What Brings Unity Among Brethren, Part II

[Reformed]

In the previous thread on this topic I did not have a chance to respond to the following comments:

My point still is that, even with all of these differences (perhaps even because of them) we need to keep the one thing all Christians should have in common in focus - scripture. When dealing with people who hold a different view we have to stick with what is actually written in God's Word.

Jon, that is fine but what do you do when your understanding of scripture differs from another person who believes their understanding is correct? This happens all the time. It is one of the most common forms of disagreement on the BB. Two people read the same passage and come to different interpretations. If two people cannot agree on the same starting point they are not going to come to the same conclusion. This is probably the root cause for so many different strains of Baptists. There comes a point when fighting over every point of doctrine becomes pointless. Separation, while not the ideal way to resolve differences, becomes the only viable alternative.

That said, it is not without irony. Sproul held Presbyrerian beliefs that were not new, but they were newer than the early church so at one time they were new. The Reformed Church articulated the Atonement (the language used) in a new way during the Reformation. Covenant theology (and Dispensationalism), while perhaps true, was at one time a new way of looking at God's interaction with mankind. Limited Atonement is relatively new as the scope of the atonement was a relatively new issue.

At one point the foci of my Christian studies was the Patristic Age. The ECF's had a theological smorgasbord of beliefs. The two major accomplishments of the Patristic Age was the defense of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. Atonement theories were heavily influenced by both orthodox and heterodox understandings of Christology and Soteriology. The corruption of Roman theology after the great ecumenical councils did little to advance non-Roman orthodoxy. When Sola Fide was embraced during the Reformation period, it moved the Reformers towards ad fontes, which was scripture. It is the opinion of many accomplished theologians that more orthodox theology was done in the 100 years following the Reformation than the 1500 years preceding it. I agree with that. Biblical interpretation was no the sole purvue of the papacy.

That said, I typically prefer older views (granted, that in and of itself does not make my view correct....just old ). The argument against me, of course, could be that I tend to be predisposed to antiquity when later views stand on a succession of theologicsl development. And that would be a fair argument. But I think the developmental process has made theology more complicated than necessary and has moved away from scripture as it has increased the human element.

I think we are in accord that scripture is the final arbiter. However, the human element will never be removed. I wish I could say that the right understanding of scripture is self-evident to every person. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There will always be the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (1 John 5:6) and we must strive to be able to know the difference between the two.

 

[Yeshua1]

In the previous thread on this topic I did not have a chance to respond to the following comments:



Jon, that is fine but what do you do when your understanding of scripture differs from another person who believes their understanding is correct? This happens all the time. It is one of the most common forms of disagreement on the BB. Two people read the same passage and come to different interpretations. If two people cannot agree on the same starting point they are not going to come to the same conclusion. This is probably the root cause for so many different strains of Baptists. There comes a point when fighting over every point of doctrine becomes pointless. Separation, while not the ideal way to resolve differences, becomes the only viable alternative.



At one point the foci of my Christian studies was the Patristic Age. The ECF's had a theological smorgasbord of beliefs. The two major accomplishments of the Patristic Age was the defense of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. Atonement theories were heavily influenced by both orthodox and heterodox understandings of Christology and Soteriology. The corruption of Roman theology after the great ecumenical councils did little to advance non-Roman orthodoxy. When Sola Fide was embraced during the Reformation period, it moved the Reformers towards ad fontes, which was scripture. It is the opinion of many accomplished theologians that more orthodox theology was done in the 100 years following the Reformation than the 1500 years preceding it. I agree with that. Biblical interpretation was no the sole purvue of the papacy.



I think we are in accord that scripture is the final arbiter. However, the human element will never be removed. I wish I could say that the right understanding of scripture is self-evident to every person. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There will always be the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (1 John 5:6) and we must strive to be able to know the difference between the two.

We are to be united in the ultimate sense around the person and work of Lord Jesus, for all who know the true Him and hold to the real Gospel are all indeed one in Christ, and should not be dividing!
I am defining dividing here not as in cannot agree to go separate ways, but that we no longer view each saved as fellow Christians, nor agree to help or support each other!

 

[Reformed]

We are to be united in the ultimate sense around the person and work of Lord Jesus, for all who know the true Him and hold to the real Gospel are all indeed one in Christ, and should not be dividing!

This is true but even when it comes to the Gospel there are some Christians who choose division. I have seen YouTube videos by Baptists who refer to my particular theological position as a gospel of Satan. Disagreement over doctrine is fine. I can have fellowship with a brother who disagrees with me on various doctrines, so long as we are agreed on the Gospel. We may not partner together in ministry but we should view each other through the lens of brotherhood.

 

[Dave G]

This is true but even when it comes to the Gospel there are some Christians who choose division.

I agree, as it includes me.

I choose division over cooperating with people who preach and teach another "jesus" and another "gospel".
That is why I had to leave the Independent Baptist circles I grew up with, and resign myself to the fact that there are few who read the Bible and understand it as I do, and that there are visible churches in my area that are filled with people who couldn't seem to care less about much of which God's word says, much less understand it.

I have seen YouTube videos by Baptists who refer to my particular theological position as a gospel of Satan.

Me, too.
To me, they are unable to give even remotely sound explanations about certain areas of God's word.
When their beliefs are drilled down further, I find that they sound like, or have been heavily influenced by, men whose teachings would have been considered heresy not 150 years ago in most Baptist churches, at least here in America.

Disagreement over doctrine is fine

To me, it is not, at least in the long run.

I can have fellowship with a brother who disagrees with me on various doctrines, so long as we are agreed on the Gospel.

Based on certain viewpoints, one could say that the Gospel is everything that entails how and why a person is saved to begin with.
There are many professing groups and individuals that agree with 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 as "the Gospel"...including the roman Catholic Church.
But talk about other details that are interwoven and relate to it?

That's where the division starts.

We may not partner together in ministry but we should view each other through the lens of brotherhood.

From my perspective, if they were my brothers and sisters, we would eventually start to agree ( Ephesians 4:11-16 ), since we theoretically all have the same Spirit ( Romans 8:9 ).

Unity?
I think Satan and his sowing of tares and false teachers can be blamed for most of the lack of it over the centuries.
To me, it's bad enough that we, as believers, have this untrustwrothy flesh to deal with, with its fightings and fears...it was only relatively recently that I was hit with the enormous magnitude of the rest of the problem.

 

[InTheLight]

I choose division over cooperating with people who preach and teach another "jesus" and another "gospel".
That is why I had to leave the Independent Baptist circles I grew up with, and resign myself to the fact that there are few who read the Bible and understand it as I do

Feel free to come on this board and lecture us about stuff. We eagerly await your keen self-taught insights on spiritual matters and Christian maturity.





Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Dave G]

Feel free to come on this board and lecture us about stuff. We eagerly await your keen self-taught insights on spiritual matters and Christian maturity.

Feel free to treat me in whatever manner you like...
You will have to answer to God for it, after all.



May God, in His grace, bless you with all wisdom and knowledge of His word, sir, and may you always remember that, were it not for His grace and mercy towards you, you would be going to Hell.

 

[Reformed]

I choose division over cooperating with people who preach and teach another "jesus" and another "gospel".
That is why I had to leave the Independent Baptist circles I grew up with, and resign myself to the fact that there are few who read the Bible and understand it as I do, and that there are visible churches in my area that are filled with people who couldn't seem to care less about much of which God's word says, much less understand it.

Dave, the only caution I will give is that we are not called to be independent of the people of God. My doctrinal distinctives put me in a distinct minority in the area where I live. If I wait to find a church that meets all my criteria, I will be waiting for a long time. I attend a church that gets the Gospel right, even though there are other doctrinal and ecclesiological issues that are not my preference. I need my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, just as they need me.

To me, it is not, at least in the long run.

Dave, again, we are never going to find a church that believes what we do on everything. IMHO it is unrealistic to expect that. That does not mean you have to compromise your beliefs. I do not compromise mine. My church leadership is dispensational. I am not. Unless I am willing to attend a Presbyterian church (which I am not), I have no other choices within a reasonable distance from my house. I am not going to go the way of A.W. Pink in his final years and be a church or one.

Based on certain viewpoints, one could say that the Gospel is everything that entails how and why a person is saved to begin with.
There are many professing groups and individuals that agree with 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 as "the Gospel"...including the roman Catholic Church.
But talk about other details that are interwoven and relate to it?

That's where the division starts.

By fellowship, I mean a personal relationship that encourages the other person in their walk with Christ. As I said in my previous comments (above), I do not have to compromise my beliefs. I will break fellowship with any person who does not respect my beliefs or insists I change them. A church member I am friends with is a Synergist and I am a Monergist. He is a nice guy and we enjoy spending time with each other on a regular basis. We have politely debated each other, but we have never made changing our beliefs a condition of our friendship. I would have a hard time fellowshipping with someone who denies the Trinity or is, say, a Jehovah's Witness. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "fellowship" with a rank heretic.

From my perspective, if they were my brothers and sisters, we would eventually start to agree ( Ephesians 4:11-16 ), since we theoretically all have the same Spirit ( Romans 8:9 ).

Friend, this is not reality. John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul Sr. were good friends up until R.C.'s passing in 2017. John MacArthur is a Baptist and R.C. Sproul was a Presbyterian. One believed in believers-only baptism and the other infant baptism. They disagreed strongly on that issue. However, they were agreed on soteriology which, arguably, is the most important thing.

 

[Dave G]

Dave, the only caution I will give is that we are not called to be independent of the people of God.

I agree.
When God points me to the people of God as a group, I will be there.
For now, I have fellowship with other believers here and there outside of traditional settings.

My doctrinal distinctives put me in a distinct minority in the area where I live.

Mine as well.

If I wait to find a church that meets all my criteria, I will be waiting for a long time.

Again, I agree.
However, I've not yet felt the Lord leading me ( Philippians 2:13 ) to join or even to attend another visible church...
Which leads to another subject:

What is it to assemble together?
Is it a building on a street corner, or is it a gathering of God's Spirit-led people under one roof, no matter where it is?
I believe the latter.

I attend a church that gets the Gospel right

If what is meant consists of the "Gospel of Grace", then there are few in my area that even come close.
The one I did attend once with an eye to joining, wanted to re-baptize me, which is unscriptural.
I figure that if they are unable to discern that much from God's word, then there are other problems riding under the surface that I really don't feel like dealing with at this time.
Perhaps someday, but not now.

I need my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, just as they need me.

As do I.
I clearly see passages like Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 as vital, in that we as believers are members one of another.

I am not going to go the way of A.W. Pink in his final years and be a church or one.

I'm not of the opinion that anyone be a "church of one".

I actually do enjoy fellowship with occasional believers...but I get the sense that you are advocating that I join myself to a mess in order to have people who profess Christ around me.
In your case, do the people you fellowship with, ever grow in their knowledge and understanding of God's word, or do they stay the same way they were 10, 15 or 20 years ago?
The purpose of the local assembly is to edify one another...to build up each other in the faith ( Ephesians 4:11-15 ).
It is the pillar and ground of the truth ( 1 Timothy 3:15 ).

Is the truth being preached, in all areas, or are there things that, no matter how long time goes on, are never dealt with?
Does the membership stagnate at the milk stage, or do they go on ( 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Hebrews 5:11-14 ) to the meat?

By fellowship, I mean a personal relationship that encourages the other person in their walk with Christ

That's what the local church is all about, as I see it.

Friend, this is not reality.

Sir, according to God's word, eventual unity among believers is supposed to be a reality, at least at some point.

I've already experienced it with occasional believers, despite my talk of keeping to myself.
Make no mistake, even though it seems I'm speaking from a solitary position, I'm not alone.

However, in my area there is not one visible building on a street corner that I would feel inclined to enter the door of, and expect to find very many who actually have the Spirit of God in them, as harsh as that may sound.
I do appreciate the concern and friendly admonishment, however.
I trust the Lord that He will correct me and show me where I need to be.



At the end of the day, I am subject to His will, not my own.
May God bless you, good sir.

 

[JonC]

In the previous thread on this topic I did not have a chance to respond to the following comments:



Jon, that is fine but what do you do when your understanding of scripture differs from another person who believes their understanding is correct? This happens all the time. It is one of the most common forms of disagreement on the BB. Two people read the same passage and come to different interpretations. If two people cannot agree on the same starting point they are not going to come to the same conclusion. This is probably the root cause for so many different strains of Baptists. There comes a point when fighting over every point of doctrine becomes pointless. Separation, while not the ideal way to resolve differences, becomes the only viable alternative.



At one point the foci of my Christian studies was the Patristic Age. The ECF's had a theological smorgasbord of beliefs. The two major accomplishments of the Patristic Age was the defense of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. Atonement theories were heavily influenced by both orthodox and heterodox understandings of Christology and Soteriology. The corruption of Roman theology after the great ecumenical councils did little to advance non-Roman orthodoxy. When Sola Fide was embraced during the Reformation period, it moved the Reformers towards ad fontes, which was scripture. It is the opinion of many accomplished theologians that more orthodox theology was done in the 100 years following the Reformation than the 1500 years preceding it. I agree with that. Biblical interpretation was no the sole purvue of the papacy.



I think we are in accord that scripture is the final arbiter. However, the human element will never be removed. I wish I could say that the right understanding of scripture is self-evident to every person. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There will always be the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (1 John 5:6) and we must strive to be able to know the difference between the two.

I agree that the human element can not be removed. That is why, IMHO, it is so important to stick to Scripture when dealing with Christians who do not share your view. Interpretation of that scripture may vary (and people will disagree) BUT even through disagreement both sides are ancored by scripture. One must be able to explain their presuppositions and why they believe a verse means something other than their "opponent" holds.

I understand the reasons many would hold the Reformation contained doctrine that alluded the Church for fourteen centuries. The Reformers had an advantage of hind sight and theological development.

One issue, however, is it is impossible to escape the influence of the Reformation so I am not sure many are capable of objectivity. I have bern accused several times (not by you) of holding some new ideas about the atonement. The fact that some do not realize the way theology has developed, or even that it has is alarming. The fact a few here even view my position as new is sad. Y1 even commented that N.T. Wright was primarily responsible for the Christus Victor view today.

How can gainful discussion take place in ignorance (again, not refering to you)?

 

[Deacon]

This is true but even when it comes to the Gospel there are some Christians who choose division. I have seen YouTube videos by Baptists who refer to my particular theological position as a gospel of Satan. Disagreement over doctrine is fine. I can have fellowship with a brother who disagrees with me on various doctrines, so long as we are agreed on the Gospel. We may not partner together in ministry but we should view each other through the lens of brotherhood.

Can't say I'm perfect but as an old-earth creationist in primarily young-earth congregations I've had plenty of practice.

• Approach the one teaching a doctrinal difference gently and with respect.
• Attempt to understand the position of the one teaching differently.
• Don't approach the person with the aim of changing them, rather with the goal of mutual understanding.
  
• Choose to ignore the differences and emphasize the similarities; move beyond the things that divide us.
• Withdraw myself from this person when the difference causes ME to act in a way that dishonors my calling.
• LAST CHOICE: To disfellowship - it reflects on my character more than that of the other.

Calvinist and Arminians have argued for centuries without resolution... don't think YOU with be the one to change things.

Rob

 

[Deacon]

I've got a friend, he's in his late 60's, raised in a Christian orphanage, very poorly educated (he claims a 3rd grade education), who's lived a tough, laborer's life...and it shows.
Due to health problems he doesn't drive any more.

So I drive across town and pick him up then drive him home for early Saturday morning men's bible study.

This man's opinions never change, his conversation is a bit salty at times, his doctrine is at best juvenile (but he holds to it firmly).

But his willingness to witness is unmatched. He talks to people I never would get the opportunity to speak to.

I'm willing to put up with the inane profundities of his doctrine because I see his love for Christ in the midst of a tough life.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

This is true but even when it comes to the Gospel there are some Christians who choose division. I have seen YouTube videos by Baptists who refer to my particular theological position as a gospel of Satan. Disagreement over doctrine is fine. I can have fellowship with a brother who disagrees with me on various doctrines, so long as we are agreed on the Gospel. We may not partner together in ministry but we should view each other through the lens of brotherhood.

Yes, for we need to do a much better job at really being precise in how we define heresy for example, as Calvinism is not that, nor is someone who is mistaken on how the Holy Spirit operates today, as they cross the line when go into word of faith heresy!

 

[Yeshua1]

Dave, the only caution I will give is that we are not called to be independent of the people of God. My doctrinal distinctives put me in a distinct minority in the area where I live. If I wait to find a church that meets all my criteria, I will be waiting for a long time. I attend a church that gets the Gospel right, even though there are other doctrinal and ecclesiological issues that are not my preference. I need my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, just as they need me.



Dave, again, we are never going to find a church that believes what we do on everything. IMHO it is unrealistic to expect that. That does not mean you have to compromise your beliefs. I do not compromise mine. My church leadership is dispensational. I am not. Unless I am willing to attend a Presbyterian church (which I am not), I have no other choices within a reasonable distance from my house. I am not going to go the way of A.W. Pink in his final years and be a church or one.



By fellowship, I mean a personal relationship that encourages the other person in their walk with Christ. As I said in my previous comments (above), I do not have to compromise my beliefs. I will break fellowship with any person who does not respect my beliefs or insists I change them. A church member I am friends with is a Synergist and I am a Monergist. He is a nice guy and we enjoy spending time with each other on a regular basis. We have politely debated each other, but we have never made changing our beliefs a condition of our friendship. I would have a hard time fellowshipping with someone who denies the Trinity or is, say, a Jehovah's Witness. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "fellowship" with a rank heretic.



Friend, this is not reality. John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul Sr. were good friends up until R.C.'s passing in 2017. John MacArthur is a Baptist and R.C. Sproul was a Presbyterian. One believed in believers-only baptism and the other infant baptism. They disagreed strongly on that issue. However, they were agreed on soteriology which, arguably, is the most important thing.

Ruth and Billy graham were apart also, as she remained as Sproul on doctrines, and he was a SBC...
We have the examples of Sproul/MaArthur, Wesley /Whitefield. so we must do a better job in this area in the Church of Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree.
When God points me to the people of God as a group, I will be there.
For now, I have fellowship with other believers here and there outside of traditional settings.



Mine as well.



Again, I agree.
However, I've not yet felt the Lord leading me ( Philippians 2:13 ) to join or even to attend another visible church...
Which leads to another subject:

What is it to assemble together?
Is it a building on a street corner, or is it a gathering of God's Spirit-led people under one roof, no matter where it is?
I believe the latter.



If what is meant consists of the "Gospel of Grace", then there are few in my area that even come close.
The one I did attend once with an eye to joining, wanted to re-baptize me, which is unscriptural.
I figure that if they are unable to discern that much from God's word, then there are other problems riding under the surface that I really don't feel like dealing with at this time.
Perhaps someday, but not now.



As do I.
I clearly see passages like Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 as vital, in that we as believers are members one of another.



I'm not of the opinion that anyone be a "church of one".

I actually do enjoy fellowship with occasional believers...but I get the sense that you are advocating that I join myself to a mess in order to have people who profess Christ around me.
In your case, do the people you fellowship with, ever grow in their knowledge and understanding of God's word, or do they stay the same way they were 10, 15 or 20 years ago?
The purpose of the local assembly is to edify one another...to build up each other in the faith ( Ephesians 4:11-15 ).
It is the pillar and ground of the truth ( 1 Timothy 3:15 ).

Is the truth being preached, in all areas, or are there things that, no matter how long time goes on, are never dealt with?
Does the membership stagnate at the milk stage, or do they go on ( 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, Hebrews 5:11-14 ) to the meat?



That's what the local church is all about, as I see it.




Sir, according to God's word, eventual unity among believers is supposed to be a reality, at least at some point.

I've already experienced it with occasional believers, despite my talk of keeping to myself.
Make no mistake, even though it seems I'm speaking from a solitary position, I'm not alone.

However, in my area there is not one visible building on a street corner that I would feel inclined to enter the door of, and expect to find very many who actually have the Spirit of God in them, as harsh as that may sound.
I do appreciate the concern and friendly admonishment, however.
I trust the Lord that He will correct me and show me where I need to be.



At the end of the day, I am subject to His will, not my own.
May God bless you, good sir.

Are you a current member of a Local church?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree that the human element can not be removed. That is why, IMHO, it is so important to stick to Scripture when dealing with Christians who do not share your view. Interpretation of that scripture may vary (and people will disagree) BUT even through disagreement both sides are ancored by scripture. One must be able to explain their presuppositions and why they believe a verse means something other than their "opponent" holds.

I understand the reasons many would hold the Reformation contained doctrine that alluded the Church for fourteen centuries. The Reformers had an advantage of hind sight and theological development.

One issue, however, is it is impossible to escape the influence of the Reformation so I am not sure many are capable of objectivity. I have bern accused several times (not by you) of holding some new ideas about the atonement. The fact that some do not realize the way theology has developed, or even that it has is alarming. The fact a few here even view my position as new is sad. Y1 even commented that N.T. Wright was primarily responsible for the Christus Victor view today.

How can gainful discussion take place in ignorance (again, not refering to you)?

NT Wright has been influencial in spreading his wrong theology among the brethren...

 

[Yeshua1]

Can't say I'm perfect but as an old-earth creationist in primarily young-earth congregations I've had plenty of practice.

• Approach the one teaching a doctrinal difference gently and with respect.
• Attempt to understand the position of the one teaching differently.
• Don't approach the person with the aim of changing them, rather with the goal of mutual understanding.
  
• Choose to ignore the differences and emphasize the similarities; move beyond the things that divide us.
• Withdraw myself from this person when the difference causes ME to act in a way that dishonors my calling.
• LAST CHOICE: To disfellowship - it reflects on my character more than that of the other.

Calvinist and Arminians have argued for centuries without resolution... don't think YOU with be the one to change things.

Rob

And accept that while important discussion, old/young earth doctrine is not the one that saves any one!

 

[Dave G]

Are you a current member of a Local church?

Please define "local church".

 

[Jerome]

Are you a current member of a Local church?

Please define "local church".

Yeshua1, here is what he said when I asked him about that issue:

I'm on hiatus...gradually stopped going. I've not "attended church" for about 3 years now, and for much of the past 11 years, not regularly

 

[Dave G]

Yeshua1, here is what he said when I asked him about that issue:

Guys, what's the problem?
Is there something wrong with assembling for fellowship outside of the traditional "church" setting?

Please tell me where, in all of Scripture, a believer is required to participate in something that is styled after the inside of a Roman Catholic church ( without all the statues, priestly garb, hierarchy, altar and a "monstrance" ) and that basically has devolved into a repetitious ceremony where everyone does the exact same thing every time the group gets together.

I guess I'm missing where I'm somehow not "following the program" as the Lord has laid it out.
To me, the Twilight Zone atmosphere I'm getting from some of you in here is getting so thick one could almost cut it with a knife.

If one of you kind gentlemen ( or ladies ) would point out where I'm locked into this thing you call "church", I'd be glad for the indulgence.
Otherwise, the Bible makes it clear, at least to me, what a "church" really is:

"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." ( Matthew 18:18-20 )

A church is not the building, not the window dressing, and definitely not the "programs"...it is believers:

" Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." ( 1 Peter 2:5 )

Sound alien?
That's because it is...at least nowadays.
You see, after the 1st century, people gradually came in and started introducing more and more traditions and "requirements" into the way believers assembled, insomuch that, from my perspective, we've lost track of Who it's really supposed to be about:

Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

Honestly, I get the feeling some of you have gotten so used to having it done the new way ( which, after 1,500+ years is now the "defacto" method ), that the original purpose of the assembly has been left far behind... and every gathering of Christ's sheep is now supposed to be done in accord with what we see out on the street corners today.


Brothers and sisters,

It was never about the temple, the altar, the candlesticks, the curtains, the brasen bowls, the gold, the silver, the instruments or the sacrifices.
It's about edifying one another and glorifying God for saving our wretched hides from eternal damnation... by the giving of His only begotten Son.
Accoutrements mean nothing, and buildings have but one function...to put a roof over people's heads.
If you don't understand where I'm coming from, then I cannot help you.



At any rate, I wish God's blessings upon each and every one of you.

 

[MartyF]

It is one of the most common forms of disagreement on the BB. Two people read the same passage and come to different interpretations. If two people cannot agree on the same starting point they are not going to come to the same conclusion. This is probably the root cause for so many different strains of Baptists. There comes a point when fighting over every point of doctrine becomes pointless. Separation, while not the ideal way to resolve differences, becomes the only viable alternative.

I agree that I really disagree with most of you'all here. But the question is what causes me to come back. What do I still think I have common with the strange KJV people here?

Cornerstone One - We all believe in adult Baptism or believer's Baptism, or whatever. We might not agree on what to call it but we basically believe in the overall concept which is far different than infant baptism.

Cornerstone Two - We all believe that salvation does not come about through rituals. Neither the rituals of Baptism, confession, eucharist, etc. will save people and make them followers of Jesus.

Cornerstone Three - We all believe in the local autonomy of the individual churches. Each church gets to choose its own pastor, budget, schedule of events, etc. It does not get forced onto them from above.

Cornerstone Four - We all believe in separation of Church and State. Although this separation is a little blurred in some cases, I think we all believe that people should not be forced to adopt a state religion even if that religion is Baptist.

I think we could all agree on these four. It overlaps with a lot of independent churches, but most Baptist churches are pretty independent to begin with.