What Do You Think Would Happen If...?

In doctrine yes, for some reason they named it "Bible believers church". Does this mean I'm not a Baptist?

 

This is not Baptist

 

Does the church consider itself and promote itself as a Baptist church?

 

So you condone disobedience to please Christ?

 

http://biblebelieverschurch.net/


Is this your church?

 

Most of the church is 100% Baptist, with a Ruckman twist thrown in. Most of them are KJVO. They street preach and support 6+ missionaries. They soul win and baptize new believers. Also, many of the missionaries get there support from Baptist churches.

 

Yes that is it.

 

Just for common knowledge their church is listed among other Baptist churches:


http://www.biblebelievers.com/churches/churches_MI.html

 

With respect to all, this is sidestepping the question, I believe.

However, I do not see this as malicious, in any way, and would request the Moderators to simply move this thread to the "Other Christian Denominations" forum.

Would not that "compromise" be acceptable to all concerned, including the 'Mods'??

Ed

 

No. I am convinced by the evidence I posted he is correct. His church is Baptist.

http://biblebelieverschurch.net/

http://www.biblebelievers.com/churches/churches_MI.html

 

In which case, I will withdraw my previous request, if this would be an acceptable "compromise".

I'm actually pretty easy to get along with, FTR.

And I certainly do not want to see any poster, especially a new one, "get in trouble" for a 'difference' that seems minor, at least to me.

Ed

 

Which begs the question, at what point is it not Baptist? One of my friends, Casey, changed his sending church from ours to his wife’s because he was not getting accepted by Baptist churches for deputation because Baptist was not in the name. There are many types of Baptist's, Southern, Indpendent, etc, all different in doctrine yet all Baptist.

 

We must admit that our poor Mr. Spurgeon would be expelled given his church was the Metropolitan Tabernacle...no mention of Baptist!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Sorry, I had not seen the previous post of yours, when I responded. I can and do accept this (hence I agree with you again (hope the 'puter doesn't "blow another gasket")], as I have previously posted. (Unfortunately, I cannot keep up with each post, as I am composing one, myself.)

I am a member (and the Moderator) of a Southern Baptist Church of which both the church and myself, I hope, are generally in fairly good standing with each other, and all others, actually. Both the church and I, generally follow the BF&M, as well, I would offer.

However, neither of us has any right to impose on each other, what we believe, as Baptists.

And the day that I am told what I have to believe, is the same day the Forks Church starts looking for a new Moderator, and loses at least one member, namely me.

I'm certainly not afraid to wave :wavey: , but I would hope it doesn't become necessary, any time soon.

Ed

 

We would see a number of things, some of them good some of them difficult.

Honestly, I've been struggling with this question for the better part of five years now. I'm stuck between the two camps.

On the one hand many of our churches are devastatingly over-staffed and on the other many of devastatingly under-staffed.

I believe being a pastor is a sacred opportunity and one, when done properly and according to Scripture, can produce amazing spiritual fruit. A church that is led by a man who is passionately pursuing God's plans and ways will lead their church into deep spiritual pastures. There is something terrific when we have Godly leaders.

I've also seen churches where the leadership has a cushy position and hasn't put in a legitimate days work in years. One of the great failures in evangelicalism (and something that future generations will look back and see) is the failure of many of leaders to truly be pastors as Scripture has commanded them.

Another significant issue in our churches is that we have developed a growth mentality to suggest that the only successful ministry is one that has a certain number of "members" and has "X" number of fradulent building campaigns in the last several years.

When most of our dollars go for staff and personnel support and not aiding the poor, widows, orphans, and needy we have our priorities out of wack.

I'm a fairly young minister. (Some older colleagues say very young) I'm seriously considering bi-vocational ministry for the rest of my career. I've been out of seminary for a few years and have seen a lot of poor examples of ministers and many leaders who befuddle the growth of their churches.

When Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9 about supporting ministers I fully am behind it. I also believe that more ministers should exercise their liberty in Christ and take a pay cut to help their churches do actual ministry.

 

Also many of our faithful members don't buy the deeply disengenious accusations from ensconched leaders who will accuse anyone who challenges their leadership of violating some obscure spiritual authority.

I don't see spiritual authority from an authoritarian view, as is practiced in many of our churches, in Scripture. Rather that authority is earned through service and humility.

I'm a big fan of the house church movement. Particularly because the bulk of the New Testament church examples are house church examples. They didn't have towering spires in early Christendom.

 

One church asked me what I expected as a wage. My reply was simple: Somewhere between your highest paid member and your lowest paid member. God will provide.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That's a good answer. God will certainly take care of you.

 

Here are a couple more, in the name, anyway.

http://www.saddleback.com/index.html

http://shadowmountain.org/

And a coupla' institutions.

http://www.sdcc.edu/

http://www.lru.edu/

Not one word about being Baptist, in the name!

(Guess all of them should "get the boot" should it ever come up, no??)

Ed

 

Amen!


Matthew 23:11
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.