Inter-Denominational Fellowship

[annsni]

Of course this confession is heretical in points 7 and 8.

7. The Church
The universal Church is the body of which Christ is the head and to which all who are saved belong. It is made visible in local churches, which are congregations of believers who are committed to each other for the worship of God, the preaching of the Word, the administering of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; for pastoral care and discipline, and for evangelism. The unity of the body of Christ is expressed within and between churches by mutual love, care and encouragement. True fellowship between churches exists only where they are faithful to the gospel.
8. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have been given to the churches by Christ as visible signs of the gospel. Baptism is a symbol of union with Christ and entry into his Church but does not impart spiritual life. The Lord’s Supper is a commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice offered once for all and involves no change in the bread and wine. All its blessings are received by faith.

Can you please show me what in the world in heretical in these points?????!!!

 

[The Biblicist]

Can you please show me what in the world in heretical in these points?????!!!

No, I can't show you anything. God will have to do that! I will point out what I believe is heretical though. There is no "universal" church in scriptures. There is no baptism in the Spirit in the sense of immersing one spiritually "in Christ." We are "created in Christ" spiritually by new birth/quickening and all born again people are in one family - the family of God by birth not by any kind of baptism or membership in any kind of church. Those "in Adam" are "in the flesh' because they were "born of the flesh" not baptized into Adam. Those "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" because they were "born of the Spirit" not baptized into Christ.

The church of the New Testament cannot precede its own "foundation" which consists of apostles and then prophets in that order as gifted men that were first and second "set it" it. Hence, the church does not precede the earthly ministry of Christ. They are confusing the church with the family of God and thereby perverting Biblical salvation as their doctrine denies anyone prior to Pentecost was "in Christ" and there is no salvation of any kind for anyone outside of Christ (Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6).

It leaves baptism undefined and thus regards wet people as baptized when they are not. Where there is no true baptism there is no true churches. Find any congregation of unbaptized believers in scripture?

 

[utilyan]

No, that is not what I am saying. They were all equally constituted as churches of like faith and order with each other in the same apostolic faith. We have letters to them because they went astray from their foundations. If they had not repented they would have been disfellowshipped by other churches and their candlestick removed. There was no denominationalism in the New Testament period, only churches of LIKE FAITH AND ORDER that began to go astray but were corrected. The Great Commission is a reproductive cycle of like faith and order - going with the SAME gospel, SAME baptism, SAME teachings Christ commanded.

Its funny you would declare disfellowshipping and candlestick removal.

Being that they were once saved. Eternal Security Card now goes into play.

They were already saved BEFORE.

License to Sin. It doesn't matter who does what. Even error of doctrine, since practicing proper doctrine isn't the deciding factor.


You can play a hand that says they never had it to begin with. But then you have to fumble back this disfellowship and candlestick removal.

In other words you can't kick someone out the church who has never been in the church.


That's like I a Catholic say well I'm kick you out the Catholic church.


Absurd being that the only way IN the church is being BORN AGAIN.


Bottom line. YOU don't even believe in eternal security cause if you did you'd act like it.

Warning other churches they have to do "right" rather then "WRONG".

So now they have to do good works to be legit! What happened to faith alone?

Its like your hitting every branch down the I TOLD YOU SO TREE!

 

[utilyan]

If for a minute I believed that Good Works would be of no benefit towards salvation and that only GOD can provide election/faith to SAVE you once and for all.

I would not bother with none of ya'll.

My day would go like this..............
Lord those folks, I ask of you father please elect them, give them faith, and guide them to salvation, AMEN!


And that is it! That is a ACTUAL belief that only GOD can fix it.



Now someone in a church starts teaching wrong doctrine. If they are already saved doesn't matter, He can't' HELP or HINDER anyone else, because its on God anyways.

And if He's not saved. Well there is nothing I can do! Again we go back to praying to God, Dear Lord can you find it in your heart to fix this guy with election/faith/ect.


Your in your house......It starts to rain.......do you open an umbrella? You think that's ridiculous?


If after clearly understanding that direct divine intervention is required for a person's salvation, understanding of scripture, correction ect..... I would have to be STUPID to appeal to the sinner rather then God concerning his salvation. I would have to be DUMB to believe a church buddy teaching the wrong thing puts anyone in jeopardy.

 

[JonC]

I am up in the air about that one. Is a denial of eternal security a denial of the finished work of Christ on the cross? If so it is a denial of the gospel and therefore not a true church.

But, on the other hand, how much doctrine is necessary for a person to be saved?

I believe that if a person is saved the Holy Spirit will, eventually, lead that person into "all truth" and that includes the bible truth of the eternal security of the believer.

But, again, where do we draw the line? I would not lead my church into fellowship with a church that preached a defective gospel that says "you have to do something."

But that's just me.

To me a denial of the eternal security of the believer is a denial of the finished work of Christ on the Cross. It is also the advancement of a works-based salvation (God gets you there but you have to work to stay there). That is why I am not a Freewill Baptist.

But at the same time I think I have to keep in mind that many (if not most) of those who hold to free-will convictions do not arrive at what would be my conclusion. I think that they do not follow their doctrine to its logical end….which may just be their saving grace.

By fellowship I do not, BTW, mean accepting or sitting under their teachings. But I do mean worship. I mean fellowship in Christ despite what would divide in terms of doctrine (fellowship as churches under the gospel – the same “baptism” – without compromising those divisions that form doctrinal bounds and establish a distinctiveness between the churches). For example, I have friends in a southern gospel group (they are Nazarene). I strongly disagree with their doctrine, but they are believers. I went to a Baptist church (one that didn’t hold the same soteriological views as my church) to worship with them in song. I have no problem worshipping my Father alongside his other children even when we disagree in doctrine. We unite in Christ, in the gospel. This is what I mean by fellowship – again, not sharing doctrine but coming together to glorify God instead of tearing at one another in an attempt to judge the servant of Another.

 

[JonC]

No, I can't show you anything. God will have to do that!

That reminds me of a story. A great flood came and a man was trapped on the top of his roof, praying to God for deliverance. A boat came along and the man refused…..

 

[JonC]

That is precisely why I left the SBC because you can find every false doctrine under the sun within it.

That's because the Southern Baptist Convention is a convention of local autonomous churches. I suspect that you actually never let the SBC because churches, not individuals, form the convention. But I do understand. I also wish, sometimes, for a governing Church authority to police the doctrine of local churches, and even to the "convention" to a tighter standard. But then I remember that we are Baptist and that was the role of the "Church" in Rome. Still, I am not sure that the pattern of governance of the early church counsels is such a bad idea. I just think it'd lead to corruption in the end (and again, it wouldn't really be "Baptist").

 

[The Biblicist]

That reminds me of a story. A great flood came and a man was trapped on the top of his roof, praying to God for deliverance. A boat came along and the man refused…..

You know that story can be applied in reverse as well.

 

[The Biblicist]

That's because the Southern Baptist Convention is a convention of local autonomous churches. I suspect that you actually never let the SBC because churches, not individuals, form the convention. But I do understand. I also wish, sometimes, for a governing Church authority to police the doctrine of local churches, and even to the "convention" to a tighter standard. But then I remember that we are Baptist and that was the role of the "Church" in Rome. Still, I am not sure that the pattern of governance of the early church counsels is such a bad idea. I just think it'd lead to corruption in the end (and again, it wouldn't really be "Baptist").

I worked in the upper levels of the SBC rubbing shoulders with the leadership and saw the politics first hand. In the lower levels of what you call "autonomous" churches I saw the power plays of area missionaries upon congregations first hand. I was called to the ministry in an SBC church, married an SBC girl, went to an SBC Seminary and so I understand the SBC fairly well.

 

[JonC]

I worked in the upper levels of the SBC rubbing shoulders with the leadership and saw the politics first hand. In the lower levels of what you call "autonomous" churches I saw the power plays of area missionaries upon congregations first hand. I was called to the ministry in an SBC church, married an SBC girl, went to an SBC Seminary and so I understand the SBC fairly well.

My church is a Southern Baptist church. In what ways do you believe the SBC exerts authority over our church?

 

[The Biblicist]

And I belonged to a SBC that up and decided not to be a SBC. Guess what. No one came after them. No one threatened them, objected to their decision, or even called to ask them to reconsider. Want to know why? The church was not under the authority of the SBC.

I am now at another SBC church. In what ways do you believe the SBC exerts authority over our church?

I know nothing about your particular church. I do know about the particular church I was a member in, and when we were without a Pastor, they supplied us an interim pastor that the majority of the church liked and was considering to call. However, that displeased the area missionary who directly inferred by contacting certain members and turned them against the man because he was a sickly man who could not mow the laws and he read his sermons. I and another man of the church confronted the area missionary and asked him to butt out of our businesss but he did not. It discourged some members in somuch that some left. The structure of the SBC is unbiblical as far as I am concerned and lends to concentrating too much power in too few of people. I was part of the SBC between 1974-1982.

 

[The Biblicist]

But at the same time I think I have to keep in mind that many (if not most) of those who hold to free-will convictions do not arrive at what would be my conclusion. I think that they do not follow their doctrine to its logical end….which may just be their saving grace..

Do you deal with religions according to how they arrive at their conclusions or according to what you know the bible clearly teaches? Is the bible or sincerity and/or ignorance the basis for defining error? It seems that some on this forum think they should not treat error as error because people are either sincere in their error or sincere in arriving at the error.

 

[The Biblicist]

By fellowship I do not, BTW, mean accepting or sitting under their teachings.

Oh so you don't attend their church servies or allow them to preach in your pulpit as that is sitting under their teachings.

But I do mean worship.

Preaching and teaching is not worship? Are the songs void of Bibical teaching?

I mean fellowship in Christ despite what would divide in terms of doctrine (fellowship as churches under the gospel – the same “baptism”

What do you mean by "the same baptism"???? What baptism are you speaking about?

For example, I have friends in a southern gospel group (they are Nazarene).

So it is not church services you attend, just special singing?

 

[JonC]

I know nothing about your particular church. I do know about the particular church I was a member in, and when we were without a Pastor, they supplied us an interim pastor that the majority of the church liked and was considering to call. However, that displeased the area missionary who directly inferred by contacting certain members and turned them against the man because he was a sickly man who could not mow the laws and he read his sermons. I and another man of the church confronted the area missionary and asked him to butt out of our businesss but he did not. It discourged some members in somuch that some left. The structure of the SBC is unbiblical as far as I am concerned and lends to concentrating too much power in too few of people. I was part of the SBC between 1974-1982.

While I disagree that the structure of the SBC is unbiblical (the SBC is neither a church or a governing authority), I have never been its biggest advocate. So much of its effort seems geared to making itself vital to the operation of the local church. I also hate....no, too strong a word.....abhor....no, still strong....dislike Lifeway. I also wonder about the stewardship of maintaining a couple of blocks of downtown Nashville.

My church is a member of the SBC. We contribute to the cooperative program and agree with the BF&M. Our stronger associstion, however, is the local Baptist association (which includes SBC, Missionary, and Freewill Baptist churches).

 

[The Biblicist]

While I disagree that the structure of the SBC is unbiblical (the SBC is neither a church or a governing authority), I have never been its biggest advocate. So much of its effort seems geared to making itself vital to the operation of the local church. I also hate....no, too strong a word.....abhor....no, still strong....dislike Lifeway. I also wonder about the stewardship of maintaining a couple of blocks of downtown Nashville.

My church is a member of the SBC. We contribute to the cooperative program and agree with the BF&M. Our stronger associstion, however, is the local Baptist association (which includes SBC, Missionary, and Freewill Baptist churches).

In the New Testament each congregation directly handled their own money through their own chosen representative freely cooperating with other churches who directly handled their own finances apart from any parachurch organization without any president, secretary, etc. No one can claim the position of an apostle nor can any organization. NT churches had DIRECT instead of INDIRECT control over their own finances all the way to the intended recipient.

 

[JonC]

Oh so you don't attend their church servies or allow them to preach in your pulpit as that is sitting under their teachings.



Preaching and teaching is not worship?

No, I wouldn’t attend their church services as we differ in doctrine. That does not mean that I think they are a “false church”, but it does mean that I believe they have errors in their interpretations of Scripture.

Paul tells us that everything we do is worship and should glorify our Father. This includes preaching and teaching. What I said was that I have and will worship with these brothers in Christ, excluding sitting under their teachings.

What do you mean by "the same baptism"???? What baptism are you speaking about?

Baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27), into His death (Romans 6:1-4). The baptism for which water baptism is a symbol. Paul’s focus is typically not on water baptism itself but the thing baptism represents.

So it is not church services you attend, just special singing?

It is not church services. There is a reason we have separate churches and denominations. As TCassidy pointed out, there is a sense by which doctrine divides. I’m talking about inter-denominational fellowship, not inter-denominational inclusiveness.

 

[JonC]

In the New Testament each congregation directly handled their own money through their own chosen representative freely cooperating with other churches who directly handled their own finances apart from any parachurch organization without any president, secretary, etc. No one can claim the position of an apostle nor can any organization. NT churches had DIRECT instead of INDIRECT control over their own finances all the way to the intended recipient.

Except what Paul collected.

You are making assumptions here, brother. In the New Testament we know that money was collected for purposes beyond itself. We know that counsels met and sat in an authority over individual churches. But we also had apostles at that time and the NT was being written. You are guessing that church corporation in evangelistic efforts as practiced in conventions would be something frowned upon in Scripture.

Looking to Scripture to authorize such a practice is, BTW, another mark of the CoC (although they are very hypocritical about that one).

 

[JonC]

Do you deal with religions according to how they arrive at their conclusions or according to what you know the bible clearly teaches? Is the bible or sincerity and/or ignorance the basis for defining error? It seems that some on this forum think they should not treat error as error because people are either sincere in their error or sincere in arriving at the error.

I deal with other churches (who teach error yet hold to the gospel of Jesus Christ) on the basis of the gospel and the principle that we are not to judge the servant of Another. It is not up to me to talk the freewill Baptist church into changing their doctrine. It is up to me to guard my church against error. But if the church in question believes the gospel of Jesus Christ, then it is up to me to love them as if that love is directed towards Christ – because it is. (Ever wonder why Jesus asked Saul – “why are you persecuting me?”….I suspect many well meaning Christians will be asked the same).

 

[JonC]

In the New Testament each congregation directly handled their own money through their own chosen representative freely cooperating with other churches who directly handled their own finances apart from any parachurch organization without any president, secretary, etc. No one can claim the position of an apostle nor can any organization. NT churches had DIRECT instead of INDIRECT control over their own finances all the way to the intended recipient.

So since we can't directly hand our money to an apostle our handing our money through our own chosen representative freely cooperating with other churches to a convention is somehow unbiblical. Yea, right. And I'm selling some great beach front property in AZ, if you're interested.

You are imposing your own traditions and preferences on others here, brother, not Scripture.

 

[utilyan]

I know nothing about your particular church. I do know about the particular church I was a member in, and when we were without a Pastor, they supplied us an interim pastor that the majority of the church liked and was considering to call. However, that displeased the area missionary who directly inferred by contacting certain members and turned them against the man because he was a sickly man who could not mow the laws and he read his sermons. I and another man of the church confronted the area missionary and asked him to butt out of our businesss but he did not. It discourged some members in somuch that some left. The structure of the SBC is unbiblical as far as I am concerned and lends to concentrating too much power in too few of people. I was part of the SBC between 1974-1982.

So you got born again 1983? Born Again TAKE 2 They are a false religion and no one in there is eternally secure. You say they are unbiblical.

Cause Pope Bib didn't like his bishop's authority.


Hey SBC is wrong, TOLD YOU SO. Back then you would have swore right, I'm ready to tell you told you so AGAIN.

All we got to do is wait till things don't go your way again, in whatever you call it now faith.

You'll be knifing them back too. Saying no they not biblical, no they not eternally secure, no they not like me. I, I ,I, ME , ME, ME.