Update on First Baptist Church of Hammond

[Smellin Coffee]

The Gospel mixed with anything is not the Gospel.

I must say I'm confused.  Please give your definition of "the Gospel".

I already have. It is the entire revelation of God to humanity. It's not just John 3:16. The TRUTH of God revealed in Christ Jesus. The first off all things. Read Col 2:9-10 and you'll get the picture.

This is incorrect.  The Bible itself tells us what the Gospel is in the opening verses of I Cor 15.

Churches do need to preach the whole counsel of God - the entire body of revealed truth, but that is not the gospel.

Really? You do realize that Paul said.more than just what's written in 1 Corinthians 15. His entire discourse in the book of    Romans is the Gospel he preached. So was Galatians, Colossians..... Etc.

You make void the word of God with your silly traditions. Truth is Truth. It comes from God to Humanity. This is the Good News of Jesus Christ.

The entire body of revealed truth is just that -- the whole counsel of God.  It should be preached, but it is not the gospel.  Baptism is part of that revealed truth, but God writes that the gospel to be separate from baptism, which rather gives the lie to your position that the gospel is all revealed truth.

Prove it. The words you reference are greatly misunderstood in the KJV.

Paul clearly says he baptised others according to the demands of the Gospel. His primary focus was not the Baptism of John. Which is exactly what he was referencing.

Did Peter preach a false gospel when he demanded people "repent AND be baptized for the remission of sin"?

A former pastor of mine (brilliant guy, earned Ph.D. in Greek and NT Studies from a well-respected evangelical seminary and is currently a NT professor at a local seminary) preached one time on the baptism in Peter's message and his entire message was that the word "for" meant "because of". He consistently stated that baptism was "because of" the remission of sin. Later that week (this was when I was a 'sold-out Evangelical'), I spoke to him and asked him, "Since baptism was "because of" the remission of sin and "repent" is conjunctive in the same passage, wouldn't Peter be saying that we also repent "because of" the remission of sin?

He looked me in the eye and said something to the affect, "Yes, they are conjoined in the Greek. But that is opposed to the traditional evangelical message of salvation by grace through faith alone, so I left it out of my message so people wouldn't get confused."

I then asked, "So you manipulated the specific text because it opposed the traditional evangelical salvation message?" He said, "Yes. This verse is most problematic for those of us who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone but that isn't the core of the gospel. I have to preach the whole counsel of God so when I can't explain a passage within that context I don't mention it."

To this day, he remains one of the most humble, sincere men I have ever met and learned a lot from him. But his honest admission was instrumental in my beginning to question that pastors generally don't have much of a choice but to preach an overall evangelical agenda instead of preaching the individual passages of the Bible "as is" *when they are contrary to that particular agenda.



* By "as is", I mean in how the original group of readers would have understood it. In this case, how Theophilus would have understood it without access to Pauline epistles.

 

[rsc2a]

Baptism is a picture of the gospel, not separate from it.

Then if one is not baptized, is there a partial, incomplete gospel?

The gospel is good news. Baptism is both a part of, and a means of sharing, that news.

 

[FSSL]

You are being too vague. People are going to understand that you believe one cannot be saved without being baptized

 

[rsc2a]

Baptism is part of being saved but one does not 'get saved' because they are baptized. They get saved because Jesus saves them.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You are being too vague. People are going to understand that you believe one cannot be saved without being baptized

Nonsense. Quit treating people like babies.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The Gospel mixed with anything is not the Gospel.

I must say I'm confused.  Please give your definition of "the Gospel".

I already have. It is the entire revelation of God to humanity. It's not just John 3:16. The TRUTH of God revealed in Christ Jesus. The first off all things. Read Col 2:9-10 and you'll get the picture.

This is incorrect.  The Bible itself tells us what the Gospel is in the opening verses of I Cor 15.

Churches do need to preach the whole counsel of God - the entire body of revealed truth, but that is not the gospel.

Really? You do realize that Paul said.more than just what's written in 1 Corinthians 15. His entire discourse in the book of    Romans is the Gospel he preached. So was Galatians, Colossians..... Etc.

You make void the word of God with your silly traditions. Truth is Truth. It comes from God to Humanity. This is the Good News of Jesus Christ.

The entire body of revealed truth is just that -- the whole counsel of God.  It should be preached, but it is not the gospel.  Baptism is part of that revealed truth, but God writes that the gospel to be separate from baptism, which rather gives the lie to your position that the gospel is all revealed truth.

Prove it. The words you reference are greatly misunderstood in the KJV.

Paul clearly says he baptised others according to the demands of the Gospel. His primary focus was not the Baptism of John. Which is exactly what he was referencing.

Did Peter preach a false gospel when he demanded people "repent AND be baptized for the remission of sin"?

A former pastor of mine (brilliant guy, earned Ph.D. in Greek and NT Studies from a well-respected evangelical seminary and is currently a NT professor at a local seminary) preached one time on the baptism in Peter's message and his entire message was that the word "for" meant "because of". He consistently stated that baptism was "because of" the remission of sin. Later that week (this was when I was a 'sold-out Evangelical'), I spoke to him and asked him, "Since baptism was "because of" the remission of sin and "repent" is conjunctive in the same passage, wouldn't Peter be saying that we also repent "because of" the remission of sin?

He looked me in the eye and said something to the affect, "Yes, they are conjoined in the Greek. But that is opposed to the traditional evangelical message of salvation by grace through faith alone, so I left it out of my message so people wouldn't get confused."

I then asked, "So you manipulated the specific text because it opposed the traditional evangelical salvation message?" He said, "Yes. This verse is most problematic for those of us who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone but that isn't the core of the gospel. I have to preach the whole counsel of God so when I can't explain a passage within that context I don't mention it."

To this day, he remains one of the most humble, sincere men I have ever met and learned a lot from him. But his honest admission was instrumental in my beginning to question that pastors generally don't have much of a choice but to preach an overall evangelical agenda instead of preaching the individual passages of the Bible "as is" *when they are contrary to that particular agenda.



* By "as is", I mean in how the original group of readers would have understood it. In this case, how Theophilus would have understood it without access to Pauline epistles.

Both of you are ignoring the historical context of Peters message. Peter were talking to Jews that had rejected the message of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. It was necessary for them to deal with their sin of rejecting the message if John and Christ.

People today aren't in the same position and our message isn't one of repent and be Baptised.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Both of you are ignoring the historical context of Peters message. Peter were talking to Jews that had rejected the message of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. It was necessary for them to deal with their sin of rejecting the message if John and Christ.

People today aren't in the same position and our message isn't one of repent and be Baptised.

No, the historical context of baptism was that of PUBLIC identification. Jesus wasn't baptized because "He got saved" but rather because He identified with the message JtB preached.

The thief on the cross couldn't be baptized yet he still was able to make a public identification. For that, he met with Jesus in paradise. The Samaritans and Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8 ) also wanted to be identified with Jesus and they probably didn't know. An interesting thing in that chapter is concerning Simon the sorcerer. Verse 13 says he believed and was baptized yet Peter (in verse 22) told him to repent so he would be forgiven. He had already identified with Christ in baptism without the repentance so there is no mention of him having to get re-dunked. But BOTH the baptism (identification) and repentance were mentioned concerning the salvation of Simon. The only thing it wasn't repentance first but rather baptism first.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Both of you are ignoring the historical context of Peters message. Peter were talking to Jews that had rejected the message of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. It was necessary for them to deal with their sin of rejecting the message if John and Christ.

People today aren't in the same position and our message isn't one of repent and be Baptised.

No, the historical context of baptism was that of PUBLIC identification. Jesus wasn't baptized because "He got saved" but rather because He identified with the message JtB preached.

The thief on the cross couldn't be baptized yet he still was able to make a public identification. For that, he met with Jesus in paradise. The Samaritans and Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) also wanted to be identified with Jesus and they probably didn't know. An interesting thing in that chapter is concerning Simon the sorcerer. Verse 13 says he believed and was baptized yet Peter (in verse 22) told him to repent so he would be forgiven. He had already identified with Christ in baptism without the repentance so there is no mention of him having to get re-dunked. But BOTH the baptism (identification) and repentance were mentioned concerning the salvation of Simon. The only thing it wasn't repentance first but rather baptism first.

That has got to be one of the most convoluted messes I think I've ever read.

It's not even worth with responding to!!!! Enjoy your delusion!

 

[Walt]

The Gospel mixed with anything is not the Gospel.

I must say I'm confused.  Please give your definition of "the Gospel".

I already have. It is the entire revelation of God to humanity. It's not just John 3:16. The TRUTH of God revealed in Christ Jesus. The first off all things. Read Col 2:9-10 and you'll get the picture.

This is incorrect.  The Bible itself tells us what the Gospel is in the opening verses of I Cor 15.

Churches do need to preach the whole counsel of God - the entire body of revealed truth, but that is not the gospel.

Really? You do realize that Paul said.more than just what's written in 1 Corinthians 15. His entire discourse in the book of    Romans is the Gospel he preached. So was Galatians, Colossians..... Etc.

You make void the word of God with your silly traditions. Truth is Truth. It comes from God to Humanity. This is the Good News of Jesus Christ.

The entire body of revealed truth is just that -- the whole counsel of God.  It should be preached, but it is not the gospel.  Baptism is part of that revealed truth, but God writes that the gospel to be separate from baptism, which rather gives the lie to your position that the gospel is all revealed truth.

Prove it. The words you reference are greatly misunderstood in the KJV.

Paul clearly says he baptised others according to the demands of the Gospel. His primary focus was not the Baptism of John. Which is exactly what he was referencing.

Did Peter preach a false gospel when he demanded people "repent AND be baptized for the remission of sin"?

A former pastor of mine (brilliant guy, earned Ph.D. in Greek and NT Studies from a well-respected evangelical seminary and is currently a NT professor at a local seminary) preached one time on the baptism in Peter's message and his entire message was that the word "for" meant "because of". He consistently stated that baptism was "because of" the remission of sin. Later that week (this was when I was a 'sold-out Evangelical'), I spoke to him and asked him, "Since baptism was "because of" the remission of sin and "repent" is conjunctive in the same passage, wouldn't Peter be saying that we also repent "because of" the remission of sin?

He looked me in the eye and said something to the affect, "Yes, they are conjoined in the Greek. But that is opposed to the traditional evangelical message of salvation by grace through faith alone, so I left it out of my message so people wouldn't get confused."

I then asked, "So you manipulated the specific text because it opposed the traditional evangelical salvation message?" He said, "Yes. This verse is most problematic for those of us who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone but that isn't the core of the gospel. I have to preach the whole counsel of God so when I can't explain a passage within that context I don't mention it."

To this day, he remains one of the most humble, sincere men I have ever met and learned a lot from him. But his honest admission was instrumental in my beginning to question that pastors generally don't have much of a choice but to preach an overall evangelical agenda instead of preaching the individual passages of the Bible "as is" *when they are contrary to that particular agenda.



* By "as is", I mean in how the original group of readers would have understood it. In this case, how Theophilus would have understood it without access to Pauline epistles.

I'm thinking of the passage in I Cor in which Paul writes (under inspiration) that "Christ sent me NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel", which seems to clearly indicate that "the gospel" and "baptism" are two SEPARATE things.

 

[rsc2a]

Or preaching and baptizing?

 

[praise_yeshua]

The Gospel mixed with anything is not the Gospel.

I must say I'm confused.  Please give your definition of "the Gospel".

I already have. It is the entire revelation of God to humanity. It's not just John 3:16. The TRUTH of God revealed in Christ Jesus. The first off all things. Read Col 2:9-10 and you'll get the picture.

This is incorrect.  The Bible itself tells us what the Gospel is in the opening verses of I Cor 15.

Churches do need to preach the whole counsel of God - the entire body of revealed truth, but that is not the gospel.

Really? You do realize that Paul said.more than just what's written in 1 Corinthians 15. His entire discourse in the book of    Romans is the Gospel he preached. So was Galatians, Colossians..... Etc.

You make void the word of God with your silly traditions. Truth is Truth. It comes from God to Humanity. This is the Good News of Jesus Christ.

The entire body of revealed truth is just that -- the whole counsel of God.  It should be preached, but it is not the gospel.  Baptism is part of that revealed truth, but God writes that the gospel to be separate from baptism, which rather gives the lie to your position that the gospel is all revealed truth.

Prove it. The words you reference are greatly misunderstood in the KJV.

Paul clearly says he baptised others according to the demands of the Gospel. His primary focus was not the Baptism of John. Which is exactly what he was referencing.

Did Peter preach a false gospel when he demanded people "repent AND be baptized for the remission of sin"?

A former pastor of mine (brilliant guy, earned Ph.D. in Greek and NT Studies from a well-respected evangelical seminary and is currently a NT professor at a local seminary) preached one time on the baptism in Peter's message and his entire message was that the word "for" meant "because of". He consistently stated that baptism was "because of" the remission of sin. Later that week (this was when I was a 'sold-out Evangelical'), I spoke to him and asked him, "Since baptism was "because of" the remission of sin and "repent" is conjunctive in the same passage, wouldn't Peter be saying that we also repent "because of" the remission of sin?

He looked me in the eye and said something to the affect, "Yes, they are conjoined in the Greek. But that is opposed to the traditional evangelical message of salvation by grace through faith alone, so I left it out of my message so people wouldn't get confused."

I then asked, "So you manipulated the specific text because it opposed the traditional evangelical salvation message?" He said, "Yes. This verse is most problematic for those of us who believe in salvation by grace through faith alone but that isn't the core of the gospel. I have to preach the whole counsel of God so when I can't explain a passage within that context I don't mention it."

To this day, he remains one of the most humble, sincere men I have ever met and learned a lot from him. But his honest admission was instrumental in my beginning to question that pastors generally don't have much of a choice but to preach an overall evangelical agenda instead of preaching the individual passages of the Bible "as is" *when they are contrary to that particular agenda.



* By "as is", I mean in how the original group of readers would have understood it. In this case, how Theophilus would have understood it without access to Pauline epistles.

I'm thinking of the passage in I Cor in which Paul writes (under inspiration) that "Christ sent me NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel", which seems to clearly indicate that "the gospel" and "baptism" are two SEPARATE things.

I answered your post. Your post was dirrect at me. Feel free to answer my response.

For review, Paul was referencing the baptism of John. He wasn't separating Baptism in the name of Christ and the Gospel.

 

[bgwilkinson]

North location for House of Grace Baptist Church of Chicago

4851 W. Wrightwood Ave.

 

[bgwilkinson]

House of Grace south auditorium

 

[Fresh Air]

North location for House of Grace Baptist Church of Chicago

4851 W. Wrightwood Ave.

...well, that is three blocks from me. Excellent. Used to be a Southern Baptist church that has struggled for years. Its handicap is that its location is even worse than mine. Neither of us are on a main street but at least I'm on a corner. That one is in the middle of a block. But their auditorium is much bigger than mine. And they have also have a deteriorating SS building they could use and a two flat apartment building.

Excellent. Desperately need a good Spanish work or two in this neighborhood. God knows I've mostly failed at reaching them no matter how much I've tried.

 

[bgwilkinson]

It is reported that the attendance in FBCH Spanish department last Sunday was around 700.

 

[16KJV11]

Update on FBCH:
It's still there and Pastor Wilkerson will be preaching tomorrow morning...(I think)

 

[bgwilkinson]

House of Grace update, guest speaker.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Various plus House of Grace south auditorium packed out for Sunday services.

Meeting room

Larger meeting room

Music room

Typical class room

 

[bgwilkinson]

The kids love the new House of Grace auditorium

 

[bgwilkinson]

Pics from the new Spanish church in Chicago House of Grace Service Sunday.