If you were an "Arminian" Baptist.....

[Michael Wrenn]

Col. 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:......

Please go into more detail, as you often do. I'd really like to see that this time.

I'm serious; I'd like to get more of your thoughts on it.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Though it has been years since I've been a Southern Baptist, if I couldn't go to a conservative Anglican Church, I'd go to either: (1) an LCMS church; (2) a conservative Weslyan type church; or (3) Eastern Orthodox (#3 is less likely since my wife is less likely to go along with it).

 

[Crabtownboy]

You didn't believe in any of the 5 points of Calvinism, but there were no Free Will or General Baptist churches near you, would you go to an SBC church, or other Baptist church, or would you seek out some kind of Wesleyan/Methodist/Holiness church?

(Thought I'd post this here because it's kind of about Baptists and other denominations.)

I probably would not go to an SBC church regardless as I no longer consider the SBC Baptist ... except in name. They are now a creed driven convenntion and that is not Baptist.

I do go to a Baptist church and I do not believe there anyone in the church considers themself Calvinist ... Christian, yes, Calvinist, no.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Though it has been years since I've been a Southern Baptist, if I couldn't go to a conservative Anglican Church, I'd go to either: (1) an LCMS church; (2) a conservative Weslyan type church; or (3) Eastern Orthodox (#3 is less likely since my wife is less likely to go along with it).

I like many features of Anglicanism, but the nearest breakaway Anglican church is an hour's drive, so that's out. The only other option for me is Nazarene.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I probably would not go to an SBC church regardless as I no longer consider the SBC Baptist ... except in name. They are now a creed driven convenntion and that is not Baptist.

I do go to a Baptist church and I do not believe there anyone in the church considers themself Calvinist ... Christian, yes, Calvinist, no.

Yes, I know what you mean about the SBC. They have largely become creedal, given up soul liberty, priesthood of the believer, wavering on autonomy, don't believe any longer in church-state separation. They're considering a name change; maybe they should take the name "Baptist" out and just call it the "Southern Convention".

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Though it has been years since I've been a Southern Baptist, if I couldn't go to a conservative Anglican Church, I'd go to either: (1) an LCMS church; (2) a conservative Weslyan type church; or (3) Eastern Orthodox (#3 is less likely since my wife is less likely to go along with it).

Just curious: Why did you change from SBC to Anglican?

 

[The Biblicist]

Please go into more detail, as you often do. I'd really like to see that this time.

I'm serious; I'd like to get more of your thoughts on it.

In the context it goes on to say that the believer is "complete in him." If they had not received in this initial first work of grace all that was necessary to continue their walk in him, Paul would not had said this because another second work of grace additional to what they initially received would have been necessary.

In regeneration we receive the Holy Spirit and all the fruit of the Spirit - we need nothing more except to "work out" that which we have received. To be filled with the Spirit is merely to be under his control and the evidence of that is the fruit of the Spirit being manifested. Hence, we need merely "let your light shine" rather than in need of any new light.

Many confuse the baptism in the Spirit with the filling of the Spirit. The baptism in the Spirit is a corporate, institutional work and not an individual personal work. When Peter was asked by some at the congregation at Jerusalem about what happened at the house of Cornelius, the nearest reference point that he could give was what happened "at the beginning" (Acts 11:15-16) or on the day of Pentecost. If the baptism in the Spirit were an ongoing individual experience or application Peter would not have said "at the beginning" but "since the beginning." However, the baptism in the Spirit was an Old Testament work of the Holy Spirit upon the institutional "house of God" that occurred but once at the beginning when each new house of God was built. It was the public divine accreditation by God that signified He had taken up residence and thus what was built by Moses (Ex. 40:15) was "covered AND filled" as was the new "house of God" built by Solomon (2 Chron. 7:3). The initial covering (immersion) happened but once at the beginning of each new house of God but filling happened numerous times. At the public immersion of the house of God fire would come down from heaven and light the altar. The Jews called this event "the dedication of the house of God."

On the day of Pentecost the new house of God that had been built by Christ, who was the antitype of Moses and Solomon was publicly and divinely accredited as the Shekinah glory of God "filled all the room" thus immersing the entire congregation (Acts 2:1-3) and tongues "as fire" sat upon each of the members of the new "house of God" (1 Tim. 3;15) and they were all "filled" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3). This new house of God was made of "living stones" assembled together (1 Pet. 2:5).

The event at the house of Cornelius was necessary to publicly and divinely accredit the gentiles as EQUAL members in membership with the Jews in the congregation at Jerusalem. Peter had taken some brethren with him and they had baptized them in water upon this public and divine evidence that God had given EQUAL accreditation upon them as EQUAL in the new house of God. From this point forward there is no mention of the baptism John prophesied (Acts 11:15-16) because now the new house of God made no distinction between "jew or gentile" but they were regarded as EQUAL in the new House of God.

 

[12strings]

Yes, I know what you mean about the SBC. They have largely become creedal, given up soul liberty, priesthood of the believer, wavering on autonomy, don't believe any longer in church-state separation. They're considering a name change; maybe they should take the name "Baptist" out and just call it the "Southern Convention".

FYI for Crabtownboy & Michael...I have started another thread on this topic in the General Baptist Debate Section...

I would be interested to hear further explanations of these things...

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Just curious: Why did you change from SBC to Anglican?

I'll send you a PM.

 

[billwald]

Col. 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:......


What does "in" mean? It must be an abbreviation referring to some unwritten phrase such as "in the manner (custom, humility, example) of" or it is some kind of insider code word. "Walk ye in Joe Blow" doesn't compute, doesn't convey information.

 

[12strings]

Col. 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:......


What does "in" mean? It must be an abbreviation referring to some unwritten phrase such as "in the manner (custom, humility, example) of" or it is some kind of insider code word. "Walk ye in Joe Blow" doesn't compute, doesn't convey information.

This isn't necessarily going to answer your question, but if you read Ephesians, you find the phrase "IN CHRIST" a whole lot. It must mean something.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

In the context it goes on to say that the believer is "complete in him." If they had not received in this initial first work of grace all that was necessary to continue their walk in him, Paul would not had said this because another second work of grace additional to what they initially received would have been necessary.

In regeneration we receive the Holy Spirit and all the fruit of the Spirit - we need nothing more except to "work out" that which we have received. To be filled with the Spirit is merely to be under his control and the evidence of that is the fruit of the Spirit being manifested. Hence, we need merely "let your light shine" rather than in need of any new light.

Many confuse the baptism in the Spirit with the filling of the Spirit. The baptism in the Spirit is a corporate, institutional work and not an individual personal work. When Peter was asked by some at the congregation at Jerusalem about what happened at the house of Cornelius, the nearest reference point that he could give was what happened "at the beginning" (Acts 11:15-16) or on the day of Pentecost. If the baptism in the Spirit were an ongoing individual experience or application Peter would not have said "at the beginning" but "since the beginning." However, the baptism in the Spirit was an Old Testament work of the Holy Spirit upon the institutional "house of God" that occurred but once at the beginning when each new house of God was built. It was the public divine accreditation by God that signified He had taken up residence and thus what was built by Moses (Ex. 40:15) was "covered AND filled" as was the new "house of God" built by Solomon (2 Chron. 7:3). The initial covering (immersion) happened but once at the beginning of each new house of God but filling happened numerous times. At the public immersion of the house of God fire would come down from heaven and light the altar. The Jews called this event "the dedication of the house of God."

On the day of Pentecost the new house of God that had been built by Christ, who was the antitype of Moses and Solomon was publicly and divinely accredited as the Shekinah glory of God "filled all the room" thus immersing the entire congregation (Acts 2:1-3) and tongues "as fire" sat upon each of the members of the new "house of God" (1 Tim. 3;15) and they were all "filled" with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3). This new house of God was made of "living stones" assembled together (1 Pet. 2:5).

The event at the house of Cornelius was necessary to publicly and divinely accredit the gentiles as EQUAL members in membership with the Jews in the congregation at Jerusalem. Peter had taken some brethren with him and they had baptized them in water upon this public and divine evidence that God had given EQUAL accreditation upon them as EQUAL in the new house of God. From this point forward there is no mention of the baptism John prophesied (Acts 11:15-16) because now the new house of God made no distinction between "jew or gentile" but they were regarded as EQUAL in the new House of God.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I basically agree with what you posted.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I guess what it comes down to me is this: Do I give up historic and cherished Baptist principles like priesthood of the believer, autonomy, believer's baptism only, and go to the Nazarenes who practice modified congregational polity, prefer believer's baptism, don't generally hold to penal substitution, and allow women pastors. I guess I have to weigh the Baptist principles that I cherish against the Nazarene doctrinal positions that I favor and see which is more important to me -- an extremely difficult decision for me.

It would be easier if there was a General Baptist church near me, but there isn't. Although, I'm not sure what the General Baptists believe about women pastors, the atonement theories, etc.

Well, I'll stop thinking out loud, for now.

Thanks to all who have replied so far; I value everybody's thoughts!

 

[The Biblicist]

Col. 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:......


What does "in" mean? It must be an abbreviation referring to some unwritten phrase such as "in the manner (custom, humility, example) of" or it is some kind of insider code word. "Walk ye in Joe Blow" doesn't compute, doesn't convey information.

Depends upon the context. The idea of representation or substitution may be conveyed in some instances. In other instances it may refer to a SPHERE of influence or characterization. To walk "in the Spirit" is to walk under the influence or control of the Spirit which defines a walk characterized by the Spirit.

In this particular verse it refers to the Christlike life or a walk that characterizes Christ, The sphere of Christlikeness, under the influence of Christ, according to Christ like living. It is the same as walking "in the Spirit" or under the influence of the Spirit, or the sphere of the Spirit, or what characterizes the Spirit.

 

[Yeshua1]

The part you put in bold is: because the difference between my Arminian theology and the doctrine of eternal security as believed in my SBC church, is only a matter of definitions and terminology.

From Charles Stanley's example on his webstite years ago, consider a person who accepts Christ as Savior and Lord and serves the Lord for two years. After the two years, he is converted to the Muslim religion and remains a Muslim the rest of his life and dies a Muslim.

Most Doctrine Of Eternal Security (DOES) Christians believe that the person was never really a True Christian for those two years because a True Christian would not stop believing.
The Classic Arminians believe that person was a True Christion, but forfeited his salvation when he decided to stop believing in Christ.
In both beliefs, the man died a Muslim and therefore will not go to heaven. The difference is how the two beliefs describe the person who was a Christian (or said he was a Christian) for two years and then stopped believing. The two describe the man differently, but the result is the same, i.e. the difference is in terminology and definitions. Christians in both beliefs are equally sure of their salvation.

DOES Christians ask Arminians how they are sure that they will not stop trusting Christ in a years or two and forfeit their salvation. The answer is: I have accepted Christ as my Savior and Lord, and trust in His saving and Keeping power.

Arminians Christian ask DOES Christians how they know that they will not stop trusting Christ in a year or two, and are therefore not a True Christian now, but just think they are. The answer is: I have accepted Christ as my Savior and Lord, and trust in His saving and Keeping power.

The answer is the same and the assurance is the same.

Over the years, many DOES believers have been mislead about what Arminians believe, both by DOES ministers and DOES written matterial. You don't have to depend on these potentially misleading sources anymore. With the Internet, just go to the denomination's Webpage and and check it out for yourself.

The pastor of my SBC church believes that a True Christain will not stop trusting Christ which is what most DOES Christians believe.

My belief is close to the Classic Arminian belief which says a true Christain that stops believing has forfeited (not lost) his salvation by making a decision to stop believing.

The Wesleyan Arminians believe a True Christian can also lose his salvation while still believing by long term resistance to the conviction of the Holy Spirit's by refusing to repent and be remorseful for known sins.

There are others (such as fringe Holiness Churches) who believe that a Christian cannot be sure of his salvation. Many DOES Christians group these with the Arminians and assume the Classic Arminians and Wesleyan Arminians also believe that a Chrsitian cannot be sure of his salvation. Arminian Christians are just as sure of their salvation as DOES Christians.

Don't most who hold to Eternal security rest that though NOT upon the Christian "keeping the faith", but that God Himself has elected us to be in Christ, sent his HS to indwell us, gave us new natures, and God will keep us unto that day of being presented to the father...

We can deny Him, but he cannotdeny himself!

A saint can go into the pig pen of the Worls, chose badly, but his new nature under conviction of HS will get him to come back eventually!

 

[Yeshua1]

Think that we have to define Arminian theology, as some see it meaning person holds to one can become "unborn again". while others hold to it as meaning one needs to have grace of God to accept/reject jesus, but still their choice...