1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Diversity

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Rebel, Feb 21, 2015.

  1. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    9,025
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You read me right. I say, I believe, and fact is, the 'CHRISTIAN CHURCH' IS ANTI-CHRIST.

    Who do you say, is anti-Christ?

    Here you illustrated yourself who anti-Christ is. Just like Dr Walter before. Once again the shoe fitted!

    Just like it was THE CHURCH OF GOD who crucified and killed the Lamb of God 2000 years ago, if Jesus were to be crucified today it would be the CHRISTIAN CHURCH who will crucify and kill Him.

    WHO else would?

    O yes the governments of the world.

    WHO GOVERNS THE WORLD TODAY?!




     
    #21 Gerhard Ebersoehn, Feb 22, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2015
  2. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    Rebel, if you don’t want to supply scripture, I will. I have already quoted Titus 2:15, “These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” Paul had appointed Titus to remain in Crete, organize the churches and appoint elders. Nowhere did Paul tell Titus to let the churches appoint their own elders. In fact the instructions given to Titus wee rather dictatorial. Titus had the first and the last word on how the churches of Crete did church. When you view Titus’ role in the Cretan churches it becomes plain and clear that Paul had appointed him Bishop of Crete.

    Like Titus, Timothy was also a bishop. The Bible doesn’t call him that but when you view the Timothy epistles in transactional perspective it is obvious that is what he was. Timothy was given the power to ordain elders. 1 Timothy 5:22. He received careful instructions about how to regard the conduct of the church members. Indeed, the purpose of the first Epistle was as stated in 1 Timothy 3:15: “I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”

    Doubting Thomas mentioned the First Jerusalem Council. You will recall the church at Antioch was struggling with how much, if any, Jewish tradition should be allowed or even required of Christians. The church at Antioch did not hold a business meeting to decide. They went to Jerusalem and discussed the matter with the apostles and the elders. There was much debate. Ultimately there was a decision, largely reached in a collegial manner. So without any doubt we know church councils are a biblical approach to solving doctrinal problems.

    There are simply no examples of the New Testament church acting independently of bishops, apostles or other churches. As close as we come is the election of deacons in Acts 6, but even there the church made this selection after being told to do so by the apostles.
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Fellow, you got a screw loose rattling around in your head. You obviously do not comprehend Scripture or history.

    The Church of God did not crucify Jesus Christ. It was the Jews, or Israel, colluding with Rome.

    Acts 2:22-24
    22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
    23. Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
    24. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.


    The nation Israel was not the Church of God! They were simply chosen by God for a purpose. God through the Apostle Paul tells us:

    Romans 9:6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

    God is simply reminding people that not all Israel are of "the Elect" just as not all people claiming to be Christians are of "the Elect"!



    ***************************************************************
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    This is called discipleship. Paul taught Titus. He was to teach and disciple other men. The principle is found in 2Tim.2:2:
    2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
    No, they were instructional: as a teacher to a student. Again, look at 2Tim.2:2. This is the heart of missions; the way that the gospel will propagate itself--through the work of local churches, independent of each other.
    The word bishop simply means "overseer" and is another word for pastor. There was no such "office" as bishop in the NT. There is no such thing as denomination. You are reading into scripture things that are not there.
    Paul established over 100 churches in 3 different missionaries, and all of them were independent of each other. There were no denominations, just local churches.
    No. Timothy was a pastor, the pastor of the church at Ephesus.
    So do I. I am not a bishop. I have helped to ordain many pastors and/or missionaries into full time service. There is no such thing as a bishop. NO such monstrosity exists in the Bible. The word means "overseer," another duty of the pastor.
    Of course. It was a pastoral epistle. Its stated purpose was to give instructions about the local church. These truths are self-evident.
    Every local church is "the household of God, the church of the living of God, the pillar and support of the truth," in the community in which they live. The stand upon the truth of God and shine forth the truth of God. That is the purpose of the local church.
    Where and when?
    Thomas, according to historical data, was moved by the Holy Spirit to become a missionary to India. It was there he ministered, and there he died. He wasn't sent by a denomination. The Holy Spirit sent him. He established local churches, not a denomination.
    They weren't struggling about that issue at all. The problem was that false teachers called Judaizers came and taught them false doctrine--that they should keep the law and be circumcised as requirements for salvation. This was a false gospel. It was to be condemned.
    There was little debate. There was some protest by the false teachers. Then Paul and Barnabas testified before all what the Lord had done through them among the Gentiles. Their testimony caused some stir because there were some believing Pharisees there.
    Then Peter arose and addressed all that were there.
    Then they were silent and listened intently to all that Paul and Barnabas had to say. (vs. 12).
    Then immediately (vs. 13), James tells them to listen, I have already made my decision. He was the pastor of the church of Jerusalem. It was his decision. He had taken advice from the others and listened to their testimonies. But he was the pastor. Now he gives the decision.
    After a few introductory words, in verse 19, he begins:
    Wherefore MY judgement is... There was no debate. It was a decision by James the pastor of this independent church.
    The reason: To make a public statement of the heresy of the Judaizers by the apostles so all the churches would know.
    You are absolutely wrong. All decisions were made by independent churches, and there are no examples of one church acting on behalf of another. You are teaching a false doctrine.
     
  5. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    DHK, in your typical fashion you have ignored what I have written and deliberately painted with a broad brush in your response, hoping that you have adequately refuted it.

    Case in point: I posted that Doubting Thomas mentioned the First Jerusalem Council. You ask, “Where and when?” Then you went into Thomas going to India, etc. Had you given this any thought at all you would have recognized that Doubting Thomas is a member of this forum who had previously posted on this thread. Go back and read the thread. Post No. 12 would be material to the discussion.

    And where did you get the idea there was little debate at the Jerusalem council? Read Acts 15:7, “After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them . . . .”

    As for whether the New Testament shows the church having two or three orders, I will cut you some slack. A lot of people miss the third order of bishop because they only look at what scripture says. They pay no attention to who is writing, to whom it is being written, or why it is being written. They pay no attention to the transactions taking place in the writing. They often disregard what precedes and follows it. In other words, they ignore the context. If you ignore context you will often miss the true meaning.

    Now looking at the context of the Pastoral Epistles, it is clear that Paul is instructing Timothy and Titus in how to run a church. Not just their church but multiple churches. This is the job of a bishop—to appoint and ordain elders in local churches and to make sure these elders properly pastor their flock. These men clearly had more authority than the ordinary elder. In addition to Timothy and Titus there were probably others, Luke for example, but scripture only focuses on these two. So yes, there are three orders—deacon, elder and bishop. This is sound doctrine, and we see it being used without any question of its propriety in the Bible and also in the Second Century Church and thereafter.

    As for the local church which you extol, it exists only as an organ of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I will repeat what I said in my previous post: "There are simply no examples of the New Testament church acting independently of bishops, apostles or other churches. As close as we come is the election of deacons in Acts 6, but even there the church made this selection after being told to do so by the apostles."


    You say there were no denominations in the New Testament church. You are right. There was one church with many local congregations, i.e., the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is fact and anyone who says otherwise distorts the Word of God.
     
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    :laugh: I have to laugh at myself for that one. Thanks for pointing it out.
    I don't know what I was thinking (except that I had been reading my Bible quite recently), and not the board. :thumbsup:
     
  7. The American Dream

    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    20
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Except for the Council of Jerusalem mentioned in the book of Acts, there is no evidence in Scripture of a hierarchy. It is an invention of the RCC, and mainline Protestant denominations today that carry the baggage of a hierarchy left it in place when they broke away from the RCC. Paul addresses each letter to the Church of ........ The churches mentioned in the first few chapters of Revelation give no evidence of having a hierarchy.

    The work of the Lord is carried out by the local church. A hierarchy is needless layers of bureaucracy that adds nothing to the Great Commission, but is basically a waste of money that could be used to support missionaries.

    In a local church, one form their own budget, calls their own pastor, forms their own church covenant, sets their order of worship, and owns their own building. I would not want a presbytery, synod, bishop, cardinal, or whatever other titles exist in these higher layers dictating who was going to serve as pastor.
     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    I agree, as the saying is: "Every Church holds its own key." However I believe that Baptist Associations have the prerogative of declaring non-fellowship with Churches that preach a false doctrine or deviate from Baptist polity and that they should exercise that prerogative. That should, in my opinion, extend all the way to the SBC. I have heard that the only requisite for a Baptist church to attend and vote at the SBC is that they support the Cooperative program.
     
  9. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Have you read the SBC constitution and what is says about being a messenger at the annual SBC?
     
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    NO!.....................

    Doesn't limit much does it?

    ************************************************************************
     
    #30 OldRegular, Feb 22, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2015
  11. Rebel

    Rebel Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yes, I am aware of Acts 15. But I don't see that the council imposed its views on anyone or any church, forced anyone to comply, coerced uniformity, or any such action. I don't see that this was done in the New Testament or early churches. This only happened much later when men abandoned NT principles.

    Freedom is based in scripture, but freedom does not mean a license to change scripture or disregard its teachings. Further, the Holy Spirit will not lead anyone contrary to clear teachings of scripture. Scripture condemns homosexual sex in no uncertain terms. Nothing can change that.

    You ask good questions, and, yes, I have considered these questions and issues. I have been through long study and struggle to get to the place I am today. Indeed this is a complex issue, as you have stated. It is also true that we all use subjective judgment and we come to these questions from specific backgrounds and experiences. However, if one is sincere about wanting the truth, one must be willing to study ALL sources and follow wherever the evidence leads. I think that is why my views don't fit neatly into any one denomination.

    You asked a very pertinent question: "how do we know if what we've decided to believe in matches up with objective reality regarding Christian faith and practice?" As I said, we must use every resource we can find to study the issues. We must let scripture speak for itself, but we also have to be aware of the times and culture in which scripture was written. We can study extra-biblical writings but be careful not to establish doctrine solely on those. We must be willing and desirous of being objective.

    I think if we do all this, we can come as close as is likely possible to, as you say "objective reality regarding Christian faith and practice." Still, disagreements happen, just as they did at the end of Acts 15. When that happens, people have to go their separate ways, just as Paul and Barnabas did. That's why there are denominations. I don't see that as a bad thing. What I see as bad is enforced conformity and uniformity from a hierarchy. Such is a denial of a basic God-given freedom, freedom of conscience.

    I hope I have adequately answered your questions and responded to your good and thoughtful post.
     
  12. The American Dream

    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    20
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is correct. The SBC can expel a local church for preaching or practicing false doctrine. The difference is the SBC has no governing authority. And a local church can vote to withdraw at any time. The SBC facilitates missionaries among other tasks.
     
  13. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    Thanks for your reply. Although we may disagree about the importance of the Jerusalem council, I do appreciate that you've obviously spent time wrestling with these issues. I too agree that where Scripture is clear it needs to be obeyed. However some will argue passionately that their views on some essential issues are the ones clearly taught by Scripture while others who believe the opposite may do the same. I think in cases like these, something like St Vincent's Rule is helpful.
     
  14. The American Dream

    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    20
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It has been implied that a hierarchy promotes unity of belief instead of disunity of autonomous congregations. Lets see what purpose did a hierarchy serve the PCUSA sanctioning same sex marriage. Yeah they are unified. Local PCUSA churches get with the program. No thanks I'll take a autonomous local church any day.
     
  15. Rebel

    Rebel Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    There are no examples of a hierarchy in the New Testament, or of a local church being forced to accept a decision or opinion of a council. The NT knows nothing of bishop as a third order of ministry. A NT bishop is simply the pastor of a local church. The words 'bishop' and 'pastor', as well as 'presbyter' and 'elder' are used interchangeably, or synonymously.

    Even the Anglican Communion, having a Catholic side or element, says in its articles that church councils can and have erred. Anglicanism has scripture as its final authority. Considering the variation in doctrine found therein, it could be rightly said that there is more freedom of conscience in the Anglican Communion than anywhere else. And I'm not talking about liberal apostasy, but freedom of conscience within orthodox belief.
     
  16. Rebel

    Rebel Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Amen to that. Look at also the Episcopal Church. Their hierarchy and 'apostolic succession' did not prevent them from ordaining a Sodomite bishop.
     
  17. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    Like I said in an earlier post, you won't see any language in the New Testament that expressly recognizes three orders. However, when you look at what they were doing you will recognize that Timothy and Titus had wider responsibilities and powers than pastors/elders/presbyters. It was their job to select and ordain pastors/elders/presbyters. That responsibility is not given to pastors to replace themselves but was given to an order above them, whose title does not appear in the N.T. but who we now recognize as bishop. This conclusion is of course bolstered by the writings of the early church fathers, and in particular Ignatius (circa 50-117 A.D.), one of the earliest church fathers. If you haven't read any of his writings, you would do well to do so.
     
  18. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    and that is why many local churches have left the Episcopal Church - and many of those knew they would have lost their buildings as well. That is truly standing up for you beliefs.
     
  19. Rebel

    Rebel Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have read Ignatius and many of the Greek fathers. When Ignatius was writing, any reference to a 'bishop' was to a pastor, for the simple fact that no monarchical bishops existed at that time. The language and offices of the New Testament -- only two offices: pastor/bishop/elder/presbyter, and deacon -- were in effect. The apostles did not pass their authority on to anyone else; when they died, the 'apostleship', if you will, died with them. The office of bishop/pastor did not replace the office of the apostles. The bishop as a third order or office developed later out of administrative necessity, most of all.

    An interesting note is that in the Alexandrian church, presbyters ordained their own bishops for more than 200 years in the early years of Christianity.
     
  20. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The word is more accurately translated "dispute," as it is in the KJV, and in most other translations:
    Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them...
    --It was't organized debate. It was the Judaizers trying to force their heresy on the others.
    Of course. That is what sola scriptura is. The scripture is our final authority, not tradition and the writings of others. Most heresy evolved from the ECF.
    Now that is all part of sola scriptura. Let's take an example.
    Go to Acts 20. Here Paul did not have time to go to Ephesus, so he meets half way with the elders (pastors) of Ephesus, of which Timothy was the senior pastor.
    Act 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
    --Here they are called elders.

    Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
    --Here he addresses them as overseers. The Greek word here is: episkopos.
    It is the same word used in 1Tim.3:1,2 that is translated "bishop."
    Thus overseer and bishop mean the same, and are the same person that is also called "elder."
    The command here is "to feed the flock of God." That is the shepherd's duty of the direct duty of the pastor. He is addressing the pastors of the church.
    Pastor, elder, bishop, overseer, are all words to describe the same person, but different parts of his ministry. There is no hierarchy described here. He is speaking to the elders or pastors of one church, the church at Ephesus.
    Mature local churches often start other churches and help them find pastors. We have done that in our area here. We have also carried out the same principle on the mission field. No denomination is needed.
    These men were elders by nature of their office as a pastor.
    BTW, the word "office" is entirely an English addition not found in the Greek in 1Tim.3, where the qualifications for the "offices" of a pastor and deacon are listed. It isn't there. The ministries of the pastor and deacon are there, and both are ministers or servants of the local church to whom they are appointed for service. The word "office" was inserted by the translators.
    Elder and bishop are the same person as we have seen.
    The word deacon "diakonos" is a transliteration, as you can see.
    The actual translation of the word is "servant."
    The feminine form of the Greek word is used in Romans 16:1, where it is accurately translated:
    Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
    It is the same word: diakonos, more accurately translated "servant." It is not an office, per se.
    You have put forth tradition, not sound doctrine at all.
    Although many assume that these are the first "deacons" in Acts 6, the word deacon is not there. These were men that helped the apostles in a specific matter, so that they could give themselves to the Word and prayer. People assume they were deacons. It doesn't say they were.
    There is no "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church." This is a fact not in existence, and therefore a logical fallacy.
    Over 100 churches established on 3 missionary journeys is enough evidence to establish the autonomy of local churches. Christ wrote seven different letters to seven different churches, all independent of each other. There was nothing to connect them to each other. If there was Christ could have written one letter to them all, but he didn't.
    You fail to make a case for any kind of a denominational church; for any kind of one catholic church at all. There were simply local churches and that is all.
    You are wrong, wrong in your ecclesiology, wrong in your assumptions, wrong in your definitions, wrong in your conclusions. The Catholic Church never existed until the fourth century. All of the churches mentioned in the NT were independent of each other.
     
Loading...