I think if you will make an investigation, you will find out they moved away from God's Word a long time ago. All that happened was that they took another step (in the wrong direction). In answer to Yamil, though I appreciate his post, it's not really a sad day for Baptists as much as it is evidence of a diseased condition for which the cure (Scripture) has not yet been applied. If God does not grant repentance, expect more to come.
GG, the Roman falsehood and mockery that calls itself a Church never has been and never will be gathered in Christ's name. The verse simply does not apply to the RCC. The RCC has gathered itself into an idolatry of a false Jesus, and a false Christianity.
And it is ironic that you use that particular verse, which in context concerns not worship but church discipline. Read the whole set of verses from Matthew 18:15-20.
I urge you to repent and come out of the Roman harlot church and embrace the Christ of Scripture instead. I know many people have urged you to repent, from reading other comments in other places. And if you do not, Scripture advises to leave you alone.
I always enjoy reading your responses, but (forgive me) whenever I see the word "theonomy" I get shivers down my spine. What exactly do you mean by theonomy?
I for one do not subscribe to the idea that we can or should live according to the OT Law. Man in his total depravity cannot live according to these standards, if that's what theonomy means. Human government should, however, be concerned with issues of justice such as avenging wrong (especially for capital offenses such as murder, according to Genesis, which I hold). I also disavow antinomianism, because for Christians, we should be ruled by Christ through the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. So I do not see imposing a theonomical standard into our governmental model, when we as believers are governed by Christ. That's assuming I know what theonomy means. I don't. Other than that I realize it means "God's Law" or something to that effect.
If you would please explain this to me (I'm Baptist), I'd appreciate it!
I will have to politely disagree with your church on eschatology since I am Amillenial. I'm also not exactly sure where I fall on the whole "tongues" issue either, except I'm not much of a cessationist, and I lean towards what I've read from John Piper (I prefer the term "continuationist" to "charismatic"). I wholeheartedly affirm Calvinism, however. So I'm kind of a mixed (up?) bag. I'm sure my theology will change as I grow and mature. So, I do have some disagreements with your church's doctrinal positions, but I can certainly disagree politely.
The links you provided look interesting. I wish I had more time to study. I hope someday to study what you have posted.
Xaviar, this is not what is being affirmed in the slightest. The BFM (Baptist Faith & Message) is being reaffirmed as the minimal doctrinal requirement. There are many secondary issues (Calvinism, tongues, etc.) that I personally do not wish to be turned into litmus tests (pro or con) for membership and acceptance. I don't think that's too much to ask. There's a certain leadership element in the SBC that I suspect would all too happily disenfranchise some of their fellow Christian brothers and sisters for not meeting the right "conservative" parameters.
This is to Jim Lincoln of Nebraska (but if anyone knows and can inform me, please do!)
I could be wrong here, but somewhere along the way I read about there being three types of communion:
1. Closed - Each church invites only its local fellowship (members in good standing).
2. Close - Invitation is to believers only, but not restricted to members of the church where this takes place.
3. Open - Open to anyone and everyone, but perhaps based upon personal conscience.
This is the way I've understood it, at least. I prefer "Close" myself, but "Closed" is the safest. But this interpretation of how many types of communion there are might not be standard among Baptists.
The article states, "Admittance to the Church is normally a two-year process. But Mr Blair, because he is already a regular attender, is likely to be fast- tracked."
Hmmmmmm. But the Bible states,
Acts 2:41, 47
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
Looks like to me that the true church is a divinely governed institution and that God decides who He puts in. This is quite unlike the Roman mockery based upon earthly wisdom and standards and glory. No, instead only those who belong to Christ are in His body.
Well, since MS still has majority market share in the Windows world, everyone is mainly competing with MS, not Firefox. However, I would not be averse to having Firefox take over the #1 slot myself. But both are good browsers.
Incidentally, I think the Mozilla line of browsers (the pre-Firefox branch) is just about officially dead. Mozilla has basically continued on in the SeaMonkey branch, if you're interested.
Netscape's browser is back in development, now, and I think the 9.0b1 is the latest beta version (Windows and Linux). And I've heard reports of a browser named IceWeasel I believe that is an independent version of Firefox if I understand correctly (I've never tried it). There are probably others, as well.
I never thought I'd say this, but I like MS's IE7 better than Firefox, now. I think it is the better browser overall (in my amateur non-scientific opinion). I'm hoping that flip-flops soon back to what it's supposed to be!
The phrase "...he will convert from the Church of England to the Catholic faith..." caught my attention. This seems like no major theological leap to me, and worse, it certainly represents regress as opposed to progress. I cannot honestly say I wish him the best in doing so, but rather that he would repent (he and his wife, actually). I liked him, too.
Later in the article, it mentions President Bush's failure to call the Pope by the title, "Your Holiness." This title applied to the pope is blasphemous and belongs only to Christ, but that's not why Bush failed to use it. I only wish it was.
I for one appreciate what Ian Paisley Jr said and his defense of his right to say it, without apology, as long as no hatred is involved, which is not.
There are probably a few Christians in political offices all throughout the world in many nations. But Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. Christians would have much greater political and social power in this world if God primarily saved the mighty and noble, but we know from the Scriptures in 1 Corinthians He does not. It amazes me that so many Christians these days are willing to invest time and energy into establishing an earthly theocracy which at its best could never be governed by anything other than imperfect men with imperfect understanding and imperfect motives.
No, many "battles" perhaps are lost, but never the "war." Christ still sits on His throne, God's Word remains forever true, and one day a Holy God will take righteous vengeance on His enemies. We should preach the Gospel in the interim, commanding all men to repent and trust Christ.
Hmmmm. Not allowing the promotion of homosexuality is "hateful" and "repulsive?" No, we cannot consider that homosexuality has never brought anything good to societies which have allowed it, or the disgusting sexual practices involved (please read good medical definitions on this if you are so-called "curious" about it, first). Talk about getting these terms mixed up and backwards.
Isaiah 5:20 (ESV) Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!