Actually, my post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I am really not upset. I am gigging the IFBers a little bit since they gig us some. Dr. Bob, my favorite moderator is IFB and I respect every doctrine he has spoken so far. I would love to go to his church.
Things may be different in Australia, but typical Baptist doctrine is pretty much the same across the board (to a certain extent, except possibly "freewill" and churches that do not believe in eternal security.)
Although Bapticostals call themselves Baptist, they also call themselves "Bapticostal" because they have accepted the beliefs of another denomination--that of Pentecostalism, thus the name "Bapti-costal".
I would not expect to go to a Pentecostal website and tell them I am a Pentetist because I am a Pentecostal with certain Baptist beliefs that do not agree with the Pentecostal beliefs.
Yes, I agree, I am probably guilty of the same thing, but we are talking apples and oranges. First of all, the IFB has pretty much the exact same beliefs and doctrines as the SBC. We at the SBC have pretty much the same beliefs as the IFB. Where we differ is very minor compared to the major doctrines of Salvation by Grace, Calvanism, church ordinances, etc. Most of our differences lie in the way the associations handle our missionary teams (at least I would suspect). Among some other minor things. I do not believe they think that we are as independent from the convention as we really are.
First, let me explain that I am using some dry humor here and I'm not mad at any IFBer. If I lived where they do I would most likely be IFB. There are simply none in my area. If they gig me, I just absolutely MUST gig them back some or I would be slipping.
So, therefore when I say an IFB says we are all hypocrits in the south, it is a statement regarding the fact that I do not follow my own beliefs. On the other-hand, when a Bapticostal comes in with a belief from another denomination that we Baptists generally disagree with, that is another story. (Ref: Look at the vote on Pentecostal "speaking in tongues" to see the Baptist beliefs.)
This is NOT a matter of tolerance here. Where do you limit tolerance on matters of doctrine? Do we limit those who are Mormon and keep the Baptimons from posting because they believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers and Jesus was once a regular human who made "god status"?
Every Bapticostal that I know who has posted has admitted that they believe in the major three Pentecostal doctrines that we Baptists generally disagree with. Those are:
1) Speaking in unknown tongues, without a reason, except for self-edification. (Babbling) Supposedly speaking in a tongue of angels, or even another language when there is no person there to hear the message. Plus, latter day revelation, illumination, whatever its called.
2) Baptism of the Holy Spirit at a time other than salvation, sometimes as indicated by the "speaking of tongues" as described above.
3) Loss of salvation -- never knowing for sure if we are good enough -- keeping salvation by works not by grace.
These are ALL Pentecostal doctrines, so our limit for tolerance should always exclude those who do not accept Baptist Biblical doctrine. The beliefs above are not Biblical and I will stand against a non-Biblical doctrine ANY-DAY. Just as I don't stand for KJVonlyism.
Pentecostals are trying to take over other denominations and whether we like it or not they are succeeding where people are not grounded in scripture. (Which is our fault.)
Sorry, but this is NOT the same issue.
If we allow Pentecostalism, as I said before maybe we should be tolerant towards Mormonism?
[ December 27, 2004, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
