What is the official position of the various Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.) regarding the situation in Israel and Palestine and the conflict between them?

Jesus said 'the words that I speak unto you - they are spirit and they are life'. Paul also made it clear that if one receives the exact word of the true gospel (rather than, for example, the legal admixture which he opposed in Galatia) then Christ, himself, will be 'formed within'. >My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, [Galatians 4:19 KJV]. This being 'formed within' is the real presence of Christ himself, in Spirit, consequent upon real repentance and a saving faith. The Strict and Particular Baptist movement of the early and middle 1800s, led first by William Huntington and then by William Gadsby, John Warburton and J.C.Philpot, stood strongly for real experience of conviction of sin, repentance of an evangelical kind (not mere legal remorse) and a real closing with Christ himself in felt union. Thereafter came a weakened expectation and a reliance on a 'decision' which fell short of real regeneration. The general term 'easy believism' has been, loosely, used to describe this. I am looking for any gatherings (or even a whole denomination, if there be such) which follow in the footsteps of the Strict and Particular Baptists in this regard, both in doctrine and in practice and in fellowship. My own experience, in the south west of England, is that the denomination called 'Gospel Standard Strict Baptist' is far from its origins in the previous two centuries, though they do, in word, adhere to certain doctrine and practice that is reminiscent of their beginnings. My question is addressed to Reformed and Trinitarian, Baptist Protestantism. But I would not discount Presbyterianism. What is easy believism ?

I remember being taught in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church when I was in middle school that Satan took one third of the angels in heaven with him after being cast out of God's presence for rebellion. The only biblical reference I can locate that might be construed as support for this belief is **Revelation 12:4**: >Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. (NIV) I'm sure there are other scriptures that are commonly used in conjunction with this one to justify the belief, but I can't find any that seem to make sense in context, or that address the topic specifically. After discussing this and other issues regarding angels with conservative Baptist friends of mine, I found that some of them base a significant portion of their beliefs about angels, the nephilim, and other supernatural activity and beings on the Book of Enoch, but they always emphasized that they do not view Enoch as canon and as having much less authority than the scriptures. How do Baptists who hold this position defend it using canonical scripture? Also, are there any significant denominations or popular preachers who have maintained this belief?

I recently found references that suggest both Baptists and Methodists used to believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same. This surprised me because both Baptists and Methodists are Trinitarian and understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God who was never created. The Bible says that angels are created beings, hence my confusion. Here are some of the references I found: From my Morning and Evening devotionals of Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) I found this quote (morning October 3) regarding angels, based on Hebrews 1:14, and speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ: >“He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows.” From a Spurgeon sermon ‘The Angelic Life’ (22 November 1868) comes this partial quote: >“Our Lord is called an angel. He is the angel of the covenant... We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. The fight is going on every day. Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” John Gill, a Baptist pastor (circa 1750) wrote this about Michael the Archangel based on Jude 1:9: >"Yet Michael the Archangel.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ;” I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus, as the Word of God, was created by Jehovah as the mighty spirit creature who was known in heaven as Michael before he came to earth, and that he is still known in heaven as Michael since his resurrection. However, this question is not about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, although I welcome any modern, up to date insights they might have about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists regarding Jesus and Michael. This question is specifically about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists NOW, as to whether they believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, and, if so, how can this be explained in light of the Trinity doctrine. I’m not looking for more old quotes, but for up to date information about Baptist and Methodist beliefs on the person of Jesus and if he is also Michael the archangel. The article 'Who do mainline Protestants believe an “archangel” (such as Michael) to be?' is not specific with regard to what Baptists and Methodists believe about Jesus being Michael the Archangel (or not).

The question is: According to Baptists, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Baptist definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: What does Lutheranism say about God's soul? , A question for Roman Catholicism about the soul of God? , According to Eastern Orthodoxy does God have a soul? , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

In short: **Are Baptists generally for or against going to war?** It seems Baptists have a general freedom in their personal beliefs. Is there a general consensus on going to war or avoiding it?

I would like to know how does Calvinism differ from Independent Fundamental Baptist teachings. If someone can point main differences in a form of points (f.e. 1st point, 2nd point and so on for Calvinism, and then the same for Baptists). I would also like to know their Definition of Faith and exegesis. I would very much appreciate if you could be specific and thorough in your answers. Thank you. I know that it could be found on internet, but it is very hard to find the right examples (maybe organizations is a better word; or churches), so I plead for your help.

In the book The Trail of Blood by James M Carroll, the author makes the claim that 50,000,000 early Baptists were martyred under persecution by the Catholic Church. The author makes the claim multiple times without any sourcing for that number. My question is essentially two parts. Is the claim of 50,000,000 Baptist martyrs accurate, and if so, can someone point me to a source that validates the claim?

According to Baptist of all stripes, are names added to the Book of Life anywhere in the Bible (after Creation)? I see only examples of names remaining in or being wiped out. I don’t see names being added. >“The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭3:5‬ ‭ESV‬‬ In order to never be blotted out it’s implied you were already written in. When was it written in? What is the Baptist view?

How does the Catholic, Baptist and Pentecostal denominations justify the practice of following teachers given this in scripture? > "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and > you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing > teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and > just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.", 1 Jn 2:27 and, this > "No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, > ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them > to the greatest.", Heb 8:11 Obviously, they are appointed in the Church: > "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second > prophets, **third teachers**, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of > helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.", 1 Cor 12:28 Then, apparently "you" should be teachers at some point, > "by this time you ought to be teachers", Heb 5:12 Then, there's 1 Jn 2:27 and Heb 8:11 . If you back up to Heb 8:10, this is largely acknowledged as the New Covenant where the Holy Spirit is given to dwell within believers transforming their nature to keep God's ways: > "This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after > that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and > write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my > people.", Heb 8:10 That appears to be the anointing in v11. And, that anointing says you have no need of a teacher. So, why do the denominations justify their followers remaining under teachers, most their entire lives in the church? Here's a New Testament example of how to conduct "When you come together": 1 Cor 14:26-39, and some points: > "**everyone has** a psalm or **a teaching**, **a revelation**, a tongue, **or an interpretation**.", v26 > "Two or three prophets should speak the others should weigh carefully > what is said. **And if a revelation comes** to someone who is seated, the > first speaker should stop", v29-30 >**For you can all prophesy** in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged", v31 > "If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him > acknowledge that **what I am writing you is the Lord’s command**.", v37 The above is quite different from conventional church services.

I have been told that I possess a very definitive view of faith in regards to baptism. So far as I believe faith in Jesus as personal Lord and Savior must be present at the time of baptism. Hence my adherence to the doctrine of credo baptism. I would just like to know how you would categorize this view? Is it Lutheran or Calvinistic? What part of Christian theology would comprise such a view? I have started to think critically of my views because for the first time in my life settling down and starting a family is a real possibility and I would like to know how to explain this to a potential mother of my children?

I am looking for a scholar familiar with Baptist history to provide an introduction to the early history of the Baptists. In particular, I want to learn about the founding and early development stages of the Baptist denominations, including an explanation of the situation when the Southern Baptists separated from the Northern Baptists in the USA.

Some Baptists and many other evangelicals use grape juice in communion. Is this explained on any catechism (or systematic theology available online) ? Does the reason for not using wine have to do with keeping oneself pure or the moral problems with alcohol?

According to Baptist belief is it possible for a true believer in their ranks to become possessed by demons? If so what does the Baptist church do to help such a person? This closed question asked a broader version of this question

Let's say a Christian grew up in a non-Baptist Reformed church and was baptized as an infant. This Christian went through a catechism and confirmation during his youth (12-15 yr. old) and in the process came to a *personal conviction* and *personal decision* to make Christ his Lord and Savior. The pastor (the catechist) knew this and because of that he decided that the candidate is ready for confirmation. In the confirmation ceremony he declared his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ publicly to the congregation and by that ceremony became a full member of the church and was allowed to take communion. (See [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/90330/10672) for the meaning of Confirmation for a pedobaptist Reformed church). This Christian now goes to another church, a Baptist church that practices adult full immersion, which also holds the same Reformed theology apart from baptism. Knowing the personal history of this Christian, **what is the typical Reformed Baptist church policy on this?** I can think of a few options: 1. Ignore the infant baptism and the confirmation completely, and treat this person like other baptism candidates 1. Consider the infant baptism invalid since an infant cannot make a conscious declaration of faith, so have him re-baptized 1. Do not require adult baptism, but require the person to do the remaining important element, such as making a public confession and taking a class (to update the theology) so he can then become an elder later 1. Recognize the combination of Infant baptism + Confirmation ceremony to be equivalent to adult baptism since all the elements (baptism using Trinitarian formula, declaration of faith, public announcement, admittance to membership + communion) were believed and performed within the same Reformed theology framework. In implementing the policy, can you also give an **overview of pastoral approaches** in Baptist churches for people who fit the case study above, i.e. were baptized as infants, catechized, confirmed, and became member of a pedobaptist Reformed church?

The beliefs of Catholics are Catholicism; the beliefs of Lutherans are Lutheranism; the beliefs of Presbyterians are Presbyterianism; etc. What about the beliefs of Baptists? It "should" be "Baptism," but that would be confusing. "Baptistism" is more understandable, but sounds wrong ("-ist" changes to "-ism"; they aren't normally combined).

When I first became a Christian my Baptist minister spoke about sanctification, holiness and aspiring toward Christian perfection in our lives. Personally, I doubt any of us will see perfection this side of heaven, although those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus are called to be holy (1 Corinthians 1:2). My understanding of sanctification is that it is both a done deal and a daily work. It’s on-going. In the past, through saving faith in Christ Jesus, God grants us justification. Through the process of sanctification, God guides us to maturity, a practical, progressive holiness. In the future, God will give us glorification, a permanent, ultimate holiness. These three phases of sanctification separate the believer from the penalty of sin (justification), the power of sin (maturity), and the presence of sin (glorification). With regard to the Methodist view of sanctification, I found a 1988 book ‘What Methodists Believe’ by Rupert E. Davies, which said this on page 58: >One of John Wesley’s favourite teachings was that it was actually possible for a Christian in his life on earth to reach perfection in the love of God and of his neighbour; that is, by the power of the Spirit, really and truly to love God and his neighbour in the way described by Jesus without any imperfections whatever. Is this view of sanctification and attaining perfection in love unique to Methodists? Or is it common amongst Protestant Christians? I am interested in exploring the similarities and differences between Methodists, Baptists and other Protestants on the process of sanctification. Rather than expect people to compare the views of different denominations, I would be content to read views representing individual Protestant denominations. Otherwise, I fear people may be put off from answering!

Very simple question really. If the sin of Adam is passed down through the generations, so that all of us are born with a sin nature, how can it be that Jesus was born of Mary (a human being), yet sinless? I'm from a Protestant (specifically Baptist) background, and would be interested in knowing how we explain it. Most churches have rather vague doctrinal statements that don't address subtle issues like this. So I am wondering if there are any common answers to this issue. Good answers will show that the position proposed is accepted by more than just the poster. The only argument I've beard before is that sin is passed via the seed of man, but I find no Biblical support for this, and it sounds like an artificially constructed argument to oppose some Catholic answers to this question which may require the sinlessness of Mary (which would be contrary to the Bible from the Protestant point of view).

The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 9:5: > "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." If an individual loses all knowledge after death, would it not mean that they no longer know or understand the gospel? Consequently, wouldn't this imply that they cease to believe in the gospel? The Bible also says in Revelation 21:8: > "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Given this, I've been seeking scripture that suggests our spiritual nature continues to believe in the gospel even after death, but I've yet to find anything directly supporting this concept. I request an answer from the Baptist viewpoint.

Proponents of Believer's Baptism argue that Baptism requires an existing faith on the part of the person being baptized, and for this reason a) reject the practice of infant baptism and b) teach that baptism is not (directly) a Means of Grace (n.b. [this answer](/a/80050/53502)). Proponents of Infant Baptism (well, Catholics at least, and I think some others), OTOH, believe that Baptism *is* a Means of Grace, and that it is *through baptism* that a believer comes to faith and repentance. They believe that God is absolutely capable of working faith and repentance in infants. Since proponents of BB apparently *don't* believe this, do they believe that an infant cannot have faith or repentance? If so, do they believe that infants are condemned to Hell? If not, in what manner do they believe infants can be Saved? (Or do they believe infants don't *need* to be saved? I know there is disagreement on that question...)