Originally posted by One Bad Pig
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Christianity 201 Guidelines
orthodox Christians only.
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining "Christian" or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining "Christian" or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Definition of Evangelical
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYou should check out Michael Green's Evangelism in the Early Church. In surveying the early church up until the third century, he demonstrates that the Great Commission did, in fact, apply to all believers. As he writes in the epilogue,Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostThat is not an exegetical argument. And since the Great Commission includes baptism, it obviously was not regarded to apply to all believers.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostYou need to include a bit more detail before declaring that to be "obvious". There are no examples in the NT of Joe Schmoe believer baptizing anyone, but that is something of an argument from silence.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostThat is not an exegetical argument. And since the Great Commission includes baptism, it obviously was not regarded to apply to all believers.
Christ commands his disciples to make disciples of all nations. I don't know about you, but I'm a disciple of Christ, so it is my duty to also make disciples so that all nations are reached. While lay Christians don't usually take it upon themselves to personally physically water baptize others after witnessing to them, they often lead them to a church where they will be baptized, and so in that sense, they are certainly responsible for their baptism. However, as previously pointed out, there's nothing in scripture that I know that forbids lay Christians from personally physically water baptizing people. If water baptism is an outward sign of an inner working, then it seems like there's no better place to express one's commitment to the Lord than within a community of fellow believers in a church, which will usually be presided by church staff as a matter of order (though I have personally witnessed non-staff members acting in helping roles).
I'm sure pastors and priests do their fair share of evangelizing, but I doubt that every person they baptize was someone they personally reached out to and led to Christ. So one wonders if the pastor/priest is then running against these rather legalistic rules that have been established which cordon off those who can and cannot evangelize within the body of Christ. As DA Carson points out in his commentary on Matthew,
And then, of course, there's the subject of baptizing in the Spirit, which a number of lay Christians will also affirm they've led people into.
Honestly, I'm not certain what the issue is. What's your background on this subject? Does only your pastor/priest evangelize, and everyone else in your congregation just chills out, or do you have specially prepared Evangelizers within your church who do the heavy lifting?Last edited by Adrift; 10-02-2019, 03:48 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostInteresting. Tertullian:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI'm not sure how you think that helps your point. If I'm reading Tertullian correctly he's saying, yeah, any Christian can baptize another, but just to keep things in order, and just so's you don't get a big head, it's better to pass on the responsibility to church administration. Other than that, and the fact that he's not too fond of females taking a role in the church, he doesn't say anything specifically about evangelism that I can see."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYou mean after his Montanism I'm assuming, but yeah, I'd imagine so."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostWhy necessarily after, out of curiosity? The bulk of his writing fell between 190 and 220 according to tertullian.org, and his attraction to Montanism is generally dated around 207.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI wasn't intending to offer an exegetical argument. I was highlighting that according to Green, the assertion that evangelism wasn't broadly practiced among lay believers before recent times is not accurate.
I'm not sure what sort of exegetical argument you want from Matthew 28:16-20. As a review,
Christ commands his disciples to make disciples of all nations.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostYou're flipflopping. Earlier you made a different claim, namely "he demonstrates that the Great Commission did, in fact, apply to all believers." He demonstrates no such obligation upon lay believers.
Originally posted by demi-conservative View PostObviously, he gave a command to the Eleven, not to disciples in general.
Though directed towards the Eleven it seems highly unlikely that the Eleven alone are tasked with this mission, as discipling all nations (literally all "peoples" per Craig Blomberg's Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture) would require quite a bit of time and manpower, and it obviously continues to this day. Scholars like Carson and Leon Morris suggest that other disciples besides the Eleven (perhaps even the "500") were present when the command was given. Philip, who of course was not among the Eleven, certainly fulfilled the Great Commission when he shared the Gospel and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. The church wouldn't have gotten very far without the work of Paul and his accomplices, and of course there are the dozens of other men and women of God who fulfill the Commission in the New Testament.
I note that you ignored the questions from my previous post.Last edited by Adrift; 10-03-2019, 09:04 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThat isn't a flipflop.
No it isn't. What crap is this, just because the narrator calls the Eleven apostles 'the eleven disciples here' Carson claims the injunction is given to all disciples?
Though directed towards the Eleven it seems highly unlikely that the Eleven alone are tasked with this mission, as discipling all nations (literally all "peoples" per Craig Blomberg's Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture) would require quite a bit of time and manpower, and it obviously continues to this day. Scholars like Carson and Leon Morris suggest that other disciples besides the Eleven (perhaps even the "500") were present when the command was given. Philip, who of course was not among the Eleven, certainly fulfilled the Great Commission
Obviously the Eleven could commission others to do the same work, and Jesus could personally do it to for Paul. That has nothing to do with the reading of the passage.
I note that you ignored the questions from my previous post.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
Obviously, he gave a command to the Eleven, not to disciples in general.
For instance, since no one else was present at the Last Supper, does that mean "I am the Vine, you are the branches" applied only to them?Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seanD, 06-04-2024, 05:46 PM
|
22 responses
167 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 02:18 PM
|
||
Started by KingsGambit, 06-02-2024, 07:25 PM
|
1 response
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Faber
06-03-2024, 08:59 AM
|
Comment