/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>8217

Good luck anon!

>>8218

Calvinist/Reformed Southern Baptists differ greatly from Free Will Baptists, I agree. But Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists and Free Will Baptists? I find they only truly differ on the concept of Eternal Security vs. Conditional Salvation. And quite frankly in light of verses like Matthew 24:42-51, and other similar verses that exhort one to be on guard, persevere, and finish the race, I find that the concept of Conditional Salvation (i.e. you are saved as long as you stay in the faith) to be more scriptural and sensical than OSAS. I'm finding more and more that OSAS, with it's "You're saved forever once you're in the faith! And if you fall away, well, you weren't really "saved" in the first place!" to come off as backwards rationalization, and a roundabout way to express the same essential concept as Conditional Salvation.

>>8220

Thanks.

>>8221

non-calvinist baptists in the SBC are more different from FWB than from calvinists in the SBC

FWB are very arminian in rejecting eternal security, and they add a third ordinance of foot washing.

Conditional preservation of the saints in an arminian doctrine.

If you think it's the correct way then you should go to a FWB church, but if not you shouldn't. That's a primary issue because it's soteriological.

Have you investigated the best arguments for each position?

>>8217

>I left the IFB church after becoming repulsed by the IFB's cultic past,

So are you going to join some kind of compromised church then?

Also the whole point of being explicitly independent is that the local church isn't associated with other churches inside a single denomination. The point IS there is no denomination. So how would the problems of one church affect any other church?

This seems like unbalanced reasoning.

>Free Will Baptist

Aren't those just another formulaic arminian type of denomination? People who think God makes mistakes in whom he chooses?

>I'm finding more and more that OSAS, with it's "You're saved forever once you're in the faith! And if you fall away, well, you weren't really "saved" in the first place!" to come off as backwards rationalization,

How? Eternal security only applies to the individual himself, whereas 1 John 2:19 is a statement about other people who you can't know what they believe or think. Their belief will inevitably be made manifest.

To be an arminian and deny eternal security from scripture is to claim that God makes mistakes and that man has to do good works to earn his own salvation, i.e. that Jesus Christ didn't accomplish this already and have his righteousness imputed to the believer. So that makes it no different than any works-based religion. Just giving you a warning about that.

Galatians 1

>I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

>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. 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.

John 5:24

>Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

1 Corinthians 1:18

>For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Acts 13:48

>And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

>>8226

The foot washing doesn't bother me. As for arguments, I find that the verses encouraging perseverance and being on your guard, as well as exhortations to grow ever more in the faith, cause great conflict with the "Your saved, God has you on cruise control now" concept, and have so far not heard a satisfying rebuttal to this seeming paradox.

>>8228

>So are you going to join some kind of compromised church then?

>Also the whole point of being explicitly independent is that the local church isn't associated with other churches inside a single denomination. The point IS there is no denomination. So how would the problems of one church affect any other church?

>This seems like unbalanced reasoning.

And yet the IFB church I was going to started showing the same red flags as other IFB churches with cultic leanings. The pastor being overly enthusiastic about cajoling the people into tithing; even passive-aggressively implying that something like their fridge might break if they did not tithe. Not to mention their adherence to KJV Onlyism, which itself is a heresy born of the Seventh Day Adventists:

https://youtu.be/0NAuJVFjEjs?t=2200

>God makes mistakes in whom he chooses?

>To be an arminian and deny eternal security from scripture is to claim that God makes mistakes and that man has to do good works to earn his own salvation,

Man having freewill, and predestination being based on God's divine foreknowledge, doesn't equal God "making mistakes" or "not being sovereign." Simply staying in the faith and being obedient to God's commandments isn't exactly equivalent to saying 10 Hail Marys a day. In fact, ironically, the strictness, legalism, and control in terms of tithing, attending church every single time the doors are open or you're looked down upon, you can watch movies but not be at a movie theater, you've got to win so many souls, extreme separatism, etc. which I hear of many IFB churches, comes off as far more works based and Pharisaical.

>>8230

Which passages do you think indicate conditional preservation of the saints?

>>8231

We'll start with one passage first. The following is a repost of my analysis from an older thread:

Take Matthew 24:42 for example:

>42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord will come.

And let's take that verse in full context:

>43 But know this, that if the owner of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for in an hour when you least expect, the Son of Man is coming.

>45 “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master has made ruler over his household to give them food at the appointed time? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 47 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods.

>48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master delays his coming,’ 49 and begins to strike his fellow servants and eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not look for him and in an hour he is not aware of 51 and will cut him in pieces and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Notice, that Jesus does not say "unbelievers", or "unsaved", but rather uses the term "servant." Implying one who has been brought up in the church and should know better. Overall, the verse seems to imply that a believer should be on watch and actively persevere in their faith, rather than merely just coasting by on the Holy Spirit just taking care of everything for them. And notice the penalty if a believer/saved individual is caught slacking:

>50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not look for him and in an hour he is not aware of 51 and will cut him in pieces and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This doesn't come off as Jesus just coming down with a rolled up newspaper and smacking a saved person on the nose a few times and saying "Bad saved person! Bad, bad saved person! Temporal Earthly punishment and fewer rewards for you!" It comes off as if a believer/saved individual is caught lowering his guard too much, he's got himself a first class ticket to Hell. There's also no indication that this is a case of "a 'believer' who never believed in the first place, but of a believer who dropped the ball and paid the price. The verse doesn't say "If you weren't watchful, you weren't saved in the first place." it clearly says "Be watchful; period. Or else."

This was the reply I got:

>Why do you reject eternal security? Are you sure those trouble passages are about salvation and not about fellowship?

I found this response unsatisfying and puzzling. I asked for further elaboration and never got it. I do not understand how a passage that clearly tells believers to keep up their guard, or else Jesus will come back, catch you with your metaphorical pants down, and boot you to Hell, as a passage about fellowship, instead of salvation.

Honest question. How does congregationalism work with baptist churches. How do they keep each other accountable? I see good baptists churches with sound theology and then crazy ones with whacko female "pastors".

>>3474

You should watch this. Christian music literally all sounds the same. It is the same old guitar, drums, keyboard, lyrics about Jesus. It does not use the vast number of sounds and instruments that secular music comes up with. It is literally the same old 1-dimensional sounding worship music, over and over again.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AE4_dHW0nWk

>>8262

I think you meant "ecclesiology", because Baptists are congregationalist. Baptists believe in the autonomy of the local church.

A Baptist "convention", "fellowship", "alliance" etc. is a group of baptist churches cooperating, firstly for the sake of missions. The denomination doesn't hold authority over any church.

Churches can be removed from fellowship with the denomination, but that's it.

>>8254

>Not gonna comment on this one,

Nor are you gonna comment on the passive-aggressive threats, but rather wave it and rationalize it away. A pattern that I'm going to see throughout your response. Giving should be cheerful and willful, not with threats. God loves a cheerful giver.

>You mean like ruckmanites or what? What exactly did they say?

You know what I said. You know what KJV Onlyism is. It isn't a mere "preference." And KJV Onlyism is the dominant position in IFB churches. In fact, one of the main IFB church directories admits that they only include non KJV and softer KJV churches in their directories for the sake of convenience, while they themselves have a hard preserved and inspired stance:

https://www.kjvchurches.com/doctrine/

>They've got a lot of extra ideology that actually goes against scripture and you should be aware of it and aware of the scripture on this.

>>8226

>non-calvinist baptists in the SBC are more different from FWB than from calvinists in the SBC

Actually:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism#Current_landscape

>The majority of Southern Baptists, including Billy Graham, accept Arminianism with an exception allowing for a doctrine of perseverance of the saints ("eternal security").

And this is in comparison to other Baptist denominations that are listed prior. And considering that IFB's are essentially kissing cousins with non-Calvinist Southern Baptists in terms of theology in the first place for obvious reasons…

Also, what are all these "extra idealogy/doctrines" you keep mentioning? So far, all I see is conditional salvation vs. eternal security.

>Or when it says in Acts 2:47 that the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved,

I can tell you're using the KJV, because modern translations render the last bit as "being saved."

As for the rest: God also made men High Priests in the Old Testament, and wasn't shy about smiting them when they dropped the ball. Judas was made an apostle and sent out to perform miracles, and still fell (but of course he's an exception, just like Catholics and Orthodox rationalize the thief on the cross an exception to the necessity of baptism for salvation via various rationalizations. More than that. Any of the verses you have cited here and earlier could be rendered with the subtext of "as long you keep in the faith and obey Christ," especially in the context of other verses. The later part of John 3:36 is now correctly translated by modern translations as "but he who does not obey/who rejects the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” rather than the KJV rendition of "believeth not the Son."

>>8277

Then there's other verse throughout that imply conditionality (i.e. you are saved IF):

Ezekiel 3:18-21

Acts 8:13 (Explicitly told Simon believed and was baptized) Acts 19:20-24 (Simon explicitly told that he is on the road to Hell unless it straightens out, not "your saved, so you will only get a bump on the head for this.")

2 Pet. 2:1 ("even denying the Master who bought them", i.e. already ransomed by Christ)

2 Peter 2:20-22 (Those who are delivered and then return back to their old ways are worse off than before.)

1 Cor. 9:24-27 (Of special note is what Paul says here: " But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.") This verse, and the verses before it, plainly say that one must keep in the race and keep sharp, or risk being disqualified from said race, and not mere "extra prizes."

Jonah 3 in particular, and the Book of Jonah in general, is all about warning people to repent or else.

>>8278

Here are some particularly good points from the following article:

http://jimmyakin.com/2017/03/answering-arguments-for-eternal-security.html

"John 5:24 The Greek present participles for “hearing” and “believing” (akouōn, pisteuōn) indicate an ongoing action. Thus if one were to stop hearing Jesus’ word and stop believing the one who sent him, one would lose eternal life and pass back from life to death."

"John 6:37a - Commentators note that the Greek phrase translated “all that” (pan ho) is neuter rather than the expected masculine.They have thus seen the first statement as not simply speaking of individuals but of the whole people that God gives Jesus—i.e., a Church.Jesus is thus affirming that the whole Church will come to Jesus."

"John 6:37b - But what about the individual? This is dealt with in the second half of John 6:37: “and him who comes to me I will not cast out.” Translated less elegantly, the statement would read “and the one coming to me I would certainly not cast out.” Here “the one” (ton) is masculine, indicating the individual, and the present tense participle “coming” (erchomenon) indicates an ongoing action, not a one-time encounter. This is not controversial and is acknowledged by Calvinists. The second part of the verse thus indicates Jesus will not cast out those who come and keep coming to him. But this does not establish eternal security. Nobody would argue that Jesus would cast out those who, with repentance and faith, continue to follow him. But, by implication, if a person ceases to turn to Jesus in this way, he would cease to be part of the people that God gives to his Son, and he would be cast out."

"John 6:39 - Here the Greek again uses neuter rather than masculine pronouns, pointing to the collective people—the Church—that God gives to Jesus. It is not God’s will that Jesus lose any from the Church, and Jesus will raise up this body on the last day."

"We now face the question of how God’s will works, which is more subtle than it may first appear. God sometimes wills things in an irresistible, unfailing way. When he created the universe, the universe did not have a choice about being created. We might refer to this as God’s “efficacious will,” because when he wills something in this way, it is always effective. But Scripture also tells us that it is not God’s will for people to commit murder or adultery, and sometimes they do. Creatures can make choices that don’t conform to God’s will. We might refer to this as God’s “conditional will,” because he has made what actually happens conditional on the choices of his creatures."

"Which kind of will is involved in John 6:39? Does God will that those he has given Jesus remain with him in such a way that it is impossible for them to be lost? Or does he allow them to make choices which would cause them to be lost? This is clarified in John 17, where Jesus prays concerning the disciples who accompanied him in his earthly ministry. He tells his Father, “you gave them to me” (17:6) and goes on to say that “While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (17:12). Though Judas was one of the disciples God gave Jesus, and though Judas came to him and even became an apostle in his Church, God allowed Judas to make choices causing him to be lost. God’s desire for none to be lost from the people he gives his Son is thus part of his conditional rather than his efficacious will."

>>8279

"In John 6:44, Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

The first part of this is an affirmation that salvation is always based on God’s initiative.

For this to be a prooftext for perseverance of the saints, it would need to mean (1) that individuals who the Father draws to Jesus will always come to him and (2) that they will always remain with him. Only in that way would the person be guaranteed the resurrection of the blessed. However, Jesus merely says that one can’t come to him unless the Father draws him, not that people are incapable of resisting the Father’s grace. And he says nothing at all about people being unable to leave once they come to him. In fact, the verse entirely leaps over the mechanics of salvation. It doesn’t mention repentance, faith…..or anything else (baptism in mentioned, as the article is from a Catholic perspective. But the arguments still stand. Can you refute them without resorting to "poisoning the well?"). It treats all of these under the single heading of “coming” to Jesus, and as we’ve seen, the coming which saves is a continuous, ongoing one, not a one-time event. From this passage we can infer that no one comes to Jesus without the Father’s action and that those who come and keep coming to Jesus will be raised on the last day. But, unless we press the passage beyond its limits, we cannot infer that all who come to Jesus remain with him."

"In John 10:26-28, Jesus tells inquirers: “You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.” He also explains why they can’t be snatched away: “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (10:29). Once again, the actions of the believer are ongoing. Sheep do not just hear the voice of their shepherd once, and they do not just follow him once. They do so on a continuing basis. Consequently, to stop listening to Jesus and to stop following him would be to cease to be one of his sheep and to lose the eternal life that he gives. Advocates of eternal security hold this inference is blocked by the statement that no one will snatch the sheep out of Jesus’ or the Father’s hand. The metaphor Jesus is using envisions thieves, wolves, or other predators taking a shepherd’s sheep. However, to remain on the level of the metaphor, this is not the only way a shepherd can lose sheep. They also can leave on their own. They can stray, as Jesus himself noted (Matt. 18:12-14, Luke 15:3-7). Because Jesus does not exclude this possibility in the passage—he does not say, “And I will never let them stray”—one cannot appeal to this passage as if it eliminated the possibility of Christians making choices that cost them salvation."

"John’s Gospel also contains passages indicating the loss of salvation, and these can’t be ignored. A notable one occurs when Jesus says, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. . . . I am the vine, you are the branches” (John 15:1, 5). He states, “Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he [the Father] takes away. . . . If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned” (15:2, 6). Here the Father himself removes people from Christ, and their fate is to be burned—an obvious reference to hell. Jesus thus commands the disciples, “Abide in me. . . . Abide in my love” (15:4, 9)—a theme he continues to stress (vv. 5, 7)—and he tells them how to abide: “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love” (v. 10). Keeping God’s commandments thus is essential for remaining in Christ and avoiding the fate of the branches which the Father removes from Christ to be burned."

>>8280

As for your arguments implying that conditional salvation makes for a weak God who "makes mistakes" -"Ironically, the name “perseverance of the saints” is man-centered. It describes what the saints must do: persevere. That’s why some Calvinists prefer the name “preservation of the saints,” since it focuses on God’s preserving action."

"However, both eternal and conditional security acknowledge that both God and man have a role in salvation. God gives us his grace, and man responds, at least by making an act of saving faith. Eternal security advocates thus don’t reject man’s role. They simply ignore it for rhetorical purposes when making the “God-centered vs. man-centered” claim."

"Further, since all acknowledge that God’s grace is indispensable and must precede man’s response, both positions are fundamentally God-centered."

"What happens after initial salvation, and whether it can be lost, must be decided by looking at the biblical evidence, not simply by which position sounds like it’s attributing more to God."

"The prejudicial nature of the “God-centered” language can be seen by applying it in a different context—say, to the problem of evil. One could say it would be more “God-centered” to attribute evil directly to God, so that he would be the author of all evil, even moral evil. By contrast, it could sound “man-centered” to attribute moral evil not to God’s divine choices but to man’s creaturely choices."

"On the rhetorical level this might sound like it’s glorifying God, but it would be charging the all-holy God with moral evil—with sin! Thus the fact something may superficially sound like it’s more glorifying to God is not a test of which position is true."

"And, as before, the language is reversible. One could argue that if God can create free will in man, such that man may freely accept or reject salvation, then this brings more glory to God than the view God can’t create such free will. Conditional security thus can be framed as more God-glorifying because of what it says about God’s creative power."

>>8281

"Advocates of eternal security often argue that God saves people to bring himself glory and say a person losing salvation would not bring him glory. It would represent divine failure."

"But what about the case of those who are never saved—people who lived and died without responding to God’s initiative of grace? If one too closely identifies the salvation of souls with God’s glory then those never saved would represent cases of divine failure as well."

"The logical alternative is to say that the never-saved also bring glory to God, not by being examples of his mercy upon the repentant but of his justice upon the unrepentant."

"However, if this is the case then it means God brings himself glory even in the case of someone who is not saved, and if that’s true then God also could bring himself glory through someone who is initially saved and who then loses salvation."

"Such a case would serve to illustrate both God’s mercy and his justice—as well as his creative power by giving that person free will."

"Ultimately, all of God’s actions bring him glory, and he seems to have chosen to glorify himself by creating and permitting a wide variety of things in the world. He thus may choose to glorify himself by saving some, by allowing some never to be saved, and by allowing some to switch between these states."

"Sometimes advocates of eternal security argue that if God is the perfect savior, if he is omnipotent, then he should be able to save those he chooses. He cannot fail. This begs the question of whether God intends to bring everyone who experiences initial salvation to final salvation. If God intends to allow people who experience initial salvation to freely choose to change their mind, to return to sin, and to fall from grace then such people do not represent divine failure. It is only if you presuppose that God intends to cause all believers to persevere to the end that their failure to do so would represent divine failure—but that is assuming the thing that needs to be proved."

(Note the parable of the seeds that fall in various locations, with differing results.)

"…Of course, advocates of eternal security do appeal to Bible passages, but it is important to note the degree to which theological reasoning rather than simply exegetical reasoning plays a role in the discussion. In fact, advocates of eternal security sometimes acknowledge that to prove eternal security you first need to establish certain theological points, like what God’s intention regarding salvation is. This is a significant admission, because it means the passages they appeal to for eternal security are not clear enough on their own. They can be read other ways. It’s only when read in light of certain theological premises that they acquire the meaning that eternal advocates want them to have. Without those premises, they are consistent with the view that one can lose salvation. In particular, Calvinists sometimes acknowledge that the other points of TULIP are needed to prove P. Without T, U, L, and I constraining the way key Bible verses are taken, they are consistent with conditional security. This reveals a significant weakness, because it means each of the other beliefs must be backed up by Scripture to prove P, and if there are exegetical reasons to doubt any of them then that doubt transfers to P. The Calvinist thus needs to prove his whole set of beliefs to prove perseverance of the saints. It can’t be proved on its own."

Other articles on faith requiring growth, testing and perseverance:

https://www.ichthys.com/mail-Absolute-Eternal-Security.htm

https://www.ichthys.com/Pet32.htm

https://www.ichthys.com/Pet22.htm

https://www.ichthys.com/Pet21.htm

Once again, if our security is eternal and assured, why do we need tests, and growth and admonitions to perseverance?

All of your responses to my concerns about the IFB come off as waving away and rationalizing. The behaviors I listed are performed to an abusive degree.

As for the Luke 12:42-48 parallel. It does not change the fact that the first individual singled out was a believer who dropped the ball, and not merely an unsaved person in the first place. As for the later two individuals, it is not clear if they will merely receive a lower place in Heaven or are merely relegated to less severe places in Hell. Either way, there is also a strong implication that they will be judged by the quality and consistency of their works, and not by merely being saved.

>>8277

>Nor are you gonna comment on the passive-aggressive threats, but rather wave it and rationalize it away.

I'm not going to comment because I don't know the person nor what was said.

>You know what I said. You know what KJV Onlyism is.

I'm not KJV onlyist.

>In fact, one of the main IFB church directories admits that they only include non KJV and softer KJV churches in their directories for the sake of convenience, while they themselves have a hard preserved and inspired stance:

So you disagree that the Bible is preserved and inspired by God?

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

>Billy Graham, accept Arminianism with an exception allowing for a doctrine of perseverance of the saints ("eternal security").

Billy Graham also said that hindus are "following the light that they have." So he reveals how false a prophet he was.

Perseverance of the saints is the P in tulip, and it is a calvinist doctrine. It's not true. It basically has nothing to do with OSAS. If you really want to get into it I can.

>I can tell you're using the KJV, because modern translations render the last bit as "being saved."

The Greek verb σωζομενοις is the present passive participle, which is an ongoing passive action. In English, an ongoing passive act can be expressed as either “are being + (past participle)” or “are + (past participle)”.

For example, the declaration "The eggs are stored in the fridge" is equivalent to the declaration "The eggs are being stored in the fridge." In both cases, the eggs are within the fridge in the current moment. You can replace the eggs and fridge and the verb with anything else, this is just an example.

It must be noted however, in specific the phrase "are being saved" is needlessly wordy since "are saved" denotes the same meaning. Furthermore, "are being saved" has an unintended connotation of an ongoing but incomplete process. This connotation is not found in the original.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (KJV)

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Acts 2:47 (KJV)

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Most other translations apply this shift in English inconsistently. They don't do it according to any grammatical standard, but they just apply “are being” haphazardly just wherever they decided to.

To give a few examples, the NKJV changes the tense to “are being” in 1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Acts 2:47, and Hebrews 10:14, but does not do so in Luke 13:23 or Revelation 21:24.

The MEV changes the tense in 1 Cor. 1:18, Acts 2:47, and Luke 13:23, but the publishers elected not to do so in 2 Cor. 2:15 or Hebrews 10:14.

Meanwhile, the WEB only changes Acts 2:47 and Hebrews 10:14, and leaves all the others alone.

Most modern “critical text” versions tend to change all of them, but only some change Luke 13:23 or Hebrews 10:14. For instance, the NASB does change Luke 13:23 to “are being saved” but not Hebrews 10:14, while the ESV changes Hebrews 10:14 to “are being sanctified” but NOT Luke 13:23.

This shows that all modern translations are applying this grammatical change in English haphazardly, not according to any sort of rule or grammatical understanding; but the Authorized version uses English consistently as described, in 1 Corinthians 1:18 and in all the other places. “Are saved” and not “are being saved.” Every time. They are actually consistent in translation on this.

>Judas was made an apostle and sent out to perform miracles, and still fell

It is stated in John 17:12 that Judas Iscariot was never saved. And in John 6:70-71 the apostle explicitly states this. Judas Iscariot was never saved.

>The later part of John 3:36 is now correctly translated by modern translations as "but he who does not obey/who rejects the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” rather than the KJV rendition of "believeth not the Son."

The same word is correctly translated as "believeth not" throughout scripture.

>2 Pet. 2:1 ("even denying the Master who bought them", i.e. already ransomed by Christ)

Yes that disproves limited atonement.

>2 Peter 2:20-22 (Those who are delivered and then return back to their old ways are worse off than before.)

2 Peter chapter 2, and Jude are passages about false prophets. See the following.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

– 1 John 2:19

>1 Cor. 9:24-27

That means as a castaway to them. Similar to how he uses it in 2 Cor. 13:6-7.

>Here are some particularly good points from the following article:

There is no scripture or biblical point there, just some fallible philosophizing. He doesn't use scripture at all.

>Other articles on faith requiring growth, testing and perseverance:

You're not able to summarize any of these into a biblical point. I don't even see what the point you're trying to make.

>Once again, if our security is eternal and assured, why do we need tests, and growth and admonitions to perseverance?

Philippians 2:13

For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

>The behaviors I listed are performed to an abusive degree.

So does that mean you're going to dismiss all local churches then?

>and not by merely being saved.

You know this statement speaks volumes. And anyway you shouldn't be using a parable, which was made to illustrate a specific point, to define doctrine without including the explanation. Where is the clear unequivocal passages on this?

There are no named individuals in parables because it's all being told to make a point. If you leave out the explanation then you've just taken it out of its intended context.

>>8292

>I'm not going to comment because I don't know the person nor what was said.

I literally already said what he said earlier.

>So you disagree that the Bible is preserved and inspired by God?

Did not say this. Merely pointing out that the website owners think the KJV is the only translation that is the inspired and preserved Word of God, and that this is the dominant view of IFB churches in general.

>Perseverance of the saints and OSAS are different.

The differences are so subtle as to not even matter (unless you are suggesting you personally subscribe to the "sin boldly!" form of OSAS):

https://carm.org/what-is-the-difference-between-eternal-security-once-saved-always-saved-and-perseverance-of-the-saints

<Gives out little hints here and there that he is indeed a KJV Onlyist in spite of protests to the contrary.

>Yes that disproves limited atonement.

I did not even argue for limited atonement. In fact, one of the major points of contention between Arminians and Calvinists, is the fact that modern Arminians believe in an unlimited atonement, whereas Calvinists, in general, do not (unless they are 4 point, or some other sub-category.)

>There is no scripture or biblical point there, just some fallible philosophizing. He doesn't use scripture at all.

At worst, a blatant lie and distortion, at best, a lazy waving away.

>You're not able to summarize any of these into a biblical point. I don't even see what the point you're trying to make.

More lies or waving away.

>So does that mean you're going to dismiss all local churches then?

Considering I can find multiple Facebook groups centered around providing support for IFB cult survivors:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/483157631760645/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/139606969429831/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/35429320847/

https://www.facebook.com/Survivors-of-New-Bethany-and-other-IFB-Cults-178657268832149/?ref=br_rs

As well as pages like this on IFB lies and abuse:

https://baptistdeception.com

The fact that if you study such pages, you'll find the survivors have either turned Liberal "Christian" or outright Atheist as a result Combined with the past of foundational figures like Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap, as well as the dumpster fire that was Lester Roloff's "Rebekah Home for Girls."

Combined with cover-ups and relocations of sexual abusers akin to Catholicism:

https://www.star-telegram.com/living/religion/article222576310.html

https://www.star-telegram.com/living/religion/article223155890.html

https://www.star-telegram.com/living/religion/article222807340.html

Finally, combine all of this, with the fact that I experienced some of the red flags first hand myself; then yes, that's enough for me to not want to take chances with me, or family members or those I love, getting sucked into a cult and abused.

At least the SBC was open and forthright in dealing with it's own sex abuse scandals, and I have yet to find SBC or FWB "cult survivor" horror stories, or even such scandals in the FWB period.

Your argument style also sours my opinion on IFBs even further. In terms of twisting my words, and deflection and evasion, and games, It's like the Malaysian Anglican guy got bored with LARPing as an Anglican Catholic, and decided to LARP as an IFBer for fun instead. That, or you're no better than him.

I'm going to wait and see if >>8231 has a better response.

>>8277

>Actually:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism#Current_landscape

>>The majority of Southern Baptists, including Billy Graham, accept Arminianism with an exception allowing for a doctrine of perseverance of the saints ("eternal security").

That wikipedia editor is simply operating on a different definition of arminian than we do in the SBC. That is almost always a title given non-calvinists by calvinists, against the wishes of that non-calvinist. It sets up a false dilemma.

Calvinists and non calvinists will fellowship together in the SBC. Free will baptists will not fellowship with Southern Baptists, and vice versa, because the soteriology is incompatible.

>>8314

Fair enough. But unless there is some other doctrinal distinctives that I'm not getting, non-Calvinist Southern Baptists just come off as basically 4 point Arminians to me: agreeing with basically some variation on everything except for the Conditional Salvation/Eternal Security issue.

>>8316

Generally speaking, that's right. The line for what should be called "arminian" is just further than that.

Leighton Flowers has had Arminians on soteriology 101, you might find it interesting.

>>8311

>More lies or waving away.

Dude I'm not going to read thirty pages of a wall of text that you lazily pasted in here if you can't even tell me what the point of it is.

You are also conveniently ignoring my answer to your question with Philippians 2:13.

>Considering I can find multiple Facebook groups centered around providing support for IFB cult survivors:

And? None of that has to do with me or my church. Nor is it really related to scripture. I'm not even saying whether or not any of this happened, I'm simply saying it doesn't matter.

I'm also not going to judge things that I don't have involvement in.

>The fact that if you study such pages, you'll find the survivors have either turned Liberal "Christian" or outright Atheist

Yeah because they weren't saved. Since even you seem to realize they're wrong.

>then yes, that's enough for me to not want to take chances with me, or family members or those I love, getting sucked into a cult and abused.

Good for you, just don't come over here spreading false doctrines and expect nobody to point them out as wrong. All this stuff about horror experiences is totally irrelevant.

But anyway if that somehow convince you that there aren't legitimate local churches in the world then that's just too bad for you. It reflects back on your own unbalanced reasoning abilities if so.

I'll be fine continuing to spread the truth of God's word on here and being totally unaffected.

>>8317

>Leighton Flowers has had Arminians on soteriology 101, you might find it interesting.

Thanks, I'll check this out.

>>8292

σωζομενοις as being in present tense can indicate process, so that entails that even if there is certainty in the outcome of the process, the fact remains that the audience whom Paul is addressing are still "on the way" to Salvation despite of their outcome being made clear. The fact that 1 Corinthians contain warning passages(1 Corinthians 9:19-27, 10, 11:28-34) to these saved believers, entails this, that the saved Corinthians who God will preserve are not yet at their destination but are still on the way to it.

Those being or are saved is also contrasted with those who are perishing, this means if one illustrates a complete process of being saved, then the other must illustrate a complete process of being damned or perished. But this cannot be because those who are "perishing" can still be saved, otherwise Christ's Atonement would not make any sense being for sinners and those who are enemies with God. It also makes preaching the Gospel in hope of getting them to repent something quite pointless, as those perishing are already dead set perished. So it's clearly more sensible to see both as a present process which will be brought to fulfilment. I don't want to be misinterpreted here, so I will say it again, God's action will ensure what the outcome would be.

So we are left with two seemingly contradictory statements from Paul. On one hand those saved are indeed secure in God. Yet on the other, those saved still have to work out their Salvation and steer clear from danger.

The most sensible way to make sense of this, is to admit that God's agency and action does not destroy human agency and action. What believers do are divinely enabled and can only be so because of that. Yet, God's act does not destroy human free will and agency at all. This entails that when God acts, it is done in a manner where you still face the uncertainty and pangs of this world. You are only truly free when you reach your destination in the end. This conforms with Hebrews 4, Galatians, Romans 4 and even 1John where if one falls away, one isn't saved. That implication is that for you to truly know this and be sure, you need perseverance.

Does this mean Calvinists are wrong? Not necessarily, but it certainly entails OSAS cannot be the case, and that there is no certainty of your salvation until the end, as the condition for being truly saved is perseverance. Moreover, it also asks that Calvinists move away from their determinism to accommodate the reality and genuiness of human effort and toil in this life, divinely enabled of course.

>>11602

reporting

he washed me white as snow

6 pointer*, 5 solas, 1689 Confessional reportan in

*yeah, we need 6 points now to emphasise God's Sovereignty at the start of all things

>>12674

> I have far more in common with a Calvinistic Presbyterian than I do your average Southern Baptist.

As a historical fact there have always been calvinists in the SBC and in the triennial convention before it. Calvinists and noncalvinists have always been able to fellowship together in the Baptist tradition.

We do not come from different historical streams.

A reformed Baptist does not have more in common with a Presbyterian than an average southern baptist. Statistically speaking I would guess that most reformed Baptists are southern Baptists

>>12674

Also the free will Baptists are a different tradition than general Baptists like the SBC

>>12682

>How do we have any theological depth when we can't agree on something as foundational as soteriology?

The argument for either position is not diminished by the presence of those who disagree

>Did these streams not diverge a long time ago?

Very recently compared to Lutherans or Presbyterians for example, and with much fewer areas of disagreement.

I would not even characterize the general/particular debate as different traditions in the first place. These are two groups who came to different conclusions while part of the same tradition, which in a minority of cases resulted in a split on a denominational level.

>We host Presbyterians

Good, keep it up. I'm only saying that calvinist and non calvinist Baptists are both Baptist.

>If your statement of faith does not have an official stance on soteriology, and you're trying to cater to both Calvinists and Arminians

Besides the false dichotomy, the denomination doesn't need to take such a stance because there's room for reasonable disagreement at the level of the local church. The mission boards and seminaries are only helped by the partnership of calvinists and the rest of us (who aren't arminian by the way).

>I've never heard the SBC referred to as General Baptist before, although I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject. How do you reconcile that with the Abstract of Principles?

I meant general as in general sense Baptist, like a state convention might be called a general convention. Free Will Baptists are a separate denomination who teach you can lose your salvation and add a third ordinance of foot washing. I know you're referring to traditionalists.

I know about the abstract, that's what I'm saying. There have always been calvinists since the beginning. At the same time, its fair to say that the majority have not been calvinist just like in church history at large. Calvinism comes and goes.

> I used to attend a rather healthy sized Southern Baptist church, but after becoming a Calvinist probably about a decade ago, I had to leave.

You do you but I wouldn't dismiss the denomination over that experience. The problem I usually find is that the preacher makes up a topical sermon and goes on way too long with personal anecdotes.

>>12694

>Let's be honest though, the Free Will position is typically the default these days and the rest of us are expected to cater to it. There is no room for a counter-presentation on this matter or we're viewed as instigators of division.

Nobody is persecuting calvinists, get real. Look no further than southern seminary. An opinion of the former seminary president Paige Patterson is an instigation itself. You should really trim that clip though

I agree the differences are significant and everyone should take a convictional stance. I'm sharing my opinion that you shouldn't dismiss the convention, and it's my opinion that we can get along. Again, you do you.

> Ideas like altar calls and "soul-winning", the emphasis on numbers and "engagement", revivalism, sentimental love songs with horrible theology in place of hymns and spiritual songs, fetishization of global missions to exotic countries in the name of some ridiculous eschatological doctrine and at the expense of tending to the home front… Why can you not see how fundamentally different we are?

I take great offence at this. You are really living up to the rude calvinist stereotype.

Do not color all non-calvinists as cheesy boomers because you had some bad experiences. If you visitied a bad church or two, do not make the false connection that their soteriology is to blame. There are plenty of careful expositors with healthy ministries and traditional worship who don't agree with you on tulip.

>Have you just not actually been to a Baptist church run by Calvinists to experience the difference first hand?

I have been to dozens of Baptist churches by calvinists and non and your depiction is not accurate

>And what are we going to focus on as a group then, with such theological division?

The great commission.

>So-called "Traditionalist"?

Yes, as in the traditional understanding of Southern Baptist soteriology.

>The particulars don't matter.

If you can't recognize how condescending that is you're not worth engaging with

>If Mr. Flowers didn't view it as just as dramatic of a difference as I do, then he wouldn't be devoting his entire ministry to tackling the "problem" of Calvinism's resurgence amongst Baptists.

Flowers at no point has ever suggested that we can't fellowship together in the same church or work together in the same convention. He is arguing for his convictions just like ligonier argues for theirs.

That's not all he does though.

Are you concern trolling? There are better reasons to leave the SBC

>>12674

>The only person that wins souls is the Holy Spirit.

Late reply

Spurgeon thought it was a fine term to use. We have to preach for them to hear.

>>12705

hey man, as a mark of my gratitude i just wanted to recognise the amount of patient thought you put into your response there, since it means i didn't have to

thanks

>>12651

>>12707

You're welcome. Out of curiosity, what's the proposed sixth point?

>>12708

an 'S' at the front for Sovereignty

you could stick it at the end to make TULIPS, but since everything else in the acronym proceeds from God's Sovereign Decree, and perhaps more pertinently; since we live in a time where many have forgotten that God is the only One who truly has libertarian free will - and so does whatever He pleases, bringing everything He wants to pass - it kinda needs to go at the start

it's just, stoolip sounds a bit dumb eh ?

>>12711

>it's just, stoolip sounds a bit dumb eh ?

Yeah, I'd definitely stick it at the end as a emphatic descriptor, just to make it flow better. Thanks.

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:

/thread

>>12738

>/thread

How can you /thread when you haven't even made a point?

>>12738

>Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh

Paedobaptists will ignore