Oh yeah dude, let's have another protestant revival to counter the other protestant revival which I definitely find problematic for reasons including the fact they are poaching my congregation.

What next?
Perhaps a new denomination entirely is in order. Time for another prophet to fix Christianity once and for all!

also nondenoms and zionists chiefly stem from baptists, who are mostly calvinist, "christian" zionism has it's roots in the puritans and restorationist Stone-Campbell types who essentially created "landmarkism" which you see promoted by many baptists today

in short, baptists are historically a core part of this problem to begin with
they don't represent a possible solution

most nondenoms are effectively baptists already, since they essentially all share the same doctrine concerning infant baptism
it's just that "baptists" themselves already have so many internal separations based on Goldilocks doctrines that they effectively become nondenoms in all but name only

the more you know

>>18507572
>Baptists need a revival
It's already happening, but you, as well as the low-fertility upper classes, view it as "low-class." so you ignore it. took 10+ years to get off the ground and it's just now getting bigger because young bloods like mejia aren't tech illiterate xoomers like Pastor Anderson (love him though).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6RTkb7omho

>>18507664
So you're like a Calvinist, huh?

Unlike the chad General Baptists, who are basically the only Baptists to have a degree of my intellectual respect.
Shame they're such a small minority of Baptists.

>Anderson
huge cringe
that's really embarrassing

>>18507672
You have the very barest comprehension of fundamental Baptists if you think I'm a Calvinist. Calvinists are "Reformed Baptist" or part of some non-denom church called "the refinery" or "agape love church" etc

reject Baptists
return to Anabaptists

Anabaptists are love
Anabaptists are life

>>18507677
why are you using a computer? dont you feel ashamed of yourself, jedidiah?

>>18507675
aren't fundamental Baptists also particular, in that they teach limited atonement
there are so many flavors of Baptist I get them mixed up from time to time

could be wrong about that, simply not enough cognitive real estate dedicated to this dartboard of a denomination

there's this thing I do occasionally where I make up a headcanon name for a Baptist church using a bunch of buzzwords I remember as a joke, and then provide a similarly constructed counter example and ask which is the TRUE baptist church

anyways, just because you reject the sacraments doesn't mean you aren't still laden with one of Calvin's many errors

>>18507688
>in that they teach limited atonement
No. Due to the autocephalous nature of IFB churches, I'm sure there's a few Calvinist pastors. But in general, Calvinist Baptists call themselves Reformed, or just not Baptist at all.
And in the "New" IFB (the aforesaid "revival"), Calvinism isn't tolerated at all.

https://rumble.com/v32l4j2-pastor-steven-anderson-the-5-points-of-calvinism.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o&sci=f946346f-01de-42b3-b868-24b3c1dc6ffa

>>18507680
I'm not a prottie.

But Anabaptist communities usually put me to shame personally speaking, and if I were not what I am, I would choose them.
However, I understand they insist on rebaptism. That's not gonna fly here, sorry.

Lots of them, certain Mennonites I have in mind, use computers too.
In fact there's this dude named Dave Bercot, who I find really interesting.

Kind of like how I find Michael Heiser interesting.

>>18507572
You can't force a revival, they happen spontaneously. People feel a certain way and start to act upon it, unleashing a torrent of faith as they do so.
Also I have two nitpicks:
I don't know what you mean by 'Tradition' and 'Christian Hard Zionim' is not a movement, it's a set of attitudes and beliefs that transcend denomination or creed; G.W.Bush and most of his admin were methodist, E.G.
>>18507582
You joke but this happened at least three times during the 19th century. And idk how many times in the twentieth.

>>18507704
I joke, yes.
This is a case of, funny because it's true.

>>18507695
Correct me if I'm wrong but you were in a thread with Dirk and I, where I finally learned what people actually mean by limited atonement and reacted negatively.
You told him you came to the conclusion it isn't supported by scripture.

Are you one of the KJV onlyists?
Or are you ready to accept it depends heavily on the Vulgate.

Except in Luke, where it inaccurately renders the appellation of the Archangel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary as "highly favored", instead of "full of grace" which is the *true* translation from the original Greek.

Which Greek includes the word "charito" as compound.
At the root of the English "charity", which denotes the gift of grace.
And which, elsewhere, the KJV indiscriminately translates into "grace".

>>18507727
Limited Atonement is not supported by scripture. So I probably told Dirk that. I can't remember the thread though. I'm a KJV-Onlyist for the English Language. The MEV is a close-second though. I appreciate how many people contributed to it. Reminds me of the KJV.
More succinctly, I am a Textus Receptus/Majority Text-Onlyist. But the KJV is a perfectly good translation in English.

>>18507738
I remember this thread.
Could probably pull it up on the archive right now just based on what I remember thinking he meant by limited atonement.

Years ago now.

That the early church had people confessing en todo to the entire congregation, and repeat offenders were excommunicated.
Later, I learned that some other churches would admit these same people, knowing others had turned them away. So they would like, just leave the city and just go elsewhere.

And it had to be brought up in council, ruling eventually that actually isn't cool and was forbidden.

At some point, private confession became an ecclesiastical norm rather than singular instances where only two could hear.
Certain penitential forms went along with it, from Ireland IIRC.

>>18507572
I'm okay with this but the SBC is cooked