The "close to the Bible" Baptists

I saw this on a "Bible Baptist Church" website today (no, not the one in Pensacola)



"We believe that our Baptist faith and doctrine is closer to the Word of God than any other religious group, cult or sect calling themselves Christian, and that the groups of Christians who down through the history of Christianity have held to the Word of God closer than others have been Baptist by doctrine and/or name."

If the Baptist denomination is "close" to the Word of God, doesn't that mean that it is NOT Biblical? (but close to Biblical?)

As I have said before, close doesn't count except in horseshoes. Why would you want to be "close" to Biblical? Why not actually be Biblical? 

Also, when you say "our Baptist faith....is closer to the word of God than any other...cult", aren't you admitting that you are a cult? 

The Baptist denomination began in 1609 with John Smyth, a whacko who baptized himself. There was no such thing as a Baptist church before him. 

Finally, why is this church comparing themselves to other religious groups, cults, and sects. That conclusively proves that they are not wise....

"For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise." (2 Corinthians 10:12)

Also see this post
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2016/03/close-doesnt-count-except-in-horshoes.html

Lately I have heard several people say that they believe "the Baptists are the closest thing to the truth" or "the Baptists are the closest thing to the New Testament church". Of course, we all know that

"close" doesn't count, except in horseshoes.

You would not enjoy being  "close" to winning the lottery "close" to getting a good job "close" to getting saved "close" to winning a presidential election "close" to not having a heart attack etc.
When you admit that Baptists are "close" to the truth, you are admitting they are WRONG. 

Being "close" to Biblical is still UNBIBLICAL. 

The statement "I believe the Baptists are the closest thing to the New Testament church" is a very vague, unlearned, ignorant, and silly statement. Because anyone with any discernment knows that "Baptist" is not a doctrine, faith, or set of beliefs....it is just a name. A name which has no meaning other than one who baptizes by immersion. That is all that the word means. 
 
Question to the arrogant Baptist cult: WHICH Baptists are "closest" to the so called original New Testament church? 
 
In America there are the 
 
 Seventh Day Baptists: began in the 1650's, keep the Jew's Sabbath on Saturday
 
Freewill Baptists: began in the early 1600's, believe you can lose your salvation
 
Reformed Baptists: began in the 1630's and hold to the 5 points of TULIP Calvinism with the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
 
Primitive Baptists: began in the 1800's, don't support missionaries, 5 point Calvinists
 
Landmark Baptists: began in the 1800's, does not believe in the universal spiritual church, accepts Landmarkism. 
 
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship: Denies the inspiration of scripture, 

Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship: Believes in speaking in tongues, prophesying, raising dead, etc (charismatic)

And there are literally hundreds of other Baptist denominations. 
So to say that the Baptists are "closest" to the original New Testament church is a laugh. Baptist is a NAME not a DOCTRINE. The name means "one who baptizes by immersion", look it up in a dictionary! The title has no doctrinal implications other than water baptism by immersion. 

Most Baptists do not believe in salvation by grace through faith without works, they believe in giving your life to Christ, turning from sin, bowing your head and repeating a sinner's prayer, confessing Christ before men, coming to an altar, "praying through", and other works.

Besides, who in their right mind would want to be anything like the "original New Testament church"? The original New Testament church was "carnal" (1 Cor. 3:3), it had people that did not believe in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12), they lived in fornication (1 Cor. 5:1-5), they mishandled the Lord's supper (1 Cor. 11:30-31), they were full of division (1 Cor. 1:10, 11:18), they had heresies among them (1 Cor. 11:19), they sued each other (1 Cor. 6:1-2), they lived in the bondage of the Mosaic law (Gal. 3:1-3, 4:9-11), and they had many problems. Yet people think if they could "return to the principles of the early churches founded by the apostles" then everything would be great--but it wouldn't! Churches have always had problems. Christ's following had a devil among them (John 6:70), we should not be surprised to find them in our churches as well. 

Baptists are the ones that think they are right and everyone else is wrong, yet they are not united themselves. (except on water buptism, which is not even part of the dispensation of grace according to 1 Cor. 1:17, 12:12-18, Col. 2:8-23, Eph. 4:5). 

--Eli Caldwell 

Who were the sons of God in Genesis 6?

Genesis 6:
[1] And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
[3] And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
[4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There is some dispute over who the "sons of God" are in this passage. I believe it is referring to angels who married daughters of men and that this union produced giants.

A popular alternative view is that the sons of God were saved people. I see several problems with this view.

• If the sons of God here are saved people, what was the big deal with them getting married? That is not sin, so why does the text portray them getting married as a bad thing?

• Saved people getting married does not produce giants. But the text says "There were giants in the earth in those days...when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them".  

• Saved people in the Old Testament were not called "sons of God". Israel as a nation was God's son (Exod 4:22, Deut. 14:1-2, 32:18, Isa. 1:2, 44:1-4, 46:3, 66:8, Jer. 31:9, Hosea 1:10, 11:1, etc.). But individuals could not become spiritual sons of God until they received Christ and the Holy Spirit (John 1:11-12, 7:38-39, Rom. 8:14-16, Gal. 4:5-6). 

• Some people suggest that the "sons of God" in the passage are the sons of Seth (a "godly line") and that they sinned by marrying the daughters of Cain (an "ungodly line"). However, there is no scripture that teaches this whatsoever. Besides that, such marriages would not produce giants. 

So I cannot see how the "sons of God" could be saved people, or even human at all. 

I believe that Genesis 6 is referring to angels. Look at these other references to "sons of God"

Job 1:
[6] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
[7] And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Job 2:
[1] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
[2] And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

These sons of God "CAME" to present themselves "BEFORE THE LORD". Humans cannot just go up to Heaven to present themselves before the Lord. This would have to be referring to angels. [And it is very clear that they went up to Heaven, because the Lord asked Satan where he came from and Satan's answer was "from...the Earth". So this angelic meeting is not taking place on the Earth.]

Also notice that the "sons of God" were in existence before man was created on day six.

Job 38:
[4] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
[5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[6] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

It is clear that the sons of God were present when God laid the foundation of the Earth, which was done on day 3 of the creation week (Gen. 1:9-10, Prov. 8:26-29). But man was not created until day 6 of the creation week (Gen. 1:26-31). Therefore, the sons of God in the Old Testament were definitely not people. [Note: the "stars" in Job 38:7 are a reference to angels (Rev. 1:20, 9:1)]

This does cause us to wonder, why are angels called "sons of God"? I believe it is because they were directly created by God. Notice that Adam is called a son of God because he was a direct creation 

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. 

Adam was the son of God because he was directly created by God. 

Psalms 82 is a very interesting passage, one that refers to the angels as "gods" and "children of the most high". In particular it refers to God judging them at the flood shortly after Genesis 6. 

Psalms 82:
[1] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
[2] How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
[3] Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
[4] Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
[5] They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. [reference to the flood, Job 9:5-6, 12:15, 22:16, 2 Pet. 3:6]
[6] I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
[7] But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
[8] Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

The angels in Genesis 6 ("gods", "sons of God") were judged by God during the flood and they died like men. 

One objection people have to this view is that they say angels cannot marry human women. They use the following two passages to teach this:

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.   

Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

However, those verses do not say that angels cannot come to Earth and marry human women. In fact, it says the exact opposite. It says the angels which are "IN HEAVEN" do not marry. Angels are always MEN in the Bible (Gen. 18:1-2, Acts 10:3-4, Rev. 10:1, 19:10, 22:8-9, Michael, Gabriel, etc.) so of course they do not marry "in heaven". That isn't even the issue. This is just a straw man argument. When we are talking about Genesis 6 we are talking about "the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation" (Jude 6). We aren't talking about the angels in Heaven.   

Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

The offspring of angels and humans would certainly be unique, it is understandable that they would produce giants. See these descriptions of giants in the Bible: 1 Sam. 17:4-7, Numbers 13:33; Deuteronomy 2:11, 20, 3:11-13; Joshua 12:4, 13:12, 15:8, 17:12; 2 Samuel 21:16, 18, 20, 22; 1 Chronicles 20:4, 6, 8; Job 16:14.

One final objection people have to the sons of God being angels is that it would contradict Hebrews 1:5

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" 

But again, that isn't even the issue. That is a straw man argument. I am not saying that any of the angels are THE Son of God, capital s. I am simply pointing out that the Bible calls people who were directly created by God sons of God, such as Adam (Luke 3:38). God referred to the angels as "gods" (lower case g) and "children of the most High" in Psalms 82. But of course none of the angels are like unto Jesus Christ. 

Pastor David O'Steen of Hope Bible Church has notes on this topic here:
http://kjbstudy.blogspot.com/2014/11/who-were-sons-of-god-in-gen-6.html

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

  

What about the "house church" movement?

Bryan Denlinger has recently released some videos saying that having a "church building" is completely foreign to the New Testament and that it is a sin to have one. Denlinger says that since the Bible does not tell you to have a church building, then it is wrong to have one. His logic is very much like the Campbellites. The Campbellites say that since Matthew through Revelation do not command you to play musical instruments, then it is wrong for you to play them.

Bryan Denlinger's entire argument is based on silence. By his logic, being on Youtube is a sin because the Bible does not say that you can be on Youtube.

Here is just one of his church building rants....

A lot of house churchers are very arrogant people, proclaiming their own righteousness for doing house church while all of the other brethren are living in sin by meeting in a building. As I listen to Denlinger I could not help but think of these two verses:

Proverbs 20:6 Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?

1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

Paul said that bodily exercise, the mere performance of physical tasks or rituals, does not make you godly. But Bryan Denlinger says that if you go to a church building you are sinning against God and if go into a house church then you are being godly. 

Denlinger's argument is completely illogical. Here are some points on house church vs building church. 


1.) The Bible does not command us to assembly locally, much less WHERE to assemble. (the oft cited statement in Heb. 10:25 is not in the context of the Body of Christ assembling locally)

2.) If the local church is about preaching the word of God and serving the Lord with the help of fellow believers, why does it matter if you meet in a house or a building that you build for that purpose? Denlinger is focused on physical structures rather than the purpose of the local church. He has made it about buildings instead of Christ.

3.) The building I assemble at has equipment to put scriptures together with and then send them to missionaries. The equipment couldn't possibly fit in our houses. Having a building allows you to have more resources to carry out the work of the Lord.

4.) Denlinger says meeting in a church building is a sin. What verse of scripture is it violating? Is there a verse that says WHERE believers can meet?

5.) Denlinger says that church buildings are "completely foreign to the New Testament. That is simply not true. The Corinthian church was not meeting in a house. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:22, "What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?" So apparently the Corinthians were NOT meeting in each others houses. Also, why would unbelievers come into someones house (1 Cor. 14:23)? The text implies that the church was in a public place where "unlearned and unbelievers" could just walk in.

6.) Houses cannot hold as many people as a building can.

7.) Most people wouldn't want to have an assembly at their house every week.

8.) Most houses don't have enough bathrooms for an assembly of people.

9.) Why would you care if other people were meeting in a house or a building, it isn't any of your business.

10.) If you have church at your house, then your house becomes a church building. (a house is a building, and the believers are a church....CHURCH BUILDING)

11.) Is having church out in a field a sin? The Bible doesn't say anything about it, so by your logic, that would have to be a sin too.

12.) You say 501c3 church buildings are owned by the government. Does that mean people couldn't have church on a military base or government own housing, since those places are owned by the government?

Obviously church buildings are not the "house of God" and they are not holy places (as the house churchers accuse us of believing), but often times they are helpful and convenient tools. There is nothing wrong with house churches either. When I was a kid my dad had a church service on our back porch. It is a matter of person preference. The Bible does not say where to meet, because the issue is never the building. The purpose of the local church is to hear the teaching of the word of God, it does not matter where you assemble. (well, meeting at a bar wouldn't be a good idea)

Lastly, Denlinger said that the antichrist will get all of our church buildings during Daniel's 70th Week. That is a silly argument. Once we're raptured to Heaven, we cannot help what we leave behind. And is there anything that the antichrist won't get? He's going to take over the world you know.

The house church debate is just a silly, illogical debate that is not even worth getting into. Denlinger has taken his position to the extreme. He even named a Christian (Dr. Peter Ruckman) that he said was going to lose a lot of rewards at the Judgement Seat of Christ because they did not have a house church. The whole debate is ridiculous. Bryan Denlinger doesn't have the authority to tell anyone where they can or can't assemble. And it is very foolish of Denlinger to say who is going to lose rewards and who isn't....

"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." 1 Corinthians 4:5

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Why do dispensationalists "throw out" parts of the Bible?

Awhile back someone asked me why dispensationalists "throw out" the portions of the Bible they don't like. This person told me that dispensationalist arbitrarily assign the books of Hebrews-Revelation to Daniel's 70th Week instead of applying them to the Body of Christ in the Dispensation of Grace. 

Here is a brief list of examples from 1 Peter showing why dispensationalists believe he is writing prophetically to believers of the Gospel of the Kingdom in Daniel's 70th Week.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the STRANGERS scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
[These are not Gentiles, else they would not be "strangers" of those places. They are Jews that have been scattered, cf James 1:1, Acts 8:1]

1 Peter 1:5-10 says that they are waiting for their salvation, waiting to receive the salvation of their souls, and that the prophets spoke of the grace that is going to be brought to them at the Second Coming. That is obviously referring to Israel (Rom. 11:26-27, Acts 3:19-25, etc). Members of the Body of Christ have already received the atonement and we are already saved. Also, the grace age was a "mystery kept secret since the world began" (Rom. 16:25, Eph. 3:1-9, Col. 1:24-28, etc.). It was not spoken of by the prophets.

1 Peter 1:18 "vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers" That would be JEWS.

1 Peter 1:20 "these last times" Daniel's 70th Week, the last days.

1 Peter 2:5-9 says that they are "royal priesthood" and a "holy NATION". That would be ISRAEL. We have no priests in the Body of Christ, but Israel will be a holy nation of priests in the Millennium (Exod 19:5-6, Isa. 61:6, Rev. 20:6).

1 Peter 2:10 is a quotation of Hosea 1:9-11 and it is ISRAEL after the Dispensation of Grace is over (Rom. 11:25-27).

1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles" That would mean Peter is writing to JEWS.

1 Peter 2:25, 5:4 "For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." Sheep and Shepherd, that would mean Peter is writing to ISRAEL. (Jer. 23:3-4, Luke 12:32, Isa. 40:11, Matt. 4:35-36, 6:34, 10:5-7, 15:24, Ps. 77:15-20, 78:51-53, Jer. 31:7-10, Ezek. 34:1-31, etc)

1 Peter 3:20-21 Noah's flood and the ark is a type of their salvation. Which means Peter is referring to Israel in the context of Daniel's 70th Week (Isa. 54:9, Matt. 24:37-39)

1 Peter 4:7 "But the end of all things is at hand" Which means he is writing to those in Daniel's 70th Week (Matt. 24:3)

And there are many examples like that throughout Hebrews-Revelation, not to mention the fact that Matthew 19:28 and Galatians 2:1-9 plainly say that Peter is an apostle of Israel and not the Body of Christ. 

Contrary to the  anti-dispensationalists, right division is not an arbitrary doing away with certain portions of scripture. It is simply acknowledging what each book of the Bible says about itself and looking at WHO is writing and WHAT they are writing about. 

--Eli Caldwell

Bryan Denlinger (husky394xp) works salvation

 

"Do I teach eternal security? Yes I do. I will continue to teach it. Why? Because Christians that I have met (Bible believing born-again Christians, that I have met), they don't mess with the book and they don't mess with the Jews. So I believe in eternal security." 24:46-25:05

"Sodomites can be saved, alright. And I believe there are some that have gotten saved and gotten away from it. But only if they turn from that sinful life, you see. That is why I teach repentance. I don't just say that anybody can get saved by believing." 26:34-26:50

 

I use to watch Mr. Denlinger because he claimed he was a KJB believing and dispensational "Ruckmanite". However, after I realized he was teaching works, lordship salvation (faith+sinner's prayer+turning from sin), I had to unsubscribe. 

 

His videos on eternal security make no sense. One minute he says 'I believe in eternal security' then the next minute he says 'but if you commit one of these sins you will lose your salvation'. How is it ETERNAL? 

 

He used the book of Revelation to back up his claim, but Revelation is NOT about the Body of Christ. It is the future Jewish believers of the gospel of the kingdom that have to overcome in order to avoid losing their salvation (Matt. 24:13-14, 42-51). 

 

As members of the Body of Christ, we have already overcame because we are IN CHRIST, and He already overcame the world (John 16:33).  Why would we have to "overcome" if " things present, nor things to come" can separate us from the love of God? (Rom. 8:29-39)

 

Believers under grace have eternal security (Eph. 1:13-14, 3:12, 4:30, 4:32, 5:32, Rom. 4:4-8, 8:1-9, Rom. 8:29-39, 1 Cor. 1:1-9, 3:15, 5:5, 11:32, 1 Thes. 5:9-10, 5:23-24, Phil. 1:6, 2 Tim. 2:11-13, Acts 13:38-39, Col. 2:10-13, 3:13). 

 

Bryan Denlinger said that if you hate the Jews then you will lose your salvation. His only proof text was Romans 11, but that is not what the text says. Paul is talking to the "Gentiles" and the "world" (vs. 11, 12, 13, 15), not the Body of Christ. Also, the context is not individual salvation, it is national blessing and position. Israel fell from being God's chosen people and channel of blessing temporarily (Rom. 11:25-27). Paul is not saying that all Israel lost their salvation. 

 

Bryan Denlinger's logic is this: members of the Body of Christ were graffed into salvation, but if they hate the Jews, then they will be broken off from salvation.

 

Here are some questions for Mr. Denlinger:

 

1.) If Paul is talking about saved Gentiles being broken off from salvation, then wouldn't that mean he was also referring to saved Jews being broken off from salvation in verses 1-15? Why did the saved Jews lose their salvation? ("broken off")

 

2.) The reason Israel was "broken off" is because of UNBELIEF (vs. 20). So how could members of the Body of Christ (people who have believed on Christ) be "broken off"? 

 

3.) Paul says that the Jews could be graffed in again after being broken off (vs. 23), so does that mean that they can lose salvation and then regain it? 

 

4.) How could a member of the Body of Christ lose salvation when he has become predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ? (Rom. 8:29) Is Paul contradicting himself in Romans?

 

5.) By saying that a Gentile cannot hate Jews and be saved, then aren't you putting yourself back under the OT plan of salvation for Gentiles? (Gen. 12:3)

 

There are many other questions that could be asked of Mr. Denlinger, but that is enough for now. 

 

It is obvious that Mr. Denlinger believes in works salvation. He says that you must "turn from sin" to be saved? What sins? It is impossible to turn from all sin (Rom. 7:18, 8:8, Ps. 40:12). 

 

Here is a list of sins. I would like Mr. Denlinger to tell us which ones we must turn from in order to be saved: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. 

 

How can someone that is dead in trespasses and sins possibly "turn from sin"? Turning from sin is for people who are already saved, who have the Spirit of God in them and have been baptized into Christ by the Spirit (Rom. 6:1-14, Gal. 2:20). 

 

Besides that, turning from sin is a WORK...

 

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.

 

If man could turn from his sins on his own, then why did Christ die?

 

Telling a lost person to turn from sin before they can be saved is pointless. A lost person cannot turn from sin and they have no reason to. They do not have the Spirit of God in them and they do not have the word of Christ dwelling in them. They are "children of disobedience" with the spirit of Satan working in them, how can they turn from sin? (Eph. 2:1-2).  

 

But Bryan Denlinger openly admitted that he does not believe in salvation by faith alone. "I don't just say that anybody can get saved by believing." 

 

Thankfully the Bible says, but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom. 4:5) 

It also says, In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Eph. 1:13)

Mr. Denlinger's statement on eternal security is the worst I have ever seen. He plainly says that his belief has nothing to do with what the Bible says, his belief is based on his EXPERIENCE with the BEHAVIOR of other "Christians"...

"Do I teach eternal security? Yes I do. I will continue to teach it. Why? Because Christians that I have met (Bible believing born-again Christians, that I have met), they don't mess with the book and they don't mess with the Jews. So I believe in eternal security." 24:46-25:05

 

Sadly Bryan Denlinger is just a Roman Catholic cake with some Bible-believer frosting. He is works salvation to the core. 

 

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell