1 Timothy 2:15

What is your interpretation of this difficult and often misinterpreted verse?

"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."?

Restaurants With Bars

The idea for this post comes from a sign I saw on the way to work the other morning outside of a local seafood restaurant which said "Longnecks $1.00" I just wanted the thoughts of some of you on this subject: in your way of thinking, how would you differentiate between a full-fledged bar and a restaurant, such as Chili's, which is a bar and grill?

The Church

The idea for this post comes from a discussion on the Landmark Baptist forum on the use of the word "church" in Ephesians 5:22-33. First of all, one cannot take a position that Christ will "present...to himself a glorious church" will be made up of all the saved (called the Glory Bride), and that it is local and visible now made up of those who have been saved, received Scriptural baptism, and become a member of a true, New Testament church. The "it" that is the glorious church in verse 27 has as its antecedent the church in verse 24 that "is" subject unto Christ, and the church in verse 23 whose head "is" Christ.

I don't know if it will clarify the meaning for anyone any better, but I have found an instance where the word "church" is used both in the plural form and singular form in the same context: the plural referring to the plurality of local assemblies and the singular form referring to churches in the institutional sense, with equal application to EACH AND EVERY LOCAL CHURCH ALIKE and not one, universal church as a universal church cannot assemble as is the clear import of the word "ekkleseia" from which our English word "church" is translated. This passage perhaps in its primary application has little relevance to our churches today in that we no longer prophesy or speak in tongues in our churches today with the completion of the Bible, but perhaps it will help someone to change their view on or become stronger in their conviction about the nature of the Lord's church.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

The Revelation of God

This question was brought up by our instructor, Bro. Crain, at the end of our systematic theology class today. Since revelation from God to man has been completed in the Word of God, has God revealed all there is to know about Himself to man?

Landmark Association of Missionary Baptists

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psalm 133:1)

"Landmark Baptist sentiment in the Southern Baptist Convention

Landmarkism continued as the dominant ecclesiology among Southern Baptists well into the twentieth century and some Landmark concepts continue to influence the Southern Baptist Convention as evidenced by the recent decision of the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board to require its missionaries to abstain from receiving alien immersions. In this vein it should be remembered that the original separation of the Landmark churches from the Southern Baptist Convention was as much a reaction against Conventionism itself than to any perceived drift of Southern Baptists away from Landmark principles of ecclesiology. Many Southern Baptists have no interest in Landmarkism and even those who embrace some Landmark concepts of ecclesiology usually disassociate themselves from the Landmark movement. There are exceptions to this, particularly in the Mississippi River valley (Southern Illinois, western Kentucky, western Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana), as well as in parts of Texas, Michigan, and Oregon. There are many Southern Baptists in these areas who are strong landmarkers in both doctrine and in name. " (taken from the Wikipedia article on Landmarkism)

"Though numerous churches and some organizations use the terms Landmark and Landmark Baptist in their name, there is no identifiable sub-group of Baptists known as the Landmark Baptist Church.

Landmark ideas of ecclesiology still exist within the Southern Baptist Convention, but are more closely associated with the American Baptist Association, the Baptist Missionary Association of America, and the Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association. Many Independent Baptist churches and most unaffiliated Missionary Baptist local associations also hold this ecclesiology...Some other Baptists, such as Primitive Baptists, hold ecclesiological viewpoints that are very similar to Landmarkism." (http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Landmark:Baptist:Church.htm)

This is definitely an avenue that I would like to explore more deeply. I have for a long time wished that all Baptist churches who are still standing for Bible truths on salvation and the church in both doctrine and practice could somehow unite into one fellowship.

This would include those who hold to what are considered the fundamental doctrines of Christianity such as: salvation by grace apart from works or ceremonies, the virgin birth, literal Creation, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, his incarnation and sinless humanity, security of the believer, substitutionary atonement, the divine inspiration of the original autographs and the preservation of the Scriptures in all native languages (especially the KJV in English), the indwelling of the Spirit in all believers from the point of saving faith, etc.

Also, they would need to hold to the cessation of the miraculous, spiritual manifestation gifts excluding only faith, hope, and charity with the close of New Testament revelation.

Also, they would need to hold to a literal, premillenial, personal, bodily return of Christ and the bodily resurrection of all those dead in Christ as well as the Great White Throne judgment of the lost at the expiration of Christ's thousand year reign.

They should also reject the five-points of Calvinism, or the TULIP doctrine.

Also, they should use unleavened bread and grape juice as the elements for the Lord's Supper.

Then, they should be Landmark Baptists in ecclesistical doctrine and practice including: that salvation is in no way based upon church affiliation or totally dependent upon church influence; that while those in other churches may be saved, Baptist churches are not Protestant churches, but rather predate Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and nondenominational churches, that these are schisms from Baptists and are therefore invalid churches; belief in the nature of the church to be local only; belief in the perpetual succession of Baptist churches from the shores of Galilee; that practice a strict discipline; the rejection of all alien immersions (non-Baptists), open communion, participation in ministerial alliances, union worship services, nondenominational conferences, singing conventions, or in any other function, cooperation in any secular cause, or support of any program or use of materials that would construe recognition of false churches and false ministers as gospel churches and gospel ministers or that directly promotes ecumenism; and their interchurch cooperation should be by support direct to missionary, benevolent, or Christian educational causes, sponsored by local churches or through an associated program of missions, benevolence, and Christian education which is based upon church representation, equality, independence, and sovereignty, and are under direct control of the churches.

As to a name, this fellowship could be called the Landmark Association of Missionary Baptists (LAMB) with the slogan being: "Proclaiming the Lamb which taketh away the sin of the world..." (John 1:29)

What think ye?

Arminianism Exposed

It has increasingly frustrated me how that people will take a straightforward verse of Scripture and deny it by twisting it like a lawyer. This is the first in a series I call "Why Can't They See?" This first segment will deal with the soteriological system called Armininanism so named for the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacob Arminius. This was a direct reaction to the system called Calvinism named for the famous Protestant reformer, John Calvin, which emphasized arbitrary election as to salvation. Arminianism basically emphasizes the free will of man to accept or reject Christ, which is well enough. The most repulsive tenet of Arminianism, however, is their belief that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace through persistent unrepented-of sin. This is a belief of a group of Baptist churches which are called Freewill Baptists. I recently had a conversation with a pastor who came from a Freewill Baptist background. His position is that it is possible, not probable, for a saved person to fall from grace and perish, if they repudiate their faith. I took him to John 5:24 and asked him why it says that one who is a believer (saved) shall not come into condemnation. His reply was that if one "keeps believing" that he will not come into condemnation because of the participle being in the present tense, indicating continuous action. The verse I want us to look at is John 3:16, which I believe to be the center of the Bible.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

1) The word "whosoever" in that verse means all. This means that there is no exceptions to the promise God makes to the believer. It applies to all who are saved. This is a verse that these same people, or any Missionary Baptist, would use to reject the limited atonement of Calvinism. However, they prove themselves to not really believe it.

2) The word for "not" is "un" which is a particle of negation, which means it is not possible for whatever is negated to occur.

3) The word for "perish" is in the middle voice, which indicates the action is reflected back upon the one doing the action. This means that it is not possible for a believer to perish himself. This directly contradicts the teaching of Arminianism which attempts to rebut eternal security, or "once saved always saved" by arguing that it is not God that rejects the believer, but the believer who comes to reject his faith.

4) Why is it called "eternal life"? Eternal means without cessation. If we could lose it, it wouldn't be eternal.

5) In John 5:24, it says that a believer "hath" eternal life, or we are not waiting to see if we have gained eternal life through our endurance in the faith. We have it presently. "Shall not come into condemnation" means you cannot fall from the state of grace at any point in the future.

6) Jesus said in John 10:28: "And I give unto them eternal life..." David in Psalm 51:12 called it "thy salvation", or God's salvation. Peter wrote in 1 Peter 3:5: "Who are kept by the power of God through faith..." If we say that it is even probable (it matters not whether you say it is probable or possible because what is essential is can you or can't you) for a saved person to lose their salvation and perish in hell, then you are 1) calling God a liar, and 2) saying Christ is not sufficient. Again, in John 3:16, that was the very purpose that Christ was given is so that we would not perish, or lose our salvation! Also, faith is not a work. It is accepting Christ's sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary and trusting Him to do what we cannot do for ourselves.

7) The whole crux of their argument is built upon Hebrews 6:4-6. I wanted to explain that it was saying that if (hypothetically) we could lose our salvation, it would be impossible to be saved again (most who say you can lose it will say you can be repeatedly saved again), because you have put Christ to shame, or shown Him to be insufficient to save. He would not let me finish.

Can someone please help me to understand why proponents of this false doctrine say that you can lose your salvation with such clear proof to the contrary? Also, does this belief keep a person from being saved if they trust Christ alone for salvation?

What About AWANA?

I don't know who all may be reading this, and it may perhaps stomp on some toes, but there are many ABA churches who are using the AWANA ministry in their youth program. What has fired me up about this is that it was brought to the attention of our General Epistles class by our instructor in relation to our study today on 2 John an agreement with this program that the AWANA doctrinal statement must be taught in its entirety. Whether a church must still sign an agreement with these particular terms is unclear. The agreement posted on the AWANA website (www.awana.org) says that a church using the program is solely responsible for its religious instruction while at the same time the church is not allowed to modify the materials. However, I talked to an operator at 1-888-292-6249 who told me that while the individual church's doctrinal position may be presented, that the AWANA position and the lesson materials must be presented in their entirety. The following is three of their stated beliefs that we are fundamentally in disagreement with.

THE BIBLE
We believe that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is supernaturally inspired, so that it is inerrant in the original manuscripts and preserved by God in its verbal and plenary inspiration, so that it is a divinely authoritative standard for every age and every life. (Matthew 5:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21) (Notice that we do not have the original manuscripts available to us today, so according to AWANA, we do not have the inspired Word of God today.)

THE CHURCH
We believe that the true Church is composed of all persons who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit through saving faith in Jesus Christ; that they are united together in the body of Christ of which He is Lord and Head; and are commissioned for the God-given tasks of worshiping, fellowshipping, teaching, evangelizing and exercising the spiritual gifts. (Acts 2:42,47; Romans 12:5; Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:23-24; 1 Corinthians 12:12-14; 2 Corinthians 11:2) (Notice this is an outright universal church position) (Italics mine).

THE ORDINANCES
We believe the ordinances for the believer are water baptism by immersion and the Lord's supper as a memorial. They are, however, not to be regarded as a means of salvation. But both of which are an evidence of obedience and fellowship with the Lord. (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:38, 41, 8:12, 35-38; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29) (Notice there is no mention of church authority here: about the restriction of the Supper to local church members only and the necessity of authority by a Scriptural, New Testament (Baptist) church for baptism to be valid.)

In any case, it makes no difference to me. 2 John 10,11 makes it very plain: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." Many preachers will say that as long as they are right on salvation, that it is okay to use a program if we are allowed to control what is taught. Here is what the universal church doctrine does as is attested by the above article of the AWANA statement of beliefs: 1) it directly contradicts the Bible's teaching of a local, visible church only; 2) it unites those who (although individually they may trust Christ alone apart from works or ceremonies per Revelation 18:4) are part of false churches who teach a false plan of salvation; and 3) declares them to be in fellowship. If we in any way show affinity for a program, a conference, a worship service, a church, teaching of the universal church heresy, etc. that joins together with false religion, then we are bidding God speed to a false gospel. If our ABA has a similar program called Discovery, what excuse is there to go out from the truth to use a program such as AWANA? That is what programs like Discovery and All The Kings Men (an alternative to the Promise Keepers) are for. I have heard the argument that Discovery is too expensive or that all the other churches in town use AWANA and we don't want our children going to those. Let me ask this: what monetary value do we place on the truth and the souls of men? Is this the direction we want our ABA to go? Do we want to go from the Bible position to one that is ecumenical? God forbid! At some point, we will no longer be able to ignore these departures by our churches in order for us to stay true to God. This and other issues need to keep being pressed.