/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

(Just realized my formatting is pretty bad, sorry for that)

To start the thread off, how was church this morning for everyone? I remember I wasn't a huge fan of the contemporary worship music when I first made the switch, but it's starting to grow on me a bit. The psalms tell us to praise with many instruments and sing a new song for the Lord, and there's something about the energy and conviction of the congregation that I think was lacking from the catholic mass that I used to attend.

Morning service was good, 4 visitors got saved and baptised.

Evening service was a little more somber. Only a dozen people show up for the Sunday evening service and he preached on how people need to be more active in the church which weighed heavy on me as I know I could always be doing more.

Happy to also say in my personal devotions I just finished reading cover-to-cover for my 2nd read through. Not impressive I realize for lifelong Christians but for me I was happy I did it and hope for many more.

>>3474

Currently visiting multiple Baptist churches near me and trying to discern which one is best. Have basically narrowed it down to two. Both are Bible believing and teach solidly from the scriptures, and have their own opportunities for volunteering and extra services and Bible studies and such, so it's down to details.

One is an Independent Baptist church that is on the larger side in terms of congregation attendance, has a fantastic choir and songs, has an attached Christian academy for teaching kids, and a very passionate and charismatic pastor. Overall I leave the services really pumped and uplifted.

The other is an SBC church which is smaller and cozier and has slightly friendlier people (already basically made a friend this morning) though the other church is no slouch in this department either. The pastor comes off as having a more scholarly approach to his teaching and is really good at weaving various Bible verses together throughout the Old and New Testament to drive a point home. The song worship style is a mix of contemporary and traditional and more minimalist since they don't have a full blown choir.

The first one comes off as larger and going places, but I worry about it potentially becoming a mega-church in the future (they're currently raising funds to buy more land to expand). The second is more cozier and personal due to the smaller congregation size, but I worry if this is due to factors that may be causing it to die off. They currently have an interim pastor due to the last regular pastor retiring, and are doing a 40 days of prayer to decide on a permanent pastor. I was there before a couple of years ago, and the congregation attendance was a lot larger on a regular Sunday.

Also visited a third church, a Free Will Baptist church, and plan on visiting one more time to give it another chance, but overall, it wasn't bad, it just didn't strike me in any particular fashion like the other two. Praying for wisdom and discernment from God to lead me to the right one.

>>3494

Have you heard of the "topical" vs "expository" debate on preaching? If one is expository and the other isn't, that's the one you should go to. The preaching is the most important part of Sunday morning.

>>3495

Never heard of this; thanks for informing me about this. After doing some research on this topic:

The first church I've gone to twice. Both sermons were topical/textual with some strong expository elements (the second sermon leaned more heavily in an expository direction.)

The second church, which I visited today, had a sermon that was also topical with very strong expository elements.

The Free Will Church sermon was primarily textual.

Honestly, I'll probably have to visit these churches a few more times to get a solid bead on them in this regard.

>>3494

Consider that the Lord might send you to a parish, where not everything is perfect, so you can do His will and help building His kingdom.

>>3506

Indeed, I'm not looking for perfection. At the same time, I'm looking for a certain standard at least. A parish doesn't have to be perfect, but it at least should have some essential papers stacked, so to speak. The last time I invested myself in a church for two years that had unsound theology, and stuck it out due to a combination of jumping in headfirst and then subsequently becoming emotionally entangled with the parishioners. The separation wasn't pleasant. I'm once bitten and twice shy, and thus trying to avoid making the same mistake.

>>3494

Which one has the more active soul winning campaign?

For me that would be the deciding factor.

>>3517

This is something that I'm going to have to see/experience over time through multiple visits. Based on initial impressions, I would safely say the first church has a more aggressive soul-winning campaign.

>>3527

Right on.

I only asked since I just started myself and its changed my whole outlook on it.

I mean, youre out doing same things the apostles did. Going out into the world and talkin to folks about Jesus, pretty awesome stuff.

>>3552

Aye, once I get settled with a church, I want to give this a shot at least once, though I haven't been exactly good at sharing the gospel in the past.

On a different note, I'm curious:

I've noticed that there are different KJV Study Bibles put out by different publishers (Thomas Nelson, Holman, Barbour, etc.). Are any of those pretty much okay, or is there a KJV Study Bible that has a specifically Baptist bent that is more appropriate?

>>3560

Thomas Nelson is pretty run-of-the-mill historic christian interpretation. It doesn't throw too many curve balls.

Scofields Reference Bible however is explicitly dispensationalist so i wouldn't recommend it.

>>3560

I like the thompson chain reference bible.

It's 'influence free' where you're not subjected with to whatever study aides biases may be.

>>3567

Thanks, I'm buying the Nelson and steering clear of the Scofield.

>>3602

Thanks for the recommendation. From researching it, it looks like it has cross-references on steroids which are really useful for pastors doing topical sermons. Personally I prefer study bibles with extensive scriptural exegesis (even if I have to sift through the inevitable eisegesis.)

I seen one ex Evangelical anon posting a while ago and it is starting to make me doubt my beliefs as a Baptist. I checked his sources and they line up with what he said and even worse, it tells me that I been missing out on a lot of truth of the Bible.

Someone help

>>3631

What were his arguments?

>>3635

I saw one link provided

https://www.academia.edu/12720416/_Confessing_God_from_a_Good_Conscience_1_Peter_3_21_and_Early_Christian_Baptismal_Theology

Like damn it. If this is correct, it would imply water baptism as the location and place where one is justified into Christ and enters into a relationship with him which isnt what my pastor told me. I read some stuff about some Jewish baptism thing and checked the book by a Baptist, Beasley-Murray which literally just teaches works salvation. Have I been wrong?

>>3631

>>3636

Do you have a relationship with a living God? You can have that even before baptism and even before entering any church or denomination.

Once you established that relationship by faith, you can ask Him about His will and what He thinks you should do. Then there is no need to be unsure about any rituals or what grants you salvation.

>>3636

>>3631

Arguments against literal baptism (that also address 1 Peter 3:21:

http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/101-reasons-baptism-not-necessary-for-salvation

https://reknew.org/2019/02/the-case-for-believers-baptism/

As for some of his additional arguments:

The "literal presence" in the eucharist:

https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

http://normangeisler.com/does-the-nt-support-the-rc-view-of-communion/

https://www.tms.edu/blog/early-church-teach-transubstantiation/

Some evidence, that, contrary to Catholic/Anglican/etc. belief, the Early Church Fathers were not a indivisible united front in support of Catholic interpretation (and sometimes even supported outright kooky concepts):

https://carm.org/church-fathers-quotes-topic

Also some evidence, that contrary to Catholic/Anglican teaching, corruption began to creep into Christianity fairly early:

https://www.christian-history.org/early-christianity.html

https://www.christian-history.org/fall-of-the-church.html

>>3636

Baptism is a work.

By grace you are saved through faith, not of works.

Therefore, baptism does not save. It really is that simple.

The practices of early Christians are helpful to look at but we too often forget that they were in large part wrong on many issues. Dr. Sinclair Ferguson just talked about that this week on the renewing your mind podcast

Renewing Your Mind with R.C. Sproul: In the Year of Our Lord https://renewingyourmind.org/2019/04/29/in-the-year-of-our-lord

>>3638

I actually read those and frankly, they are unconvincing. I saw the One Fold blog owner get owned by some weird Anglican guy in his comments. Like he is the only one who gets in context with the fathers he mentioned. One Fold doesnt.

And I find zero scholar accepts the early church fathers as memorialist like my pastor taught, or that they are symbols. Thus I dont care about them. Now I have no choice because clearly there must be true believers somewhere. I just cannot find them

Nothing in your links say anything about the Greek language as the link that ex Evangelical used. Maybe I was really wrong this whole time.

>>3641

You are correct. I am the ex Evangelical anon who posted before.

>>3638

Unfortunately for you, none of those links are adequate at all. For one, Brian Culliton is unable to even grasp context, as with Master's Seminary. Take their treatment of Ignatius which doesnt get into how his uses of terms like "initiates in the mysteries" or the clergy as "tupoi" are terms that are closest to how contemporary Pagans view their own processions. Worse still, it abuses the symbolic language of the fathers which many scholars like JND Kelly, Everett Ferguson, Paul Bradshaw and Bryan D Spinks unanimously make clear the Platonic context. The latter two even says that Tertullian's use of "Figura" means manifestation. I know some Reformed will say that is acceptable to them but this is false, because that "figura" is such that the figure has the power of the reality it meant to symbolize. This is why Tertullian warns against Christians on letting their Pagan spouses eat the consecrated bread, because they dont know the significance attributed to them. Origen and Clement are Platonists so they also see the symbol as mediating the reality it is supposed to symbolize. Origen's own Commentary on John is also explicit of the supernatural grace in the elements, and Clement's Ex Theodoto says something similar too.

Justin and Irenaeus both use language of something else added to the physical element. You cannot say that the bread is unchanged if something heavenly is added to it, or how it is by prayer, changed akin to Christ's Incarnation.

>>3641

>some weird Anglican guy in his comments.

>Like he is the only one who gets in context with the fathers he mentioned. One Fold doesnt.

<Hmmm…this sounds familiar….where have I heard this before?

<15,453 Responses combed through in this amount of time.

>Nothing in your links say anything about the Greek language

<faithfacts.org link literally utilizes Greek language interpretation in it's arguments.

>>3643

>You are correct. I am the ex Evangelical anon who posted before.

<Yes, I believe you are both completely different people. *eyeroll*

Lol, Hi Malaysian Anglican guy. Part of me already knew it was you, but tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Everyone, this guy is a notorious troll on this site with an axe to grind against Baptists in particular. He has previously spammed this board in a manner that would get one of us banned on /christian/ in a heartbeat, and will engage in mental gymnastics until he has the last word, and will derail this thread, like he did the Baptist general on /christian/. (He has also been proven to use multiple IDs to pose as "innocent inquirers" and "other people" agreeing with him: >>2210 Sage and and hide for the sake of your mental sanity. I've learned the hard way myself. You have been warned.

>>3642

No one views Baptism as a work, save you. In fact from what I seen, it is those that deny its salvific role that advocate works salvation. This is because those who trust their Baptism as the seal, the contract and source of their assurance of being saved are trusting in something beyond themselves ultimately. This meshes with Pauline concepts of faith which is ultimately self negating in nature and follows his visual exegesis and piety. In looking there as a source of assurance, believers look out and can then gaze inward knowing the ocassion where they have put on Christ and receive his promise. In fact the external nature of the sacrament forbids the one Baptized from thinking that he has something inside him that merits salvation.

Contra this to anti sacramentalists. They cannot look at baptism, that's just "works" and external. It can be seen. By extension they cannot look at the Gospel, because it too is external and is heard and seen by the mind's eye upon hearing and reading. This is not so bad, had there be nothing about knowing that one is saved and saved forever. And since the external Word and Sacrament cannot provide that assurance, one have to look inwards at themselves and feel it inside, the Spirit of born again. Ironically the ego is the basis of assurance, contra the sacramentalist who accepts that assurance can be sought in looking at the seal of Baptism and repentance as a return to that as Luther wisely states

>>3646

Yup, go ahead and falsely accuse me. That's precisely gonna make everything I say false

Also just to add, isnt it ironic how you charge me for spamming, which of course I did not do and as anyone can see, all my posts are my own words gathered from sources I read and even at one point, I acknowledged seeing that poster provide that link which is helpful…literally spams a whole bunch of links instead of addressing that anon's question?

>>3643

I have to admit that your posts led me to doubt. Replies like >>3646 only make me to think I am more wrong on things tbh. As a newfag, I dunno anyone spamming at all. Maybe it happened before idk.

Just looking for answers man. Why you do this?

>>3646

>4 more hidden posts in concerted rapid succession, in addition to the initial 4 posts, later…

I rest my case.

>>3650

They do this blinded by their own misconceptions. Notice how nothing in that Baptist's reply addresses what I given? That's because he doesnt know what he is talking about. In fact I actually read One Fold a few times but it is just unconvincing after reading the actual sources themselves and knowing their context. Even without any familiarity anyone who isnt biased would know something is off with those links, at least on the Eucharist anyways. The rest, well they dont address the Greek for "appeal for a good conscience" at all. Since there's too many to look through, I only focused on that.

>>3651

I did not even spam anything. As I said before many times I am a former Evangelical who left after knowing the truth. Accusing me of something I never done isnt gonna help your case. It only makes people who doubt and I more convinced of the errors of your views. Is that why you cannot even use your own words to have a discussion and just do this as a getaway excuse?

>>3646

>the malaysian

i remember that guy from halfchan's /pol/.

here's from a thread where he was 100 of the posts in it:

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/uid/KVeIq1cy/page/4/

we might be thinking of different psychopaths though, since mine said to some guy "You are a loser lesbian like all Anglicans"

>>3647

gibberish

What are some of the pivotal works of the individuals in the following link, and what order should they be read in, in terms of importance/understanding/etc.?:

>>2946

This thread is why I am not Protestant

>>3667

So you can be intellectually lazy?

>>3668

None of you Prot can even agree on the bible. None of you can be consistent with it

>>3669

>debate exists, therefore the whole thing is untrue

preteen atheist tier argument buddy

>>3671

Nice strawman. The bible is clear enough. Yet you Prots make it a bunch of babble. At least Luther is more biblical than the baptists

>>3668

Would you bang genderswapped Luther? Be honest anon, lying is a sin.

>>3677

If that was a strawman, what was the correct argument presented?

>>3684

Why did you think I added another statement after that? You guys are already bad enough to not agree on even the important matters, you cant even follow the text as it says.

>>3712

>get saved

>continue living like a reprobate

What even is the difference?

>>3715

The difference is in your heart. The Bible tells us that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Nobody is perfect, even after salvation, because we are human. But a saved person is much more averse to sin and feels truly sorry when they do sin. After I was saved I stopped cursing almost completely, but I've had a couple words slip out and always feel my conscious get pricked a bit as soon as I say it. My soul no longer likes the action, even though my flesh causes me to do it every now and then.

>>3715

Thats not what reprobate means.

Saved people can still sin.

Everyone sins.

>>3721

How can you say sola fide when the mindset of the person matters? That makes once saved, always saved make no sense because change is expected of the saved. Are you going to tell me the saved is just acting out of divine puppetry?

>Calvinism

>Sola fide

Choose one.

>>3880

Why are they incompatible?

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

>>4128

Get married so you can have sex

1 Corinthians 7:9 NASB — But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

I would also say to stop fixating. I'm guessing you're the guy who's posted several times about this. She's a co-worker and much older?

How long has it been? You need to just move on.

>>4130

How do I move on?

>>4131

Lift heavy weights

>>4131

Pray for the ability to.

>>4131

Honestly, if at all possible, some form of "out of sight, out of mind" is the best cure for a crush this bad. Don't try to "just be friends" with her. In your current state, you will always hold onto a false hope of future romance if you keep being "just friends" with her. You'll try to be "just friends", but on a subconscious or outright conscious level you'll be thinking "if I am a good friend to her long enough, she'll eventually wake up and develop feelings for me! Especially if I'm super nice and try to be there for her!" This is one of the main ways guys become entrapped in the "friend zone" Try to minimize or outright cut contact with her if it is feasible. Get transferred to another department if you can, etc. Other than that: prayer and time.

>>4139

It will be a bit difficult to transfer. Any tips for future interactions on how ti move on with her still being present?

>>4140

As said before, keep interactions to a minimum. Be civil, be professional, that's it. Don't be super buddy buddy with her, don't be nasty or bitter toward her either. Don't go out of your way to be around her. Only be around her if absolutely necessary.

On a side note: avoid workplace romantic relationships period. Right now, you're going through a tough time being around her just because you're crushing on her. Imagine if you got into an actual relationship and had a nasty breakup, or broke up with her period with your feelings still intact. Imagine having to see her, every, single, day, in that state. Try looking for a relationship in your church, or via some online Christian singles match program or something of that sort.

>>4142

Noted. But, I wasn't even with this woman. I feel devastated - I can't imagine how worse it must feel for husbands that were actually cheated in by their wives.

How do men like this overcome that? Maybe I can get some tips for cheated on men overcoming the feeling of devastation…

>>4152

>How do men like this overcome that?

You suffer, simple as that, there is no "overcome".

It shows you that you are alive and have a heart of flesh. Healing is a long slow process and there is no recipe to make it quicker.

Don't be fooled by advice, that you can somehow avoid or saved from this by works. You can acquire a heart of stone, but that has other far worse implications.

>>4152

It depends. If you were an actual man who was cheated on by his wife, I would recommend counseling for the both of you (especially Christian and/or Pastoral counseling) and to try your best to forgive and mend the marriage. If after all attempts to save the marriage have been exhausted, divorce may be a necessary evil, especially if the wife is unrepentant and/or shows no signs of trying to mend on her end of things, as Jesus himself noted that sexual immorality may cause permanent damage to a marital union.

Nevertheless, I must ask: what age range are you in roughly? If you are late high school to college, or early post-college in terms of your age, having really intense crushes like this can be normal, and something to grow out of over time. However, if you are past, or well past this age range, having such crushes may be a sign of some deeper issues that you may need at least Pastoral counseling for, if not professional psychological help.

Either way, you should be reaching out to your Pastor and/or IRL church community for help in this matter. As an adage from 12 step programs goes: "Don't go it alone." If you don't have a church community, seeking out one, becoming a part of it and building connections should be a top priority for you.

>>4156

On another note, in relation to what I just said, if things get really bad, you might actually have to literally go to a 12 step program. There is actually a specific 12 step program called "Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_Love_Addicts_Anonymous

Yes, the emotional aspects of "Love" can be an addiction:

"Examples of bottom line behaviors might include sexual or romantic activity outside the scope of monogamous relationships, anonymous or casual sex, compulsive avoidance of intimacy or emotional attachment, one-night stands, compulsive masturbation, obsessive fantasy, compulsive attraction to unavailable or abusive partners, and a wide variety of addictive sexual, romantic, or avoidant behaviors."

I don't know if things are this bad for you necessarily, but it's another option on the table.

>>4156

late 20s to early 30s

She was in early 50s

>>4188

You have unhealthy romantic desires. A menopausal woman is biologically incapable of fulfilling her role as wife in a hypothetical marriage with you.

Are you a fetishist?

>>4191

An unfortunate side effect I developed of watching older women in pornography when I was younger (and way before I was saved).

>>4195

I feel ya. I think a lot of anons here can relate to falling into the pit of pornography and the kinks that can come from spiraling down that rabbit hole.

If you're not already on NoFap, get on that. Pray to our Lord Jesus Christ with all sincerity, and think about supplementing your struggle by joining a 12 step program like SAA (Sex Addicts Anonymous) or the aforementioned SLAA >>4157 . And don't beat yourself up too hard when you slip up, it'll make things worse. Get back up, repent, and try again. There was a time I couldn't go 5 days without cracking. Now I'm on my 44th day thanks to Jesus Christ. Weird fetishes are supposed to start disappearing as your brain begins to heal after about the 90 day mark. But remember: as with any addiction, take it one day at a time.

>>4157

The emotion of love is not addictive. Stop trying to classify every action against one's better judgement as addiction.

Also, don't go to a 12 step program everyone

>>4265

>The emotion of love is not addictive. Stop trying to classify every action against one's better judgement as addiction.

Not every sin is an addiction, but saying that compulsively seeking fulfillment in romantic relationships/sex cannot be addictive is naive and ignorant.

>Also, don't go to a 12 step program everyone

Skimmed the video a bit. I agree that a totally Christian program for handling sex addiction is best…if one can find it. That's the rub. If. As far as I know, in my area, there is no purely Christian equivalent to something like SAA.

The closest thing I can find is another 12 step program called "Sexaholics Anonymous", which is the only 12 step program to have a distinctively Christian definition for sobriety:

>"In defining sobriety, we do not speak for those outside Sexaholics Anonymous. We can only speak for ourselves. Thus, for the married sexaholic, sexual sobriety means having no form of sex with self or with persons other than the spouse. For the unmarried sexaholic, sexual sobriety means freedom from sex of any kind. And for all of us, single and married alike, sexual sobriety also includes progressive victory over lust".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexaholics_Anonymous

If there was one of these in my area, I would go to that instead, but SAA is what I have to work with, so I'm working that. Even the video you posted seems to only tackle drug and alcohol addiction, and subsequently AA. Christian-wise, all I've found online are either Christian programs that are in another state or half-way across the country, or are phone based and cost money that I don't have, and many others may not: https://www.blazinggrace.org/mens-support-group-for-sex-addiction/

..or there are Christian pages the literally recommend the programs that I've already recommended: https://www.christiancounseling.ws/services/groups/sexually-compulsive-behavior-group/

Until Christian sex addiction programs become as commonplace and low-cost or free like 12 step programs, 12 step programs are what we have to work with.

Secondly, it's not exactly rocket science to approach a program like SAA from a Christian perspective. While there are some in the program who are clearly approaching things from a secular perspective, there are actual Christians in the program as well, who talk of prayer, reading the Bible, and being empowered by the grace of God. Also, while it's true some people get their addictions zapped away by Jesus, many don't. There are many instances of people getting their cancer/disease prayed away miraculously, but most have to do it the old fashioned way (chemo, etc.) Not to mention that having a support group and sponsor/mentor that you can confide in that understand where you are coming from is helpful for obvious reasons.

Even God's Word specifically says we will still have thorns in the flesh and sufferings that will never be completely healed to deal with throughout our lives for the sake of humbling us and building our reliance on God:

Ezekiel 2:6

Romans 5:2-6

2 Corinthians 12:7-10

Hebrews 4:15

Hebrews 11:34

James 1:2-4

1st Peter 2:20

On top of that, a 12 step program can also be an opportunity for witness to non-Christians. It's what I've been doing. In short, if Christ takes your sex/porn addiction away, just like that, awesome. If He doesn't, try to find a Christian based sex-addicts program. If you can't, approach a 12-step program from a Christian perspective.

>>4289

Here's another example:

https://faithfulandtrue.com/counseling-for-men/

But once again, I don't live in Minnesota, and I don't have $65 per group session. Are you starting to get the picture yet? This is an area that Christianity as a whole needs to catch up on in terms of providing help and resources.

>>4293

Just to drive the point home further:

https://www.aplaceofhopechristiancounseling.com/get-help-now/

>Financing: In addition to working with most insurance carriers we have other financing options available. We are able to assist most people to get the care they need. There are payment options available and we will work with you.

Here's another program that is located far away, and has it's own at home program for those who can't make it. The cost? $800…

https://www.purelifeministries.org/overcomers

And another Christian resource that recommends the 12 steps:

https://www.nacr.org/center-for-12-step-recovery

Update:

Guy from here >>3494 that was seeking out a church. As I outline in these posts >>8153 >>8166 , I left the IFB church after becoming repulsed by the IFB's cultic past, and most of the SBC churches in my area are compromised to some extent.

Going to try out one more SBC church in my area within driving distance, and then I'm going to start checking out the Free Will Baptist churches around here.

>>8217

SBC and free will Baptists have differing theology to a pretty significant degree

>>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