The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum HowWouldYouAnswerThis?

The information if very scetchy and so for Im with you. There will be a lot more involved that getting some folks wet as time passes.

H

My view is that Saul should do all possible to submit to church authority setting a good precedent for his group, agreed?

Great point

I think Paul spooke well to that liking baptism and (further) teaching.

I was about to ask you whether you knew of a passage in which pew sitter A dunks pew sitter B.

I can see a possib;le situation; These people take some risk claiming to be followers of Christ- Mockers say then why are you afraid to be baptized ?,,you are not true followers of Christ . Point being it may be much more important to thedm because of thier situation political/religious. Should we bend to accomodate?

I'll keep every one informed but rather that bog down the forum here is a link to the thread. Its a very small forum and it easy to find your way around.


http://www.swordforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=476

Can I baptize People





So far I'm taking what Saul posts at face value and going from there. All we have seen is from a couple of posts. It could all be true or not. At any rate thanx for your thoughts and concerns.

H

It is important that he set a good example in his faithfulness to God's revealed will. This faithfulness entails the recognition and submission to the structures of authority set forth in Scripture: God, ordained office bearers within Christ's Church, government, employers, and parents. All these God-appointed authorities are to be obeyed "as unto the Lord". We must not circumvent their authority by our modern "autonomous individualism" thinking. And, let's never forget that all the individual congregations (churches... the TRUE churches) are part of THE Church... PART, an indispensable part of the one true Church. One of the most beautiful and illustrious passages of this truth is found here:

It's an awesome thing to understand what it means to belong to the Church of the Lord Christ.

In His grace,

I must disagree with what you are saying. First of all, your conclusion would mean that baptism should have ended after the apostles since Christ is speaking to them. Secondly, this is the same rationale that led the early church into popery. Although it isn't through physical generation such as Peter's lineage, you are still saying that only those of apostolic succession, meaning beginning with the ordinations conducted by the apostles until this day are genuine baptisms. How do I know if my pastor is of a pure "spiritual" blood line?

Because Christ spoke to the apostles does not mean that the words were solely meant for them, they were meant for the whole church. He doesn't say baptize and then appoint others giving them authority to baptize, He was giving instructions to the church also.

Pilgrim, our problem is that we see baptism's purpose differently. I believe you consider it to be a holy sacrament that has some form of merit attached to it, where I see it as a step of obedience with no merit or grace giving qualities attached. The only merit or grace that we ever receive is solely through Christ, never because of anything we do. Our actions are only steps of obedience so if the heart is right by the baptized and the baptizer understands what he is doing, being orthodox, then there is no reason one cannot be baptized. As far as delay, I think this is an important step and delaying can actually cause harm if the person is at that place of conviction in their lives and desire to take this important step.

I think the steps you outlined are good, I do believe that there has to be confirmation that the teaching is correct before baptizing, otherwise it may be idolatry. I believe care must be taken to keep all the holy ordinances free from error, otherwise it is the same as false teaching from the Bible itself. However step 4 I disagree with:


I believe ordination is over rated today, and that it should be evident in a person's life whether they are called of God or not. Ordination in the denomination I am part of, is a joke, they would ordain a frog if it could speak. Sorry, but that is how I feel about ordination. BTW, I'm not ordained, nor do I intend to seek ordination, I don't really care to be included in the group. I also believe ordination is for a pastor, recognizing that person's calling. However, back to the criteria for that, as long as they have a degree and can answer the questions properly, then the person is ordained, hardly anyone seeks to determine if the person is filled with the Spirit, which was the purpose of ordination in the first place. People full of the Spirit. Sorry, off on a tangent, and off topic. My point is, it should be evident whether a person is a called pastor/teacher, baptizer or whatever, it is God's appointing/ordaining, not man's. The church's appointing is only recognizing that God has already ordained the person. During the Apostles, there was a different dynamic than we have today and we must recognize that.

The Apostles were sent out to establish and increase the Church, first and foremost, through the preaching of the Word and to disciple (teach) those who responded in faith. In those new churches (remember now that the purpose of the Apostles was to lay the foundation upon the cornerstone of Christ and thus their work was temporary)... see Eph 2:19-22. The remaining structure of the Church was accomplished through their appointing Elders in the various churches (cf. Acts 15:41; 16:4f 20:17ff; Titus 1:5).

I think it not expedient to include an entire biblical defense of the biblical teaching concerning the Eldership, their qualifications and duties. There are many good books that have been written on this subject, e.g., D. Douglas Bannerman's The Scripture Doctrine of the Church and James Bannerman's The Church of Christ.

The Apostles established the churches and set in place the government, the order of the Church everywhere they went. This order did not vary according to location, circumstances, etc. for it was Christ through His Spirit Who instructed the Apostles in these matters. The government of the Church was therefore an organic entity which perpetuated itself after it was giving life. Elders and Deacons were to be continually ordained after the Apostles had gone. Paul says as much here, Acts 20:25-38. But it must be remembered that the offices of Elder and Deacon were not something which the Apostles conjured up but rather they simply started what Christ Himself had established for and in His own Church. For it is He, the Head of the Church Who appointed those offices (cf. Eph 4:11, 12).

to all of this. The problem is not baptism; i.e., how we differ on how we understand what Scripture teaches concerning it. Secondly, I do consider it to be a sacrament for through both baptism and the Lord's Supper the Holy Spirit is active in the hearts of true believers; i.e., grace. But I totally reject any notion of "merit"... shame on you!!

Let me give you some brotherly advice. You should cease and desist from formulating your personal views (doctrine) based upon your own experience. It makes no difference, does it, that the liberal churches deny the deity of Christ as to the truthfulness of that doctrine? That Christ is God incarnate, was born, crucified dead and buried and rose the third day is not true because the majority say it is. Nor is its verity demolished because some/many deny it. It's truthfulness is based upon God's infallible written Word. Okay, so in this matter of the ordination of the Eldership and its role and responsibilities, it doesn't matter one iota how corrupt your church or denomination is. They do not define truth. And their abuse, neglect or denial of truth, either in word or in practice is NOT TO BE that which we formulate doctrine. It is CHRIST'S Church and He has sent in order how it is to governed, its worship, membership, etc..... And we are simply to gladly submit to what HE has written by His Spirit.

In His grace,

Oops, my bad,I was thinking of the idea of baptizing infants, making them a part of the covenant people of God, that seems to be a type of merit to me, sorry, my mistake.

I appreciate the brotherly advice, and because you can't see my facial expression, I want you do know this isn't being said sarcastically. I cannot cease and desist from believing my convictions. Also, my beliefs are not based on experience, I only mentioned the problem with ordination as an example of the problems with the whole ordination process today, a personal reflection, not what I base my doctrine on.

My only fault, if you want to accuse me of something, is that I think on my own, my thoughts and comments have never crossed scripture, only they don't fit the framework of some, because of that, the ideas are unacceptable and never even really considered, just defended. We sometimes actually protect ourselves so well, even when the truth does come along, it doesn't get through. I know we must be careful not to be heretical, but in the same way, we must not allow ourselves to be so confined into an area just because someone said it in the past, I believe the Spirit is still teaching, not adding to revelation, but revealing more of the mystery. One of the reasons I like this discussion board and the responses is because it does challenge me. Keep in mind, I believe all the cardinal doctrines of scripture, I believe the doctrine of election and predestination, I hold to the Ammilenial view (which is contrary to the majority I worship with) I believe in Heaven and Hell, etc etc. I just view some things differently.

I don't want anyone to be angry if they are in disagreement, I disagree with quite a few posts I've seen on this discussion board, but again, it causes me to think, and that is good and why I'm here off and on.

One can have very strong "convictions" but still be woefully wrong.

Again, I hold to a high view of the Church, which you claim to also hold but ironically we are at opposite ends on many different things, not excluding this particular issue in regard to the Church and even in regard to epistemology. The Church is not you, the Holy Spirit and your Bible, aka: "Solo Scriptura" (do I hear an echo? ). The true Church consists of ALL believers from all time. And, the Holy Spirit was and will continue to be resident in the minds and hearts of those who are brought into that great assembly of the saints.

Among those saints He, the Holy Spirit has gifted mightily men in different ages by whom the truth of God's Word has been defined, documented and defended. Being that there is but ONE TRUTH, those who would disagree with or even disregard the wisdom of those who have been used of God for the purpose of defending that truth have the onus thrust upon them to show where these men have gone astray. This task is a daunting one indeed and is one which necessitates sound exegesis of Scripture and not simply a rejection of a view out of hand because you have a "conviction" of some new "truth" or "insight" that contradicts the established tradition of the Church. By God's grace, men such as Martin Luther did exactly this in his day against the corrupt traditions and teachings of Rome. So, if you are wanting to stand against what you deem "man's tradition", even though that tradition is grounded solidly upon the Scripture which has stood the test of time and men, please do so but knowing that you stand against the teachings of some of the most brilliant and godly men to ever walk this earth.

Have fun!

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

I appreciate your restraint in not seeking to reprimand someone that has an opposite view.


Additionally, I have been having fun, and I believe I will continue to do so, unless of course the overall mood were to change to one of condemnation and brow beating. I appreciate that we can discuss without having verbal daggers thrown, each must decide on their own, I don't see anything wrong with giving opposing sides of issues. If you are right and I'm wrong, it should at least strengthen the resolve on the issue. For me, I actually was pre-millenial (never really looking into the issue, just taking what I was taught) but through this discussion board, seeing a reason to question the premil camp, I changed my view. That and after reading Riddlebarger (excellent book "A Case for Amillennialism), I became convinced. Sorry for getting off topic, just wanted to respond to your post.

Until the next great difference of opinion, God Bless

I seem to remember a picture of you with two young children (cute kids), so just out of curiosity, do you catechise your children? If so what do you use? I hope I am not misrepresenting you with the above quote.

Peace,
William

Hi William,

We used "Training Hearts, Teaching Minds" by Starr Meade (I highly recommend!). You would probably be surprised how orthodox I really am. I am baptist, so there are a few baptist nuances I hold, but then there are some other things in which I'm in disagreement with baptists, there isn't any denomination that has completely satisfied me, so I make adjustments. I also have an extensive library of puritan/reformed works which do not just sit on the shelf, but are read and referred to as often as possible.

I do like to think through things, not just accepting things because everyone else does. As I said, premil is an example of my changed thinking, I'm not beyond changing my views if I'm convinced of something, it is all part of growing. My kids aren't messed up, I also have an older daughter who can hold her own in a theological discussion. I started giving her theological training at the age of 4, no books, just puritan thoughts I gleaned during my reading.


God Bless