You’ve probably read it, but they are talking about whether a white woman is black. Why not? In other words, like the man Bruce Jenner can be a woman, a white woman can be black. White can be black and black can be white. You do remember when they called Bill Clinton the first black president. What does that mean? People didn’t refute it, so they believed it to the degree that it wasn’t refuted. You could already be black, when you were white.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar writes in Time, “Let Rachel Dolezal Be as Black as She Wants to Be.” You can be white and be black. You can be a man and be a woman. There are plenty of teenagers and twenty-somethings, who already wish they were black. They’re not black, but they want to act black. If anyone decided that someone talked black, we’d be in trouble, that is, unless someone did talk black, because he believed he was black.
Obviously, no one can talk black, because black is a color, but talking black is still a kind of talk, and everyone knows it, including blacks (read the writings of black author and linguist, James McWhorter). I recently read about Tom Hanks’s son, Chet, who believed that he should be able to “talk black,” because he is a rapper. On May 18 of this year, President Obama was giving a speech (which you can read here), and he said, “we can’t then ask the police to be the ones to solve the problem.” I italicized “ask” because the president didn’t say “ask” in the speech, but used the colloquial “axe” instead, or, “we can’t then axe the police….” Was this just a slip or was it purposeful?
The mainstream now is talking about whether Rachel Dolezal can call herself black. She resigned from her post at the NAACP. When you look at her picture, you see that she attempts to look black, I guess, by what she does with her hair. Some blacks are straightening their hair, but she has turned her hair into an afro style in order to look black. Like Abdul-Jabbar wrote in his article, you can’t self-identify as “short,” when you are seven foot four inches. You aren’t black, when you are white. However, this is where we’re at in postmodern society. You can be whatever you want to be.
The so-called scientific community knows we did not evolve. Scientists know this. Everyone knows this. Naturalism must be true, so it is. They create their own reality without design and without God’s existence. Your truth is your truth and your truth is someone else’s error, but that doesn’t make it error to you, only to them. I want to be black, so I am. I want to be a woman, so I am. Obviously this stops somewhere. I can’t just fly any passenger plane and I can’t operate on someone’s gall bladder. We’re headed the direction that everyone can make their reality whatever they want it to be.
As ridiculous as all of the above should seem, we’ve already arrived at this in churches. In a sense, churches have trained the world in two truth folly. I’ve sat in conferences where someone preached literal heresy and men “amen.” No error is pointed out. Dispensational theology is true and covenant theology is true, even though that changes almost half the Bible. You can be saved with or without repentance and both are true. Lordship or not-lordship. Both counted as true.
When the United States was changing in the nineteenth century, churches decided on two Bibles. To grease this, to get it through the people in the pew, the mantra was quoted, “no major doctrine changed,” or “no essential doctrine changed.” That isn’t true. There is doctrine that changes. Men invent non-essential. That is a modern invention. Depending on what Bible you use, you’ve got different dimensions for the temple in the millennial kingdom. Wait a minute. That’s if there is a millennial kingdom, because you might be amillennial, and that’s OK too for most Christians today.
The gospel centered or gospel core teaching revolves around what it is that we’re willing to put up with. So much is different that everything is reduced to the gospel. We all know that this is just to admit that we don’t know what the truth is. Everyone just agrees to disagree. You already know that you’ve got to agree to disagree on marriage. Just bake the cake. Why not? We can’t know anything anyway.
I hear some of the worst singing in the world, directed toward God, and half the crowd says, “What a blessing!” It might be the worst chicken scratching you can imagine, but no one says the obvious, that is horrible. If you say it’s bad, you’re a rotten individual. Hurting someone’s feelings is worse than ugliness, sin, and false doctrine. Third grade finger paintings are Da Vinci. What I’m saying is that we already went there in churches. Sentimentalism has replaced love. If you think you can know, you’re proud. If you don’t know, you’re humble. Pride is humility and humility is pride.
Know this. I’m not with any of this, but it is a very small group of people who are with me. I don’t know how few. I would like you to tell me that you are with me on this. I’ll still keep believing in one truth, one goodness, and one beauty, but I’d like you to let me know. I’m not talking hypothetically here, like some kind of thought experiment, like you’re with me on paper and not in reality. I’m asking if you do believe there is only one truth, one doctrine, one faith, one goodness, and one beauty.
Yes I do, but you will not acknowledge according to Ephesians 4 that we should all come to the unity of the faith, for the edifying of the body, as there is ONE body ("And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross [3:16]) and that body is the body of Jesus Christ, who is the head and we are "all members in particular" rather than the false teaching of autonomous local "Baptist" churches existing as "bodies" distinict and seperate from his body, the church.
George, there is one truth, but that doesn't mean that there isn't more than one kind of usage of the word "one." In the previous sentence, I said "one" and it meant numerical one. However, if I say, all the people were "one," that doesn't mean numerical one, but unified one. For instance, I think it's in Romans that Paul says "one mouth." Did the church have one mouth? In 1 Cor 6, when a person is joined to a harlot and those two become one, does that mean they are one person? Of course not. In your comment, you are referring to lots of different verses that would all take time to deal with, which I have dealt with in various posts through the years on this blog, if you read them. Jesus does only have one church. He doesn't have two. It is His church. The church doesn't get to be whatever it wants to be. So when I say "the church," there is only one, His church. You don't get the church to be whatever you want it to be, because it is His. When Paul says "one body" in Eph 4, he is speaking of the oneness of the body, not that there is numeric one. The church is unified. It is one. It has one faith, etc. That is common usage in the NT, as I've indicated. That is the same usage in 1 Cor 12:13. This is not the least complicated concept in the Bible, but it is not that hard either.
Let me take another "one." There is one Bible. Where is that one Bible? Is it in Jerusalem, Washington, DC. Obviously, there is more than one numeric Bible, and yet there is only one Bible. How many Bibles do you own? You probably own more than one. You might have three. I have about ten. So that proves there is more than one Bible. No, of course not, there is only one. The Bible is one. The truth is one. Goodness is one. God is one.
So, I've taken time to answer your diversion from my post. I had a message here in the post, and you've turned from that message. You and I are not one in this.
Everyone,
I think people are afraid today to say that there is one truth. I think they don't believe it. They think that because they disagree with someone else, there must be two truths. This is where we're at in the deceit of mankind. The fake unity, non-unity, that is based on diminishing truth, is their idea of unity, because they can't admit one truth.
Brother B,
I am with you in agreement that there is one truth. The idea that truth is subjective and relative is rampant among professing Christianity. I see it as a pastor often. God's people no longer believe in dogmatic truth. As you've written, uncertainty is the great virtue of Christianity today. God help us!
Thanks Steve.
That's what I'm looking for, a baseline agreement that there is one truth. One. One goodness. If we can't agree there, we're doomed. Some might think it's a trick question. That's where we're at.
Yes, I agree. I know you know that, but maybe others need to hear an "Amen."
Bobby,
Thanks. I actually think this overall is the biggest issue there is. If we can't agree that there is one truth, not on what that one truth is, but that there is only one, then we are sunk, and I really do think that's where we're at. People like truth being up for grabs, because then their own opinions become authority over God. And that is the way it is, as I see it out there. They don't have to settle on what scripture says, because it doesn't matter if you settle. They have a position where God is OK with multiple answers, so they don't even have to be careful. Lot's to say here, but thanks.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
How are you? I hope you're doing great, can I say amen!? 🙂
great piece on target as always, from my unlearned humble opinion and understanding of the awesome truth in John 14:6 Jesus says He is the only Way! not a way or many ways! The only Truth, not any truth or many truths! and The only Life! physical spiritual eternal not a life or many lives, so it's a case of the moral relativism fallen decayed sin and death cursed world, but even the foolish fools of society of our day, myself included, 🙂 has to see that GOD'S standard of 1+1=2 is an absolute truth and this is not many truths all lead to nirvana or false religions enlightenment, sad really no discernment glad you took on the issue of the white lady haha I couldn't believe it really but yeah well if you feel like you were born a fish well then just be yourself that's your truth be true to you society is going down deeper into insanity stupidity really, mixed community in my area many my Mexican who I love want to be using ghetto street lingo hey what's up dawg or dog or my "n" word slang that I was not raised to use, but it's just lowering themselves to no class, sorry yes we as believers know of course only one GOD one Truth, can I say amen!? haha 🙂 and to George above is he what is called reformed or "re******" something else? : sorry not gonna go there? I'll try not to be mean to him, but come on Mr. Calvas, The anti Baptist hater needs to be more respectful on your gracious blog! but I know you don't need me to defend you but he just bothers me with the foolish anti Biblical cultists? remarks haha anyways, thanks for letting me rant! love you guys, may The LORD bless you and yours with many, many more years of healthy and fruitful service to Him! Have a blessed day with love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen! Oh can I say amen!?
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
Don't you know? There's one truth for you, but not for me. That may be contradictory to you but it isn't to me. There are many truths, even contradictory ones – and that's the truth, not impossible nonsense.
"I'll try not to be mean to him, but come on Mr. Calvas, The anti Baptist hater needs to be more respectful on your gracious blog! but I know you don't need me to defend you but he just bothers me with the foolish anti Biblical cultists?"
Instead of just yapping, you should actually say something in your posts. If you call someone a "foolish anti-biblical cultist", you should be man enough to have a biblical answer to support your conclusions. As far as I am concerned, your a man-pleaser and really could care less about having a love for the truth.
"When Paul says "one body" in Eph 4, he is speaking of the oneness of the body, not that there is numeric one. The church is unified. It is one. It has one faith, etc."
So, how is that actually setup and practiced to work as one? There are all kinds of individual church bodies, but how is the church UNIFIED according to Ephesians 4?
America is unified and it has states, counties, providences, and cities. Each entity has authority and does not cross each others jurisdictions, but all are under ONE central authority existing of three legislative branches, yet all are under the supreme authority of the Constitution.
If the world can figure it out, what is the excuse concerning BIBLICAL Christianity?
" I am with you in agreement that there is one truth. The idea that truth is subjective and relative is rampant among professing Christianity".
Exactly, but this will NEVER come to agreement unless it can exist, practiced, believed, and done as a UNIFIED body of Jesus Christ. As I have said, the world can live in that manner (The Lord God set up governments), but the body of Christ is rebellious and independent and will not have it any other way.
Therefore, you all just talk about it, but never even desire to practice it in a biblical manner (See 2 Corinthians 8 for an example of churches working together and subject to one another in collecting funds). All this INDEPENDENCE breeds exactly what all of you are arguing against, yet it seems you "love to have it so". The divisiveness, contentions, back biting's among local independent Baptist churches (King James or not!) who will not practice what they preach is very sad.
At least the SBC, GARBC, BBF and others like them were going in the right direction, but they failed to do it biblically. It was only a façade of order, trying to work together, but unfortunately their "independence" and never wanting to subject themselves one to another (individual as well as local assemblies) destroyed that foundation of unity.
Most of you will never understand that because you read the bible "out of order" (should be unity first among the body of Christ as a whole followed by independent assemblies and then independent members). Its final damnation in this country is truly based on the American independence mindset.
Kent, good article, thank you. I have a question on this. Do you think that some of the fault here lies with lazy or unprepared teachers? If the teachers are not well studied, and the pastors have not given themselves wholly to it, how can they convince those who are in error?
We have a woman who has been saved and in Baptist churches for 50+ years. When I taught the qualifications for an elder, she was amazed. She had never heard that in 50 years. This is partially her fault, not having studied on her own, but how are you in churches for 50 years without hearing this?
I was recently talking with an assistant pastor of a Baptist church, not a Hyles or BJU church, but seemingly truly independent. He had never studied the versions issue, and his pastor had not taught in depth on it. Ditto for music, alcohol, and other issues. This is not a young man.
His positions on all these matters are "right", but how will that conviction be passed on? I suspect this type of shallow treatment is behind much of the "two-truth" idea. It is not only that people are rebellious, although that is often the case, but also that the ones teaching are not doing so in depth with care and dogmatic instruction.
This leaves the believer unable to defend his own mind against the attacks on truth, and he sort of slouches into the two-truth position, knowing his position is right, but unable to prove it and therefore rebut the attack. He almost has to adopt two-truth, because he knows "I am right because I know I am" is pretty weak, yet he is unable to articulate a defense for what he believes. Is this your experience?
Calvas,
What would you even propose as a way to do this "one church" idea? Is it even feasible? Where would it start? Who could we all agree with or respect enough to be the "leaders"…we don't have apostles or a Paul or a Church at Jerusalem as the early church did as they oversaw doctrinal unity…I don't think I care to have a Protestant Pope rise up…and with all the myriads of beliefs…and is an example in the Bible a necessary command or do you see a command…I am familiar with Presbytery (ruling body of elders in the Presbyterian denomination)…is that word used in the Bible…
and as you've said, in the Baptist denomination, failure after failure for the leadership to stay true to original tenets…so there is breaking away, splinters, etc.
I guess I can see your point to some extent but as to the necessity or even any Bibical advice / pattern / directions on HOW to do it…and the lack of any really strong biblical group these days…I'm just not seeing how it would be more beneficial than keeping our own individual churches strong as we can…that's hard enough to do much less…trusting or giving over authority to strangers…it's hard enough to find ONE church these days in a given area…and as for me, I can't think of any other church in our area but the one I drive to over an hour away to attend that I could last through one contemporary neo-evangelical service through that I would be willing to give up my "independence" and compromise to work together. All in all, I see more danger these days in giving up TOO MUCH truth by joining together than finding truth. Thoughts?
Not being ornery…just curious 🙂
And now I will go back to the actual topic of the post in another comment…
Doulos,
I appreciate that someone actually is considering the arguments posted. I am afraid most will not because they will not consider those scriptures that are written against their position. The independent church position is defensible in the same sense as Calvinism. They build their understanding on the theology that they have been taught and then they read that theology into scripture. Unity of the body of Christ, knowing that "we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread" and that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" has nothing to do with autonomous church assemblies, but rather that true bible believing churches are to unite in that calling of being of that one body.
I hope my responses at least gender more thought toward understanding this truth.
"What would you even propose as a way to do this "one church" idea? Is it even feasible?"
gcalvas Of course it is feasible, but it would not be easy.
"Who could we all agree with or respect enough to be the "leaders"…we don't have apostles or a Paul or a Church at Jerusalem as the early church did as they oversaw doctrinal unity."
gcalvas Great point. At this point, doctrinal unity would be accomplished by (1) belief in the Holy Bible and agreeing on its absolute authority over the church, (2) from this a doctrinal statement (Articles of Faith) would be drawn up consisting of those things "most surely believed among us".
"don't think I care to have a Protestant Pope rise up…and with all the myriads of beliefs…"
gcalvas Amen to that. That is why a Presbyterian form of church order is the biblical mandate. I do not know about you, but I have been in IBC where the Baptist Pope (Pastor) rules with a "rod of iron" and no one tells him what to do! I do not have to look to Rome to see this ungodliness, but find it in Baptist circles!
"I am familiar with Presbytery (ruling body of elders in the Presbyterian denomination)…is that word used in the Bible…
and as you've said, in the Baptist denomination, failure after failure for the leadership to stay true to original tenets…so there is breaking away, splinters, etc."
gcalvas Agreed. When a presbytery rules in a godly biblical fashion, no man rises up like Diotrephes. The only difference would be that out of that presbytery, a Bishop is chosen to run the everyday affairs of the church. This is biblical balance, with a presbytery (1 Timothy 4, Acts 20) of overseers who make sure that the Bishop is following the Bible, and the Articles of Faith that all Christian brothers have agreed to and adopted concerning matters of faith and practice.
"I guess I can see your point to some extent but as to the necessity or even any Bibical advice / pattern / directions on HOW to do it…and the lack of any really strong biblical group these days…I'm just not seeing how it would be more beneficial than keeping our own individual churches strong as we can…that's hard enough to do much less…"
continued…
Doulos,
gcalvas So true about keeping individual churches strong, but it is because they are INDEPENDENT and that alone pleases not God! You cannot get them to work together. That is because the Baptist Popes can destroy any real work of Christ, unless of course they are in the center of any work!
For an example, the Street Preacher Fellowship (SPF) was established to bring standards, order, how to properly handle police, how to preach on the streets as well as having legal council to handle many of the preachers legal battles! This was begun by one man, an Anabaptist preacher who then had many street preachers from various churches join throughout America! The Lord God was blessing tremendously, with victories in various State Supreme rulings that gave us a "precedence" throughout the country. Eventually, those street preachers pastors were asked to be part of the presbytery of pastors that would oversee the SPF as a fellowship. Since the SPF was an auxiliary that was under the authority of a single local church, the Bishop of that local assembly wanted to make this biblical by having all the churches come together and form a presbytery of elders (each Bishop of every local assembly would have a representative) and agreeing together to create "Articles of Faith" that would bring together the body of Christ in a biblical format to help each other propagate the gospel of Jesus Christ and to make disciples. The Pastors of these churches (four at that time) DESTROYED the work because they would not give up their independence! After this, the SPF has been "set aside" by God.
trusting or giving over authority to strangers…it's hard enough to find ONE church these days in a given area…
gcalvas No one has authority over local matters of an assembly except the Bishop and the presbytery of that assembly. For example, ten churches within a providential locality (EX: Galatia, Crete, churches of Asia) can move in the biblical direction and instead of creating a "fellowship" they build the body of Christ by each assembly having one of the elders (more likely the Bishop of each assembly) build a providential Bishopric that will be responsible to "work together" in areas of ministry that will be beneficial to the body of Christ. Some examples is a greater support for preaching the gospel worldwide by working together and ordaining evangelists and missionaries that will propagate the gospel. The point is that they have put themselves in the biblical context of being "members in particular" as well as being "subject one to another" as that one body of Jesus Christ.
and as for me, I can't think of any other church in our area but the one I drive to over an hour away to attend that I could last through one contemporary neo-evangelical service through that I would be willing to give up my "independence" and compromise to work together. All in all, I see more danger these days in giving up TOO MUCH truth by joining together than finding truth. Thoughts?
gcalvas I understand your frustrations. I also travel an hour to the "church at Alexander's house" that was started a year ago because there were 7-8 younger families that would not be heard under a Baptist Pope who desired the preeminence and eventually found out that his teachings were taken seriously by those that heard him! As much as I tried to help the preacher understand "the body of Christ", having elders, a presbytery, etc. based on his own teachings and others in the congregation, he would not have it so. This went on for over 5 YEARS before the brethren had enough. There is MUCH more, but why belabor the point.
Strife, division and contentions are the way of life of many of my Baptist brethren.
Everyone,
I honestly do tire of folks not engaging with the actual point of the post and leaving it at that. I don't want posts to spin off into other topics. I don't have time for it. Most of these things I've written on, if someone is willing to do a simple search. I went ahead and posted George's comments anyway, even though he is using it as an opportunity for him to write about what he wants and use an audience that I have here to have it read. This is a problem. I'm not going to keep doing it. I won't publish these types of comments in the future, if I don't see fit. It will be the fault of the person commenting, who is not writing to the point of the post in the comment section. If you want to try to engage on something else, then just email me. That is not a guarantee that I'll talk to you about it, but it is the more ethical way to do it.
Farmer Brown,
The idea of two truths goes back to the Garden of Eden, but the modern iteration, I think, traces more to modernism and the reaction of postmodernism. It's a Satanic attack on the truth. Do uncareful preachers contribute? Yes.
John Mark,
Thanks.
Doulos,
It seems that the point your making is that George is wrong, which I agree. He gets the doctrine of the church wrong like he gets the doctrine of the Trinity. The latter is more significant for him.
George,
You quote 1 Cor 10, and what is described there is the Lord's Table, communion. Where is that communion? You are saying that it is something universal, and yet does this mystical body take of the Lord's Table? Does it? Paul says "we" because he participates in the Lord's Table. Where does he partake of that bread and that cup? It is in a single assembly, like anyone else. There is no reality to the Lord's Table, of actual communion, except in something local and visible. The cup and the bread itself are local and visible.
Then you quote 1 Corinthians 12:13, and if you keep reading in the context, Paul says in v. 27, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." The church at Corinth is the body of Christ. If the body of Christ was all believers, Paul would say, "we," but he says, "ye," excluding himself. That is an exegetical argument. You won't be able to answer it without rejecting scripture. On the other hand, it's easy to understand why Paul says "we" in 1 Cor 12:13, because he was a member of a church, so he did not exclude himself from being baptized into one body. Paul says "YE are THE body of Christ." THE body of Christ is an independent assembly, George. That is the only verse in scripture that defines the body.
Enjoy.
Kent,
You asked the following in you original statement:
" I'm not talking hypothetically here, like some kind of thought experiment, like you're with me on paper and not in reality. I'm asking if you do believe there is only one truth, one doctrine, one faith, one goodness, and one beauty."
I agreed to what you said and added the obvious, the ONE body of Jesus Christ. Read what you wrote above. My comments are based on your statements. You do not believe that the body of Christ as one is not beautiful? Is she not supposed to be one bride? Is not that one goodness in Jesus Christ to see the bride as such? Is that not a doctrine of the Holy Bible? Is that not something that all should adhere to? Could it be that answer to the "height of postmodern" hypocracy and doctrines of devils? Answer to all– YES!
It is your blog, but please quit accusing me of using this as "an opportunity for him to write about what he wants". You cannot hide from this biblical fact that the "height of postmodern" perversion is in direct proportion to this independent thinking. The book of Judges proves that. Moses, King David and King Soloman prove that in type, that a united front consisting of all bible believing church assemblies is the right direction!
All this foolishness would not even exist in the true church of God if it came together as one so that we all can believe in one truth, doctrine, faith, goodness, beauty and much more.
"You quote 1 Cor 10, and what is described there is the Lord's Table, communion. Where is that communion? You are saying that it is something universal, and yet does this mystical body take of the Lord's Table? Does it?"
gcalvas You know better than that. The communion of the Lord's Table is what all the saints can participate in each individual assembly. Universality and unity does not mean that we all have to meet together. For example, would it not be great if 100,000 bible believing saints from 1,000 churches met in one place to glorify Jesus Christ, hear the word of God being preached, sang and took communion together? And after that, we broke up into 1,000's of groups going everywhere to preach the gospel (Acts 8)?
A mystical body? What is that? I have brethren (they are also your brethren) that are living, working, have families and love God as much if not more than you or I. They are located and meet in assemblies in Bunda, Tanzania and Malakisi, Kenya and Busha, Uganda, and Kurachi, Pakistan and other parts of the world. We have been with some and have partaken of the Lord's supper.
———-
"Paul says "we" because he participates in the Lord's Table. Where does he partake of that bread and that cup? It is in a single assembly, like anyone else. There is no reality to the Lord's Table, of actual communion, except in something local and visible. The cup and the bread itself are local and visible."
gcalvas I have never said nor implied that the body of Christ would not meet in local assemblies, but that does not preclude the fact that it is not bounded to independent local assemblies. Even John, who was the last apostle that wrote:
3 John 8 We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth.
9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
The context fits 2 Corinthians 8 where these other brethren that were not of that local assembly should have been received to help the church to grow in truth. But, the "Baptist Pope" did not like the idea of others who were not part of HIS local assembly come and take part. He needed to be taught not to speak as a fool about the body of Christ, but rather to accept the brethren as "members in particular" and to work with them being subject one to another.
———
continued
"Then you quote 1 Corinthians 12:13, and if you keep reading in the context, Paul says in v. 27, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." The church at Corinth is the body of Christ. If the body of Christ was all believers, Paul would say, "we," but he says, "ye," excluding himself."
gcalvas
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
It says WE are baptized into ONE body. In v27 it says that YE "are the body of Christ". It only proves more strongly that Paul is reminding the Corinthians that they are part of that body as an assembly that is united with ALL the members (v26) since the context all the way to v27 is WE. Again, this only proves my point once again that the church at Corinth is of itself as an independent assembly apart from all that be in Christ. Also to clarify again this biblical truth he wrote to the Romans and Ephesians as part of that same body of Christ:
Romans 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Therefore, this proves both the "ye" and the "we" teaches us that all of us are members of that one body, which is his body and that of his flesh and of his bone.
———-
"That is an exegetical argument. You won't be able to answer it without rejecting scripture. On the other hand, it's easy to understand why Paul says "we" in 1 Cor 12:13, because he was a member of a church, so he did not exclude himself from being baptized into one body. Paul says "YE are THE body of Christ." THE body of Christ is an independent assembly, George. That is the only verse in scripture that defines the body."
gcalvas As I have stated above, I believe the scriptures teach otherwise. Please explain the scriptures in Ephesians, Romans and the context of the "we" in 1 Corinthians 12.
George,
How would we be united on infant baptism if we were to be united?
George,
You said:
Strife, division and contentions are the way of life of many of my Baptist brethren.
I will ask how that goes for the Presbertarian church regarding my last post. Seems like there's all that and a box of donuts.
"How would we be united on infant baptism if we were to be united?"
Do you actually read anything or just presume and come up with erroneous and foolish conclusions?
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."
Infant baptism is OF THE DEVIL. You just got a typically screaming infant wet with you hocus pocus religious foolishness and then pretended that he "a child of God" like the rest of the lost fools that are standing around and watching that charade.
If anyone does not believe and conclude that the unfortunate child who knows no better is just a wet child and "by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" the priest or anyone else in a clown suit that has performed that Baalite ritual is accursed (Galatians 1:8-9), then they are worthy of being a "two fold child of hell" for believing that stupid lie.
I hope that is clear enough for you. If not, please let me know.
"I will ask how that goes for the Presbyterian church regarding my last post."
Take my answer written to you in my response to your inquiry and read it to a Presbyterian, Catholic, or maybe even a Baptist who upon hearing someone say some words by a "repeating after me prayer", immediately baptize him even though many times after that the person never shows up in the assembly of the saints.
He is no more a saved, born again child of the Lord Jesus Christ than the infant child "baptized" by a Catholic or Presbyterian.
Amen. I come here for sanity & fixed truth & straight biblical writing which is sorely lacking most other places —many of which pride themselves (with key word pride) on being 'biblical'. It is sad to see Baptists losing their distinctives to become reformed catholics or fundamentalists when the pursuit of truth and maturity in the faith leads to the biblical Baptist position. ————————I also appreciate the historical work helping us to understand where the trains went off the rails to become more discerning of who we read & trust, for aid in avoiding future leavening or capture ourselves, and for detailed responses when those we warn would know why we warn against certain persons or teachings that may have some good dangerously laced with bad, ugly, horrific &/or deadly! Thank you. ————————————————————————————————————————————————My own pursuit of truth, by God's grace I'm sure —-I know what I am———led me through the one church unity of the false authoritarians and nicolaitans, by the word and the Spirit — leading me on unerringly to the Rock, and back to the Rock every time since I have strayed or detoured. I came to the King James position through study and conviction, and James White's arrogance & bluster & non-answers & refusal to debate those he can not bamboozle with intellectual-ese. ——————————————————————————————————————————-The arrogant, philosophical, & 'educated' think I'm a fool —so be it. They thought Jesus & the disciples were, too —and Clark, Backus, McCoy, Vardeman etc. I don't argue anymore. Colossal pride & mean-spirited patronization is such a red flag to the truly spiritual, and so distinct from true boldness. Studying out the history of these things only vindicates the scripture again and again and again. Sadly, many are fulfilling the last verses of 2 Tim 2 while thinking they're 'contending' and masters of apologetics. It's tragic. ————————————————————————————–I may have missed if you're referenced this work earlier —-but have you read the work of James R. Beller? If not, I would recommend 'Sacred Betrayal' —and 'America In Crimson Red'. The blowhards mock the man's writing style —but the information he documented & shared explains quite a bit of the current paralysis & confusion in Baptist ranks —from the skewed homeschool histories to the Reconstructionist-Romish version of reality & history & theology that are so philosophical and tellingly sophist in the seminaries & blogs. When philosophy trumps scripture & truth, and Augustine & Plato are more beloved and leaned upon than scripture —you get the very catholicity & arrogance leading into spiritual blindness, spiritual fornication, dominionism and persecution that the Bible warns against —and that history reveals only too plainly is regathering for another assault. Pray God it is the last, & that we would stand & overcome by the word of God and our testimony. ———–God bless. Sound the battle cry!
Hi kddlporter,
I've read Beller's America in Crimson Red. I liked it a lot. I enjoyed how he wrote it, actually. I haven't seen the other, but I'll look into it. Thanks for dropping by and your kind words.