CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[T.Lex]

Why would Paul say Christ sent him not to baptize in I Corinthians if it's essential for salvation?

Ah sorry, missed this in typing my earlier post.

For me, that's a context issue. Back up to verse 10, which ironically implores the audience not to be divided. (Evidence God has a sense of humor.) He's talking about the human quality of identifying with the people preaching, rather than with Christ. Immediately prior to the verse you reference, he's rhetorically asking if he baptized people "in the name of Paul." He clearly was baptizing people, as he named them. In fact, he couldn't actually remember all the people he baptized in the area.

Then he says that he wasn't sent to baptize, but to preach. Which is probably true. We all have roles to play in accordance with God's plan.

But, at a fundamental level, I think there's more agreement here than otherwise. Your formulation of "not strictly necessary, but still needed" is one that I can agree with. Particularly in the sense that there's a risk of focusing - like those early congregations did - on a kind of checkbox mentality.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

The Baptist religion was around before the Catholic religion?

They haven't always been called Baptist, but yes.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

They haven't always been called Baptist, but yes.

What were they called then? Everything I've read says they started their movement in the early 1600's, where as the Catholic Religion was a continuation of Jesus's teachings and is considered to have started with him.

Not trying to be argumentative at all, I love learning about the different faiths. I am a practicing Catholic and have been all my life, but I have several issues with the Catholic faith.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

But, at a fundamental level, I think there's more agreement here than otherwise. Your formulation of "not strictly necessary, but still needed" is one that I can agree with. Particularly in the sense that there's a risk of focusing - like those early congregations did - on a kind of checkbox mentality.

Not necessary for salvation. Needed for obedience.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

What were they called then? Everything I've read says they started their movement in the early 1600's, where as the Catholic Religion was a continuation of Jesus's teachings and is considered to have started with him.

I have material on this at home. I'll get back to you.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

I have material on this at home. I'll get back to you.

Much appreciated

 

[T.Lex]

Fair enough.

I notice that you singled out the Pope as unbiblical. Is there a human leader of the church? And if so, what role does he play? Not a trick question, just trying to understand the structure. There are certain administrative functions that any group of people needs. In terms of religion, there are certain doctrinal issues that need to be resolved and it tends to be a person that does that.

You mention the Council of Trent, so is there a similar system for settling doctrine in your church?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Fair enough.

I notice that you singled out the Pope as unbiblical. Is there a human leader of the church? And if so, what role does he play? Not a trick question, just trying to understand the structure. There are certain administrative functions that any group of people needs. In terms of religion, there are certain doctrinal issues that need to be resolved and it tends to be a person that does that.

You mention the Council of Trent, so is there a similar system for settling doctrine in your church?

Christ is the Head of the Church.
Another Baptist distinctive is two offices: Pastor and Deacon. Pastor's are just shepherds. Deacon's are just servants. They are the only two given in scripture. Priests were done away with and given to the believer to be their own priest. We call it Priesthood of the Believer. We have direct access to God through Christ.

The Bible is the sole authority for doctrine and practice.

 

[T.Lex]

Christ is the Head of the Church.
Another Baptist distinctive is two offices: Pastor and Deacon. Pastor's are just shepherds. Deacon's are just servants.

The Bible is the sole authority for doctrine and practice.

Right.

But certain passages include an interpretive tension, particularly in application to life. Who resolves that in your church? The shepherd/servant analogy is interesting, but not clear.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Right.

But certain passages include an interpretive tension, particularly in application to life. Who resolves that in your church? The shepherd/servant analogy is interesting, but not clear.

The Pastor is tasked with being the shepherd of the flock. He is part of the body, but he is not the head. The Greek word for Deacon is basically like a waiter and carries the idea of kicking up dust from working so hard.

I know I keep coming back to the Baptist Distinctives but here's another one: Individual Soul Liberty. The Pastor preaches whatever God lays on his heart to preach. It is up to the individual to study the Bible and come to his own conclusion on doctrine. Prove the Pastor right or wrong.

 

[ATM]

...Denomination means a set of beliefs (which is why non-denominational always made me chuckle)...

Other than Christian, I do not sub-denominate myself.

If your personal definition were applied, would that just mean I have no subset of beliefs worthy of identifying with?

I see lots of labels representing lots of subsets of beliefs, but when I claim to be undenominational, it doesn't mean I lack a set of beliefs, only that I've prioritized my primary belief above all possible subsets.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Other than Christian, I do not sub-denominate myself.

If your personal definition were applied, would that just mean I have no subset of beliefs worthy of identifying with?

I see lots of labels representing lots of subsets of beliefs, but when I claim to be undenominational, it doesn't mean I lack a set of beliefs, only that I've prioritized my primary belief above all possible subsets.

I'm totally fine with that. Like I said, I don't care what the sign says out front. Identify with whoever you want to, or not. As long as you are following Biblical doctrine, get involved in a local church and have at it.

 

[T.Lex]

The Pastor is tasked with being the shepherd of the flock. He is part of the body, but he is not the head. The Greek word for Deacon is basically like a waiter and carries the idea of kicking up dust from working so hard.

So a question on that: can women be one or the other or both of those roles?

The Pastor preaches whatever God lays on his heart to preach. It is up to the individual to study the Bible and come to his own conclusion on doctrine. Prove the Pastor right or wrong.

And this is curious to me in the sense of biblicalness. What is the biblical justification for this? Referring back to your Corinthians reference, that appears to be an invitation to divisiveness that Paul warns against. It also suggests that the Holy Spirit (whoops - is the Trinity part of your formulation?) can bring different messages to different hearts.

Again, apologies if I'm getting something wrong. I do not intend to misconstrue what you're saying, just trying to understand it.

 

[ATM]

I'm totally fine with that. Like I said, I don't care what the sign says out front. Identify with whoever you want to, or not. As long as you are following Biblical doctrine, get involved in a local church and have at it.

I identify with Christ, I participate with everyone, and everything is at my disposal.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

So a question on that: can women be one or the other or both of those roles

No. The requirements for preacher and deacons spells that out, and the understanding of authoritative roles as set by God.

And this is curious to me in the sense of biblicalness. What is the biblical justification for this? Referring back to your Corinthians reference, that appears to be an invitation to divisiveness that Paul warns against. It also suggests that the Holy Spirit (whoops - is the Trinity part of your formulation?) can bring different messages to different hearts.

I won't lie and say it can't be divisive. Of course it can. Individuals are all over the place, but we also preach unity above strife and laying aside personal standards for the sake of your brother. Yes absolutely the Holy Spirit (lol we believe in the triune God) places different convictions on different people's hearts. I listen to contemporary music. A lot of Independent Baptist don't. My wife wears jeans. A lot of Independent Baptist women don't. As long as it's not contradictory to Scripture, you're free to do what the Spirit leads.

Again, apologies if I'm getting something wrong. I do not intend to misconstrue what you're saying, just trying to understand it.

No apology necessary

Answers above

 

[ChristianPatriot]

That's one area where Independent Baptists have gotten it wrong before. Being dogmatic about things that aren't plainly spelled out in Scripture and driving people away that don't conform to the "standard".

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I identify with Christ, I participate with everyone, and everything is at my disposal.

Don't participate with Kirk, that guy's nuts.

 

[ATM]

Don't participate with Kirk, that guy's nuts.

Next, you'll be telling me not to love prostitutes as myself.

 

[JettaKnight]

Lex, take note that not all Baptist are alike (you should have figured that out by now). Independent Baptist tend to be one of the more conservative (probably along with Primitive and others). Myself, I'm a Regular Baptist, which means I align close with Calvinist views of soteriology. Take a look at Wikipedia's sections on Baptist - it's pretty thorough.

So a question on that: can women be one or the other or both of those roles?

I think almost all Baptist would say no. However, that doesn't always preclude women from other roles such as an assistant pastor (e.g. children's pastor).

Earlier you asked about leaders - like one leader, i.e. the Pope. This is where the protestant concept of Priesthood of Believers comes in. We believe that each of us can connect with God on our own and don't need an intermediary or intercessor besides Christ. Couple that with Sola Scriptura and we now have all the tools we need to correctly interpret scripture and doctrine just as well as any other man. We argue that's there's no power given to the Pope (a sinful man like everyone else) or anyone else that isn't given to each of us. Besides a tenuous scripture passage in which Jesus is speaking to Peter, there's nothing to support apostolic accession, but there's lots of passages to support the priesthood of believers.

So, that raises the question, "why so many denominations and disagreement?" My answer is this: We are the finite trying to comprehend the infinite and understand things that are currently shrouded in mystery and we are sinful and that sin clouds our judgement. We get caught up in trying to figure it all out - is man comprised of body, mind and spirit or is he just body and spirit? (yes, that's something I've actually debated) The true answer should be, "what does it matter? Why do I need to know?"



Hopefully I cleared one thing while muddying the water in lots of other things.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Lex, take note that not all Baptist are alike (you should have figured that out by now). Independent Baptist tend to be one of the more conservative (probably along with Primitive and others). Myself, I'm a Regular Baptist, which means I align close with Calvinist views of soteriology. Take a look at Wikipedia's sections on Baptist - it's pretty thorough.

I think almost all Baptist would say no. However, that doesn't always preclude women from other roles such as an assistant pastor (e.g. children's pastor).

Earlier you asked about leaders - like one leader, i.e. the Pope. This is where the protestant concept of Priesthood of Believers comes in. We believe that each of us can connect with God on our own and don't need an intermediary or intercessor besides Christ. Couple that with Sola Scriptura and we now have all the tools we need to correctly interpret scripture and doctrine just as well as any other man. We argue that's there's no power given to the Pope (a sinful man like everyone else) or anyone else that isn't given to each of us. Besides a tenuous scripture passage in which Jesus is speaking to Peter, there's nothing to support apostolic accession, but there's lots of passages to support the priesthood of believers.

So, that raises the question, "why so many denominations and disagreement?" My answer is this: We are the finite trying to comprehend the infinite and understand things that are currently shrouded in mystery and we are sinful and that sin clouds our judgement. We get caught up in trying to figure it all out - is man comprised of body, mind and spirit or is he just body and spirit? (yes, that's something I've actually debated) The true answer should be, "what does it matter? Why do I need to know?"



Hopefully I cleared one thing while muddying the water in lots of other things.

The part that drives me nuts is thinking about if I were outside of the church looking in. Good grief there's how many denominations?! Why would anyone want to be a part of that. I've been to many different churches and I regularly listen to preachers outside of any Baptist banner (including Calvinists). I would have no problem fellowshipping with any of you. Heck even my family gatherings there are Assemblies of God, Reformed Prebysterian, different Baptists, Catholics. I have no problem conversing with any of them about spiritual matters.