I'm sure my denomination is closer to the truth than..."

[The Biblicist]

And you do have that openness? I think not.

You have your scriptures that support you, and I have mine that support me. Neither one of us will change our minds, so you're right about one thing -- there is no point in discussing it. One thing I am certain of, though -- no amount of Calvinism can change the character of God.

Think about this. Your soteriology provides absolutely no salvation for the human will - none! At no point prior to death is the human will "saved" according to your soteriology. And a soteriology that provides no salvation for the will provides no real salvation at all, as it is the will that needs salvation the most above every other aspect of human nature.

 

[Jack Matthews]

your illustration from Acts 16 sorely abuses the context. If you will remember there was public preaching by Paul in that city that led to a public explosion. hence, what he preached was not in a dark corner. Second, you assume they were silent in their dealings with the prisoner upon the procedures of securing them in prison. Next you forget that they were having a very vocal singing service in the jail. Last you forget that Paul and Silas corrected his false soteriology of works when he used the present tense "Sirs what must I keep on doing to be saved" while they answered with Aorist tense completed point of action "beleive on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

I have found that those take your position simply have not done their homework and really do not understand even the basics of the bibical teaching of justification by faith. I am not saying that to be mean but it is a matter of my own experience in dealing with the kind of things that you and the other writer say. You need to be grounded in the truth with good Biblical hermenutics and solid context.

I think you've got a real problem of inserting far too many presuppositions into the literal context of the text. Every time I see one of your post on this board, your hermeneutics are designed around your agenda, and your pre-determined conclusion, and you jam it in to make it fit. And as I said, your posts have provided a much better example of the point I was making than I could ever have done. And also, not to be mean, but I think you would find great companionship and fellowship with Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. They also believe that they are the only Christians in the world, that everyone else gets it wrong because they don't get it like they do.

The new covenant of grace that came with Jesus isn't about national identity or denominational preference. It's about God doing a work in us that we are not capable of doing ourselves, and about reconciling with him. He takes care of the stuff within that we can't take care of. We can't even recognize our need for salvation, nor can we repent and come to a point where we can believe without the Holy Spirit. But it really is that simple. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that his atonement was for you, and receive his grace. Other labels are of human origin, and are powerless in the Kingdom of God.

 

[Jack Matthews]

I would like to be a part of a Bible study group like the one you have.

When some people get to heaven, I wonder if they are going to insist on their own little corner of that.

Well, I don't have any comprehension of the perfection that heaven offers, but when we talk about separate rooms for different denominations so that they can get used to the idea that their earthly hangups aren't part of the plan, it helps put things in context. I used to laugh about Church of Christ members getting to heaven and having to be chained up to a piano for a thousand years, and having to tiptoe past the room where the Baptists were gathered, because they didn't know anyone else was there, but it also makes the point. Refusing to engage in relationships with people because they belong to a church that you think doesn't preach truth as clearly as you see it is tragic, because it has allowed the divisions and boundaries put in place by human reason, and used by Satan to separate and divide, to undo blessings that God wants us to have. Human reason can certainly be a distraction to a person finding the simple truth about salvation in Jesus when a church or denomination misses the mark and inserts it into their doctrine and theology, but that doesn't mean people within the system can't find Jesus. They can, and many of them decide to stay because the relationships they've built to people in their church are the best evangelism strategy going. We have to get to the point where we realize that our needs, wants and desires are not at the center of the mission and purpose of the church. Only then are we prepared to do the will of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think you've got a real problem of inserting far too many presuppositions into the literal context of the text. Every time I see one of your post on this board, your hermeneutics are designed around your agenda, and your pre-determined conclusion, and you jam it in to make it fit.

Have you considered the reverse possibility? That my previous verse by verse preaching through the New Testament and careful hermeneutics shape my theology? I guess not, because my conclusions conflict with yours. The true test is to compare the contextual basis for your conclusions versus mine but I doubt you will want to do that especially if you never have studied and taught the book of Acts verse by verse?

They also believe that they are the only Christians in the world, that everyone else gets it wrong because they don't get it like they do.

I hate to shock you so you might take your time and read what I am going to say very slowly to reduce the shock factor. I believe there are true Christians in nearly every denomination in Christendom and outside of them IN SPITE of what those denominations may teach or not teach. Let that digest for a moment and think about it in regard to your ridicule and false accusations.

The new covenant of grace that came with Jesus isn't about national identity or denominational preference.

Where did I ever say it was? Who are you talking about?

It's about God doing a work in us that we are not capable of doing ourselves, and about reconciling with him. He takes care of the stuff within that we can't take care of. We can't even recognize our need for salvation, nor can we repent and come to a point where we can believe without the Holy Spirit. But it really is that simple. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that his atonement was for you, and receive his grace. Other labels are of human origin, and are powerless in the Kingdom of God.

A good Roman Catholic theologian who is a strict sacramentalist could and would say the very same thing you said and agree with you. However, when it came down to the details of explanation the devil is clearly there and no real gospel, no real salvation at all.

You seem to be a good chap and well intended but salvation is in a "new creation" or supernaturally changed person and expressed in a soteriology that always excludes works from A to Z as any kind of conditionality or contingency.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Think about this. Your soteriology provides absolutely no salvation for the human will - none! At no point prior to death is the human will "saved" according to your soteriology. And a soteriology that provides no salvation for the will provides no real salvation at all, as it is the will that needs salvation the most above every other aspect of human nature.

That is untrue and proves that you understand no soteriology that disagrees with yours. The General Baptists and Free Will Baptists -- the original Baptists -- would be highly insulted by your statements.

But there is no need to discuss it further, as we have been around and around this tree. Besides, I don't want to get into another wrestling match with you and derail the thread.

I'll just make this critical point -- a saved will is still free. God never takes away our freedom to choose.

 

[Tom Butler]

Goring back to the OP, I'm sorta curious. If one doesn't believe that his denomination holds the truth on everything, why is he still there?

I'm a Baptist. Southern Baptist. I know, there are umpteen kinds of Baptists, and not even all SBC churches see eye to eye. But I do believe that Baptists are closest to being right on those basics by which one would identify them as Baptists. In this cum-bah-yah age, there seems to be some reluctance to say, "what I believe is right, and what you other denominations believe is wrong."

By definition, if you believe something is true, those who see it differently must be wrong. Now we can be nice about expressing that, but it is nonetheless true.

In the meantime, we have the Baptist Board to air differing views on the lesser issues.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is far easier to list those who do believe in it than those who don't. Nearly every one listed by Jack does not. The vast majority of Christendom and its denominations utterly repudiate it. All denominations that believe that true born again children of God can be lost repudiate it!

I found out recently that that would include Lutherans also.

 

[billwald]

A miss is as good as a mile?

What percentage of truth is required to be know and confessed to guarantee salvation?

For a thousand years confessing the ecumenical creeds was sufficient.

 

[saturneptune]

Goring back to the OP, I'm sorta curious. If one doesn't believe that his denomination holds the truth on everything, why is he still there?

I'm a Baptist. Southern Baptist. I know, there are umpteen kinds of Baptists, and not even all SBC churches see eye to eye. But I do believe that Baptists are closest to being right on those basics by which one would identify them as Baptists. In this cum-bah-yah age, there seems to be some reluctance to say, "what I believe is right, and what you other denominations believe is wrong."

By definition, if you believe something is true, those who see it differently must be wrong. Now we can be nice about expressing that, but it is nonetheless true.

In the meantime, we have the Baptist Board to air differing views on the lesser issues.

I grew up as a conservative Presbyterian, and am now a Southern Baptist. I was a Presbyterian for 25 years, and have been a Baptist for 35 years. Tom and I serve in the same church. We agree on most all issues except for communion, which is another thread.

I look at the hundreds of denominations and thousands of sub groups all coming from the first church in Acts as a sign of man's lack of ability to follow one Spirit. Probably all in existence now are not exactly what the Lord would have in a New Testement church. However, some have to be much closer than others, and I serve in the one that, IMO, comes the closest. Baptists baptize like Jesus Christ was baptised. We do not treat it as a means of salvation, but a symbol of our faith following salvation in Jesus Christ, in His death, burial, and ressurection. I believe the churches in the New Testement to be autonomous. New Testement churches exist to carry out the work of the Lord, telling others about the Gospel, helping those in need, comforting and edifying one another, giving of our time, talents, and money, comforting the sick, praying for others, observing the Lord's Supper, and most of all, worshiping and praising Almighty God. Scripture does not teach we slip in and out of salvation based on our daily lives. Scripture teaches that only God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be worshiped, prayed to, or thanked for the many blessings He bestows on us. I believe the Baptist faith to follow this the most closely.

How anyone ever got the idea of a hierarcy to run a church, using Baptism for salvation, losing salvation, baptising infants, or rules we have invented like no caffine, no musical instruments, or no contreceptives I will never understand. Whole denominations are based on such nonsense. We have so many theories about creation, end times, dispensationalism, God's sovereignty, etc, that these certainly add to the number of denominations. I have even talked to some people that believe cremation is evil.

By the way, for whoever mentioned Calvinism, that transcends denomination. Look at the differences in our own faith. Where I came from, the Presbyterians, it is not an issue. It is a basic doctrine. I am not going to get into that here, but I do believe in God's sovereignty, but despise the person it was named after. Another thread.

I agree with Tom on this point. If one does not believe in basic Baptist beliefs, that they are as close to the NT model as we are going to get, then why are you still here? I am quite clear in my mind why I am a Baptist and not a Presbyterian. I would seek out a Presbyterian church if there was no Baptist one in the area.

No one has addressed the point, why are there so many denominations. One would think that really off the wall churches like the RCC, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, etc have such a warped set of doctrines, that they would not attract enough members to sustain themselves. How can any thinking human being read Scripture with the Holy Spirit residing in him or her, and come to the conclusion that the RCC has any credibility? Where does anyone get the idea that we can lose our salvation, or have to be baptised to obtain salvation? These ideas are so alien that it is a stretch of the imagination to even call them Christian.

One must look at the last 2000 years and wonder why we split so many times when the Lord left us with one church. The Lord promised to preserve His church. I have no doubt He has since His asscension. By the process of elimination, it certainly was not the RCC, for reasons one could write novels on. At the Reformation, several Protestant groups formed different churches, but still heavily influenced by Catholic doctrine and customs. Common sense says none of those groups preserved the church. Nut case groups like the Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Holiness, 7th Day, and more extreme, JWs and Mormons, (cults) are relative newcomers, so they did not. That leaves one conclusion for me. Although not a direct link, local churches of like faith and order to the modern Baptist church, preserved the true NT church of Jesus Christ along side of the Catholics, Anglican, Orthodox or other heirarchical churches connected to political power. The church Jesus preserved went from local church to local church, and today, I believe it to be the Baptist faith. Otherwise, I would not be one.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'll just make this critical point -- a saved will is still free. God never takes away our freedom to choose.

But what is it "saved" from if it were just as "free" before it was saved?

 

[Jack Matthews]

That leaves one conclusion for me. Although not a direct link, local churches of like faith and order to the modern Baptist church, preserved the true NT church of Jesus Christ along side of the Catholics, Anglican, Orthodox or other heirarchical churches connected to political power. The church Jesus preserved went from local church to local church, and today, I believe it to be the Baptist faith. Otherwise, I would not be one.

If you get into an accurate history of those "groups" which you claim to be "of like faith and order to the modern Baptist church," you will find that none of them are of like faith or order in a way that most Baptists would be comfortable claiming.

The church is a group of people called out by God, and gathered by the Spirit because they have a common faith in Christ. There is no such thing as "the Baptist church." Baptists are gathered into independent, autonomous congregations. When Jesus talks about preserving his church, he is talking about the universal body of believers in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, not of any specific church, and certainly not any specific denomination. The preserved church is made up of all believers who have been spiritually adopted into the family of God, and are indwelled by the Holy Spirit who has sanctified them and justified them before God.

 

[saturneptune]

If you get into an accurate history of those "groups" which you claim to be "of like faith and order to the modern Baptist church," you will find that none of them are of like faith or order in a way that most Baptists would be comfortable claiming.

The church is a group of people called out by God, and gathered by the Spirit because they have a common faith in Christ. There is no such thing as "the Baptist church." Baptists are gathered into independent, autonomous congregations. When Jesus talks about preserving his church, he is talking about the universal body of believers in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, not of any specific church, and certainly not any specific denomination. The preserved church is made up of all believers who have been spiritually adopted into the family of God, and are indwelled by the Holy Spirit who has sanctified them and justified them before God.

Baptist is not per se a denomination. We are connected by the belief that each local church should be autonomous with no hierarcy. One question you did not address, if the church was not preserved by local autonomous churches of like faith and order, what group did preserve the church? The RCC?

Yes, there are saved in all denominations. It is not the Lord's fault that there are hundreds of them. The "universal church," as you define it, is made up of all true believers in all denominations. Each member is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. How does that organization carry out the Lord's work on this earth? The universal church never sent out a missionary, never had an outreach program to tell a lost world about the Gospel, never took up an offering, never baptised anyone or administered the Lord's Supper, never helped the needy, comforted the sick, prayed for anyone. What function does the universal church serve on this earth?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

But what is it "saved" from if it were just as "free" before it was saved?

EXCELLENT!!! That is the question that I was about to ask Michael myself & it stands on it's own as paramount.

LOL ... just listening to a Bob Dylan album " ... in the song Gotta Serve Somebody the song states ..... You're going to have to serve somebody, now it may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but your going to have to serve somebody (lyrics to ponder). :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jack Matthews]

Baptist is not per se a denomination. We are connected by the belief that each local church should be autonomous with no hierarcy. One question you did not address, if the church was not preserved by local autonomous churches of like faith and order, what group did preserve the church? The RCC?

Yes, there are saved in all denominations. It is not the Lord's fault that there are hundreds of them. The "universal church," as you define it, is made up of all true believers in all denominations. Each member is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. How does that organization carry out the Lord's work on this earth? The universal church never sent out a missionary, never had an outreach program to tell a lost world about the Gospel, never took up an offering, never baptised anyone or administered the Lord's Supper, never helped the needy, comforted the sick, prayed for anyone. What function does the universal church serve on this earth?

There is no perfect church. So how do you define "preserved" church? From a Biblical perspective, I can identify five purposes that identify and commission a local "church." They worship, disciple and educate believers, minister to the spiritual and physical needs of the body itself, they preach the gospel to the lost, and they develop and cultivate friendships and relationships with each other in the body in fellowship. The history of the Christian church is one of movements of the Holy Spirit. When it moves toward an increasingly inward focus, the Spirit raises up a movement to take it back to where God wants it to be. That's what the Protestant reformation did. That's where Baptists came from, when the reformation that occurred within the Anglican church fell short of moving it away from its apostasy. Preserving the church is a spiritual act that keeps the church moving in the direction God wants it to go. No single group is the designated "preserved" church, it is called back to God by prophetic voices that he raises up when they are needed.

Part of the problem we have in seeing the whole picture is that our vision is focused on our presupposed perception of "church" as it exists in America, fragmented, over run with consumerism and the prosperity gospel, and with the mega church movement now occurring, it is becoming more and more of a place to go, sit and listen than it is a body working together to accomplish a Biblical mission and purpose. There are places in the world today where the church, united by years of persecution and suffering, but still proclaiming the truth, is not fragmented into warring denominations with each claiming superiority and God's blessing. So it may be that America isn't going to be the center of the preservation movement. How can it be, with its Christians hardly able to stand each other?

 

[awaken]

There is no perfect church. So how do you define "preserved" church? From a Biblical perspective, I can identify five purposes that identify and commission a local "church." They worship, disciple and educate believers, minister to the spiritual and physical needs of the body itself, they preach the gospel to the lost, and they develop and cultivate friendships and relationships with each other in the body in fellowship. The history of the Christian church is one of movements of the Holy Spirit. When it moves toward an increasingly inward focus, the Spirit raises up a movement to take it back to where God wants it to be. That's what the Protestant reformation did. That's where Baptists came from, when the reformation that occurred within the Anglican church fell short of moving it away from its apostasy. Preserving the church is a spiritual act that keeps the church moving in the direction God wants it to go. No single group is the designated "preserved" church, it is called back to God by prophetic voices that he raises up when they are needed.

Part of the problem we have in seeing the whole picture is that our vision is focused on our presupposed perception of "church" as it exists in America, fragmented, over run with consumerism and the prosperity gospel, and with the mega church movement now occurring, it is becoming more and more of a place to go, sit and listen than it is a body working together to accomplish a Biblical mission and purpose. There are places in the world today where the church, united by years of persecution and suffering, but still proclaiming the truth, is not fragmented into warring denominations with each claiming superiority and God's blessing. So it may be that America isn't going to be the center of the preservation movement. How can it be, with its Christians hardly able to stand each other?

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I'd rather not have any more part in turning this thread into another debate on eternal security; that has been debated to death over and over again.

Eternal security was not held by the original English Baptists. So, where did later Baptists get it from? From Calvin. It is fatalistic determinism which is diametrically opposite to the true character of God. I even hesitate to say that because some whom I consider friends here hold to this, but that's my belief about it.

Maybe someone could answer this: When does God take away our freedom and ability to choose?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Baptist is not per se a denomination. We are connected by the belief that each local church should be autonomous with no hierarcy. One question you did not address, if the church was not preserved by local autonomous churches of like faith and order, what group did preserve the church? The RCC?

Yes, there are saved in all denominations. It is not the Lord's fault that there are hundreds of them. The "universal church," as you define it, is made up of all true believers in all denominations. Each member is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. How does that organization carry out the Lord's work on this earth? The universal church never sent out a missionary, never had an outreach program to tell a lost world about the Gospel, never took up an offering, never baptised anyone or administered the Lord's Supper, never helped the needy, comforted the sick, prayed for anyone. What function does the universal church serve on this earth?

The universal church, just like the visible local church, is made up of individuals, and it is individuals who do all those things you mentioned, either singly or as a group.

 

[Bro. James]

Some basic facts:

1. The Church is not universal, visible or invisible. She is local and visible without an earthly vicar.

2. Denominations are basically groups which came from the attempted reformation of the RCC, the oldest, and probably largest cult in the world. These groups could also be called daughters of Rome. There are other large relatively recent cults which have other origins--LDS, SDA and JW to mention a few.

3. True Baptists were never a part of Rome. They are not a denomination. There is no: The Baptist Church. They were not part of the so-called Protestant Reformation. In fact, they were persecuted by Luther, Calvin, etal.

4. We live in an age of ecumen-ism and easy believe-ism. We have unregenerated religious leaders in high places. Mt. 16:18 still applies--a lot of folk are confused about who got the keys; or, they got keys--for the wrong lock.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[DHK]

I'd rather not have any more part in turning this thread into another debate on eternal security; that has been debated to death over and over again.

Eternal security was not held by the original English Baptists. So, where did later Baptists get it from? From Calvin. It is fatalistic determinism which is diametrically opposite to the true character of God. I even hesitate to say that because some whom I consider friends here hold to this, but that's my belief about it.

Maybe someone could answer this: When does God take away our freedom and ability to choose?

I don't know if this link will work:

Security and Assurance in Calvinism and Arminianism

Basically Calvin got his material from Augustine. Augustine believed in eternal security. He lived long before Calvin did. Thus eternal security was believed and taught for years before Calvin.

 

[drfuss]

I don't know if this link will work:

Security and Assurance in Calvinism and Arminianism

Basically Calvin got his material from Augustine. Augustine believed in eternal security. He lived long before Calvin did. Thus eternal security was believed and taught for years before Calvin.

Augustine did Not believe in eternal security. The quote below is from the article you referenced above. Augustine did believe in Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace up until a person becomes a Christian. But after becoming a Christian, he believed that a Christian could forfeit their salvation by stopping believing. Martin Luther was an Augustine monk and the Lutherans also believe as Augustine did.

In a sense, Augustine was a Calvinist minus eternal security.

"It is ironic that Augustine held such a strong view of sovereign grace, and yet rejected security
and assurance for the believer. There is theoretical certainty, but only in the mind of God, who
alone knows the elect. For believers there is only uncertainty, both theoretical and existential—
the former because God may not grant them the gift of perseverance and they may fall away; the
latter because, as a result, they have no assurance in this life.37
It is ironic indeed, then, that divine sovereignty was the very doctrine Augustine used to
eliminate security and assurance. God sovereignly grants or withholds perseverance from the
believer. God is sovereign, but arbitrarily so; His sovereignty offers no comfort to the believer.
“The Christian is left in a position of prayer for the gift of persevering grace, hoping with fear​

and trembling that he is one of God’s elect.”38"