Phil Robertson's testimony (Duck Dynasty)

[ALAYMAN]

Mormons profess to believe in Jesus the Son of God, and usually live some of the most wholesome and conservatively moral existences on earth.  They also preach another gospel, and I would hope that Bible believing Christians would not wish them godspeed either, because doctrine really does matter.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=graceandtruth]Since he addresses the "churches" in Galatia so this is a reference to local assemblies.  We are all aware that "churches" contain all types including believers, those who think they are believers, and those who are non-believers and know it. [/quote]

Then he spends the entire letter telling them why their beliefs are in error, while addressing them as believers.

[quote author=graceandtruth]I agree with you that people in churches hold all kinds of views that are unbiblical but their presence in the assembly does not mean they are believers.[/quote]

Right. Neither does holding unbiblical beliefs necessarily make one an unbeliever.

 

[rsc2a]

Mormons profess to believe in Jesus the Son of God, and usually live some of the most wholesome and conservatively moral existences on earth.

1 - Right beliefs doesn't save anyone.
2 - Good living / works never saved anyone either.
3 - Mormonism wouldn't fit the criteria that I (and most of the Church) would use to determine whether what they practiced was, in fact, a legitimate tradition of Christianity.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]They also preach another gospel...[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...and I would hope that Bible believing Christians would not wish them godspeed either...[/quote]

Why not?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]...because doctrine really does matter.[/quote]

Yes.

 

[Anchor]

Paul, an apostle

 

[Anchor]

Let's face it people, the reason we are defending this distortion of the Gospel is because we are Americans, and a primary idolatry of America is its celebrity culture, and the Duckmasters are the current "Christian" celebrity du jour.  We wouldn't be dancing around the message of the Gospel for any other heresy if we didn't like their television show so much.

This is not to question their personal relationship to Christ.  They very likely are true believers in Christ.  But the doctrine of the church they identify with (baptismal regeneration) smacks of the Galatian heresy, pure and simple.  And their celebrity status can be very well used by Satan to draw sincere people into a faith that is nothing but "another gospel" and not truth.  And that, as the Apostle Paul so eloquently stated, is "anathema."

 

[samspade]

Could someone please explain the difference between "come forward and be baptized to trust Christ" and "come forward and say a prayer to trust Christ?"

 

[rsc2a]

Could someone please explain the difference between "come forward and be baptized to trust Christ" and "come forward and say a prayer to trust Christ?"

One is something "us Baptists" do, and the other is something "those Church of Christers" do.

 

[graceandtruth]

Could someone please explain the difference between "come forward and be baptized to trust Christ" and "come forward and say a prayer to trust Christ?"

None.  Both are an addition to the gospel which makes it another gospel which is not the gospel and it doesn't matter if you are the pastor at FBCH or the dude on Duck Dynasty.

 

[samspade]

Could someone please explain the difference between "come forward and be baptized to trust Christ" and "come forward and say a prayer to trust Christ?"

None.  Both are an addition to the gospel which makes it another gospel which is not the gospel and it doesn't matter if you are the pastor at FBCH or the dude on Duck Dynasty.

Exactly!!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Exactly!!

Although some folk might unknowingly mislead prospective converts by placing the emphasis in the wrong place (the prayer), they aren't preaching a different gospel.  And more to the point, not one of those people who talk about leading folk in a prayer of salvation would insist that the potential convert MUST pray a prayer in order to be saved, unlike the baptismal regenerationists who are dogmatic that the waters must be stirred if the salvation recipe will be completed.  Hence, in all three of the Robertson's (Duck Dynasty) testimonies you hear them make reference to "baptizing a convert into Christ".  The two things mention are both problematic, but one is categorically different than the other.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]And more to the point, not one of those people who talk about leading folk in a prayer of salvation would insist that the potential convert MUST pray a prayer in order to be saved, unlike the baptismal regenerationists who are dogmatic that the waters must be stirred if the salvation recipe will be completed.[/quote]

Actually, I had an IFB pastor tell me personally that if I cannot recall the day and time I "asked Jesus into my heart", then he has a hard time believing I'm "saved".

 

[rsc2a]

Interesting reading:

http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1998spring2.pdf

 

[samspade]

Exactly!!

Although some folk might unknowingly mislead prospective converts by placing the emphasis in the wrong place (the prayer), they aren't preaching a different gospel.  And more to the point, not one of those people who talk about leading folk in a prayer of salvation would insist that the potential convert MUST pray a prayer in order to be saved, unlike the baptismal regenerationists who are dogmatic that the waters must be stirred if the salvation recipe will be completed.  Hence, in all three of the Robertson's (Duck Dynasty) testimonies you hear them make reference to "baptizing a convert into Christ".  The two things mention are both problematic, but one is categorically different than the other.

I have to respectfully go along with rsc2a's observation here. I too have heard numerous preachers say that if you can't recall the exact time and place you asked Jesus to save you, then you aren't saved. I did middle school (junior high then) at Tennessee Temple and never heard anything else.

The bottom line is, if I trust baptism to save me, I'm wrong. If I trust a prayer to save me I'm also wrong.

 

[graceandtruth]

Exactly!!

Although some folk might unknowingly mislead prospective converts by placing the emphasis in the wrong place (the prayer), they aren't preaching a different gospel.  And more to the point, not one of those people who talk about leading folk in a prayer of salvation would insist that the potential convert MUST pray a prayer in order to be saved, unlike the baptismal regenerationists who are dogmatic that the waters must be stirred if the salvation recipe will be completed.  Hence, in all three of the Robertson's (Duck Dynasty) testimonies you hear them make reference to "baptizing a convert into Christ".  The two things mention are both problematic, but one is categorically different than the other.

I have to respectfully go along with rsc2a's observation here. I too have heard numerous preachers say that if you can't recall the exact time and place you asked Jesus to save you, then you aren't saved. I did middle school (junior high then) at Tennessee Temple and never heard anything else.

The bottom line is, if I trust baptism to save me, I'm wrong. If I trust a prayer to save me I'm also wrong.

Consistency............such a rare commodity. 

 

[ChuckBob]

John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


I'm just curious how you deal with their take on those verses.


ChuckBob

The John passage baptism is referring to the spiritual element that water often represents. 

The Acts passage hinges on the preposition "for" <the remission of sins.  For can mean "in order to" or it can mean "because of ".  The Church of Christ folk see the former meaning, that baptism is in order to receive remission of sins, but a simple understanding that we ought to be baptized out of obedience and gratitude because our sins have been remitted (paid for) by Christ on the cross, which we receive in the atonement via faith at the moment we become born again.

Yeah, but if you're going for a strict literal interpretation Phil's on the money. That's what it says. Not a thing about spiritual symbolism of water  and "for the remission of sins. This is just an area where a literal reading doesn't jibe with Baptiost dogma.


ChuckBob

 

[rsc2a]

John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


I'm just curious how you deal with their take on those verses.


ChuckBob

The John passage baptism is referring to the spiritual element that water often represents. 

The Acts passage hinges on the preposition "for" <the remission of sins.  For can mean "in order to" or it can mean "because of ".  The Church of Christ folk see the former meaning, that baptism is in order to receive remission of sins, but a simple understanding that we ought to be baptized out of obedience and gratitude because our sins have been remitted (paid for) by Christ on the cross, which we receive in the atonement via faith at the moment we become born again.

Yeah, but if you're going for a strict literal interpretation Phil's on the money. That's what it says. Not a thing about spiritual symbolism of water  and "for the remission of sins. This is just an area where a literal reading doesn't jibe with Baptiost dogma.


ChuckBob

But...but...but...

..."we" believe in a "literal" meaning, except in those cases where that meaning screws with our personal theology. Those other guys get it wrong because they don't believe in what the Bible plainly teaches, except those spots that they do where they are clearly wrong.

 

[4everfsu]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]And more to the point, not one of those people who talk about leading folk in a prayer of salvation would insist that the potential convert MUST pray a prayer in order to be saved, unlike the baptismal regenerationists who are dogmatic that the waters must be stirred if the salvation recipe will be completed.

Actually, I had an IFB pastor tell me personally that if I cannot recall the day and time I "asked Jesus into my heart", then he has a hard time believing I'm "saved".
[/quote]

I have heard the same thing during my younger days in the IFBX world. I think alot of Christian will be surprised who is in Heaven.

 

[ALAYMAN]

But...but...but...

..."we" believe in a "literal" meaning, except in those cases where that meaning screws with our personal theology. Those other guys get it wrong because they don't believe in what the Bible plainly teaches, except those spots that they do where they are clearly wrong.

Ahhhh, being the strict literalist that you are, you're obviously a transubtantiationalist snake-handler who drinks poison and raises the dead.  Got it.

Yeah, but if you're going for a strict literal interpretation Phil's on the money. That's what it says. Not a thing about spiritual symbolism of water  and "for the remission of sins. This is just an area where a literal reading doesn't jibe with Baptiost dogma.

Well Chuck, do ya think that ole macho-man Phil greets his brethren with a Holy Kiss? 

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're sayin' bout those folk claimin' to be "plain Bible readers" and "just readin' what the Bible is sayin'", but you and I both know that the Bible interprets itself and must be systematically interpreted in order to be "cut right" (rightly divided).

I have to respectfully go along with rsc2a's observation here. I too have heard numerous preachers say that if you can't recall the exact time and place you asked Jesus to save you, then you aren't saved. I did middle school (junior high then) at Tennessee Temple and never heard anything else.

The bottom line is, if I trust baptism to save me, I'm wrong. If I trust a prayer to save me I'm also wrong.

I'm not saying that there aren't people who <wrongly> emphasize the converts focus to the prayer, but rather that those people are ignorant of their error typically.  Most of them would quickly acknowledge, if confronted with the truth you are pointing to, that salvation is by faith in Christ, and that it's not some magic prayer that's necessary.  On the other hand, the CoC folks insist that the gospel is "believe and be baptized".

Interesting reading:

http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1998spring2.pdf

The honorable theologian needs to simply read Mark 16:16, among many other verses that speak of salvation in the context of belief alone.

I have heard the same thing during my younger days in the IFBX world. I think alot of Christian will be surprised who is in Heaven.

I don't doubt that there will be many people from all denominational walks of life in heaven, and many "baptists" who won't.

That aside, sometimes preachers are just too tied to traditions, and even worse, sometimes they're just not good communicators and overly simplistic in articulating truth. I'd bet most of those people that fit sam spade and rsc2a's anecdotal paradigm are not point to the need to say a prayer at some point in life, but rather that a person needs to realize at some point in their life that they are lost, and turn in faith to Christ.  It's just another way of expressing the theological necessity of repentance.

 

[4everfsu]

I would say this fellow is saved based off what he said, of course he did not walk down any aisle... Too bad he passed away at age 40.

Pete Maravich Testimony 1987 (Billy Graham Crusade)

 

[ALAYMAN]

I would say this fellow is saved based off what he said, of course he did not walk down any aisle... Too bad he passed away at age 40.

He was baptized, and, in a Baptist church, so he's got both bases covered, or maybe it's both baskets covered.