The Possibility of Moving On

[The Biblicist]

Jesus is Lord.

I am fully aware of the fact that it is the Holy Spirit who puts churches together and holds them together.

The Holy Spirit is not the only spirit that puts churches together and holds them together. The Mormons, JW's SDA and Catholics do quite nicely in that regard but all are cultic and far from New Testament Christianity.

What we will be seeking is the church where our spiritual gifts will be complimentary to the rest of the body, and where we will be the part of the body that the Holy Spirit is building.

Jack, you seem like a pretty nice fella, quite sincere, committed and that is good. However, IMHO where there are people there are always problems as that comes with the territory. You seem to be going about this backward. You seem to be looking for some kind of subjective feeling to guide you. The problem with that approach is that Satan can provide it as much as the Spirit of God then what? You are attempting to seek God's will by way of the caboose instead of by way of the Engine that pulls the train. Jesus said "I am the truth" and "ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free." The Holy Spirit is repeatedly called the "The Spirit of truth." His churches are called the "pillar and ground of the truth." Objective Truth is the engine and subjective feelings/experiences are the caboose. It is not that feelings and experiences are not important but where you place them is more important. Seek a church where the truth has priority over subjective feelings and feelings are made subject to truth not vice versa - Isa. 8:20. Look at the next sentence you write:

I've always felt that we wound up where we are now because that's where we were led.

I would be interesting knowing how you believe the Spirit leads you? And what is really important to you in a church?

 

[Jack Matthews]

I would be interesting knowing how you believe the Spirit leads you? And what is really important to you in a church?

As far as getting into the church where we are now, it was a matter of where we were at the time and our needs. I have two younger brothers, who were in junior high and high school at the time, who I had to take in and finish raising. Six months after they came, my wife's younger brother, who was in ninth grade, also moved in with us. That was overwhelming for us, at our age and at that point in our faith. The church we were attending, where I had gone as a college student and in graduate school, had a great college ministry, because of its proximity to several colleges, but otherwise, it was a more mature congregation and didn't have much in the way of a youth ministry. We found a relatively new Southern Baptist church nearby that had a comprehensive one. And so we changed churches. It was exactly where God wanted us to be at the time.

Are you telling me that God doesn't, can't, or won't, use circumstances like that in people's lives to get them into a church where he wants them?

Objective Truth is the engine and subjective feelings/experiences are the caboose. It is not that feelings and experiences are not important but where you place them is more important.

Certainly. So, what measurement do you use to determine when you have arrived at "objective truth"? I've been involved in an in-depth Bible study for about a year, led by a theology professor from a local Christian university. One of the group members is a Greek professor. And most of the members of the group have graduate degrees, so there is a lot of energy and focus on digging into the scripture and finding objective truth. And even with all of that, and a lot of prayer thrown in, we do not always agree on what we've discovered.

 

[The Biblicist]

Are you telling me that God doesn't, can't, or won't, use circumstances like that in people's lives to get them into a church where he wants them?

It is not that God cannot or does not use circumcstances, but circumstances are just like feelings but somewhere between the caboose and the engine. Satan produced the circumstances in the life of Job in order to get him to curse God. Circumstances good or bad are not always indicative of God's will and never a basis for objective truth.

Certainly. So, what measurement do you use to determine when you have arrived at "objective truth"? I've been involved in an in-depth Bible study for about a year, led by a theology professor from a local Christian university. One of the group members is a Greek professor. And most of the members of the group have graduate degrees, so there is a lot of energy and focus on digging into the scripture and finding objective truth. And even with all of that, and a lot of prayer thrown in, we do not always agree on what we've discovered.

"I am the truth.....Thy word is truth......The Spirit of Truth.....the pillar and ground of the truth."

Objective truth IS the Person of God and His will as revealed in His Word according to the Holy Spirit. Subjective truth IS the Person of God and His will revealed by the Holy Spirit according to His Word so that the conclusion is never contradictory to His Word.

Feelings, circumstances, opinons and experienes are always subject to the Word of God never the opposite - Isa. 8:20

George Mueller listed six things he did in order to find out God's will:

1. I seek to get my heart into such a state that it has no will of its own in a given matter. When we are ready to do the Lord's will—whatever it may be—nine-tenths of the difficulties are overcome.

2. Having done this, I do not leave the result to feeling or simple impression. If I do so, I make myself liable to great delusions.

3. I seek the will of the Spirit of God through, or in connection with, God's Word. The Spirit and the Word must be combined. If I look to the Spirit alone without the Word, I lay myself open to great delusions also. If the Holy Spirit guides us, He will do it according to the Scriptures, never contrary to them.

4. Next I take into account providential circumstances. These often plainly indicate God's will in connection with His Word and Spirit.

5. I ask God in prayer to reveal His will to me.

6. Thus, through prayer, the study of the Word and reflection, I come to a deliberate judgment according to the best of my ability and knowledge. If my mind is thus at peace and continues so after two or three more petitions, I proceed accordingly. I have found this method always effective in trivial or important issues.


When it comes to discovering truth in scripture, we have principles of sound hermeneutics and the bottom line test of interpretation of a word, phrase, text is HARMONIZATION with immediate and overall context as God is not the author of confusion. When you must PIT scripture against scripture, PIT experience against scripture that is a confession that you do not know either scriptures being pitted against each other and your experience is wrong - Isa. 8:20.

 

[Jack Matthews]

At least three of the points in Mueller's list you cited can be very subjective, #1, 4 and 6. And the bottom line is not so much making sure that what you feel is consistent with what the scripture says, it is determining the original and objective meaning of the scripture and agreeing on it. Look at this board--three people, four opinions.

I think that is what Paul was addressing in I Corinthians 13:12. "Now I know in part..."

What we do have is sufficient to show us that Jesus is Lord, and to testify to that in our lives.

 

[The Biblicist]

At least three of the points in Mueller's list you cited can be very subjective, #1, 4 and 6. And the bottom line is not so much making sure that what you feel is consistent with what the scripture says, it is determining the original and objective meaning of the scripture and agreeing on it. Look at this board--three people, four opinions.

I think that is what Paul was addressing in I Corinthians 13:12. "Now I know in part..."

What we do have is sufficient to show us that Jesus is Lord, and to testify to that in our lives.

Jack, I did not rule out subjective factors, just as I don't cut off the caboose from the train. However, it is not the subjective factors that pull the train. All the subjective factors are subjected to objective truth.

Again, objective truth IS the nature of God and His will as revealed in the scriptures. Arriving at the truth of scriptures is determined by context and the principle of harmonization, as God is not the author of confusioon. Basic prinicples of hermeneutics are properly used when scripture harmonizes with both scripture and experience.

 

[Jack Matthews]

The fact that you are considering these two groups declares that you don't understand the true gospel of grace or the first step of obedience which is water baptism because if you did they would not even be a consideration as both pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ in regard to baptism alone.

I brought your statement, in a less critical form, to a man in our small group who got a doctorate in theology from a Nazarene university, and his view of water baptism is not unlike that of most Baptists. There are some differences that come out of a Wesleyan tradition, related to a ceremony of dedication, usually involving children, and the use of the term "sacrament", but they generally believe that baptism is only for the regenerate, applied only after salvation, and usually by immersion. Since he is invited to preach in Baptist churches, I'll take his word for it. There is wide latitude among the local congregations with regard to teaching and application.

Looking at the Society of Friends, and seeing the diversity that is represented across the spectrum of churches and groups that identify with them, what they believe can't be categorized in a single, theological statement. The individual I asked, who is also a member of our small group, did not articulate a view that would be so different from a Baptist perspective as to be considered a "perversion" of it.

So what's your source of information, that prompted this reply?

 

[The Biblicist]

I brought your statement, in a less critical form, to a man in our small group who got a doctorate in theology from a Nazarene university, and his view of water baptism is not unlike that of most Baptists. There are some differences that come out of a Wesleyan tradition, related to a ceremony of dedication, usually involving children, and the use of the term "sacrament", but they generally believe that baptism is only for the regenerate, applied only after salvation, and usually by immersion. Since he is invited to preach in Baptist churches, I'll take his word for it. There is wide latitude among the local congregations with regard to teaching and application.

Looking at the Society of Friends, and seeing the diversity that is represented across the spectrum of churches and groups that identify with them, what they believe can't be categorized in a single, theological statement. The individual I asked, who is also a member of our small group, did not articulate a view that would be so different from a Baptist perspective as to be considered a "perversion" of it.

So what's your source of information, that prompted this reply?

There are rogue individuals within all groups just as there are most likely saved individuals in most grouops in spite of what they preach. However, one cannot justify a movement by individuals but rather by their collective official statement of faith. The Society of Friends has on line their organizational charter and statement of faith. That was my source.

Just as there are essentials that must be embraced to recognize individual salvation there are essentials that must be embraced to recognize a group of individuals as a N.T. church.

 

[Jack Matthews]

There are rogue individuals within all groups just as there are most likely saved individuals in most grouops in spite of what they preach. However, one cannot justify a movement by individuals but rather by their collective official statement of faith. The Society of Friends has on line their organizational charter and statement of faith. That was my source.

Just as there are essentials that must be embraced to recognize individual salvation there are essentials that must be embraced to recognize a group of individuals as a N.T. church.

There is not a collective statement of faith among Quakers. There are some general statements of faith related to some of the organizations that fall within the Quaker movement, some known as the Society of Friends, but there is no binding, official statement of faith that includes all, or even a majority, of Quakers. Once again coming from someone who is a member of a "meeting," as they call them, each group has their own statement of faith, and the doctrine is nearly as widely ranging as Baptists, which is fascinating given that they are significantly smaller in number.

I guess, since you're on this board, I'm assuming you are Baptist. There is no collective statement of faith among Baptist churches, either. While some groups have confessions of faith, for Baptists, theology and doctrine is determined at the local church level.

I do not believe that salvation, or fellowship among believers, is dependent on complete agreement with theological or doctrinal positions taken by a local church, or a denominational grouping. Beyond regeneration, salvation by grace through faith, how close you are to the "truth" is measured by your own experience and interpretation, and I don't believe that Christian fellowship rests on agreement with regard to secondary and tertiary doctrinal positions. The fact is that no one on this earth has it right, and neither eternal destiny, nor God's blessings depend on it.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There is not a collective statement of faith among Quakers. There are some general statements of faith related to some of the organizations that fall within the Quaker movement, some known as the Society of Friends, but there is no binding, official statement of faith that includes all, or even a majority, of Quakers. Once again coming from someone who is a member of a "meeting," as they call them, each group has their own statement of faith, and the doctrine is nearly as widely ranging as Baptists, which is fascinating given that they are significantly smaller in number.


Quite correct. As someone who considered himself a Quaker for several years and worshiped and fellowshipped with them, I know firsthand that you have stated the truth.


I guess, since you're on this board, I'm assuming you are Baptist. There is no collective statement of faith among Baptist churches, either. While some groups have confessions of faith, for Baptists, theology and doctrine is determined at the local church level.

I do not believe that salvation, or fellowship among believers, is dependent on complete agreement with theological or doctrinal positions taken by a local church, or a denominational grouping. Beyond regeneration, salvation by grace through faith, how close you are to the "truth" is measured by your own experience and interpretation, and I don't believe that Christian fellowship rests on agreement with regard to secondary and tertiary doctrinal positions. The fact is that no one on this earth has it right, and neither eternal destiny, nor God's blessings depend on it.

See my first answer, in red, within your post.

I agree totally with your last paragraph.

The reason Biblicist believes as he does is because he is a Landmark Baptist, one of the most rigid belief systems in Christendom. Landmarkers believe they are the only ones who have it right, and any who agree with them.

Now, I do not state this with malice, but it is simply the truth. I have come to the point where I have realized that Biblicist writes most of what he does because he is compelled to by his belief system. I really don't hold that against him, as he is writing the truth as he sees it.

What bothers me is when people can't admit or accept that they might not be 100% right about everything. That denies what Paul said about us -- we all see through a glass, darkly.

I probably could be a Nazarene were it not for their belief in entire sanctification; even though there are several different ways this is described and held, common to all of them is the view that it is a second definite work of grace that happens instantaneously -- a crisis experience, as I was told. I believe there are many "crisis experiences" after conversion and many more "works of grace". In short, I cannot accept the holiness churches' view of sanctification, and that puts me out of their camp, the same as the Pentecostal/Charismatic view of the baptism of the HS puts me out of their camp.

But overall I like the Church of the Nazarene, and if you can accept their doctrine of sanctification, you would do well there -- unless you enjoy an occasional glass of wine. The same with the Friends -- although personally I couldn't be a member of a Friends group that did not affirm the centrality of Jesus Christ, and there are some on the liberal end who do not. You find these within the Friends General Conference. Personally also, I couldn't be a part of Evangelical Friends International, either, as they are too fundamentalist.

I still think you should check out some of the Anglican churches that have split off from the Episcopal Church. I don't know how you feel about liturgy, but it is beautiful, and I miss it. I am about to start driving 80 miles at least a couple of times a month to an AMiA church to be a part of it.

Best wishes with your church search; I believe you will find what you are looking for.

 

[Jack Matthews]

See my first answer, in red, within your post.

I agree totally with your last paragraph.

The reason Biblicist believes as he does is because he is a Landmark Baptist, one of the most rigid belief systems in Christendom. Landmarkers believe they are the only ones who have it right, and any who agree with them.

Now, I do not state this with malice, but it is simply the truth. I have come to the point where I have realized that Biblicist writes most of what he does because he is compelled to by his belief system. I really don't hold that against him, as he is writing the truth as he sees it.

What bothers me is when people can't admit or accept that they might not be 100% right about everything. That denies what Paul said about us -- we all see through a glass, darkly.

I probably could be a Nazarene were it not for their belief in entire sanctification; even though there are several different ways this is described and held, common to all of them is the view that it is a second definite work of grace that happens instantaneously -- a crisis experience, as I was told. I believe there are many "crisis experiences" after conversion and many more "works of grace". In short, I cannot accept the holiness churches' view of sanctification, and that puts me out of their camp, the same as the Pentecostal/Charismatic view of the baptism of the HS puts me out of their camp.

But overall I like the Church of the Nazarene, and if you can accept their doctrine of sanctification, you would do well there -- unless you enjoy an occasional glass of wine. The same with the Friends -- although personally I couldn't be a member of a Friends group that did not affirm the centrality of Jesus Christ, and there are some on the liberal end who do not. You find these within the Friends General Conference. Personally also, I couldn't be a part of Evangelical Friends International, either, as they are too fundamentalist.

I still think you should check out some of the Anglican churches that have split off from the Episcopal Church. I don't know how you feel about liturgy, but it is beautiful, and I miss it. I am about to start driving 80 miles at least a couple of times a month to an AMiA church to be a part of it.

Best wishes with your church search; I believe you will find what you are looking for.

That explains a lot. The Landmark views, in particular.

The small group we meet with once a week is loosely connected to a non-denominational church we once attended, and actually consider our "home" church. But the group is more of a neighborhood congregation of Christians than it is a church's ministry. The common element, apart from faith in Jesus, is the desire to intently study the Bible, and several people who have some real in-depth teaching and study skills, lead in that study. I've learned a lot. What would be great would be to find a group like this. It's really a "church" in the Biblical sense of the word.

The more liberal Quaker groups would be out of the question for me. What I really like about the Quaker groups and individuals I have contact with is that they don't seem mad at anyone, or enraged by disagreement, they have a personal peace, and are genuinely joyful in spirit. And the groups are usually small, and avoid the kind of agenda-driven manipulation and back-scratching that seem to be so inherently a part of Baptist congregational life.

 

[Tom Butler]

The reason Biblicist believes as he does is because he is a Landmark Baptist, one of the most rigid belief systems in Christendom. Landmarkers believe they are the only ones who have it right, and any who agree with them.

I have some Landmark tendencies, and I didn't recognize any of them in Biblicist's posts. So maybe you should define what you believe are the main points of Landmarkism, and why they're bad.

Also, to describe an ecclesiological belief system such as Landmarkism as rigid adds nothing to the discussion. On some things, all of us are rigid.

I am unbending on my view of salvation by grace through faith. I am rigid on the deity of Christ. I won't change my view of eternal security. I would think my fellow Baptists, at least, andmany evangelicals would applaud my rigidity.

I know, this is derailing the thread. I just couldn't let this pass without comment.

 

[The Biblicist]

That explains a lot. The Landmark views, in particular.

I stated a simple fact. No individual knows all truth and no congregation knows all truth. However, in order for an individual to be recognized as a saved person there are some essentials he must embrace and confess or there is no Biblical basis to believe that person is a child of God.

Likewise, with a group of individuals. For a group of individuals to be recognized as a church of Christ there are some essential they must embrace and confess and practice or else there is no Biblical basis to believe that group is a New Testament congregation of Christ.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That explains a lot. The Landmark views, in particular.

The small group we meet with once a week is loosely connected to a non-denominational church we once attended, and actually consider our "home" church. But the group is more of a neighborhood congregation of Christians than it is a church's ministry. The common element, apart from faith in Jesus, is the desire to intently study the Bible, and several people who have some real in-depth teaching and study skills, lead in that study. I've learned a lot. What would be great would be to find a group like this. It's really a "church" in the Biblical sense of the word.

The more liberal Quaker groups would be out of the question for me. What I really like about the Quaker groups and individuals I have contact with is that they don't seem mad at anyone, or enraged by disagreement, they have a personal peace, and are genuinely joyful in spirit. And the groups are usually small, and avoid the kind of agenda-driven manipulation and back-scratching that seem to be so inherently a part of Baptist congregational life.

Maybe you should just stick with the small group you've been meeting with and let them be your church -- as you said, it really is a church in the Biblical sense.

I don't believe there is any group that has followed the teachings of Jesus more consistently than the Friends -- and I'm not talking about the modern aberrations of Quakerism, either. Instead of fighting over outward rituals and the correct performance of them, they set about putting into practice the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. If the rest of the US and this country's "Christians" had treated the Indians like the Quakers did, our history in that regard would have been much different. And that's just one example.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have some Landmark tendencies, and I didn't recognize any of them in Biblicist's posts. So maybe you should define what you believe are the main points of Landmarkism, and why they're bad.

Also, to describe an ecclesiological belief system such as Landmarkism as rigid adds nothing to the discussion. On some things, all of us are rigid.

I am unbending on my view of salvation by grace through faith. I am rigid on the deity of Christ. I won't change my view of eternal security. I would think my fellow Baptists, at least, andmany evangelicals would applaud my rigidity.

I know, this is derailing the thread. I just couldn't let this pass without comment.

And instead of derailing it further, I'll let Biblicist answer, if he wants to. I couldn't have defined him as a Landmarker if he had not done so himself.

Besides, I have already discussed Landmarkism in considerable detail in other threads. I don't disagree with everything about it, but I don't believe that Jesus and the apostles were Baptists.

Just as I don't believe in Catholic apostolic succession, I don't believe in the Baptist variety, either.

 

[LadyEagle]

Jack, the only advice I can give you is (1) there is no perfect church, (2) pray about it - the Holy Spirit will let you know when you are at the right one, and (3) the longer I live, the more I find that everything always works out because the Lord guides our paths. He is faithful.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jack, the only advice I can give you is (1) there is no perfect church, (2) pray about it - the Holy Spirit will let you know when you are at the right one, and (3) the longer I live, the more I find that everything always works out because the Lord guides our paths. He is faithful.

I think God has a purpose for all his children, even those immersed in errors of all sorts. Each is given a "measure" of grace and a "measure" of faith and thus uses them within the sphere of limitations they are found. Many times these limitations are of their own making. For example, there were those who did not follow Christ and yet were preaching in the name of Christ that His disciples wanted to forbid. Yet Christ said forbid them not. However, think about it, they were attempting to disciple themselves rather than coming and sitting under the Son of God when he was on earth. What an extreme limitation they were placing upon themselves and yet God had a plan for them in spite of such wrong choices.

There are saved people within Romanism and about every other ism and that very fact places extreme limitations upon their spiritual growth and use by God but nevertheless God uses them within that framework.

There were no doubt many like Apollos and Corneilius operating outside the Lord's revealed way of service - the New Testament church. Nevertheless, God was blessing them, hearing their prayers and using them in that limited sphere of service. However, God mercifully brought Apollos into contact with Aquilla and Priscilla and gave him grace to understand and submit to their correction which expanded his sphere of usefulness in God's service.

 

[Jack Matthews]

Maybe you should just stick with the small group you've been meeting with and let them be your church -- as you said, it really is a church in the Biblical sense.

I don't believe there is any group that has followed the teachings of Jesus more consistently than the Friends -- and I'm not talking about the modern aberrations of Quakerism, either. Instead of fighting over outward rituals and the correct performance of them, they set about putting into practice the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. If the rest of the US and this country's "Christians" had treated the Indians like the Quakers did, our history in that regard would have been much different. And that's just one example.

Well, it really has been our church for a while. It meets on Sunday night, so we go there instead of to our church's evening service, which is really more of a habit and a ritual than worship, without the effort or planning put into it. And since my son can drive, there have been Sunday mornings when I've stayed home and my wife and I have worshipped together, rather than heading to church. But we don't miss the group on Sunday night. We will miss the group when we move, and if we found one like that in Washington, we'd look no further.

 

[tomana]

To the OP,

Not once, nor twice, but FOUR TIMES in Matthew 24 (verses 4, 5, 11, 24) Jesus warns the believers to be careful they do not get deceived. I have to admit, the most common reply I get when I share this is, "I didn't know that." Perhaps Jesus' greatest warning to believers and they never knew about it. Interesting. Today, 1/3 the population of the world proclaims they are Christian ... the bible says it's always been, was and will be a remnant at Christ's return. If you ask those 2 billion people if they are a genuine Christians almost all of them will tell you they are saved, but many are probably not.

It is wise for each convert to question this. Paul said to those who were accusing him of not being a genuine Christian, that they better examine themselves to see if they are truly converted, since Paul had seen the risen Christ and was the real deal and they could not recognize this truth and that brought up the question, "do they have the holy Spirit in them?" and so Paul tells them to check and make sure they have the holy Spirit in them.

 

[The Biblicist]

And instead of derailing it further, I'll let Biblicist answer, if he wants to. I couldn't have defined him as a Landmarker if he had not done so himself.

Besides, I have already discussed Landmarkism in considerable detail in other threads. I don't disagree with everything about it, but I don't believe that Jesus and the apostles were Baptists.

Just as I don't believe in Catholic apostolic succession, I don't believe in the Baptist variety, either.

I do not associate myself with how many define "Landmarkism" today. However, without apology I do associate with the historical definition of Landmarkism as provided by William Cathcart in His Baptist Encyclopedia where he says:

The doctrine of landmarkism is that baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they precede communion at the Lord’s table. The argument is that Scriptural authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church; that as “a visible church is a congregation of baptized believers,” etc., it follows that no Pedobaptist organization is a church in the Scriptural sense of the term, and that therefore Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from such an organization. - William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, pp. 731-732

1. The church preceded the Great Commission - Mt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor. 12:28 with Luke 6:12-13; Acts 2:41 "unto them"; Acts 13:1-4
2. All Christians can witness or share the gospel but it is the church and its ordained leadership that ordains men to the ministry - Acts 1:15-23; 6:3-5; 14:22-23;
3. There is no such thing as a pedobaptist church in scripture.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I do not associate myself with how many define "Landmarkism" today. However, without apology I do associate with the historical definition of Landmarkism as provided by William Cathcart in His Baptist Encyclopedia where he says:

The doctrine of landmarkism is that baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they precede communion at the Lord’s table. The argument is that Scriptural authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church; that as “a visible church is a congregation of baptized believers,” etc., it follows that no Pedobaptist organization is a church in the Scriptural sense of the term, and that therefore Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from such an organization. - William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, pp. 731-732

1. The church preceded the Great Commission - Mt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor. 12:28 with Luke 6:12-13; Acts 2:41 "unto them"; Acts 13:1-4
2. All Christians can witness or share the gospel but it is the church and its ordained leadership that ordains men to the ministry - Acts 1:15-23; 6:3-5; 14:22-23;
3. There is no such thing as a pedobaptist church in scripture.

Thank you for defining yourself.

I disagree with this part: "Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from such an organization" (infant-baptizing church).