Baptists?

[Goodbook]

One of the differences I noticed in baptist churches is yes, this local autonomy.
The congregation gets to 'vote' or elect their pastor. Other denom churches just get assigned ministers, they dont have a choice.

With regards to doctrine, there does seem to be different kinds, ,but in general, baptist churches are made up of believers and therefore each member also has a role in caring for the spiritual wellbeing of their brothers and sisters in christ, its not just a random bunch of people going to church as part of their relgious obligation like a parish and being taught by someone to believe or be churchy.

 

[miamited]

Simply put, a god who changes His mind can't be trusted.

Hi twin,

I believe that you believe that a God who changes his mind can't be trusted. I don't know why you would believe that, except for possibly fearing that while you've lived under this belief of being the elect, you may find one day that God changed His mind. However, I believe the Scriptures do give us at least a couple of evidences where God set out to do one thing, but because of the prayers and supplication of people, decided either not to do that thing or to hold off for longer than He initially intended. Now, you may not see this as 'changing' one's mind, I don't know.

However, what the born again believer trusts in is that God will never back down from a promise that He has given and the gift of eternal life is a promise for which we are, today, given the indwelling Holy Spirit as His deposit that His promise is good and faithful.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Goodbook]

Interesting that baptists tend to believe that God offers people choices, of our own free will to love him, whearas those of the calvinist perusuasion like to insist that God has just fixed peoples lives before they were even born, whether to be his or not.

This calvinist interpretation does your head in. i dont agree with it at all, but there may be a few in baptist circles that do, since we have have free will!!! Lol.

 

[mikedsjr]

goodbook, I guess I it is the smalll churches that vote on their pastors. I've yet to see a voting in of pastors. If i had, its merely a formality. It has nothing to do with whether the greater congregation wants them, except the small group that is formed to search for a pastor.

I don't think a church should be condemned for being assigned a priest/pastor. If you understand their reasoning, you might realize their goal is to not make the priest/pastor the focal point. Scripture should be. In baptist churches, its typically the pastor his is raised up and glorified.....to some extent. Rick Warren, Bill Hybel, Andy Stanley, Perry Noble, Kerry Shook are some who are revered when they will many times handle Scripture carelessly.

 

[Goodbook]

Is it?
Im not condemning any church just pointing out the differences ive observed.
Those names mean nothing to me, i dont live in america.

 

[Goodbook]

Yes it seems to be the small group of elders making decisions.

I have attended a presy church and they have BOM ...board of managers which may be just the same thing but with different name. I think anyone is welcome to sit in those meetings.
Im really not sure over the whole membership thing of who is in or out. My understanding is I dont want to be involved in messy church politics. With the prsey church it was smaller so everyone was involved. Maybe its to do with size and age of congregation.

If you take communion with fellow believers, to me that says you fellowship and belong to this local church. It doesnt mean you cant go anywhere else. But as for having a say on how things are 'run'...im not sure. I think the holy spirit moves where He wants to..not when people orchestate it.

I think other churches have overarching heirarchies that govern local churches. Eg baptists dont have bishops and deacons and archbishops. Or popes. They dont seem to have a charismatic guru figure directing how churches look like the pentecostals do. I could be wrong though. It might be different in other countries.

 

[classicalhero]

As to God loving Jacob and hating Esau, it is certainly not illustrative of some being predestined for Heaven and others for Hell. God -- in His Divine foreknowledge -- saw that Esau would never be a true believer (Heb 12:16,17), and the nation that sprang from Esau (Edom) would be the bitterest enemy of Israel (and of God) throughout their history. Hence God hated Esau (Edom) and loved Jacob (Israel). As Scripture says of Christ "Thou hast loved righteousness, AND HATED INIQUITY" (Heb 1:9).

Don't forget that when God spoke those words it was centuries after the fact and how the two Brothers and their offspring had acted. Based on that it is quite natural for God to say what he said based on their actions.

 

[twin1954]

Hi twin,

I believe that you believe that a God who changes his mind can't be trusted. I don't know why you would believe that, except for possibly fearing that while you've lived under this belief of being the elect, you may find one day that God changed His mind. However, I believe the Scriptures do give us at least a couple of evidences where God set out to do one thing, but because of the prayers and supplication of people, decided either not to do that thing or to hold off for longer than He initially intended. Now, you may not see this as 'changing' one's mind, I don't know.

However, what the born again believer trusts in is that God will never back down from a promise that He has given and the gift of eternal life is a promise for which we are, today, given the indwelling Holy Spirit as His deposit that His promise is good and faithful.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I believe in a God who cannot change because he said that He doesn't. The one constant in the experience of men is change. Not so with God. He cannot change for if He did then He would be no different than a man.

I believe in a God who purposed all things and is in absolute sovereign control of all things. Isa.14:24-27,Isa. 23:9,Isa. 46:9-11, Jer. 4:28, Rom. 11:36, 1Cor. 8:6, 2Cor.5:18

 

[Goodbook]

God can do anything He wants but it will all be Good. I dont think we can put limits on God, He is holy after all.

We are meant to be made in His image, and if he made us and we can change our mind about things, then whats that say about Him? He did not make us fixed robots that couldnt change anything. We all come under his jurisdiction, but we all have individual souls thats the beauty of his creation. We are not clones.

IMHO. And the fact i do have an opinion and can say what I think makes me human. I could have actually chosen not to type this.

 

[Goodbook]

Also, we can repent. It would be going against the bible to somehow believe that some people just cannot repent!


And the people that do some would think i would never in a million years have thought this person would repent of their sin. But they did. Read the testimonies on this site. Not everyone has grown up in church and had christian parents you know.

 

[twin1954]

God can do anything He wants but it will all be Good. I dont think we can put limits on God, He is holy after all.

We are meant to be made in His image, and if he made us and we can change our mind about things, then whats that say about Him? He did not make us fixed robots that couldnt change anything. We all come under his jurisdiction, but we all have individual souls thats the beauty of his creation. We are not clones.

IMHO. And the fact i do have an opinion and can say what I think makes me human. I could have actually chosen not to type this.

The question then is whether your opinion is formed by the Scripture or your feelings. I believe I have formed my views according to the Scriptures as a whole not just isolated verses. That is what concerns me a great deal. I am convinced that many people form their views according to single verses without the context of the Scriptures as a whole or even the immediate context. They take individual verses as though they stand alone and make them fit their feelings and presuppositions.

 

[OzSpen]

Don't forget that when God spoke those words it was centuries after the fact and how the two Brothers and their offspring had acted. Based on that it is quite natural for God to say what he said based on their actions.

I'm not convinced that this is an adequate understanding of God's eternity/infinity. We know that:

1. There is no time in God's being. He is timeless. See Psalm 90:2, 'Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God' (ESV). Also, Rev 1:8.
   
2. God sees all of time simultaneously or vividly. See Psalm 90:4, 'For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night' (ESV).
3. Yet, God takes action in time. Jesus came 'when the time had fully come', born of a woman, under the law, to redeem those under the law (Gal 4:4-5) [with help from Grudem 1999:76-78].

Therefore, I find Wayne Grudem's definition of God's eternity to be affirmed by Scripture: 'God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time' (Grudem 1999:76).

So, the information about God loving Jacob and hating Esau does not have a 'centuries after the fact' dynamic when we understand God's attribute of eternity/infinity because God is timeless in his being. This kind of understanding is seen in verses such as Eph 1:4 where God states of Christians that he chose us in Christ 'BEFORE the foundation fo the world'.

Oz

Works consulted
Grudem, W 1999. Bible Doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press (published by arrangement with Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan).

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I believe in a God who cannot change because he said that He doesn't. The one constant in the experience of men is change. Not so with God. He cannot change for if He did then He would be no different than a man.

God does not change is His essence, but an important aspect of that essence is that He changes His mind when He, in His sovereignty, chooses to change his mind.

God DOES react to what men do. When they do differently than He expected, He changes His mind about them—and changes His plans accordingly.

Jonah 3:10. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (KJV)

Jonah 3:10. When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not doit.(NASB, 1995)

However, the Hebrew word translated as “repented” in Jonah 3:10 in the KJV does not mean to “relent;” it means to be sorry for one’s thoughts or actions, to be moved with pity and to have compassion upon others, to suffer grief over another’s loss, to repent of one’s thoughts or actions because of one’s compassion, or to change one’s mind because of one’s compassion. To “relent” comes close, but it misses the mark because it carries with it the connotations of giving in, letting up, slackening—connotations that the Hebrew word does not have.

Taking into consideration the context in which the word is used, a more accurate translation is that found in the New Revised Standard Version,

Jonah 3:10. When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.

God did not give in, let up, or slacken in his punishment; God felt compassion for the people of the city (Nineveh) that He was about to overthrow, andHe changed His mind. He did not overthrow Nineveh.

Please note also the following verses from the NRSV wherethe same Hebrew wordis being translated,

Genesis 6:6. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Exodus 32:12. “Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people.
13. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’”
14. And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.

1 Samuel 15:11. “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands.” Samuel was angry; and he cried out to the Lord all night.
35. Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Jeremiah 18:7. At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it,
8. but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.
9. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
10. but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.

Jeremiah 26:3. It may be that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.
13. Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will change his mind about the disaster that he has pronounced against you.
19. Did King Hezekiah of Judah and all Judah actually put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them? But we are about to bring great disaster on ourselves!"

Jeremiah 42:10. If you will only remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I am sorry for the disaster that I have brought upon you.

Compare the following verse from the NRSV wherethe same Hebrew wordis being translated,

Ex. 13:17. When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was nearer; for God thought, “If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt.”

Regarding the great care for the precise translation of Hebrew words in the Old Testament in the RSV, please see the following:

Metzger, Bruce M., Robert C. Dentan, and Walter Harrelson. The Making of the New Revised Standard Version of The Bible. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

Bruce Metzger was the Chair of the translation committee and before his death was professor emeritus of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary; Robert Dentan was a Vice Chair of the translation committee and professor emeritus of Old Testament at General Theological Seminary; and Walter Harrelson was also a Vice Chair of the translation committee and professor emeritus of Hebrew at the Divinity School of Vanderbilt University.

[QUOTE="twin1954, post: 68242381, member: 286284I believe in a God who purposed all things and is in absolute sovereign control of all things. Isa.14:24-27,Isa. 23:9,Isa. 46:9-11, Jer. 4:28, Rom. 11:36, 1Cor. 8:6, 2Cor.5:18 [/QUOTE]

None of these verses support your belief. Moreover, there are hundreds upon hundreds of verses in the Bible which explicitly describe man actively, both mentally and physically, opposing the will of God. When God created man, He created him with the ability to successfully oppose His sovereignty—and he has been doing so from the very beginning of his creation!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I'm not convinced that this is an adequate understanding of God's eternity/infinity. We know that:

1. There is no time in God's being. He is timeless. See Psalm 90:2, 'Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God' (ESV). Also, Rev 1:8.
2. God sees all of time simultaneously or vividly. See Psalm 90:4, 'For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night' (ESV).
3. Yet, God takes action in time. Jesus came 'when the time had fully come', born of a woman, under the law, to redeem those under the law (Gal 4:4-5) [with help from Grudem 1999:76-78].

Point #3 proves that points #2 and #3 are not true.

Therefore, I find Wayne Grudem's definition of God's eternity to be affirmed by Scripture: 'God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time' (Grudem 1999:76).

I find Wayne Grudem's definition of God's eternity to be based upon his overactive imagination rather than affirmed by Scripture.

 

[OzSpen]

Point #3 proves that points #2 and #3 are not true.

I find Wayne Grudem's definition of God's eternity to be based upon his overactive imagination rather than affirmed by Scripture.

I disagree. Points 1-3 are all valid. You provided no evidence to counter the view Grudem espoused, based on the scriptural evidence he provided.

Therefore, Grudem's definition of God's eternity/infinity is consistent with the biblical revelation he articulated: 'God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time' (Grudem 1999:76).

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

1. There is no time in God's being. He is timeless. See Psalm 90:2, 'Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God' (ESV). Also, Rev 1:8.
   
2. God sees all of time simultaneously or vividly. See Psalm 90:4, 'For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night' (ESV).
3. Yet, God takes action in time. Jesus came 'when the time had fully come', born of a woman, under the law, to redeem those under the law (Gal 4:4-5) [with help from Grudem 1999:76-78].

Point #3 proves that points #2 and #3 are not true.

No, but I can show that point number four (yours) is not true. Let's take a look at this by way of analogy. Specifically, let's go with Acts 3:15 and pretend that God is in some way like an author. I know you don't like that idea, because it sounds a little too Calvinistic, but lets go with it, anyway:

1. The author is not subject to the time line of his own narrative. He may have his own time, but it is not the time line of his novel. This is similar to him not being physically contained within the confines of the universe that he created in the novel. Don't be shocked by this. God is not fully encapsulated within the universe that he created, neither by space nor by time. Otherwise, he could not have existed before the universe in order to create it.
2. The author can hold the entire novel in his hand at once. Without even reading it, he knows what happens at every point in the story. He can either consider the story line as a whole, or he can read through it one page at a time, reliving the events. This is similar to God (2 Peter 3:8), and it is by definition a component of his omniscience.
3. Now, here's the part that you think contradicts the first two: the author can write himself into his own novel as a character. He can interact with the characters as one of the characters, and he can do it on terms with their own time line. Hence, Jesus was God in the flesh, living among us as one of us, though God be eternal, immortal and self-existent. He lived according to our timeline, though God exists outside of time.

Space and time are both considered similarly. If we believe that God exists outside of the physical universe, which he must if he had to create it, then we believe that he exists outside of the universe's time as well as the universe's space. Nowhere, ever, has there been any demonstration of a divorce between space and time. Where one goes, so goes the other.

If God stands outside of the universe's time, then he is not subject to it. For example, I stand outside of the timeline containing the events of World War II (thankfully). Therefore, I am not forced to move through that time at a set pace. I am able to consider individual events, in sequence or as a strategic whole, from that time period, so long as I am properly informed, because I am not contained by it.

Jesus was present within our space, and he was, therefore, contained within our time. He is also Emmanuel, which is to say that he is God with us. Therefore, God with us was present within our space and time. Therefore, God can be both outside of and independent of time, and he can be inside of and working with our time. The reverse is not also true: he can reach down to us, but we can not reach up to him.

This is not fanciful thinking. It's just basic Christian theology. You can't deny point number one without denying God's self-existence, which then means he cannot be the creator of the universe. You can't deny point two without denying point one, because the second point definitively follows from the first point. If you deny the third point, then you deny the deity of Christ. The first two make you a monotheist. The third makes you a Christian.

 

[OzSpen]

This is not fanciful thinking. It's just basic Christian theology. You can't deny point number one without denying God's self-existence, which then means he cannot be the creator of the universe. You can't deny point two without denying point one, because the second point definitively follows from the first point. If you deny the third point, then you deny the deity of Christ. The first two make you a monotheist. The third makes you a Christian.

What a splendid summary statement! You have explained it so well by analogy. In addition, it harmonises (if I understand you correctly) with the 3 points I made.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[PrincetonGuy]

This is not fanciful thinking. It's just basic Christian theology.

No, it is philosophical thinking that is dependent upon unprovable assumptions. Moreover, it conflicts with the historic understanding of God in the Scriptures as described in the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made;
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

 

[OzSpen]

No, it is philosophical thinking that is dependent upon unprovable assumptions. Moreover, it conflicts with the historic understanding of God in the Scriptures as described in the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

It is biblical thinking as I demonstrated with the Scriptures in #52. Quoting the Nicene Creed does not deal with the specifics of God's attribute of eternity/infinity and how he acts in time.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It is biblical thinking as I demonstrated with the Scriptures in #52.

Where is the scriptural evidence that Grudem cited to support his absurd notion that is refuted by the hundreds of passages in the Bible that teach a sequence of events and the cause and effect of each of those events? Does Grudem not know enough about biblical hermeneutics to realize that the book of Psalms is NOT a reliable source upon which to base a theological opinion?

Quoting the Nicene Creed does not deal with the specifics of God's attribute of eternity/infinity and how he acts in time.

The Nicene Creed, which Grudem seems to ignore, affirms that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is “of the essence of the Father,” and is “of one substance with the Father.” God, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Alpha and the Omega (and therefore not “timeless”), most certainly did not see “all of time simultaneously.” Theology that expressly and explicitly contradicts the Nicene Creed (as well as the Bible!) is NOT orthodox theology and does NOT belong in the Baptist forum.