Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Jim_Alaska

You just can’t make this stuff up.

Recommended Posts

The following is a copy and paste of a conversation I had with the female pastor of a Baptist Church on another message forum. I post it to show how far association Baptists are drifting from traditional Baptists. What follows is the actual conbversation.

 

PastorCindyA 

Praying With Color
The First Baptist Church in Gloucester, located at 38 Gloucester Avenue, will begin a 5-week experience combining Lectio Divina and an art component based on the book Praying In Color by Sybil MacBeth. Lectio Divina is a Benedictine model for reading, praying and contemplating Scripture as the living Word of God. Beginning on Thursday, October 8 from 6:30pm-7:30pm we will gather in the church Sanctuary to pray and meditate using paper and colored pencils or pens. All instruction and materials are provided and this experience is free and open to the public. No experience necessary. If you can draw a line and a dot and you are open to the leading of the Spirit, you can participate. Young people who can be meditative for the hour are also welcome. Come and experience the Word in a new way. Please call the church office to sign up. 

Jim Alaska 

So, if I read this right a Baptist Church is going to take instruction from a Roman Catholic Order of Monks regarding reading, praying and contemplating Scripture? Why can't the leadership of this church teach these things from a Baptist doctrinal standpoint without resorting to heretical outside influence? 

PastorCindyA 

Jim, Baptists don't have doctrine. That's why we're Baptists. 

Jim Alaska 

I have been a Baptist preacher and teacher for forty years Cindy. This is certainly new news to me, would you care to elaborate, or at least explain why you said what you said? 

PastorCindyA 

Jim, on this thread, no. This is about an event my church is holding. If you want to debate the meaning of the word "doctrine" and how, as American Baptists, we don't subscribe to any, I would be delighted to do that elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

Thanks. Oh well, I guess to attact folks to church contemporary christian music (please notice the small 'c' on Christian), is not enough to attract folks to church and now the worldly churches must use crayons and mysticism (in the guise of the Holy Spirit), to attract folks to church. Sounds like a seular business to me.

Sounds like that Baptist Church, if it ever was a Baptist church, has already gone to bed with the, "MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT."

Reminds me of  2 Timothy 3:1 and 5, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come... Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."

And, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devil." 1 Tmothy 4:1

 

 

Edited by Alan
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like American Baptist doctrine to me.  I made the mistake of attending an American Baptist affiliated church a number of years ago . . . . yeah sounds a lot like what I experienced.  Their doctrine was pretty much nothing . . . . do what pleases you . . . . as long as it is PC and not biblical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from American Baptists (what a shameful use of both those names by this group!) it's not surprising one of the female "pastors" considers they have no doctrine. Being secular Baptists of a liberal bent their only "doctrine" is to please men while playing religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A lot of things are wrong with Cindy and the church there as is evidenced in the above conversation. The jumping on the phrase "my church" always causes my eyes to do at least 4 revolutions before the momentum decays. Are there cases of pastors saying "my church" in the same way as "my hammer" ie. It's my personal property, I control it, etc? Certainly, and they're wrong.

However, I believe you'll find in talking to people that most of them (be it pastor or any other member) use it in the same way as "my country" (the one I belong to), "my case" [as in a legal case] (the one I'm responsible for), "my [company owned] Sawzall" (the one I'm utilizing at this time). This is not an improper usage of the possessive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of things are wrong with Cindy and the church there as is evidenced in the above conversation. The jumping on the phrase "my church" always causes my eyes to do at least 4 revolutions before the momentum decays. Are there cases of pastors saying "my church" in the same way as "my hammer" ie. It's my personal property, I control it, etc? Certainly, and they're wrong.

However, I believe you'll find in talking to people that most of them (be it pastor or any other member) use it in the same way as "my country" (the one I belong to), "my case" [as in a legal case] (the one I'm responsible for), "my [company owned] Sawzall" (the one I'm utilizing at this time). This is not an improper usage of the possessive.

Yes, I realize its common use as you described...and considered that as her meaning; however, given all of the dialog, the false doctrine promoted, and the lack of biblical discernment regarding the position of a pastor (pastorette), it would appear that it is "her" church. Just my opinion...

Edited to correct my phone's autospell "correction". :nuts:

Also, since I typed the original reply on my phone, I tried to keep it short. I hope I didn't come across as a smart-aleck. That wasn't my intention; forgive me if I did come across that way.

Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an American Baptist but not that of the so called Cindy pastor American Baptist.  If they do not have doctrines then they are not baptist at all, but rather just american heretical.  They are total liberals for having a woman as a pastor. There are two American Baptist that I know. My in-law parents when they heard that I was an American Baptist they thought I could be heretical.  Those American Baptist are those of National Baptist Convention, Progressive National Convention, and American Baptist Convention (ABC).  The other  is American Baptist Association (ABA) which I am part of. We have doctrines and we are independent local baptist churches.  I guess most people know this since I am in this Independent Fundamental Baptist forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know what the bible says about female "pastors" (1 Tim 2:12).  A local Methodist church in the area has a female "pastor" and she recently announced she was getting married to... you guessed it... another female! Only ONE parishioner quit going there because of this, the rest (I heard) actually applauded! The evil one/the father of lies has quite a grip on the apostate churches. Sadly, "Baptist" doesn't even mean Baptist anymore. There are even many supposed Independent Fundamental Baptists who are anything but fundamental, and have strayed to false doctrine as well. I agree with many of the sentiments above, and believe that many churches now days are all about pleasing the people with popular opinion rather than sound bible teaching (heaping to themselves teachers having itching ears) I also feel that 2 Tim 3:5 is relevant " Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof"... coloring with crayons and being led by a spirit alright, but not the Holy Spirit. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2015, 10:47:52, Jim_Alaska said:

The following is a copy and paste of a conversation I had with the female pastor of a Baptist Church on another message forum. I post it to show how far association Baptists are drifting from traditional Baptists. What follows is the actual conbversation.

 

 

 

PastorCindyA 

Praying With Color
The First Baptist Church in Gloucester, located at 38 Gloucester Avenue, will begin a 5-week experience combining Lectio Divina and an art component based on the book Praying In Color by Sybil MacBeth. Lectio Divina is a Benedictine model for reading, praying and contemplating Scripture as the living Word of God. Beginning on Thursday, October 8 from 6:30pm-7:30pm we will gather in the church Sanctuary to pray and meditate using paper and colored pencils or pens. All instruction and materials are provided and this experience is free and open to the public. No experience necessary. If you can draw a line and a dot and you are open to the leading of the Spirit, you can participate. Young people who can be meditative for the hour are also welcome. Come and experience the Word in a new way. Please call the church office to sign up. 

Jim Alaska 

So, if I read this right a Baptist Church is going to take instruction from a Roman Catholic Order of Monks regarding reading, praying and contemplating Scripture? Why can't the leadership of this church teach these things from a Baptist doctrinal standpoint without resorting to heretical outside influence? 

PastorCindyA 

Jim, Baptists don't have doctrine. That's why we're Baptists. 

Jim Alaska 

I have been a Baptist preacher and teacher for forty years Cindy. This is certainly new news to me, would you care to elaborate, or at least explain why you said what you said? 

PastorCindyA 

Jim, on this thread, no. This is about an event my church is holding. If you want to debate the meaning of the word "doctrine" and how, as American Baptists, we don't subscribe to any, I would be delighted to do that elsewhere.

 

 

Yeah......she's a liberal and a female pastor and all that.......

But she was right in her way:

By "doctrine" she meant something like: "a certain enforceable set of standard teachings to which all denominationally affiliated congregations must adhere"...........or, a binding confessional statement.

That's what she meant.  She said, (quite rightly I might add)............ "Baptists don't have doctrine. that's why we're Baptists".

You didn't take her meaning obviously.........but her meaning was Ecclessiological and quite frankly, she was right on.

You doubled-down with this:

I have been a Baptist preacher and teacher for forty years Cindy. This is certainly new news to me, would you care to elaborate, or at least explain why you said what you said? 

She (rather graciously I think) simply responded:

Jim, on this thread, no. This is about an event my church is holding. If you want to debate the meaning of the word "doctrine" and how, as American Baptists, we don't subscribe to any, I would be delighted to do that elsewhere.

You were speaking right past her...................

And didn't bother with trying to understand what she meant.

Because her meaning was obvious............and sound from a traditionally "Baptist" perspective.  What she meant was essentially that she is non-confessional.......................(just like you).

I understand and agree with you, that women shouldn't be pastors of congregations.  But, they aren't all idiots.  Some of them genuinely (and wrongly) disagree and are sometimes also otherwise Godly Christians with bad ideas.  But you seem to me simply unable to have seen past the obvious gender issue and knee-jerked into failing to listen to anything she said.

If you could look past her skirt and understood what she meant by the (granted imperfectly clear) phrase:

Baptists don't have doctrine. That's why we're Baptists.  

You might have responded differently.

 

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2015‎ ‎4‎:‎17‎:‎16‎, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The AB's are actually BiNO's. (Baptist in Name Only)

 

not able to consume either the full meat of the Word, or the sincere milk, they eat their world-processed Pablum and play with their crayons.

Maybe they are American Liberal Baptists In Name Only...ALBINO'sB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

Yeah......she's a liberal and a female pastor and all that.......

But she was right in her way:

By "doctrine" she meant something like: "a certain enforceable set of standard teachings to which all denominationally affiliated congregations must adhere"...........or, a binding confessional statement.

That's what she meant.  She said, (quite rightly I might add)............ "Baptists don't have doctrine. that's why we're Baptists".

You didn't take her meaning obviously.........but her meaning was Ecclessiological and quite frankly, she was right on.

You doubled-down with this:

I have been a Baptist preacher and teacher for forty years Cindy. This is certainly new news to me, would you care to elaborate, or at least explain why you said what you said? 

She (rather graciously I think) simply responded:

Jim, on this thread, no. This is about an event my church is holding. If you want to debate the meaning of the word "doctrine" and how, as American Baptists, we don't subscribe to any, I would be delighted to do that elsewhere.

You were speaking right past her...................

And didn't bother with trying to understand what she meant.

Because her meaning was obvious............and sound from a traditionally "Baptist" perspective.  What she meant was essentially that she is non-confessional.......................(just like you).

I understand and agree with you, that women shouldn't be pastors of congregations.  But, they aren't all idiots.  Some of them genuinely (and wrongly) disagree and are sometimes also otherwise Godly Christians with bad ideas.  But you seem to me simply unable to have seen past the obvious gender issue and knee-jerked into failing to listen to anything she said.

If you could look past her skirt and understood what she meant by the (granted imperfectly clear) phrase:

Baptists don't have doctrine. That's why we're Baptists.  

You might have responded differently.

 

 

Nonsense. You said "doctrine" meant;  "a certain enforceable set of standard teachings to which all denominationally affiliated congregations must adhere"...........or, a binding confessional statement.

Might I remind you that in the beginning of the church there were no "denominations." But there was certainly doctrine, which is what true Baptists have held to since the days when Jesus walked the earth. Here is just one example; 2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Her skirt has nothing to do with what I said or believe. Her declaration that "Baptists do not have doctrine" is proof positive that she is not a Baptist and knows nothing of Baptist Distinctives.

I did not look past anything, the woman is a heretick, proven by her claim to be a pastor and confirming her disregard of Scripture with her unscriptural declaration.

You speak of me not being able to see past the gender issue; and why should I when she is Scripturally prohibited from the office she claims by her very gender?

If I had it to do over again I would respond the same way because what I said I know to be the truth for true Baptists.

I find it interesting that you would take the side of a heretical, Scripture denying female imposter, and against a brother in Christ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. You said "doctrine" meant;  "a certain enforceable set of standard teachings to which all denominationally affiliated congregations must adhere"...........or, a binding confessional statement.

I did not say that's what "doctrine" meant.....I said that that's what she meant when she said "Baptists dont' have 'doctrine' "

Might I remind you that in the beginning of the church there were no "denominations."

That's what she was talking about.

But there was certainly doctrine,

Yes.  Her choice of words was unfortunate.

Her skirt has nothing to do with what I said or believe.

Sure it does, you demonstrate that when you said:

You speak of me not being able to see past the gender issue; and why should I when she is Scripturally prohibited from the office she claims by her very gender?

 

 

Her declaration that "Baptists do not have doctrine" is proof positive that she is not a Baptist and knows nothing of Baptist Distinctives.

I'd bet you she does.....and if you would have spoken to her about it in another forum as she suggested she might have proven that to you.

I find it interesting that you would take the side of a heretical, Scripture denying female imposter, and against a brother in Christ. 

I don't see it as "taking sides"....against one or the other.  You are more Scripturally sound than she.  But, I've no reason to assume that she isn't also a "sister" in Christ who is merely in error on the issue of female pastors.  Jumping down her throat and calling her a "heretic" will likely only alientate her and cause her to circle the wagons.  That's how I saw it.  It doesn't have to be a "you vs. her" issue.  I'm sorry if it bothers you Jim.  Some women pastors are (I believe) genuine Christians struggling to serve the Lord as best they know.   All of us have been in error at at least some point in our lives, and we all probably are on at least a minor issue here or there.  That doesn't make us "heretics".

Edited by Heir of Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my original post again HOS. I never called her a heretic. I spoke to her of outside heretical teaching. But, if she believes that women can pastor, which she surely does, then she could be termed a heretic.

 

So, you think she knows Baptist doctrine when she misses one of the most important and well known doctrines there is? I don't. Females are forbidden to pastor, even a simple literal reading of Scripture reveals this.

By bringing up the issue of her skirt, which points to me being a bigot, you prove that your argument is with Scripture on the issue of female pastors, not with me.

 

You may ramble on about what she "meant", but it serves no purpose because I said what I meant and meant what I said. I choose to not mince my words when dealing with error and especially from a supposed Baptist, which she claims to be.

 

 Tit 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 
 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 
 12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 
 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my original post again HOS.

I have, and I did, nothing's changed.

I never called her a heretic.

Not to her face, no.

Like a real man....you waited until you were surrounded by your own type who will loudly laud your "courage" for standing up to  a girl, and decided to call her a "heretic" at that point.

I spoke to her of outside heretical teaching. But, if she believes that women can pastor, which she surely does, then she could be termed a heretic.

If anybody disagrees with anybody on any point of doctrine, they can be called a "heretic".....

The word "heretic" means nothing............because people like you throw it around like cupcakes.

It USED to sorta mean something....(like someone with an insufficient view of the Godhead or a Docetist, or and Arian, or someone who denied the appropriate place of the crucifixion, but, now, it means 'women pastors'). That's cheap.

So, you think she knows Baptist doctrine

No, not particularly well, but, I didn't say she did either...............

I've no doubt you THINK that's what I said, but, you don't seem to me, to have good reading or listening skills either.  Good listening skills would involve being capable of listening to obviously insufficient and technically inaccurate statements like "Baptists don't have doctrine". and being able to draw the meaning of that statement out.  

You are still unable to do that, even though I translated that inprecision for you in my first post.

You listened to neither her nor I, when I tried to elucidate her meaning.

It still escapes you.

when she misses one of the most important and well known doctrines there is?

You don't even know what she means when she (imprecisely I grant) uses the word "doctrine".  

 Females are forbidden to pastor 

I know they are......but, you pretend like that's not an all-consuming hang-up for you when it clearly is...............And then you deny that it's a hang-up for you and then reinstate how much it is a hang-up in the very next  independent clause.  You'll deny it's the crux of the issue, and then one sentence later...you'll base your disagreement on that one issue.

Here, I'll quote it:

1.) Clause 1: Her skirt has nothing to do with what I said or believe.

2.) Clause 2:  You speak of me not being able to see past the gender issue; and why should I when she is Scripturally prohibited from the office she claims by her very gender?

 

But, let's go on.

even a simple literal reading of Scripture reveals this.

True.   

I agree with you..........

But, even a simple charitable attempt to reach out and exhort or teach or build-up or think charitably about those who are presumably Christians even if they are not entirely in agreement with you on basic issues would have, granted you the skills to know what she meant when she said what she said instead of driven you to go to your safe-zone where you could lambast and insult a fellow believer with impunity with no fear of reprisal.

By bringing up the issue of her skirt,

I didn't bring up the "issue of her skirt"..........read the thread..........you did.

which points to me being a bigot,

It doesn't make you a bigot.  You aren't a bigot.....I know that.

Neither do I defend female pastorship in the local Church.............It's not an issue of bigotry.

Only people who insist on arguing for female pastor-ship in churches frame the argument in terms of "bigotry".   Neither you nor I are a "bigot".............Femininsts, argue that those against female head-ship are (or must be) "bigots".   

I, at least, know better.

You seem not to.

you prove that your argument is with Scripture on the issue of female pastors, not with me.

No, I prove that you're obsessed with the error of women pastors, and that it's clouding your capacity to think and see clearly.......Well, that, and that you are a big-bad-man by running to a forum where you assume hundreds of people will laud your courage and Biblical soundness in the face of persecution by agreeing 100% with the way you treated this interaction..................

You aren't wrong (I have to say for the fiftieth time it appears) to disagree with female pastorship:

Since you haven't heard me the first 88 times..................I'll say it again: "I don't agree with women/female pastorship of churches."................

Not that I think you heard me for the billionth time..............

You may ramble on about what she "meant",

If you seek to correct or teach or exhort a fellow (presumptive) believer.............it'd help...that's all I'm really saying.

but it serves no purpose

What, exactly, serves "no purpose"?

My "rambling" about it?

or, my attempt to get you to understand what she meant when she said (rather imperfectly) "Baptists don't have doctrine".

because I said what I meant and meant what I said.

Of course...........so did she............so do I.

No one in this conversation is of any other disposition.  No one ever has been.   She meant what she said to.............so do I.

I choose to not mince my words when dealing with error

Maybe...............but, you do deny them once you've said them in the next sentence at least, as I pointed out earlier.

and especially from a supposed Baptist, which she claims to be.

If that's the case.............than she is presumptively another sister in Christ who is likely in error on the issue of female pastorship and possibly other issues..............

Here's what you did:

1.)You did a miserable job of reaching out, exhorting, and helping a presumed sister in Christ who was in error..............

2.) You ran to a presumed "safe-zone" of entirely like-minded persons in order to bask in the glory of kicking a possibly confused sister when she was down and in error.

3.) You balked when I called you on it.

 

Now, let's explain moral courage................

Moral courage is standing for a principle when you know your audience is primarily pre-disposed AGAINST you.  For instance:

 Preaching to I.F.B. clones who not only agree whole-heartedly, but share the same dispositions as you and penchant for dressing down the same pet-peeves as you have isn't "standing for the truth"........at least against any real opposition.  That's all you're doing (or wanted to do here).  Preach to a choir, and get a little "amen, preach it brother".

I won't oblige.................

I think you're right in doctrinal stand (as I've said)............but, you handled this poorly.  So, here's your quoted verse........right back atcha'..........:


 Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

Read my original post again HOS.

I have, and I did, nothing's changed.

I never called her a heretic.

Not to her face, no.

Like a real man....you waited until you were surrounded by your own type who will loudly laud your "courage" for standing up to  a girl, and decided to call her a "heretic" at that point.

I spoke to her of outside heretical teaching. But, if she believes that women can pastor, which she surely does, then she could be termed a heretic.

If anybody disagrees with anybody on any point of doctrine, they can be called a "heretic".....

The word "heretic" means nothing............because people like you throw it around like cupcakes.

It USED to sorta mean something....(like someone with an insufficient view of the Godhead or a Docetist, or and Arian, or someone who denied the appropriate place of the crucifixion, but, now, it means 'women pastors'). That's cheap.

So, you think she knows Baptist doctrine

No, not particularly well, but, I didn't say she did either...............

I've no doubt you THINK that's what I said, but, you don't seem to me, to have good reading or listening skills either.  Good listening skills would involve being capable of listening to obviously insufficient and technically inaccurate statements like "Baptists don't have doctrine". and being able to draw the meaning of that statement out.  

You are still unable to do that, even though I translated that inprecision for you in my first post.

You listened to neither her nor I, when I tried to elucidate her meaning.

It still escapes you.

when she misses one of the most important and well known doctrines there is?

You don't even know what she means when she (imprecisely I grant) uses the word "doctrine".  

 Females are forbidden to pastor 

I know they are......but, you pretend like that's not an all-consuming hang-up for you when it clearly is...............And then you deny that it's a hang-up for you and then reinstate how much it is a hang-up in the very next  independent clause.  You'll deny it's the crux of the issue, and then one sentence later...you'll base your disagreement on that one issue.

Here, I'll quote it:

1.) Clause 1: Her skirt has nothing to do with what I said or believe.

2.) Clause 2:  You speak of me not being able to see past the gender issue; and why should I when she is Scripturally prohibited from the office she claims by her very gender?

 

But, let's go on.

even a simple literal reading of Scripture reveals this.

True.   

I agree with you..........

But, even a simple charitable attempt to reach out and exhort or teach or build-up or think charitably about those who are presumably Christians even if they are not entirely in agreement with you on basic issues would have, granted you the skills to know what she meant when she said what she said instead of driven you to go to your safe-zone where you could lambast and insult a fellow believer with impunity with no fear of reprisal.

By bringing up the issue of her skirt,

I didn't bring up the "issue of her skirt"..........read the thread..........you did.

which points to me being a bigot,

It doesn't make you a bigot.  You aren't a bigot.....I know that.

Neither do I defend female pastorship in the local Church.............It's not an issue of bigotry.

Only people who insist on arguing for female pastor-ship in churches frame the argument in terms of "bigotry".   Neither you nor I are a "bigot".............Femininsts, argue that those against female head-ship are (or must be) "bigots".   

I, at least, know better.

You seem not to.

you prove that your argument is with Scripture on the issue of female pastors, not with me.

No, I prove that you're obsessed with the error of women pastors, and that it's clouding your capacity to think and see clearly.......Well, that, and that you are a big-bad-man by running to a forum where you assume hundreds of people will laud your courage and Biblical soundness in the face of persecution by agreeing 100% with the way you treated this interaction..................

You aren't wrong (I have to say for the fiftieth time it appears) to disagree with female pastorship:

Since you haven't heard me the first 88 times..................I'll say it again: "I don't agree with women/female pastorship of churches."................

Not that I think you heard me for the billionth time..............

You may ramble on about what she "meant",

If you seek to correct or teach or exhort a fellow (presumptive) believer.............it'd help...that's all I'm really saying.

but it serves no purpose

What, exactly, serves "no purpose"?

My "rambling" about it?

or, my attempt to get you to understand what she meant when she said (rather imperfectly) "Baptists don't have doctrine".

because I said what I meant and meant what I said.

Of course...........so did she............so do I.

No one in this conversation is of any other disposition.  No one ever has been.   She meant what she said to.............so do I.

I choose to not mince my words when dealing with error

Maybe...............but, you do deny them once you've said them in the next sentence at least, as I pointed out earlier.

and especially from a supposed Baptist, which she claims to be.

If that's the case.............than she is presumptively another sister in Christ who is likely in error on the issue of female pastorship and possibly other issues..............

Here's what you did:

1.)You did a miserable job of reaching out, exhorting, and helping a presumed sister in Christ who was in error..............

2.) You ran to a presumed "safe-zone" of entirely like-minded persons in order to bask in the glory of kicking a possibly confused sister when she was down and in error.

3.) You balked when I called you on it.

 

Now, let's explain moral courage................

Moral courage is standing for a principle when you know your audience is primarily pre-disposed AGAINST you.  For instance:

 Preaching to I.F.B. clones who not only agree whole-heartedly, but share the same dispositions as you and penchant for dressing down the same pet-peeves as you have isn't "standing for the truth"........at least against any real opposition.  That's all you're doing (or wanted to do here).  Preach to a choir, and get a little "amen, preach it brother".

I won't oblige.................

I think you're right in doctrinal stand (as I've said)............but, you handled this poorly.  So, here's your quoted verse........right back atcha'..........:


 Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 

Relax on the martyring of yourself fella. You stand for nothing that the lost religious world doesn't already stand for in your posts. You get constantly corrected on this site because few expect to see silly posts like yours on a "real" Christian, fundamental forum.

This lost preacher woman you defend is just that, lost. No one who blatantly ignores plain Scripture that a child can understand could possibly be born again (In case you don't understand, let me explain; when a person is saved, they begin to thirst for Scriptural truth and understanding, they actually believe God's Word as truth, this is evidence of the new birth). In simple terms when the Spirit regenerates a sinner, they will never again see God's truth and deny it. This "pastorette" is just another lost religious reprobate. She will not accept nor take to reproof because she is once again lost - get it? Just another head belief only disciple of the degenerate emerging non churches. Just because she says words like Jesus and saved in NO WAY makes her legitimately born again.

I have said it before and will again. IMO, this country touts 1000:1 bastard to son ratios in what is labeled as born again christianity.

Moral courage you say? Fighting back when you perceive yourself being attacked is not moral courage. Standing for Scriptural truth, now that is moral courage young man and you have yet to post anything remotely Scriptural in any thread.

You seem to be a just another troll on here. More subtle than some but a troll nevertheless. I am guessing a member in good standing of the emerging movement perhaps? And don't pretend that folks like me are being uncharitable to you. Your types never respond to correction regardless of how it is worded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2015, 10:47:52, Jim_Alaska said:

PastorCindyA 

Jim, on this thread, no. This is about an event my church is holding. If you want to debate the meaning of the word "doctrine" and how, as American Baptists, we don't subscribe to any, I would be delighted to do that elsewhere.

"Heir of Salvation": You state that this woman is "presumptively another sister in Christ"  and I wonder how you draw that conclusion?

 The fact that this woman is going against the clear bible teaching that women should not be pastors is clue #1 that she either does not KNOW what's written in the bible, or does not CARE what is written in the bible attests to the conclusion that she either hasn't the ability or desire to read, study, and comprehend the word of God, OR that she has read it, and deemed her own opinion superior to the word of God.

 The fact that she is subscribing to the practice of "Lectio Divina" (a man-made Catholic ritual) is clue #2. This teaching is NOT in the bible, so once again, either she doesn't KNOW what the bible says, or she doesn't CARE what the word of God says. 

However, the biggest clue that this woman is not led of the Holy Spirit is fact #3... she claims she/her church do not subscribe to ANY doctrine...  What does she then do with the doctrines Jesus taught? Obviously she doesn't subscribe to Jesus own words, since she doesn't subscribe to any doctrine at all...

Matthew 7:28 "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine"
Mark 4:2 "And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine"
Luke 4:32 "And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power"
John 7:16 "Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."

And you have flip-flopped on your answer to that as well... First you attempt to translate what she said.  It doesn't need to be "translated" by you... she obviously meant what she said and it should be taken at face value.
A few posts later on,  even YOU state that she meant what she said...  

So if we take what SHE said at face value, I would conclude that she deems her knowledge to be superior to the bible, and superior to Christ Himself. And I would not consider her to be a "sister in Christ".  Nor do I consider her complete disdain for the word of God to be a "minor issue", and wonder why you do?

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Heir of Salvation": You state that this woman is "presumptively another sister in Christ"  and I wonder how you draw that conclusion?

She claims to be another sister in Christ.....therefore, she is "presumptively" a sister in Christ.  A confused one, I grant you....But you have to consider the position you are taking:

According to you and wretched, a person who mistakenly believes that it is o.k. for a woman to be a senior pastor is therefore unsaved, as in........it's a requirement for salvation that a person not accept woman pastors.  That is not Scriptural.  Many genuine Christians disagree, they're wrong.........but the gospel doesn't require doctrinal perfection.  

The fact that this woman is going against the clear bible teaching

She doesn't think she is going against "Clear Bible teaching"......do you  know where the arguments used by those who think women can lead churches comes from?

that women should not be pastors is clue #1 that she either does not KNOW what's written in the bible, or does not CARE what is written in the bible attests to the conclusion that she either hasn't the ability or desire to read, study, and comprehend the word of God, OR that she has read it, and deemed her own opinion superior to the word of God.

No, another option is that she is CONFUSED.

I prefer to assume that she has the best of intentions and that she is confused.  It happens, and it happens a lot.  Genuine Christians miss what is "clear" in Scripture all the time.  I have.  If you knew the arguments used to support female pastorship of Churches, you may not be so quick to consign her to hell.

The fact that she is subscribing to the practice of "Lectio Divina" (a man-made Catholic ritual) is clue #2. This teaching is NOT in the bible, so once again, either she doesn't KNOW what the bible says, or she doesn't CARE what the word of God says. 

She obviously doesn't know what it says................on those issues.

Yours and wretched's conclusion?

She's lost and let's consign her to hell..........and frankly, kind of revel in it.

Now let me tell you without reservation........If that's YOUR conclusion, than the one who knows nothing about what the Bible says is YOU.  The gospel doesn't include the requirement that that people not be confused, it doesn't require that people don't still hold ridiculous ideas.....It requires ONLY  that you accept the risen Christ's sacrifice for your sin and cry out to him for mercy.  The rest of this story: Sanctification, renewal of the mind, guidance into all truth....isn't the gospel.

Truth be told, as far as concerns yours and wretched's post....she seems to understand the Gospel better than both of you combined.  She, at least, doesn't think that disagreeing with a pet-peeve of I.F.B's consigns someone to hell.............or, that it's our job to make judgements about it.

However, the biggest clue that this woman is not led of the Holy Spirit is fact #3...

Genuinely saved Christians are not always led of the Holy Spirit a lot of times.  

Is that a foundational Biblical truth of the gospel and "CLEAR TEACHING" that you do not understand?....Because it's a clear and foundation Biblical truth you seem not to get........

And you think SHE'S the one confused about basics......

Sometimes they are carnal......sometimes that part of Sanctification hasn't yet occured....sometimes, the Holy Spirit worked on their crack addiction, alcohol addiction, promiscuous lifestyle or got them out of the 3-year affair they were in and subsequently saved their failing marriage before he goes on to step 2 of teaching them ALL right doctrines....

she claims she/her church do not subscribe to ANY doctrine...  

Yes, and by that she clearly means denominational creeds.............You don't ascribe to creedalism either.

Obviously she doesn't subscribe to Jesus own words, since she doesn't subscribe to any doctrine at all...

Yes, she does..........she doesn't subscribe to creedalism in Baptist Churches..........Neither do you.

She's right on that point, and so are you.

And you have flip-flopped on your answer to that as well... First you attempt to translate what she said.  It doesn't need to be "translated" by you... she obviously meant what she said and it should be taken at face value.
A few posts later on,  even YOU state that she meant what she said...  

Re-think this paragraph..........it doesn't make a lot of sense.

So if we take what SHE said at face value, I would conclude that she deems her knowledge to be superior to the bible, and superior to Christ Himself.

And you would be wrong....or, at least, assuming more about her than is justified so far.  Frankly........we know little or nothing about her so far.  Jim didn't bother to find out either............he didn't bother to probe deeper......none of you have....you've simply concluded that part of the gospel is understanding that women shouldn't be pastors.

If you think that.......than your understanding of the gospel is more convoluted than hers are, because I assure you, that's not a requirement of salvation whether you or wretched or Jim would like to make it so.

And I would not consider her to be a "sister in Christ".  

Then you place requirements of salvation beyond the scope of Scripture.

Nor do I consider her complete disdain for the word of God to be a "minor issue",

She hasn't displayed a "complete disdain" for the word of God.............she's displayed that she's obviously a little confused and somewhat ignorant.  Maybe she does have a "complete disdain"....but, we've no real evidence so far.  Jim didn't bother to give us more evidence.  He just ran straight to people who agree with everything he believes in order to lambast another believer and wallow in the self-glorifying smugness of belonging to the elite group of all those who have it all figured out............

I think it's ugly.   

and wonder why you do?

I don't.  I disagree with her (again for 80-millionth time).............

I just think what you guys are doing here is ugly and a little sickening. 

Edited by Heir of Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to agree with Heir of Salvation here. Just because someone is in error doesn't mean they are lost. We must remember that even the Laodicean church, though terribly wrong in many places, still had their candlestick in place, meaning that they were still Jesus' church. In this day and age we can expect a lot of actually saved people to not grow much and to follow some error, because the Bible backs that up. And it is not we that are given to identify the tares-that is up to the Lord.

So, false doctrine, yes, identify it, yes, refute and repudiate it, lovingly, and yes, separate from it, but be very carful to insist one is not saved because they are wrong in some areas.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

I would have to agree with Heir of Salvation here. Just because someone is in error doesn't mean they are lost. We must remember that even the Laodicean church, though terribly wrong in many places, still had their candlestick in place, meaning that they were still Jesus' church. In this day and age we can expect a lot of actually saved people to not grow much and to follow some error, because the Bible backs that up. And it is not we that are given to identify the tares-that is up to the Lord.

So, false doctrine, yes, identify it, yes, refute and repudiate it, lovingly, and yes, separate from it, but be very carful to insist one is not saved because they are wrong in some areas.  

I am quoting you Mike to make a point and am not attacking you personally but need to vent on this:

I disagree whole heartedly and believe that this attitude, which is a recent development among "fundamental Bible believers" is a problem sweeping most IFB churches.

We spend most of our time giving intellectual reassurance to people who were never "converted" by the Holy Spirit to begin with. The book of I John is the test book in God's Word as to whether a person is saved or not. Head belief saves no one for the devil's believe and tremble.

I want these deceived lost people saved from the fires of Hell so I refuse to give them intellectual reassurance. I simple want them to study I John, praying and determine for themselves whether they be in the faith truly or not. AND if not, get it settled- I refuse to be their Holy Spirit when there is none within them. NOWHERE in God's Word are we told or even hinted at to give people reassurance. The Bible is clear that everyone is to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling and to make sure their are truly in the faith.

We need to stop condemning these people by supporting this false gospel that the apostate emerging, rock n roll churches and the protestant denominations are feeding them. Do you think you are helping them? Is it time to grow up folks and get with God's program before it is too late.

The Gospel is not a quick head belief and prayer without conviction and a CHANGED life. These poor souls were never given the real Gospel. They have no idea what the Gospel truly is. The satanic perversion they were given is that of a hellless, condemnationless gospel - Which is no Bible Gospel at all. Our Lord in all four Gospels spoke of Hell more than any other subject but these apostate emerging church groups leave that out completely. Without the conviction of sin, righteousness and Judgment to come-there is no salvation.

It is not the committing of sins I am referring to; It is the acknowledgement of sin and the sincere desire of the milk of God's Word to grow thereby that is evidentiary of being born again.

Here are some basic questions for all the easy- believism, emerging church sympathizing types:

Do you agree that Regeneration can only come from the Holy Spirit via the Word of God? If a person does not believe the Scriptures as the Word of God, do you honestly think the Holy Spirit convicted them through the Word and regenerated them, now living within their hearts?

Now if we all agree that noone can be saved apart from true "heart" belief in the Scripture via the Spirit. Than how can you possibly believe that someone who claims this on one hand and then denies the truth of God's Word on the other is truly born again and indwelt by the Spirit?

I marvel at my own brethren sometimes. What I marvel at most of all is that they think they do these lost people justice by reassuring them of something that never happened to begin with. We are sending them to hell on a shutter and are no better than the apostate "pastors" who distorted the real Gospel to begin with.

This thread was dealing with those who claim to be sound in the faith and Scripture, not babes in Christ. Come on people? These same types of people think warning people of judgment is somehow hateful??? I MARVEL continually at the state of this present world. When our Lord comes, will He find faith on the earth?

1000:1 people, mark my words, 1000:1 (at least and I am being conservative).

Stop with the judgmental accusation nonsense, this is a warning only. I worry over my own judgment (Judgment Seat that is) and I worry over the lost at the Great White Throne- do not want anyone's blood on my hands.

None of us are any better than the rest but we better make 100% percent sure we are saved before we run out of time and time is real short. If you deny the parts of the Bible that your old nature doesn't agree with, you are suspect and need to get saved ASAP.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give an example. My father, from whom I got most of what I believe, (by that, I mean he raised me up in it), and these things being confirmed by scripture, I know where he stood for many years.    However, after health issues he got out of church for many years. I know he was saved, I know what he taught and believed, but being out from under good teaching, and not much Bible reading, he began to convince himself of some non-biblical things, things I knew he didn't hold to before. Yet I know he was saved.

My point is, salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work upon the cross. Period. That some out of poor teaching and a carnal attitude may fall into error doesn't effect that salvation.

With this woman preacher, I guess the only way we can know is through asking her how she knows she's going to heaven, how she knows she's a child of God-from outside, it's difficult to judge without that. I don't mean to wink at false doctrine, and I am myself daily sicker and sicker of error and laziness creeping into churches and the lives of believers, but we still need to be careful in judging when we don't yet know all the pertinent facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Let me give an example. My father, from whom I got most of what I believe, (by that, I mean he raised me up in it), and these things being confirmed by scripture, I know where he stood for many years.    However, after health issues he got out of church for many years. I know he was saved, I know what he taught and believed, but being out from under good teaching, and not much Bible reading, he began to convince himself of some non-biblical things, things I knew he didn't hold to before. Yet I know he was saved.

My point is, salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work upon the cross. Period. That some out of poor teaching and a carnal attitude may fall into error doesn't effect that salvation.

With this woman preacher, I guess the only way we can know is through asking her how she knows she's going to heaven, how she knows she's a child of God-from outside, it's difficult to judge without that. I don't mean to wink at false doctrine, and I am myself daily sicker and sicker of error and laziness creeping into churches and the lives of believers, but we still need to be careful in judging when we don't yet know all the pertinent facts.

Perhaps I have grown overly cynical these days. But I can honestly say that I could care less about judging anyone except myself. What I will not do is convince people they are saved simply because someone convinced them they were. You and your pop are your business but had this example been of a stranger you heard of with the exact same details, would you still be convinced or would you fear for their testimony?

Many times the people closest to us are the ones we want to regenerate ourselves to ease our own burdened hearts and we spend countless hours convincing them it is real. Not saying this is your case at all but something to consider for all Christians.

I have a couple of similar stories among my own family but there comes a time (sooner far better than later) when we have to step back and believe the Word that anyone in Christ is a new creature and will certainly believe everything that comes out of the mouth of God. Whether they live it consistently or not is not the issue, they will believe it and they will be chastised when they don't live it. They may fall out of "church" (like there are any real Bible examples of those around anymore, HA) and into a sinful habits for years and years but they never repented of who God truly was and they never denied they were in sin while they were, they felt miserable every time the pleasure stopped while living in sin but anyone who has been around a day knows that the flesh is powerful and so is the adversary.

There is only one way to be saved and only one result in salvation - new creature in the way our hearts make our minds think. It seems even we have allowed satan's apostasy to infiltrate our own IFB circles. Rub the rabbits foot and say the magic words and shazam you is borned again - not hardly.

I could care less about winning any arguments over it either. This is the most important issue in everyone's life and should never be trifled with.

More than half the NT is written like this but few if any "pastors" (these days) will ever preach it, they fear the loss of revenue. This is assuming these "pastors" are even saved.

The new Jerusalem has been depicted as our home during the millennium. The dimensions are given in exacting detail along with the appearance, etc. The dimensions are equal to the state of Colorado as a cube. Imagine a square city this size and then try to fit into it all the supposedly saved 31% of the population living today (just today mind you). Do you think they would fit? Maybe if stacked like cordwood they would but not with their own mansions, HA. MUCH LESS every saint since Adam (or Christ if you don't want to go back that far). Since it was described so exactly and there is no other mention of where we will be, I impose the rule of only mention.

I am not being dogmatic on this last part but studying it is interesting to me and makes me even more concerned over the easy-believism being preached in most modern day "churches" and in many IFB ones.

We forget that narrow is the way and few that find it. Selah

 

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Timothy 4:16 "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
 

How important is it that we know and continue in bible doctrine?  Much less not have any doctrine at all?  How are you going to help save those who hear you? Continue in sound doctrine.  

11 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

but the gospel doesn't require doctrinal perfection

Afraid you're wrong on that one.  Find me some BIBLE verses that support your idea "Heir of salvation", when you state the gospel doesn't require doctrinal perfection. It's interesting that in your entire lengthy diatribes, you haven't used any biblical reference at all to support your premises.  Are your thoughts and opinions above the words of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ronda said:

1 Timothy 4:16 "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
 

How important is it that we know and continue in bible doctrine?  Much less not have any doctrine at all?  How are you going to help save those who hear you? Continue in sound doctrine.  

Afraid you're wrong on that one.  Find me some BIBLE verses that support your idea "Heir of salvation", when you state the gospel doesn't require doctrinal perfection. It's interesting that in your entire lengthy diatribes, you haven't used any biblical reference at all to support your premises.  Are your thoughts and opinions above the words of God?

I don't know for certain, but I don't think the thief on the cross had doctrinal perfection. None of us will have doctrinal perfection in this life. Yes, we are to take heed to it, yes we are to study to shew ourselves approved of God. There is a reason in the various epistles that Paul was hammering the people over and over again for falling to false doctrines: because Christians can, and do, do it all the time, just as we can fall into sin, even though we are born again new creatures.

13 hours ago, wretched said:

Perhaps I have grown overly cynical these days. But I can honestly say that I could care less about judging anyone except myself. What I will not do is convince people they are saved simply because someone convinced them they were. You and your pop are your business but had this example been of a stranger you heard of with the exact same details, would you still be convinced or would you fear for their testimony? Well I have always believed there is a reason for the experiences we go through. Perhaps I might not have, except that I have that example. And while this may cause a stink and an argument, I also happen to believe that Simon, called Magus, was a born-again believer, yet he sought to buy the power to lay hands on others to receive the holy Ghost, and that it was done in ignorance and falling back to old practices. Many have argued that he wasn't saved, but I give two reasons I believe he was: 1-the Bible says about him, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."  I believe the Bible is clear that he believed, was baptized and continued with Philip. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of God's word speaking clearly. Also I believe he was saved because when he was heavily rebuked for his error, he was meek and asked for prayer that he might not be punished in the ways Peter said he might. It shows a humble spirit of a man caught in sin and willing to receive rebuke, which the Bile also says is the mark of a wise man.  believe the   

Again, this is NOT to say error is 'okay' or any such thing, just that error may be, but is not necessarily, a sure sign of a lost individual.

Many times the people closest to us are the ones we want to regenerate ourselves to ease our own burdened hearts and we spend countless hours convincing them it is real. Not saying this is your case at all but something to consider for all Christians.

I have a couple of similar stories among my own family but there comes a time (sooner far better than later) when we have to step back and believe the Word that anyone in Christ is a new creature and will certainly believe everything that comes out of the mouth of God. Whether they live it consistently or not is not the issue, they will believe it and they will be chastised when they don't live it. They may fall out of "church" (like there are any real Bible examples of those around anymore, HA) and into a sinful habits for years and years but they never repented of who God truly was and they never denied they were in sin while they were, they felt miserable every time the pleasure stopped while living in sin but anyone who has been around a day knows that the flesh is powerful and so is the adversary.

There is only one way to be saved and only one result in salvation - new creature in the way our hearts make our minds think. It seems even we have allowed satan's apostasy to infiltrate our own IFB circles. Rub the rabbits foot and say the magic words and shazam you is borned again - not hardly.

I could care less about winning any arguments over it either. This is the most important issue in everyone's life and should never be trifled with.

More than half the NT is written like this but few if any "pastors" (these days) will ever preach it, they fear the loss of revenue. This is assuming these "pastors" are even saved.

The new Jerusalem has been depicted as our home during the millennium. The dimensions are given in exacting detail along with the appearance, etc. The dimensions are equal to the state of Colorado as a cube. Imagine a square city this size and then try to fit into it all the supposedly saved 31% of the population living today (just today mind you). Do you think they would fit? Maybe if stacked like cordwood they would but not with their own mansions, HA. MUCH LESS every saint since Adam (or Christ if you don't want to go back that far). Since it was described so exactly and there is no other mention of where we will be, I impose the rule of only mention. Actually, everyone alive today could live in Texas with about a half-acre to themselves, and it is WAY smaller than the New Jerusalem will be, which is also much bigger that you suppose: it will be 1500 miles square, way bigger than Colorado-more like covering half the entire United States. As well, the NJ will be 1500 miles HIGH as well. And don't leave out the fact that the entire earth will be habitable. I don't believe there is anywhere that says everyone will live in the New Jerusalem for eternity-there will be an entire new earth that I assume, like the current one, will be made to be inhabited, assumedly by the redeemed. In fact it says, "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it." So, who are these kings bringing their glory and honor into the New Jerusalem? Will there be more people being born? Or will we, the redeemed, the nations of them that are saved, be those kings and such? I don't believe we will just be all squished into the New Jerusalem-like the current Jerusalem, it will be but the holy capitol of the new earth and new heaven, where the presence of God will forever dwell among us.

I am not being dogmatic on this last part but studying it is interesting to me and makes me even more concerned over the easy-believism being preached in most modern day "churches" and in many IFB ones.

We forget that narrow is the way and few that find it. Selah Indeed, but that is the way of salvation-once we are saved, we still have a walk to walk, and sometimes that walk won't be perfect. Praise God He forgives, and let us hope this woman, if she IS saved, will receive rebuke as Simon did, and turn again to the purity of doctrine. And if she is NOT saved, that she will receive that great salvation of Jesus Christ! Amen!

 

Sorry, I know that answering in this way can be difficult, especially as we answer, then answer again, etc, etc. I just wanted to specifically address a couple of the points without taking your remarks out of context.

Again, I in NO WAY excuse error or sin or wrong doctrine. Nor am I specifically assuming anything one way or another about this particular woman-I think at this point, unless we have received any more information from her about her salvation, or lack thereof, that we just have to be careful assuming an unsaved position from so little information. And yes, I agree that information we DO have doesn't look so good. But unless Jim has more information from her, we probably ought to leave it here, pray for her and those she is leading astray that they might get right with the Lord, and then see to our own. I don't know much about the 'American Baptists' but maybe will look a bit into them. Maybe the answer will lie there, or another clue.

Edited to add: The denomination as a whole believes in the ordination of women as being biblical. Interesting interpretation. I can see why some of its members would be in error when the denomination as a whole lifts up something as clearly Unbiblical as being right. Also, the two following 'facts' from the ABC official website say a lot:

8 American Baptists have been called to be Christ’s witnesses for justice and wholeness within a broken society. American Baptists have been led by the Gospel mandates to promote holistic change within society, as witnessed by their advocacy of freed African Americans following the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, women in church and societal leadership, ecological responsibility, and many other issues. While not all of one mind as to how to deal with challenges, American Baptists do affirm the need to follow Christ’s example by being actively involved in changing society.

9 American Baptist Churches USA celebrates the racial, cultural and theological diversity witnessed within its membership. American Baptist Churches USA today is the most racially inclusive Protestant body. Represented in our churches are equally diverse worship styles, cultural mores and approaches to Scriptural interpretation. The resulting challenges and opportunities have made us stronger —through fellowship, respect, mutual support and dialog, all based on a belief that unity in Christ involves growth and understanding.

So there you have it. Maybe reason to assume closer to an unsaved stance if she truly follows the example of her chosen denomination. I can see why they might shun doctrines and may be unsaved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 1 Anonymous, 31 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...