Good Friday Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 After looking at the thread about the Immaculate Conception and whether or not Mary is sinless based on Scripture, I decided to go look and see if everything in the Baptist Distinctives on the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches website is explicitly Biblical. I'll admit that most of it does seem to have a Biblical basis, but there were several questions that struck me, and I thought I'd post them here: 1. On Biblical Authority -- the Baptist Distinctives state that "the Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice" and that "no human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible." But from which verse(s) in the Bible does the Baptist church derive the canon of the New Testament, or the Old Testament for that matter? For instance, where in the Bible would a Baptist be able to find that the Letter of James or the Gospel of John are supposed to be there, but the gospel of Thomas or the Pistis Sophia are not? 2. On the Two Ordinances -- indeed these two ordinances do have Scriptural basis, but it seems that there would be basis for more than two ordinances. For instance, the Sacrament of Reconciliation has a firm basis in Scripture (cf. Jn 20:23; Jas 5:16). The Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick has a similar Scriptural basis (cf. Jas 5:13-15). So from which part of the Bible does the Baptist church determine that there should only be two specific ordinances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 (edited) 1. We trust that God only allowed the books into the Bible that belong in the Bible. Historically the criteria for entering a book into the Bible wasn't a buffet type deal-pick what you like, but was much tougher. Please read the verses that are referenced. Also, these distinctives transcend the GARBC into all Baptist Churches. 2. John 20:23 is a specific command to the Apostles of Christ, and I don't believe means what the Catholic Church teaches it to mean. James 5:16 is a call to prayer and confession. Not necessarily to a priest for absolution. James 5:13-15 - As we know not everyone we pray for who is sick gets better. Only if it is in the Lords will are they healed. Baptism and Communion were specifically instituted by Jesus Christ for all Christians to participate in. PS- are you Catholic again? Edited July 17, 2003 by Brother Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted July 17, 2003 Author Share Posted July 17, 2003 May the truth of Christ be with you, Bro. Adam. Yes, I am Catholic again. 1. We trust that God only allowed the books into the Bible that belong in the Bible. Historically the criteria for entering a book into the Bible wasn't a buffet type deal-pick what you like, but was much tougher. Please read the verses that are referenced. Also, these distinctives transcend the GARBC into all Baptist Churches.I don't have a Bible in front of me this minute, but I will read them later when I do. But historically, which Church chose the books that would be in the Bible? 2. John 20:23 is a specific command to the Apostles of Christ, and I don't believe means what the Catholic Church teaches it to mean. James 5:16 is a call to prayer and confession. Not necessarily to a priest for absolution. James 5:13-15 - As we know not everyone we pray for who is sick gets better. Only if it is in the Lords will are they healed. We'll not agree anytime soon on the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Having both experienced it and having not seen any other valid interpretation of the verses I provided, I absolutely believe that Jesus ordained the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Besides the fact that Jesus ordained it, though, I think it's good on a practical level. It helps to keep us accountable and, thus, tends to prevent us from as readily committing the same sins we always commit because we know we'll have to confess it again. Not only that, but I've found that after receiving absolution, I actually feel forgiven; whereas, when I was a Non-Catholic Christian, I never felt truly forgiven when I simply asked God for forgiveness. As for the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, the Church doesn't teach that the sick always get physically better. However, that doesn't change its Biblical basis as found in the Letter of James. The Church teaches that the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick always heals on the spiritual level, and sometimes heals on the physical level. Baptism and Communion were specifically instituted by Jesus Christ for all Christians to participate in. One could make this same argument about the Sacrament of Reconciliaton and the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a matter of interpretation, but my interpretation is not my own, it is the interpretation of a Church that actually dates back to the time of Jesus. As for the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, if it was instituted in the Bible (in the Letter of James), then it was technically instituted by Jesus Christ for all Christians to participate in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 "James 5:16 is a call to prayer and confession. Not necessarily to a priest for absolution." Yes yes, but then Christ also said, (John 20: 21) Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.22 And with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven. This was, as you said, "a specific command to the Apostles of Christ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 For emphasis... "if YOU do not forgive them, they are not forvigen." In otherwords, if we don't have a piest forgive us in the name of Christ Jesus, then unfortunatly they are not forgiven. Of course - theres more to it than that (like culpability, ignorance, etc. - but you see the point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Well, yeah, that's your take on it. It's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 don't forget the multiple baptisms y'all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 "that's your take on" You're getting it Bro. Yeeeeehaaaaw. That's why we need the Church! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 "that's your take on" You're getting it Bro. Yeeeeehaaaaw. That's why we need the Church! Well, that or I could be a universalist, or I could believe in the authority of the believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 What does that mean? It sounded like a pointless vaguery to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 There's basically three different options you could hold to. I listed the other two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy316 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 "James 5:16 is a call to prayer and confession. Not necessarily to a priest for absolution." Yes yes, but then Christ also said, (John 20: 21) Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.22 And with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven. This was, as you said, "a specific command to the Apostles of Christ". Sorry to jump into the "debate" now, but I don't understand how John 20:23 is misunderstood so often and taken up for debate. It seems pretty clear to me. Can Bro Adam or Mulls explain to me your interpretation of John 20:23?? nippy316/Justine P.S. This post wasn't meant to sound mean or like I'm attacking you. I just think these words are pretty clear. Thanks!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 John 20 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." I don't know, but that doesn't mean you're right. I'll have to read more up on it. It doesn't sound like to me that Christ is giving the Apostles the specific power judge and either cleanse someone of their sins or beaver dam them to hell. I think other verses tell us that is left to God alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReformationNow Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 don't forget the multiple baptisms y'all! What is that supposed to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now