lead to HIMSELF? Can God turn to forgive HIMSELF of his SINS?

OF COURSE NOT! BUT THIS IS THE GOD BAPTISTS WORSHIP

This guy man. Just keeps bringing up all these non-biblical points.

See >>790360

>>790741

You Baptists are non biblical

In Acts 2:38 and 3:19, Peter preaches repentance like the OT prophets calling Israel to return (see 3:19; cf. 5:31; 8:22). In the immediate context, the people of Israel must repent for their corporate responsibility for Jesus’s death (2:23); but in its fuller Lukan context, the summons to repentance is appropriate for all humanity (e.g., 17:30; 20:21; 26:20), though, in that moment, Peter and his companions do not yet recognise this point (11:18). The biblical prophets summoned Israel to “turn” or “return” to the Lord (e.g., Isa 55:7; Jer 3:12, 14, 22; 4:1; 25:5; 26:3; Ezek 14:6; 18:21, 23, 30; Hos 14:1; Joel 2:12–13; Mal 3:7), which could even be summarized as their message (Zech 1:3–4).1204 Individuals also needed to turn from wickedness to righteousness (Ezek 33:14–16, 19), that is, change their lifestyle, not merely indulge in guilty feelings. Luke 3:11; 18:22 both show this by radical sacrifice of possessions for the sake of others which forms part of the answer of how to be Saved which is also the context of repentance in Acts(2:44-45)

Occasionally the Septuagint uses μετανοέω to express turning to the Lord ( Jer 8:6; 38:19 lxx [31:19 ET]; Joel 2:13; Isa 46:8),though it uses ἀποστρέφω (cf. Acts 3:26) far more frequently.The noun μετάνοια appears even more rarely (five times, all but one in the Apocrypha), though it seems to have more of a consistent association with turning from sin, particularly in later sources(i.e Sir 44:16; Wis 11:23; 12:10, 19). Apparently, however, usage had shifted by the first century; ἀποστρέφω appears just nine times in the NT(only twice in Luke-Acts) whereas μετάνοια and μετανοέω together appear fifty-two times, with a fairly consistent range of usage, including in Luke-Acts. Notice how this opposes the Baptist view of repentance which is simply changing ones mind and not turning away from sin. Sorry Baptists. It is and it requires more than just a mere confession of Christ as Lord and Saviour and includes the act of turning away from sin and sacrifices.

I am going to give the gospel to my supervisor before she starts a new job. Pray for me to be emboldened by the Holy Spirit and to be able to reach her . Thank you

>>792149

Have done, and will do.

>>792149

>>792170

I did it. I preached the gospel to her. She was already a believer but I was able to share the "Bible Way To Heaven" video by Anderson. I'm gonna miss her.

Thoughts on Calvary chapel?

>>794754

Plan Of Salvation(KJV)

https://youtu.be/WDEBz25lGdY

Romans 3:23

Romans 6:23

Revelation 21:8/27

Romans 6:23

1 John 4:14

Romans 5:8

2 Corinthians 5:21

Luke 24:6-7

John 3:16

Acts 16:30-31

Ephesians 2:8-9

John 3:36

John 5:24

Hebrews 12:6

Romans 10:9-10

>>794754

You do not need to be baptized to be saved. There's only 3 verses I've seen people use to try to say you need to be baptized, I'll debunk all three.

Mark 16:15

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

This verse does not say what happens to a person that belivees and is not baptized, only someone that believes and is baptized and someone that does not believe. Let's say Person A believes and is baptized, Person B believes and is not baptized, and Person C does not believe. According to this verse A goes to Heaven and C goes to Hell, but says nothing about B. According to John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Person A and B go to Heaven and C goes to Hell.

John 3:5

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

They will say being "born of water" is being baptized. No, being born of water is being physically born, and they will usually leave out verse 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." which Jesus compares being born of water with being born of the flesh, and being born of the spirit with being born of the spirit.

1 Peter 3:21

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

They will take the part where it says "baptism doth also now save us" and say that proves it, but no, it's "The like figure" that saves us, not baptism. And the like figure is the death, burial, and ressurection of Christ. Colossians 2:12 12 "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

>>794754

1 Timothy 3

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

>must be the husband of one wife, having children

Catholics and Orthodox teach the exact opposite.

>>794754

There are differences between the septuagint and the masoretic texts about the age of Methuselah at the time of the flood. The LXX makes it appear as if Methuselah survived the Great Flood which is not possible:

LXX: Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (Genesis 5:27)

MAS: Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (Genesis 5:27

LXX: Meth. 167 years old when Lamech born (Gen 5:25)

MAS: Meth. 187 years old when Lamech born (Gen 5:25)

LXX: Lamech 188 years old when Noah born (Gen 5:28)

MAS: Lamech 182 years old when Noah born (Gen 5:28)

LXX: Noah 600 years old when flood began (Gen 7:6)

MAS: Noah 600 years old when flood began (Gen 7:6)

LXX: 167+188+600=955 years old when flood began

MAS: 187+182+600=969 years old when flood began

http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/genesis/gen_005.htm

Thus, according to the LXX, Methuselah lived another 14 years after the flood began.

>>794754

Jesus is the rock, not Peter. Literally everytime "rock" is mentioned, aside from a literal rock, it's talking about God.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

Psalms 18:31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

>who is a rock save our God?

Is Peter God then?

Psalms 94:22 But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.

Psalms 95:1 O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.

>sing unto the LORD… rock of our salvation

Not Peter

>b-but that's o-old testament

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

>that Rock was Christ

1 Peter 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Even Peter is saying the rock is Jesus

>>786992

Eternal paradise and happiness

>>794763

Show me in the bible where it says Mary had intercourse or sinned. It doesn't. The use of the term "until" in common parlance implies that whatever did not happen before a certain point, did happen after a certain point. But that is not the intention in Matthew. He is simply emphasizing the virgin birth of Christ.

>>794763

Are you implying the Holy Ghost is not a loyal husband?

>>794788

>But that is not the intention in Matthew

Yes it is bud. It says Joseph didn't have sex with her until Jesus was born. That still shiws it was a virgin birth because it clearly says it was after he was born.

Also she did call Joseph Jesus' dad at the end of Luke 2, maybe that counts as lying

48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

>>794804

>yes it is bud

That Joseph didn't have sex with her until Jesus was born doesn't mean that he had sex with her after Jesus was born. There isn't any scriptural basis for your claim that they had sex. Just your private interpretation.

>>794816

Yes it does, learn english. That would be like if I said I didn't eat my burger until I finished my fries. That would mean I ate the burger but after I ate the fries, not I ate the fries but never touched the burger.

>>794820

>learn english

Matthew wasn't written in English. As I said before, yes, in English the use of the phrase "until" implies a change in condition, but there are a great deal of instances in thr Bible where "until" is used for the English translation but no change has occurred. Genesis 8:7 for example. The raven did not return, yet it says the raven did not return until the waters dried up. Mary was a virgin until Jesus was born. She was also a virgin the rest of her life.

Ezekiel 44:1-3 is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity.

>>794825

>Ezekiel 44:1-3 is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity.

>A vision of the temple and its restoration under Cyrus, in 516 BC = Mary's perpetual virginity.

Classic Catholic scripture stretching.

>>794830

>he doesn't get the symbolism

Classic protestant ignorance

>>794833

>symbolism

Are you god?

>>794825

>44 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. 2 Then said the Lord unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. 3 It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

<he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

This part right here tells me you're wrong. If the passage really is a symbol of Mary, this would mean that Jesus was brought into this world by her, and taken out of it by her.

>>794844

Are you?

>>794855

I'm not, that's why I do not interpret the word of god.

>>794861

You are pretending to be god and interpret the world of God.

When god says a porch, it is a porch, it is not a woman's vagina, for God is not a liar.

>>794881

I think you're meaning to argue against bad hermeneutics, not interpretation. To interpret just means to explain. No memes, is English a second language for you?

>>794885

>to explain

Who are you to explain the word of God?

>>794907

Who are you to say that the Catholic Church doesn't have the authority to explain the word of God?

>>794914

Who are you to say that the Catholic church has the authority to explain the word of God?

>>794930

An ordinary layman of the Church Jesus Christ founded. I don't have the answers, God didn't put me on Earth to tell other people the right way to live. The Church's authority doesn't hinge upon whether you or I or any mortal agrees with it.

>>794936

If you don't have the answers, search for it.

Do not assume in God's name.

>>794937

I don't have the answers, I assent to the answers that have been given for the past two millennium by the Church.

>>794930

"18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. "

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

"18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."

>>794940

Who gives the Church the answers?

>>794942

>that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."

>my mouth

Thus it is Peter's mouth.

Too bad, Peter is dead.

>>794944

The Holy Spirit.

>>794948

Proof?

>>794944

>Too bad, Peter is dead.

Then the Church is dead and the gates are closed.

>>794951

Correct.

The church is in heaven now.

>>794949

No proof but I do have a witticism, I believe Chesterton once said something like: The only way an institution so poorly managed could continue to exist is by the will of God.

>>794959

That is fake assumption, it can exist by the will of Satan instead.

>>794960

Satan can only do what God permits. The Catholic Church was the only church until a fat German decided it was unnecessary.

>>794970

That's wrong, there were many church until the Catholic church decide that it's the only church, and this is not to exclude the orthodox.

>Satan can only do what God permits.

God lost a bet to Satan.

>>794974

The Orthodox also hold to Mary's perpetual virginity, the necessity of sacraments, etc. So they arent really helping your case.

>there were many church

Proof? Also the Orthodox dont believe there were many churches before the schism.

>>794974

What bet?

>>794977

>The Orthodox also hold to Mary's perpetual virginity, the necessity of sacraments, etc. So they arent really helping your case.

Yet they don't believe in original sin.

>Proof? Also the Orthodox dont believe there were many churches before the schism.

The various "heretical" church that the Catholic church used violence to suppress?

>>794980

Over Job, then again, he won that bet.

>>794985

So you're citing heretics in defense of protestantism LOL

>>794988

Amen, amen, they are heretics because the catholic church, who are heretics, say they are heretics.

>>794989

Aren't you that guy saying God lies in the other thread? Wretch.

>>794989

So basically until a fat German came along 1500 years after Christ everyone was a heretic?

>>794991

God can lie to test people.

>>794993

I think people have been heretics before Jesus Christ was born.

>>794996

Not answering the question

>>794996

Baptists, since this is your own thread, can God lie? Do you agree with this guy?

>>794998

I don't think everyone is a heretic, but heretics are hell-bent on killing God's people.

>>795000

Are you " God's people " if you reject God's teaching?

>>795001

That's for God to decide.

>>795005

A person chooses whether or not to be a heretic. God doesnt will error, Satan is the father of lies.

>>795006

Again, that's for God to decide.

Heretics accusing other people as heretics to kill, moral squabbling.

>>785647

>Baptist

>Posts James White and John Piper

Those guys aren't even Baptists.

>>794999

No. God cannot lie. Titus 1:2.

>>795015

How are they not Baptists?

>>795050

They're reformed Baptist which is completely different from Baptists. The only similarity is that they have Baptist in their name.

>>795057

Are southern Baptists not Baptists either, because they're southern?

>>795065

Southern Baptists are Baptists due to their theological beliefs. In fact, in a discussion between James White and Steven Anderson, James White explained that he was raised Southern Baptists but then later on went away.

>>795068

What about Albert Mohler, he's a reformed southern Baptist. Is he not Baptist?

The point is that a reformed Baptist does not become something other than Baptist, reformed is a qualifier to Baptist theology.

Calvinists have always been part of Baptist history, even if I don't like it. See 1689 London Baptist confession.

>>795070

All I'm saying is that you can't put John Piper within the same group as Steven Anderson since both think the other one is a heretic.

>>795145

I doubt John Piper knows who Steven Anderson is

>>795145

Yes you can. That's how denominational categories work.

>>795070

>Calvinists have always been part of Baptist history, even if I don't like it.

Only since Calvin, and the term "baptist history" could easily not include them, since those are just protestants who took some aspects of biblical baptist doctrines.

>>794825

And the translation is English, and you probably don't speak Greek

Does it say the raven never returned?

>Ezekiel 44

So the only proof you have is a random verse in the OT that isn't clear? nice

>It's a "Catholic elevates Mary to a goddess" episode

My favorite!

And a notable mention to Bruce Mejia. (also not a pastor yet): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpF2XF5sJC4Wf_VloQ85s9w

>>799788

I like Paul Washer.

>>799788

Robert Truelove, and John Piper, mentioned in the OP.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQPPHf_DdqfJP5RyosVxhZA

https://www.desiringgod.org/

>>799788

Braxton Hunter is also not bad, though I don't listen to him that often.

https://www.youtube.com/user/braxhunt

>>799809

Ikr, why do they place such importance on Mary?

What's the biblical way to overcome envy over a guy who (possibly, I'm not sure yet) fornicated (or is fornicating) with a (backslidden) Christian woman (who is divorced) who I had fancied?

How can I overcome this?

Please provide scripture. Also, sorry for the parentheses

>>805112

Just be glad you're not wearing skinny jeans listening to women preach the NIV.

>>805166

How do I overcome this feeling of being a metaphorical cuck?

Why put someone like William Lane Craig on the same list, let alone below, some edgelord like Steven Anderson?

It's literally as extreme of a difference as:

>"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends his rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, . . . what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5.43-48)

>The love of the Heavenly Father is impartial, universal, and unconditional.

>What a contrast with the God of the Qur'an! According to the Qur'an, God does not love sinners.

vs

>hurr durr God hates reprobates which are all homosexuals

>muh reprobate doctrine but we're not calvinist though because we put our spin on it that reprobate homosexuals who say they come to Christ don't really mean it

>also if you're offended then get out because you're probably gay as well lol (he really did say that in one video, though this is a paraphrase)

also post good traditional protestant music

>>786992

To my knowledge, Heaven isn't even talked about much aside from Revelations. We will have eternal life, that is His promise. The Hebrew interpretation of the afterlife was that they would live again in the flesh (tangibly). Who knows.

>>805613

>The Hebrew interpretation of the afterlife was that they would live again in the flesh (tangibly). Who knows.

Uhhhh nice try schlomo.

1 Corinthians 15:50-55

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Romans 8:11

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

>To my knowledge, Heaven isn't even talked about much aside from Revelations.

Heaven is mentioned 298 times in the New Testament and 241 of them are books other than Revelation.

Matthew 22:29-30

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

>>804020

Part of it is because of their mistranslation in genesis 3:15. Compare the Hebrew interlinear text to the douay rheims and KJV on biblehub, translating one word wrong fed the flame of unsound doctrine.

thoughts on john piper?

>>806214

He's pretty good.

>>808329

>wait for more than a week for an answer

>"he's pretty good"

Subscribing to Baptistism means you believe Christs' visible and personal Church disappeared from earth for thousands of years, and it only existed "in the minds" of a few scattered believers until Steven Anderson revived it.

>>808358

Nice strawman. The Greek word that we translate as "church" in the Bible is "εκκλησία" which means "an assembly, a (religious) congregation". It is the assembly of people. Therefore a church is not a physical building or institution, but it is the gathering of Christ's people. The church never died, but it got led astray by the Roman Catholics. It wasn't until relatively recently that people realized how bad it had diverged from Christ's word, and Steven Anderson was definitely not the first one to call himself a Baptist. Whenever catholics argue with other denominations they always tend to argue from the history of their church, but having history doesn't mean that your doctrine is correct.

>>808404

>word in the bible means just an assembly

tell me about the assemblies of baptists from 3rd century on, the ones who preached sola scriptura and had full KJV's in their backpockets, who were their saints, their theologians and preachers? 1700+ years, I'm sure you can find the major big players. GO.

>>808404

>church never died, got led astray by Roman Catholics

almost, the Orthodox church declared the roman church schismatics 1000 years ago and remains the invisible and visible church of Christ, just fine.

>>808485

Thanks for the good answer, I'm still a bit of a theological baby so I didn't know exactly how to answer that.

Question for Andersonites (I'm reformed fyi). What do y'all say to people with homosexual lust that realize those actions are wholly against God and want to turn from it? I went through a decade of rebellion which included homosex, but I couldn't deny God's truth forever. I've had some victory over it, but It's there in the background and can rear its ugly head at times. I actually think Anderson is closer to the truth on some interpretations of scripture. than many others. But because of his specific doctrine of the reprobate, I really have no chance in his eyes or the eyes of his followers…and none of his followers on youtube will answer me on this. Despite being "easy believist" they are quick to label anyone who disagrees with their doctrine a reprobate.

>>808339

If you want a specific answer ask a specific question. Do you want to know about:

>his calvinism

>his take on the christian life

>his belief in the charismatic gifts

>anything else he's done

>>808485

>the apostles were baptist, then all their followers and churchs and historical records disappeared until Steven Anderson discovered the KJV at a garage sale and started making youtube vids in strip malls

Ok I'm out, these retards are hilarious.

>>808850

Pastor Anderson: has 200 people out reaching the lost with the gospel every single day doing door-to-door soulwinning.

Other churches: just use the church building to host meetings of their social club and never evangelize anyone.

The apostles in the Bible: preaching Christ crucified every day in the hedges and highways, in the temples and in every house.

So yeah, I’m going to say Pastor Anderson is the one doing apostolic Christianity. Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists, whatever, none of them are operating as the Bible teaches.

>>808404

>The church never died, but it got led astray by the Roman Catholics.

You know, there's a literal world of historical christendom outside your make-believe ancestral rivalry with the Vatican.

>>808889

> going door-to-door means you are Apostolic

If we are to follow that logic then Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are Apostolic. Funny Enough meme Pastor Anderson even admits he's not even sure if those people he talked with (going door-to-door) are even saved or not.

>>808930

>going door-to-door means you are Apostolic

No, going door-to-door with ‘’the gospel’’ means you are apostolic, since that’s what the apostles did. They weren’t shut up inside churches praying for their own salvation all day like devout Catholics and Orthodox are. They spent all their time evangelizing. It’s pretty funny though how you know Pastor Anderson is right and you can’t defend Catholics/Orthodox/Calvinists at all, so you have to immediately try to smear him by association with mormons and JWs.

>admits he's not even sure if those people he talked with (going door-to-door) are even saved or not.

Because he’s honest? What kind of dishonest cult leader claims he can know for sure that another person is saved? I don’t remember the part in the Bible where Jesus adds “but only if you know they will be saved” to “go out and preach the gospel to all nations.”

>>808928

Keep arguing from history instead of your gospel, I'll wait.

>>808848

>Luke 19:12-27

If anyone is in danger of being a reprobate, I'm afraid its you.

>>809623

I should point out if that guy really believed what he said he wouldn't be casting his pearls before swine like that. I'm also not seeing how the parable of the talents has anything to do with this other than the part about those who would not have him reign over them.

In the very end of the Revelation, it is stated "For without are dogs" and that's what sodomites are according to the Bible's own words.

>>808407

>>808850

>We are the One True Holy Apostolic Church™, unchanged since 33 AD, because we are anciently ancient and traditionally traditional and stuff.

To paraphrase an old Shania Twain song:

"Okay, so you're really old. That don't impress me much."

First off, from personal experience being formerly part of Orthodoxy, your claims to being the unchanged original church since 33 AD, are an exaggeration at best, and outright hogwash at worst (just a small example: you have a tradition of fasting before communion, when Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 clearly instructs eating before the Lord's Supper.) At best, Orthodoxy comes off as a church that is the product of the Judaizers, that Paul rails against in his epistles, emerging victorious in terms of the direction of the church, rather than anything remotely resembling an Acts era church. At worst…well, honestly, the crypto-paganism and crypto-works based salvation aspects of the Catholics and the Orthodox is a dead horse that has been beaten to a fine paste at this point, so I won't labor on that.

What I will go into, is the other rotten fruits I see born from these churches:

The Pharisaical and unmerciful arrogance of the upper-echelons of the Orthodox leadership as a whole (to be fair, I have encountered two priests that seemed to be humble and good models of Christ-like behavior.)

The overall worldliness of the average Catholic/Orthodox Parishioner. Whether it be cussing and taking the Lord's name in vain in both private and church based settings (even some Catholic priests seem to be okay with this) like it's no big deal, even though Christ and God's Word clearly indicate that it is indeed a big deal ( Ephesians 4:29, Colossians 3:8, Matthew 15:11, Ephesians 5:1-33). Then there's the explicit acceptance and outright support for strip clubs, bachelor party strippers, and erotic belly dancers that I've experienced from both Catholics and Orthodox. I remember participating in the bachelor party of a Mormon friend. Rather than go to a strip club, we went to a Medieval Times show. I told Orthodox parishioners about this, and they mockingly inquired as to why we didn't go to a strip club or other such "traditional" bachelor party things. When I responded with my friend being Mormon, they collectively went "Oooooooh." I've never experienced this kind of behavior from Baptists, and I think it's pathetic that blatant heretics like Mormons uphold to standards of decency better than either of the so-called "One Truly Holy Apostolic Churches™." An extension of this, is the overall vibe among parishioners of being more in love with tradition for tradition's sake, cultural identity and aesthetics, then they are in love with God or what Christianity truly entails.

Finally, compared to Baptists, the Catholics and the Orthodox take The Great Commission about as serious as a whoopee cushion. This is especially true of the Orthodox, where I was constantly met with quizzical looks when I brought them up, as hardly anyone knows of there existence outside of Eastern Europe.

In short: what good is an ancient tree if it produces rotten fruit?

>>809626

The parable of the talents was spoken against the religious leaders who wouldn't even try to shepherd Zacchaeus, because he was a sinner, even tho they had been charged with his care.

The andersonites are doing the same thing when they write someone off as a reprobate without true scriptural warrant.

>In the very end of the Revelation, it is stated "For without are dogs" and that's what sodomites are according to the Bible's own words.

Right, but there is still hope while they are alive that they could be redeemed, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Andersonites reject this possibility.

>>809637

>"Okay, so you're really old. That don't impress me much."

Well Matthew 16:18 is true and that is an important thing to keep in mind. Papists and others who use it sometimes don't realize it's not talking about them, but it's still good that it's being taken seriously. Unlike say, Mormons who claim they had to "revive the faith." I've already had plenty of chances to bring this scripture up that I have taken.

There's really nothing they can say against it.

Not that I'd need that to show how the doctrine of Christ rebukes their other official teachings.

>At worst…well, honestly, the crypto-paganism and crypto-works based salvation aspects of the Catholics and the Orthodox is a dead horse that has been beaten to a fine paste at this point, so I won't labor on that.

As Galatians 1:9 says,

<As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

>An extension of this, is the overall vibe among parishioners of being more in love with tradition for tradition's sake, cultural identity and aesthetics, then they are in love with God or what Christianity truly entails.

I would say this is almost a "necessary" or "inevitable" existence in the world as those who care about the things of this world would likely come up with some kind of papism as they each follow after cunningly devised fables and philosophies, just whatever meets popular approval and appears sanctimonious in the present day. That's why the long robes despite Jesus' warning, the vain repetitions despite Jesus' warning, and so on since there's a "popularly acceptable" way to explain it all away and the draw toward appearing to others as a righteous person is just too great for someone who doesn't really regard the things of the Bible.

>Finally, compared to Baptists, the Catholics and the Orthodox take The Great Commission about as serious as a whoopee cushion.

Just take it seriously individually. Don't get caught up in the collective, for we will each be standing as individuals one day. I'm praying therefore that each person reading this finds the way that is Jesus Christ through his word first, then finds a church of like faith and practice to that, which Lord willing they may find. I have found it too, and for real it's not pedobaptistic. Because according to Acts 2:41 and Acts 8:36-37 we know what scripture says on that.

Papists…. Imagine having a singular man as the infallible word of God. No way that could ever backfire……

>>810449

Aww, I feel kind of bad for them. Look at how far down the tubes their church has gone over the last 60 years. They have to live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance to reconcile Papistry 1.0 and Vatican II Papistry 2.0. It's really sad.

>>810474

I honestly do feel kinda bad for them. I used to be a papist, and they're not bad people at all they're just misled. I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks for them is the history of the church, and paired with most peoples' view of "religion" being all kinds of rituals, mysteries, colorful robes, and ancient traditions it's quite the trap.

>>810526

Well you know what it says in 1 John 5:9 that if we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater. People shouldn't be placing more importance on what some fallible man told them than what God tells you about what's going on.

If they just want to larp, they probably found a place to do that. But it's not going to overturn the real importance of following God's word over it in the end. You only turn away from that and toward manmade stuff after you decide you don't believe in it and start looking elsewhere. Everyone will be without excuse if they rejected the eternal word and will be judged by it according to John 12:48. And God will find a way to turn their own works against them, as it says in Job 34:11, Psalm 9:16, Isaiah 66:4 and 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11 (KJV). The arms of the wicked shall be broken, etc.

Considering leaving my denom, give me the best arguments you've got for becoming baptist. I've always felt drawn to it

(I know some of the basic beliefs, I've read part of the old confession there and have watched a good bit of Steven Anderson)

>>809637

As a former Baptist, all of what you claim to experience in the Orthodox church, I experienced in my IFB church. In fact when I read the Bible and the early Christians for the first time, I was shocked by how completely unbaptist they all are. Most Baptists I know engage in all sorts of worldly behaviour and justify it because they are Once Saved Always Saved and salvation is not by works. That is utterly disgusting. Add that with the extreme lack of historical and biblical roots and you get a tree that should simply be chopped down.

What's funny also is that my own pastor hates James 2 and never mentions it in church. He even scolded me when I merely quoted what is mentioned in Romans 6 about baptism. You guys are no better and frankly worse

If you take Scripture seriously, there is no reason to be baptist. Just look at how they cannot even answer all of these:

>>789620

>>811324

>>789623

>>789621

>>789625

>>789627

>>789630

>>789634

>>789648

>>789661

>>790310

>>790311

>>790313

>>790314

>>790315

>>790317

>>790318

>>790390

>>790411

>>790939

>>808404

Wrong. In fact according to the Greek for εκκλησία in reality from the BDAG lexicon contra Baptist claims,

ἐκκλησία, ας, ἡ (ἐκ + καλέω; Eur., Hdt.+)

① a regularly summoned legislative body, assembly, as gener. understood in the Gr-Rom. world (Jos., Ant. 12, 164; 19, 332, Vi. 268) Ac 19:39 (on ‘[regular] statutory assembly’, s. ἔννομος and IBM III/2, p. 141. The term ἐννόμη ἐ. here contrasts w. the usage vss. 32 and 40, in which ἐ. denotes simply ‘a gathering’; s. 2 below. On the ἐ. in Ephesus cp. CIG III, 325; IBM III/1, 481, 340; on the ἐ. in the theater there s. the last-named ins ln. 395; OGI 480, 9).—Pauly-W. V/2, 1905, 2163–2200; RAC IV 905–21 (lit.).

Definitely not the Baptist view.

② a casual gathering of people, an assemblage, gathering (cp. 1 Km 19:20; 1 Macc 3:13; Sir 26:5) Ac 19:32, 40.

③ people with shared belief, community, congregation (for common identity, cp. the community of Pythagoras [Hermippus in Diog. L. 8, 41]. Remarkably, in Himerius, Or. 39 [Or. 5], 5 Orpheus forms for himself τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, a group of wild animals, who listen to him, in the Thracian mountains where there are no people), in our lit. of common interest in the God of Israel.

Here, nothing incompatible with the Baptist definition but as it continues,

ⓐ of OT Israelites assembly, congregation (Dt 31:30; Judg 20:2; 1 Km 17:47; 3 Km 8:14; PsSol 10:6; TestJob 32:8 τῆς εὐώδους ἐ.; Philo; Jos., Ant. 4, 309; Diod S 40, 3, 6) Hb 2:12 (Ps 21:23); e.g. to hear the law (Dt 4:10; 9:10; 18:16) Ac 7:38.

Oops, the Baptist assembly and polity isnt the same as the Old Testament Israelites or Second Temple Jews and Christians also follow this usage as the BDAG continues,

ⓑ of Christians in a specific place or area (the term ἐ. apparently became popular among Christians in Greek-speaking areas for chiefly two reasons: to affirm continuity with Israel through use of a term found in Gk. translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to allay any suspicion, esp. in political circles, that Christians were a disorderly group).

α. of a specific Christian group assembly, gathering ordinarily involving worship and discussion of matters of concern to the community: Mt 18:17; συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐ. when you come together as an assembly 1 Cor 11:18; cp. 14:4f, 12, 19, 28, 35; pl. vs. 34. ἐν ἐ. ἐξομολογεῖσθαι τὰ παραπτώματα confess one’s sins in assembly D 4:14; cp. 3J 6 (JCampbell, JTS 49, ’48, 130–42; for the Johannines s. ESchweizer below). In Ac 15:22 the ‘apostles and elders’ function in the manner of the βουλή or council, the committee of the whole that was responsible in a Gr-Rom. polis for proposing legislation to the assembly of citizens.—Of Christians gathering in the home of a patron house-assembly (‘house-church’) Πρίσκαν καὶ Ἀκύλαν … καὶ τὴν κατ’ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐ. Ro 16:5; cp. 1 Cor 16:19. Νύμφαν καὶ τὴν κατ’ οἶκον αὐτῆς ἐ. Col 4:15; ἡ κατ’ οἶκόν σου ἐ. Phlm 2.—FFilson, JBL 58, ’39, 105–12; other reff. οἶκος 1aα.—Pl. ἐ. τῶν ἁγίων 1 Cor 14:33; ἐ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Ro 16:4.—1 Ti 5:16 prob. belongs here, s. βαρέω b.

Oops, Baptist polity doesnt allow for the concept of the Church with its ruling elders to propose legislation and rules or form synods as other denominations do!

(1/2)

>>811331

β. congregation or church as the totality of Christians living and meeting in a particular locality or larger geographical area, but not necessarily limited to one meeting place: Ac 5:11; 8:3; 9:31 (so KGiles, NTS 31, ’85, 135–42; s. c below), 11:26; 12:5; 15:3; 18:22; 20:17; cp. 12:1; 1 Cor 4:17; Phil 4:15; 1 Ti 5:16 perh., s. α above; Js 5:14; 3 J 9f; 1 Cl 44:3; Hv 2, 4, 3. More definitely of the Christians in Jerusalem Ac 8:1; 11:22; cp. 2:47 v.l.; 15:4, 22; Cenchreae Ro 16:1; cp. vs. 23; Corinth 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; 1 Cl ins; 47:6; AcPlCor 1:16; Laodicea Col 4:16; Rv 3:14; Thessalonica 1 Th 1:1; 2 Th 1:1; Colossae Phlm subscr. v.l. Likew. w. other names: Rv 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7; IEph ins; 8:1; IMg ins; ITr ins; 13:1; IRo 9:1; IPhld ins; 10:1; ISm 11:1; Pol ins. Plural: Ac 15:41; 16:5; Ro 16:16; 1 Cor 7:17; 2 Cor 8:18f, 23f; 11:8, 28; 12:13; Rv 2:7, 11, 17, 23, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 22:16; the Christian community in Judea Gal 1:22; 1 Th 2:14; Galatia Gal 1:2; 1 Cor 16:1; Asia vs. 19; Rv 1:4, and cp. vss. 11 and 20; Macedonia 2 Cor 8:1. κατ’ ἐκκλησίαν in each individual congregation or assembly Ac 14:23 (on the syntax cp. OGI 480, 9 [s. 1 above]: ἵνα τιθῆνται κατ’ ἐκκλησίαν in order that they [the statues] might be set up at each [meeting of the] ἐ.). On κατὰ τ. οὖσαν ἐ. Ac 13:1 cp. εἰμί 1 end.

Here, nothing that contradicts the Baptist definition but already we see usages that show otherwise. So this is simply generic where every denomination acknowledges individual churches and congregations.

ⓒ the global community of Christians, (universal) church (s. AvHarnack, Mission I4 420 n. 2 on Ac 12:1): Mt 16:18 (OBetz, ZNW 48, ’57, 49–77: Qumran parallels; s. HBraun, Qumran I, ’66, 30–37); Ac 9:31 (but s. 3bβ); 1 Cor 6:4; 12:28; Eph 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23ff, 27, 29, 32 (HSchlier, Christus u. d. Kirche im Eph 1930; also ThBl 6, 1927, 12–17); Col 1:18, 24; Phil 3:6; B 7:11; Hv 2, 2, 6; 2, 4, 1 (with the depiction of the church as an elderly lady cp. Ps.-Demetr. 265 where Hellas, the homeland, is represented as λαβοῦσα γυναικὸς σχῆμα); 3, 3, 3; IEph 5:1f and oft.—The local assembly or congregation as well as the universal church is more specif. called ἐ. τοῦ θεοῦ or ἐ. τ. Χριστοῦ. This is essentially Pauline usage, and it serves to give the current Gk. term its Christian coloring and thereby its special mng.:

α. ἐ. τοῦ θεοῦ (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 63, 22) 1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1 Th 2:14; 2 Th 1:4; 1 Ti 3:5, 15; Ac 20:28; ITr 2:3; 12:1; IPhld 10:1; ISm ins al.

β. ἐ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Orig., C. Cels. 5, 22, 14) Ro 16:16.

γ. both together ἐ. ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ 1 Th 1:1.

δ. ἡ ἐ. ἡ πρώτη ἡ πνευματική the first, spiritual church (conceived in a Platonic sense as preexistent) 2 Cl 14:1; ἐ. ζῶσα the living church the body of Christ vs. 2; ἡ ἁγία ἐ. Hv 1, 1, 6; 1, 3, 4; ἡ καθολικὴ ἐ. ISm 8:2; ἡ ἁγία καὶ καθολικὴ ἐ. MPol ins; ἡ κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην καθολικὴ ἐ. 8:1; 19:2; ἓν σῶμα τῆς ἐ. ISm 1:2.

oops,this is close to the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and some Reformed usage, not Baptist which deny a single universal IFB church

>>811332

The same lexicon on Baptism contra Baptist views,

① the ceremonious use of water for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship w. God, plunging, dipping, washing, water-rite, baptism

ⓐ of John’s rite (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 44, 13 al. [T. Jesus]) Mt 3:7; 21:25; Mk 11:30; Lk 7:29; 20:4; Ac 1:22; 10:37; 18:25; 19:3; β. μετανοίας Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3 (in these two passages with εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν [proclaiming] a baptism-with-repentance to receive forgiveness of sins) Ac 13:24; 19:4; GEb 13, 74.

ⓑ of Christian rite β. φέρον ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν B 11:1; β. εἰς τὸν θάνατον Ro 6:4 (s. βαπτίζω 2b). ἓν β. Eph 4:5. The person baptized is at the same time buried w. Christ Col 2:12 v.l.; 1 Pt 3:21 (s. ἀντίτυπος). Compared to a soldier’s weapons IPol 6:2. τηρεῖν τὸ β. ἁγνὸν καὶ ἀμίαντον 2 Cl 6:9. Ritual directions D 7:1, 4.

Oops, b indicates that the burial with Christ in Baptism is not a mere naked symbol. It is real

ⓒ of the Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus’ death (freq. pass.; s. above 2a; Iren. 3, 12, 9 [Harv. II 63, 3]) Mk 16:16; Ac 2:41; 8:12f, 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 22:16; 1 Cor 1:14–17; D 7 (where baptism by pouring is allowed in cases of necessity); ISm 8:2.—β. τινὰ εἰς (τὸ) ὄνομά τινος (s. ὄνομα 1dγב) baptize in or w. respect to the name of someone: (τοῦ) κυρίου Ac 8:16; 19:5; D 9:5; Hv 3, 7, 3. Cp. 1 Cor 1:13, 15. εἰς τ. ὄν. τ. πατρὸς καὶ τ. υἱοῦ καὶ τ. ἁγίου πνεύματος Mt 28:19 (on the original form of the baptismal formula see FConybeare, ZNW 2, 1901, 275–88; ERiggenbach, BFCT VII/1, 1903; VIII/4, 1904; HHoltzmann, Ntl. Theologie2 I 1911, 449f; OMoe: RSeeberg Festschr. 1929, I 179–96; GOngaro, Biblica 19, ’38, 267–79; GBraumann, Vorpaulinische christl. Taufverkündigung bei Paulus ’62); D 7:1, 4. Likew. ἐν τῷ ὀν. Ἰ. Χριστοῦ Ac 2:38 v.l.; 10:48; ἐπὶ τῷ ὀν. Ἰ. Χρ. Ac 2:38 text; more briefly εἰς Χριστόν Gal 3:27; Ro 6:3a. To be baptized εἰς Χρ. is for Paul an involvement in Christ’s death and its implications for the believer εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν vs. 3b (s. Ltzm. ad loc.; HSchlier, EvTh ’38, 335–47; GWagner, D. relgeschichtliche Problem von Rö 6:1–11, ’62, tr. Pauline Bapt. and the Pagan Mysteries, by JSmith, ’67; RSchnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul ’64, tr. of D. Heilsgeschehen b. d. Taufe nach dem Ap. Paulus ’50). The effect of baptism is to bring all those baptized εἰς ἓν σῶμα 1 Cor 12:13 (perh. wordplay: ‘plunged into one body’).—W. the purpose given εἰς ἄφεσιν τ. ἁμαρτιῶν Ac 2:38 (IScheftelowitz, D. Sündentilgung durch Wasser: ARW 17, 1914, 353–412).—Diod S 5, 49, 6: many believe that by being received into the mysteries by the rites (τελεταί) they become more devout, more just, and better in every way.—ὑπὲρ τ. νεκρῶν 1 Cor 15:29a, s. also vs. *29b, is obscure because of our limited knowledge of a practice that was evidently obvious to the recipients of Paul’s letter; it has been interpr. (1) in place of the dead, i.e. vicariously; (2) for the benefit of the dead, in var. senses; (3) locally, over (the graves of) the dead; (4) on account of the dead, infl. by their good ex.; of these the last two are the least probable. See comm. and HPreisker, ZNW 23, 1924, 298–304; JZingerle, Heiliges Recht: JÖAI 23, 1926; Rtzst., Taufe 43f; AMarmorstein, ZNW 30, ’31, 277–85; AOliver, RevExp 34, ’37, 48–53; three articles: Kirchenblatt 98, ’42 and six: ET 54, ’43; 55, ’44; MRaeder, ZNW 46, ’56, 258–60; BFoschini, 5 articles: CBQ 12, ’50 and 13, ’51.—On the substitution of a ceremony by another person cp. Diod S 4, 24, 5: the boys who do not perform the customary sacrifices lose their voices and become as dead persons in the sacred precinct. When someone takes a vow to make the sacrifice for them, their trouble disappears at once.

>>811336

> Ro 6:3a. To be baptized εἰς Χρ. is for Paul an involvement in Christ’s death and its implications for the believer εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν vs. 3b (s. Ltzm. ad loc.; HSchlier, EvTh ’38, 335–47; GWagner, D. relgeschichtliche Problem von Rö 6:1–11, ’62, tr. Pauline Bapt. and the Pagan Mysteries, by JSmith, ’67; RSchnackenburg, Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul ’64, tr. of D. Heilsgeschehen b. d. Taufe nach dem Ap. Paulus ’50)

Oops, this is not what Baptist says about baptism being just a symbol public declaration! It cannot be an involvement in Christ's death if it is merely a naked symbol

>>811336

And ultimately, the Baptist killer,

ⓐ of dedicatory cleansing associated w. the ministry of John the Baptist (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 47, 4), abs. J 1:25, 28; 3:23a; 10:40; hence John is called ὁ βαπτίζων Mk 1:4; 6:14, 24 (Goodsp., Probs. 50–52).—Pass. Mt 3:16; ISm 1:1; oft. have oneself baptized, get baptized Mt 3:13f; Lk 3:7, 12, 21; 7:30; J 3:23b; GEb 18, 35f; IEph 18:2 al. (B-D-F §314; s. §317).—(ἐν) ὕδατι w. water Mk 1:8a; Lk 3:16a; Ac 1:5a; 11:16a; ἐν (τῷ) ὕδατι J 1:26, 31, 33; ἐν τῷ Ἰορδ. (4 Km 5:14) Mt 3:6; Mk 1:5; εἰς τὸν Ἰορδ. (cp. Plut., Mor. 166a βάπτισον σεαυτὸν εἰς θάλασσαν; Herm. Wr. 4, 4 βάπτισον σεαυτὸν εἰς τὸν κρατῆρα) Mk 1:9.—W. the external element and purpose given ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν Mt 3:11a (AOliver, Is β. used w. ἐν and the Instrumental?: RevExp 35, ’38, 190–97).—βαπτίζεσθαι τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου undergo John’s baptism Lk 7:29. εἰς τί ἐβαπτίσθητε; Ac 19:3 means, as the answer shows, in reference to what (baptism) were you baptized? i.e. what kind of baptism did you receive (as the context indicates, John’s baptism was designed to implement repentance as a necessary stage for the reception of Jesus; with the arrival of Jesus the next stage was the receipt of the Holy Spirit in connection with apostolic baptism in the name of Jesus, who was no longer the ‘coming one’, but the arrived ‘Lord’)? β. βάπτισμα μετανοίας administer a repentance baptism vs. 4; GEb 13, 74.—S. the lit. on Ἰωάν(ν)ης 1, and on the baptism of Jesus by John: JBornemann, D. Taufe Christi durch Joh. 1896; HUsener, D. Weihnachtsfest2 1911; DVölter, D. Taufe Jesu durch Joh.: NThT 6, 1917, 53–76; WBundy, The Meaning of Jesus’ Baptism: JR 7, 1927, 56–75; MJacobus, Zur Taufe Jesu bei Mt 3:14, 15: NKZ 40, 1929, 44–53; SHirsch, Taufe, Versuchung u. Verklärung Jesu ’32; DPlooij, The Baptism of Jesus: RHarris Festschr. (Amicitiae Corolla), ed. HWood ’33, 239–52; JKosnetter, D. Taufe Jesu ’36; HRowley, TManson memorial vol., ed. Higgins ’59, 218–29 (Qumran); JSchneider, Der historische Jesus u. d. kerygmatische Christus ’61, 530–42; HKraft, TZ 17, ’61, 399–412 (Joel); FLentzen-Dies, D. Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern, ’70. More reff. s.v. περιστερά.

>>811334

Anon, what the hell is wrong with you? Run for your life!

>>811339

From the tv?

>>811327

>>811328

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/09/anglican-church-set-to-offer-special-services-for-transgender-people

>The motion said transgender people should be “welcomed and affirmed in their parish church”, and that bishops consider whether special liturgies “might be prepared to mark a person’s gender transition”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/photo-exhibition-celebrates-25-years-of-female-priests

>Photo exhibition celebrates 25 years of female priests

>Helen Harknett fights for social justice and LGBTI inclusion.

>Images of 12 women from Southwark diocese capture variety of a priest’s work

Considering that the American/Episcopal branch is even worse…..thanks but….I'll stick with being a Baptist.

>>811334

Prosperity gospel is literal heresy, we're not supposed to be a friend of the world, we're supposed to reject it in favor of Christ. Televangelists are greedy scammers.

>>811331

>from the BDAG lexicon contra Baptist claims,

What you just cited isn't Scripture.

>>811328

789623 and all those posts was answered though, there can be saved and unsaved people in the same church.

790311 was already answered with Matthew 19:26 and he had no answer for it.

Rest of the posts were just walls of non-biblical claims with no attempt to back it up with concrete scripture. None of the points made had any scripture to back up those points. It's pointless to argue without that.

2 Peter 1:20 states that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" but this is a special quality of scripture. I'm not interested in hearing your personal interpretation of what some fallible person said that isn't Scripture.

Especially since you can't use that to overturn what Scripture says and never will be able to. Thanks for stopping by and feel free and welcome to join us here.

>>811482

1)Saying there are Saved and unsaved people in the church is a NON ARGUMENT. It is just you being stupid. Paul takes it as granted that the Galatians are saved. He didnt make any distinguish marks between them in the letter. So this is unbiblically warranted and is mere eisegesis to avoid the implication that OSAS cannot be true.

2)Saying with God everything is possible doesnt negate what that says. So you are only doing gnostic eisegesis

>>811482

>no Scripture

This is Baptist false witness 101. Showing Baptists actually worship Satan the father of lies, not truth. Anyone who read those posts can see rich Biblical references and examination of context, something Baptists HATE

Dallas Willard is the most profound Baptist in the last 100 years.

>>811327

>>811328

>>811331

>>811336

>>811337

>>811332

>>811338

>>811476

>>811478

>>811497

>>811498

Are the guy who spammed the apocrypha thread on /christianity/ with passages from a John Meade book then ran away when an anon pointed out that Meade never said what you claimed he said and you were just bullshitting the whole time like you probably are now? Also are the idolfag from /tv/? Please answer the second question. It's very important.

>>811937

Except that anon never said anything that opposed my citation of John Meade. I did not bother because the reply missed one obvious fact. If the deuterocanons werent seen as Inspired Scripture, he wouldnt had said there are SCRIPTURAL or that SCRIPTURAL books can include books outside the canon list.

>>811939

> I suggest that rather than redefining the ancient’s canon, which he has already given us clearly in his list, perhaps we should reconsider the ancient’s attitude toward SCRIPTURE in general. That is, we may need to consider the probability that an ancient’s canon list does not include all the books which he considered to be SCRIPTURE and the ancient’s scope of SCRIPTURAL books is actually wider than his canon list. In his Hexapla, therefore, he could theoretically include books not in his list alongside books that are. He can cite as SCRIPTURE from books that are included in his list alongside books which are not. But his exclusive canon is clear from the list that he has left us.

https://septuagintstudies.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/a-short-note-on-ancient-canon-theory/

Any anons here suffered greatly before? How did God help you get you through it? Part of me has always feared suffering but I know it's a part of God's plan for the good in my life, how do I cope with the existence of suffering and embrace it?

God Bless

Pastor Anderson is one of the only good Baptist preachers, most of them are extremely uneducated and some of them seem quite literally retarded.

>>812279

I have suffered greatly throughout my life. Mostly from crippling loneliness and depression. I know that's not true suffering and persecution, but there's something about feeling empty and sad that shouldn't be dismissed.

Fortunately, I got saved about a year and a half ago, but I still have my own issues to sort out.

>>812300

>most of them are extremely uneducated and some of them seem quite literally retarded.

Theres always the danger of being steeped in manmade traditions. That'll do that to you.

>>811476

Indeed there is no argument. What you just posted does not conflict with the Baptist understanding of works in relation to faith.

>>812521

Except it does to many Baptists ITT because works are still assessed at the final vindication. The author of that pic, Douglas Moo who himself is a Calvinist is clear that this judgement isnt for bonus DLC rewards either.

If you are a Baptist and agree with that then GOOD, you are not being like the typical internet Baptist. If not, it's time to reassess yourself

>>812279

A way I tend to look at it is that suffering is often a way that God uses to strengthen us for something later in our lives, so try your best to learn from the situation.

Who /soulwinner/ here btw?

>>814337

based

>putting John Piper, Leighton flowers and Steven Anderson all in the same group

Wew

>>788203

What's ironic about papists and "Orthodox" is that they call people "book-worshippers" while literally all the Church elders whom they venerate all used Scripture for the last say on anything.

Are there any other Baptists or prots on this board or am I the last?

>>821496

I still lurk here a bit and leave a comment here and there

>>821496

I'm curious about Baptists but this place seems extremely RCC-oriented so I don't want a ton of memes if I post a thread.

>>821496

I am, however I only speak when I have something to say

I'm a baptist xD

Bamp for Baptist!

Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas!

>>836044

are you of the KJV camp that thinks it the most strictly accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew into English ?

or are you within the KJV camp that says that even if you had the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in your hands and could read them, the KJV is better ?

> I would say the accurate translation in any language is equivalent to the originals when done correctly.

well that seems pretty balanced and reasonable, so i suppose it all comes down to the question of whether the KJV translators with their limited amount of texts from late sources, could do as good a job of accurate translation as a modern group of scholars with several thousand more texts from early sources

what's your stance on that ?

>>836071

Why do you use the same pictures of the Bible over and over? What is it adding?

>>836077

>i suppose it all comes down to the question of whether the KJV translators with their limited amount of texts from late sources, could do as good a job of accurate translation as a modern group of scholars with several thousand more texts from early sources

Can you give me the numbers of sources that each group used? If not, you must have heard that statement from someone else.

Now I would call your attention to my earlier post >>836071

where I said the first reason is because the modern versions are not even translations of the same text. So I would say the first problem already precludes the question of accuracy entirely. If someone gave a translation of a gnostic text and said it was accurate and called it the Bible, I would disagree without even checking the accuracy because the source text isn't even the Bible.

However, having checked the accuracy of several of these, it turns out they are less accurate as well. However, the ultimate inaccuracy is removing entire verses, which is actually a problem with their faulty reasoning. Why is it faulty? Because it assumes that there were new revelations in the 19th century that revealed what the Word really said and the whole world was wrong before those revelations. God in his word said that his truth will endure to every generation, that the words that he has placed in their mouth would not depart out of the mouth of any generation from then on.

>Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

>Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

>Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

>7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

> Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

>1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

>24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

>25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

So then to think that modern scholars had a new revelation about what the word of God said that nobody before knew, goes against these prophecies. It is only reasonable that, if you claim to believe in the Bible, that you take these providential claims of preservation seriously. You don't have people changing the Bible with new discoveries. Thus, these new discovered texts, while interesting, can have no weight on the received word of God. We also know that people were corrupting the word of God from very early on. It is only by faith in God that he would preserve His word that we (and each person of every generation) can be sure of every spot of Scripture being preserved in an unbroken line from the early copies down through the T.R. to us, as no person or group could accomplish this without God ensuring it would be done as he said.

>>836092

That's really not necessary on a slow board like this

>>836091

>Thus, these new discovered texts, while interesting, can have no weight on the received word of God.

Would say this for the Masoretic Text also?

>>836111

You mean like the Biblia Hebraica Kittel and the Leningrad Codex? Yeah. That stuff was unearthed in the 1930s/40s.

It's interesting you bring that up because the Biblia Hebraica is based on the Ben Asher MT and it began to be used by versions such as the NKJV despite having errors such as reversing the meaning of Nahum 2:2, and also 2 Kings 23:29 (making the latter outright contradict 2 Chronicles 35:20). As well as other strange changes like altering 1 Kings 20:38,41 to say bandages instead of ashes in both places, which appears to remove a miracle. Also changed in the MT, but not followed by the NKJV (modern versions do change it) is the change of Zephaniah 3:15 from "see evil" to "fear evil", which also seems significant.

.