My Visit to Steven Anderson?s Faithful Word Baptist Church...

[FSSL]

3:00 minute mark: ?Babies are incapable of sin?

11:00 min mark: ?When you are born, you are alive. When you sin that is when you die spiritually.?

Finneyism through and through. Arminianism and Calvinism agree on original sin. Pelagianism does not.

 

[Ransom]

I've never watched one of his sermon videos, and I probably never will.

In other words: prophet's personal ignorance is all the proof he needs.

 

[prophet]

I've never watched one of his sermon videos, and I probably never will.

In other words: prophet's personal ignorance is all the proof he needs.

You'd make a good IFB preacher.

You cut off the first half of my post, to make it look like I am "ignoring" something, when I have done no such thing.

Your occasional intellectual dishonesty is telling on your bias.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

3:00 minute mark: ?Babies are incapable of sin?

11:00 min mark: ?When you are born, you are alive. When you sin that is when you die spiritually.?

Finneyism through and through. Arminianism and Calvinism agree on original sin. Pelagianism does not.

It may sound like something Finney said, but I guarantee Finney isn't his source.

Although, he and Finney apparently dig in their nether regions for doctrine.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

It may sound like something Finney said, but I guarantee Finney isn't his source.

Then he probably got it from one of the many evangelists roaming the IFB circles, who get their methods and doctrines from Finney. One thing is for sure... he didn't make it up by himself. The statements and arguments in support are all too well known.

Although, he and Finney apparently dig in their nether regions for doctrine.

True! I wonder if Finney also pissed on a wall!?

This is one of the reasons people become KJVOs. They ignore history and think they have come up with a novel idea. When, in fact, those ideas have already been voiced by others in history. Historical Theology is a necessary study.

 

[prophet]

It may sound like something Finney said, but I guarantee Finney isn't his source.

Then he probably got it from one of the many evangelists roaming the IFB circles, who get their methods and doctrines from Finney. One thing is for sure... he didn't make it up by himself. The statements and arguments in support are all too well known.

Although, he and Finney apparently dig in their nether regions for doctrine.

True! I wonder if Finney also pissed on a wall!?

This is one of the reasons people become KJVOs. They ignore history and think they have come up with a novel idea. When, in fact, those ideas have already been voiced by others in history. Historical Theology is a necessary study.

The thing I chided Steve most for, while I was training him, was his total lack of desire to study history.
He used to say : "that's your strong point".

Sadly, he is repeating the things he never looked at.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

The thing I chided Steve most for, while I was training him, was his total lack of desire to study history.
He used to say : "that's your strong point". Sadly, he is repeating the things he never looked at.

The irony is he stands in judgment of the Roman Catholics and their historical theology on original sin.

If you were to analyze this sermon, you will find that he never makes a theological/biblical case against "original sin." He DOES make a case as to how the Catholics DEAL with sin, but he never defeats the theology of original sin.

Catholics have MANY problems, theologically. However, this is not one of them.

As Adamic people, we are sinners from the moment of conception. THIS should never be a question postulated by Gospel-believing fundamentalists. YET, here we are.

 

[FSSL]

The thing I chided Steve most for, while I was training him, was his total lack of desire to study history.

So... why say, "Typical Calvinistic jackassery"? You know that Anderson is a dolt and really should not be in a teaching capacity since he has no clue or desire to know where his doctrine comes.

You need to take the "jackassery" term and apply it to where it belongs.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The thing I chided Steve most for, while I was training him, was his total lack of desire to study history.

So... why say, "Typical Calvinistic jackassery"? You know that Anderson is a dolt and really should not be in a teaching capacity since he has no clue or desire to know where his doctrine comes.

You need to take the "jackassery" term and apply it to where it belongs.

His dilemma is that he trained this particular jackass.

 

[Twisted]

3:00 minute mark: ?Babies are incapable of sin?

11:00 min mark: ?When you are born, you are alive. When you sin that is when you die spiritually.?

Finneyism through and through. Arminianism and Calvinism agree on original sin. Pelagianism does not.

Hold the phone.  (for the record, I really don't like defending Anderson)  Romans 7:9 says that.  Now maybe you don't like how he words it, but since when do we take a snippet of a message to say a man has wrong doctrine?

You are born with a sin nature, but sin is not imputed until the law is broken and you are aware of it.  Do we agree that babies (and the retarded, etc.) sin and yet it is not imputed to them as they don't know the law?

Are you aware the Eve sinned several times BEFORE she ate the forbidden fruit?  And yet it was not imputed to her?

Anderson might not be saying it right, but he is close.

 

[Twisted]

...but since when do we take a snippet of a message to say a man has wrong doctrine?

Sorry, I forgot where I was.

Of course we do!

 

[FSSL]

You are born with a sin nature, but sin is not imputed until the law is broken and you are aware of it.  Do we agree that babies (and the retarded, etc.) sin and yet it is not imputed to them as they don't know the law?

Ugh... Sin has been imputed to us. It is our nature. You cannot have a sin nature without the imputation of sin. That is absurd double-talk.

Yes, babies and special needs people are sinners. We can talk about their accountability and eternal destiny, but FIRST, we need to establish a common foundation that "ALL have sinned..." Either ALL men have Adamic sin or they do not.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned? (Rom 5:12)"

The Bible presents the ANTIDOTE to the imputation of Adam's sin as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Therefore, your theology is setting up a logical situation where people do not have the imputation of righteousness until they perform their first righteous act.**

Are you aware the Eve sinned several times BEFORE she ate the forbidden fruit?  And yet it was not imputed to her?

Are you aware that Adam's sin is what is imputed to us?

Anderson might not be saying it right, but he is close.

Only if you believe people are not sinners until they commit their first act of sin.










** which some IFBs teach that the sinner's prayer is that first righteous act. The convolutions are absurd.

 

[Twisted]

You are born with a sin nature, but sin is not imputed until the law is broken and you are aware of it.  Do we agree that babies (and the retarded, etc.) sin and yet it is not imputed to them as they don't know the law?

Ugh... Sin has been imputed to us. It is our nature. You cannot have a sin nature without the imputation of sin. That is absurd double-talk.

Yes, babies and special needs people are sinners. We can talk about their accountability and eternal destiny, but FIRST, we need to establish a common foundation that "ALL have sinned..." Either ALL men have Adamic sin or they do not.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned? (Rom 5:12)"

The Bible presents the ANTIDOTE to the imputation of Adam's sin as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Therefore, your theology is setting up a logical situation where people do not have the imputation of righteousness until they perform their first righteous act.**

Are you aware the Eve sinned several times BEFORE she ate the forbidden fruit?  And yet it was not imputed to her?

Are you aware that Adam's sin is what is imputed to us?

Anderson might not be saying it right, but he is close.

Only if you believe people are not sinners until they commit their first act of sin.










** which some IFBs teach that the sinner's prayer is that first righteous act. The convolutions are absurd.

Of course "all have sinned".  But "all" do not have it imputed to them.  (Now if you hold that babies die and go to hell, have at it)

Paul spends time dealing with this in Romans.  There's probably a reason.

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

Reason why Anderson left Hyle's Anderson
http://stevenandersonfamily.blogspot.com/2012/08/wow-what-shock-not.html

"My husband left Hyles-Anderson College in November of 2005, just months short of graduating, after it became evident that Schaap was a false teacher, and worse yet, a pervert. He has been pointing him out as such ever since. Only a complete freak would (in graphic detail, no less) compare the Lord's supper to having s** with God. I have blogged about him myself a few times. Yesterday, I found excerpts from a recent sermon by Schaap that were shocking, even after having heard so much smut out of the man's mouth already. Who in their right mind sits under that sort of "preaching", much less allows their children to be exposed to his dirty ramblings?"

I'm guessing it was mostly the KJV-onlyism and the Lord's Supper controversy.

 

[FSSL]

Of course "all have sinned".  But "all" do not have it imputed to them.

Double-talk. You avoid the fact that you do not believe "ALL have sinned." Anderson clearly says, and makes an extended argument for the idea that babies cannot sin.

(Now if you hold that babies die and go to hell, have at it)

I don't. If you cannot get the imputation of Adam's sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness correct, on what basis do you have babies even having an eternal destiny? Your theology logically must demand that they commit an act of righteousness.

 

[Ransom]

You cut off the first half of my post, to make it look like I am "ignoring" something, when I have done no such thing.

Your anecdotal evidence about what Spamderson may or may not have said is irrelevamt, in light of concrete video evidence that you refuse to watch, in case it contradicts your presuppositions.

 

[Ransom]

The thing I chided Steve most for, while I was training him,

LOL. Novices presuming to train novices.

Someone failed to learn Obi-Wan's lesson from Star Wars.

 

[prophet]

The thing I chided Steve most for, while I was training him, was his total lack of desire to study history.

So... why say, "Typical Calvinistic jackassery"? You know that Anderson is a dolt and really should not be in a teaching capacity since he has no clue or desire to know where his doctrine comes.

You need to take the "jackassery" term and apply it to where it belongs.

Because jackassery applies very well to the tired old line of "everybody who isn't Calvinist is Pelagian".

Just because there is another jackass, of a different stripe out there, doesn't mean that The Boobs who subscribe to Augustinian Error, and then launch ad hominem tirades at anyone who thinks outside of their box, are any less jackassy.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

The thing I chided Steve most for, while I was training him, was his total lack of desire to study history.

So... why say, "Typical Calvinistic jackassery"? You know that Anderson is a dolt and really should not be in a teaching capacity since he has no clue or desire to know where his doctrine comes.

You need to take the "jackassery" term and apply it to where it belongs.

His dilemma is that he trained this particular jackass.

I only care to set the record strait, whenever I think I am privy to the record.

FTR, the article did expose that what I trained him in (planting a NT Church), he learned very well.

As for his theology...I tried to tell him, earlier this year, that he espoused Catholic doctrine, whenever it was convenient for him.
I guess I don't rate anymore, because I was called a heretic, and he ended all communication with me.
Not that that affects me too much, but I miss the days when he called me when he was in over his head.

O, well.



Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

Because jackassery applies very well to the tired old line of "everybody who isn't Calvinist is Pelagian".

Since I have shown where he has followed Pelagianism and Finneyism, you're only showing us where the jackassery applies. You defended the guy against a charge of Finneyism, only to find out that he DOES. THEN you told us he doesn't have much concern for historical theology.

This guy is not just a Semi-Pelagianist.... this video shows him to be pretty much a straight-up Pelagian (on this topic).

Looks like you don't have the stomach to hear anything negative about your padawan.