It seems to me that Samuel could determine what was rebellion when he met Saul.
1 Samuel 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
--Saul's continual disobedience showed his heart of rebellion.
It is not something only known to God.
There is the fruit of the Spirit and the works of the flesh.
I didn't say it was
known only to God. It is
determined only by God! Samuel didn't just make that up, or have to twist God's word to argue it, like many rules that can be found in churches.
What??? Do you believe in baptismal regeneration?
One is not born into a Christian family. There is no such thing. Where are you getting this from. Even in our church, just because a child is saved and baptized they do not automatically become a voting member. There is an age limit. They must be 18.
Baptismal regeneration has nothing to do with it. Most parents will raise their kids up in the church they are apart of, and often, the kids will just adopt it. Whether they truly believed, or not, they may or may not rebel. The point is, that many of these churches do impose unbiblical rules on people, and as much as you sre saying 'well leave then", the church will still demonize them, as if they were behaving like Saul.
Whether it be a church or a person it doesn't matter. A person dresses a certain way, acts a certain way because in their heart they genuinely believe they are honoring God and living a more holy life. Yet they can't win because folks (like many on this board) will call them legalists--when it is not true.
Yeah, after they call others licentious or rebellious, when it's not always true.
It is drawing nigh unto God; and staying as far from the world as possible. But you can't see that. Perhaps you have never been exposed to that teaching. (and would never want to be).
There you go with those kinds of judging statements again (And this kind of thing, BTW, is probably the "lies" shinning was referring to!)
What it is, is people making up their own definitions of "the world" and "nigh unto God", and then criticizing everyone else over it. Like one music style is "the world', and yet another (from a different time period) is "God's". If one believed that and just lived accordingly, then it would be no problem, but the problem is, the people who do believe this stuff usually try to force it on everyon eelse, whether they are members or not.
Perhaps you don't know what legalism is. We never associate standards with salvation. Read the Book of Galatians. A legalist, like the Judaizers, associated the keeping of the law with their salvation. I don't know of anyone who does that. We associate it with a life of holiness and that is all.
Legalism means strict focus on law; not necessarily whether they place salvation on it. that has become the red herring in this issue. People can harshly condemn "contemporary Christians" over everything, but when called legalist, "
we didn't stake salvation on it". But calling people disobedient and rebellious is basically the next best thing to that.
When the Bible has many of those things clearly defined, then it is written in the constitution without hesitation. The Presbyterians have a constitution also. They firmly believe in infant baptism. The Bible Presbyterians are just as evangelical as we are. Will you castigate them in the same way just because their conviction is different.
If they impose it on me, (even indirectly, but passing around statements that we are wrong because we don't follow that practice), I would.
One of the most important of all Baptist Distinctives is that of Soul Liberty. It is the right to interpret the Bible as one believes to be true. We as Baptists have that freedom. John Bunyan spent 12 years in prison fighting for that very principle. He would not be licensed by the state church. He believed that he should be given the freedom to preach what he believed was God-given truth; not state-given truth.
The constitution is based on the truth of the Word of God. You have it backwards. There must be a defining document that defines what the church is and why it is different than others. For example the constitution defines how it is different than Charismatic Churches and for good reason. There is much confusion these days in that area. We separate ourselves from the Charismatic movement and have good Biblical reasons to do so. We separate ourselves from the ecumenical movement with good Biblical reasons. The constitution spells this out. It also gives plenty of Scripture to back up its position. If you think you can refute it, then you are welcome to challenge it, or simply go somewhere else where you would be more comfortable (the more diplomatic thing to do).
You either accept one or the other. You can't be a member of two churches. I am not sure what you are talking about. If the Lord has directed you to a specific church for specific reasons then you will be in harmony with the teachings of that church will you not?
Remember it is soul liberty. If you don't like it, find another church. No one is forcing you to join it.
It is not a matter if I agree with it or not. There are some that do, and I give them that liberty. If I don't agree I will find a church that I do agree with.
Actually I would call myself KJV-preferred, and would argue in favor of the KJV more than against it. But again, if you don't agree with the church's stand then find another one.
No, I believe that which is written in our constitution is right, and is based on the Word of God. If you can find where it is at fault you are welcome to do so. But if you just don't agree with it for whatever reason, then just go and find another church. There is such a thing as soul liberty.
That's true, but it's a separate issue. When a person joins a church, that person agrees to the constitution, and matters of faith and practice, of that church. You can't become a member of a church and agree with some items in its statement of faith, but not others. That's an indicator that the person doesn' take his/her membership seriously.
That said, there is often a problem with Baptists not taking their membership seriously. Take, for example, the Baptist Distinctives. We all claim to adhere to them, but if someone interprets a non-core scriptural issue differently than we do, we are quick to call their faith in question, and slow to adhere to the Distinctive of Individual Soul Liberty.
Anyhoo, that's probably a tad off topic. Sorry about that.
Yeah, but it doesn't seem like soul liberty when these churches or leaders start preaching about how everyone else is wrong (which they can get across through print, broadcast, etc).
It seems like we
have strayed a bit, for the OP was probably focused more on when the problem is in a Church that you
are a member of. I then responded to something said about "liberty" and extended it to the fact that churches that are that tight-shipped internally will generally call everyone else outside wrong as well. So I was getting at the common
principle that underlies both the internal and external judging they do.
People like to make up their own rules and read them into the Bible. With the secular-structured form of church organization, they have the right
before man to include any such rule in their constitutions. But
before God, they
do not have the right to enforce any kind of rule they can think of in His name and
claim it is from His Word. It either is truly from His Word, or it is not. When they stand before him, God is not going to say that it doesn't matter because the people could have just left and gone somewhere else. (Think,
testimony Rom. 2:24)
. Just like churches that are too lax will have to answer and cannot appeal to "liberty" but so much.
