BrotherTony

On 7/3/2023 at 10:36 PM, John Young said:

 

Proverbs is literally about using duality and cuplits to make clear points for edification. Be carful you arent so critical towards me (I don't mind) that what you are criticizing is the practice of the scripture itself!

Not really being "critical" of you personally... you're correct in saying it's duality... let's be clear... it's a book of many comparisons, not absolutes... only these two types. There are many preachers I'm aware of who present it as such. As I stated, I grew up under such a pastor. I don't believe that is what you are trying to do here. I just want to make sure there's a clarification for anyone else who sees this on this site.

There are definitely more than two types of women. This is the kind of limited pastoral print I was raised under and one reason so many people no longer trust preachers. These pigeon holed type casts don't serve Christians well in my opinion. 

If you've already been scripturally baptized, I would have a hard time telling you to be baptized again. I can say this, and it's something you've stated already, you are never going to find a perfect church. You'll have to decide whether becoming a member of this church is worth violating your beliefs and principles of baptism. This is just my opinion...you need to make sure you have prayed about this challenge. God will lead you to the right decision.

56 minutes ago, John Young said:

I agree with what you said with exception to the first and last statement. God does call all and yet God does choose each individual based on His terms in his call and not in any arbitrary way. Notice int the following few verses. God set his parameters before time and selected his elect based on what they each did in the fullness of time.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 12:37-41 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Context and content, John. To whom was he speaking, and about whom? I don't agree with your exegesis. Sorry, I still have to place this in the Calvinist category, even though you say you're not a Calvinist. This type of representation of the gospel is exactly how they present it. 

2 minutes ago, John Young said:

Arminians and Calvinist are all about not having it both ways and they are the ones attempting to fit things in molds to either be of free will (arminians) or forced will (calvinist). I believe God is greater to know whom he saves before time as well as the recipient being willfully receptive in time. Just as it is presented in scripture. No need to fit it in any reformist mold.

I'll take your word for what you believe. I'm neither Arminian or Calvinist. I can only call things as they seem to be presented though. Peace to you.

BT

There's a lot of terminology and hermeneutical twisting that sure fits that mold. If God has already decided who is saved and picked his favorites then John 3:16 is a lie, and so are all verses stating and implying God would have that all men would be saved. You can't have it both ways, John. Call it what you want, it still fits the Calvinist mold. You can add "humbly" all you want, it's still not a free will choice if it's been prescribed.

Sounds like "closet Calvinism" to me. Call it what you will, it's not the salvation taught by any Baptist Church I've been a member of.

29 minutes ago, John Young said:

It felt that way a little bit when preaching it but its not. Just bible. What we do in time God has planned for out of time. We are beholden to time but God is not. We are confined linearly but God is not. This does not mean we aren't responsible for our choices nor does it mean God has to wait (ie. time delayed) for us to make up our mind before making His own choices.

That sounds a lot like the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistible Grace. Nobody is implying God's not sovereign or that he has to wait...but, I do believe that God has given man a free will. He already knows who is and who isn't going to believe on Christ and he lets that play out. 

Sounds a lot like Calvinism to me. I agree he begins a good work in us through the preaching of the Word and conviction of the heart. Still, a person has to choose to accept or reject that offer of salvation.

I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but, am looking forward to it this weekend.

5 hours ago, robmac68 said:

At the first communion, Jesus had Judas Iscariot with Him.  Did Jesus not know how to discipline?  It is not the pastor's duty to discipline at the communion service.  If the pastor has issues with a "member", I hope the disciplining would be before communion.  I would think there would be a better time and place.  The pastor is not held accountable, if in ignorance, he lets someone take communion who claims to be a saved/baptized follower of Christ.  It is his duty to reiterate what Paul wrote about taking communion "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily".  Also, "But let a man examine himself"  Where does it say the pastor is to do the examining.  Paul was rebuking for turning communion into a drunk fest, today it seems some pastors are turning it into a power trip! 

We are told to separate light from dark, period!  Someone is always trying to separate for personal reasons whether it is blacks from whites or lets make the women sit on one side of the church and men on the other, etc. etc...and doing it in the name of Christ. 

The body of Christ is not supposed to have any schisms, but some have found a way.  When we truly understand who makes up the body of Christ and who the church really is, not a building, then we will realize how goofy this all sounds.  It is a called out assembly, and yes it has to have a locale, we can't all meet in Jerusalem or Mecca.  But it is a called out assembly....called out from the wicked world, not called out from separate church buildings.

I don't believe anyone here has said to conduct church discipline during a communion service, and you're correct, that wouldn't be the place to conduct such an action. Usually people are notified by the pastor or the deacons concerning any action towards reconciling the offending Christian to the body (local church). There is first a call by one, then two or more, then usually brought before the church (local assembly) for a vote of notification of separation from the church because of sin. If the person repents, they are allowed back into the fold. At least this is the way it's been in the three churches I was member of who practiced church discipline. This can only be effectively done if the person is a member of the local assembly. We can't hold other churches members responsible for anything, thus, they should not be partaking of the ordinance of communion in any church other than their own, where they CAN be held responsible for their actions. In the churches I attended where this was practiced, we would ask people who weren't members NOT to participate. We wouldn't stop them if they wished to, but they are accountable for what these churches viewed as disobedience to the scriptures on the subject.

1 hour ago, robmac68 said:

So much "club" mentality....Maybe when we get to heaven Jesus can keep us separated to our "local church" congregations.  I am sure that would make some people happy!  

It's not a "club mentality." Many hold to the closed communion ideology, others to close, and many to open. The church is an individual cell/called out assembly, and I can fully understand those of the "closed"  communion, as each individual, called out assembly is responsible for their members and the actions of them. Closed shows that the local church has the right ideology that they should be able to discipline their own members, and help to keep their local members accountable in the matters of morals, etc. If they allow people to come in from other assemblies and partake, they are opening the door to people they have not authority over. 

We all know that in Heaven it's going to be quite a different story, as we will all be part of that system...totally different...so you're comparing apples and bricks.