Zach82: It's arrogant to judge circumstances according to clear definitions and not according to feelings?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Very few Nonconformist congregations have Communion every time they worship (it's typically once or twice a month) - yet we would all still consider ourselves to be Churches. And we would still think of ourselves as Churches even while the members are scattered around in daily living.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I would hope we could agree that a church that has communion once a fortnight is a church always, not just on the days that communion happens.
quote:Precisely - and it wasn't until the late 19th century that the various Methodist traditions then existing began to describe themselves as churches. In some ways, we are still growing into our ecclesial-ness (if I can put it like that).
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
- re. the SA, surely John Wesley did not seek to found a "Church" either, at least to start with: he formed Methodist "Societies" and expected people to worship at the Parish Church.
quote:That's from Article 19 (slightly abbreviated). Wesley had that abbreviated form as Article 13 in his 25 Articles which he produced for the American Methodists.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
quote:This needs an awful lot of unpacking, though, ISTM! 'Hear the Word' - does that mean 'hear a trained / ordained person give a sermon'? That's the typical understanding among Reformed Church people, isn't it?
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The marks of the Church are:
People gathered to hear the Word and the sacraments duly administered.
quote:This is where it can get a little woolly. To try to come up with some all-encompassing definition might not be the best thing. Perhaps, common sense.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And I'd want to let people come to their own elaboration of what it means to gather 'in Jesus' name'.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:It's this "most definitions" that worries me. Whose definitions?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Most definitions of church include administration of the dominical sacraments. The SA does not administer the dominical sacraments. It doesn't even administer the dominical sacraments and call them ordinances. Therefore, the SA is not a church.
quote:For myself, I do not imagine my definition of "Church" is merely my own denomination's, but is actually the right, biblical definition that holds for all Christians, whether they agree or not.
It's this "most definitions" that worries me. Whose definitions?
Are we imposing one denominations rules on another?
quote:Mine is out already
Baptist Trainfan: For instance, must a Church:
- gather around ordained ministry?
quote:Seriously??
Originally posted by Zach82:
The sacrament of baptism makes a Christian. Since TSA doesn't have baptism, not only is it not a Church, it isn't even an assembly of Christians.
quote:The 39 articles aren't even binding on all Anglican clergy so that seems like a bit of a non-starter to me.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Are we imposing one denominations rules on another? I know I've been told by anglicans that they expect every church, whether anglican or not, to comply with the 39 articles. Might we be falling into a similar error here?
quote:Yeah but both the bible and the Nicene Creed teach baptism for the remission of sins. What you've been doing for 130 years contradicts what the entire Church did for 1900 years before that and what Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, and Wesleyan have done since. At some point, you would think an ounce of humility would lead the Salvation Army to respect the witness of the entire Church past and present, admit it's been wrong for 130 years, and start administering the sacraments even it joins those who insist on calling them ordinances.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Seriously?? You are denying that saved, sanctified, washed-in-the-blood, sins-forgiven, born-again, baptised-in-the-Holy-Ghost, good-works-performing, Bible-preaching, creed-teaching, evangelising, hymn-and-chorus-singing Salvationists have, for 130 years, been outside the Christian faith because of a few drops of water?
quote:Zach82, in relatively few words you cast a merciless spotlight on a way of thinking that has provoked, sustained, and justified a great many bitter religious conflicts in the Christian era.
Originally posted by Zach82:
For myself, I do not imagine my definition of "Church" is merely my own denomination's, but is actually the right, biblical definition that holds for all Christians, whether they agree or not.
quote:I must need to update my Bible app with this novel understanding. Every version on there seems to teach that the remission of sins comes from faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah but both the bible and the Nicene Creed teach baptism for the remission of sins.
quote:The appropriate response to and sign of being to be baptised. It's a radical departure from both scripture and the tradition of the church for converts to not be baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This practice is commanded by Christ and recorded throughout the Book of Acts and the Epistles.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:I must need to update my Bible app with this novel understanding. Every version on there seems to teach that the remission of sins comes from faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Yeah but both the bible and the Nicene Creed teach baptism for the remission of sins.
quote:Baptism is an act of God, without which none can be righteous. TSA does not preach the bible, for the bible commands us to repent and be baptized.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Seriously?? You are denying that saved, sanctified, washed-in-the-blood, sins-forgiven, born-again, baptised-in-the-Holy-Ghost, good-works-performing, Bible-preaching, creed-teaching, evangelising, hymn-and-chorus-singing Salvationists have, for 130 years, been outside the Christian faith because of a few drops of water?
quote:Yes Penny we do. We are in the tradition of those who say that the whole of life is sacramental.
Originally posted by Penny S:
...I don't know if the SA has the same idea about the whole of life being sacramental as the Friends.
quote:In many AA buildings, I have seen a big picture of Jesus holding a drunk guy, keeping him from falling down. Sadly, I can't find it on the internet.
Deputy Verger: The God word features, but the Jesus word doesn't, in the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions of AA.
quote:The question was whether people felt we were a church, not whether we were Christians or not!
Originally posted by Zach82:
Mudfrog, why did you start this thread? I know we've been around this block a few times already. Did you think the answer would be different this time? It's general life advice to not ask a question if you are entirely unwilling to hear the answer "no."
quote:And you seem to have thoroughly made up your mind, despite your claim to be sitting on the fence about the issue.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:The question was whether people felt we were a church, not whether we were Christians or not!
Originally posted by Zach82:
Mudfrog, why did you start this thread? I know we've been around this block a few times already. Did you think the answer would be different this time? It's general life advice to not ask a question if you are entirely unwilling to hear the answer "no."
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
There seems to be a consensus that the Salvation Army is "church-like". (It does seem to pass the "wherever two of three are gathered together" test.) This leads me to wonder: to what extent are 12-step programs such as AA "church-like"?
quote:Such as the United States Senate.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Or any group that begins with an invocation.
quote:It's arrogant to judge circumstances according to clear definitions and not according to feelings?
Originally posted by malik3000:
Mudfrog, as someone in the catholic, credal, sacramentally-oriented tradition of Christianity, i say that the SA is a church, whether or not it professes the creeds or celebrates the sacraments. You are a community of people who believe that Jesus saved us.
I think that the assertion that you are not a church, or not even Christian, can legitimately be seen as arrogant.
quote:Somewhere I have this nagging suspicion that we are not the One who should judge what is a church and what it not.
Zach82: It's arrogant to judge circumstances according to clear definitions and not according to feelings?
quote:From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/church
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:It's arrogant to judge circumstances according to clear definitions and not according to feelings?
Originally posted by malik3000:
Mudfrog, as someone in the catholic, credal, sacramentally-oriented tradition of Christianity, i say that the SA is a church, whether or not it professes the creeds or celebrates the sacraments. You are a community of people who believe that Jesus saved us.
I think that the assertion that you are not a church, or not even Christian, can legitimately be seen as arrogant.
quote:As I see it the SA is a church according to definition #3. Members of the SA are believers. Nothing emotional in my use of the term.
Full Definition of CHURCH
1 a building for public and especially Christian worship
2 the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
3 often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as
a : the whole body of Christians
b : denomination <the Presbyterian church>
c : congregation
4 a public divine worship <goes to church every Sunday>
5 the clerical profession <considered the church as a possible career>
quote:Exactly!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:It's arrogant to judge circumstances according to clear definitions and not according to feelings?
Originally posted by malik3000:
Mudfrog, as someone in the catholic, credal, sacramentally-oriented tradition of Christianity, i say that the SA is a church, whether or not it professes the creeds or celebrates the sacraments. You are a community of people who believe that Jesus saved us.
I think that the assertion that you are not a church, or not even Christian, can legitimately be seen as arrogant.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Yeah, that's pretty much my point.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Somewhere I have this nagging suspicion that we are not the One who should judge what is a church and what it not.
Zach82: It's arrogant to judge circumstances according to clear definitions and not according to feelings?
quote:So, there you have it, Mudfrog. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the SA is a church! Congratulations!
originally posted by malik3000:
As I see it the SA is a church according to definition #3. Members of the SA are believers. Nothing emotional in my use of the term.
quote:Doesn't this also mean that we shouldn't look for definitions and clues with which we can judge whether others are Christian or not, or whether what they have is a church or not, but instead leave it up to Him?
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Yeah, that's pretty much my point.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Somewhere I have this nagging suspicion that we are not the One who should judge what is a church and what it not.
quote:I don't see why that should follow at all. Indeed, the most important question of all is "Am I a Christian?"
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Doesn't this also mean that we shouldn't look for definitions and clues with which we can judge whether others are Christian or not, or whether what they have is a church or not, but instead leave it up to Him?
quote:I agree that "Am I a Christian?" is an important question. Personally I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to fully answer it, because in the end that's also up to Him, but it is an important question to ponder in our relationship with God.
Zach82: I don't see why that should follow at all. Indeed, the most important question of all is "Am I a Christian?"
This obliges us to discern God's will as best we can and pray for the grace to obey when we have discerned it.
quote:That members of TSA have grace is not being questioned. However, insofar as the grace of being a Christian is conferred by baptism, and TSA does not practice baptism, then they cannot be counted as part of the Church or as Christians.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I have a problem with the Merium Webster Dictionary of the "church"
The key definition of the church, to me, is the people of God who profess Jesus as the Christ. It is not a building. It is not a hierarchy. It is not a denomination or even a creed. It is the people.
Now, to the question of Salvation Army--it is a group of people who profess Jesus as the Christ.
To those who say since SA does not practice the sacrament of baptism, it is not Christian, do you also say the Friends are not Christian?
The sacraments are means of grace in which God acts graciously to humans, but there are also other means of grace, the preaching of the Word and the mutual consolation of the brothers/sisters. Salvation Army definitely practices those last two means of grace.
BTW, I do think the Salvation Army has a definite creed, though it may not be used in its worship. Go to their website. That is a creedal statement if I ever saw one.
quote:Yes. Why wouldn't we?
originally posted by Gramps49:
To those who say since SA does not practice the sacrament of baptism, it is not Christian, do you also say the Friends are not Christian?
quote:Which brings us back to Zach's question: why this thread?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ultimately, the answer to Mudfrog's question is whatever Mudfrog wants the answer to be.
quote:In this particular instance, you are making out to be terribly mysterious and dreadful what is actually quite straight forward in the Bible.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I agree that "Am I a Christian?" is an important question. Personally I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to fully answer it, because in the end that's also up to Him, but it is an important question to ponder in our relationship with God.
Zach82: I don't see why that should follow at all. Indeed, the most important question of all is "Am I a Christian?"
This obliges us to discern God's will as best we can and pray for the grace to obey when we have discerned it.
What I don't see very well however, is why you're so eager to answer a different question, "Is the other person a Christian?"
quote:ISTM your second point here doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Surely the Salvation Army authorities / hierarchy could simply approve the celebration of communion (and baptism, and whatever other sacraments you wish) in their meetings without specifying the exact form? Or provide some sample forms of words that local groups can follow or adapt as they wish.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Finally, we are now in a position where it would be impossible to have the sacraments in our worship.
We number 1.5 million people worldwide in 127 countries.
Can you imagine getting agreement from every Salvation Army territory, every officer, every soldier, on just what version of the Eucharist to have?
quote:Would you say most Salvation Army officers / adherents actually do this? If the S.A. is considered to be a church by most of its officers / adherents, would they also attend another church's services on a regular basis? Just speaking for myself of course, but that would seem odd to me....
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It's better that we join you all ecumenically and share in the eucharist in those church that are gracious enough to allow us...
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The unity of The salvation Army would be in serious doubt if we just said 'do it whatever it looks like'. I think the testimony of the church over the last 500 years would be a warning to us on that one!
quote:And, clearly, the wind of the Spirit!
We're all gusts at the table, we're all seeking the same Saviour.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:That depends on what you mean by 'unity', IMO. Obviously, if you leave local congregations / groups with plenty of freedom to do things as they wish, things may well develop such that the customs and practices look very different from one group to another.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The unity of The salvation Army would be in serious doubt if we just said 'do it whatever it looks like'. I think the testimony of the church over the last 500 years would be a warning to us on that one!
quote:I don't see it as a ridiculous expectation. But I don't see it as our place to judge people who didn't do this either.
Zach82: A little water, a few words, that's it. Yet this is, for reasons I can hardly fathom, seen as a ridiculous expectation.
quote:I became a Christian forever, by the grace of God, at the age of 14 two years before I was baptised by full immersion at the age of 16. (I was not baptised as a baby.)
Originally posted by Zach82:
God, by means of baptism, has made me a Christian forever, and nothing I, a mere mortal, could ever do can remove God's decree.
quote:I'm becoming more and more convinced that being a Christian isn't about me-me-me. When I do good works (just an example, I'm not pounding my chest here saying that I'm doing enough of them) then this isn't a 'labor' that I perform in order to make myself a Christian. It isn't about myself.
Zach82: Instead of making us labor to make ourselves Christians through good works, Jesus merely says "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest!"
quote:Well, somebody who doesn't believe that Christ was the Son of God is not a Christian. (Yet.) I don't see why stating that should be offensive in any way. And the Church no longer persecutes people with non-Christian beliefs ... thank God.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
There is something that worries me about where (and why) we try to define who is and who isn't a christian.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:From an evangelical POV - my constituency, so I know 'em well - Protestants have no problem in fellowshipping with the SA.
What about Unitarians, Catholics, JWs, Mormons, etc?
Sure, no problem. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
They're Trinitarian, right? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Being serious now: I'm an open evangelical who is grateful for the Reformation but who does realise that the Church wasn't actually BORN at the Reformation. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:I think there is a big difference between a) being welcoming and respectful to people who don't share our faith and b) actually defining what orthodox, confessional Christianity actually is. Defining belief does NOT mean you get to act like an arse towards those who don't share your beliefs.
In trying to define the boundaries of the faith, which can be fractal like or nebulous, we might be missing the heart of the gospel. [/QB]
quote:I'm out too then.
Laurelin: They would have a problem with Unitarians because of the universalism.
quote:Let me rephrase that then, because I'm quasi-universalist myself. I believe that Christ is the only way to the Father but there are many, many ways to Christ.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I'm out too then.
Laurelin: They would have a problem with Unitarians because of the universalism.
But I do believe He is the only way.quote:To be honest, I don't meet a lot of Unitarians, so I don't have much knowledge of what they believe. I don't have many issues with the first part of your post though.
Laurelin: Let me rephrase that then, because I'm quasi-universalist myself. I believe that Christ is the only way to the Father but there are many, many ways to Christ.
He's just a lot more generous than many of His followers are ...
His divinity, though, is an issue, and I don't think the Unitarians believe that?
quote:That's why I rather mischievously added Mormons into the mix. I got stopped in the street by a pair a few weeks ago, and they were very clear that the divinity of Jesus was crucial.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
His divinity, though, is an issue, and I don't think the Unitarians believe that?
quote:Well, it's a version of "Who do you say that I am?"
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which brings us back to Zach's question: why this thread?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Ultimately, the answer to Mudfrog's question is whatever Mudfrog wants the answer to be.
quote:Yes, one may. In order you listed them:
originally posted by The Alethiophile:
One might question whether the salvation army are christian, but then why not question other groups? What about Unitarians, Catholics, JWs, Mormons, etc?
quote:Reasons why & why not?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In order you listed them:
No
Yes
No
No
Any others?
quote:No, we would have a problem with Unitarians because they are Unitarian not because they are Universalist.
originally posted by Laurelin:
They would have a problem with Unitarians because of the universalism. The JWs and Mormons are also regarded as heretical because neither accept the full divinity of Christ.
quote:Unitarians are not Trinitarian and deny the divinity of Christ. Roman Catholics adhere to the Nicene Creed just like the Orthodox and most Protestants even ones who disavow creeds but believe everything in the Nicene Creed. Among other things, JW's deny the divinity of Christ. Mormons have an understanding of God completely at odds with the Nicene Creed. Sure, the Mormons you met claimed to believe in the divinity of Christ. However, their understanding of divinity is more polytheistic than Trinitarian.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:Reasons why & why not?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In order you listed them:
No
Yes
No
No
Any others?
quote:I said being a Christian doesn't depend on me. I didn't say anything about whether I have to carry out good works or not. DO try to keep on topic.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I'm becoming more and more convinced that being a Christian isn't about me-me-me. When I do good works (just an example, I'm not pounding my chest here saying that I'm doing enough of them) then this isn't a 'labor' that I perform in order to make myself a Christian. It isn't about myself.
Zach82: Instead of making us labor to make ourselves Christians through good works, Jesus merely says "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest!"
And there is no way I should feel relieved that I don't have to do the labor of feeding the hungry and quenching the thirsty anymore and that I can rest now because I've been baptised.
quote:According to Laurelin, not calling people Christians is "being an arse to them." Clearly the only solution to your arrogance is to make the word "Christian" completely meaningless. It is the only way to avoid excluding anyone.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Unitarians are not Trinitarian and deny the divinity of Christ. Roman Catholics adhere to the Nicene Creed just like the Orthodox and most Protestants even ones who disavow creeds but believe everything in the Nicene Creed. Among other things, JW's deny the divinity of Christ. Mormons have an understanding of God completely at odds with the Nicene Creed. Sure, the Mormons you met claimed to believe in the divinity of Christ. However, their understanding of divinity is more polytheistic than Trinitarian.
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:Reasons why & why not?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In order you listed them:
No
Yes
No
No
Any others?
quote:You said literally that doing good works is a labour that you don't have to carry out, but instead you can rest.
Zach82: I didn't say anything about whether I have to carry out good works or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
According to Laurelin, not calling people Christians is "being an arse to them."
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:What I said was "I don't have to carry out good works to be a Christian." Which is not an insignificant difference.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:You said literally that doing good works is a labour that you don't have to carry out, but instead you can rest.
Zach82: I didn't say anything about whether I have to carry out good works or not.
quote:You said "Defining belief does NOT mean you get to act like an arse towards those who don't share your beliefs." I merely assumed that this had something to do with this thread and wasn't an irrelevant hypothetical.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
[Ultra confused]
I said NOTHING of the sort. [Mad]
Kindly read what I actually said up-thread, instead of wilfully misrepresenting what I said.
Thank you.
quote:What?
Originally posted by Zach82:
You said "Defining belief does NOT mean you get to act like an arse towards those who don't share your beliefs." I merely assumed that this had something to do with this thread and wasn't an irrelevant hypothetical.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
A professing Christian, i.e. someone who claims to follow and obey Jesus Christ, is called by that same Jesus to treat others with love and respect.
quote:Well, it seems to me that Jesus even said things of the sort of: "If you don't feed the hungry and quench the thirsty, I won't know you."
Zach82: What I said was "I don't have to carry out good works to be a Christian." Which is not an insignificant difference.
quote:Obviously. But this is a thread where it is seen as unbearable arrogance to not classify others as Christians because they fail to meet the biblical criteria for the word.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:What?
Originally posted by Zach82:
You said "Defining belief does NOT mean you get to act like an arse towards those who don't share your beliefs." I merely assumed that this had something to do with this thread and wasn't an irrelevant hypothetical.
It's obvious what I meant!
Sheesh.
quote:No, but to me it does include "I'll leave the question of whether you are a Chrstian or not up to the One who gets to decide about this."
Zach82: So, does "love and respect" include "always call a person a Christian if he wants to be called one?"
quote:Since you insist on getting off topic, probably because you keep your terms vague, being faithful to the grace Jesus has given be in baptism demands a life time of striving. But failing to be faithful to that calling doesn't mean God hasn't given me that grace.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Well, it seems to me that Jesus even said things of the sort of: "If you don't feed the hungry and quench the thirsty, I won't know you."
Zach82: What I said was "I don't have to carry out good works to be a Christian." Which is not an insignificant difference.
quote:Actually, in looking to the biblical definition of the word Christian, that is exactly what I am doing. In refusing to look at the biblical judgement in these matters, that is exactly what you are failing to do.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No, but to me it does include "I'll leave the question of whether you are a Chrstian or not up to the One who gets to decide about this."
Zach82: So, does "love and respect" include "always call a person a Christian if he wants to be called one?"
quote:I've already explained why I believe the SA are Christians, despite their not practising the sacraments, and why they are part of mainline Christianity in a way that the JWs and Mormons are certainly not. There are many ways of defining a Christ-follower, and that would include confessing Christ as Lord and Saviour (as the SA do). To reiterate: I am very surprised - and not a little dismayed - to hear that the SA are not seen as Christians.
Originally posted by Zach82:
But this is a thread where it is seen as unbearable arrogance to not classify others as Christians because they fail to meet the biblical criteria for the word.
So, does "love and respect" include "always call a person a Christian if he wants to be called one?" I don't think it does, but that seems to be the consensus on this thread.
quote:The difference is being 'born again', as Jesus Himself said. He puts His new life in us, by His Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The difference, according to the Biblical definition of the word, is the grace of baptism.
quote:Fine. Are you dismayed because you feel it is factually incorrect, or because you feel it is unloving to say so? You comments about "being and arse" would indicate the latter.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
To reiterate: I am very surprised - and not a little dismayed - to hear that the SA are not seen as Christians.
quote:It's not an 'either/or' but a 'both/and': spiritual rebirth is by water and the Spirit.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The difference is being 'born again', as Jesus Himself said. He puts His new life in us, by His Holy Spirit.
You and I would agree on baptism being a sign of obedience. But as an evangelical, I disagree that infant baptism automatically conveys grace. There are countless people in the UK who were baptised as infants but have grown up to have no interest in Christianity whatsoever. Infant baptism does not guarantee a mature faith later on (neither does believers' baptism).
As I said up-thread, I came to Christ before I was baptised. My salvation is not dependent on my baptism ... although it is a tremendously important symbol of grace.
quote:Or, as we say in Anglicanism, water and Word are "Outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace."
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:It's not an 'either/or' but a 'both/and': spiritual rebirth is by water and the Spirit.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The difference is being 'born again', as Jesus Himself said. He puts His new life in us, by His Holy Spirit.
You and I would agree on baptism being a sign of obedience. But as an evangelical, I disagree that infant baptism automatically conveys grace. There are countless people in the UK who were baptised as infants but have grown up to have no interest in Christianity whatsoever. Infant baptism does not guarantee a mature faith later on (neither does believers' baptism).
As I said up-thread, I came to Christ before I was baptised. My salvation is not dependent on my baptism ... although it is a tremendously important symbol of grace.
quote:I've paraphrased a bit, but my terms are Biblical.
Zach82: Since you insist on getting off topic, probably because you keep your terms vague
quote:In broad lines, I agree with this. I believe that a life time of striving for others should be a reponse of what you call God's Grace and what I'd call His inspiration. Potato, potahto. I also agree with you that we'll still have His Grace even if we fail.
Zach82: being faithful to the grace Jesus has given be in baptism demands a life time of striving. But failing to be faithful to that calling doesn't mean God hasn't given me that grace.
quote:I believe, very strongly, that it is factually incorrect not to call the SA Christians. Their beliefs are completely orthodox.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Fine. Are you dismayed because you feel it is factually incorrect, or because you feel it is unloving to say so?
quote:Yes, of course it is, but the thief on the cross had no time to get baptised, did he? And yet Paradise was his. We are conflating two things here: obedience to a command of Jesus, and the actual mode of salvation which, I believe, is greater than baptism (as important as baptism is).
Even in your definition, we are talking about people who are not obedient to Jesus' extremely clear command. Baptism is, in fact, easily the most clear and straightforward commandment Jesus makes.
quote:No. The Bible isn't God's way of passing His prerrogative of judging people unto us.
Zach82: Actually, in looking to the biblical definition of the word Christian, that is exactly what I am doing. In refusing to look at the biblical judgement in these matters, that is exactly what you are failing to do.
quote:Actually, the biblical evidence is incredibly solid. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16 Though I take by your comment that you don't take the bible as a rulebook that you feel perfectly at ease to ignore the data that is inconvenient for your position, so I don't see why I bothered to open the new window to look it up.
But what you are saying is that baptism is necessary in order to be a Christian. The Biblical basis for this is flimsy at best (even if you do read it as a rule book, which I don't), and denied by large swaths of Christianity because it makes Grace depend on the act of baptism (a work).
quote:"The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Acts 11:26.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And BTW, where exactly does the Bible define the word 'Christian'?
quote:Ah, imprecise terminology strikes again. Who here said Salvationists cannot be saved? God saves whomever he likes. What has been argued here is that only those who are baptized are members of the Body of Christ, the Church. 'Saved' and 'Christian' are not the same thing.
Yes, of course it is, but the thief on the cross had no time to get baptised, did he? And yet Paradise was his. We are conflating two things here: obedience to a command of Jesus, and the actual mode of salvation which, I believe, is greater than baptism (as important as baptism is).
quote:1: An organisation that calls itself a church.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, I have two questions:
1) What properly constitutes a church, in your opinion.
2) Does The Salvation Army fit into that definition and can justifiable call itself a church; or do we fall outside that definition and therefore have to call ourselves something different.
quote:It would be incredibly solid if it said "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not or not be baptized shall be damned."
Zach82: Actually, the biblical evidence is incredibly solid. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16
quote:Not if one bothers to have clear terminology. I haven't argued that all Christians are saved, or that all non-Christians are damned.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:It would be incredibly solid if it said "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not or not be baptized shall be damned."
Zach82: Actually, the biblical evidence is incredibly solid. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16
To put the structure more clearly, the text divides people like this:In fact, the second line of this is incredibly solid evidence against your position.
- People who believe and are baptized → saved.
- People who don't believe and are baptized → damned
- People who don't believe and are not baptized → damned
- People who believe but are not baptized → ???
quote:Then why did you quote Mark 16:16 as evidence of who is a Christian and who isn't? It mentions the word 'saved' but not the word 'Christian'.
Zach82: 'Saved' and 'Christian' are not the same thing.
quote:Yes you have. See my remark on your quoting of Mark 16:16.
Zach82: I haven't argued that all Christians are saved, or that all non-Christians are damned.
quote:Note the verb tense: "shall be saved". It doesn't say "is saved". Salvation in this sense belongs to the eschaton (cf the verb tenses in Romans 6 — Paul's also quite deliberate on this one).
Originally posted by Zach82:
Actually, the biblical evidence is incredibly solid. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
quote:To an evangelical, they are!
Originally posted by Zach82:
'Saved' and 'Christian' are not the same thing.
quote:I agree, which is why I cited those people who were baptised as infants but have not become professing Christians as adults.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Being a Christian does require our co-operation. Baptism is not a magic mumbo jumbo act that requires nothing of us whatsoever.
quote:Because I interpret it in a theological system that tries to be coherent. While I don't think God holds it against people who can't be baptized or don't have a chance to, what is impossible is a person that wants to be a Christian, who knows what the bible says, who has every chance to obey this command, but refuses to be baptized.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Then why did you quote Mark 16:16 as evidence of who is a Christian and who isn't? It mentions the word 'saved' but not the word 'Christian'.
Zach82: 'Saved' and 'Christian' are not the same thing.
quote:Yeah, people keep saying things like the biblical basis is flimsy and all that but they never explain the entire freakin Acts of the Apostles or much of the rest of the NT. Also, a somewhat large swath (still relatively small but significant) of Christianity denies the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. A very small group refuses to be baptized at all. Even those who don't believe in the necessity of baptism would still wonder at the sincerity of those who professed Jesus as Savior but refused to be baptized. After all, Jesus was baptized. He commanded his disciples to be baptized. His disciples considered it very important (and I would say essential). Why if you trust Jesus as your Lord and Savior would you not want to be baptized? Because some churches in London were rude to other people from your organization 130 years ago? Yeah...that's rational.
originally postec by Leroc:
But what you are saying is that baptism is necessary in order to be a Christian. The Biblical basis for this is flimsy at best (even if you do read it as a rule book, which I don't), and denied by large swaths of Christianity because it makes Grace depend on the act of baptism (a work).
quote:That's all good and well, and I do believe that Baptism is a good thing. But you'll agree with me that there's nowhere in the Bible that says "Baptism is necessary to be called a Christian."
Beeswax Altar: Yeah, people keep saying things like the biblical basis is flimsy and all that but they never explain the entire freakin Acts of the Apostles or much of the rest of the NT.
quote:I would say that this is something between them and their Lord. I don't see where you come in here.
Beeswax Altar: Why if you trust Jesus as your Lord and Savior would you not want to be baptized?
quote:You just seem upset by making a clear definition of a word, then actually applying that definition in particular cases. Which is simply irrational.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:That's all good and well, and I do believe that Baptism is a good thing. But you'll agree with me that there's nowhere in the Bible that says "Baptism is necessary to be called a Christian."
Beeswax Altar: Yeah, people keep saying things like the biblical basis is flimsy and all that but they never explain the entire freakin Acts of the Apostles or much of the rest of the NT.
quote:I would say that this is something between them and their Lord. I don't see where you come in here.
Beeswax Altar: Why if you trust Jesus as your Lord and Savior would you not want to be baptized?
quote:I'm not upset by you making a clear definition of the word 'Christian'. I'm upset (well, sad actually
Zach82: You just seem upset by making a clear definition of a word, then actually applying that definition in particular cases.
) by you making up your own definition of the word 'Christian' and claiming that it's Biblical when in fact it isn't.
quote:It's actually a vanishingly small subset of Christians who disagree with me. Which is pretty much the course of this thread- this very small subset blithely declaring victory without bothering to look at the Bible or the arguments of the vast majority of Christians across history. It's a position that rests solely on being completely obvious even without any substantiation whatsoever.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I'm not upset by you making a clear definition of the word 'Christian'. I'm upset (well, sad actually
Zach82: You just seem upset by making a clear definition of a word, then actually applying that definition in particular cases.
quote:Aaand your Biblical evidence is...? If you want to bring it up, now would be the right time. Don't be shy, go for it!
Zach82: blithely declaring victory without bothering to look at the Bible
quote:Ugh, it's like we've been arguing on completely different threads.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Aaand your Biblical evidence is...? If you want to bring it up, now would be the right time. Don't be shy, go for it!
Zach82: blithely declaring victory without bothering to look at the Bible
Or are you realizing that you don't have Biblical evidence and are slowly going over to a tactic of 'the vast majority of Christians agree with me'?
quote:I agree totally, and definition #3 does say that, or more specifically (and I should have been more specific), #3-a:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I have a problem with the Merium Webster Dictionary of the "church"
The key definition of the church, to me, is the people of God who profess Jesus as the Christ. It is not a building. It is not a hierarchy. It is not a denomination or even a creed. It is the people.
quote:
"3 often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as
a : the whole body of Christians"
quote:Yes, that credal statement sounds pretty mainstream, particularly from a mainstream Protestant perspective.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now, to the question of Salvation Army--it is a group of people who profess Jesus as the Christ.
To those who say since SA does not practice the sacrament of baptism, it is not Christian, do you also say the Friends are not Christian?
The sacraments are means of grace in which God acts graciously to humans, but there are also other means of grace, the preaching of the Word and the mutual consolation of the brothers/sisters. Salvation Army definitely practices those last two means of grace.
BTW, I do think the Salvation Army has a definite creed, though it may not be used in its worship. Go to their website. That is a creedal statement if I ever saw one.
quote:For me, definition 3-A is of transcending importance. (If I were Mirriam-Webster I would have made it definition #1.)
b : denomination <the Presbyterian church>
quote:I have the same nagging suspicion. Regarding those fellow members of the church (#definition 3-b) in which I worship who so strongly insist that that the SA is not a church, according to definition #3-b, with all respect they might consider that there is at least one Christian church which does not define our church as a church but as merely an "ecclesial community."
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Somewhere I have this nagging suspicion that we are not the One who should judge what is a church and what it not.
quote:AMEN!
Originally posted by Laurelin:
(One can be a Christian outside the Church, but it is not very advisable. We are not to play spiritual solitaire.)
quote:No, why would it need to do so? Baptism is necessary to be part of the church. It was the rite of initiation in the NT, the early church, and in every Christian community since.
originally posted by Leroc:
That's all good and well, and I do believe that Baptism is a good thing. But you'll agree with me that there's nowhere in the Bible that says "Baptism is necessary to be called a Christian."
quote:Ultimately, it is between them and their God. I would say the same thing about all the unbaptized regardless of their religion. However, when asked if I recognize you as a Christian and your group as a Church, then it does involve me. If I believed that Christianity was one of many equally valid religions, then I suppose I wouldn't care too much about the definition of Christian and what it meant to be one. I don't so I do.
originally posted by Leroc:
I would say that this is something between them and their Lord. I don't see where you come in here.
quote:Well, this is a different question from the beginning of this thread: "do I recognize you as a Christian (or as a church?)"
Beeswax Altar: However, when asked if I recognize you as a Christian and your group as a Church, then it does involve me.
quote:Mudfrog wanted to know if the SA was a church. As the term has normally been defined throughout history, the answer is no. As defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the answer is yes. As defined by various personal definitions, the answer is yes. So, the SA is a church if the SA wants to call themselves a church. Again, the Church of Satan calls itself a church too.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Well, this is a different question from the beginning of this thread: "do I recognize you as a Christian (or as a church?)"
Beeswax Altar: However, when asked if I recognize you as a Christian and your group as a Church, then it does involve me.
You have every right to recognize or not anyone as a Christian of course. But on the other hand, no-one should give a rat's ass about whether you do.
quote:I assure you this exclusion is not a comment on the goodness of you as a person, but is based in a difference of understanding about what it means to be a Christian and a Church. Once again being perfectly frank, if you can't stand this sort of discourse, then you shouldn't start threads like this. I hardly ask Roman Catholics whether the Episcopal Church is part or the catholic Church and expect them to say yes, because I know full well the answer and disagree with it.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Not when they've been deliberately excluded - it's more the local attitudes. Mind you Ecumenical reprts that speak of Eucharistic Unity don't help.
quote:The most direct 'local attitude' - apart from the hostile condemnation of us as non-Christians on this thread - was from a Presbyterian minister who said The Salvation Army was not a church because they didn't have sacraments. This from a man whose church only had communion 4 times a year and who refused to baptise children if their parents were not married.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mudfrog
What have you experienced by way of 'local attitudes'?
As for 'Eucharistic Unity' - that's surely a problematic phrase for any local ecumenical network that involves an RC church where members of some of the other churches wouldn't be allowed to have Communion for theological reasons.
quote:Er...
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:The most direct 'local attitude' - apart from the hostile condemnation of us as non-Christians on this thread - was from a Presbyterian minister who said The Salvation Army was not a church because they didn't have sacraments. This from a man whose church only had communion 4 times a year and who refused to baptise children if their parents were not married.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mudfrog
What have you experienced by way of 'local attitudes'?
As for 'Eucharistic Unity' - that's surely a problematic phrase for any local ecumenical network that involves an RC church where members of some of the other churches wouldn't be allowed to have Communion for theological reasons.
quote:So you are expecting us to say that matters of Christian dogma don't matter just so you never feel excluded?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:The most direct 'local attitude' - apart from the hostile condemnation of us as non-Christians on this thread - was from a Presbyterian minister who said The Salvation Army was not a church because they didn't have sacraments. This from a man whose church only had communion 4 times a year and who refused to baptise children if their parents were not married.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mudfrog
What have you experienced by way of 'local attitudes'?
As for 'Eucharistic Unity' - that's surely a problematic phrase for any local ecumenical network that involves an RC church where members of some of the other churches wouldn't be allowed to have Communion for theological reasons.
quote:We Baptists (and most Pentecostals, among others) refuse to baptise ALL children ... we only baptise professing believers. Children are dedicated or blessed (and some ministers may refuse to do that for unmarried parents).
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This from a man ... who refused to baptise children if their parents were not married.
quote:Were they supposed to be helpful? As a whole, Christians recognize the importance of baptism and the Eucharist. I would expect the Salvation Army to look at those reports and think, "Gee, maybe, we should admit we got this wrong and respect the consensus of Christians throughout history." I mean denominations further away from orthodox Christianity than the Salvation Army have admitted to being in error and joined the fold. Bu...no...
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Not when they've been deliberately excluded - it's more the local attitudes. Mind you Ecumenical reprts that speak of Eucharistic Unity don't help.
quote:
TALKING about churches leads me to another question, which I know is of some interest to all of you, and to many others – viz, the Sacraments.
Here we will make a statement which will help to dismiss any serious anxiety from your minds very considerably, I have no doubt, as it has done with us, and this is one in which I think you will all agree.
The Sacraments must not, nay, they cannot, rightly be regarded as conditions of salvation. If you make them essentials, if you say that men cannot get to Heaven without being baptised with water, or without ‘breaking bread’, as it is called, where there is the opportunity of doing so, then you shut out from that holy place a multitude of men and women who have been and are today sincere followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, who honestly believe his words and earnestly strive to keep them. This would be a very great calamity, and I cannot accept it for a moment.
I think you will perceive that any order from me for the general administration of the Sacraments would be likely to produce grave dissensions. There is a very great and widespread difference of opinion with regard to the modes of administration – one half of the religious world denying in toto the efficacy of the Sacraments as administered by the other half. Our Baptist friends, for instance, contend that baptism as administered to infants by the Church of England, Methodists, and others, is no baptism at all, and when we gave consent for some of our people to take part in the Church of England sacrament, the clergyman who invited them seized the opportunity for showing them that they were only in part qualified to receive the ordinance, seeing that part had been confirmed, and a part not. Another gentleman of very high position recommended that that part of our people who had not been confirmed should go to the dissenters for the ordinance, while the portion who had been confirmed should go to the church. This you will see would have divided us at the very door of the church. Here would have been a very great difficulty at once.
Now if the Sacraments are not conditions of salvation, if there is a general division of opinion as to the proper mode of administering them, and if the introduction of them would create division of opinion and heart-burning, and if we are not professing to be a church, nor aiming at being one, but simply a force for aggressive salvation purposes, is it not wise for us to postpone any settlement of the question, to leave it over to some future day, when we shall have more light, and see more clearly our way before us?
Meanwhile, we do not prohibit our own people in any shape or form from taking the Sacraments. We say, ‘If this is a matter of your conscience, by all means break bread.’ The churches and chapels all round about will welcome you for this, but in our own ranks let us be united, and go on our way, and mind our own business. Let us remember him who died for us continually. Let us remember his love every hour of our lives, and continually feed on him – not on Sundays only, and then forget him all the week, but let us by faith eat his flesh and drink his blood continually; and ‘whatsoever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God’.
And further, there is one baptism on which we are all agreed – the one baptism of the Bible – that is the baptism of the Holy Ghost, of which baptism John spoke as vastly superior and more important than the baptism of water, when he said, ‘I indeed baptise you with water, but One cometh after me whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose; he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.’
Be sure you insist upon that baptism. Be sure you enjoy that baptism yourselves, and be sure you insist upon it for your people, not only for the adults but for the children. We are bringing out a formal service for the dedication of children. It will be put into your hands in a few days. By this soldiers can introduce their children to the Army. Before this dedicatory service is gone through, you must explain it to the parents, and show them that unless they are willing to bring up their children as soldiers and officers in the Army, they cannot have any part in it.
Let us keep off mere forms and do nothing in which, as far as possible, the hearts of our soldiers do not go with us.
quote:The idea there is that we are all working toward Eucharistic Unity. It is one of the main purposes of ecumenical dialogue in the first place. Roman Catholics don't invite any Protestant to receive and certainly wouldn't ask a Protestant to celebrate mass. Episcopalians invite all baptized Christians to to receive communion but could only ask a Lutheran or Moravian (and possibly Methodist depending on the view of the diocesan bishop) to celebrate. Evangelial Lutherans invite all baptized Christians to the table and are in full communion with more churches than TEC.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mudfrog
What have you experienced by way of 'local attitudes'?
As for 'Eucharistic Unity' - that's surely a problematic phrase for any local ecumenical network that involves an RC church where members of some of the other churches wouldn't be allowed to have Communion for theological reasons.
quote:He asked a couple of questions. He seemed to want some answers. Among the lot of us, he got various answers. If you gave him an answer and even a rationale of your opinion, I believe, anything else you want to add is for general edification. What he "expected" has been met, IMO. If he wants to add to his OP, it's his option.
Originally posted by Zach82:
What you be helpful would be an "up to date" explanation of what you expect from the Christians here, Mudfrog. You've absolutely refused to say.
quote:The problem is that he seems to have been fishing for specific answers that confirm his preconceived beliefs, despite claiming to want a discussion in his OP. As I keep saying, don't ask questions and take offense if you can't bear to hear the answer "no."
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:He asked a couple of questions. He seemed to want some answers. Among the lot of us, he got various answers. If you gave him an answer and even a rationale of your opinion, I believe, anything else you want to add is for general edification. What he "expected" has been met, IMO. If he wants to add to his OP, it's his option.
Originally posted by Zach82:
What you be helpful would be an "up to date" explanation of what you expect from the Christians here, Mudfrog. You've absolutely refused to say.
quote:They are related questions, and quite obviously so.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No Zach, it was you who raised the idea that we weren't Christians. That's not the question I asked, neither is it the answer I was looking for.
quote:Between the two of you, you guys have over 15,000 posts. And you've crossed swords before. I thought the OP was pretty clear. And knowing Mudfrog, I could guess what sort of answers would make him happier. You probably could, too. You two could probably write other's discussion points in your sleep. Probably mine, too. Maybe, he was hoping against hope to read some angle he hadn't read a couple hundred times. Maybe.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:They are related questions, and quite obviously so.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No Zach, it was you who raised the idea that we weren't Christians. That's not the question I asked, neither is it the answer I was looking for.
Next time, just let us all know what answer you are looking for from the start.
quote:I was hoping that, this time, just maybe, he would stop letting a bit of theological puffery come between him and enjoyment of the graces of Jesus' Church.
Between the two of you, you guys have over 15,000 posts. And you've crossed swords before. I thought the OP was pretty clear. And knowing Mudfrog, I could guess what sort of answers would make him happier. You probably could, too. You two could probably write other's discussion points in your sleep. Probably mine, too. Maybe, he was hoping against hope to read some angle he hadn't read a couple hundred times. Maybe.
quote:Yes, the good works and right beliefs of TSA have been mentioned time and time again. But no amount of good works or right beliefs can make them, or anyone else, Christians.
All I know is that he trusts in Jesus Christ and so does the Salvation Army. This discussion is interesting but I think I'd let Jesus sort it out. Personally, I doubt the SA would persuade others to believe and trust in our Lord, but that he'd shut the door in their faces because they hadn't been baptised. But that's just IMHO.
quote:Of course they can.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yes, the good works and right beliefs of TSA have been mentioned time and time again. But no amount of good works or right beliefs can make them, or anyone else, Christians.
quote:I don't expect the Roman Catholic Church to change its dogmas just so I never feel bad, if you think that I have some commonality with you.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The irony here is that Zach belongs to the Episcopal Church which, according to Rome, is also deficient and is not a real Church but is an 'ecclesiastical community', not having the proper sacraments that Roman Catholicism deem necessary for full salvation.
So Zach, what do you say to Rome who believes you are 'separated brethren', that your priests and sacraments are invalid, and that you should come back to Rome in order to experience the full grace of God? According to the Pope you and I are both out of the boat!
quote:Sometimes it makes me despair that "Episcopal" signifies "spineless, incoherent theology." Oh well, the gates of hell can never prevail, the gates of hall can never prevail...
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Sometimes it's hard to remember that Zach and I are both Piskies.
<looks> Yep, there's "Episcopal Church USA" right in his profile. TEC is pretty darned broad to contain the both of us. I like that. [Smile]
quote:'...can never prevail against Jesus' church' not 'can never prevail against [insert denomination or local church group of preference]'
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh well, the gates of hell can never prevail, the gates of hall can never prevail...
quote:Nicely said.
Originally posted by Forthview:
Indeed as a Roman Catholic I see all who follow Christ as Christians.That does not,however, from an RC POV,guarantee automatic salvation. Neither does the reception of the Sacraments.The sacraments are powerful aids to salvation but we have to respond to Christ's invitation by the quality of oally parequur lives.
There is ultimately only One Church of Jesus Christ.Catholics see it within the visible boundaries of the Catholic church,but are well aware that outwith are those boundaries,there e are many,many who are part of the Church,
baptised or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus never baptised anyone. I guess all those people that followed him weren't Christians. Neither were the twelve disciples baptised. Obviously they weren't Christians either.
quote:NRSV
John 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptised.
quote:
Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, ‘Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John’— although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized— he left Judea and started back to Galilee.
quote:
While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul passed through the inland regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples. He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?’ They replied, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ Then he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ They answered, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied— altogether there were about twelve of them.
quote:It's hard to answer such nasty and hard-hearted rhetoric without sounding like the Rev Dr Ian Paisley, but here goes.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The irony here is that Zach belongs to the Episcopal Church which, according to Rome, is also deficient and is not a real Church but is an 'ecclesiastical community', not having the proper sacraments that Roman Catholicism deem necessary for full salvation.
So Zach, what do you say to Rome who believes you are 'separated brethren', that your priests and sacraments are invalid, and that you should come back to Rome in order to experience the full grace of God? According to the Pope you and I are both out of the boat!
quote:Since I'm among its followers, I guess I'll just soldier on as best I can. As will you.
Sometimes it makes me despair that "Episcopal" signifies "spineless, incoherent theology."
quote:I read 4:2 as a qualifier for 3:22. In 3:22 it could be Jesus baptising or his disciples baptising. 4:2 says it's the disciples that were baptising, not him.
Originally posted by Penny S:
But how does one decide whether John 3:22 or 4:2 is correct? One or other of them has to be wrong. Why would it be 3:22?
quote:Then I suppose only the Mathean communities had valid baptisms (in the trinitarian formula). Acts of Apostles communities baptised in the name of Jesus.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Roman Catholic Church accepts Trinitarian baptism as valid.
quote:Yep, but it didn't assert infallibility or Roma locuta est or Mornington Crescent. And even then, they were being proven wrong in India.
Originally posted by Forthview:
Pererin chastises the Bishop of Rome for arrogating to himself the idea of 'catholicity', at least until the 1960s.
But did not the Anglican church, at least in England, arrogate equally to itself'catholicity' ,refusing to acknowledge as valid the orders of other 'ecclesial communities' such as Methodists and Presbyterians ?
quote:For most of the 2,000 year history of Christianity, nobody questioned what the Apostles were doing because it is obvious. And, the Salvation Army didn't decide not to baptize because it became convinced by exegesis that the Apostles didn't baptize with water. Why? Only reading the NT looking for a reason not to believe the Apostles baptized with water could lead to the conclusion that the Apostles didn't baptize with water.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This is the subject of a thread elsewhere; but surely it depends on what you mean by 'baptized' and just what the Apostles were doing when they 'baptized' repentant Jews in the name of Jesus.
If you remove that loaded word, which in any case simply means 'immersed', and used the phrase mikveh or ritual washing, you have a whole different ball game.
quote:Did he?
Originally posted by Forthview:
The short answer is NO,but Christ asked us to celebrate the eucharist.
quote:The most extreme fundamentalists teach a version of biblical inspiration called mechanical dictation. For them, God dictated every single word of scripture and the authors of the individual book merely recorded what God told them to write. This view of biblical inspiration and even some of the more moderate forms lead fundamentalists to use the Bible as some sort of guidebook. The Bible must address every modern concern they have. If they can't find an obvious passage, no matter how obscure, they can shoehorn into addressing the issue. Not only that but every passage no matter how obscure must relevant for us today. If that means ripping it from it's context, so be it.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Beeswax, the larger context of the passage of "where to or three are gathered in my name..." has to do with the life of the church. The specific passage deals with congregational prayer, yes; but it is in the context of the church.
The promise is applied to the public prayer of the congregation, as we see in what is called "the prayer of St. Chrysostom" in the English Prayer book. Are gathered together. For the purpose of worship. It is a simpler form of the word used in Hebrews 10:25, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together." In my Name (εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα); literally, into my Name; i.e. with love to me, yearning for union with me, and acting for my glory. This would imply decent and orderly meeting for the highest ends. There am I in the midst of them. Christ promises a real, actual presence, though invisible, as true as when he appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, as true as when the Shechinah (Divine Wisdom) shone in tabernacle or temple. The rabbis had a saying that if two sat at table and conversed about the Law of God, the Shechinah rested upon them. The promise in the text, of course, implies Christ's omnipresence and omniscience. This is his blessing on united, congregational prayer.
quote:Only in receiving the Eucharist can we receive the body and blood of Christ. Only through receiving the body and blood of Christ can we be assured that we receive the grace made available through Christ's sacrifice. So...ultimately...I'd say yeah.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would like to ask whether Christ is 'less present' in a worship service that does not have the eucharist, and more present in a similar gathering where the eucharist is ce
quote:I'd say less readily available.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is grace less available in a non-eucharistic service?
quote:No...God sends the Holy Spirit upon all those who repent and are baptized just like scripture promises.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Does the Holy Spirit need a qorum of Christians and some bread and wine before he'll bother to turn up?
quote:Only Luke uses the phrase, "Do this in remembrance of me." However, what did his followers do? What did the Church do for 2000 years? What do the vast majority of practicing Christians do to this day? They all just misunderstood Jesus? You can parse and deconstruct scripture all you want but it still gets back to the fact we have evidence of how the people who knew Jesus responded to what he said and did and what their disciples said and did.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Did he?
quote:To be honest you would't get much of an argument from me on that one. And there are many, many Salvationists who feel the same way.
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I've got a lot of time for the Salvation Army, but it does seem that these fine soldiers have rather shot themselves in the foot - with regard to the sacraments. I'm sure it was OK to ignore communion and baptism when they had no desire to be considered a church, but that desire has now apparently changed.
If you bill yourself as a church, I think you should offer all those services which churches generally make available - the full package. After all, if I went to a barber - and he was only willing to shave the left-hand side of my face - I don't think I'd be recommending him to my friends. He might do a really good job on the left side, but I think they'd prefer an establishment which offered the full tonsorial experience.
If the SA's understanding of itself has changed over the years, perhaps their practice should come into line with current view.
quote:I'm sorry, just who are these people?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The most extreme fundamentalists teach a version of biblical inspiration called mechanical dictation. For them, God dictated every single word of scripture and the authors of the individual book merely recorded what God told them to write.
quote:LOL. No it didn't, the synoptic Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Even John is eyewitness memory placed into some lovely theology by the apostle John.
The Church wrote the synoptic gospels
quote:They speak of nothing like 'the institution of the Lord's Super' (sic) He 'instituted nothing!
As to the eucharist, all 3 synoptics tell of the institution of the Lord's Super.
quote:Yes and no. It's the Jewish breaking of bread that even now continues as part of their communal/fellowship/spiritual life together. It was not the eucharist.
Acts mentions that early church gathered daily for the breaking of bread. This just means they shared a meal?
quote:He told the Corinthians 25 years ago that their meal was more than a meal - and that's because it was turning from fellowship meal into something that divided them and caused hostility. Something that has happened ever since.
Paul tells us that it is more than just a meal.
quote:I am not Beeswax Altar, but in answer to your first question, I think a large number of American conservative evangelicals fall into this category.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I'm sorry, just who are these people?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The most extreme fundamentalists teach a version of biblical inspiration called mechanical dictation. For them, God dictated every single word of scripture and the authors of the individual book merely recorded what God told them to write.
Please can you provide a list of the denominations who believe this?
Can you give us a list of theologians who have written in support of this?
Can you give us a bibliography of books that teach this?
Or is this just supposition designed to bolster up your opinions?
AFAIAA the only groups that speak of inspiration like this are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Islam.
quote:Perhaps due to my being from the US, but until I came to the UK I was never aware of the Salvation Army being an actual church or denomination, but rather a Christian group. Is this a regional difference, or was I just misinformed?
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I've got a lot of time for the Salvation Army, but it does seem that these fine soldiers have rather shot themselves in the foot - with regard to the sacraments. I'm sure it was OK to ignore communion and baptism when they had no desire to be considered a church, but that desire has now apparently changed.
If you bill yourself as a church, I think you should offer all those services which churches generally make available - the full package. After all, if I went to a barber - and he was only willing to shave the left-hand side of my face - I don't think I'd be recommending him to my friends. He might do a really good job on the left side, but I think they'd prefer an establishment which offered the full tonsorial experience.
If the SA's understanding of itself has changed over the years, perhaps their practice should come into line with current view.
quote:Using mental gymnastics like this to protect your preconceived notions gets exhausting after a while. I hope this presages a change of theology.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:LOL. No it didn't, the synoptic Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Even John is eyewitness memory placed into some lovely theology by the apostle John.
The Church wrote the synoptic gospels
Just who are these people called 'The Church'? Were they a guild of writers or a publishing House? You make it sound like the Readers' Digest!
quote:They speak of nothing like 'the institution of the Lord's Super' (sic) He 'instituted nothing!
As to the eucharist, all 3 synoptics tell of the institution of the Lord's Super.
He say as a Jew with Jewish men for the Passover meal and gave certain elements of that Passover meal a New Testament meaning. It was not the institution of a new ritual, ceremony or 'sacrament.' You are reading back into the text.
quote:Yes and no. It's the Jewish breaking of bread that even now continues as part of their communal/fellowship/spiritual life together. It was not the eucharist.
Acts mentions that early church gathered daily for the breaking of bread. This just means they shared a meal?
quote:He told the Corinthians 25 years ago that their meal was more than a meal - and that's because it was turning from fellowship meal into something that divided them and caused hostility. Something that has happened ever since.
Paul tells us that it is more than just a meal.
quote:Bee is referring to actual people. It's hard to offer any names because it's a view for people outside of academic discourse. Mostly they are educated at "bible colleges" and respectable biblical scholars won't give them the time of day.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Whole denominations don't subscribe to mechanical dictation theory though some smaller Baptist denominations get close. Respected theologians certainly do not. I said extreme fundamentalists. For instance, Baptist evangelist John R. Rice and turn of the century theologian B.H. Carroll believed in mechanical dictation theory.
quote:I have a feeling that often the media will though.
Zach82: Mostly they are educated at "bible colleges" and respectable biblical scholars won't give them the time of day.
quote:Names, churches, literature.
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:I am not Beeswax Altar, but in answer to your first question, I think a large number of American conservative evangelicals fall into this category.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I'm sorry, just who are these people?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The most extreme fundamentalists teach a version of biblical inspiration called mechanical dictation. For them, God dictated every single word of scripture and the authors of the individual book merely recorded what God told them to write.
Please can you provide a list of the denominations who believe this?
Can you give us a list of theologians who have written in support of this?
Can you give us a bibliography of books that teach this?
Or is this just supposition designed to bolster up your opinions?
AFAIAA the only groups that speak of inspiration like this are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Islam.
quote:Well the Salvation Army in the US didn't misinform you:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Perhaps due to my being from the US, but until I came to the UK I was never aware of the Salvation Army being an actual church or denomination, but rather a Christian group. Is this a regional difference, or was I just misinformed?
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I've got a lot of time for the Salvation Army, but it does seem that these fine soldiers have rather shot themselves in the foot - with regard to the sacraments. I'm sure it was OK to ignore communion and baptism when they had no desire to be considered a church, but that desire has now apparently changed.
If you bill yourself as a church, I think you should offer all those services which churches generally make available - the full package. After all, if I went to a barber - and he was only willing to shave the left-hand side of my face - I don't think I'd be recommending him to my friends. He might do a really good job on the left side, but I think they'd prefer an establishment which offered the full tonsorial experience.
If the SA's understanding of itself has changed over the years, perhaps their practice should come into line with current view.
quote:I am not sure what you think it gets your position to be contrary about this one point, but the entire dispenastionalist movement is founded on this sort of understanding of the bible. Every single letter is an utterly literal dictation from God that has to stand apart from the authors' context so that it can be made to point to an apocalypse none of them had any idea of.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Names, churches, literature.
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:I am not Beeswax Altar, but in answer to your first question, I think a large number of American conservative evangelicals fall into this category.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I'm sorry, just who are these people?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The most extreme fundamentalists teach a version of biblical inspiration called mechanical dictation. For them, God dictated every single word of scripture and the authors of the individual book merely recorded what God told them to write.
Please can you provide a list of the denominations who believe this?
Can you give us a list of theologians who have written in support of this?
Can you give us a bibliography of books that teach this?
Or is this just supposition designed to bolster up your opinions?
AFAIAA the only groups that speak of inspiration like this are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and Islam.
quote:Really? The Salvation Army must possess the original manuscripts of the synoptic gospels signed by Matthew, Mark and Luke. The gospels are attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke because tradition holds that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote the synoptic gospels. Guess what the same tradition says about Baptism and the Lord's Supper?
originally posted by Mudfrog:
LOL. No it didn't, the synoptic Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Even John is eyewitness memory placed into some lovely theology by the apostle John.
Just who are these people called 'The Church'? Were they a guild of writers or a publishing House? You make it sound like the Readers' Digest!
quote:Oh...you too subscribe to the Found Footage Theory. Explains a lot.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just who are these people called 'The Church'? Were they a guild of writers or a publishing House? You make it sound like the Readers' Digest!
quote:I've witnessed a Jewish Passover meal presided over by a Rabbi. I don't recall him saying anything about the bread and wine being the Body and Blood of Christ. He certainly didn't mention anything about a New Covenant. As to reading back into the text, I'm going by how the text has been interpreted for 2,000 years until William Booth got upset with some churches in London and decided to ignore both scripture and tradition. He makes Pius IX look like a humble paragon of ecumenism.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
They speak of nothing like 'the institution of the Lord's Super' (sic) He 'instituted nothing!
He say as a Jew with Jewish men for the Passover meal and gave certain elements of that Passover meal a New Testament meaning. It was not the institution of a new ritual, ceremony or 'sacrament.' You are reading back into the text.
quote:See, here's the problem with that. The earliest church fathers had a very high view of the Eucharist. If according to you, Jesus didn't institute the Eucharist at the Lord's Supper and the NT churches just had table fellowship, then somewhere in the space of a few decades tops, some evil revisionists managed to not only invent the Eucharist but make it the central act of Christian worship. Not only that but they managed to do so without ruffling any feathers whatsoever. Yeah right.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes and no. It's the Jewish breaking of bread that even now continues as part of their communal/fellowship/spiritual life together. It was not the eucharist.
quote:Yeah, we are talking some Nadia Comaneci level of mental gymnastics to get that interpretation.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
He told the Corinthians 25 years ago that their meal was more than a meal - and that's because it was turning from fellowship meal into something that divided them and caused hostility. Something that has happened ever since.
quote:I hope you didn't take that in the wrong way. Looking at the website it still primarily comes across as a Christian charitable organization, rather than as a standalone church. It does reference the SA church but way at the bottom and in tiny print links.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
QUOTE] Well the Salvation Army in the US didn't misinform you:
See bottom of home page
Salvation Army Church
Our Church
quote:The doesn't scream "church" to me.
Are you a social services agency?
We are a group of committed Christians who believe we are called to share the good news of Jesus Christ and help meet human need in His name.
Is The Salvation Army really an army?
The Salvation Army is not a military force, but rather a global ‘army’ of people moved to humanitarian action through faith.
quote:Sorry, I thought we were talking about teachers - you know, authoritative people within a denomination who speak to others of their church's beliefs - not just 'people'.
The most extreme fundamentalists teach a version of biblical inspiration called mechanical dictation.
quote:Again, just what do you think it gets your position to be contrary about the mere existence of a certain sort of biblical interpretation?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Sorry, I thought we were talking about teachers - you know, authoritative people within a denomination who speak to others of their church's beliefs - not just 'people'.
The most extreme fundamentalists teach a version of biblical inspiration called mechanical dictation.
quote:The simple reason for that is historical. We didn't want to use the word 'church' in Victorian times because it implied ecclesiastical forms and identity. We didn't want people to be put off - we would rather use music hall imagery than medieval catholic imagery.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:I hope you didn't take that in the wrong way. Looking at the website it still primarily comes across as a Christian charitable organization, rather than as a standalone church. It does reference the SA church but way at the bottom and in tiny print links.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
QUOTE] Well the Salvation Army in the US didn't misinform you:
See bottom of home page
Salvation Army Church
Our Church
Look at the FAQs:
quote:The doesn't scream "church" to me.
Are you a social services agency?
We are a group of committed Christians who believe we are called to share the good news of Jesus Christ and help meet human need in His name.
Is The Salvation Army really an army?
The Salvation Army is not a military force, but rather a global ‘army’ of people moved to humanitarian action through faith.
quote:Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, with their objectively awful, yet tragically influential, Left Behind series would also follow that school.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why are you arguing this point? John R. Rice and B.H. Carroll were quite influential among American fundamentalists. Fundamentalists aren't overly fond of denominations in the first place.
quote:In the UK we know hardly anything about American fundamentalism. It's very much confined to your southern states. I see, however, from Wikipedia, that your Mr Rice fell out with Billy Graham in the 1950s so he's hardly relevant to most American evangelicals is he? I have never heard of any evangelical talk about the verbal dictation of the bible! The Salvation Army is pretty conservative but we believe nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why are you arguing this point? John R. Rice and B.H. Carroll were quite influential among American fundamentalists. Fundamentalists aren't overly fond of denominations in the first place.
quote:You see, you don't prove your point by pleading ignorance.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:In the UK we know hardly anything about American fundamentalism. It's very much confined to your southern states. I see, however, from Wikipedia, that your Mr Rice fell out with Billy Graham in the 1950s so he's hardly relevant to most American evangelicals is he? I have never heard of any evangelical talk about the verbal dictation of the bible! The Salvation Army is pretty conservative but we believe nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why are you arguing this point? John R. Rice and B.H. Carroll were quite influential among American fundamentalists. Fundamentalists aren't overly fond of denominations in the first place.
quote:I'm just stopping by to say, It's not either-or, it is both-however.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would like to ask whether Christ is 'less present' in a worship service that does not have the eucharist, and more present in a similar gathering where the eucharist is celebrated.
Is grace less available in a non-eucharistic service?
Does the Holy Spirit need a qorum of Christians and some bread and wine before he'll bother to turn up?
quote:I wish. It is especially concentrated there, to be sure, like a soup that's been boiled far too long. But it's far from contained there.
Originally posted by Zach82:
In the UK we know hardly anything about American fundamentalism. It's very much confined to your southern states.
quote:Didn't claim the Salvation Army believed in mechanical dictation theory. Rice inspired the late Jack Hyles pastor of First Baptist Church in Hammond Indiana. At one point, it was the largest church in the United States. I'd guess there are as many fundamentalists in the United States holding views akin to mechanical dictation as there are members of the Salvation Army in the entire world.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:In the UK we know hardly anything about American fundamentalism. It's very much confined to your southern states. I see, however, from Wikipedia, that your Mr Rice fell out with Billy Graham in the 1950s so he's hardly relevant to most American evangelicals is he? I have never heard of any evangelical talk about the verbal dictation of the bible! The Salvation Army is pretty conservative but we believe nothing of the sort.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why are you arguing this point? John R. Rice and B.H. Carroll were quite influential among American fundamentalists. Fundamentalists aren't overly fond of denominations in the first place.
quote:I am perpetually perplexed at how many people think Indiana is in the south. It is probably the most generically Midwestern state in the entire Midwest. Linguists go to Northern Indiana to capture the standard American dialect.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for fundamentalism being confined to the Southern states, Indiana isn't in the South. Hammond isn't even in the Southern part of the state. It's an Indiana suburb of Chicago.
quote:Could it be that the seed of this petulant, conscious ignorance of scripture is mere anti-popery?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm bowing out of this discussion now.
It seems to me that the nearer one is to Rome, the less grace is afforded to the rest of us - we are deficient in the grace of god because we have not the real presence in the bread and wine and do not have the waters that cleanse from original sin - allegedly.
It matters not to me however because those of who are in Rome anyway wouldn't accept us as fully within the Body of Christ anyway.
We are content to testify to the saving and sanctifying grace of God in our midst anyway with the mediation of priests and the ritual of sacraments. I am deeply appreciative to those of you in sacrament observing churches who do regard The Salvation army as being within the Universal Church and qualified to call itself a denomination of that church.
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him, can enjoy yourselves in that confined place but I am sad that you think Jesus can only exist in bread and wine and that the Holy Spirit can only save someone if there's water involved.
Just enjoy yourselves but please ask yourself why it is that the love of God doesn't need your opinion and the Spirit of God doesn't need your permission to move in the lives of so many people who do not subscribe o your narrow church procedures.
quote:And why the bloody hell should I know where Indiana is? Do you know where on the map of England Newcastle is? That' question is asked of an American who, by the track record of your presidents have not realised that England is not the whole of the British Isles and that Paris is in France and that Australia is not actually part of Europe!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I am perpetually perplexed at how many people think Indiana is in the south. It is probably the most generically Midwestern state in the entire Midwest. Linguists go to Northern Indiana to capture the standard American dialect.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for fundamentalism being confined to the Southern states, Indiana isn't in the South. Hammond isn't even in the Southern part of the state. It's an Indiana suburb of Chicago.
We call carbonated beverages "pop," thank you very much.
quote:After your totally graceless attitude to us in The Salvation Army as to whether the people in my church are even Christians, my 'petulance' is a fucking long time coming!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Could it be that the seed of this petulant, conscious ignorance of scripture is mere anti-popery?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm bowing out of this discussion now.
It seems to me that the nearer one is to Rome, the less grace is afforded to the rest of us - we are deficient in the grace of god because we have not the real presence in the bread and wine and do not have the waters that cleanse from original sin - allegedly.
It matters not to me however because those of who are in Rome anyway wouldn't accept us as fully within the Body of Christ anyway.
We are content to testify to the saving and sanctifying grace of God in our midst anyway with the mediation of priests and the ritual of sacraments. I am deeply appreciative to those of you in sacrament observing churches who do regard The Salvation army as being within the Universal Church and qualified to call itself a denomination of that church.
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him, can enjoy yourselves in that confined place but I am sad that you think Jesus can only exist in bread and wine and that the Holy Spirit can only save someone if there's water involved.
Just enjoy yourselves but please ask yourself why it is that the love of God doesn't need your opinion and the Spirit of God doesn't need your permission to move in the lives of so many people who do not subscribe o your narrow church procedures.
quote:That was not an attack on you.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:And why the bloody hell should I know where Indiana is? Do you know where on the map of England Newcastle is? That' question is asked of an American who, by the track record of your presidents have not realised that England is not the whole of the British Isles and that Paris is in France and that Australia is not actually part of Europe!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I am perpetually perplexed at how many people think Indiana is in the south. It is probably the most generically Midwestern state in the entire Midwest. Linguists go to Northern Indiana to capture the standard American dialect.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for fundamentalism being confined to the Southern states, Indiana isn't in the South. Hammond isn't even in the Southern part of the state. It's an Indiana suburb of Chicago.
We call carbonated beverages "pop," thank you very much.
quote:Petulance against the Roman Catholic Church? When the people arguing against your theology were Anglicans? This should probably be an instance of self-reflection for you.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:After your totally graceless attitude to us in The Salvation Army as to whether the people in my church are even Christians, my 'petulance' is a fucking long time coming!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Could it be that the seed of this petulant, conscious ignorance of scripture is mere anti-popery?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm bowing out of this discussion now.
It seems to me that the nearer one is to Rome, the less grace is afforded to the rest of us - we are deficient in the grace of god because we have not the real presence in the bread and wine and do not have the waters that cleanse from original sin - allegedly.
It matters not to me however because those of who are in Rome anyway wouldn't accept us as fully within the Body of Christ anyway.
We are content to testify to the saving and sanctifying grace of God in our midst anyway with the mediation of priests and the ritual of sacraments. I am deeply appreciative to those of you in sacrament observing churches who do regard The Salvation army as being within the Universal Church and qualified to call itself a denomination of that church.
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him, can enjoy yourselves in that confined place but I am sad that you think Jesus can only exist in bread and wine and that the Holy Spirit can only save someone if there's water involved.
Just enjoy yourselves but please ask yourself why it is that the love of God doesn't need your opinion and the Spirit of God doesn't need your permission to move in the lives of so many people who do not subscribe o your narrow church procedures.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him in....
quote:He is everywhere present and yet we still beg him to abide in us.
O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, who are everywhere present and fill all things, the Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life, come and abide in us and cleanses us from every impurity, and, O Good One, save our souls.
quote:Yes, how ironic that the wannabe-Catholics refuse to call me a, a Salvationist, a Christian, when some more enlightened Catholics officially recognise us as such:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Petulance against the Roman Catholic Church? When the people arguing against your theology were Anglicans? This should probably be an instance of self-reflection for you.
quote:I said it, owing to the fact that they do not practice baptism.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Perhaps I haven't been reading closely enough. Where (and by whom) were you called not a Christian?
quote:Dang crypto-papist Presbyterians!
originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the nearer one is to Rome, the less grace is afforded to the rest of us - we are supposedly deficient in the grace of God because we have not got the real presence in the bread and wine and do not have the waters that cleanse from original sin - allegedly.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Universal Church!
originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am deeply appreciative to those of you in sacrament observing churches who graciously do actually regard The Salvation Army as being within the Universal Church and qualified by grace to call itself a denomination of that Church.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Wow...three straw men in one sentence. I'm impressed. We, Anglicans, are known to be Pharisees. Does this mean you are taking death over cake?
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him in, can enjoy yourselves in that confined place but I am sad that you think Jesus can only exist for us in bread and wine and that the Holy Spirit can only save someone if there's water involved.
quote:The rest of us, by rest of us I mean the billion+ Christians who administer the dominical sacraments, are merely following the "prescriptive procedures" found in the New Testament. You know the New Testament? The one your Soldier's Covenant says constitutes the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice? Speaking of the Soldier's Covenant, it concludes with these inclusive and generous words, "We believe in the immortality of the soul; in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgment at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked."
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Just enjoy yourselves but please ask yourself why it is that the love of God doesn't need your narrow opinions, and that the Spirit of God doesn't need your permission to move in the lives of so many people who do not subscribe to your prescriptive church procedures.
quote:TSA, in this context, is "The Salvation Army."
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Perhaps I haven't been reading closely enough. Where (and by whom) were you called not a Christian?
HEY! This TSA objects to that statement.
quote:No amount of good works or professions can make you or anyone else a Christian.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is one Lord, one faith and one baptism.
I have been baptised by the one Spirit into the one Body.
With my heart I have believed and with my mouth I have confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead. I am therefore, by the word of God, saved.
quote:No, that's why I'm not a Catholic!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:No amount of good works or professions can make you or anyone else a Christian.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is one Lord, one faith and one baptism.
I have been baptised by the one Spirit into the one Body.
With my heart I have believed and with my mouth I have confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead. I am therefore, by the word of God, saved.
quote:Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
quote:I hope I didn't contribute to your feeling this way with my comment. I did not mean that I don't think SA is a church or can call itself, just that I was unaware of it functioning as a church rather than as a Christian charity because that is their main public profile in the US.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm bowing out of this discussion now.
It seems to me that the nearer one is to Rome, the less grace is afforded to the rest of us - we are supposedly deficient in the grace of God because we have not got the real presence in the bread and wine and do not have the waters that cleanse from original sin - allegedly.
It matters not to me however because those of you who are 'in Rome' anyway wouldn't accept us as fully within the Body of Christ anyway.
We are content simply to testify to the saving and sanctifying grace of God given and received freely in our midst anyway, without the supposed mediation of a priestly caste and the ritual of sacramental salvation.
I am deeply appreciative to those of you in sacrament observing churches who graciously do actually regard The Salvation Army as being within the Universal Church and qualified by grace to call itself a denomination of that Church.
Those of you who, Pharisee-like, cannot bring yourself to even contemplate the possibility that the Holy Spirit might move outside the liturgical prison you have placed him in, can enjoy yourselves in that confined place but I am sad that you think Jesus can only exist for us in bread and wine and that the Holy Spirit can only save someone if there's water involved.
Just enjoy yourselves but please ask yourself why it is that the love of God doesn't need your narrow opinions, and that the Spirit of God doesn't need your permission to move in the lives of so many people who do not subscribe to your prescriptive church procedures.
quote:Does the Holy Spirit descend upon everybody who participates in a Jewish ritual washing? Jesus established Christian baptism by being baptized. Christians have followed Jesus in water baptism ever since. Now, as you tell it, Jesus, who didn't need to be ritually purified, submitted to a ritual purification involving water called baptism. His followers then told people to be baptized for the remission sins to receive the Holy Spirit but really that baptism had nothing to do with water whatsoever even though it's clear from scripture that it did.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
quote:Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
quote:Why do you think John questioned him about the necessity of this baptism for himself? He didn't need it.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Does the Holy Spirit descend upon everybody who participates in a Jewish ritual washing? Jesus established Christian baptism by being baptized. Christians have followed Jesus in water baptism ever since. Now, as you tell it, Jesus, who didn't need to be ritually purified, submitted to a ritual purification involving water called baptism. His followers then told people to be baptized for the remission sins to receive the Holy Spirit but really that baptism had nothing to do with water whatsoever even though it's clear from scripture that it did.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
Yeah...yeah...that's the ticket.
quote:That verse does not refer to water baptism in any way.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Ah, do you have an account of Jesus undergoing a baptism without water?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:That verse does not refer to water baptism in any way.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Erm, was Jesus baptised a Christian then??
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But...you haven't been baptized. And, as you say, there is only the one. You think Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove AFTER He is baptized in water for a reason? Just maybe?
I thought it was a Jewish ritual washing ceremony.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
quote:Well, when your position lacks biblical substantiation, you can just make some substantiation up.
You do not appreciate the fact that the disciples and everyone else at the time were Jews! Everything they did was Jewish ritual and tradition - Jesus did not invent any new ceremonies. Instead he infused them with new meaning.
quote:I think you might be on to something here, Mudfrog. I read a while ago (on some blog, so it must be true!) that the Greek word translated as 'baptise' simply means 'immerse'. Apparently, a ship that had sunk would be described as having been baptised - immersed - in the sea.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:That verse does not refer to water baptism in any way.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
quote:And is totally justified IMO as i read more of this literalism concerning baptism. It seems to me that there is a 'salvation by works' thing going on here - often the works' of parents getting their children christened, which is often more about kowtowing to the wishes of the grandparents than anything else.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
After your totally graceless attitude to us in The Salvation Army as to whether the people in my church are even Christians, my 'petulance' is a fucking long time coming!
quote:No, I'm allowing the rest of the NT and church history to interpret scripture for me. I gave reasons for rejecting your interpretation. You respond with bluster and indignation. I'm sure that impresses somebody.
originally posted by Gramps49:
As far as me reading into the Scriptures my point of view, I would argue that it is you who is doing it, not me. I can tell you are a strong sacramentalist. Consequently, you are reading the Scriptures through that prism. When you are confronted with material that does not fit your understanding, you find ways to discount it or discount the presenter.
quote:No, you will let yourself speak through Matthew which is a poor way of doing exegesis. It's a typical problem with liberalism. Kind of like all those scholars who go looking in the well of history for the historical Christ and always find their own reflection in the water below.
originally posted by Gramps49:
No, I will let Matthew speak for himself.
quote:Hmmm...I sure wish we had some way of knowing how the Apostles and early church interpreted that. Oh wait...we do!!! I'm happy to keep repeating the obvious until some bothers to address it.
originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Likewise, the Great Commission might perhaps be understood as an instruction to 'immerse' people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, i.e. to help them know and experience God so closely that they are 'drowned' or 'submerged' in his presence like a stricken ship is submerged ('baptised') in the sea.
quote:Well, that would mean that all the sacraments are works. If grace comes through faith and the sacraments are works, then grace cannot come through the sacraments. Now, that is clearly at odds with bog standard Anglicanism much less the Anglo-Catholicism you profess, but such contradictions only bother those concerned with coherence which is surprisingly not everybody.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:And is totally justified IMO as i read more of this literalism concerning baptism. It seems to me that there is a 'salvation by works' thing going on here - often the works' of parents getting their children christened, which is often more about kowtowing to the wishes of the grandparents than anything else.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
After your totally graceless attitude to us in The Salvation Army as to whether the people in my church are even Christians, my 'petulance' is a fucking long time coming!
quote:Indeed. This is precisely the problem when Bible translators use a word that nowadays only has one meaning.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:I think you might be on to something here, Mudfrog. I read a while ago (on some blog, so it must be true!) that the Greek word translated as 'baptise' simply means 'immerse'. Apparently, a ship that had sunk would be described as having been baptised - immersed - in the sea.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:That verse does not refer to water baptism in any way.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
So what Bible translators (at least into English; I wonder what translations into other languages are like) have done through the ages is render the Greek word in English form without actually translating it. We've imbued the word with special meaning when it originally meant something perfectly ordinary.
So the baptism that Jesus said he'd be baptised with could be understood as a baptism of suffering, i.e. a total immersion in suffering. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty poignant and stark description of Jesus' crucifixion.
Likewise, the Great Commission might perhaps be understood as an instruction to 'immerse' people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, i.e. to help them know and experience God so closely that they are 'drowned' or 'submerged' in his presence like a stricken ship is submerged ('baptised') in the sea.
quote:The reference to baptism is omitted by the NU, according to the footnotes
22. The cup
This is a common metaphor in O.T. for sorrow and suffering. The reference to 'baptism' is similar in meaning, and has no certain connection with the sacrament of the same name. But this should be omitted as in RV
Gospel According to St Matthew GEP Cox, Torch Commentaries SCM Press
quote:I agree, and would urge all Christians to be baptised. However, I'd absolutely not consider unbaptised Christians to not actually be Christians, neither would I consider an organisation or group not to be a Christian church merely because it didn't carry out baptism.
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
While I like SCK'S image of being immersed in God (something I certainly need!)I don't think we can get away from the fact that water baptism was normative in the early church (e.g.Acts 8:36, 10:47).
quote:The Didache is 1st/2nd century and describes water baptism, so that makes the suggestion that water baptism is due to a mistranslation over time a bit less convincing.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think you might be on to something here, Mudfrog. I read a while ago (on some blog, so it must be true!) that the Greek word translated as 'baptise' simply means 'immerse'. Apparently, a ship that had sunk would be described as having been baptised - immersed - in the sea.
So what Bible translators (at least into English; I wonder what translations into other languages are like) have done through the ages is render the Greek word in English form without actually translating it. We've imbued the word with special meaning when it originally meant something perfectly ordinary.
So the baptism that Jesus said he'd be baptised with could be understood as a baptism of suffering, i.e. a total immersion in suffering. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty poignant and stark description of Jesus' crucifixion.
quote:Uh, so the basis of Jesus' metaphor is?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:The reference to baptism is omitted by the NU, according to the footnotes
22. The cup
This is a common metaphor in O.T. for sorrow and suffering. The reference to 'baptism' is similar in meaning, and has no certain connection with the sacrament of the same name. But this should be omitted as in RV
Gospel According to St Matthew GEP Cox, Torch Commentaries SCM Press
quote:It is clear that you have never read the book of Acts, where not a single apostle labors under this interpretation.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:I think you might be on to something here, Mudfrog. I read a while ago (on some blog, so it must be true!) that the Greek word translated as 'baptise' simply means 'immerse'. Apparently, a ship that had sunk would be described as having been baptised - immersed - in the sea.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:That verse does not refer to water baptism in any way.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Matthew seems to have gotten the idea that baptism connects one to Jesus in a special way. Romish enormities even in the Bible, I guess.
quote:
Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? (Matt 20:22)
So what Bible translators (at least into English; I wonder what translations into other languages are like) have done through the ages is render the Greek word in English form without actually translating it. We've imbued the word with special meaning when it originally meant something perfectly ordinary.
So the baptism that Jesus said he'd be baptised with could be understood as a baptism of suffering, i.e. a total immersion in suffering. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty poignant and stark description of Jesus' crucifixion.
Likewise, the Great Commission might perhaps be understood as an instruction to 'immerse' people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, i.e. to help them know and experience God so closely that they are 'drowned' or 'submerged' in his presence like a stricken ship is submerged ('baptised') in the sea.
quote:Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
quote:There is nothing in Acts that refers to 'can you drink the cup...be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with.'
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
quote:You seem to be presuming that a few instances of metaphorical use of baptism frees us to interpret every use of the term metaphorically. This simply isn't the case, though. It is precisely the centrality of baptism to the early Church that makes it such a powerful symbol for Jesus to invoke in this circumstance.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:There is nothing in Acts that refers to 'can you drink the cup...be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with.'
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
The word baptism in Matthew, in that verse spioken by Jesus (not invented by Matthew) has to do with his suffering; it has nothing to do with repentance and Christian initiation! I've already quoted from one commentary that says as much!
quote:Firstly I do not see all references to baptism as metaphorical.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:You seem to be presuming that a few instances of metaphorical use of baptism frees us to interpret every use of the term metaphorically. This simply isn't the case, though. It is precisely the centrality of baptism to the early Church that makes it such a powerful symbol for Jesus to invoke in this circumstance.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:There is nothing in Acts that refers to 'can you drink the cup...be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with.'
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
The word baptism in Matthew, in that verse spioken by Jesus (not invented by Matthew) has to do with his suffering; it has nothing to do with repentance and Christian initiation! I've already quoted from one commentary that says as much!
Yes, a metaphorical interpretation of baptism, this silliness about being "immersed in God," is logically possible, but it strains the text mightily to do so. In the light of how baptism is treated in the early Church, seen especially in the Book of Acts, we have every reason to think that the baptism commanded by Jesus is indeed the ritual involving water. Water baptism is cited so many times, it becomes brazen silliness to presume otherwise after only a few pages.
quote:For the latter point, there is one place in one of the gospels where it explicitly says the disciples didn't know what he was talking about, but understood it later, after the resurrection. So that doesn't hold a lot of water (no pun intended).
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Secondly, there is no way that Jesus invoked the imagery and symbolism of Christian baptism in his rebuke to the disciples. For one thing there was no Christian baptism at that time - the Great Commission had not yet been given; and neither would the disciples have the foggiest idea what he was talking about.
quote:
"The...phrase which Jesus uses is actually misleading in this literal English version. He speaks of the baptism with which he was baptised. The Greek verb 'baptizein' means 'to dip'. Its past participle, 'bebaptismenos', means 'submerged', and it is regularly used of being 'submerged in any experience'. For instance, a spendthrift is said to be 'submerged' in debt. A drunk man is said to be 'submerged' in drink. A grief-stricken person is said to be 'submerged' in sorrow. ..The word is regularly used for a ship that has been wrecked and 'submerged' beneath the waves. The metaphor is very closely related to a metaphor which the Psalmist often uses. In Psalm 42:7 we read, 'All thy waves and thy billows have gone over me.' In Psalm 124:4 we read, 'Then the flood would have swept us away, the torrent would have gone over us.' The expression, as Jesus used it here, had nothing to do with technical baptism. What he is saying is, 'Can you bear to go through the terrible experience which I have to go through? Can you face being submerged in hatred and pain and death, as I have to be?' He is telling these two disciples that without a cross there can never be a crown."
William Barclay
quote:Sorry to bring it up again - but Mudfrog can you address this? Why in late 1st century/early 2nd century did they believe baptism to involve water, if the problem was a Greek mistranslation? People who knew the apostles were alive at this time.
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water . But if you have no living water, baptize into other water ; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
quote:But doctrine is as much about what the Apostles and early Christians did as it is about what they wrote. And we have a very clear record of how they did baptism - and it doesn't agree with your purported interpretation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:There is nothing in Acts that refers to 'can you drink the cup...be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with.'
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
The word baptism in Matthew, in that verse spioken by Jesus (not invented by Matthew) has to do with his suffering; it has nothing to do with repentance and Christian initiation! I've already quoted from one commentary that says as much!
quote:And I repeat: having agreed that water baptism was the usual and the normative experience, what does it have to do with the saying of Jesus in Matthew and Mark about a 'baptism' of suffering, bearing in mind the two quotes from commentaries that I have used?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:But doctrine is as much about what the Apostles and early Christians did as it is about what they wrote. And we have a very clear record of how they did baptism - and it doesn't agree with your purported interpretation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:There is nothing in Acts that refers to 'can you drink the cup...be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with.'
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
The word baptism in Matthew, in that verse spioken by Jesus (not invented by Matthew) has to do with his suffering; it has nothing to do with repentance and Christian initiation! I've already quoted from one commentary that says as much!
quote:I think interpreting this usage of baptism by Jesus as meaning that water baptism is optional, is a fairly substantial leap.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What we are discussing in this instance is the saying of Jesus, 'can you be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with?' These words are nothing to do with Christian initiation, as shown by the two quotes from non-Salvation Army commentaries but speak of the depth of suffering that Jesus is anticipating and asking if the disciples are willing to share it?
quote:You see, if you'd just stop there, you'd be fine.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And I repeat: having agreed that water baptism was the usual and the normative experience....
quote:Yes, it is permitted and accepted gladly. I myself was baptised at 18. We remain in 'good standing' with the SA.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Can SA members get baptized at other churches if they feel compelled to? Would they be able to remain in good standing?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What we are discussing in this instance is the saying of Jesus, 'can you be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with?' These words are nothing to do with Christian initiation, as shown by the two quotes from non-Salvation Army commentaries but speak of the depth of suffering that Jesus is anticipating and asking if the disciples are willing to share it?
quote:So if the Salvation Army considers itself to be a church nowadays (is this indeed the case?), why doesn't it offer baptism? This is the part of this discussion where I'm not following your line of thought, Mudfrog.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Yes, it is permitted and accepted gladly. I myself was baptised at 18. We remain in 'good standing' with the SA.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Can SA members get baptized at other churches if they feel compelled to? Would they be able to remain in good standing?
quote:You see, there is in this phrase a controversial and divisive word: dominical. as soon as I read it, I thought of the 'dominical sacraments', and I wondered about the other 5 sacraments that Rome says are to be honoured and practiced. they may not be 'dominical;' but, in accordance with the posts in this thread, they are Apostolic or required by the Fathers.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:You see, if you'd just stop there, you'd be fine.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And I repeat: having agreed that water baptism was the usual and the normative experience....
Baptism is normative for Christians. See how easy it is?
There is so much in Christianity that isn't normative (failure to use the dominical words in the eucharistic prayer, lack of episcopal structures, differences in the canon of scripture, etc., etc., etc.) and yet those who fall outside the norm are still considered Christians.
It would make so much more sense to just acknowledge that the Salvation Army doesn't baptize—falls outside of this norm—than it does to tie yourself into knots advancing a definition of baptism that has no legs.
quote:Which is the substance of my post.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think I shall leave it here:
The Salvation Army does not perform sacramental rituals, but it is part of a catholic Church that does.
quote:There are no Roman Catholics arguing against you here, and no one is arguing from what Rome says. Nothing could make it clearer that you are not reading the Bible or our posts here with objective clarity.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...that Rome says...
quote:It doesn't particularly; that's a different type of baptism to the normative one. But I don't see how that advances your argument one iota.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:And I repeat: having agreed that water baptism was the usual and the normative experience, what does it have to do with the saying of Jesus in Matthew and Mark about a 'baptism' of suffering, bearing in mind the two quotes from commentaries that I have used?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:But doctrine is as much about what the Apostles and early Christians did as it is about what they wrote. And we have a very clear record of how they did baptism - and it doesn't agree with your purported interpretation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:There is nothing in Acts that refers to 'can you drink the cup...be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with.'
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Let's try this. Up thread, you say Matthew wrote the Book of Matthew. Zach says not one single apostle in the Book of Acts labors under that interpretation. You don't dispute that. On this entire thread, you haven't disputed that. Well, Matthew was one of the Apostles in question and he didn't labor under that interpretation.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What has the Book of Acts got to do with Matthew 20 v 22?
The word baptism in Matthew, in that verse spioken by Jesus (not invented by Matthew) has to do with his suffering; it has nothing to do with repentance and Christian initiation! I've already quoted from one commentary that says as much!
quote:Thanks for all your efforts in this thread, Mudfrog. I've found it interesting to get a bit of insight into the Salvation Army viewpoint and the historical journey that's taken place in the movement.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
For such a 'clear command of Scripture' it has always amazed me how none of you agree what it properly means or how to do it, or to whom it should properly be done. What a shame Jesus didn't write a handbook of baptismal and eucharistic practice.
quote:"It" being everything after references to people being burned at the stake, and since you don't come back to any of the content of this distracting post, I can only conclude that you realize it too.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, it's not a distraction
quote:Mudfrog, you know perfectly well that Paul is talking about party differences in the Corinthian Church: people taking sides based on who had baptised them (at least in part). I've never been aware of anyone who thinks the passage means that Paul was advocating the foregoing of baptism because it had become a rationale for division in a particular local Church. One would expect that the congregation at Corinth had received baptism from various persons and would continue to do so, but Paul was expressing exasperation over their partisan behaviour and saying that he was glad he hadn't baptised but a few persons in this faction-riven Church.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, it's not a distraction - there's actually Scriptural precedence for the avoidance of a so-called 'sacrament' if it causes disunity - I cite Paul, who in the face of divisions in the Corinthian church was glad he never baptised anyone with the exception of one or two. When God raised up The Salvation Army the last thing he needed in the turmoil of Victorian church life, was another version of the increasingly divisive sacraments.
We have never denigrated sacraments, never preached or taught against them, never refused our soldiers their benefit in ecumenical gatherings, never disagreed with their theology or their historical practice.
We just don't see that they are needed for salvation or for the particular ministry and charism of The Salvation Army in its efforts to get people converted and in serving the needy.
It could be said - and it's a subject for another thread - that what we do in the name of Christ: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, befriending those with no friends, is itself a sacramental act, a means of grace.
As Schillebeeckx said, whenever the church does what Christ would have done, it performs a sacrament.
;
quote:Baptism is the clear command of scripture. The rest isn't clear. The Salvation Army blaming Christians for it's refusal to administer the dominical sacraments sounds like Adam blaming Eve for eating the forbidden fruit.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
For such a 'clear command of Scripture' it has always amazed me how none of you agree what it properly means or how to do it, or to whom it should properly be done. What a shame Jesus didn't write a handbook of baptismal and eucharistic practice.
quote:You'll get no argument from this American about the dangers of mixing Church and State.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
My God people have been burned at the stake for saying 2 instead of 7, or adult instead of baby, or wine as well as bread!
quote:You don't have a version! That's the point! It's like saying that because people disagree about what too eat that we should all just starve to death. Frankly, The Salvation Army is at odds with one denomination or another over a wide range of issues. Why not just give up on the whole thing entirely since we aren't all in agreement about everything?
originally posted by Mudfrog:
You might forgive my wondering why you are so sure you in particular are correct when most of evangelical Protestantism would disagree with your version of the sacraments as you do with mine!
quote:Oh...I've forgotten the 39 Articles entirely.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh, and don't forget your 39 Articles informs the Roman Catholic Church that their Mass is a blasphemy! I wonder what side Jesus is on in that particular argument!
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Not really fair to keep using Wesley's name while teaching things he would have found repugnant. I figure there are at least two Methodist Shipmates who would give me a witness on that. While the term Methodism is more than the Wesleys, the term Wesleyan is not.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
Wondering why it seemed so 'easy' for William Booth to drop the sacraments I discovered that in the 1850s Methodism in the UK had moved quite significantly away from Wesley's sacramentalism. In fact so far had it moved that they began to see the word of God and not the Eucharist as the main means of grace to the people. In fact it became quite the norm not to have the Lord's Supper in Methodist gatherings. For Booth therefore simply to drop the eucharist would not have raised many eyebrows! In fact it may hardly have been noted by his Methodist contempories.
quote:I can see two viable options. One, set some broad guidelines allowing for local and even personal variations. Two, definitively state that The Salvation Army is not a church but an ecumenical parachurch organization and urge, perhaps even require, soldiers and adherents to participate in the local churches of their choice.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
And at any rate, in this generation you would heve fewr people, I giess, wanting infant baptism and more wanting adults; fewer wanting a communion rail and more wanting a 'less adminstered' supper.
It would create more heat than light - I think the eggs are truly broken and it would be impossible now to go back - not that there was much to 'go back' to!.
quote:Aside from there being some disunity about infant baptism, I'm not sure that I accept the other half of that sentence. I don't think Mudfrog is opposed to baptism. He said he was baptised at 18, and as far as I can tell he doesn't seem to consider it a mistake. The SA seems to be quite happy to accept people who are baptised, they just don't do the baptising themselves. To me that seems to be quite different from being opposed to it. It is getting to be a long thread and I might have missed something.
the necessity and form of baptism is not a matter of disunity for anyone, but your opposition to baptism sure is
quote:The question is what they are teaching their members about baptism and communion. If someone is born and raised in the SA, or has come to Christianity through SA and has no other denominational background, are they taught that baptism and communion are unimportant and unnecessary?
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Zach82quote:Aside from there being some disunity about infant baptism, I'm not sure that I accept the other half of that sentence. I don't think Mudfrog is opposed to baptism. He said he was baptised at 18, and as far as I can tell he doesn't seem to consider it a mistake. The SA seems to be quite happy to accept people who are baptised, they just don't do the baptising themselves. To me that seems to be quite different from being opposed to it. It is getting to be a long thread and I might have missed something.
the necessity and form of baptism is not a matter of disunity for anyone, but your opposition to baptism sure is
quote:Assuming Mudfrog is accurately depicting the beliefs of TSA, and I believe he is, they are at least taught that it is unnecessary. In his efforts to assert that it isn't necessary, Mudfrog has surely asserted that it is unimportant, if nice if you do have it.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:The question is what they are teaching their members about baptism and communion. If someone is born and raised in the SA, or has come to Christianity through SA and has no other denominational background, are they taught that baptism and communion are unimportant and unnecessary?
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Zach82quote:Aside from there being some disunity about infant baptism, I'm not sure that I accept the other half of that sentence. I don't think Mudfrog is opposed to baptism. He said he was baptised at 18, and as far as I can tell he doesn't seem to consider it a mistake. The SA seems to be quite happy to accept people who are baptised, they just don't do the baptising themselves. To me that seems to be quite different from being opposed to it. It is getting to be a long thread and I might have missed something.
the necessity and form of baptism is not a matter of disunity for anyone, but your opposition to baptism sure is
quote:
And at any rate, in this generation you would heve fewr people, I giess, wanting infant baptism and more wanting adults; fewer wanting a communion rail and more wanting a 'less adminstered' supper.
It would create more heat than light - I think the eggs are truly broken and it would be impossible now to go back - not that there was much to 'go back' to!.
quote:I've read the bits on baptism, and unfortunately it's not very compelling. I can see clearly why the SA wouldn't introduce water baptism, as it as its own initiation ceremony. However the claim that a swearing in under a Trinitarian flag is equivalent to water baptism - when not a single person in the New Testament or in the early church was initiated in such a fashion - I just can't see how that's supportable. Couldn't any group come up with an activity or ceremony that invokes the Trinity and claim that it constitutes baptism into the Holy Spirit?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Humbly presuming that you might want to give 10 minutes to reading it, I would direct you to this document that was published in book form - and is avaliable online.
I suggest that you scroll down and start to read at page 103 for statements on baptism and communion.
This is Called To Be God's People.
It might help to clarify things if my own words have confused or obscured the position of The Salvation Army.
You might, if you so desired, find within this report a lot more about TSA that might interest you.
quote:It can't be this simple, can it? I mean, would you say a baptised person who wilfully refuses to feed a hungry neighbour or give clothes to someone who has none is a Christian?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Which is, you shouldn't be surprised to hear "A baptized person."
quote:Yes. A bad Christian, but still a Christian.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:It can't be this simple, can it? I mean, would you say a baptised person who wilfully refuses to feed a hungry neighbour or give clothes to someone who has none is a Christian?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Which is, you shouldn't be surprised to hear "A baptized person."
quote:I wouldn't say they are not Christians. And I think any judgement made should be towards the leadership of the SA rather than its members, who it seems have been misled into thinking that certain key practices are optional.
Originally posted by Zach82:
What's quite divisive, Mudfrog, is your expectation that we change our definition of "Christian" to suit the practice your own, basically obscure, sect. My judgment that unbaptized Salvationists are not Christians is not a personal judgement that they are bad people, but a statement about what I believe it means to be a Christian.
Which is, you shouldn't be surprised to hear "A baptized person."
quote:Then it could easily be said that you're ignoring Jesus' clear teaching in Matthew 25 about the Son of Man separating people 'as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats' according to whether or not they fed the hungry etc. Just as you're saying Mudfrog is ignoring clear Biblical instructions.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Yes. A bad Christian, but still a Christian.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...would you say a baptised person who wilfully refuses to feed a hungry neighbour or give clothes to someone who has none is a Christian?
quote:I have no idea what point you are trying to make with this. Some non-Christians might very well be sheep in this metaphor, and certainly Christians may end up being goats.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:Then it could easily be said that you're ignoring Jesus' clear teaching in Matthew 25 about the Son of Man separating people 'as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats' according to whether or not they fed the hungry etc. Just as you're saying Mudfrog is ignoring clear Biblical instructions.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Yes. A bad Christian, but still a Christian.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
...would you say a baptised person who wilfully refuses to feed a hungry neighbour or give clothes to someone who has none is a Christian?
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Do you have a comment of any actual substance to make?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's a nice way of having your cake and eating it, isn't it? On the one hand you get to be all smug and call people bad Christians, but when someone calls you on it, you can still wiggle your way out with "Nonononooo! I didn't say they were going to Hell."
Why the fuck should anyone listen to you?
quote:I wasn't aware that saying a hypothetical Christian that wasn't charitable was a bad Christian was particularly controversial. I failed to account for people looking for a reason to throw a tantrum.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh yeah, well, why should anybody listen to you?
This is productive.
quote:I'd misread that one, that's why I reformulated.
Zach82: I wasn't aware that saying a hypothetical Christian that wasn't charitable was a bad Christian was particularly controversial. I failed to account for people looking for a reason to throw a tantrum.
quote:Yes. I do not recognize your or Beeswax Altar's judgement on who is a Christian and who isn't, on what is a church and what isn't. I don't see why Salvationists should either.
Zach82: Do you have a comment of any actual substance to make?
quote:It still seems the same tantrum motivated by emotions triumphing over reason to me.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'd misread that one, that's why I reformulated.
quote:I can see that you still haven't actually read my posts. Get back to me what you have. I am not making judgments about who is going to hell. I am tired of re-answering this rebuttal.
Yes. I do not recognize your or Beeswax Altar's judgement on who is a Christian and who isn't, on what is a church and what isn't. I don't see why Salvationists should either.
"Thou shalt not judge" doesn't only mean "Thou shalt not determine who goes to Hell and who doesn't", it includes witholding judgement on who isn't a Christian and who isn't, and what is a church and what isn't. That isn't your call.
It doesn't matter if you have the Bible in your hand, claiming that you base your judgement on it. That doesn't stop it from being a judgement.
A secular judge in a courthouse also has a lawbook in his/her hand, basing his/her judgement on it. That doesn't stop it from being a judgement. That's what a judge does (the name already should be a giveaway).
It's not your judgement to make.
quote:And I'm fucking tired of repeating "It isn't just about judging who'll go to Hell, it's also about judging who is a Christian and who isn't." It's literally in my post!
Zach82: I can see that you still haven't actually read my posts. Get back to me what you have. I am not making judgments about how is going to hell. I am tired of re-answering this rebuttal.
quote:There's no reason why you should. The One who has the final word on this is up there in Heaven. Like He has the final word on who is a Christian and what is a church. Not you.
Beeswax Altar: I don't recognize your commentary on Matthew and neither should Zach82 or anybody else.
quote:Either you'll answer my arguments, or you'll think up an excuse to run away from the discussion. I don't care.
Zach82: I will continue this discussion with you, LeRoc, when you can do it with some objectivity and emotional control.
quote:I would be happy to discuss the principles of the Church faith with you, LeRoc, but to be honest you are being a baby right now, and I have no desire to argue with a baby.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Either you'll answer my arguments, or you'll think up an excuse to run away from the discussion. I don't care.
Zach82: I will continue this discussion with you, LeRoc, when you can do it with some objectivity and emotional control.
quote:Yeah, it's pretty clear I am choosing not to argue with you as a person at the moment. You can choose to believe that this is because you are so right, but that would confirm the reason I chose not to discuss the issues with you in the first place.
PS I wonder if remarks on someone's emotional state and phrases like "When you are in this state" are attacking the person instead of the argument?
quote:You are accusing Zach of running away. How dare you judge? Jesus told us not to judge. Zach's true motives for not continuing the discussion at this time are known only to the One in Heaven. Not you.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Either you'll answer my arguments, or you'll think up an excuse to run away from the discussion. I don't care.
Zach82: I will continue this discussion with you, LeRoc, when you can do it with some objectivity and emotional control.
quote:I would like to request a Host's opinion on this.
Zach82: you are being a baby right now, and I have no desire to argue with a baby.
quote:You obviously don't have a baby. I do. Trust me when I say this, arguing with a baby is nowhere near this easy or fun.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I would be happy to discuss the principles of the Church faith with you, LeRoc, but to be honest you are being a baby right now, and I have no desire to argue with a baby.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Either you'll answer my arguments, or you'll think up an excuse to run away from the discussion. I don't care.
Zach82: I will continue this discussion with you, LeRoc, when you can do it with some objectivity and emotional control.
quote:I do not think that 'Do not judge' means that we can never give an opinion about eachother's behaviour. I do however believe that the Big Questions™ are reserved to Him.
Beeswax Altar: You are accusing Zach of running away.
quote:I think the argument can be summarized as this:
Beeswax Altar: I think your whole line of argument on this thread is lame.
quote:You left out all of your enraged swearing.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I think the argument can be summarized as this:
Beeswax Altar: I think your whole line of argument on this thread is lame.
Zach & BA: We judge that TSA isn't a Church.
LeRoc: I don't recognize your judgement. I also believe that Jesus doesn't want us to judge people like this.
Zach & BA: You're judging us!!!
quote:Swearing is explicitly allowed on this board.
Zach82: You left out all of your enraged swearing.
quote:A better summary would be:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I think the argument can be summarized as this:
Beeswax Altar: I think your whole line of argument on this thread is lame.
Zach & BA: We judge that TSA isn't a Church.
LeRoc: I don't recognize your judgement. I also believe that Jesus doesn't want us to judge people like this.
Zach & BA: You're judging us!!!
quote:I didn't call anyone that.
Beeswax Altar: LeRoc: Stop judging you judging judgmental jerks!!!
quote:So, why not leave it there?
Beeswax Altar: Of course,the nonjudgmental answer to the question would be, "I don't know."
quote:Or maybe "Here's my take on it, but of course the final judgement is up to Him."
Beeswax Altar: Then again, my answer to all questions about God including whether or not God cares if we judge would also have to be, "I don't know."
quote:I'm saying that I'm in a love-hate relationship with the church that is tipping towards hate. I'm not saying that it isn't a church, or that the people in there aren't Christians.
Zach82: While this is going on, in hell LeRoc is criticizing the whole Church for failing to live up to his standard of righteousness.
quote:Why? You didn't. You could say I think The Salvation Army is a church and they are all Christians. Of course, I could be wrong. God might decide The Salvation Army is an evil and wicked organization and condemn the whole lot of them to the Hell mentioned in their own Soldier's Covenant. We just don't know. It's His to judge. You didn't though, did you?
originally posted by LeRoc:
Or maybe "Here's my take on it, but of course the final judgement is up to Him."
quote:I guess that's a discussion by itself. I like my church (probably for all the reasons why you'd hate it), but on some moments I see the people listening and singing and I can't help myself from thinking: "Is this what Jesus had in mind?"
Zach82: You hate them because...?
quote:My own interpretation of it, is that Jesus isn't saying that we can't give our opinions about things or people. But especially when it comes to the Big Things™, we should always keep in mind that in the end it isn't our call to make.
Zach82: In telling us not to judge, is Jesus giving a literalistic commandment to never apply principles to human actions, or commending to the Church a general attitude of granting others the benefit of the doubt?
quote:I happen to believe that an offer of grace from an All-Loving, All-Powerful God is so strong that it can't be cut off by anything we do.
Zach82: But I do think they are making a mistake and that this mistake cuts them off from an offer of grace.
quote:I'm trying to parse the grammar in some of these sentences, but I'm not really succeeding.
Beeswax Altar: Why? You didn't. You could say I think The Salvation Army is a church and they are all Christians. Of course, I could be wrong. God might decide The Salvation Army is an evil and wicked organization and condemn the whole lot of them to the Hell mentioned in their own Soldier's Covenant. We just don't know. It's His to judge. You didn't though, did you?
quote:I think it diminishes Jesus' commandment a great deal to make it about shutting your mouth instead of about charity, and your position isn't sustained by the text.
My own interpretation of it, is that Jesus isn't saying that we can't give our opinions about things or people. But especially when it comes to the Big Things™, we should always keep in mind that in the end it isn't our call to make.
quote:I didn't say anything about shutting your mouth. I talked about keeping in mind that it isn't your judgement to make.
Zach82: I think it diminishes Jesus' commandment a great deal to make it about shutting your mouth instead of about charity, and your position isn't sustained by the text.
quote:This is just as arbitrary as "Refusing to be baptized inhibits you from being a Christian, but refusing to feed the poor doesn't". Both are commands given by Jesus, and He didn't attach a quality of Christianity or non-Christianity to either of them.
Zach82: Neither is your completely arbitrary distinction between "Big things" and little things present in the text.
quote:Unless there is a fundamental difference between a sacrament and a good work. Like, if one was an act of God, and the other was an act of a human being. Then the distinction is not completely arbitrary, but a mere application of abstract definitions to particular circumstances, which could be done with or without charity.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I didn't say anything about shutting your mouth. I talked about keeping in mind that it isn't your judgement to make.
Zach82: I think it diminishes Jesus' commandment a great deal to make it about shutting your mouth instead of about charity, and your position isn't sustained by the text.
quote:This is just as arbitrary as "Refusing to be baptized inhibits you from being a Christian, but refusing to feed the poor doesn't". Both are commands given by Jesus, and He didn't attach a quality of Christianity or non-Christianity to either of them.
Zach82: Neither is your completely arbitrary distinction between "Big things" and little things present in the text.
quote:If God alone can judge, your opinion is no more relevant than mine. You should also qualify your opinion with, "That's just my opinion and I could be wrong." If God alone can judge, God might judge every leader of The Salvation Army to be an evil and wicked person condemned to the very Hell mentioned in The Soldier's Covenant. The nonjudgmental response would be The Salvation Army might be a church composed of Christians bound for the Promised Land, an evil and wicked organization of the damned, or anything in between. After all, it's all up to God. We just don't know.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I'm trying to parse the grammar in some of these sentences, but I'm not really succeeding.
Beeswax Altar: Why? You didn't. You could say I think The Salvation Army is a church and they are all Christians. Of course, I could be wrong. God might decide The Salvation Army is an evil and wicked organization and condemn the whole lot of them to the Hell mentioned in their own Soldier's Covenant. We just don't know. It's His to judge. You didn't though, did you?
quote:We know you don't. But do you find warrant in scripture for this conclusion?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not accept that baptism makes you a Christian, in exactly the same way that being circumcised, according to Jesus, doesn't make you a son of Abraham.
quote:Er no, the epistles say that it is the Holy Spirit who unites people into the one body of Christ. We are "All one in Christ," not "All one in baptism".
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:We know you don't. But do you find warrant in scripture for this conclusion?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not accept that baptism makes you a Christian, in exactly the same way that being circumcised, according to Jesus, doesn't make you a son of Abraham.
The epistles say it is baptism that unites people into the one Church, the body of Christ, which would indicate this principle you cite is misapplied.
quote:Baptism isn't solely an act of God. We still have to do something, and you say that we're being judged on that. I mean, if it were solely an act of God, how could we be judged for it?
Zach82: Unless there is a fundamental difference between a sacrament and a good work. Like, if one was an act of God, and the other was an act of a human being.
quote:I do.
Beeswax Altar:If God alone can judge, your opinion is no more relevant than mine. You should also qualify your opinion with, "That's just my opinion and I could be wrong."
quote:Or "I personally don't accept TSA as a church, but I concede that the final judgement on that lies with God." I wouldn't have a problem at all if you'd said that.
Beeswax Altar: The nonjudgmental response would be The Salvation Army might be a church composed of Christians bound for the Promised Land, an evil and wicked organization of the damned, or anything in between. After all, it's all up to God. We just don't know.
quote:"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Er no, the epistles say that it is the Holy Spirit who unites people into the one body of Christ. We are "All one in Christ," not "All one in baptism".
quote:You are reading into the passage a debate that simply isn't there. The Covenant demands a response, and he is attacking those who have not responded with justice and righteousness. He doesn't say that circumcision is worthless, much less does he say that all ritual action is worthless. That is your imposition on the text.
In other words, being part of a covenant by ritual ceremony does not make you spiritually in a relationship with God.
quote:Glad to hear it!
originally posted by LeRoc:
I do.
quote:I have no problem if you advice TSA to administer baptism, on the basis of "maybe God won't consider you a church if you don't." An advice can always be given, and people can take it or not.
Beeswax Altar: 5. If the Salvation Army wants to be considered a church, it should err on the side of caution and administer the dominical sacraments.
quote:If we're wrong on this one, then this god doesn't deserve any worship from me. If this is the case, then I'll gladly renounce my baptism and join the Salvationists in Hell.
Beeswax Altar: 1. Neither of us believe that the unbaptized are automatically going to Hell. We maybe wrong. God is the ultimate judge.
quote:There are a lot of claims going around in churches around the world, some of them quite contradictory. TSA cannot go along with all of them, not even to fulfill Beeswax Altar's wager. They have to choose. Your church doesn't believe every claim that's out there either. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people passing judgment on people though.
Beeswax Altar: Not administering the sacraments would be passing judgment on the claim that administration of the sacraments is a necessary mark of the church.
quote:You're moving goalposts here. I'm quite sure that the Salvation Army does have a problem with a god who condemns souls to eternal torment on the basis of them not having undergone baptism.
Beeswax Altar: However, as I explained in BW 2.4, The Salvation Army has no problem with a God who condemns souls to eternal torment.
quote:You are ignoring points 2-4 of BW 1.
originally posted by LeRoc:
There are a lot of claims going around in churches around the world, some of them quite contradictory. TSA cannot go along with all of them, not even to fulfill Beeswax Altar's wager. They have to choose. Your church doesn't believe every claim that's out there either. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people passing judgment on people though.
quote:Problem in what way? The Salvation Army doesn't have a problem with the concept of eternal conscious torment. They don't have a problem with a God that saves only those who follow a specific path. They would gladly teach and administer water baptism if they truly became convinced it was necessary for salvation. They don't teach it because they don't believe it. In doing so, there is a possibility that they are condemning millions to eternal damnation because after all they could be wrong and only God can judge. The only responsible thing to do is baptized everybody just to be on the safe side.
originally posted by LeRoc:
You're moving goalposts here. I'm quite sure that the Salvation Army does have a problem with a god who condemns souls to eternal torment on the basis of them not having undergone baptism.
quote:I can assure you that I'm well aware of them.
Beeswax Altar: You are ignoring points 2-4 of BW 1.
quote:Yes, that's a great advice to give to them, up until the point where you already anticipate God's judgement by calling them non-Christians for not taking your advice.
Beeswax Altar: The only responsible thing to do is baptized everybody just to be on the safe side.
quote:On that final point, and with reference to communion, I wonder what the ordinance is actually asking of us.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I raised an issue up-thread which has yet to be addressed by the 'water baptism is regeneration' party ... what of the many folk who are baptised as infants yet grow up to have no professing faith in Christ at all?
I agree with Mudfrog that the Holy Spirit gives spiritual life, not the performance of a sacrament. I was 'born again' BEFORE I was baptised. That is a very important point. No evangelical I know believes that water baptism on its own mechanically conveys grace without a spiritual awakening from the Spirit. (And, no, I'm not a rabid anti-paedo-baptist.)
But I part company with Mudfrog on the issues of baptism and Holy Communion because I believe the New Testament teaches that the people of God will honour those two ordinances and make them part of normal church life.
quote:Yes, that's correct. I'm evangelical. I don't believe in literal transubstantiation. At the same time, I do wonder whether Communion is merely a commemorative act. There is certainly a mystery here, one which I am very glad to celebrate. The Eucharist moves me in its very simplicity, actually. And CS Lewis, in Mere Christianity, talks about God using "material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not: He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I guess from your belief about the non-regenerative 'power' of the water of baptism that you also reject the transubstantiation/real presence of the bread and wine/juice.
quote:From an evangelical POV: to remember Him. Which is no small matter. Communion is intimate and powerful and I cannot/dare not take it lightly.
Apart from the idea that Jesus said we should 'do this', what are we actually 'doing' in the Lord's supper that makes it 'worth doing', as it were?
What is He asking us to do?
quote:I don't doubt this. I don't intend any slur on the quality of TSA's commitment to Christ, its service and indeed your own salvation. And
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think we honour his request to 'remember me' as fully as we can, and as much as anyone else.
quote:So you have ordination but no baptism or communion?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Thought y'all might be interested in THIS
It's a recent (2008) official statement about where our leadership feels we stand. It includes a statement, and then the covenant promises made by our junior members, our adult members and finally the covenant of our officers who are ordained and commissioned following the signing of that covenant.
quote:Er, yes.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:So you have ordination but no baptism or communion?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Thought y'all might be interested in THIS
It's a recent (2008) official statement about where our leadership feels we stand. It includes a statement, and then the covenant promises made by our junior members, our adult members and finally the covenant of our officers who are ordained and commissioned following the signing of that covenant.
quote:Glad to hear it. Then, you'll recognize that the situation The Salvation Army is in regarding sacraments is unique. Beeswax's Wager only makes sense for The Salvation Army and administering the dominical sacraments. It also requires The Salvation Army to accept your premise that we can't know any of the big issues because only God can judge which they don't. Once they do accept it, then administering the sacraments becomes the only morally responsible thing to do.
originally posted by LeRoc:
I can assure you that I'm well aware of them.
quote:More prooftexts. Just because Jesus said his disciples would be how they love one another does not mean that everybody who loves another is a disciple of Jesus. All it means is Jesus says his disciples will love one another. In scripture, repentance comes before baptism. My OT prof. used to say repentance means stop doing bad and start doing good. Loving one another would be part of the doing good. However, be baptized for the remission of sins is also part of the equation. Again, all we have to do to know how the disciples of Jesus interpreted what Jesus said is by looking at what the disciples did. Nobody has addressed that with anything but prooftexting based on what I called The Found Footage theory of biblical inspiration.
originally posted by goperryrevs:
Firstly, there are many other definitions of what a disciple is. Jesus said that the world would know his disciples by the way they love each other. Given that definition, there are many baptised people who fail to live up to the what a disciple is by Jesus own definition. Despite your proof-texts, Zach, I'm sure that if we had a thread "What is a Christian?", the debate would be long. It's not an easy question to answer, and ISTM that different answers can be gleaned from different parts of scripture.
quote:Why would it be different today? Because William Booth so ordained? Why would they have to answer the question if someone isn't baptized can they still be a Christian? Everybody who wanted to be a Christian was baptized. To me that says there was no disagreement among NT Christians that Christians should be baptized and nothing has happened since then to suggest otherwise other than William Booth deciding to overrule 2,000 years worth of scripture and tradition.
originally posted by goperryrevs:
Secondly, while it's true that in the New Testament, baptised = disciple, what we do with that information can be different. You can just assert (as you do, Zach), that the same must be true today, and therefore the opposite is also true (not baptised = not Christian). However, what seems more important to point out is that, as a result, they never had to answer the question "if someone isn't baptised, can they still be a Christian?". There wasn't anyone who fell into that category, who claimed to be a Christian, but wasn't baptised. So it's a debate that isn't there in Scripture.
quote:Because it's not unreasonable to think that there's a whole lot more to being a follower of Christ than having got wet once.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Why would it be different today?
quote:I agree that Christians should be baptised. I, however, don't agree that a Christian who decides not to get baptised isn't therefore a Christian after all. Or that someone who has been baptised must definitely therefore be a Christian.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
To me that says there was no disagreement among NT Christians that Christians should be baptized...
quote:Did you read what I posted about Constantine? He was much earlier than Booth. AFAIK, the Church's reaction at the time was similar to what mine would be towards the SA: you really should be baptised, but that you haven't doesn't mean you're not a Christian.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
and nothing has happened since then to suggest otherwise other than William Booth deciding to overrule 2,000 years worth of scripture and tradition.
quote:Yes, but do you believe that the Salvationists are Christians now?
Originally posted by Zach82:
... The Bible teaches that grace is calling them (and indeed all humankind) to baptism, and at that point they will become members of the Church and Christians. As the Church has always believed.
quote:Does it? I was trying to construct one about the Episcopal Church and requiring celibate clergy.
Beeswax Altar: Beeswax's Wager only makes sense for The Salvation Army and administering the dominical sacraments.
quote:I'm not sure if they don't. I can imagine that they wouldn't have a problem with the idea that God is the final Arbiter of all. But I don't know them that well.
Beeswax Altar: It also requires The Salvation Army to accept your premise that we can't know any of the big issues because only God can judge which they don't.
quote:This doesn't follow. Even if you accept God as the final Arbiter, you can still have differences in your ideas about what is morally responsible.
Beeswax Altar: Once they do accept it, then administering the sacraments becomes the only morally responsible thing to do.
quote:Not sure which premise you are refering to.
Originally posted by Zach82:
There seems a common perception that charitable behavior is a very reliable indicator of whether a person is truly a Christian or not, and it's furthermore completely obvious that ritual observance is not a reliable indicator.
I reject this premise.
quote:What exactly would you need an indicator for?
Zach82: There seems a common perception that charitable behavior is a very reliable indicator of whether a person is truly a Christian or not, and it's furthermore completely obvious that ritual observance is not a reliable indicator.
quote:Your own designation "un-Christian behavior" would seem to indicate that you are able to know these things.
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:Not sure which premise you are refering to.
Originally posted by Zach82:
There seems a common perception that charitable behavior is a very reliable indicator of whether a person is truly a Christian or not, and it's furthermore completely obvious that ritual observance is not a reliable indicator.
I reject this premise.
I did not say that charitable behavior is an indication of whether or not a person is a christian.
In fact, I believe (and stated) that Quakers have traditionally said no outward sign at all can allow another to determine whether or not a person is a Christian. That is an inner state, known only to God.
sabine
quote:OK, you caught me in some inaccurate language.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Your own designation "un-Christian behavior" would seem to indicate that you are able to know these things.
Originally posted by sabine:
[qb]quote:Not sure which premise you are refering to.
Originally posted by Zach82:
There seems a common perception that charitable behavior is a very reliable indicator of whether a person is truly a Christian or not, and it's furthermore completely obvious that ritual observance is not a reliable indicator.
I reject this premise.
I did not say that charitable behavior is an indication of whether or not a person is a christian.
In fact, I believe (and stated) that Quakers have traditionally said no outward sign at all can allow another to determine whether or not a person is a Christian. That is an inner state, known only to God.
sabine
I wholly accept that there is Christian behavior and un-Christian behavior. I simply go on to include participation and non-participation in ritual behavior in these same categories.
quote:Sounds arbitrary to me.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't know why there is such an abhorrence of "categorizing" here. Categorizing Salvationists as not Christians is not an arbitrary fit of exclusion, but a statement about what a Salvationionist, or anyone, that wants to be a Christian ought to do.
quote:Seems to me that the problem is disagreement about what's being talked about—the meaning of "Christian." On one hand we have the apples, where "Christian" seems to describe one's relationship with God and one's spiritual state, in much the same way that "thinker" or "believer" might. With the apples, whether one is a Christian depends on a person's self-description (and perhaps on observation), and in the end only God know for sure.
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:Sounds arbitrary to me.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't know why there is such an abhorrence of "categorizing" here. Categorizing Salvationists as not Christians is not an arbitrary fit of exclusion, but a statement about what a Salvationionist, or anyone, that wants to be a Christian ought to do.
Since you believe that one can know if people are or are not christians by their behavior as it fits a certain standard (what some other people feel they should do), then any discussion about behavior will not be helpful here unless everyone agrees to this one definition of should.
And since I don't agree with your definition of should, perhaps we might simply have to let it stand that we are not in agreement.
sabine
quote:I don't share your categorization of my spiritual belief as 'fatalism".
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't share your fatalism.
quote:I agree with you, sabine. If Zach82 and anyone else want to use the word 'Christian' merely to mean 'someone who is baptised' explicitly without any judgement as to a person's status with God, then that's fine but I think it robs the word 'Christian' of pretty much any meaning.
Originally posted by sabine:
Many people are baptized and then engage in sacramental rituals but also engage in very unchristian behavior, some of them on a regular basis. Does a one-time act trump a lifetime of behavior that rebukes the one-time act?
I believe that the most important thing is to tend to the state of one's own heart and soul in relationship with God. If ritualized behavior helps a person do that, fine. But the lack of participation in ritualized behavior does not always reveal the nature of the inner relationship one has with God.
quote:I'd prefer to say that the increase (or not) of a person's godly behaviour - their demonstrating love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control - is suggestive of the state of their relationship with God. I wouldn't go stronger than 'suggestive of' because there might be any number of other reasons why someone is not showing more fruit of the Spirit at any particular time.
Originally posted by Zach82:
We still haven't settled why it isn't controversial to think charity speaks to a person's relationship with God, but baptism doesn't
quote:I don't want to dismiss the value of ritual acts, far from it; I just don't think the doing of them indicates that someone is right with God.
Originally posted by Zach82:
...unless the value of ritual acts is to be dismissed altogether.
quote:"Not essential" does not equal "utterly without value".
Originally posted by Zach82:
unless the value of ritual acts is to be dismissed altogether.
quote:This raises an very interesting question that was the subject of a Marva Dawn book, Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down. Yes, we need to reach people where they are -- but if we leave them there, what's the point?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would suggest that ritual is a luxury.
It is a luxury because when the majority is part of the church, when the culture of a society is familiar with the church, then ritual is acceptable, accessible and explicable.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hitler and Stalin were both baptised. Were they Christians?
quote:All of which applies to the circumstances of the Salvation Army quite neatly, if only the leadership would stop glossing over the parts of the bible inconvenient for their anti-ritualism.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is a luxury because when the majority is part of the church, when the culture of a society is familiar with the church, then ritual is acceptable, accessible and explicable.
quote:You know, just repeating this falsehood doesn't make it true. It takes it from being a mistake to being a lie.
Through most of the Christian centuries, therefore, the 'luxury' of ritual was revealed in discussions about form, about the minutiae of detail.
quote:What an obviously false dichotomy. Why should we have to choose between ritual and proclamation? Ritual IS a form of proclamation, and you have yet to make the case (though you've been asked enough times) why ritual should be a lesser form of proclamation than good works or preaching.
eople were interested in it because it was part of their life; and, I guess, that to the average church congregation today it is still importnat; but what has changed is this:...
quote:But SA does have rituals that are equally alien , wouldn't you say? Soldiers Covenant, wearing of uniforms?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ritual sacraments were the least of our worries - they cannot save. They are alien to ordinary non-churched, godless people.
quote:These don't save and they are not done as a matter of course or in the belief that by performing them they will effect change. They don't. In fact we take a dim view of someone becoming a soldier out of tradition, custom, family pressure or just to be able to play in a band, etc.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:But SA does have rituals that are equally alien , wouldn't you say? Soldiers Covenant, wearing of uniforms?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ritual sacraments were the least of our worries - they cannot save. They are alien to ordinary non-churched, godless people.
Why not abandon all rituals or ceremonies? That's what I struggle to understand. SA has replaced rituals common throughout most of Christendom with others, and the explanation is that the rituals themselves don't matter. But you can't become a solider or officer in SA without doing certain things either, correct? So then they clearly do matter.
quote:Dude, do you have to do down that route? You don't have to agree with Mudfrog (I rarely do), but you could acknowledge that his interpretation is different, rather than pretending to conclude that Mudfrog hasn't read Acts, which I'm sure he has.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Read the book of Acts. You clearly haven't done it.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hitler and Stalin were both baptised. Were they Christians?
quote:Oh for pete's sake, I think I've answered this argument enough times.
This is a hollow, barren and meaningless interpretation of baptism. It's not an automatic ticket into heaven...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
)
quote:I said it meant "baptized person," but never did I say "simply."
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But hold on, didn't Zach82 say upthread that for him being a Christian simply meant one had been baptised?
quote:Actually, I have. Multiple times.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
And yet you haven't seen fit to explain why you could possibly think Hitler and Stalin were Christians.
quote:I don't see a reason to conflate "Christian" with "forgiven." God is perfectly free to forgive non-Christians who earnestly repent.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Zach82, surely the "baptized but a bad person makes a bad Christian, not a non-Christian" view ignores the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which Christ said is unforgivable. Surely some actions do make a baptized Christian become fully a non-Christian, if Jesus is to be believed?
quote:I don't believe that the bible is the place to discern objective truth. I don't believe that in matters of spirituality there can be much objective truth. Nor do I believe that my spiritual position is above challenge, but using the bible to challenge it is one-sided since only one of us finds the bible as the standard.
Originally posted by Zach82:
In arguing for Biblical Christianity, I am of course arguing from the belief that the objective truth of matters can be discerned in the Holy Scriptures. I believe we can look to the Bible to find out what thee Christian life is, and that this word trumps any subjective conclusions.
If you don't believe objective truth is knowable, and that your beliefs are therefore above challenge, then I really have nothing to say to you. Your beliefs are received and rejected.
quote:Obviously the sacrament did not work in the case of Hitler and Stalin, both of whom turned their backs on God and defied Him for the rest of their lives.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I say the grace of God given in ritual can save. That's what sacraments are - the grace of God in our lives given outward forms.
quote:You deliver this stern rebuke to the Salvationists, who are sincere Christians despite their quirky stance on the sacraments, and yet we are to believe that Stalin and Hitler were somehow, as if by magic, 'Christians'.
Whether you believe that or not, what cannot save is conscious refusal to obey Christ's command because of a line of shaky theology. No amount of "soul winning" will make up for that refusal.
quote:And once they repent, they become Christians, i.e. Christ-followers.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't see a reason to conflate "Christian" with "forgiven." God is perfectly free to forgive non-Christians who earnestly repent.
quote:God didn't 'make' Stalin and Hitler Christians, they were baptised as babies because that was the cultural norm.
Sure, we're happy to say "it's all a work of God and not of human effort," until God decides to make the wrong person a Christian.
quote:Amen. And it also doesn't mean they are wrong for everyone for all time.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Not essential" does not equal "utterly without value".
Originally posted by Zach82:
[qb]unless the value of ritual acts is to be dismissed altogether.
quote:Then we have nothing to argue about. I can't argue about what is in your soul, so I argue about what is in the Bible.
Originally posted by Sabine:
I don't believe that the bible is the place to discern objective truth.
quote:No amount of good works can make anyone a Christian.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Obviously the sacrament did not work in the case of Hitler and Stalin, both of whom turned their backs on God and defied Him for the rest of their lives.
That doesn't make the sacrament itself invalid. But it does make a mockery of what being a Christian is supposed to mean....
You deliver this stern rebuke to the Salvationists, who are sincere Christians despite their quirky stance on the sacraments, and yet we are to believe that Stalin and Hitler were somehow, as if by magic, 'Christians'.
quote:I was never "arguing," I was discussing.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Then we have nothing to argue about. I can't argue about what is in your soul, so I argue about what is in the Bible.
Originally posted by Sabine:
I don't believe that the bible is the place to discern objective truth.
quote:I have obviously been arguing about an objective state this whole time. It's been my whole point that "Christian" is an objective state, with the outward sign of baptism, and not a subjective feeling that we are free to define in our own hearts.
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:I was never "arguing," I was discussing.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Then we have nothing to argue about. I can't argue about what is in your soul, so I argue about what is in the Bible.
Originally posted by Sabine:
I don't believe that the bible is the place to discern objective truth.
And I'm glad we can finally acknowledge that we can't from the outside discuss (or argue) about what is in the souls of others.
Differences in POV about things we can see are what make the universal church (and all types of spirituality) interesting, IMO.
Peace,
sabine
quote:Yes, I know. I've known this since I was 14 years old.
Originally posted by Zach82:
No amount of good works can make anyone a Christian.
quote:So, cutting to the chase again: do you believe Hitler and Stalin are saved? That they are, in fact, redeemed forever for all of eternity?
The Church teaches that being made a Christian is a decree of God, shown in baptism, which no mortal work can remove.
quote:And yet Jesus told that awkward parable about the sheep and the goats... There's evidently something important about the deeds we do, ISTM.
Originally posted by Zach82:
No amount of good works can make anyone a Christian.
quote:Which Church do you mean? Mine doesn't teach this. Why should I or anyone belonging to another Church feel obliged to accept what your Church (or whichever Church you mean) says?
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Church teaches that being made a Christian is a decree of God, shown in baptism, which no mortal work can remove.
quote:That's a feeble proof-text, if you'll forgive the bluntness. What is the Lord's doing; what is marvellous in whose eyes; what day... you get the picture. At least give the context of the verse!
Originally posted by Zach82:
"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." (Ps 118:23-24)
quote:If you are trying to argue from the absurdity of the idea of a wicked Christian, you obviously don't.
Yes, I know.
quote:Again indeed. This line of argument has been addressed multiple times already.
So, cutting to the chase again: do you believe Hitler and Stalin are saved? That they are, in fact, redeemed forever for all of eternity?
quote:OK, I'm going to leave this thread to its own ruin if it's only going to repeat the same tired, already addressed arguments again and again.
And yet Jesus told that awkward parable about the sheep and the goats... There's evidently something important about the deeds we do, ISTM.
quote:It was a rhetorical flourish. Boffo for you for finally trying to read exegetically, though.
That's a feeble proof-text, if you'll forgive the bluntness. What is the Lord's doing; what is marvellous in whose eyes; what day... you get the picture. At least give the context of the verse!
quote:I get your point and acknowledge that it has meaning for you.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I have obviously been arguing about an objective state this whole time. It's been my whole point that "Christian" is an objective state, with the outward sign of baptism, and not a subjective feeling that we are free to define in our own hearts.
quote:Hitler and Stalin were both baptised, and both turned out to be wicked.
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you are trying to argue from the absurdity of the idea of a wicked Christian, you obviously don't.
quote:Yeah, well, just to be clear: Salvationists aren't saved, because they're not baptised?
Again indeed. This line of argument has been addressed multiple times already.
quote:As if I needed any more convincing that the course of this argument has little to do with what I post.
Yeah, well, just to be clear: Salvationists aren't saved, because they're not baptised?
Blimey ...
quote:Wait, you're saying that hating people isn't judgmental, but defining a word is?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I'm saying that I'm in a love-hate relationship with the church that is tipping towards hate. I'm not saying that it isn't a church, or that the people in there aren't Christians.
Zach82: While this is going on, in hell LeRoc is criticizing the whole Church for failing to live up to his standard of righteousness.
The standards of righteousness are for Him to give, and it's His call to hold it against these standards. My remark takes nothing away from that.
quote:That's weird, given that it's something Zach has neer said.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Zach ... I am actually trying my damndest to understand where you are coming from. I've read your posts but the whole 'an UNREPENTANT baptised person is STILL saved' thing is genuinely foxing me.
quote:I'm not sure how you got that from my post, but my opinion would be: hating people is judgmental, defining a word can be judgmental.
mousethief: Wait, you're saying that hating people isn't judgmental, but defining a word is?
quote:A zeppelin would be cool!
Doublethink: It is not impossible that at some point in the future someone will land a helicopter down there and rescue everyone (universalists believe that)
That's quite a useful illustration, actually, but my difficulty is that Hitler - or, He Who Must Not Be Named - clearly didn't give a crap about being rescued. It was of no interest to him. He didn't care about God. As well as ordering the mass murder of the Jews, he was also peachy about murdering Christians who defied his regime.
quote:Zach never said Hitler and Stalin were saved; he said they were Christians. It is abundently clear that people are using different definitions of "Christian"
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm inclined to echo Laurelin's incredulity at Zach's insistence that Hitler and Stalin were saved simply by virtue of their baptism. I mean, WTF?
quote:Zach, however, has made very clear that he is using a definition of Christian as one who has been baptized, regardless of whether that person grows to profess faith, live as a disciple of Christ or is "saved":
Originally posted by Laurelin:
A Christian is a sinner saved by grace. That goes for babies, too. A Christian knows they are a sinner saved by grace. A Christian is someone who professes Christ as Lord. Who follows Christ. Who loves Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
God, by means of baptism, has made me a Christian forever, and nothing I, a mere mortal, could ever do can remove God's decree.
quote:So when Zach says Hitler and Stalin were Christian, he is saying that they were baptized, and thereby were irrevocably made members of the Church, whether they were faithful or not, whether they were "saved" or not.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Who here said Salvationists cannot be saved? God saves whomever he likes. What has been argued here is that only those who are baptized are members of the Body of Christ, the Church. 'Saved' and 'Christian' are not the same thing.
quote:Wheat and tares.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Zach, however, has made very clear that he is using a definition of Christian as one who has been baptized, regardless of whether that person grows to profess faith, live as a disciple of Christ or is "saved":
quote:"Christian" is not the same thing as "Saved".
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm inclined to echo Laurelin's incredulity at Zach's insistence that Hitler and Stalin were saved simply by virtue of their baptism. I mean, WTF?
quote:I think there is a third kind. Those who believe that baptism and Holy Supper are tied to a Mystery that we can never fully understand or describe or put in neat little boxes.
Doublethink: I had understood that the Orthodox, Roman Catholics and others with high view of the sacraments see baptism as an ontological change like parenthood, it turns you into something else. Like a bad parent or spouse, you can be a bad Christian - but once baptised you can not return to an unbaptised state.
Whereas, people who see see baptism (and usually also communion) as symbolic and/or memorialist - see it as a public ritual to affirm a spiritual change rather than a conduit for that change.
quote:"Then Jesus asked, ‘Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they? Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?’ Then he said to him, ‘Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.’" Luke 17:17-19
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Wheat and tares.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Zach, however, has made very clear that he is using a definition of Christian as one who has been baptized, regardless of whether that person grows to profess faith, live as a disciple of Christ or is "saved":
quote:I don't know if "ontological change" is exactly the right term but you're on the right wavelength. It's simply the doorway to the Church. Unbaptized, not yet a member of the church. Baptized, a member of the church. It's the Christian equivalent of male circumcision in the Jewish Law, but equal opportunity and far less painful.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I had understood that the Orthodox, Roman Catholics and others with high view of the sacraments see baptism as an ontological change like parenthood, it turns you into something else. Like a bad parent or spouse, you can be a bad Christian - but once baptised you can not return to an unbaptised state.
quote:Which is, specifically?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I believe baptism has the effect Jesus promised.
quote:And that is not a Biblical view. I don't actually think the concept of sacrament is in the Bible. The move from Jesus and his Jewish context, the further you move into mysticism and the Mystery religions of Rome - which is where we find problems.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I think there is a third kind. Those who believe that baptism and Holy Supper are tied to a Mystery that we can never fully understand or describe or put in neat little boxes.
Doublethink: I had understood that the Orthodox, Roman Catholics and others with high view of the sacraments see baptism as an ontological change like parenthood, it turns you into something else. Like a bad parent or spouse, you can be a bad Christian - but once baptised you can not return to an unbaptised state.
Whereas, people who see see baptism (and usually also communion) as symbolic and/or memorialist - see it as a public ritual to affirm a spiritual change rather than a conduit for that change.
quote:And yet the council of Jerusalem didn't insist on baptism for Gentile converts.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I don't know if "ontological change" is exactly the right term but you're on the right wavelength. It's simply the doorway to the Church. Unbaptized, not yet a member of the church. Baptized, a member of the church. It's the Christian equivalent of male circumcision in the Jewish Law, but equal opportunity and far less painful.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I had understood that the Orthodox, Roman Catholics and others with high view of the sacraments see baptism as an ontological change like parenthood, it turns you into something else. Like a bad parent or spouse, you can be a bad Christian - but once baptised you can not return to an unbaptised state.
quote:I don't think it is that simple. Upthread Zach posted
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Christian" is not the same thing as "Saved".
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm inclined to echo Laurelin's incredulity at Zach's insistence that Hitler and Stalin were saved simply by virtue of their baptism. I mean, WTF?
quote:as a proof that
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16
quote:So clearly he felt at that point in the thread that being a Christian and being saved are pretty well synonymous. I can tell you it is pretty depressing to go back to page two of a nine page thread and find that the arguments have not progressed.
baptism is necessary in order to be a Christian
quote:The council was ruling on how much of the Jewish Law the gentiles needed to keep. Baptism is not part of the Jewish Law, so it wasn't under the purview of what they were writing about.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet the council of Jerusalem didn't insist on baptism for Gentile converts.
quote:I'm sure you're right, Mousethief. Two thoughts, though.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The council was ruling on how much of the Jewish Law the gentiles needed to keep. Baptism is not part of the Jewish Law, so it wasn't under the purview of what they were writing about.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet the council of Jerusalem didn't insist on baptism for Gentile converts.
This is a miserable argument from silence. Acts is strewn with people getting baptised ...
quote:The comment was made in the context of equating baptism and circumcision. Also we do surely need to remember that Christian baptism is the Jewish ritual washings with a new meaning - it was not a new sacrament invented by Jesus. If you stop using the Bible translator's ecclesiastically-loaded word 'baptism' and use what's really there: 'immersion, washing' you will be closer to what John the baptist was doing, what the disciples were doing, what Peter told the Pentecost crowd to do - go and perform a Jewish ceremonial washing in the name of Jesus. Where do you think 5000 people were 'baptised' on the Day of Pentecost? Surely it would have been the in the mikvehs in the Temple.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The council was ruling on how much of the Jewish Law the gentiles needed to keep. Baptism is not part of the Jewish Law, so it wasn't under the purview of what they were writing about.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet the council of Jerusalem didn't insist on baptism for Gentile converts.
This is a miserable argument from silence. Acts is strewn with people getting baptised. The Ethiopian eunuch practically throws himself into the first mud puddle he finds in order to get baptised. Baptism is smeared across Acts. Arguing it's not necessary because it's not mentioned in the Council of Jerusalem is absurd.
quote:The terms are synonymous for me. If you are a Christian, you're saved; if you are saved, you are a Christian.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Christian" is not the same thing as "Saved".
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm inclined to echo Laurelin's incredulity at Zach's insistence that Hitler and Stalin were saved simply by virtue of their baptism. I mean, WTF?
quote:Romans 10 v 9: If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:The terms are synonymous for me. If you are a Christian, you're saved; if you are saved, you are a Christian.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Christian" is not the same thing as "Saved".
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm inclined to echo Laurelin's incredulity at Zach's insistence that Hitler and Stalin were saved simply by virtue of their baptism. I mean, WTF?
quote:Surely that means you can't know who is a Christian and who isn't until you find out whether they made it to Heaven or not?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:The terms are synonymous for me. If you are a Christian, you're saved; if you are saved, you are a Christian.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"Christian" is not the same thing as "Saved".
quote:This is fine with me - why do need to know for certain whether someone is a Christian? Why can't we just go with calling someone a Christian if they self-identify that way?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Surely that means you can't know who is a Christian and who isn't until you find out whether they made it to Heaven or not?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:The terms are synonymous for me. If you are a Christian, you're saved; if you are saved, you are a Christian.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"Christian" is not the same thing as "Saved".
quote:Yes. And...?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Surely that means you can't know who is a Christian and who isn't until you find out whether they made it to Heaven or not?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:The terms are synonymous for me. If you are a Christian, you're saved; if you are saved, you are a Christian.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"Christian" is not the same thing as "Saved".
quote:And that's fine as long as you don't impose your definition on the arguments of those for whom the two words are not synonymous.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The terms are synonymous for me. If you are a Christian, you're saved; if you are saved, you are a Christian.
quote:
No doubt Christ is always and everywhere accessible; and he is always the same. Therefore it is possible to make a spiritual communion which is in every way as real as a sacramental communion...Everywhere and always we can have communion with him.
Archbishop Dr William Temple, Christus Veritas
quote:
Intimately as these two so-called sacraments are associated with the saving events in Christ, yet they are not identical with them - they are not therefore unconditionally necessary to salvation. In asserting their unconditional necessity to salvation, we should be contradicting the witness of the New Testament. One can speak of salvation in Christ apart from these two rites. One can believe in Christ and in salvation through him without sharing these rites. The community of Jesus does not first become a reality through them, it is already a reality...
The 'where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them' is still valid and real where there is no celebration of the Lord's Supper...The decisive test of one's belonging to Christ is not reception of baptism, nor partaking of the Lord's Supper, but solely and exclusively a union with Christ through faith which shows itself active in love.
Emil Brunner, Die Missverstandnisse der Kirche
quote:Especially in light of your previous comment about not being able to know if anyone is a Christian, is it any more scandalous to claim that identification for Hitler or Stalin than it is to claim it for other potentially-unsaved sinners like you or I?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
perhaps now you can understand the scandalous (for me and Laurelin) nature of the claim that Hitler and Stalin were Christians because they were baptised.
quote:To the contrary, while they certainly don't use the term "sacrament," certain Jewish rituals—the Passover and the sacrifice of the first fruits come immediately to mind—are rich in "sacramental" meaning and, yes, Mystery.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:And that is not a Biblical view. I don't actually think the concept of sacrament is in the Bible. The move from Jesus and his Jewish context, the further you move into mysticism and the Mystery religions of Rome - which is where we find problems.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think there is a third kind. Those who believe that baptism and Holy Supper are tied to a Mystery that we can never fully understand or describe or put in neat little boxes.
quote:Of course I can. But the fact remains that by imposing your definition on Zach's statement, you were criticizing him for saying something he didn't actually say.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Indeed, but it's important to understand these nuanced differences in definition; perhaps now you can understand the scandalous (for me and Laurelin) nature of the claim that Hitler and Stalin were Christians because they were baptised.
quote:First, "proof-texting" is grabbing any old verse to substantiate conclusions arrived at through non-biblical reasons. The perfect example is when Mudfrog used John the Baptist's speech to substantiate his claim that the Bible doesn't think baptism is important. Which is decidedly not what I did.
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
quote:I don't think it is that simple. Upthread Zach posted
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Christian" is not the same thing as "Saved".
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm inclined to echo Laurelin's incredulity at Zach's insistence that Hitler and Stalin were saved simply by virtue of their baptism. I mean, WTF?
quote:as a proof that
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16quote:So clearly he felt at that point in the thread that being a Christian and being saved are pretty well synonymous. I can tell you it is pretty depressing to go back to page two of a nine page thread and find that the arguments have not progressed.
baptism is necessary in order to be a Christian
quote:Yes, both in the light of their conduct and also the assertion that they were Christians by virtue of their baptism notwithstanding said conduct.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Especially in light of your previous comment about not being able to know if anyone is a Christian, is it any more scandalous to claim that identification for Hitler or Stalin than it is to claim it for other potentially-unsaved sinners like you or I?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
perhaps now you can understand the scandalous (for me and Laurelin) nature of the claim that Hitler and Stalin were Christians because they were baptised.
quote:So we're back to the view that we make ourselves Christians through our own works then?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Yes, both in the light of their conduct and also the assertion that they were Christians by virtue of their baptism notwithstanding said conduct.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Especially in light of your previous comment about not being able to know if anyone is a Christian, is it any more scandalous to claim that identification for Hitler or Stalin than it is to claim it for other potentially-unsaved sinners like you or I?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
perhaps now you can understand the scandalous (for me and Laurelin) nature of the claim that Hitler and Stalin were Christians because they were baptised.
quote:I certainly wouldn't! In the New Testament, the fruit / fruits of a life following Christ are given as things like goodness, self-control, kindness, love, self-sacrifice. Not anything to do with ritual observance, ISTM - unless you can suggest some New Testament passages that say otherwise?
Originally posted by Zach82:
But you don't include under the list of fruits works of ritual piety?
quote:If by this you mean 'baptism' then, no; I would classify it as a means of grace, with fruit as the product of grace.
Originally posted by Zach82:
But you don't include under the list of fruits works of ritual piety?
quote:They certainly can be. Or they can be dead, empty acts performed out of habit or some worse motive. So, in and of itself, the performance of acts of ritual piety gives no indication of someone's spiritual state or standing with God, ISTM.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Acts of ritual piety are precisely bodily acts of loving God.
quote:You are making a false assumption here. You are saying that people hold onto 2 ways of being saved - either through baptism in water or through good works.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:So we're back to the view that we make ourselves Christians through our own works then?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Yes, both in the light of their conduct and also the assertion that they were Christians by virtue of their baptism notwithstanding said conduct.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Especially in light of your previous comment about not being able to know if anyone is a Christian, is it any more scandalous to claim that identification for Hitler or Stalin than it is to claim it for other potentially-unsaved sinners like you or I?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
perhaps now you can understand the scandalous (for me and Laurelin) nature of the claim that Hitler and Stalin were Christians because they were baptised.
quote:And people can be perform charitable acts to make themselves look good, or to buy their way into heaven. Acts of hypocrisy can seem to be either charitable or pious. So we still haven't established why acts of charity are to be given priority over works of piety.
They certainly can be. Or they can be dead, empty acts performed out of habit or some worse motive. So, in and of itself, the performance of acts of ritual piety gives no indication of someone's spiritual state or standing with God, ISTM.
quote:I am not saying baptism 'doesn't count' as you alledge I am saying - it's not necessary for salvation: it does not, in and of itself, save the soul.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Which is, specifically?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I believe baptism has the effect Jesus promised.
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You are making a false assumption here. You are saying that people hold onto 2 ways of being saved - either through baptism in water or through good works.
quote:Said the guy who thinks baptism is nothing more than "having a wet forehead."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I am not saying baptism 'doesn't count' as you alledge I am saying - it's not necessary for salvation: it does not, in and of itself, save the soul.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Which is, specifically?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I believe baptism has the effect Jesus promised.
I would be grateful for an answer to my question, above.
quote:You are! You suggest through your posts that you see the (false) alternatiove to salvation through baptism (the only way according to you) is through works. Can you not see that grace can be received independently of the outward sacrament and that salvation does not come through works of piety or charity?
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You are making a false assumption here. You are saying that people hold onto 2 ways of being saved - either through baptism in water or through good works.
quote:I would like you to tell me what effect Jesus promised water baptism would have on a person, and where he said it.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Said the guy who thinks baptism is nothing more than "having a wet forehead."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I am not saying baptism 'doesn't count' as you alledge I am saying - it's not necessary for salvation: it does not, in and of itself, save the soul.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Which is, specifically?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I believe baptism has the effect Jesus promised.
I would be grateful for an answer to my question, above.
quote:Just nope. It's been explained more than once, by more than one person, that I am arguing nothing of the sort. I am not explaining it again.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:You are! You suggest through your posts that you see the (false) alternatiove to salvation through baptism (the only way according to you) is through works. Can you not see that grace can be received independently of the outward sacrament and that salvation does not come through works of piety or charity?
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You are making a false assumption here. You are saying that people hold onto 2 ways of being saved - either through baptism in water or through good works.
quote:Their conduct? I've got news for you, none of our conducts are good enough for Heaven. Not one of us can say "my conduct marks me out as Saved". So basically, all you're saying is "I'm a sinner, but I'm not as bad a sinner as those fuckers over there. I can be called a Christian, but they can't".
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Yes, both in the light of their conduct and also the assertion that they were Christians by virtue of their baptism notwithstanding said conduct.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Especially in light of your previous comment about not being able to know if anyone is a Christian, is it any more scandalous to claim that identification for Hitler or Stalin than it is to claim it for other potentially-unsaved sinners like you or I?
quote:So you do accept that grace for salvation can come independently outside the sacrament of baptism!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Just nope. It's been explained more than once, by more than one person, that I am arguing nothing of the sort. I am not explaining it again.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:You are! You suggest through your posts that you see the (false) alternatiove to salvation through baptism (the only way according to you) is through works. Can you not see that grace can be received independently of the outward sacrament and that salvation does not come through works of piety or charity?
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You are making a false assumption here. You are saying that people hold onto 2 ways of being saved - either through baptism in water or through good works.
Be insulted if you want. I am insulted that you feel you can comment on what I am arguing without reading what I've posted
quote:"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I would like you to tell me what effect Jesus promised water baptism would have on a person, and where he said it.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Said the guy who thinks baptism is nothing more than "having a wet forehead."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I am not saying baptism 'doesn't count' as you alledge I am saying - it's not necessary for salvation: it does not, in and of itself, save the soul.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Which is, specifically?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I believe baptism has the effect Jesus promised.
I would be grateful for an answer to my question, above.
quote:Pardon the petulance, but I feel I have answered this enough times.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:So you do accept that grace for salvation can come independently outside the sacrament of baptism!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Just nope. It's been explained more than once, by more than one person, that I am arguing nothing of the sort. I am not explaining it again.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:You are! You suggest through your posts that you see the (false) alternatiove to salvation through baptism (the only way according to you) is through works. Can you not see that grace can be received independently of the outward sacrament and that salvation does not come through works of piety or charity?
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You are making a false assumption here. You are saying that people hold onto 2 ways of being saved - either through baptism in water or through good works.
Be insulted if you want. I am insulted that you feel you can comment on what I am arguing without reading what I've posted
quote:Theological puffery interfering with their ability to follow Christ's commands.
Don't you have any comments to make on the Temple and Brunner quotes I offered?
quote:Indeed, but you'll notice that Jesus did NOT say that "He that is not baptized shall be damned."
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I would like you to tell me what effect Jesus promised water baptism would have on a person, and where he said it.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Said the guy who thinks baptism is nothing more than "having a wet forehead."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I am not saying baptism 'doesn't count' as you alledge I am saying - it's not necessary for salvation: it does not, in and of itself, save the soul.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Which is, specifically?
Originally posted by Zach82:
I believe baptism has the effect Jesus promised.
I would be grateful for an answer to my question, above.
quote:I'm not moving into the Mystery religions of Rome if you mean by them things like the Universe being created by a lesser god, or that we can access the real God by secret knowledge I think the word 'Mystery' has become a bit tainted by these things.
Mudfrog: And that is not a Biblical view. I don't actually think the concept of sacrament is in the Bible. The move from Jesus and his Jewish context, the further you move into mysticism and the Mystery religions of Rome - which is where we find problems.
quote:I did notice. Which is why I haven't said it.
Indeed, but you'll notice that Jesus did NOT say that "He that is not baptized shall be damned."
quote:Keep reading, then.
And anyway, as far as I read
quote:Unless either of them specifically renounced their Christianity (something of which I have no knowledge either way), then yes I'd call them Christians. Bad Christians, to be sure, and Christians who showed precious few fruits of the spirit in their earthly lives. Christians for whom quite a lot of repentence would be in order. But still members of the Church. Still my brothers in Christ - the Black Sheep of the Church Family, if you will.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But I was questioning the (to my mind rather shocking) statement that Hitler and Stalin were Christians by virtue of their baptism, with no reference to their subsequent conduct.
quote:That is total nonsense of course that suggests God just winks at sin and says, it's OK the water sprinkled on you will excuse your whole life of evil actions...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Unless either of them specifically renounced their Christianity (something of which I have no knowledge either way), then yes I'd call them Christians. Bad Christians, to be sure, and Christians who showed precious few fruits of the spirit in their earthly lives. Christians for whom quite a lot of repentence would be in order. But still members of the Church. Still my brothers in Christ - the Black Sheep of the Church Family, if you will.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But I was questioning the (to my mind rather shocking) statement that Hitler and Stalin were Christians by virtue of their baptism, with no reference to their subsequent conduct.
The Prodigal Son was never disowned by the Father - he was always a member of the family. The lost sheep was not abandoned and forgotten by the Shepherd - it was always a member of the flock.
quote:
Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.
Hebrews 12 v 15
quote:Your baptism is not indelible.
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
Galatians 6 v 7
quote:No, they were both lost: utterly lost; in fact the father said his son was 'dead' until he returned.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Unless either of them specifically renounced their Christianity (something of which I have no knowledge either way), then yes I'd call them Christians. Bad Christians, to be sure, and Christians who showed precious few fruits of the spirit in their earthly lives. Christians for whom quite a lot of repentence would be in order. But still members of the Church. Still my brothers in Christ - the Black Sheep of the Church Family, if you will.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But I was questioning the (to my mind rather shocking) statement that Hitler and Stalin were Christians by virtue of their baptism, with no reference to their subsequent conduct.
The Prodigal Son was never disowned by the Father - he was always a member of the family. The lost sheep was not abandoned and forgotten by the Shepherd - it was always a member of the flock.
quote:If I'm following this properly (which I might well not be by now, sorry if that's the case) for Zach82 the definition of a Christian is 'one who has been baptised'. So to say that Hitler and Stalin were Christians because of their baptism is a simple tautology and is no comment on their status with God, their own heart, or their post-baptismal conduct.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was questioning the (to my mind rather shocking) statement that Hitler and Stalin were Christians by virtue of their baptism, with no reference to their subsequent conduct.
quote:Trying to make up for your lack of substantiation with repetition or something?
Just as circumcision and 'being a son of Abraham' was no guarantee of being in God's elect.
quote:I get you now. You are allowed to weigh in on the salvation for others, but I am not allowed to classify Salvationists as not Christians for refusing to follow Christ's commands.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, they were both lost: utterly lost...
quote:So now you have greater theological knowledge, pastoral experience and spiritual discernment that a renowned Archbishop of Canterbury and a highly influential and respected theologian.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Theological puffery interfering with their ability to follow Christ's commands.
Don't you have any comments to make on the Temple and Brunner quotes I offered?
quote:I think you'll find that genuine belief (in the culture of the time) always implied actions consistent with the stated belief....though not so much now, apparently. Water baptism - as we see from various NT accounts - was the expected response to belief. Not only that, it would take some exegetical gymnastics to get out of the fact that Christ was commanding water baptism in the 'great commission'. What we have here, is merely the contrast between those who believed and took the appropriate action, and those who did not believe.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
--------------------------------------------------
Indeed, but you'll notice that Jesus did NOT say that "He that is not baptized shall be damned."
quote:For a graduate student your knowledge of the Bible is rather limited!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Trying to make up for your lack of substantiation with repetition or something?
Just as circumcision and 'being a son of Abraham' was no guarantee of being in God's elect.
quote:Yeah, he commanded you - mandated you indeed - to wash each others' feet. Do you do that as well?
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I think you'll find that genuine belief (in the culture of the time) always implied actions consistent with the stated belief....though not so much now, apparently. Water baptism - as we see from various NT accounts - was the expected response to belief. Not only that, it would take some exegetical gymnastics to get out of the fact that Christ was commanding water baptism in the 'great commission'. What we have here, is merely the contrast between those who believed and took the appropriate action, and those who did not believe.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
--------------------------------------------------
Indeed, but you'll notice that Jesus did NOT say that "He that is not baptized shall be damned."
It doesn't need to say unbaptized people are damned - that's the default position of the human race. Those that have availed themselves of God's grace obviously would get baptized - if for no other reason than Christ commanded them to do so.
Not that I'd particularly want to argue about this passage, which is seen by many as just a bolt-on accessory to the gospel of Mark. But since it has been brought up, I note that it contains certain other activities which define believers: Mark 16:17-18
"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
I don't know if these signs accompany your belief, Mudfrog....but it seems clear from the text that perhaps they should. Still, if not, you can console yourself with the fact Jesus never actually commanded you to do them....unlike water baptism.
quote:Yeah, I get that now. Disagree with it, but I get it.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:If I'm following this properly (which I might well not be by now, sorry if that's the case) for Zach82 the definition of a Christian is 'one who has been baptised'. So to say that Hitler and Stalin were Christians because of their baptism is a simple tautology and is no comment on their status with God, their own heart, or their post-baptismal conduct.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was questioning the (to my mind rather shocking) statement that Hitler and Stalin were Christians by virtue of their baptism, with no reference to their subsequent conduct.
It's just that most people (ISTM) wouldn't define a Christian as 'someone who has been baptised'...
quote:He wouldn't necessarily (although some Jewish sects did practise ritual washing eg: the Essenes and it is thought by Biblical scholars that the Johannine community was largely drawn from such groups, plus of course John the Baptist was at large at that time...er...baptising people) but Jesus is speaking forward about baptism to the early Christians here, much as He does later in this Gospel about communion in chapter 6.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
By water and the Spirit does not refer to Chrustian baptism - why would Nicodemus know about that?
quote:Says who?
Water and the Spirit means human birth and then spiritual birth.
quote:None of which explains the water reference
It goes with what John wrote 2 chapters previously about becoming children of God: born not of natural descent...but born of God.
Born again - born naturally and then born spiritually.
quote:See my comment above.
Nicodemus would have known nothing whatever of Christian baptismal initiation; to say that Jesus here is speaking of Christian baptism is eisegesis. it has nothing to do with it.
quote:If we're arguing from Scripture, it's part of Scripture. If we're arguing from what we think Jesus actually said, then we'll have to have a completely different conversation first to agree upon what ground rules we will use for determining what Jesus actually said.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
1. We may be on slightly shaky ground by citing Mark 16:16 as there is genuine doubt over the authenticity of this "longer ending" of Mark's Gospel. So these may not be the words of Jesus but later interpolations by the Church. Having aid that, they have been part of the generally-accepted Canon of Scripture since pretty early on, so I don't think we can ignore them.
quote:This is crap. You've been reading atheist "Christianity is really Mithraism with a new veneer" websites. And you are totally downplaying what you admit Peter said - what shall we do? Believe and be baptised in the name of Jesus. Whatever came later and wherever it came from, the call to be baptised is present in the church's Gospel literally from Day One.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So much was lost to the Christian faith after the first century, when we jettisoned the Jewish roots and took on elements of the mystery religions and Greek philosophy.
quote:That's my fault; I equated them. Why doesn't circumcision "count"? I missed that.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Mudfrog is once again saying baptism doesn't count because circumcision doesn't count without any proof that the bible takes them the same way.
quote:Then you're a damned sight further along than Mudfrog who can't even recognize it as a means of grace.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:If by this you mean 'baptism' then, no; I would classify it as a means of grace, with fruit as the product of grace.
Originally posted by Zach82:
But you don't include under the list of fruits works of ritual piety?
quote:No, his death excuses our whole life of evil actions. If a life of evil actions is enough to damn us, none of us will get to heaven, for we are all guilty thereof.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That is total nonsense of course that suggests God just winks at sin and says, it's OK the water sprinkled on you will excuse your whole life of evil actions...
quote:Hitler and Stalin both hated God. Hated Him. Countless Orthodox Christians suffered under Stalin's atheist totalitarianism and many Christians died for opposing Hitler. And you will never hear me say to a Jewish person with a straight face that Hitler is 'my brother in Christ'. I can just imagine how that would go down. Holy crap.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Unless either of them specifically renounced their Christianity (something of which I have no knowledge either way), then yes I'd call them Christians. Bad Christians, to be sure, and Christians who showed precious few fruits of the spirit in their earthly lives. Christians for whom quite a lot of repentence would be in order. But still members of the Church. Still my brothers in Christ - the Black Sheep of the Church Family, if you will.
quote:My thoughts exactly.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So now you have greater theological knowledge, pastoral experience and spiritual discernment that a renowned Archbishop of Canterbury and a highly influential and respected theologian.
quote:
My God, your baptism had a powerful effect on you!! Who performed it for it to be so effective, John the Baptist??
quote:Since you've asked this a couple of times without answer... I'd turn it back to you.
Originally posted by Zach82:
we still haven't established why acts of charity are to be given priority over works of piety.
quote:Who's to say that on the day of judgement Hitler and Stalin won't be shown the full extent of their evil, and faced with that terrible reality fall down in repentance? Who's to say that in the final seconds of their lives on this earth that they didn't repent? We don't know. I mean, who's to say that even Satan himself is beyond redemption?
Originally posted by Laurelin:
And no, you're absolutely right, nobody is beyond saving, not even those as wicked as the two gentlemen we've been discussing ... except the person who DOESN'T REPENT. I see no evidence of repentance in either Hitler or Stalin.
quote:I understand that this isn't an unusual interpretation of John 3:1-6. Jesus is making a contrast here between being born from the womb and being born again in the Spirit.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Says who?
Water and the Spirit means human birth and then spiritual birth.
quote:In which case it is probably best not to drag it into the argument to support either side.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not saying that this is the only possible interpretation. The word 'water' could equally well refer to Baptism, but as it is, we have no way to decide between both views.
quote:You were there when they died?
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I see no evidence of repentance in either Hitler or Stalin.
quote:I wouldn't say he doesn't care. But then again we're all arguing at cross-purposes because some people here believe that the church = the saved, and others use the words differently. Call the former "Group A". Call the latter "Group B". The conversation can be summarized as:
I do not believe that the God who bitterly chastised His Israel for keeping the festivals but not having truly repentant hearts cares about acts of ritual piety if those acts don't yield inward transformation.
quote:Yes, how dare Zach82 disagree with an Archbishop of Canterbury. And what is more, a renowned one? Surely God's anointed Archbishop will have the right theology, and we should all agree with him.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So now you have greater theological knowledge, pastoral experience and spiritual discernment that a renowned Archbishop of Canterbury and a highly influential and respected theologian.
My God, your baptism had a powerful effect on you!! Who performed it for it to be so effective, John the Baptist??
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:The Bible verse was already being quoted in the post I answered to, I didn't 'drag it in'. My post was to show that if you're looking for the Bible to support your argument, it could go either way in this case.
mousethief: In which case it is probably best not to drag it into the argument to support either side.
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
My post was to show that if you're looking for the Bible to support your argument, it could go either way in this case.
quote:(Did you program in BASIC? Oh the memories...)
mousethief: GOTO 10.
quote:Yes. I actually did some professional programming work in ASIC (motto: "It's almost BASIC!"), which was a compiled BASIC written for DOS. Very clunky; you couldn't stack functions, so for instance
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:(Did you program in BASIC? Oh the memories...)
mousethief: GOTO 10.
quote:A particularly apt comparison since there we know from Paul that a) early churches did communion as a full meal. b) they did feed the poor since there is an implication that the people who didn't get enough food were the ones who needed it more.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This evening, between 8 and 9, we will open the foyer of the church - a very nice coffee shop area. Here we will serve soup to anyone who needs it - the homeless, the vulnerable, the lonely.
quote:
This evening, between 8 and 9, we will open the foyer of the church - a very nice coffee shop area. Here we will serve soup to anyone who needs it - the homeless, the vulnerable, the lonely.
quote:Good for you, any number of Christian parishes of various denominations, adherents of other religions, and some good hearted atheists. Unfortunately, that isn't the sacrament. You can have both. Many churches do have both weekly. Most, by no means all, know which is a sacrament and which isn't.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This evening, between 8 and 9, we will open the foyer of the church - a very nice coffee shop area. Here we will serve soup to anyone who needs it - the homeless, the vulnerable, the lonely.
This is our sacrament, our Lord's Supper
My life must be Christ's broken bread,
My love his outpoured wine,
A cup o'erfilled, a table spread
beneath his name and sign,
That other souls, refreshed and fed,
May share his life through mine.
(Albert Orsborn, tune Spohr)
quote:It seems to me that the problem is that Booth threw a hissy fit (possibly with cause) and TSA have been trying to back theologise it ever since. To me that is utterly the wrong way round, it's neither intellectually or spiritually satisfying. But then I can understand why they do it - people will always mould things to make them say what they want them to say. It's just frustrating and not very rational.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On previous posts, Mudfrog has helped me to understand the Salvation Army's position on the sacraments and it appears a lot more nuanced and subtle than might appear at first sight to other Christians ie. non-Salvationist ones.
The difficulty is that it is a hard position to articulate without coming across as anti-sacramental. The Salvation Army don't reject the sacraments nor deny their efficacy ... but such a position inevitably leads to charges of them regarding them as optional extras.
quote:That's a really good way of putting it. Mind you, as you say, it's a common enough phenomenon. I expect some people (welcome back, Gamaliel!
Originally posted by chive:
It seems to me that the problem is that Booth threw a hissy fit (possibly with cause) and TSA have been trying to back theologise it ever since.
) would say my church flavour, the Vineyard movement, has done it all over the place.
quote:Well asked. I too would be interested in hearing the answer to this.
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
But if one should come to faith in your "very nice coffee shop area", and he should also speak the same words as the eunuch in Acts 8 - "“Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”....what are you going to do?
quote:For the love of God and all his children, can we *please* not have this thread derailed into the rights and wrongs of glossalalia.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that could apply to all of us, South Coast Kevin. In the Vineyard's case - and I don't know enough about them despite my pontifications on these boards at times - I'd suggest that they've not done this any more or any less than any other charismatic group.
The early Pentecostals came up with the idea that 'tongues' were angelic languages in order to avoid having to back down and admit that their glossolalic utterances weren't actual languages in the recognised and 'human' sense.
Subsequent generations of charismatics have taken that one on board and it's become part of received charismatic orthodoxy, by and large.
Similarly, the lack of regular physical healings in response to prayer led the early Vineyard leaders to begin emphasising 'spiritual healing' or 'emotional healing' and so on - because they weren't getting the physical results they were expecting.
This isn't to single charismatics out. We all do it. Some would say that the Church - Big C - has done it all along, right from its inception.
But that's another issue.
quote:Although I would personally like to see the situation reversed, I look back on the decision that was made and it was a lot more considered than perhaps I have implied. It wasn't taken in a moment - and whilst we ceased the sacraments in January 1883, his son disagreed at first and continued to baptise babies until 1884.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:That's a really good way of putting it. Mind you, as you say, it's a common enough phenomenon. I expect some people (welcome back, Gamaliel!
Originally posted by chive:
It seems to me that the problem is that Booth threw a hissy fit (possibly with cause) and TSA have been trying to back theologise it ever since.
quote:In the Acts 8 type scenario I mentioned upthread, you would have no need to "encourage them to seek that baptism" - they are already seeking it....from you! But it's clear from your reply that they wouldn't get it.
I neglected the answer a question further up the thread. What would happen if one of our converts - any of our people actually - felt that God required baptism as a sign of their conversion and/or discipleship? - we would celebrate with them and encourage them to seek that baptism. But all the time we would - and they would too -affirm that the baptism that is vital and necessary - is the baptism of the outpoured Holy Spirit.
quote:Except, why does He use the term 'born again' (or 'born from above')? The use of this term makes no sense if 'water' is a reference to natural birth. Now if Jesus had said "You must be first born of water and then born again of the Spirit", the 'natural birth' argument would make sense as the meaning of 'water'. But He doesn't: He says that 'water' and 'the Spirit' are both to do with the second birth, not the first.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I understand that this isn't an unusual interpretation of John 3:1-6. Jesus is making a contrast here between being born from the womb and being born again in the Spirit.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Says who?
Water and the Spirit means human birth and then spiritual birth.
It seems quite logical that He would be referring to both of them again in verse 5. In this sense, we could interpret the use of 'water' here as a reference to the womb, especially since He didn't introduce the concept of Baptism anywhere in His conversation with Nicodemus.
I'm not saying that this is the only possible interpretation. The word 'water' could equally well refer to Baptism, but as it is, we have no way to decide between both views.
quote:Where does it say that Philip taught the Ethiopian eunuch about baptism? We are told 3 things:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:In the Acts 8 type scenario I mentioned upthread, you would have no need to "encourage them to seek that baptism" - they are already seeking it....from you! But it's clear from your reply that they wouldn't get it.
I neglected the answer a question further up the thread. What would happen if one of our converts - any of our people actually - felt that God required baptism as a sign of their conversion and/or discipleship? - we would celebrate with them and encourage them to seek that baptism. But all the time we would - and they would too -affirm that the baptism that is vital and necessary - is the baptism of the outpoured Holy Spirit.
In the real world, of course, I doubt they would ask for baptism, because I suspect TSA wouldn't even mention it in such an encounter. And while it was obviously important enough for Phillip to teach the eunuch about it during that initial conversation, I don't believe your notional convert would have the same benefit.
Christ's command in "the great commission" was nothing to do with baptism in the Holy Spirit, as I'm sure you are aware. But whatever you think the purpose of water baptism may be, it is also "vital and necessary" on the basis that Jesus insisted upon it. That should be good enough for all of us - both to submit to water baptism, and to offer it to new believers. Simply put, if TSA wants to be considered a church, it should refrain from routinely disobeying Christ, especially in a matter which has always been considered a core church function.
quote:Besides the fact that I totally disagree, I would hope you can at least admit that they would certainly not recognized the pseudo-military initiation ceremonies of the Salvation Army. If the basis for a practice is whether Jesus or the Apostles would recognize it, the traditional churches are going to win out on that basis, I'm afraid.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My view is that neither Jesus not the Apostles would always recognise Eucharist or baptism as practiced today.
quote:The idea that theorising should come first and practice later isn't taken as read by all church traditions, especially outside of Western Christianity.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As South Coast Kevin has interestingly observed, there may even be evidence of a propensity to do this kind of 'back-theologising' within the scriptures themselves - as per the example of Pentecost where Peter draws on OT prophecies and so on to explain what has just happened.
It's a thorny area of course, some of the NT glosses on OT prophecies and types and so on can certainly sound a bit 'forced' at times ...
As South Coast Kevin says, if the Salvation Army is to be accused of theologising after the event in order to justify a decision, then so are the rest of us - over other issues.
quote:I think you misunderstand me. I do not believe that we should only do things that Jesus would recognise; neither do I believe that if it's not in the Bible we shouldn't do it! I know of some traditions that refuse to have instrumental music in theior worship because it's not mentioned in the bible! I think we are free to adopt and adapt whatever forms, methods and activities as we wish in order to worship God and witness for him in any given context - that's why vicars wear Roman costumes and we were military style uniforms!
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Besides the fact that I totally disagree, I would hope you can at least admit that they would certainly not recognized the pseudo-military initiation ceremonies of the Salvation Army. If the basis for a practice is whether Jesus or the Apostles would recognize it, the traditional churches are going to win out on that basis, I'm afraid.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My view is that neither Jesus not the Apostles would always recognise Eucharist or baptism as practiced today.
The only way you could claim such a thing would be to suggest that Holy Spirit baptism happens at SA initiation in a way that it does not at water baptisms in the rest of the church.
quote:But not within TSA, interestingly. There are many voices who would want us to become more ritualistic but even they are not loud enough nor insistent enough to make this a contentious issue.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I respect Mudfrog's right to hold these views and certainly wouldn't 'de-Christianise' the Salvation Army for their particular and distinctive 'take'. But it seems to create as many problems as it is meant to resolve.
quote:That should read:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't think Jesus would know what was going on in a Papal Mass and he would probably need to be informed what was going on in a Salvation Army swearing-in ceremony.
But that doesn't mean they are not invalid;
quote:Bullshit. The word "baptism" by the time Luke was writing meant far more than simply 'immersion.' Are you mistaking etymology for meaning?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If the word 'baptism' simply means immersion (which it does)
quote:But CERTAINLY not to throw away what was there entirely, or spititualize it away. He said "as often as you drink this cup" and he was referring to the kiddush (sp?), not to any cup at any meal. The Christian eucharist has certainly pared down the seder elements, but it hasn't thrown them away entirely, as the SA does.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Similarly, I don't believe that Jesus commanded a newsupper, a new sacrament of eucharist. rather, he took the Passover meal and gave a new meaning to one of the cups he used and one of the pieces of bread that is featured as part of that very familiar meal.
These are the commands - not to start a new ritual, but to take what was there and change it's covenant meaning.
quote:Interestingly, it's not just Luke's use of the word. In Mark chapter 7, verse 4, we read: "When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches." (NKJV).
Originally posted by mousethief
Bullshit. The word "baptism" by the time Luke was writing meant far more than simply 'immersion.' Are you mistaking etymology for meaning?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:So the Ethiopian Eunuch just wanted to take a bath? Bull-fucking-shit. Mudfrog's argument is "ALL that baptism means is 'wash'." I was countering that. Proving that it sometimes means that has nothing to do with the argument at all; your entire post is one huge non sequitur.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Interestingly, it's not just Luke's use of the word. In Mark chapter 7, verse 4, we read: "When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches." (NKJV).
Originally posted by mousethief
Bullshit. The word "baptism" by the time Luke was writing meant far more than simply 'immersion.' Are you mistaking etymology for meaning?
The word 'couches' (κλινων) - literally 'beds', but curiously translated 'tables' in the KJV - only appears in certain manuscripts (presumably only the textus receptus?), but apparently these objects were subject to 'washing' (βαπτισμους) by the "etymological immersion" method, which does seem rather far fetched. Clearly the word meant any kind of washing.
Or maybe this was a sinister corruption of the text by early 'sprinklers'?!
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:On what do you base this? Baptism in a tub versus in a river or sea? Many churches do use rivers and outside bodies of water whenever possible.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But that doesn't mean they are not invalid; all I would say is that neither of them bear very much resemblance to anything that happened in the Last Supper or in a road side ritual immersion!
quote:
This is the scenario as I read it, specifically about the baptism:
This is a man steeped, but still learning about, Judaism, the Torah and Prophets; but cogniscent enough about its requirements and rituals. He would have known about, and indeed would have been familiar with the Jewish requirements for ritual washings in response to all kinds of situations and activities. If the word 'baptism' simply means immersion (which it does) then there is an historical justification to believe that this immersion that the eunuch asked for was a Jewish ritual washing - him and Philip being both part of that tradition. Philip, being part of the Apostolic group would have helped him with that ritual and would have replaced the usual words of the Shema used on these occasions with the formula, 'In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit', as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28.
When I read the idea that Jesus 'commanded' people to baptise new disciples in a new ceremony that would save them, I just wonder whether the command was not to baptise (immerse) at all - because these ritual baptisms were in constant use; people were familiar. For Jesus to command the disciples to go and baptise was unnecessary because everyone was doing it anyway!
I think it more likely, more logical, and more fitting with the practice of Judaism of the day that what Jesus 'commanded' was not the fact or practice of baptism/washing by immersion, but the change of formula: no longer in the name of "YHWH is one..." but in the Trinitarian name of the God now revealed in Christ.
quote:This is why we have a Church and not just a Bible. To tell us which things to turn into sacraments, and which things are context-specific and not binding on all people. We charge our bishops to "rightly divide the Word of Truth." Without the 2000-year historic record of the Church, the Bible can be interpreted thousands of mutually inconsistent ways. How fortunate we are that we're not without the 2000-year historic record of the Church.
Originally posted by leo:
I am amazed at how literally people on this thread take the 'command' to baptise' and eucharistise.
Jesus also commanded that people should sell all they have and give to the poor but nobody yet has insisted that those of us who don't are not 'proper Christians.'
quote:We're talking about whether SA is a church or not. Based on Jesus's commands to the Apostles - the first church leaders - on baptism (Great Commission) and the celebration of the Lord's Supper, I don't see how any church leaders today could justify not following these commands as the Apostles' spiritual descendants. These commands were taken literally from the start, and the Didache and Justin Martyr point to this, being from the 1st century.
Originally posted by leo:
I am amazed at how literally people on this thread take the 'command' to baptise' and eucharistise.
quote:Why wouldn't we assume Phillip told the Ethiopian the same thing Peter told the crowd at Pentecost? The only reason one would assume otherwise is if they were looking hard for a reason to avoid admitting the obvious. Back theologizing is a good way of describing that I think.
originally posted by Mudfrog:
This is the scenario as I read it, specifically about the baptism:
This is a man steeped, but still learning about, Judaism, the Torah and Prophets; but cogniscent enough about its requirements and rituals. He would have known about, and indeed would have been familiar with the Jewish requirements for ritual washings in response to all kinds of situations and activities. If the word 'baptism' simply means immersion (which it does) then there is an historical justification to believe that this immersion that the eunuch asked for was a Jewish ritual washing - him and Philip being both part of that tradition. Philip, being part of the Apostolic group would have helped him with that ritual and would have replaced the usual words of the Shema used on these occasions with the formula, 'In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit', as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28.
quote:Isn't it wonderful how the Church can tell us to ignore certain precepts and explain them away?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This is why we have a Church and not just a Bible. To tell us which things to turn into sacraments, and which things are context-specific and not binding on all people. We charge our bishops to "rightly divide the Word of Truth." Without the 2000-year historic record of the Church, the Bible can be interpreted thousands of mutually inconsistent ways. How fortunate we are that we're not without the 2000-year historic record of the Church.
Originally posted by leo:
I am amazed at how literally people on this thread take the 'command' to baptise' and eucharistise.
Jesus also commanded that people should sell all they have and give to the poor but nobody yet has insisted that those of us who don't are not 'proper Christians.'
quote:If you're attending a church that keeps its money rather than doing good works with it, you might want to find another. And I can say that since I am part of two churches, both almost broke, one of which does a huge amount of practical good in the community.
Originally posted by leo:
If we gave all to the poor, that would be less for the Church's coffers
quote:I didn't say that at all!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So the Ethiopian Eunuch just wanted to take a bath? Bull-fucking-shit. Mudfrog's argument is "ALL that baptism means is 'wash'." I was countering that. Proving that it sometimes means that has nothing to do with the argument at all; your entire post is one huge non sequitur.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Interestingly, it's not just Luke's use of the word. In Mark chapter 7, verse 4, we read: "When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches." (NKJV).
Originally posted by mousethief
Bullshit. The word "baptism" by the time Luke was writing meant far more than simply 'immersion.' Are you mistaking etymology for meaning?
The word 'couches' (κλινων) - literally 'beds', but curiously translated 'tables' in the KJV - only appears in certain manuscripts (presumably only the textus receptus?), but apparently these objects were subject to 'washing' (βαπτισμους) by the "etymological immersion" method, which does seem rather far fetched. Clearly the word meant any kind of washing.
Or maybe this was a sinister corruption of the text by early 'sprinklers'?!
quote:Does it provide irony meters for those whose existing ones have failed?
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:If you're attending a church that keeps its money rather than doing good works with it, you might want to find another. And I can say that since I am part of two churches, both almost broke, one of which does a huge amount of practical good in the community.
Originally posted by leo:
If we gave all to the poor, that would be less for the Church's coffers
quote:Apparently it should!
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Does it provide irony meters for those whose existing ones have failed?
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:If you're attending a church that keeps its money rather than doing good works with it, you might want to find another. And I can say that since I am part of two churches, both almost broke, one of which does a huge amount of practical good in the community.
Originally posted by leo:
If we gave all to the poor, that would be less for the Church's coffers
quote:Yep, fair enough. 'Philanthropic' wasn't a great choice of word on my part.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, it was more than philanthropy, South Coast Kevin. The original name of the SA, if I'm not mistaken, was 'The Christian Mission.'
It was a missionary organisation dedicated to reaching people who, for whatever reason, the churches (both Established and non-conformist) weren't reaching in any great numbers.
quote:It cannot be a 'para-church' organisation because membership of TSA precludes membership of any other church. You cannot be a member of the Army and be a Baptist or an Anglican or a Methodist.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I would see TSA as more of a 'para-church' organisation; rather akin but not identical to the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship.
quote:The Church of England doesn't 'like' to baptise all babies presented to it: it has a - I think I am right in saying legally enforceable- duty to do so. And AFAIK that duty extends to adult candidates for baptism as well.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
They might perform the ritual, but I'm sure that some of them might be unable to repress their disapproval of SA theology regarding baptism, especially if they've never heard of it before.
As for the CofE, I know they like to baptise all babies presented to them, but are they really as laid-back regarding adult candidates, especially those who don't plan on becoming committed Anglicans?
quote:You are imagining persecution again if you think any of those denominations would kick you out for going to Salvation Army meetings.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Would you be able to be a Baptist and a Catholic at the same time?
And who would be persecuting us? Are you suggesting an Inquisition?
quote:I think you have read me wrong and inferred something I didn't write. It is The Salvation Army that would say you cannot belong to another religious body, not the other way round.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:You are imagining persecution again if you think any of those denominations would kick you out for going to Salvation Army meetings.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Would you be able to be a Baptist and a Catholic at the same time?
And who would be persecuting us? Are you suggesting an Inquisition?
And you brought back a thread 19 days dead to say it too.
quote:So the SA could basically outsource all their baptismal demand to the CofE, then? Interesting.
Originally posted by Albertus:
The Church of England doesn't 'like' to baptise all babies presented to it: it has a - I think I am right in saying legally enforceable- duty to do so. And AFAIK that duty extends to adult candidates for baptism as well.
quote:It seems to me, then, that all animosity about Churches barring Salvationists from Communion is misplaced. We don't bar our members from joining TSA in my denomination. In fact, I think most of us would praise anyone that took up extra-ecclesiastical devotions or charity work.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I think you have read me wrong and inferred something I didn't write. It is The Salvation Army that would say you cannot belong to another religious body, not the other way round.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:You are imagining persecution again if you think any of those denominations would kick you out for going to Salvation Army meetings.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Would you be able to be a Baptist and a Catholic at the same time?
And who would be persecuting us? Are you suggesting an Inquisition?
And you brought back a thread 19 days dead to say it too.
quote:Have you really considered what you are saying here?
Originally posted by Zach82:
We don't bar our members from joining TSA in my denomination. In fact, I think most of us would praise anyone that took up extra-ecclesiastical devotions or charity work.
quote:Yes, Salvationists will speak openly about their experience of baptism. Being a believers' baptism it's usually Baptist or Pentecostal, depending on relationships with local fellowships. It's highly unlikely that any Salvationist would go to a Church of England church to be baptised. It would have to be an evangelical baptism. I have known of young salvationists who were baptised in light-coloured clothes and then came back into the church after drying off, having putting on their uniforms.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:So the SA could basically outsource all their baptismal demand to the CofE, then? Interesting.
Originally posted by Albertus:
The Church of England doesn't 'like' to baptise all babies presented to it: it has a - I think I am right in saying legally enforceable- duty to do so. And AFAIK that duty extends to adult candidates for baptism as well.
Mudfrog
Have members of the SA ever talked about their experiences of being baptised by other denominations? Does this work out okay on the whole? Which denominations do they normally chose?
quote:I meant a baptism with an evangelical theology
Originally posted by balaam:
It would have to be evangelical baptism? There are plenty of evangelical churches that practice infant baptism and have no facilities for immersion. Some Anglican churches, however do have facilities for immersion, some Anglicans are even evangelical.
quote:Yes we are; I have been! I was on a chaplaincy course in a seminary where half of us were Methodists/Salvationists/Anglicans/Baptists and we were told beforehand that we were welcome to sit in the mass but we would not be allowed the bread and the wine.
Originally posted by Forthview:
Mudfrog, you are certainly not banned from participating in a Catholic Mass,but unless you accept what the Catholic church teaches about Communion it would make no sense to approach the altar and receive the Sacred Host. No more than anyone wishing to be clothed in the Salvation Army uniform without believing that it signifies what the Army says that it signifies.
quote:It seems to me that you are knocking down some straw men of your own creating!
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hopefully without muddying the waters any further - if that were possible - it strikes me that there's even more of a conundrum emerging here.
Is the SA saying that a baptism that isn't accompanied by an evangelical theology is somehow invalid?
In which case, it seems a bit arch for Salvationists to pontificate on the validity or otherwise of any form of Trinitarian baptism when it's not something they practice themselves ...
I'm sure that's not what's intended though.
But it does seem odd that the SA should stipulate that it should be an 'evangelical baptism' (whatever that means) when its members choose to be baptised somewhere.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not out to knock the Army nor those within its ranks who choose to be baptised or who choose not to be.
But it does strike me that the Army's stance here - if I've understood it correctly - raises a lot more issues than meets the eye at first.
But then, there are parallel issues everywhere else, so I'm not singling them out for censure in any way.
quote:We have a difference of understanding about what 'participating' means here, I think. I'd say that participation in a Eucharist is, at best, impaired if you aren't allowed to receive the Sacrament (at least, if you are accustomed to doign so elsewhere), but that doesn't mean that all yo can do otherwise is just 'sit in'. But I think this is straying into dead horse territory.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:Yes we are; I have been! I was on a chaplaincy course in a seminary where half of us were Methodists/Salvationists/Anglicans/Baptists and we were told beforehand that we were welcome to sit in the mass but we would not be allowed the bread and the wine.
Originally posted by Forthview:
Mudfrog, you are certainly not banned from participating in a Catholic Mass,but unless you accept what the Catholic church teaches about Communion it would make no sense to approach the altar and receive the Sacred Host. No more than anyone wishing to be clothed in the Salvation Army uniform without believing that it signifies what the Army says that it signifies.
quote:Y'all don't reproduce?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Firstly, no one is saying that anyone's baptism is invalid. What I am suggesting is that Salvationists would probably go for an adult believer's baptism - by virtue that they are are adult believers!
quote:LOL
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Y'all don't reproduce?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Firstly, no one is saying that anyone's baptism is invalid. What I am suggesting is that Salvationists would probably go for an adult believer's baptism - by virtue that they are are adult believers!
quote:All adult baptisms in the Church of England are inherently believer's baptisms. We had a few months ago, a lady from a Muslim background. And it's an evangelical parish. I myself was immersed earlier this year, although being already infant baptized, it was technically a reaffirmation of my baptism accompanied by an immersion. Our tub gets pretty decent use, actually.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, Salvationists will speak openly about their experience of baptism. Being a believers' baptism it's usually Baptist or Pentecostal, depending on relationships with local fellowships. It's highly unlikely that any Salvationist would go to a Church of England church to be baptised. It would have to be an evangelical baptism. I have known of young salvationists who were baptised in light-coloured clothes and then came back into the church after drying off, having putting on their uniforms.
quote:That makes more sense. It seems to me that with more people who are totally unchurched/non-Christian, and more people who like me were baptized as infants but didn't really practice for many years, immersions for adults are going to become more common.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think that Mudfrog was suggesting that at all, Seekingsister.
I would posit that the natural expectation of a Salvationist who wanted to be baptised would be that this would be most readily available at a Baptist or Pentecostal church than an Anglican.
I wasn't aware that Anglicans performed adult baptisms by immersion until relatively recently, nor that people are immersed in reaffirmation of the baptismal promises made on their behalf as infants until I saw it being done in our local parish.
These things may appear common from the inside, but there are far from widely known across the wider spectrum. When I've told some Baptist and 'new-church' people that Anglicans do the sort of things you've described they've been astonished and rather incredulous.
So it doesn't surprise me in the least that a Salvationist wouldn't immediately think CofE if they were looking for somewhere to get baptised.
Quite frankly, I'd be more surprised if they did.
quote:I think that if your hypothetical non-water-baptised Salvationist turned up to be baptised by the C of E vicar s/he would probably be guided by said vicar.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If an unbaptized Salvationist turned up at a non-evangelical CofE seeking baptism, what would be the typical method? Affusion?
The thing that slightly confuses me about mudfrog's point, is that if SA doesn't think water baptism is necessary, then a Salvationist who wants one surely can choose any method they like? They're equally optional, surely?
quote:It's not heretical if it's not a baptism.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Tangentally, I am genuinely confused at the recent posts about rebaptism - I thought that was heretical? People have been burned for less, surely!
quote:And then later:
The president asks those affirming their faith
Have you been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?
I have.
The president asks the candidates
Are you ready with your own mouth and from your own heart to affirm your faith in Jesus Christ?
I am.
quote:
The ministers and those who are to affirm their baptismal faith gather
at the baptismal font.
quote:Confirmation requires a bishop and preparatory classes, and it's normally done by people who have been raised in the church.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I've never heard of that - but hey, why would I have?
But one further question: what's the difference between that and confirnation?
quote:Newark by any chance?
Originally posted by Clemency:
On a more specific note, are individual SA corps free to introduce communion if they wanted, as I have heard rumoured? I recall hearing that one radical officer (I could say who and where, but perhaps should not) at a N Midlands corps did this, I think in the 1970s, and bought a large silver chalice at corps expense...
