RE: was this a "real" Baptist church?

Having been an instructor (with the Air Force) at one time myself, I understand completely "crop failure." We actually had a sine wave representing our classes; we'd have a really bad one, and then they'd build up to a really good one, then down to another really bad one. It was weird.

But all that aside, does everyone understand the original subject of this thread now? And what Free2Understand was trying to say?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by free2know:
I have a bible, actually a couple of different versions, and God gave me a mind. I know what sin is and I know what excessive demeaning control is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Num 16:3, And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?

Don't need a pastor, do you?

--B C

 

Brian,

Actually that very example is one that abusive spiritual leaders will use to "prove" that God is on their side and that any questioning of their practices or teaching is rebellion akin to the Israelites rebellion against Moses and punishable by the most severe means. However, there is no preacher or pastor on this earth whom God has given the type or position of authority that Moses had. Moses was not only the leader of a congregation of believers, he was the leader of a nation, he held literal judicial authority in every area over the nation. No pastor on earth has that right or level of authority.

That is another example of twisting Scripture. The NT says that we are responsible for weighing what we're taught against the Word and we are to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing, earnestly contending for the faith. The Berean believers were commended for taking what Paul himself taught them to the Word for confirmation. These abusive leaders will not tolerate anyone comparing their teaching to the Word and concluding that they are wrong.

-- Danette

 

Danette,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Actually that very example is one that abusive spiritual leaders will use to "prove" that God is on their side and that any questioning of their practices or teaching is rebellion akin to the Israelites rebellion against Moses and punishable by the most severe means.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, ma'am. I understand that. However, it is also a clear example of people saying, "I don't want or need the authority God has placed in my life. I'm just as spiritual as he is, so thpppppt!"

The principle is too clear too lay aside - people get disgruntled with a pastor (for right or wrong reasons) and deal with it the wrong way, by coming to the conclusion that they don't need a pastor.

That is another example of twisting Scripture.

Sorry, Danette, survey says...X. I posted the verse. Notice what I didn't post - the verses where God killed Korah and co for rebellion. I noticed that free2know seemed to feel no need for a pastor. Free2know cleared that up now.

These abusive leaders will not tolerate anyone comparing their teaching to the Word and concluding that they are wrong.

Yes, I know. But that's where we just have to make them uncomfortable.

Moreover, notice David's attitude toward Saul, even when Saul was wrong. If he's a man of God, even if he's wrong, we must take care how we deal with him. Paul even took a cautious attitude toward the high priest, a man who, for all practical purposes, no longer had authority in religious matters from God's point of view.

 

Brian,

Actually, from what you've said I think we agree rather than disagree. I think what I'm seeing you say is that DISRESPECT for authority is not right. There is a big difference between disrespect and rejection of abusive authority. It is not right to be disrespectful of ANY authority figure, no matter how much of a jerk they are! Paul's attitude toward the high priest is a wonderful example of this. He spoke respectfully to the man because of his office, but he did not bow to the man's theology.

-- Danette

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danette:
Brian,

Actually, from what you've said I think we agree rather than disagree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well don't let that be known!

Seriously, though, thanks for the dialogue.

What I see a lot of is good men, sincere men, who know they have to work not to be "control freaks." And they generally do well. If it weren't for their strong desire to be in total control, all would be well, for they are doctrinally right on most everything and live what they preach. But if they ever lose control of themselves and (ironically) get greedy for total control of a congregation, it goes downhill from there.

--B C

 

Thanx free2know--I found the thread and have been reading through it. Interesting. Email me==I'll let you know how I progressing in my struggle. Thank you all your encouraging words!
In Him. Gayla
GRobin8097@aol.com

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by free2know:
Should churches who are not affiliated with a Baptist denomination be allowed to use the Baptist name to lure unsuspecting people who think it is a normal functioning church? Just curious on your thoughts.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, free2know

No, churches who are not affiliated with a Baptist denomation should not be allowed to use the Baptist name to lure unspecting people who think it is a normal functioning church because, by disguising themselves as baptist congregations when their leadership does not transparently adhere to the "Baptist Constitution" , these churches put forth a dishonest image of themselves to potential members from baptist backgrounds.

Illegitimate churches like these continue to break Baptists up to into smaller and increasingly irreconcilable groups.

I pray that we all come together and love each other like we love ourselves.

God Be With You!
Jamal5000

 

Baptists have never been a denomination. True Baptist churches take the name to identify with the Church Jesus built, but that is another subject..

The church mentioned in this thread is no more Baptist than the Roman Catholic Church. It akes more than a name to be a scriptural local church.

Don't comdemn all IFB churches just because a some are corrupt, study the Bible, learn the distinctives of a true church, then find one or pray that God will send someone to start a church in your area. This is how it was done in the Bible.

This is not a post for debate just information

Ernie

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by free2know:
Should churches who are not affiliated with a Baptist denomination be allowed to use the Baptist name to lure unsuspecting people who think it is a normal functioning church? Just curious on your thoughts....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, free2know

No, churches who are not affiliated with a Baptist denomation should not be allowed to use the Baptist name to lure unspecting people who think it is a normal functioning church because, by disguising themselves as baptist congregations when their leadership does not transparently adhere to the "Baptist Constitution" , these churches put forth a dishonest image of themselves to potential members from baptist backgrounds.

Illegitimate churches like these continue to break Baptists up to into smaller and increasingly irreconcilable groups.

I pray that we all come together and love each other like we love ourselves.

God Be With You!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>