-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Denominational division
- Thread starter JSM17
- Start date
Not so fast. It looks like you misunderstand the entire passage which does not teach anything about baptism being necessary for salvation.
Notice that twice the word likeness is used indicating a similarity. It indicates that something is symbolic. Baptism is a picture. We are panted in the likeness of his death--as a picture of his death--like his death. Baptism is only a picture. When you go under the water you don't stay there. It is a picture of his death and a likeness or picture of his resurrection.
Better yet, it is a picture of our death to sin, and our resurrection to our new life in Christ. This is the literal interpretation of the verse.
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
--The picture is quite evident. Our rising out of the water pictures our newness of life in Christ. It is our resurrection from our old life of sin. The Holy Spirit has already come to dwell within us at salvation. Baptism is a picture of that event. It is not that event. It only pictures that event; a likeness thereof.
Yes, in a likeness; a similarity; a symbolic picture.
And now you have it.
I didn't do that. Read again. I said that the NT teaches what became known as baptist polity and doctrine. It is the departure from that that has caused the problems.
Let's face it: The NT teaches only one thing about church. It does not teach multiple things. Therefore, when church differ, at least one is wrong (and both maybe).
Clearly, some are outside the NT camp to the degree that they are a false church. (e.g., Hindus, Islam, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Mysticism, etc). Others are deficient in some areas that would make them a church out of order, but they would still be a church (Presybeterians, for example).
I believe the NT teaches Baptist polity. I think if everyone followed the NT we would be Baptists, and there would be no need for names. "Church" would be fine. But due to the departure of some, names/labels have become necessary.
What Baptists polity are you referring, because not all Baptists are in agreement?
I don't know of any actual Baptists that depart from Baptist polity and doctrine. You will have to let me know what you are referring to.
Perhaps a better question might be: What is Baptist polity?
Polity deals with government generally. Baptist churches are congregationally governed. Some might have multiple elders, allegedly equal elders, or the like, but the ultimate authority in Baptist polity is congregational. When it is something else, then it is no longer Baptist.
I think the point of the OP was that how can all claim to follow Christ if all a not in agreement with Christ's prayer for unity. Pointing out the differences between denominations only clarifies that all the denominations cannot be following Christ due to the vast beliefs.
Do you see multi-doctrinal teachings in the N.T.?
As it was said before if you look at the creeds, faith statements and so on you will find that no one is agreeing even on essential issues. If they agreed then they would not have to divide into different groups.
Is it possible for people today to just be Christians according to the N.T. standard?
CAN ANYONE SHOW ME WHERE JESUS AUTHORIZED DENOMINATIONAL DIVISION AS BEING BIBLICALLY GOD ORDAINED TEACHING?
Is God the author of such denominational confusion?
Can we all be Christians and follow different doctrine and be saved by different doctrines?
Do you see multi-doctrinal teachings in the N.T.?
As it was said before if you look at the creeds, faith statements and so on you will find that no one is agreeing even on essential issues. If they agreed then they would not have to divide into different groups.
Is it possible for people today to just be Christians according to the N.T. standard?
CAN ANYONE SHOW ME WHERE JESUS AUTHORIZED DENOMINATIONAL DIVISION AS BEING BIBLICALLY GOD ORDAINED TEACHING?
Is God the author of such denominational confusion?
Can we all be Christians and follow different doctrine and be saved by different doctrines?
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
No one is saved by doctrines at all. The early church had issues they were divided on such as when to worship, whether they could eat food offered to idols etc.
So if we are divided on what the Lord Jesus or Paul or Peter meant who do you propose should be the arbiter or these disagreements? You? Me? I doubt it. Therefore denominations gather around lines of what people believe.
Is it frustrating? of course. Is it sinful? Well, they are ... but certainly not me! :tongue3:
Yes -- as soon as you show where in the Bible microphones and amplifiers are acceptable to use in worship.
(Hint: there is no mention of these recent innovations because they are incidental to worship -- neither required nor prohibited).
How about -- yes if those doctrines don't dispute God's saving work through Christ on the cross and some other critical doctrines that make Christianity "Christian" (see 1 Cor 15 for one of the earliest Christian creeds).
It seems the folks who are most outraged over denominations happen to be in the One True Church that has it all figured out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
2 John 1:9-11 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
There you have three clear statements that Jesus demanded division from those who do not teach what he taught. That is the basis for denominational differences--people who teach different things.
Yes, in the sense that he commanded separation from those who do not teach what he revealed.
No.
Red Herring
Next we will start talking about whether church buildings are biblical. You miss the point or your just trying to be funny.
So is there not an absolute standard that we can know for sure how we ought to conduct ourselves in all matters?
Now we are at the notion that because someone believes they are doing what is biblical they are outraged with denominations. Perhaps the view is more clear when we understand what Jesus wants from His people. I do not think He had in mind denominational division when He prayed in John 17.
So you tell me how the Catholic and the Baptist are being united in Christ when their teachings on salvation, worship, morality, and godly living are contrasted. I am not picking on these two groups it can be done with all denominations.
Pastor Larry wrote:
Yes, but then are those who do not teach what he taught His disciples (Christians), follower of Christ? That kind of division canot be good, can it?
Tom Bryant Wrote:
Perhaps not saved by a doctrine, yet it is obedience to a doctrine or teaching that can deliver us.
Rom 6:17
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.
NKJV
There is just as much division within the ranks of the Church of Christ denomination as there is anywhere else. This is well documented. Why do you talk about divisions among other protestants when there is so much division in your own denomination--the Church of Christ denomination.
I wasn't trying to be funny.
I amfunny.
There's a difference.
:smilewinkgrin:
There were quite a few differences in perception and interpretation right from the Get-go (Must adhere to law -- No we don't we're free. Must not eat food offered to idols -- Sure we can, and so on).
These are intentional. If God provided us with the Big Book of How to Behave we'd all rely on that, rather than Him.
Of course there is plenty in the Scriptures that show us how we should live -- but it's not a rulebook, with section 1.2.A.c.23.b). The Pharisees had that and Jesus certainly took them to task.
Why are there denominations? Because some folks major on the minors, some folks think organs are inspired, and some thing carpet is cursed - even though each group has its soteriology right.
As someone else said, denominations are evidence we continue to live in a fallen world.
Last edited by a moderator:
Both of these issues the Bible speaks to: About the Law, it plainly states we are not under it; we are free. So there should be no dispute. To say we are under the Law is a false teaching that contradicts Scripture. About meat offered to idols, it says it is fine to eat, but if your conscience says you are sinning by eating, then you must not eat. To say that one must eat meat offered to idols, or that one must not eat meat offered to idols is false teaching that contradicts Scripture.
I don't buy this distinction. If the "Big Book" is the revelation of God, then we are relying on Him by relying on that.
For their hypocrisy and their additions.
Denominational differences are not about organs or carpets. They are about more significant things than that.
That is the most important kind of division. When someone does not teach what Christ taught, they are to be rejected, separated from, and called into submission to his word. Unity can take place only on the basis of truth.
You mixed some of your quotes -- It's not clear which were mine and which belonged to someone else.
Also, you took my responses out of context. I know about fod offered to idols. I was making the point that very early in the life of the church there were factions, and some were based on poor exegesis.
There most certainly are denominations created over organs and other rather narrow considerations.
I agree that SOME of the differences are significant -- but not all. What causes problems are those who claim to be able to winnow out which are the majors and which are the minors (though there are certainly Bible-based precendent for making such determination -- See Galatians).
My position is this -- a Protestant denomination is "Bible-based" when its rule of faith and practice is the Bible, and we can go back to the source to derive our ecclesiology and our soteriology. I can fellowship with others who can use the same bedrock source, even if we have differences in application.
Though keep this in mind -- I don't include Roman Catholic and Eastern orthodox as "Denominations" -- I'm strictly referring to Protestant denominations which developed after Luther challenged the hegemony of the RC "Church."
Intentionally so, so that the focus would be on issues, not on personalities.
But my point is that you had two entirely different kinds of issues included, but both of which were addressed clearly by Scripture. Thus, it is not a matter of conscience, but of revelation. Some people take denominational differences to be "we differ with you, but we're both alright." That's not true. When we differ, someone is wrong. When someone differs on the Law, they are wrong. It doesn't matter how well intentioned they are. They are wrong.
Such as?
What's a minor issue?
Galatians was a major issue--the nature of the gospel itself.
I disagree. All denominations claim to be Bible-based, but that doesn't mean they are. Someone is Bible-based when they rightly interpret the Bible. If others use that same source, they will be very similar. A difference over the nature and meaning of Baptism is not an application. An application is something like whether you immerse believers in still water or running water, forwards or backwards. It is not whether you baptize infants or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
Ok, the suspense is killing me. Please tell us what denomination or non-denomination lays claim to the pure doctrinal statement that Christ left with church to guard.