Adding to the Bible?

[_subgenius]

'tis better to remain silent and have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt...

leading by example?

[_Albion]

gdemetz, please see my response to the James verse in another thread. My point is that you know full well that Baptists (virtually any variety of Baptist since there are many) believe that the Christian life does not end at the point of confession and faith in Christ. Like most Christians, Baptists do believe in a following demonstration of the profession of faith in good works and submission to such things as baptism. It simply isn't a case of simply believe and then do whatever you want as your posts imply. That is my point.

[_jo1952]

In my on-going study of other religions and other Christian denominations, I did some research on the early Baptists in America. I will share a few of the things I discovered which I found interesting.

The original premise (which would also help explain why there are many varieties of Baptist churches) was first presented by Roger Williams. He believed the Church of England was corrupt and false. However, he believed that every individual should be free to follow his own convictions in religious matters. He wrote a book, "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience" which was published in 1644. In it, he used Biblical reasoning to argue for a "wall of separation" between church and state and for state toleration of various Christian denominations, including Catholicism, and also "paganish, Jewish, Turkish or anti-Christian consciences and worships."

Similarly, John Clarke believed: "it is not the will of the Lord that any one should have dominion over another man's conscience....[Conscience] is such a sparkling beam from the Father of lights and spirits that it cannot be lorded over, commanded, or forced, either by men, devils, or angels."

Clarke and Williams labored together for the cause of religious liberty for many years. However, Roger Williams was a Baptist only for a few months, while Clarke remained faithful for nearly forty years. Williams firmly believed that no visible church was valid until Christ sent a new apostle to restore it; therefore, he never affiliated with any other church after leaving the Baptist church. From 1639 until he died in 1683 he waited for Christ to restore His church. Meanwhile, he saw himself as a "witness" for Christianity, and lived his life accordingly.

William Screven founded the first Baptist church in the south – he was a Reformed Baptist (Calvinist) which conflicted with the beliefs of Roger Williams and John Clarke. However, because of the premise of the Baptist church, these conflictions were accepted (at least at that time).

In the early history of the Baptist church in America, there were two main distinctions made: a "general" Baptist; and a "separate" Baptist.

Shubal Stearns was a “separate Baptist”. None of Stearns' sermons has survived in writing, but a central theme seems to have been the need for followers of Christ to be "born again" from within, which at first seemed strange to churchgoers in North Carolina who never thought of their religion as anything more than external.

Unfortunately, my personal experience with Baptist apologists indicates they are either unaware of the Baptist founding premise, or they have chosen to ignore it.

Blessings,

jo

[_gdemetz]

Albion, I know what they teach! How many Baptist (who seldom ever baptize) churches have I attended over the years, and how many times have I heard them say; "once saved (by making a ridiculous profession of faith), always saved!" This completely goes against what the Bible teaches! "For if we sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS."

James clearly stated faith without works can not save you! This is exactly opposite of what the non baptizing baptist teach (even their name is deceiving)!

[_Drifting]

Albion, I know what they teach! How many Baptist (who seldom ever baptize) churches have I attended over the years, and how many times have I heard them say; "once saved (by making a ridiculous profession of faith), always saved!" This completely goes against what the Bible teaches! "For if we sin willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS."

James clearly stated faith without works can not save you! This is exactly opposite of what the non baptizing baptist teach (even their name is deceiving)!

So is the Mormon second anointing covenant that, even if you sin and break your covenants for the rest of your life you are saved, biblically incorrect?

[_gdemetz]

You would have to repent, Drifting.

[_Drifting]

You would have to repent, Drifting.

No, I don't think so.
Temple marriage also gives this get out of jail free card (see D&C 132:26).
Once you're temple married you are guaranteed entrance to the Celestial Kingdom even if you then go on to sin your ass off and not repent.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

[_jo1952]

No, I don't think so.
Temple marriage also gives this get out of jail free card (see D&C 132:26).
Once you're temple married you are guaranteed entrance to the Celestial Kingdom even if you then go on to sin your ass off and not repent.

Not quite, Drifting. As you can see, the words "and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment" is a deal breaker. Being sealed in the Temple is NOT a guaranty that a couple will be "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise". The sealing ceremony in the Temple is the act of entering the covenant----it is an ordinance that must be performed in accordance with God's keeping order in His Kingdom; just like someone's baptism is not a guaranty that they will achieve Salvation, as they are still susceptible to falling away.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

Also, please note that if they should be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (which I believe is akin to being completely born of the Spirit at which point nothing -- except the spilling of innocent blood -- can keep them from being in God's presence), they will still be punished for any sins they commit: "but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption". In other words, they will still experience physical death, and still share the fate of anyone else whose sins have not been forgiven; it is just that after they have paid the last farthing, they will still receive Exaltation. Therefore, it is NOT a get-out-of-jail-free card. NOW, should they commit murder wherein they shed innocent blood after having been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, that act of murder will undo the sealing of the Holy Spirit of Promise.

Being sealed in the Temple is NOT the same thing as being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

As we have been taught: Mercy cannot rob Justice.

Blessings,

jo

[_Albion]

Of course, gdemetz, I suspect that Baptists could quote a bundle of scriptures that support their belief in eternal security but I am not here to defend or argue Baptist theology. Baptists are a part of Christ's church and their salvational beliefs do conform to Biblical Christianity no matter how you or I might view their more individual beliefs. What I do find interesting is that you can claim to have attended so many Baptist churches and yet continue to mischaracterize fundamental Christian beliefs such as the Trinity. As I've said, you can choose not to believe or accept it but surely after so many visits to Baptist churches you should be able to get it right.

[_gdemetz]

Albion, I am not mischaracterizing anything! I told it like it really is. Also, you are wrong again about the Baptists being part of Christ's church! The scriptures teach that there is only one faith and one baptism, and Christ stated that if you are not one, you are not mine! That is just another one of your man made doctrine which twist and contradict the words of Christ! Joseph Smith told of his time when the ministers of all these false churches were contending one with another over which of their faiths were correct. Does that sound like they were one?!?