• 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!

Sacraments or ordinances?

D

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Thomas Helwys said:
DT, are you in the Episcopal Church or one of the conservative defections?
Click to expand...

I am in a mission parish of ACNA (the Anglican Church of North America) which has already been recognized by several of the Global South provinces, and whose formation was encouraged by the same.

However, I came into Anglicanism about 7 years ago by way of the ACC (the Anglican Catholic Church) which broke away from the TEC (then ECUSA) in the 1970s. I've never actually been in ECUSA/TEC.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Doubting Thomas said:
I am in a mission parish of ACNA (the Anglican Church of North America) which has already been recognized by several of the Global South provinces, and whose formation was encouraged by the same.

However, I came into Anglicanism about 7 years ago by way of the ACC (the Anglican Catholic Church) which broke away from the TEC (then ECUSA) in the 1970s. I've never actually been in ECUSA/TEC.
Click to expand...

Do you hold to the "high" views of a JI packer/leon Morris, or to more "liberal" like espoused by Bishop Spong/Arcgbishop of cantebury?
 
T

Thomas Helwys

New Member
Doubting Thomas said:
I am in a mission parish of ACNA (the Anglican Church of North America) which has already been recognized by several of the Global South provinces, and whose formation was encouraged by the same.

However, I came into Anglicanism about 7 years ago by way of the ACC (the Anglican Catholic Church) which broke away from the TEC (then ECUSA) in the 1970s. I've never actually been in ECUSA/TEC.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the ACNA, led by Robert Duncan. Good denomination.
 
D

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Yeshua1 said:
Do you hold to the "high" views of a JI packer/leon Morris, or to more "liberal" like espoused by Bishop Spong/Arcgbishop of cantebury?
Click to expand...

Not really either, but I am definitely not in the apostate...er..."liberal" camp.

To partially paraphrase/quote C.S. Lewis: "I am a very ordinary laymen in the Anglican Church, not especially 'high', nor especially 'low', nor especially anything else." (MERE CHRISTIANITY) :thumbs:
 
T

Tom Butler

New Member
Thomas Helwys said:
Correct.... except I'm not sure about those "First Baptist Church" labels. Oh, wait a minute now, on second thought, you might be right. After all, it was John the Baptist who baptized Jesus. :)
Click to expand...

Aw, DHK is just having a little fun with those who think that Baptists didn't come along until the 16th or 17th century.

I also hold that Baptists are of apostolic origin, although not called by that name. Or, at the very least, we have a spiritual kinship with first-century believers.
 
T

Thomas Helwys

New Member
Tom Butler said:
Aw, DHK is just having a little fun with those who think that Baptists didn't come along until the 16th or 17th century.


I know. :)


I also hold that Baptists are of apostolic origin, although not called by that name. Or, at the very least, we have a spiritual kinship with first-century believers.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree with that.
 
T

Thomas Helwys

New Member
Let me pose another question:

If baptism and the Lord's supper are symbolic only, why would Jesus command that they be done? And I am asking this as one who does not believe in baptismal regeneration.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thomas Helwys said:
Let me pose another question:

If baptism and the Lord's supper are symbolic only, why would Jesus command that they be done? And I am asking this as one who does not believe in baptismal regeneration.
Click to expand...

Just as the sacrifices/feasts/festivals in the OT saved NONE , they were all pointing towards the Christ to come, in same fashion, they point back to the Chrsit who came, and will come again!
 
B

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thomas Helwys said:
Let me pose another question:

If baptism and the Lord's supper are symbolic only, why would Jesus command that they be done? And I am asking this as one who does not believe in baptismal regeneration.
Click to expand...
John the Baptist did not want to baptize Jesus. Jesus told him, "Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus gave his followers a picture of death burial and resurrection. This is a tremendous witness to the world as well.

The Lord's Supper is another picture. "Do this in remembrance of Me." When done "closed", it is a beautiful picture of all the members making one body, in Christ, remembering what Jesus did at Calvary. Open communion is not the same--been there, done that.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
 
T

Thomas Helwys

New Member
Bro. James said:
John the Baptist did not want to baptize Jesus. Jesus told him, "Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus gave his followers a picture of death burial and resurrection. This is a tremendous witness to the world as well.

The Lord's Supper is another picture. "Do this in remembrance of Me." When done "closed", it is a beautiful picture of all the members making one body, in Christ, remembering what Jesus did at Calvary. Open communion is not the same--been there, done that.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
Click to expand...

Closed communion is a denial of the Body of Christ.
 
B

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The holy see and the pontifex maximus would have us to believe the church is universal and visible. Luther and others who tried to reform the holy see changed it to universal and invisible.

There is still a remnant who believe it to be none of the above but rather: local and visible only.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
 
T

Thomas Helwys

New Member
Bro. James said:
The holy see and the pontifex maximus would have us to believe the church is universal and visible. Luther and others who tried to reform the holy see changed it to universal and invisible.

There is still a remnant who believe it to be none of the above but rather: local and visible only.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James
Click to expand...

Do you distinguish between "church" and "Body of Christ"? I have found that it helps to get on the same page with terminology when discussing something.
 
D

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Thomas Helwys said:
Do you distinguish between "church" and "Body of Christ"? I have found that it helps to get on the same page with terminology when discussing something.
Click to expand...
There is no universal of body of Christ.
The local church is "a" body of Christ.
If one wants to label all believers under one term it is more accurate to say that we all belong to the "family of God," for we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, or we all make up the bride of Christ, or the kingdom, but not the body or the church.

1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

A study if 1Cor.12 makes this abundantly clear. Paul addresses the Corinthian local church as a body of Christ. He calls them the body here, and he talks of their members, each having a specific function in the local church. This is impossible in a so-called universal church. His description is applicable only in a local church. The letter was addressed to the local church at Corinth.

1 Corinthians 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
--They were one body--a body of Christ. Christ was their foundation (1Cor.3:11). That had already been established.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
--Paul refers to them as the body of Christ.
However the definite article is not there. It would be more accurate to say:
"You are "a" body of Christ." Every Bible-believing local church is a body of Christ; a local body of baptized believers with Christ as its foundation and the Bible as its authority.

1 Corinthians 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
--This refutes any possibility of it referring to a universal church.
The believers in Africa, South America, Asia, etc. have no idea what are the sufferings of the people in my church. The cannot "suffer with my members."
However, when one of my members suffer, then all of our members suffer with that member, and we do what we can to help. This is applicable only to a local church. The entire chapter is speaking of the local church, and the local church as a body of Christ.
 
T

Thomas Helwys

New Member
DHK said:
There is no universal of body of Christ.
The local church is "a" body of Christ.
If one wants to label all believers under one term it is more accurate to say that we all belong to the "family of God," for we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, or we all make up the bride of Christ, or the kingdom, but not the body or the church.

1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

A study if 1Cor.12 makes this abundantly clear. Paul addresses the Corinthian local church as a body of Christ. He calls them the body here, and he talks of their members, each having a specific function in the local church. This is impossible in a so-called universal church. His description is applicable only in a local church. The letter was addressed to the local church at Corinth.

1 Corinthians 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
--They were one body--a body of Christ. Christ was their foundation (1Cor.3:11). That had already been established.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
--Paul refers to them as the body of Christ.
However the definite article is not there. It would be more accurate to say:
"You are "a" body of Christ." Every Bible-believing local church is a body of Christ; a local body of baptized believers with Christ as its foundation and the Bible as its authority.

1 Corinthians 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
--This refutes any possibility of it referring to a universal church.
The believers in Africa, South America, Asia, etc. have no idea what are the sufferings of the people in my church. The cannot "suffer with my members."
However, when one of my members suffer, then all of our members suffer with that member, and we do what we can to help. This is applicable only to a local church. The entire chapter is speaking of the local church, and the local church as a body of Christ.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that. I am simply saying that in a discussion, it is important and necessary to understand how those involved are using words and terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top