Ask a Baptist

[cbut1]

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.

He has Ron and the bulk of his research right now is towards those identified as Landmarkers or Landmark Missionary Baptist as J.R. Graves and Pendleton have set forth as identifyers in their writings.


I might ask if you know how many Landmarkers are still in the SBC? I know there used to be some but they have all done away with many of the identifyers here in California and simply go with SBC.

[Koushi Shinigami]

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

Neh.

[Ron Jon]

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"?No, this is accurate to most baptist churches. The title "pastor," "elder," and "bishop" are synonymous and refer to the same office. Deacon is the second office spoken of in the New Testament Church.

[mattlock]

No, this is accurate to most baptist churches. The title "pastor," "elder," and "bishop" are synonymous and refer to the same office. Deacon is the second office spoken of in the New Testament Church. Quick clarification - although elders are not necessarily pastors, a pastor is the lead elder.

[cbut1]

Quick clarification - although elders are not necessarily pastors, a pastor is the lead elder.

A man from Big Sky country.

Some of the Baptists have a council of elders within their own assembly. Our assembly as well as most of our Faith view elders as being a collective of Pastors gathered for such as an ordination or the establishment of a new assembly.

[Ron Jon]

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"?
Actually, baptism is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. It is the believer's first opportunity to publicly identify themselves with Christ (basically declaring publicly that they are a follower of Christ). The same holds true of the Lord's Supper. It represents the sacrificial work that Christ performed on the cross and we follow His commandment to Remember by participating in this ritual. Neither the water nor the bread & wine have any special powers or "grace" in and of themselves. It is merely an outward symbol of the grace that God has already granted us (Christians) and that is within us. We don't gain more "grace" by participating in either ritual.

[mattlock]

A man from Big Sky country.

Some of the Baptists have a council of elders within their own assembly. Our assembly as well as most of our Faith view elders as being a collective of Pastors gathered for such as an ordination or the establishment of a new assembly.

Big Sky Country is indeed God's country ;) In our church, we have a council of elders from within our own congregation.

Buf, also don't forget in your research that if there's no food involved it cannot be an official Baptist function. :D

[Ron Jon]

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.From my own experience and viewpoint, I would say the actions of the Pastor (some hidden 'sin') would have no affect on the Lord's Supper. Therefore, in your words, it does not "nullify the Sacrament" (ex opere operator).

[cbut1]

Big Sky Country is indeed God's country ;) In our church, we have a council of elders from within our own congregation.

Buf, also don't forget in your research that if there's no food involved it cannot be an official Baptist function. :D

We have a sister Church in Bozeman I got to meet the Pastor once but am drawing a blank on his name right now. His son married a young lady from a well known family here in California her name is Esther a sweet and beautiful young lady.

I think his name is Stan Allen (the Pastor of that assembly) but not absolutly certain.

[Koushi Shinigami]

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.


A rose by any other name....

Regardless of what you call it, the description of it (baptism and communion) fits the ecclesiastical definition of sacrament that cbut posted.

[mattlock]

We have a sister Church in Bozeman I got to meet the Pastor once but am drawing a blank on his name right now. His son married a young lady from a well known family here in California her name is Esther a sweet and beautiful young lady.

I think his name is Stan Allen (the Pastor of that assembly) but not absolutly certain.

There are a few Baptist churches here in town, and I have been to all of them at least once but am horrible with names. I might have shaken his hand a dozen times and still not remember it. It is a great place but Baptists are definitely in the minority here.

[Ron Jon]

That's a lot to ask of a simple symbolic act.We never said it was ONLY symbolic. To some people it may only be symbolic, but to others it is much more.

[Koushi Shinigami]

We never said it was ONLY symbolic. To some people it may only be symbolic, but to others it is much more.


I'm thinking I'm going to go with those who consider it to be more. More even that what Baptists consider it to be.

[Ron Jon]

He has Ron and the bulk of his research right now is towards those identified as Landmarkers or Landmark Missionary Baptist as J.R. Graves and Pendleton have set forth as identifyers in their writings.

I might ask if you know how many Landmarkers are still in the SBC? I know there used to be some but they have all done away with many of the identifyers here in California and simply go with SBC.
That's a good question. I mainly see it in the more mature generation (65+ crowd) but to be honest, even there it seems to be a rather shallow understanding.

[Ron Jon]

Quick clarification - although elders are not necessarily pastors, a pastor is the lead elder.Clarification noted. Although, I don't know that I'm enthusiastic about that type of hierarchy. Personally, I believe their should be more than one elder in the local assembly and that each elder is equal to the others. I have seen, first hand, where a "lead elder" can get a little too big for his britches. But, in theory, I see what you are saying (for example: Grace Community Church (http://www.gracechurch.org/home/ministrystaff.asp?ministry_id=1) as a good example)

[Ron Jon]

Big Sky Country is indeed God's country ;) In our church, we have a council of elders from within our own congregation.

Buf, also don't forget in your research that if there's no food involved it cannot be an official Baptist function. :D+1 :clap:

[Ron Jon]

I'm thinking I'm going to go with those who consider it to be more. More even that what Baptists consider it to be.Don't hold back now. Please expound on what you mean. I believe I have grown in my understanding of what Christ meant when He said: "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." Read the context of John 6 and hopefully you'll see what I mean.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Don't hold back now. Please expound on what you mean.


The Baptist faith does not speak to me.

[mattlock]

Clarification noted. Although, I don't know that I'm enthusiastic about that type of hierarchy. Personally, I believe their should be more than one elder in the local assembly and that each elder is equal to the others. I have seen, first hand, where a "lead elder" can get a little too big for his britches. But, in theory, I see what you are saying (for example: Grace Community Church (http://www.gracechurch.org/home/ministrystaff.asp?ministry_id=1) as a good example)

You are exactly correct. When I say lead elder, I simply mean that he is recognized as the earthly leader of this congregation, not that he has any more authority than any of the other elders in the council. I have been in a strictly elder led church before, and it is all too often the case that the 'lead elder' gets a little high and mighty. Also been in a completely congregation led church that had the pastor ask how high when they said jump. Not good either. The one I go to now really has a nice balance between the two and is the best church I have ever been a part of to date.

[buflineks]

He has Ron and the bulk of his research right now is towards those identified as Landmarkers or Landmark Missionary Baptist as J.R. Graves and Pendleton have set forth as identifyers in their writings.


I might ask if you know how many Landmarkers are still in the SBC? I know there used to be some but they have all done away with many of the identifyers here in California and simply go with SBC.

Thanks for the answers, cbut, ron, 5th.

As cbut wrote, my research is geared mainly towards those identified as "Landmarkers".

The main focus of my research is following the chain of "Baptist Successionism". I have found in my research that this first hit it's "zenith" in the Ante-bellum period with Graves, publishing Orchard's Concise History of Foriegn Born Baptists (a.k.a as the Concise Hsitory of the Baptist Church., the book has undegone a couple of title modifications during the years, but the content is the same.) Then it (Baptist Successionism) hit another high point in the 1930's after the publication of Carroll's Trail of Blood. Then with the invention of the internet, the access to Carroll's writings boomed as well as the writings of Grave's.

I have found that most of Graves and Orchard are based upon the writings of Pierre Allix.

My look at this is not upon the Theological but rather secular historical path. Like any good historian I have a question. I have seen Baptist Successionism zealously defend here and other places. I have seen it attacked with the same zeal.
Therefore, my research is aimed at getting to the bottome of the questions surrounding the doctrinaire.

I just recently obtained (today) The Great Iron Wheel by Graves. It is one of the 30th editions published in 1860. The book is very old and in semi-good condition. But it was the only copy I could get ahold of. In addition, I have a copy of Old Landmarkism: What is it?

addum. I have also recieved a copy of The Trail of Blood published by the Bryan Station Baptist Church in Lexington KY. Hopefully by this time next week I will have my copy of Orchards history.

[Ron Jon]

The Baptist faith does not speak to me.I never said it did, I was replying to your statement where you said: "I'm going to go with those who consider it to be more." Care to clarify this quote and expand upon it?

[Koushi Shinigami]

I never said it did, I was replying to your statement where you said: "I'm going to go with those who consider it to be more." Care to clarify this quote and expand upon it?



Nope.

[Ron Jon]

Nope.Chicken! :razz:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Chicken! :razz:

Nope.

[cbut1]

Any new questions it has been a couple months so I thought I would bump it for opportunity.

[RayMan]

Nope. :mrgreen:

[noelle12]

How are all the Baptists doing today?

[hben]

The Baptist faith does not speak to me.

I am still trying to figure out which faith does speak to you? :cool:

[cbut1]

How are all the Baptists doing today?

This one is fine and I suppose most of the others are not complainng much. :D

[cbut1]

I am still trying to figure out which faith does speak to you? :cool:

It is his faith that speaks to him, Ben.



Come on now follow along don't let your Baptist Brothers down by not keeping up. :)

[Koushi Shinigami]

I am still trying to figure out which faith does speak to you? :cool:

I think it's fairly obvious to those who are paying attention.

[RayMan]

I am still trying to figure out which faith does speak to you? :cool:

I think Koushi is fond of Christianity, without the additives.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I think Koushi is fond of Christianity, without the additives.

Is 'arrogance' an 'additive'? :think:

[RayMan]

Is 'arrogance' an 'additive'? :think:

Must be. I don't see it listed in the original ingredients.


Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

[holyishisname]

Is 'arrogance' an 'additive'? :think:


Who's arrogant? :eek: :think:

[vir doctus]

Is 'arrogance' an 'additive'? :think:

I think I'm right. ;)

[hben]

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.

When I was a Charismatic, many of us thought the KJV just wasn't up to par with the more modern translations, but now that I am a Baptist again, I still love to preach out of the KJV though I do use other versions to cross reference in my studies and occasionally in my sermons.

[hben]

Who's arrogant? :eek: :think:

The Baptists who disagree with Koushi? :razz:

[RayMan]

When I was a Charismatic, many of us thought the KJV just wasn't up to par with the more modern translations, but now that I am a Baptist again, I still love to preach out of the KJV though I do use other versions to cross reference in my studies and occasionally in my sermons.

KJV is da bomb. No doubt about it. I follow the same basic pattern.

Doesn't hurt that I know large sections of the KJV by heart after using it for more than 30 years.

[RayMan]

The Baptists who disagree with Koushi? :razz:

Oh, now you're just guessing. Besides, what are you doing up so late?

[hben]

Must be. I don't see it listed in the original ingredients.


Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.


I have heard some TV and radio ministers teach that Christians need to love themselves first before they can love others. I haven't found that commandment in the Bible yet, probably because it is another additive akin to arrogance or pride.

[vir doctus]

The Baptists who disagree with Koushi? :razz:

I can't think of a thing I disagree with Honourable Koushi about. :think:

[hben]

I can't think of a thing I disagree with Honourable Koushi about. :think:

I didn't think you were a Baptist.

[RayMan]

I have heard some TV and radio ministers teach that Christians need to love themselves first before they can love others. I haven't found that commandment in the Bible yet, probably because it is another additive akin to arrogance or pride.



Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


Well, the phrase 'as thyself' does seem to denote some sort of correlation between loving yourself and loving your neighbor.

If you hate yourself you will find it hard to love your neighbor. In fact, the nicer they are the more you will want to smash them for being a better person than you are.


Hey - it's your own fault, you got me started. :angel:

[hben]

Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


Well, the phrase 'as thyself' does seem to denote some sort of correlation between loving yourself and loving your neighbor.

If you hate yourself you will find it hard to love your neighbor. In fact, the nicer they are the more you will want to smash them for being a better person than you are.


Hey - it's your own fault, you got me started. :angel:

I have yet to meet anyone who hates himself, and Jesus knew that when He commanded us to love others the way we love ourselves. That is a far cry from commanding us to love ourselves.

And I don't mind you getting started, but I didn't remember this being something your subscribed to.

[RayMan]

I have yet to meet anyone who hates himself, and Jesus knew that when He commanded us to love others the way we love ourselves. That is a far cry from commanding us to love ourselves.

And I don't mind you getting started, but I didn't remember this being something your subscribed to.



Shucks, I didn't say I agreed with them TV fellas, just that their is a correlation between accepting and loving yourself and the way you will view and treat other folk.

If you never met anyone who hated themself you have been in Texas for too long hermano. Let me take you on a tour of inner city life here in the Bay Area. You don't smoke crack or shoot speed if you love yourself.

[hben]

Shucks, I didn't say I agreed with them TV fellas, just that their is a correlation between accepting and loving yourself and the way you will view and treat other folk.

If you never met anyone who hated themself you have been in Texas for too long hermano. Let me take you on a tour of inner city life here in the Bay Area. You don't smoke crack or shoot speed if you love yourself.

Why is that different from getting drunker that Kooter Brown like I used to do. I did it, because I loved myself and it made my flesh feel better when it otherwise hurt. I have never met a crackhead or a drunk who did so only to harm himself. Most of the ones I've known tried it to feel better with not much thought of the harm it would eventually bring to them. It is right in line with what the scriptures say.

Eph:5:29: For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

[RayMan]

Why is that different from getting drunker that Kooter Brown like I used to do. I did it, because I loved myself and it made my flesh feel better when it otherwise hurt. I have never met a crackhead or a drunk who did so only to harm himself. Most of the ones I've known tried it to feel better with not much thought of the harm it would eventually bring to them. It is right in line with what the scriptures say.

Eph:5:29: For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

Well now, even laying aside the fact that Paul is DIRECTLY discussing the marital relationship and the man and woman becoming one flesh through marriage and then comparing that to the Church as the body of Christ, he still makes my point for me in the verse above the one you quote.


Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

His love of his wife correlates with his love of himself. Context, it's a beaufiful thing.

[hben]

Well now, even laying aside the fact that Paul is DIRECTLY discussing the marital relationship and the man and woman becoming one flesh through marriage and then comparing that to the Church as the body of Christ, he still makes my point for me in the verse above the one you quote.


Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

His love of his wife correlates with his love of himself. Context, it's a beaufiful thing.

Then we agree that we love ourselves, and the hard part that needed a commandment from the Lord was to turn around and love others like we already love ourselves.

[RayMan]

Then we agree that we love ourselves, and the hard part that needed a commandment from the Lord was to turn around and love others like we already love ourselves.

Well, technically Paul was talking about loving the phyiscal body, not the pysche, but I am feeling mellow after having such a great day so I won't disagree.

[hben]

Well, technically Paul was talking about loving the phyiscal body, not the pysche, but I am feeling mellow after having such a great day so I won't disagree.

That's nice. I have had this discussion many times, and I have yet to see any scriptural support for the "self esteem gospel" that has crept into many churches, and it isn't just a particular denomination.

[RayMan]

That's nice. I have had this discussion many times, and I have yet to see any scriptural support for the "self esteem gospel" that has crept into many churches, and it isn't just a particular denomination.

It's all in the interpretation.

[hben]

It's all in the interpretation.

When a small group slipped this teaching in the back door of my church, it really messed a few people up who eventually caused enough trouble to split the church. So if I seem defensive over this issue, it is because I have seen the harm it has done to some. I simply disagree with this doctrine, and I can't make sense of the interpretation I've been shown so far.

So I can simply say that I agree to disagree. :D

[doodle5]

Many Christian Churches but still one faith, one LORD and one baptism. In Ephesians. Third chapter I think.

Need to go bed!!

I memorized most of the Bible Old and New Testaments by the time I was nine. I have studied under excellent Bible Teachers since then.

God bless all of you

Carlene

[RayMan]

When a small group slipped this teaching in the back door of my church, it really messed a few people up who eventually caused enough trouble to split the church. So if I seem defensive over this issue, it is because I have seen the harm it has done to some. I simply disagree with this doctrine, and I can't make sense of the interpretation I've been shown so far.

So I can simply say that I agree to disagree. :D


Works for me.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I think I'm right. ;)

:hug: We all know you are. :D

[Koushi Shinigami]

mat 22:39 and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


well, the phrase 'as thyself' does seem to denote some sort of correlation between loving yourself and loving your neighbor.

If you hate yourself you will find it hard to love your neighbor. In fact, the nicer they are the more you will want to smash them for being a better person than you are.


Hey - it's your own fault, you got me started. :angel:


+1

[Koushi Shinigami]

Why is that different from getting drunker that Kooter Brown like I used to do. I did it, because I loved myself and it made my flesh feel better when it otherwise hurt. I have never met a crackhead or a drunk who did so only to harm himself. Most of the ones I've known tried it to feel better with not much thought of the harm it would eventually bring to them.



Why did they have a need to 'feel better'?





It is right in line with what the scriptures say.

Eph:5:29: For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

Not the first time scripture has been incorrectly interpreted by taking it out of context.

[hben]

Why did they have a need to 'feel better'?

Not the first time scripture has been made to lie by taking it out of context. :rolleyes:

Koushi, just about the time I think you a doing good, you call the scripture a lie? Not nice... :naughty:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Koushi, just about the time I think you a doing good, you call the scripture a lie? Not nice... :naughty:

You deliberatly twisted what I said. Not surprising though. :rolleyes: 'Tis not the action of one in a strong position in a debate.

I did not say scripture lied. Read it again.


And also, please answer the question you dodged. Why did they have a need to 'feel better'?






..

[hben]

You deliberatly twisted what I said. Not surprising though. :rolleyes: 'Tis not the action of one in a strong position in a debate.

I did not say scripture lied. Read it again.

And also, please answer the question you dodged. Why did they have a need to 'feel better'?

..

Like most drunks, I was miserable being sober. Divorce does that to a lot of people when their relationship with the Lord is not as close as it should be.

BTW, you flat said that I made the scriptures lie. If you disagree with interpretation, say so. But your wording does nothing to help honest debate. I guess I could say that you make scriptures lie everytime I disagree with you, but I don't see that it is constructive at all.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Like most drunks, I was miserable being sober. Divorce does that to a lot of people when their relationship with the Lord is not as close as it should be.

And you think that your selfish behavour was you showing love to yourself? Why would love be self-destructive?

What about the other's you alluded to?

I have never met a crackhead or a drunk who did so only to harm himself. Most of the ones I've known tried it to feel better with not much thought of the harm it would eventually bring to them.

Why did they use crack and alcohol to 'try to feel better'? What were they lacking in themselves?

[Fire Watch]

Know what makes me feel better? Locking down threads and showing problem posters the door. Problem posters being those that know and understand the rules, yet choose to ignore them anyway.

[hben]

And you think that your selfish behavour was you showing love to yourself? Why would love be self-destructive?

Absolutely. It is no different from the selfish immature nature we are born with to put ourselves first. It is just like the baby who cries all night saying "Pick me up a rock ME...ME...ME", with no care as to whether mom or dad get any sleep, or the toddler who pulls the candy out of the hand of another toddler while saying, "MINE...MINE...MINE". We are self centered, self loving sinfull creatures by nature since the fall in the garden of Eden. Most people don't study what is good for them...especially young people who just want to do what feels good. I don't even like to eat what the doctor tells me to do now, and I know it would be healthier.

What about the other's you alluded to?

What about them? All people love themselves, but some learn to love God and others also as Jesus commanded all of His disciples to do.

Why did they use crack and alcohol to 'try to feel better'? What were they lacking in themselves?

Yes. They are lacking a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ, because He is the only true long term answer for any addictions or sinful habits.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Absolutely. It is no different from the selfish immature nature we are born with to put ourselves first. It is just like the baby who cries all night saying "Pick me up a rock ME...ME...ME", with no care as to whether mom or dad get any sleep, or the toddler who pulls the candy out of the hand of another toddler while saying, "MINE...MINE...MINE". We are self centered, self loving sinfull creatures by nature since the fall in the garden of Eden. Most people don't study what is good for them...especially young people who just want to do what feels good. I don't even like to eat what the doctor tells me to do now, and I know it would be healthier.



You are equating having love for one's self with selfishness. Let me ask you this. Is that feeling that you are describing above, the same one you refer to when you say you love God or love Jesus Christ or love your wife?


Follow up question, is it possible that someone needs to feel the same love and respect for themself that they would feel for God or for Jesus Christ or for a spouse? Not a selfish, shallow, self-centeredness, but a love for themself that the Bible describes when it says that love is kind, love is caring, love is patient, etc.

[hben]

Koushi, do you think Paul warning to Timothy of the sinfulness to come in the last days was some sort of compliment whenever he predicted that "men shall be lovers of their own selves"? Do you think it is an accident or oversight on Paul's part that he started off with "men shall be lovers of their own selves" before going on to describe how sinful those same men would be? Or will you just accuse me of "making the scripture lie" as you did earlier which does nothing for your case that you hold to the correct interpretation while you believe others are incorrect.

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."---2 Timothy 3:1-5

[5thIDSoldier]

That's nice. I have had this discussion many times, and I have yet to see any scriptural support for the "self esteem gospel" that has crept into many churches, and it isn't just a particular denomination.

I agree. Not that it matters much. Just sayin.....I havent seen anything about it either to support such a position.

[5thIDSoldier]

Koushi, do you think Paul warning to Timothy of the sinfulness to come in the last days was some sort of compliment whenever he predicted that "men shall be lovers of their own selves"? Do you think it is an accident or oversight on Paul's part that he started off with "men shall be lovers of their own selves" before going on to describe how sinful those same men would be? Or will you just accuse me of "making the scripture lie" as you did earlier which does nothing for your case that you hold to the correct interpretation while you believe others are incorrect.

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."---2 Timothy 3:1-5

I believe Paul was referring even to those believers within the church here, not to those outside of the church exclusively.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Koushi, do you think Paul warning to Timothy of the sinfulness to come in the last days was some sort of compliment whenever he predicted that "men shall be lovers of their own selves"? Do you think it is an accident or oversight on Paul's part that he started off with "men shall be lovers of their own selves" before going on to describe how sinful those same men would be? Or will you just accuse me of "making the scripture lie" as you did earlier which does nothing for your case that you hold to the correct interpretation while you believe others are incorrect.

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."---2 Timothy 3:1-5

Nope, but I think you and Paul are talking about a different kind of love than I and the other person that mentioned it are.

If someone does not have something, they cannot give it.

A person must have love and respect for all that God has created. And God also happens to have created that person. So that person is included in what God has created that the person must love and respect.

[Marleysdaddy]

A person must have love and respect for all that God has created. And God also happens to have created that person. So that person is included in what God has created that the person must love and respect.

That is stated very well.

[hben]

I believe Paul was referring even to those believers within the church here, not to those outside of the church exclusively.

I don't disagree with that, but my point was he was not encouraging Timothy to "love his own self". He was warning him that it was part of the sinfulness to come in the last days. I believe we are much closer to those days than Timothy was, and I believe the "self esteem" message that has been added to the gospel message to make it more appealing to the self centered world today is just what Paul warned about. It is definitely being accepted by many churches of all denominations in spite of Paul's warning. I also believe it fits the pattern of the church of the Laodiceans as described by John in Revelation, because to love one's self with thought of thinking it is a good thing totally causes a sinner to not have to admit his miserable sinful condition and need for a Savior.

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."---Revelation 3:17-18

[hben]

Nope, but I think you and Paul are talking about a different kind of love than I and the other person that mentioned it are.

If someone does not have something, they cannot give it.

A person must have love and respect for all that God has created. And God also happens to have created that person. So that person is included in what God has created that the person must love and respect.

And I respect your right to interpret scriptures anyway you wish to do, so why don't you remember that the next time you disrespectfully tell someone that their interpretation is making the scriptures lie just because you disagree with them?

[hben]

That is stated very well.

It sounds good, but remember that Jesus commanded us to love God and others, but He never felt the need to command us to love ourselves. Does anyone wonder why that might be? Could it be because He knew that we have been selfish sinful creatures ever since the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden? Could it be that He simply wanted us to follow the golden rule which says to treat others as we want to be treated?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Know what makes me feel better? Locking down threads and showing problem posters the door. Problem posters being those that know and understand the rules, yet choose to ignore them anyway.

FW, I appologize and if you want me to edit or delete a post, let me know.

[Koushi Shinigami]

And I respect your right to interpret scriptures anyway you wish to do, so why don't you remember that the next time you disrespectfully tell someone that their interpretation is making the scriptures lie just because you disagree with them?

You are correct. And I appologize.

[Marleysdaddy]

It sounds good, but remember that Jesus commanded us to love God and others, but He never felt the need to command us to love ourselves. Does anyone wonder why that might be? Could it be because He knew that we have been selfish sinful creatures ever since the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden? Could it be that He simply wanted us to follow the golden rule which says to treat others as we want to be treated?

To me (and I think to Koushi) there is a difference between loving oneself, and being self-centered or selfish.

[Koushi Shinigami]

To me (and I think to Koushi) there is a difference between loving oneself, and being self-centered or selfish.

*Jim Carey Voice*


AND THE TRUTH,

SHALL SET YOU


FREEEEEEEEEEEE!!

[hben]

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:

My apology, cbut, for taking this thread off topic for a few posts. I believe Baptists preach the simple gospel message of salvation which can only be received by a person who realizes and acknowledges that he is a wretched miserable sinner in need of the wonderful sinless Savior. However, I do not believe it happens because a sinner realizes that he is such a good and lovable person who deserves his own self love.

[Koushi Shinigami]

:eh:


Funny way to try to re-rail a thread.

[hben]

Know what makes me feel better? Locking down threads and showing problem posters the door. Problem posters being those that know and understand the rules, yet choose to ignore them anyway.

FW, I have apologized for getting off topic. Even though this is a "Baptist" topic in my church, it may not be for all Baptist churches. The "self esteem" issue needs to have it's own thread which I may do whenever I have plenty of time to discuss my views in greater detail. Anyway, thanks for bringing order to the courtroom. ;)

[hben]

You are correct. And I appologize.

Apology accepted, and I probably owe you a few from past debates, so I apologize for all the times I was less than respectful.

Now that all the fun has been taken out of our debate, where do we go from here? :doh: :lol:

[hben]

To me (and I think to Koushi) there is a difference between loving oneself, and being self-centered or selfish.

I do realize that, because I have had many who disagree with me off line in face to face discussions who felt the same way, but I still hold to my convictions on this issue for the reasons that I have tried to explain. I respect everyone's right to disagree, but this is an issue that I hold deep convictions about after much prayer and study.

[hben]

*Jim Carey Voice*


AND THE TRUTH,

SHALL SET YOU


FREEEEEEEEEEEE!!

But no one really wants Fire Watch's truth to set anyone free from this thread or this forum, do we? :eek:

:)) :whistle: :cool: :))

[hben]

:eh:


Funny way to try to re-rail a thread.

I did it without even trying...how about you?

I think I just have a special gift for such things? :cool:

Edited to say: Ooops, I thought you said, "Funny way to try to de-rail a thread". My bad. :redface:
I guess I am more gifted than I thought...or less, depending on how you look at it. :doh:

[Koushi Shinigami]

I do realize that, because I have had many who disagree with me off line in face to face discussions who felt the same way, but I still hold to my convictions on this issue for the reasons that I have tried to explain. I respect everyone's right to disagree, but this is an issue that I hold deep convictions about after much prayer and study.

Myself, I have lived with low self esteem. During that time I was useless to God, to my family, and to myself. I did engage in self-destructive behaviour to try to fill the void in me that my lack of respect for myself created.

Then I was finally able to be patient with myself, to show myself kindness. I was able to let go of envy, stop boasting, and become humble. I stopped being rude, and gave up self-seeking. It was harder to become angry with myself, and forgot about wrongs. I stopped delighting in doing evil to myself and rejoiced with God's truth. I started protecting myself, and learned to trust that I was worth something, starting having hope for the future, and decided to start trying to preserve myself for God's plan for me.

[hben]

Myself, I have lived with low self esteem. During that time I was useless to God, to my family, and to myself. I did engage in self-destructive behaviour to try to fill the void in me that my lack of respect for myself created.

Then I was finally able to be patient with myself, to show myself kindness. I was able to let go of envy, stop boasting, and become humble. I stopped being rude, and gave up self-seeking. It was harder to become angry with myself, and forgot about wrongs. I stopped delighting in doing evil to myself and rejoiced with God's truth. I started protecting myself, and learned to trust that I was worth something, starting having hope for the future, and decided to start trying to preserve myself for God's plan for me.

Good for you. I went through similar experiences, except it was when I realized that I was not worthy of Jesus and what He did on the cross for me that He picked me up and brought me back home. I have never felt worthy of His love, but I know He is worthy of our love, and that is what I've been preaching ever since. Anyway, I am glad you have come so far my friend, so we can let God sort out our differences of how and why He did what He did.

[RayMan]

Myself, I have lived with low self esteem. During that time I was useless to God, to my family, and to myself. I did engage in self-destructive behaviour to try to fill the void in me that my lack of respect for myself created.

Then I was finally able to be patient with myself, to show myself kindness. I was able to let go of envy, stop boasting, and become humble. I stopped being rude, and gave up self-seeking. It was harder to become angry with myself, and forgot about wrongs. I stopped delighting in doing evil to myself and rejoiced with God's truth. I started protecting myself, and learned to trust that I was worth something, starting having hope for the future, and decided to start trying to preserve myself for God's plan for me.


We have just a wee bit in common hermano. I find life to be easier and more enjoyable since I stopped hating myself and considering myself a moron and a loser. Praise God!

[hben]

We have just a wee bit in common hermano. I find life to be easier and more enjoyable since I stopped hating myself and considering myself a moron and a loser. Praise God!


I found life to be easier when I got rid of my dog and got a cat instead. I like dogs better than cats, so don't misunderstand. When I had a dog, I always felt bad. Whenever I had a bad day...then came home and kicked my dog, I felt even worse. Either that, or I couldn't kick him and had to keep all my frustrations bottled up. But now, when I come home after a bad day...I come in and kick my cat, and since I don't like cats anyway, it makes me feel much better. :))

[Koushi Shinigami]

Good for you. I went through similar experiences, except it was when I realized that I was not worthy of Jesus and what He did on the cross for me that He picked me up and brought me back home. I have never felt worthy of His love, but I know He is worthy of our love, and that is what I've been preaching ever since. Anyway, I am glad you have come so far my friend, so we can let God sort out our differences of how and why He did what He did.

Ben, What is patient, kind. not envious, not boa****l, not proud not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always preserves?

[vir doctus]

Ben, What is patient, kind. not envious, not boa****l, not proud not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always preserves?

Oh, oh! Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter!

[Koushi Shinigami]

Oh, oh! Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter!

;) He did say it was good I had that for myself. Didn't he?

[hben]

Ben, What is patient, kind. not envious, not boa****l, not proud not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always preserves?

Let me see now...hmmmm... :think:

It's not faith. :doh:

And it's not hope. :doh:

Could it be love? :hug:

Now, let me guess. You will say something like that is how you love yourself. Am I warm? :think:

And I might ask, does one who loves Himself volunteer to be nailed to a cross, because of His self love?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Let me see now...hmmmm... :think:

It's not faith. :doh:

And it's not hope. :doh:

Could it be love? :hug:

Now, let me guess. You will say something like that is how you love yourself. Am I warm? :think:

Yup. Tell me, what is wrong with having any one or all of those things for yourself? Is it sinful to be patient with yourself?


And I might ask, does one who loves Himself volunteer to be nailed to a cross, because of His self love?

Jesus did. He had enough love for himself that it flowed over for all of mankind.

[hben]

Yup. Tell me, what is wrong with having any one or all of those things for yourself? Is it sinful to be patient with yourself?




Jesus did. He had enough love for himself that it flowed over for all of mankind.

Why doesn't be Bible ever say that is why He died on the cross rather than saying over and over that it was because of His love for us? You would think it would say at least somewhere that He gave His life on the cross, because He loved Himself so much.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Why doesn't be Bible ever say that is why He died on the cross rather than saying over and over that it was because of His love for us? You would think it would say at least somewhere that He gave His life on the cross, because He loved Himself so much.

It does. He followed the law he gave us. He loves all of us as he loved himself.

Is it sinful to be patient with one's self?

[hben]

It does. He followed the law he gave us. He loves all of us as he loved himself.

Is it sinful to be patient with one's self?

No, but most every person I know is much more patient with good old self than with others. I don't look to get any rewards in heaven for being patient with myself, but I do believe that rewards will be handed out for those who were patient with others.

[Koushi Shinigami]

No,

Good. We agree. What in the list that I posted from 1 Cor 13 is sinful to have for one's self?


I don't look to get any rewards in heaven for being patient with myself, but I do believe that rewards will be handed out for those who were patient with others.

If you can find wher I have said one does get rewards in heaven for being patient with one's self, please show me. I've said that one can not show love for others if they have no love to give.

You keep saying that it's not right to love one's self because it leads to selfishness. 1 Cor 13 says love is not self-seeking. So the Bible and I agree, love is not self-centered or love is not selfishness. If one is being selfish, they are not showing nor do they have love for themself. Selfishness is self-destructive and love is not destructive.

[hben]

Good. We agree. What in the list that I posted from 1 Cor 13 is sinful to have for one's self?

Self seeking which covers my next point. Paul never intended for chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians to be about loving one's own self. He was talking about loving others. That is taking a passage of it's original context. To say that loving one's own self is not self seeking is a total contradiction.

If you can find wher I have said one does get rewards in heaven for being patient with one's self, please show me. I've said that one can not show love for others if they have no love to give.

I have never argued that. I have only argued that Christ never commanded us to love ourselves as the modern self esteem message implies. I have said and continue to say that Christ knew we were sinners who will always naturally look out for #1. It is called self preservation by some, but whatever you choose to call it, we are born with the nature to take care of ourselves to survive. Jesus knew this, and He simply used this as a starting point to command us to take care of others as we naturally do ourselves. If I get up everyday, dress myself and feed myself, then Jesus wants me to do the same for someone who can't do it for himself if there is a need for me to do so. We don't think of it as a chore whenever we pig out on something that our flesh loves to eat, but whenever we have to feed an elderly person with Alzheimer's one bite at a time very slowly, then we see how patient and loving we are.

You keep saying that it's not right to love one's self because it leads to selfishness. 1 Cor 13 says love is not self-seeking. So the Bible and I agree, love is not self-centered or love is not selfishness. If one is being selfish, they are not showing nor do they have love for themself. Selfishness is self-destructive and love is not destructive.

What can I say. I totally disagree. Whenever I love myself, I will eat whether you do or not, but whenever I love you AS CHRIST COMMANDED, I will feed you before I feed myself. Right now, I love me more than anyone else, so I am going to go eat supper, and I love my wife, so I want her to see me enjoy her good homecooking. :cool:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Self seeking <snip>


Sorry. Bible specifically says love is not self seeking. Therefore, if you are being selfish, self centered, or self seeking, you are not feeling love for yourself.




What can I say. I totally disagree. Whenever I love myself, I will eat whether you do or not,


If you were being selfish, would you feel guilt afterwards, even if you didn't acknowledge it? I would. Why would love make you feel guilty?



but whenever I love you AS CHRIST COMMANDED, I will feed you before I feed myself.

And how would you feel about yourself if you were not being self centered? Would you feel good, or happy with yourself? You would probably not feel guilty. That is love of self.

[vir doctus]

Sorry. Bible specifically says love is not self seeking. Therefore, if you are being selfish, self centered, or self seeking, you are not feeling love for yourself.


If you were being selfish, would you feel guilt afterwards, even if you didn't acknowledge it? I would. Why would love make you feel guilty?

And how would you feel about yourself if you were not being self centered? Would you feel good, or happy with yourself? You would probably not feel guilty. That is love of self.

Exactly.

[hben]

Sorry. Bible specifically says love is not self seeking. Therefore, if you are being selfish, self centered, or self seeking, you are not feeling love for yourself.

And I am sorry that I simply respectfully disagree. When I love someone, I put that someone first...whether it be God, you or me. The Bible never commands us to love our own selves. It simply implies that we do, and then uses that fact to command us to love others as we already love ourselves. If you disagree, that is fine, because going in circles is not accomplishing anything.

If you were being selfish, would you feel guilt afterwards, even if you didn't acknowledge it? I would. Why would love make you feel guilty?

I am not real sure I understand what point you are trying to make, but I think all that you referred to would depend on whether a person is a believer or an unbeliever, and if it is a believer, it would depend on how mature he is and his sensitivity to the convicting small voice of the Holy Spirit.

And how would you feel about yourself if you were not being self centered? Would you feel good, or happy with yourself? You would probably not feel guilty. That is love of self.

A child of God would have the conviction of the Holy Spirit, so as he matures, his love for God and others would grow more while his love for self became insignificant. A mature Christian thinks of God and others more and more while thinking of self less and less. It is what I call growing in grace.

[hben]

If I can, I would like to try and summarize my thoughts on the "self love" doctrine, and it matters not to me whether anyone agrees or disagrees.

For an unbeliever to love himself, it is natural and even expected since all of his trust is in himself to get by or survive in this world. Since he doesn't trust in the Lord for any of his needs to be met, it is only natural to "look out for number 1". It is natural to love himself before he finds out and understands that God loves him. But once, he hears the gospel, understands the gospel and accepts the gospel, he starts understanding just what real love (agape) means. He starts to understand how much God loves him and the sacrifice that God made because of that love for him and all sinners in the world. It is then, at the point of his believing in Jesus Christ, the example of God's love, that he begins a journey to walk in love as Jesus walked. And that love always, loves God and others with no thought of self. So whenever a believer in Christ starts growing in God's grace as God wants all His children to do, he starts loving God more, and he starts loving others more. Therefore, he starts thinking of himself and his own needs less and less, so he really should never give much if any thought to "loving himself" since self is supposed be crucified with Christ. The more die to ourselves, the more Christ can live in and through us without any thought to ourselves. When our thought process begins to focus on loving God and others, then our love for self becomes irrelevant. The most Christlike believers I've ever known were those who never appeared to even give self a thought. They didn't have time for such childish thoughts whenever they were constantly thinking of and doing for others.

[RayMan]

I find it interesting to note that where we are told to love our neighbor AS ourself in Matt 23:39 the word "agapao" is used, the same word used for the way we are to love God in verse 37.

In 2 Tim 3 Paul is referencing something entirely different.

2Ti 3:2 ForG1063 menG444 shall beG2071 lovers of their own selves,G5367 covetous,G5366 boasters,G213 proud,G5244 blasphemers,G989 disobedientG545 to parents,G1118 unthankful,G884 unholy,G462


The whole phrase "lovers of their own selves" translates the one word "philautos"

G5367
φίλαυτος
philautos
fil'-ow-tos
From G5384 and G846; fond of self, that is, selfish: - lover of own self.

And they are lovers of pleasure "philēdonos" rather than lovers of God "philotheos."


2Ti 3:4 Traitors,G4273 heady,G4312 highminded,G5187 lovers of pleasuresG5369 moreG3123 thanG2228 lovers of God;G5377


In this passage Paul describes people who are NOT interested in God and not loving him as selfish, amongst a whole raft of other bad qualities. To compare what Paul writes here with what Jesus says in Matt. 22 is compare apples to oranges.

Agapao - the unselfish love God has towards us and which we are to have to our neighbor AS ourself is far different than the "Phileo" love the rottenest bounder can have toward self or money. This sort of person is not even "fond of God."

Jesus used both words in trying to get Peter to see the difference between "agapao" and "phileo."


Joh 21:15 SoG3767 whenG3753 they had dined,G709 JesusG2424 saithG3004 to SimonG4613 Peter,G4074 Simon,G4613 son of Jonas,G2495 lovestG25 thou meG3165 moreG4119 than these? HeG5130 saithG3004 unto him,G846 Yea,G3483 Lord;G2962 thouG4771 knowestG1492 thatG3754 I loveG5368 thee.G4571 He saithG3004 unto him,G846 FeedG1006 myG3450 lambs.G721

Joh 21:16 He saithG3004 to himG846 againG3825 the second time,G1208 Simon,G4613 son of Jonas,G2495 lovestG25 thou me? HeG3165 saithG3004 unto him,G846 Yea,G3483 Lord;G2962 thouG4771 knowestG1492 thatG3754 I loveG5368 thee.G4571 He saithG3004 unto him,G846 FeedG4165 myG3450 sheep.G4263


Joh 21:17 He saithG3004 unto himG846 theG3588 third time,G5154 Simon,G4613 son of Jonas,G2495 lovestG5368 thou me?G3165 PeterG4074 was grievedG3076 becauseG3754 he saidG2036 unto himG846 theG3588 third time,G5154 LovestG5368 thou me?G3165 AndG2532 he saidG2036 unto him,G846 Lord,G2962 thouG4771 knowestG1492 all things;G3956 thouG4771 knowestG1097 thatG3754 I loveG5368 thee.G4571 JesusG2424 saithG3004 unto him,G846 FeedG1006 myG3450 sheep.G4263



Jesus asks Peter twice, "do you AGAPAO me," and Peter answers twice, "I PHILEO you," the third time Jesus comes down to Peter's level and asks, "do you PHILEO me" and Peter repeats that he does indeed "PHILEO" Jesus. As time went on I believe Peter came to understand "AGAPAO" but at that time, apparently not so much.




Phileo is the root word used to build "lovers of self," "lovers of pleasure" and "lovers of God" in 2 Tim.

Contrast of "phileo" and "agapao."

G5368
φιλέω
phileō
fil-eh'-o
From G5384; to be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), that is, have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while G25 is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as G2309 and G1014, or as G2372 and G3563 respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specifically to kiss (as a mark of tenderness): - kiss, love.


I phileo something for what I get out of it. "I love ice cream" because it tastes great on a hot day.

I agapao something "I love hben," not for any sentimental reason, not for anything hben has or can do for me, but because he is my neighbor and God commands me to agapao him.

I agapao myself "I love me," not because I feel worthy of love, not because of sentiment or affection but because Jesus commands me to agapao God, and to agapao my neighbor as - or in the same manner as I do myself.

Bottom line: I agapao myself as I agapao God and my neighbor because God orders me to.

I am not all that "phileo" of myself most of the time because I am aware of my faults and shortcomings.

Bottom line, I don't think hben and Koushi are ever going to come to an agreement on this subject because they are not discussing the same thing. KJV translates different Greek words, with vastly different meaning with the single English word "love." Koushi is talking about "agapao," the unselfish love of God, while hben is talking about "phileo," the love we have for things that we are fond of and which provide us with carnal satisfaction.


Constantine the Great - If you read this please feel free to correct or clarifying concerning the difference between "agapao" and "phileo." I am just working from the common Greek sources. Strong's Greek Lexicon, etc.

[vir doctus]

A person who does not love God hates his own self.

[RayMan]

A person who does not love God hates his own self.

You are right Ms Terse. :D

[hben]

You just got'ta love it whenever we can agree to disagree with each other and still come away loving one another as we love ourselves. :angel: :D

Good argument guys...I almost wish I agreed. Maybe that is just one of the many ways that God's shows His love...by His children continuing to love one another even when they disagree. :hug:

[RayMan]

You just got'ta love it whenever we can agree to disagree with each other and still come away loving one another as we love ourselves. :angel: :D

Good argument guys...I almost wish I agreed. Maybe that is just one of the many ways that God's shows His love...by His children continuing to love one another even when they disagree. :hug:


Maybe. :eh:

[hben]

Maybe. :eh:

Maybe??? :eek:

[RayMan]

Maybe??? :eek:


It could happen.

[hben]

It could happen.

All things are possible with God, but I won't hold it against you guys if you don't love me the way I deserve to be loved just because I don't see eye to eye with you on everything. :cool:

[RayMan]

All things are possible with God, but I won't hold it against you guys if you don't love me the way I deserve to be loved just because I don't see eye to eye with you on everything. :cool:

Hate to be picky but it looks like you may have misspelled "anything." :whistle:

[vir doctus]

You just got'ta love it whenever we can agree to disagree with each other and still come away loving one another as we love ourselves. :angel: :D

Good argument guys...I almost wish I agreed. Maybe that is just one of the many ways that God's shows His love...by His children continuing to love one another even when they disagree. :hug:

Agreeing with me solves all such nonsense.

[RayMan]

Resistance is futile. All Baptists will be assimilated.

[hben]

Hate to be picky but it looks like you may have misspelled "anything." :whistle:

Nope, I checked "anything" is not spelled the same way as "everything"...but "everything" is still spelled that way. :cool:

[RayMan]

Nope, I checked "anything" is not spelled the same way as "everything"...but "everything" is still spelled that way. :cool:

Well, imagine that. :angel:

[hben]

Agreeing with me solves all such nonsense.

I agree with you partially. I agree that I am several years older now than I was when I first came to the Hannity Forum, but I don't agree with you that I am "OLD" enough to have gone for a ride on George Washington's white horse, or eat from his daddy's cherry tree before George chopped it down.

[vir doctus]

Resistance is futile. All Baptists will be assimilated.

Would a Catholic say 'massilated'? :eh:

[RayMan]

Would a Catholic say 'massilated'? :eh:

Buf would.

[hben]

Well, imagine that. :angel:

I remind you guys that this thread is called "Ask a Baptist"...not "Tell a Baptist How You Disagree With All of His Biblical Interpretations". Maybe I should get a statue of John the Baptist to put by the exit door with a box beside it labeled "Complaints". :whistle: :))

[Koushi Shinigami]

A person who does not love God hates his own self.

And vice versa.

[RayMan]

I remind you guys that this thread is called "Ask a Baptist"...not "Tell a Baptist How You Disagree With All of His Biblical Interpretations". Maybe I should get a statue of John the Baptist to put by the exit door with a box beside it labeled "Complaints". :whistle: :))

Shucks hben,

I always think of you as being more Southern than Baptist.

[Koushi Shinigami]

And I am sorry that I simply respectfully disagree.


:shrug: 'Tis not me you disagree with.



I am not real sure I understand what point you are trying to make, but I think all that you referred to would depend on whether a person is a believer or an unbeliever, and if it is a believer, it would depend on how mature he is and his sensitivity to the convicting small voice of the Holy Spirit.



A child of God would have the conviction of the Holy Spirit, so as he matures, his love for God and others would grow more while his love for self became insignificant. A mature Christian thinks of God and others more and more while thinking of self less and less. It is what I call growing in grace.

Christians do not have a monopoly on that.

[Koushi Shinigami]

If I can, I would like to try and summarize my thoughts on the "self love" doctrine, and it matters not to me whether anyone agrees or disagrees.

For an unbeliever to love himself, it is natural and even expected since all of his trust is in himself to get by or survive in this world. Since he doesn't trust in the Lord for any of his needs to be met, it is only natural to "look out for number 1". It is natural to love himself before he finds out and understands that God loves him.



That is not love.


But once, he hears the gospel, understands the gospel and accepts the gospel, he starts understanding just what real love (agape) means.


I see you agree.



He starts to understand how much God loves him and the sacrifice that God made because of that love for him and all sinners in the world. It is then, at the point of his believing in Jesus Christ, the example of God's love, that he begins a journey to walk in love as Jesus walked. And that love always, loves God and others with no thought of self. So whenever a believer in Christ starts growing in God's grace as God wants all His children to do, he starts loving God more, and he starts loving others more. Therefore, he starts thinking of himself and his own needs less and less, so he really should never give much if any thought to "loving himself" since self is supposed be crucified with Christ. The more die to ourselves, the more Christ can live in and through us without any thought to ourselves. When our thought process begins to focus on loving God and others, then our love for self becomes irrelevant. The most Christlike believers I've ever known were those who never appeared to even give self a thought. They didn't have time for such childish thoughts whenever they were constantly thinking of and doing for others.

Doing for others, thinking of others, being selfless makes ME feel good. It's one of the ways I love myself. After having lived for years with no self-esteem, there is NOTHING you can say that will make me give that up. I was unable to serve myself, my neighbor or my God when I hated myself. I will never go back to that living hell again.

[hben]

Shucks hben,

I always think of you as being more Southern than Baptist.

I am Southern, and I am Baptist, but I am not real active as a "Southern Baptist". The church still has some very very loose ties with the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention), but we are tighter with the BGCT (Baptist General Convention of Texas).

I just figured when you said you thought of me as "Southern" that it was your polite way of saying "hick" which would be ok, too. :lol:

[hben]

:shrug: 'Tis not me you disagree with.

:confused: Maybe I need to go back and read your posts again. If you were agreeing with me, then I certainly misunderstood.

Christians do not have a monopoly on that.

My grandmother wouldn't even let my mother and her siblings play monopoly since it had dice in it.

[vir doctus]

I am Southern, and I am Baptist, but I am not real active as a "Southern Baptist". The church still has some very very loose ties with the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention), but we are tighter with the BGCT (Baptist General Convention of Texas).

I just figured when you said you thought of me as "Southern" that it was your polite way of saying "hick" which would be ok, too. :lol:

Most Texans, like myself, consider themselves 'Texans', not 'Southern'. :rolleyes:

[Wingnut5133]

You know I have a view on this. I was raised Catholic and would hear the other denominations say if you go there your going to hell. I didn't want that so I went to them all. And in the end do you know what I finally relised??? (It's not where you go it's who you go to see ) . Just remember we all fall short in the eye's of GOD.

[vir doctus]

Just remember we all fall short in the eye's of GOD.

Some vertically challenged bipeds more so than others.

[hben]

That is not love.

I see you agree.

Doing for others, thinking of others, being selfless makes ME feel good. It's one of the ways I love myself. After having lived for years with no self-esteem, there is NOTHING you can say that will make me give that up. I was unable to serve myself, my neighbor or my God when I hated myself. I will never go back to that living hell again.

And after living for years with more than my share of self esteem, I was glad to begin growing in His grace and learn the meaning of humility even though I still feel like I have a long way to go. I believe it is much more Christlike to esteem others better than myself than to be concerned about my own self esteem.

Phil:2:3: Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

[hben]

Most Texans, like myself, consider themselves 'Texans', not 'Southern'. :rolleyes:

Amen, but what can you do whenever your out of state friends like Ray think of you as Southern. My son used to live in Georgia, and I always considered them southern. I considered me and my fellow Texans more as Western. But I must admit that I have always preferred being a native Texan than being from the South or the West.

[vir doctus]

Amen, but what can you do whenever your out of state friends like Ray think of you as Southern. My son used to live in Georgia, and I always considered them southern. I considered me and my fellow Texans more as Western. But I must admit that I have always preferred being a native Texan than being from the South or the West.

Show me a Southerner that can appreciate a good barbed wire museum. :rolleyes:

[hben]

Show me a Southerner that can appreciate a good barbed wire museum. :rolleyes:

Or climbing a 90 ft. oil derrick for Friday night entertainment for that matter...after the high school football season is over of course. :eh:

[RayMan]

:confused: Maybe I need to go back and read your posts again. If you were agreeing with me, then I certainly misunderstood.

My grandmother wouldn't even let my mother and her siblings play monopoly since it had dice in it.

I heard Jack Hayford say one time at a Foursquare Pastor's Conference that he remembered that back in the early 50s when Pentecostal Churches were against any sort of card or dice games some one came out with a board game which used "a multi-sided number cube."

[RayMan]

Show me a Southerner that can appreciate a good barbed wire museum. :rolleyes:

I believe that is spelled "bob whar." At least that's how my dad always prounounced it.

[RayMan]

Most Texans, like myself, consider themselves 'Texans', not 'Southern'. :rolleyes:

Yippie Ki Yay!


Here's the bottom line. If you say "ya'll," you're a Southerner. If you don't, you ain't.


(And yes, hben, I do make this stuff up as I go along.)

[hben]

Yippie Ki Yay!


Here's the bottom line. If you say "ya'll," you're a Southerner. If you don't, you ain't.


(And yes, hben, I do make this stuff up as I go along.)

That explains a lot. :think:

[vir doctus]

Here's the bottom line. If you say "ya'll," you're a Southerner. If you don't, you ain't.


Dude, it's y'all. :snooty:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Show me a Southerner that can appreciate a good barbed wire museum. :rolleyes:

There's an oxymoron.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Dude, it's y'all. :snooty:

+1


And, it's "y'all" only if you're talkin' to more than one person.

[vir doctus]

There's an oxymoron.

Genetic defect - dad worked in Army Intelligence. :silenced:

[Koushi Shinigami]

And after living for years with more than my share of self esteem,


Pride, conceit, arrogance, those are not love. Bible says so.



I was glad to begin growing in His grace and learn the meaning of humility <snip>


That is love. Again Bible says so.





I believe it is much more Christlike to esteem others better than myself than to be concerned about my own self esteem.

Phil:2:3: Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

That's a two way street. One cannot give and give and give till they have nothing left. They have to recharge somehow. You have to allow yourself to receive 'esteem' that others are biblically commanded to give you before they give it to themselves.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Genetic defect - dad worked in Army Intelligence. :silenced:

:))

[hben]

Dude, it's y'all. :snooty:

I think I see the problem here. Maybe westerners say y'll and southerners say, ya'll...or is it visa versa? I am not sure it really matters anyway, because I think Texans actually say, yaaaaaawwwwll.

[RayMan]

Dude, it's y'all. :snooty:

Not my fault Texans cain't spell.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Not my fault Texans cain't spell.

Where I grew up, some used 'All y'all'.

[hben]

Pride, conceit, arrogance, those are not love. Bible says so.

I agree that they don't show our love for others...or for God. Of course, Jesus didn't give us any excuses when He reminded us to love God and to love our neighbor.

That is love. Again Bible says so.

That's a two way street. One cannot give and give and give till they have nothing left. They have to recharge somehow. You have to allow yourself to receive 'esteem' that others are biblically commanded to give you before they give it to themselves.

I don't think we should depend on others to give us recharge in order to give love to others, though I admit our brothers and sisters in Christ should give us encouragement. I believe our true love and spiritual power comes from within where the Holy Spirit dwells.

[hben]

Where I grew up, some used 'All y'all'.

That sounds very familiar to me.

BTW, do all y'all know if cbut is done for good, or is he coming back? I haven't heard the final word on it.

[Meriweather]

That sounds very familiar to me.

BTW, do all y'all know if cbut is done for good, or is he coming back? I haven't heard the final word on it.

I have the impression his focus is going to be on real life for the time being, but that he'll probably check back in at some later date. He's had to leave us before when real life called. He was gone for several months that time, but he did return.

[RayMan]

Where I grew up, some used 'All y'all'.

Yup. It's good to be inclusive.

[hben]

Where I grew up, some used 'All y'all'.

Where I grew up some a them used "some a y'all", but I'm not sure all a them ever used "all y'all". Unlike me, there were probably a few who learned something in English class. :whistle:

[Meriweather]

Bump for CMike. In his thread, he asked, "What is a Baptist?"

[CMike11]

Okay, I'll ask what's a Baptist?

[RayMan]

Okay, I'll ask what's a Baptist?


I hate to pass up a straight line like that but out of love for hben I'm just not gonna touch it.

[vir doctus]

I hate to pass up a straight line like that but out of love for hben I'm just not gonna touch it.

I held my tongue before you - nanner nanner. :mrgreen:

[RayMan]

I held my tongue before you - nanner nanner. :mrgreen:

Neener.

[vir doctus]

Neener.
:eek: I will have to contemplate my faux pas.


Thank you for correcting me.

[cbut1]

Okay, I'll ask what's a Baptist?

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=35188501&postcount=4

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=35192781&postcount=12

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=35272131&postcount=88


This should get you started.

[RayMan]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=35188501&postcount=4

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=35192781&postcount=12

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=35272131&postcount=88


This should get you started.


Hey homie. :hug:

[Koushi Shinigami]

I hate to pass up a straight line like that but out of love for hben I'm just not gonna touch it.

Mmmmfth mmm mmmpth mmmmf

[Fire Watch]

I held my tongue before you - nanner nanner. :mrgreen:
Nanu Nanu

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a373/reconrick/mork.jpg

[smyrna]

I held my tongue before you - nanner nanner. :mrgreen:

Hey...I recognize the cry of (succupanths) everywhere?:D

[hben]

Okay, I'll ask what's a Baptist?

It is a dunker of sinners saved by grace through faith, not of works lest they get held under water longer til they admit that works ain't got nothin' to do with their salvation. ;)

BTW, history may eventually show that we Baptists inspired the first water boarding techniques. :cool:

[cbut1]

Bump for any new Baptist or future Baptist to read through.

[byzantine catholic]

Bump for any new Baptist or future Baptist to read through.Do Baptists believe in exorcism?

[cbut1]

We believe the accounts in the Scriptures about Christ exorcising evil spirits. We believe that evil spirit can and do gain possesion of ones mind and heart. For support of these things my favorite verse to go to is the accounting of the Sons of Sceva.


Act 19:13 But certain also of the strolling Jews, exorcists, took upon them to name over them that had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

Act 19:14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, a chief priest, who did this.

Act 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said unto them, Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?

Act 19:16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and mastered both of them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

Act 19:17 And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, that dwelt at Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

I cannot argue against this accouting and not ruin or harm my credibility of handling scripture rightly. I suspect though that your question is not geared toward past understanding but present. For that I can honestly say I have not run into one that I thought was possesed of a demon (although I can clearly see some throughout the world as such) therefor I know of no practiced effort by Baptist to practice such a thing. One of the things that would give me pause in trying to deal with a demon possesed person is the accounting where the Apostles had difficulty expelling them and was rebuked by Christ for their lack of Faith even the size of a mustard seed.

[5thIDSoldier]

Cbut,

There seems to be some controversy amoung some Baptists about the proper version of the Bible to use. Some are still staunchly KJV, others prefer NKJV, others NIV, etc.....what say you?

[cbut1]

Cbut,

There seems to be some controversy amoung some Baptists about the proper version of the Bible to use. Some are still staunchly KJV, others prefer NKJV, others NIV, etc.....what say you?


This is one of those debates that emotions can tend to run high in. I don't like them myself because they are overall fruitless at best and outright damaging at worse.

KJV only'ers ought to just be content; as Gods Word says, with what they use, same goes with others that use other translations for the most part.

I have taken some intermediate Greek classes to help my studies (help being the operative word) I have found that I favor the NASB (New American Standard Bible) for its ease of reading and yet more accuratly translated content. I do use both (KJV or NASB) when I preach depending on where I am preaching (I know some who have it in their assembly rules to only have the KJV read in their assembly) I got no issue with that, I don't think it is neccessary but not problematic. There are some bad translations out there one that I do not favor and personally wish others wouldn't use is NIV (New International Version) nor do I think the old Scofield bible that used to be really popular should be used.

I know this probably doesn't really answer you in a direct way but for me it isn't a life or death scriptural issue. I find the historical argument in favor of the KJV as a flawed and poorly delivered argument. I find the Textus Receptus is the Authoritative bases for the Bible as somewhat of a weak argument also.

I use both primerily because I was trained with both. NASB, KJV, NKJV is fine also.

[cbut1]

bump

[Koushi Shinigami]

bump


Why to Baptists seem to always give Catholics all the credit for the religous practices that Baptists don't agree with?

For example:

First, my own background.....

I consider myself to be Baptist, as I was always raised in the Baptist church and believe the vast majoriy of it's tenets. <snip>

(I do not believe that Catholic infant baptism is legitimate, as it takes no act of faith from the person being baptized.....as he/she is not yet able to understand what's happening.)

<snip>

[cbut1]

Later I'll answer this; but I hope it is a sincere question and not an attempt to bait a provacative response.

[cbut1]

Why to Baptists seem to always give Catholics all the credit for the religous practices that Baptists don't agree with?

For example:

Many reasons mostly due to ignorence, if we don't know we point the other direction type of thing.

It is a common Baptist theme of the Perpetual NT Church, started by the Lord and continues till today and will remain vibrant and active until He (the Lord) returns to gather Her. This puts a skwelch on a few religious concepts all on its own, primarily todays LDS'ers. Although it is not new for it is commonly accepted by Baptist that the Catholic Church was the first seriously large seperation from the True NT Church. As such many blames fall upon the ancient battles (percieved or real) that Baptist and Catholics have had regardless of any truth in the matter.

Many in Baptist work blame Constantine for the founding of the Catholic Church, I disagree with it as truth but it is what is accepted. I think the seperation should be blamed on pride and arrogance and the conduit in which it was expressed was within the Roman Empire but it wasn't Constantine himself that did it.

[Koushi Shinigami]

It is a common Baptist theme of the Perpetual NT Church, started by the Lord and continues till today and will remain vibrant and active until He (the Lord) returns to gather Her.


What is?

[RayMan]

What is?

Yeah, I couldn't make sense out of that one either.

[Meriweather]

I interpreted it as cbut1 saying that the Baptist Church is the only church in existence today that was started by Jesus. All the other churches (especially the Catholic) separated early on from the true Baptist church, which is why Baptists always give Catholics "credit" for "wrong" practices. According to Baptists, Catholics were always wrong, and are still wrong today about divorce and others issues about which the two churches disagree.

[RayMan]

Oh, well, we all know the Catholic Church is always wrong about everything all the time, so that's all good. :angel:

[Meriweather]

Oh, well, we all know the Catholic Church is always wrong about everything all the time, so that's all good. :angel:

Yes. We probably inherited that from Peter. ;)

[Koushi Shinigami]

Yes. We probably inherited that from Peter. ;)

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))

Do you mean "The Rock"?


Great sense of humor you Catholics have.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Yeah, I couldn't make sense out of that one either.

Glad I'm not alone.

Cbut1, clarification?

[RayMan]

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))

Do you mean "The Rock"?


Great sense of humor you Catholics have.

They were forced to develop that after the Inquisition was outlawed in most of Europe. :dance:

[cbut1]

I interpreted it as cbut1 saying that the Baptist Church is the only church in existence today that was started by Jesus. All the other churches (especially the Catholic) separated early on from the true Baptist church, which is why Baptists always give Catholics "credit" for "wrong" practices. According to Baptists, Catholics were always wrong, and are still wrong today about divorce and others issues about which the two churches disagree.



Correct Meri.

As I said though I didn't mean for this to be an inflaming comment but an answer to KS question. I tried to be careful how to answer it.

[Meriweather]

Correct Meri.

As I said though I didn't mean for this to be an inflaming comment but an answer to KS question. I tried to be careful how to answer it.

I understand. The tippy-toeing was cute.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Correct Meri.

As I said though I didn't mean for this to be an inflaming comment but an answer to KS question. I tried to be careful how to answer it.

:twisted:


Not a very attractive belief.

[Reeder]

Many reasons mostly due to ignorence, if we don't know we point the other direction type of thing.

It is a common Baptist theme of the Perpetual NT Church, started by the Lord and continues till today and will remain vibrant and active until He (the Lord) returns to gather Her. This puts a skwelch on a few religious concepts all on its own, primarily todays LDS'ers. Although it is not new for it is commonly accepted by Baptist that the Catholic Church was the first seriously large seperation from the True NT Church. As such many blames fall upon the ancient battles (percieved or real) that Baptist and Catholics have had regardless of any truth in the matter.

Many in Baptist work blame Constantine for the founding of the Catholic Church, I disagree with it as truth but it is what is accepted. I think the seperation should be blamed on pride and arrogance and the conduit in which it was expressed was within the Roman Empire but it wasn't Constantine himself that did it.


I don't even know what the bolded section means. Could you elaborate?

[cbut1]

:twisted:


Not a very attractive belief.

I never claimed it was attractive, often the truth isn't attractive.

[RayMan]

I don't even know what the bolded section means. Could you elaborate?

I can translate "skwelch" properly for you.

Squelch.


I'm thinking he doesn't agree with your Great Apostasy timeline. Let's see if I guessed right on that one.

[Reeder]

I can translate "skwelch" properly for you.

Squelch.


I'm thinking he doesn't agree with your Great Apostasy timeline. Let's see if I guessed right on that one.

Thats kind of what I was thinking, as well, but the more I read through the first couple of sentences of the paragraph, the more confused I was.

[cbut1]

I don't even know what the bolded section means. Could you elaborate?

I thought it clear.

LDS'ers believe there was a great apostacy. Baptist believe they are wrong. What is hard about that?

[cbut1]

I can translate "skwelch" properly for you.

Squelch.


I'm thinking he doesn't agree with your Great Apostasy timeline. Let's see if I guessed right on that one.

Good thing my wife is the spelling teacher in our house.

[Reeder]

I thought it clear.

It wasn't.


LDS'ers believe there was a great apostacy. Baptist believe they are wrong. What is hard about that?

I simply didn't understand the way you had worded it. Thanks for clearing it up.

[RayMan]

I thought it clear.

LDS'ers believe there was a great apostacy. Baptist believe they are wrong. What is hard about that?

Your unusual take on sentence structure and grammar can sometimes obscure your point.

[cbut1]

Your unusual take on sentence structure and grammar can sometimes obscure your point.

Trying to make a point and not violate rules is nearly as difficult.

[RayMan]

Trying to make a point and not violate rules is nearly as difficult.

I haven't found that to be the case. One can say pretty much anything they like around here as long as they maintain a polite attitude about it.

[Reeder]

i haven't found that to be the case. One can say pretty much anything they like around here as long as they maintain a polite attitude about it.

+1

[cbut1]

I haven't found that to be the case. One can say pretty much anything they like around here as long as they maintain a polite attitude about it.

Maybe for a Pentecostal Pope. :D

As a matter of fact I have always been polite, but you still reported me for my first official offense. Not that I mind it is your right to and the judgement is as it was but maintaining a polite attitude is not a completetly honest criteria marker.

[RayMan]

Maybe for a Pentecostal Pope. :D

As a matter of fact I have always been polite, but you still reported me for my first official offense. Not that I mind it is your right to and the judgement is as it was but maintaining a polite attitude is not a completetly honest criteria marker.

That WAS a special day, wasn't it? :hug:


P.S. No idea what you are trying to say from "but maintaining" on.

[cbut1]

Do I need to define the word maintaining?

I always thought you to be more intelligent than that. :D

[RayMan]

Do I need to define the word maintaining?

I always thought you to be more intelligent than that. :D


Not that I mind it is your right to and the judgement is as it was but maintaining a polite attitude is not a completetly honest criteria marker.

An honest criteria marker for what?


I am definitely intelligent enough to understand the meaning of the word maintaining. :D

[Meriweather]

Maybe for a Pentecostal Pope. :D

As a matter of fact I have always been polite, but you still reported me for my first official offense. Not that I mind it is your right to and the judgement is as it was but maintaining a polite attitude is not a completetly honest criteria marker.

I remember that. Weren't you reported for telling a bad joke? The Religion Forum is held to a higher standard on just about everything.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I never claimed it was attractive, often the truth isn't attractive.

I don't understand. To what truth are you referring?

[cbut1]

I remember that. Weren't you reported for telling a bad joke? The Religion Forum is held to a higher standard on just about everything.

Yeah I think so, although I maintained a polite attitude about it. :)

[cbut1]

I don't understand. To what truth are you referring?


I covered this topic at the very onset of this thread and have referenced it numerous times so please read the following link and gain the understanding that you lack.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=35192781&postcount=12

[Meriweather]

Yeah I think so, although I maintained a polite attitude about it. :)

Yes, you did. I myself politely (and unknowingly) quote and respond to violations. No matter how polite I am, I still get that slap on the wrist and posts deleted. Not once has the ruling been, "I'm going to let this quote and response stand because it is a excellent example of politeness." Instead I get, "You do this again and you won't like what may happen."

[cbut1]

So you agree polite attitude is not a good marker for letting posts slide. :D

See Rayman we have a polite agreement on this. :)

[Reeder]

So you agree polite attitude is not a good marker for letting posts slide. :D

See Rayman we have a polite agreement on this. :)

For whatever reason, 90% of your posts don't register with me. I have no idea what you're even attempting to say. :))

[Koushi Shinigami]

I covered this topic at the very onset of this thread and have referenced it numerous times so please read the following link and gain the understanding that you lack.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=35192781&postcount=12

Doesn't address my question.

To what truth are you referring?

The fact that many Baptists hold this belief?

Or are you calling this belief itself, 'the truth'?

[Meriweather]

For whatever reason, 90% of your posts don't register with me. I have no idea what you're even attempting to say. :))

I understand him very well.

(Now we will hear commentary from RayMan on this phenomenon.)

[RayMan]

So you agree polite attitude is not a good marker for letting posts slide. :D

See Rayman we have a polite agreement on this. :)

:hug:

Mi hermano.

[RayMan]

I understand him very well.

(Now we will hear commentary from RayMan on this phenomenon.)

I have a higher rate of comprehension than Reeder. Probably due to my ten years as a Baptist. :angel:

[Reeder]

I have a higher rate of comprehension than Reeder. Probably due to my ten years as a Baptist. :angel:

:))

You're probably right, Ray.

[cbut1]

For whatever reason, 90% of your posts don't register with me. I have no idea what you're even attempting to say. :))

:think:

I don't know what I can do to change that for you, I didn't come with a decoder ring. :eh:












:D

[cbut1]

Doesn't address my question.

To what truth are you referring?

The fact that many Baptists hold this belief?

Or are you calling this belief itself, 'the truth'?

Interesting how one word answers all three questions here.

1. Both

2. Yes

2. Yes

[Koushi Shinigami]

Interesting how one word answers all three questions here.

1. Both

2. Yes

2. Yes

Well, in that case there are two things we agree on:

1. It is a belief.
2. Many Baptists have it.


Tell me, how critical or instrumental is this belief to one's salvation?

[cbut1]

Well, in that case there are two things we agree on:

1. It is a belief.
2. Many Baptists have it.


Tell me, how critical or instrumental is this belief to one's salvation?


To ones Salvation it has little to no import. To ones obediant service to God it is of tremendous importence in our understanding.

[Koushi Shinigami]

To ones Salvation it has little to no import.



Thought so. Though I would lean more to the "no", to the exclusion of the "little".



To ones obediant service to God it is of tremendous importence in our understanding.

How so. Cannot Catholics be obedient in service to God?

[cbut1]

Thought so. Though I would lean more to the "no", to the exclusion of the "little".




How so. Cannot Catholics be obedient in service to God?


I lean towards the no also, but some say it has a little impact.

That is where one gets into the Authority question. We as Baptist do not agree with the Catholic persuasion (or any others for that matter) on Authority.

Our perspective is one that mimics the Hebrew one of the OT. God called them as one nation set aside specifically to be a witness and testimony unto the World of His Greatness. To be a part of that one nation one had to conform to their God and laws as a society, example the story of Ruth.

We (Baptist) view the same established pattern by Christ concerning His Church. Just as all other nations outside of Israel were aliens from the covenant with Abraham. All other religious systems are aliens to the covenant of Christ with His Church.

[Koushi Shinigami]

If that is the case, I'll be more than happy to remain an alien.

[cbut1]

Many in this world agree with you so at least your not alone. :)

[Koushi Shinigami]

Our perspective is one that mimics the Hebrew one of the OT.


Why don't I see agreement between Jews on this board and Baptists here?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Many in this world agree with you so at least your not alone. :)

Have I ever indicated that I'm concerned about what 'many in this world' think?

[cbut1]

No, you haven't but none the less many agree with you and therfore you are not alone in your decision.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Why don't I see agreement between Jews on this board and Baptists here?

bump.

[RayMan]

Why don't I see agreement between Jews on this board and Baptists here?


Agreeable Baptists?


That idea is just crazy enough that it might work...



Nah... :dance:

[Koushi Shinigami]

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))


wait a sec..........

*reviews own 'agreeableness'* :eek: :eek: :eek:

[cbut1]

Why don't I see agreement between Jews on this board and Baptists here?

I missed this one.


I have found that Harmonious, Poisonshady, and I have agreed on many things in the OT. When it comes to who the Messiah is is when we really part ways.

[cbut1]

Agreeable Baptists?


That idea is just crazy enough that it might work...



Nah... :dance:

Baptist do tend to be contrary to most of society and to one another.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I missed this one.


I have found that Harmonious, Poisonshady, and I have agreed on many things in the OT. When it comes to who the Messiah is is when we really part ways.

I've seen Abe and some others state that you do not worship the same God as they do.


And that whole filthy rags scripture seems to have been a bone of contention for a while now.

[cbut1]

I've seen Abe and some others state that you do not worship the same God as they do.


And that whole filthy rags scripture seems to have been a bone of contention for a while now.

Neither does that change the facts that on numerous occasions when I have expressed my Baptist views on OT scripture they have been in agreement with. Now granted I have not expressed my Baptist views on every subject in the OT but the ones I have have not been found to be disagreeable.

[cbut1]

I've seen Abe and some others state that you do not worship the same God as they do.


And that whole filthy rags scripture seems to have been a bone of contention for a while now.

Which discussion and where?

[RayMan]

Which discussion and where?
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=58516931&postcount=250

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57839381&postcount=422

[cbut1]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=58516931&postcount=250

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57839381&postcount=422

Did you read earlier that I said Baptist tend to be contrary to one another.

Goodness knows I had no part in tho's conversations. :angel:

[Koushi Shinigami]

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=58516931&postcount=250

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57839381&postcount=422

Don't forget the responses:

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57846101&postcount=428

and

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57836421&postcount=414

[cbut1]

I don't see how these things relate to what I have talked about.

[buflineks]

cbut,

Have a question concerning Baptist successionism and the Paulicans.

I would like it if you woud explain the following discrpancy.

It is my understanding that Baptist congregations are seperate autonomous entities. That there is no centrea figurehead ( i.e. RCC Papacy or Orthodox Patriarch).

Now if this the case, how can one justify in Baptist Successionism inclusion of the Paulicans who had a didaskaos?

According to the historical information the Paulicans had one didaskaos every generation and only one. He was the head of the Paulican church. In fact we have Byzantine records in which the Emporer and Patriarch were petitioned to settle the matter of succession.

For lack of a better comparision (I am only using this as a point of reference, I am not using it to pick a fight or imply anthing) the didaskaos was considered an apostle/prophet similar to the LDS "First President".

In addition how do disqualify the following from Peter of Sicily;

"They say, ' There is only one thing which seperates us from the Romans, that we say that the heaveny father is one god who has no power in this world but has power in the word to come, and that there is another god who made the world and who has power over this present world. The Romans confess that the heavenly Father and the creator of a the world are one and the same God.'"

The quote from Peter of Sicily clearly indicates that the Paulicans were dualists.

Again, I'm wondering how this is explained in including Paulicans as a link in the Chain of Baptis Successionsim?

[terri910]

Have I ever indicated that I'm concerned about what 'many in this world' think?
*thinking back*

Never. Not ever. Not once. Absolutely not. Beyond contemplation. Never happened.
At no time. Forget it. Not at all. Not in any way. Not under any condition.



Did I remember to say "Never"?

[cbut1]

cbut,

Have a question concerning Baptist successionism and the Paulicans.

I would like it if you woud explain the following discrpancy.

It is my understanding that Baptist congregations are seperate autonomous entities. That there is no centrea figurehead ( i.e. RCC Papacy or Orthodox Patriarch).

Now if this the case, how can one justify in Baptist Successionism inclusion of the Paulicans who had a didaskaos?

According to the historical information the Paulicans had one didaskaos every generation and only one. He was the head of the Paulican church. In fact we have Byzantine records in which the Emporer and Patriarch were petitioned to settle the matter of succession.

For lack of a better comparision (I am only using this as a point of reference, I am not using it to pick a fight or imply anthing) the didaskaos was considered an apostle/prophet similar to the LDS "First President".

In addition how do disqualify the following from Peter of Sicily;

"They say, ' There is only one thing which seperates us from the Romans, that we say that the heaveny father is one god who has no power in this world but has power in the word to come, and that there is another god who made the world and who has power over this present world. The Romans confess that the heavenly Father and the creator of a the world are one and the same God.'"

The quote from Peter of Sicily clearly indicates that the Paulicans were dualists.

Again, I'm wondering how this is explained in including Paulicans as a link in the Chain of Baptis Successionsim?


Well lets not ask for any small tasks. :))

Give me some time I did some research on this a few years back and as with each group their are a few oddities that stick out. You know each river has trouble spots and smooth spots let me find the best kayaking lane.


P.S. wondering when I get a peek at the research paper.

[buflineks]

Well lets not ask for any small tasks. :))

Give me some time I did some research on this a few years back and as with each group their are a few oddities that stick out. You know each river has trouble spots and smooth spots let me find the best kayaking lane.


P.S. wondering when I get a peek at the research paper.

NP.

I've got time. I understand I'm asking a lot.

p.s. IM me your e-mail, I'll send it today. ( It will be in two e-mails)

[cbut1]

NP.

I've got time. I understand I'm asking a lot.

p.s. IM me your e-mail, I'll send it today. ( It will be in two e-mails)



I got it my friend I will go over it and share it with a few of my brethren to shake them up a little. I tell them all the time we cannot just rely on the claim that we are the ancients decendants we must be able to convincingly provide evidence of it. This will hopefully spur them to the challenge.

P.S. I will not give them your name or such.

BTW nice name a strong one.

[buflineks]

I got it my friend I will go over it and share it with a few of my brethren to shake them up a little. I tell them all the time we cannot just rely on the claim that we are the ancients decendants we must be able to convincingly provide evidence of it. This will hopefully spur them to the challenge.

P.S. I will not give them your name or such.

BTW nice name a strong one.

Glad you got it my friend.

I trust your discretion.

Don't worry about my name being connected to it. I have written it, I stand behind my research and will gladly engage in any reasonable discussion concerning criticism .

I hope that you enjoy the read. If you have any questions about the research or any criticism, feel free to contact me, either through my IM here or the e-mail address.

Pax Vobiscum.

I

[vir doctus]

I've seen Abe and some others state that you do not worship the same God as they do.


That is most certainly true. The God I worship has provided the promised Saviour.

[nancydodson]

Baptist didn't come into existance until Jesus started his church with the apostles they had nothing to do with the Catholic church. they began with Jesus not Catholics.

[Koushi Shinigami]

:rolleyes:

[buflineks]

Baptist didn't come into existance until Jesus started his church with the apostles they had nothing to do with the Catholic church. they began with Jesus not Catholics.

And you can historically verify this how? Carrol? Graves? Allix?

J.R. Graves in his work "Old Landmarkism. What is it?" ( c. 1858) stated that if one could prove that the chain of succession had been broken even once that Baptists would give up their Bibles because it would contradict Christ's prophecy of an Eternal church.

As of right now, I have done research that asserts that the claim of the Cathars, Albigensians, Paulicans, and Bogomils were "Proto- Baptists" is incorrect. Until you can provide me with research that can contradicts that, I can not and will not believe Graves, et al., claims of continuous baptist successionism.

[RayMan]

Baptist didn't come into existance until Jesus started his church with the apostles they had nothing to do with the Catholic church. they began with Jesus not Catholics.


Hi Nancy, I don't think that the Catholics came into existence until Jesus started his church either. :lol:

They are sort of a Post-Resurrection group, much like the Baptists, although my Southern Baptist Pastor years ago used to try and convince me that the Baptists traced their roots back to a guy named John.

[vir doctus]

Hi Nancy, I don't think that the Catholics came into existence until Jesus started his church either. :lol:

They are sort of a Post-Resurrection group, much like the Baptists, although my Southern Baptist Pastor years ago used to try and convince me that the Baptists traced their roots back to a guy named John.

My church started in Genesis. :cool:

[RayMan]

My church started in Genesis. :cool:


That is when the Elitist Blonde Vikings denomination began, eh?

I did not know that.

[cbut1]

Glad you got it my friend.

I trust your discretion.

Don't worry about my name being connected to it. I have written it, I stand behind my research and will gladly engage in any reasonable discussion concerning criticism .

I hope that you enjoy the read. If you have any questions about the research or any criticism, feel free to contact me, either through my IM here or the e-mail address.

Pax Vobiscum.

I


I choose to use discretion not for fear of your ability to stand on your words but for the purpose of maintaining the discussion on the subject matter and not the writer.

If I can write a rebuttul I will send it to you. :D

[cbut1]

Baptist didn't come into existance until Jesus started his church with the apostles they had nothing to do with the Catholic church. they began with Jesus not Catholics.

This is your first post so I want to first welcome you to Hannity playland. Be certain to read the rules of respect at the top of the forum.

[buflineks]

I choose to use discretion not for fear of your ability to stand on your words but for the purpose of maintaining the discussion on the subject matter and not the writer.

If I can write a rebuttul I will send it to you. :D

I look forward to any comments or criticisms you may have.

[Hadassah]

And you can historically verify this how? Carrol? Graves? Allix?

J.R. Graves in his work "Old Landmarkism. What is it?" ( c. 1858) stated that if one could prove that the chain of succession had been broken even once that Baptists would give up their Bibles because it would contradict Christ's prophecy of an Eternal church.

As of right now, I have done research that asserts that the claim of the Cathars, Albigensians, Paulicans, and Bogomils were "Proto- Baptists" is incorrect. Until you can provide me with research that can contradicts that, I can not and will not believe Graves, et al., claims of continuous baptist successionism.



I went and bought Foxe's Book of Martyrs. I'm thinking there's alot of truth and wisdom in that book. :whistle:











:)) NOT!!!!! (to the truth and wisdom part. I really did buy the book about 2 weeks ago.)

[vir doctus]

I went and bought Foxe's Book of Martyrs. I'm thinking there's alot of truth and wisdom in that book. :whistle:

:)) NOT!!!!! (to the truth and wisdom part. I really did buy the book about 2 weeks ago.)

Get your money back: http://liturgist.org/ccel/foxe/martyrs/files/martyrs.html