Howdy Board...

[Bro. James]

Authority to baptize--if I decide I want to separate myself from my present assembly(without their permission) and start another assembly down the street, are baptisms I perform valid?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, in the absence of someone more authorised.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Authority to baptize--if I decide I want to separate myself from my present assembly(without their permission) and start another assembly down the street, are baptisms I perform valid?

Selah,

Bro. James

I guess you are a Baptist Succesionist who like Apostolic Successionists believe authority comes from being the successor of another human with authority.

The two passages I am aware of that are used to support successionist theologies are:

NASB - Matthew 16:18 - I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

NASB - Matthew 28:20 - teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

I consider both verses to be misinterpreted by both Apostolic and Baptist successionists.

"The gates of Hades not overpowering" is often interpreted as saying Hades will not be able to attack and break the church or its unbroken line of succession of authority.

However, what does a gate do and how does a gate overpower? Gates are defensive structures and an overpowering gate is one that stands up to an attack.

So is Jesus talking about Hades failing to attack an line of successors of authority? Or is he talking about something else?

NASB - Matthew 28:20 - teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

For this verse, Jesus promises to be with the disciples to the end of the age. He comissions the disciples by his authority to go make disciples of all nations, baptizing, teaching, etc.

Is his promise to be with them a promise about an unbroken succession of authority? Or is it an encouragement that as they go to all the nations, possibly alone encountering difficulties, that Jesus will be there with them? I'm more inclined towards the latter.

As for separating and starting a church without authority from a previous church, I find Baptist are much more prone to this sort of thing than most denominations because of our view of local autonomy. Whether that church has authority or not to baptize is not in whether a human authority authorizes them but whether a divine authority authorizes them.

What does authority have to do with baptism anyway? Any Christian should be able to baptize someone who wants to be baptized and our authority is from the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bro. James]

Scriptural address please. Whilst you search, pass by Matthew 16th and 28th--the parts where Jesus gives authority(exousia). This is crux of the question--who has scriptural authority? Anybody with a Bible and some water?

This is the same kind of question Jesus asked the Pharisees: "The baptism of John, whence is it from God or from man?" The answer is obvious.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Scriptural address please. Whilst you search, pass by Matthew 16th and 28th--the parts where Jesus gives authority(exousia). This is crux of the question--who has scriptural authority? Anybody with a Bible and some water?

This is the same kind of question Jesus asked the Pharisees: "The baptism of John, whence is it from God or from man?" The answer is obvious.

Selah,

Bro. James

1 Peter 2:9

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

If we really subscribe to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, then what human authority do we need to baptize?

Matthew 28:19

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

Do we see this as a comission only for priests, pastors or those in a line of succession? Or does this comission apply to all believers?

 

[Bro. James]

Any Christian should be able to baptize...

Joseph Smith's followers say they are followers of Christ. They baptize, in fact immerse. Are their baptisms valid?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Any Christian should be able to baptize...

Joseph Smith's followers say they are followers of Christ. They baptize, in fact immerse. Are their baptisms valid?

Selah,

Bro. James

Obviously Mormons have a lot of doctrinal issues that I would say are distant enough from orthodox Christianity to be considered non-Christian. Mormon baptisms are valid as Mormon baptisms.

If you are a baptist and believe in symbolic baptism, what does validity of a baptism have to do with anything. Baptism doesn't regenerate, right? So if you were baptized by someone "unauthorized" why would that matter?

 

[Living_stone]

There are some who would say the RCC is Roman paganism with a Christian facade. This implies that this system is without authority since inception--Constantine and the Pontifex Maximus.

And they would probably be laughed at by any modern historian, secular or otherwise.

Any Christian should be able to baptize...

Joseph Smith's followers say they are followers of Christ. They baptize, in fact immerse. Are their baptisms valid?

No, because they do not intend to baptize in the name of the Triune God, but in the name of three seperate gods, none of whom themselves are the ultimate God. They are alike in name. Their understanding is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Matt Black]

Bro James, it depends for me on the intent of the baptiser as to whether it is a valid baptism or not. This intent is contained for example within the Great Commission of Matt 28:18-19; baptism is done in the intentional context of preaching the Gospel and making disciples ie: the teaching of Christian doctrine. Since the LDS have a false Gospel and do not teach Christian doctrine, they lack the necessary intent and therefore their baptisms (whether for the living or for the dead) are not valid.

The issue of authority is simply a practical one: we tend to have greater confidence (yes, I know there are exceptions) that the necessary baptismal intent is there if the baptising is done by a duly-authorised/ ordained Christian minister of some kind rather than by any old Joe like me.

 

[Bro. James]

By what authority do we say the LDS do not teach Christian doctrine? How would you convince the millions of Mormons who would disagree?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

"Living Stone, all these questions trouble me as well; I can only say that I have come to the conclusion that the Tradition of the whole Church (authority therein being vested in the Episcopate) is sufficient to provide the correct interpretation of Scripture."

Then why is the largest group who claims that, the Catholic Church of Rome, filled to overflowing with idolatry, blasphemy, goddess worship, paganism, a false gospel, and the attempted cover-up of rampant decades long child molestation in the ranks of its clergy?

And ALL of the groups who make that claim are cults...

Jehovahs Witnesses
Mormons
David Koresh
Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)
Jim Jones
Catholic Church

etc etc etc.

Sadly,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Living Stone said...

I don't think that Christainity was ever meant to be split into factions.

It isnt. There is only one body, and there has always been only one body.

Because we disagree on some things, as God told us to expect, does not mean there are many bodies of Christ.

If "lost person A" embraces Christ through faith alone and is added to an Assembly of God fellowship, and "lost person B" embraces Christ and is added to a Baptist fellowship, both have been added to the same church.

The body of Christ.

This crazy looney tunes idea of all these different churchs is a fabrication of the Catholic Church to attempt to draw more victims into her clutches.


Nate said...

"I agree with this statement. The Church was meant to be one entity."

You can be happy. There is only one church here on earth.

All the born again people.

God bless all,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Bro James,

"By what authority do we say the LDS do not teach Christian doctrine?"

We speak on the authority of Almighty God, and the truth found in His scriptures.

"How would you convince the millions of Mormons who would disagree?"

We dont. We share the truth from Gods annointed scriptures. The Holy Spirits job is to do the "convincing", in His perfect timing.

Many times one plants seeds, another waters, and another waters, etc...until finally God gives the increase.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Living_stone]

This crazy looney tunes idea of all these different churchs is a fabrication of the Catholic Church to attempt to draw more victims into her clutches.

Again attacking the Catholics when this isn't a Catholic only issue. You people all have a one-track mind. Catholic, Catholic, Catholic. If there is one thing that DOES unite protestant Christainity, it's distrust of the Catholics </half in jest>

Rom. 16:17 - Paul warns us to avoid those who create dissensions and difficulties. This includes those who break away from the Church and create one denomination after another.

1 Cor. 1:10- Paul prays for no dissensions and disagreements among Christians, being of the same mind and the same judgment.

Phil. 2:2 - Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Most all of the Christians on this board are not "of the same mind" or of one accord.

And ALL of the groups who make that claim are cults...

Jehovahs Witnesses
Mormons
David Koresh
Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)
Jim Jones
Catholic Church

JW's - 150 years old
Mormons - 170 years old
David Koresh - 15 years ago
Christain Science - 150 years old
Jim Jones - 30 years ago.
Catholic Church - arguably the oldest Christian Body.

One of these things jsut doensn't seem to fit.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Living_stone:

Catholic Church - arguably the oldest Christian Body.

One of these things jsut doensn't seem to fit.

Perhaps it is one of the oldest cults that persecuted the true Bible believing Christians.
There were the Montanists. Before you label it a cult remember that Tertullian, one of you famed ECF was one of them.
There were the Waldensians. Before you label it a cult remember that Cardinal Hosius gives them a glowing report describing them as believers that lived as true to the Apostolic life as one could get.
There were the Cathari, the Albigenses, the Bogomils, and many others.

The Catholics did not even begin to exist until the fourth century, when Constantine tried to legalize Christianity and make it a state-religion. Thus the birth of the Catholic Church. He paganized Christianity (the Catholic state church). True Christianity always lived outside of this institution.
DHK

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Livingstone,

You must forgive Mike (D28guy). He looks at passages in the NT regarding believers "being convinced in their own mind" about eating meat, observing certain days (etc), and concludes this justifies denominational relativism on issues such as the real presence in the eucharist; whether baptism is in any way salvific; whether salvation can be lost or not; whether infants can be baptized or not; whether God wants to save everyone or only the elect; etc... (I guess it's okay for sola scripturists to hold mutually contradictory views on these and other crucial issues--just as long as they are not Roman Catholic

)

 

[BobRyan]

DHK said
The Catholics did not even begin to exist until the fourth century, when Constantine tried to legalize Christianity and make it a state-religion. Thus the birth of the Catholic Church. He paganized Christianity (the Catholic state church). True Christianity always lived outside of this institution.

And what do RC historians say about that?

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grew of paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world. After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy)"

So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

Ibid - Page 42
"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church
and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy; the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection,
devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians
began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."
…
pg 43
for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise in conducting the liturgy. Even wording of the canon was left to his
discretion.

Who finally stopped Rome’s persecution of the Christians?

The struggle for the soul of the Empire raged on a vast scale for though only a sprinkling in the West, Christians in the East numbered around 10 percent of the population, and in some cities even formed the majority. And it was mainly in the East that the blood flowed under Galerius (Diocletian’s successor) and Maximinus Daia.

It all came to a halt suddenly when Galerius by decree of 311 permitted Christians to resume their religious assemblies.. But a cruel reversal occurred when Galerius died and Maximinus Daia once more called for Christian blood.. But then as suddenly he ordered the whole business to cease again…. Pressure to stop persecuting had been put on Maximinus by the new conqueror of Italy and Africa, Constantine. (Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 37)

When Constantine finally emerged victorious (over Maxentius) in 312, he attributed his victory to the help of the Christian God. According to the Christian writer Lactantius (d. 320) on the eve of Constantine’s fateful battle with Maxentius, Constantine had a vision of Christ, who told him to ornament the shields of his soldiers with the Savior’s monogram – the Greek letters chi and rho[/b]. Constantine obeyed and in the ensuing battle was victorious as promised Writing somewhat later Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine, gave a more sensational account. Constantine and his whole army saw a luminous cross appear in the afternoon sky with the message “in this conquer” (Ibid 38)

How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

At first Constantine observed an attitude of formal correctness toward paganism. He remained its Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage, and in general was careful not to alienate the pagan masses…But he gradually revealed his true feelings. He imposed restrictions on pagan practice and publicly displayed the Christian symbols He attached the standards of the army to a cross emblazoned with the monograme of Christ and issued coins picturing himself wearing a helmet stamped with the same monogram…he increasingly identified the interests of the state with those of Christianity.
(Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 38)

“The emperor showed great generosity to the Church in lavishing donations on it and erecting numerous sumptuous basilicas, including the magnificent one over the supposed site of the tomb of Peter at Rome and another over the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. He surrendered HIS Lateran palace in Rome to the bishop of Rome for a residence and it remained the Papal residence until 1308. When in 324 he moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople after him, he erected numerous churches there…

"This alliiance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life. It carried many advantages, but it also entailed
some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world." Ibid - Pg 39

 

[Living_stone]

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

Compare that with the 1st Century Bishop Ignatius of Antioch who wrote:

"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery [priests]*, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire" (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

*(FYI: The English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros.)

Are you arguing that the church has changed and grown over time? Sure. Big deal. That's not quite a news flash. Even a mustard seed, which starts out small, by the end is a large plant not much resembling the seed.

How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

Much in making it not persecutied. Not much in shaping it. He called the Council of Nicea to deal with Arianism because it was a schism threatining to tear the church apart - a church which he at least respected deeply and which as such obviously existed before he did. But upon calling it, he took little interest in the debates, caring only that the matter be solved.

He was a powerful tool in the hand of God, giving his people cities their hands did not build, and lands they did not till. Kind of typical for God, really.

 

[Matt Black]

I would go further than that and suggest that Constantine didn't really understand much about doctrine, particularly all the Trinitarian nuances of the Orthodox-Arian debate. What he was primarily concerned about was the fact that both factions within the Church were pushing his empire to the brink of civil war and he accordingly wanted that sorted out; this, more than any theological concern, lay behind his calling of the Council IMO.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Matt Black,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Living Stone, all these questions trouble me as well; I can only say that I have come to the conclusion that the Tradition of the whole Church (authority therein being vested in the Episcopate) is sufficient to provide the correct interpretation of Scripture."

Then why is the largest group who claims that, the Catholic Church of Rome, filled to overflowing with idolatry, blasphemy, goddess worship, paganism, a false gospel, and the attempted cover-up of rampant decades long child molestation in the ranks of its clergy?

And ALL of the groups who make that claim are cults...

Jehovahs Witnesses
Mormons
David Koresh
Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)
Jim Jones
Catholic Church

etc etc etc.

Sadly,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, keep chanting that mantra!


I do not accept that the Catholic Church is 'overflowing' with all the things to which you refer (Living Stone has demonstrated that for you); I do accept it is in error, and that error flows from the fracturing of episcopal unity after 1054.