The link is published by the same university as the article referenced in the OP. The article which was reefrenced in the OP is riddled with false information. How could anyone trust an author who writes spurious information that is easliy obtained and verified.
When people ask me "what are you?" (baptist, church of christ, etc) I usually will only say "I'm a christian" and leave it at that. Sometimes I will stubbornly refuse to go beyond that. If they ask me "What do you believe"...I'll say "ask me a question".
I sometimes refer to myself as a "bapti-costal", some times a "cal-minian", and sometimes a "funda-liberal"
I've said things like "I'm more liberal than the fundamentalists, more conservative than the liberals, more pentecostal than the baptists and more baptist than the pentecostals.
It is SO...INCREDIBLY...SAD...to see brothers and sisters on these boards stating their view and interpretation of a scripture, and condemn all other views as "heresy" simply because its A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THEIR VIEW!!!
I'm not referring to legitimate heresy here. Not at all. There is legitimate heresy. I am talking about views where both sides are not heretical in the least...just different.
You know, sincere disagreements regarding issues where their is room for different views. Rather than....
It goes without saying that the discussions and disagreements are HEALTHY. They are a good thing and ordained by God. But WHY WHY WHY do people have to get nasty, condemning, and mean spirited?
HWIT has been banned in the last 2 days? I know the authorities here have "condemned" millennium exclusion, but I didnt see an millenium exclusion in his posts on this thread.
HWIT has been banned several times. He first showed up on this board as JJump. At that time he and a large number of others was banned all at once for ME after being warned not to support it.
Then he registered again as Seekinghistruth. Again he instigated discussions with elements of ME as he did this time.
Saying that Acts 16 is speaking to a different type of salvation that Romans 10:9,10 is a core belief of ME. And there is no other way to go when trying to make that case other than ME.
You don't really sound like you know what you believe. Or how you stand with respect to scripture. Titles are not important, but I have no idea what a bapticostal is?? And if someone asks you what you believe, imo you should be able to state clearly your faith, belief, position, w/o doing twenty questions.
I have been born again since 1982 and I have been feeding on the scriptures ever since then. I have no problem articulating my view, scripturally, on multitudes of issues. I have developed strong convictions regarding what I believe.
But I refuse to be "pigeon holed" into anyones corner. I am a child of the living God, not a pigeon. I search the scriptures, not a particular denominations "what we believe" statement, for my convictions.
Scripture is our only truth standard given to us by God, with the Holy Spirit being our only interpreter. Although christians can and should learn from one another, I reject all theories that say that we should bow to the Hierarchy of a particular group (such as the Jehovahs Wittnesses and Catholicism) and let them command us as to what we must believe. The same with the "early church fathers" They are no authority either.
There are millions like myself who have great respect for the Baptists, fellowship with them, and hold to many of the great truths they hold to. (justification through faith alone, water baptism as a symbol, autonomy of each local church, etc) and yet also believe that the gifts of the Spirit (speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc) are still for today. Most baptists reject those views.
Hence..."bapticostal"
I can. I just did some of it in this post. You missed the point of my statement about "asking me a question"
I don't think I missed your point. You clearly do not line up with any grouping of believers in the traditional sense. I guess most Americans would agree with you. The largest growing religious affiliation is "nothing in particular." While that is not what you are saying, you also don't line up with any grouping either. Again, sounds confused.
Edited in: However, having come out of a major pentecostal denomination that espouses false doctrine, I am very sensitive to this. I would never call myself bapticostal. I am still learning what I should call myself, but it will be something that I can prove with a statement of beliefs.
They heretically believe the acts passage refers to eternal salvation and the romans passage refers to Millenial salvation. They hold to the idea that you can be a Christian today, deny Christ tomorrow and still be saved. However you will spend the millenium in hell or outer darkness(depending on which one you talk to) for being an unfaithful Christian.