Southern Baptist question

[furtaker]

then, could you please explain Acts 15:23 and following?

If you see anything that resembles an organization like the SBC or UMC in Acts 15, then you see something in the passage that I certainly don't see.

 

[furtaker]

You must have completely glossed over the book of Acts where Paul after he met the risen Savior on the road to Damascus and initial instruction by Ananias returned to Jerusalem and placed what he had been taught before James and the disciples. Or further as Paul sends epistles to churches all over asia minor with instructions and corrections.
Maybe you meant a worldly hierarchy but each local church and pastor must submit to others the same as the individual follower for instruction and correction that they stay true to the gospel. As the word says iron sharpens iron. Or to use my pastor's term accountability partners.

I don't see any similarity between the Southern Baptist Convention and the Apostle Paul sending instructions and corrections to believers. And I certainly don't put the leader of the SBC, the UMC, or some other organization in the same class as the Apostle Paul who wrote half of the New Testament.

 

[NE GA Pappy]

The churches in the Bible times were independent groups of people governed by the pastor, deacons, and people, not some convention group with offices 500 miles away who told them what to do.

they were held accountable by the leaders of the church. At first it was Peter, Barnabas and others. That is why Acts 15 records them asking of the leadership, and the leadership responding as to how a situation should be handled. Even Paul went back to Jerusalem to ask about traveling to minister.

I agree there wasn't a formal convention, but there was a leadership oversight of those churches, and Syria is a good distance out from Jerusalem.

Rome is even farther

 

[gawildlife]

And I certainly don't put the leader of the SBC, the UMC, or some other organization in the same class as the Apostle Paul who wrote half of the New Testament.

Nor do I, but the scripture is pretty clear in submitting to the teaching of those God places in leadership.

 

[formula1]

At the risk of being a simpleton, if one loves Jesus and follows Him and lives for Him, taking time to acquaint themselves with His word and learn of Him and walk with Him, the problem is solved. Jesus is lifted up and lives are changed for Him.

So the problem, if we have one, is actually in each mirror!

 

[gordon 2]

At the risk of being a simpleton, if one loves Jesus and follows Him and lives for Him, taking time to acquaint themselves with His word and learn of Him and walk with Him, the problem is solved. Jesus is lifted up and lives are changed for Him.

So the problem, if we have one, is actually in each mirror!

I think that I read or understood in scripture that a few who lived for God through the word could not recognize Jesus as anything but a fraud.

They loved God, perhaps for what God did for them. But how could they love God for who he simply was as they did not know I Am That I Am other than what their commentators interpreted by their research.

Simply they were the elect and the heavy lifters regards God. They had mirrors and these simply reflected back what they were.

Perhaps it is a problem today still and so the problem if there is one and it is not solved necessarily.

While it is true that those who love God, God knows them. Some who say it ( declare it) however might not be known at all. Not being embraced by God's love and using the bible as a road map might be possible today. And it might be a problem in the assessments of good and evil in general when faith is the solid ground of believers.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Is there an organization today that can be defined as being the role that Paul, Silas, and Timothy played in the Church's leadership?

 

[formula1]

Many ways to describe this but if we are not known by God and yet we declare so, even scripture and the Holy Spirit gives the wisdom to discern it.

Some scripture examples:
Matthew 7:15-20
Galatians 5:22-23
John 13:35
John 14:23
Romans 12:10
1 John 2:10

….and so on!

 

[The Original Rooster]

All I know is that if I witnessed or became aware of a sexual assault at a church of ANY denomination, there's nothing anyone could do to stop me from reporting it to the police.
If these church's had just done that in the first place, they could have avoided this. Yes, it would be an embarrassment to the church at the time, but it would be a lot less than the damage of covering it up.

 

[Wifeshusband]

I am still a Southern Baptist. As stated above, the local congregations are autonomous, which is somewhat of a saving grace for us. Look at what is happening to the Methodists right now, being literally torn asunder, as they have been trying to split for the last several years because of rampant liberalism in the Methodist hierarchy. The Methodist have sued their biggest church in Georgia in Cobb County, Mt. Bethel, because they had a conservative pastor, i.e., one who was preaching the gospel. He refused to step down and the church shunned the newly appointed pastor. Whoever heard of a denomination suing itself. It's getting nasty.

What gripes me is the SBC and the SBC Baptist Churches planting new churches and then the new church removes "Baptist" from their name, as if they are ashamed. They get the money and help from the SBC and SBC churches but then turn their back on the heritage. I have a son who is always complaining about the corruption and faults of capitalism. I said, look , it has it's faults, but show me something that is working better for other countries around the world.

 

[Throwback]

If anyone has a story linky, feel free to PM it to me.

Google “southern Baptist convention drama”

 

[Flash]

Google “southern Baptist convention drama”

Is this it??? Found a story dated today, where one is bringing a lawsuit against another (man)
Didn't see anything "juicy" Pretty sure I heard the one doing the suing preach 12 or so yrs ago.

 

[Madman]

they were held accountable by the leaders of the church. At first it was Peter, Barnabas and others. That is why Acts 15 records them asking of the leadership, and the leadership responding as to how a situation should be handled. Even Paul went back to Jerusalem to ask about traveling to minister.

I agree there wasn't a formal convention, but there was a leadership oversight of those churches, and Syria is a good distance out from Jerusalem.

Rome is even farther

It is apparent Christ set up a Church and put men in charge of it from Acts. Those men met and sent out decrees to the other churches. It has been discussed before but if someone is interested lets take this discussion to another topic.

I will say, this very topic is why there needs to be one Church as Christ originally designed.

 

[hummerpoo]

There is one church as there is one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Let the members recognize one another.

Amen!!!

Failure in that recognition in the F & M 2000 sent me looking elsewhere.

 

[j_seph]

Simplest solution is to put God back in church and in control of it not man. We will have different folks have different ideas of how something should be done or what should be done. It is never "Go ahead and do it", it is as a church lets pray about it and let the Lord lead it. This is what I mean by putting God back in control not man. Thankful to be considered independent Baptist but in the end all that matters is that you know Jesus as your personal Savior.

 

[Madman]

Is there an organization today that can be defined as being the role that Paul, Silas, and Timothy played in the Church's leadership?

Whether they accurately display the role or not, those in true Apostolic succession are supposed to be those men.

 

[Madman]

There is one church as there is one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Let the members recognize one another.

and are they all of one mind as Christ prayed?

 

[Madman]

That's a great question over which I have sought understanding; at least in terms of that (and my particular) recognition mentioned. That one body of Christ (as Christ is One) of which each individual believer is a member. The question is reduced for me to "how does it/she appear?" vs "how does it/she appear to me?"

That was quite an extended answer. If we stick with the opening for now, I believe the question of "are we all of one mind" will be easier to answer.

Historically and Biblically, any properly baptized person is a member of "The Church".

For the sacrament of baptism to be valid there must be three things present;

1) It must be done with the correct intention, that it is being done to do what it was Biblically intended to do.
2) It must be done with the correct matter, water Per the Bible.
3) It must be done with the correct form, "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" Per the Bible.

Age does not matter, sex does not matter, nor does race matter, the later condition of the person's soul and relationship to God does not matter, and as long as the sacrament is done as above it may be administered by anyone.

I believe the above is enough to start a conversation as to whether we are all of one mind.

 

[Madman]

Response in this recognition...and to this recognition, affects in ways barely understood but profoundly addressed as in:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh ****ation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

If there be any unGodly attitude at work in our taking in (as the Lord would rid us of those) they will come up hard against the Father's response to Jesus' prayer...an eternal yes and amen always at work against all lies. And lies in corrupted thinking. This is where the friction between truth and falsehood must take place...creating a heat for which we seek relief. Out of darkness we are called, and such darkness is to be made light, even to be manifest in us though we know in deepest part this work is not "of us" as we might think we even know ourselves...but of Spirit.

The Lord in His body is given to us and for us, and each particular member no less so, that if there be any casual dismissal of any...it is casual dismissal of all. Thanks be to God He is relentless in His instructions, rebukes as needed, and scourgings as necessary. And we learn this is all to His glory and our eternal benefit...recognizing the Lord as He comes.

And to that very end I say we are no longer of one mind. While all the baptized are members of the church we are not of one mind. Much as members of family are not not of one one mind. We are related and bound by blood, my family is paternally bound by blood, members of the church are bound by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. However we are deeply divided, sometimes to the point of casting stones at brothers and sisters.

A large division is in our belief of the sacraments, what they are and what they do. Holy Eucharist is a prime example, the majority of the Church believes, for Biblical and historical reasons, that it is the true body and blood of Christ that has been given for us as real food which sustains us in this desert just as manna sustained the Israelites in the desert. And as you said, if not discerned properly, some become sick and some have even fallen asleep.

If it were nothing more than bread and juice, there is no way it could have that affect.

My prayer is that we can once again become of mind, that the completeness of the sacraments can once again be properly enjoyed by the saints, that with one voice the Church can say Amen to saving grace of Savior and God.

 

[Madman]

That's interesting because I thought it far too brief in taking in both matters of one church (of necessity)...and being of one mind.

But as to your response (above) I find no grounds for disagreement.

Nevertheless I also do not find that any presentation of disagreement with things as stated above worthy of immediate dismissal or calling for cessation of dialogue/communication.

It would be a continuance of our conversation if I ask for clarity in regards to the matter mentioned of "correct intention"...is it the administrator...the recipient, or both?

And taking the particular matter of intention as delivered by/informed of, faith. Faith in good faith practice I would think.

Do not misunderstand, it was a thoughtful and spot on observation you made.

My prayer is that the chasm is not so deep that the prayer of our Lord cannot repair it. I pray I live to see what it looks like.