Scriptures in which most Baptists are not 'literalists'

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I was unable to read or answer your poll. I plucked my eyes out sometime ago!!!

 

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?

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

 

Isn't it literally better to be without an eye than to be cast into hell with both eyes intact?

Andy

 

Talk about snatching verses out of their contexts to prove a point

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.