Soul liberty - Just a nice theory?

If you mean that the moderator of this board allowed others (who are baptist only in names) to post in the baptist only forum, it is beyond our control. Some of us objected to their inclusion in the baptist only forum. We are not direcly responsible for this board. If this is my responsibility i would not allow him to post as baptist. Personally i don't agree competely with the opinion of this board. I have my own local church and our own ministries and there i'm direcly responsible.

May be you ovelooked many of us here who are strongly against others who called themselves baptist but in reality are not baptist at all. Personally, i don't consider them true baptists. This is also the same thing who called themselves christian but in reality not christian at all. By their doctrine and practice we shall know them.

For your information we don't have any fellowsip as a church with every baptist church represented on this board. Our church is independent and responsible only for our own ministries.

As explain above, we don't accept false teachers we separate from them. If you see other baptists doing as you said, we are not like them.

 

DHK,

Yes, this is simply a discussion board, but the fact that people who teach a false doctrine are accepted as fellow 'Baptists' (even by some I would consider on the conservative side: ie Dr. Bob Griffin) speaks volumes. The reason why they are accepted as brothers by those who disagree with them is Soul Liberty.

We can't just compartmentalize our lives and say that what the Bible teaches doesn't count when it comes to discussion boards.

If you see him and those like him as fellow Baptists, anything else doesn't matter. You are either accepting of false teachers or you are not. It is as simple as that.

faithcontender,

It is not just the administrator of this site. I am glad to see that your defintion of Soul Liberty is not the same as many others that I've come across.

 

Thank-you. This is what I have been trying to get across. I do not hold that people are not part of a local church when it is not assembled. I was just showing that for you to be consistent with your definitions you need to hold to this. No, it is not a hard concept to grasp. That is why I believe in the universal church, all believers in Christ. Even though it is not assembled right now, it will be one day.

I think that you are falling into the trap of the many different meanings of a church. Remember, it merely means assembly. And yes, I am quite fond of the NT. Please show me that the church in Acts 2 had a pastor, deacons, treasurer, and secretary. Or, since you hold to Matt. 16's reference to the church to be a local one, show me there.

I am not. You admitted that Hebrews 12 refers to the universal church before. I see Matt. 16 and Eph. 5 as referring to the universal church, at least ultimately for the latter. So see, it is NT teaching to me. I could ask why do you ignore it? And please, see my response above to what I previously quoted. Show me all of those offices in those two churches, please.

Why not? Hebrews 12 does. It will one day be the universal assembly of all believers in Christ. Why don't you like that?

Hmm....your losing me here. Remember, an assembly not assembled is an impossibility. I am not referring to the building. It could be in a field for all I care.

Hebrews 12, since you accept that as the universal church. See, wasn't that easy? I don't have to produce. God will.

Show me it doesn't, then.

Amen to that!

Oh, I agree. But so many walk around and say they have THE truth. I am just saying all of them can't be right.

Neal

 

"How can a finite mind understand an infinite God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen to that! "

This brings a question to mind. Just becuase we cannot fully comprehend an infinite God (and actually will not be able to in heaven either) does that mean that we have error in out theology? Seems to me that it does not neccessarily follow that to not fully comprehend God is to have error. For instance if I say a ball is red and rubber was I in error when I find out later that it has a certain exact color on the color spectrum and elastic properties along with the molecular composition of the rubber material?

 

Doctrine to me is very important. On issues such as homosexuality I will separate. I will also separate from "brothers" who consider themselves Catholic because of the false teaching promoted there.
When it comes to personal separation one must kow where to draw the line. Can I call this person "brother?" I know that I cannot call a J.W. brother. I don't believe you can be a J.W. and a Christian and a J.W. and a Christian at the same time. I must also ask the same question of a homosexual. As abhorrent the sin is to me, is it possible for a homosexual to be a Christian and gay at the same time? Why or why not?

There are some very conservative Christians on this board that do not consider any homosexual a Christian, no matter what their testimony, and would refuse to call them brother.

On the other hand there are also some very conservative Christians on this board who do not consider Catholics as Christians no matter what their testimony may be, and refuse to call them brother.

There are some that say that there are Christians in both of those camps and accept their testimonies (homosexual or not), that if they have trusted Christ, then they are brothers in Christ.

If a Catholic has trusted Christ, then he is a brother in Christ.

If I accept either one, I would never condone either conduct or doctrine.
DHK

 

I am talking specifically about those who teach that homosexuality is right before the Lord. There are those who have homosexual tendencies, but realise that it is a sin. They struggle with the sin. This type of individual is showing the sign of knowing God.

Those who do not believe the homosexuality is a sin, and go as far as to say that it can be a good thing before the Lord, reveal that they do not know God. They are false teachers.

There are debatable matters and there are areas where the Bible is quite clear. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible is quite clear.

 

ok, Let us consider the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.
On the day of Pentecost one might assume that the pastor was Peter for he did most of the preaching. But 3,000 were saved that day. And the Lord added daily to the assembly such as should be saved. It was just a few days later that a few more thousand were saved and added to that same assembly in just one day. The church at Jerusalem grew quickly. I believe it had a plurality of elders or pastors. As we come to Acts 8, we see that this was true.

8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

The average church member was scattered upon threat of persecution. But the Apostles, the pastors of the church, remained in Jerusalem (which I believe was against the will of God according to Acts 1:8). But that is my opinion.

Before this time the church had grown to a large size as mentioned, so large that they needed help. Consider Acts 6
6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Here is where the church appointed "deacons", so that the pastors (Apostles), could give themselves continually to prayer and the ministry of the Word.

Now go to Acts 15 where we find a gathering meeting at the church in Jerusalem.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Notice, after Peter had spoken, and after Paul had spoken, and others, that it was James that made the final decision. James was the actual pastor of the church in Jerusalem. He presided over this council. He was the pastor.
Timothy was the pastor at Ephesus.
Apollos was the pastor at Corinth after Paul left.

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
--In every church that Paul started he was sure to appoint a pastor. He didn't leave it without a pastor.

No, I did not admit that Hebrews 12 refers to the universal church, at least not in the sense that the term is used today. It is the one place in the Bible that shows where all believers will be gathered together in Heaven. So what! That has nothing to do with the doctrine of the church. Get you head out of the clouds. We are speaking of the hear and now. We can't win the lost after we are dead. God has put on this earth to be witnesses for Him. He does that primarily through His God-ordained institution that we know as the local church.
As you can see from the Book of Acts, the church in Jerusalem was highly organized.

[QUOTEWhy not? Hebrews 12 does. It will one day be the universal assembly of all believers in Christ. Why don't you like that?[/QUOTE]
Why, because the language there is very figurative. More accurately we are the bride of Christ awaiting the marriage ceremony and the marriage supper of the lamb, which is described in the Book of Revelation. John the Baptist described himself as a friend of the bride. There is much more said in Scripure about all believers being part of the bride of Christ than a universal church that doesn't exist.

Still can't do it can you. Heb.12 speaks of the future, not the present. Show me now in the present on this earth, a universal church. Assemble one together. Produce one. It is an impossibility and you know it.

Your right; we all can't be right. But we can agree to disagree on many things. And that is our right to do so. That is soul liberty, not existentialsm.
DHK

 

I would agree that later on this happened. But I am specifically referring to Acts 2 when it was referred to as a church. It did not at that moment have a pastor (I could possibly understand Peter) or deacons (these came later). But it was nonetheless called a church. So a pastor, deacons, treasurer, and secretary are not necessary to have a church. The church is merely the assembly of believers.

I don't deny that. But I am dealing with whether a church necessarily has to have all these offices.

Umm....that is what I am referring to when I say universal church. Or assembly, if you like that better. Proves my point.

That was called for.

Please show me where I have espoused this belief.

Okay, that is fine and dandy. When I refer to the universal church I refer to all believers in Christ. We are all a part of that assembly that will one day meet in heaven.

So are you saying that the Holy Spirit didn't do the best thing when inspiring Hebrews 12?

So there is no group of people that have believed in Christ that will one day assemble in heaven?

Please show me where I said that I would get them together here on earth. I am talking about the future meeting. You admit that to be a local church the assembly does not have to be assembled physically. Same thing here. The universal church is not assembled here on earth because one day all believers will be assembled in heaven. And that, my friend, is the universal church.

Call it what you want. I would tend to agree that the best thing to call it would not be existentialism, but it is all very subjective at best. Very post-modernistic.

Neal

 

We both agree on this.

 

Anybody up for answering my question. I will repost.

"How can a finite mind understand an infinite God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen to that! "

This brings a question to mind. Just becuase we cannot fully comprehend an infinite God (and actually will not be able to in heaven either) does that mean that we have error in out theology? Seems to me that it does not neccessarily follow that to not fully comprehend God is to have error. For instance if I say a ball is red and rubber was I in error when I find out later that it has a certain exact color on the color spectrum and elastic properties along with the molecular composition of the rubber material?

 

I would definitely think it is possible if not probable. We are fallible, imperfect men. We make mistakes. We live in a fallen world. So yes, I think that we probably will never nail down a perfect theology.

Neal

[ June 10, 2003, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

I would definitely think it is possible if not probable. We are fallible, imperfect men. We make mistakes. We live in a fallen world. So yes, I think that we probably never nail down a perfect theology.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Neal,

No, we will never be able to have a "perfect" theology, because that would require an infinitely correct understanding of all aspects. That does not mean that what theology we do have, which is incomplete by our finite existence, is in error. That which we CAN understand and believe can be without error.

God bless,

Grant

 

Neal,
Please define church (ekklesia). That is not just the simple definition of the word meaning assembly, but what is a church. Here is a definition of a church.

A church is a voluntary assembly of baptized believers who have assembled together for the purpose of obeying the Great Commission, and carrying out the two ordinances of Christ (baptism and the Lord's supper).

With thaat in mind:
The universal church could never accomplish these three things, whether in heaven or on earth.
DHK

 

I would definitely think it is possible if not probable. We are fallible, imperfect men. We make mistakes. We live in a fallen world. So yes, I think that we probably never nail down a perfect theology.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the reply Neil but
I still feel like we are putting apples and oranges in a bowl where we only want organges.

Is it because God is perfect and infinite that we do not have an perfect knowledge of him? Some of the comments above seem to indicate that is the reason and that is why I ask. Does it follow that because God is infinite, we having a finite knowledge have errant theology? Is it possible for a man (I will exclude Jesus for you) to have a perfect knowledge of God? Has any man ever had such knowledge? Is infinity = perfection?

Thanks again.

 

My friend, why are you changing definitions on me? You have said that church simply means assembly. That is all I take it to mean. So using that definition, there is a universal church. Didn't you say:

and

and

and

and

and

and

So why is the simple definition no longer acceptable? And I would point out that while you say that an assembly cannot be one when it is not assembled, you also hold that people here on earth are a member of that assembly when it is not assembled. So why can't I hold to the fact that all believers in Christ are members of that assembly that one day will meet in heaven, even though it is not physically assembled right at this minute? You admit the assembly does not cease to exist when it is not physically assembled.

Why is it different for the universal assembly? I hold to the simple meaning of an assembly. All the other stuff added to it define the function of that particular assembly. I don't deny we won't be baptizing and evangelizing in heaven. That will not be the function of the universal church.

Neal

 

Not necessarily to the first question. I think the problem is in man. We still have sin we wrestle with. We still are selfish and let our own motives and desires slant our understanding of God.

No, I don't think it is possible for a man to have a perfect knowledge of God, nor has any man.

Neal

 

Let's not be naive, nor play word games.
The Greek word baptidzo, translated baptism in the KJV, would be more accurately translated "immersion." "Baptidzo" means "immersion". That is the meaning of the word. That is the way it should be translated.

However, what is baptism? Now that is a different question. Baptism is the first step of obedience in the Chritian life done in obedience to the command of Christ, after one is saved, done by immersion to symbolically show one's death to his old sinful life, and his rising again to a new life in Jesus Christ. And yet the word simply means "immersion."

Ekklesia is the same way. It has a simple translation which is "Assembly." That is how it ought to be translated every time. Now, what is a church, what is a Biblical assembly? That is a different question. There were obvious reasons why Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, i.e., I and II Timothy, and Titus. These epistles are instructive in how to govern a church, the qualifications of the officers of the church, etc.

What is a church, then.
A church is a voluntary association of baptized believers who have associated themselves together for the purpose of obeying the Great Commission, and carrying out the two ordinances that Christ has given us (baptism and the Lord's Supper).

It is obvious that not every assembly is a church. Check Acts 19

39 But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

Was this assembly also a church??
Every church is an assembly; an assembly on earth; but not every assembly is a church.
DHK

 

"No, I don't think it is possible for a man to have a perfect knowledge of God, nor has any man."

So Adam was in error in the garden before the fall?

 

A church is commonly defined as called out assembly. Every called out assembly either political or religious is considered a church. Thus in the old testament the Congregation of Israel is called church in the wilderness.

But when we speak of the true Church of Christ this is an organized assembly of baptized believers at a given locality whose purpose is to carry out the great commission. That's why in every place we can find a local church. Example, the church at Jerusalem, church at corinth , church at rome and First Baptist church, Sorsogon.

There is what we call general assembly and that will be in heaven. This not a universal church but still local with heaven as the meeting place.

 

Now you are the one playing word games. Your statement should read: "Every assembly is an assembly; and assembly on earth; but not every assembly is an assembly." Remember, church is not the best translation.

Anyway, I am fine with you definition for the local church while here on earth. But one day there will be a universal assembly and I am planning on being there. If you want me to call it an universal assembly instead of church, I will around you. See, when I think of church, I think of a body of believers. When I think of universal church, I think of all believers. But hey, I think we have beat this horse to death. When I refer to the universal church, I am referring to what Hebrews 12 talks of, so you can think of that when I say it. Like it or not, there will be a time when ALL believers in Christ will be gathered together. Who knows, you may get to stand beside some of your Catholic brothers.

Neal