Featured Are the Assemblies of God Baptist Churches?

the AOG FIRMLY holds that the bible is the ONLY revelation from god to man, ONLY source of faith and practice!

and their churches have to adhere to their "official" teachings, but each one is free to do what they please in regards to how that is worked out!

really, the headquarters tend to ONLY get involved with matters of church discipline/pastors doing wrong etc, so pretty rare!

And how is that different than say the SBC having guidelines/doctrines each local branch still has to do a 'statement of belief" to?

 

IF a baptist church has joined an Association, or what ever other label, yes, even a demonination, are they really "fully Autonomous" still?

And NO AOG minister, holding to official statements of the AOG, would EVER palce personal prophecy or tongues on par/equal to/infallible from God, ONLY the Bible is!

NOT saying they are baptists, but is interesting that we might not be that far apart from them!

 

I know what the Baptist distinctive are; I have been living them since I was old enough to exercise rational thought. It is YOU, accuser, who does not understand or uphold Baptist principles. You are trying to dictate what one must or must not believe in order to be a Baptist. It is YOU who is saying that if a person is not a cessationist, he/he cannot be Baptist; it is YOU who is saying that if a church has a woman pastor, that church cannot be Baptist. In doing so, it is YOU, false accuser and liar, who has violated Baptist principles.

I uphold the right of every Baptist, every Christian, and every non-Christian to believe and practice according to the dictates of his/her own conscience; it is YOU, accuser, who do not!

 

I agree that Baptists are cessationists and do not ordain women as Pastors. That is the way it has always been. I have been a Baptist for 30 years and have never been to a Baptist church that believes otherwise, nor fellowshipped with a fellow Baptist that believes otherwise. Now I have met plenty of charismatics that believe otherwise. In fact, all of them.

 

You don't understand soul liberty. Either that, or you are a hypocrite with a bone to pick and you are doing a pretty lousy job of it. Look at the hypocrisy here:
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is nothing substantially different in the content of their posts than there is in mine.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Baptists are cessations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Baptists believe the Bible is their final authority.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Baptists believe in the autonomy and independence of the local church
[/FONT]
Baptists do not ordain women.

These are the same things that I have been saying.
When I say these things, you hypocritically say that I am some how denying soul liberty; that I don't have the right or freedom to express my convictions. You allow others that right, but want to shut me up--the opposite of soul liberty. You are a hypocrite with a bone to pick. Go learn what soul liberty means, and stop wasting band width.

 

Baptists in the American Baptist Churches have ordained women for a long time. Before the fundamentalist cultists took over the SBC, women were ordained there. And there are still a few ordained SBC women, to the consternation of the fundamentalist gestapo and Baptist Vatican.

You desire to be a "baptist" pope who disavows soul freedom, church freedom, Bible freedom, and most likely religious freedom. Many fundamentalists these days, like the Puritans of old, affirm religious freedom, but only for themselves, or, at best, other Christians.

It is you who is the hypocrite. Your statement, "Baptists do not ordain women", is confirmation of everything I have said.

And your last paragraph is a dirty lie. I don't want to shut you up; on the contrary, PLEASE keep posting your lies so that what you are can be exposed to everybody here, you accuser and wanna-be "baptist" pope.

 

That doesn't make it right does it?
Here is what Bronconagurski said:

"I agree that Baptists are cessationists and do not ordain women as Pastors. That is the way it has always been."

Somehow you don't take issue with what he said, but you do with what I said, and yet there is no difference.
I call that hypocrisy.
Somehow he has soul liberty and I don't. Please explain this warped definition of yours that says he can express his belief, but I can't say the same thing.

Something is wrong Michael. What is it?

 

Simple Answer....

NO THEY ARE A PART OF THE CHARISMANIA....But I will concede that for the most part they tend to be more "orthodox" than many of the more extreme Charismatic groups...at least the ones I have encountered.

Bro.Greg:type:

 

Just a side question here!

IF they chose to, why couldn't a baptist church be like an AOG church in how they viewed the Holy Spirit and His gifts?

NOT saying that is valid, but would,'t they have that right?

 

The difference is that he didn't attack me when he said it.

 

The Baptist distinctives are all related; it's difficult to hold one without the others.

 

I know for a fact that there are a good number of Baptists in the SBC who are not cessationists, and women were ordained in the SBC prior to the fundie takeover which changed the BF&M to exclude women from the pastorate.

I appreciate that you did not make this personal and attack me.

 

If I offended you, I am sorry, but I stand by my convictions even as Squire and Bronconagurski stand by theirs. The ordination of women is relatively new. Check your history. It is not historically Baptist. It falls into the category of homosexual pastors as far as I am concerned. Both are relatively new novelties in our wicked world today. Just because others do it doesn't make it right. The very fact that "a bishop must be the husband of one wife" should mean something to you in that discussion.

You hatred displayed on your website for fundamentals shows no bounds. It is easy to see where you are coming from. We live in an an age where the very faith that we contend for is no longer the faith that many believers contend for. So-called Baptists deny the virgin birth. They are liberal and don't deserve the name Baptist. The ABC has fallen into liberalism some time ago.

John of Japan, a few weeks ago, posted a link to a thread from 2004 that had a title something like this "Can a Baptist be a Charismatic at the same time?" The overwhelming consensus on that thread was "NO." You disagree because your church believes they can.
Not too long you also started a thread entitled "What am I?" It was a poll. Less than 42% voted that you were a Baptist. What does that tell you?

You have a different view on the atonement, one called "Christus Victor," which most here would disagree with. You don't defend it with the Bible. Like the RCC you defend it with history and the ECF.

I am a non-Cal, but I do believe in total depravity, just not total inability. You don't believe anything close to that. In fact if I remember correctly you believe that children are born entirely innocent.

Here is one of the very fundamentals of our faith--the eternality of Heaven and hell. Tell me Michael, when a person rejects Christ, will he spend eternity in Hell. Will he actually go to Hell and spend an actual eternity in a place called Hell.

If we deny the fundamentals of the faith, how can we call ourselves Baptist? How can we call ourselves conservative Christians? This has nothing to do with fundamentalism. It has to do with the very faith that we defend. Jude says that we "must contend for the faith."
Is there still a faith to contend for?

Do you really still belong in the Baptist section?

Let readers judge for themselves:

http://www.celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/principles.html

 

You know, upon reading your first paragraph, I suddenly had hope that you would change in the way you respond to me. But upon reading the rest of it, I immediately lost that hope, So, your apology is hollow and means nothing.

Your first sentence in the very next paragraph is a damnable lie, and if I could come up with anything stronger, I would. My principles are moderate-conservative. What I hate is fanaticism of the right and the left. Anyone who reads our Statement of Principles can see that we are not a liberal or fundamentalist communion, and that we are traditional and conservative on social, moral, and ethical issues. So, what you have written brands you as the liar and defamer that you are.

You know what, you are totally unfit and unqualified to be a moderator: You are not impartial, you are not fair, and you are not honest; you are a total counterfeit.

In the last few days, I've been called an apostate, heretic, cultic, blasphemer, and more. And I don't see that anything has been done about it. Not only do you not stop it, you join in the slander, lies, and personal attacks. I used to have some respect for you -- no more.

Now if you want to ban me for what I've just said, go for it. Your pal, OR, has also called for that, in addition to all the other stuff he said about me.

The truth of what I said still stands.

You have been trying to get me kicked out of the Baptist sections for a long time; most here disagree with you and have expressed that to me publicly and privately. I even offered to voluntarily stop posting in the Baptists sections, but several asked me not to do that. My core principles are Baptist/Anabaptist; I hold to all the Baptist distinctives. I know that gripes your gut because you would like to have the authority to determine who is and is not Baptist, but I am happy to be that thorn in your flesh.

So, you go ahead and post the link to our website as often as you wish. Maybe people will see what a communion looks like that seeks to follow the footsteps of Jesus and fellowship with the truly needy instead of building self-righteous walls to see how many can be kept outside -- hurting and lonely.

I want absolutely nothing to do with you or your brand of "Christianity".

 

As you can see I did post the link. I suggested months ago that you confine yourself to the non-Baptist section of this board. You don't take to advice very kindly. Being anabaptist does not mean "Baptist." It simply means one baptizes again. Those that descended from them were primarily the Mennonites as you well know. The CAC therefore is not Baptist, is it?

Do you believe in Hell Michael? That the unsaved will spend an eternity in Hell?

 

And I have been told by several, including at least one person "in charge" here, that since I hold to all the Baptist distinctives and my membership is still in a Baptist church, that I should feel free to post in the Baptist sections.

If I move my membership to a church that is not Baptist, I shall quit posting in the Baptist sections.

I would like to remind all of you again how I stood steadfastly for Baptist principles when those were being attacked by our Lutheran guest, and when he was comparing Baptists to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. And if I ever do leave the Baptist section, I will continue to hold to and defend the Baptist distinctives.

The "Baptist Freedoms" and other distinctives are at the core of my theology.

The CAC does affirm the Baptist freedoms. The CAC is a Baptist/Anabaptist communion with strong Celtic elements.

My local church membership is in a Baptist church. And I am glad some Baptist churches around here are not of the kind that certain people in this forum, including one moderator, would be a member of.

See, that's what I mean by using the term "wanna-be 'Baptist' pope" - a person who would like to determine who is and is not a Baptist, who can and cannot be a Baptist.

If I ever move my local membership again to a non-Baptist church, it will be by God's leading, and not because of some little despot here.