Problems with Protestant/Baptist doctrine

[betteroffdead]

I want to explain something of my doctrine on the assumption that God has had an input into the process by which I have clarified my doctrine over the years.

I utterly reject Roman Catholicism. I don't know much about Eastern Orthodoxy, but I likely would reject it in practice (iconography) even if I agreed with its doctrine.

I don't consider sects like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists to be even remotely Christian.

Based on my understanding of Protestantism I cannot say that I am a Protestant. I come more-or-less from a Southern Baptist background. My father's maternal grandfather was a Baptist pastor of some sort in the 1920s. My father's sister's children went to Baptist Sunday school, but I never knew anyone else in his family to go to church on Sunday morning since they did all of their worshipping the night before at the First Baptist Church of Anheuser Busch. My mother had to give up the best job she ever had when the Baptist deacon she worked for wanted her to be his mistress. The child-molesting pastor of the church whose Sunday school bus came through my neighborhood was Baptist. And the self-proclaimed Christians that are most likely to condemn me for not going to church are Baptists. So it goes without saying that I have a particular dislike of all things Baptist. I am not as committed to the King James translation as I once was because people that are most likely to be King James Only are independent fundamental Baptists.

I also no longer call myself a fundamentalist because certain fundamentalist positions have no legitimate Biblical support, and they often mask the real issues at hand.

Baptists generally claim that they are not Protestant. Taking them at their word I have prepared an analysis of standard Protestant doctrine and compared it to what I understand about Baptist doctrine. I then analyze the stand that Protestants and Baptists take on various issues.
<TABLE dir=ltr border=1 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=7 width=642><TBODY><TR><TD width="28%">Protestant Doctrine
</TD><TD width="20%">Baptist Doctrine?
</TD><TD width="30%">Reality
</TD><TD width="23%">Legitimate Bible-based doctrine?
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">Scripture is the only source of authority for the church.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes
</TD><TD width="30%">No. No where does the Bible itself claim to be the sole source of authority or revelation. The Apostles recognized the authority of what they knew as the Old Testament, but they also exercised authority to write the New Testament. This puts the Apostle’s authority on par with the Bible’s authority.
No where does the Bible expresslly state what books the Bible is supposed to have and supposed to exclude. The contents of the Bible would not be known if not for the church’s authority to tell us what books the Bible is supposed to have. This gives the church an authority that is at least equal to the Bible.
Furthermore, the Bible itself (Psalm 19:1; Joel 2:18) declares that other sources of revelation are possible, while at the same time enumerating the gifts of the Holy Ghost without giving any indication of when these gifts will cease. This means the work of the Holy Ghost is ongoing so God has not delegated all of His active authority to the Bible, the Church or to anything else.
</TD><TD width="23%">No
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">Justification is by faith alone and cannot be earned by works while it is necessary to perform works in order to prove that one is justified.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes, although the physical act of baptism that baptist churches often require of their members could be counted as a work designed to earn justifiation.
</TD><TD width="30%">It does not matter if works are required to earn justificaiton or required to prove justificaiton when a church imposes an obligation on an individual to perform works or (more usually) donate money in the name of the Lord. Works on behalf of the Lord must always be performed freely and with a glad heart and not out of any sense of guilt or obligation.
</TD><TD width="23%">No in actual practice
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">Universal priesthood of all believers so that all Christians are obligated to read the Bible and actively particiapte in managing the church and every individual can approach Christ without needing an intermediary.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes and no. Baptist congregations choose their own clergy, but they then usually give their clergy free reign to the point that the congregation is lead astray. Furthermore, Baptist clergy in individual churches often fall under the influence of the people who run their congregation’s Baptist conventin or association.
</TD><TD width="30%">It is necessary for individual Christians to read the Bible and make an effort to understand it so they can hold their clergy in check. But at the same time the Bible clearly indicates a distinction between laity and clergy. God would not promise to give us apostles, prophets, teachers (I Corinthians 12:28); evangelists and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) if He did not mean for them to perform tasks that only they perform. Every individual can approach Christ on their own, but this does not negate the existence or the function of the clergy.
</TD><TD width="23%">No since the Bible upholds episcopalian polity.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">Christ is the only mediator between man and God.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes
</TD><TD width="30%">Legitimate doctrine.
</TD><TD width="23%">Both correct.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">Salvation is a free gift that comes only through the grace of God and is not something that can be earned.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes
</TD><TD width="30%">Legitimate doctrine.
</TD><TD width="23%">Both correct.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">All glory belongs to Christ and only Christ no matter how important a human being may be.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes in doctrine, no in practice as is demonstrated by the fancy clothing, cars and houses that Baptist pastors often enjoy due to the largesse of their congregations.
</TD><TD width="30%">Legitimate doctrine.
</TD><TD width="23%">Both correct when this doctrine is actually upheld in practice.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
　
　
　
　
　
<TABLE dir=ltr border=1 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=7 width=672><TBODY><TR><TD width="19%">Issue
</TD><TD width="20%">Protestantism
</TD><TD width="18%">Baptists
</TD><TD width="20%">Reality
</TD><TD width="24%">Legitimate doctrine?
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Polity
</TD><TD width="20%">Congregational, episcopalian or presbyterian depending on the denomination.
</TD><TD width="18%">Independent congregations with no church hierarchy and no authority over an individual congregtation from outside the congregatin itself.
</TD><TD width="20%">The Bible clearly indicates that no individual congregation is an authority unto itself or can stand apart from the universal church. In the New Testament individual congregations submitted to the athority of Paul, the Apostles and the Elders in Jerusalem to determine doctrine and establish standards of Christian behavior (Acts chapter 15) while no church choose its own leaders (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) or had total control over the money it could raise (I Corinthian 16:2-3).
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists and Protestants that don’t have episcopalian polity are incorrect.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Church-state relations
</TD><TD width="20%">Depends on the denomination. Some Protestant churches are aligned with the government while others are immune from government control. Some denominations take an active role in the political process, while others do not recognize any earthly government’s authority.
</TD><TD width="18%">Support complete separation of Church and state, although many Baptists use their religion as an excuse to actively participate in the political process eventhough many Baptists seek political power for secular reasons.
</TD><TD width="20%">Something of a non-issue as far faith is concerned. Anyone who allows the government to determine their faith cannot possiblly have a legitimate faith in God. But at the same time anyone who shirks their duty to uphold God’s commandments in civil society (Leviticus 19:7) also nullifies their faith.
</TD><TD width="24%">This is a political rather than a theological issue.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Extra-Biblical rituals, celebrations, etcetera
</TD><TD width="20%">Varies from one denomination to another; one congregation to another and one individual to another.
</TD><TD width="18%">The most extreme Baptists reject things like instrumental music and Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter since these things are not expressly mentioned in the Bible. Other Baptists accept these things without question.
</TD><TD width="20%">This is a false issue. Since what the Bible commands and condones is a matter of how you interpret the Bible, you can always interpret the Bible in such a way that justifies anything and everything you wish to accept anyway. Baptists are a master at this as their diverse and often mutually exclusive doctrines and standards of behavior demonstrate. Such a dependence on someone’s interpretation of the Bible smacks of legalism and turns Christianity into a religion of works.
</TD><TD width="24%">This is an incorrect doctrine when it leads to legalism, and rejecting things just because they are not commanded in the Bible violates what the Bible actually says. For example, nothing in the protestant/Baptist Bible commands the celebration of Hannukah or Christmas. But Jesus Christ Himself observed Hannukah: John 10:22. So if Jesus observed a faith-based but non-Biblical holiday, why can Christians not do likewise?
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Purpose and method of baptism
</TD><TD width="20%">Varies from one one denomination to another.
</TD><TD width="18%">Baptism may or may not gain you salvation, but it is required and can only be done through total immersion in water.
</TD><TD width="20%">Baptism that is required and is required in a certain form but does not save demonstrates the hypocrissy of the Baptist faith. If baptism does not accomplish salvation, then it shouldn’t matter how it is done or even if it is done. If Baptism does not accomplish salvation, then no Baptist congregation or pastor has a right to require it.
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists and Protestants that require baptism for any reason are incorrect.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Purpose and method of holy communion
</TD><TD width="20%">Varries from one denominatin to another.
</TD><TD width="18%">Holy communion is only symbolic and is closed to non-Baptists.
</TD><TD width="20%">Legitimate doctrine: holy communion is only symbolic, only a command for Christian unity and closed to all non-Christians and all false Christians.
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists are correct to the point that they understand and uphold the true purpose of holy communion- which likely means most Baptists are wrong.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Soul liberty
</TD><TD width="20%">Varies from one denomination to another.
</TD><TD width="18%">Individual soul liberty, i.e., an individual’s soul cannot be coerced or compelled by any church or civil government to either serve or reject God.
</TD><TD width="20%">This is hypocrissy for some, if not most non-freewill Baptists who are Calvinist in their theology.
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists and Protestants that uphold Calvinism and reject freewill are wrong.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Clergy
</TD><TD width="20%">Varries from one denomination to another.
</TD><TD width="18%">Only 2 church officers: Pastor-elder and deacon
</TD><TD width="20%">Pastors and elders are not one and the same office and deacons have no Bible-based leadership function.
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists and any Protestants that do not have a plurality of leaders and an episcopalian polity are wrong.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Church liberty
</TD><TD width="20%">Varies from one denomination to another and may be dependent on the historical backgound of the country the church is in.
</TD><TD width="18%">Church freedom, i.e., the government cannot disrupt the operation of a church by enacting laws affecting doctrine.
</TD><TD width="20%">This is license to commit any fraud or abuse in the name of religion.
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists are wrong, i.e., the church must always be subject to the government to the extent that the government must be allowed to perform its legitimate function of protecting the rights of individuals.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Interpretation of the Bible
</TD><TD width="20%">Varies from one denomination to another and depends on how much authority a denomination or an individual congregtion vests in its clergy.
</TD><TD width="18%">Each individual person is free to interpret the Bible as he sees fit based on whatever tools of scholarship he has available. However, many Baptist pastors have enough psychological power over their congregations that he usually has his way in doctrinal matters and any congregant who disagrees with him is often driven out of the congregation.
</TD><TD width="20%">This negates any and all purpose for having a pastor-elder and is thus yet more Baptist hypocrissy. Furthermore, it is a blatant rejection of what the Bible clearly indicates: individual Christians and individual congregations must submit to the authority of the Apostles and the universal church that has a hierarchy to determine Christian doctrine and set standards for Christian behavior (Acts chapter 15). Allowing each individual to personally interpret the meaning of the Bible makes false interpretations of the Bible inevetable because nobody has any earthly authority to tell someone they are wrong. Christianity exists in one form and one form only- the same form that was created by God and transmitted by the Apostles (Jude 1:3-4).
</TD><TD width="24%">The Baptists are wrong. The only interpretatin of the Bible that is true and the only interpretation that matters is God’s interpretation. Nobody who is not guided by the Holy Ghost can know or understand God’s interpretation.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Guaranteed salvation
</TD><TD width="20%">Accepted by Calvinist denominations and congregations. Rejected by Arminian denominations and congregations.
</TD><TD width="18%">Eternal security of the believer, i.e., nobdy who is saved can lose their salvation even if they sin.
</TD><TD width="20%">This is a license to sin.
</TD><TD width="24%">The Baptists are wrong. Someone who is legitimately saved will remain saved, but not everyone who claims to be saved is legitimately saved. Someone who confesses an insinsere faith always has the option of becoming sincere prior to physical death.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Iceman]

I'm not sure what kind of discussion, debate, point or argument you're trying to make with this, so I'll just reply with my impressions.

You've grossly oversimplified 'protestantism' and forced it into a mold to which in many cases it simply wouldn't fit. In addition to that, your 'reality' column is not the best theological reflection for any of the large issues you've broadbrushed. I would instead argue for a more careful and thorough examination of issues, and maintain that there is no one response for any in protestantism. Considering that protestants range from contemporary evangelical and fundamentalist traditions to traditional conservative and liberal doctrine. As well as any combination and range between.

By all means you're entitled to an opinion, but I don't think you've come to grips with the traditioning of protestantism within the greater scope of the apostolic and catholic Church and instead are reacting to a specific cultural phenomenon that simply comes under the incredibly broad term Protestant.

 

[betteroffdead]

You've grossly oversimplified 'protestantism' and forced it into a mold to which in many cases it simply wouldn't fit.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />

How so? I have studied history for as long as I have been able to read, and my biology degree comes with 40 credit hours in history. What qualifications do you have as an analyst of the subject?

In addition to that, your 'reality' column is not the best theological reflection for any of the large issues you've broadbrushed.

Again, how so?

I would instead argue for a more careful and thorough examination of issues, and maintain that there is no one response for any in protestantism.

What issues specifically are you talking about? What am I missing?

Considering that protestants range from contemporary evangelical and fundamentalist traditions to traditional conservative and liberal doctrine.

You obviously didn't read what I actually posted because I repeatedly point out that on some issues there is no standard Protestant position. Denominations, congregations within denominations and individuals within congregations and individuals without congregations often have different, if not mutually exclusive, views.

By all means you're entitled to an opinion, but I don't think you've come to grips with the traditioning of protestantism within the greater scope of the apostolic and catholic Church and instead are reacting to a specific cultural phenomenon that simply comes under the incredibly broad term Protestant.

I am using the diagnostic doctrines of Protestantism that all mainstream theologians and historians accept.

 

[Iceman]

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />

How so? I have studied history for as long as I have been able to read, and my biology degree comes with 40 credit hours in history. What qualifications do you have as an analyst of the subject?

<o>I'm a minister and have been studying a theology degree for a number of years. Additionally I'm involved in ecumenical and ecclesial work. Not that qualifications mean anything online. Unfortunately, history does not equate to theology, or ecclesiology.</o>

Again, how so?

Take for example your very first point Sola Scriptura. It's a very weak representation of Protestantism and makes it sound like we've abandoned the Confessions, Creeds, Church Fathers, ect ect. It's simply not acurate. The entire table, is not acurate.

What issues specifically are you talking about? What am I missing?

You're missing a lot. Even a cursory glance at comparitive ecclesiology would throw your table into dissarray. Let alone beginning to place that ecclesiology within the broader context of a theological and doctrinal revision. Specifically, you've miss-represented Protestantism.

You obviously didn't read what I actually posted because I repeatedly point out that on some issues there is no standard Protestant position. Denominations, congregations within denominations and individuals within congregations and individuals without congregations often have different, if not mutually exclusive, views.

I am using the diagnostic doctrines of Protestantism that all mainstream theologians and historians accept.

I read most of it, and simply pointing out that sacrament and commissioning "varies from one to another" is insufficient. Especially when those are only minor conditions of doctrine. There is no standard protestant position on anything. Anglicans look like Catholics, Methodists look like Congregationalists and then you have Pentecostals.

A doctrine is a standard of belief of faith that all members of a particular denomination are supposed to agree with. There is no such thing as "diagnostic doctrine of Protestantism" That something you have created and it is simply insufficient, inappropriate and incapable of addressing the ecumenical and ecclesiological realities of the situation. Mainstream theologians like Barth, Bonhoeffer, Wright, Bauckham, Dunn and more don't approach any of these issues in the way you are.

What you have done is not theology.

 

[betteroffdead]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
I read most of it,

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

<o>I rest my case. You are not qualified to comment on my lack of understanding because you've made no effort to fully understand what I am saying. You say my charts are inaccurate and that they leave a lot out. You could not possibly make these conclusions when you haven’t actually read them.
<?xml:namespace prefix = u1 /><u1></u1>
Do a google search on 5 solas and you will clearly see that these doctrines are part and parcel of Protestantism. It is true that certain non-Roman Catholic groups do have creeds and confessions, but these groups do not claim to be Protestant. The Anglican Communion is a prime example. The Church of England claims apostolic succession all the way back to the New Testament- just as the Roman Catholics do. But the Church of England claims to be the one true, holy and catholic (small c) church so that it is catholic but reformed. It is not Protestant and it does not accept the 5 solas.
</o>

 

[Iceman]

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

<o>I rest my case. You are not qualified to comment on my lack of understanding because you've made no effort to fully understand what I am saying. You say my charts are inaccurate and that they leave a lot out. You could not possibly make these conclusions when you haven’t actually read them.
<?xml:namespace prefix = u1 /><u1></u1>
Do a google search on 5 solas and you will clearly see that these doctrines are part and parcel of Protestantism. It is true that certain non-Roman Catholic groups do have creeds and confessions, but these groups do not claim to be Protestant. The Anglican Communion is a prime example. The Church of England claims apostolic succession all the way back to the New Testament- just as the Roman Catholics do. But the Church of England claims to be the one true, holy and catholic (small c) church so that it is catholic but reformed. It is not Protestant and it does not accept the 5 solas.
</o>

What sophism. I am a Protestant. I adhere to creeds and confessions. I am not in a minority. You do not have the right to label others, and you do not have the background to be able to provide, with any insight, the ecclesiology of protestantism.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Putting people in a box of "ignorant" when they disagree with you, when you yourself are by no standard a theologian is wrong.

Your lack of theology shows in what you have written, and it is that simple.

But I would encourage you to actually get over the presuppositions you have made and engage with faith. I can recommend any number of theological works, for any number of Protestant, or Roman Catholic views for you to engage with.

 

[chicken little]

I want to explain something of my doctrine on the assumption that God has had an input into the process by which I have clarified my doctrine over the years.

I utterly reject Roman Catholicism. I don't know much about Eastern Orthodoxy, but I likely would reject it in practice (iconography) even if I agreed with its doctrine.

I don't consider sects like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists to be even remotely Christian.

Based on my understanding of Protestantism I cannot say that I am a Protestant. I come more-or-less from a Southern Baptist background. My father's maternal grandfather was a Baptist pastor of some sort in the 1920s. My father's sister's children went to Baptist Sunday school, but I never knew anyone else in his family to go to church on Sunday morning since they did all of their worshipping the night before at the First Baptist Church of Anheuser Busch. My mother had to give up the best job she ever had when the Baptist deacon she worked for wanted her to be his mistress. The child-molesting pastor of the church whose Sunday school bus came through my neighborhood was Baptist. And the self-proclaimed Christians that are most likely to condemn me for not going to church are Baptists. So it goes without saying that I have a particular dislike of all things Baptist. I am not as committed to the King James translation as I once was because people that are most likely to be King James Only are independent fundamental Baptists.

I also no longer call myself a fundamentalist because certain fundamentalist positions have no legitimate Biblical support, and they often mask the real issues at hand.

Baptists generally claim that they are not Protestant. Taking them at their word I have prepared an analysis of standard Protestant doctrine and compared it to what I understand about Baptist doctrine. I then analyze the stand that Protestants and Baptists take on various issues.
<TABLE dir=ltr border=1 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=7 width=642><TBODY><TR><TD width="28%">Protestant Doctrine
</TD><TD width="20%">Baptist Doctrine?
</TD><TD width="30%">Reality
</TD><TD width="23%">Legitimate Bible-based doctrine?
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">Scripture is the only source of authority for the church.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes
</TD><TD width="30%">No. No where does the Bible itself claim to be the sole source of authority or revelation. The Apostles recognized the authority of what they knew as the Old Testament, but they also exercised authority to write the New Testament. This puts the Apostle’s authority on par with the Bible’s authority.
No where does the Bible expresslly state what books the Bible is supposed to have and supposed to exclude. The contents of the Bible would not be known if not for the church’s authority to tell us what books the Bible is supposed to have. This gives the church an authority that is at least equal to the Bible.
Furthermore, the Bible itself (Psalm 19:1; Joel 2:18) declares that other sources of revelation are possible, while at the same time enumerating the gifts of the Holy Ghost without giving any indication of when these gifts will cease. This means the work of the Holy Ghost is ongoing so God has not delegated all of His active authority to the Bible, the Church or to anything else.
</TD><TD width="23%">No
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">Justification is by faith alone and cannot be earned by works while it is necessary to perform works in order to prove that one is justified.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes, although the physical act of baptism that baptist churches often require of their members could be counted as a work designed to earn justifiation.
</TD><TD width="30%">It does not matter if works are required to earn justificaiton or required to prove justificaiton when a church imposes an obligation on an individual to perform works or (more usually) donate money in the name of the Lord. Works on behalf of the Lord must always be performed freely and with a glad heart and not out of any sense of guilt or obligation.
</TD><TD width="23%">No in actual practice
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">Universal priesthood of all believers so that all Christians are obligated to read the Bible and actively particiapte in managing the church and every individual can approach Christ without needing an intermediary.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes and no. Baptist congregations choose their own clergy, but they then usually give their clergy free reign to the point that the congregation is lead astray. Furthermore, Baptist clergy in individual churches often fall under the influence of the people who run their congregation’s Baptist conventin or association.
</TD><TD width="30%">It is necessary for individual Christians to read the Bible and make an effort to understand it so they can hold their clergy in check. But at the same time the Bible clearly indicates a distinction between laity and clergy. God would not promise to give us apostles, prophets, teachers (I Corinthians 12:28); evangelists and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) if He did not mean for them to perform tasks that only they perform. Every individual can approach Christ on their own, but this does not negate the existence or the function of the clergy.
</TD><TD width="23%">No since the Bible upholds episcopalian polity.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">Christ is the only mediator between man and God.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes
</TD><TD width="30%">Legitimate doctrine.
</TD><TD width="23%">Both correct.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">Salvation is a free gift that comes only through the grace of God and is not something that can be earned.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes
</TD><TD width="30%">Legitimate doctrine.
</TD><TD width="23%">Both correct.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="28%">All glory belongs to Christ and only Christ no matter how important a human being may be.
</TD><TD width="20%">Yes in doctrine, no in practice as is demonstrated by the fancy clothing, cars and houses that Baptist pastors often enjoy due to the largesse of their congregations.
</TD><TD width="30%">Legitimate doctrine.
</TD><TD width="23%">Both correct when this doctrine is actually upheld in practice.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
　
　
　
　
　
<TABLE dir=ltr border=1 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=7 width=672><TBODY><TR><TD width="19%">Issue
</TD><TD width="20%">Protestantism
</TD><TD width="18%">Baptists
</TD><TD width="20%">Reality
</TD><TD width="24%">Legitimate doctrine?
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Polity
</TD><TD width="20%">Congregational, episcopalian or presbyterian depending on the denomination.
</TD><TD width="18%">Independent congregations with no church hierarchy and no authority over an individual congregtation from outside the congregatin itself.
</TD><TD width="20%">The Bible clearly indicates that no individual congregation is an authority unto itself or can stand apart from the universal church. In the New Testament individual congregations submitted to the athority of Paul, the Apostles and the Elders in Jerusalem to determine doctrine and establish standards of Christian behavior (Acts chapter 15) while no church choose its own leaders (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) or had total control over the money it could raise (I Corinthian 16:2-3).
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists and Protestants that don’t have episcopalian polity are incorrect.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Church-state relations
</TD><TD width="20%">Depends on the denomination. Some Protestant churches are aligned with the government while others are immune from government control. Some denominations take an active role in the political process, while others do not recognize any earthly government’s authority.
</TD><TD width="18%">Support complete separation of Church and state, although many Baptists use their religion as an excuse to actively participate in the political process eventhough many Baptists seek political power for secular reasons.
</TD><TD width="20%">Something of a non-issue as far faith is concerned. Anyone who allows the government to determine their faith cannot possiblly have a legitimate faith in God. But at the same time anyone who shirks their duty to uphold God’s commandments in civil society (Leviticus 19:7) also nullifies their faith.
</TD><TD width="24%">This is a political rather than a theological issue.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Extra-Biblical rituals, celebrations, etcetera
</TD><TD width="20%">Varies from one denomination to another; one congregation to another and one individual to another.
</TD><TD width="18%">The most extreme Baptists reject things like instrumental music and Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter since these things are not expressly mentioned in the Bible. Other Baptists accept these things without question.
</TD><TD width="20%">This is a false issue. Since what the Bible commands and condones is a matter of how you interpret the Bible, you can always interpret the Bible in such a way that justifies anything and everything you wish to accept anyway. Baptists are a master at this as their diverse and often mutually exclusive doctrines and standards of behavior demonstrate. Such a dependence on someone’s interpretation of the Bible smacks of legalism and turns Christianity into a religion of works.
</TD><TD width="24%">This is an incorrect doctrine when it leads to legalism, and rejecting things just because they are not commanded in the Bible violates what the Bible actually says. For example, nothing in the protestant/Baptist Bible commands the celebration of Hannukah or Christmas. But Jesus Christ Himself observed Hannukah: John 10:22. So if Jesus observed a faith-based but non-Biblical holiday, why can Christians not do likewise?
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Purpose and method of baptism
</TD><TD width="20%">Varies from one one denomination to another.
</TD><TD width="18%">Baptism may or may not gain you salvation, but it is required and can only be done through total immersion in water.
</TD><TD width="20%">Baptism that is required and is required in a certain form but does not save demonstrates the hypocrissy of the Baptist faith. If baptism does not accomplish salvation, then it shouldn’t matter how it is done or even if it is done. If Baptism does not accomplish salvation, then no Baptist congregation or pastor has a right to require it.
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists and Protestants that require baptism for any reason are incorrect.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Purpose and method of holy communion
</TD><TD width="20%">Varries from one denominatin to another.
</TD><TD width="18%">Holy communion is only symbolic and is closed to non-Baptists.
</TD><TD width="20%">Legitimate doctrine: holy communion is only symbolic, only a command for Christian unity and closed to all non-Christians and all false Christians.
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists are correct to the point that they understand and uphold the true purpose of holy communion- which likely means most Baptists are wrong.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Soul liberty
</TD><TD width="20%">Varies from one denomination to another.
</TD><TD width="18%">Individual soul liberty, i.e., an individual’s soul cannot be coerced or compelled by any church or civil government to either serve or reject God.
</TD><TD width="20%">This is hypocrissy for some, if not most non-freewill Baptists who are Calvinist in their theology.
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists and Protestants that uphold Calvinism and reject freewill are wrong.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Clergy
</TD><TD width="20%">Varries from one denomination to another.
</TD><TD width="18%">Only 2 church officers: Pastor-elder and deacon
</TD><TD width="20%">Pastors and elders are not one and the same office and deacons have no Bible-based leadership function.
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists and any Protestants that do not have a plurality of leaders and an episcopalian polity are wrong.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Church liberty
</TD><TD width="20%">Varies from one denomination to another and may be dependent on the historical backgound of the country the church is in.
</TD><TD width="18%">Church freedom, i.e., the government cannot disrupt the operation of a church by enacting laws affecting doctrine.
</TD><TD width="20%">This is license to commit any fraud or abuse in the name of religion.
</TD><TD width="24%">Baptists are wrong, i.e., the church must always be subject to the government to the extent that the government must be allowed to perform its legitimate function of protecting the rights of individuals.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Interpretation of the Bible
</TD><TD width="20%">Varies from one denomination to another and depends on how much authority a denomination or an individual congregtion vests in its clergy.
</TD><TD width="18%">Each individual person is free to interpret the Bible as he sees fit based on whatever tools of scholarship he has available. However, many Baptist pastors have enough psychological power over their congregations that he usually has his way in doctrinal matters and any congregant who disagrees with him is often driven out of the congregation.
</TD><TD width="20%">This negates any and all purpose for having a pastor-elder and is thus yet more Baptist hypocrissy. Furthermore, it is a blatant rejection of what the Bible clearly indicates: individual Christians and individual congregations must submit to the authority of the Apostles and the universal church that has a hierarchy to determine Christian doctrine and set standards for Christian behavior (Acts chapter 15). Allowing each individual to personally interpret the meaning of the Bible makes false interpretations of the Bible inevetable because nobody has any earthly authority to tell someone they are wrong. Christianity exists in one form and one form only- the same form that was created by God and transmitted by the Apostles (Jude 1:3-4).
</TD><TD width="24%">The Baptists are wrong. The only interpretatin of the Bible that is true and the only interpretation that matters is God’s interpretation. Nobody who is not guided by the Holy Ghost can know or understand God’s interpretation.
</TD></TR><TR><TD width="19%">Guaranteed salvation
</TD><TD width="20%">Accepted by Calvinist denominations and congregations. Rejected by Arminian denominations and congregations.
</TD><TD width="18%">Eternal security of the believer, i.e., nobdy who is saved can lose their salvation even if they sin.
</TD><TD width="20%">This is a license to sin.
</TD><TD width="24%">The Baptists are wrong. Someone who is legitimately saved will remain saved, but not everyone who claims to be saved is legitimately saved. Someone who confesses an insinsere faith always has the option of becoming sincere prior to physical death.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

WOW!
maybe first start with forgiveness, did I say that before ;P for their attempts at "good" because good is just as deadly/Deathly as evil when it is born in man's "knowledge". forgive them for their attempts at GOOD. and pray that they shoot instead at 'right' with God/ righteousness. yes because 'Good' isn't good enough .. only right with God is life. forgive them for their 'GOOD'

really why do you care ..why do you bother with what man thinks is 'Good' , what he thinks is 'Holy'? why bother to think about the millions of things man can mess up? why care who is a hypocrite? why bother so much with what others do or do not do ?
care only what the father thinks and do those things!

You dont' have to think about what anyone else thinks about . why do you care what anyone else thinks? it only matters what the father and the Son thinks!
everything else is a LIE!
Only they hold reality?

everything on the tree of knowledge is from the void which He calls that thing 'death'.. it doesn't even exists in the mind of God. all knowledge from that place will all cease to exsist someday when death and hell is destroyed.
why are you even contemplating what man can do and undo with his own "knowledge" of good and evil?
you have nothing more interesting to contemplate?
Here is a huge secret:
you see the Father has way more interesting things for you to contemplate , argue out with him, 'come and reason together ".. than the nothinglesses of circular reasonings found in men minds.

 

[David777]

Hello BetterOffDead

All human organisations are of course error ridden.

Jesus knows that and so do we.

That's why the church is only a collection of believers.

Put Jesus firmly in the centre of your faith.

The Bible contains the very words of God.

I know because I have read it.

Once the Holy Spirit becomes truly active in your life

you will know too.

It does not take much effort to see the shortcomings of any organisation, be it church or otherwise.

Baa, baa.

 

[DanielO]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o>I'm a minister and have been studying a theology degree for a number of years. Additionally I'm involved in ecumenical and ecclesial work. Not that qualifications mean anything online. Unfortunately, history does not equate to theology, or ecclesiology.</o>

Beware the ecumenical movement, in theory it may seem a good thing but if we compromise the truth to find common ground, we would be doing the devil's work.

Both the path and the gate are narrow.

 

[Iceman]

Beware the ecumenical movement, in theory it may seem a good thing but if we compromise the truth to find common ground, we would be doing the devil's work.

Both the path and the gate are narrow.

Brother, I do not know the climate of your faith, nor your understanding of our Lord's word. But please, do not be too quick to jump to evil.

But all churches and denominations are run by men. Ecumenism isn't about sacrificing from our own convicitions, but about recognizing that fact.

The Church (universal) is flawed, and weak. There is no one true church nor one perfect denomination. How can there be when her Lord is absent and men are trusted?

Ecumenism is about focusing on what we have in common so that we can work together. About talking about our failures, our hopes, and setting aside our differences to bring the Kingdom of God as the Lord requires.

 

[Chad]

All human organisations are of course error ridden.

Jesus knows that and so do we.

That's why the church is only a collection of believers.

Put Jesus firmly in the centre of your faith.

The Bible contains the very words of God.

I know because I have read it.

Once the Holy Spirit becomes truly active in your life

you will know too.

It does not take much effort to see the shortcomings of any organisation, be it church or otherwise.

Baa, baa.

In agreement. A very humble and truthful response brother.

People get so infatuated with doctrine that they forget faith should be a simple thing, not complicated - not religious - not holier than thou. Just faith in Jesus. No, it is not hard once you've tasted GOD's grace.

 

[Thiscrosshurts]

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

It's in the bible look it up.

 

[David777]

Good answer Iceman

I would only alter the "weak", to evil. If you look at church history, in particular Catholic church history. We have inquisitions instituted by the Catholic church to rid itself of all opposition. But as they point out, they only determined guilt, the civil authorities tortured and executed.

The Protestant church was also guilty of torture and executions.

Obviously, these churches were not led by the Holy Spirit.

Rather, they were led by their theology.

I prefer to beat my chest, and ask Jesus for forgiveness. That is a much safer position to occupy. Much less theology.

 

[MelodyC]

God never asked us to follow a Church Denomination and their doctrines but His Word and Jesus, who is the Word & who will judge us in the End.

It is easy to find fault in Church doctrines. They are man's interpretations and some are good and some are not. However, in the End God will be judging us according to His own Word.

If we can find fault in Church Denominations does that excuse us from having to Bend our Knee to Jesus? Absolutely not!

God doesn't ask us to follow Wrong Teaching or False Teachers but to Seek His Truth and to Follow Jesus.

Why won't some people accept God's Truth? Because they don't want to and they prefer to run their lives their own way. Saying the Church is full of error or hypocracy is just an excuse to not have to Bend their Knee to Jesus, but the Bible says no one will be able to stand before God with an excuse for not having believed His Word, His Truth!

RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

You can blame Churches all you like for not being 100% correct. However you will have NO excuse for rejecting God when you stand before Him to account for your life.

 

[David777]

Excellent post Melody

That's the core of the problem.

 

[sharen]

I heartily disagree with some of your statements, but I think you'll have more luck getting feedback (if you do genuinely do want it) by breaking the issues down in individual threads.

All the best with it.