So if there is no hell*, from what are we being saved?

Because of the grace of God and the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The knowledge of God and His Gospel has spread throughout the ages. I think more people have conscious faith in Christ now than at any time in history. I see no reason why the Gospel won't continue to spread.

 

Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

 

That's because all salvation is through Christ. At the time of Christ, He had few followers. Now He has a lot of followers. Why do you find it so important that more people be damned than saved?

 

When did I say I find it more important?

 

You didn't. I just inferred it from your posts. I knew I'd get a negative reaction out of that by posting it. That's one of my theological views I don't talk about at my Southern Baptist church because I know I'd get a negative reaction.

 

Negative? I asked what you based it on, you told me, and I presented scripture that opposes your view. Were you hoping that everyone would only agree with you? You are welcome to your view. It is not supported by scripture but your welcome to it. I don't call that negative just a disagreement.

 

It's fine you disagree. I was too quick to be offended. Sorry. I would consider the Parable of the Mustard Seed as lending some support to my view. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. God bless!

 

In the parable of the mustard seed the tree represents the value of the Kingdom not the number of people in it.

 

these have departed from biblical truth,into open theism and other errors as well...

 

That though goes against jesus Himself, as he stated that there are "few" that find the narrow road to eternal life, "many" travel the broad road to destruction!

 

Does this mean that there ARE 'baptalcostalists" even among the faculty at baptist Seminaries?

That there is freedom to believe in either ceased/non ceasing then?

I would hold"yes" But also that spul sleep/instant destruction no permanent hell NOT doctrines that should be held, period!

 

I would say, at least in the case of practicing tongue-speaking, generally no.

Southwestern Seminary took a "stand" against tongues in 2006 where they stated they would not, "knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including ‘private prayer language.’ Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices."

And I believe they are serious about that stand unless it is politically, professionally, personally, or financially advantageous to do otherwise. (Which, quite frankly, is my experience with both the so-called "conservative resurgence" bunch as well as the many of the more moderate groups.) These statements seem to be crafted to cater to the people who vote at the annual conventions so that the powers that be remain in power.

Earle Ellis had been employed there (at the pleasure of the president of the seminary) for a number of years and his private prayer language known among students and faculty members for years because it tied directly with his research on Paul and the practices of the early church. Since he and the Pattersons were good friends, I find it difficult to believe Paige didn't know about it. Moreover, it was documented in black and white in the book of essays for Ellis' 80th birthday which Patterson repeatedly referenced and apparently owns.

I don't know it this is referencing charismata or annihilationism, but tongues are generally frowned upon for SBC employees and specifically rejected in a number of placed. Patterson himself led the charge to have the head of the International Mission Board, Jerry Rankin, replaced because he practiced a private prayer language. Moreover, you cannot be a missionary supported by the SBC if you admit to a private prayer language or tongues.

Regarding annihilationism, it is specifically excluded in the 2000 BF&M, so you allegedly cannot teach in an SBC seminary if you hold to annihilationism (at least, if you are required to sign the BF&M). Ellis was not required to sign the BF&M since he served "at the pleasure of the president."

 

Just was wondering IF there is ANY "official" Stand within the baptist circles regarding cease of Spiritual Gifts or not ceasing?

Know that Reformed baptists, ones holding to confessions/creeds say that they ceased to operate/function today, but aren't SBC more church by church case, falling under "diversity" freedom of thought?

 

Individual Baptist churches may take a position.

Certain SBC agencies have taken a position.

The 2000 BF&M has not taken a position.

There is a diversity of understanding among individual SBC Baptists and churches. I doubt SBC churches would tolerate the Convention taking a specific position on the subject outside of a few denominational agencies, but that may change.

As for me, if I were still a Southern Baptist, I would be against making a position on spiritual gifts a test of fellowship or cooperation.

 

Sounds right to me! Do believe that there are sincere believers on both sides of this issue!

 

Let me help you out, Maybe. ha.

Those that like to spiritualize everything should also like this attempt.

Gal. 3:28 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Heb. 11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

I would say most of these if not all, which I believe, come through Christ.

I also believe those passages from Matt. 7 are as Jesus said in the passage about the young ruler, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?


But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

I believe it is called mercy and grace.

 

That's the ones using their freewill in stead of being still and seeing the salvation of the Lord. They could have tried to swim the sea,

 

Losing your soul?

 

Can you explain how you derive eternal consequences from these passages? I say you, along with hoi polloi, are unjustifiably inserting eternity in heaven or hell into these verses.