Ecclesia vs. Hetaeria

[gb93433]

He used the word ekklesia "assembly" in a generic way, the same way that he used it in Matthew 18

I ask you the same question: Which assembly was Christ speaking about when he used the word "assemby" twice in one verse, the verse Matthew 18:17?
Was it the assembly at Corinth? at Ephesus? at Philippi? at Jerusalem? Which one?

The word assembly (used in the singular) is used to represent all assemblies. Jesus is giving instruction on how to conduct "church" discipline, or discipline within the local assembly.


Jesus said: "I will build my assembly and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
It is a generic word just as it is used in Matthew 18:17.

There is more than one word used for assembly.

The early Christians called their meeting places synagogues. In James 2:2 the word is used there. Later they called their meetings places churches.

Every local church has Christ as its foundation. He is the Rock, the chief cornerstone, the foundation upon which the local church rests. Without Christ there is no local church. All churches which deny Christ, his deity, have a false view of Christ, are not a church at all. Christ must be the foundation.

Rev. 2 & 3 would certainly address that issue.

If Christ isn't the foundation, you can call yourself a church but it won't make a difference no matter what you say.

I think you are kidding yourself to think they do not make any difference. People in churches listen to them and are deceived. They tend to deceive otehr around them too.

False teachers do make a difference. They misrepresent the true church. That is the reason the church must take a stance against them. Non-Christians see them as being part of the same group of people.

False teachers are within and outside of churches. People are watching them on TV such as TBN.

 

[gb93433]

Yes, churches can be seen. Christ died for people. People are not invisible; thank the Lord. When you look into the mirror what do you see? Is it a member of the invisible church? Is he invisible? Is he a member of the Universal assembly? Where does this universal assembly assemble?

A single missionary in a country where it is illegal to be a Christian does not form an assembly but he is a part of the universal church. He is one person alone but fellowshiping with God in his journey to win people to Christ. Out of that hopefully comes a local assembly. Sometimes through persecution their local assembly scatters into other countries. While their local church vanishes they are still a part of the universal assembly of believers.

I tell you what. If you attend a church whose deacons and pastor don't care about the sheep of the flock, then get out of that church right away and find a good Bible-believing church that does. We have pastors and deacons that care. They keep in contact with the members of the church. They know who is sick; who has special needs, etc. We are close to one another, praying for one another. Our church is our family (just over one hundred). We know each other and pray and help each other. No one is just a number on a roll, a tax number, an entity on a visitors card, etc. We care for each other.

Years ago I was told by an older man that if you want to know how much business a company is doing go out back and look to see how many are handling materials that is being delivered to customers. That tells one about the number of customers who are doing business with the company.

There are a lot of sick churches today who would make the same claim as you just did. They claim to believe and teach the Bible. They are conservative in doctrine and make as much impact as atheists because they are not doers of the word. There are local assemblies wearing out each others backs by their commendation of each other telling each other how good they are in doing the "right thing" and being a Baptist Church. The real issue is, how many of those 100 are making disciples?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Originally Posted by DHK
He used the word ekklesia "assembly" in a generic way, the same way that he used it in Matthew 18

I ask you the same question: Which assembly was Christ speaking about when he used the word "assemby" twice in one verse, the verse Matthew 18:17?
Was it the assembly at Corinth? at Ephesus? at Philippi? at Jerusalem? Which one?

The word assembly (used in the singular) is used to represent all assemblies. Jesus is giving instruction on how to conduct "church" discipline, or discipline within the local assembly.


Jesus said: "I will build my assembly and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
It is a generic word just as it is used in Matthew 18:17.

Are you seriously insinuating that Jesus meant that Peter's statement would apply only to the local Church in Jersualem? This verse is the best case for a universal church out of the scriptures. You may argue (I may agree with you) that there are many brothers and sister that are all over the world that are our brothers and sisters united in christ (universal church not denomination?) But universal still. However, I don't think you actually come from that perspective. You believe there is not universiality outside the local church. I don't think you can reconcile that with the scripture you quoted. No basis for it. The Assembly there is Christ assemblie which contains all local churches. You may not agree with the early church fathers (many issues there) but one thing is certain. They all felt part of each other universally. You start getting disenction later in church history. The earliest I see is with Hippolytus and his anger at the then current bishop of Rome. (I believe he felt he should have become bishop instead.).

 

[Tom Butler]

A single missionary in a country where it is illegal to be a Christian does not form an assembly but he is a part of the universal church. He is one person alone but fellowshiping with God in his journey to win people to Christ. Out of that hopefully comes a local assembly. Sometimes through persecution their local assembly scatters into other countries. While their local church vanishes they are still a part of the universal assembly of believers.

I think if you will check around, you will find that in those countries where Christianity is illegal, assembling is the rule rather than the exception. It may be in secret, but assembling nontheless.

From this website:http://am.novopress.info/?p=1624

The threat of death hangs over the heads of all Afghan Christians, of whom US-based groups say there may be as many as 10,000, meeting secretly in houses for prayer and bible study, and living in fear of their lives. Under Afghanistan’s strict Islamic law conversion to another religion is a capital offense and Muslim leaders have been calling for Rahman’s execution and threatening to kill him.

From this website: http://www.backtojerusalem.com

A national missionary visited an area of Myanmar so hostile to Christianity that many believed it could never be openly evangelized, even by an itinerant missionary. He was surprised to discover small groups of Christians, including some former Buddhist monks, who had come to Christ through gospel radio broadcasts. The believers had been meeting secretly with no guidance from a mature Christian. Thrilled to finally meet someone who could disciple and teach them, they begged the missionary to return to their town as often as possible.

Google "Christians Meeting Secretly" and you'll get a bunch of similar hits.

Again, assembling is the rule, not the exception.

 

[DHK]

DHK,


And YOU are calling ME.......CONFUSED?????

I pray that God helps you with what troubles you.

Yes you are very confused.
The Great Commission, though applicable to all Christians, was first given to the 12 apostles, the foundation of the first local church. From that time onward it has been the duty and the purpose of every local church to carry out the Great Commission. That is indeed the very purpose of its existence. It is why God has established the local church in this day and age. To ignore that is to ignore God.

When believers go forth from the local church they go forth into a mission field telling others about Jesus Christ.
When believers go forth from the local church they go forth into various ministries that God has given them.

You are confused because no one can go forth from a non-existent universal church into any ministry.

I have challenged you many times and you come up empty. Every post of mine I have backed up with Scripture. You have replied with ranting opiniion. And concluded in this last one with pity--"I feel sory for you."

Yes, I truly do feel sorry for you because you are rejecting Biblical truth and will one day stand before God and give account of yourself. It is a serious thing to reject truth once exposed to it. If you have the truth you would be able to demonstrate the truth through Scripture. But you can't

 

[DHK]

A single missionary in a country where it is illegal to be a Christian does not form an assembly but he is a part of the universal church. He is one person alone but fellowshiping with God in his journey to win people to Christ. Out of that hopefully comes a local assembly. Sometimes through persecution their local assembly scatters into other countries. While their local church vanishes they are still a part of the universal assembly of believers.

And you know this how? I have yet to hear a Biblical or logical explanation of how an assembly can be universal. There is no logical sense in that.
Where do you get your missionary information from. You are badly misinformed. There are Christians all over this world, in every nation, that "assemble" together as "underground" churches. Some of them assemble openly realizing the full impact of the persecution that they will bring upon themselves. But they are willing to suffer for Christ.
What did Peter say:'

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
--Good thing they didn't listen to you. They listened to God, and preached the gospel anyway.

Oh, and about those missionaries. Check my profile. I am one of them. I go to some of those nations where it is illegal to preach the gospel openly. I gather together with those believers who regularly come under attack from the government and from others. But that is all the information that I can give you.
Before posting such information learn a little more about missions.

Years ago I was told by an older man that if you want to know how much business a company is doing go out back and look to see how many are handling materials that is being delivered to customers. That tells one about the number of customers who are doing business with the company.

And your point?

There are a lot of sick churches today who would make the same claim as you just did. They claim to believe and teach the Bible. They are conservative in doctrine and make as much impact as atheists because they are not doers of the word. There are local assemblies wearing out each others backs by their commendation of each other telling each other how good they are in doing the "right thing" and being a Baptist Church. The real issue is, how many of those 100 are making disciples?

That is quite true. Not all churches are good churches. I have been saying that all along. I have been encouraging people to find a good "Bible-believing" local church that is sound both in faith and in "practice." One needs to practice what they preach.

 

[Tom Butler]

There is an aspect of our discussion that we have not touched on, and that is the question of accountability. To whom are we accountable for the things we do in Jesus' name?

To whom are you, who say you act as members of the "Universal Church, accountable. If it is to God, how does that work? How does God communicate to you if he is pleased with you or not? How does God let you know if you get it wrong? To whom do you report what you have done?

We have a number of instances in the scriptures which demonstrate either a local church sending out missionaries, holding people accountable, or people reporting to a local church.

When the Judaizers sought to require Gentile converts to be circumsized, Paul and Barnabas debated with them. They they decided to take this issue to a council at Jerusalem, made up of leaders of the congregation there. After hearing Peter and others, James stated his opinion. Acts 15:22 "It pleased the apostles and elders and the whole church to send chosen men of their own company with Paul and Barnabas...to Antioch.

In Acts 8, after Philip reported conversions there, Peter and John went down from the Jerusalem church to verify the report. The personally saw the Holy Spirit fall on the Samaritan believers. This is the church requiring accountability.

In Acts 10, recording Peter's visit to Cornelius, relates that the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and those gathered at his home. Even then, Peter polled the delegation who came with him. In essence he asked them, "do any of you oppose baptizing these folks, since they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?' Even Peter sought confirmation of what he believed had happened.

In Acts 13, the Antioch congregation gave their approval to the Holy Spirit's command to separate them out for a missionary journey. They laid hands on them and sent them off. In Acts 14:27, they returned to Antioch and gave an account of "all that God had done with them."

Paul, writing in I Corinthians 5, ripped the congregation for putting up with a man who was having an affair. He instructed the church to hold him accountable by separating him from their fellowship.

We can see accoutability at work in local congregations. I don't understand how it works in the "Unviersal Church."

Actually, I do understand. There is no accountability because there is no Universal Church.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Tom Butler,

"There is an aspect of our discussion that we have not touched on, and that is the question of accountability. To whom are we accountable for the things we do in Jesus' name?"

Almighty God.

"To whom are you, who say you act as members of the "Universal Church, accountable."

Almighty God.

"If it is to God, how does that work?"

You mean you ...dont know???

"How does God communicate to you if he is pleased with you or not?"

Seriously. Do you really and truly have no experience of God, your heavenly Father, communicating to you His love, and care for you? His approval when you are in His will? His correction when you arent?

"How does God let you know if you get it wrong?"

1) Through the scriptures, and His enlightening and annointing of them in giving direction.

2) And in addition, that unmistakable *voice* of His that we come to know intimately.

Christ...

"My sheep hear my voice, they know it, and the voice of a stranger they will not follow"

"To whom do you report what you have done?"

My heavenly Father. I talk to Him and He talks back.

"We have a number of instances in the scriptures which demonstrate either a local church sending out missionaries, holding people accountable, or people reporting to a local church."

We are ultimetly accountable to Almighty God.

Pastors, etc, are undershepherds...not Christ. Jesus Christ is the "Shepherd" we are to follow.

Pastors, elders etc are to *serve* the flock under their care, and never "Lord it over" them, and take Christs place. Any fellowship where the Pastor is the "authority" to whom everyone is "accountable" is a fellowship where the Pastor is out of order, and that fellowship is probably filled with joyless christians being legalistically controlled and oppressed.

That is "churchianity" at its worst...as opposed to "Christianity"

Pastors who understand their role as a servant to the flock, will be greatly respected...as opposed to feared...by those under his care and guidance.

By the way, when you say...

""To whom are you, who say you act as members of the "Universal Church, accountable"

....I hope you understand that I am not only a member of Gods Universal Church, but I am also plugged into an evangelical local fellowship where we gather regularly. We have an undershepherd (Pastor) who is a blessing....but he never "lords it over" us. We respect him and appreciate his guidance. But he, as all pastors should, understands who we are accountable to, and its not him.



:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

Tom Butler,
Almighty God

Yes, you are accountable to Almighty God, just as Jim Jones was. The element that he used in his "Lord's Supper" was Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. You know what the result was. He was sent out by the Universal Church, wasn't he? Aren't you glad that he was a member or YOUR church. Not mine!
Such a person would never have been a member of our local church.
They must give their testimony of salvation, and why they want to be baptized first. The pastor (or some other leader in the church) meets with them and has already discipled them for sometime before that even happens. When that person is baptized and becomes a member of our local church we know what he believes and why. There are no "Jimmy Joneses" in our church; praise the Lord.
Too bad about yours.

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK,

"Yes, you are accountable to Almighty God, just as Jim Jones was. The element that he used in his "Lord's Supper" was Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. You know what the result was. He was sent out by the Universal Church, wasn't he?"

:laugh:


DHK, I'm new here, I dont know you that well, but is this level of confusion something that comes on you just...every ONCE in a while?....or do you STAY this way????


:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

DHK,




:laugh:


DHK, I'm new here, I dont know you that well, but is this level of confusion something that comes on you just...every ONCE in a while?....or do you STAY this way????

Wherein lies your confusion. Ask, And I will explain it to you.
Do you not know who Jim Jones is?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Wherein lies your confusion. Ask, And I will explain it to you.
Do you not know who Jim Jones is?

What does Jim Jones have to do with a concept of the Universality of the Christian church? It sounds like it is a purposeful slam. BTW I read Carroll's booklet "Trail of Blood" I do not want to be associated with sects he claims baptist come from such as the Montanist, Paulicans, Donatist, Cathare, ect... Very serious issues if that is true. He americanizes (my word) christian history! I'm sure there are a lot of great principles that US got from the bible but I would not go as far as he. He makes a lot of errors.

Also I would like to know what John Fox meant when he said

"Which prophecy of Christ we see wonderfully to be verified, insomuch that the whole course of the Church to this day may seem nothing else but a verifying of the said prophecy. First, that Christ hath set up a Church, needeth no declaration. Secondly, what force of princes, kings, monarchs, governors, and rulers of this world, with their subjects, publicly, and privately, with all their strength and cunning, have bent themselves against this Church! And, thirdly, how the said Church , all this notwithtanding, hath yet endured and holden its own!"

It seems this great protestant writer beleived in a unified Church. Good friends of William Tyndale I've heard.

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK,

"Do you not know who Jim Jones is?"

:laugh: :laugh:


Ah...yes, I know all about Jim Jones.

:thumbs:



:godisgood:

 

[Tom Butler]

Seriously. Do you really and truly have no experience of God, your heavenly Father, communicating to you His love, and care for you? His approval when you are in His will? His correction when you arent?

1) Through the scriptures, and His enlightening and annointing of them in giving direction.

2) And in addition, that unmistakable *voice* of His that we come to know intimately.

My heavenly father has communicated his love to me through his revealed scriptures. I become aware of his approval or disapproval when I measure what I do or say against scripture. But I have never heard his voice.

My heavenly Father. I talk to Him and He talks back.

In words you can hear?

We are ultimetly accountable to Almighty God.

Absolutely correct.

Pastors, etc, are undershepherds...not Christ. Jesus Christ is the "Shepherd" we are to follow.

Pastors, elders etc are to *serve* the flock under their care, and never "Lord it over" them, and take Christs place. Any fellowship where the Pastor is the "authority" to whom everyone is "accountable" is a fellowship where the Pastor is out of order, and that fellowship is probably filled with joyless christians being legalistically controlled and oppressed.

That is "churchianity" at its worst...as opposed to "Christianity"

Pastors who understand their role as a servant to the flock, will be greatly respected...as opposed to feared...by those under his care and guidance.

I am not talking about accountability to my pastor in this case. I am talking about accountability to my church, to whose authority I am submitted.


.

I hope you understand that I am not only a member of Gods Universal Church, but I am also plugged into an evangelical local fellowship where we gather regularly. We have an undershepherd (Pastor) who is a blessing....but he never "lords it over" us. We respect him and appreciate his guidance. But he, as all pastors should, understands who we are accountable to, and its not him.

:godisgood:

My pastor doesn't lord it over us, either. But the Holy Spirit has set him over us as an elder and overseer, and I honor him. If I get involved in flagrant sin, if I cause division in the congregation, both he and the congregation have every right, yea even the obligation to call me to account. Paul ripped the church at Corinth for that very failure to call a member to account.

 

[DHK]

What does Jim Jones have to do with a concept of the Universality of the Christian church? It sounds like it is a purposeful slam.

Of course it is a purposeful slam. But you are the one promoting the universal church, of which ALL Christians--good and bad--are members. There is not accountability in a so-called universal church. The person may be just as wicked as Jim Jones and be a part of the Universal Church. Who is to reign him in. Who does he give account to? Your answer is "Almighty God." In one sense that is true. We will all give account of ourselves before God.

But on this earth also we are accountable. That is one of the purposes of the local church. Paul went on 3 missionary journeys. Each time he left from the church at Antioch and each time he returned to the church at Antioch. One might say that that church was his sending church, his home church. Acts 13:1-4 describes how the church of Antioch sent Paul and Barnabus out as missionaries. The local church had the authority to do so. Even Paul was accountable to the local church.

Jim Jones? Who was he accountable? and therefore the result--chaos! BTW, Jim Jones did claim to be a Christian, a member of the Universal Church. But then so does every one else under the sun, each one having strange and sometimes evil doctrines. There is no unity nor will there ever in any such Universal Church. It is impossible.

BTW I read Carroll's booklet "Trail of Blood" I do not want to be associated with sects he claims baptist come from such as the Montanist, Paulicans, Donatist, Cathare, ect... Very serious issues if that is true. He americanizes (my word) christian history! I'm sure there are a lot of great principles that US got from the bible but I would not go as far as he. He makes a lot of errors.

This is a red herring to be saved for the Baptist history forum. It sounds like you haven't done much serious study on them any way. I would recommend you study "A History of the Baptists" 2 Vol. by Thomas Armitage. You will find much more unbiased information there, then with the biased Catholic-influenced history books people are prone to read.

Also I would like to know what John Fox meant when he said

It seems this great protestant writer beleived in a unified Church. Good friends of William Tyndale I've heard.

I have no idea. I never conversed with the man. Nor do I find his quote germane to this conversation. I really don't care what one stranger says or what his opinion may be. My question is: What saith the Lord? That is what is important.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thinkingstuff:
"Unity was what Jesus wanted."

GE:
Had the Church not stolen the prerogative of the Apostolic Church to baptise with water, how much division and strife would there today have been in the Church? I suggest nearly nothing.

 

[Tom Butler]

Thinkingstuff:
"Unity was what Jesus wanted."

GE:
Had the Church not stolen the prerogative of the Apostolic Church to baptise with water, how much division and strife would there today have been in the Church? I suggest nearly nothing.

I think you understand that your view of baptism is way out of the meanstream. Being out of the mainstream doesn't make it wrong. But it is wrong. I see no scriptural foundation for it, but if you'd like to make a detailed scriptural defense of it, I'd really be interested in reading it. Maybe a separate thread?

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK,

You said earlier in this thread...

"The local assembly is a divinely ordained institution which the Lord Jesus gave His life for."

Ummm...no.

The Lord Jesus Christ gave His life to open the door of salvation for every human being who embraces Him for salvation through faith alone.

"It is not intermediate. It is the only part in this dispensation that God has his hand of blessing upon."

It stuns the mind.

This, along with so many other examples on this thread, is such a great example of the damage that churchianity can do when it is embraced.

(not saying you are lost, of course. Just very much confused)



:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

DHK,

You said earlier in this thread...



Ummm...no.

The Lord Jesus Christ gave His life to open the door of salvation for every human being who embraces Him for salvation through faith alone.



It stuns the mind.

This, along with so many other examples on this thread, is such a great example of the damage that churchianity can do when it is embraced.

(not saying you are lost, of course. Just very much confused)

Answer me truthfully.
You call yourself a Baptist (according to your profile).
Nothing in this post of yours indicates that you are Baptist.
So what exactly are you. If you are not Baptist, what is your background. It is not Baptistic. You are far from a Baptist background, in those things which you are posting.

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK,

"Answer me truthfully.
You call yourself a Baptist (according to your profile).
Nothing in this post of yours indicates that you are Baptist."

Are you accusing me of lying, DHK?

I put "Baptist" in my my profile because THAT IS THE TRUTH.

I even recorded my home church in my profile...FREEDOM BAPTIST CHURCH

Would you like me to give you the home phone # of my pastor?

Why do I attend a Baptist Church?

Among many other things, I agree with them on.....

1) They believe in justification by faith alone
2) They believe in scriptures alone.
3) They believe in the autonomy of the local church.
4) They believe in "soul liberty"

Do you believe in the BAPTIST doctrine of "soul liberty", that is an exceedingly common belief in Baptist churches, DHK?

Here is a statement from the website of 1st Baptist Church, of Boston Mass....

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' " So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

So, our emphasis on "soul liberty" implies the need for every individual to make his or her own decision on religious matters, symbolized in our expression of believer's baptism, which a believer chooses as a public symbol of personal commitment. Baptists have at the same time stood firm, suffered loss, and been punished for this emphasis on the rights of others to be what they choose to be, which includes the right to be different. Such a notion is especially true at The First Baptist Church of Boston, as our history explains."

How dare you say I am not a Baptist.

In every fellowship I have ever been a part of, Baptist or other groups, there has been great diversity regarding peoples convictions on non-essentials. Some are post-trib, some pre-trib. Some lean towards calvinism, some towards arminianism. Some are more "fundalmentalists" than others, while others more moderate. On and on it goes.

Its normal, its healthy, and its very common. And in every Baptist church I have ever been a part of, people extended GRACE to others and let them have their convictions, even though they are different than their own.

And then there is YOU.

Here YOU are, engaging a BAPTIST who sees some non-foundational things different them YOU do, and you immedietly call into question there honesty and attempt to publically slander their integrity. You should be ashamed of yourself, brother.

"So what exactly are you."

I am a christian.

A child of the living God. Blood bought and Holy Spirit secured.

Have been for almost 30 years. I attend a Baptist Church, and have attended a couple of other Baptist churchs through the years.

But I prefer to align myself with Christ, and with all other christians, rather than pigeon hole myself to a group that only has relevance here on earth. There will me NO denominations in heaven. No Baptists, nor any other earthly denomination.

"If you are not Baptist, what is your background. It is not Baptistic.

Is that right.

Well, do you know what...I feel like asking you the same thing.

What is YOUR background. It sure doesnt seem Baptistic.

I have been associated with Baptist churches the majority of my years as a christian, and yet I have NEVER encountered ANY Baptist that is ANYWHERE NEAR as legalistic, judgmental, hard hearted, and closed minded as you are.

YOU are the depository of TRUTH, and anyone who sees some non-foundational things differently than you is OBVIOUSLY in error, lying, dishonest, and probably part of a cult.

"You are far from a Baptist background, in those things which you are posting."

Really? I know multitudes of "card carrying" Baptists who would agree with me "hook, line, and sinker"

YOU are far from a Baptist, regarding the things YOU have posted. You are exceedingly narrow minded, while 99% of all the Baptists I have encounted through the years understand the Baptist distinctive of "soul liberty", which you seem to be completly oblivious regarding.

The main thing we have disagreed on is the "Universal Church" concept, and THAT is a concept that Baptists are generally fine with!

But not you. So, OF COURSE you are right, and all of us other Baptists are decieved and lying about being a Baptists.

Whew. In the words of Sherriff Andy Taylor....You beat all I've ever seen.

I just wonder exactly what Baptist group YOU are a part of, brother?

Is it some small, fringe ultra-legalistic fundamentalist Baptist group somewhere back in the woods that is so far deep into the "fundamentalist" camp that they make Jerry Falwell look like a San Francisco gay marrying Episcopal pastor?

I appreciate you CONCERN for my denominational affiliation, DHK.

God knows my heart...and fortunetly he knows yours as well.



:godisgood: