Church that requires 2nd Baptism shoots a FIERY REPLY!

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Jacob Gastrich, Aug 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jacob Gastrich

    Jacob Gastrich
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a bad feeling that I was not the most Godly in this email. What do you say? God forgive me.

    -
    There are so many things I would like to say right now, but I am going to try to keep it as short as possible. I have many more important issues as we prepare to move into our new, 3,000-seat auditorium tomorrow than answering the same question from the same guy for the fourth or fifth time. Why have you sought to make such a big issue out of something that is not an issue? Are you corresponding with the thousands of churches in CA and the rest of America that believe exactly as North Valley? Is it really the best use of your life to call the Bible Answerman on KFAX to ask what he thinks about a question that you have regarding a stand that you think our church has taken which is not even correct? By the way, what makes the Bible Answerman on KFAX 1100 the final authority? You say, “not even he agrees” with something like he is the Apostle Paul speaking by divine inspiration or something. It doesn’t matter what he said because the question you asked him was not even a valid question.

    Well the the BAM knows scripture and is always ready to defend himself.

    1. We don’t have a chapter and verse for the teaching that one must be baptized if one was saved in a non-KJV only church because that is not a stated doctrine of our church. I don’t know where you came up with this whole issue. We have never said that, written that, or preached that. You told me with your own mouth you were saved and baptized through a place that would be way off Scripturally. They do not believe nor practice the Bible as even you think they should.

    Likewise my old pastor never believed that the CM&A was that bad where one would require Baptism. He did not agree with the CM&A and did not associate with them. But he did try and minister to the people at the school, and he never required one Simpson student that was Saved and Baptized in the Alliance to get Baptized a second time. This is not what the Bible teaches.

    Because of that, if you wanted to be a member of our church, you would need to be baptized in our church.

    Which is a false doctrine. Hanagraaf said on the radio that you were not a "healthy Well Balanced Church." Its a shame that Fundamentalist churches are very rare around here. Back in Northern California where I lived for 4+ years it was not difficult finding non King James Only Fundamentalist Churches.

    North Valley Baptist of Redding is one such example. Just as conservative as you. But the difference is that they do no require former CM&A people to get Baptized a second time, nor are they KJVO.


    If you don’t want to be a member of our church, then it doesn’t even matter. The fact of you being baptized in our church has NOTHING to do with whether or not the ministry where you were saved is non-KJV only. (read that sentence again 10 times before moving on. It may save you from asking this question in another form or fashion some months down the road). You have created an issue out of something that is not an issue.

    Its a very serious issue and even my former pastor(s) agrees that requiring me to get Baptized into your church, because I was originally Baptized in the Alliance is a false doctrine. You cant defend it, like my old pastors could. They knew scripture in and out.


    On another note, there are many things that every church does without a chapter and verse (including your beloved non-KJV only church in Red Bluff).

    The sarcasm is interesting. I not once was sarcastic to you was I? If I was please show me so I can improve.

    In Redbluff there were many non KJVO churches. Community Baptist was just as conservative as you, and did not practice KJVOism.

    KJVOism is not the biggest issue and I could live with that. But requiring someone to get Baptized a second time is wrong.

    My pastors confirmed it, I called Grace Community Church and they agreed, and know Hank Hanagraaf said the same.


    Give me a chapter and verse for holding church at 11:00 a.m. on Sunday. Why not 2:00 p.m.? Give me a chapter and verse to have a piano playing. Why not a harpsichord? Is there a chapter and verse about why some churches use screens to put the words up and why some don’t? Of course not. Churches all have different personalities, with different practices.

    No matter saying that the Alliance is not a Christian Church is wrong and absurd man. I am not in favor of the Alliance in all areas, but they are a christian church and they are doign greta work overseas.

    This is what you have said by requiring me to get Baptized into your church.

    CONT....
     
  2. Jacob Gastrich

    Jacob Gastrich
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part II

    To begin to say that you want a chapter and verse for everything that every church does is a slippery slope that will lead to trouble very quickly. You will not find ANY church that can give a specific chapter and verse for everything that is done in their church.

    Well its what my old pastor taught me. Always look for Biblical support. Acts 17:11 you see that the Bureans did the same.

    If you have a question with any part of our church’s official doctrinal statement, please e-mail that and we will seek to give you the chapter and verse for it. Otherwise, please cease and desist from trying to make up doctrines for our church that you can have a problem with.

    I did not make up anything man. You said "like minded church." I said I was Baptized in the Alliance and later became a member of 2 Fundamentalist churches in the Redding/Redbluff area.

    None of these churches were KJVO and yes they did preach from the NIV, NASB,etc... You then told me to become a memebr would require getting Baptized a second time.

    We were doing fine before your online questions began coming, and we will be doing fine once they have stopped coming. I told you when I met you in the church that our church’s doctrinal statement was posted on our web site. That is what we believe and why we believe it.

    The difference between you and my last one. They welcomed critique and were always ready to defend and suport any and all doctrines.

    2. We do not require one to be baptized a second time. We believe baptism is an ordinance of the church that Christ established. Hence, we believe baptism must come after salvation by a church of like faith and practice to our church.

    And the CM&A does not fit the bill. So I must be baptized a second time.

    The CM&A is a Christian church

    We do not recognize the baptism of an infant in a Catholic church. Once said infant is saved, we believe he must be baptized. While it may be true that this is the second baptism of his life, we believe it is only the first Biblical baptism. Baptism is not something that any Tom, Dick, or John can decide to do to whoever they like. It is something that should be done by a church that believes in and is seeking to practice the teachings of the Bible. I doubt if you would accept the baptism of a person baptized in a Catholic church either.

    Huge difference between a Catholic and a CM&A person!

    Catholics are not even saved man. Christian and Missionary Alliance people are saved!


    The line must be drawn somewhere. What if someone was saved and then baptized in the bathtub at their Buddhist’s friends house? Would you accept it?

    Again HUGE DIFFERENCE between a member of another religion and a member of a Christian Denomination!

    You can choose to draw the line wherever you like and we will have no problem. Your church in Red Bluff (two words, by the way) can choose to draw the line wherever they would like, and we have no problem with it.

    Only if the Bible supports it.

    Thirty plus years ago, the position on this issue was established for our church, and we ask you to respect it.

    So a constitution has more weight than the Bible.

    We will accept the baptism of someone who has been baptized in a church of like faith and practice, no matter what Bible Man says or how many more online forms you fill out. This is not going to change, and it has NOTHING to do with the King James Bible. (read that last sentence 10 more times in case you did not do it earlier. Maybe it will begin to sink in with you).

    Or maybe your sarcasm will stop before it is reported to the senior pastor.

    3. We have never made such a statement, and hence we have never, nor will we ever say that all Non-KJV only fundamentalist churches and institutions are wrong. You said that, not us. We are not the judge of other places, nor do we have any desire to be. You are trying to place us in a position that we have never taken, nor will we ever take.

    I never mentioned you by name on National Radio. Why the reaction like I did?

    4. Where did you hear that our church is accountable to a constitution? I did not say this, our church has not said this, and it is just plain untrue. Just another example of your flawed reasoning. We are definitely accountable to God’s Word and have been for 31+ years.

    Explain why you require people to get Baptized a second time if they were not Baptized in a church of like faith and practice?

    5. If I would have chosen to ignore this e-mail, it would not have proven that we are not always ready to defend the faith. It would have proven that we chose not to answer your online form. Don’t read into things so much.

    Gonna clue you in.

    1 Pet 3:15- Always be ready to give an answer for the Faith and Hope that you have. And do it with gentleness and with respect.


    Perhaps the Gentleness and Respect is whats missing from both our parts here.

    6. I’m not sure what your NKJV or NIV or RSV or ASV or any other translation says, but my Bible tells me to “avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain” (Titus 3:9).

    It also says that all those who call on the name of the Lord shall be Saved.

    The CM&A has called on the name of the Lord and many of them are saved. Why then will you not accept their Baptism?


    Your hobby horse of baptism in a non-KJV church and repeated questioning about such church policy has been unprofitable and vain. When you came to our church and spoke with me in the foyer, you said that it was not a big issue with you and you did not want to discuss it. Then, you call BibleMan and I guess you get a renewed zeal to stand against a church that is seeking to do its best to preach the gospel of Christ to a lost and dying world.

    Regardless not accepting the CM&A Baptism was wrong. I never once mentioned you by name on the radio.

    But Hank told me what I needed to hear. Keep searching for a Healthy Well Balanced Church.

    I will say that both of the Fundamentalist Churches in the Northern California area accepted my Christian and Missionary Alliance Baptism.

    If that is how you want to spend your life, that is fine with me. I choose to make more important things my priority. The stance that you have convinced yourself our church has taken is false. Hence, this entire argument is useless. If you would like to join our church, we will see you at the altar and one of our deacons can talk to you about the requirements for church membership.

    Which is a second Baptism as you have told me time and time again.

    Trust me, there is much more I would like to say on this matter. However, this message will suffice.

    I have a feeling that you received my letter. I never mentioned you by name. But perhaps what I said in the letter stirred some feathers.

    Please note that I did not try to do this.

    Please do not waste your time replying to this e-mail. I will not be drawn into an extended conversation with you, nor will any more of your online forms be answered.

    Such an attitutde


    Should you have any further questions on Bible clarification or church practice, please call the Bible Answerman this Thursday. I am sure there will be a line open.

    I have called Hank more than 10 times since 1997. He has been a God send.


    Yes and I never and not once mentioned you by name did I? Did you listen to the radio broadcast?


    PS – this is not the official response of the North Valley Baptist Church. This is my response to your online form.
     
  3. thjplgvp

    thjplgvp
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    23
    sounds like, Bible John made it to North Valley Baptist.:laugh: I i'm sorry moderators, don't beat me. If you remember he was a 'Hank man'.

    thjplgvp
     
  4. Brice

    Brice
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's exactly what I thought as I read the OP. There is also the California connection and the debt thread. If I was a CSI (which I'm not) I would think I was on to something here. :laugh:
     
  5. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jacob

    First, this is not the appropriate place to take issue with a pastor that you are not even speaking with - scripturally, you must approach him one on one - then with the elders and then to the church. So when you move this thread - remove the church's name . . .

    Second, this is the Baptist section - you kept talking about CM&A & a more catholic type polity in your post. Different denomination.

    Third, your post makes no sence. When you move this to the other denominations section:

    1. Identify what you have actually discussed with this church about your desire to leave the CM&A - and I think from your post you are considering becoming Baptist.

    2. Let those of us that do not know anything about CM&A know a little bit about your baptism - Should Baptists consider the CM&A baptism a scriptural baptism? (*)

    3. Present your case scripturally.

    4. Present a little about the church's doctrine that you take exception to - are they landmarkist?

    5. Present what you would expect the scriptural answer to be.

    6. Then open it up to debate without giving the name of a church that you do not seem to want to even join.

    (*) At some point you should let us know what has caused you to leave the CM&A and even consider joining a Baptist Church?
     
  6. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    This is not an uncommon stance for a Baptist church. If you disagree with it strongly, you should find another church.
     
  7. Lagardo

    Lagardo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm afraid I didn't see a "fiery reply." Too me, this pastor seems to be patiently trying to explain his stance to you, and I gather that he has done this several times.

    Halfway through your post I begin to wonder why you would want to join this church if you cannot get along, save agree with, the pastor from the outset. Every church has its own guidelines for accepting members from other churches. The Bible does not clearly state how a local church should answer this. Apparently, you have found somethng in the constitution of a church that you cannot agree with. This is a good indication that you should probably look elsewhere.
     
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Generally sounds to me like if one wants to 'pick a fight', one can certainly find one without expending too much effort. :rolleyes:

    Sad. :tear:

    Ed
     
  9. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good post Lagardo. We Baptist fight over this requirement in our churches more than any other denomination. It is not essential to our being justified, and have never been able to figure out why we make such a big issue of it. If it is not "dunking", then it’s the "wording". If it is not these it is "having to do it twice", because the first one did not take. It really doesn't make any sense when we stop, think, and look into the matter.

    As you say, move elsewhere to find agreeing sentiments.
     
  10. Blammo

    Blammo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also a Simpson man. :smilewinkgrin:

    But this guy can spell...:confused:
     
  11. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank goodness you've found what you needed to hear. I pray you find a compatible congregation and move on. Truly, for everyone involved, this exercise is...

     
  12. Jacob Gastrich

    Jacob Gastrich
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    End of Statement

    Hank Hanegraaf said that they were not a Healthy Well Balanced church and I would agree.

    I think the tragedy with many Baptists (but not all) is that they dislike Hank solely on his end Times views, and completely overlook all his other wisdom on the many issues that have nothing to do with Eschatology. I personally strongly disagee with Hank on eschatology and why not one of my 11 or so questions on his Radio program since 1997 had anything to do with Eschatology.

    My former Baptist Pastor also agrees that a church saying that the CM&A is not a true Christian church is not a "healthy Well Balanced Church."

    This is my final position on this matter. This church is not a "Healthy Well Balanced Church and I await Hank's resources in the mail.

    PS- I never and not once mentioned this Church by name in this thread nor did I mention this pastor by name. I also did not mention my name.

    However at least 2 of the people posting in these boards (not Roger) has taken his or her differences to personnel harassment. After I mentioned that I did not want any contact, these people have and did continue to contact me. In some states this is a crime. Just take a look at Misdemeter law in your state and you might find this in there.

    Bare in mind that their harassment has ceased at this time, but continual harassment to my web ministry at a future time will be reported to the authorities and if there is sucha law in your state, you will be cited.

    I do not want any trouble, but I will not tolerate personnel harassment.

    If the moderates wish I can do some legwork and dig up these emails (if they were not deleted).


    End of Statement
     
  13. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    Welcome Back, Bible John.

    By the way, you might find difficulty in seeking prosecution for such alleged offenses. Even if they were criminal within certain states, unless they originated in the same state as you, you might have a problem with jurisdiction. That would probably be a federal issue, and you'd have to go FBI on it. I highly doubt they (or local officials, for that matter) would care.
     
  14. Blammo

    Blammo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought it was Bible John too. Then I google searched Gastrich...:eek:

    No offence, Jason... but, :eek:
     
  15. Jacob Gastrich

    Jacob Gastrich
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which really only helps prove my case that the moderators and the people around here will tolerate and allow others to harass me, but when I argue with them I get banned.

    Some christian attitiude heh?

    And yes I am aware of the laws and am aware that emiling is a tough case to prove. However if these 2 individuals started to phone me, then we migt have a case that is if they reside in some states.

    This will probably be my last post

    End of Statement
     
  16. Blammo

    Blammo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nevermind, nevermind....., nevermind
     
    #16 Blammo, Aug 28, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2006
  17. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    Who is harassing you?

    Plus, if you have been banned, why have you come back under a different name?
     
  18. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,655
    Likes Received:
    312
    And he's been banned again under the second sentence of the Posting Rule Note:

    We reserve the right to suspend the posting privileges of any registered member without notice.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...