Featured Recognizing irregular church doctrines.

In spite of new attempted usages and 'changes in meaning', the issue of 'denomination as a dirty word', as you already know, is,
"Does denomination mean to divide?"

"The word "denomination" comes from the same root word as the denominator in fractions, which means to divide."

Off jump street, we have Satan placing in the minds of people:

"What are the 3 divisions of the church?", as if the new, extra-biblical attempted usages and 'changes in meaning' of "the church/ ekklesia*" could express a meaning that "The Kingdom of God/ basileia: kingdom, sovereignty, royal power
Original Word: βασιλεία, ας, ἡ" defines, all by it's New Testament self.

Already, YOU don't believe this or follow me,
so my take is that you have been robbed if I'm right.

And yet, the current common 'definitions' proceed to divide "the church", into:

Major branches

• Catholic (50.1%)
• Protestant (36.7%)
• Orthodox (11.9%)

Our church body has never been the 'division' or denomination from anything, the way a one-dollar bill is the 'division' or denomination of a hundred, so that is why I would take exception to this new attempted usage and 'change in meaning' ( I JUST 'LEAVE IT OFF"), especially since "Baptist" has been Satanically disenfranchised IN THE WORLD'S THINKING, so to speak, from any consideration in these newly defined 'divisions', above, as if it is to be assumed "Baptists" have their origin in Protestantism, which has its origin in The Roman Catholic 'church', which has her origin in "the synagogue of Satan" and Satan himself (with her CHANGE in THE WAY of SALVATION, etc., etc.) that Protestantism never entirely got away from.

"Dr. W. L. Poteat, a former president of Wake Forest College, and a very loose Baptist, in his book entitled, "Can A Man Be A Christian Today," in referring to organized Christianity calls it, "The Christian Church." Dr. Marshall, teacher of McMaster's University, is quoted as saying in a sermon, "Baptists do not regard baptism as essential to membership in the 'Christian Church' - the church universal - even though they insist on immersion as a condition of admittance into the BAPTIST SECTION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH." The National and World Council of churches operates on the theory that all of the churches of different and even conflicting faiths should be united into one big world church, with the leaders, the "Big Boys" directing its course. Beyond this seen conglomeration, however, is the Church Universal concept, the mother of the smaller church heresy."

What would be more 'natural' than to endeavor to have all these so-called "Denominations" to conglomerate into one big "One World Religion"?

That is the attempt of the Great Whore's "Universal Visible" idea and the Protestant's "Universal Invisible" idea, (Why And When This Theory Started** ) but they are NOT of GOD.

So, who cares what God says?

I think it is of utmost importance how God says He is to be Worshipped.

I, as a Baptist, have no position to recommend or comment on how God says He is to be Worshipped, apart from my, or our, submission to The Lordship of Jesus Christ.

What is that?

"The great, complex hierarchical pope-dominated institution that we know as the Roman Catholic Church today, her harlot daughters,
and ECUMENICALISM, WITH THEIR PROMISING LOST SOULS THEY HAVE A HOME IN HEAVEN, USING SATAN'S LIES, AIN'T IT.

"ECUMENICALISM HAS RESULTED FROM THE THEORY

"Many of those involved in this movement have repudiated almost every item of the Christian faith. An ecumenical convention was held in Florida and someone made a poll of the beliefs of many of the delegates.

"This poll revealed that a large number of those questioned did not even believe in a personal, living God.

"The leaders of this movement seem to be willing for the different denominations to be absorbed back into the Catholic Church.

"The writer of these lines believes that we are witnessing the beginning of events foretold in the Book of Revelation, where the ecumenical movement shall form the Anti-Christ's Church.

"And remember! The ecumenical movement is largely the product of the Universal Church theory."


*"Ekklesia comes from 'ekkletos' and this latter word comes from 'ekkaleo', to call out or forth. But ecclesia does not mean the called out. Let this statement be pondered well. Usage, not etymology, determines the meaning of words. For instance, 'prevent' by etymology, means to anticipate or precede. But usage has made that meaning archaic. By usage, 'prevent' means forestall, frustrate, circumvent, or hinder.

"Ekklesia had its original application to a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into a public place. (Thayer). Then it came to mean any assembly of people or gathering or throng of men, even when gathered by chance or tumultuously. (See Acts 19:32, 39, 41). The resulting meaning is 'assembly.' The word never did mean simply 'the called out.' It always implied that the called-out ones would gather or assemble. Thus according to culmination, the word always did mean assembly, and later came to mean this alone." Dr. B. H. Carroll in his book, "Ecclesia - The Church" has the following to say: "The primary meaning is: An organized assembly, whose members have been called out from among private homes or business to attend to public affairs. This definition necessarily implies prescribed conditions of membership.

(1) This meaning applies substantially alike to the ecclesia of a self-governing Greek state (Acts 19:39),

(2) the Old Testament ecclesia or convocation of National Israel (Acts 7:38), and

(3) and to the New Testament ecclesia.
When our Lord says: 'On this rock I will build MY ecclesia', while the 'my' distinguished His ecclesia from the Greek state ecclesia, and the Old Testament ecclesia, the word naturally retains its ordinary meaning."


** "From then down to the Lutheran Reformation of the sixteenth century, the universal VISIBLE theory of the church held the field, except for the scattered, comparatively obscure, hunted and persecuted little churches known by various names at different times - churches of the New Testament type in doctrine and polity. Following the Reformation period and born of the Reformation movement, there emerged a new theory of the church - the UNIVERSAL, INVISIBLE SPIRITUAL THEORY."

 

That depends. The apostles' doctrine in the early chapters of the book of Acts is certainly not church-age Pauline doctrine in many respects.
For instance, we certainly would not (I hope) get out and preach Acts 2:38 (whereby receiving the Holy Ghost is conditional on water baptism) as a salvation plan the way Peter did.
Heresies are teachings contrary to the Pauline teaching of the NT.

 

I need to make these two passages to be referring to water baptism.

The way it would read, if so, is:

Romans 6:3; "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, (believed on Christ), were baptized into (as a picture of ) his death?"

Galatians 3:27; "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ,(believed on Christ), have put on (baptized and 'put on' a picture of being 'buried' as what was done for us, by) Christ."


from: Campbellism Exposed,
in an examination of Lard's review of Jeter
By A. P. Williams, 1860.

"Matthew 28:19: "Baptizing them (eis) into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Now, what is the force of eis here? Does it not indicate that the party thus baptized does by his baptism declare his faith in these Divine persons and his subjection to them?

"And when it is said of the Samaritans, (Acts 8:16,) that they were baptized (eis) into the name of the Lord Jesus, is it not meant that they, by their baptism, declared their faith in him, and their subjection to him?

"And when it is said, (1 Corinthians 10:1, 2,) that "all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized (eis) unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" does it not mean that what they then did, which is called their baptism was expressive of their faith in, and subjection to, Moses as their commander and leader?

So true is it, therefore, that so many of us as have been baptized (eis) into Christ, believed on Christ, (Galatians 3:27.)

"Of facts and doctrines we have the following examples: "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized (eis) into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism (eis) into death." Romans 6:3, 4.

"Our faith is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he arose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. Well, all this we profess and declare in baptism. We also acknowledge ourselves to be dead unto sin. This we also acknowledge in our baptism. And this is the force of eis in these passages."


Romans 6:3; "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"

Galatians 3:27; "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Are you saying, one is baptized into Christ, as to 'salvation', etc?

That makes these texts incongruous with the general tenor of Scripture on this subject, and with the declarations of the Apostle Peter, made elsewhere. Acts 10:43: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Peter here asserts that the testimony of all the prophets is, that remission of sins is through the name of Jesus Christ, and received by every believer.

 

Of course not. Peter taught correct doctrine, by the Holy Ghost, for his dispensational context.
But the dispensational (and therefore soteriological) context changed after Acts 2.
When Paul comes on the scene, he has the revelation/teaching that water baptism is no longer a condition for obtaining the Holy Ghost.

It's as with Moses. He taught truth. But to put a man under the law of Moses today would be heretical.

To fail to follow the soteriological changes that accompany the dispensational changes is the source of almost all heresy and the root cause of doctrinal divisions and disagreements.

 

V.39 is a reference to the Jews of the diaspora afar off, as can be readily proven.

But note that I did not comment on forgiveness. I only pointed out that receiving the Holy Ghost was conditional on water baptism, according to Peter in Acts 2:38.

 

Looks like that if I contend for "one baptism", i.e., water baptism by immersion, it puts me at odds with some who have an additional different kind of baptism and/or two kinds of baptism, i.e., "to confuse the baptism of John the Baptist with the Baptism of Christ".

And it looks like that, of these additional different kinds of baptism, besides water baptism by immersion, there are at least 4 other 'baptisms' described.

How many 'baptisms' do you get?

 

Paul's reference to the one baptism is to the spiritual baptism that places a church-age believer into the body of Christ.
Water baptism, of course, is something else.
Hebrews speaks of many baptisms.
Once again, dispensationalism is the methodology of interpretation that promises to clear up the issue.

 

I agree! Yet, I find many Baptist pastors preaching this is wataer baptism. I don't understand how they can be so confused on this issue.

 

O.K., I'll add those in as more irregularities.