Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
'Saved' and 'Christian' are not the same thing.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Zach82: 'Saved' and 'Christian' are not the same thing.

---

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'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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:

---

Beeswax Altar: Why if you trust Jesus as your Lord and Savior would you not want to be baptized?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Beeswax Altar: Why if you trust Jesus as your Lord and Savior would you not want to be baptized?

---

I would say that this is something between them and their Lord. I don't see where you come in here.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: You just seem upset by making a clear definition of a word, then actually applying that definition in particular cases.

---

I'm not upset by you making a clear definition of the word 'Christian'. I'm upset (well, sad actually ) by you making up your own definition of the word 'Christian' and claiming that it's Biblical when in fact it isn't.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Zach82: You just seem upset by making a clear definition of a word, then actually applying that definition in particular cases.

---

I'm not upset by you making a clear definition of the word 'Christian'. I'm upset (well, sad actually ) by you making up your own definition of the word 'Christian' and claiming that it's Biblical when in fact it isn't.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: blithely declaring victory without bothering to look at the Bible

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Zach82: blithely declaring victory without bothering to look at the Bible

---

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!

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'?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

b : denomination <the Presbyterian church>

---

quote:

---

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:

---

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.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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:

---

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Beeswax Altar: However, when asked if I recognize you as a Christian and your group as a Church, then it does involve me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Beeswax Altar: However, when asked if I recognize you as a Christian and your group as a Church, then it does involve me.

---

Well, this is a different question from the beginning of this thread: "do I recognize you as a Christian (or as a church?)"

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.

---

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.

The SA is surely closer to the traditional Christian understanding of Church than Satanists.


--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posted                      

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

So you are expecting us to say that matters of Christian dogma don't matter just so you never feel excluded?

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This from a man ... who refused to baptise children if their parents were not married.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

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.

---

They are related questions, and quite obviously so.

Next time, just let us all know what answer you are looking for from the start.

---

Posted                      

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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:

---

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]

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh well, the gates of hell can never prevail, the gates of hall can never prevail...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                      

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:

---

John 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptised.

---