Why Do We Spend Time Debating Denominations of Unlike Faith and Order?

[saturneptune]

What is the purpose on a Baptist Board arguing with people who espouse infant baptism, elder rule, hierarchies, praying to statues, fiddling with rosary beads, treating communion like a magic act, believe in baptismal regeneration, believe church doctrine and history of a false church has any validity?

Why do we even discuss the eternal security of the believer? Why are we worried about the universal church? Has the universal church ever done one thing towards the Lord's work?

The more we debate, the more alien ideas are put into our heads, and the more we forget Baptist distinctives. For example, if one wants to follow the charasmatic mumbo jumbo, then they are probably in the wrong place. If one believes that Mary spends her time traveling from sighting to sighting to wow the crowd, then you are probably in the wrong place. If you believe in a church hierarcy, then you are probably in the wrong place. Most certainly, if you believe in infant or regenerational baptism, you are in the wrong place.

 

[Zenas]

First, I wouldn’t say elder rule is foreign to Baptist thought. I’m pretty sure that Reformed Baptists have elder rule. I know of one large independent (not IFB) Baptist church that uses this form of church government.

As far as the other concepts you mentioned, debating them sharpens your understanding. There are some very knowledgeable people on here, on both sides, and if you go head to head with them you had better know your stuff, or learn it real fast.

I do think there is too much that passes as debate where one side, sometimes both, will attack their opponent rather than presenting a reasoned advocacy of their own side.

 

[saturneptune]

First, I wouldn’t say elder rule is foreign to Baptist thought. I’m pretty sure that Reformed Baptists have elder rule. I know of one large independent (not IFB) Baptist church that uses this form of church government.

As far as the other concepts you mentioned, debating them sharpens your understanding. There are some very knowledgeable people on here, on both sides, and if you go head to head with them you had better know your stuff, or learn it real fast.

I do think there is too much that passes as debate where one side, sometimes both, will attack their opponent rather than presenting a reasoned advocacy of their own side.

Yes, a few Baptist churches have elder rule. Most of the time, as in the Presbyterian Church I grew up in, elders that are elected tend to be on the higher social-economic ladder, rather than spiritually mature. It transforms into elder self gratification. Aside from that, congregational rule is a Baptist distinctive, and a local autonomous church most certainly is.

The other issues have nothing in common with the Baptist faith. Things such as infant baptism, transsubstantiation, praying to created beings, etc, etc, etc, are all fairy tales.

The Lord promised to preserve His church throughout the age of grace, and any nit wit can see it is not the RCC. That would be about the last on the list of possibilities. They manufactured 500 years of history from Peter to their first "real pope." Some entity had to be preserving the church through the first 500 years AD, then the thousand years to the Reformation. Of all of their claims, to attach inspiration to church history, edicts from popes and other RCC scholars, and proclomations is about as low as it gets. One might as well declare a Dr. Suess book divine.

 

[The Biblicist]

What is the purpose on a Baptist Board arguing with people who espouse infant baptism, elder rule, hierarchies, praying to statues, fiddling with rosary beads, treating communion like a magic act, believe in baptismal regeneration, believe church doctrine and history of a false church has any validity?

Why do we even discuss the eternal security of the believer? Why are we worried about the universal church? Has the universal church ever done one thing towards the Lord's work?

The more we debate, the more alien ideas are put into our heads, and the more we forget Baptist distinctives. For example, if one wants to follow the charasmatic mumbo jumbo, then they are probably in the wrong place. If one believes that Mary spends her time traveling from sighting to sighting to wow the crowd, then you are probably in the wrong place. If you believe in a church hierarcy, then you are probably in the wrong place. Most certainly, if you believe in infant or regenerational baptism, you are in the wrong place.

Titus 3:10 instructs preachers to reject such heretics after the second admonition IN A CHURCH CONTEXT.

However, on this kind of forum, I imagine it is done because many believers are exposed to such errors and are looking for answers and this is a place those answers can be found in a LIVE exchange with heretics and with those who are genuinely searching.

 

[saturneptune]

Titus 3:10 instructs preachers to reject such heretics after the second admonition IN A CHURCH CONTEXT.

However, on this kind of forum, I imagine it is done because many believers are exposed to such errors and are looking for answers and this is a place those answers can be found in a LIVE exchange with heretics and with those who are genuinely searching.

That is all true. There are those genuinely searching, and those who are here to cause division and discord. The thing is, if I went to a Catholic chat, and told the truth, I would last about one day.

 

[drfuss]

What is the purpose on a Baptist Board arguing with people who espouse infant baptism, elder rule, hierarchies, praying to statues, fiddling with rosary beads, treating communion like a magic act, believe in baptismal regeneration, believe church doctrine and history of a false church has any validity?

Why do we even discuss the eternal security of the believer? Why are we worried about the universal church? Has the universal church ever done one thing towards the Lord's work?

The more we debate, the more alien ideas are put into our heads, and the more we forget Baptist distinctives. For example, if one wants to follow the charasmatic mumbo jumbo, then they are probably in the wrong place. If one believes that Mary spends her time traveling from sighting to sighting to wow the crowd, then you are probably in the wrong place. If you believe in a church hierarcy, then you are probably in the wrong place. Most certainly, if you believe in infant or regenerational baptism, you are in the wrong place.

I think discussions with other denominations is beneficial because many Baptists have misconceptions of what some other Christians believe. About 20 years ago, we started attending a SBC church and was surprised what Baptists think other denominations believe.

One example is security of the believer. Some Baptists believe that if you don't believe in a doctrine of eternal security, that a Christian cannot know for sure that he is going to heaven. Actually, a Christian that does not believe in a doctrine of eternal security, is just as sure of his salvation as a Christian that does believe in a doctrine of eternal security.

Another example concerns speaking in tongues. I have heard Baptists say that Pentecostals believe that unless someone speaks in tongues, they are not saved. No Pentecostal denomination believes that except possibly the Oneness Pentecostal Denomination, which other Pentecostal denominations consider a cult.

On the other hand, many non-Baptists believe that all Baptists believe as Stanley does concerning eternal security, i.e. Once Saved, Always Saved even if you permanently stop believing in Christ.

I believe an exchange of information can be beneficial to both Baptists and Non-Baptist. I agree that negative heated debates can be a problem and a waste of time.

 

[The Biblicist]

One example is security of the believer. Some Baptists believe that if you don't believe in a doctrine of eternal security, that a Christian cannot know for sure that he is going to heaven. Actually, a Christian that does not believe in a doctrine of eternal security, is just as sure of his salvation as a Christian that does believe in a doctrine of eternal security.

The term "Baptist" is a generic term covering a lot of territory. However, if we are talking about the majority of Baptists as defined by major Baptist confessions of faith for the past three hundred years then your position is incorrect.

I realize this is not the place to discuss this but I would be interested in exactly how you define "eternal security" and what aspect of Baptist soteriology you think it is a product of.

 

[Wittenberger]

That is all true. There are those genuinely searching, and those who are here to cause division and discord. The thing is, if I went to a Catholic chat, and told the truth, I would last about one day.

I'm curious, brother, if you feel as you do, why do you click onto the BB forum with the title: "Other Christian Denominations: debate other denominations' doctrines/beliefs here" if you are so offended in reading posts by "heretics"??

There are numerous other forums for "Baptists only" on the BB. If we heretics annoy you so much, why not avoid this forum which is specifically for the purpose of debating denominational differences.

By the way, I appreciate and have a great deal of respect for the BB to be confident enough to let us "heretics" on this one forum! If they were paranoid and insecure like some groups, they would ban us all together. Three cheers for the Baptists for having the intestinal fortitude to tolerate challenges to their belief system! They are holding true to one of the most important values of the first Baptists in America: religious tolerance (even if you can't stand us!)

 

[drfuss]

The term "Baptist" is a generic term covering a lot of territory. However, if we are talking about the majority of Baptists as defined by major Baptist confessions of faith for the past three hundred years then your position is incorrect.

I realize this is not the place to discuss this but I would be interested in exactly how you define "eternal security" and what aspect of Baptist soteriology you think it is a product of.

I was relaying my experience in coming from another denomination and starting to attend a Southern Baptist Church, which is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest Baptist Group. I realize there are other Baptist churches which have some differing beliefs.

Concerning "eternal security", notice that I referred to "a doctrine of eternal security", and not just eternal security. Those who do not believe a doctrine of eternal security can be just a secure as those who believe in these doctrines.

There are three doctrines of eternal security that I am aware of. One doctrine is the Calvinists who believe that the elect will perservere to the end (some may not consider this one as eternal security). The second is the belief that a True Christain cannot/will not stop believing. For this belief, if one stops believing, he was not a True Christian in the first place. A third is the belief that a True Christian can stop believing and die in an unbelieving state and still go to heaven. Note that the second and third beliefs contradict one another, concerning if a True Christ can stop believing. Charles Stanley and Zane Hodges hold to this third belief. THe SBC Baptist Faith and Message is carefully worded to accomadate all three beliefs.

There may be other versions, but I am not aware of them.

 

[The Biblicist]

Those who do not believe a doctrine of eternal security can be just a secure as those who believe in these doctrines.

Agreed! Ignorance does not deny they are eternally secure if they are true believers.

There are three doctrines of eternal security that I am aware of. One doctrine is the Calvinists who believe that the elect will perservere to the end (some may not consider this one as eternal security). The second is the belief that a True Christain cannot/will not stop believing. For this belief, if one stops believing, he was not a True Christian in the first place. A third is the belief that a True Christian can stop believing and die in an unbelieving state and still go to heaven. Note that the second and third beliefs contradict one another, concerning if a True Christ can stop believing. Charles Stanley and Zane Hodges hold to this third belief. THe SBC Baptist Faith and Message is carefully worded to accomadate all three beliefs.

There may be other versions, but I am not aware of them.

These are all insufficient defintions. The doctrine of eternal security is based upon the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement received by regenerative faith that secures an immutable position before God "in Christ" by faith as a PERFECT TENSE action (Rom. 5:2). That is, a completed point of action in the past that continues in this perfected state due to God's promise. It does not depend upon any subequent action of the believer but the finished work of Christ, although it is made manifested by several things (fruits of the Spirit, chastening, etc.).

 

[saturneptune]

I'm curious, brother, if you feel as you do, why do you click onto the BB forum with the title: "Other Christian Denominations: debate other denominations' doctrines/beliefs here" if you are so offended in reading posts by "heretics"??

There are numerous other forums for "Baptists only" on the BB. If we heretics annoy you so much, why not avoid this forum which is specifically for the purpose of debating denominational differences.

By the way, I appreciate and have a great deal of respect for the BB to be confident enough to let us "heretics" on this one forum! If they were paranoid and insecure like some groups, they would ban us all together. Three cheers for the Baptists for having the intestinal fortitude to tolerate challenges to their belief system! They are holding true to one of the most important values of the first Baptists in America: religious tolerance (even if you can't stand us!)

I am curious brother, why do you interject name calling on yourself when no one called you that name? So, you start off your post on a false premise. The "Other Denominations" section was created out of the graciousness of the Owner and Administrators within the framework of Baptist distinctives. I will guarantee if I took the fight to a Catholic or Lutheran forum, and posted correct Biblical doctrine, I would last anywhere from a few hours to a few days. Then I would be banned. The liberty and tolerance on this board for such concepts is unequaled.

Catholics have no tolerance for differences of opinion or Scriptural truth. Lutherans are a little more open. The closest Protestant denomination to being of like faith and order to Baptists are Presbyterians, and I do not notice them here pounding their doctrine. Although similar, there are differences, but not compared to the magic acts you all perform.

 

[Wittenberger]

Titus 3:10 instructs preachers to reject such heretics after the second admonition IN A CHURCH CONTEXT.

However, on this kind of forum, I imagine it is done because many believers are exposed to such errors and are looking for answers and this is a place those answers can be found in a LIVE exchange with heretics and with those who are genuinely searching.

You will have to ask Brother Biblicist for his definition of "heretics" but since Mormons and JWs are not allowed on this site, I will bet good money he is referring to Roman Catholics, Orthodox and "Magisterial Protestants".

Again I praise the Baptists for being secure enough to let us non-Baptists on here.

By the way, if ANY denomination starts a forum with the title of "Other Christian Denominations: debate their beliefs and practices" and then bans someone for stating a differing view, they are not only insincere but are lying and really setting up the "other denominations" site for the purpose of proselytzing only.

If outside denominations are not welcome, don't put out the welcome mat!

 

[saturneptune]

You will have to ask Brother Biblicist for his definition of "heretics" but since Mormons and JWs are not allowed on this site, I will bet good money he is referring to Roman Catholics, Orthodox and "Magisterial Protestants".

Again I praise the Baptists for being secure enough to let us non-Baptists on here.

By the way, if ANY denomination starts a forum with the title of "Other Christian Denominations: debate their beliefs and practices" and then bans someone for stating a differing view, they are not only insincere but are lying and really setting up the "other denominations" site for the purpose of proselytzing only.

If outside denominations are not welcome, don't put out the welcome mat!

No sir, your post is completely deceptive. You used the word heretic on yourself in an attempt to be an internet martyr. Outside denominations are welcome, or you would not be here. You said "you will bet good money" and go on to define the name that you yourself made up. This is the ultimate strawman.

Hey, I bet this is a great plot for your next episode of "Davy and Goliath."

 

[Wittenberger]

No sir, your post is completely deceptive. You used the word heretic on yourself in an attempt to be an internet martyr. Outside denominations are welcome, or you would not be here. You said "you will bet good money" and go on to define the name that you yourself made up. This is the ultimate strawman.

Hey, I bet this is a great plot for your next episode of "Davy and Goliath."

You lost me, brother. Again, I am grateful that you and the BB allow me to participate in this forum, regardless of whether you or Biblicist thinks I'm a heretic or not.

 

[The Biblicist]

You lost me, brother. Again, I am grateful that you and the BB allow me to participate in this forum, regardless of whether you or Biblicist thinks I'm a heretic or not.

I don't think so! It is pretty evident you know exactly what you are doing. Yes, you are a heretic in my judgement and you are attempting to proselyte by your posts beginning with post #138 on your continued debate thread and that violates the forum's rules.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is what I would focus on.....

What are the distinguishing qualifications of those that are in favor with God, and entitled to his eternal rewards?

Forget everything else. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[drfuss]

Agreed! Ignorance does not deny they are eternally secure if they are true believers.



These are all insufficient defintions. The doctrine of eternal security is based upon the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement received by regenerative faith that secures an immutable position before God "in Christ" by faith as a PERFECT TENSE action (Rom. 5:2). That is, a completed point of action in the past that continues in this perfected state due to God's promise. It does not depend upon any subequent action of the believer but the finished work of Christ, although it is made manifested by several things (fruits of the Spirit, chastening, etc.).

It has always amused me how eternal security Christians immediately go into their talking points and ignore the conflicting differences within the various doctrines of eternal security.

 

[The Biblicist]

It has always amused me how eternal security Christians immediately go into their talking points and ignore the conflicting differences within the various doctrines of eternal security.

The same can be said about the different views of every other doctrine as well.

Eternal security and substitutionary atonement are one and the same doctrine. Eternal security and justification by faith without works is one and the same doctrine. Eternal security and eternal life are one and the same doctrine.

1. Substitutionary atonement is Christ taking the place of the sinner and fully satisfying both righeous demands of the law - denial of eternal security is denial that Christ fully satsifed these demands but only conditionally satisfied them based upon their ultimate faithfulness - good works.

2. Justification by faith without works is faith in Christ for having satisfied the legal demands of the law thus receiving his righteousness by legal imputation and by having our sins removed by non-imputation to us and imputation of our sins to Christ - 2 Corl 5:21. Denial of eternal security is denial of substitutionary atonement by imputation.

3. Eternal life is not "temporal" life but "eternal" life and that by definition is "eternal security."

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The same can be said about the different views of every other doctrine as well.

Eternal security and substitutionary atonement are one and the same doctrine. Eternal security and justification by faith without works is one and the same doctrine. Eternal security and eternal life are one and the same doctrine.

1. Substitutionary atonement is Christ taking the place of the sinner and fully satisfying both righeous demands of the law - denial of eternal security is denial that Christ fully satsifed these demands but only conditionally satisfied them based upon their ultimate faithfulness - good works.

2. Justification by faith without works is faith in Christ for having satisfied the legal demands of the law thus receiving his righteousness by legal imputation and by having our sins removed by non-imputation to us and imputation of our sins to Christ - 2 Corl 5:21. Denial of eternal security is denial of substitutionary atonement by imputation.

3. Eternal life is not "temporal" life but "eternal" life and that by definition is "eternal security."

That is one of the most ridiculous and false posts I have ever seen.

 

[The Biblicist]

That is one of the most ridiculous and false posts I have ever seen.

Again, a nasty mouth but no substance, no evidence, nothing to support your charges except YOUR OWN APPARENT REJECTION OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST.