Why stay Baptist?

We live in such a "I'm all right, your all right...I'm blind and your blind...What you say is right.. what I say is right...I can't say you are wrong..you can't say I am wrong" society.

 

Lorelei! PREACH IT SISTER! You made a BOLD statment there and I admire you! NEVER COMPROMISE!

Kathy
<><

 

kwbob,

The Episcopal church is a wonderful place to worship. My wife and I (who are Baptists) actually hold a Bible study for college students at an Episcopal church. Don't worry about the stuff that Dr. Bob posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Friend, if you are comfortable there, I would seriously look into your heart and examine your personal relationship with the Lord. No one has ever ever ever been saved in a Episcopal Service or in RC Mass. The Gospel is just not there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's arrogant and false.

You might be comfortable in a CBF (Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) congreagtion. You can find a list of churches at www.cbfonline.org They are more moderate than many other Baptist churches. You might also want to check out www.allianceofbaptists.org also another moderate/liberal group of Baptist churches who love Christ.
You can remain a Baptist if that's what you want - just not a fundamentalist Baptist.
Hope this helps.

Daniel Payne

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: MarciontheModerateBaptist ]

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: MarciontheModerateBaptist ]

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

kwbob,

I have friends in the Reformed Episcopal Church which is the closest to the Anglican Church of Protestant Reformation. I have a minister friend in the liberal ECUSA though he's not a Liberal but is a Anglo Catholic. He prays to the saints and wants to be Roman Catholic without a pope. He's conservative in that he believes in the virgin birth, Resurrection and opposes the liberal wing but he has the Catholic baggage.

Most in the Episcopal Church USA are liberal and has birthed some of the most infamous heretics in Christianity (Bishops Pike and Bishop Spong are 2 examples). The more conservative and Evangelical ECUSA churches are the Charismatic churches and the Anglo Catholic.

I would encourage you to stay Baptist and find a solid Bible believing Church that preaches the Gospel. Baptist history is one written in blood by people who believed in a believer's church, the priesthood of the believer, believer's baptism and separation of Church and state. Pray for God's guidance on this.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kwob02:
Jesus says that the gospel is not about commands, rules, and regulations or their interpretation by man, but it is about people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's about faith.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And as Baptists we too agree that:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it is about faith and grace and not about laws and rules. But what else does it say? Do rules and laws no longer matter?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Romans 3:31
Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After all, to have faith without following the rules is not faith at all. Your faith is considered "dead".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>James 2:17 faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

~Lorelei

 

Kwob02,

Thank you for truly understanding the Spirit with which I post. Believe me, I know what you mean about taking scripture out of context. Please always read every verse within the context of what it was intended. I just don't quote the whole chapter here to save space.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kwob02:
But don't you think that the action that accompanies faith is much more than just "following the rules"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen! Our action should indeed contain works of spreading the gospel and sharing the faith. The point James is making, is that if you have true faith, those actions will follow. But in chapter 1 he talks about the difference between listening to the word only (being deceived within yourself) and actually doing what the word says. Read the entire book to get the entire picture.

I am not "trying" to correct "you". What I am trying to do is explain why Baptists "appear" to be legalistic. I am trying to explain to you why I think that following the rules laid out in the Bible is important for "me".

I could care less what denomination you belong to, but I will say that you should look for one that holds to the Truth laid out in the Bible. Many "appear" as angels of light. Many "appear" to be doing God's Work, but if they "ignore" certain rules that God has laid out for us, then maybe they are ignoring a lot more then just that one rule. Maybe they are ignoring God altogether. Just be careful and always, always line up a belief with the Word of God. Not my word, not Baptist doctrine, not Episcopalian doctrine, not what feels good, not what seems nice...don't take anyone's word for it, except God's!

Good luck to you and I pray that you will be led where the Word is not only preached with boldness but where it is lived out in actions.

~Lorelei

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kwob02:

Nice words, anthropocentric versus theocentric. But they're all out of context. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not really. Perhaps you don't understand their meaning? The first means man-centered; i.e., what can I get out of it. The second means God-centered; all ministry and worship is to be focused on God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jesus says that the gospel is not about commands, rules, and regulations or their interpretation by man, but it is about people. See Matt. 22:37-40, where the entire law of Moses and all of the Prophets are focused by Jesus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mt 22:37-40 is not the gospel; it concerns the esssence of the OT law and man's duty before God (the two tablets of Laws). The gospel is not about man, but rather is the Good News of what God has done for man through Christ, to the glory of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Or you might try "I desire mercy not sacrifice" in Matt 12:3-11, where Jesus cares more about a man than a sabbath law or command. Or perhaps the lessons of mercy of God that Jesus taught us which are recorded in Matt 18. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, God desires mercy - and obedience to his law. This is about the behavior God expects from his creatures.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If being saved were about obedience to commands, then Judaism would still be a valid faith. But God is about mercy and grace, and sent Jesus to get us away from the mess that had been made of his plan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know who this is directed to, but I certainly believe that salvation is all of God and none of man. We are saved by grace through faith, and this is not of ourselves, it is of God. Yet also Eph 2:10 tells us "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." The believer is created unto good works and behavior.

BTW, no one ever made a mess of God's plan - it was accomplished as designed, perfectly.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now I'd like to ask the previous post, what is a "CBF" church. I've never heard of that, but it sounds like it must have something to it if these fundamentalists think it is something you should run from. I'd like to know more about it.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. They are the liberals who were unhappy with the return of the SBC back to biblical beliefs, and took their ball and went home, after years of teaching heresy in the churches and the seminaries. You can read a lot about their errors here:
SBC and CBF: Is there really a difference?

and The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship: Serious Questions For Serious Consideration

 

This guilt by association propoganda is a bunch of garbage. Using the same methods, you can link the SBC to planned parenthood b/c they once both supported an abstinence-based sex education course. But nobody considers the SBC pro-abortion.
I repeat my earlier question to Chris-
just which CBF churches that you attended were not to your liking? Tell us about YOUR experience, not some lame claptrap that some Missouri crackpots came up with.

 

Please let us know what you think of the service if you go. Most CBF churches are still within the SBC. The moderates have not given up the ship yet. The SBC is a very slow moving machine and change is measured in decades, not years. I would also be interested in what Sunday School literature they use. Some use Smyth and Helwys, some use Lifeway. Keep us informed if you will.

- Clint

 

All I can say from my experiences going to any church is, stay away from any church that is eccumenical, for it is the start of the one world church, satan is very much at work deceiving people into believing that no matter what faith you are, all worship the one God, and according to God in his word there is only one God, but we can only come to him through one faith, and that is the faith in Jesus Christ.

Keep your eyes on Jesus, and your focus in HIS word.
Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you,

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
This guilt by association propoganda is a bunch of garbage. Using the same methods, you can link the SBC to planned parenthood b/c they once both supported an abstinence-based sex education course. But nobody considers the SBC pro-abortion.
I repeat my earlier question to Chris-
just which CBF churches that you attended were not to your liking? Tell us about YOUR experience, not some lame claptrap that some Missouri crackpots came up with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ad hominems are proof of my claim - CBFers are sour grapes liberals who have no biblical legs to stand on. If a CBF church cannot be known by its association, why call it a CBF church?

One does not need to drink cyanide to know it kills. The CBF leaders' own words at the above links are their own condemnation.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kwob02:
If the fundamentalists are against it, it must be a valid, worthwhile expression of the Christian faith. And while that is a rather subjective way of evaluating a church, it works for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And therein lies your problem. Your locus of truth is anthropocentric pragmatism. Don't give me fundamentals of the faith, just give me what I want. That's called self-centerdness, its called sin, and its called idolatry.

God wants - demands - obedience to him and his law, not self-seeking pragmatism. He has given us all we need to know in order to approach him in reverence, love and fear. A true church rightly administers the ordinances, preaches the gospel, and practices reformational discipline. It does not seek to make the sinner "feel good". Is God's grace a licens to sin all the more? May it never be!

II Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

 

Hi Chris -

There are many reasons why a church may stop sending their mission funds to the SBC proper and go to the CBF and they are not all doctrinal. One reason I have investigated them is that in the SBC only 40% of received funds actually go to mission work as opposed to 60% in the CBF. Another is the hard line the SBC has taken on open/closed communion, using a dictatorial tone on churches in their fellowship. Another still is the lack of scholarship used in the Lifeway Sunday school literature.

Doctrine is still a matter of church polity. The regenerated congregation and the pastor that that church chooses is what sets forth what doctrine is taught, not the affiliations they set up to which they send their mission's money. The CBF, though lax in their admission requirements, is probably more Baptist in a historical sense than the SBC in the modern day.

- Clint

 

At the State Conventions I have attended, it is always the CBF people screaming, name calling and then whining every time they are defeated in the votes. I get one of these silly "Mainstream" Baptist papers that spends all it's time bashing people. What I hve seen is that the CBF people are very sore losers.

Conservatives are viewed as intolerant because of our Confessional or Creedal stance while CBF people have a hard time in defining what they believe.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:

There are many reasons why a church may stop sending their mission funds to the SBC proper and go to the CBF and they are not all doctrinal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many reasons? I doubt that.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
One reason I have investigated them is that in the SBC only 40% of received funds actually go to mission work as opposed to 60% in the CBF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about the missions numbers, but would I rather see 40% support for the missionaries who preach the true gospel, or 60% for those who preach a false one?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Doctrine is still a matter of church polity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, its not. Doctrine is adherence to what the Scriptures say. Doctrine affects church polity; churhc polity does not dictate correct doctrine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The regenerated congregation and the pastor that that church chooses is what sets forth what doctrine is taught, not the affiliations they set up to which they send their mission's money. The CBF, though lax in their admission requirements, is probably more Baptist in a historical sense than the SBC in the modern day. - Clint<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to the history of the Philadelphia and Charleston associations. And if the CBF really was more "historically Baptist", then historical Baptist ecclesiology is wrong.

 

Clint said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Doctrine is still a matter of church polity. The regenerated congregation and the pastor that that church chooses is what sets forth what doctrine is taught, not the affiliations they set up to which they send their mission's money. The CBF, though lax in their admission requirements, is probably more Baptist in a historical sense than the SBC in the modern day.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Baptist Fellowship or Denomination must have some fundamental beliefs as a foundation for their unity. In the SBC we can't agree on the Bible, where the foundational teachings of what we believe come from. I do not think the CBF is more Baptists because of their lax admissions. Baptists in England (Particular and General Baptist) did not unite or do missions together because of their doctrinal divisions. They both understood Doctrine is important.

The problem with the SBC is the Cooperative program which is the Golden Calf. The older I get the more I realize that the early Landmarkers were wise in realizing the danger of building fellowship around this (NOTE: I am not a Landmarker).

A Confessional Denomination modeled after the Association of Reformed Baptists, Continental Baptists or the Lutheran Missiouri Synod would provide unity. The Denomination does not dictate to the churches but the churches agree on a Doctrinal Confession that best repesents their theology. Can 2 walk together unless they agree? The SBC big tent philosphy that is united by a Mission program is the fatal flaw of SBC organization.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]