"Christian" Baptists vs "Other" Baptists

[Terry_Herrington]

Mark Osgatharp said,

"Which is exactly what I'm doing when I come to "The Baptist Board." Therefore I am not, as you implied in your other post, failing to be separate by coming into this forum and discussing the Scriptures with infidels who claim to be Baptists."

I would not worry as much about rule #4 as I would with rule #2.

Isn't it a violation to question someone's salvation.

It would appear as though you, Mark, identified Baptist Believer with an infidel. Hopefully, this was an oversight on your part.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
Mark,

On another thread, Dr. Bob said you were asked to edit "anti-Christ" out of your posts regarding other Baptists. Apparently you have no regard for the rules of the board or the requests of moderators, since you have not edited, and you continue your attacks on fellow Christians here.

It is my opinion that you are treading on dangerous theological ground here.

God bless,
CFB

Colorado,

I do not recall reading a post by Dr. Bob asking me to edit out the word "anti-Christ." Could you direct me to it?

Mark Osgatharp

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
I do not recall reading a post by Dr. Bob asking me to edit out the word "anti-Christ." Could you direct me to it?

here ya go

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
I think it is evident to all interested parties that there are two distinct and totally dissimilar groups of Baptists. There are sub-groups within these two major groups and crossovers in some points; but these two major groups represent the most monumental division.

Here is a contrast (in no particular order) between the Christian Baptists and the Anti-Christ Baptists:

1. Inerrancy of the Bible versus Errancy of the Bible.

2. God's providence versus naturalism.

3. Direct creation versus evolution.

4. Christ as the only way of salvation versus many ways of salvation.

5. Human depravity and worthlessness versus human dignity and worth.

6. Salvation by grace versus salvation by self realization.

7. Sexual purity versus sexual debauchery.

8. Blood sacrifice for sin versus no sacrifice necessary.

9. Divine justice tempered by Divine mercy versus liscentuousness tempered by human rights.

10. Male authority in the home and church versus feminism.

11. Faith in God's word versus personal opinion.

12. Church purity versus church inclusiveness.

13. Authority of the Scriptures versus no authority at all.

14. Eternal damnation of the impenitent versus universalism.

15. The Holy Spirit as a guide to truth versus the Holy Spirit as a rubber stamp on my personal opinion.

16. Christ as real person versus Christ as an expression of my inner self.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. It is high time that real Christian truth loving Baptists came out from among these infidel and anti-Christ Baptists. As the Lord said,

"Come out from among them and be ye separate."

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
I do not recall reading a post by Dr. Bob asking me to edit out the word "anti-Christ." Could you direct me to it?

here ya go </font>[/QUOTE]BrianT,

Dr. Bob said it is wrong to call a fellow born again believer an anti-Christ. While I think that is a debatable issue, it doesn't even touch on this post. I'm not talking here about born-again believers. I'm talking about anti-Christs who have hi-jacked the Baptist name.

I'll leave it to Dr. Bob to decide whether or not my post violates the board rules. I will, however, never retract nor modify my statement.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
Brother Mark,
Thank you for taking the time to write out that list. We had to seperate from a church for similar reasons.
I do wonder though about myself being involved here. There are those professing to be Christians who practice AND teach many of the anti-Christian views you mentioned. Can you help me understand why it might be good to witness to those types?

Headcoveredlady,

It is good to witness to these types:

1. Because these are souls in danger of eternal damnation as well as temporal ruin and they need the true and living Christ and God's grace as much as any of us.

2. It is good to contend with them publicly beause it makes all who read see that the truth can be defended against their ungodly speeches. As Solomon said,

"They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them."

Mark Osgatharp

 

[IfbReformer]

Sorry my first post did'nt make it.

Mark,

I am an Independant Fundamental Baptist, but I would have to disagree with you calling those who do not agree with you(or us for that matter)on all those points you posted "Anti-Christ" or non-Christians.

I agree with most of your points depending on what you meant by some of them.

The only "point" on your post which someone must believe in order to be saved is:

"4. Christ as the only way of salvation versus many ways of salvation."

I agree that if someone does not trust in Christ, believing he was the sinless, Son of God, God in the flesh, and rose from dead on the third day and his death was the only full and sufficient payment for the sins of mankind then that person is lost and we should tell them such.

That is the core of our faith. All of the other issues are secondary to this one - it does not mean they are not important but they are secondary to this main issue - that of who Christ was what he did.

You and I have had discussions before about issues such as inerrancy and you ascribing inerrancy to someone's salvation.

If someone is not a creationist, or does not believe in inerrancy or some of the other things you listed - yes they may be wrong(and I believe they are), and one day God will hold them accountable for teaching false doctrine if that is what they are doing - but that does not make them unsaved.

This is the problem among many of my IFB brethren,
some of them like you Mark, don't seem to know where the doctrine of Salvation begins and ends.

Well let me make it simple for you - it begins and ends with Christ - the Christ of the Bible.

Whether you believe all the Bible is inerrant or not does not save you.

Whether you believe the world was created in 6 literal days or not does not save you.

It is whether you believe correctly about Christ and have accepted him as your Lord(God) and Savior.

When we start adding things to the doctrine of salvation like:

THIS IS THE GOSPEL - Period
"You must accept that you are a lost and dying sinner in need of a savior - that savior is Jesus Christ alone - he was the sinless, Son God, God in the flesh and made atonement for you on the cross, and rose again the third day"

but you and many others have added:

AND YOU MUST BELIEVE....

that God created the earth in 6 literal days...

that the 66 books of the Bible are the inerrant Word of God...

Some might add "and the KJV is the inspired Word of God"

and the Catholics would add...

and you must go to mass each Sunday..

The list could go on and on.

Mark, it as simple as what you and I learned
in Sunday School -
It is Jesus + nothing
and Jesus - nothing
Its that simple.

Having said all that, I do agree with seperation in the sense that I will not attend a Church that does not hold to the fundamentals of the faith and does not hold to Baptist distintives.

IFBReformer

 

[donnA]

We've had trolls before and this doesn't look like one.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Dr. Bob said it is wrong to call a fellow born again believer an anti-Christ. While I think that is a debatable issue, it doesn't even touch on this post. I'm not talking here about born-again believers. I'm talking about anti-Christs who have hi-jacked the Baptist name.

I'll leave it to Dr. Bob to decide whether or not my post violates the board rules. I will, however, never retract nor modify my statement.

We will not allow ANYONE to be judge/jury over the eternal salvation of some brother's eternal soul. We have folks who give testimony of being born again that hold to some "terrible" (in my opinion) doctrinal positions. That is between them and God.

I can debate the points of doctrine, but I cannot question their salvation or call them an "anti-christ" - one of the strongest phrases of condemnation. That is not allowed as a fundamental rule of the Baptist Board.

I ask all to not use some inflamatory language. Thank you.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by IfbReformer:
This is the problem among many of my IFB brethren, some of them like you Mark, don't seem to know where the doctrine of Salvation begins and ends.

Well let me make it simple for you - it begins and ends with Christ - the Christ of the Bible.

IFBReformer,

I am perfectly aware where the doctrine of salvation begins and where it ends. It starts, as Solomon said, with the fear of God. The sort of "Baptist" I have described teach that God is not to be feared. How then could they have any understanding of the Wisdom of God?

The doctrine of salvation ends in Christ. He, as Paul said, is the end of the law for righteouness to everyone who believes. But when the sort of "Baptist" I have described says "Christ" he means a totally different thing than the Scriptures teach. Have you never read that there are many Jesuses and Christs who have set themselves up in competition with the true and living Christ?

What you have done is reduced believing in Christ to a rote confession: "I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior." But who is this Jesus? What is this Christ?

When John began his gospel, which is expressly stated to be for the purpose of bringing people to faith in Christ, he didn't begin with the crucifixion nor even with the manger. He began with the creation of the world and a Christ without whom, "was not anything made that was made." A man cannot believe on Christ without believing that He is the creator.

Nor can one believe in Christ without beleiving in the authority of the Scriptures, for it is the Scriptures which authorize us to believe in Christ. Apart from them we know nothing of Christ.

When the Prophets preached Christ their words became the Scriptures. When Paul and Peter preached Christ they preached Him from the Scriptures. When Christ preached Himself, He preached Himself from the Scriptures. How then can a man who rejects the authority of the Scriptures have faith in Christ?

I do not contend that every single point I have mentioned is a salvation issue - though many of them are. As a matter of fact, I said in my post that there are "crossovers on some points."

I was not giving a list of "things you must do to be saved" but a list of things which characterize a distinctly different and anti-Christian religion from that revealed in the Scriptures.

But again I say, I think you have miserably failed to make the crucial distinction between believing in Christ and just saying "I believe in Christ."

Mark Osgatharp

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
The sort of "Baptist" I have described teach that God is not to be feared.

The sort of "Baptist" you have described don't even exist. Are you referring to Baptists on this board? Are you referring to Baptists you've met? Or are you referring to imaginary Baptists that are really men made of straw?

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Dr. Bob said it is wrong to call a fellow born again believer an anti-Christ. While I think that is a debatable issue, it doesn't even touch on this post. I'm not talking here about born-again believers. I'm talking about anti-Christs who have hi-jacked the Baptist name.

I'll leave it to Dr. Bob to decide whether or not my post violates the board rules. I will, however, never retract nor modify my statement.

We will not allow ANYONE to be judge/jury over the eternal salvation of some brother's eternal soul. We have folks who give testimony of being born again that hold to some "terrible" (in my opinion) doctrinal positions. That is between them and God.

I can debate the points of doctrine, but I cannot question their salvation or call them an "anti-christ" - one of the strongest phrases of condemnation. That is not allowed as a fundamental rule of the Baptist Board.

I ask all to not use some inflamatory language. Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bob,

I did not direct my statements about "anti-Christ" to any one particular person but against a theological group. Does this violate your rules?

If so, I ask a follow up question in advance: was John wrong to call those men anti-Christ who professed to be Christians and were attempting to lead other Christians astray from the truth?

Mark Osgatharp

 

[BrianT]

John gave a very specific definition of "antichrist" (this is the third time I've posted this in 2 days, I don't know why you're so intent on ignoring it). According to scripture, "antichrist" means:

- denying Jesus is the Christ
- denying the Father and the Son
- denying Jesus Christ came in the flesh

Anything more to the definition is not scripture, but your own additions.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
I did not direct my statements about "anti-Christ" to any one particular person but against a theological group.

Sounds like a typical smear campaign tactic.

 

[aefting]

IFBReformer,

In general, I agree with your post to Mark. Theologically, however, I have a hard time with the idea that a person could be saved while believing:

6. Salvation by self realization rather than salvation by grace (a violation of Rom. 3:21-26 and justification by faith alone)

8. That no sacrifice was necessary rather than a blood sacrifice for sin (a violation of the gospel -- "how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures)

11. Personal opinion rather than faith in God's Word (a violation of "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God")

16. Christ as an expression of my inner self rather than Christ as a real person (how can one have saving faith in Christ if they don't beleive Christ is a real person?)


Andy

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by BrianT:
John gave a very specific definition of "antichrist" (this is the third time I've posted this in 2 days, I don't know why you're so intent on ignoring it). According to scripture, "antichrist" means:

- denying Jesus is the Christ
- denying the Father and the Son
- denying Jesus Christ came in the flesh

Anything more to the definition is not scripture, but your own additions.

Thank you (again) Brian.

Folks, words have meaning. One cannot simply "lift" a Bible word and give it a new meaning to suit their belief. That is neo-orthodoxy.

IF someone says that they are born again by repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God, WHO AM I to say that they - a brother or sister - is "antiChrist"?

They might hold to horrendous (imho) doctrinal beliefs. They might be theologically liberal while I am conservative. They might not even be Baptist! BUT THEY ARE NOT "ANTI-CHRIST".

As I've warned before and now act, I will not allow someone to call another christian/theological group of christians by such a perjortive label.