Unity and Uniformity 2

Well......I have no desire to disagree, however it seems to me that we all need to understand that water baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

It is a act of obedience "after" we are saved to show an outward position of an inward change in our lives, but the act itself is not required in order to be saved.
Agreed, as was not speaking about the false teaching of must be water baoptized, or must be in a certain mode in a certain name, but just in regards to infant or adult baptism!
 
And yet we have denominational, distinctive divisions on the basis of those and other doctrinal issues that are classified as non-salvation issues. That such things have so easily been granted the power to divide the Church in each city, I'd say that's troubling. It's almost as if groupings went out of their way to find a pre-defined set of doctrinal distinctives to justify their existence as a separate grouping from all others. Just looking at, for example, Luther's and Zwingli's childish actions after the "reformation," each one vying for supremacy and prominence by way of doctrinal superiority.

We agree on the fundamentals of what you've said, but the harsh reality is what's troubling. Ideally the non-salvation issues should not divide us up, but that has happened regardless.

MM
To illustrate, I am a Calvnist Baptist, and yet have no problem being friends and working alongside non calvinist believers, and even are friends with charismatic believers, bujt will draw the lione at those who insist must speak in tongues or buy into Word of faith!
 
To illustrate, I am a Calvnist Baptist, and yet have no problem being friends and working alongside non calvinist believers, and even are friends with charismatic believers, bujt will draw the lione at those who insist must speak in tongues or buy into Word of faith!
As a Calvinistic Baptist, would you mind if an Arminian Wesleyan, or even an Arminian Baptist, preached from your pulpit for a week?
 
As a Calvinistic Baptist, would you mind if an Arminian Wesleyan, or even an Arminian Baptist, preached from your pulpit for a week?
Not if they agreed to preach and teach the scriptures essential truths, as would teach them in their church the doctrines of the faith without "pushing my calvinism"
 

bobinfaith

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
To illustrate, I am a Calvnist Baptist, and yet have no problem being friends and working alongside non calvinist believers, and even are friends with charismatic believers, bujt will draw the lione at those who insist must speak in tongues or buy into Word of faith!

As a Calvinistic Baptist, would you mind if an Arminian Wesleyan, or even an Arminian Baptist, preached from your pulpit for a week?

Hello YeshuaFan;

I agree. When someone who "insists" on speaking in tongues or "buying" into the Word of Faith is not spirit led. I once attended a men's retreat and at the end of one of the services, men representing their church came up to the altar and prayed as one minister led. Some in the group starting babbling in tongues and this actually hindered my prayer with the group. So I quietly left the group and sat down with my church brothers.

When I asked the other men, politely, what was the
Word when they prayed aloud in tongues, their response was they were "filled with a rush of the spirit but didn't have an interpretation, and they do this all the time at church." I rest my case.

crossnote, thats a good question you ask, and I'm always open to any Christian minister, regardless of their doctrine. I have attended and listened to their message and believe me, there have been several "celebratory" preachers that I found extremely erroneous in their preaching.
My wife and I have quietly gotten up in the middle of their message and walked out. Regardless, I feel it's a good learning experience for all of us to learn discernment with whom is giving the message.




 
Not if they agreed to preach and teach the scriptures essential truths, as would teach them in their church the doctrines of the faith without "pushing my calvinism"
It seems though, those two schools, can't help but interject their bias into something as essential as the Gospel itself.
I don't want to turn this into a Cal/Arminian 'discussion' but their difference hit at a central nerve of the Gospel.
 
Hello YeshuaFan;

I agree. When someone who "insists" on speaking in tongues or "buying" into the Word of Faith is not spirit led. I once attended a men's retreat and at the end of one of the services, men representing their church came up to the altar and prayed as one minister led. Some in the group starting babbling in tongues and this actually hindered my prayer with the group. So I quietly left the group and sat down with my church brothers.

When I asked the other men, politely, what was the
Word when they prayed aloud in tongues, their response was they were "filled with a rush of the spirit but didn't have an interpretation, and they do this all the time at church." I rest my case.

crossnote, thats a good question you ask, and I'm always open to any Christian minister, regardless of their doctrine. I have attended and listened to their message and believe me, there have been several "celebratory" preachers that I found extremely erroneous in their preaching.
My wife and I have quietly gotten up in the middle of their message and walked out. Regardless, I feel it's a good learning experience for all of us to learn discernment with whom is giving the message.

All,

I married a woman whose family is part of a charismatic grouping of church organizations who sometimes do what is clearly a violation of scripture, given that they tend to think more with their emotions than sticking to the scriptures. One or two of them had women "pastors"...so called.

So, there are indeed lines of separation that must be upheld. Many of the historic and modern lines of separation, however, are not lines that should exist.

Now, for those groupings who will say that Christ Jesus is the Head, then it would seem that each grouping who recognizes that can and should function collectively in each city under the Headship of Christ. That would make the local community of believers a much more powerful force against the evils in each city and region.

What occurs to me, however, is the worry over who would be in charge, as I have been asked many times. When I mentioned once against the Headship of Christ...it's crickets all around...

MM
 
What occurs to me, however, is the worry over who would be in charge, as I have been asked many times. When I mentioned once against the Headship of Christ...it's crickets all around...
Usually, it's the loudest, pushiest, smoothest talker that ends up in charge, nearly the exact opposite of the attributes of Jesus.
This gets into the carnal politics of a Church in which I usually bow out.
 
Hello YeshuaFan;

I agree. When someone who "insists" on speaking in tongues or "buying" into the Word of Faith is not spirit led. I once attended a men's retreat and at the end of one of the services, men representing their church came up to the altar and prayed as one minister led. Some in the group starting babbling in tongues and this actually hindered my prayer with the group. So I quietly left the group and sat down with my church brothers.

When I asked the other men, politely, what was the
Word when they prayed aloud in tongues, their response was they were "filled with a rush of the spirit but didn't have an interpretation, and they do this all the time at church." I rest my case.

crossnote, thats a good question you ask, and I'm always open to any Christian minister, regardless of their doctrine. I have attended and listened to their message and believe me, there have been several "celebratory" preachers that I found extremely erroneous in their preaching.
My wife and I have quietly gotten up in the middle of their message and walked out. Regardless, I feel it's a good learning experience for all of us to learn discernment with whom is giving the message.
I like to listen to Charles Stanley and Chuck Swindoll, neither one is a Calvinist!
 
It seems though, those two schools, can't help but interject their bias into something as essential as the Gospel itself.
I don't want to turn this into a Cal/Arminian 'discussion' but their difference hit at a central nerve of the Gospel.
George Whitefield stauch calvinist, but he and Wesley were friends, and somone asked Wesley at Whitefield funeral if he planned to see him in Heaven, and replied would not, as he would be much closer to the throne then He, Wesley, would be!
 
All,

I married a woman whose family is part of a charismatic grouping of church organizations who sometimes do what is clearly a violation of scripture, given that they tend to think more with their emotions than sticking to the scriptures. One or two of them had women "pastors"...so called.

So, there are indeed lines of separation that must be upheld. Many of the historic and modern lines of separation, however, are not lines that should exist.

Now, for those groupings who will say that Christ Jesus is the Head, then it would seem that each grouping who recognizes that can and should function collectively in each city under the Headship of Christ. That would make the local community of believers a much more powerful force against the evils in each city and region.

What occurs to me, however, is the worry over who would be in charge, as I have been asked many times. When I mentioned once against the Headship of Christ...it's crickets all around...

MM
The problem is when some groups and persons start pushing fridge, and even heresies into the Community of faith! Having woman pastors would be wrong, but not nearly as bad as Word of faith nor Jesus Only!
 
George Whitefield staunch calvinist, but he and Wesley were friends, and someone asked Wesley at Whitefield funeral if he planned to see him in Heaven, and replied would not, as he would be much closer to the throne then He, Wesley, would be!
OTOH, I have been around some circles where neither side thought the other would make it to glory.
 
Hello YeshuaFan;

I agree. When someone who "insists" on speaking in tongues or "buying" into the Word of Faith is not spirit led. I once attended a men's retreat and at the end of one of the services, men representing their church came up to the altar and prayed as one minister led. Some in the group starting babbling in tongues and this actually hindered my prayer with the group. So I quietly left the group and sat down with my church brothers.

When I asked the other men, politely, what was the
Word when they prayed aloud in tongues, their response was they were "filled with a rush of the spirit but didn't have an interpretation, and they do this all the time at church." I rest my case.

crossnote, thats a good question you ask, and I'm always open to any Christian minister, regardless of their doctrine. I have attended and listened to their message and believe me, there have been several "celebratory" preachers that I found extremely erroneous in their preaching.
My wife and I have quietly gotten up in the middle of their message and walked out. Regardless, I feel it's a good learning experience for all of us to learn discernment with whom is giving the message.

Been there and done that!

When my mother was severally ill in the hospital....the hospital Chaplin who was Roman Catholic asked if he could pray for her.

Prayer is always good but when he began to babble over her I had to step in and stop him. He did not understand why and even after I explained to him the reason, he still did not understand.
 
Been there and done that!

When my mother was severally ill in the hospital....the hospital Chaplin who was Roman Catholic asked if he could pray for her.

Prayer is always good but when he began to babble over her I had to step in and stop him. He did not understand why and even after I explained to him the reason, he still did not understand.
Interesting to me that one can be against Catholic theology in regards to salvation, and yet once both speak in gibberish, now bosom buddies!
 
I like Stanley, but being told to "listen" throughout the entire sermon, it kind of makes me wonder if he thinks he's putting people to sleep all the time...

MM
The one who really put people to sleep was RC Sproul. as loved much of his theology, but he did not have the gift of speaking in regular ways, as all of his messages and sermons seemed to be like appearing before the Board earning his Phd!
 
Top