Ask a Baptist

[hben]

LOL I have hopes with this younger generation. Maybe one day, they will all just homogenize down to one. It's the same hope I have with all races. I hope they all homogenize (probably not the right word but I used it anyway) down to one color.

I have never thought about homogenizing people, but some of the buttermilk characters I've known over the years probably need a little homogenizing. I am not so sure that some evaporating and pasteurizing wouldn't help them as well.

[Gem]

First off, and I think cbut can assert this. I am an Historian. I don't use bias info when I can get unbiased sources. In fact, I'm probably one of the shapest critics of Eusebius.

Second. Allix has been thoroughly refuted. His "History" is nothing more than propaganda. Sort of like Foxe (whom Axill presents as gospel).

In fact, I would suggest you get ahold of the following:

Barnett, S.J. "Where Was Your Church Before Luther? Claims for the Antiquitry of Protestantism Examined". Church History, March 1999, 14-41.

In that article is a scathing refutation of the successionism arguements and it does an excellent job of refuting Allix.

And before you say, "Well, that's a Catholic source", no it isn't. It's put out by the Presbyterian Church under the Direction of Cambridge. It is a credible and noted publication that undergoes peer review by secular and theological historians.

As to "Catholic Histories". Tell me something. If your church was around as long as you claim they were, then why is there no mention of Oneness Pentecoastals from secular sources until the 19th century?

I did not say the Oneness Pentecostals was my church.

I was just reading History on them.

Check the thread again, I didn't say they were my church.

[Semi-Sweet]

I have never thought about homogenizing people, but some of the buttermilk characters I've known over the years probably need a little homogenizing. I am not so sure that some evaporating and pasteurizing wouldn't help them as well.

Let's hope they all don't get pastorized. . . :eek:

[Gem]

I don't quite understand your question.


This was an a question I asked byzantine. because he said.


" Catholicism was the only church until 1054
And the only Western Church till 1517.
Thread # 1648. "

So after he said that then I ask him this question .

[hben]

Let's hope they all don't get pastorized. . . :eek:

No...that would be a disaster. Can you imagine if everyone in the world was a pastor...like me? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Semi-Sweet]

No...that would be a disaster. Can you imagine if everyone in the world was a pastor...like me? :eek: :eek: :eek:

http://bestsmileys.com/panic/3.gif One is aplenty. :angel:

[Gem]

First off, and I think cbut can assert this. I am an Historian. I don't use bias info when I can get unbiased sources. In fact, I'm probably one of the shapest critics of Eusebius.

Second. Allix has been thoroughly refuted. His "History" is nothing more than propaganda. Sort of like Foxe (whom Axill presents as gospel).

In fact, I would suggest you get ahold of the following:

Barnett, S.J. "Where Was Your Church Before Luther? Claims for the Antiquitry of Protestantism Examined". Church History, March 1999, 14-41.

In that article is a scathing refutation of the successionism arguements and it does an excellent job of refuting Allix.

And before you say, "Well, that's a Catholic source", no it isn't. It's put out by the Presbyterian Church under the Direction of Cambridge. It is a credible and noted publication that undergoes peer review by secular and theological historians.

As to "Catholic Histories". Tell me something. If your church was around as long as you claim they were, then why is there no mention of Oneness Pentecoastals from secular sources until the 19th century?

It also seems to me that the Apostals taught what the Oneness Pentecostal people teaches and says their believes are.

1- They Baptized in Jesus Name, or in the name of Jesus christ.

2- They taught that Jesus and God and the Holy Ghost are One.

3-They also spoke tongue's

4 They taught about the Godhead.

So Whats wrong with this ?

[hben]

http://bestsmileys.com/panic/3.gif One is aplenty. :angel:

Thank God, He broke the mold...or is it mould? I am sure Meri will let me know if she runs across this post. :doh:

[hben]

It also seems to me that the Apostals taught what the Oneness Pentecostal people teaches and says their believes are.

1- They Baptized in Jesus Name, or in the name of Jesus christ.

2- They taught that Jesus and God and the Holy Ghost are One.

3-They also spoke tongue's

4 They taught about the Godhead.

So Whats wrong with this ?

Did Jesus speak in tongues?

[cbut1]

So, there are non Catholic sources which place Peter in Rome as the first Pope?

There are non biblical sources that show Peter/Simon in Rome but there is some ambiguity as to if this was the Peter/Simon of the Bible or an imitator such as the fellow mentioned in Acts 8.

[cbut1]

To cbut

so you are throwing me out because of asking some questions
and trying to learn ?

Ok, I will leave and not return to this thread,
What about the other Catholic's?

never mind.

I have no desire to throw you or anyone out. I just ask that if you want to continue discussing your view of Catholic history then go start your own thread, I am certain it would get attention.

If you have further questions regarding Biblical teachings and or Baptist perspectives then please continue on here in this thread with those subjects.

[cbut1]

Evidently 5th, you haven't read anything that I've posted here on that, or else you wouldn't have made that statement.:rolleyes:

In addition, can you tell me where the writtings of Augustus or other early church fathers that the pentecostals claim as "early oneness" doctrine, came from?

Did they survive due to a parallel "Pentecostal Religion"?
Because if the accusations that I have seen on this board and in various books are true, then the Catholic Church would have destoyed them.

In addition, I have yet to see anything that dispute's Bobrinskoy successfully.

addum. I can see the Baptist successionists claim. What I find interesting is the claim of some pentecostals I've talked to that Sebellianism is probably the earlist claim they make. However, even the Baptists claim them ( ref. Orchard) So the question becomes, where the sebellians trinitarian or "oneness"? In addition, why is there no record of them existing after the first couple of centuries? The Baptists at least try to justify this by claiming the Donatists as the natural successors to the sebellians.

Is this a aknowledgement to at least a measure of credible veracity to the Baptist claim as you have thus far researched it?

[cbut1]

Well its funny to me that a lot of others in here are talking about
other demonations. Southern Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostals,

And all I did was ask about the baptisem.
I wanted him to explain to me about the Trineity baptisem.
How he got a name out of Matthew 28: 19.

He finally after some time told me where to find the name to be baptized in.

He said Acts 2: 38.

check out all the threads for yourself.

Others were talking about the Catholics in these threads as well.
and all I did was tell some of what I read in the Catholic History .

Then it seemed every body jumped me over that .

I will say that is not a very nice way to talk to people or to wittness to them about God or their believes.



Lets review just a touch OK.

I have had this thread going for quite some time now so that any question related to Baptist teachings can be addressed and answered by me, a Baptist and probably the most out spoken of us in this forum. I have been very dutiful in addressing each question brought to me. I even had answered the question that you had answered in your first post here. If you had read through all the post before you responded you may have found the answer/s satisfactorily without raising the ire of some of my friends. If you had questions regard these things I would be glad to answer them for you or point you in the right direction to get an answer.

There are other threads similar to this one.

Ask a Pentecostal
Ask a Catholic
Ask a Mormon

Etc etc etc.

[5thIDSoldier]

Evidently 5th, you haven't read anything that I've posted here on that, or else you wouldn't have made that statement.:rolleyes:

In addition, can you tell me where the writtings of Augustus or other early church fathers that the pentecostals claim as "early oneness" doctrine, came from?

Did they survive due to a parallel "Pentecostal Religion"?
Because if the accusations that I have seen on this board and in various books are true, then the Catholic Church would have destoyed them.

In addition, I have yet to see anything that dispute's Bobrinskoy successfully.

addum. I can see the Baptist successionists claim. What I find interesting is the claim of some pentecostals I've talked to that Sebellianism is probably the earlist claim they make. However, even the Baptists claim them ( ref. Orchard) So the question becomes, where the sebellians trinitarian or "oneness"? In addition, why is there no record of them existing after the first couple of centuries? The Baptists at least try to justify this by claiming the Donatists as the natural successors to the sebellians.

buflineks

Yes, you are quite correct. I have not had the priveledge of reading what you have posted here. I do not claim to have the depth of historical knowledge you have, and I would certainly be very interested in hearing what you have uncovered thus far. Like most people, all I want is to know the truth without all the rest thrown into the mix.

I know very little of the Pentacostal movement except what little I have read and the thoelogical arguments I have for not following what they teach. I did find this though, which seems to prove what you are saying:

Modalism: The view that the Son and the Holy Spirit are 'modes' of the Father, or aspects of the One God. Modalism was the first major heresy with which the Early Church contended. Modalism appeared in various guises in the first two centuries of the Church. The Early Church Fathers argued firmly against this view of Christ, which denied a separation of Person between Father, Son, and Spirit. In recent years, Oneness Pentacostal Churches and the "Jesus Only" movement have promoted a Modalistic Christology, arguing that Jesus is actually the Father and the Spirit, not personally distinct from them.

I dont know if it's of any help.

http://www.forananswer.org/Glossary.htm

[buflineks]

Yes, you are quite correct. I have not had the priveledge of reading what you have posted here. I do not claim to have the depth of historical knowledge you have, and I would certainly be very interested in hearing what you have uncovered thus far. Like most people, all I want is to know the truth without all the rest thrown into the mix.

Go to post 1574 of this thread.

[terri910]

Well its funny to me that a lot of others in here are talking about
other demonations. Southern Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostals,
...in what way, though?

And all I did was ask about the baptisem.
I'm afraid that above statement simply isn't true, Gem. You admit it yourself later in this same post.
I wanted him to explain to me about the Trineity baptisem.
How he got a name out of Matthew 28: 19.
Nothing wrong with that. Sounds like you asked a Baptist!

He finally after some time told me where to find the name to be baptized in.

He said Acts 2: 38.

check out all the threads for yourself.
Then you got your answer -- good! I've read the posts in this thread, so already checked out.

Others were talking about the Catholics in these threads as well.
and all I did was tell some of what I read in the Catholic History .Of course, here is where you make your statement that all you did was ask about baptism, false. But, that isn't a big deal. But, you shared "what you've read" of the Catholic history as if it was fact. Since others believed that "version" to be very incorrect, they (including me) chose not to remain silent and let what we believe to be falsehoods about our faith, stand.

Then it seemed every body jumped me over that .
Yes, many people were correcting you. I'm sorry that you felt like that was "jumping" on you. But, would you rather we let you feel comfortable in something that isn't true?

I will say that is not a very nice way to talk to people or to wittness to them about God or their believes.
Well, you might try to look at it from the perspective of those people who believe you weren't witnessing about what you believe, but trashing their own faith. From that perspective, what you were doing wasn't a very nice way to witness to them about God or your beliefs.

Better to ask questions of what others believe, and share what your beliefs are. If you choose to make statements about others' faiths, then you must be prepared to put on your big girl panties and hear their refutations.

[cbut1]

...in what way, though?


I'm afraid that above statement simply isn't true, Gem. You admit it yourself later in this same post.

Nothing wrong with that. Sounds like you asked a Baptist!


Then you got your answer -- good! I've read the posts in this thread, so already checked out.

Of course, here is where you make your statement that all you did was ask about baptism, false. But, that isn't a big deal. But, you shared "what you've read" of the Catholic history as if it was fact. Since others believed that "version" to be very incorrect, they (including me) chose not to remain silent and let what we believe to be falsehoods about our faith, stand.


Yes, many people were correcting you. I'm sorry that you felt like that was "jumping" on you. But, would you rather we let you feel comfortable in something that isn't true?


Well, you might try to look at it from the perspective of those people who believe you weren't witnessing about what you believe, but trashing their own faith. From that perspective, what you were doing wasn't a very nice way to witness to them about God or your beliefs.

Better to ask questions of what others believe, and share what your beliefs are. If you choose to make statements about others' faiths, then you must be prepared to put on your big girl panties and hear their refutations.

:eek:

:redface:


I didn't know GEM was a girl. Sorry GEM

[cbut1]

Gem


:cool:
How you doing? ;)







said in my best Joey from Friends impersonation. :D

[jmacvols]

Lets review just a touch OK.

I have had this thread going for quite some time now so that any question related to Baptist teachings can be addressed and answered by me, a Baptist and probably the most out spoken of us in this forum. I have been very dutiful in addressing each question brought to me. I even had answered the question that you had answered in your first post here. If you had read through all the post before you responded you may have found the answer/s satisfactorily without raising the ire of some of my friends. If you had questions regard these things I would be glad to answer them for you or point you in the right direction to get an answer.

There are other threads similar to this one.

Ask a Pentecostal
Ask a Catholic
Ask a Mormon

Etc etc etc.

Sorry if this has been asked before, but where in the bible can I find where the first century Christians were called by the proper name "Baptists" and where Christ's church was called by the proper name "Baptist Church"?

[cbut1]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but where in the bible can I find where the first century Christians were called by the proper name "Baptists" and where Christ's church was called by the proper name "Baptist Church"?

You won't find the name Baptist on any first century headings as matter of fact many if not all first century assemblies didn't have names beyond the region that they were in. Such as Rome = Romans or Ephesus = Ephesians that type of thing. Our heritage comes from a long list of small segments of Christiandom passed on through many generations. You will notice that Buf has said that Baptist claim a succession of assemblies but in each century you will find different names by which they were identified. They were first called Christians in Antioch is one of the first times you see a label placed upon followers of Christ by others. It was usually meant to drive home a negative or evil connotation or cursing, kinda like a danger beware sign.

Some of the other names that Baptist claim succesion through are Donatists, Montanists, Paulicans, Novatians, Petrobrussians, Waldensians, Cathars, Albengensians, Hussites, Anti-Baptist and then finally Baptist when coming to America.

Caviot: Many who make this claim erroniously attribute all of those known by such names as being in harmonious accord with biblical and Baptist teachings of today. That is a tremendous overreaching simplification for when I study them out I find grevious teachings mixed and intermingled into some of these groups. Stuff that no Baptist today would readily touch. There are though small segments within each of these groups that do speak of Baptist teachings and heritage since the days of Christ and the Apostles and it is to that small stream that I comfortably hang my hat on as a Baptist.

[terri910]

:eek:

:redface:


I didn't know GEM was a girl. Sorry GEM
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=44761671&postcount=1677

Part of it reads:
First of all I am no Sir, I am female

I'm always happy when a new poster makes their gender clear!

[jmacvols]

You won't find the name Baptist on any first century headings as matter of fact many if not all first century assemblies didn't have names beyond the region that they were in. Such as Rome = Romans or Ephesus = Ephesians that type of thing. Our heritage comes from a long list of small segments of Christiandom passed on through many generations. You will notice that Buf has said that Baptist claim a succession of assemblies but in each century you will find different names by which they were identified. They were first called Christians in Antioch is one of the first times you see a label placed upon followers of Christ by others. It was usually meant to drive home a negative or evil connotation or cursing, kinda like a danger beware sign.

Some of the other names that Baptist claim succesion through are Donatists, Montanists, Paulicans, Novatians, Petrobrussians, Waldensians, Cathars, Albengensians, Hussites, Anti-Baptist and then finally Baptist when coming to America.

Caviot: Many who make this claim erroniously attribute all of those known by such names as being in harmonious accord with biblical and Baptist teachings of today. That is a tremendous overreaching simplification for when I study them out I find grevious teachings mixed and intermingled into some of these groups. Stuff that no Baptist today would readily touch. There are though small segments within each of these groups that do speak of Baptist teachings and heritage since the days of Christ and the Apostles and it is to that small stream that I comfortably hang my hat on as a Baptist.

So we can agree that the term "Baptist" or "Baptist Church" have no biblical bases or authority, hence Christians were never called Baptists...this is a man-made concept. The first century Christians were referred to in general terms as "disciples" or 'followers", but never "Baptist". The name Christian was Divinely given, Isa 62:2, ...."from the mouth of Jehovah". The disciples first were called Christians at Antioch. The word "called" here comes from chrematizo, not the common word for call, phoneo or kaleo. Chrematizo is found 9 times and each time refers to a Divine calling. In fact, Young's Literal Translation renders the verse the disciples were first divinely called Christians at Antioch. The only Divinely given name a Christian can have is "Christian", nothing more, nothing less for any other name is not by Divine calling and without biblical authority. Pagans and/or nonbelievers called them "sect of the Nazarenes", Acts 24:5, yet the name "Christian" is from God.

[cbut1]

So we can agree that the term "Baptist" or "Baptist Church" have no biblical bases or authority, hence Christians were never called Baptists...this is a man-made concept. The first century Christians were referred to in general terms as "disciples" or 'followers", but never "Baptist". The name Christian was Divinely given, Isa 62:2, ...."from the mouth of Jehovah". The disciples first were called Christians at Antioch. The word "called" here comes from chrematizo, not the common word for call, phoneo or kaleo. Chrematizo is found 9 times and each time refers to a Divine calling. In fact, Young's Literal Translation renders the verse the disciples were first divinely called Christians at Antioch. The only Divinely given name a Christian can have is "Christian", nothing more, nothing less for any other name is not by Divine calling and without biblical authority. Pagans and/or nonbelievers called them "sect of the Nazarenes", Acts 24:5, yet the name "Christian" is from God.



Some during Emporor Julians day called them Galileans so what is the point you are trying to make here? Is it that since Baptist call themselves Baptist they cannot be Gods divinely called people?

If that is the case then you need to go back and read where history shows that Baptist did not pick the name any more than those whom were called Christians in Antioch did. It is a name that others identified them with and instead of being a badge of dishonor as it was intended it bacame unto us a badge of honor.

[Koushi Shinigami]

So we can agree that the term "Baptist" or "Baptist Church" have no biblical bases

I'd agree with that.

[lawandorder]

Like, this: Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church. Ok, he died, and has not returned yet, if he does at all. So, a husband should die for his wife, leave her alone, and maybe not return to keep his promise? You "hope" he returns?

[roger teekell]

I'd agree with that.

Well it was't John the "Catholic"...Or John the "Methodist"...

It was John the"Baptist"...:D

[hben]

So we can agree that the term "Baptist" or "Baptist Church" have no biblical bases or authority, hence Christians were never called Baptists...this is a man-made concept.

The name was given to Baptists by those who persecuted them for their beliefs. Baptists didn't come up with the name originally. They were persecuted because they refused to accept the baptisms of other groups who placed different meanings to baptism. Infant baptism and sprinkling were not accepted by their churches, and they also rejected baptisms by those who came from any faith that considered baptism as necessary to salvation. So they would re-baptise those who joined their churches according to their teachings of what baptism was all about.

[Koushi Shinigami]

So, a husband should die for his wife, leave her alone, and maybe not return to keep his promise?

Ahhhh, the recipe for marital bliss.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Why do Baptists use a Protestant Bible?

[RayMan]

Why do Baptists use a Protestand Bible?

Because the KJV is the only Bible that will fit on a Protestand. If you have a different style pulpit the version possibilities are endless.

[RayMan]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=44761671&postcount=1677

Part of it reads:


I'm always happy when a new poster makes their gender clear!

I've noticed on a couple of occasions that the "Darthe Lady" in your signature along with the terri rather than terry hasn't done the trick for some folk around here so yeah, it is a blessing when the new folk spell it out for us.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Fix't it.

Thx Ray. :D

[RayMan]

Ahhhh, the recipe for marital bliss.

Dream on, home-boy.:)

[Koushi Shinigami]

Dream on, home-boy.:)

I've oft said that were I to win the lottery, I would immediately turn invisible. And not even my wife would find me.

[cbut1]

Why do Baptists use a Protestant Bible?

I use various translations and have even taken Koine Greek language classes so as to help myself be clear when translation issues arise. For instance you will see that I most often refer to Church as assembly because the word Ekklesia is more accurately translated from 2 Greek Words which is defined as called out assembly. I do us the word Church also but I try to limit it to a generalized form instead of a specific one.

For the record Biblegateway.com isgreat also a downloadble E-Sword is handy both contain many translations. I own KJV, NASB, NIV, I even have the Jehovahs Witness translation in oneof my book boxes. I prefer the NASB that is the New American Standard Bible not the New Amplified Study Bible.

[cbut1]

Oh to finish answering your question, some don't like change so they stick with what they were taught with.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I use various translations and have even taken Koine Greek language classes so as to help myself be clear when translation issues arise. For instance you will see that I most often refer to Church as assembly because the word Ekklesia is more accurately translated from 2 Greek Words which is defined as called out assembly. I do us the word Church also but I try to limit it to a generalized form instead of a specific one.

For the record Biblegateway.com isgreat also a downloadble E-Sword is handy both contain many translations. I own KJV, NASB, NIV, I even have the Jehovahs Witness translation in oneof my book boxes. I prefer the NASB that is the New American Standard Bible not the New Amplified Study Bible.

Any Catholic Bibles in that list?

[buflineks]

On June 14th, 1851, J.R. Graves presented this question:

"Can Baptists, consistently with their principles or the Scriptures, recognize, those societies not organized according to the pattern of the Jerusalem Church, but posessing differern governments, different officers, a different class of members, different ordinaces, doctrines, and practices, as churches of Chirst?"

(italics in origional)

Graves, J.R. Old Landmarksim: What is it? Memphis: Calvalry Baptist Church, 1881. 11. This was presented at the Cotton Groves convention. It is but one of three major questions presented by Graves.

Could you please define the "governements;officers, members; ordiances; doctirnes and practices" and just exactly where one would find these references to the "Jerusalem Church".

Not trying to pick a fight. I realize that there will be a lot of Scripture citation.

I have just found that statement intriguing in my research and would like to know if any Baptist could maybe dumb it down for me.( Graves was a very intense writter)

[cbut1]

On June 14th, 1851, J.R. Graves presented this question:

"Can Baptists, consistently with their principles or the Scriptures, recognize, those societies not organized according to the pattern of the Jerusalem Church, but posessing differern governments, different officers, a different class of members, different ordinaces, doctrines, and practices, as churches of Chirst?"

(italics in origional)

Graves, J.R. Old Landmarksim: What is it? Memphis: Calvalry Baptist Church, 1881. 11. This was presented at the Cotton Groves convention. It is but one of three major questions presented by Graves.

Could you please define the "governements;officers, memebers; ordiances, doctirnes and practices" and just exactly where one would find these references to the "Jerusalem Church".

Not trying to pick a fight. I realize that there will be a lot of Scripture citation.

I have just found that statement intriguing in my research and would like to know if any Baptist could maybe dumb it down for me.( Graves was a very intense writter)

Yes he was.

I will do my best but it will not be with intimate knowledge of Graves since he has passed well before my day.

Let me get to my copy and spend a few days on it so that I can perform this task better prepared.

Like you with as much as is read it sometimes takes a refresher to bring those things into clarity. :D

[buflineks]

Yes he was.

I will do my best but it will not be with intimate knowledge of Graves since he has passed well before my day.

Let me get to my copy and spend a few days on it so that I can perform this task better prepared.

Like you with as much as is read it sometimes takes a refresher to bring those things into clarity. :D

Thank you cbut.

btw, When I do write my dissertation, you will be amply thanked for your insights and help.

[cbut1]

Any Catholic Bibles in that list?

On Biblegateway and on E-Sword yes but none that I have personally purchased for study.

[cbut1]

Thank you cbut.

btw, When I do write my dissertation, you will be amply thanked for your insights and help.

I am humbled by that my good friend but it is not necessary I am only trying to be what Christ would have me to be and He will amply reward me in His time. :pray:


I would like to read the finished product though I am eager to see what you have discovered.

[Koushi Shinigami]

On Biblegateway and on E-Sword yes but none that I have personally purchased for study.

Perhaps Baptists have more in common with Protestants than they care to admit.

[cbut1]

Perhaps Baptists have more in common with Protestants than they care to admit.

If you have paid closer attention you will notice hat I have said that myself concerning most who call themselves baptist. Many have taken on Protestant teachings and doctrines and some have even declared allieance to such groups. Most but not all!

[buflineks]

If you have paid closer attention you will notice hat I have said that myself concerning most who call themselves baptist. Many have taken on Protestant teachings and doctrines and some have even declared allieance to such groups. Most but not all!


It is my understanding that this is what prompted the Landmarkism doctrinaire ecclesiology.

And that is what prompted the Cotton Grove convention.

[cbut1]

It is my understanding that this is what prompted the Landmarkism doctrinaire ecclesiology.

And that is what prompted the Cotton Grove convention.

Bingo give the man a cigar. If one looks backwards through our history (or at least what we claim is our history) they would be inclined to see similar patterns happen time and again. What do they call that reverse engineering or something like that.

[cbut1]

We have recently gone through another type of this endeavor over what some are calling "Newlightism". Check this out there is one fellow in our work that has written a book called "Catholic seed in Newlight Creed. I haven't read the book and don't really intend to anytime soon. To be labeled a Newlighter is a bad thing and the funny thing is those who makes these accusations all have different criteria for what a Newlighter is.

[terri910]

I've noticed on a couple of occasions that the "Darthe Lady" in your signature along with the terri rather than terry hasn't done the trick for some folk around here so yeah, it is a blessing when the new folk spell it out for us.
I wonder if some people mistake me for the Pope because of my avatar? :))

[RayMan]

I wonder if some people mistake me for the Pope because of my avatar? :))


Could be. I hope people think I really am Groucho.

[buflineks]

I wonder if some people mistake me for the Pope because of my avatar? :))

No. just a "Popette".;)

[buflineks]

Could be. I hope people think I really am Groucho.

Well, if you give me money for saying the "Magic Word", I'll call you "Groucho".

[RayMan]

Well, if you give me money for saying the "Magic Word", I'll call you "Groucho".

That's "Woid." Get the spelling right. My wife got to see "A Night With Groucho" about a year before he died. I wish so much I had got the chance to see him.

[terri910]

That's "Woid." Get the spelling right. My wife got to see "A Night With Groucho" about a year before he died. I wish so much I had got the chance to see him.
You need to search youtube for Groucho....I was browsing it the other night and got several episode of "What's My Line" with him on the panel -- he was GREAT...

[buflineks]

That's "Woid." Get the spelling right. My wife got to see "A Night With Groucho" about a year before he died. I wish so much I had got the chance to see him.

Ray..............think for a minute................spelling...........buf...... ........:doh:

[RayMan]

Ray..............think for a minute................spelling...........buf...... ........:doh:

Exactly. I would expect your default spelling to be "woid."

[Semi-Sweet]

I wonder if some people mistake me for the Pope because of my avatar? :))

I haven't made that mistake but, I do get the feeling when I read your posts that your words are to be taken very seriously. I think it has something to do with those raised hands. It's like you are making an important declaration. . . .:))

[terri910]

I haven't made that mistake but, I do get the feeling when I read your posts that your words are to be taken very seriously. I think it has something to do with those raised hands. It's like you are making an important declaration. . . .:))
Now I wish I'd raised my hands up more when the boys were kids....*LOL*...No doubt, they'd have looked at me like this: :eh:

[Hadassah]

Now I wish I'd raised my hands up more when the boys were kids....*LOL*...No doubt, they'd have looked at me like this: :eh:

I wish that would work right about now with my son......... :doh:

[3inOne]

I wish that would work right about now with my son......... :doh:


Wouldn't you just wish there is a show called the Child Whisperer?

[cbut1]

On June 14th, 1851, J.R. Graves presented this question:

"Can Baptists, consistently with their principles or the Scriptures, recognize, those societies not organized according to the pattern of the Jerusalem Church, but posessing differern governments, different officers, a different class of members, different ordinaces, doctrines, and practices, as churches of Chirst?"

(italics in origional)

Graves, J.R. Old Landmarksim: What is it? Memphis: Calvalry Baptist Church, 1881. 11. This was presented at the Cotton Groves convention. It is but one of three major questions presented by Graves.

Could you please define the "governements;officers, members; ordiances; doctirnes and practices" and just exactly where one would find these references to the "Jerusalem Church".

Not trying to pick a fight. I realize that there will be a lot of Scripture citation.

I have just found that statement intriguing in my research and would like to know if any Baptist could maybe dumb it down for me.( Graves was a very intense writter)

I will try to be succinct and short but if needed I can and will break out the verses that support my answer. :D


Landmark Baptists believe in a congregational form of government, two church officers (pastors and deacons), two ordinances (baptism and Lord's Supper), and practice constituting new churches by virtue of a church authorizing its own missionaries for said purpose. This, we believe, is how the Jerusalem church operated as constituted by Christ. Consequently, if Baptists emulate the Jerusalem church in these things then it can rightly claim to be Christ's church; other churches, on the other hand, that depart from the simplicity of these things and how we observe them cannot be construed as Christ's church but represent something foreign to the Bible altogether. Hence, if they are no church of Christ, then we ought not to recognize them as such by accepting their baptisms, affiliating with their pulpits (and vice-versa), and opening the table of communion to them. In short, by virtue of Baptist principles Baptists must exercise ecclesiastical separation from everything that feigns to be Christ's church.

I hope that answers the question.

[Gem]

It means I know where this arguement comes from and who proposed it.

Snow is also a fan of this quasi-historian.

His work is based upon Barnes' research done in the 1930-60's and although he does mention Cameron on the subject of Nicea (but only to quote numbers) he totally disregards her evidence that contradicts his and Barnes assertions. Carroll also dismisses a ton of other credible historical research on the subject done by secular historians. In fact, he doesn't even acknowledge their research and how it relates to his book.

But certian individuals like to cite him because he proclaims himself to be "Catholic". That however doesn't excuse his outright garbage research and horrendous historical methodology.

Nothing you find in church history can be taken as full truth.

1- Bias-- bias can affect writers and historians.
Every doctrinal writer and historian has his own presuppositions, which can affect his objectivity. Early writers were no exception. It was natural of them to tend to slant things in their favor, sometimes deliberately and sometimes unconsciously. When they described the doctrine of someone they disagreed with, they often made it look foolish or illogical, because to them it was. Sometimes they simply didnot understand a point their opponents made.When ever there were clashes in history, the people who won usually were the ones who left the record of what happened.

2- Writers of a certain age do not always repersent the views of the majority of believers at that time.

The most influential leaders of teachers of the time may not have written the writings that survive from a particular era. Before the invention of printing in the west in the 1400s, all documents had to be copied by hand. If later scribes deemed a manuscript to be unimportant or heretical, they had little desire to copy it repeatedly. Censors often destroyed writings later judged to heretical, Generally, what has been preserved from early times are documents that fit the beliefs of the people who had the opportunity to preserve or discard them. only a fraction of the early times still exists, and it is difficult to say how representative the remnent is.

3- There is also the strong possibility of interpolations ( insertions) in ancient manuscripts.

The scribes who copied manuscripts by hand had often changed statements, whether by mistake, misunderstanding, or deliberate alteration. they often felt free to add clarifications, corrections, or simply their own views. Comparisons of different manuscripts of some works reveal that interpolations were quite common. sometimes a scribe involved in a theological controversy would insert a few lines supportive of his own position into a book ancient, widely respected leader.

4- False doctrines existed in the early times.

Even if we were to find a nonbiblical document from the first century, its antiquity does not guarantee that it is truly apostles or teaches the correct doctrine, For the New Testament reveals there were false teachers even in the first century. Moreover, documents from the second century were written approximately a century after the founding of the New Testament church, and one hundred years is a long time in doctrinal history.



5- Early terms were often imprecise , especially in light of later controversies.

In the middle ages and during the Reformation great controversies arose over the Lord's Supper. The issue was whether the bread and the fruit of the vine were symbolic, or whether Christ's blood and body were physically present. Both sides in these debates appealed to writers from the first centuries. For instance, a proponent of the doctrine of the real presence would find a writer who described the Lord's Supper as a partaking of Christ's body. But did the writer mean this statement to be figurative or literal? It is difficult to know for certain, since he wrote before the controversy existed.

5- Sources for church history are neither authoritative nor infallible.

In my opinion only scripture can claim that distinctive. It is from scripture alone that you can derive instruction for salvation, Christian living, and Christian belief. As a Christian our sole authority is the Bible, the Word of God.

God has inspired and preserved His Word for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness,

II Timothy 3: 16. If an ancient, well-respected source seems to teach a doctrine that is contrary to scripture, we must choose the message of scripture.

You see, I wanted to do the kind of work you do as well.
But after I studed it for a while I found these things out and thought very hard about it. I changed my mind about it because I did not want God to hold me responsable for mistakes that others had made or that I have made by adding to church history.

You do not know how many mistakes you are adding your work to in this kind of work. It is a chance you are taking. and that did not look good in my eyes because as I said I did not want God to lay this charge on me.

[Koushi Shinigami]

:eh:

[hben]

:eh:

It really tires my eyes out to have to read such long replies as this. :cool:

[RayMan]

It really tires my eyes out to have to read such long replies as this. :cool:

Scintillating.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Pithy.

[buflineks]

I will try to be succinct and short but if needed I can and will break out the verses that support my answer. :D


Landmark Baptists believe in a congregational form of government, two church officers (pastors and deacons), two ordinances (baptism and Lord's Supper), and practice constituting new churches by virtue of a church authorizing its own missionaries for said purpose. This, we believe, is how the Jerusalem church operated as constituted by Christ. Consequently, if Baptists emulate the Jerusalem church in these things then it can rightly claim to be Christ's church; other churches, on the other hand, that depart from the simplicity of these things and how we observe them cannot be construed as Christ's church but represent something foreign to the Bible altogether. Hence, if they are no church of Christ, then we ought not to recognize them as such by accepting their baptisms, affiliating with their pulpits (and vice-versa), and opening the table of communion to them. In short, by virtue of Baptist principles Baptists must exercise ecclesiastical separation from everything that feigns to be Christ's church.

I hope that answers the question.

Okay. Thank you cbut. I appreciate the time you have taken to help me verify that my understanding is correct.

Now, Since this is an "Ask a Baptist Thread". I'm gonna ask you more things to make sure that my understanding is complete.

First is the matter of Baptism.

In Graves' work ( and as I undstand it all Baptist doctrine, correct me if I'm wrong) The definition of Baptism is a key point that seperates "Christ's Church" from the others.

1)Baptism

A) Believer's Baptism: That only those old enough to make a conscious choice to follow the will of God may be baptized. No Infant Baptisms.

B) Immersion: In order for the Baptism to be valid the method of Baptism must be complete immersion. No other form of Baptism is acceptable. Any other form cannot be considered a valid Baptism.

C) Even if a person is "baptized" under another form, and even if the candidate believes in the Scripture, if the form of baptism is incorrect, it negates the action because it was not done according to "Scriptural Methodology".

I'll end this here. I don't want to put up too much for you to respond to at one time.

again, thank you for your patience and explinations in helping me to understand this.

[RayMan]

Pithy.

Quit lisping.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Vir thaught mthe. :razz:

[hben]

Vir thaught mthe. :razz:

Mthe??? I don't think I am mtheous of anyone who talks like that. :eek:

[RayMan]

Okay. Thank you cbut. I appreciate the time you have taken to help me verify that my understanding is correct.

Now, Since this is an "Ask a Baptist Thread". I'm gonna ask you more things to make sure that my understanding is complete.

First is the matter of Baptism.

In Graves' work ( and as I undstand it all Baptist doctrine, correct me if I'm wrong) The definition of Baptism is a key point that seperates "Christ's Church" from the others.

1)Baptism

A) Believer's Baptism: That only those old enough to make a conscious choice to follow the will of God may be baptized. No Infant Baptisms.

B) Immersion: In order for the Baptism to be valid the method of Baptism must be complete immersion. No other form of Baptism is acceptable. Any other form cannot be considered a valid Baptism.

C) Even if a person is "baptized" under another form, and even if the candidate believes in the Scripture, if the form of baptism is incorrect, it negates the action because it was not done according to "Scriptural Methodology".

I'll end this here. I don't want to put up too much for you to respond to at one time.

again, thank you for your patience and explinations in helping me to understand this.

Hey cbut1,
Buf's questions beg the question of where do you stand concerning baptismal regeneration.

Thanks.

[cbut1]

Okay. Thank you cbut. I appreciate the time you have taken to help me verify that my understanding is correct.

Now, Since this is an "Ask a Baptist Thread". I'm gonna ask you more things to make sure that my understanding is complete.

First is the matter of Baptism.

In Graves' work ( and as I undstand it all Baptist doctrine, correct me if I'm wrong) The definition of Baptism is a key point that seperates "Christ's Church" from the others.

1)Baptism

A) Believer's Baptism: That only those old enough to make a conscious choice to follow the will of God may be baptized. No Infant Baptisms.

B) Immersion: In order for the Baptism to be valid the method of Baptism must be complete immersion. No other form of Baptism is acceptable. Any other form cannot be considered a valid Baptism.

C) Even if a person is "baptized" under another form, and even if the candidate believes in the Scripture, if the form of baptism is incorrect, it negates the action because it was not done according to "Scriptural Methodology".

I'll end this here. I don't want to put up too much for you to respond to at one time.

again, thank you for your patience and explinations in helping me to understand this.


All correct my good friend.

It is really a matter of following what is in scripture without adding or taking away, Christ is our example.

[cbut1]

Hey cbut1,
Buf's questions beg the question of where do you stand concerning baptismal regeneration.

Thanks.

Well according to Baptist understanding that those who practice Baptismal Regeneration believe that it is through that act of Baptism that one receives salvation. I am intimatly familiar with this because the assembly I was formerly a member of has now gone that way of practice. Although they still carry the name of Baptist they deny the biblical truth of salvation from death before baptism. Salvation redeems man from death and that can be seen even in the story of the 10th plague and Exodus story. Baptism happened after they left Egypt were the death Angel came down.

[buflineks]

All correct my good friend.

It is really a matter of following what is in scripture without adding or taking away, Christ is our example.

Thannk you. Having read Graves, I want to make sure that I understand the position of Landmarkism and that of the modern Baptist denomination.

Okay, another question.

You referenced a "congregational goverment".

Now it is my understanding that this mean that each "church" is autonomous. That there is no direct Hierarchy (and I mean earthly, not theological in origin). And that it is egalitarian. That no one member of the church has more authority than another when it comes to understanding scripture.

(If this sounds complicated let me expound in a comparison)

In the RCC, the Pope is the head of the Church. In the case of "Infallibility" there is no question among the members.
In the case of Baptists, there is no such thing. Each member is allowed to present any "theological argument" and then it would be decided by the church as a whole as to which interpretation of scripture is correct.

In fact, if I have read Graves correctly, one of the signs of the invalidity of Catholocism is that there is a hierarchy that dispurses doctrine and dogma and has (for lack of a better word) a caste system.

Am I correct in this understanding?

[buflineks]

Well according to Baptist understanding that those who practice Baptismal Regeneration believe that it is through that act of Baptism that one receives salvation. I am intimatly familiar with this because the assembly I was formerly a member of has now gone that way of practice. Although they still carry the name of Baptist they deny the biblical truth of salvation from death before baptism. Salvation redeems man from death and that can be seen even in the story of the 10th plague and Exodus story. Baptism happened after they left Egypt were the death Angel came down.

I can't give the exact quote from Graves at this time. But I believe he stated something to the effect that baptism is a symbol ( not means) of regeneration and that no other meaning is possible.

That baptism is not necessary for salvation, but rather salvation is necessary for baptism.

[RayMan]

I can't give the exact quote from Graves at this time. But I believe he stated something to the effect that baptism is a symbol ( not means) of regeneration and that no other meaning is possible.

That baptism is not necessary for salvation, but rather salvation is necessary for baptism.

We used to have a saying back in my Baptist days that reflected this.

"If you go under the water a dry sinner you come up out of the water a wet sinner."

[Koushi Shinigami]

Mankind can become not sinful?

Seems contrary to Baptist doctrine. :whistle:

[cbut1]

Thannk you. Having read Graves, I want to make sure that I understand the position of Landmarkism and that of the modern Baptist denomination.

Okay, another question.

You referenced a "congregational goverment".

Now it is my understanding that this mean that each "church" is autonomous. That there is no direct Hierarchy (and I mean earthly, not theological in origin). And that it is egalitarian. That no one member of the church has more authority than another when it comes to understanding scripture.

(If this sounds complicated let me expound in a comparison)

In the RCC, the Pope is the head of the Church. In the case of "Infallibility" there is no question among the members.
In the case of Baptists, there is no such thing. Each member is allowed to present any "theological argument" and then it would be decided by the church as a whole as to which interpretation of scripture is correct.

In fact, if I have read Graves correctly, one of the signs of the invalidity of Catholocism is that there is a hierarchy that dispurses doctrine and dogma and has (for lack of a better word) a caste system.

Am I correct in this understanding?


Again you are correct.

My wife and my 8 yr old son has an equal part with everyone else as far as judgments and duties go. I am a Preacher and although I may hold a higher level of respect do to my studies and character that in and of itself does not afford me any higher station within our work. My 8 yr olds vote is equally as important as mine is.


As an interesting side note this is the manner that President Thomas Jefferson used in the structure of the Constitution framework. What I mean by that is it is written in some of his personal correspondence concerning lessons of his youth. That each summer he would visit his Uncle and Aunt while doing so he would go to their Church which as he records is a Baptist one. During his visits he learned the manner of the politics of equal say of vote man or woman.

[cbut1]

I can't give the exact quote from Graves at this time. But I believe he stated something to the effect that baptism is a symbol ( not means) of regeneration and that no other meaning is possible.

That baptism is not necessary for salvation, but rather salvation is necessary for baptism.

Yes you are doing well my friend in understanding his mind and heart concerning these things.

I might add though that Baptism is more than just symbol, for Christ found it necessary to fulfill all righteousness. With Baptism comes the entrance into the Body/Church/Assembly of Christ without that one cannot enter into the Kingdom to rule and reign with Christ.

[5thIDSoldier]

The name was given to Baptists by those who persecuted them for their beliefs. Baptists didn't come up with the name originally. They were persecuted because they refused to accept the baptisms of other groups who placed different meanings to baptism. Infant baptism and sprinkling were not accepted by their churches, and they also rejected baptisms by those who came from any faith that considered baptism as necessary to salvation. So they would re-baptise those who joined their churches according to their teachings of what baptism was all about.

Hence the term, "Ana-baptist" or re-baptiser....

[5thIDSoldier]

I can't give the exact quote from Graves at this time. But I believe he stated something to the effect that baptism is a symbol ( not means) of regeneration and that no other meaning is possible.

That baptism is not necessary for salvation, but rather salvation is necessary for baptism.

An accurate synopsis.

[cbut1]

Mankind can become not sinful?

Seems contrary to Baptist doctrine. :whistle:

How so? oh wise one.

[Koushi Shinigami]

How so? oh wise one.

Does baptist dogma say that mankind ever loses his totally depraved, sinfull nature? Does it ever claim that one is ever not a sinner?

So even if one accepts Jeusus and becomes saved, he is still a sinner. Granted, a redeemed sinner, but still a sinner. So when he or she is baptized, they will still be a sinner becoming a wet sinner.

[jmacvols]

Some during Emporor Julians day called them Galileans so what is the point you are trying to make here? Is it that since Baptist call themselves Baptist they cannot be Gods divinely called people?

If that is the case then you need to go back and read where history shows that Baptist did not pick the name any more than those whom were called Christians in Antioch did. It is a name that others identified them with and instead of being a badge of dishonor as it was intended it bacame unto us a badge of honor.

The name 'Christian' came from God, a divinely given name, it did not come from anti-Christians. If the name "Baptists" did not come from Baptists then why continue to use the name? The only name a Christian has biblical authority to use is 'Christian', nothing more. After doing more reading, I still cannot find anything about a "Baptist" or a "Baptist Church" in the bible.

[baysidetrey]

The name 'Christian' came from God, a divinely given name, it did not come from anti-Christians. If the name "Baptists" did not come from Baptists then why continue to use the name? The only name a Christian has biblical authority to use is 'Christian', nothing more. After doing more reading, I still cannot find anything about a "Baptist" or a "Baptist Church" in the bible.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Thought this might help.

[jmacvols]

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Thought this might help.

Yes, it was touched on earlier:

Jmacvols:

So we can agree that the term "Baptist" or "Baptist Church" have no biblical bases or authority, hence Christians were never called Baptists...this is a man-made concept. The first century Christians were referred to in general terms as "disciples" or 'followers", but never "Baptist". The name Christian was Divinely given, Isa 62:2, ...."from the mouth of Jehovah". The disciples first were called Christians at Antioch. The word "called" here comes from chrematizo, not the common word for call, phoneo or kaleo. Chrematizo is found 9 times and each time refers to a Divine calling. In fact, Young's Literal Translation renders the verse 'the disciples were first divinely called Christians at Antioch'. The only Divinely given name a Christian can have is "Christian", nothing more, nothing less for any other name is not by Divine calling and without biblical authority. Pagans and/or nonbelievers called them "sect of the Nazarenes", Acts 24:5, yet the name "Christian" is from God.

[baysidetrey]

I saw everyone elses so I thought I would jump in and offer answers.


Here is an answer to the question, why is the sky blue? God made it that way. :whistle:

I have a question for a Baptist that I don't think has been asked yet. When and why did the Baptist churches drop the name church of Christ as in Baptist Missionary church of Christ?

[5thIDSoldier]

I have a question for a Baptist that I don't think has been asked yet. When and why did the Baptist churches drop the name church of Christ as in Baptist Missionary church of Christ?

Confusion with the Church of Christ, which is another completely different denomination.

[baysidetrey]

Confusion with the Church of Christ, which is another completely different denomination.

First, not a denomination and second, there was no confusion. The Catholic church is still called the Catholic church of Christ. Most churches that I have read about in the United States in the 1800's refered to themselves as (Baptist, Presbyterian, ect. church of Christ). My question for Cbut 1 was when did they drop off the church of Christ name.

[Gem]

Did Jesus speak in tongues?

This is kind of a funny question for you to ask me being you are a pastor or minister or what ever.

Jesus can speak in any tongue He wants.
After all, He is GoD and created all and everything.

[comsense08]

It's quite clear in the Bible that for anyone to speak in tongues, there must be someone who understands and can interpret. So, for those who believe they are speaking in tongues, can anyone around you understand what you are saying? If not, it's just babble!

And yes, God can speak anything, anytime. Especially to the hearts of true Believers.

[comsense08]

Confusion with the Church of Christ, which is another completely different denomination.

There are different Baptist churches. The Missionary Baptist church has a strong focus on the TULIP principles. I won't go into all that here, but suffice it to say, their main focus is pre-destination (i.e. you were chosen by God before time began to be saved). Not all Baptist churches are Calvinist churches as most Missionary Baptist churches are.

[comsense08]

Yes, it was touched on earlier:

Jmacvols:

So we can agree that the term "Baptist" or "Baptist Church" have no biblical bases or authority, hence Christians were never called Baptists...this is a man-made concept. The first century Christians were referred to in general terms as "disciples" or 'followers", but never "Baptist". The name Christian was Divinely given, Isa 62:2, ...."from the mouth of Jehovah". The disciples first were called Christians at Antioch. The word "called" here comes from chrematizo, not the common word for call, phoneo or kaleo. Chrematizo is found 9 times and each time refers to a Divine calling. In fact, Young's Literal Translation renders the verse 'the disciples were first divinely called Christians at Antioch'. The only Divinely given name a Christian can have is "Christian", nothing more, nothing less for any other name is not by Divine calling and without biblical authority. Pagans and/or nonbelievers called them "sect of the Nazarenes", Acts 24:5, yet the name "Christian" is from God.
You are so right, however many Missionary (Calvinist) Baptist churches claim their lineage back to Christ to prove they are the "one true church". And that each new church must be started by one of the "true" churches.

[comsense08]

The name 'Christian' came from God, a divinely given name, it did not come from anti-Christians. If the name "Baptists" did not come from Baptists then why continue to use the name? The only name a Christian has biblical authority to use is 'Christian', nothing more. After doing more reading, I still cannot find anything about a "Baptist" or a "Baptist Church" in the bible.
The term Christians did not come from God. It came from the early church era when non-Christians saw the behavior of believers (that of like Christ), and started calling them "Christians", for "like Christ".

[Koushi Shinigami]

First, not a denomination


I disagree, they have a big college in Abiline and another in Searcy.

[cbut1]

Does baptist dogma say that mankind ever loses his totally depraved, sinfull nature? Does it ever claim that one is ever not a sinner?

So even if one accepts Jeusus and becomes saved, he is still a sinner. Granted, a redeemed sinner, but still a sinner. So when he or she is baptized, they will still be a sinner becoming a wet sinner.

Ok got you now, I apparently misunderstood your comment.

[CID_0687]

The term Christians did not come from God. It came from the early church era when non-Christians saw the behavior of believers (that of like Christ), and started calling them "Christians", for "like Christ".
Yep. I guess the only name for us that was divinely appointed was/is Believers.

[cbut1]

The name 'Christian' came from God, a divinely given name, it did not come from anti-Christians. If the name "Baptists" did not come from Baptists then why continue to use the name? The only name a Christian has biblical authority to use is 'Christian', nothing more. After doing more reading, I still cannot find anything about a "Baptist" or a "Baptist Church" in the bible.

If you noticed I even said that.

What you will need to pay attention to is the New Testiment Church as it is exampled by Jerusalem, Romans, Ephesians, Colosians, Thessalinicans; etc etc etc. All of these are part and parcle (not complete within themselves yet autonomous of one another) the New Testiment Church and it is our claim as Baptist (as a New Testiment Church) that we practice still today what was practiced during the days of Christ and the Apostles.

Also the name Christian was given by those deriding the followers of Christ it didn't come from God.

[CID_0687]

It's quite clear in the Bible that for anyone to speak in tongues, there must be someone who understands and can interpret. So, for those who believe they are speaking in tongues, can anyone around you understand what you are saying? If not, it's just babble!

And yes, God can speak anything, anytime. Especially to the hearts of true Believers.
Prayer language needs no interpreter.

[cbut1]

I have a question for a Baptist that I don't think has been asked yet. When and why did the Baptist churches drop the name church of Christ as in Baptist Missionary church of Christ?

Some still do use it.

Usually the name changes in part due to some sort of conflict that has arisen. I believe that the Cambellites (a segment that seperated from Baptist) used the name more extensively and so those that didn't want to be mistaken for a Cambellite changed the name.

In the last 10 yrs or so I have found that more frequently some in Baptist work are being identified as Covenant Baptist. So don't be surprised if that gains in usage over the next decade or so. You can watch history unfold before your eyes. :D

[cbut1]

There are different Baptist churches. The Missionary Baptist church has a strong focus on the TULIP principles. I won't go into all that here, but suffice it to say, their main focus is pre-destination (i.e. you were chosen by God before time began to be saved). Not all Baptist churches are Calvinist churches as most Missionary Baptist churches are.

You are mistaken on more levels that I feel like addressing right now but I will get back to this statement.

[cbut1]

Yep. I guess the only name for us that was divinely appointed was/is Believers.

Or Saints, the Elect, or my personal favorite name little Sheep.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Ok got you now, I apparently misunderstood your comment.

:dance:

[RayMan]

you are mistaken on more levels that i feel like addressing right now but i will get back to this statement.



:))

[jmacvols]

The term Christians did not come from God. It came from the early church era when non-Christians saw the behavior of believers (that of like Christ), and started calling them "Christians", for "like Christ".

Hello comsense08 and I disagree.

Jmacvols:

The name Christian was Divinely given, Isa 62:2, ...."from the mouth of Jehovah". The disciples first were called Christians at Antioch. The word "called" here comes from chrematizo, not the common word for call, phoneo or kaleo. Chrematizo is found 9 times and each time refers to a Divine calling. In fact, Young's Literal Translation renders the verse 'the disciples were first divinely called Christians at Antioch'. The only Divinely given name a Christian can have is "Christian", nothing more, nothing less for any other name is not by Divine calling and without biblical authority. Pagans and/or nonbelievers called them "sect of the Nazarenes", Acts 24:5, yet the name "Christian" is from God.

[baysidetrey]

Some still do use it.

Usually the name changes in part due to some sort of conflict that has arisen. I believe that the Cambellites (a segment that seperated from Baptist) used the name more extensively and so those that didn't want to be mistaken for a Cambellite changed the name.

In the last 10 yrs or so I have found that more frequently some in Baptist work are being identified as Covenant Baptist. So don't be surprised if that gains in usage over the next decade or so. You can watch history unfold before your eyes. :D

Campbell was a Presbyterian who left their church and fellowshipped with the Baptist in the mid 1800's because they had simmilar beliefs. He was disfellowshipped by the Baptist conventions for not holding all of their beliefs. He also sued a newspaper for slander for calling the movement Cambellites (Campbellite is a derogatory comment to members of the church of Christ who simply call themselves christians but that is another story). In the Porter/Bogard debate which I believe was in the 1950's, Bogard called his congrgation the Missionary Baptist church of Christ. I was just wondering why Baptist would no longer want to consider themselves part of the church of Christ or Christ church.

[cbut1]

Campbell was a Presbyterian who left their church and fellowshipped with the Baptist in the mid 1800's because they had simmilar beliefs. He was disfellowshipped by the Baptist conventions for not holding all of their beliefs. He also sued a newspaper for slander for calling the movement Cambellites (Campbellite is a derogatory comment to members of the church of Christ who simply call themselves christians but that is another story). In the Porter/Bogard debate which I believe was in the 1950's, Bogard called his congrgation the Missionary Baptist church of Christ. I was just wondering why Baptist would no longer want to consider themselves part of the church of Christ or Christ church.

As I said some still do use it.

Again the name does not identify a True New Testement Church it is the Holy Spirit and the doctrine that does this. Has the assembly the Proper foundation and Teachings. The foundation being that of Christ and passed through assembly after assembly even to todays time. The teachings being that which are in accord with scripture.

[baysidetrey]

I disagree, they have a big college in Abiline and another in Searcy.

You missed a bunch more such as Pepperdine, Ohio Valley University, Lipscomb (and Univeristy of Kentucky was founded by members of the church of Christ I believe). But, that has no bearing on the denomination factor. Each congregation is autonomous and only answers to the elders/men of that congregation. BTW, I do not believe that church sponsored universities are a good idea.

[baysidetrey]

As I said some still do use it.

Again the name does not identify a True New Testement Church it is the Holy Spirit and the doctrine that does this. Has the assembly the Proper foundation and Teachings. The foundation being that of Christ and passed through assembly after assembly even to todays time. The teachings being that which are in accord with scripture.

I am not arguing the name as scriptural (that would be a whole other thread). I was just wondering why Baptist would not want to wear Christ's name anymore. It is as though they have become ashamed of it (IMO). Just a question for a Baptist.

[Semi-Sweet]

Hello comsense08 and I disagree.

Jmacvols:

The name Christian was Divinely given, Isa 62:2, ...."from the mouth of Jehovah". The disciples first were called Christians at Antioch. The word "called" here comes from chrematizo, not the common word for call, phoneo or kaleo. Chrematizo is found 9 times and each time refers to a Divine calling. In fact, Young's Literal Translation renders the verse 'the disciples were first divinely called Christians at Antioch'. The only Divinely given name a Christian can have is "Christian", nothing more, nothing less for any other name is not by Divine calling and without biblical authority. Pagans and/or nonbelievers called them "sect of the Nazarenes", Acts 24:5, yet the name "Christian" is from God.

Isa 62:2 The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, And all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name.

Isa 62:3 You shall also be a crown of glory In the hand of the LORD, And a royal diadem In the hand of your God.

Isa 62:4 You shall no longer be termed Forsaken, Nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate; But you shall be called Hephzibah, [fn] and your land Beulah; [fn] For the LORD delights in you, And your land shall be married.

Your reference in Isaiah. . . Does Hephzibah mean Christian?

[cbut1]

I am not arguing the name as scriptural (that would be a whole other thread). I was just wondering why Baptist would not want to wear Christ's name anymore. It is as though they have become ashamed of it (IMO). Just a question for a Baptist.

No no shame of Christ. The names of many assemblies have been so for many moons why some choose particular ones I don't know. I have not been directly a part of establishing a new assembly yet so my input in that regards has had no bearing. I personally would chose to have it in there.

[cbut1]

Isa 62:2 The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, And all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name.

Isa 62:3 You shall also be a crown of glory In the hand of the LORD, And a royal diadem In the hand of your God.

Isa 62:4 You shall no longer be termed Forsaken, Nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate; But you shall be called Hephzibah, [fn] and your land Beulah; [fn] For the LORD delights in you, And your land shall be married.

Your reverence in Isaiah. . . Does Hephzibah mean Christian?



What I find interesting is the choice of verses that speak of a time still yet to come, to justify a modern or current mindset.

[baysidetrey]

No no shame of Christ. The names of many assemblies have been so for many moons why some choose particular ones I don't know. I have not been directly a part of establishing a new assembly yet so my input in that regards has had no bearing. I personally would chose to have it in there.

Fair enough. I just thought it was an interesting fact that most churches that I have read about used (name) then church of Christ up until the 1900's. Thanks for the info.

[RayMan]

Isa 62:2 The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, And all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name.

Isa 62:3 You shall also be a crown of glory In the hand of the LORD, And a royal diadem In the hand of your God.

Isa 62:4 You shall no longer be termed Forsaken, Nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate; But you shall be called Hephzibah, [fn] and your land Beulah; [fn] For the LORD delights in you, And your land shall be married.

Your reference in Isaiah. . . Does Hephzibah mean Christian?

BIBLE DICTIONARY
HEPHZIBAH
"My delight is in her."

Remember Miz Hephzibah, the lady skunk from the Pogo comic strip?

[cbut1]

BIBLE DICTIONARY
HEPHZIBAH
"My delight is in her."

Remember Miz Hephzibah, the lady skunk from the Pogo comic strip?

Hey Rayman did I answer your previous question earlier satisfactorily for your curiousity? The one about Baptismal Regeneration.

[RayMan]

Hey Rayman did I answer your previous question earlier satisfactorily for your curiousity? The one about Baptismal Regeneration.

Yes sir, you did. Thank you.

[Semi-Sweet]

BIBLE DICTIONARY
HEPHZIBAH
"My delight is in her."

Remember Miz Hephzibah, the lady skunk from the Pogo comic strip?

I googled it, to see if I remembered it but I don't. So Hephzibah is a she, and Miz fits. Interesting, thanks. :D

[RayMan]

I googled it, to see if I remembered it but I don't. So Hephzibah is a she, and Miz fits. Interesting, thanks. :D

They spelled it different. Haven't read Pogo in quite a while.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Mam'selle_Hepzibah

[Semi-Sweet]

They spelled it different. Haven't read Pogo in quite a while.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Mam'selle_Hepzibah

I remember Pepe La Pew, the article says she was before Hepzibah.

[RayMan]

I remember Pepe La Pew, the article says she was before Hepzibah.

Pepe's a dude with a Maurice Chevalier voice. Was always chasing after a female cat who somehow managed to get a stripe of white paint down her back in every cartoon.


Oh, and so we don't derail, Miss Hepzibah was a Cajun Baptist Skunk.

[cbut1]

You had to throw the Cajun in there didn't you. :D

[RayMan]

You had to throw the Cajun in there didn't you. :D

Mais oui mon frere.

[Koushi Shinigami]

You had to throw the Cajun in there didn't you. :D

Ever hear of "Slap Ya Momma" spices?

[cbut1]

Mais oui mon frere.

Je tem mon pettiu.

[cbut1]

Ever hear of "Slap Ya Momma" spices?

No is it a real product?

If so I should probably get some as a b-day gift for my mom. :D

[RayMan]

No is it a real product?

If so I should probably get some as a b-day gift for my mom. :D
http://www.slapyamama.com/

[5thIDSoldier]

There is a good book on the subject of denominational names called "The Handbook of Denominations". It covers North America only, however.

[cbut1]

There is a good book on the subject of denominational names called "The Handbook of Denominations". It covers North America only, however.

I have that one. It goes over who established the particular religion and when and to some degree why.

[Semi-Sweet]

Pepe's a dude with a Maurice Chevalier voice. Was always chasing after a female cat who somehow managed to get a stripe of white paint down her back in every cartoon.


Oh, and so we don't derail, Miss Hepzibah was a Cajun Baptist Skunk.

Are you sure she didn't break away from the Baptists and become a Christian. :mrgreen:

[RayMan]

Are you sure she didn't break away from the Baptists and become a Christian. :mrgreen:

She may have become enlightened.
:whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

[Semi-Sweet]

Pepe's a dude with a Maurice Chevalier voice. Was always chasing after a female cat who somehow managed to get a stripe of white paint down her back in every cartoon.


Oh, and so we don't derail, Miss Hepzibah was a Cajun Baptist Skunk.

I just realized I said 'she', sorry Pepe. . . .:doh: :redface:

[RayMan]

Hey cbut,
I remember you and buf discoursing about the Bogomils. Were they an early Baptist group?

[RayMan]

I just realized I said 'she', sorry Pepe. . . .:doh: :redface:


Aucuns soucis, ma soeur.

[CID_0687]

Hey cbut,
I remember you and bug discoursing about the Bogomils. Were they an early Baptist group?
Who is Bug? :lol:

[RayMan]

Who is Bug? :lol:

Freud strikes yet again. :doh: :doh:

[Semi-Sweet]

Aucuns soucis, ma soeur.

vous etes un des mieux mon frere.

[cbut1]

Hey cbut,
I remember you and buf discoursing about the Bogomils. Were they an early Baptist group?

I'll address this more after work but simply for now yes.

[cbut1]

Sorry for not addressing issues tonight.

I got word that a very dear friend of mine is ill and possibly on his death bed in fact they had to bring in a crash cart to bring him back once. I am going to bed and I will leave to go see him at first light which is soon. Please be patient.

[Meriweather]

Sorry for not addressing issues tonight.

I got word that a very dear friend of mine is ill and possibly on his death bed in fact they had to bring in a crash cart to bring him back once. I am going to bed and I will leave to go see him at first light which is soon. Please be patient.

Praying.

[blazer]

Sorry for not addressing issues tonight.

I got word that a very dear friend of mine is ill and possibly on his death bed in fact they had to bring in a crash cart to bring him back once. I am going to bed and I will leave to go see him at first light which is soon. Please be patient. :hug:

[hben]

Hey cbut,
I remember you and buf discoursing about the Bogomils. Were they an early Baptist group?

I think Bogomil was the forerunner of Malt-O-Meal. It is not very well known that this was what the Pilgrims and Indians had for breakfast to tie them over while they waited for their turkey and dressing dinner to get done. :cool:

[cbut1]

Hey cbut,
I remember you and buf discoursing about the Bogomils. Were they an early Baptist group?

Here is one source it is a fairly easy read.

http://home.gci.net/~wltullos/bogomils.htm


Here is a source of Baptist Historians and writings that Buf may find useful.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/soundbaptist.htm

[cbut1]

Praying.

Thank you both Meri and Blazer for your expressed concern I was able to see him for about an hour before the nurses chased me out. He is all hooked up to feeding, oxygen, and drainage tubes plus others I didn't need nor want to see. His story is a long one about 11 yrs of serious illness including a kidney transplant, he is currently being tested for Prostate Cancer. That is how he ended up in the hospital this time, they did a biopsy and he ended up getting an infection. Well with his health already weak due to the transplant and multiple drugs to keep him stabalized he did't do well with this infection. So being his normal ornery self thought that he would go potty without help, and fell flat on his back hitting his head on the hospital floor. That almost ended his life; well actually it did end his life but the doctors were able to resuscitate him. He is getting better and is not left unattended anymore so with Gods grace he has a bit longer to live.

[CID_0687]

Yikes...your friend and his family are in my prayers cbut

[Meriweather]

Continuing with prayers. Good to hear his situation is better now.

[blazer]

Yes, glad u got to visit and he is doing some better. :)

[cbut1]

He is still in serious straight and close to death but they have a nurse at his side 24/7 now so no more slipping onto the floor and trying to beat up satn using his head.

[cbut1]

bump

[blazer]

How is your friend? Happy New Year to you and your family! :hug:

[5thIDSoldier]

Here is one source it is a fairly easy read.

http://home.gci.net/~wltullos/bogomils.htm


Here is a source of Baptist Historians and writings that Buf may find useful.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/soundbaptist.htm

Thanks cbut. I might find it useful myself.

Happy New Year to you and God bless your family!!

[agoodfoundation]

OK, I got one.

I know that the Baptists have no direct ties to the Catholic church like many of the other denominations do...but if the Catholic church was the original church then where do Baptists come in? There has to be a tie to Catholicism some place right?

they started out as Anabaptist,

have you ever heard of William Tyndale or Micheal Servetus. basically thecatholics didnt want the cogregation to be able to read the bible(back then, the priests and bishops and cardinals were very greedy), people risked ther lives to get the Bible into the hands of the common people and were even burned and the stake for it. But the Bible was printed and put into the hand of modern men.

There is a great book out called "the Bible makes us Baptist" its a great view of how we came to be called Baptist and it is more detailed that my description was.

I am sure someone has probably already answered your question, but the books is great.

[cbut1]

:rolleyes:

:doh:

:shhh:

:hug:

[Koushi Shinigami]

they started out as Anabaptist,

have you ever heard of William Tyndale or Micheal Servetus. basically thecatholics didnt want the cogregation to be able to read the bible(back then, the priests and bishops and cardinals were very greedy), people risked ther lives to get the Bible into the hands of the common people and were even burned and the stake for it. But the Bible was printed and put into the hand of modern men.

There is a great book out called "the Bible makes us Baptist" its a great view of how we came to be called Baptist and it is more detailed that my description was.

I am sure someone has probably already answered your question, but the books is great.



So you're saying the Baptists got their start from a 16th century Protestant reformer.

[blazer]

:rolleyes:

:doh:

:shhh:

:hug:

:naughty::liar::dance::hug::drool::exclaim:

[buflineks]

they started out as Anabaptist,

have you ever heard of William Tyndale or Micheal Servetus. basically thecatholics didnt want the cogregation to be able to read the bible(back then, the priests and bishops and cardinals were very greedy), people risked ther lives to get the Bible into the hands of the common people and were even burned and the stake for it. But the Bible was printed and put into the hand of modern men..

Michael Servetus denied the trinity. In fact, he had no formal following. His writtings were basically interesting discussion for the Intelligensia at various universities like Cambridge.How does he coincided with the modern baptist faith?

Btw, Servetus wasn't executed by the Catholics, John Calvin had him burned at the stake in Vienna. Guess it means that the Jesuits weren't as powerful as all the Reformation propaganda would have us believe, huh?

addum. The discussion about the suppossed "The Church didn't want the "congretation" to read the bible" has gone on ad naseum. In fact, in various threads the entire discussion of Tyndale has basically been laid to rest. ( psst.........Tyndale wasn't executed because he wrote a translation, he was executed because his writtings advocated the violent overthrows of Henry VIII and The Holy Roman Emperor, and got caught.)

[cbut1]

So you're saying the Baptists got their start from a 16th century Protestant reformer.

That does seem to be the implication doesn't it. :eh:

[cbut1]

Michael Servetus denied the trinity. In fact, he had no formal following. His writtings were basically interesting discussion for the Intelligensia at various universities like Cambridge.How does he coincided with the modern baptist faith?

Btw, Servetus wasn't executed by the Catholics, John Calvin had him burned at the stake in Vienna. Guess it means that the Jesuits weren't as powerful as all the Reformation propaganda would have us believe, huh?

addum. The discussion about the suppossed "The Church didn't want the "congretation" to read the bible" has gone on ad naseum. In fact, in various threads the entire discussion of Tyndale has basically been laid to rest. ( psst.........Tyndale wasn't executed because he wrote a translation, he was executed because his writtings advocated the violent overthrows of Henry VIII and The Holy Roman Emperor, and got caught.)


It does get a bit tiring doesn't it. Maybe when I hit my big 10k posts then I will remove myself from here for a recovery period. :D

[Meriweather]

It does get a bit tiring doesn't it. Maybe when I hit my big 10k posts then I will remove myself from here for a recovery period. :D

A bit of advice. Approach that big 10K slowly. While playing with CID is loads of fun, rushing towards the 10K has not been. It is better to remain one's self.

[CID_0687]

A bit of advice. Approach that big 10K slowly. While playing with CID is loads of fun, rushing towards the 10K has not been. It is better to remain one's self.
Then by all means you should do that.

[Meriweather]

Then by all means you should do that.

And yesterday I was saying you always gave such good advice. We declared war, remember? What kind of advice is that to give me?

[CID_0687]

And yesterday I was saying you always gave such good advice. We declared war, remember? What kind of advice is that to give me?
We never declared war...we simply made a friendly bet....but it seems that you can't play by the rules...therefore you will have to forfeit....:razz:

[Meriweather]

We never declared war...we simply made a friendly bet....but it seems that you can't play by the rules...therefore you will have to forfeit....:razz:

Uh-huh. The rule is, that I win. I thought I made that clear from the start. True, I did think I could do it by posting in my normal, not-in-school fashion. I wasn't counting on you being off work.

[CID_0687]

Uh-huh. The rule is, that I win. I thought I made that clear from the start. True, I did think I could do it by posting in my normal, not-in-school fashion. I wasn't counting on you being off work.
We may have to rethink this thing then...I shouldn't have given you a 200 post cushion...and I did have to work yesterday...maybe we can work this out :lol:

[Koushi Shinigami]

That does seem to be the implication doesn't it. :eh:

I can believe the implication.

[Meriweather]

We may have to rethink this thing then...I shouldn't have given you a 200 post cushion...and I did have to work yesterday...maybe we can work this out :lol:


Maybe I should send you my Bacon Vodka, and you should wear the Raider logo. We both lose, but we both win.

[cbut1]

I can believe the implication.

A goodly amount of people do, but I quess it wouldn't convince you or many others for me to simply say they are wrong. :)

[Koushi Shinigami]

A goodly amount of people do, but I quess it wouldn't convince you or many others for me to simply say they are wrong. :)

Would it convince you if the roles were reversed?

[CID_0687]

Maybe I should send you my Bacon Vodka, and you should wear the Raider logo. We both lose, but we both win.
We could do that but only if I have to wear the avie for a week

[Meriweather]

We could do that but only if I have to wear the avie for a week

It is only a pint of Bacon Vodka, so that sounds fair.

[cbut1]

Would it convince you if the roles were reversed?

No I would need evidence.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Evidence is lacking for either side of that discussion.

[cbut1]

No for me the evidence is quite clear but others are those who doubt it.

[Koushi Shinigami]

We all choose what we want to believe in.

[Quantrill]

To Koushi Shinigami

You say "We all choose what we want to believe in". That is incorrect. You cannot make yourself believe anything. You may choose to follow something or someone and still not believe.

A Christian believes, because they believe. Its there. Matt. 16:13-17 "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?....Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.....flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but myh Father which is in heaven....

Eph.2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not ofyourselves: it is the gift of God:

Its there because God puts it there.

Quantrill

[Koushi Shinigami]

To Koushi Shinigami

You say "We all choose what we want to believe in". That is incorrect. You cannot make yourself believe anything. You may choose to follow something or someone and still not believe.

<snip>

Its there because God puts it there.

In this country, you are free to choose to believe that.

[Quantrill]

To Koushi Shinigami

The political makeup of a country plays no role in what one believes. In your freedom to exercise that belief, yes. But not in what one believes.

Quantrill

[Koushi Shinigami]

To Koushi Shinigami

The political makeup of a country plays no role in what one believes. In your freedom to exercise that belief, yes. But not in what one believes.

Quantrill

You're free to believe that as well.

But looking at what's happening in this country today, with the politically correct movement and the state religion of global warming, and what those things are doing to our children, I have to disagree.

[5thIDSoldier]

You're free to believe that as well.

But looking at what's happening in this country today, with the politically correct movement and the state religion of global warming, and what those things are doing to our children, I have to disagree.

Sit down Koushi: Im going to agree with you here/

[cbut1]

Koushi take a chair like 5th ID said because we are in agreement here.

[Lie Sniper]

Koushi take a chair like 5th ID said because we are in agreement here.

Hey cbut1 how are you?

Are you ordaining women yet?;)

I missed the first 1900 posts, so would you mind starting over so I don't need to read through it all?:razz:

:mrgreen:

[cbut1]

Hey cbut1 how are you?

Are you ordaining women yet?;)

I missed the first 1900 posts, so would you mind starting over so I don't need to read through it all?:razz:

:mrgreen:


Doing well thanks for inquiring.

and a big fat NO. on ordaining women. :D Still.

[Quantrill]

To Reeder

I believe Baptists are called Baptists because they were the people in the reformation known as the anti-baptists.

Luthor I don't believe, attacked infant baptism. Some felt like he should have and believed those who were baptized as infants in the Roman church needed to be rebaptized. Thus they were called the anti-baptists. Sometimes known as the radical aspect of the reformation.

Because of their stand on Baptism, many of them were drowned by the Roman Church for their rebaptism.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

I should also add that the Protestants drowned the Ana-baptists also.

Quantrill

[cbut1]

To Reeder

I believe Baptists are called Baptists because they were the people in the reformation known as the anti-baptists.

Luthor I don't believe, attacked infant baptism. Some felt like he should have and believed those who were baptized as infants in the Roman church needed to be rebaptized. Thus they were called the anti-baptists. Sometimes known as the radical aspect of the reformation.

Because of their stand on Baptism, many of them were drowned by the Roman Church for their rebaptism.

Quantrill

Quantrill what form of faith is it that you follow? Pentecostal, Calvanists, Methodist

[Quantrill]

To cbut1 (reply #1933)

There is really no one denomination I can align with and say I am this or that. I am Protestant when compared to Roman Catholic. I am Calvinist, when compared to Arminian, but do not hold to all five points of Calvinism. I grew up Baptist, yet have several differences there as well.

Its easiest for me to say, I am Christian. I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and have been born again. I can fellowhip with any believers of any denomination who are the same.

The source of authority I hold to is the Bible. The 66 books; 39 in the Old; and 27 in the New.

And, pleased to meet you.

Quantrill

[cbut1]

To cbut1 (reply #1933)

There is really no one denomination I can align with and say I am this or that. I am Protestant when compared to Roman Catholic. I am Calvinist, when compared to Arminian, but do not hold to all five points of Calvinism. I grew up Baptist, yet have several differences there as well.

Its easiest for me to say, I am Christian. I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and have been born again. I can fellowhip with any believers of any denomination who are the same.

The source of authority I hold to is the Bible. The 66 books; 39 in the Old; and 27 in the New.

And, pleased to meet you.

Quantrill



Pleased to meet you also.


P.S. if you look in the bottom corner you will see a few buttons there one of them will be a Quote button if you want to speak to someone specifically push that button and the comments you will be responding to will automatically apper in quotes. Like I just did to yours.

FYI

[agoodfoundation]

Why are Baptists called Baptists?


there is a very good book out called the Bible makes us baptists, it should answer some of your questions

[agoodfoundation]

OK, I got one.

I know that the Baptists have no direct ties to the Catholic church like many of the other denominations do...but if the Catholic church was the original church then where do Baptists come in? There has to be a tie to Catholicism some place right?


i believe they recieved there name during the Reformation.

[agoodfoundation]

Okay I got a question...this is something I have wondered about all 29 years of my Baptist life.


Why are there so many green bean casseroles at the pot lucks? Surely people would realize that 12 other people are going to make green bean casseroles, and the world would not end if they just made a simple jell-o salad....


good question, its simple to make,not alot of hard work, and its good, and everyone knows that everyone wants to eat it.

[agoodfoundation]

i believe they recieved there name during the Reformation.


sorry already answered...

[Semi-Sweet]

To Reeder

I believe Baptists are called Baptists because they were the people in the reformation known as the anti-baptists.

Luthor I don't believe, attacked infant baptism. Some felt like he should have and believed those who were baptized as infants in the Roman church needed to be rebaptized. Thus they were called the anti-baptists. Sometimes known as the radical aspect of the reformation.

Because of their stand on Baptism, many of them were drowned by the Roman Church for their rebaptism.

Quantrill

With all this discussion about baptism, I found this about Alexander Campbell, my coC roots.

His first theological crisis came with the birth of his first child. He had to decide if she should be baptized, as he and all good Presbyterians had been in their infancy. He not only searched the Greek New Testament for an answer, but also consulted those scholars who wrote in defense of infant baptism. His study led to more than he was expecting. He not only decided against baptism for his infant daughter, but also resolved that he himself should be baptized. . .by immersion. . . .which he now had concluded was the only valid baptism.

He asked a Baptist minister, Mathias Luce to immerse him simply on his confession that Jesus is the Christ. Luce was at first hesitant, saying it was contrary to Baptist usage but he agreed to do so because he saw it as consistent with the New Testament.

He and his father had discussed and questioned the validity of infant baptism on occasion, but passed it off as a matter of opinion. Besides as Thomas Campbell put it. . .it is hardly appropriate to go out of the church and then come back in again. He also expressed concern that rebaptism would tend to "dechristianize the whole Christian world."

When Alexander revealed his intentions to his father, he was told that he had to do what he saw to be his duty. He assumed that his father would, at best, be tolerant toward his decision. But when it came time for the baptism, Thomas Campbell and his wife not only came along, but had a change of clothing with them. It was June 12, 1812.

http://www.leroygarrett.org/soldieron/number65.htm

[Koushi Shinigami]

Quantrill what form of faith is it that you follow? Pentecostal, Calvanists, Methodist

The form that forbids the use of little orange buttons that say "Quote". :rolleyes:

[CID_0687]

The form that forbids the use of little orange buttons that say "Quote". :rolleyes:
:))

I've heard of that sect...Jehovah's Unitarian Epicopalist Catholostals right?

[Koushi Shinigami]

:))

i've heard of that sect...jehovah's unitarian epicopalist catholostals right?


:)) :))

[Quantrill]

To Semi-Sweet (reply #1940)


That is an interesting story. I guess coC means Church of Christ? Don't they hold to water baptism being necessary for salvation? Do you hold to that also?

Pleased to meet you.

Quantrill

[Meriweather]

To Semi-Sweet (reply #1940)


That is an interesting story. I guess coC means Church of Christ? Don't they hold to water baptism being necessary for salvation? Do you hold to that also?

Pleased to meet you.

Quantrill

I am never going to take the time to scroll back to (reply #1940), so there is not much reason for me to read THIS post. Further, look at the font size you use. The small size does not make for inviting reading reading.

To Semi-Sweet (reply #1940)


That is an interesting story. I guess coC means Church of Christ? Don't they hold to water baptism being necessary for salvation? Do you hold to that also?

Pleased to meet you.

Quantrill

I would be pleased to meet you, too, only since you won't use the quote button and like teeny-tiny font sizes, it's going to be very difficult. Don't be so shy! We won't bite. And doesn't the larger font size above look better? It only takes seconds to make it larger.

[Quantrill]

To Merriweather

Im not sure why the font size or quote button makes one shy. How is this.?

Perhaps I should ask everyone to quit using the quote button. I always find it a hindrance myself. But, we are individuals. You of course do not have to scroll back to reference, but its there if you desire.

And, lest I don't have the opportunity again, pleased to meet you also.

Quantrill

[Meriweather]

To Merriweather

Im not sure why the font size or quote button makes one shy. How is this.?

Perhaps I should ask everyone to quit using the quote button. I always find it a hindrance myself. But, we are individuals. You of course do not have to scroll back to reference, but its there if you desire.

And, lest I don't have the opportunity again, pleased to meet you also.

Quantrill

This was comfortable to read, thank you! When one seems not to want people to know what he/she is talking about (not quoting) and then uses tiny print size, it gives the impression that one may be shy.

Even when I am able to be near my computer for much of the day, I'm still jumping back and forth between Hannity and many other projects and chores. When people use the quote function, it immediately catches me up on a conversation that I might not otherwise have the time to go back and peruse or research. If I can't follow the conversation, I can't get to know the topic or the people discussing the topic.

I suppose there is an argument to be made if I can't sit down and make time for the whole conversation (thread), I shouldn't be in the thread to begin with. But it is nice to be able to join in for a quick break sometimes. When the quote button is used and a comfortable font size are used, it quickly catches one up on the conversation and invites one to participate. Otherwise, one feels lost and left out. Unwanted. :(( ;)

[Semi-Sweet]

To Semi-Sweet (reply #1940)


That is an interesting story. I guess coC means Church of Christ? Don't they hold to water baptism being necessary for salvation? Do you hold to that also?

Pleased to meet you.

Quantrill

Welcome to the forum! Yes it is, and we believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation, and I have been baptized.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I suppose there is an argument to be made if I can't sit down and make time for the whole conversation (thread), I shouldn't be in the thread to begin with.

No, there isn't.

[cbut1]

Welcome to the forum! Yes it is, and we believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation, and I have been baptized.

How so is water Baptism necessary or salvation?

[Koushi Shinigami]

How so is water Baptism necessary or salvation?

Depends.

[Semi-Sweet]

How so is water Baptism necessary or salvation?

The apostles and early disciples went to a lot of trouble to preach baptism and baptize each other if it is not necessary.

What is your interpretation of Romans 6:3-4 "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."

We obey that 'form' of the gospel. . .the 'death, burial and resurrection' in baptism don't we? How else can we reach the blood?

God can save those who have not been baptized, because He is God, but how do we tell a person that they are saved without baptism? That is not my call to make.

[cbut1]

The apostles and early disciples went to a lot of trouble to preach baptism and baptize each other if it is not necessary.

What is your interpretation of Romans 6:3-4 "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."

We obey that 'form' of the gospel. . .the 'death, burial and resurrection' in baptism don't we? How else can we reach the blood?

God can save those who have not been baptized, because He is God, but how do we tell a person that they are saved without baptism? That is not my call to make.



Did you not read that the Lamb was slain in Egypt and the Blood was applied to save Israel from the judgement of death, then they left and were Baptised. It is the same for the New Testiment as well.

[cbut1]

Yes Koushi you called?

[RayMan]

Mornin' cbut1,
I imagine he may be asleep. Wish I was.

[cbut1]

Yeah early mornings are tough. For me these are late nights.

[buflineks]

cbut,

Do the Baptists believe in ex opere operato or do Baptists believe in ex opere operantis?

[RayMan]

I hate Opera as a sport. I do like it as a browser however.

BTW - No Baptists were consulted and/or harmed in the posting of this message.

[terri910]

cbut,

Do the Baptists believe in ex opere operato or do Baptists believe in ex opere operantis?
This ex baptist no operato heavy equipment. :razz:

[RayMan]

This ex baptist no operato heavy equipment. :razz:

Yeah, some of my meds come with a warning about that.

[vir doctus]

I hate Opera as a sport. I do like it as a browser however.

BTW - No Baptists were consulted and/or harmed in the posting of this message.

Opera ROCKS! Enrico Caruso could sing the Trinity thread and I might actually give it the time of day.

[vir doctus]

cbut,

Do the Baptists believe in ex opere operato or do Baptists believe in ex opere operantis?

Baptists think the world began speaking King James English... Dude!

[RayMan]

Opera ROCKS! Enrico Caruso could sing the Trinity thread and I might actually give it the time of day.



Ok. Caruso I will give you.
Did you know he was in S.F. for the 1906 quake? He was staying at the Palace Hotel. Back last Spring when I had to put in an entire weekend hooking up our network after we moved to Stevenson St about a block down from the Palace my V.P. insisted on the company putting me up there for the night. Marvelous hotel.


Enrico Caruso and the 1906 Earthquake

You ask me to say what I saw and what I did during the terrible days which witnessed the destruction of San Francisco? Well, there have been many accounts of my so-called adventures published in the American papers, and most of them have not been quite correct. Some of the papers said that I was terribly frightened, that I went half crazy with fear, that I dragged my valise out of the hotel into the square and sat upon it and wept; but all this is untrue. I was frightened, as many others were, but I did not lose my head. I was stopping at the [Palace] Hotel, where many of my fellow-artists were staying, and very comfortable it was. I had a room on the fifth floor, and on Tuesday evening, the night before the great catastrophe, I went to bed feeling very contented. I had sung in “Carmen” that night, and the opera had one with fine eclat. We were all pleased, and, as I said before, I went to bed that night feeling happy and contented.

http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/ew19.html

[RayMan]

Baptists think the world began speaking King James English... Dude!

Thou art correct.

[vir doctus]

Ok. Caruso I will give you.
Did you know he was in S.F. for the 1906 quake? He was staying at the Palace Hotel. Back last Spring when I had to put in an entire weekend hooking up our network after we moved to Stevenson St about a block down from the Palace my V.P. insisted on the company putting me up there for the night. Marvelous hotel.


Enrico Caruso and the 1906 Earthquake

You ask me to say what I saw and what I did during the terrible days which witnessed the destruction of San Francisco? Well, there have been many accounts of my so-called adventures published in the American papers, and most of them have not been quite correct. Some of the papers said that I was terribly frightened, that I went half crazy with fear, that I dragged my valise out of the hotel into the square and sat upon it and wept; but all this is untrue. I was frightened, as many others were, but I did not lose my head. I was stopping at the [Palace] Hotel, where many of my fellow-artists were staying, and very comfortable it was. I had a room on the fifth floor, and on Tuesday evening, the night before the great catastrophe, I went to bed feeling very contented. I had sung in “Carmen” that night, and the opera had one with fine eclat. We were all pleased, and, as I said before, I went to bed that night feeling happy and contented.

http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/ew19.html

Very cool!

[RayMan]

Very cool!

I know, right? I found out about it a couple of months ago when I was reading a Clive Cussle action tale that revolved around the '06 Quake. Checked into it and sure enough, Clive had his facts straight.

[vir doctus]

I know, right? I found out about it a couple of months ago when I was reading a Clive Cussle action tale that revolved around the '06 Quake. Checked into it and sure enough, Clive had his facts straight.

One thing we did see out there was the crazy lady house in San Jose - Winchester House, I think - lost three stories in the earthquake. Fascinating story from front to end.

[RayMan]

One thing we did see out there was the crazy lady house in San Jose - Winchester House, I think - lost three stories in the earthquake. Fascinating story from front to end.

I have been meaning to go to the Winchester House for decades now.
When I was in my teens and twenties they used to have a Winchester House ad they would show before the Previews of Coming Attractions at all the drive-ins in the East Bay.

They'd show the staircases to nowhere and have this eerie female voice saying, "Keep building...." (with lots of reverb on the "building")

[cbut1]

cbut,

Do the Baptists believe in ex opere operato or do Baptists believe in ex opere operantis?

I had to look that up first so for that thanks it is a new lesson for me.

I hope this accuratly reflects the information about these two phrases.

Ex Opere Operato means that if the communicative nature of the Christian sacraments is acknowledged, a sacrament properly performed is seen to convey God's grace independently of the faith or moral character of the celebrant or recipients. Its value springs from its divine institution, "from the work already done" (Latin ex opere operato), in which the sacrament participates. The opposite position has been maintained by some - that the value of the sacrament does depend in some way on those who celebrate and receive, ex opere operantis ("from the work being done").

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txn/exopere.htm


So if I understand this in simple terms you ask if the Sacrament carries with it all the Grace of God because of what Christ has fulfilled in His sacrifice. ex opere operato

Or

Is it our view that the Sacraments in and of themselves confer no special Grace from what Christ has fulfilled in His sacrifice without there first being a measurable Faith within the one partaking of said Sacrament. ex opere operantis

Does this reflect your question in a fair way?

[RayMan]

You two need to quit making my brain hurt. It's been a long day.

Hey cbut1,
You working tonight?

[cbut1]

Baptists think the world began speaking King James English... Dude!

I know that was a funny but the irony of it is sadly there seems to be some that actually would agree with you in all seriousness. :shifty:



:(( :mrgreen: :))

[RayMan]

I know that was a funny but the irony of it is sadly there seems to be some that actually would agree with you in all seriousness. :shifty:



:(( :mrgreen: :))

When I was a Southen Baptist we felt that if the KJV was good enough for the apostle Paul it was good enough for us.

[cbut1]

You two need to quit making my brain hurt. It's been a long day.

Hey cbut1,
You working tonight?

No the wife has been down the last couple days with a fever so I took Wednesday thru Friday off. Hey thats what sick days are for right. :D

[Ron Jon]

Ex Opere Operato means that if the communicative nature of the Christian sacraments is acknowledged, a sacrament properly performed is seen to convey God's grace independently of the faith or moral character of the celebrant or recipients. Its value springs from its divine institution, "from the work already done" (Latin ex opere operato), in which the sacrament participates. The opposite position has been maintained by some - that the value of the sacrament does depend in some way on those who celebrate and receive, ex opere operantis ("from the work being done").Trick question perhaps? The bread and wine (fruit of the vine being interpreted as "grape juice" in most baptist churches I've attended) are symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. As symbols, they have no "value" other than to remind us of Christ and of the Sacrifice He offered to God on our behalf.

A quote from the Baptist Faith & Message: "The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming." http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#vii

While I understand this quote reflects a Southern Baptist point of view, I haven't seen too many baptists who disagreed with it. I compared the latest version of the BF&M with the 1963 version and they are the same.

[buflineks]

I
So if I understand this in simple terms you ask if the Sacrament carries with it all the Grace of God because of what Christ has fulfilled in His sacrifice. ex opere operato

Or

Is it our view that the Sacraments in and of themselves confer no special Grace from what Christ has fulfilled in His sacrifice without there first being a measurable Faith within the one partaking of said Sacrament. ex opere operantis

Does this reflect your question in a fair way?

Actually, when refering to ex opere operantis I am refering to the Donatist methodology... The Sacrament is not binding if the one giving the sacrament is in sin. i.e. If a minister has sinned any Sacrament performed is not valid.

Your statement about the the "measurable Faith within the one partakling of said Sacrament" a seperate doctrine established by Calvin during the Reformation. And that is not the ex opere operantis I was asking about.

I apologize, I should have made myself more clear in my question.

[buflineks]

Trick question perhaps? .


No not a trick question at all. I am truely interested because it is part of my research. I am using cbut as a source to make sure that I correctly understand what the Baptist position is on certian things.

One thing that I am very careful of is not "misrepresenting" what it is that the Baptists believe.

If I wasn't it would be akin to someone writing about Catholicism and not understanding the whole "mediator" issue. As we have pointed out on various threads, different religions have different definitions and assumptions of the same words. And then there are those words that mean one thing to one religion and are misunderstood by others outside of the religion. i.e. "Veneration" does not mean "Worship" in Catholicism.

[buflineks]

I've got another one cbut.

(sorry, but this coughing is keeping me up so I'm trying to research in between hacking up my left lung)


In Carroll's Trail of Blood, he puts forth under the section "Some Unerring, Infallible Marks" ( sec. 2) the following:

"This organization or church, according to the Scriptures and according to the practice of the Apostles and early churches was given two kinds of officers and only two, pastors and deacons. The pastor was called "Bishop." Both the pastor and deacons to be selected by the church and to be servants of the church."

Now is this current Baptist teachings or is something that could be exclusively attributed to "Landmarkism"?

[buflineks]

Trick question perhaps? The bread and wine (fruit of the vine being interpreted as "grape juice" in most baptist churches I've attended) are symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. As symbols, they have no "value" other than to remind us of Christ and of the Sacrifice He offered to God on our behalf.

A quote from the Baptist Faith & Message: "The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming." http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#vii

While I understand this quote reflects a Southern Baptist point of view, I haven't seen too many baptists who disagreed with it. I compared the latest version of the BF&M with the 1963 version and they are the same.

Okay ron,

So if I understnad you correctly then, "Communion" is not a "Sacrament" but rather a "reminder" and therefore the only "Sacrament" woudl be "Believers Baptism"?

[cbut1]

I've got another one cbut.

(sorry, but this coughing is keeping me up so I'm trying to research in between hacking up my left lung)


In Carroll's Trail of Blood, he puts forth under the section "Some Unerring, Infallible Marks" ( sec. 2) the following:

"This organization or church, according to the Scriptures and according to the practice of the Apostles and early churches was given two kinds of officers and only two, pastors and deacons. The pastor was called "Bishop." Both the pastor and deacons to be selected by the church and to be servants of the church."

Now is this current Baptist teachings or is something that could be exclusively attributed to "Landmarkism"?


Yes this is how us Baptist now and from all the accountings I have read through in our records have always held that 2 offices are held within the Baptist Faith. Pastor/Bishop and Deacon they are both chosen out and set aside for their duties by an assembly. Using the guidlines that Paul taught to Timothy in the books of Timothy and Titus. Which can be referred to here:

1 Timothy 3: 1-16 and Titus 1: 4-9


Side note:
I believe it is one of the reasons for the charge against Baptist (I include all those reported as being part of our heritage) that they have no Priests.

[cbut1]

Actually, when refering to ex opere operantis I am refering to the Donatist methodology... The Sacrament is not binding if the one giving the sacrament is in sin. i.e. If a minister has sinned any Sacrament performed is not valid.

Your statement about the the "measurable Faith within the one partakling of said Sacrament" a seperate doctrine established by Calvin during the Reformation. And that is not the ex opere operantis I was asking about.

I apologize, I should have made myself more clear in my question.


Well I would have to say what is meant by commiting sin? We believe that all men are sinners even those whom have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. Although men chosen by our assemblies to lead must display the characteristics in goodly measure that is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3. (which is why I answered that one first) As such they are ordained by our individual assemblies to fulfill such tasks (each time it is observed I might add)

In our Faith the one authorized by the assembly to offer the Lords Supper (as we call it) would be one that they feel (through witness and testimony) is ordained (which goes back to the lessons in 1 Timothy and Titus) to fulfill such a task. A Pastor of our assemblies is a Pastor because he does abstain from the fleshly lusts of sin.

This is not a simple answer but it wasn't a simple question either. :D

[RayMan]

No the wife has been down the last couple days with a fever so I took Wednesday thru Friday off. Hey thats what sick days are for right. :D

Absolutely. Hope the Mrs is well soon.

[buflineks]

Well I would have to say what is meant by commiting sin? We believe that all men are sinners even those whom have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. Although men chosen by our assemblies to lead must display the characteristics in goodly measure that is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3. (which is why I answered that one first) As such they are ordained by our individual assemblies to fulfill such tasks (each time it is observed I might add)

In our Faith the one authorized by the assembly to offer the Lords Supper (as we call it) would be one that they feel (through witness and testimony) is ordained (which goes back to the lessons in 1 Timothy and Titus) to fulfill such a task. A Pastor of our assemblies is a Pastor because he does abstain from the fleshly lusts of sin.

This is not a simple answer but it wasn't a simple question either. :D

Okay. Thank you for the answer. Makes sense.

However, this leads to a specification. And this is hypothetical and in no way meant to be drogatory.

If the Pastor performs the Lord supper, and has sinned in one of the "fleshy lusts of sin", unbeknownst to the congregation, does that nullify the Sacrament?

This is where I'm going. If it does not then one would say that the Sacrament is ex opere operator. If it does , then the Sacrament would be ex opere operantis.

[Koushi Shinigami]

If the Pastor performs the Lord supper, and has sinned in one of the "fleshy lusts of sin", unbeknownst to the congregation, does that nullify the Sacrament?


If it's just a symbolic act of obedience for Baptists, then there's no sacrament to nullify. Anyone can perform a symbolic act.

[cbut1]

Okay. Thank you for the answer. Makes sense.

However, this leads to a specification. And this is hypothetical and in no way meant to be drogatory.

If the Pastor performs the Lord supper, and has sinned in one of the "fleshy lusts of sin", unbeknownst to the congregation, does that nullify the Sacrament?

This is where I'm going. If it does not then one would say that the Sacrament is ex opere operator. If it does , then the Sacrament would be ex opere operantis.


For us no it would not for the whole but would for the individual; because Christ put the burden on the one partaking (inclusive of the Pastor for us) to be right before God and to be in unity (have no offense) with the brotherhood. Therefor each individual for us is to go to God in solumn prayer; we usually set a date a month or so in advance so as to give a person ample time to clear their consience before God. Now if anyone including the Pastor does partake of the Lords Supper in a state of uncleaness before God then they face the judgement of God. It does not change the sincerity of heart for everyone elses observance of Christs memorial.


The Apostle Paul in the following verses speak of the Lords Supper to be done in unity and harmony. Each person is to prove (testify) of their faithfulness and will be judged according to his sincere or sinful heart.


1Co 11:20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper:

1Co 11:21 for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

1Co 11:22 What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not.

1Co 11:23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;

1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.

1Co 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.

1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.

[Koushi Shinigami]

That's a lot to ask of a simple symbolic act.

[cbut1]

That's a lot to ask of a simple symbolic act.

I never said it was just symbolic!

It is a solemn memorial and with all solemn memorials that God has asked of His people it's proper observance is a requirement.

[Koushi Shinigami]

:think:

But is it a 'proper observance' you have?

[cbut1]

:think:

But is it a 'proper observance' you have?

We observe it in much the same manner as Christ instituted it and the Apostle paul reinforced its practice as mentioned in previous post.

We don't have an upper room with a betrayer though so perhaps that disqualifies us. :razz:

[Koushi Shinigami]

I never said it was just symbolic!



Would you call it a sacrament?

[Koushi Shinigami]

We observe it in much the same manner as Christ instituted it and the Apostle paul reinforced its practice as mentioned in previous post.

We don't have an upper room with a betrayer though so perhaps that disqualifies us. :razz:

Lacking. :(

[cbut1]

Would you call it a sacrament?

I can live with it but I am much more tolerant than most of my Baptist brothers when it comes to communicating with people.


Definition below

sac⋅ra⋅ment   /ˈsækrəmənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sak-ruh-muhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. Ecclesiastical. a visible sign of an inward grace, esp. one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord's Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction.
2. (often initial capital letter) Also called Holy Sacrament. the Eucharist or Lord's Supper.
3. the consecrated elements of the Eucharist, esp. the bread.
4. something regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance.
5. a sign, token, or symbol.
6. an oath; solemn pledge.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1150–1200; ME < ML sacrāmentum obligation, oath, LL: mystery, rite, equiv. to L sacrā(re) to devote + -mentum -ment

[Koushi Shinigami]

I can live with it but I am much more tolerant than most of my Baptist brothers when it comes to communicating with people.



Why? Does it sound too "Catholic"?


And why did you bold 'solemn pledge' over the ecclesiastical definition? Is your ceremony a 'solemn pledge'? :think:

[cbut1]

Why? Does it sound too "Catholic"?


And why did you bold 'solemn pledge' over the ecclesiastical definition? Is your ceremony a 'solemn pledge'? :think:

For many yes just simply because it has a Catholic undertone they would throw it out as being unworthy. It has been that way so long that many do it unknowingly but it happens the other way around also, that's why all the division in the first place. Over the use of words and phrases it was true in Arias's day and it remains true today.

I highlighted that part as why I can tolerate or accept the use of the word sacrament because I do believe it is in part our solemn pledge to always remember Christ's sacrifice.

[Koushi Shinigami]

For many yes just simply because it has a Catholic undertone they would throw it out as being unworthy. It has been that way so long that many do it unknowingly but it happens the other way around also, that's why all the division in the first place. Over the use of words and phrases it was true in Arias's day and it remains true today.

I highlighted that part as why I can tolerate or accept the use of the word sacrament because I do believe it is in part our solemn pledge to always remember Christ's sacrifice.


That's too bad. Sad, really. :(

[cbut1]

That's too bad. Sad, really. :(

I am in agreement with you.


In fact each time I preach at one of our Churches here in California I first preach a messege dealing with salvation in some manner. The afternoon I deal with growing to maturity in Christ. Usually because I believe that if we are secure in our knowledge of Gods Word and our faith in His authority then we ought not to fear learning or sharing in some commonalities with those whom we traditionally see as the enemy.

Just saying this (what I just said above) in one of our Churches can get you a bad reputation and not invited back to preach.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I am in agreement with you.


In fact each time I preach at one of our Churches here in California I first preach a messege dealing with salvation in some manner. The afternoon I deal with growing to maturity in Christ. Usually because I believe that if we are secure in our knowledge of Gods Word and our faith in His authority then we ought not to fear learning or sharing in some commonalities with those whom we traditionally see as the enemy.

Just saying this (what I just said above) in one of our Churches can get you a bad reputation and not invited back to preach.


An example of 'Christian charity'?

Viva la open mind. :rolleyes:

[cbut1]

An example of 'Christian charity'?

Viva la open mind.

There are multiple reasons why I take this approach if you care to know why I can share that as well if your interested.

[5thIDSoldier]

In our congregation, we see 2 ordinances as appropriate in the NT:

Believers Baptism
The Lords Supper (Communion)

We do not use the term sacrament.

[Ron Jon]

No not a trick question at all. I am truely interested because it is part of my research. I am using cbut as a source to make sure that I correctly understand what the Baptist position is on certian things.

One thing that I am very careful of is not "misrepresenting" what it is that the Baptists believe.

If I wasn't it would be akin to someone writing about Catholicism and not understanding the whole "mediator" issue. As we have pointed out on various threads, different religions have different definitions and assumptions of the same words. And then there are those words that mean one thing to one religion and are misunderstood by others outside of the religion. i.e. "Veneration" does not mean "Worship" in Catholicism.I don't think cbut would claim to be "Southern Baptist" nor do I (currently). I have been a member of a Southern Baptist church in my youth and I have studied the BF&M (in a class I took while a member of a SB church). I guess what I'm saying (or rather cautioning) is that asking cbut1 what he believes is fine for his particular baptist fellowship, but that it might not represent the majority of baptists (SBC being the largest). Now, am I insinuating that "might makes right"? Of course not. Just that the answers you receive from cbut1 may not be identical to the beliefs of other Christians who call themselves "baptist". Please keep this in mind while doing your research.

[cbut1]

In our congregation, we see 2 ordinances as appropriate in the NT:

Believers Baptism
The Lords Supper (Communion)

We do not use the term sacrament.

We as a Church do not use the term either, I just simply stated that I personally can accept the term.