Scriptures in which most Baptists are not 'literalists'

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Alcott, Jul 14, 2004.

?

“Drink no longer water, but rather wine for your stomach’s sake…”

  1. This passage has no truth

    20.9%
  2. This passage has application limited by time and place (in spite of the fact that WE have it to read

    2.3%
  3. This passage is figurative only; we are not to regard it as literal

    27.9%
  4. This passage has limits based on the precise subject at hand, and is not necessarily applicable in a

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. The <i>preponderance</i> of passages teach differently from this passage, and therefore I go with th

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. There are other passages which teach differently about this topic—I choose them instead

    2.3%
  7. “Literalism” is simply the wrong approach to scripture, and this is a good example

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. As human knowledge increases, the Word of God then actually <i>does</i> change in how we are to rega

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. This passage teaches contrary to how my mind is made up—I will ignore it

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. I admit it—I ‘pick and choose’; and this is a passage I <i>don’t</i> pick or choose

    46.5%
  11. No conflict—I accept/carry out this passage as it is stated

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. No answer

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    This poll is a collection of biblical passages that Baptists traditionally do not take literally (though some may), and thus do not carry out as stated. If you are one who does not carry out the given passage as stated, what is the reason?

    Note: The common explanation ,“Out of context”, is not an answer choice here because that is not specific enough; so please note all choices to identify how or why a literal reading of the passage is "out of context." Also, in case you do regard the passage as literal, that answer option is also a choice.
     
  2. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Alcott---I believe when your survey is over you will find as I did that many(if not all) of your questions will be answered by #3 "Precise subject at hand . . ."----at least by one who carefully develops the text by exposition!

    Blackbird
     
  3. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no problem with any of those verses in context, except the washing feet one. I admit, I don't want anyone to have to experience getting close to my feet.
     
  4. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about these:

    Ro 16:16 -
    Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
    1Co 16:20 -
    All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.
    2Co 13:12 -
    Greet one another with an holy kiss.
    1Th 5:26 -
    Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.

    This Sunday morning, try greeting some brethren "with an holy kiss". I think you'd get a less than receptive response.
     
  5. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I picked more "accept as true" then any other. What I find interesting is that the only question that some of us admitted we simply pick and choose was the foot washing. I'm not huge in the footwashing (though I did do it once for all my friends), but don't have a great explanation for why we don't do it. My pastor did a sermon recently on it where he concluded that foot washing is really confronting each other about our sins. His belief is that if we only had to wash feet, we would be getting off easy. I tend to think it is more on the account of being each others servent, as a foot washer would have been in that day. But both of these seem to me a bit like explaining the passage away, since it doesn't fit our culture whatsoever.

    This was an execllent poll, one of they best in a long time.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is quite a long list of passages, none of which cause any problems when they are rightly understood. Remember "literal" has a context and an audience. When we rightly understand the passage, there is no problem.
     
  7. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was unable to read or answer your poll. I plucked my eyes out sometime ago!!! :eek:
     
  8. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,430
    Likes Received:
    72
    References to the location of such verses would have been helpful in some cases. Without sufficient prior knowledge, some of the verses may be a bit difficult to understand in context.

    I was surprised to see individuals voting for a literal interpretation of the Eucharistic verse. Do we have some closet Catholics in the Baptist church? :confused:

    Also, literalizing the hyperbolic comment of plucking your eye out??? Has any sane person anyone ACTUALLY plucked out an eye? :confused:
     
  9. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't it literally better to be without an eye than to be cast into hell with both eyes intact?

    Andy
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Talk about snatching verses out of their contexts to prove a point :eek: :rolleyes:
     
  11. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    After 20 votes, it does not appear that way, as much I am sure you want that to be the case.
     
  12. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess you are encouraging crazy literalism, like my 2 year old practices, instead of accurate, historical literal interpretation. All of your passages in their literal historical context do not conflict with any area of my theology or practice, including the 2 quotes from Jesus that are obvious figurative language.
     
  13. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    I will use my 1000th post (after 'only' a year and a half) here to say I am not "encouraging crazy literalism." It's just to show that the point is easily made that no one is an absolute literalist on scripture, and that the reasons we are not turn out to be the same reasons that 'liberal' Christians ignore many scriptures, saying they have "historical perspective" and do not apply any more, or that the words were said 'in response to the subject at hand,' or similar reasons. Additionally it shows that everyone who does regard the authority of scripture is very selective based on what they have been taught and/or what they want to be literal. Baptists consensually accept "Believe on the the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" as literally true, but not "My body is true food and my blood is true drink." Catholics believe the opposite.
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    All of these passages are to be interpreted literally for the [purpose for which they are intended[/b], not to be taken out of context to create a false teaching.
     
  15. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    A good example often misinterpreted is found in Mt. 8:28, Mk. 5:2, Lk. 8:27.

    Mt. 8:28, "When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs."

    Mk. 5:2, "When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him,"

    Lk. 8:27, "And when He came out onto the land, He was met by a man from the city who was possessed with demons; and who had not put on any clothing for a long time, and was not living in a house, but in the tombs."

    Notice in Matthew there is two demoniacs and one in the other passages.
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I was amazed that so many baptists voted to baptize in the name of Jesus only (not trinitarian formula). The UPC would be proud!
     
  17. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,430
    Likes Received:
    72
    I voted for such a baptism, but I do not practice it. My baptism was with the trinitarian formula, and when I begin to baptize others, I will use that formula, but I would personally accept other baptisms as valid if they just used Jesus' name. Even so, I would not accept UPC baptisms, but that is for their denial of the trinity not for the baptismal formula.

    Basically, if the occasion ever comes when a person is baptized in Jesus' name only but he or she believes in the trinity, I would say that would be an appropriate baptism.

    I voted for the verse because I could accept it, even though I would practice differently.
     
  18. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    That issue is another example of believing what we have been taught or just want to believe. From Catholicism through the Reformation until the Pentecostal movement, churches have believed that the words must be said as in Matthew 28:19, "...baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." But there are 4 examples in Acts where it is specifically said "baptized in the name of Jesus" ...

    Acts 2:38 -- Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    Acts 8:16 -- For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

    Acts 10:48 -- And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

    Acts 19:5 -- When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

    I have not researched this thoroughly, but I tend to think the pentecostals saw this as a "formula" for 'receiving the Holy Spirit' in trying to do it as it was done in the book of Acts. Therefore it became one of those wedge issues, such as C of C's refuting instrumental music, or 7th Day Adventists worshipping on the 7th day. The thought was "Hey, we found the right way to do this!" Really, it's not unlike Baptists coming along and insisting upon immersion of professed believers.

    But Pentecostals or not, there is really no way I can see that baptism in the name of Jesus [only] is not a valid New Testament baptism. Jesus answered Philip's request to be shown the Father by saying, "Do you not yet know who I am, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). So if anyone thinks the Father (and the Holy Spirit) is excluded by saying "baptize you in the name of Jesus," consider Jesus' words in this verse.
     
  19. R. Charles Blair

    R. Charles Blair
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re the 3 accounts of the demoniac(s): last I heard 2 includes 1; evidently one turned and ran, the other stayed. Matthew was there, noted the second man; Mark & Luke, not present, reported the one who was converted.

    Re "Jesus only" - no verse in Acts reads that way.
    Compare the 4 passages used (2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) - 3 different terms used, none "Jesus only".
    "Name" gives authority, as in signing a check; they certainly baptized in the Name He gave, that of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. They would not have violated His command so easily and received His power so readily.

    I've been missing you folks - computer problems, gone in revival, etc. - Glad to be back.

    Best in Christ - R. Charles Blair - Rom. 8:28
     
  20. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    I voted "No conflict" on all of them. No verse conflicts with any other verse (in reality). Also, all passages have "limits based on...". The Bible is just plain amazing.
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...