Napsterdad

Let me start by stating I do not qualify myself as a Baptist. I am a Christian that, since salvation, has tended toward IFB churches because they seem to me to adhere the closest to the Bible. Having said that, I think you are off base here, Morales. From your post above it appears you are lumping all baptists into one basket; those that “add works to be a part of salvation”. I have been to a number of IFBs, and a few SBC and ABC churches, and none of them have taught that works are required for salvation. I’m not saying they are not out there, but the dozen or more that I have been to or attended did not advocate that. In your same post you state that “there are those Baptists, that do not do an invitation for salvation”. Are you saying that an invitation is required in order for someone to get saved? Would this not be works based salvation? Worse yet, this would be a work that would have to be done be someone other than the one getting saved (the inviter). That really puts salvation on perilous footing. I believe the last part of your quote refers to Calvinists. Are you saying that because some Calvinists are Baptists, all Baptists are Calvinist? Wouldn’t that be throwing the baby out with the bath water? Did you know that Baptists aren’t the only denomination where you can find Calvinists? There are many denominations that have outliers linked to Calvinistic principles in varying degrees: Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutheran, Protestant Reformed, United Church of Christ, etc., but you can hardly say they are all 100% committed Calvinists. I am not saying that there are not Baptists out there with errant doctrine, but to lump them all into a group that believes in works based salvation (or any other errant doctrine) is a grievous error. If that is, however, how you chose to roll, how about you give us the denomination that you affiliate with. This way, we can find the doctrinally deviant outliers from your denomination and cast you in as part of that problem as well.

Someone hurt my feelings.

Shiphrah and Puah, who's faith saved unknown amounts of Hebrew boys. And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. - Exo 1:15-20

Dorcas (a.k.a. Tabitha) (Act 9:36-42) Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did. And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber. And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them. Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them. But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up. And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive. And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord.

Still, the term has its merits as applied. Certainly from a secular perspective where it seems to becoming increasingly apparent that more and more of our elected officials are mere pawns being moved by far more purposeful hands. The "illuminate, council on foreign relations, and the 'old rich'" of which you speak. It is interesting that my morning Bible reading today was Daniel 10 where we are introduced to the prince of the kingdom of Persia who was able to withstand an (arch?)angel (Gabriel?) for one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; How terrible this term becomes when we consider there is an "oligarchy" of satanic forces even more in control. An oligarchy that required at least one, if not two, archangel(s) to overcome. And this after 21 days of prayer from a man greatly beloved: Daniel. One day this secular oligarchy is going to be physically united with their spiritual oligarchy. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. This is sad, but what is worse is that they are taking many with them. P.S. "sad"; what an inadequate word for the emotions I feel at the thought of those on the wrong side of the final judgment.

Interesting thought. I have similar inclinations but tend to think that those actually in charge are, for the most part, not seen. A significant number of those in office are merely a facade. Others (Soros perhaps being the most outed) are the ones actually pulling the strings. What Hath God Wrought is an interesting read.