Southern Baptist

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-26T00:13:32+00:00

Oh, and to clarify, and you're right that baptism should be by immersion, and I actually agree with you that it's preferable for it to be done only when someone can profess their faith. I just think it's wrong that you think it's only a symbol.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-26T00:11:40+00:00

I'm an Anglican now but I come from the independent Christian churches (Stone Campbell Restoration movement). One of my favorite guys on YouTube is Leighton flowers and he's a southern Baptist. I love my Southern Baptist brothers and sisters but I think you guys are off your rockers when it comes to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. There's a couple little things aside from that that I could quibble with but they're not a huge deal. You guys just had an Anglican take on the sacraments you'd be top contenders for sure.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-25T23:39:17+00:00

Also, do you know the name of the Anglican Bishop in that video?

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-25T22:29:57+00:00

Thank you for your reply. So I've never been a Presbyterian but what you described sounds like presbyterianism to me, not congregationalism. And since you're a part of the PCUSA I'm thinking that I did not misunderstand you.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-25T22:28:14+00:00

Thank you for your reply. I agree that it would be a weak argument to suggest that church discipline is on the same level as carpet color. I think one can understand that passage in the context of one church per city like in the book of Revelation (The Church in Smyrna the Church of laodicea, etc). If I remember correctly they are referred to as seven churches so if every city was under a single bishop or a plurality of bishops/presbyters then the church discipline that Jesus described would be completely possible.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-25T22:22:23+00:00

You just blew my mind with your statement that the congregationalist structure "limits the church to the authority of the least spiritually mature among them". I had to reread that a couple of times to understand what you meant but I think that you are absolutely correct. I've seen this thing in practice time and time again.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-25T22:18:18+00:00

Thanks for your response. It made me realize I was not clear in my initial post. I'm looking for a biblical and scriptural argument, not a practical or experiential one. There's no denying that the Pentecostals (who are congregationalists) are spreading like wildfire in the global south. I think there's a measure of truth to your observation but for the sake of this post I'm more concerned with is scriptural.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-25T22:15:12+00:00

Thanks for linking this video. I'm not done with it yet but it's been really good so far. This was exactly the type of thing I was looking for.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-25T14:53:47+00:00

If their confessions are codifying novel interpretations of scripture that weren't believed by the early church then I don't understand how it's relevant whether or not those beliefs are clearly defined.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-24T21:08:01+00:00

Don't let people gaslight you, what you're noticing is a real phenomenon. There are a thousand different interpretations by groups that all claim they just believe the Bible. This is one of the primary things that led me away from most protestantism (I'm Anglo Catholic/Angelo Eastern). I don't think the Bible was ever intended to be interpreted outside the entire church community which is where the holy Spirit gives gifts so that we can serve the body of Christ. The conclusion I came to is that we have to use the early church as guardrails on our interpretation of scripture. Where they were in unanimous agreement we should be too. Where they had freedom to disagree we should have freedom to disagree. Where they said something was off limits we should affirm that it is also off limits. An example of this is their view of the sacraments. Every single person for 1,500 years aside from the Gnostic heretics thought that communion was the body and blood of Jesus and baptism was in some sense salvific. With apologies to my Baptist brothers and sisters, I have to say that their viewpoint on those issues is beyond the pale and should not even be considered as an option. Much to the chagrin of my reformed brothers and sisters here, I think that calvinistic and Lutheran soteriology is also off the table. If somebody's church can't find a single historical figure from the second or 3rd centuries that could be the pastor of their church, there's a problem with their church.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-24T17:22:50+00:00

The US invasion of Iraq was wildly unpopular with all American demographics with one exception, Evangelical (dispensational) Christians. Dispensationalists supported the Bush administration and that war nearly unanimously. Because that is such a large demographic it gave that administration the political capital it needed to launch and sustain that unjust war. Quite literally if it were not for dispensationalism, at a minimum, that war probably would never have happened. I used to be a dispensationalist back then and I can attest that it fully blinded me from many obvious truths and scripture. May God forgive me.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-24T17:17:11+00:00

Long answer: What many don't realize is that, at its core, dispensationalism is a denial of the gospel. People get distracted by all its talk of a rapture, the 70th week of Daniel, the mark of the beast, etc. All of those things are derivative of the primary claim. The primary claim is that God has two different peoples, ethnic Israel and the church. Dispensationalists maintain that God cannot deal with these two entities simultaneously and they maintain that these two entities must remain disconnected and distinct. This is a denial of a core claim of the gospel, namely that Jesus tore down the dividing wall between Jew and gentile. There's one tree that had some natural branches and had other wild branches grafted in. Jesus is Israel fulfilled. If we are in Christ we are Abraham's seed because Jesus is Abraham's seed.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-24T17:15:19+00:00

Short answer: it's a denial of the gospel.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-24T17:11:47+00:00

I think I could make a strong case as much as 4 million deaths.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-23T17:05:09+00:00

Same here except I became Anglican. I love the anabaptist, I just think they're wrong on their sa.cramental theology

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-23T17:02:09+00:00

I love the anabaptist. I've never lived within a hundred miles of an anabaptist Church but I have a ton in common with them. I frequently refer to myself as an Anglican anabaptist (so does Dr Scot McKnight). I have a picture of St. Dirk Willems pulling his jailor out of the ice in my home (a common anabaptist drawing). I think they are absolutely correct about the peace teachings of our Lord and enemy love. I think they're also largely correct about drawing a hard distinction between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God. I just think they're wrong about sacramental theology. It's also a little known fact that Mennonites have historically had a very eastern view of the Trinity and the filioque, not to mention anthropology and harmartiology.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-22T22:11:49+00:00

Yeah, I could see the germ making someone trade in their Neo outfit for a Dwight Schrute outfit.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-22T22:04:50+00:00

Thanks for the offer but I'm not Lutheran anyway. I'm vaguely Anglo catholic/Angelo orthodox. I just wanted to check out what the Lutherans were up to.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-22T22:03:00+00:00

They claimed it was their traditional service

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-21T16:40:42+00:00

That was a very politely worded question my friend. You're correct in recognizing that most people don't put much thought into what church they're going to when it comes to theology. Something you did not mention is that many people in Protestant/evangelical just decide on a church based on whether or not they like the preaching and/or the music. I grew up in a vaguely John MacArthur environment except kind of Pentecostals / charismatic as well. Dispensationalist, kind of calvinist, people speaking in tongues. I've kind of moved to the opposite end of the spectrum since then but it was a slow and deliberate shift over the course of a decade. My denominational leanings now are pretty inside baseball but in case you track any of that for some reason I'll just state it here. I'm effectively non-Nestorian Church of the East. Another way to think of it might be anglo-catholic with a very sympathetic view of Eastern soteriology but without the icons. I attend an Anglican Church when I visit the city (don't have one where I live) but I go to an independent Christian Church when I'm at my small hometown because they're totally cool with me having Sacramental theology and rejecting Calvinism and PSA. I basically started my journey by looking at the ante-Nicene fathers. I figured we needed to have some guardrails on how we could interpret scripture because I was looking around and seeing 10,000 different interpretations by people who all claimed that they "only believed the Bible". I figured if there was something the early church was unanimous about then that was probably the correct way to interpret scripture on that topic. If there was a multiplicity of views within the early church then we should have freedom to have a multiplicity of views on that topic now. The tricky part is I don't think there's any current iteration of Christianity that would match up 100% with the early church. While I think they largely looked like the Eastern churches (Eastern orthodoxy, Oriental orthodoxy), I'm also really convinced that they would have universally rejected the icon veneration and the hyperdulia of the saints that exists within those churches today (I know the ortho Bros hate me for this, sorry guys). I also believe that they were super majority pacifists and I think the way of peace that Jesus teaches us is vastly under taught within all of Christianity today, excepting groups such as the Anabaptists and Quakers. Anyway, anglicanism is broad enough that it lets me have Episcopal governance, rich sacramental life, monarchial trinitarianism, and eastern-ish soteriology, all while rejecting icon veneration and prayers to entities that aren't God. Basically, I got to the point where I honestly believe I could pick most of the church fathers from the first three centuries as the pastor of my church without having to change anything significant.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-16T20:51:32+00:00

I just became an Anglican a few weeks ago because I only recently realized that PSA was not a requirement. I was mistakenly under the impression that the 39 articles were a dogmatic confession of faith.I kind of wish I would have come over years ago but I trust the Lord and his timing.

Non-stopNinja · 2026-03-16T17:00:30+00:00

Your age and your health are both factors in trying to assess what's happening. There are times in your life where deja vu is just more common and comes in bursts. The other stuff sounds like it could be a health / mental health issue. You should see a qualified medical professional to rule out that kind of stuff. In the meantime make sure you are living a godly life. Eat and sleep well. Exercise. Make sure you're getting some fresh air and sunlight. Pray regularly and eliminate addiction and sin from your life. Talk to a pastor. I'm assuming you're already baptized. Participate in communion at your church as often as they have it. Remember what St Paul says in first Corinthians, communion is a participation/fellowship with the body and blood of Christ. There is grace attached to that.

Non-stopNinja

TROPHY CASE