"We believe the bible cover to cover and most of us believe the cover as well" is such a funny way to state their views on scripture. Glad that some churches still incorporate humor into their teachings
This is the denomination that I grew up in. My mother left Seventh Day Adventism for a Free Will Baptist church when she was in college, she still holds their theological positions.
Even though I am Orthodox. I love watching videos learning about other churches. These videos help us see our similarities and differences. I think my devotion to confession, traditional liturgy, and love of God comes from my parents’ Arminian baptist upbringing.
@@Saratogan Many of us do believe in the absolute sovereignty of God as defined in scripture, and do gently try to lead others into that understanding. Pray for us.
@@The_True_ @Saratogan "'God has placed me' Interesting. Says the Calvinist to the Armenian." Interesting. Says the Calvinist who doesn't believe in 'free will' saying to the Armenian who believes wholly in free will. Stated from a Roman Catholic
I know I have made this comment before but when you do a video on a sect, you do an amazing job with neutrality. I believe it is a strong possibility your motivational gift is teaching. Regardless, this REALLY HAS to be a work of the Holy Spirit through you. I have seen many good explanations, but I have never seen anything that approaches the unnatural neutrality and unbiased nature you do this with. You really make a true effort to explain every view as the people who hold the views believe and not use a strawman. I have encountered people who can do it for one or two videos, or I can hold it together for one or two speeches, but I have encountered NOBODY that can do it to the level you are doing it at, and perhaps you’re here doing it for such a time as this😊😊😊 Keep on going, man of God!😃😃😃😃
Thank you Ready to Harvest for this super informative presentation of research! I’ve got a co-worker who is a free-will baptist and your work has given me a way to better understand them! Blessings in Christ!
Thank you for producing this series of teachings on the beliefs of various Christian denominations. I think you are clearly an independent baptist, but in your presentations, you are exceeding fair and even-handed. I appreciate how you stick to an accurate presentation of the facts, and specifically how you present the teachings of these denominations based upon their own statements. You do not present your personal judgment on the validity or error of their beliefs. This is a much needed service to the Body of Christ. I set out in my late teens and early 20’s to learn about the beliefs of various denominations, and it was not an easy task in the pre-internet age. Even today, it’s difficult to sort through the interpretation of denominational beliefs, as opposed to simply identifying the beliefs. Again, thank you so much for your hard work. It has benefited me and many others I am sure.
We are Free Will Baptists, and I would like to clarify that we do use the word "tithing" and that we are obligated to give according to how God hath prospered us and what we can cheerfully and willingly offer. We are congregational and therefore understand that church practices (e.g., ordinances) may differ according in each autonomous local church. This also means we are democratic (i.e., the whole membership is the final human governing authority in the church) and are led by a plurality of local church leaders (i.e., elders & deacons). We subscribe to a historical Arminian view of salvation, which means we believe that man is totally depraved and apart from the grace of God, we are unable to come to genuine repentance & belief. We believe that Christ died for all men, yet the condition of salvation is a regenerated, Spirit filled & led, persevering, fruit-bearing, saving faith.
@@williamnathanael412 No, ministry is ministry - people have questions and they must have possility to ask them. This is what ministry is for. If someone distable comment, he don't fullfile his role in ministry.
Awesome work once again in compiling a great deal of information and presenting it superbly, and from what I can tell so far: accurately! Thank you for your great work on this.
Interesting presentation. Though I am now what I would call a classical Presbyterian by conviction, I spent most of my life as a Baptistic Arminio-Dispy but was never quite sure of the details of this particular denomination.
I was raised FWB for 20 years in a little church in TN that my great great grandparents were charter members. I left when I was 20 to become non-denominational. My mom left after 48 years to go with me. I love the FWB church though. It gave me my roots in the Faith.
One of the interesting things about the FWB churches I've visited is they would have two offerings: one during Sunday School for general church expenses and another during the morning service for the pastor's offering (that's how he would get paid). Sunday evening and Wednesday services also had offerings and they weren't announced as the pastor's offering so they may have been for general expenses.
BA/CDC0120 I've been in a FWB church my entire Christian life...over 50 years including serving as Pastor for 35 yrs. We do receive a Sunday school offering and an offering in the morning worship service. Neither are referred to as "the pastors offering". Both are for the general fund. What you describe must have been a practice in one particular church.
Many of my family were/are Free Will Baptist. They all claim that years ago it was normal to see people speak in tongues and see the gifts of the Spirit manifest. These are Original FWB churches. However, you don't see that now. Personally, I fellowship with their churches often and they are welcoming and accepting of Pentecostals.
Thank you for your videos. I've often asked, "Where does he get al his information?" You are performing a very important and necessary service to the body of Christ, Keep up the good work.
I didn't realize that there were Baptists who don't believe in eternal security. I thought that was the standard Baptist position whether Arminian or Calvinist. I guess you learn something new every day.
Arminian doctrine cannot support the idea of eternal security. Arminian doctrine is dangerous and disguises itself behind the comforts of human decisionism. Stick to the reformed tradition...
@@jacobstabler9138 Calvinism does not support the idea of eternal security, either. Perseverance of the Saints is a different thing. Calvinism claims that God will keep unto salvation all the elect, but does not provide any basis for an individual to know that he is one of the elect. It is quite possible on Calvinism, since the the mind is thoroughly depraved and desperately wicked, for any man to conclude erroneously that he is among the elect, but yet is reprobate the whole time.
@@Giant_Meteor Calvin did appeal to the experiential witness of the Holy Spirit (including the 2 Abba passages). But one cannot fully trust his own "wicked" heart, as you mention. So a conundrum is retained regarding assurance, as even John Piper affirmed.
Of all denominations beside my own I have the most familiarity with NAFWB since my cousin in East Tennessee is a member (and within 10 miles of their house I know of four separate congregations, she's been a member of three of them and has distant relatives buried at the cemetery outside of the fourth).
12:22 Wow, Oklahoma is clearly *THE* place to be a Free Will Baptist! It's neighbor Arkansas and Tennessee beyond it, seem to be vying for the runner-up spot.
I've never understood how the doctrine of total abstinence squares with Jesus turning water into wine and pouring wine for the disciples and saying; "This is my blood..."
Independant baptists are three point arminians. Read “against calvinism “ I thought it could have been written by my ifb professors at college. They say they are “biblicists” but really they are part of a system.
Until the sky splits open and Jesus descends there will probably “always” be Calvinists who think Arminians are “wrong”, Arminians who think Calvinists are “wrong” and people on both sides who love to argue about it. There is another way to view this issue, however. That is to think of justification, sanctification and glorification as three aspects of “salvation”. I have been saved (from guilt), I am being saved (from sin) and I will be saved (from the environment of sin). Please try plugging this way of thinking into such discussions and see whether it helps.
I mean, they can't both be right. People do emphasize the issue too much though, I'll give you that. There's way too much anger. I can love my Calvinist brethren, even if I do disagree with them.
@@EssenceofPureFlavor I think John Calvin took the idea of divine sovereignty beyond what is actually implied by the biblical evidence but I also think what John Calvin taught in the sixteenth century was greatly helpful to people who lived back then. It could be argued that the traditions of the western church at that time only implied - didn’t expressly teach - that a person’s salvation depended on the decisions of the local priest. Either way, however, Calvin’s teaching allowed people to think of God - not the local priest - as being the one to make that decision. I try to imagine how I might have rejoiced to hear what Calvin was teaching. Our parents encouraged my siblings and me to admire the reformers of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries without teaching us to idolize them. Dad especially encouraged me to read for myself, study for myself and think for myself. I like to think my wife and I similarly encouraged our own children.
@@rogermetzger7335 Absolutely. When I say Calvinism, I mean just the soteriological aspects. A lot of Reformed teaching is great. I mean, Jacob Arminius himself was aDutch Reformed preacher and pretty much all of modern Protestantism has its roots in either Reformed or Lutheran traditions.
This may be a bit off topic but..... The first time I remember seeing a dictionary definition of the word, “protestant”, was about 1956. This may not be word for word but that dictionary defined protestant as someone who subscribes to the doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers. By that time, I was aware that the first use of the word, “protestant” was political rather than theological. It was first used as a designation for several German nobles (the German word translates more directly into English as “princes”) who formally protested an imperial ban on Martin Luther. Only later did it come to be used as a designation for reforms of Christian doctrine and practice, the reformers who advocated those reforms and the people who subscribed to those reforms. The more conservataive members of European society referred to the reformers as “heretics''. How are some examples of reform movements and the would-be reformers who advocated them: The non-smoking movement advocated by Pope Urban VII in the late sixteenth century. The puritan movement in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Seventh-day sabbath keeping by John Traske and Dr. Peter Chamberlen and the religious liberty movement by Roger Williams and William Penn in the seventeenth century. The teetotaling (abstinence from alcoholic beverages) movement by Joseph Bates in the seventeenth century and by the Women’s Christian Temperance League in the eighteenth century. “The second blessing” (sanctification) movement promoted by John Wesley in the eighteenth century. The health reform and dress reform movements promoted by second adventists in the nineteenth century. So when and how did non-Calvinisits acquiesce to the practice of referring to Calvinists as “reformed” when the reforms advocated by John Calvin were only some of the many that have been advocated over the last several centuries? Does the use of that word to describe John Calvin’s doctrines and practices imply that other would-be reformers weren’t really reformers at all or that the reforms they advocated are any less important than those promoted by John Calvin?
@@rogermetzger7335 That's an interesting point. I've kind of wondered about that myself. There's no reason the term Reformed "should" be as limited as it is, but I guess at this point I just accept it. Usage dictates things to a degree. Just like how "catholic" is taken to mean the Roman Catholic church even though technically it really refers to the universal Christian church.
Very interesting as their commitment to Scripture is so high in many areas. Yet at the same time takes strong stands on particular interpretations (i.e. young earth/literal 24 hour days), tithing, 3rd ordinance of foot washing -- which are most likely poor interpretations; and requires fully cultural determinations to also be stated at a confessional level (embrace of conservative culture, conviction on abstinence -- which is actually antithetical to scriptural admonition and examples). So, it seems the movement is ripe for succumbing to legalism. Are there other Arminian Baptistic traditions that have avoided codifying early 20th century American values in their statement of faith?
Excellent discussion! Question at 4:51 minute mark: who teaches a doctrine than you can be saved today, lost tomorrow, saved again, lost again, saved again??? I've never heard any denomination speak of a doctrine as this.
@@Dorn-Dvinn Dan, I left evangelicalism for the Catholic church. Catholic doctrine and dogma do not teach what you've stated. In fact, the language regarding losing one's salvation and maintaining relationship with Christ in this video is extremely close to what the Catholic church teaches.
@@m4641 Read the CCC 1422 and 1514. Every Catholic doctrine is well documented and clearly described. Any claims to what Catholic doctrines say without quoting from these sources is usually wrong. I left the Catholic Church and the KofC(I still have the hat) (Tempus fugit memento mori)etc to become Christian.
I don't think any denomination teaches this. Though I suppose some individuals may feel or act like they this way. I also know it's kind of set up that was as a straw man argument by those teaching eternal security. The FW Baptist brother he was quoting was probably trying to posit his view as a middle way between the once saved always saved view and the extreme saved and lost over and over view others are accused of holding. I hope that makes sense.
I like it. As a Catholic who does his best to know and affirm what the Catholic Church has consistently held for the last 20 centuries, I believe 99%+ of what the Free Will Baptists believe, and it sounds like they probably believe 90%+ of what I believe. They sound a lot like what you'd get if you took the Catholic Church and used the "flashy thing" from the Men In Black movies to wipe out its memory of everything the Holy Spirit did among Christians between 33 AD and last week. That's less-than-complete, but it reads like a pretty good chunk of what's needful. I imagine a big percentage of them would say I'm attending the Whore of Babylon, or something. Fair enough; I didn't say there were no differences. But I think I mostly like the cut of their jib, even if the appreciation is one-sided.
Maybe, maybe not. Many baptists don't have as much strong language against the Catholic church as at one time. And when it comes to Protestants in general, I think most of us differentiate between fully committed, Maryologist Catholics and the more loose, "evangelicalesque" Catholics. It's not that we believe Catholics are necessarily not brethren. Many are. But that's despite the church, not because of it. Please don't take that the wrong way. Just a general statement, not directed at any particular individual.
@@EssenceofPureFlavor: No, don't worry, it's cool. I get what you're saying. Now, naturally as someone who grew up Baptist, who then (as an adult) became convinced I should be Catholic after spending 4 years studying how the Church Fathers used the Scriptures, the whole "Mary thing" was one of the items that concerned me most. But when I checked it out, I found that "the whole Mary thing" was way less of an issue than I'd expected. Hmm...I kind of want to tell you why, specifically. So I'm going to...but, don't take this as me trying to convince you. (I'm just a guy on the Internet, as far as you're concerned!) I'm not trying to argue why YOU should think anything: You have my respect. But my purpose is to show why I, who was raised Baptist and found much Marian devotion repellent, eventually concluded that it wasn't, even though some of it wasn't personally suited to ME. So, with that understanding in place (that I'm explaining myself, not debating at you), here's my list: - I think the idea that Catholics and Orthodox worship saints (Mary, Joseph, and others) may have arisen because the Catholic and Orthodox Christians talk to the saints (specifically, asking them to pray for us before the throne of God), whereas Protestants usually only talk to God. (There seem to be some unofficial exceptions to the latter, though, when visiting the grave of a beloved relative, or asking for help from one's guardian angel when in danger. But those are exceptions.) Anyway, to Protestants, petitionary conversation directed at an unseen person is normally associated with God, not others, so it seems the Catholics/Orthodox are "treating a human, however saintly, as if they're God." But the Catholics/Orthodox think that SACRIFICE, specifically, is the worship given to God (either the "sacrifice of praise," or the "rendering of one's body as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God," or the sacrifice of enduring hardship (by uniting it with the suffering of Christ on the cross), or (supremely) the offering up of the unbloody Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, as a combined Thanks-Sin-Guilt-Atonement-Passover-AndEverythingElse offering. So unless someone offered Person X a sacrifice, the Catholic/Orthodox idea is, "well, Person X obviously isn't believed to be God." - There actually was a group of people in the early church days who tried to worship Mary as a goddess, literally: They were an early heretical sect in Arabia called the Collyridians, and they offered a sacrifice of some kind of little cakes, called "kollyrids." The Catholics loudly condemned them as polytheists and non-Christians, and they sank without a trace. The only record of them is in the "Panarion" of Epiphanius of Salamis, written sometime around approximately 376 AD. It was a relief to know that the Catholics excommunicated the crap out of anyone who did what THEY consider worship, in Mary's direction. - There was an early Christian hymn, composed in Roman Alexandria or thereabouts, sometime around 200-250, called the "Sub Tuum Praesidium." (To be accurate, in the original Coptic or Greek it would have had a Coptic or Greek title; "Sub Tuum Praesidium" is the Latin title and they didn't make it part of Latin worship until the 900s or later.) The hymn clearly asks Mary for protection by interceding for believers...and thus seems to verify that the early Christians officially did this, in the liturgy, even prior to the canonization of the New Testament. It was popular enough that by 500 it was already spread as far as modern Armenia and modern Iraq. So I figured, "Hey, I have to trust these folks for my Bible canon; so I can't very well call 'em heretics when they ask for Mary's prayers." - The "Hail Mary" is obviously the most common prayer addressed to Mary, at least in Western Christianity. It consists of quoting 2 Bible passages, followed by the request "pray for us NOW, and also when we're about to die." Presuming that a saint can hear such requests, as the early Christians seem to have believed, this seems a reasonable thing to ask...and obviously quoting Bible passages is fine. - The Catholic Church officially teaches that repetitive prayers CAN be bad, but only when the repetitions are "vain." (Otherwise several of the Psalms would be ruled out!) The Church distinguishes 3 forms of repetition in prayer: (1.) repetition as a form of "persistence in prayer" (as in, "praying three times that a cup might pass from me"); (2.) repetition as a way to silence one's internal "babble instinct," so as to move into a contemplative union with God in prayer; and (3.) repetition from a superstitious motive, with the notion that your prayer won't be answered if you don't get it right (or something). The Catholic Church officially encourages Type 1 for everyone, encourages Type 2 for those for whom it is helpful; and forbids Type 3 as "the sin of superstition." So anybody who prays the Rosary (with its multiple repetitions of the "Hail Mary" prayer) in that superstitious, Type 3 fashion is officially not being a good Catholic. But if they use it as a way to quiet the noisy part of their minds in order to "contemplate the mystery of the Carrying of the Cross" (or some other scripture passage), then that's normative use. - A certain kind of medieval Marian devotion, with lots of flowery language, seemed repellent to me, and still seems really weird. ("O Mother of God, o clement, o loving, o sweet virgin...," etc., etc., bleah.) It felt so weird that it just about made me chuck the whole Catholic thing until someone said, "Dude. Your culture isn't their culture. They were flowery and poetical about everything female, but especially in the 'courtly love' culture when addressing a noble lady, even if it was only the wife of a duke or viscount. But if it was the Mom of the King of the Universe, how flowery would you expect them to be? To THEIR culture, your very pillow-talk to your wife probably sounds so businesslike and platonic as to make them think you don't love her at all; and to you, their milk-maid's absent-minded curtseying before a local feudal lord looks like idol-worship. But it's just cultural misunderstanding about manners and decorum." Anyway, those kind of cleared the air about Marian devotions for me. Not saying it should, for you; but if you're wondering how a good Baptist boy wound up Catholic, that was part of it. Thanks for your reply, and the irenic tone of it. Best to you, CW
I grew up Southern Baptist but I’m not sure if I align more with Free will Baptist , I do believe that even if you are saved if you then choose to for example reject Jesus , drink animal blood, worship Satan you can loose your salvation and go to hell. I don’t think In that example (although extreme) you’d go to heaven if you died in that lifestyle but I do believe you could repent and turn back like lost sheep or the prodigal Son.
At 3:17 does *Ready To Harvest* show-off dichotomous Calvinist category bias? It appears as a personal conclusion (if you're not one of us, you're one of them ) in "FRB's are Armenian and not Calvinist's'". Was this part cited from source? It appears as a biased opinion of the next citation... As Armenian, they too would love to paint the world in just two colours.
Yes, free will baptists are Arminian. According to their own official documents. Most Protestant churches that aren't Calvinist or Lutheran are, even if they don't admit it. ("Eternal security" is something that Arminianism allows disagreement over) Arminian doesn't necessarily mean Wesleyan. In fact, Wesley actually disagrees with classical Arminianism in a couple key areas.
Very interesting & pretty orthodox in their beliefs except for lack of eternal security...personally I like Jesus' own words on this in John ' no one can take them out of my hand"
Despite me being against free will Baptist on absolutely everything (except abortion, a issue l consider myself to be neutral) thx for this unbiased video
@@TheJpep2424 I fact l would say l lean more towards pro life, but that's not because of my religion, just because l think there should be slightly bit more restrictions when you kill a fetus
Are you familiar with a group that calls itself The Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church. I know they can be found in eastern North Carolina and once knew one of their pastors, now, sadly, deceased. I don't if they extend much beyond NC
I know a man (in western NC) who calls himself a Pentecostal Baptist (I don't know whether it's Free Will or not). I get the impression that they believe in the Baptist Distinctives but are more open to charismatic features than traditional Baptists.
There are WAAAAAY too many divergent kinds of Baptists. So what makes a Baptist church Baptist, as far as non-essential doctrine is concerned? At least to me, it seems that it comes down to three things: 1) Believers’ baptism by trinitarian immersion 2) Priesthood of all believers 3) Primacy of the local church and congregational polity Am I missing anything? 😂
The Baptist Church I am a member of has an “Eldership Rule” although the congregation votes for certain things including Deacons and Elders. Don’t recall any Congregational “business meetings” as were almost monthly in certain Churches I have been involved with. The “BAPTIST” acrostic works somewhat here. Biblical Authority Autonomy of the Local Church Priesthood of the Believer Two Offices (Bishop and Deacon) Individual Soul Liberty Separation of Church and State Two Ordinances - Baptism and Communion. Some use the “BAPTISTS” acrostic and include “Security of the Believer” “Separation of Church and State” is the biggie! Baptists were part of the “Non-Conformists” and the “Free Church” movement refusing to be sanctioned as an “Official State Recognized” denomination.
This sounds like a denomination where I can agree with most of their teachings. I'm not a Calvinist. I also don't believe dispensationalism is biblical which most Baptist churches that I've been to teach. I will have to look if there is a freewill Baptist Church near me!!
Ok, one question needed to be answered to know exactly what you are- Calvinist or non -Calvinist Baptists? John Piper/ John MacArthur OR John Rice, Curtis Hutson, Jack Hyles, Sheldon Smith, Charles Stanley and that deranged but incredible genius, Peter Ruckman?
I cannot accept a literal chronology in Genesis. BUT I understand the strong resistance many Christians have to Darwinian theory because it is so wrapped up in an atheistic worldview as to be inseparable from it. Christians who do accept the scientific reading of cosmology have yet to really take in and integrate that immense and violent back-story into their theology.
Bingo. There is a huge difference between "evolution" and "Darwinism." Evolution does not imply a lack of purpose and/or guidance of the process, in fact it takes a leap of faith in nihilism to *not* see meaning in a cosmos evolving in complexity over time. Does evolution potentially counter the common Christian narrative of a "fall?" Certainly. Does it imply an absence of God and transcendent truth? Certainly not.
I like your nuanced take. I'm open to different interpretation. But I still think the actual evidence for what's taught in mainstream textbooks is abysmally weak
@@grangermontag1824 Thanks! I'd offer that perhaps it's the *teaching* of those facts that's abysmally weak. People like you who are clearly intelligent enough to question the mainstream are told far too often just to 'trust the experts' with the 'whys' and 'hows' being glossed over. As a former Anthropology student I remember it well. How can you be expected to accept evidence when the sources of it are kept vague? This is why I'm a big supporter of classical education. Pedagogy without dialectic teaches nothing.
@@AF-tv6uf I don't know if I should go down the whole rabbit-hole. I think the teaching is weak because the evidence is weak. The methodology for any of the dating methods is laughable. There aren't nearly enough fossils to justify the claims they make (that's why they contructed one out of a pig's tooth-- Nebraska man). If the Earth isn't several thousand years old, then it's just as likely to be 8 Billion years old as 4.5B. The introduce huge errors in their estimates. In my view whole thing is held together by starting with particular preconceptions and burning the heretics. Put simply, as far as I know Darwin didn't dig up fossils or collect any evidence of ancient occurrences. He created a mythology based in part on assumptions about inheritance we now know are false. And now the disciples of Neo-darwinism look to find the evidence for it. And all they have to show for it is a few highly publicized examples. But it's like Algore said "It's hard to get a man to understand something, when his job depends on him not understanding it." I do think Christians tend to respond with an over-exuberant certainty in the other direction, but the OP lays out a good reason why that is.
I believe that man has a “Free-Will” but a man left to his own free-will, will freely choose to remain in darkness and will shun the light! Regarding their belief that a GENUINE BELIEVER could “fall away” into apostasy, I’d be curious to know whether they hold to the “Government Theory” of atonement?
You might check out the Counterpoints series “Four Views on Eternal Security”. Matt Pinson, Editor, 2002. Dr. Stephen Ashby presents a Classical or Reformed Arminian position, and not precisely a governmental or Wesleyan view. Not all FWB hold the Classical/Reformed view.
6:57 - as someone who left the Free Will Baptists, this is not true. You’re “allowed” to have your personal views, but the clergy regularly say that anything but pre-trib thinking is little more than nonsense.
Is that representative of the denomination though? That sounds representative of one area/congregation. Many other Free Will Baptists hold to other stances, clergy included.
I had a pastor friend tell me it was divided across the US. East of the Miss was mostly pretrib, west of the Miss was mostly posttrib. And Ammil sprinkled all throughout.
@@jacobjohnson1504 ditto what the above 👆 said. Pre-trib is greatly clung to in the east (not just in FWB churches). I would agree that maybe this was regional if the course in which it was expressly taught was not approved by the FWB leaders. Perhaps some individual church pastors have different thoughts, but they all have to take that course at some point.
I am from Bulgaria and from one of the free will baptist churches here. I've never heard here someone talking about eschatology as something that clear to understand and important. There are people here including the pastor who reject the idea of pre-trib rapture. Some hold amill view too.
I would assume its about the Woman hating her husband, comparing it to the calvinist view of predestination, so just as their theology makes god appear like he hates some people with no option of repentance or change, so the woman hates her husband and isnt willing to forgive him.
@@ronashman8463 I agree with Juliusius, but it is a pretty strange "joke". Calvinism definitely presents a strange theology in which God hates nearly everyone. Other Christians would say that God loves everyone, but by his grace, he has allowed the genuine freedom to accept or reject. Someone might criticise Calvinism, saying that on this view, God _doesn't like_ the vast majority of humanity, but the Calvinist would correct the critic, saying rather, "no, no, he _hates_ almost everybody".
With the Arminian view, the woman hating her husband would be in danger of losing her salvation and would thus deal with her sin rather than end up in HELL. The Calvinist position is badly represented here. Such hatred towards a spouse would likely be a matter of Church discipline and her refusal to deal with this sin would cause her testimony of salvation to be called into question! I believe this to be the proper way to handle such a matter regardless of your soteriological position. It is the typical Carnal “Babtist” who takes a licentious approach to “Once Saved Always Saved” that such would actually exist in a congregation! Just “Pray the Sinner’s Prayer” and it’s “All Under the Blood” no matter how you continue to live in sin!
@@63stratoman What is "testimony of salvation"? I have read a pretty substantial amount of Calvin's writings (including all of his Institutes), but I have never found in his writings any basis by which an individual could possibly testify with any certainty of oneself being "among the elect". And his philosophy would seem to flatly preclude the possibility of such. Maybe there's a modern, Calvin-ish update to Calvinism that you're referring to? Also, on Calvinism, does God ever, in any sense, love the reprobate? If so, please cite the source. I will gladly apologize, if I am shown that I have in any way misrepresented his philosophy. I believe I have only stated the quiet part out loud. Calvinism, in a nutshell, is the belief that God most likely hates you, and there's nothing you can do about it.
An often misunderstood passage. Calvinists seem to think it indicates that only those predetermined for salvation will believe whereas God actually predestined those who believe for salvation.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND that "general baptists" means we believe in the general atonement, that Christ died for ALL persons as opposed to what calvinism teaches. it does NOT always refer to free will baptists who reject eternal security. most southern baptists are "general baptists" but also hold to eternal security. most southern baptists are neither arminian nor calvinist. (yes i know u calvinsts who are sbc will have something to say so bring it on i am ready)
Points I agree/disagree with: 1 Living God? = Disagree. 1 Ruling God? = Perhaps. Divine Founder? = Disagree. Sinless Founder? = Perhaps. Arisen Founder? = Nope. Literal 2nd Coming? = Yes. Literal Heaven & Hell? = Yes. Immersion Baptism? = Yes. Believer's Baptism? = Yes. Open Communion? = Perhaps. Literal Presence? = Nope. Spiritual Presence? = Perhaps. Last Supper Observance? = Once Annually. Feet Washing? = By Whom? So Never Then. Infallible Bible? = Nope. Exclusion of the Apocrypha? = Perhaps. (For otherwise the Bible is too much like the Torah!) Use of Which Bible? = Perhaps ESV, for King James sucks!!!!!! Young Earth Creation? = Nope. Being Evil by Birth? = Nope. (Contradicts the Believer's Baptism requirement, doesn't it?) Being Arminian? = Yes. Eternal Security? = Nope. No 2nd Grace? Yes. No Tongues? Yes. No Required Tribulation? Yes. Homophobic? Yes. Anti-Divorce? = Mostly! (Only thru Incarceration is Divorce permissible). Gay to Straight Conversion? Nope. (For it doesn't work!) Anti-Abortion? Yes. Worship Style? Blended. Worship Time? Once Weekly. No Alcohol? Yes. Tithing? Nope. Sunday as the Holy Day? Nope. Congregationalism vs Presbyterianism? Either. Full-Time vs Part-Time Pastors? Either. Women Pastors? Nope. Total Score = 15 Yes, 13 No, 8 Maybes!
I would disagree with free will baptists on a couple positions, but I am sure there are brothers and sisters in the denomination, just like any other denominations. All Christians belive in the full diety and humanity of Christ we belive in his perfect life death and resurrection. This knowledge is what saves. All other issues are secondary but still important. Some things are clearer in scripture then others. I for one used to be reformed baptists but am now a non calvaistic, baptist, premillenial, leaky dispensatinal. I welcome fellowship with other true believers who belive in the essential. But I do not and willing not fellowship with those who pray to or worship other gods, idols, pictures, people because this is a sin and opposed to christanity. I will also not fellowship with those who openly preach a philosophies that arr opposed to the gospel such as CRT, Palagienism, idol worship, female holy spirit, nostic. The means of grace are baptism and the lords supper that is it. Woman are not pastors but can be decans. Decans and pastors have very diffrent roles. Here are issues i hold true but am willing to fellowship with those who differ. Baptism is by submersion of a belive, the belive has to chose Christ as savior, there will be a literal millennium and there is a special place for the Jewish believers in the end times, the gifts have stopped, there is no such thing as the Christan sabbath. There are a couple others but I can think of them right now or are undecided. Things I will not budge on Jesus is the second person of the trinity, he came in flesh and died on a cross, third day he was resurrected, God is sovereign, people have free will, the bible is perfect, it matters how you live your life and what you sing to God, women are not ministers that is a male only role. Decans and elders are separated offices with separated roles. Baptism and the lords supper are means of grace, there is no christans sabbath, idols belong I'm a fire to be destroyed not a worship service, the gifts of ceased, the music you worship with matters, KJB is not the best translation, Of course there are more but I may not be thinking of them at the moment. You can ask me questions on any of them, but there are a of a few I am willing to budge on. But that does not mean I will not fellowship with people who believe diffrent things as long as they belive the essentials, are not praying to anything but Jesus and are not talking in tounges. A few good teacher recommendations of course the bible and the original language. Steve Gregg, Steve Lawson, John Macarthur, any of the Purtains, Martin Loyd Jones, DL Moody, Mathew Henry, Leighton Flowers, Mike Winger, Alastair Beggs. I belive it matters what you poltical affiliation is and I belive you should be evangelizing and praying for the lost. There are teachers who are flash prophets and are leading people astray these include Joel Olsteen, Hillsong, Bethal, Elevation,Tim Keller, Todd White, David Platt, Matt Chandler, John Piper, Keith Copland, Beth Moore, Joyce Myers, The Pope. These people's teachings are from the Devil and I have very good reason to question there salvation based on the fact that they undermind the deity or Chirst and or preach a diffrent gospel.
Anyone who teaches that salvation is not forever is calling Jesus a liar: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”-John 6:47 Saying everlasting life can be lost is illogical and stupid. God is not stupid, but some men are. Let these false teachers be accursed.
Not so fast.....the above statement (john 6:47) is conditional in nature. In other words, the obverse statement would be......"He that DOES NOT (or NO LONGER) believes on me.....has NOT everlasting life". The promise is clearly a conditional promise based upon belief or a continuance of belief.
@Janaina Ribeiro if you lose eternal life, then you never had it (because it ended; and therefore, wasn’t eternal). You keep relying on your ability to not be foolish, unfaithful, or unforgiving (self righteousness) and I’ll rely on what Jesus Christ did.
I love that bit about 24-hr days! They insist that the Bible is the source for truth, but they just gloss over the fact that there's absolutely no mention of the number of hours in the "days" of creation. I know they'd respond something about the phrase "evening and morning," but what does that phrase even mean when the sun and moon weren't created until the fourth day!? I do NOT oppose the Young Earth Creation (YEC) position and they're fine to believe what they think is right, and his other comments about other theology being affected by changing one's views on Gen 1 and 2. My problem is when people **ahem** Answers in Genesis **ahem** or organizations make YEC on par with soteriology or other salvific issues. They hold YEC up there with belief in the Trinity or the Virgin Birth. That is what I have a problem with and some of the way he phrased their YEC views reminds me of how unimportant the view really is! Though they clearly don't think that way!
Free will :Anti-divorce :yes Homophobic :yes Which Bible :kjv Bible innerant :yes 6day creation :yes Anti-alchocol - yes Arminian- yes Anti premarital sex - yes I think there's nothing free will like here
The problem with free will folks is that they frame salvation in non biblical categories even when discussing what others believe. Calvinists do not believe, contrary to what the FWB say, that some people have the opportunity to be saved (the elect) and the rest don't. That's bonkers and is, in fact, a summary of their own position. The opportunity to be saved isn't anything a Calvinist would even recognize. All men are called to repent and believe, all are under judgement. The Elect are saved, not given an opportunity to be saved, and the rest are not saved and there never was such an opportunity. How would such an "opportunity" arise? Well they resort to prevenient grace, (a magic trick, albeit temporary, that allows a person to make a moral choice that isn't affected by their moral status, their natural inclination or what they think) but then in order for everyone to be given the opportunity that grace must be given to all and therefore must be separated from the Gospel. Terrible is that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for those that believe. It is the separat of the gospel from salvation which is their second biggest error. In summary. You can't be saved apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and they must say that you can, and there is no potential atonement in the scriptures just an actual atonement.
My mind boggle at how the "bible is literally true" when that means accepting contradictions as both being true and not contradicting. Matthew attributes to Jeremiah in 27:9-10 which in fact should be attributed to Zechariah 11:12-13. Go look. It's true. Matthew made a mistake, right there in black and white print. It is *NOT* literally true. If one place in the bible is wrong, and this certainly is, then the whole bible is not, by definition, perfect. How could Jesus have been born *BOTH* under and Herod *AND* during the census a decade later? Why does Ps 143:6 tell us *NOT* to trust the son of man? How can both God and Satan have caused David to take a census according to the contradictory 2 Sam 24:1 and 1 Chrons 21:? How can there be "one begotten son of god when Genesis 6:1 and Job 1:6 speak of "sons" plural of God? A bad case of stupidity unlimited.
if u did as much research as u do asking qquestions, youd have the answers my freind. in the jewish religion, the bible is not one book bound together. they are on diff scrolls. they usually have 3 scrolls Law, Writings and Prophets. they didnt have bound books as we do today. the first book in the "Prophets" scroll is Jeremiah. so when matthew said "jeremiah" he is referring to the "Jeremiah scroll", as the jews called the collection of prophets books in one scroll and they nicknamed the scrolls using the name of the first book in the scroll. this scroll contained all the prophets including zachariah. there is no contradiction, only a misunderstanding if ur not used to jewish thinking in Jesus' day. the other things u mentioned have answers as well, not hard to find
@@caman171 Not good enough. Jeremiah means Jeremiah. If something is literally true then it has to be precise in order for the opposite "not true" to be discernible.
@@PeterGregoryKelly sorry u are very wrong. "literal truth" doesnt no always equate to "literal words" when Jesus took the bread said "this is my body" he didnt mean the bread literall was his body..HE was in His body. but common sense tells u he held up the bread and said those words as symbolism. in my local synagogue the scroll is marked "J" for jeremiah scroll. like i said study, u dont have to believe me
@@PeterGregoryKelly and you can avoid the truth and find contradictions where there are none if u choose. i bet if i could replay a video of ur life itd show thousands of "contradictions". nevertheless what ive said is true. if it really was a contradiction, then the scribes to made all the originla copies of the bible before the printing press wouldnt changed it to fit ur narrative. the fact that they didnt feel any need to change what was written speaks volumes
"We believe the bible cover to cover and most of us believe the cover as well" is such a funny way to state their views on scripture. Glad that some churches still incorporate humor into their teachings
yeah, made me laugh. Usually they just try to say something cute. I'm gonna use that one.
'Love it too :-) I think God has and Jesus showed a sense of humor (e.g. the Luke 24 road to Emmaus "what things" asks Jesus - LOL) :-)
What in particular are you mocking is out of line with scripture that they preach ?
do they believe all from Generations to Revelotions?...i screwd up the joke. Do they believale all from Generations to Revolutions?
@@derekz8074 No, because the proper name of the Bible's last book is "Revelation", singular.
This is the denomination that I grew up in. My mother left Seventh Day Adventism for a Free Will Baptist church when she was in college, she still holds their theological positions.
Curious, what are your views now?
People believes that the Church is a supermarket.
@@JudithSanchez-ht6jn The church is not a supermarket but more of a wet market where in all manner dangerous viruses can breed.
@@PeterGregoryKelly Sounds like we've got a big brain over here.
Even though I am Orthodox. I love watching videos learning about other churches. These videos help us see our similarities and differences. I think my devotion to confession, traditional liturgy, and love of God comes from my parents’ Arminian baptist upbringing.
May I ask how long you’ve been Anglocatholic?
@@riverjao oops I forgot to edit this post. I left the Anglican Church and was welcomed into the Orthodox Church since I made this post.
@@SaintGeorge7 thanks for your reply! Many blessings on your journey.
@@riverjao thank you so much for your kind words. Many blessings to you as well!
@@SaintGeorge7 thank you!
Interesting. There is a Free-Will Baptist church near me, and I had always wondered about their beliefs.
This is a well put together representation of the denomination into which God has placed me. Thank you.
"God has placed me" Interesting. Says the Calvinist to the Armenian. 😁
@@Saratogan Many of us do believe in the absolute sovereignty of God as defined in scripture, and do gently try to lead others into that understanding. Pray for us.
@@The_True_ Amen! I love all the Lord's children. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
@@Saratogan Amen! What a glorious saviour we serve who gives us a heart to love Him and one another!
@@The_True_ @Saratogan "'God has placed me' Interesting. Says the Calvinist to the Armenian." Interesting. Says the Calvinist who doesn't believe in 'free will' saying to the Armenian who believes wholly in free will. Stated from a Roman Catholic
I know I have made this comment before but when you do a video on a sect, you do an amazing job with neutrality.
I believe it is a strong possibility your motivational gift is teaching. Regardless, this REALLY HAS to be a work of the Holy Spirit through you.
I have seen many good explanations, but I have never seen anything that approaches the unnatural neutrality and unbiased nature you do this with.
You really make a true effort to explain every view as the people who hold the views believe and not use a strawman.
I have encountered people who can do it for one or two videos, or I can hold it together for one or two speeches, but I have encountered NOBODY that can do it to the level you are doing it at, and perhaps you’re here doing it for such a time as this😊😊😊
Keep on going, man of God!😃😃😃😃
Thanks Andrew. You must have the gift of exhortation, you sure are an encourager! 🙂
... A sect... Nice of you.
True.
Thank you for posting this video on free will Baptists. It is indeed an eye opener.
Thank you for your work.
All of us who are in Christ, have our own blindspots. 1 John 4:7 ☺️
They seem very sound. God bless this denomination.
Thank you Ready to Harvest for this super informative presentation of research!
I’ve got a co-worker who is a free-will baptist and your work has given me a way to better understand them!
Blessings in Christ!
As one that grew up and still attends an LCMS Lutheran church, I may try out the Free Will Baptist church
Great video. I like free will Baptists and 5 point Arminianism in general.
Thank you for producing this series of teachings on the beliefs of various Christian denominations. I think you are clearly an independent baptist, but in your presentations, you are exceeding fair and even-handed. I appreciate how you stick to an accurate presentation of the facts, and specifically how you present the teachings of these denominations based upon their own statements. You do not present your personal judgment on the validity or error of their beliefs. This is a much needed service to the Body of Christ. I set out in my late teens and early 20’s to learn about the beliefs of various denominations, and it was not an easy task in the pre-internet age. Even today, it’s difficult to sort through the interpretation of denominational beliefs, as opposed to simply identifying the beliefs. Again, thank you so much for your hard work. It has benefited me and many others I am sure.
I was saved in, and grew up in, a Freewill Baptist Church. I’m no longer Freewill Baptist, but I have great love and respect for them.
Why aren't you FWB anymore?
''I was saved'' it's not up to you to decide that.
We are Free Will Baptists, and I would like to clarify that we do use the word "tithing" and that we are obligated to give according to how God hath prospered us and what we can cheerfully and willingly offer.
We are congregational and therefore understand that church practices (e.g., ordinances) may differ according in each autonomous local church. This also means we are democratic (i.e., the whole membership is the final human governing authority in the church) and are led by a plurality of local church leaders (i.e., elders & deacons).
We subscribe to a historical Arminian view of salvation, which means we believe that man is totally depraved and apart from the grace of God, we are unable to come to genuine repentance & belief. We believe that Christ died for all men, yet the condition of salvation is a regenerated, Spirit filled & led, persevering, fruit-bearing, saving faith.
Turn on the comments on your channel if you are ministry
If you don't pratice tithing but you pratice offering then don't use "tithing" because it is misleading.
Hi, may I ask what is your denominations view on continuationism and cessationism??
Do you guys allow freedom on that issue or no?
@@BeniaminZaboj it's their free will to disable comments.
@@williamnathanael412 No, ministry is ministry - people have questions and they must have possility to ask them. This is what ministry is for. If someone distable comment, he don't fullfile his role in ministry.
This was very good. This is why preachers like Mike Hoggard are vague on Dispensationalism, Eschatology, and Eternal security.
Awesome work once again in compiling a great deal of information and presenting it superbly, and from what I can tell so far: accurately! Thank you for your great work on this.
This is the denomination I most identifiy with. Sadly in the state of CT there really is no FWB presence
Super informative. Thanks for posting.
Can you do a video comparing the NC “original” Free Will Baptist denomination (hq is in Ayden NC I believe) and the NAFWB?
Great video brother. Blessings
Interesting presentation. Though I am now what I would call a classical Presbyterian by conviction, I spent most of my life as a Baptistic Arminio-Dispy but was never quite sure of the details of this particular denomination.
I was raised FWB for 20 years in a little church in TN that my great great grandparents were charter members. I left when I was 20 to become non-denominational. My mom left after 48 years to go with me. I love the FWB church though. It gave me my roots in the Faith.
One of the interesting things about the FWB churches I've visited is they would have two offerings: one during Sunday School for general church expenses and another during the morning service for the pastor's offering (that's how he would get paid). Sunday evening and Wednesday services also had offerings and they weren't announced as the pastor's offering so they may have been for general expenses.
BA/CDC0120 I've been in a FWB church my entire Christian life...over 50 years including serving as Pastor for 35 yrs. We do receive a Sunday school offering and an offering in the morning worship service. Neither are referred to as "the pastors offering". Both are for the general fund. What you describe must have been a practice in one particular church.
I have never seen that at my FWB church 😊
Can you cover the Bible Baptist Church soon?
Many of my family were/are Free Will Baptist. They all claim that years ago it was normal to see people speak in tongues and see the gifts of the Spirit manifest. These are Original FWB churches. However, you don't see that now. Personally, I fellowship with their churches often and they are welcoming and accepting of Pentecostals.
Us Free Will Baptist have been called the Pentecostals of the Baptist at time 😂😂😂
Thank you for your videos. I've often asked, "Where does he get al his information?" You are performing a very important and necessary service to the body of Christ, Keep up the good work.
I appreciate that! Glad to hear you like to watch.
I didn't realize that there were Baptists who don't believe in eternal security. I thought that was the standard Baptist position whether Arminian or Calvinist. I guess you learn something new every day.
Arminian doctrine cannot support the idea of eternal security. Arminian doctrine is dangerous and disguises itself behind the comforts of human decisionism. Stick to the reformed tradition...
@@jacobstabler9138 stop the fake news! One can leave the Faith who was once a Believer.
@@jacobstabler9138 Calvinism does not support the idea of eternal security, either. Perseverance of the Saints is a different thing. Calvinism claims that God will keep unto salvation all the elect, but does not provide any basis for an individual to know that he is one of the elect. It is quite possible on Calvinism, since the the mind is thoroughly depraved and desperately wicked, for any man to conclude erroneously that he is among the elect, but yet is reprobate the whole time.
Historically the first ever Baptists were Arminians
@@Giant_Meteor Calvin did appeal to the experiential witness of the Holy Spirit (including the 2 Abba passages). But one cannot fully trust his own "wicked" heart, as you mention. So a conundrum is retained regarding assurance, as even John Piper affirmed.
Of all denominations beside my own I have the most familiarity with NAFWB since my cousin in East Tennessee is a member (and within 10 miles of their house I know of four separate congregations, she's been a member of three of them and has distant relatives buried at the cemetery outside of the fourth).
Thanx, Joshua 🌹🌹🌹
I didn't know that Arminian Baptists existed, interesting video!
I was surprised to find Reformed Baptists. I guess it depends on the circles in which you run.
The first Baptists were Arminian
@@daltonb1993 really?
@@thetraditionalist look up the history of the General Baptists
There are about 200 different groups who call themselves Baptists. Definitely not with the same beliefs.
12:22 Wow, Oklahoma is clearly *THE* place to be a Free Will Baptist! It's neighbor Arkansas and Tennessee beyond it, seem to be vying for the runner-up spot.
Your map didn't show any Free Will Baptist Churches in Delaware. There are two. One in New Castle and one in Townsend.
This looks to be based on solid biblical principles.
I've never understood how the doctrine of total abstinence squares with Jesus turning water into wine and pouring wine for the disciples and saying; "This is my blood..."
I'm from england most Baptist churches here or general Armenian .
Is there a difference in Christ Church Baptist Fellowships?
Independant baptists are three point arminians. Read “against calvinism “ I thought it could have been written by my ifb professors at college. They say they are “biblicists” but really they are part of a system.
That should be Gallatin, Tennessee (not Gatlin as in Gatlinburg).
Amen🙏🙏🙏
Until the sky splits open and Jesus descends there will probably “always” be Calvinists who think Arminians are “wrong”, Arminians who think Calvinists are “wrong” and people on both sides who love to argue about it.
There is another way to view this issue, however. That is to think of justification, sanctification and glorification as three aspects of “salvation”. I have been saved (from guilt), I am being saved (from sin) and I will be saved (from the environment of sin).
Please try plugging this way of thinking into such discussions and see whether it helps.
I mean, they can't both be right.
People do emphasize the issue too much though, I'll give you that. There's way too much anger. I can love my Calvinist brethren, even if I do disagree with them.
@@EssenceofPureFlavor I think John Calvin took the idea of divine sovereignty beyond what is actually implied by the biblical evidence but I also think what John Calvin taught in the sixteenth century was greatly helpful to people who lived back then.
It could be argued that the traditions of the western church at that time only implied - didn’t expressly teach - that a person’s salvation depended on the decisions of the local priest. Either way, however, Calvin’s teaching allowed people to think of God - not the local priest - as being the one to make that decision. I try to imagine how I might have rejoiced to hear what Calvin was teaching.
Our parents encouraged my siblings and me to admire the reformers of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries without teaching us to idolize them. Dad especially encouraged me to read for myself, study for myself and think for myself.
I like to think my wife and I similarly encouraged our own children.
@@rogermetzger7335 Absolutely. When I say Calvinism, I mean just the soteriological aspects. A lot of Reformed teaching is great. I mean, Jacob Arminius himself was aDutch Reformed preacher and pretty much all of modern Protestantism has its roots in either Reformed or Lutheran traditions.
This may be a bit off topic but.....
The first time I remember seeing a dictionary definition of the word, “protestant”, was about 1956. This may not be word for word but that dictionary defined protestant as someone who subscribes to the doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers.
By that time, I was aware that the first use of the word, “protestant” was political rather than theological. It was first used as a designation for several German nobles (the German word translates more directly into English as “princes”) who formally protested an imperial ban on Martin Luther. Only later did it come to be used as a designation for reforms of Christian doctrine and practice, the reformers who advocated those reforms and the people who subscribed to those reforms. The more conservataive members of European society referred to the reformers as “heretics''.
How are some examples of reform movements and the would-be reformers who advocated them:
The non-smoking movement advocated by Pope Urban VII in the late sixteenth century.
The puritan movement in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Seventh-day sabbath keeping by John Traske and Dr. Peter Chamberlen and the religious liberty movement by Roger Williams and William Penn in the seventeenth century.
The teetotaling (abstinence from alcoholic beverages) movement by Joseph Bates in the seventeenth century and by the Women’s Christian Temperance League in the eighteenth century.
“The second blessing” (sanctification) movement promoted by John Wesley in the eighteenth century.
The health reform and dress reform movements promoted by second adventists in the nineteenth century.
So when and how did non-Calvinisits acquiesce to the practice of referring to Calvinists as “reformed” when the reforms advocated by John Calvin were only some of the many that have been advocated over the last several centuries? Does the use of that word to describe John Calvin’s doctrines and practices imply that other would-be reformers weren’t really reformers at all or that the reforms they advocated are any less important than those promoted by John Calvin?
@@rogermetzger7335 That's an interesting point. I've kind of wondered about that myself. There's no reason the term Reformed "should" be as limited as it is, but I guess at this point I just accept it. Usage dictates things to a degree. Just like how "catholic" is taken to mean the Roman Catholic church even though technically it really refers to the universal Christian church.
Very interesting as their commitment to Scripture is so high in many areas. Yet at the same time takes strong stands on particular interpretations (i.e. young earth/literal 24 hour days), tithing, 3rd ordinance of foot washing -- which are most likely poor interpretations; and requires fully cultural determinations to also be stated at a confessional level (embrace of conservative culture, conviction on abstinence -- which is actually antithetical to scriptural admonition and examples).
So, it seems the movement is ripe for succumbing to legalism.
Are there other Arminian Baptistic traditions that have avoided codifying early 20th century American values in their statement of faith?
You do a great job explaining different denominations, but you do have a video coming out about Oneness Pentecostals next month right?
I do in fact
What denomination are you @ReadytoHarvest?
Excellent discussion! Question at 4:51 minute mark: who teaches a doctrine than you can be saved today, lost tomorrow, saved again, lost again, saved again???
I've never heard any denomination speak of a doctrine as this.
Catholics for one. You sin, are in danger of damnation, get absolution from priest, repeat. Though, that is an exaggerated case.
Many churches of Christ.
@@Dorn-Dvinn Dan, I left evangelicalism for the Catholic church. Catholic doctrine and dogma do not teach what you've stated. In fact, the language regarding losing one's salvation and maintaining relationship with Christ in this video is extremely close to what the Catholic church teaches.
@@m4641 Read the CCC 1422 and 1514. Every Catholic doctrine is well documented and clearly described. Any claims to what Catholic doctrines say without quoting from these sources is usually wrong. I left the Catholic Church and the KofC(I still have the hat) (Tempus fugit memento mori)etc to become Christian.
I don't think any denomination teaches this. Though I suppose some individuals may feel or act like they this way. I also know it's kind of set up that was as a straw man argument by those teaching eternal security. The FW Baptist brother he was quoting was probably trying to posit his view as a middle way between the once saved always saved view and the extreme saved and lost over and over view others are accused of holding. I hope that makes sense.
I like it.
As a Catholic who does his best to know and affirm what the Catholic Church has consistently held for the last 20 centuries, I believe 99%+ of what the Free Will Baptists believe, and it sounds like they probably believe 90%+ of what I believe. They sound a lot like what you'd get if you took the Catholic Church and used the "flashy thing" from the Men In Black movies to wipe out its memory of everything the Holy Spirit did among Christians between 33 AD and last week. That's less-than-complete, but it reads like a pretty good chunk of what's needful.
I imagine a big percentage of them would say I'm attending the Whore of Babylon, or something. Fair enough; I didn't say there were no differences. But I think I mostly like the cut of their jib, even if the appreciation is one-sided.
Maybe, maybe not. Many baptists don't have as much strong language against the Catholic church as at one time. And when it comes to Protestants in general, I think most of us differentiate between fully committed, Maryologist Catholics and the more loose, "evangelicalesque" Catholics. It's not that we believe Catholics are necessarily not brethren. Many are. But that's despite the church, not because of it.
Please don't take that the wrong way. Just a general statement, not directed at any particular individual.
@@EssenceofPureFlavor: No, don't worry, it's cool. I get what you're saying.
Now, naturally as someone who grew up Baptist, who then (as an adult) became convinced I should be Catholic after spending 4 years studying how the Church Fathers used the Scriptures, the whole "Mary thing" was one of the items that concerned me most.
But when I checked it out, I found that "the whole Mary thing" was way less of an issue than I'd expected.
Hmm...I kind of want to tell you why, specifically. So I'm going to...but, don't take this as me trying to convince you. (I'm just a guy on the Internet, as far as you're concerned!) I'm not trying to argue why YOU should think anything: You have my respect. But my purpose is to show why I, who was raised Baptist and found much Marian devotion repellent, eventually concluded that it wasn't, even though some of it wasn't personally suited to ME.
So, with that understanding in place (that I'm explaining myself, not debating at you), here's my list:
- I think the idea that Catholics and Orthodox worship saints (Mary, Joseph, and others) may have arisen because the Catholic and Orthodox Christians talk to the saints (specifically, asking them to pray for us before the throne of God), whereas Protestants usually only talk to God. (There seem to be some unofficial exceptions to the latter, though, when visiting the grave of a beloved relative, or asking for help from one's guardian angel when in danger. But those are exceptions.) Anyway, to Protestants, petitionary conversation directed at an unseen person is normally associated with God, not others, so it seems the Catholics/Orthodox are "treating a human, however saintly, as if they're God." But the Catholics/Orthodox think that SACRIFICE, specifically, is the worship given to God (either the "sacrifice of praise," or the "rendering of one's body as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God," or the sacrifice of enduring hardship (by uniting it with the suffering of Christ on the cross), or (supremely) the offering up of the unbloody Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, as a combined Thanks-Sin-Guilt-Atonement-Passover-AndEverythingElse offering. So unless someone offered Person X a sacrifice, the Catholic/Orthodox idea is, "well, Person X obviously isn't believed to be God."
- There actually was a group of people in the early church days who tried to worship Mary as a goddess, literally: They were an early heretical sect in Arabia called the Collyridians, and they offered a sacrifice of some kind of little cakes, called "kollyrids." The Catholics loudly condemned them as polytheists and non-Christians, and they sank without a trace. The only record of them is in the "Panarion" of Epiphanius of Salamis, written sometime around approximately 376 AD. It was a relief to know that the Catholics excommunicated the crap out of anyone who did what THEY consider worship, in Mary's direction.
- There was an early Christian hymn, composed in Roman Alexandria or thereabouts, sometime around 200-250, called the "Sub Tuum Praesidium." (To be accurate, in the original Coptic or Greek it would have had a Coptic or Greek title; "Sub Tuum Praesidium" is the Latin title and they didn't make it part of Latin worship until the 900s or later.) The hymn clearly asks Mary for protection by interceding for believers...and thus seems to verify that the early Christians officially did this, in the liturgy, even prior to the canonization of the New Testament. It was popular enough that by 500 it was already spread as far as modern Armenia and modern Iraq. So I figured, "Hey, I have to trust these folks for my Bible canon; so I can't very well call 'em heretics when they ask for Mary's prayers."
- The "Hail Mary" is obviously the most common prayer addressed to Mary, at least in Western Christianity. It consists of quoting 2 Bible passages, followed by the request "pray for us NOW, and also when we're about to die." Presuming that a saint can hear such requests, as the early Christians seem to have believed, this seems a reasonable thing to ask...and obviously quoting Bible passages is fine.
- The Catholic Church officially teaches that repetitive prayers CAN be bad, but only when the repetitions are "vain." (Otherwise several of the Psalms would be ruled out!) The Church distinguishes 3 forms of repetition in prayer: (1.) repetition as a form of "persistence in prayer" (as in, "praying three times that a cup might pass from me"); (2.) repetition as a way to silence one's internal "babble instinct," so as to move into a contemplative union with God in prayer; and (3.) repetition from a superstitious motive, with the notion that your prayer won't be answered if you don't get it right (or something). The Catholic Church officially encourages Type 1 for everyone, encourages Type 2 for those for whom it is helpful; and forbids Type 3 as "the sin of superstition." So anybody who prays the Rosary (with its multiple repetitions of the "Hail Mary" prayer) in that superstitious, Type 3 fashion is officially not being a good Catholic. But if they use it as a way to quiet the noisy part of their minds in order to "contemplate the mystery of the Carrying of the Cross" (or some other scripture passage), then that's normative use.
- A certain kind of medieval Marian devotion, with lots of flowery language, seemed repellent to me, and still seems really weird. ("O Mother of God, o clement, o loving, o sweet virgin...," etc., etc., bleah.) It felt so weird that it just about made me chuck the whole Catholic thing until someone said, "Dude. Your culture isn't their culture. They were flowery and poetical about everything female, but especially in the 'courtly love' culture when addressing a noble lady, even if it was only the wife of a duke or viscount. But if it was the Mom of the King of the Universe, how flowery would you expect them to be? To THEIR culture, your very pillow-talk to your wife probably sounds so businesslike and platonic as to make them think you don't love her at all; and to you, their milk-maid's absent-minded curtseying before a local feudal lord looks like idol-worship. But it's just cultural misunderstanding about manners and decorum."
Anyway, those kind of cleared the air about Marian devotions for me. Not saying it should, for you; but if you're wondering how a good Baptist boy wound up Catholic, that was part of it.
Thanks for your reply, and the irenic tone of it. Best to you,
CW
What’s the difference between south Baptist and free wil Baptist?
Seems pretty solid
I grew up Southern Baptist but I’m not sure if I align more with Free will Baptist , I do believe that even if you are saved if you then choose to for example reject Jesus , drink animal blood, worship Satan you can loose your salvation and go to hell. I don’t think In that example (although extreme) you’d go to heaven if you died in that lifestyle but I do believe you could repent and turn back like lost sheep or the prodigal Son.
At 3:17 does *Ready To Harvest* show-off dichotomous Calvinist category bias? It appears as a personal conclusion (if you're not one of us, you're one of them ) in "FRB's are Armenian and not Calvinist's'". Was this part cited from source? It appears as a biased opinion of the next citation... As Armenian, they too would love to paint the world in just two colours.
Yes, free will baptists are Arminian. According to their own official documents. Most Protestant churches that aren't Calvinist or Lutheran are, even if they don't admit it. ("Eternal security" is something that Arminianism allows disagreement over) Arminian doesn't necessarily mean Wesleyan. In fact, Wesley actually disagrees with classical Arminianism in a couple key areas.
Very interesting & pretty orthodox in their beliefs except for lack of eternal security...personally I like Jesus' own words on this in John ' no one can take them out of my hand"
Do the NAB next :)
Despite me being against free will Baptist on absolutely everything (except abortion, a issue l consider myself to be neutral) thx for this unbiased video
Being neutral on the murder of babies is evil. Repent!
@@TheJpep2424 l said netrual, l'm liberal on most other issues, screw you l don't care what you think
@@TheJpep2424 I fact l would say l lean more towards pro life, but that's not because of my religion, just because l think there should be slightly bit more restrictions when you kill a fetus
@@TheJpep2424 also you probably support the death penalty, tell me then why are you so frustrated about fetuses
Why dont u have no videos on oriental orthodox with their principle???
ua-cam.com/video/YffPLPfe4Jk/v-deo.html.
This might be what you are looking for.
You're mic is pretty good. What are you using?
Blue snowball ice. Got it at a pawn shop for 30 bucks and even brand new they are very reasonably priced.
@@ReadyToHarvest does it have built in noise cancellation or is your room just quiet?
@@Stanbott it does not have noise cancellation and I do use sound foam with it because it is a condenser mic.
🎶Arminian Baptists in the South 🎶 #TheWhoSellout
I was a little bit confused. Arminian is not Armenian. It was strange I see now the difference in the name.
Are you familiar with a group that calls itself The Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church. I know they can be found in eastern North Carolina and once knew one of their pastors, now, sadly, deceased. I don't if they extend much beyond NC
They are generally located in NC and some around Appalachia.
I know a man (in western NC) who calls himself a Pentecostal Baptist (I don't know whether it's Free Will or not). I get the impression that they believe in the Baptist Distinctives but are more open to charismatic features than traditional Baptists.
Baptacostle is quite common actually . 😂
There are WAAAAAY too many divergent kinds of Baptists. So what makes a Baptist church Baptist, as far as non-essential doctrine is concerned?
At least to me, it seems that it comes down to three things:
1) Believers’ baptism by trinitarian immersion
2) Priesthood of all believers
3) Primacy of the local church and congregational polity
Am I missing anything? 😂
@@zelm Yeah but that isn’t exclusive to Baptists, which is why I didn’t mention it.
No, you pretty much hit it spot on lol. It's why there are so many different types of Baptists
The Baptist Church I am a member of has an “Eldership Rule” although the congregation votes for certain things including Deacons and Elders. Don’t recall any Congregational “business meetings” as were almost monthly in certain Churches I have been involved with.
The “BAPTIST” acrostic works somewhat here.
Biblical Authority
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of the Believer
Two Offices (Bishop and Deacon)
Individual Soul Liberty
Separation of Church and State
Two Ordinances - Baptism and Communion.
Some use the “BAPTISTS” acrostic and include “Security of the Believer”
“Separation of Church and State” is the biggie! Baptists were part of the “Non-Conformists” and the “Free Church” movement refusing to be sanctioned as an “Official State Recognized” denomination.
what are the difference between IFB and Free Will Baptist?
I think it's Eternal Security.
You had me till you mentioned abstinance
This sounds like a denomination where I can agree with most of their teachings. I'm not a Calvinist. I also don't believe dispensationalism is biblical which most Baptist churches that I've been to teach. I will have to look if there is a freewill Baptist Church near me!!
The only thing I see unbiblical with these people is their belief that salvation can be lost or a save person can be unsaved
Ok, one question needed to be answered to know exactly what you are- Calvinist or non -Calvinist Baptists? John Piper/ John MacArthur OR John Rice, Curtis Hutson, Jack Hyles, Sheldon Smith, Charles Stanley and that deranged but incredible genius, Peter Ruckman?
Non-calvinist
@@crazando I'm glad you are non Calvinist whoever you are but I was asking Ready To Harvest what kind of Baptist he was.
I cannot accept a literal chronology in Genesis. BUT I understand the strong resistance many Christians have to Darwinian theory because it is so wrapped up in an atheistic worldview as to be inseparable from it. Christians who do accept the scientific reading of cosmology have yet to really take in and integrate that immense and violent back-story into their theology.
Bingo. There is a huge difference between "evolution" and "Darwinism." Evolution does not imply a lack of purpose and/or guidance of the process, in fact it takes a leap of faith in nihilism to *not* see meaning in a cosmos evolving in complexity over time. Does evolution potentially counter the common Christian narrative of a "fall?" Certainly. Does it imply an absence of God and transcendent truth? Certainly not.
I like your nuanced take. I'm open to different interpretation. But I still think the actual evidence for what's taught in mainstream textbooks is abysmally weak
@@grangermontag1824 Thanks! I'd offer that perhaps it's the *teaching* of those facts that's abysmally weak. People like you who are clearly intelligent enough to question the mainstream are told far too often just to 'trust the experts' with the 'whys' and 'hows' being glossed over. As a former Anthropology student I remember it well. How can you be expected to accept evidence when the sources of it are kept vague? This is why I'm a big supporter of classical education. Pedagogy without dialectic teaches nothing.
Why cant you accept a literal chronology in Genesis?
@@AF-tv6uf
I don't know if I should go down the whole rabbit-hole. I think the teaching is weak because the evidence is weak. The methodology for any of the dating methods is laughable. There aren't nearly enough fossils to justify the claims they make (that's why they contructed one out of a pig's tooth-- Nebraska man). If the Earth isn't several thousand years old, then it's just as likely to be 8 Billion years old as 4.5B. The introduce huge errors in their estimates. In my view whole thing is held together by starting with particular preconceptions and burning the heretics.
Put simply, as far as I know Darwin didn't dig up fossils or collect any evidence of ancient occurrences. He created a mythology based in part on assumptions about inheritance we now know are false. And now the disciples of Neo-darwinism look to find the evidence for it. And all they have to show for it is a few highly publicized examples.
But it's like Algore said "It's hard to get a man to understand something, when his job depends on him not understanding it."
I do think Christians tend to respond with an over-exuberant certainty in the other direction, but the OP lays out a good reason why that is.
I believe that man has a “Free-Will” but a man left to his own free-will, will freely choose to remain in darkness and will shun the light!
Regarding their belief that a GENUINE BELIEVER could “fall away” into apostasy, I’d be curious to know whether they hold to the “Government Theory” of atonement?
You might check out the Counterpoints series “Four Views on Eternal Security”. Matt Pinson, Editor, 2002. Dr. Stephen Ashby presents a Classical or Reformed Arminian position, and not precisely a governmental or Wesleyan view.
Not all FWB hold the Classical/Reformed view.
@@clintd3476 thanks, I’ll check it out.
6:57 - as someone who left the Free Will Baptists, this is not true. You’re “allowed” to have your personal views, but the clergy regularly say that anything but pre-trib thinking is little more than nonsense.
Is that representative of the denomination though? That sounds representative of one area/congregation. Many other Free Will Baptists hold to other stances, clergy included.
I had a pastor friend tell me it was divided across the US. East of the Miss was mostly pretrib, west of the Miss was mostly posttrib. And Ammil sprinkled all throughout.
@@jacobjohnson1504 ditto what the above 👆 said. Pre-trib is greatly clung to in the east (not just in FWB churches). I would agree that maybe this was regional if the course in which it was expressly taught was not approved by the FWB leaders. Perhaps some individual church pastors have different thoughts, but they all have to take that course at some point.
I am from Bulgaria and from one of the free will baptist churches here. I've never heard here someone talking about eschatology as something that clear to understand and important. There are people here including the pastor who reject the idea of pre-trib rapture. Some hold amill view too.
Our pastor licensed as a Freewill Baptist declares his view as mid trib.
Their doctrine is at least very logical and consistent.
5:21, Well sounds like they don't tolerate Methodism in their circles.
4:20
I don't really get the joke. Who's living like a Calvinists, the preacher relaying the story or the woman who hates her husband?
I would assume its about the Woman hating her husband, comparing it to the calvinist view of predestination, so just as their theology makes god appear like he hates some people with no option of repentance or change, so the woman hates her husband and isnt willing to forgive him.
@@TheMountAndBladerX10 thank you, I will go along with that. Let's see if there are other opinions.
@@ronashman8463 I agree with Juliusius, but it is a pretty strange "joke".
Calvinism definitely presents a strange theology in which God hates nearly everyone. Other Christians would say that God loves everyone, but by his grace, he has allowed the genuine freedom to accept or reject. Someone might criticise Calvinism, saying that on this view, God _doesn't like_ the vast majority of humanity, but the Calvinist would correct the critic, saying rather, "no, no, he _hates_ almost everybody".
With the Arminian view, the woman hating her husband would be in danger of losing her salvation and would thus deal with her sin rather than end up in HELL.
The Calvinist position is badly represented here. Such hatred towards a spouse would likely be a matter of Church discipline and her refusal to deal with this sin would cause her testimony of salvation to be called into question! I believe this to be the proper way to handle such a matter regardless of your soteriological position.
It is the typical Carnal “Babtist” who takes a licentious approach to “Once Saved Always Saved” that such would actually exist in a congregation! Just “Pray the Sinner’s Prayer” and it’s “All Under the Blood” no matter how you continue to live in sin!
@@63stratoman What is "testimony of salvation"?
I have read a pretty substantial amount of Calvin's writings (including all of his Institutes), but I have never found in his writings any basis by which an individual could possibly testify with any certainty of oneself being "among the elect". And his philosophy would seem to flatly preclude the possibility of such. Maybe there's a modern, Calvin-ish update to Calvinism that you're referring to?
Also, on Calvinism, does God ever, in any sense, love the reprobate? If so, please cite the source. I will gladly apologize, if I am shown that I have in any way misrepresented his philosophy. I believe I have only stated the quiet part out loud.
Calvinism, in a nutshell, is the belief that God most likely hates you, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Ephesians 1:11 has joined the chat
An often misunderstood passage. Calvinists seem to think it indicates that only those predetermined for salvation will believe whereas God actually predestined those who believe for salvation.
"in"
We don't have free will to come to God. Our free will is corrupt. God brings us to have faith in the FINISHED work Jesus accomplished for salvation
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND that "general baptists" means we believe in the general atonement, that Christ died for ALL persons as opposed to what calvinism teaches. it does NOT always refer to free will baptists who reject eternal security. most southern baptists are "general baptists" but also hold to eternal security. most southern baptists are neither arminian nor calvinist. (yes i know u calvinsts who are sbc will have something to say so bring it on i am ready)
Points I agree/disagree with:
1 Living God? = Disagree.
1 Ruling God? = Perhaps.
Divine Founder? = Disagree.
Sinless Founder? = Perhaps.
Arisen Founder? = Nope.
Literal 2nd Coming? = Yes.
Literal Heaven & Hell? = Yes.
Immersion Baptism? = Yes.
Believer's Baptism? = Yes.
Open Communion? = Perhaps.
Literal Presence? = Nope.
Spiritual Presence? = Perhaps.
Last Supper Observance? = Once Annually.
Feet Washing? = By Whom? So Never Then.
Infallible Bible? = Nope.
Exclusion of the Apocrypha? = Perhaps. (For otherwise the Bible is too much like the Torah!)
Use of Which Bible? = Perhaps ESV, for King James sucks!!!!!!
Young Earth Creation? = Nope.
Being Evil by Birth? = Nope. (Contradicts the Believer's Baptism requirement, doesn't it?)
Being Arminian? = Yes.
Eternal Security? = Nope.
No 2nd Grace? Yes.
No Tongues? Yes.
No Required Tribulation? Yes.
Homophobic? Yes.
Anti-Divorce? = Mostly! (Only thru Incarceration is Divorce permissible).
Gay to Straight Conversion? Nope. (For it doesn't work!)
Anti-Abortion? Yes.
Worship Style? Blended.
Worship Time? Once Weekly.
No Alcohol? Yes.
Tithing? Nope.
Sunday as the Holy Day? Nope.
Congregationalism vs Presbyterianism? Either.
Full-Time vs Part-Time Pastors? Either.
Women Pastors? Nope.
Total Score = 15 Yes, 13 No, 8 Maybes!
I would disagree with free will baptists on a couple positions, but I am sure there are brothers and sisters in the denomination, just like any other denominations. All Christians belive in the full diety and humanity of Christ we belive in his perfect life death and resurrection. This knowledge is what saves. All other issues are secondary but still important. Some things are clearer in scripture then others. I for one used to be reformed baptists but am now a non calvaistic, baptist, premillenial, leaky dispensatinal. I welcome fellowship with other true believers who belive in the essential. But I do not and willing not fellowship with those who pray to or worship other gods, idols, pictures, people because this is a sin and opposed to christanity. I will also not fellowship with those who openly preach a philosophies that arr opposed to the gospel such as CRT, Palagienism, idol worship, female holy spirit, nostic. The means of grace are baptism and the lords supper that is it. Woman are not pastors but can be decans. Decans and pastors have very diffrent roles.
Here are issues i hold true but am willing to fellowship with those who differ. Baptism is by submersion of a belive, the belive has to chose Christ as savior, there will be a literal millennium and there is a special place for the Jewish believers in the end times, the gifts have stopped, there is no such thing as the Christan sabbath. There are a couple others but I can think of them right now or are undecided.
Things I will not budge on Jesus is the second person of the trinity, he came in flesh and died on a cross, third day he was resurrected, God is sovereign, people have free will, the bible is perfect, it matters how you live your life and what you sing to God, women are not ministers that is a male only role. Decans and elders are separated offices with separated roles. Baptism and the lords supper are means of grace, there is no christans sabbath, idols belong I'm a fire to be destroyed not a worship service, the gifts of ceased, the music you worship with matters, KJB is not the best translation, Of course there are more but I may not be thinking of them at the moment.
You can ask me questions on any of them, but there are a of a few I am willing to budge on. But that does not mean I will not fellowship with people who believe diffrent things as long as they belive the essentials, are not praying to anything but Jesus and are not talking in tounges.
A few good teacher recommendations of course the bible and the original language. Steve Gregg, Steve Lawson, John Macarthur, any of the Purtains, Martin Loyd Jones, DL Moody, Mathew Henry, Leighton Flowers, Mike Winger, Alastair Beggs.
I belive it matters what you poltical affiliation is and I belive you should be evangelizing and praying for the lost.
There are teachers who are flash prophets and are leading people astray these include Joel Olsteen, Hillsong, Bethal, Elevation,Tim Keller, Todd White, David Platt, Matt Chandler, John Piper, Keith Copland, Beth Moore, Joyce Myers, The Pope. These people's teachings are from the Devil and I have very good reason to question there salvation based on the fact that they undermind the deity or Chirst and or preach a diffrent gospel.
I don’t like feet washing
Not required.
It was a stressful listen, but well organized information, and is appreciated. Scary people these are.
It’s a bell curve, and depends what your fears are.
These are my fears, everything about "free will" Baptist
Historically the first ever Baptists were Arminians
2:43 He would (unknowingly, of course) if he were just a man (specifically an apocalyptic rabbi.)
Armenian
no
They're grifters like the rest that focus on the tithing part of the OT while pretty much ignoring everything else.
Anyone who teaches that salvation is not forever is calling Jesus a liar: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”-John 6:47
Saying everlasting life can be lost is illogical and stupid. God is not stupid, but some men are. Let these false teachers be accursed.
Not so fast.....the above statement (john 6:47) is conditional in nature. In other words, the obverse statement would be......"He that DOES NOT (or NO LONGER) believes on me.....has NOT everlasting life". The promise is clearly a conditional promise based upon belief or a continuance of belief.
@@uriahpeep9008 one moment of belief. If you could lose everlasting life, then you never had it.
@Janaina Ribeiro if you lose eternal life, then you never had it (because it ended; and therefore, wasn’t eternal).
You keep relying on your ability to not be foolish, unfaithful, or unforgiving (self righteousness) and I’ll rely on what Jesus Christ did.
I love that bit about 24-hr days! They insist that the Bible is the source for truth, but they just gloss over the fact that there's absolutely no mention of the number of hours in the "days" of creation. I know they'd respond something about the phrase "evening and morning," but what does that phrase even mean when the sun and moon weren't created until the fourth day!? I do NOT oppose the Young Earth Creation (YEC) position and they're fine to believe what they think is right, and his other comments about other theology being affected by changing one's views on Gen 1 and 2. My problem is when people **ahem** Answers in Genesis **ahem** or organizations make YEC on par with soteriology or other salvific issues. They hold YEC up there with belief in the Trinity or the Virgin Birth. That is what I have a problem with and some of the way he phrased their YEC views reminds me of how unimportant the view really is! Though they clearly don't think that way!
Yeah...no...not for me...
Lost
Free will :Anti-divorce :yes
Homophobic :yes
Which Bible :kjv
Bible innerant :yes
6day creation :yes
Anti-alchocol - yes
Arminian- yes
Anti premarital sex - yes
I think there's nothing free will like here
You can freely choose to join the church or not. Free will doesn’t mean all your choices are right or acceptable
The problem with free will folks is that they frame salvation in non biblical categories even when discussing what others believe.
Calvinists do not believe, contrary to what the FWB say, that some people have the opportunity to be saved (the elect) and the rest don't. That's bonkers and is, in fact, a summary of their own position.
The opportunity to be saved isn't anything a Calvinist would even recognize. All men are called to repent and believe, all are under judgement. The Elect are saved, not given an opportunity to be saved, and the rest are not saved and there never was such an opportunity. How would such an "opportunity" arise?
Well they resort to prevenient grace, (a magic trick, albeit temporary, that allows a person to make a moral choice that isn't affected by their moral status, their natural inclination or what they think) but then in order for everyone to be given the opportunity that grace must be given to all and therefore must be separated from the Gospel. Terrible is that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for those that believe. It is the separat of the gospel from salvation which is their second biggest error.
In summary. You can't be saved apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and they must say that you can, and there is no potential atonement in the scriptures just an actual atonement.
My mind boggle at how the "bible is literally true" when that means accepting contradictions as both being true and not contradicting. Matthew attributes to Jeremiah in 27:9-10 which in fact should be attributed to Zechariah 11:12-13. Go look. It's true. Matthew made a mistake, right there in black and white print. It is *NOT* literally true. If one place in the bible is wrong, and this certainly is, then the whole bible is not, by definition, perfect. How could Jesus have been born *BOTH* under and Herod *AND* during the census a decade later?
Why does Ps 143:6 tell us *NOT* to trust the son of man? How can both God and Satan have caused David to take a census according to the contradictory 2 Sam 24:1 and 1 Chrons 21:?
How can there be "one begotten son of god when Genesis 6:1 and Job 1:6 speak of "sons" plural of God?
A bad case of stupidity unlimited.
if u did as much research as u do asking qquestions, youd have the answers my freind. in the jewish religion, the bible is not one book bound together. they are on diff scrolls. they usually have 3 scrolls Law, Writings and Prophets. they didnt have bound books as we do today. the first book in the "Prophets" scroll is Jeremiah. so when matthew said "jeremiah" he is referring to the "Jeremiah scroll", as the jews called the collection of prophets books in one scroll and they nicknamed the scrolls using the name of the first book in the scroll. this scroll contained all the prophets including zachariah. there is no contradiction, only a misunderstanding if ur not used to jewish thinking in Jesus' day. the other things u mentioned have answers as well, not hard to find
@@caman171 Not good enough. Jeremiah means Jeremiah. If something is literally true then it has to be precise in order for the opposite "not true" to be discernible.
@@PeterGregoryKelly sorry u are very wrong. "literal truth" doesnt no always equate to "literal words" when Jesus took the bread said "this is my body" he didnt mean the bread literall was his body..HE was in His body. but common sense tells u he held up the bread and said those words as symbolism. in my local synagogue the scroll is marked "J" for jeremiah scroll. like i said study, u dont have to believe me
@@caman171 You can equivocate the scripture to say anything, just like the quatrains of Nostradamus.
@@PeterGregoryKelly and you can avoid the truth and find contradictions where there are none if u choose. i bet if i could replay a video of ur life itd show thousands of "contradictions". nevertheless what ive said is true. if it really was a contradiction, then the scribes to made all the originla copies of the bible before the printing press wouldnt changed it to fit ur narrative. the fact that they didnt feel any need to change what was written speaks volumes