local church only vs the church includes the Univ church
We do not fellowship with churches or receive for membership those who believe in an Univ church. It doesn't exist was man's invention during the Reformation and has never been in the writings of Jesus, the Apostles, or in their heads, or in the Bible.
The Headship of Jesus over each of His local churches is usurped by the 'authority' of the 'true church', as people (blasphemously) call that SUPERNATURAL EVIL NOTHINGNESS PHENOMENA when it is only a figment of Satan's imagination.
All the talk of "Jesus is the Head of His church", etc., etc., when people are really referring to the Kingdom of God is bunk and there is no place for untaught people in the Lord's churches when it comes to what is termed, Church Truth.
It is one more sharp Satanic-devised misinterpretation/ misunderstanding.
I can talk all I want with people, but He called me to preach the Gospel, not to try to make Univ church believers, into local church-only believers.
The first step of that would be for someone to be shown by God what a church is, from the Bible. I can put the souls of people under the teaching of the Eternal Word of God, but it is God Who must give the increase.
When do we see that? It happened in me is all I know about that right now.
Pre-trib vs mid trib vs post trib
Not a point of fellowship. I am Amillennial. My home church is Pre-trib. I consider all talk of the word 'mill' and anything related to it (except the misnomer, "Amillennialism!!!!", which I do not care for at all, either, really) as being worthless and dung. No need to mention anything about them. They are pure waste and unintelligible, and if it weren't for the need of the Spirit to show Amillennialism to them, unintelligent, also. Why not say it? I'm all in, now,
just about.
Do I proselytize my case among church members and cause a ruckus that Satan could use? No, for that reason. We have UNITY, although not all of us agree on every point of Doctrine.
Visitors who hold to Doctrines we do hold a strong position on are welcome to "just set down and watch (learn)".
That quote is from the black preacher who told the young fellow, before he preached, "It's Friday, but Sunday's Coming". He said, "you just sit back and watch..."
Tithe required vs "grace" giving
We don't 'pass the plate', but our treasury is "packed down, shaken together, and running over". Besides all the money my pastor's wife prints for us... ha ha.
We have been taught "the tithe" and faithfully do it into a little box in the hallway where the men greet everyone (and ignore those that are giving into the little box, other than when I tell them they are "worshipping the Lord". "There you go, worshipping the Lord"!!
Never heard of "Grace giving". Sounds good to my flesh, though.
* = thats actualy more like 1,057 varieties of Baptists
There are a lot of varieties of Bibles these days, too, aren't there? Not to speak of the immense number of different religions claiming the 'Christian' name.
God is not the author of confusion. Satan is. And he has been mentioned in this post more than once. For a reason.
If that is the case then why are there 57* varieties of Baptists?
When others have gone out from us, they often hold onto the 'Baptist' name.
The idea is, what did we both believe before the split? Since we remain and are still holding for the same thing, does that make us wrong?
You better go ahead and ask, "Are we lost?" And then, what else? Go ahead. "Are they lost?" Might be, buddy. Dunno. One example would be 'Baptists' who are quite prominent that came up with the bright idea of having vehement, vicious, ruthless hatred for the Gospel. And against preaching the Gospel. In spite of saying they follow a Sovereign God. They just don't do as He says and will continue on calling themselves 'Baptist'.
I/ we can't tell anyone what to believe.
All kinds and varieties take the Baptist name, as you said, Penacostal, Reformers (which we are not, because we do not take the position that we came from Catholicism, and btw they would not be considered for fellowship or membership...), or Baptist Muslims, for that matter (no, I don't know of any, I'm just harping, because I like to harp, I guess).
So which group of Baptist are the true baptists?
You tell me.
If we are not the true Baptists, we still take a very strong, serious, position that Jesus Built His Kind of Church Assembly, that His churches, therefore, have a Divine Origin, that the Authority in Baptism has a Divine Origin, that the Lord's Supper has a Divine Origin, and that the Bible has a Divine Origin, all of which we believe God has Perpetuated and Preserved, because the Holy Spirit is Big enough to Persevere in those endeavors.
Where is that true church, then, that we at least see in the Bible? if it is not us? and all those who have believed as we do throughout New Testament Christian History?
So, if we begin with the assumption and theory for a model that the above is true, based on the inspired Bible testimony, where is the 'true church'? Have you ever spent a weekend on your knees, fasting and praying that God would Show you?
You already know the Catholic 'church' is not it and you could go down through many more that have their human origins. Why don't the Baptists?
The name doesn't need to mess anyone up. Ana-baptists go all the way back to Jesus, if you want to use that term for those who believed like Jesus and, for them if and when, they needed to re-baptize.
You have to begin with a 'belief by faith' that "Jesus Built His Kind of church" and despite the tens of millions of saints martyred, by The Great Whore and her Harlot daughters, for standing for her, she still stands as a Lighthouse and Candlestick shining light into darkness, as the pillar and ground of the truth, and a habitation of God through the Spirit, where His saints He has called to habitually congregate together AND are added, by Him, to His churches and fitly framed together, by Him, into those local bodies the bring Glory to God in His churches THROUGHOUT ALL AGES.
