Christian or Baptist

Well said!

 

I do not find that among the cults.

 

Do we need to define "Christian?"

Scripturally, it was because "the followers of the Way" were like "little Christs" and the term was one of derision, as several have mentioned above.

Some people have problems with "Christ follower." But that is because they are not familiar with the Greek Χριστιανός (christianos)—meaning "follower of Christ."

The word itself is difficult in part, because it is a Greek translation of a Hebrew term מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ, messiah) -- "anointed one" in either language, but in the Greek form, it has a Latin ending ianos indicating belonging or ownership, i.e., "slaves of..." Making us "slaves or or followers of the Anointed One" in the most literal possible translation.

We simplify that with Christian, transliterated into English, and simplified from the original language context by "Christ follower."

The cults are none of the above -- each seeking to make Christ something or someone other than the Anointed One of God, or the One whom we follow as is the biblical pattern. They, rather, follow their own leaders who gave them some form of alternative revelation that cuts the true Messiah from the picture and replaces Him with a man-made (or worse, demonic) invention that just happens to go by the same name. Their "Christ" does not save... The One to whom we bow in reverent worship and call "Lord and Savior" does...

 

I was visiting a church and the Sunday School teacher asked, "What is a Christian?" I was shocked at the answers. There was not one correct answer. The answers centered around what they thought Christians do. The average age of the class was probably about 38.

 

Yeah, or a long as they were born into a family that at some point in time went/goes to a church. In other words, my parents are Christians, went to church some as a child so I am a Christian.

 

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Amazing how many people believe they are born into being a Christian because of their family.

 

This is an additional reason, I like to answer that I am a Christian if it comes up. Often people will then feel we have that in common and they don't put up some type of wall in answering follow up questions about their faith or where they attend church. That can sometimes open up avenues for further discussion about the Gospel with them.

 

Yes, if you asked people to define what a Baptist is you will probably get as diverse a response as asking to define what a Christian is. Personally I wouldn't want to have to spend what limited time I might have to witness to someone trying to clarify the meaning of Baptist instead of presenting the Gospel to them.

 

Eagle posted...

How so? Do you believe you are affiliated with a New Testament Church? Do those who believe in baptismal regeneration, works salvation, falling from grace or sacramental ordinances qualify? Are there no religious groups you would say are not the Lord's church?

What doctrines and practices are the sine qua non of a New Testament Church?

 

Tom Butler...

Yes.

Those doctrines are not true, but that does not mean that every single person in groups like that are lost and outside of Gods care and Kingdom, as has been implied in this thread.

We ARE NOT saved by having perfect doctrine, rather we are saved by faith in Christ alone.

There are some that are apostate, but that doesnt mean that every single person in those groups are devoid of saving faith as has been implied.

If you will share what "sine qua non" means I will answer that question.

 

I don't see where his response indicates that he believes or suggested that.

The better question is where is the bilical support for this view. "I do not believe that non-Baptists are in the Lord's Church - period"

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

I asked Alive in Christ if he believed he was a member of a New Testament congregation.

He answered

I asked:

Alive in Christ answered:

Oh, I agree with this. But that wasn't my question. I didn't ask if members of those groups were saved or lost. I asked if they qualified as a true New Testament church. So the question remains. If their doctrines are not true, do they qualify?

As I've said before, I can have Christian fellowship with many non-Baptists, whom I accept as believers. But we can't have church fellowship

I asked:

Alive in Christ:

Again, no argument. I'm not asking about their salvation, I'm asking about their status as a New Testament church. So, are those groups you describe as apostate false churches, even though some within may be saved?

I asked:

Alive in Christ:

It's a Latin phrase which means literally "without which not." In this case, what doctrines/practices are marks of a true New Testament church, without which it is not one. Or, to put it another way, what wrong doctrines/practices would disqualify a group from being a New Testament Church?

 

Tom Butler...

You asked me these questions....

Regarding the issues you brought up (baptismal regeneration, works salvation, falling from grace), I would definetly have strong issues with that group.

There is no doubt that some groups are counterfeit.

Yes, of course.

But the problem I have with your questions to me is that they dont adress the problem I encountered originally and responded to.

What I was responding to was this monsterously absurd and ridiculous post by Eagle...

Unbelievably, Eagle is discrediting, as being llegitimate, every single church body in existance on planet earth other than "Baptist", and proclaiming them to be outside of Gods church family here on earth.

The utter ridiculousness of that mindset is beyond comprehension.

 

I would have used that answer myself before being exposed to the gospel and coming into a born-anew relationship with Jesus Christ.

My line of reasoning was: I am white, I am American, I am not a Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan, Buddhist, etc., so by default (and because my parents claimed the same thing) I must be a Christian. That line of reasoning is mere religious exercise, and though a good many people may be very zealous about their religion, unless or until they qualify as God's redeemed and called out ones -- "ekklesia" -- they are not "Christian" and also cannot be "Baptist" which requires a regenerate church membership in every instance that I've found since their inception in the early days of the Reformation.

I also find this line of reasoning in the major news media and in some of our political rhetoric, neither of whom (oftentimes) understands what it means from a biblical standpoint to be a follower of Christ.