What Does it take to be a "Baptist"?

[Eladar]

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.

I do not believe in an assembly for the purpose of having dominion over people. I do believe in the assembly for the purpose of edifying and praising God.

What do you mean by no church powers? If you mean to kick people out of the church, I'm not too sure there is any actual Biblical example for this.

What would happen if someone was asked to leave and didn't? Do you call the cops? Somehow that doesn't fit the model of how we deal with each other.

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?

Excommunication is more of a Catholic thing. The word has a 'you no longer have a chance to go to heaven because of what we are doing' feel to it. In fact, the only reason to excommunicate someone is because they are already living a life that shows they are not going to heaven. Anyone who demonstrates the signs of the flesh, without repenting would be a good candidate.

 

[rsr]

Ah, Tuor. The light just went on. We can judge Christians individually, but not as a body?

We do that to an extent; this board is full of such judgements, some good, some bad.

The purpose of excommunication is not so much to punish the offender as to protect the congregation.

Admittedly, it's drastic, a drastic remedy for a drastic situation. But it need not be permanent, either.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by Tuor:
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.

Sorry 'bout that. But... I do believe the verses I posted are in line with your qustion. I just shouldn't have assumed you were Catholic.

 

[Eladar]

Bro. Curtis,

All of these scriptures deal with false prophets, not the need to have denominations.

If anything, the scriptures you posted support the exact point I am trying to make. Where in these scriptures does it say that in order avoid false prophets we need to form denominations? That we should know who is a false prophet and who is a true prophet by the name on the building that they preach?

I believe that one can find false teahers within every denomination, especially Baptists who's name is claimed by all ends of the "Christian" spectrum.

By the way, I don't claim any denomination. I may attend a church that has a name on the building, but that is not how I define my beliefs. By what I believe, based on scripture, I define who I worship.

rsr,

The purpose of excommunication is not so much to punish the offender as to protect the congregation.

That is one reason, the other is so that the errant brother might wake up and repent and therefore be found righteous on the day of the Lord.

[ October 08, 2002, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

[rsr]

Tuor, that's fine with me. (And I take your point about excommunication.)

Apparently your real fight is not with just Baptists, but with any "denomination."

Baptists are not a "denomination." It is a historic tradition of faith. Not all of us are theologians; "Baptist" is shorthand for a group of basic beliefs that, you know well, is broad enough for Arminians and Calvinists, for example.

I prefer "Christian," but if pressed will qualify it with "Baptist." Unfortunately, it doesn't mean the same to other people as it does to me.

 

[Eladar]

rsr,

My problem isn't with denominations. That is just the way it is. My problem is when people start making divisions based on the names of buildings (which is unbibilical) and stop making divisions based on beliefs (which would be bibical).

 

[rsr]

My problem is when people start making divisions based on the names of buildings

I don't think I've done that or advocated that. What I've said is what I consider "Baptist." There are plenty of Baptists whose churches I would not feel comfortable in. But I still consider them Baptist.

 

[Eladar]

I never said you did.

Do you believe that in order for you to consider a church Baptist, you would first have to consider it Christian?

 

[rsr]

Yes. I thought went without saying.

 

[Eladar]

A follow up question:

Is it possible for a Christian congregation to teach herecies such as homosexuality is good in the sight of God?

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:

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.

Clint, my definition of Baptist may well be looser than yours, I haven't stated it here. My only contention with your position is instances where there are clearly heretical teachings that betray contempt for scripture.

Some of the things that you cite are not, contrary to what you say, clear, and are out of context. IF WE HAVE THE PRESUPPOSITION THAT THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD, THERE IS NO CONTEXT THAT CAN POSSIBLY YIELD THE CONCLUSION THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN. If we lift ourselves up (like Satan) and sit in judgement of God's word (rather silly, huh) then we can make the Bible into instructions on how to adjust the lifter clearance on a '69 Chevy big block, or whatever we want. Furthermore, if you are attempting to get me to admit that I am less than an ideal Christian, you're wasting your time. Paul thought himself the chief of sinners but I have him beat.

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...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)

Anyone has the RIGHT to interpret any way they wish. That's why we have Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and all the other heretics down through the centuries. As to "dictating" how the Holy Spirit will manifest Himself in another, aren't we commanded to "test the spirits" etc. etc. against God's Word? Can we not judge that Benny Hinn or Jim Jones are out of line? How do we know that the Holy Spirit didn't teach David Koresh all he knew about prophecy? Easy...the same way we know that the Holy Spirit didn't tell certain members of this board that Sodomy is OK.

I really can't defeat an argument that says "it's just your opinion" since if there is no objective truth then it is impossible to determine anything.

I really wish you'd reconsider the Pope thing, I can't find anyone who's willing to do it.

[ October 08, 2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Pennsylvania Jim ]