What Does it take to be a "Baptist"?

[Clint Kritzer]

So, then, Jim, are you volunteering to be our pope?

Also, I never ONCE said that there are no objective truths to gain from the Bible. If you think I did, please show me where.

Again, your post is citing extremist views that do not fit into any orthodox Christianity. I had already stated that Christianity relies first and foremost on the belief in the Resurrected Christ and His teachings in the Gospel. It's what Philip told the Ethiopian, it's what Paul told the Corinthians as I have stated before in this thread. Further, Christ confirmed the moral code of the Ten Commandments, thus for a Christian they stand. If anyone steps outside of this guideline, then they are not treating the Bible as the sole and sufficient means to salvation.

As for analyzing Scripture (which I will post on tomorrow as previously stated) Christ died to free us from our sins, not to free us from our minds.

Yes, we do RESPECT everyone's right to believe what they believe because it is a God-given right. Please see the link I already cited on Soul Liberty on the second page of this thread. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001077#000014
Respecting another's rights does not make them Christian or Baptist in our eyes. It makes them human, descended from Adam with the Divine Breath of God sparking their existence.

Please read again that I cited that all BELIEVERS are priests, non-believers have not been regenerated and are thus not priests.

You are using an underhanded debating technique by making me back track on my clearly stated posts for qualifications that should not be necessary. Don't read more into it than what I say. You are trying to add qualifications to being a Baptist, a term that was defined centuries before you were born.

I hope my post tomorrow will clear this up more for you, but if you read everything I write with such strong suppositions this dialogue is fruitless.

[ October 06, 2002, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[Eladar]

Again, your post is citing extremist views that do not fit into any orthodox Christianity. I had already stated that Christianity relies first and foremost on the belief in the Resurrected Christ and His teachings in the Gospel.

Clint,

Are you saying that some Baptists aren't Christian?

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by Tuor:
Clint,

Are you saying that some Baptists aren't Christian?

Some who claim the name of Baptist are not Christian, yes. Some who claim the name of Christian are not Christian. Again, see the Jim Jones example and previous defense about extreme examples on page three of this thread: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001136;p=3#000033

 

[Eladar]

Some who claim the name of Baptist are not Christian, yes. Some who claim the name of Christian are not Christian.

Yet, from what I understand of your position, you would be unwilling to tell these people that they aren't either Christian or Baptists.

Or do I misunderstand?

[ October 06, 2002, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Off the cuff (in that I may add to this list later) I would say that a person is NOT a Christian if:

They deny the existence of Jesus Christ (through words or actions)
They deny the Deity of Jesus Christ (through words or evil actions)
They deny the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ (through words or evil actions)
They deny that salvation is attainable through Jesus Christ alone (through words or evil actions)
They deny the Sovereignty of God which Jesus Christ preached (through words or evil actions)

You made an edit while I was posting. If anyone displayed any of these actions, I wuld also say that they are not Baptist.

[ October 06, 2002, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Incidentally, in my time here on the board performing moderator and adminstrative duties, ther have been a myriad of trolls that I and my fellow moderators have caught because we recognized them as being "not Baptist" so merely claiming the name does not give one carte blanche, at least not on this site.

I could probably give you a name or two that would ring some bells.

[ October 06, 2002, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[rsr]

Of course there are some "Baptists" who are not Christians. Some Methodists are not Christians. Some Catholics are not Christians.

Just read Gary Wills. Many Catholics would not consider him Catholic nor Christian.

Just as some Muslims would not consider bin Laden Muslim.

 

[Eladar]

Clint,

How about those who teach that homosexuality is right in the sight of God?

According to 1 John, those who are actual Christians will follow God's commands. If God's command is that marriage is to be between a man and woman, then those who preach another doctrine are leading others to sin. This is not following God's commands.

 

[rsr]

Tuor, what's your point? I thought we'd established what a Baptist is. Those who aren't will eventually go away. Wheat and tares.

What is your obsession with this, when you're not a Baptist?

[ October 06, 2002, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[Eladar]

My point is that the Bible talks about the unity of Christ. Christians are supposed to have unity with Christians.

If one isn't doing that, then there is a problem.

If one is choosing to have unity with those outside of Christ, yet reject those who are of Christ, then there is a real problem.

The refers to fellow Christians as 'brothers', not 'denominational groupings'.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

originally posted by DHK: Innate in the statement that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, is the fact that we have an inspired Word of God.

Hello DHK, and once again my apologies for the delay. My plate has been rather full as of late.

I’m glad that I asked for a definition in terms. Inerrancy and inspiration are not necessarily synonymous terms. The concept of inerrancy implies that ALL facts in the Bible are 100% accurate, whether they be historical, scientific, or theological. To view the Scriptures as an historic or scientific text is NOT necessary to glean the doctrine of salvation or church polity. However, inspiration, though unprovable, is necessary for determining doctrine and practice within the Baptist denomination.

I have yet to see a true Baptist who does not believe that the word of God is NOT found within the Scriptures. If the exploration of the Scriptures by a Christian is not for the purpose of attaining a better understanding of God and His Will for believers and their churches then it is a vain pursuit.

As for the verses you gave me, again, it requires faith to accept their meaning. The verse in 2Peter that you supplied refers to the Old Testament prophets and does indeed suggest inspiration. The words of the prophets are self-proving as time passes. 1Peter 1:24 – 25 refers to the Truth of the Gospel, a point I had touched on once before. The Gospel message is not the whole of the Bible, though the Gospel is the central focus of the Bible and the theology inherent therein. Mat.5:18 refers to the fulfillment of the Law and as we read in Hebrews 8:13, the Law is obsolete as Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled the Law completely. We now have the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-35. If the Law had been perfect there would have been no need for the renewal of sacrifices for atonement. The death and Resurrection of Christ fulfilled the Law and He became the superior priest, the superior Covenant and the superior Sacrifice.

This leads me into an answer for Jim on the issue of homosexuality, at least I am making the assumption that this is the abomination to which he is referring. Yes, in the Levitical code, homosexuality is called an abomination. However, so is eating the flesh of the peace offering on the third day (Leviticus 11:10), things that have no scales or fins that live in the water (Leviticus 11:12), the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray (Leviticus 11:13), fowls that creep on all fours (Leviticus 11:20). I could go on as there are many more. Looking at the Mosaic Law as it pertains to homosexuality has thus been ineffective in debate against those that support the position of homosexuality being “okay” for Christianity.

A more enduring definition of abominations can be found outside of the Law of Moses in Proverbs 6:16-19 –
16There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
17haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
18a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
19a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.

For those of you who have become frustrated with the debate concerning homosexuality in the theology forum of this board, I would strongly recommend sticking to New Testament Scriptures, as they are upon what our faith is based. As long as you are trying to argue from the Levitical Law, you will continue striking this same wall of obsolescence that is actually Scripturally supported by the Book of Hebrews.
[Jim – Just as an aside here, there are some required fields in your profile that you have never updated. Please see this threads: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000086 ]

Finally that leads me back to Tuor’s question about autonomous churches. You actually gave me a great analogy on which to build a platform:

If I were to write to my sister and tell her that she is to not let her son join a Satanic cult because anyone who does is on the road to destruction. Then a few years later someone got ahold of that letter and read it, would it be a correct conclusion that only parents should say something if someone is going to join a Satanic cult?

Let’s take your analogy a step further. Your sister is your family but she does not necessarily live in the same house as you. Therefore, your letter is your advice to her. If she does not discipline her son and in some way prevent him from joining, then you can voice disapproval, but what more can you do than that? If she expels her son from her house that was her decision based upon (partly) your advice in the matter.
Now the importance of Paul writing fr the assembly of the church in Corinth to handle it’s own matters was because it was they who knew the circumstances of the case. Paul is not specific about where he had heard of the immoral brother so without a conference among those that assembled with him in that specific congregation, how could it be viewed as anything but hearsay? Look at your analogy. If you write to your sister, "I have heard that your son has joined a satanic cult. You should kick him out of the house,” then should not your sister and her husband and the other siblings confer on this information? Shouldn’t the boy be questioned to his face about it so that he can answer the charges brought before him (Matthew 18:15-17)? Wouldn’t it also be terribly inefficient to confer with every one of your family members on earth in deciding these matters?
If your letter was accurate and the boy was expelled, it would only be from the edifice of his own home. His parents would not necessarily have the power to keep him out of your other sister’s home or the home of your parents. Each person rules over the affairs of their own home, each Baptist rules over the affairs of his own church. That is not unloving; that is common sense.

Further, if not just from the church how far would the expulsion extend? This website, for all of its benefits is NOT a church. It is a website designed with the intent of allowing Baptist (and some other believers) a place to discuss, debate, and expound upon the tenants of their faith(s) and to form a fellowship. It is not to make church-like decisions.

 

[rsr]

Amen, Clint.

 

[Eladar]

Therefore, your letter is your advice to her.

The only problem with this is that it wasn't advise. Paul gave the command, expell the immoral brother. Paul says, with the authority of God, that we are to judge those who claim to be brothers. Read the text, nowhere does it say this is just advice. These are orders.

If you write to your sister, "I have heard that your son has joined a satanic cult. You should kick him out of the house,” then should not your sister and her husband and the other siblings confer on this information?

Not if I speak with the authority of God. Besides you are turning the issue. The statement wasn't to punish an individual. The statement was to punish an individual who was behaving in a certain manner.

It is our place to see if the allegations are true, but it is not our place to decide if we are going to follow the instuctions or not.

Wouldn’t it also be terribly inefficient to confer with every one of your family members on earth in deciding these matters?

It seems to me that we are miscommunicating. What I am talking about is on the individual level, not the corporate level. I am not talking about taking votes. Human votes are meaningless.

His parents would not necessarily have the power to keep him out of your other sister’s home or the home of your parents.

God's people will follow God's commands. Each of us has the responsibility to decide if we are going to follow God's commands. If we reject God's commands, then we reject God. It is as simple as that.

Each person rules over the affairs of their own home, each Baptist rules over the affairs of his own church. That is not unloving; that is common sense.

I've already dealt with that issue. It may be out of a weird way of defining who is and who is not one's brother, but the truth is clear. The obligation to 'not even eat with such a one' has always been on the individual level. Even the congregation has no power over the individual.

This website, for all of its benefits is NOT a church.

We are not to leave our faith in a building. God's instructions to us are on a personal level. We each decide who is a brother and who is not. There is no voting on that. Pauls commands were God's commands. They were not suggestions.

1 Corinthians 5

Would you please tell me what verse tells you that Paul believes he is merely making a suggestion that he expects may be or may not be taken? Paul knew that he spoke with the authority of God.(See Chapter 4 verses 1-5)

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
So, then, Jim, are you volunteering to be our pope?

No...are you?

Also, I never ONCE said that there are no objective truths to gain from the Bible. If you think I did, please show me where.

I inferred that from your arguments in defense of those who twist the scriptures to say things that are clearly not taught on the basis that since they are priests they can get their truth directly from God in seemingly whatever way their imaginnations mislead them.

...

As for analyzing Scripture (which I will post on tomorrow as previously stated) Christ died to free us from our sins, not to free us from our minds.

So, those who deny clear scriptural truths do it because they are intellectually superior to those of us who are stupid enough to believe God? Poor, Stupid Luther and Calvin.

Yes, we do RESPECT everyone's right to believe what they believe because it is a God-given right.

Of course, but I thought we were discussing what beliefs make one a Baptist.

Respecting another's rights does not make them Christian or Baptist in our eyes. It makes them human, descended from Adam with the Divine Breath of God sparking their existence.

I respect other people, and their rights. As for beliefs, there are some beliefs for which I have only contempt. Why would any Christian "respect" beliefs that damn people to an eternity in Hell?

Please read again that I cited that all BELIEVERS are priests, non-believers have not been regenerated and are thus not priests.

So, can a non-believer be a Baptist?

... You are trying to add qualifications to being a Baptist, a term that was defined centuries before you were born.

Like being a Christian and therefore putting oneself in submission to the Clear teachings of Scripture??

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by Tuor:
My point is that the Bible talks about the unity of Christ. Christians are supposed to have unity with Christians.

If one isn't doing that, then there is a problem.

If one is choosing to have unity with those outside of Christ, yet reject those who are of Christ, then there is a real problem.

The refers to fellow Christians as 'brothers', not 'denominational groupings'.

Romans 16:17&18
1Thessalonians 5:21
Jude 3
2Timothy 2:14-18, 3:5
2Corinthians 6:14-18
Revelation 2:2

A lot of papists have used that "Christian Unity" thing to intimidate us Baptists, but the plain truth is, we are following a command from the Allmighty. There could be no true fellowship between the RCC, and a true New Testament Church.

[ October 07, 2002, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

[Clint Kritzer]

originally posted by Tuor: Paul gave the command, expell the immoral brother. Paul says, with the authority of God, that we are to judge those who claim to be brothers. Read the text, nowhere does it say this is just advice. These are orders.

Again, this charge is made to the assembly at the church of Corinth. I can see now that it is indeed autonomous church polity with which you are having trouble. The Letter of 1Corinthians, again, is written to the entire church, to be read to the entire church. Paul does not give the responsibility of expelling this immoral brother to an elder, a presbyter, a deacon, nor any other officer of the church. He hands the responsibility over to the entire assembly.

We are not to leave our faith in a building. God's instructions to us are on a personal level. We each decide who is a brother and who is not. There is no voting on that. Pauls commands were God's commands. They were not suggestions.

...

It seems to me that we are miscommunicating. What I am talking about is on the individual level, not the corporate level. I am not talking about taking votes. Human votes are meaningless.

Two points here: First of all the church is not the edifice, the church is the assembly of people. I want to make sure that that is clear.
Secondly, we do see evidence of a vote in this matter as well as Paul's instructions being a strong recommendation, or in modern parlimentary procedure, an absentee motion.

2 Corinthians 2
6 For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough,
7 so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.
8 So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. 9 For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.
10 Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,


The word majority implies that there were dissenting voices among those who expelled the immoral brother. It took a vote after a motion from Paul to expel him, now it requires a vote, at the urging of Paul to bring him back in. Forgiveness at the recognition of the expelled brother's repentance, came from the congregation. Paul did NOT command this church to take the man back in.

We are not to leave our faith in a building. God's instructions to us are on a personal level.

There is a good chance that we ARE miscommunicating. Are you advocating a philophy that does not hold to any church assembly and no church powers? Are each of us to act as independent agents without any consultation among us? Please clarify.

Not if I speak with the authority of God.

I'm scratching my head on this one. Paul spoke with the authority of God because he was an apostle. In 1Corinthians 9 Paul speaks of his rights as an apostle. Please look at 2Corinthians 12:11-13 as well. Paul here speaks of the "super-apostles" that were able to challenge his authority. Even the Apostle Paul who had met Christ on the road to Damascus was put in a position of defensiveness over this matter.
I included verse 13 in that recommendation because I happened to stumble across the word "churches" - plural. It was the Corinthians to whom Paul was appealing; that one individual congregation among many.

With the age of the Apostles past us and all things brought to completion, how may I ask did you obtain the authority to speak alone for God on a matter of excommunication?

Jim -

Clint said: ... You are trying to add qualifications to being a Baptist, a term that was defined centuries before you were born.

Jim replied: Like being a Christian and therefore putting oneself in submission to the Clear teachings of Scripture??

First of all, all except the last half of this quote has already been addressed in this thread, most of it on this page (page 5) but this very last statement is where we find the proof of the necessity for the respect of the individual believer.

Very well, if we are to define being a Baptist by submitting to the "clear teachings of Scripture," let's see how you measure up to this challenge.

I'll assume that your married for the first couple questions:
Do you allow your wife (or indeed any woman in your church) to pray without a hat, bonnet, or scarf on her head? (1Corinthians 11:5)

Do you allow your wife (or any woman in your church) to speak or sing at all once the worship service has commenced? (1 Corinthians 14:34)

Now, married or not:

Have you since your last post sold your computer and given your money to the poor? (Luke 18:22, Acts 4:34-35)

I see you posting in the political forum often. Are you always in agreement with the decisions that the government makes? Would you disapprove of Bibles being smuggled into a country where they were outlawed? (Romans 13:1-6; 1Peter 2:13-17)

Now here's an important one: Have you ever hated someone? If you have, according to 1John 3:15 you are a murderer. If you are a murderer, you are to have your lifeblood taken from you as well as described in the Noahic Covenant, a Covenant still in effect until the passing of this world. (Genesis 9:5-6)

Have you ever checked out a woman and found her desirable? If so you are an adulterer (Matthew 5:28) and as an adulterer you are categorized with homosexuals (1Corinthians 6:9-10). To avoid being guilty of this have you gouged out your eyes? (Matthew 5:29)

What of this website and indeed this thread? Are you obeying the CLEAR instructions of God in participating in debate? (1 Corinthians 3:3; 1 Timothy 6:4; 2 Timothy 2:14,23)

These are all CLEAR teachings from Scripture. They are right there in black and white for the world to see. If you are guilty of breaking any of these rules, you too are not qualified to be called a Christian nor a Baptist by your definition.

or...

Do you interpret these passages and apply them to your own life in a way that makes sense and matches your overall Christian philosophy and convictions?

I will say one more time on this thread, I do think that homosexuality is a sin. I think it is repeated in the Scriptures from the time of the destruction of Sodom that God does not approve.

However, that is my interpretation of the Bible from my standpoint. I can urge others to accept this teaching. I can refute arguments to the contrary, but it still stands that there are those who view the Scriptures that I just cited above as CLEAR instructions from the Bible. Most of us interpret them in a more intellectual way. Most of us view homosexuality as a sin, but there are those who interpret those Scriptures differently than we do.

Now if you and I have the right to interpret certain Scriptures our way, how can we deny someone else the RIGHT to interpret the Scriptures as THEY see them? Who are we to speak for how the Holy Spirit may have spoken to another? Who are we to dictate to the Holy Spirit how He will reveal and manifest Himself in another? (1 Corinthians 12:3)

Luke 11:46; Matthew 7:3

I do not see how this can be any clearer.

As for the volunteer pope position, no thank you, it's a generous offer but as I said, my plate is already rather full.

[ October 07, 2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[Eladar]

rsr and Clint,

I am not a Catholic. I do not believe God has inspired anyone in this day and age in the same way as He did in Biblical times. I do not believe Christians ought to be forced into subjegation by other people. It is God that we should all be in submission to, not man.

We all have the choice to follow God's commands. Certain things people say are God's commands, really aren't. Case in point, alcohol. God doesn't say, don't drink alcohol. God says don't be a drunkard, but no where in the Bible does it say one can't drink any alcohol.

As you can see Clint, I am not saying what you believe I am saying. I agree that the letter was intended to be read before the congregation. I disagree that the congregation is to take a vote. If there were a vote, then once again there'd be the forcing of some to follow the will of the majority.

It is at the individual level that we are to expell the rebellious one. If you are aware that a brother is living in sin, it is your responsibility to call him on it. If he doesn't listen to you, then go to a brother that both of you can trust and have respect for, this should be someone older and more mature in their faith.

If the person doesn't change and there is agreement that the rebellious one is indeed living in sin, then it is the responsibility of the ones who know about it to make the congregation aware of it. Once everyone is aware of the problem, everyone has the choice to have nothing to do with the person or still accept him.

By the individual's decisions, each of us reveals what it in our hearts.

I believe my position explifies the priesthood of the individual even better than the 'local congregation' model.


The word majority implies that there were dissenting voices among those who expelled the immoral brother. It took a vote after a motion from Paul to expel him, now it requires a vote, at the urging of Paul to bring him back in. Forgiveness at the recognition of the expelled brother's repentance, came from the congregation.

As you can see, it does not necessarily mean that they took a vote. It could just mean that most people did indeed shun this man. The verse you are quoting is indeed about a man who repented and changed his ways. We should forgive such a one. This is exactly what Paul is saying.

[ October 07, 2002, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Nils -

I think you realized that I knew you were not Catholic. I had always guessed Church of Christ before but this explanation clears things up well for me. Thank you for the debate.

I do hope the Baptist position has also been presented fully and clearly to you, whether you are in agreement with it or not. As always, you are free to disagree with no hard feelings, at least not from THIS Baptist.

May God bless you

- Clint

 

[Eladar]

It was Bro. Curtis that thought I was taking the Cathoic position. Sorry about the way I posted that.

I do believe I have a much better grip on what Baptists believe in this matter.

Do you see any inconsitancies in the way I'm protraying what the Bible says?

 

[Eladar]

By the way, I only answered half of your original post. I'll anwer the rest later.