Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

---

Pretty much all Christian denominations in the US are declining. Including conservative ones like the Southern Baptist Convention. And the SBC's decline is more severe than his numbers show. SBC numbers are based on membership, not attendance. If you tracked attendance, the decline would be about as steep as Methodists. The video seem ignores conservative declines. Many conservative churches have abandoned evangelism for culture war.

Roman Catholics would also be in a steep decline in the U.S. were it not for growth from Latino immigrants.

The decline is much more complex than liberal or conservative theology. The video pursues the simplistic, inadequate thesis that conservative theology is the difference. I meet lots of people who call themselves "recovering Baptist" or "recovering Catholic" who are spiritual but who have rejected their former churches for various reasons.

The heart of the problem for many churches is that they refuse to move away from institutional thinking and move to missional and incarnational thinking. They think too much about satisfying their members and too little about reaching out in love and grace to people outside their churches. This issue transcends theology.

---

The non-denominational bible church is growing in large numbers. Many of the mainline denominations are seeing congregants flock to them. It's what happens when you actually preach the word of God, and stick to the fundamentals, instead of tickling the ears of the woke generation.

---

Pentecostal churches are growing even faster, particularly those that feature the Prosperity Gospel. Does this mean their preaching is closer to the Bible than Bible churches?

Also, the Southern Baptist Convention was growing at a high rate in the late 1960s and the 1970s, when it was allegedly "liberal." Now that it's more conservative, it's declining. Does that mean it was doing a better job honoring the Bible when it was more liberal?

---

A google search provided no evidence of your position on the prosperity gospel - which has been a big player for years on television. Has it grown since the 80's? Not sure. Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton and the like have always seemed to make a lot of money from it, but their viewership and congregations have markedly declined. Sure, there are people like Osteen who take their place, and perhaps always will be. There will always be people who make money by distorting the gospel. Hell, it happened in Paul's time.

Can't comment on how liberal the SBC was in the 60's and 70's. I highly doubt they strayed from biblical teachings, however, given what I know about the denomination.

---

I was thinking of church growth in a global setting. If you dig a bit deeper into missionary literature, you'll find that the fastest-growing brand of Christianity in a global sense is Pentecostalism with a prosperity bent. My missionary friends in Africa and S. America testify to it as well.

My point is equating church growth with conservatism and biblical faithfulness is a tricky proposition. The fact that a church or denomination is growing or declining isn't necessarily in indicator of its faithfulness to the scriptures. Growth and decline comes from a complex interaction of theology, demographics, birth rates, social change, and more.

What we should be talking about more is the fastest-growing segment of the American population: the Nones. They're people who've dropped out of church for various reasons. Many of them are spiritual, but don't identify with any religion. I run into them every day. They've dropped out of both conservative and liberal churches.

Interestingly, conservative theology and church membership and attendance aren't as connected as they once were. For example, a considerable number of people identify themselves as evangelical but don't attend church. This doesn't make sense to me, but it's a reality.

Also, I think the conservatism/liberalism of the church is less important than its sense of mission. I've seen conservative churches with no sense of mission or real evangelism. And I've seen liberal churches with both. So until the mentality of church folks changes, it doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative. Their churches are going to die.

---

Yes, I agree the prosperity gospel is a big player in Africa in particular. I cannot comment on S. America, but wouldn't be surprised.

My position does not suggest that false teachings cannot take hold and gain a following. Indeed, they can and have - throughout Church history. I am also not suggesting that the ONLY reason that the bible church is growing is because it's conservative, though I think there is really no disputing that adherence to the fundamentals is a huge part of it's growing membership. Part and parcel with adherence to the fundamentals is a heavy emphasis on the mission field. Indeed, more than half of my bible church's annual budget goes to the mission field, which would I suspect would be highly unusual in one of the traditional denominations. Christ did call us to be fishers of men after all.

So, where we are going to disagree is on the last part. I believe there is strong evidence that the reason the Bible church is growing, and the traditional denominations are declining is indeed because of the former's adherence to the fundamentals. It's extremely rare to find a liberal church nowdays that is thriving.

---

Nondenominational churches as whole are growing because more Christians are disillusioned with denominations. The great majority of people who are going to these Bible churches weren't "lost" people joining. And the great majority aren't coming from Mainstream churches. They're coming from conservative denominational churches. Even Bible churches adhere to fewer doctrinal details than denominational churches of the past.

These are the trends I've seen over the last 50 years. Mainstream denominational churches to more evangelical denominational churches. More evangelical denominational churches to nondenominational churches. Nondenominational churches to no church.

I've also seen even among conservative churches that the issues people regard as most important have shifted radically. 50 years ago, issues like the meaning of baptism and the Lord's Supper, the nature of church governance, the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, etc., were really important. Today, they've been replaced by abortion, homosexuality, the role of women, the Second Amendment, and loyalty to Trump.

So matters of salvation have become less important among people who identify as biblically conservative and cultural issues have become much more important.

---

Brother, I need to know where you go to church.

That's sounds like what you've been told is going on. Where I attend the bolded aren't mentioned except in passing at most. The last two have never been mentioned at all.

---

Yup. My thoughts exactly. As I said above, this sounds a lot like the assumptions of my liberal friends who haven't darkened the door of an EV church in years.

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

---

Pretty much all Christian denominations in the US are declining. Including conservative ones like the Southern Baptist Convention. And the SBC's decline is more severe than his numbers show. SBC numbers are based on membership, not attendance. If you tracked attendance, the decline would be about as steep as Methodists. The video seem ignores conservative declines. Many conservative churches have abandoned evangelism for culture war.

Roman Catholics would also be in a steep decline in the U.S. were it not for growth from Latino immigrants.

The decline is much more complex than liberal or conservative theology. The video pursues the simplistic, inadequate thesis that conservative theology is the difference. I meet lots of people who call themselves "recovering Baptist" or "recovering Catholic" who are spiritual but who have rejected their former churches for various reasons.

The heart of the problem for many churches is that they refuse to move away from institutional thinking and move to missional and incarnational thinking. They think too much about satisfying their members and too little about reaching out in love and grace to people outside their churches. This issue transcends theology.

---

The non-denominational bible church is growing in large numbers. Many of the mainline denominations are seeing congregants flock to them. It's what happens when you actually preach the word of God, and stick to the fundamentals, instead of tickling the ears of the woke generation.

---

Pentecostal churches are growing even faster, particularly those that feature the Prosperity Gospel. Does this mean their preaching is closer to the Bible than Bible churches?

Also, the Southern Baptist Convention was growing at a high rate in the late 1960s and the 1970s, when it was allegedly "liberal." Now that it's more conservative, it's declining. Does that mean it was doing a better job honoring the Bible when it was more liberal?

---

A google search provided no evidence of your position on the prosperity gospel - which has been a big player for years on television. Has it grown since the 80's? Not sure. Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton and the like have always seemed to make a lot of money from it, but their viewership and congregations have markedly declined. Sure, there are people like Osteen who take their place, and perhaps always will be. There will always be people who make money by distorting the gospel. Hell, it happened in Paul's time.

Can't comment on how liberal the SBC was in the 60's and 70's. I highly doubt they strayed from biblical teachings, however, given what I know about the denomination.

---

I was thinking of church growth in a global setting. If you dig a bit deeper into missionary literature, you'll find that the fastest-growing brand of Christianity in a global sense is Pentecostalism with a prosperity bent. My missionary friends in Africa and S. America testify to it as well.

My point is equating church growth with conservatism and biblical faithfulness is a tricky proposition. The fact that a church or denomination is growing or declining isn't necessarily in indicator of its faithfulness to the scriptures. Growth and decline comes from a complex interaction of theology, demographics, birth rates, social change, and more.

What we should be talking about more is the fastest-growing segment of the American population: the Nones. They're people who've dropped out of church for various reasons. Many of them are spiritual, but don't identify with any religion. I run into them every day. They've dropped out of both conservative and liberal churches.

Interestingly, conservative theology and church membership and attendance aren't as connected as they once were. For example, a considerable number of people identify themselves as evangelical but don't attend church. This doesn't make sense to me, but it's a reality.

Also, I think the conservatism/liberalism of the church is less important than its sense of mission. I've seen conservative churches with no sense of mission or real evangelism. And I've seen liberal churches with both. So until the mentality of church folks changes, it doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative. Their churches are going to die.

---

Yes, I agree the prosperity gospel is a big player in Africa in particular. I cannot comment on S. America, but wouldn't be surprised.

My position does not suggest that false teachings cannot take hold and gain a following. Indeed, they can and have - throughout Church history. I am also not suggesting that the ONLY reason that the bible church is growing is because it's conservative, though I think there is really no disputing that adherence to the fundamentals is a huge part of it's growing membership. Part and parcel with adherence to the fundamentals is a heavy emphasis on the mission field. Indeed, more than half of my bible church's annual budget goes to the mission field, which would I suspect would be highly unusual in one of the traditional denominations. Christ did call us to be fishers of men after all.

So, where we are going to disagree is on the last part. I believe there is strong evidence that the reason the Bible church is growing, and the traditional denominations are declining is indeed because of the former's adherence to the fundamentals. It's extremely rare to find a liberal church nowdays that is thriving.

---

Today, they've been replaced by abortion, homosexuality, the role of women, the Second Amendment, and loyalty to Trump.

So matters of salvation have become less important among people who identify as biblically conservative and cultural issues have become much more important.

---

Sounds like the United Methodist Church or a liberal Baptist church. I hear reports of activists moving on abortion, homosexuality, the role of women, the Second Amendment, and Trump.

Not so much on salvation

---

The doctrines of baptism and the Lord's Supper are very much matters of salvation, or at least were in the past. The fact that we don't debate these things anymore says that we don't consider them important anymore. That, in turn, means the doctrine of salvation has become less important than cultural issues.

---

Important, and matters of salvation, are two different things. Since when did baptism and communion becomes prerequisites to being saved? Not in any verses I have read.

I agree they remain important. I am not sure any leader in my church would say otherwise.

---

You nailed it.

Where does Jordan go to church? Does he know there are choices?

Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination. They masquerade as different but they align theologically and doctrinally with the Baptists. They coalesce around a general grouping of evangelicals.

Waco1947 said:

---

Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination. They masquerade as different but they align theologically and doctrinally with the Baptists. They coalesce around a general grouping of evangelicals.

---

This is wrong and exhibits an ignorance of nondenominational churches. I grew up Baptist, and since college have attended various nondenominational churches, many of which are not only different doctrinally from Baptists but also each other.

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination. They masquerade as different but they align theologically and doctrinally with the Baptists. They coalesce around a general grouping of evangelicals.

---

This is wrong and exhibits an ignorance of nondenominational churches. I grew up Baptist, and since college have attended various nondenominational churches, many of which are not only different doctrinally from Baptists but also each other.

---

This.

47 doesn't know

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination. They masquerade as different but they align theologically and doctrinally with the Baptists. They coalesce around a general grouping of evangelicals.

---

This is wrong and exhibits an ignorance of nondenominational churches. I grew up Baptist, and since college have attended various nondenominational churches, many of which are not only different doctrinally from Baptists but also each other.

---

Yeah, but Baptists are doctrinally different from each other as well.

Waco1947 said:

---

Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination. They masquerade as different but they align theologically and doctrinally with the Baptists. They coalesce around a general grouping of evangelicals.

---

A few are pretty close, most are much different than denominational churches.

Then many follow the individual pastors unique direction.

Literally they are all over the place. Many of them or even most of them, believe in the continuance of all the supernatural gifts of the spirit. A bunch of them are very charismatic. Unfortunately some of them offer the prosperity gospel.

Baptist though, very few.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination. They masquerade as different but they align theologically and doctrinally with the Baptists. They coalesce around a general grouping of evangelicals.

---

This is wrong and exhibits an ignorance of nondenominational churches. I grew up Baptist, and since college have attended various nondenominational churches, many of which are not only different doctrinally from Baptists but also each other.

---

This.

47 doesn't know

---

Yep.

Mothra said:

---

Important, and matters of salvation, are two different things. Since when did baptism and communion becomes prerequisites to being saved? Not in any verses I have read.

---

I believe Jesus, Peter, and Luke would disagree ...

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mothra said:

---

I agree they remain important. I am not sure any leader in my church would say otherwise.

---

Serious question, what or who gives them authority to make that decision when it is clearly anti-biblical?

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Important, and matters of salvation, are two different things. Since when did baptism and communion becomes prerequisites to being saved? Not in any verses I have read.

---

I believe Jesus, Peter, and Luke would disagree ...

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mothra said:

---

I agree they remain important. I am not sure any leader in my church would say otherwise.

---

Serious question, what or who gives them authority to make that decision when it is clearly anti-biblical?

---

Scripture is clear that salvation cannot be attained by the works of man. As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Christians were expected, even commanded, to be baptized. However, scripture is clear that the act of baptism is an expression of faith and obedience, not the means of salvation. (See Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:35.) Is Peter contradicting that idea when he writes that baptism now saves us? is Christ contradicting his words in John 3:16-18 that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life and that whoever believes in him is not condemned (notice no mention of baptism in these verses)? Of course not. Clearly, based on their other teachings and writings, neither Christ nor Peter is suggesting that the mechanical act of being baptized is what makes a person saved for eternity. Instead, taking the verses as a whole, they seem to be saying that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead saves us. It is this resurrection which Christians publicly express their faith in when being baptized.

Finally, I point you to the thief on the cross next to Christ. He committed crimes worthy of death, yet he was the very first Christian. Because of his mere belief, Christ told him, "Today, you will be with me in paradise." I don't recall scripture talking about him being baptized while he was crucified, do you? Nope. Instead, it was his faith that saved him.

I am sad you subscribe to a works-based faith, my friend. It must be very disheartening, in addition to being unbiblical.

Mothra said:

---

I am sad you subscribe to a works-based faith, my friend. It must be very disheartening, in addition to being unbiblical.

---

Where have I stated that I or any Catholic subscribe to a works-based faith? Salvation is a free-gift. No one can do anything to EARN salvation.

The process to salvation is fairly simple: Repent, believe, and be baptized.

I find it very interesting that you state were are commanded to be baptized; but then state that baptism doesn't do anything.

Acts 22:16 - And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

This is clean that baptism isn't for show or an act of faith.

Baptism leaves an indelible mark on one's soul. It make one part of Christ's family.

We Catholics understand that one can be baptized water, desire, or fire.

• Water is the traditional method that 99% receive.


• Desire is when a truly repentant individual is dying, has desire to be baptized, and can't be baptized in before death.


• Fire is when an unbaptized dies for Christ - i.e. the good thief on the cross. Christ knew his repentance in his heart.

Finally, isn't believing a Work?

PS - Circling back to Communion, Jesus is VERY clear about it in the Bread of Life Discourse - John 48-68.

John 6:53 - Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I am sad you subscribe to a works-based faith, my friend. It must be very disheartening, in addition to being unbiblical.

---

Where have I stated that I or any Catholic subscribe to a works-based faith? Salvation is a free-gift. No one can do anything to EARN salvation.

The process to salvation is fairly simple: Repent, believe, and be baptized.

I find it very interesting that you state were are commanded to be baptized; but then state that baptism doesn't do anything.

Acts 22:16 - And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

This is clean that baptism isn't for show or an act of faith.

Baptism leaves an indelible mark on one's soul. It make one part of Christ's family.

We Catholics understand that one can be baptized water, desire, or fire.

• Water is the traditional method that 99% receive.
• Desire is when a truly repentant individual is dying, has desire to be baptized, and can't be baptized in before death.
• Fire is when an unbaptized dies for Christ - i.e. the good thief on the cross. Christ knew his repentance in his heart.

Finally, isn't believing a Work?

PS - Circling back to Communion, Jesus is VERY clear about it in the Bread of Life Discourse - John 48-68.

John 6:53 - Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

---

But it is a work, my friend. Anything that we do on our own - including belief - is a work. But God says in scripture he has done the work for us, and that there is NOTHING we can do to earn salvation.

And again, I present you with the unbaptized thief on the cross. If a mechanical act of baptism is a necessity, then once again, why did Christ tell the thief he was saved? Why did Christ tell the woman in Luke chapter 7 that her faith has saved her? How could she be saved if she wasn't baptized? Why did he not instruct her to immediately go get baptized so that she wouldn't go to Hell?

The answer is that the mechanical act of baptism is not required for salvation. Otherwise, Christ would not have told the sinful woman or the thief on the cross they are saved.

We agree that it is an important act which shows the world an inward transformation. That was what it was designed for, not some mere sprinkling on a baby's head that serves no purpose.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/us/first-transgender-lutheran-bishop-megan-rohrer-trnd/index.html

I'm glad my church elected to leave the Episcopalians to become Anglican bc we do not support this progressive trash.

muddybrazos said:

---

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/us/first-transgender-lutheran-bishop-megan-rohrer-trnd/index.html

I'm glad my church elected to leave the Episcopalians to become Anglican bc we do not support this progressive trash.

---

His/Her pronouns are "they." SMH.

The Lutheran Church will continue to die a slow death.

I'm good with being a Presbyterian after growing up Baptist. I find most folks at my church very spiritual and not "religious" which is a breath of fresh air.

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/us/first-transgender-lutheran-bishop-megan-rohrer-trnd/index.html

I'm glad my church elected to leave the Episcopalians to become Anglican bc we do not support this progressive trash.

---

His/Her pronouns are "they." SMH.

The Lutheran Church will continue to die a slow death.

---

Rohrer (the confused transgender person) is a Bishop in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

That progressive denomination is in total free fall.

The conservative Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod, is stable and even growing in some places and has 1.9 million members.

Waco1947 said:

---

Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination. They masquerade as different but they align theologically and doctrinally with the Baptists. They coalesce around a general grouping of evangelicals.

---

Nope Waco you are wrong.

Mainline churches include the so-called "Seven Sisters of American Protestantism":

• United Methodist Church
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• The Episcopal Church
• American Baptist Churches
• United Church of Christ
• Disciples of Christ

Some also include in the mainline:

• Quakers
• Reformed Church in America
• African Methodist Episcopal

Several sources claim that the term is derived from the Philadelphia main line, a group of affluent suburbs of Philadelphia; most residents belonged to mainline denominations. Today, most mainline Protestants remain rooted in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States. C. Kirk Hadaway and Penny Long Marler define the term as follows: "the term 'mainline Protestant' is used along with 'mainstream Protestant' and 'oldline Protestant' to categorize denominations that are affiliated with the National Council of Churches and have deep historical roots in and long-standing influence on American society."


Therefore Non-denominational churches and Southern Baptists are not mainline by the very definition of the term.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Important, and matters of salvation, are two different things. Since when did baptism and communion becomes prerequisites to being saved? Not in any verses I have read.

---

I believe Jesus, Peter, and Luke would disagree ...

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mothra said:

---

I agree they remain important. I am not sure any leader in my church would say otherwise.

---

Serious question, what or who gives them authority to make that decision when it is clearly anti-biblical?

---

Scripture is clear that salvation cannot be attained by the works of man. As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Christians were expected, even commanded, to be baptized. However, scripture is clear that the act of baptism is an expression of faith and obedience, not the means of salvation. (See Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:35.) Is Peter contradicting that idea when he writes that baptism now saves us? is Christ contradicting his words in John 3:16-18 that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life and that whoever believes in him is not condemned (notice no mention of baptism in these verses)? Of course not. Clearly, based on their other teachings and writings, neither Christ nor Peter is suggesting that the mechanical act of being baptized is what makes a person saved for eternity. Instead, taking the verses as a whole, they seem to be saying that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead saves us. It is this resurrection which Christians publicly express their faith in when being baptized.

Finally, I point you to the thief on the cross next to Christ. He committed crimes worthy of death, yet he was the very first Christian. Because of his mere belief, Christ told him, "Today, you will be with me in paradise." I don't recall scripture talking about him being baptized while he was crucified, do you? Nope. Instead, it was his faith that saved him.

I am sad you subscribe to a works-based faith, my friend. It must be very disheartening, in addition to being unbiblical.

---

Well argued

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination. They masquerade as different but they align theologically and doctrinally with the Baptists. They coalesce around a general grouping of evangelicals.

---

Nope Waco you are wrong.

Mainline churches include the so-called "Seven Sisters of American Protestantism":

• United Methodist Church
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• The Episcopal Church
• American Baptist Churches
• United Church of Christ
• Disciples of Christ

Some also include in the mainline:

• Quakers
• Reformed Church in America
• African Methodist Episcopal

Several sources claim that the term is derived from the Philadelphia main line, a group of affluent suburbs of Philadelphia; most residents belonged to mainline denominations. Today, most mainline Protestants remain rooted in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States. C. Kirk Hadaway and Penny Long Marler define the term as follows: "the term 'mainline Protestant' is used along with 'mainstream Protestant' and 'oldline Protestant' to categorize denominations that are affiliated with the National Council of Churches and have deep historical roots in and long-standing influence on American society."


Therefore Non-denominational churches and Southern Baptists are not mainline by the very definition of the term.

---

You are right but you missed the point. "Non-denoms" are a denomination united by doctrine.

Mothra said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

---

Pretty much all Christian denominations in the US are declining. Including conservative ones like the Southern Baptist Convention. And the SBC's decline is more severe than his numbers show. SBC numbers are based on membership, not attendance. If you tracked attendance, the decline would be about as steep as Methodists. The video seem ignores conservative declines. Many conservative churches have abandoned evangelism for culture war.

Roman Catholics would also be in a steep decline in the U.S. were it not for growth from Latino immigrants.

The decline is much more complex than liberal or conservative theology. The video pursues the simplistic, inadequate thesis that conservative theology is the difference. I meet lots of people who call themselves "recovering Baptist" or "recovering Catholic" who are spiritual but who have rejected their former churches for various reasons.

The heart of the problem for many churches is that they refuse to move away from institutional thinking and move to missional and incarnational thinking. They think too much about satisfying their members and too little about reaching out in love and grace to people outside their churches. This issue transcends theology.

---

The non-denominational bible church is growing in large numbers. Many of the mainline denominations are seeing congregants flock to them. It's what happens when you actually preach the word of God, and stick to the fundamentals, instead of tickling the ears of the woke generation.

---

Pentecostal churches are growing even faster, particularly those that feature the Prosperity Gospel. Does this mean their preaching is closer to the Bible than Bible churches?

Also, the Southern Baptist Convention was growing at a high rate in the late 1960s and the 1970s, when it was allegedly "liberal." Now that it's more conservative, it's declining. Does that mean it was doing a better job honoring the Bible when it was more liberal?

---

A google search provided no evidence of your position on the prosperity gospel - which has been a big player for years on television. Has it grown since the 80's? Not sure. Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton and the like have always seemed to make a lot of money from it, but their viewership and congregations have markedly declined. Sure, there are people like Osteen who take their place, and perhaps always will be. There will always be people who make money by distorting the gospel. Hell, it happened in Paul's time.

Can't comment on how liberal the SBC was in the 60's and 70's. I highly doubt they strayed from biblical teachings, however, given what I know about the denomination.

---

I was thinking of church growth in a global setting. If you dig a bit deeper into missionary literature, you'll find that the fastest-growing brand of Christianity in a global sense is Pentecostalism with a prosperity bent. My missionary friends in Africa and S. America testify to it as well.

My point is equating church growth with conservatism and biblical faithfulness is a tricky proposition. The fact that a church or denomination is growing or declining isn't necessarily in indicator of its faithfulness to the scriptures. Growth and decline comes from a complex interaction of theology, demographics, birth rates, social change, and more.

What we should be talking about more is the fastest-growing segment of the American population: the Nones. They're people who've dropped out of church for various reasons. Many of them are spiritual, but don't identify with any religion. I run into them every day. They've dropped out of both conservative and liberal churches.

Interestingly, conservative theology and church membership and attendance aren't as connected as they once were. For example, a considerable number of people identify themselves as evangelical but don't attend church. This doesn't make sense to me, but it's a reality.

Also, I think the conservatism/liberalism of the church is less important than its sense of mission. I've seen conservative churches with no sense of mission or real evangelism. And I've seen liberal churches with both. So until the mentality of church folks changes, it doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative. Their churches are going to die.

---

Yes, I agree the prosperity gospel is a big player in Africa in particular. I cannot comment on S. America, but wouldn't be surprised.

My position does not suggest that false teachings cannot take hold and gain a following. Indeed, they can and have - throughout Church history. I am also not suggesting that the ONLY reason that the bible church is growing is because it's conservative, though I think there is really no disputing that adherence to the fundamentals is a huge part of it's growing membership. Part and parcel with adherence to the fundamentals is a heavy emphasis on the mission field. Indeed, more than half of my bible church's annual budget goes to the mission field, which would I suspect would be highly unusual in one of the traditional denominations. Christ did call us to be fishers of men after all.

So, where we are going to disagree is on the last part. I believe there is strong evidence that the reason the Bible church is growing, and the traditional denominations are declining is indeed because of the former's adherence to the fundamentals. It's extremely rare to find a liberal church nowdays that is thriving.

---

Nondenominational churches as whole are growing because more Christians are disillusioned with denominations. The great majority of people who are going to these Bible churches weren't "lost" people joining. And the great majority aren't coming from Mainstream churches. They're coming from conservative denominational churches. Even Bible churches adhere to fewer doctrinal details than denominational churches of the past.

These are the trends I've seen over the last 50 years. Mainstream denominational churches to more evangelical denominational churches. More evangelical denominational churches to nondenominational churches. Nondenominational churches to no church.

I've also seen even among conservative churches that the issues people regard as most important have shifted radically. 50 years ago, issues like the meaning of baptism and the Lord's Supper, the nature of church governance, the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, etc., were really important. Today, they've been replaced by abortion, homosexuality, the role of women, the Second Amendment, and loyalty to Trump.

So matters of salvation have become less important among people who identify as biblically conservative and cultural issues have become much more important.

---

Brother, I need to know where you go to church.

That's sounds like what you've been told is going on. Where I attend the bolded aren't mentioned except in passing at most. The last two have never been mentioned at all.

---

Yup. My thoughts exactly. As I said above, this sounds a lot like the assumptions of my liberal friends who haven't darkened the door of an EV church in years.

---

Same here. I've posted this before, but I've attended a prototypical. much-maligned non-denom evangelical megachurch in 3 different major metro areas, and can't recall a single sermon on political issues.

sombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

---

Pretty much all Christian denominations in the US are declining. Including conservative ones like the Southern Baptist Convention. And the SBC's decline is more severe than his numbers show. SBC numbers are based on membership, not attendance. If you tracked attendance, the decline would be about as steep as Methodists. The video seem ignores conservative declines. Many conservative churches have abandoned evangelism for culture war.

Roman Catholics would also be in a steep decline in the U.S. were it not for growth from Latino immigrants.

The decline is much more complex than liberal or conservative theology. The video pursues the simplistic, inadequate thesis that conservative theology is the difference. I meet lots of people who call themselves "recovering Baptist" or "recovering Catholic" who are spiritual but who have rejected their former churches for various reasons.

The heart of the problem for many churches is that they refuse to move away from institutional thinking and move to missional and incarnational thinking. They think too much about satisfying their members and too little about reaching out in love and grace to people outside their churches. This issue transcends theology.

---

The non-denominational bible church is growing in large numbers. Many of the mainline denominations are seeing congregants flock to them. It's what happens when you actually preach the word of God, and stick to the fundamentals, instead of tickling the ears of the woke generation.

---

Pentecostal churches are growing even faster, particularly those that feature the Prosperity Gospel. Does this mean their preaching is closer to the Bible than Bible churches?

Also, the Southern Baptist Convention was growing at a high rate in the late 1960s and the 1970s, when it was allegedly "liberal." Now that it's more conservative, it's declining. Does that mean it was doing a better job honoring the Bible when it was more liberal?

---

A google search provided no evidence of your position on the prosperity gospel - which has been a big player for years on television. Has it grown since the 80's? Not sure. Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton and the like have always seemed to make a lot of money from it, but their viewership and congregations have markedly declined. Sure, there are people like Osteen who take their place, and perhaps always will be. There will always be people who make money by distorting the gospel. Hell, it happened in Paul's time.

Can't comment on how liberal the SBC was in the 60's and 70's. I highly doubt they strayed from biblical teachings, however, given what I know about the denomination.

---

I was thinking of church growth in a global setting. If you dig a bit deeper into missionary literature, you'll find that the fastest-growing brand of Christianity in a global sense is Pentecostalism with a prosperity bent. My missionary friends in Africa and S. America testify to it as well.

My point is equating church growth with conservatism and biblical faithfulness is a tricky proposition. The fact that a church or denomination is growing or declining isn't necessarily in indicator of its faithfulness to the scriptures. Growth and decline comes from a complex interaction of theology, demographics, birth rates, social change, and more.

What we should be talking about more is the fastest-growing segment of the American population: the Nones. They're people who've dropped out of church for various reasons. Many of them are spiritual, but don't identify with any religion. I run into them every day. They've dropped out of both conservative and liberal churches.

Interestingly, conservative theology and church membership and attendance aren't as connected as they once were. For example, a considerable number of people identify themselves as evangelical but don't attend church. This doesn't make sense to me, but it's a reality.

Also, I think the conservatism/liberalism of the church is less important than its sense of mission. I've seen conservative churches with no sense of mission or real evangelism. And I've seen liberal churches with both. So until the mentality of church folks changes, it doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative. Their churches are going to die.

---

Yes, I agree the prosperity gospel is a big player in Africa in particular. I cannot comment on S. America, but wouldn't be surprised.

My position does not suggest that false teachings cannot take hold and gain a following. Indeed, they can and have - throughout Church history. I am also not suggesting that the ONLY reason that the bible church is growing is because it's conservative, though I think there is really no disputing that adherence to the fundamentals is a huge part of it's growing membership. Part and parcel with adherence to the fundamentals is a heavy emphasis on the mission field. Indeed, more than half of my bible church's annual budget goes to the mission field, which would I suspect would be highly unusual in one of the traditional denominations. Christ did call us to be fishers of men after all.

So, where we are going to disagree is on the last part. I believe there is strong evidence that the reason the Bible church is growing, and the traditional denominations are declining is indeed because of the former's adherence to the fundamentals. It's extremely rare to find a liberal church nowdays that is thriving.

---

Nondenominational churches as whole are growing because more Christians are disillusioned with denominations. The great majority of people who are going to these Bible churches weren't "lost" people joining. And the great majority aren't coming from Mainstream churches. They're coming from conservative denominational churches. Even Bible churches adhere to fewer doctrinal details than denominational churches of the past.

These are the trends I've seen over the last 50 years. Mainstream denominational churches to more evangelical denominational churches. More evangelical denominational churches to nondenominational churches. Nondenominational churches to no church.

I've also seen even among conservative churches that the issues people regard as most important have shifted radically. 50 years ago, issues like the meaning of baptism and the Lord's Supper, the nature of church governance, the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, etc., were really important. Today, they've been replaced by abortion, homosexuality, the role of women, the Second Amendment, and loyalty to Trump.

So matters of salvation have become less important among people who identify as biblically conservative and cultural issues have become much more important.

---

Brother, I need to know where you go to church.

That's sounds like what you've been told is going on. Where I attend the bolded aren't mentioned except in passing at most. The last two have never been mentioned at all.

---

Yup. My thoughts exactly. As I said above, this sounds a lot like the assumptions of my liberal friends who haven't darkened the door of an EV church in years.

---

Same here. I've posted this before, but I've attended a prototypical. much-maligned non-denom evangelical megachurch in 3 different major metro areas, and can't recall a single sermon on political issues.

---

Me neither

sombear said:

---

Same here. I've posted this before, but I've attended a prototypical. much-maligned non-denom evangelical megachurch in 3 different major metro areas, and can't recall a single sermon on political issues.

---

Why do you think that's so? I've never been to a megachurch (and most likely never will); however, the critical thinker in me would believe preaching politics is bad for business. That type of talk splits the congregation in half.

I do frankly ask, what does one mean by "politics"? Abortion, same-sex attraction? That's not politics, that morality.

Mothra said:

---

But it is a work, my friend. Anything that we do on our own - including belief - is a work. But God says in scripture he has done the work for us, and that there is NOTHING we can do to earn salvation.

---

That's exactly what I said. No one can EARN salvation. It's a free gift, but we have to accept and cooperate with that gift, else EVERYONE would go to Heaven.

Mothra said:

---

And again, I present you with the unbaptized thief on the cross. If a mechanical act of baptism is a necessity, then once again, why did Christ tell the thief he was saved?

---

Again, I present baptism by desire.

Do you think that Jesus doesn't have the capability to operate OUTSIDE the sacraments? He spoke the word and the entire universe came into existence. I believe that he can save the unrighteous by speaking it directly to him.

We are bound by them, God isn't.

Mothra said:

---

Why did Christ tell the woman in Luke chapter 7 that her faith has saved her? How could she be saved if she wasn't baptized? Why did he not instruct her to immediately go get baptized so that she wouldn't go to Hell?

---

Step one in accepting the gift - REPENT. She did.

Mothra said:

---

The answer is that the mechanical act of baptism is not required for salvation. Otherwise, Christ would not have told the sinful woman or the thief on the cross they are saved.

We agree that it is an important act which shows the world an inward transformation. That was what it was designed for, not some mere sprinkling on a baby's head that serves no purpose.

---

What about those babies that die at birth or as totterers or those that haven't reached the age of reason? Are they bound for hell? They didn't make an alter call or recite some sinner's prayer.

Finally, I make this offer sincerely, if you're ever in Waco and would like to meet up at George's and split a few beers and some chips and salsa, I'd love to discuss theology with you.

Coke Bear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Same here. I've posted this before, but I've attended a prototypical. much-maligned non-denom evangelical megachurch in 3 different major metro areas, and can't recall a single sermon on political issues.

---

Why do you think that's so? I've never been to a megachurch (and most likely never will); however, the critical thinker in me would believe preaching politics is bad for business. That type of talk splits the congregation in half.

I do frankly ask, what does one mean by "politics"? Abortion, same-sex attraction? That's not politics, that morality.

---

Great question. I don't think it's fear because they take firm stances in controversial/difficult biblical topics. My guess is they just think it's more important to focus on salvation, grace, love, marriage, etc. I was good friends with our teaching pastor at our church up north. He was pro-life and voted GOP but it's not something he talked about at church or socially. Also, I'm not saying they never mentioned a political topic.I'm saying it was never the focus of a sermon.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

But it is a work, my friend. Anything that we do on our own - including belief - is a work. But God says in scripture he has done the work for us, and that there is NOTHING we can do to earn salvation.

---

That's exactly what I said. No one can EARN salvation. It's a free gift, but we have to accept and cooperate with that gift, else EVERYONE would go to Heaven.

Mothra said:

---

And again, I present you with the unbaptized thief on the cross. If a mechanical act of baptism is a necessity, then once again, why did Christ tell the thief he was saved?

---

Again, I present baptism by desire.

Do you think that Jesus doesn't have the capability to operate OUTSIDE the sacraments? He spoke the word and the entire universe came into existence. I believe that he can save the unrighteous by speaking it directly to him.

We are bound by them, God isn't.

Mothra said:

---

Why did Christ tell the woman in Luke chapter 7 that her faith has saved her? How could she be saved if she wasn't baptized? Why did he not instruct her to immediately go get baptized so that she wouldn't go to Hell?

---

Step one in accepting the gift - REPENT. She did.

Mothra said:

---

The answer is that the mechanical act of baptism is not required for salvation. Otherwise, Christ would not have told the sinful woman or the thief on the cross they are saved.

We agree that it is an important act which shows the world an inward transformation. That was what it was designed for, not some mere sprinkling on a baby's head that serves no purpose.

---

What about those babies that die at birth or as totterers or those that haven't reached the age of reason? Are they bound for hell? They didn't make an alter call or recite some sinner's prayer.

Finally, I make this offer sincerely, if you're ever in Waco and would like to meet up at George's and split a few beers and some chips and salsa, I'd love to discuss theology with you.

---

Let me just say I appreciate the civil discussion and would be happy to meet you at George's for a beer and some chips and salsa.

I think the bottom line for me is that there just isn't any evidence in scripture that baptism is required. The very belief contradicts Christ's most famous words in John chapter 3.You admit yourself that Christ can waive the requirement for certain people. Then how is it a requirement? The answer is it's not. The person that accepts Christ on their death bed - truly repents and believes - but can't make it to the church to get dunked simply isn't going to hell. That's absurd. The question is whether there was an inward transformation. Salvation is not dependent on some mechanical act.

Appreciate the discussion.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

But it is a work, my friend. Anything that we do on our own - including belief - is a work. But God says in scripture he has done the work for us, and that there is NOTHING we can do to earn salvation.

---

That's exactly what I said. No one can EARN salvation. It's a free gift, but we have to accept and cooperate with that gift, else EVERYONE would go to Heaven.

Mothra said:

---

And again, I present you with the unbaptized thief on the cross. If a mechanical act of baptism is a necessity, then once again, why did Christ tell the thief he was saved?

---

Again, I present baptism by desire.

Do you think that Jesus doesn't have the capability to operate OUTSIDE the sacraments? He spoke the word and the entire universe came into existence. I believe that he can save the unrighteous by speaking it directly to him.

We are bound by them, God isn't.

Mothra said:

---

Why did Christ tell the woman in Luke chapter 7 that her faith has saved her? How could she be saved if she wasn't baptized? Why did he not instruct her to immediately go get baptized so that she wouldn't go to Hell?

---

Step one in accepting the gift - REPENT. She did.

Mothra said:

---

The answer is that the mechanical act of baptism is not required for salvation. Otherwise, Christ would not have told the sinful woman or the thief on the cross they are saved.

We agree that it is an important act which shows the world an inward transformation. That was what it was designed for, not some mere sprinkling on a baby's head that serves no purpose.

---

What about those babies that die at birth or as totterers or those that haven't reached the age of reason? Are they bound for hell? They didn't make an alter call or recite some sinner's prayer.

Finally, I make this offer sincerely, if you're ever in Waco and would like to meet up at George's and split a few beers and some chips and salsa, I'd love to discuss theology with you.

---

Let me just say I appreciate the civil discussion and would be happy to meet you at George's for a beer and some chips and salsa.

I think the bottom line for me is that there just isn't any evidence in scripture that baptism is required. The very belief contradicts Christ's most famous words in John chapter 3.You admit yourself that Christ can waive the requirement for certain people. Then how is it a requirement? The answer is it's not. The person that accepts Christ on their death bed - truly repents and believes - but can't make it to the church to get dunked simply isn't going to hell. That's absurd. The question is whether there was an inward transformation. Salvation is not dependent on some mechanical act.

Appreciate the discussion.

---

Discussion well done

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination. They masquerade as different but they align theologically and doctrinally with the Baptists. They coalesce around a general grouping of evangelicals.

---

Nope Waco you are wrong.

Mainline churches include the so-called "Seven Sisters of American Protestantism":

• United Methodist Church
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• The Episcopal Church
• American Baptist Churches
• United Church of Christ
• Disciples of Christ

Some also include in the mainline:

• Quakers
• Reformed Church in America
• African Methodist Episcopal

Several sources claim that the term is derived from the Philadelphia main line, a group of affluent suburbs of Philadelphia; most residents belonged to mainline denominations. Today, most mainline Protestants remain rooted in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States. C. Kirk Hadaway and Penny Long Marler define the term as follows: "the term 'mainline Protestant' is used along with 'mainstream Protestant' and 'oldline Protestant' to categorize denominations that are affiliated with the National Council of Churches and have deep historical roots in and long-standing influence on American society."


Therefore Non-denominational churches and Southern Baptists are not mainline by the very definition of the term.

---

You are right but you missed the point. "Non-denoms" are a denomination united by doctrine.

---

"Waco1947 said: Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination."

So again be a man and admit that you were wrong and that non-denominational churches are not mainline in the pure meaning of the term.

Second, your argument about them even being a denomination is debatable. It depends on what definition of "denomination" you use.

[denomination is often defined as a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian church.]

[a single religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices]

Non-denominations are certainly not members of a single religious organization. They may or may not be united in terms of beliefs and practices.

Its a debatable idea. I'm not sure why you are determined to try and make them fit the into the denomination box. Unless its so you can more easily stereotype and demean them.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Important, and matters of salvation, are two different things. Since when did baptism and communion becomes prerequisites to being saved? Not in any verses I have read.

---

I believe Jesus, Peter, and Luke would disagree ...

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mothra said:

---

I agree they remain important. I am not sure any leader in my church would say otherwise.

---

Serious question, what or who gives them authority to make that decision when it is clearly anti-biblical?

---

Scripture is clear that salvation cannot be attained by the works of man. As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Christians were expected, even commanded, to be baptized. However, scripture is clear that the act of baptism is an expression of faith and obedience, not the means of salvation. (See Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:35.) Is Peter contradicting that idea when he writes that baptism now saves us? is Christ contradicting his words in John 3:16-18 that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life and that whoever believes in him is not condemned (notice no mention of baptism in these verses)? Of course not. Clearly, based on their other teachings and writings, neither Christ nor Peter is suggesting that the mechanical act of being baptized is what makes a person saved for eternity. Instead, taking the verses as a whole, they seem to be saying that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead saves us. It is this resurrection which Christians publicly express their faith in when being baptized.

Finally, I point you to the thief on the cross next to Christ. He committed crimes worthy of death, yet he was the very first Christian. Because of his mere belief, Christ told him, "Today, you will be with me in paradise." I don't recall scripture talking about him being baptized while he was crucified, do you? Nope. Instead, it was his faith that saved him.

I am sad you subscribe to a works-based faith, my friend. It must be very disheartening, in addition to being unbiblical.

---

This is an excellent discussion, and excellent points. I grew up in the church of Christ and would have fought these point tooth and nail up until August 2000. This is the verse I would have been stuck on. Acts 2:38

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I believed the act of being baptized meant the Holy Spirit would then dwell in you, as I was taught from childhood, but the fact is believing is what causes the spirit to indwell.

Quote:

---

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

---

When a fellow church member tried to convince me, those people were not yet saved, but still had to be baptized to be saved as commanded, I had to disagree.

Quote:

---

And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. (Ephesians 1:13 NLT).

---

This is why I had to disagree, the Holy Spirit dwelling in them meant they were marked or identified with Christ, they weren't dying, they didn't have baptism unavailable, they simply believed in their heart and Christ credited that to them as righteousness and the Holy Spirit indwelling verified they believed.

Here is the problem with people, you can control being physically baptized by your own actions. You cannot control your belief. You either do believe or you do not believe. You cannot by work or force make yourself believe, but Christ knows if you do, and gives you the Holy Spirit if you do. That is his work, nothing you can fake. Anybody can be physically baptized, only a believer has the indwelling of the Spirit. It's that simple.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Important, and matters of salvation, are two different things. Since when did baptism and communion becomes prerequisites to being saved? Not in any verses I have read.

---

I believe Jesus, Peter, and Luke would disagree ...

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mothra said:

---

I agree they remain important. I am not sure any leader in my church would say otherwise.

---

Serious question, what or who gives them authority to make that decision when it is clearly anti-biblical?

---

Scripture is clear that salvation cannot be attained by the works of man. As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Christians were expected, even commanded, to be baptized. However, scripture is clear that the act of baptism is an expression of faith and obedience, not the means of salvation. (See Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:35.) Is Peter contradicting that idea when he writes that baptism now saves us? is Christ contradicting his words in John 3:16-18 that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life and that whoever believes in him is not condemned (notice no mention of baptism in these verses)? Of course not. Clearly, based on their other teachings and writings, neither Christ nor Peter is suggesting that the mechanical act of being baptized is what makes a person saved for eternity. Instead, taking the verses as a whole, they seem to be saying that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead saves us. It is this resurrection which Christians publicly express their faith in when being baptized.

Finally, I point you to the thief on the cross next to Christ. He committed crimes worthy of death, yet he was the very first Christian. Because of his mere belief, Christ told him, "Today, you will be with me in paradise." I don't recall scripture talking about him being baptized while he was crucified, do you? Nope. Instead, it was his faith that saved him.

I am sad you subscribe to a works-based faith, my friend. It must be very disheartening, in addition to being unbiblical.

---

This is an excellent discussion, and excellent points. I grew up in the church of Christ and would have fought these point tooth and nail up until August 2000. This is the verse I would have been stuck on. Acts 2:38

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I believed the act of being baptized meant the Holy Spirit would then dwell in you, as I was taught from childhood, but the fact is believing is what causes the spirit to indwell.

Quote:

---

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

---

When a fellow church member tried to convince me, those people were not yet saved, but still had to be baptized to be saved as commanded, I had to disagree.

Quote:

---

And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. (Ephesians 1:13 NLT).

---

This is why I had to disagree, the Holy Spirit dwelling in them meant they were marked or identified with Christ, they weren't dying, they didn't have baptism unavailable, they simply believed in their heart and Christ credited that to them as righteousness and the Holy Spirit indwelling verified they believed.

Here is the problem with people, you can control being physically baptized by your own actions. You cannot control your belief. You either do believe or you do not believe. You cannot by work or force make yourself believe, but Christ knows if you do, and gives you the Holy Spirit if you do. That is his work, nothing you can fake. Anybody can be physically baptized, only a believer has he indwelling of the Spirit. It's that simple.

---

Very good points. Romans 10:9-10 also speaks to this issue:

"If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."

Mothra said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Important, and matters of salvation, are two different things. Since when did baptism and communion becomes prerequisites to being saved? Not in any verses I have read.

---

I believe Jesus, Peter, and Luke would disagree ...

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mothra said:

---

I agree they remain important. I am not sure any leader in my church would say otherwise.

---

Serious question, what or who gives them authority to make that decision when it is clearly anti-biblical?

---

Scripture is clear that salvation cannot be attained by the works of man. As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.

Christians were expected, even commanded, to be baptized. However, scripture is clear that the act of baptism is an expression of faith and obedience, not the means of salvation. (See Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:35.) Is Peter contradicting that idea when he writes that baptism now saves us? is Christ contradicting his words in John 3:16-18 that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life and that whoever believes in him is not condemned (notice no mention of baptism in these verses)? Of course not. Clearly, based on their other teachings and writings, neither Christ nor Peter is suggesting that the mechanical act of being baptized is what makes a person saved for eternity. Instead, taking the verses as a whole, they seem to be saying that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead saves us. It is this resurrection which Christians publicly express their faith in when being baptized.

Finally, I point you to the thief on the cross next to Christ. He committed crimes worthy of death, yet he was the very first Christian. Because of his mere belief, Christ told him, "Today, you will be with me in paradise." I don't recall scripture talking about him being baptized while he was crucified, do you? Nope. Instead, it was his faith that saved him.

I am sad you subscribe to a works-based faith, my friend. It must be very disheartening, in addition to being unbiblical.

---

This is an excellent discussion, and excellent points. I grew up in the church of Christ and would have fought these point tooth and nail up until August 2000. This is the verse I would have been stuck on. Acts 2:38

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I believed the act of being baptized meant the Holy Spirit would then dwell in you, as I was taught from childhood, but the fact is believing is what causes the spirit to indwell.

Quote:

---

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

---

When a fellow church member tried to convince me, those people were not yet saved, but still had to be baptized to be saved as commanded, I had to disagree.

Quote:

---

And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. (Ephesians 1:13 NLT).

---

This is why I had to disagree, the Holy Spirit dwelling in them meant they were marked or identified with Christ, they weren't dying, they didn't have baptism unavailable, they simply believed in their heart and Christ credited that to them as righteousness and the Holy Spirit indwelling verified they believed.

Here is the problem with people, you can control being physically baptized by your own actions. You cannot control your belief. You either do believe or you do not believe. You cannot by work or force make yourself believe, but Christ knows if you do, and gives you the Holy Spirit if you do. That is his work, nothing you can fake. Anybody can be physically baptized, only a believer has he indwelling of the Spirit. It's that simple.

---

Very good points. Romans 10:9-10 also speaks to this issue:

"If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."

---

Amen to this.

Mothra said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Non-denominationals are a Mainline denomination. They masquerade as different but they align theologically and doctrinally with the Baptists. They coalesce around a general grouping of evangelicals.

---

This is wrong and exhibits an ignorance of nondenominational churches. I grew up Baptist, and since college have attended various nondenominational churches, many of which are not only different doctrinally from Baptists but also each other.

---

I appreciate the response. Share with me the differences you experienced

Mothra said:

---

Let me just say I appreciate the civil discussion and would be happy to meet you at George's for a beer and some chips and salsa.

I think the bottom line for me is that there just isn't any evidence in scripture that baptism is required. The very belief contradicts Christ's most famous words in John chapter 3.You admit yourself that Christ can waive the requirement for certain people. Then how is it a requirement? The answer is it's not. The person that accepts Christ on their death bed - truly repents and believes - but can't make it to the church to get dunked simply isn't going to hell. That's absurd. The question is whether there was an inward transformation. Salvation is not dependent on some mechanical act.

Appreciate the discussion.

---

I've offered 1 Peter 3:21 "Baptism now saves you " which is very clear. I've also offered 4 other passages.

With respect to the mechanical act of baptism, I've offered baptism by desire and fire. I've also stated that we are bound by the sacraments, God isn't. I'll offer one last biblical passage in Matthew 28:19:

"Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

These are the last words that Christ gives us - Baptism using the trinitarian formula. It's obviously important and not merely a symbol.

I've offered all this, and you will not accept this evidence. We can both volley bible verse at each other all day and it will get us nowhere. Using a single verse without context is a dangerous and loose way to achieve one's theology. One must look at the entire context of the verse.

Therefore let's look at the early church fathers say about baptismal regeneration -

The Shepard of Herman A.D 80 - "'I have heard, sir,' said I [to the Shepherd], 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'".

Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) - "This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit."

Justin Martyr 151 A.D. - "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:3]"

In the interest of brevity, I'll submit these websites as samplings of the church fathers that believed in baptismal regeneration

https://www.churchfathers.org/necessity-of-baptism
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/the-church-fathers-on-baptismal-regeneration/

The first so-called reformer to disagree with the principal was Zwingli. His quote on baptism was:

"I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. . . . All the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach."

I find it hard to believe that Christ would let His Church to be in error for 1500+ years, including both Luther and Calvin. Quite frankly, his statement reeks of arrogance.

Why should I believe a viewpoint that goes against the bible, is contra to those closest to source, and a belief that was held by all until the 16th century?

I do not have time to read this entire post at the moment, but I think I will enjoy it.

One though to leave from an old man - most of neighborhood growing up went to church. We prayed in school and at football games. Things were much different then. However, has the heart of the average American really changed? Were the mainline churches, and their participation, just part of our society? Are there really less true believers as a percentage today or were there a lot of people going through the motions, trying to live a "good" life, being seen as a community or family person that filled those seats. Somewhere along the way, many pastors quit preaching the word and preached to fill the seats. Maybe that is the only way to keep people who are not true believers from staying home.

America has changed a lot in my lifetime. I am a former Baptist who sits in a non-denominational church for the reasons some have stated here. I do believe that if you preach what is in the Bible that people will respond. This has also created a rise in "large" churches and also "fringe" churches, at least by my calling, that preach prosperity and tongues.

Those that are hungry for the word of God are still seeking. Those who aren't, can't stay home today.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let me just say I appreciate the civil discussion and would be happy to meet you at George's for a beer and some chips and salsa.

I think the bottom line for me is that there just isn't any evidence in scripture that baptism is required. The very belief contradicts Christ's most famous words in John chapter 3.You admit yourself that Christ can waive the requirement for certain people. Then how is it a requirement? The answer is it's not. The person that accepts Christ on their death bed - truly repents and believes - but can't make it to the church to get dunked simply isn't going to hell. That's absurd. The question is whether there was an inward transformation. Salvation is not dependent on some mechanical act.

Appreciate the discussion.

---

I've offered 1 Peter 3:21 "Baptism now saves you " which is very clear. I've also offered 4 other passages.

With respect to the mechanical act of baptism, I've offered baptism by desire and fire. I've also stated that we are bound by the sacraments, God isn't. I'll offer one last biblical passage in Matthew 28:19:

"Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

These are the last words that Christ gives us - Baptism using the trinitarian formula. It's obviously important and not merely a symbol.

I've offered all this, and you will not accept this evidence. We can both volley bible verse at each other all day and it will get us nowhere. Using a single verse without context is a dangerous and loose way to achieve one's theology. One must look at the entire context of the verse.

Therefore let's look at the early church fathers say about baptismal regeneration -

The Shepard of Herman A.D 80 - "'I have heard, sir,' said I [to the Shepherd], 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'".

Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) - "This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit."

Justin Martyr 151 A.D. - "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:3]"

In the interest of brevity, I'll submit these websites as samplings of the church fathers that believed in baptismal regeneration

https://www.churchfathers.org/necessity-of-baptism
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/the-church-fathers-on-baptismal-regeneration/

The first so-called reformer to disagree with the principal was Zwingli. His quote on baptism was:

"I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. . . . All the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach."

I find it hard to believe that Christ would let His Church to be in error for 1500+ years, including both Luther and Calvin. Quite frankly, his statement reeks of arrogance.

Why should I believe a viewpoint that goes against the bible, is contra to those closest to source, and a belief that was held by all until the 16th century?

---

Perhaps we are talking past each other. If you are saying baptism is not the act of dunking or sprinkling, but encompasses something different, such as true repentance and conversion, while I do not agree that the scriptural text supports the view that is "baptism," perhaps it is akin to a true conversion for Catholics and we are merely arguing semantics. It appears you concede that the mechanical act of baptism by water is unnecessary. Indeed, none of the verses you cited call it a requirement, and we have examples in scripture of those who were not baptized by water, but still saved.

As for baptism by desire, I am not sure what that is so I looked it up and here is what it says: a teaching of the Anglican Communion, Lutheran Church and Roman Catholic Church explaining that those who desire baptism, but are not baptized with water through the Christian Sacrament because of death, nevertheless receive the fruits of Baptism at the moment of death if their grace of conversion included "divine and catholic faith", an internal act of perfect charity, and perfect contrition by which their soul was cleansed of all sin."

Quite frankly, I am not sure what the heck all of this means, nor do I find scriptural support for this view.

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

---

Pretty much all Christian denominations in the US are declining. Including conservative ones like the Southern Baptist Convention. And the SBC's decline is more severe than his numbers show. SBC numbers are based on membership, not attendance. If you tracked attendance, the decline would be about as steep as Methodists. The video seem ignores conservative declines. Many conservative churches have abandoned evangelism for culture war.

Roman Catholics would also be in a steep decline in the U.S. were it not for growth from Latino immigrants.

The decline is much more complex than liberal or conservative theology. The video pursues the simplistic, inadequate thesis that conservative theology is the difference. I meet lots of people who call themselves "recovering Baptist" or "recovering Catholic" who are spiritual but who have rejected their former churches for various reasons.

The heart of the problem for many churches is that they refuse to move away from institutional thinking and move to missional and incarnational thinking. They think too much about satisfying their members and too little about reaching out in love and grace to people outside their churches. This issue transcends theology.

---

The non-denominational bible church is growing in large numbers. Many of the mainline denominations are seeing congregants flock to them. It's what happens when you actually preach the word of God, and stick to the fundamentals, instead of tickling the ears of the woke generation.

---

Pentecostal churches are growing even faster, particularly those that feature the Prosperity Gospel. Does this mean their preaching is closer to the Bible than Bible churches?

Also, the Southern Baptist Convention was growing at a high rate in the late 1960s and the 1970s, when it was allegedly "liberal." Now that it's more conservative, it's declining. Does that mean it was doing a better job honoring the Bible when it was more liberal?

---

Can't comment on how liberal the SBC was in the 60's and 70's. I highly doubt they strayed from biblical teachings, however, given what I know about the denomination.

---

Paul Pressler et al l disagree with you.