SBC: An unregenerate Denomination by Jim Elliff

Amen. I have begun the work of reading through J.A. Wylie's history of Protestantism. Wylie was a minister of the Free Church of Scotland.

I like how he identifies Protestantism:

http://www.doctrine.org/history/HPv1b1.htm#CHAPTER 1

 

Do you adhere to the Trail of Blood then?

 

Not completely. I base my view on Jesus' promise in Matt 16:18 "....and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I take that to mean that there has been and always be a remnant of believers--who held to New Testament doctrine, which equates generally with historic Baptist doctrine.

God has always had a people.

 

When was the last time you groups of Baptist churches in America have deaconesses. Yet the early church did.

Correct doctrine is not exclusive to Baptists.

 

There is no rest of the story. Under the provision, a church wouldn't have a case; it would have to leave its property behind if it ever left the Southern Baptist denomination. The local baptist association gets the departing church's property, pure and simple.

 

Discipline regarding members.

 

I do not believe he said correct doctrine is exclusive to Baptists. What he is saying is that since the Ressurection, there have been a group of people who had a genuine, New Testement church, whatever the number. That means in year 100, 200, 300 right into and past the Reformation. It makes no difference what historical name man has decided to give them, whether Baptist, Anabaptist, or the Way. The fact is the group existed.

Whether of not you can link that to your arch enemy, the SBC, is another matter of debate. My question is, what difference does it make to you. Your intense dislike of the SBC would suggest that you hope it does not link. On the other hand, since we have a very clear date for the start of Protestantism, you know it cannot be that group. So, I guess that just leaves you confused.

Sorry to interupt. Please continue with your SBC rant.

 

A church that has gone bad such as finances, leadership heresies, etc. Some churches have a history of heretical teaching and practices, while some of the leaders in the denomination/convention know it. Some denominations/conventions have a plan of discipline in place. I have a friend who was once a part of a group of churches where for each region of 30 churches there were leaders who would step in and come to the church for up to three days and deal with a problem. I know of a church in the U.S. that is under care of the regional pastors because it has fallen into a state of trouble and nearly dying. The trouble mostly started with an antagonist in the church who somehow found his way into a leadership role. The pastors in that region have dealt with the problem and the church is on its way to healing.

 

Did he not call them Baptists? Leon McBeth would disagree with you. You might like to read some books by him as a former SBC historian The Baptist Heritage and A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage in which McBeth declares 400 years of Baptist history.

 

The issue you brought up is not what they were called. You brought up the fact that correct doctrine is not exclusively Baptist. First of all, he did not say that. Secondly, it would be very interesting to know what your definition of "correct doctrine" is. Frankly, I do not care if the reminant church was called the Flying Purple People Eaters.

 

I agree with Tom Butler, Baptists are not Protestants, although they were known by a variety of names through the centuries. There have always been "Baptists", those known as "the people of the Book".

Going back to the original subject, I think a big part of the problem is that we have it too easy in America. This can be seen in the OT as well. Whenever Israel was blessed and in prosperity, this is when they tended to depart from God. Whenever they were persecuted, they returned to God.

I don't think folks are "playing church", they are simply distracted by the world. They are the seed grown up among thorns. I do not believe these persons are lost, but they bear no fruit for Christ.

If our government were to persecute Christians, you would see the real believers come out. They might meet in secret, but they will come back to the church.

 

I wouldn't go that far. Not all churches that call themselves "Baptist" hold to sound doctrine. And I am sure that there are many small independent churches that do hold sound doctrine, whatever name they might call themselves.

 

You are correct Ruiz. Quick question for you..many Baptist(ic) churches have moved to an elder rule form of church government. Does this appear to be more of a presbytery than a traditional Baptist government to you?

 

What about the office of a deacon? What is its role and function?

I asked about the presbytery because I don't know that form of government that well.

 

What the Bible teaches.

I have yet to find one creed or doctrinal statement ever interpret who God is in light of what so many teach about evil, compared to Romans 11:36 and 1 Samuel 16:14.

Romans 11:36, "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen."

1 Samuel 16:14, "Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him."

 

What the Bible teachers...by whose interpretation?