Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Daniel David, Dec 5, 2004.
The ordinances would of course be the Lord's supper and baptism.
What say you?
What about head-covering, anointing the sick with oil, the agape meal, laying on of hands etc?
Are those ordinances? No. Please don't derail this train, it just left the station.
Take a look at Rev. 2 and 3
They weren't wrongly observing ordinances.
I guess that means YOU don't practice these New Testament teachings.....LOL!
Baptists have always held to two ordinances, the two I mentioned. There is a Other Religions category if you insist on adding to the number of ordinances.
Other religions - actually the early Baptists practiced all those things I listed.....it is the children of Protestantism (like yourself) which threw them out! Still, I suppose the early Baptists were a different religion to yours.
Just a whole lot worse.
You could conisider the church at Corinth as not rightly observing the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.
This was just one of the many problems this church had, yet the Apostle Paul didn't stop calling them a church because of their lack of rightly observing this ordinance.
This sounds like a thread J. R. Graves would have started. Maybe Daniel David is an Old Landmark Baptist?
If you don't park your car in the garage is it a car? If a church doesn't observe God's ordinances they are still a church but not obedient. My opinion.
Dean correctly points out that different Baptists have, over the years, had different ordinances; baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only two on everyone's list.
Okay people, but my opening post specifies the two actual ones.
I remember sitting in a seminary class talking about the definition of a church. We came up with "a baptized body of believers". Then I pointed out that according to that definition, THIS SEMINARY CLASS is a church because we are all baptized believers. That got some head scratching going -
And what we came up with was . . .
Each church is allowed the liberty to carry out the ordinances as they see fit. For example, some churches allow communion only for their own church members. Others extend it to anyone who professes Christ as their savior. Others extend it to non-church members, but limit it to members of their denomination or fellowship. Since none of those violates scripture, I see no problem with allowing a church to carry out the ordinance as it sees fit, regardless of whether I or others find the manner in which they carry out that ordinance nappropriate.
Most give a larger definition including believer's baptism (by immersion, since that is the only kind of baptism there is), meeting at regular and stated times, observing the ordinances, etc. As I recall, there are seven components, but I am too lazy to look them up right now and don't want to think that hard.
IN answer to the question, if they never observe them and never have any intent to observe them then No, they are not a church. The Bible does not specify how regular the observance of hte two is to be though.
Today is Monday, right. We understand.
I have never been to a modern day church that actually has a Biblical Lord's Supper, most simply have a ritual that involves a piece of stale cracker and some grape juice once a month.
The Biblical Lord's Supper of the New Testement church was a full meal on a regular basis, not just a monthly ritual.
"The Biblical Lord's Supper of the New Testement church was a full meal on a regular basis, not just a monthly ritual."
Absolutely! Amen. And the early Baptists would have a full agape meal too, ending with bread and wine.