The Test(s) of Fellowship

[rlvaughn]

There is no official or definitive list of essentials on which we make our tests of fellowship. To a large degree, Baptists make that decision at the local level; that is, the congregation determines what they will and will not tolerate.

I've always heard that saying with "liberty" in place of "diversity" and "charity" (in the 1 Cor 13 sense) in place of "humility". I think liberty is the better choice of words but may switch to humility, as that is so scripturally important.

Yes, this is the way I have always heard it: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. It is the official motto of the Unity of the Brethren, a Christian group in central Texas whose roots go back to the Czechoslovakian martyr John Hus. (They now use the word “love” in place of “charity”.)

 

[Paul from Antioch]

CoC uses Acts 2:38 - Repent and be Baptized is the verse they claim that baptism is essential to be saved.

One of the basic tenets of interpreting Bible passages is that if one verse/passage seems to contradict what another verse/passage seems to be stating, (1) Check the meaning of each word(s) in that verse/passage in the original language in which the writer(s) wrote this verse/passage. In This case, the Greek preposition "eis" ( Eng. "for") can be translated into English several ways, e.g. "In order to" or "because of. (2) If this/these word(s) cannot conclusively prove the intent of the original writer(s,) one must compare what other similar verse(s)/passage(s) tell us. While there are several NT verses about the proper subject of baptism, I'll just mention a few here: (1) "The Great Commission" in Matthew 28:19 "...baptizing them..." Does this verb mean "In order to" or does it mean "...Because of" salvation? Does one take medicine "In Order to get a cold" or "Because of the cold"? Logic would demand the latter option. But even then the C of C people pull Acts 2:38 out of context to "PROVE" their so-called doctrine (Which, BTW, very closely mimics that of RCathoicism.) to tell us that one needs to be baptized "In order to get" salvation. Rightly interpreted, that option flies in the face of a multitude of NT verse(s)/passage(s)!! The Apostle Paul, probably the greatest evangelist outside of Jesus Himself, minimizes baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17......Would the man who spread Christianity over much of the then known Roman Empire minimize baptism if it was "In order to get" salvation? Moreover, in Acts 16:31 Paul doesn't even include "baptize" in his answer to the Philippian jailors question, "What MUST I do to be saved?" Paul sure goofed there IF baptism is necessary for one to be saved!! Then, Peter (Whom the R Catholics claim "founded" the NT church!!) in 1 Peter 3:21 writes
that baptism is merely a PICTURE of salvation, NOT an essential element of it. Finally, the penitent thief on the cross next to Jesus asked Jesus to, "Remember me when You come into Your Kingdom" (Luke 23:42). What did the very Son of God answer that thief? "Sorry my friend, but you'll have get down from your cross & then be baptized if you want to see Me in My Kingdom"? Contrary to what the "You MUST be Baptized to be saved!!" folks would want us to believe, Jesus said in Luke 23:43, "I assure you, TODAY you WILL BE WITH ME in PARADISE." If the incarnate Son of God got it wrong, then we're all "In a HEAP of Trouble," wouldn't you say?

 

[37818]

@Paul from Antioch,
It is my understand the Greek eis is never to mean "in order to."

 

[Paul from Antioch]

@Paul from Antioch,
It is my understand the Greek eis is never to mean "in order to."

I'm NOT a Greek scholar by any stretch of one's imagination, however one of my former pastors was one. He pointed out that in certain contexts "eis" COULD mean "In order to get." However, when it comes to baptism, he said that in NO WAY could "eis" mean "In order to get." The verses/passages that I cited in my post would lead credence to his assertation. I learn a lot of things when Pastor David C. Auckland, pastor of Faith Baptist Church (Sellersville, PA) I was a member of FBC (1969-72). He's now with Jesus (d. 2008 I believe.) & all of us who served under his leadership I'm sure would say the same. Pastor Auckland stressed the importance of every Christian to get as much education in the things of the Bible because there are many false ideas circling around ("Every wind of doctrine" as Ephesians 4:14 puts it.), and therefore we Christians need to be aware of these deceivers. To this end, almost each week he'd expository preach from one book on Sunday AM, another book on Sunday PM, & another book on Wednesday PM. Also he founded Faith Baptist Bible Institute which would normally meet on Monday &/or Tuesday nights for those who wanted more intense info on various Bible or Bible-related subjects. I attended FBBI for about 2 years, & it was a great foundation for my Bible College years (1972-76). It is a shame that many Baptist churches have lost this kind of emphasis in recent years, & I attribute this general "cooling," if you will, that I've noticed in recent years of many concepts that are making the circles in many contemporary Christian lives.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

and dont forget - there must be a dinner on the grounds no less than quarterly -, Never allow a Methodist to preach in your church,
Never let the message go past noon - as the wives have their stoves set for 1230, Evening services must not start before 730 pm, during NFL season, and most important - arrive early for a good back pew.

Oh yes, & "Thou Shalt sign 'Just as I Am" at least two dozen times as our Invitation Song" is in there SOMEWHERE, ain't it?"

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Oh yes, & "Thou Shalt sign 'Just as I Am"'at least two dozen times as our Invitation Song" is in there SOMEWHERE, ain't it?"

 

[SavedByGrace]

I am a Trinitarian

your own words betray this!

 

[1689Dave]

Many Christian forums use the Nicene Creed.

I am against it, even though I am a Trinitarian, believe in the full deity and full humanity and Eternal Sonship of our Lord Jesus Christ. I do not agree with some key parts of that Creed as it is unBiblical I would not be considered an orthodox Christian by that Creed.

"Full humanity' suggests a human person along with the Divine person. The Chalcedonian creed gave a precise statement about this against Nestorianism.

The Chalcedonian Creed was adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 in Asia Minor as a response to certain heretical views concerning the nature of Christ.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

 

[37818]

Full humanity' suggests a human person along with the Divine person.

The Son of God is one person with one will and two natures.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

I've heard this term used down through my 55+ years as a Baptist, but I've never really seen actually specifically listing WHAT are "THE Tests of Fellowship" clearly defined so as to determine what precisely they are among ALL saved people, nor what precisely they aren't. Is there such a definitive list of these "TESTS"?? OTOH, is this phrase merely subject to one's "private interpretation(s)? If it's the latter, are they some collection(s) of dogmas passed down throughout ALL generations since the NT have ceased? (See Rev. 22:18-19.) I've heard some Baptists dogmatically state that, e.g., THE KJVO came down right along side of Rev 22!!! and, OTOH the next speaker said that last speaker is full of ......!! I've understood that if a doctrine "Comes from the HS, "END of DIScussION!!!" etc., & I'm sure that most BB'ers probably have as well. SO....."Is we IS, or IS we AIN'T" Christ-honoring comments ARE welcomed, but anything else.....I'll leave up to our BB Aministrators.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

I've always heard that saying with "liberty" in place of "diversity" and "charity" (in the 1 Cor 13 sense) in place of "humility". I think liberty is the better choice of words but may switch to humility, as that is so scripturally important.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Delete

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Back in at least the early 1960s - 1970s there was quite a heated "Discussion" over just how short and/or how long a man's hair MUST be if he's a candidate for a Christian ministry. Some even INSISTED that his hair be like the military's basic training scalping, AND, along with that, exactly what the length of a women's skirt MUST be. (Pants, of course, were DEFINITLY forbidden!!). Should these issues be THE MAIN criteria for a person wanting to enter ANY Christian ministry? They were quite the issue back then, and since God Himself never changes, some INSISTED that these criteria were also unchanging. What they did with beards on men and the flapper-style attire for women in the early 1920s they never exactly said. IOW, If a young person got saved in, say, his/her late 20s - 30s, & subsequently desired to enter any type of Christian ministry, these folks INSISTED that they should have considered the consequences of their life styles since they were practically a new-born physical child (c. ages 2-3). How they handled the Apostle Paul (not to mention Judas Iscariot) they were silent. My question(s) is/are is this what God's Word teaches us as a criteria for anyone desiring to become involved in ANY Christian ministry? (Your providing specific Bible verses/passages would be welcomed!).

 

[Salty]

I remember those days.