Yes, exactly. Just like with cain, he thought his sacrifice was the greatest and should be pleasing to God. When it wasn't, instead of apologizing and pledging to do better, he became angry and bitter and solidified his damnation. He wanted his ears tickled as do many "christians" today. They want the benefits without the submission.

This so true Dylan. It certainly can be a possibility of raising up the self or pride . Pride and self righteousness is prob the most deceitful and masked sins. A person can totally believe there all for God in that position yet be actually very opposed by claiming so much on there own side. But if God by his grace has revealed enough to a person to understand this then treading carefully is wise especially against those who maybe making claims of self.

@Steven Irizarry The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah:17:9

@Steven Irizarry Godbless you brother for your honesty

@Jezus Nadchodzi my opinion is that Steven Irizarry is not joking. The subject is far too serious for that. He is simply trying to expose the madness of five point TULIP theology; the duplicity of Calvinists saying that they are redeemed by the shed blood of Jesus, but "knowing" in their hearts that actually it is because their names are on God's secret list of the elect.

These points are hard for fleshly man to swallow, they like to hear what makes them FEEL good instead of what scripture teaches. When you read scripture in context, TULIP is the only way to go. When you read scripture to say what you want it to say, heresy is created.

Socialism Kills I agree that it can be hard to swallow, for both the saved and unsaved. But in my opinion I think TULIP can only be trusted IF we are constantly reading the Scriptures, and reading it in context. Doing exegesis of the texts at hand, etc. IF Armenians somehow are accurate of their doctrines of Soteriology, I’m confused to how. Not because I believe a theological system is infallible, but because Jesus and His apostles said things that make free-will salvation theology very confusing. 2 examples: 1.) Jesus said: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:44‬ The word CAN that Jesus uses, refers to ability. 2nd: Paul says: “in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,” ‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭2:25‬ IF Paul says God grants repentance, then how can men repent and cause their own regeneration? It just doesn’t make sense to me as a former Armenian.

@@cork8843 I'm in complete agreement. Arminianism doesn't make sense when you read OUT of the Bible instead of INTO it. Like the Bible says, (not a quote) fallen man has itching ears and wishes them to be scratched, and will heap upon themselves teachers that do exactly that.

Socialism Kills Yeah a time will come for itching ears, and teachers to soothe them. I believe your speaking truth there. But yeah at the same time we can also be accused of not reading into the Bible. That’s why we are to constantly search the scriptures to see if certain doctrines are so... I do admit I have the ability to be wrong at times.

@@cork8843 We all get things wrong from time to time. People think calvinists think they have it all figured out and I don't know a single one that believes they've got it all figured out. There was only one who was perfect and they killed Him for it. We just do our best and repent of our shortcomings.

Ligonier's church history series, I believe. Might be free right now, not sure.

@@asahelnettleton9044 It is on the ligonier app

Right. just cause most of the world believes in freewill doesn’t mean it’s true at all

You dont understand what "Pelagiansm" was. There is a good case that the British monk Pelagius didnt even teach it..Rowan Williams the former Archbishop of Cantebury has argued. Pelagianism is known from Augustines writings of a misunderstanding he was combatting in his day. Arminianism is not Pelagianism but a form of Reformed theology that disagreed on only 5 points. Charles Finney is closer to Pelagius' view... but thats not certain historically. Finney is a heroe in evangelicism for his revivals but most dont delve into his systematic theology which was more in line with Jonathan Edwards (a fire breathing hyper calvinist) but Finney questioned its illogic at points. If you want to critise something know what it really is.

@@Liminalplace1 Is there or is there not a set of beliefs known today as pelagianism regardless of whether or not the person who they were named after actually held those beliefs? No need for the genetic fallacy, the term is well understood and has meaning.

@StAnthony You are completely wrong. Election and predestination is biblical re-read Romans! "as it denies the power of faith in Christ and replaces it with the mechanistic man-made doctrine of election" How is "Faith alone in Christ alone" denying the power of faith in Christ?? "Calvinism is vile, so its appropriate to attack it it vigorously." So you support "christians" using foul language and any means necessary to put down those that disagree with them? Sounds like the crusades all over again..... You're exactly the type of uninformed indoctrinated "christian" that gets all uppity and self-righteous. (which is against biblical teachings) So, what would you call yourself? Catholic?

People worship their free will and autonomy. They HATE a God who is on the throne and does what he pleases.

@StAnthony Calvinists try to bind up God and His sovereignty?? I think you don't really know what Calvinism teaches. I think you're just blindly attacking a group that one of your favorite teachers told you was bad... You even admittedly injected Calvinism and determinism INTO scripture. That shows your character right there. Your ilk always reads INTO scripture not OUT of scripture. It's all "Pastor said" when it should be "The Bible says" as I said, RE-READ ROMANS! It teaches predestination and election. Then revelations: Our names were written in the lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world. Can't answer my questions, I see. That's what I thought. As I said, just another uninformed self-righteous zealot!

@@1689solas Yes, they want teachers that tickle their ears. They want to edify the flesh. They HATE a God who is sovereign, just like cain did.

@StAnthony You should be very careful not to misquote Psalm 2:1-4; it is the God-breathed Word sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not a tool to emotionally attack someone on a social media comment section. Instead of making assertions in your comment, it would be more prudent to demonstrate how the individuals you are addressing "use the sovereignty of God to justify their complacency, rationalism and lack of faith." How do you know any of this based on your dislike of someone's comment on KZfaq? It's baseless and slanderous unless you have proof. May I prayerfully suggest that instead of making emotional comments filled with insulting adjectives, you discuss the doctrines that you think are "man-made" and show Biblically from scripture why they are not true. Anyone can make insulting assertions, but Christians should always go to the Word of God to demonstrate their theology. For instance, you say Calvinists are using God's sovereignty, then why don't you take the time to address the verses that speak of God's sovereignty and explain how it doesn't mean what it means. I'll give you three examples you can choose from: Isaiah 46:9-11, which shows that God declares the beginning to the end and what He purposes, He will do. Proverbs 21:1, how the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord and God turns it whichever way He will turn it. Or Acts 2:23, how wicked hands (denoting their responsibility) crucified Christ, but it was by the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God (denoting God's sovereignty) that it happened. These are just some of the verses that speak of God's sovereignty; could you take the time to show how these verses are misinterpreted instead of adding your own words to Psalm 2?

The series is free right now! Check it out in the Ligonier App!

It's a shame this comment section is filled with people who have a low view of God and His sovereignty, that attack calvinists without actually knowing what calvinism is.

There are Reform Baptist churches. I am a member of one.

Melvin, though I appreciate Godfrey a lot, much of his church history still has a Presbyterian leaning. That doesn't mean it is all incorrect, but it's good to get perspectives from other denominations as well. We can then be prayerful about getting to the crux of church history. If you get a chance, check out the Masters Seminary KZfaq channel and look for church history taught by Nathan Busenitz; there are over forty classes that begin from the 1st Century up until the modern day. I've watched at least half of them and they are very informative. Also, a pastor by the name of Jake Stone did a three part series on Southern Baptists/Calvinists that could be listened to on Sermon Audio: www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Jake_Stone Just type in Southern Baptists/Calvinism under keyword and you should get the three part series. While none of these things are extensive; its a good start to get some info on baptist church history as it pertains to reformed thought. At the end of the day, though, are doctrines must always be based on the God-breathed, sufficient Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17). God bless.

There are several views regarding the origin of Baptists, but most are historically untenable (such as the Landmarkist "Trail of Blood"). Not withstanding the Anabaptists, who mostly came out of Lutheran Pietism and are an entirely different movement (sometimes called the German baptists), Baptists as they exist now predominantly in America are the theological descendants of the English reformation. The English Baptists appeared nearly simultaneously in two groups - the General Baptists (Arminians) and the Particular Baptists (Reformed). These both started in the very early 1600s in England. The Particulars drafted two confessions in 1644 and 1677 (wasn't made publicly available until 1689 when religious toleration allowed its official publication). The First and Second London Baptist Confessions were written so as to clarify the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the Particular Baptists' beliefs because they were often falsely accused of being Anabaptists, many of whom were heretics, notably those responsible for the Münster Rebellion in 1534-35. Much to the distaste (and probably outright denial these days) of many in the modern Southern Baptist Convention, that association of churches in America was founded in 1845 by Reformed Baptists who held to the 1689 Confession. Godfrey's series is good, and I highly recommend the whole thing, but, as was mentioned above, it comes from a Presbyterian perspective (though, if i recall correctly, Godfrey is actually Continental Reformed or Dutch Reformed). I would also commend James White's Church History series, which is available in the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church feed on SermonAudio .com. James Renihan also presents a number of lectures you may find interesting regarding Baptist history and British Reformation history, which are also available on SermonAudio. Also, you'd be very well served to watch the 1689 Federalism videos with James and Sam Renihan and Richard Barcellos, which are available on KZfaq and through their website 1689federalism .com I hope you find this helpful.

@@asahelnettleton9044 Yes. Very helpful. Thank you.

In the description there is a link to the full 24-minute video. From that website you can also check out all teaching series by the Ligonier teachers.

@@perfectsnaitang Thank you! I wish I'd known that year(s) ago! (Can't remember how long I've been subscribed lol.)

Paragraph 1:They are real. It's a whole series on church history. How you "feel" about it is irrelevant. 2: Great. 3. No you didn't. I promise you whatever heresy you came up with was invented looong ago. Probably Molinism. 4. The whole website is full of teaching series and articles on these topics. It's literally the main thing they talk about.

@@1689solas People like you are the reason I rejected traditional churches long ago. You have the Accuser's stench of condemnation about you. Heresy indeed. You wouldn't know a true heresy if it swam up your butt and bit you in the kidneys. In fact, in your case, I suspect something demonic has bitten your heart. Regardless, you know nothing of what I actually believe, so accusing me of heresy is at least sad and pathetic. At best you're a wilted, angry clown.

@@zippymax1 You're welcome. Funny thing is, these videos are both staged and real. They prepare real sermons, real people really come to really listen. It's not a performance; they teach it through all the way; and they don't redo if the angle isn't right or if someone scratches his nose in the middle. But it is also staged. I doubt this is even a real room, they just set it up on stage to look like one (RC spoke about this once for another older room). They also know beforehand that this will be caught on video and published as a Ligonier teaching series. So, it's both staged and real in that sense. Not so with predestination. Somebody has to make the choice first, and the Bible says it is God: *⁶⁵ And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:65)*

God causes the people to do what they do he doesn’t do it for them. that’s how

@@aletheia8054 That's irrational. If I tell you to do something, who gets in trouble if you did something bad, me or you? I won't be discussing convoluted calvinism again, the theology is goofy, can't you see how it's nonsensical?

@@jayahladas692 We are humans. You’re applying to God what applies to humans. That is irrational I’m not a Calvinist

@@aletheia8054 you said "God causes the people to do what they do" No! people have choice. I choose not to continue conversing about idiotic calvinism

@@jayahladas692 The reason Freewill people don’t want to talk about it is because they know it’s irrational. They believe free will whether it’s rational or not And they all say the same thing that you said. They compare what God knows and does to what a man must know and do It’s dumb.

Because it's their duty to repent and believe. It doesn't matter if they lack the ability. God is worthy of their worship. They won't do it because they hate God. The heretic Pelagius made the same mistake you make here. A requirement does not indicate an ability. You're assuming it does. God commands us to be holy as he is holy. You've never done that because it is impossible as a fallen creature to do so.

You believe you can regenerate yourself. Regeneration precedes faith. Saving Faith is a gift from above. The classic passage from the Bible that answers this question is John 3:1-21. The Lord Jesus Christ is talking to Nicodemus, a prominent Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin (the ruling body of the Jews). Nicodemus had come to Jesus at night with some questions. As Jesus talked with Nicodemus, He said, “‘I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.’ ‘How can a man be born when he is old?’ Nicodemus asked. ‘Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, “You must be born again”’” (John 3:3-7). The phrase "born again" literally means "BORN FROM ABOVE." Nicodemus had a real need. He needed a change of his heart-a spiritual transformation. New birth, being born again, is an ACT OF GOD whereby eternal life is imparted to the person who believes (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-4, 18). John 1:12, 13 indicates that being "born again" also carries the idea of "becoming children of God" through trust in the name of Jesus Christ. The question logically comes, "Why does a person need to be born again?" The apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:1 says, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins" To the Romans he wrote, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Sinners are spiritually “dead”; when they receive spiritual life through faith in Christ, the Bible likens it to a rebirth. Only those who are born again have their sins forgiven and have a relationship with God. How does that come to be? Ephesians 2:8-9 states, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not FROM YOURSELVES, it is the GIFT OF GOD -NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast." When one is saved, he/she has been born again, spiritually renewed, and is now a child of God by right of new birth

@Steven Irizarry No kidding. Is that supposed to be some kind of argument? Nobody claims he was infallible. I'm a credobaptist. Of course I don't believe he was right about everything. He also wasn't the first monergist either. Gottschalk, Augustine, Paul, and Jesus all predated him. What he taught wasn't remotely new.

Why are you watching a Reform theology pastor. Is it to antagonize the ones who believe in Reform theology. That's not very Christian and you know why you are here. It's to agitate. The way one can tell why people degrade someone's beliefs is they make statements without backing up their beliefs with scripture.

Mark, with all due respect, your comment is actually untrue. You made some blanket assertions without demonstrating anything from scripture. 1) The God of the Bible is where these doctrines come from, not Calvin. He didn't write the Bible, it is God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17). All Calvin or anyone can do is interpret it based on content, context, and grammar. If there is a problem with reformed doctrine, then the verses that support it should be addressed and you could take the time to show why the interpretation is incorrect. 2) You say they twist His love and His Word. That is a strong accusation; you need to show from scripture how this is done. I don't know any Calvinist or non-Calvinist that would deny John 3:16 or the numerous commands to repent and believe. Could you give some examples from sermons or teaching where they twist the scriptures? 3) You asked, "Why would God command everyone to repent if they cant! Why would God say TURN AND LIVE! If they cant turn to Him!" That objection is actually anticipated by God when speaking of His sovereignty; it is asked and answered in Romans 9:19-24. And to be honest, sinful mankind knows all about God based on their conscience and creation according to Romans 1:18-23, therefore they are held accountable for their law breaking (because sin is the breaking or transgression of God's law according to 1 John 3:4). A holy, righteous God must command sinners to repent and believe because they sin and God is lawgiver, judge, and king (Isaiah 33:22). The fact that sinful man won't repent in their own sin nature is because they have a carnal mind that doesn't understand spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), a carnal mind that is hostile against God so that they could never please Him (Romans 8:5-8), and they literally hate God the Father, God the Son, and Christians according to Jesus' own words in John 15:18-23. Remember, sinful man has a desperately wicked and deceitful heart (Jeremiah 17:9). 4) And the Bible does say sinners should seek the Lord (Acts 17:27) because they know all about Him, but again, they suppress (or hold) that truth in their unrighteous sin nature (Romans 1:18) so they willingly don't seek after God (Romans 3:11). In other words, God commands sinners to seek Him because they should, but that doesn't mean they will based on their sin nature. Yet based on God's attributes of holiness, justice, righteousness, and goodness, God rightly commands sinful man what he is obligated or responsible to do regardless if they don't want to do it. 5) Finally, the key doctrines that make up Calvinism are from scripture and they don't make God a liar, but reveals His attributes and the total depraved nature of man. God is truly a God of love (1 John 4:8), but we have a tendency to separate God's attribute of love from his almost thirty or more attributes, which also includes wrath, hatred, sovereignty, and self-existence. If we make the love of God a sappy, man-centered type love, we as Christians will have a tough time reconciling God's love for the world in John 3:16 to God's hatred of all workers of iniquity (and those are sinners) in Psalm 5:4-6 (And believe me, let the smart, unsaved skeptic hear about God's love and challenge you with this and many other verses and watch how badly it turns out). The reason so many hate these doctrines is because they may have an incomplete view of God and too much of a favorable view of sinful man and it kinda hurts our pride to except that the Bible says what it says in many places.

Calvinists don't follow Calvin the man, they follow his interpretation of scripture in it's context. The Bible teaches TULIP. It speaks of the total depravity of man, election based on nothing but God's will, Limited atonement (He died for "all the believing one"), irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. We don't claim to have it all figured out (as many people seem to assume) we just read OUT of the text instead of reading INTO it and making it say what makes us FEEL good.

@@ilikeeggs3407 Marxists don't follow Marx but his principles. So what do you call these people? Followers of Marx. Calvinists follow Calvin (his teachings or interpretations of the Word of God). The truth is, the true born-again child of God doesn't need the interpretation of human beings to understand the word of God. ✨1 John 2:27 "As for you, the Holy Spirit which He gave you is still in you, and you have no need of any teacher; but as His Spirit gives you teaching about all things, and is true and not false, so keep your hearts in him, through the teaching which He has given you" ✨John 16:3,4 13 However, when He, the Spirit of true knowledge, has come, He will be your guide into all true knowledge: for His words will not come from Himself, but whatever has come to His hearing, that He will say: and He will make clear to you the things to come. 14 He will give me glory, because He will take of what is mine, and make it clear to you. We don't need TULIP to understand and live for our Savior. We just need to realise that we are God's temple. He lives in us & this indwelling Holy Spirit is the only guide a true born-again child of God needs, not Calvin, not Arminius, not nobody.....

@@T.Ravikumar A brief history lesson is in order. Calvin didn't come up with Reformed doctrine. Many men taught these truths in opposition to the false teaching of the Roman church. Most of them were killed by the Roman church for Doing so. What Calvin did was top lay these truths out better than anyone had done as a systematic theology. We called ourselves Reformed, or Protestant. The enemies of the truth called us names. One of which was Calvinists. We took that name over, just as Christians did when they were mockingly called little messiahs or Christians. Years later a group of heretics attempted to teach false theology, they were caught doing so and had to go public. They tried to get these heresies accepted at the Synod of Dordt. They were rejected as heresy again. They objected to church teaching in 5 points. These were the Remonstrants and their 5 Point Arminianism. A simple tool arose to assist Christians to deal with the errors of the heretics. It has come to be known by the acronym TULIP. Tulip didn't come from Calvin, he was long dead by the time the Synod took place. So I call myself a Christian. When asked what kind I say “Calvinist" as shorthand for bible believing Christian who believes that all scripture is inerrant and that the doctrines it teaches are best explained, in a systematic theological way by John Calvin. It doesn't mean I always agree with him on everything he did or said or thought. You claim that we are followers of Calvin, well where he gave a good example we follow that, just as Paul says to copy his good example, which we also follow, but we, are not his disciples or followers as opposed to following Christ. If you claim we are then you are a liar or a fool or a troll. You may choose which one you are. I describe Arminians as wrong. I don't pretend they are disciples of Arminius. For one thing they have a far softer view of depravity than he had, and secondly it would not be honest, and therefore not Christian, to do so. I ask you, to be honest and Christian and not make that false claim again.

@@Phill0old Surprising that you say that if asked what kind of Christian you are, you'd say "Calvinist"! Please quote an analogy from the Bible for this. Further you say that even though you'd call yourself a Calvinist you still don't think he's right in everything. Then why would you call yourself after someone (or after his principles) whom you yourself agree is not perfect? A true child of God would answer the question on what kind of Christian he/she is... The "born-again" kind! The apostles were encouraging people to follow their example. The reason was that those were the times when there was no written word of God, similiar to the Bible we have today. The easier way was to say follow my actions. Infact that was the reason that we see in Acts & the Epistles, counsel regarding nominating some elder to help those new believers in the truth of Christ. By the grace of God we are not in such a predicament. We are blessed to have the word of God in our hand & the God given Holy Spirit inside us to guide us with His book. If you still feel happy to call yourself "Calvinist" kind of Christian. I guess I'll have to call myself "Spirit led" kind of Christian.

@@T.Ravikumar OK so stop with the insults already, it is boring, tedious and unChristian! The only people who ask what kind of Christian you are already know that there are different theologies in Christianity so the answer I give is, exactly as I said, shorthand for simplicity's sake. So my basic position is that I am a Christian, I could answer the question “what kind?" by saying, "a real and theological correct one" which is true, but unhelpful. No there isn't a biblical example because....... the Arminian heresy wasn't an issue in the early church! They had problems with gnosticism, legalism, paganism, antinomians etc. and Paul and others dealt with those heresies. If you call yourself "a spirit led" Christian, in answer to that question, you are either deluded or simplistic. All Christians are led by the Holy Spirit so your answer indicates that you don't know that, or you think you are a special case or you are being deliberately obtuse. So which is it? Are you a special case or deliberately obtuse?

Calvinist don't disagree with your verse, but whose work is belief? "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." John 6: 29. Who authors our faith, man? "Jesus the author and finisher of our faith" Heb 12: 2. Proving that we need to believe proves calvinism; it's not where the disagreement lies. Non-Calvinists believe that they originate a belief in themselves that is pleasing to God and merits salvation, Calvinists follow the biblical teaching that even our faith and belief is God's gift to us.

Beenballinsince94, "All" is an indefinite pronoun; it must have a reference or an antecedent to define what the "all" is speaking about. Two examples in scripture. Romans 3:9 says, "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin." Notice the indefinite pronoun "all" in this verse references "Jews and Gentiles," the pronouns that define the "all." In this respect, all means everyone because Jew and Gentile covers all. That is the reason the whole context of Romans 3:9-20 can be referenced in Romans 3:23, which says all have sinned. That "all" is everyone. On the other hand, 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." In this verse you have two indefinite pronouns, "any" and "all." The reference point or the antecedent is "us-ward," a pronoun that refers to "beloved" in 3:8, which are believers. In this case, the "all" doesn't reference every single person that ever lived or the "us-ward" would say "all sinners" or "everyone," which grammatically would make the "all" pertain to that. So when Christians say "all means all and that's all means," it leaves out the question, "all what?" The context and grammar of the verses have to dictate the meaning of the word "all" or we will quote verses out of context or even half a verse to make it say what we want it to say. We would never do this from two paragraphs of a fictional or even non-fictional book or we'd change the meaning of the context, but because we have chapter and verses in the Bible, we have a tendency to abuse those guides to make verses say something that the context doesn't dictate. This happens frequently with the word "all." As for conditions for salvation; if it is conditioned on just the belief of the sinner, then God the Father choosing us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) makes that choice conditioned on the finite sinful person before they were even created before Genesis 1:1. The faith itself still comes from God. That is the part of the gift of God in Ephesians 2:8-9. Jesus said no one can come to Him (speaking of believing) unless the Father draws them in John 6:44. Repentance is shown to be given by God in Acts 5:31, 11:18, and 2 Timothy 2:25. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith in Hebrews 12:2. So while Romans 10:9-10 does say sinful man must confess with their mouth and believe in their heart, that confession and belief comes from a changed heart and mind from God. So the "condition" you speak of still originates from God, which means it is still conditioned on God's elective decree.

The big difference is "Calvinism" is very much Biblical. The rest you mentioned not so much.

I don’t worship at the altar of Calvin. I am a Christian. All I was saying is if you read the Bible from cover to cover most likely you will agree with Calvin. His doctrines are Biblical, but they are not popular because The Bible portrays a big sovereign God and a small man, but modern man wants wants a “servant” god and make man as god.

Steven Irizarry I had the same thoughts as you that God didn’t not love me. Especially because of my past and my childhood. However God has revealed that he does love me through Jesus Christ. I would encourage you to keep seeking the Lord and not trust to your feelings of inadequacy or unworthiness. We all are unworthy and doesn’t deserve such mercy and grace. God is a God who saves.

Steven Irizarry I had the same thoughts as you that God didn’t not love me. Especially because of my past and my childhood. However God has revealed that he does love me through Jesus Christ. I would encourage you to keep seeking the Lord and not trust to your feelings of inadequacy or unworthiness. We all are unworthy and doesn’t deserve such mercy and grace. God is a God who saves.

@Nj Rh stop trying to whitewash that sadistic killer with either lies or deliberate ignorance, you choose. Why would you so that, and thereby endanger your own salvation? Ah yes, of course, because you think you are safe because your name is on that secret list of the elect that God has. How silly of me.

Reformed Baptists, who were originally called Particular Baptists, have their origin at roughly the same time as General Baptists (Arminian Baptists), which is the early 17th century. It's not a new phenomenon by a long shot.

@@asahelnettleton9044 The Anabaptist of the 15th century would strongly disagree with this assessment.

@@dennisdabney4039 The Anabaptists had little in common with the English Baptists, except for holding to credobaptism and local church autonomy. Contained in the original 1644 London Baptist Confession, was a plea that pedobaptists (notably the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Anglicans) stop referring to the Baptists as Anabaptists, which was a common polemic used to discredit them. Whether the General Baptists did likewise, I am unaware, but it makes little difference as the General Baptists effectively ceased to exist by the mid 18th century as their movement devolved into Unitarianism. Also, the Anabaptists did not exist until the early to mid 16th century. That said, your mentioning of them is a red herring that has little to do with your initial comment, which appears to imply that Reformed Baptists are some kind of new phenomenon.

Felix Manz, Jacob Falk and Henry Reiman considered drowning a new phenomenon.

@@dennisdabney493 Uh... ok.