You can be a Baptist and still not be Saved

What, according to scripture, are the requirements for salvation?

 

and what, according to scripture, are the requirements of the reader towards interpreting Gods word ?

 

You can be a Baptist and still not be Saved

You can be a member of any oprganized religion and not be saved. OTOH, you can also be a member of any organized religion and be saved. The two have nothing to do with each other.

 

That's a very true statement and very misleading at the same time. It is true but, what do you reckon the odds are for someone in a Mormon church vs someone in a solid, sound, truth following, real Christian church. The two have something to do with each other.

 

We didn't just evolve from primates. We ARE primates. The name itself means the "primary" lifeform on the planet. Just because someone doesn't limit how God can use his creative power doesn't mean they are worshipping a non-biblical God.

 

to your post. A little fine tuning on this statement. I don't think it is a matter of "at some point'. The heart is either right with God or it isn't If the heart is right then that person is honestly wanting to know the real Jesus and if the heart isn't right then that person isn't wanting to know the real Jesus. I don't think it is a matter of how many ideas you succomb to but just a matter of which target are you shooting for. Since liberals "miss" the target on almost every issue, I can pretty well state that they aren't shooting at the same target (God's real truth) as I am, and they are not worshiping the same God as I am. The "at some point" idea comes in when I have to decide whether this is someone I can fellowship with or not.

 

I am NOT a primate. I know what science and the dictionary say (American College Dictionary: PRIMATE - any mammal of the order Primates that includes man, the apes, the monkeys, the lemurs, etc.). I will NOT submit to an evolutionist getting to call me an animal. He can call me a sycamore tree if he wants to but, that doesn't make me one. "I am not an animal." (doing my best Richard Harris impression)

The Biblical God created what He created in six days and if someone worships a God that didn't then they ARE worshipping a non-Biblical God.

 

Dr. Bob, I attended that church for about six months and you must understand that (at the time, 1974) they were so legalistic that it didn't take much for them to NOT consider you a Christian. The actual percentage was probably much higher as the gospel was indeed taught but any viewed imperfection was cause to doubt your salvation.

 

Yes, the two have something to do with each other, but they are not mutually exclusive. Jesus even warns us not to think we're better in faith than others, because by thinks so, we simply prove the opposite.

So I ask, is there really such thing as a perfectly "solid, sound, truth following, real Christian church". Some may be more than others, but churches are nothing more than an imperfect vehicle used by imperfect man to imperfectly express his faith to the best of his imperfect ability. The real church is us, not the buildings we're in. When Jesus said "when two or three are gathered in my name, there am I", I take Him at His word: He didn't make it conditional on anything besides his name. Hence, if there are two or three gathering in Jesus' name in a Mormon church, Jesus is there. Their understanding of Him may be way off base, and their docrine may in places be biblically contradictory, but He is there nonetheless, whether we, the more doctrinally sound, like it or not.

 

That's better left for the creation/evolution forum. But to get to the point, I think you're confusing your physical makeup with your spiritual makeup. Physically, I'm a primate. So what? It means nothing. It's not my phisical makeup that makes me in the image and likeness of God, it's my soul does. One day, I won't have my body anymore, so whether it's a primate or not is irrelevant. However, my soul, well, I'll have that for eternity.

 

i think that most of the time you are not being serious. you couldn't possibly be that liberal and so far off of being in line with scripture and at the same time be serious

You're saying that being in the image and likeness of God refers to our physical makeup? Since God doesn't have physical form, how can that be? No, Genesis 2 is very specific. What made man in God' image is the "breath of life" that God breathed into Him, which resulted in man becoming a "living soul". The living soul has nothing to do with physical form.

The only way that could be construed as "liberal" would be from a hyperconservative point of view.

 

I'm saying that this has nothing to do with the topic of the forum, so take in elsewhere, please.

 

What others? Other Christians, yes. Other people in false religions, no. Others who are lost, no.

I didn't say "perfectly". Why did you add that word?

So, the church which is successfully discipling a large percentage of its members with Biblically correct doctrine is no better than a church where correct doctrine is almost an accident because, afterall, nobody is perfect.

I didn't mention buildings.

I also take Him at His word. Are you under the impression that "Jesus' name" is nothing more than saying the word "Jesus". To credit the Mormon use of the word with the Christian use of the word as essentially the same tells me that either you don't know Mormon doctrine or you don't know Christian doctrine. Their published understanding of Him IS way off base not "may be". I am sorry John, I mean this in the kindest way I can but, would you please, stop trying to be politically correct. "their docrine may in places be biblically contradictory" Their doctrine IS in almost every place WRONG. Is it possible that someone who is a member of a Mormon Church be saved? Of course. Is it just a matter of degree of maturity? No. Finally, John, where two or three Christians are gathered in His name, He is there. When two or three Mormons are gathered together in the name of their false Jesus, He is NOT there, (in the sense that we are talking about here) whether we, the more doctrinally sound, like it or not.

 

What others? Other Christians, yes. Other people in false religions, no. Others who are lost, no.
Jesus was addressing the high priests, who were neither Christian, not followers of Jesus.

I didn't say "perfectly". Why did you add that word?
The sentence after that, where I discuss some more than others, explains why I said "perfectly".

So, the church which is successfully discipling a large percentage of its members with Biblically correct doctrine is no better than a church where correct doctrine is almost an accident because, afterall, nobody is perfect.
Everyone thinks they've got correct doctrine. We as baptists can't even agree on doctrine. See any thread regarding calvinism/arminianism. OTOH, much of what we think is doctrine isn't a doctrinal issue at all (see threads discussing creation/evolution, women pastors, or women and pants).

I didn't mention buildings.
Well, then we're in agreement there.

Are you under the impression that "Jesus' name" is nothing more than saying the word "Jesus".
Considering that "Jesus" isn't even his real name, no. I believed that Jesus was referring to people who call upon him in assembly (worship).

To credit the Mormon use of the word with the Christian use of the word as essentially the same tells me that either you don't know Mormon doctrine or you don't know Christian doctrine.
Therre is no "Mormon" use of the word, or "Christian" use of the word. Calling upon Jesus as I said earler is the use I was referring to.

Their published understanding of Him IS way off base not "may be".
I agree. I disagree with Mormon doctrine in its majority, and believe that the bulk of it it contrary to scriptural doctrine.

I am sorry John, I mean this in the kindest way I can but, would you please, stop trying to be politically correct.
It doesen't offend me, because I know you're not trying to be unkind. But I'm not attempting to be politically correct. I'm often far from.

"their docrine may in places be biblically contradictory" Their doctrine IS in almost every place WRONG.
When I said "their doctrine may be wrong", I was saying that some of their doctrine is, imo, biblically wrong, and some of it isn't. I don't think we're discussing points where their views are biblically sound. Rather, we're discussing docteine of theirs that's way off scripturally. So just to reiterate, yes, I believe that much of the Mormon doctrine is scriprutally unsound.

Is it possible that someone who is a member of a Mormon Church be saved? Of course. Is it just a matter of degree of maturity? No.
We're in agreement here.

Finally, John, where two or three Christians are gathered in His name, He is there. When two or three Mormons are gathered together in the name of their false Jesus, He is NOT there, (in the sense that we are talking about here) whether we, the more doctrinally sound, like it or not.
Jesus was a real living historical person, whose existence is recorded in writings besides the Bible, and I don't think using the word "false" is appropriate in that sense. That's a little extreme, and disrespectful for a Christian to speak of Jesus in such terms. I think that Mormons, in general, have a wrong understading of Jesus, especially in regards to Jesus in the Book of Mormon. However, believing that Jesus is the Messiah and savior of all via grace, that part of their belief is true.

You imply that the "two or three" verse applies onyl to Christians. I don't think so. What if two or three agnostics, who have never cracked open a bible, call upon Jesus in an effort to get to know him? Does Jesus not become present? Sure he does. However, whether or not they (or Mormons) recognize him is a different subject altogether.

 

It would indeed be disrespectful (and not just a little scarey) to refer to the Son of God as a false Jesus, but, I was using it in the manner of:

Matt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,
(false brethren, false prophets, and false apostles in other places)

I wasn't speaking of Jesus, but of the Mormon concept. Which is entirely two different things.