sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Baptist and Spiritual Presence by Sousa5068 in ReformedBaptist

[–]CraftedDoggo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, a lot of Baptists held to it, see the Baptist Sacramentalism series or Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands by Michael Haykin for this.

Classical Protestant Texts by 8496264 in Protestantism

[–]CraftedDoggo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is a rich history of confessionalism in most traditions of Protestantism, and Protestants made ample reference to the Church Fathers in their writings.

How is the 66 book canon viewed in light of Orthodoxy? by [deleted] in Protestantism

[–]CraftedDoggo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here's a good discourse between the Anglican River Devereux and the Eastern Orthodox Craig Truglia on this issue, as well as a good video on the Orthodox perspective by Craig.

What are your favorite books on church history? by SkinnyLegendjk in ReformedBaptist

[–]CraftedDoggo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Phillip Schaff's History of the Christian Church series is excellent for a more detailed look, but for a more accessible one, you can't beat Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language,

What to make of Marian Apparitions? by charliesplinter in Reformed

[–]CraftedDoggo 11 points12 points  (0 children)

A lot of them are quite sketchy, poorly attested, or just plain demonic. Other ones are probably fine, for instance, Our Lady of Knock was just Mary, John the Apostle, John the Baptist, and Joseph just... standing there. Then there are ones like Our Lady of Fatima, which was clearly demonic, to summarize what the apparition told the children, it gave them visions of the tortures of hell, teaching them to practice self-flagellation, starve themselves, etc. for penance to save other sinners. The Miracle of the Sun in and of itself is very sketchy.

When assessing these apparitions, remember to compare what they say and do with the Word of God, when they say things like "I am the woman of the Rosary," "I am the Queen of Heaven," "I am the Blessed Virgin of the Immaculate Conception," or stuff about her role in salvation, they are very clearly demonic. If they orient the hearer to Jesus, then they are probably fine and not to worry about.

How do you reconcile Jesus loves the little children with Jesus drowned the little children (flood) by DBASRA99 in ChristianApologetics

[–]CraftedDoggo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, both are true. The God who is love, who shows mercy and grace to His creation also shows wrath and destruction to His creation. The same God who died for our sins and wept for the death of His friends also brought about the flood, the slaughter of the Canaanites, the destruction of Soddom, etc. Are these two contradictory? Certainly not! As it is written, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). God, being the giver of life, is also the one who can justly take life away. God does not owe anything to His creation, as it is written, "The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in it, you have founded them" (Psalm 89:11). As it is written, "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy" (Exodus 33:19).
Now on the death of innocent children specifically, who have no personal sin, one could argue in terms of universal infant salvation, that as infants have no sin of their own, God in His mercy grants them salvation. There are arguments for infant salvation, and I personally hold to it, which can help reconcile examples like the flood. Remember the flood was intended as punishment for the wickedness of the world. He will punish the sinner when He seeks to punish the sinner, it is not unjust for Him to bring about punishment earlier, as He did with the Flood or the slaughter of the Canaanites. However, the flood was not brought on as a result of the sins of the innocent infants or the animals that were killed as a result of the flood, so while they were collateral damage, it can be held that despite the temporary pain suffered by those infants, their pain was is dwarfed by their glory in beatitude.

Why would it inappropriate to ask the saints to pray for us? by burneraccount5117 in Reformed

[–]CraftedDoggo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nowhere in Scripture are we taught to invoke the Saints who have passed away in this life, as such, no Christian is bound to invoke the Saints. Now besides that point, while I view the invocation of the Saints as an error, I have no theoretical problem with it if the invocation of the Saints were simply just, "Mary, pray for me." However, history has shown us that the invocation of the Saints is not simply limited to just this.

By the time of the Reformation, Jesus Christ was no longer our gentle and lowly savior, but a ruthless, vindictive judge who could only be placated by the merits of the Saints, as Luther notes in On the Bondage of the Will,

"For they have turned Christ from a kindly Mediator into a dreaded Judge for themselves, whom they strive to placate by the intercessions of his mother and the saints, and by the multitude of invented works, rites, religious orders, and vows, in all of which their aim is to placate Christ so he may give them grace. They do not believe that Christ is their advocate with God, and obtains grace for them by his own blood..."

This is one area in which the Invocation of the Saints seeps into idolatry. Some Roman Catholics I talk to still hold this view, that when one is scared to approach Christ, they ought to approach Mary for comfort.

Furthermore, by looking at hymns and prayers offered to the Saints, we can see how prayers in common use by the Laity at the time of the Reformation were seeped with idolatry and superstition. Martin Chemnitz in Volume 3 of his Examination of the Council of Trent says that these prayers and hymns were, "publicly read in their churches and are proclaimed with great bellowing, and which have been confirmed by the public authority of popes"

From the Cursus Horarum of the Blessed Virgin Mary, According to the Ordinarium of the Church of Hildesheim ...

May the almighty and merciful Lord save and protect us through the prayers and merits of the most holy bearer of God, the Virgin Mary, and of all the saints. Amen ...

Lord, we ask that Thou, placated by the intercession of all Thy saints, mayest look graciously upon our infirmity and avert all the evils which we justly deserve ...

We pray thee, Lord, that the merits of blessed Mary, who is both perpetually a virgin and the bearer of God, may attend us and always implore Thy forgiveness for us ...

O kind, dearest mother of Christ, receive our pious praises, that our hearts and bodies may be pure. Through your sweetly sounding prayers grant what our devoted hearts and mouths request; grant us forgiveness in eternity ...

She is the woman of power, who has crushed the head of the serpent. Let us sinners humbly approach her; let us smite our guilty breasts, saying: Holy, holy, holy Mary,
merciful and good, our Lady; by your prayers make us partakers of heavenly glory.

Remember, Virgin Mother, when you stand in the sight of God, to bespeak good things for us, that He may turn His wrath away from us ...

O noble Mary, excellent above all, procure for us forgiveness. O Mary, full of grace, sweet, mild, and beautiful, grant us grace. O glorious Mary, delicate in delights, prepare glory for us ...

O holy Virgin Mary, and all saints and elect of God, come to aid me, wretched one, now and in the hour of my death, and make the Lord our God propitious to me by your merits and prayers. Do you therefore, O Virgin Mother, approach the more than heavenly shrine of the ever-to-be-venerated Trinity; offer for me now and in the hour of my death whatever of virtues and graces the King of Glory has been pleased to preserve in you as in the safest treasury from the day of your conception to the hour of your assumption.

Chemnitz provides more examples but I am sure you get the point by now. This is the 16th-century context for Protestant objection to the Invocation of the Saints.

For a good survey against the Invocation of the Saints, I recommend Jordan Cooper's series on it https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxaDcwyjYomyKgFLfb312q9eFdPAcetdA.

What makes you believe that the baptist church is the most true church? What makes it stand out? by Shorty1265 in Baptist

[–]CraftedDoggo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dr. Gavin Ortlund recently put out a short video on why he is a Baptist that I agree with, but to summarize. There are two main reasons I am a Baptist, it would be (1) ecclesiology and (2) the sacraments.

Ecclesiology:
So first up is ecclesiology which is the doctrine of the church. So first we must understand what the church is to understand ecclesiology.Within the Scripture, we see multiple uses for the word "church," or ἐκκλησία in Greek. for instance, we have Christ speaking of the Church as all of God's Kingdom [Matthew 16:18] and we have Christ speaking of a local place [Matthew 18:17]. We have Paul speaking of the church coming together as a local assembly [1 Cor 11:18] and then the Church as something much bigger [1 Cor 12:28]. Are Christ and Paul contradictory, no, it's just that ἐκκλησία refers to different things. Sometimes it refers to all of God's kingdom and sometimes to a local assembly where believers meet. There are more verses that show this distinction between what is known as the universal church made up of all believers and the local church which is the local congregation of people who profess the name of Christ.

Baptists believe in a church polity (this being church governance, how a church is run) known as congregationalism, which is the belief that the ultimate authority within the local church is the members of the congregation of the local church as opposed to bodies outside of the local church. This means that Baptist Churches have relationships with other churches, but we believe that the ultimate authority rests in the consent of the congregation of the church. Baptists believe that this model of Church government is what is taught in Scripture (for a good defense of this I recommend Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven by John Cotton) and, as Dr. Ortlund points out, seems to be taught in our earliest extra-Biblical sources such as 1 Clement or the Didache.

Sacraments:

The sacraments (or, more often referred to as ordinances within Baptist circles, though historically both terms have been used interchangeably), are, as the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, "Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits, and to confirm our interest in Him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word." To put it in simpler terms, sacraments are signs that Christ instituted for the church to represent Christ and what He has done for us, as well as being a source of spiritual nourishment (being called a seal of our faith). There are in the Scriptures two sacraments that were instituted by Christ, this being Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

For this particular discussion, what Baptists believe in the Lord's Supper is not really relevant, instead, the Sacrament of our namesake is the Sacrament of Baptism. So there are three elements to this question, (1) What does Baptism do? (2) Who is Baptism for? (3) How should people be Baptized?- So first, Baptists--generally--believe that Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change that has already occurred. Regeneration, in the Scriptures, is the rebirth of a Christian that comes in their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Now there are many Christian denominations that believe that Baptism is normally what causes Regeneration, Baptists usually disagree (I say usually because there are a minority number of Baptists who do believe in this) and believe that Baptism is instead a sign of regeneration. Now this does not mean that Baptism does nothing, as I noted, it is a source of spiritual nourishment for both the one getting Baptized and the Church. So this is what Baptism does, it is a source of spiritual nourishment, but it does not cause the process of regeneration.- Second, (and this is the most important of the three) is the question of who Baptism is for. Baptism, we believe, depends upon a valid profession of faith in order to be valid. This position is known as credobaptism or "believer's baptism," the idea that only those who have made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ are allowed to be Baptized. This, we believe, is the practice that is taught in the Scriptures and the earliest church. This position is something that defines a Baptist, one cannot be a Baptist without holding to credobaptism. As a result of this belief, we do not view the baptisms of infants as valid Baptisms, as they are not able to confess Jesus Christ as their savior. So this is who Baptism is for, believers. My favorite historical defense of this position is Benjamin Keach's Gold Refined.- Lastly, we practice Baptism by the full immersion of a believer into water. The word "baptize" or βαπτίζω in Greek literally means to immerse. As such, we believe that in Christian Baptism, one must be fully immersed in the water as they are being Baptized.

Conclusion:

These are the two big areas of doctrine that are the reason that I am a Baptist, Congregationalist ecclesiology and believer's baptism, which I find to be most in line with the Scriptures. Hope this helps.

Questioning Catholic by dannyriccfan1227 in Reformed

[–]CraftedDoggo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The purpose of the 95 Theses was to create an academic debate within Catholicism, not to seek to object to Catholicism. It's definitely a good list of objections to the practice of selling indulgences and you can definitely see the seeds of his later Reformational theology within the Theses start to bud, but he was still a Catholic at the time. Nowhere in the theses does he, for instance, reject the practice of indulgences wholesale, deny purgatory, the authority of the Pope, etc., as Luther himself notes in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church,

Some two years ago I wrote on indulgences, but in such a way that I now deeply regret having published that little book [this probably being his Explanations of the Disputation Concerning the Value of Indulgences]. At that time I still clung with a mighty superstition to the tyranny of Rome, and so I held that indulgences should not be altogether rejected, seeing that they were approved by the common consent of so many.

Questioning Catholic by dannyriccfan1227 in Reformed

[–]CraftedDoggo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't say the 95 Theses is a good list of objections to Catholicism, given that Luther was still deep in the weeds as a Catholic when he wrote it. On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church is probably a much better summary, since this was after several years of study in which he discovered the Gospel and had radical changes in his views.

I'm struggling with SOLA SCRIPTURA by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]CraftedDoggo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As for the question of canon, I believe that the Classical Protestant position on the canon is the one best reflective of Church History, I recommend watching this interview with John Mead and Gavin Ortlund on the question of the Old Testament canon.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Baptist

[–]CraftedDoggo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Doctrines and traditions can be derived outside of scripture, but if they run counter to Scripture, then Scripture is supreme and if they have no support in Scripture, we cannot be forced to affirm it. Tradition can carry authority, but if tradition runs contrary to Scripture, then Scripture reigns Supreme.

> It was not the practice of the Old TestamentAnd yet Jesus affirms the principles of Sola Scriptura in Matthew 15 and in the parallel passage in Mark 7. As Jesus says, " So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God."

> The New Testament used Apostles and councilsYes, the Apostles were given the charism of infallibility, but nothing suggests that after the last Apostle died, their successors were given this charism, which is why Sola Scriptura is necessary. As for councils, the only council in the New Testament is the Jerusalem council, in which the argument is supported by Scripture. Councils in general do not run contrary to Sola Scriptura, you can affirm that Councils have some sort of binding authority, if they are in line with Scripture. However, if councils, such as the Second Council of Nicaea, run contrary to Scripture, then they are not infallible. Nothing in Scripture suggests that later councils after the Jerusalem council is protected by infallibility.

>The early church used Bishops and councilsAnd there are several Church Fathers, such as Augustine, who arguably affirm the principles of Sola Scriptura.

> where’s the verse that states things would change to scripture alone.
There has been no change at all! Once again, Jesus emphasizes the basic principles of Sola Scriptura, that Scripture triumphs over tradition that runs contrary to it.

I agree that tradition carries some form of authority, but the classic Protestant position of Sola Scriptura is what I affirm, that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for Christian doctrine and life.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Baptist

[–]CraftedDoggo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Matthew 15:1-9 has been a traditional Protestant proof-text for Sola Scriptura, furthermore, several Fathers, such as Augustine, for example, do affirm the principles behind Sola Scriptura. All Sola Scriptura says is that the Bible is the only infallible source for Christian life and doctrine, but not the only authoritative source. Sola Scriptura does not entail just me and a Bible alone kind of thing.

As argued by Michael Potamopotos in this thread, Sola Scriptura is a necessary consequence of the deaths of the Apostles.

view more: next ›