You are here: Home / Archives for ARTICLES

BRIDER SAYS, NON-BAPTIST BRIDERS, NOT CHRISTIANS

by

By Ken Blue

Someone has accurately said, “A heresy is any truth taken to extreme.” Below is an email sent on a brider’s mailing list. In the first few articles we learned that those who do not have apostolic baptism, and can’t validate their baptism back to John the Baptist, are not in the bride. Now we discover that those who are not in the Baptist bride are not Christians! Where will it go from here? I have underlined what I saw as some red flags, and I will comment on the real heart of the brider issue in letters of blue.

“While some Baptists understand the absurdity of making a distinction between church history and Baptist history many would still refer to non-Baptist believers as Christians. I don’t believe that you can be a Christian without being a Baptist. I did not say you can’t be saved without being a Baptist and that would be absurd because you cannot become a Baptist until being baptized after salvation. The question must be asked, “What is a Christian?” A Christian is not just one that trusts Christ as their Savior. A Christian is one who is a follower of Christ – including AFTER salvation. May I say that one who gets saved and then backslides or never grows in the Lord is not a Christian. They may have trusted in Christ but they are not following Christ in their life. To be a Christian is to follow the ways and teachings of Christ. How could a believer be a Christian without being a member of the institution of the local church which He started”  

 (Ah, here is the heart of the matter. How could anyone be a Christian and not be a member of a Baptist brider church? Notice the argument always moves to the subject of baptism. But, if his definition of a Christian is correct, where can we find a Christian in the brider church? Is the brider going to tell me he is a “follower of all Jesus taught”? If you think they do, compare the first commission to the brider church in Matthew 10 and see if any brider follows it. If the brider is right when he says a Christian is a follower of the “ways and teachings of Christ,” then I can assure you that there is not a Christian on this planet. Or perhaps the brider will cut other briders some slack in his definition. The fallacy:
The major premise: The church at Antioch was Baptist and the bride of Christ
The minor premise: Those who joined the church at Antioch were Christians.
The conclusion: Only those who join a Baptist bride church today are Christians.
The fallacy: The church at Antioch was not Baptist, or the bride. In the syllogism the major premise is wrong, therefore, the conclusion is wrong..)  

” How could a saved Methodist be a Christian with their infant baptism? How could a Pentecostal believer be a Christian with their speaking in tongues? How could a Church of Christ member be called a Christian when they are trusting in baptism for salvation? How could a Presbyterian believer be a Christian when they don’t believe in eternal security and practice sprinkling? Being a Christian is more than believing in Christ and going to a church that historically believes in Christ instead of other gods. As Spurgeon said, “We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians.” As Baptists we don’t treat the polity of new testament churches as optional suggestions and we don’t add to our practices the contradictory writings and creeds of men. If Jesus were physically on earth today he would be a member of a Baptist church because a (true) Baptist church is a practical copy and an actual descendant of the church that Christ started during His earthly ministry. Don’t be ashamed my brethren, only Baptists are Christians.”

HOW A BAPTIST BRIDER EVADES THE ISSUE # 5

by

#5
By Ken Blue
(This is the last correspondence with the Baptist brider. It became obvious to me that he was not going to answer my question, as requested. I will answer it in this blog, and give $100.00 to any brider who can show that any follower of Jesus Christ believed, preached or expected Him to die on the cross and be raised the third day. If the brider had been willing to answer it, he would have done so without my offer. I will prove to you why he and every brider refuses to answer the question.)

Again, I thank you for your response, however, it seems like we are playing “ring around the question.” Here was my original request, “…Perhaps you could define the gospel message we preach today and then find where it was preached in Matthew through John’s gospel.” You did not “define” or state WHAT we are required to believe today. Of course we are saved by faith, but faith must have a valid object. Are you unclear on the content of the gospel? I don’t think so, and I certainly hope you are not.
I stated, “What I can’t understand is your position that everyone got saved by believing the same thing. I ask, what is required that a person believe today in order to be saved? You did not answer that question. Then I gave you a Scripture (Luke 18:31-34) which showed that no one from Matthew 1:1 to John 21:25 believed what you and I preach as a means of salvation today.”
You refused to clarify WHAT the disciples believed or preached in John through Matthew. You know they did not preach the same gospel you preach, so why not declare what they preached and believed? I stated that no one in that period believed or expected Jesus to die. Rather than stating the CONTENT of their message, you compared them to new believer, with incomplete knowledge. Were they ignorant during their ministry? What was their knowledge? They preach a gospel for about 3 years! What was that gospel? You refused to say.

Also, you accused me of making this an argument about dispensations and the church as a diversion. You either don’t know the answer to my questions, or are reluctant to answer the obvious for some other reason. You brought up the church; I did not. Not one time did I make any comment or ask about when the church started. You brought that subject up when you said, “The fact of the matter is, prior to the book of Acts there was a body of baptized believers that was started by Jesus who had local church ordinances. That may not fit in to your ‘slicing and dicing’ of the Scriptures but it is plain as day.”I don’t disagree with your point. I was responding to your smear of me as “slicing and dicing the Scriptures,” and was attempting to show you that a church did exist in the Old Testament, as it did in the gospels.
Your knee jerk response was to accuse me of being a Ruckmite. You said, “I’ve never met a Ruckmanite who called himself one but I have met several Ruckmanites who want to defend other Ruckmanites.” Since the Campbellites and the Church of Christ believe the local church is the bride, should I associate you with them, in order to discredit you?
The truth, my brother, is that neither you nor anyone else knows when the church started. In one blog on your site, someone stated that it started in Matthew 4; some Baptist think it started in Matthew 16:18. Some believe the church today is simply a continuation of the O. T. Church. A greater number believe it started in Acts 2. There are a few who believe it started in mid-Acts, with the conversion of Paul. Finally, there are those who teach it started after Acts 28. So, I could care less about when anyone thinks the church started. I knew your answer to that subject before my first blog. Therefore, that was not my purpose for writing.
I was attempting to get you to see or admit that the gospel of John the Baptist, of Jesus Christ and the Twelve did not contain ONE WORD about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and then I wanted you tell us what they believed, preached, and expected. You still refuse to do that.Rather, you think I was attempting to “lay a trap” for you. This put you on the defensive and you implied that I am a Ruckmanite, a hyper-dispensationalist and not being honest with you. This tactic is as old as the hills. When you will not or cannot answer; attack the messenger.
Even thought you skirt and change the issue, and refuse to give a straight answer, I will answer your questions as you have articulated them.
You asked, “Do you believe that everyone has or will get saved the same we get saved today?” If you mean by believing the same thing, the answer is NO. ` I am confident you don’t believe they were either. You just fear the consequence of saying so. (Note that John, Jesus, and the Twelve preached the gospel. “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.” Matthew 4:23. “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Mark 1:1-3. If they were in error in the gospel they preached, why didn’t Jesus correct them?) But not one word of it was about Him dying on the cross to pay for our sins. After His resurrection, no one believed it! So, it is dishonest to say they simply lacked perfect knowledge, they preached an imperfect message.
You asked, “Do you believe that John’s baptism is the same baptism we practice today?” If you think John was looking forward to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the reason for his baptism, the answer is no. If you think water baptism puts one in the bride, and that baptism must have apostolic succession to be valid, the answer is no. You can’t even validate your own baptism back to John! Can you? If you can, show us that validation.
You asked, “”Do you believe the NT church existed prior to the events found in Acts?” I believe a NT church existed before Acts. I do not believe the church which was a “mystery” existed in the Gospels.
You asked, “Do you believe all the saved are in the body of Christ?” I believe all saved people are in the Body of Christ.
Now you can confidently attack my comments and divert everyone’s attention from my original questions. I too must contend for the faith and practice right divisions of God’s Word.
Let me assure you that I have no animosity toward you. I am sure you are a dear brother and seek to get people saved and to live for Christ. We do not hold the same views on the various gospels in Scripture or on the local church. I sincerely hope God blesses you and your ministry. I also thank you for allowing me space on your blog.
Ken Blue
(The response I was seeking from the beginning is found in I Cor. 15. It seems strange to me that any brider would ignore that great chapter which clearly gives us the CONTENT of the gospel we preach today. “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” The reason the brider refused to refer to this profound section is because it does not match anything preached by John the Baptist. To admit that would have called into question the purpose of John’s ministry and baptism, which no brider can reconcile with Paul’s gospel.)

HOW A BAPTIST BRIDER EVADES THE ISSUE #4

by

#4

Ken Blue

(This is a response from a Baptist brider who refuses to state the content of the gospel we preach, or compare it to that gospel which was preached by John the Baptist and the other disciples prior to Christ’s resurrection. Read the previous blogs for context. Although he continues to state that salvation has always been by faith, he refuses, or does not know WHAT THE CONTENT OF THAT FAITH WAS. He says:)

Romans 3:20,28 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight…. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith wihtout the deeds of the law” Romans 4:3 “Abraham (in the OT) believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness” Romans 5:1 Therefore being justfied by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” Romans 4:5 “…his faith is counted for righteouness” If you read my first response closely I DID answer your every question in regards to what I believe. Salvation has always been and will always be by grace through faith in Christ, whether coming, present or past. (If the reader will note the above answers, he will see that the CONTENT of their faith is absent. By now, I am convinced the brider does not know the answer to the question. He assumes that he has answered it, and then turns to misrepresent and attack me. He implies that I brought up the subject of the church. He mentions the “church” six times before I say one word about it! He wants others to believe that I have a problem with Ruckman, and dispensations. My question for him is crystal clear, but he dare not answer it.)  If my original satement of “Ruckmanites believe that people have been saved by different means in different dispensations” is what you have a problem with then you must believe that there has been or will be different ways of getting saved. Since you brought up the church in the wilderness, this confirmed that your true beef is with the main premise of my article (which would make sense because this is the article in which you chose to debate dispensationalism). I know you know the difference between the OT church and “my church” (Matthew 16:18). The fact is that Jesus was building His church during His earthly ministry. He was the cornerstone, the apostles were the foundation, it was being built, it had ordinances, it had a commission but it did not receive the power to fulfill that commission until Pentecost. Did the earth not exist on day one just because there were no plants, no wildlife and no humans? Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void..” But being a hyper-dispensationalist you probably believe there is a “gap” between verses 1 and 2 anyway but my point is that the earth existed before it was complete. The church existed prior to its completeing empowerment in Acts 2. I do not have to “explain from Scripture what was required in each dispensation for salvation” (Note that he refuses to answer the question, or is unable to. One thing for sure; if he answers it, it will drive the final nail in the Baptist bride coffin.) because that is not the aim of this post or the blog. Your only reason for stearing this post that way is to attack my postion on when the church started. If my answers here are not good enough then you do not have to answer my YES or NO questions.

(The answer was NOT good enough. In fact, it was not an answer at all to my original question. However, in my next blog, I do answer his questions, even though he dare not give a Scriptural answer to mine.)

HOW A BAPTIST BRIDER EVADES THE ISSUE #3

by

#3
By Ken Blue

 

(This is my response to a Baptist brider who refuses to state the content of the gospel we preach, or compare it to that gospel which was preached by John the Baptist and the other disciples prior to Christ’s resurrection. Read the previous blogs for context.)

Dear Brother, Thank you for your response. I stated that I was confident you were a dispensationalist. You confirmed that. I also agree that people have always been saved by grace through faith, but you did not clarify the object of that faith. Also, the word “require” does not mean works. Faith was a “requirement.” Is that a work?

However, if you will note my question, “I believe it is important to your readers that you respond and explain from Scripture what was required in each dispensation for salvation. What were they required to believe? What did the Twelve Disciples believe, if they were saved?” You did not give a Scriptural answer to these questions.

I am sure you would not classify yourself a hyper-dispensationalist. Normally, anyone to the right of us is considered hyper. However, I could find professing Christians who would consider you a hyper-dispensationalist as well.

My comment about “mature” was not intended a “personal attack.” It was in response to the comment, “You have to have more than child like faith to believe that mess.” My sincere prayer is that I will have “child like faith.”

I know what you believe. What I can’t understand is your position that everyone got saved by believing the same thing. I ask, what is required that a person believe today in order to be saved? You did not answer that question. Then I gave you a Scripture (Luke 18:31-34) which showed that no one from Matthew 1:1 to John 21:25 believed what you and I preach as a means of salvation today. You stated, “Did they understand everything about salvation?” Then you said, “No…” The truth is, dear brother, not only did they not “understand” it, they did not believe it! You and I know that no one believed the gospel we preach today. Therefore, theirs was another gospel. You may not be willing to admit that, but everything in the four gospels screams loud and clear that His death and resurrection had no part in anyone’s theology.

Now, I have absolutely no problem answering your “YES and NO” questions, when you are willing to answer my questions scripturally. You said, “I believe that John preached the same salvation message that we preach as explained in John 3:36 where John said, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I don’t know how you can say, “John preached the same salvation message that we preach…” when, neither he, nor anyone else believed Jesus would die and be resurrected from among the dead. Therefore, when John said, “He that believeth on the Son…” what was it about the Son they were to believe?

When we “slice and dice” the Scriptures, we must not overlook the fact that there was a “Church” in the wilderness, and it was baptized and kept certain ordinances. “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:” Acts 7:38. “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 1 Corinthians 10:2. You did not answer my questions, but resorted to attacking me, and men you assume I approve. I am sure you can do better that that. Ken Blue

(Note: When debating, if you cannot accurately answer from Scripture, attack the other person’s character or others whom they may have quoted. Just because you quote a man does not mean you agree with him in every matter. However, it does not mean the quote is wrong. One good example of that is Acts 17:28. “ For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” Paul quotes an unsaved poet to establish his point.)

HOW A BAPTIST BRIDER EVADES THE ISSUE #2

by

#2
By Ken Blue

The following is the first response to my blog about what the means of salvation was in other dispensations. I have purposely omitted the name and web page of the correspondent because I have no interest in smearing his name or hurting his personal ministry. There will be inserted into this response notes showing how the briders avoid the questions and attack me and all who disagree with them. Those inserts will be in blue. Read the previous blog for content.

“I too am a dispensationalist because both the word and the principle are taught in the scriptures but I am not a hyper dispensationalist. I believe that God was working in different ways thru different people at different times (example: OT and the Jews/NT and the church). BUT SALVATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH. You said, “it is important to your readers that you respond and explain from Scripture what was required in each dispensation for salvation.” The word “required” lends to the idea that salvation is by works. Do you believe that some have been or that some will be saved by works? (Notice that the word “required” is twisted to turn against me in order to deflect the argument away from the issue) Surely you don’t believe that rightly dividing the word of truth is limited to and solely focussed on dispensational theology! I believe that John preached the same salvation message that we preach as explained in John 3:36 where John said, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” The disciples believed in the Lord Jesus Christ just like those in the OT believed in a coming Messiah. Did they understand everything about salvation? No, and I didn’t understand everything about salvation when I got saved either. Does the fact that John did not understand the entire depth and meaning of his baptismal ministry iligitimize his baptism? (Watch again, as the brider attempts to turn on me personally and suggest that I ask him the question because I did not LIKE his article. I have not said one word about when the church started and you will discover that I don’t care when it started) No! I don’t believe you liked my article because you probably believe the church started at or after Acts 2 and so therefore you have attempted to attack my position on dispensationalism. The problem with hyper dispensationalists is that you interpret EVERYTHING thru this theological view to the point that it gets in the way of what the Scripture teaches. We should rejected theology from eccumenicalists such as Darby, Crutchfield and Scofield. I know you asked for a “mature” response and I am but I can sense the sarcasim in your words and know that “maturity” is not your trademark because you named a book “Baptist Briders BOLONEY”. You have stated in a book summary that everyone that is saved is in the body of Christ but I believe that the Scripture teaches that the church is a local assembly and that the church is that body. The fact of the matter is, prior to the book of Acts there was a body of baptized believers that was started by Jesus who had local church ordinances. That may not fit in to your slicing and dicing of the Scriptures but it is plain as day. I’ve never met a Ruckmanite who called himself one but I have met several Ruckmanites who want to defend other Ruckmanites. I know you have written several books and have addressed this issue several times. I will make no bones about the fact that I strongly oppose hyper dispensationalism because I must earnestly contend for the faith. It is disturbing to me that there are brethren walking among us who believe and passionately yet deceptively promote this non-Baptist hyper dispensationalism so I am calling you out! When you respond I would like simple YES or NO answers to these: Do you believe that everyone has or will get saved the same we get saved today? YES or NO Do you believe that John’s baptism is the same baptism we practice today? YES or NO Do you believe the NT church existed prior to the events found in Acts? YES or NO Do you believe all the saved are in the body of Christ? YES or NO

(The reader will once again see how the “worm has turned.” My question was simple, it was, “Perhaps you could define the gospel message we preach today and then find where it was preached in Matthew through John’s gospel.” That question is not hard to understand, but it is impossible to answer. That is why the blog will be an attack to the end. He dare not answer the question by giving a clear description of our gospel and that of the John and the Twelve. That would blow his Baptist baptism right out of the water.