[Linux4christians] Baptists & Biblical Doctrine

[Pastor David]

> Probably so, but I doubt any church one happens to
> fellowship with actually would look much like it does
> now, if you did that. For example:

"Pagan Christianity" by Barna & Viola offers a pretty
scathing indictment of the wide range of distortions
injected into fellowships over time - many of which are
now falsely believed to be Biblical in source.

I am not comfortable with some of their recommendations
toward the end of the book but they ask some legitimate and
tough questions at the start.

After 19 years in non-associational and associational
fellowships, studies in two different seminaries, and 
service as an administrator and adjunct professor in a Bible
college, and in discussion and study of church history and 
doctrine I am persuaded that there is more darkness than
light to be found therein.

> 1.) Baptism: covenant child or just believer? Immersion
> or sprinkling? The Bible doesn't say.

Why the artificial difference?  The Bible doesn't make one.
This is an example where religious folks have complicated
the simple.  A saved person is a child of God, a saint, a
member of His eternal family, a participant in the new
covenant, etc.  It's in the Bible - we don't need the
self-serving ramblings of confused religious folks to get
our answers - God's Word and the enlightment of His
indwelling Holy Spirit are all we need - God says so.

As for the modality of Baptism the Bible is clear that it is
merely a symbolic act - for those who are capable immersion
is the best symbolic representation - for the person in a
hospital bed wired-up to sensitive electronic gear such
would not be practical - and there would be no sin in a
non-immersion alternative.  Grace applies - we know this
because Paul used the illustration of "eating meat or not
eating meat" to teach us that.

No church history necessary for context or understanding 
beyond that reported in the Bible.

> 2.) Lord's Supper: Wafers? Loaves? A banquet at a table
> in the fellowship hall?

Doesn't matter - it was not the point of the exercise.

> 3.) Sunday services or just a Bible study at a local
> believer's house?

Doesn't matter - it is irrelevant to the purpose.

> 4.) Scripture: which books? Canon was settled by the
> church.

No, Canon was settled by God, He led folks in religious
organizations to recognize it.  A vital difference.

If mere man decided what is Canon, without the direction of
God, then we may as well toss our Bibles in the trash as 
they are unreliable.

> 5) Covenant theology? Dispensationalism? Etc. (The
> rapture in its modern sense appears in the 19th century.)

The rapture is recorded in the Bible, that some failed to 
recognize that and then recognized once it again in the 19th 
Century is "shame on them".

It is the same with Luther recognizing again what the Bible
taught about faith and not works - it was always there - the
religious folks had merely obscured it for Satan-manipulated
self-serving reasons.

Same as the Trinity - it was always there - that it took so 
long for some in religious leadership to rediscover it is 
again "shame on them".

> As a wise fellow I know jokes: be careful in wishing to
> be the New Testament church... you don't want to be
> Corinth or Galatia or...
> 
> -Tim

We surely have that, without a doubt!

The NT church I am interested in is the one (or ones) upon 
whom Paul and others heaped compliments - or even better a 
collection of all of the best into one.

Berean checking of everything with the Word.

Thessalonian spreading of the Word as they learned it and 
their love for others.

etc.



-- 

Have an http://Ultrafidian.com Day!  Pastor David
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senior Pastor (Interim) Bethel Missionary Baptist
http://bethelstatesboro.org (new site pending)
Bible Commentary & Daily Reflection-Action-Devotional
http://bibleseven.com/b7/b7studies.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~