A Baptist church which cannot 'project' or 'merge' its sovereignty into a 'general body' of any kind

[Squire Robertsson]

Francis Wayland wrote the passage I cited above in post #5 in writing about the dissolution of the Triennial Convention and the founding of the SBC.

 

[Revmitchell]

Genesis 2:17; "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

That's 'The Bible' I'm talking about.

God said that the day Adam ate of the 'forbidden fruit' he would die. Adam ate.

"Adam did not die" would be the Infinitely Incorrect position of those who deny their Maker.

There is no 'debate' between Calvinism & Arminianism.

There is debate. Reasonable people can see or understand things differently. There is one truth by God as shown in His word but we are not perfect and no one has a perfect understanding of God's word. So yes there is debate.

 

[Salty]

Do you mean 'Bible churches' that have precious little use for 'The Bible', Practically, Doctrinally, or Organizationally?

Do they teach, "Jesus Christ IS NOT THE SAVIOR"?
LIKE ARMINIAN 'BIBLE CHURCHES'?

gonna have to leave this "discussion" my head is hurting after banging it on the wall.

 

[canadyjd]

A 'Convention' and a 'Seminary' are different animals than The church that Jesus Built. The Lord's churches are The Supreme Court, literally. "...Carroll’s resolve for the seminary to be accountable to the churches is most vividly captured in his deathbed injunction to Lee Scarborough, his successor as president of Southwestern Seminary. Carroll instructed Scarborough, “Lee, keep the Seminary lashed to the cross. If heresy ever comes in the teaching, take it to the faculty. If they will not hear you and take prompt action, take it to the trustees of the Seminary. If they will not hear you, take it to the Convention that appoints the Board of Trustees, and if they will not hear you, take it to the great common people of our churches. You will not fail to get a hearing then.” [11] ~ [11] Spivey, “Benajah Harvey Carroll,” 169.
from: The Worst Decision B. H. Carroll Never Made: Southern Seminary, the Whitsitt Controversy & the Quest for Institutional Accountability - Jason K. Allen

A 'Convention' and a 'Seminary' must be accountable to the churches. In a 'Convention' there are representatives of The Lord's churches which convene, without having authority over any given church and if the churches do acquiesce their authority to a 'Convention' they all acquiesce their Authority from God, to man.

We find that out when the people vote 'no' on a matter and the Headquarters votes 'yes' and does what they care to do.

Some with a 'Seminary', with students and teachers each subject to the Authority of their own churches, simply meeting in agreement to learn.

BHC "... served a mentor and teacher to young ministerial students, created an “embryonic seminary” that met at the church and established the Bible department at Baylor University, Lefever noted." The Worst Decision B. H. Carroll Never Made: Southern Seminary, the Whitsitt Controversy & the Quest for Institutional Accountability - Jason K. Allen

“Beginning with thousands of students he himself trained at Baylor and tens of thousands more who attended the seminary he established, innumerable churches, mission fields and seminaries on those fields around the globe have been touched by his educational vision, which is still alive among Texas Baptists,” he (Spivey) said." The Worst Decision B. H. Carroll Never Made: Southern Seminary, the Whitsitt Controversy & the Quest for Institutional Accountability - Jason K. Allen

To answer your question, although I don't know when this happened in relation to Br. Carrol, for the Southern Baptists to exercise a 'merging of sovereignty' into a 'general body' THAT CAN NOT HAPPEN.

THE LORD'S CHURCHES MAY RELINQUISH THEIR SOVEREIGNTY into a Form of Government where there is a 'Hierarchical Body' they acquiesce their Authority to and submit themselves to the 'delegation of powers' in such an affiliation, at which time they cease to be a church of The Lord Jesus Christ

When James gave instructions to the gentile churches founded by Paul and others, and those churches accepted those instructions, did they cease to be churches of the Lord Jesus Christ?

I understand and hold to the autonomy of the local church.

To say churches that follow a different organizing structure cease to be churches of Jesus Christ goes too far. It comes very close to saying members of those churches are not saved.

 

[Alan Gross]

There is debate. Reasonable people can see or understand things differently. There is one truth by God as shown in His word but we are not perfect and no one has a perfect understanding of God's word. So yes there is debate.

The 'Reasonable' people are 'Reasoning' with a mind affected by The sin of Adam.

 

[Alan Gross]

When James gave instructions to the gentile churches founded by Paul and others, and those churches accepted those instructions, did they cease to be churches of the Lord Jesus Christ?

I understand and hold to the autonomy of the local church.

To say churches that follow a different organizing structure cease to be churches of Jesus Christ goes too far. It comes very close to saying members of those churches are not saved.

Jesus is the Head of His churches. The last statement goes very close to very far.

 

[rlvaughn]

NO! We simply cooperate together. Contrary to common thinking - the SBC does NOT require any church to give money to the Cooperate missions program...

Salty, I don't want to take the thread too far afield, but the Constitution of the SBC does seem to require some kind of contribution to be deemed "in friendly cooperation" and therefore able to send messengers/have representation at the meeting of the SBC -- particularly point 3 below.

Article III. Composition: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of Baptist churches in cooperation with the Convention. The following subparagraphs describe the Convention’s current standards and method of determining the maximum number of messengers the Convention will recognize from each cooperating church to attend the Convention’s annual meeting.

1. The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work (i.e., a “cooperating” church as that term is used in the Convention’s governing documents) which:
   • (1) Has a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith. (By way of example, churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior would be deemed not to be in cooperation with the Convention.)
   • (2) Has formally approved its intention to cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention. (By way of example, the regular filing of the annual report requested by the Convention would be one indication of such cooperation.)
   • (3) Has made undesignated, financial contribution(s) through the Cooperative Program, and/or through the Convention’s Executive Committee for Convention causes, and/or to any Convention entity during the fiscal year preceding.

 

[Jerome]

The link in the OP does not work?

Here is the website he's taking this from:

Aware of The Godhead...20TH CENTURY ‘DISPENSATIONALISM’ IS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL TO LOST 1ST CENTURY JEWS WHO CRUCIFIED JESUS

 

[Salty]

Salty, I don't want to take the thread too far afield, but the Constitution of the SBC does seem to require some kind of contribution to be deemed "in friendly cooperation" and therefore able to send messengers/have representation at the meeting of the SBC -- particularly point 3 below

Yes, you are corect about voting - but your church can still fellowship with the SBC without giving any contribution. Just checking the annual report of the Bap Con of NY - and a large number of churches gave no contribution to the co-op program.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

When James gave instructions to the gentile churches founded by Paul and others, and those churches accepted those instructions, did they cease to be churches of the Lord Jesus Christ?

IMO, no. Those churches specifically requested guidance from the church at Jerusalem (Acts. 15:2) and were free to accept or not accept said guidance. For me to think otherwise, I'd have to renounce all consults between pastors and other leadership of different churches, which I see as a foolish position.

The 'Reasonable' people are 'Reasoning' with a mind affected by The sin of Adam.
As do I. Does anyone here think they do not?

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes, you are corect about voting - but your church can still fellowship with the SBC without giving any contribution. Just checking the annual report of the Bap Con of NY - and a large number of churches gave no contribution to the co-op program.

By "fellowship with the SBC" do you mean participate with other SBC churches in local, district, and/or state associations/conventions? If so, yes, I understand that. But to me it seems that the way the SBC is structured you technically are not in it if you can't send messengers to it.

 

[canadyjd]

IMO, no. Those churches specifically requested guidance from the church at Jerusalem (Acts. 15:2) and were free to accept or not accept said guidance. For me to think otherwise, I'd have to renounce all consults between pastors and other leadership of different churches, which I see as a foolish position.

The 'Reasonable' people are 'Reasoning' with a mind affected by The sin of Adam.
As do I. Does anyone here think they do not?

Ok, so the question is...

If a church has a central political structure and ceases to be a "church of Jesus Christ", is the membership saved?

 

[Alan Gross]

; "

IMO, no. Those churches specifically requested guidance from the church at Jerusalem (Acts. 15:2) and were free to accept or not accept said guidance. For me to think otherwise, I'd have to renounce all consults between pastors and other leadership of different churches, which I see as a foolish position.

The 'Reasonable' people are 'Reasoning' with a mind affected by The sin of Adam.
As do I. Does anyone here think they do not?

Two or three comments take exception to Br. Carrol's statement regarding The Lord's churches, ( Properly Structured in their Organization, with Authority to Baptise, holding the Lord's Supper, and protecting their Congregation, by church Discipline) saying those church bodies:
cannot 'project' or 'merge' its sovereignty into a 'general body' of any kind,

with objections that the first-century brothers where used by Jesus to EDIFY His churches, as He had Promised(???)

Br. Carrol is saying that for church A and church B to interact with another administrative body, such as a 'Home Office C', or 'Headquarters C', or 'Corporate C', in such a way that relinquishes their RIGHT to SELF-GOVERN, DOES NOT ANOINT that 3rd 'C' entity as 'The Most Holy'.

He was saying that a transfer of The Shekinah Glory that Publically Inaugurated The church that Jesus Built, as a Fulfillment of Daniel 9:24; "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression (The participation of the Apostate Jewish Perversion of Old Testament Christianity in The Crucifixion of Jesus), and to make an end of sins, (The Crucifixion of Jesus; "it is Finished") and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, (The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus) and to seal up the vision and prophecy (end the Instantaneous Miraculous Gifts ONLY Given to The Apostle, The 70, and which Jesus Possessed and the Completion of The Inspirired Writers of The New Testament Canon, ), and to anoint the most Holy." That would be Pentecost.

The Kind of Divinely Organized and Originated church that Jesus Built is not open to capriciously re-constitute their Divine Institution, with Jesus as their Head, into an amalgamation leading their decision making to SOME OTHER BODY, i.e., sending them what choices they may choose from, for their Pastor, or forgetting it, if they think the Home Office won't publish a Commentary, or Sunday School curriculum celebrating 34 Heathen 'Holidays' out of every 52 weeks in a tear, that ALL OF THE CHURCHES OPPOSE.


The 'Reasonable' people are 'Reasoning' with a mind affected by The sin of Adam.

This statement is concerning 'Calvinism' vs 'Arminianism' and their treatment, AS IF ONE OR THE OTHER MAY BE TRUE, GIVING BOTH EQUAL MERIT in A 'DEBATE OF HUMAN, CARNAL, FINITE, FLESHLY REASONING.

How about this. You have seen this, Right? :


1 Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, Who raised Him from the dead), 2 And all the brethren who are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3 Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age {world}, according to the will of God and our Father, 5 To Whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, 7 Which is not another; but there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now seek the favor of {persuade} men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I make known to {certify} you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by {of} me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

'Reasoning' with a sin-cursed mind can result in such bazaar short-sightedness as referring to, JOHN 6:44-ISM, as "CALVINISM".

JOHN 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him"

Why would 'man' classify The Bible under some persons name?

Then, why would others 'claim' a name, of Arminian, under which they place their own name where Jesus' Name is, in:
"John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me."

That's another Gospel.

Adam died.

God Said Adam would Die.

Was Adam "DEAD", in TRESPASSES AND SINS?????

That DEAD LIGHT BULB NEEDS SOMEONE ELSE TO FLICK THE SWITCH AND SUPPLY THE POWER OF GOD TO THEIR SOUL, IF SO.

 

[Alan Gross]

The link in the OP does not work?

Here is the website he's taking this from:

Aware of The Godhead...20TH CENTURY ‘DISPENSATIONALISM’ IS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL TO LOST 1ST CENTURY JEWS WHO CRUCIFIED JESUS

This subject and the source material for it are GLORIOUS.

I look forward to returning to that title, for a continuation of the treatment, expounding: 20TH CENTURY ‘DISPENSATIONALISM’ IS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL TO LOST 1ST CENTURY JEWS WHO CRUCIFIED JESUS, although I dunno where it came from to be referenced on this thread.

 

[Alan Gross]

Ok, so the question is...

If a church has a central political structure and ceases to be a "church of Jesus Christ", is the membership saved?

Great Question:

What, in The Name of God, is the proposed 'Way of Salvation' the membership is presumed to have entrusted The Safe-Keeping of their soul?

 

[Alan Gross]

gonna have to leave this "discussion" my head is hurting after banging it on the wall.

Yeah, you tell me not to 'define' something and how could anyone know what IN HEAVEN'S NAME you are referring to by, 'a Bible Church'?

Do they give one whit, iota, or jot, about this phenomenon, written by one of my dozens of God Fearing teachers?;

"What are those marks or doctrinal peculiarities?

Dr. J. R. Graves in his book "Old Landmarkism" lists seven.

Dr. Clarence Walker, in his introduction to the "Trail of Blood" (page 5) lists seven.

Dr. D. B. Ray, in his "Baptist Succession"
lists seven.

"To these could be added or subtracted, depending on the historian and what his purpose might be.

Where one would list two doctrines under one head the next may list them separately.

I will list eight but treat primarily three in this Notebook.

(1) The church's Head and Founder is Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18; Colossians 1:18).

(2) Its only rule of faith and practice is the Bible (II Timothy 3:15-17).

(3) Its members are to be only saved people (Acts 2:41).

(4) Its government is congregational (Acts 1:23-26 - equality).

(5) Its teaching on salvation is that it is by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).

(6) It has but two ordinances; Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and these are symbolic (Matthew 28:19-20; I Corinthians 11:24).

(7) Its commission is inclusive (Matthew 28:16-20).

(8) It is independent (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 22:21).

"Wherever, in history, in whatever age, you find churches teaching these doctrines, you have a Baptist church, no matter what name it may go by. It matters not if we cannot, from church to church, trace it back to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.

"The succession is there but records may hinder or stop our search.

"What it teaches is the important thing.

"Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church so He guaranteed perpetuity."

8. 5.2: 30 A.D.> Jesus Established HIS CHURCHES During Jesus' Time in His Ministry on Earth - 8. THE GODHEAD in HIS CHURCHES.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

In and of its self, improper ecclesiology does not trump proper soteriology. So, yes members are saved. Otherwise, we'd have to consider all Methodists, Presbyterians, and Salvation Army folks to be unsaved.

If a church has a central political structure and ceases to be a "church of Jesus Christ", is the membership saved?

 

[Salty]

By "fellowship with the SBC" do you mean participate with other SBC churches in local, district, and/or state associations/conventions? If so, yes, I understand that. But to me it seems that the way the SBC is structured you technically are not in it if you can't send messengers to it.

Churches that dont financially support normally do not send voting messengers - but often will come fellowship (which means eating! at the meetings)

 

[canadyjd]

In and of its self, improper ecclesiology does not trump proper soteriology. So, yes members are saved. Otherwise, we'd have to consider all Methodists, Presbyterians, and Salvation Army folks to be unsaved.

Well said. Thanks

 

[Alan Gross]

Well said. Thanks

Of course, 'being a Baptist', or 'in The Lord's churches', or 'Scripturally Baptized', and anything else to do with 'ecclesiology', as Squire Robertsson said.

'Baptists' never broach the subject of 'ecclesiology', prior to the Assurance of an Individual's testimony of their having experienced a Sound soteriology.

Prior to a lost soul being Saved, there is nothing really to discuss about 'ecclesiology', in any way.

Unless the discussion 'ecclesiology' involves the Spiritual Reality that

"we'd have to consider all Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Salvation Army folks to be unsaved", ONLY IF THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE TAUGHT, by those Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians,
and Salvation Army representing the specific 'ecclesiology' they are associated with.