The Eucharist (as practiced by the Roman Church)

[Dr. Walter]

Just because I point to historic Baptist confessions as evidence of what the majority of Baptists have believed you presume to think that my authority is a creed???? However, when you present progressive apostate church fathers as evidene for what you believe to be true church history then you are not creedal huh?????

Yes, you are arrogant and perhaps I am as well. We are both high strung with strong convictions and we come at each other with full force of those convictions. You think you have a monopoly on being persecuted for your convicitons? I am the outcast of my family as well and have been for over 35 years. I was not raised with the convictions I have nor was I taught them in College or Seminary. In fact, my Pastor and Professors regarded me as a trouble maker because I refused to believe anything they could not prove from the scriptures while other college students and seminarias were like little birds opening their mouth and swallowing everything they were taught because some great ivory tower Phd. or Thd. said it was so. Many of my own brethren separate from me and have for years becuase I hold to a Post-trib rapture coming of Christ and not the orthodox pre-trib position. I have been blasted in conferences, set up to be preached at. Are you so arrogant that you think you have the monoply on suffering for what you believe by family and friends and collegues?????????

Now, I have admitted that I do not understand all the terminologies of Rome or the Orthodox churches but I sure understand that what I believe the Bible teaches about grace, about justification by faith, about progressive sanctification, about the security of true believers and about the ordinances are not what Rome or the Orthodox church believes. I can clearly see that they are in direct contradiction to what I believe. It takes no genius to figure that out. Moreover, I have had plenty of ex-Roman Catholic members and friends to confirm that exact contrast is real. I have read the Roman Catholic historiees, their official catechism and so I know their basic essential position on all these things regardless if I use the appropriate terms or not.

Very true. I don't hold to creeds. It seems you do.

Again you have. You implied works to gain justification and no where did I ever say that. That is misconstrued.

I"m arrogant. Look in the mirror. You've placed yourself into the position of Grand Inquisitor trying to suggest I'm Roman in belief and practice and when I disagree with you and tell you the truth you become more obstinate. I just quote scritpures and believe in them you are the one quoting creeds. I haven't decieved anyone. I've been consistent. You just fail to understand my position. Why? Because you have a preconceived notion of what you think I believe. You don't base it on what I've said but how you've understood what I said. I'm not deceptive. Its you. And note in Hebrew Ha Satan means the Accuser. Which is what you've been doing acting as the Grand Inquisitor. If you were to get a Catholic to look at what I've said I believe do you thing they would agree? Ask Lori or Brianna. Justification by Faith, We are in the real presence of God since we are his temple no matter where we are or are doing? Do you think a Catholic has this view in regard to the Eucharist? Not at all because for them The Eucharist gives grace. I suggest we live in constant grace in its fullness. So again who's being deceptive? You or I? A Catholic might call me a heretic. And how do I know this? Because I'm in constant accusation from my own family and have been called a heretic by them. I suffered more under Rome than ever you have. Your just a soap box preacher who points to others and not themselves who suffered under Rome. What price did you pay for leaving the Catholic Church? None. Because you never had to. I left. And because of it I was estranged from my mother who wouldn't speak to me for almost 20 years. Not a word! From a father who disinhereted me so that I had to watch my immoral syblings have their free cars and colleges payed for. I made it on my own with out any family support. Every time my family got together and invited me (rare as that was) I was introduced as the heretic son. My father didn't even see his grandchildren from me until 2 years ago. But he pours on the affection to every one else grandchildren. I am excommunicated. And not just from a church but from my family as well. If anyone here has a reason to hate the Catholic church its me who actually suffered under it. However, I don't. Because these things must be Jesus said he would divide father from son. And so he has. You are an Arrogant Man! To attempt to find things of further accusing me of being Catholic! For Shame! You sit in your white tower espoucing noxious venom at me with out yourself paying for your decisions. How hypocritical. I've been consistent. You've consistantly accuse and act as though you're questioning in good faith when really you are trying to trap me. Who know who else did that? Pharisees. Again do you keep good company?

 

[Dr. Walter]

It's nice you are aware of athenasius and understand anthropormorphic terms being used. Let me ask you this. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father as well or just the son? And where do you find this in scripture? If scriture as you've said defines your position on the nature of the Holy Spirit. How do you put it together?

The Son claims the Father sent him and the Son claims to send the Comforter. There are scores of scriptures that state this clearly and you fully well know it. This sending has to do with the administration of the redemptive covenant not some kind of eternal procession where their Personhood and deity are derived.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The Son claims the Father sent him and the Son claims to send the Comforter. There are scores of scriptures that state this clearly and you fully well know it. This sending has to do with the administration of the redemptive covenant not some kind of eternal procession where their Personhood and deity are derived.

I believe in St. John's Gospel we read Christ "breathing" the Holy Spirit on His Disciples, but one must take care and not confuse what it means to "send" and "breath" the Holy Spirit in regard to "proceeds from".

It has always been taught by the Church that God the Father is the single Source ("monarchy") of the Son and the Spirit.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok. I believed early Christians held to creeds primarily because most of them couldn't read. Only the educated leaders of the Church. Now that Nearly everyone is literate we can read the scripture for ourselves and determine the meaning.

So, both you and I don't flow downstream and kick against the current. Ok we have that in common. And in order to really understand Rome you must (like with the scriptures and knowing koine) know latin. Ok. You're still not an authority to call me a heretic. Nor will I call you one. BTW I was Post-trib like you before I became Amil. Just a note of caution for you.

So we differ on how we define faith and how it applies to scripture. You believe it can be broken into its composit parts; I do not. So, we'll agree to disagree.

Just because I point to historic Baptist confessions as evidence of what the majority of Baptists have believed you presume to think that my authority is a creed???? However, when you present progressive apostate church fathers as evidene for what you believe to be true church history then you are not creedal huh?????

Yes, you are arrogant and perhaps I am as well. We are both high strung with strong convictions and we come at each other with full force of those convictions. You think you have a monopoly on being persecuted for your convicitons? I am the outcast of my family as well and have been for over 35 years. I was not raised with the convictions I have nor was I taught them in College or Seminary. In fact, my Pastor and Professors regarded me as a trouble maker because I refused to believe anything they could not prove from the scriptures while other college students and seminarias were like little birds opening their mouth and swallowing everything they were taught because some great ivory tower Phd. or Thd. said it was so. Many of my own brethren separate from me and have for years becuase I hold to a Post-trib rapture coming of Christ and not the orthodox pre-trib position. I have been blasted in conferences, set up to be preached at. Are you so arrogant that you think you have the monoply on suffering for what you believe by family and friends and collegues?????????

Now, I have admitted that I do not understand all the terminologies of Rome or the Orthodox churches but I sure understand that what I believe the Bible teaches about grace, about justification by faith, about progressive sanctification, about the security of true believers and about the ordinances are not what Rome or the Orthodox church believes. I can clearly see that they are in direct contradiction to what I believe. It takes no genius to figure that out. Moreover, I have had plenty of ex-Roman Catholic members and friends to confirm that exact contrast is real. I have read the Roman Catholic historiees, their official catechism and so I know their basic essential position on all these things regardless if I use the appropriate terms or not.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Joh 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Explain any way you like but these texts cleary define the subject, the verb and the object to be what they are.

I believe in St. John's Gospel we read Christ "breathing" the Holy Spirit on His Disciples, but one must take care and not confuse what it means to "send" and "breath" the Holy Spirit in regard to "proceeds from".

It has always been taught by the Church that God the Father is the single Source ("monarchy") of the Son and the Spirit.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Joh 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Explain any way you like but these texts cleary define the subject, the verb and the object to be what they are.

Note this is a western view of the Holy Spirit. Its the east that holds that Jesus and the Spirit equally proceed from the Father. Now my question is this why do we hold to the western view. Surely, both orthodox and Catholic attempted to assertain their knowledge from scripture. Why do we agree with the Catholics and not the Orthodox or some of both when we supposidly start from a clean slate?

 

[Dr. Walter]

So we differ on how we define faith and how it applies to scripture. You believe it can be broken into its composit parts; I do not. So, we'll agree to disagree.

I believe the scriptures break down salvation into composite parts not because there is no unity or continuum between them, but because they are different and distinct in regard to the work of Christ versus the work of the Spirit and distinct in regard to position versus condition and practice as well as distinct in regard to different aspects of our own human nature with distinct purposes for distinct consequences. The term "Salvation" is one in unity but it covers a wide territory of vital distinctions and applications, which if confused, results in "another gospel" another salvation entirely.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Here is what I resent. My understanding of the scriptures comes from simply studying scriptures and comparing scripture with scripture. My positions are not "Western" versus "Eastern" because I never received them from either division of Catholicism both of which I regard as total apostate and their history the history of apostasy. So, don't tell me that my view is a "western" view. The so-called "western" (RCC) may agree or disagree with my position but my position is derived from something that predates both "western" and "eastern" and that is the scriptures.

What the RCC or the Orthodox believe is no concern to me or why they believe it unless they want to point to scriptures for support of a position and condemn my position by the scriptures then I am game. So far I have seen nothing presented from the Scriptures that would challenge my understanding of the Scriptures. All false doctrine as but one source "the spirit of error" (I Jn. 4:6; 1 Tim. 4:1b).

Note this is a western view of the Holy Spirit. Its the east that holds that Jesus and the Spirit equally proceed from the Father. Now my question is this why do we hold to the western view. Surely, both orthodox and Catholic attempted to assertain their knowledge from scripture. Why do we agree with the Catholics and not the Orthodox or some of both when we supposidly start from a clean slate?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I believe the scriptures break down salvation into composite parts not because there is no unity or continuum between them, but because they are different and distinct in regard to the work of Christ versus the work of the Spirit and distinct in regard to position versus condition and practice as well as distinct in regard to different aspects of our own human nature with distinct purposes for distinct consequences. The term "Salvation" is one in unity but it covers a wide territory of vital distinctions and applications, which if confused, results in "another gospel" another salvation entirely.

I actually agree with your assesment of the word salvation. Its just Faith I don't break into composit parts. I believe a lot of seemingly distinctions are for explination by the writers but does not erradicate the opperation of the whole.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is what I resent. My understanding of the scriptures comes from simply studying scriptures and comparing scripture with scripture. My positions are not "Western" versus "Eastern" because I never received them from either division of Catholicism both of which I regard as total apostate and their history the history of apostasy. So, don't tell me that my view is a "western" view. The so-called "western" (RCC) may agree or disagree with my position but my position is derived from something that predates both "western" and "eastern" and that is the scriptures.

What the RCC or the Orthodox believe is no concern to me or why they believe it unless they want to point to scriptures for support of a position and condemn my position by the scriptures then I am game. So far I have seen nothing presented from the Scriptures that would challenge my understanding of the Scriptures. All false doctrine as but one source "the spirit of error" (I Jn. 4:6; 1 Tim. 4:1b).

Actually you would agree with them since they came first. You can say that they agree with scriptures which is why you are in agreement. But they can't rely be in agreement with you since it is they who first postulated the view.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Let me give you some practical examples of what I mean. There is a profound distinction between what obtains entrance into heaven versus what obtains rewards in heaven. They cannot be the same. Hence, there is a vital distinction in salvation as a general term in regard to these distinctive aspects.

In addition, justification "before God" cannot possibly be one and the same as the work of regeneration in man. They are different works by different Persons of the Godhead. They occur in different spheres (heaven versus within the human nature). By the former we are "seated together" in Christ now in "heavenly places" (Eph. 2:4) whereas in the latter we are made the temple of the Holy Spirit gere on earth.

Glorification of the body is not the same as progressive sanctification of the life. The former is future the latter is present, the former is instanteous the latter is progressive and always incomplete in this life.

Salvation has a distinct three tense application ("saved" "save" and "shall be saved") with distinct three tense works ("born again" = regeneration; "being changed from glory to glory" = progressive sanctification; "this corruption put on incorruption" = glorification).

There is a different purpose and consequence for the IMPUTED righteousness of Jesus Christ TO our account versus the IMPARTED righteousness of Christ THROUGH us. There is a differnce of what His imputed righteousness obtains in our behalf versus what the imparted righteousness of Christ obtains in our behalf. There is a difference between the "gift" of God which is "eternal life" based upon the substitionary Person and work of Jesus Christ received by faith NOW and the "reward" of God based upon our works received at judgement THEN.

I believe the scriptures break down salvation into composite parts not because there is no unity or continuum between them, but because they are different and distinct in regard to the work of Christ versus the work of the Spirit and distinct in regard to position versus condition and practice as well as distinct in regard to different aspects of our own human nature with distinct purposes for distinct consequences. The term "Salvation" is one in unity but it covers a wide territory of vital distinctions and applications, which if confused, results in "another gospel" another salvation entirely.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Now, I have admitted that I do not understand all the terminologies of Rome or the Orthodox churches but I sure understand that what I believe the Bible teaches about grace, about justification by faith, about progressive sanctification, about the security of true believers and about the ordinances are not what Rome or the Orthodox church believes. I can clearly see that they are in direct contradiction to what I believe. It takes no genius to figure that out. Moreover, I have had plenty of ex-Roman Catholic members and friends to confirm that exact contrast is real. I have read the Roman Catholic historiees, their official catechism and so I know their basic essential position on all these things regardless if I use the appropriate terms or not.

your view doctor is a "western" view because you're Protestant and the Reformers were all of Roman Catholic clergy...so naturally many of the tenets of the Western faith was carried over into each denomination and eventually those denominations splintered, but even still the theological views carried over, albeit some were modified in the name of sola Scriptura...which by the way has lost its meaning in regard to how Luther used the term.

You hold to the "historical" American Baptist Confessions, which you claimed in a earlier post...the earliest Confession of faith is 1740 some 270 years young...These "confessions" look nothing like what the Baptist claim as their ancestors believed in regard to Church History...

You may like to claim that you came to this revelation of understanding Holy Scripture, just by comparing Scripture with Scripture, but you're fooling yourself...you've been indoctrinated / influenced into what to believe...

No one, no one, approaches Holy Scripture with an unbiased attitude. You look to the "historic" Baptist Confessions when interpreting and I look at what the Church from the beginning has always taught in regard to the doctrine of the Church.

Now we can ALL claim we have the correct understanding of Holy Scripture and that the other is wrong until the cows come home, and I spent half my adult life in a Baptist pew hearing and seeing my pastor hold his KJV high above his head and boldly pronounce that he was right and everyone else was wrong and we'd all like robots exclaim "Amen...preach it!" Until one day I woke up and started asking some serious questions in regard to just HOW he knew he was right and others was wrong...and simply saying: "well, that's just what the bible teaches" wasn't no longer good enough.

Even pointing me to a 1740 Baptist Confession wasn't good enough...I was in a Baptist Church hollering "we're 'old time religion'", when eventually I realized I don't want "old time", I want "authentic!"

Now, all that aside, IF you want to claim that you're a "Baptist" because when you read the Bible, you're convicted that the Baptist distinctives are closer to what you believe then that's just fine with me...Protestantism is a marketplace and anyone eventually will find something that they can believe in and still claim sola Scriptura and feel good about it.

But don't put forth the claim that you're a 'Baptist' because their articles of faith, distinctives, confessions or whatever are "authentic NT Apostolic teaching", because you read your Baptistic interpretations into Holy Scripture, therefore it must be true and everyone else is a heretic or unsaved...in this regard you will find opposition.

It's one thing in this forum "Other Christian Denominations" to engage in healthy debate concerning what other's believe in regard to their brand of Christianity, if you will, and walk away with a better understanding of our fellow brother or sister in Christ and another to badger someone and their beliefs, because you think you have all the answers and you have no error, because you're saved and Holy Spirit guides only you in all truth...

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

your view doctor is a "western" view because you're Protestant and the Reformers were all of Roman Catholic clergy

Your flawed views start here.
Baptists are not Protestants. They were before the Reformation, and protested against the RCC long before the Reformation ever started.

some were modified in the name of sola Scriptura...which by the way has lost its meaning in regard to how Luther used the term.

True. I like to define the term that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine, which is not quite how Luther defined it. But then I am not a Protestant.

I spent half my adult life in a Baptist pew hearing and seeing my pastor hold his KJV high above his head and boldly pronounce that he was right and everyone else was wrong and we'd all like robots exclaim "Amen...preach it!"

And by your own testimony you had a bad experience in a Baptist Church. Not all Baptist churches are like the one you were in. Not all pastors are like the one you described. Why do you white-wash all of them with such a broad brush. You are the one with such a terrible bias.

Until one day I woke up and started asking some serious questions in regard to just HOW he knew he was right and others was wrong...and simply saying: "well, that's just what the bible teaches" wasn't no longer good enough.

Perhaps he was wrong on many points. That doesn't mean we all are. The fact remains, we like the Bereans of Acts 17:11 are obligated to go home and check out what our pastors are saying.

Even pointing me to a 1740 Baptist Confession wasn't good enough...I was in a Baptist Church hollering "we're 'old time religion'", when eventually I realized I don't want "old time", I want "authentic!"

And you still haven't found it.

Now, all that aside, IF you want to claim that you're a "Baptist" because when you read the Bible, you're convicted that the Baptist distinctives are closer to what you believe then that's just fine with me..

My experience is no doubt very much different than Dr. Walter's.
When I got saved, I began to study the Bible on my own, without the influence of anyone else. I was in an occupation that gave me that kind of isolation. From my own study (Bible and no other material) I could see that I had to choose between the RCC or the Bible. Both could not be true. I chose the Bible. It held the truth, not the RCC. Both systems of belief were at antipodes with each other.

Protestantism is a marketplace and anyone eventually will find something that they can believe in and still claim sola Scriptura and feel good about it.

Your flawed argument--I am not a Protestant. I chose a Baptist church not because it was associated with any denomination but because it was closest to what I believed to be true. I found that Baptists believed the Bible, not tradition.

But don't put forth the claim that you're a 'Baptist' because their articles of faith, distinctives, confessions or whatever are "authentic NT Apostolic teaching", because you read your Baptistic interpretations into Holy Scripture, therefore it must be true and everyone else is a heretic or unsaved...in this regard you will find opposition.

I didn't have a clue that there was such a thing as Baptist Confession or Baptist distinctives, so you can't hang that one on me either. I simply believed the Bible, and had started to systematically study it.

because you're saved and Holy Spirit guides only you in all truth...

I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Holy Spirit dwells in me. His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. I know with absolute certainty that if I should die this minute I would go straight to heaven. Do you have this assurance?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Holy Spirit dwells in me. His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. I know with absolute certainty that if I should die this minute I would go straight to heaven. Do you have this assurance?
__________________
DHK

I'm not questioning your salvation. But I do have an obvious question about this statement that I would ask of myself regarding assurance.

What if you're self Deluded? We know people believe all sorts of things no matter what facts present themselves. Women who are regularily abused at times delude themselves that its their fault or that the offending person "really isn't that way" and will change. Only to find they've been deluded just before they are murdered. I'm sure Jim Jones believed in assurance of his salvation. ETC... Is that really a good test to ask someone if they are saved? Maybe it only represents their sanity. The more insane the more assure they are of their salvation.

Its just a question. Its not directed at you personally but a question of assurance. And using that as a litmus test.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Moderator's experience and mine are very much alike. I didn't even know Baptist confessions existed when the Lord saved me. I applied my own system of study to the Bible which was very simple because I had a very simple faith and a very simple mind. Here is what I did.

1. I read through a book of the Bible in one setting if possible just to familarize myself with the content.

2. I read it a second time with intent to discover to follow the line of thinking and discover the main topic in every chapter.

3. I read it a third time to subdivide the major theme into its primary developing sub-themes

4. I read it a fourth time to study the particular verses in the context of the primary subject and sub-topics.

In doing this with every book of the New Testament I placed within my mind a contextual framework of the scriptures so that I knew where every text fit within the immediate context - subtopic and major theme.

I did this before I was ever called to the ministry, ever went to college and every entered into Seminary. I simply compared scripture with scripture.

This simple practice was life changing for me because when I sat and listened to a preacher whatever scripture he used I placed in its context in my mind. When I went to college I placed everything I heard within that contextual framework in my mind. When I went to Seminary I placed everything that was said in that context of Scripture. That is why I gave many college and Seminary professors fits because I rejected everything that would not fit within that context.

This is still how I study and respond until this day.

Now, the term "Baptist" is an unbrella term for every kind of religious thinking in the world. There are Seventh Day Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Independent Baptists, Free will Baptists, Sovereign Grace Baptists, Landmark Baptists, etc., etc., etc., - 57 heinz variety of Baptists. So the term "Baptist" means nothing.

Suppose I switched labels on some canned vegetables. Would the label define the contents of the can or would the contents define the what the label should read? The same is with the label "Baptist." Among all groups of Baptists the SBC has been the most diverse mixture of "Baptists" on planet earth. I went to a SBC Seminary, so I know. You can find every doctrine imaginable within the label SBC.

Now there are some Baptists who claim to be "Reformed" Baptists. Some claim that name because they believe in the Calvinistic principles as well as believe they originated from the "separatist" movement in England which were made up of dissenting Episcopalian and Presbyterians.

The name "Baptist" does not mean much to me as much as the CONTENT of the church wearing that label or some other label in history as "Anabaptist" or "Waldenses" or "Paulicians" or etc., etc.

I come from a line of "Baptists" who do not claim identity with Rome or the unOrthodox church but with the line of dissent from apostate churches that assumed the name "Catholic."

Whether you believe the history is credible or not I could care less as there is hundreds of years of research behind it that supply sufficient evidence. The real question is not the authenticity of their existence but whether or not the Roman charges against them are authentic or not. You side with Rome - the persecutor and killer while I side with non-Baptist historians that provide plenty of evidence from the differences among the Roman historians themselves to demonstrate they were biased, hateful and willingly perverted their enemies in order to produce charges so the secular arm of government could kill them.

BTW don't tell me what I can and can't believe or what I must believe as that has been the modus operandi of Rome for centuries with one exception now that was not the exception then - They can't enforce it by the secular arm. Rome is an obvious apostate as well as the unOrthodox division as far as I am concerned.

your view doctor is a "western" view because you're Protestant and the Reformers were all of Roman Catholic clergy...so naturally many of the tenets of the Western faith was carried over into each denomination and eventually those denominations splintered, but even still the theological views carried over, albeit some were modified in the name of sola Scriptura...which by the way has lost its meaning in regard to how Luther used the term.

You hold to the "historical" American Baptist Confessions, which you claimed in a earlier post...the earliest Confession of faith is 1740 some 270 years young...These "confessions" look nothing like what the Baptist claim as their ancestors believed in regard to Church History...

You may like to claim that you came to this revelation of understanding Holy Scripture, just by comparing Scripture with Scripture, but you're fooling yourself...you've been indoctrinated / influenced into what to believe...

No one, no one, approaches Holy Scripture with an unbiased attitude. You look to the "historic" Baptist Confessions when interpreting and I look at what the Church from the beginning has always taught in regard to the doctrine of the Church.

Now we can ALL claim we have the correct understanding of Holy Scripture and that the other is wrong until the cows come home, and I spent half my adult life in a Baptist pew hearing and seeing my pastor hold his KJV high above his head and boldly pronounce that he was right and everyone else was wrong and we'd all like robots exclaim "Amen...preach it!" Until one day I woke up and started asking some serious questions in regard to just HOW he knew he was right and others was wrong...and simply saying: "well, that's just what the bible teaches" wasn't no longer good enough.

Even pointing me to a 1740 Baptist Confession wasn't good enough...I was in a Baptist Church hollering "we're 'old time religion'", when eventually I realized I don't want "old time", I want "authentic!"

Now, all that aside, IF you want to claim that you're a "Baptist" because when you read the Bible, you're convicted that the Baptist distinctives are closer to what you believe then that's just fine with me...Protestantism is a marketplace and anyone eventually will find something that they can believe in and still claim sola Scriptura and feel good about it.

But don't put forth the claim that you're a 'Baptist' because their articles of faith, distinctives, confessions or whatever are "authentic NT Apostolic teaching", because you read your Baptistic interpretations into Holy Scripture, therefore it must be true and everyone else is a heretic or unsaved...in this regard you will find opposition.

It's one thing in this forum "Other Christian Denominations" to engage in healthy debate concerning what other's believe in regard to their brand of Christianity, if you will, and walk away with a better understanding of our fellow brother or sister in Christ and another to badger someone and their beliefs, because you think you have all the answers and you have no error, because you're saved and Holy Spirit guides only you in all truth...

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

I'm not questioning your salvation. But I do have an obvious question about this statement that I would ask of myself regarding assurance.

What if you're self Deluded? We know people believe all sorts of things no matter what facts present themselves. Women who are regularily abused at times delude themselves that its their fault or that the offending person "really isn't that way" and will change. Only to find they've been deluded just before they are murdered. I'm sure Jim Jones believed in assurance of his salvation. ETC... Is that really a good test to ask someone if they are saved? Maybe it only represents their sanity. The more insane the more assure they are of their salvation.

Its just a question. Its not directed at you personally but a question of assurance. And using that as a litmus test.

I am not self-deluded because:
1. "His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God."
--I have the witness of the Holy Spirit.

2. I have the witness of the Word of God.
--"I give unto you eternal life."
All of our Christian life is based on fact. Faith is based on fact. The gospel is based on fact--the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ be not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain, and we are most miserable. Read 1Cor.15.
--If I don't have eternal life then Christ is a liar and the promises of God are not true.

3. I have the witness of God working through me.
--I have seen answers to prayer in my life that cannot be dismissed as coincidence or by any other natural phenomena, other than God working in my life in answer to prayer--the healing hand of God, the provision of God, the protection of God, and in many other ways has God intervened on my behalf.

4. I am not deluded. I have no reason to question God. I know that what he says is true. He is the one that has given me this assurance. Why should I doubt Him?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I am not self-deluded because:
1. "His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God."
--I have the witness of the Holy Spirit.

2. I have the witness of the Word of God.
--"I give unto you eternal life."
All of our Christian life is based on fact. Faith is based on fact. The gospel is based on fact--the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ be not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain, and we are most miserable. Read 1Cor.15.
--If I don't have eternal life then Christ is a liar and the promises of God are not true.

3. I have the witness of God working through me.
--I have seen answers to prayer in my life that cannot be dismissed as coincidence or by any other natural phenomena, other than God working in my life in answer to prayer--the healing hand of God, the provision of God, the protection of God, and in many other ways has God intervened on my behalf.

4. I am not deluded. I have no reason to question God. I know that what he says is true. He is the one that has given me this assurance. Why should I doubt Him?

yeah and how many former fundamentalist Baptist preachers, deacons and laypeople are walking the streets that once claimed your 3 points in salvation assurance that are now non-believers?...they're out there, because there wasn't many Saturday mornings on my soul winning patrols did I not run across one or two of 'em...

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am not self-deluded because:
1. "His Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God."
--I have the witness of the Holy Spirit.

How? Is it a sensation a magical one?

2

. I have the witness of the Word of God.
--"I give unto you eternal life."
All of our Christian life is based on fact. Faith is based on fact. The gospel is based on fact--the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ be not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain, and we are most miserable. Read 1Cor.15.
--If I don't have eternal life then Christ is a liar and the promises of God are not true.

You've only quoted that He give life but you don't explained the requirements or contract where he guarantees such a thing. 1 Cor 15 has two problems. 1) In it Paul doesn't explain his gospel presented in the passage and 2)the guarantee is the resurrection of Jesus. You didn't see Jesus raise from the dead you're only taking his word for it.

3. I have the witness of God working through me.
--I have seen answers to prayer in my life that cannot be dismissed as coincidence or by any other natural phenomena, other than God working in my life in answer to prayer--the healing hand of God, the provision of God, the protection of God, and in many other ways has God intervened on my behalf.

this acutally works. In that your experience validates that what you believe is the truth. However, I don't believe in Mediums that they have any power but they can claim the same types of things.

4. I am not deluded. I have no reason to question God. I know that what he says is true. He is the one that has given me this assurance. Why should I doubt Him?

Remember I'm asking questions that are in no way meant to be an affront to you or personal. In otherwords I don't believe you are deluded but it is the natural question. And these questions and statements are the natural one. As far as God did you see him to verify that he said those things recorded in the bible? Or was like the mormons say a burning in the bussom?

 

[DHK]

yeah and how many former fundamentalist Baptist preachers, deacons and laypeople are walking the streets that once claimed your 3 points in salvation assurance that are now non-believers?...they're out there, because there wasn't many Saturday mornings on my soul winning patrols did I not run across one or two of 'em...

In XC
-

Someone asked the Apostle John the same question. (Probably more politely), and this was his answer:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What a wonderful and practical question. I was raised in church. My dad paid me a quarter for every verse I memorized. When I was a kid, a quarter could buy 16 oz RC cola, the largest candy bar (three Muskateer or big hunk) and a package of twinkies. So that was a real deal. I memorized every scripture I could until I drove my dad from quarters to dimes. Because of that little incentive, I was the most knowlegable kid in Sunday school and when it came to bible quizes everyone wanted me on their team. Even though I was not a teenager I was promoted to the teenage class because I was so far advanced in Bible knowledge above my age. I was mr. religion to the hilt.

However, I didn't know I was a sinner and lost and I continued this way until one day when I was thirteen I was sitting in the back pew by the door (where I could get out the fastest) and something inside of me began to happen that I was not in control of. My conscience assaulted me as a sinner, I felt like a bowl of jello on the inside, deep under the conviction of sin without any escape, the eyes of my understanding were opened and I shriveled under the weight of sin within me, knowing I was a sinner, under the wrath of God and knowing that I needed salvation from my sin. I tell you I was pressed in spirit under the load of my sin that I sought Christ for forgiveness and cleansing and salvation and I could not have done anything less because the weight of my sins were so heavy and my guilt so terrible that I was compelled to seek Christ for salvation from that awful burden. I don't remember the sermon that was preached that day. All I remember is that something happened inside of me that I was not in control of and when God got done with me, a team of wild horses could not have kept me from seeking Christ for salvation from my sins. There was no internal struggle whether I was guilty or not or whether I was a sinner or not or whether I was justly condemned or not - I could see all those things clearly and there could be no dispute to what I could clearly see.

My faith was not blind but found its hope and only hope for salvation from my sins in the promise of God in the gospel. Peace and assurance flooded my soul when I came to rest upon His promise. From that point on, Dad did not have to pay me to read the Bible. Dad did not have to force me to go to church. For the first time in my life I wanted to do all those things. God had miraculously changed my want to and I give Him all the glory and praise for that.

The Bible does not change. When I go back it reads the same way as it did yesterday, last year and ten years ago.

1. The Holy Spirit witnesses within me the peace with God and the peace of God
2. The Holy Spirit witnesses within me the truth of God's Word when I read it.
3. The Holy Spirit witnesses through others that I minister to
4. The Holy Spirit witnesses to me through specific answered prayers
5. The Holy Spirit witnesses in me His power to preach and witness

There is a deep calm joy and assurance that is confirmed by reading God's Word and the internal witness of the Spirit that I can with utter confidence say as Job, "I KNOW my redeemer liveth and I shall..." or with Paul,

"Being CONFIDENT of this very thing that He that hath begun a good work in you shall perform it until that day."

Why? Here is why:

Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

I'm not questioning your salvation. But I do have an obvious question about this statement that I would ask of myself regarding assurance.

What if you're self Deluded? We know people believe all sorts of things no matter what facts present themselves. Women who are regularily abused at times delude themselves that its their fault or that the offending person "really isn't that way" and will change. Only to find they've been deluded just before they are murdered. I'm sure Jim Jones believed in assurance of his salvation. ETC... Is that really a good test to ask someone if they are saved? Maybe it only represents their sanity. The more insane the more assure they are of their salvation.

Its just a question. Its not directed at you personally but a question of assurance. And using that as a litmus test.