What is the largest Church in America?

[DHK]

endures to the end in belief. Like what Paul was talking about in 2 Timothy So, Paul uses the same language here. And Paul is in the bible. Hmmmm. Also have you ever read Blackaby. Review point 3 in his encountering God.

It refers to works. It doesn't refer to faith as defined by the Bible. It doesn't refer to the faith that is defined for us in Romans 5:1.
"Therefore being justified (past tense--a one time act) by faith (and nothing else) we have peace with God.
It doesn't matter what you put in there (enduring to the end--faith, baptism, confirmation, penance, confession, keeping the Ten Commandments, keeping the Sacraments, etc.) It doesn't matter. You are still "enduring." Salvation is a one time act. I can point to you the exact date, and even the approximate time when I put my faith in Christ and was saved. There is no such process of enduring. That is what makes it a false message of works. It becomes a process. It is not a process. It is a one time act of "believe and thou shalt be saved;" Call upon the name of the Lord and thou shalt be saved;" Believe in thine heart...and thou shalt be saved." Over and over again the Bible has the same message: Believe and be saved. It is a one time act. There is no process of enduring. That is what makes it a gospel of works--a false gospel.

 

[lori4dogs]

Sounds like decisional regeneration to me, as one man coined the term. You made a descision for Jesus. This doesn't save anyone.

The papist doctrine on baptism is not biblical. Nor is it the same as Lutherans, Methodists or Anglicans. Baptismal regeneration is unbiblical, and so is infant baptism.

The position cannot be traced back to the Apostles, nor can bible-believers be lied to anymore because we have the Apostle's doctrine in our hands...which at one time the Papists tried to keep from the people on pain of death, but now try to keep it from the people by convincing men they must submit their conscience and reason to "holy mother church."

"..a far greater number have suffered the papists to persuade them that its contents (the Bible) are so far above the grasp of natural intellect, its subjects so profound and exalted, its language so abstruse and ambigous that the common man is quite incapable of understanding it by his own efforts, and therefore that is is the part of wisdom for him to submit his judgment to "holy mother church," who brazenly claims to be the only Divinely authorized and qualified interpreter of God's oracles. Thus does the Papacy withhold God's Word from the laity, and impose her own dogmas and superstitions upon them." A.W. Pink

Thought I'd post some more documentation that proves you don't know what your talking about. Check out the Anglican position on baptism from the 39 articles:

XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

Could you please point out the difference in the Anglican doctrine from the 'papist' doctrine. BTW, your 'papist' remarks are offensive and un-called for.

 

[DHK]

Anglican and the RCC are basically the same. The one doesn't recognize the Pope, because Henry VIII wanted a divorce. That happened just before the Reformation started. They are "kissing-cousins."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It refers to works. It doesn't refer to faith as defined by the Bible. It doesn't refer to the faith that is defined for us in Romans 5:1.
"Therefore being justified (past tense--a one time act) by faith (and nothing else) we have peace with God.
It doesn't matter what you put in there (enduring to the end--faith, baptism, confirmation, penance, confession, keeping the Ten Commandments, keeping the Sacraments, etc.) It doesn't matter. You are still "enduring." Salvation is a one time act. I can point to you the exact date, and even the approximate time when I put my faith in Christ and was saved. There is no such process of enduring. That is what makes it a false message of works. It becomes a process. It is not a process. It is a one time act of "believe and thou shalt be saved;" Call upon the name of the Lord and thou shalt be saved;" Believe in thine heart...and thou shalt be saved." Over and over again the Bible has the same message: Believe and be saved. It is a one time act. There is no process of enduring. That is what makes it a gospel of works--a false gospel.

I think you misapply what is being said. However, a curiosity are you saying Paul didn't endure until the end? He clearly points it out in 2 Timothy. The very nature of Perserverance of the saints in TULIP indicates a enduring a perservering. A running the race until its completion. Are all these people lying as well?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Anglican and the RCC are basically the same. The one doesn't recognize the Pope, because Henry VIII wanted a divorce. That happened just before the Reformation started. They are "kissing-cousins."

eeeeewwww.

I find it odd no one answered post 228.

 

[annsni]

Who is telling the lie here? You say the 'papist doctrine' concerning baptism is different than the Anglican position. Absolutely FALSE. Not one iota of difference. Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. You have stated that the Catholic teaching on baptism is different than the Lutheran (position). Here is the Lutheran position:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3967

Please show me the difference.

Here is the Methodist statement concerning baptism:

We also believe that in baptism God initiates a covenant with us, announced with the words, “The Holy Spirit works within you, that being born through water and the Spirit, you may be a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ.” This is followed by the sign-act of laying hands on the head, or the signing of the cross on the forehead with oil. The word covenant is a biblical word describing God’s initiative in choosing Israel to be a people with a special mission in the world, and Israel’s response in a life of faithfulness. The baptismal covenant calls us to a similar vocation.

God Has Chosen Us
Christians have also understood the baptismal covenant in light of Jesus’ baptism. At Jesus’ baptism, God said: “This is my son.” While Jesus’ relation to God as Son is unique, for Christians baptism means that God has also chosen us as daughters and sons, and knows us intimately as a parent.

So the most important things about us, our true identity, is that we are now sons and daughters of God. That is why the introduction to the United Methodist Baptismal Covenant states, “We are incorporated into God’s mighty acts of salvation and given new birth through water and the Spirit.”

The introduction also says, “Through the Sacrament of Baptism, we are initiated into Christ’s holy church.”

Please show me how this differs from the Catholic teaching on baptism.

You are so full of anti-Catholic venom that you spew staement like the above post without checking out the facts.

Around here, I would not consider the Methodist church a Christ following church. A country club? Yep. But certainly not a church. The one my husband grew up in? They don't believe the Bible. They don't believe that there is a hell or a Satan. So I wouldn't use the Methodist church as a model of Christian doctrine.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Baptist hold to obtaining faith equates with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They don't hold to two baptisms.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones a Calvinist, wrote a whole book on it " Joy Unspeakable" Apparently this phenomenon "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" caused many revivals in the 17th thru 20th century in Europe & America. He sites many notables like George Whitefield, John Wesley, Blaine Pascal, Howell Harrison, William Wilberforce, & himself as people who all were receivers of the Spirit.

I am praying for this for my own Church that we may start a revival in the area.

 

[lori4dogs]

Around here, I would not consider the Methodist church a Christ following church. A country club? Yep. But certainly not a church. The one my husband grew up in? They don't believe the Bible. They don't believe that there is a hell or a Satan. So I wouldn't use the Methodist church as a model of Christian doctrine.

Sure, there are too many liberal Methodist churches these days. However, just as the Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church (USA) as denominations have departed from sound biblical teaching, there are still bible-believing Episcopal Churches and Presbyterian churches hanging in there.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Around here, I would not consider the Methodist church a Christ following church. A country club? Yep. But certainly not a church. The one my husband grew up in? They don't believe the Bible. They don't believe that there is a hell or a Satan. So I wouldn't use the Methodist church as a model of Christian doctrine.

What kind of methodist church were they, IE Calvinist Methodist, Wesleyan Methodist, Episcopal Methodist, United Methodist, Southern Methodist?

Guess from your statement G.W Bush wasn't a Christian.

 

[DHK]

I think you misapply what is being said. However, a curiosity are you saying Paul didn't endure until the end? He clearly points it out in 2 Timothy. The very nature of Perserverance of the saints in TULIP indicates a enduring a perservering. A running the race until its completion. Are all these people lying as well?

First, I am not a Calvinist and don't walk among the TULIP's.
More importantly, are you able to see the difference between an apple and an orange, or do they look the same to you?
Can you point to me a passage where Paul says the equivalent of:
"Oh, no! I need to be saved again! I lost my salvation!"
"Lord, I need to be born again; I wasn't really born the first time."
"Save me Lord; I lost my salvation when I sinned last night."
"Lord? Where did my eternal life go? I think I lost it along the way."
"Lord? Did you forgive all my sins? There are some that I forgot about. I can't remember them Lord, so I can't repent of them. What can I do if I can't remember them to repent of them?? Oh me, I am on my way to hell!

Does Paul, anywhere in Scripture despair of his salvation? Anywhere? Can you point to me just one passage? Do you know the difference between an apple and an orange? Between salvation and service?

Paul taught that a person is justified by faith--one time act.
Service for the Lord is what we do all of our lives. That is what progressive sanctification is. That is the orange, not the apple. Yes, Paul endured to the end. He endured because the Holy Spirit dwelt in him; because he was faithful; because he knew there awaited a reward at the end. Had he failed, he still would have gone to heaven. There are Christians that do not endure to the end. The verse is taken out of context. Quote the context, and you will find that the salvation is not spiritual but physical in a time of persecution.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Martyn Lloyd-Jones a Calvinist, wrote a whole book on it " oy Unspeakable" Apparently this phenomenon "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" caused many revivals in the 17th thru 20th century in Europe & America. He sites many notables like George Whitefield, John Wesley, Blaine Pascal, Howell Harrison, William Wilberforce, & himself as people who all were receivers of the Spirit.

I am praying for this for my own Church that we may start a revival in the area.

Pentecostalism and Weslianism go hand in hand. Question is holiness a precurson to the second baptism in the Spirit?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Thought I'd post some more documentation that proves you don't know what your talking about. Check out the Anglican position on baptism from the 39 articles:

XXVII. Of Baptism.
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

Could you please point out the difference in the Anglican doctrine from the 'papist' doctrine. BTW, your 'papist' remarks are offensive and un-called for.

Amazingly, it does seem the Church of England teaches the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration. I didn't think they did. So, I stand corrected.

And I always refer to Roman Catholics as Papists because, in truth, the obey and follow the Pope.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Pentecostalism and Weslianism go hand in hand. Question is holiness a precurson to the second baptism in the Spirit?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones was was a Calvinist & in charge of the Westminster Chapel in London. He was definitely not a Wesleyan....not a Welshman, heaven forbid. Thats the Damned English.

 

[lori4dogs]

Amazingly, it does seem the Church of England teaches the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration. I didn't think they did. So, I stand corrected.

And I always refer to Roman Catholics as Papists because, in truth, the obey and follow the Pope.

How about the Lutheran teaching on baptism? You said it is different than the Catholic teaching. In what ways??

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Lutherans do not believe that baptism regenerates totally apart from faith. They are convinced that proxy faith serves an instrumental role in baptismal regeneration.

 

[lori4dogs]

Lutherans do not believe that baptism regenerates totally apart from faith. They are convinced that proxy faith serves an instrumental role in baptismal regeneration.

Catholics do not believe that baptism regenerates apart from faith either. In fact, we believe there a lots of baptised souls in hell.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Around here, I would not consider the Methodist church a Christ following church. A country club? Yep. But certainly not a church. The one my husband grew up in? They don't believe the Bible. They don't believe that there is a hell or a Satan. So I wouldn't use the Methodist church as a model of Christian doctrine.

I guess it changes from area to area --- from church to church. A good friend of mine is the worship leader in a Methodist church in Atlanta -- definitely a Christian church. The Methodist church down the street from us also fits into that category.

 

[DHK]

Catholics do not believe that baptism regenerates apart from faith either. In fact, we believe there a lots of baptised souls in hell.

No infant has faith. Therefore the Catholic Church believes that baptism and baptism alone saves. The infant baptism is to ensure that the infant will go to heaven. Faith at this point is totally irrelevant.

 

[annsni]

Sure, there are too many liberal Methodist churches these days. However, just as the Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church (USA) as denominations have departed from sound biblical teaching, there are still bible-believing Episcopal Churches and Presbyterian churches hanging in there.

Yes, but I certainly wouldn't point to the denomination as a model of what should be. One sane person in a nuthouse doesn't mean they are all sane.

 

[annsni]

What kind of methodist church were they, IE Calvinist Methodist, Wesleyan Methodist, Episcopal Methodist, United Methodist, Southern Methodist?

United Methodist.

Guess from your statement G.W Bush wasn't a Christian.

If he doesn't believe the Bible then nope. He's not a Christian.