# Criteria for Formal Church Membership?



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 8, 2019)

In a previous thread, I don't think anyone made a compelling case that formal church membership is unBiblical.  That being the case, what are reasonable criteria for admitting people into formal church membership?  And what might be the criteria for excluding them?


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 8, 2019)

What is "formal" membership? I googled your question, cause I ain't got no mojo with the Baptist here to ask them, and this is the first item I got. Hope it helps.

http://www.fbccarthage.com/membership-101-what-is-church-membership/

I would suggest your answer is not rare in the bible based belt. I bet there are many serious answers and including in your home base assembly.

I might suggest that if you consider those who might be excluded as "visitors"you'll sleep full nights. But I'm not bible based... nor a life coach, so take it with a grain of dust.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 8, 2019)

gordon 2 said:


> What is "formal" membership? I googled your question, cause I ain't got no mojo with the Baptist here to ask them, and this is the first item I got. Hope it helps.
> 
> http://www.fbccarthage.com/membership-101-what-is-church-membership/
> 
> ...



Could one join a Baptist Church and request to be sprinkled?


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 8, 2019)

Your not asking me right?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 9, 2019)

gordon 2 said:


> What is "formal" membership? I googled your question, cause I ain't got no mojo with the Baptist here to ask them, and this is the first item I got. Hope it helps.
> 
> http://www.fbccarthage.com/membership-101-what-is-church-membership/
> 
> ...



The membership requirements in this link are somewhat typical.  From my experience, they are in the middle of the range of requirements to join and at the higher end of the range of expectations once one has joined.  I don't think I've ever seen requirements to join that did not require a profession of faith and testimony of water baptism.  Some require agreement with longer statements of faith.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 9, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could one join a Baptist Church and request to be sprinkled?



Could Jesus have been sprinkled with dirt and been considered buried?


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 9, 2019)

So, I understand then that the question is what are the conditions of being bounced from an assembly? ( People should never be excluded from the assembly--- unless they are disruptive with malice intent.)


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 9, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Could Jesus have been sprinkled with dirt and been considered buried?



Jesus was not buried.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 9, 2019)

gordon 2 said:


> Jesus was not buried.



Sure He was. " In the heart of the earth"
The earth wasn't on Him, He was in the earth.
Rom.6:4


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 12, 2019)

One of the challenges in articulating criteria for formal church membership is the fact that in churches with congregational governments or other democratic processes, the membership holds considerable power in the church.  So the risk of having relatively lax membership criteria is that over time, the church moves away from Biblical views and toward worldly views: approval of homosexual marriage, etc.  I don't see a mere profession of faith as adequate for protecting the purity of the church in the long term in churches with congregational governments.


----------



## rattlesnake1 (Nov 12, 2019)

Do you really exclude people from coming to church?
I think more emphasis should be put on winning souls than filling up membership rosters .


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 13, 2019)

rattlesnake1 said:


> Do you really exclude people from coming to church?
> I think more emphasis should be put on winning souls than filling up membership rosters .



Exclude from attendance?  No.  Exclude from governing?  Yes.


----------



## Madman (Nov 15, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> In a previous thread, I don't think anyone made a compelling case that formal church membership is unBiblical.  That being the case, what are reasonable criteria for admitting people into formal church membership?  And what might be the criteria for excluding them?


Proper baptism.


----------



## Madman (Nov 15, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Could Jesus have been sprinkled with dirt and been considered buried?


Since there was no dirt was Jesus buried?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 16, 2019)

Madman said:


> Since there was no dirt was Jesus buried?



Did you read post #9 ?


----------



## Madman (Nov 16, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Did you read post #9 ?


  Roman's 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Point?


----------



## Madman (Nov 16, 2019)

Where is Biblical evidence of congregational church governance?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 17, 2019)

Madman said:


> Roman's 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
> 
> Point?



My point is, YES, Jesus was buried. And just as He was buried(physically), we also are buried with Him(spiritually).


----------



## Madman (Nov 17, 2019)

welderguy said:


> My point is, YES, Jesus was buried. And just as He was buried(physically), we also are buried with Him(spiritually).


In baptism "for the forgiveness of your sins".

Ok


----------



## Madman (Nov 17, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The membership requirements in this link are somewhat typical.  From my experience, they are in the middle of the range of requirements to join and at the higher end of the range of expectations once one has joined.  I don't think I've ever seen requirements to join that did not require a profession of faith and testimony of water baptism.  Some require agreement with longer statements of faith.


And who pens this profession of faith?


----------



## Madman (Nov 19, 2019)

welderguy said:


> My point is, YES, Jesus was buried. And just as He was buried(physically), we also are buried with Him(spiritually).


I was responding to #6.  Art asked about sprinkling for baptism, you asked could Jesus be considered buried if he was only sprinkled with dirt.  It appeared to be a poke at pouring or sprinkling for baptism.


----------



## Spineyman (Nov 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> Proper baptism.


https://www.fivesolas.com/sprinkle.htm


----------



## Madman (Nov 20, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> https://www.fivesolas.com/sprinkle.htm


Start another thread and we can discuss this, but as you know it may heat things up around hear.

I really like the sound bite "5 solas".  Which one of the "5 onlys" should we choose?


----------



## Spineyman (Nov 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> Start another thread and we can discuss this, but as you know it may heat things up around hear.
> 
> I really like the sound bite "5 solas".  Which one of the "5 onlys" should we choose?


Did you read the article?


----------



## Madman (Nov 20, 2019)

I read most of it and am in agreement.  Sprinkling and pouring have been used since the beginning of the church because it is Biblical.  I am going to read the entire article at lunch.


----------



## Spineyman (Nov 20, 2019)

Madman said:


> I really like the sound bite "5 solas".  Which one of the "5 onlys" should we choose?


The Five Solas served as the collective rallying cry of the Protestant Reformers. These Latin phrase—_Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria_—tell us that Scripture alone is our highest authority and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for God’s glory alone.


----------



## Madman (Nov 20, 2019)

Spineyman said:


> The Five Solas served as the collective rallying cry of the Protestant Reformers. These Latin phrase—_Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria_—tell us that Scripture alone is our highest authority and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for God’s glory alone.


I understand, it was a joke.  The PR was not much more than tag lines and sound bites, so far as I am concerned.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> I was responding to #6.  Art asked about sprinkling for baptism, you asked could Jesus be considered buried if he was only sprinkled with dirt.  It appeared to be a poke at pouring or sprinkling for baptism.



I never poke at heresy.


----------



## Madman (Nov 22, 2019)

welderguy said:


> I never poke at heresy.


The heresy is?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> The heresy is?



pouring and sprinkling for baptism


----------



## Madman (Nov 22, 2019)

welderguy said:


> pouring and sprinkling for baptism


Really?  I am not sure you understand the definition of heresy.   Read the history of the church, read Scripture, there is nothing that says sprinkling or pouring is not a valid baptism.  What do you believe constitutes a valid baptism?  And where do you get your beliefs?


----------



## welderguy (Nov 22, 2019)

Madman said:


> Really?  I am not sure you understand the definition of heresy.   Read the history of the church, read Scripture, there is nothing that says sprinkling or pouring is not a valid baptism.  What do you believe constitutes a valid baptism?  And where do you get your beliefs?



If the Bible says Jesus came straightway up out of the water, then why would anyone want to baptize or be baptized any other way? I've never understood this. Help me understand.


----------



## Madman (Nov 22, 2019)

Let's not high jack the thread.  I'll move it.
OP will be.  

Baptism, The third rail.

See you there.


----------



## Spineyman (Nov 23, 2019)

Madman said:


> I understand, it was a joke.  The PR was not much more than tag lines and sound bites, so far as I am concerned.


The Protestant Reformation was no joke. It was meant to be a call to turn the Catholic Church back from it's heresies. To no avail as far as I can tell.


----------



## Madman (Nov 23, 2019)

welderguy said:


> If the Bible says Jesus came straightway up out of the water, then why would anyone want to baptize or be baptized any other way? I've never understood this. Help me understand.





Spineyman said:


> The Protestant Reformation was no joke. It was meant to be a call to turn the Catholic Church back from it's heresies. To no avail as far as I can tell.


I didnt say the reformation was a joke, I said I made a joke.  The reformation had been under way for 100+ years when Luther showed up.  It was no reformation it was a second schism.

Out of curiosity,  what were / are those heresies?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 24, 2019)

Madman said:


> Let's not high jack the thread.  I'll move it.
> OP will be.
> 
> Baptism, The third rail.
> ...



Among churches that have formal church membership, I've known baptism by immersion after a decision to follow Jesus to be fairly common.  It is often one of the criteria for formal membership when the criteria are very short.  There seems to be reasonable Scriptural precedent.  In contrast, I don't see any clear Biblical precedent for accepting members who have not been baptized.


----------



## Israel (Nov 24, 2019)

What if there is a fundamental error in the assumption that anything that hangs out a shingle, has a word engraved, assigns times of meeting, and uses the name of Christ frequently, is indeed a church as part and congregation of the body of Christ?

An assembly called out of the world...while yet holding to a worldly identity and recognition...and/or even worldly indulgences? (Such as "tax exemptions"?) One can ask..."How can the world...rightly admit to and recognize what the Lord has said...it cannot?"

I know some here will find easy resort to "obey the laws of the land", that if the law provides that none can be recognized as "a church" unless meeting its criteria there should be a care to observe full compliance. I am unconvinced of this.

The church the state approves...is not.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 24, 2019)

Israel said:


> What if there is a fundamental error in the assumption that anything that hangs out a shingle, has a word engraved, assigns times of meeting, and uses the name of Christ frequently, is indeed a church as part and congregation of the body of Christ?
> 
> An assembly called out of the world...while yet holding to a worldly identity and recognition...and/or even worldly indulgences? (Such as "tax exemptions"?) One can ask..."How can the world...rightly admit to and recognize what the Lord has said...it cannot?"
> 
> ...



You raise some good points about what constitutes a valid church in God's eyes in the first place.  While I'm not going to be too quick to claim that taking certain legal steps to comply with the laws of the land invalidates a church (or other Christian ministry), I have many of the same concerns.  For the most part, I tend to allow churches and Christian ministries the same latitude to "be in the world but not of the world" that I allow individual Christians.

Since I am unwilling to say that tithing or other charitable giving is invalid for an individual believer if they get a tax break, I also think I need to be unwilling to declare a church or Christian ministry invalid simply because they keep their books in such a way as to enjoy some tax advantages.

At the same time, I would be reluctant to criticize an individual believer, a church, or a Christian ministry for operating in a way that had no official government recognition or tax breaks.

The challenge for a church or other Christian ministry to operate without any government recognition is that it is difficult to secure meeting space or give to the needy or have or pay staff without some kind of government recognition of the organization.  One might envision how it can work on small scales for short times, but in the long run, the purposeful avoidance of government recognition is going to look hinky and criminal.  I had an interesting discussion with a former FBI money-laundering expert last weekend.   Any consistent dealings with money over a period of time is going to attract negative government attention if it is kept on a cash basis, because most of the time there is criminal enterprises involved.  Not working on a cash-alone basis requires some official recognition.  Keeping it cash-based gives an appearance of evil.


----------



## Israel (Nov 25, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> You raise some good points about what constitutes a valid church in God's eyes in the first place.  While I'm not going to be too quick to claim that taking certain legal steps to comply with the laws of the land invalidates a church (or other Christian ministry), I have many of the same concerns.  For the most part, I tend to allow churches and Christian ministries the same latitude to "be in the world but not of the world" that I allow individual Christians.
> 
> Since I am unwilling to say that tithing or other charitable giving is invalid for an individual believer if they get a tax break, I also think I need to be unwilling to declare a church or Christian ministry invalid simply because they keep their books in such a way as to enjoy some tax advantages.
> 
> ...




In a slightly different way I find Madman touched the matter here:




Madman said:


> And who pens this profession of faith?




It's all always a matter of authority, as I see it. Authorship. Who has authority to address such matters?

But this matter is at the very heart of what we claim as our faith...if we claim Jesus Christ at all. We make the professed claim of the authority of Jesus Christ in and over all things to the church. And not only so, but in _all things..._do we not? Who, even of _all authority_...for His reason and purpose...allows an opposition. He yet allows Himself spoken against. Resisted. Reviled. Spoken of _as false._

Oh, but this makes for a strait for the believer! It would take reams and reams (for a wordy fool like me) to even approach the significance of this matter in both the truth of it and the believer's experience of it.

But the question is always reduced (even if my weakness would resort to reams) "How is the Lord discerned...His true self...from what presents itself in mere form?"

There is a "form of godliness" that we are told is not.

A one able to transform _himself (and his ministers) _into appearing as a thing he is not.

and no wonder -- for even the Adversary doth transform himself into a messenger of light; (YLT)

O! what a strait this is for a thing that has always and only had its knowing informed by appearances...but is now called to know, to the salvation of his soul ( and the benefit of others) _true substance. _Errors here may be many, griefs known and experienced...and even to such a spreading as contaminating others...a most painful form of disciplining and chastening. Here repentance becomes more than an instruction/command _imposed_...but a _miraculous gift_ to be embraced daily.

In the Lord's own words...it (repentance) is inextricably linked to _zeal. _If one would _be zealous,_ he cannot be unfamiliar...lest he too be mislead by trusting his own zeal.

It is a way no man navigate without the Lord. How that the embrace and recognition of the first and greatest commandment_ as first:_

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength" comes with this necessary gift.


Is there any man among us who, having a light shined upon his misstep or missteps has not found this plaint "But Lord, I was just trying to..." must give place to "forgive me, I did not see or know!"?

What you describe here:



> Any consistent dealings with money over a period of time is going to attract negative government attention if it is kept on a cash basis, because most of the time there is criminal enterprises involved.  Not working on a cash-alone basis requires some official recognition.  Keeping it cash-based gives an appearance of evil.




With this of some hi-lite to me:



> gives an appearance of evil.



I have learned (if indeed I have learned anything which is always open _to a gift_), that my struggles have been vain to the extreme in that arena.

My truer attentions (if I may say it as so) is now with something far more fundamental than I ever knew (and perniciously toxic); which is to display myself as something good, or right. God knows whom I have contaminated in the unknowing of that, whom I have injured by seeking to create a "space" reserved to myself in my "righteous" knowing of the one I claim as Lord. And there present a "space" between themselves and the One given for them.

And I expect some understand.

PS  I would ask this in regards to "other christian ministry". What is such a thing? Might that be akin to a thing we might imagine could have been framed as this? (but wasn't)

"Paul the Apostle Ministries LLC"

or

"Paul the Apostle Ministries, Inc"...

Yet we seem so inured to what makes "official" claim, to the buttressing with names, certifications, registrations, figureheads, promoting of credentials, "headquarters"...founders etc. I am less than perplexed and not so provoked by such as to believe I have any right to an explanation to even ask for one.

Mostly, I marvel.

PPS: Not surprisingly, while looking for a tool stand for my "short" drill press, I came across this for sale on FB Marketplace.


----------



## Madman (Nov 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> In a slightly different way I find Madman touched the matter here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So who has the authority to decide what must be said and what must not be said?  To put down the essentials of the faith?


----------



## Israel (Nov 25, 2019)

Madman said:


> So who has the authority to decide what must be said and what must not be said?  To put down the essentials of the faith?



I believe we have been gifted that already. Recognition of one another is no less _revelation reliant_ than any other matter in which we proceed in the Lord. If we do grow in the knowledge of Him, how can we not grow in recognition of what is His? Not for the sake of excluding by any means (for if that  becomes necessary, it must also come, no less, by revelation) but to the end that "giving and receiving" by which an apostle has told us the body builds itself up.

We are men now made free to be totally dependent...but to an end far greater than we could have ever imagined or chosen for ourselves. I am as much, if not more, of need of this encouragement and comfort...having in some ways glimpsed the end of _my own choosings. _What seems promising must make way for Who is the promise.

My _own tendency_ to draw smaller and smaller circles is only remedied by being reproved of that...and not unusually by those who show their eyes fixed solely on Jesus Christ.


It's a strange matter, or strange matters we seem to consider. Could you imagine a brother from Ephesus going to Corinth (about 2 millennia ago) and being told..."you need to sign this" or in some way "also" accept this? I could not imagine this being done if there were any possibility of Paul..."finding out". Do we imagine God...sees less than Paul?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> PS  I would ask this in regards to "other christian ministry". What is such a thing? Might that be akin to a thing we might imagine could have been framed as this? (but wasn't)



Not just theory here.  As a practical matter, the fishing ministry I participated in in 2019 was part of a ministry of a local Southern Baptist Church.  As we are planning for 2020, a number of Christian fisherman from other local churches have begun discussions about taking people fishing as part of this ministry.  One idea we are discussing is separating the fishing ministry from the Southern Baptist Church to create a parachurch fishing ministry with the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission in North Georgia.  One possible name might be "Rednecks for Jesus."

Now as long as the ministry remains small I could see the ministry moving forward with an informal aspect to it - just a group of individuals partnering in the Lord without government recognition, incorporation, insurance, or a bank account.  But can one make a Biblical case that getting government recognition to facilitate aspects of the ministry somehow invalidates it at a certain point?  While I can see how it's always possible for the intentions to be evil, I'm not sure I can ascribe bad intent to a formal (government recognized) organization vs. an informal organization for ministry purposes.

Likewise, to legally homeschool in Louisiana, we had to register our homeschool with the state.  It took about 5 minutes each year to go online and do it.  Carmel Academy - officially recognized by the Louisiana Department of Education as a private school with 3 students.  Failing to register would have left our students in violation of truancy laws.  Was this official state recognition of parents' discipleship program for educating our children somehow indicative of bad intent?  Did it invalidate our Christian ministry to our children?  To children in other homeschooling families?  Most home schools are examples of Christian ministries other than churches.

Bad intentions can invalidate Christian ministries, but how people choose to organize the process does not.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> It's a strange matter, or strange matters we seem to consider. Could you imagine a brother from Ephesus going to Corinth (about 2 millennia ago) and being told..."you need to sign this" or in some way "also" accept this? I could not imagine this being done if there were any possibility of Paul..."finding out". Do we imagine God...sees less than Paul?



Could you imagine a purported "brother" being accepted into fellowship if he refused water baptism or denied that Jesus is the Messiah?


----------



## Madman (Nov 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> I believe we have been gifted that already.


So each is afforded the ability to determine truth by his own revelation?  Or has the deposit of faith been passed down in a manner to be known by all?



Israel said:


> It's a strange matter, or strange matters we seem to consider. Could you imagine a brother from Ephesus going to Corinth (about 2 millennia ago) and being told..."you need to sign this" or in some way "also" accept this? I could not imagine this being done if there were any possibility of Paul..."finding out". Do we imagine God...sees less than Paul?



Yes I can imagine that, there was no need to have it written nor signed, since the deposit was mainly verbal and taught from the scrolls for centuries, but the Apostle's Creed was used for that very purpose.  The doctrine of the church was taught and recited before baptism.  

In fact there is Biblical precedence for your statement in Acts.  The Judaizers claimed one had to be circumcised but the hierarchy in the church met and sent out a decree, followed by Paul and Barnabas to verify, that the men who claimed the need for circumcision had done so with out their authority.


----------



## Madman (Nov 25, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Could you imagine a purported "brother" being accepted into fellowship if he refused water baptism or denied that Jesus is the Messiah?


What if they demanded he have his feet washed, or speak in tongues, before being accepted into fellowship?  Or demand he prove he is circumcised?


----------



## Big7 (Nov 25, 2019)

If there are criteria- YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WRONG CHURCH.

I've never heard such blithering NONSENSE.

Good Grief.


----------



## Madman (Nov 25, 2019)

Big7 said:


> If there are criteria- YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WRONG CHURCH.
> 
> I've never heard such blithering NONSENSE.
> 
> Good Grief.


Would you agree there has always been a requirement to be considered "in the church"?


----------



## Big7 (Nov 25, 2019)

Madman said:


> Would you agree there has always been a requirement to be considered "in the church"?



Besides Communion With The Holy Trinity?

No. Fair enough?


----------



## Madman (Nov 25, 2019)

Big7 said:


> Besides Communion With The Holy Trinity?
> 
> No. Fair enough?


The "historic" church has always claimed baptism.  It is through baptism you enter the church.

I would say, based on history, valid baptism is what brings us into the church.  It has never been called "membership" it is "part of the body".


----------



## Big7 (Nov 25, 2019)

Madman said:


> The "historic" church has always claimed baptism.  It is through baptism you enter the church.
> 
> I would say, based on history, valid baptism is what brings us into the church.  It has never been called "membership" it is "part of the body".



Thus infant baptism.


----------



## Madman (Nov 25, 2019)

Yes.  Why leave an infant outside the family


----------



## Israel (Nov 26, 2019)

Madman said:


> So each is afforded the ability to determine truth by his own revelation?  Or has the deposit of faith been passed down in a manner to be known by all?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The matter of membership, or question of what may constitute "formal" church membership is not far from another consideration. The matter of exclusion does not run a parallel track, for if one accepts criteria for membership, there must (it would seem to me) be basis for exclusion if not met, or _transgressed._ 

We believe Paul addressed a specific situation like this. We also believe Jesus spoke of the matter in which refusing to hear the church one ends up here:

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell _it_ unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." 

The specific of that operation are neither described nor explained beyond instruction of "how" such a one is to be considered (at least as to mechanism)..."do we bar the door if we see him wanting to enter the meetings?" Call the police? (Do _we_ have a "temple guard"?) 

I don't know if this is fair to the OP or even what was had in mind; the seeming inclusion of "is there a mechanism? and if so, how does it appear, or what is it?" 

I don't know if there were anything intended of the rhetorical in this question:



> So each is afforded the ability to determine truth by _his own revelation_?



As though a hint of chaos is therein contained?

No less significant is your second question:



> Or has the deposit of faith been passed down in a manner to be known by all?




And although I do agree with the matter of a (or the) deposit of faith being "passed down" (though I do view it as given _from above_), it does not address the particular matter of that exercise...nor much explain its recognition as to whom it may be given to exercise. In short how is faith...recognized? Can it be observed and distinguished from presumption (being the extreme form of its misapprehension  and/or misappropriation) 

In this addressing I find your second question (_as stated_ agreeable in the "passed down") but with _this codicil_ needing some light (if there is any to be had):



> in a manner to be known by all?



(Now, before any think I am totally unaware of my _own propensity_ to either speak or desire to appear in any way cryptic, or lofty, or too easily given to use of multi syllabic _SAT words_ and arcane syntax, pompous a** that I am, let's get juicy)

Is it fair in this discussion to consider the account of Ananias and Sapphira?

Would we say that in the extreme, their membership was "revoked"? (At least in_ that congregation?_ For I do not know the ultimate disposition of their souls. And speculations to me here would be fruitless)

I see an exercise of faith. Peter speaking to their (only now _made obvious to us_) lie.
We might try to sift through the matter of faith, authority in its exercise, and that particular matter of revelation. 

But in all, we have the account. What each of us _takes from it, _is entirely influenced. It is either sobering, or not. It is either instructional, or not. And the depths of such instruction are either _in our own hands (or minds)_ for apprehension, or not. For no doubt, I could be as presumptuous in this matter as the most rebellious unbeliever, especially if I _only seek_ to impose my own understanding on any other. Nevertheless, it is there.

Do we agree, that in this instance (does it have any broader application? I simply ask) the almost laughable response of "But Peter, I do not receive your speaking as "_from the Lord_"...is undeniably absent? How is it that with _only words_...such a demonstration is accomplished? (I ask again...do we have, _or need_..."temple guards"?) 

The "whys" of "why was their duplicity answered so strongly?" (is physical death strong enough?) have no doubt been the topic of many a sermon. The matter of authority to speak such, no doubt also. But (for myself, only) I cannot in any way dismiss the most fundamental operation of revelation, and it's authority _in faith _that far surpasses any establishment other than that. In short, men either agreeing to, or seeking to add, by _their agreement_, establish a superposition of _that agreement_ to _revelation and faith. And a_gain in short, it is not what _claims authority_ does, by such claim, make itself the authority. Kingdoms topple...at one word. Glories are irredeemably sullied...at one word. Debates are ended...in one word.

Does God not give us "room" for agreement? But where is that "room"? Does God give us _room_ to establish, or do we see that_ room_ as itself (Himself) the established?

We _might _both agree "there is authority". We might as easily both be wrong (at least in an incompleteness) of the perception and assigning of that authority. We might remember:

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

But _to be true to_ (is there a place where lying is met with death?) what each of us perceives without dissimulation is how we both judge, and are judged.

If any man seek personal advantage, especially to the _self comforting _of his own soul, and more especially to a self display of his own rightness...we need only again refer to Peter (beloved example given to us, now without any shame in it, _glad to be so used)_

Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

We are now far less inclined to follow what declares _such of itself,_ but seek rather the One who is already occupied there.

But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. 

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 

I cannot escape this seeing of so many tables set, so many under "their banner" of their church (you raised my heart with question of "congregational government") so that even here I can pass 4 at most any great intersection each proclaiming itself on placard or engraving..."this is where the Lord's supper is celebrated" _in here_...is where God meets and dines with man, and _in man_. And wait, and look in hope...for a truer intersection. 

I do find it! 

I have no pain in the waiting, for the Lord shows many others in the waiting, jailed as it were, but in good company. Always enough, always just enough...to prevent the triumph of the discouragement of despair. 

You may...or any may say (as the old public service announcement perhaps hoped to induce to a better society) "And don't forget to attend the church of your choice!" But then I would, by self proclamation, show myself a liar. And there is a place where lying is easily seen, known, revealed, and dealt with. Safer am I (what self interest!) to escape the judgment that awaits such as would defile and contaminate others in lie. I have no place on earth...to endorse. No place of "headquarters" a man might find on a map. And any man would be right to ask "If he is as sorry as he sounds, why does he persist?" Because I am not. I would not trade any bit of  evaporating vexation for some saying of "I am at home in _my church_"

Gee, I ain't even at home, at my own home. (Though I often need sobering) And that all serves as reminder...of home.


When a man squares this because he cannot be let "off the hook" in its truth he may eat differently, drink differently.

and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven.  (YLT)

and this:

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

He may see something of One entirely free to eat and drink freely without any man to forbid...except Himself, and that in waiting for His brethren.


----------



## Madman (Nov 26, 2019)

The question was 'criteria for formal church membership'.  Hence the discussion, and I see no biblical authority for what is called formal church membership in the vein of standing before the brethren and professing a statement, nor do I see anywhere to sign a document mentioned.

We can all give our opinion and the way the world should turn and how everything under the sun should be, but in Scripture and in the historical church baptism is how one entered the church, it is how they became part of the body, the apostles Creed was taught as an understanding of what was believed. 

Those placed in charge knew the faith by word and tradition and were responsible to maintain it.  We see in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that the church had been taught the faith and were expected to maintain it.  In 1 Timothy 5 we understand that men were placed in charge of maintaining the faith and Timothy is admonished not to "ordain" or "lay hands on"  anyone hastily.  In other words Timothy needs to be sure of those he is ordaining.

IMHO I believe it is evident baptism makes us part of the body of Christ, the church.  It is the responsibility of the bishops and priests, the leaders in the church, to decide who needs to be admonished, and even set out.  As a layman I have no say in how the church does or does not discipline it's members.


----------



## Israel (Nov 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> The question was 'criteria for formal church membership'.  Hence the discussion, and I see no biblical authority for what is called formal church membership in the vein of standing before the brethren and professing a statement, nor do I see anywhere to sign a document mentioned.
> 
> We can all give our opinion and the way the world should turn and how everything under the sun should be, but in Scripture and in the historical church baptism is how one entered the church, it is how they became part of the body, the apostles Creed was taught as an understanding of what was believed.
> 
> ...




I see except to the end of the last paragraph. I am not convinced of what a layman is, isn't, or even exists.

And the matter of baptism is essential even if we may discuss the appearance of how it is manifest.


----------



## Israel (Nov 27, 2019)

Big7 said:


> If there are criteria- YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WRONG CHURCH.
> 
> I've never heard such blithering NONSENSE.
> 
> Good Grief.


Am I wrong...or might you spend much time exasperated at the stupidity of others?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 27, 2019)

Big7 said:


> If there are criteria- YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WRONG CHURCH.
> 
> I've never heard such blithering NONSENSE.
> 
> Good Grief.



If there are no criteria, how does a local body with a congregational form of government (or other democratic leadership process) decide who is and is not part of the voting body?  Does anyone who shows up at the meetings get a vote?


----------



## Israel (Nov 27, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Not just theory here.  As a practical matter, the fishing ministry I participated in in 2019 was part of a ministry of a local Southern Baptist Church.  As we are planning for 2020, a number of Christian fisherman from other local churches have begun discussions about taking people fishing as part of this ministry.  One idea we are discussing is separating the fishing ministry from the Southern Baptist Church to create a parachurch fishing ministry with the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission in North Georgia.  One possible name might be "Rednecks for Jesus."
> 
> Now as long as the ministry remains small I could see the ministry moving forward with an informal aspect to it - just a group of individuals partnering in the Lord without government recognition, incorporation, insurance, or a bank account.  But can one make a Biblical case that getting government recognition to facilitate aspects of the ministry somehow invalidates it at a certain point?  While I can see how it's always possible for the intentions to be evil, I'm not sure I can ascribe bad intent to a formal (government recognized) organization vs. an informal organization for ministry purposes.
> 
> ...



You are right, of course, in the matter of motive being always important. 

I don't believe many of us would doubt the Lord's grace is extended abundantly past our knowing of the ramifications of our actions.

There is a great amount of room provided in "whoever is not against us is for us"...and the tiniest bit of faith always exceeds bad faith, even if later we have been shown to be more about our own interests than we might have realized.

I am more than willing, no, desperately in need (if _need be_) with being told I have not yet had one true experience of this new life, deluded for some time, more wrong than even I _might allow for_ in any hope of mercy I trust is toward me. I am unable to resist. 

What I am saying is...if indeed the _truer experience_ is having one's motives consistently shown to be pure, validated, one's perspective and affections fully endorsed to the manifest demonstration that I am displayed as one having seen nothing, knowing nothing, hearing nothing (which I cannot but accept as _the possible), _it would be the utmost treachery to withhold any form of mercy to that wretch that might be best served by the stiffest of rebuke.

Am I, and therefore have I...been the wrongest _of all_ to cling to that one jewel I find, have found...as to this moment yet _do find _when a keener eye has disclosed so much of chaff and kindling and by that fiery eye is set ablaze to the very edge of all despair...that I might _see this_ glimmering in that inferno "those whom I love I rebuke and chasten..." 

It seems no longer in me (but a fool would also comfort himself with that) to resist being found the "chiefest of sinners" the worst...of the worst as though doubts of Christ's ability must therein be contained (with greatest torment), that lest if I seek by maneuver to avoid being shown so...the man I would and must exclude from His work of salvation...is _only me._

Yes, Ananais and Sapphira sober me. They _sober up _a thing that loves to display a great devotion by lie...and that lie not being so much the lie of having given all (when it hasn't been)...but the loving of a more particular lie; that a thing can do anything (in order to demonstrate its faux "greater love") before Him who always sees all, and that such lie is without consequence. 

For me, I cannot escape that now the safer confession is _only that_ despite that my reception of Him has been done in all trepidation and often double mindedness, His receiving of His own is emphatically and relentlessly demonstrated as eternally established and true. He will "bother each" with His love uninterruptedly. Even if we find our faces are turned to it only in particular moments.

This scripture comes to mind in matters of motive and motives:

For the word of God _is_ living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 

The above would be all of unnecessary, irrelevant, useless, pointless, if a man is to be persuaded to trust his _own heart. As i_f a man is called to trust (even now) in anything he might pursue...even... "in the Lord's name".

I do not doubt the Lord's promise of removing a stony heart for a heart of flesh. That there is indeed a new heart, as there is new life and a new creation. But how this is manifest to us (or, at least to me) is stranger than ever I might have supposed (and still do). It is a heart that is not only made able to bear the most blindingly bright of examinations _despite_ what may be discovered in the so doing, but is also made not having _will enough_ to escape it. This is a miracle to me.

For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.


----------



## Madman (Nov 27, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> If there are no criteria, how does a local body with a congregational form of government (or other democratic leadership process) decide who is and is not part of the voting body?  Does anyone who shows up at the meetings get a vote?


We dont vote.  I see no precedent in Holy Scripture for a congrelational form of government in the church.


----------



## Madman (Nov 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> I see except to the end of the last paragraph. I am not convinced of what a layman is, isn't, or even exists.
> 
> And the matter of baptism is essential even if we may discuss the appearance of how it is manifest.





Israel said:


> I see except to the end of the last paragraph. I am not convinced of what a layman is, isn't, or even exists.



Layman vs. Clergy

I am not clergy I am laity


----------



## Madman (Nov 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> #53


Too much to answer.  My simple argument is as follows, and it does involve what is being called "church membership", and it is biblical.

1) Jesus Christ started a church.
2) he put certain men in charge of it.
3) these men had authority over his church and could make decisions and set policy.
4) these men taught the traditions to others and some of those men became leaders in the church.
5) the original leaders "laid hands" on the "new" men to continue this.
6) this has continued for 2000+ years in an effort to continue the faith until now.
7) Jesus church has one criteria for "membership"  that is baptism.  There are no references, biblical or tradition, that shows a written requirement.  If the clergy believed one should be baptized they were and hence part of the church.


----------



## Israel (Nov 27, 2019)

I don't think I disagree, especially that the matter of baptism is paramount (to me at least) if by it one means that:  "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" as found here:

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


----------



## Madman (Nov 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> I don't think I disagree, especially that the matter of baptism is paramount (to me at least) if by it one means that:  "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" as found here:
> 
> For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
> For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


Yes.  We are in agreement and the Church fathers read John 3:5 with Ezekiel 36:25-26.


----------



## Madman (Nov 27, 2019)

Madman said:


> Too much to answer.  My simple argument is as follows, and it does involve what is being called "church membership", and it is biblical.
> 
> 1) Jesus Christ started a church.
> 2) he put certain men in charge of it.
> ...


I should correct this post.  It really was not the clergy who decided, it could be the person, or the parents of a minor person, who decided when baptism occurred.  Anyone can baptise not just clergy.


----------



## Big7 (Nov 27, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> If there are no criteria, how does a local body with a congregational form of government (or other democratic leadership process) decide who is and is not part of the voting body?  Does anyone who shows up at the meetings get a vote?



Uh.. No. The authority is with The Pope, College of Cardinals and local Archdiocese.

One small church doesn't really have a "vote" except, if you don't like what you hear and see, you don't have to go back. ?


----------



## Big7 (Nov 27, 2019)

Israel said:


> Am I wrong...or might you spend much time exasperated at the stupidity of others?



It's a little frustrating. I get no joy from it. Just keep praying.?


----------



## Israel (Nov 28, 2019)

Big7 said:


> It's a little frustrating. I get no joy from it. Just keep praying.?


I think I understand. At least the part about frustrating...is it that place where things that seem almost painfully obvious (to one) are either apparently not regarded, seemingly unseen...or just manifestly resisted? I am going to suppose we all know something of that.

And also the point of finding no "joy from it". No, it is not a pleasant place to occupy in mind, is it? It runs counter to whatever conviction we may think is ours in the joy of the gospel and new life found in Jesus Christ.

What if we "allow for it?" Allow that others are not we ourselves, and also pursue that line of question "why am I given to see things (at times) that to me seem so apparent and perhaps esteemed beneficial in the discovery to the becoming of precious...why am I allowed to see what will end up only in this experience of (some) frustration if shared?"

Can we be moved past the place of frustration? Can we be moved past to a place where it produces in us what seems the most God forbidden thing that a man might know...if he indeed knows God? Sorrow? It seems a paradox on its face. We know God is not frustrated. We know God is not exasperated. And through Christ we know Him as the God of all joy. But this sorrow thing? Does it not seem _even more unseemly_ than any attribution of frustration might appear? Dare one "allow for it? then? Will he then manifestly be denying the knowledge of God?

What if somehow this is discovered as true?

He who sows in tears shall reap with joy?

That there may indeed be a _right_ time for tears, a right time the heart feels all torn asunder? God might well know this is no place a man would ever seek for himself in experience. But...what if God, knowing the reality of that in Himself...a heart so easily moved in compassion as to weep for what others do not yet see...so that by that operation of not resisting such tenderness...a_ thing_ might be given "of Himself" that can save from the ultimate of despair?

Would He, has He, does He...hold back from the very depths of Himself in this giving despite its terrible cost? Has he drawn a line "I will give only this much of myself...but no more"? "I will _invest_ only this much of myself...but no more."?

We may be on our way to seeing Jesus Christ. How we have been given to answer "Is He worth seeing" shall determine our course.

Thank you for recommending me to prayer.


----------



## Madman (Nov 28, 2019)

Big7 said:


> It's a little frustrating. I get no joy from it. Just keep praying.?


Frustrating, sad, bewildering, etc., etc.
Christ calls all into the Church where he dispenses the grace of the father.  So much has been lost by so many.

At times I am overwhelmed with sadness.

But eventually I reassure myself that it is not about salvation.
Be baptized, baptise your children, become part of the body of Christ, the church.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 28, 2019)

Madman said:


> We dont vote.  I see no precedent in Holy Scripture for a congrelational form of government in the church.



I'm not enthusiastic about congregational church government either, but I do see lots of precedent in Scripture for the liberty of believers.  Everything that is not prohibited is allowed for believers, including the liberty to organize ministries as seems best as long as it is within Scriptural boundaries for Scriptural purposes.



Madman said:


> Layman vs. Clergy
> 
> I am not clergy I am laity



If you insist on precedent, then where is the precedent in Scripture for the distinction between clergy and laity?  

I'm not comfortable with this distinction, because I've seen it provide the "laity" with purported reasons not to do the work of the church of making disciples of all nations, teaching obedience to everything Christ commanded.  The job of identified offices (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) is to "prepare God's people for works of service."  All God's people carry out the work of the church.  Identified offices prepare God's people, they don't carry out most of the works of service themselves.




Israel said:


> You are right, of course, in the matter of motive being always important.
> 
> I don't believe many of us would doubt the Lord's grace is extended abundantly past our knowing of the ramifications of our actions.
> 
> ...



I appreciate the attitude of humility and introspection.  But I've often seen it seemingly lead to, or be an excuse for acedia - laziness in carrying out the work of the body by those who see themselves as laity rather than clergy.  It's too easy to avoid the work of carrying out the Great Commission (making disciples) for those who reckon themselves as unworthy, even though they have been purported believers for time enough to attain some maturity and get prepared. 

All believers are called to both being disciples and making disciples.  Churches (and other ways Christians may work together in ministry) should exist mainly for this purpose.  Both the organizations and the individuals will always be imperfect.  But we should not wait for perfection before we put our hand to the work to which all believers (and by extension, all organizations of believers) are called.


----------



## Madman (Nov 28, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> If you insist on precedent, then where is the precedent in Scripture for the distinction between clergy and laity?
> 
> I'm not comfortable with this distinction, because I've seen it provide the "laity" with purported reasons not to do the work of the church of making disciples of all nations, teaching obedience to everything Christ commanded.  The job of identified offices (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) is to "prepare God's people for works of service."  All God's people carry out the work of the church.  Identified offices prepare God's people, they don't carry out most of the works of service themselves.



You just used an example from Scripture for the laity and the clergy.  Apostles, priests, and deacons are called and trained in the beliefs and traditions of the church.  The laity performs many "pastoral" services etc.
We see the direct laying on of hands as succession in the ordained ministry.

I am sorry that laity in our group feel they must be officially recognized to live and teach the Gospel in the world.  At our church the clergy teach the laity and send us out. 

I believe part of what Big7 eluded to earlier as a frustration, at least it is a frustration for me, is the desire to through 2000+ years of Biblical teaching and tradition in the trash because of "Romaphobia".  The Roman Catholic Church is not the only part of the catholic church to teach and believe what they do.  The Roman Catholics, the Coptics, the Anglicans, and every branch of the Orthodox church believe the same thing with very few exceptions.  The vast majority of Christendom has believed the same thing for 2000+ years, in fact the vast majority of the "reformers" believed very close to what the Church believed.

It is this "freedom" that has destroyed a vast part of what once once the church. 



LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I'm not enthusiastic about congregational church government either, but I do see lots of precedent in Scripture for the liberty of believers.  Everything that is not prohibited is allowed for believers, including the liberty to organize ministries as seems best as long as it is within Scriptural boundaries for Scriptural purposes.



First I must say I see no liberty for believers, we are to have a mind submitted to Christ.  The liberty you speak of is from the law.  We are free in Christ to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

This is interesting.  *"Everything that is not prohibited is allowed for believers, including the liberty to organize ministries as seems best as long as it is within Scriptural boundaries for Scriptural purposes."*

Are you sure you really believe that statement.  For some reason I get the feeling you may think that one must make a profession of faith and be dunked to have a valid baptism.

But yes there is biblical precedent for hierarchy in the church above the local level. The Jerusalem council sent Paul and Barnabas to verify a letter they wrote concerning the need for circumcision.  In the letter they stated circumcision was not needed "and the people teaching that practice did so without their authority.

If I were to follow your logic I could argue, were I born before the writing and distribution of Acts, that circumcision is necessary.

By your logic it also leaves the church in limbo with what they can and cannot do until Scripture was canonized.

I believe, as Holy Scripture teaches that Christ instituted a church, put men in charge, gave them the authority to pass that on through the laying on of hands, to insure that the teachings of Christ would continue until his return.  If not we end up with thousands of denominations believing what they see fit, teaching whatever *they* see in the Scripture. 

Make no mistake, the Holy Scriptures and the teachings were given into the hands of the church, without it people do exactly what we are warned not to do, privately interpret Scripture.  

It is the responsibility of the Bishop to pass down the faith as it has been given to him.



_"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid."_

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans


----------



## Big7 (Nov 28, 2019)

Madman said:


> Frustrating, sad, bewildering, etc., etc.
> Christ calls all into the Church where he dispenses the grace of the father.  So much has been lost by so many.
> 
> At times I am overwhelmed with sadness.
> ...



Well said. That's pretty much how I see things. ?


----------



## Big7 (Nov 28, 2019)

Israel said:


> I think I understand. At least the part about frustrating...is it that place where things that seem almost painfully obvious (to one) are either apparently not regarded, seemingly unseen...or just manifestly resisted? I am going to suppose we all know something of that.
> 
> And also the point of finding no "joy from it". No, it is not a pleasant place to occupy in mind, is it? It runs counter to whatever conviction we may think is ours in the joy of the gospel and new life found in Jesus Christ.
> 
> ...



ABSOLUTELY.

I think you have fully grasped the frustration I feel sometimes, as you put it "painfully obvious" to the evangelist duty believers have to "help" others come to Christianity.
I'm just a member of the laity. I try. Often times, I'll get on a romp (for lack of a better term) then lose my way, take a break or whatever. During that little down time, I pray "religiously" (pardon the pun), sometimes, that I can just state my version of what I've been taught as fact, and ALL I come in contact with will "get it".

That's where I am weak. I pray for others, some I don't even know personally. 

When my efforts are excused away or just down- right rejected, that's where the frustration comes in. The old saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" comes to mind.?


----------



## Madman (Nov 28, 2019)

Big7 said:


> ABSOLUTELY.
> 
> I think you have fully grasped the frustration I feel sometimes, as you put it "painfully obvious" to the evangelist duty believers have to "help" others come to Christianity.
> I'm just a member of the laity. I try. Often times, I'll get on a romp (for lack of a better term) then lose my way, take a break or whatever. During that little down time, I pray "religiously" (pardon the pun), sometimes, that I can just state my version of what I've been taught as fact, and ALL I come in contact with will "get it".
> ...


But we can feed him enough salt that he will want to drink.

I struggle with not letting my frustration get in the way of the Gospel.  

Isaiah 28:10-13 
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.


----------



## Israel (Nov 29, 2019)

It appears (at least to me) we contend often (mostly? always?) about this thing; _this matter_ of authority. I think we all admit "it's there" or at least sense it to some degree. Something _over us._

I know this sounds like a silly thing to say among what participates in "christian matters", or churches, or forums, or holds any self identity to such. The first response could be "of course you ninny, our declaration of truth is that Jesus is Christ is Lord!" Boss. In charge. Head man. God to us. The One who has received all power and authority in heaven and earth. Or, has always _been such, and by such..._is "our way" of finding this out. Jesus is our authority, and not only "ours" in a way we may think we make Him so...but _all authority_ even if not acknowledged so, in all the earth. The disposition of all things has taken place, is taking place, and will take place only in accord with His will. Every molecular bond (and every sub-atomic working) is at his whim, so to speak. And not only that, things unseen of spirit (which he has told us are to be seen...I believe) are subject to Him. All principalities and powers...right up to God the Father Himself. Without any exception. Maybe we agree to this...maybe not, God knows.

The "how" of how this authority is translated to "us" or any particular "of us" seems the matters we contend in. That appears the place (again, to me at least) where we labor, make assertions, find the heat and frictions that seem to abound, at times.

And not only us ourselves, amongst ourselves. we find this contending with, and for "how the authority appears" no less with what may call itself unbeliever. Or atheist. They may not make any claim to an understanding of the "how" it all works, but I believe it's pretty much fair to say they hold "the natural order" the interplay of only things _of the universe...(themselves not knowing to what extent this even "exists") _is the all and only authority.

They too have tools for the learning of how this authority is manifest, usually calling it "science" or that method (which science merely is, a method) for their investigation of it. It appears to me, without exception, they must stop at any attribution of consciousness to it, any attribution of "will" to it, any attribution of "purpose' to it. "It" just is. We alone...bring will to know, to seek out purpose of its workings...the how it works.

But of course we (perhaps) see a matter with that they don't appreciate. If there is "will to know" if there is the possibility of finding knowledge from a thing in which is plainly stated "there is no knowledge of will or purpose in all this thing (the universe...which just "is")" Then how can there be any in anything "of it" (like us)...as we easily confess "I want to know (will to know) how the universe...works". Where do matters of will, knowledge, any desire for it (even to such a sublime translating of such as would be called the "Truth of it") come from? If the "universe" has none in it, no place to bequeath it "from"?

Like it or not, for them, no matter how much one might say "we are just a collection of unknowing material"...the very saying of that reveals they had "purpose" to say such...for if not...why say anything...at all? For their consistency to be "true" they would needs be as silent as the universe they claim is "The Authority". If the universe yields no knowing "of itself", no testimony to consciousness...no working according to "a" consciousness so then, how could anything "of it"...surely including man...say it, itself, has any, at all?

If they say "we" as believers merely babble incoherently, where does such a standard for "right consciousness" come from, if they are prepared to (in the same breath) say "consciosuness is merely a chemical construct we may not yet fully understand...(but it is no more than that)...being found no where _in the universe_...as a thing itself."

"Let the chemicals babble" would be (to me) a far truer stance of some consistency. And more so. Perhaps. Let the chemicals...do...as whatever the chemicals do! But...the moment the door is barred from chemicals coming with knife and gun to plunder (for more chemicals)...a will is displayed. (But there can be no "will" bequeathed to or from...chemicals. They just "are".) Now there is not only will displayed, but a discerning of the _will of others_ "I know why chemicals come to my door openly brandishing knife and gun!" And it ain't good! (at least for me and my family of chemicals!) Now...we got "good" added to the mix, too!

It seems to some extent...as far as any man in that scenario is concerned..."all other chemicals may merely babble and act in chaos...but me? ...me?...I am the chemicals...with knowledge and recognition of ORDER and what is "good" in that order!" (and some wonder why we call such "God to themselves"...worshipers of self)

But we claim something completely other as methodology (if I may beg indulgence to describe it so) beyond science, we claim a faith that can actually lead to a "knowing". We claim a knowing exists. That knowledge...actually is an existing thing...in truth. A knowing One...even. Truly. Specifically. And so we too, ourselves do not escape this "holding of the feet to the fire" (so to speak) for consistency...and we find that same friction amongst ourselves.

But I have said much, perhaps. Or at least tapped this keyboard much...only.

God knows.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Nov 30, 2019)

Madman said:


> You just used an example from Scripture for the laity and the clergy.  Apostles, priests, and deacons are called and trained in the beliefs and traditions of the church.  The laity performs many "pastoral" services etc.
> We see the direct laying on of hands as succession in the ordained ministry.



The example I quoted was not "apostles, priests, and deacons" but rather apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.  So are prophets clergy or laity?  Are evangelists clergy or laity?  Are teachers clergy or laity?  Are elders clergy or laity?  In your distinction between clergy and laity, you are left without Scriptural answers to those questions.



Madman said:


> I am sorry that laity in our group feel they must be officially recognized to live and teach the Gospel in the world.



There is some occurrence of this in most groups of any size that make the distinction between clergy and laity.  I like to emphasize that every believer is called to fulfill the great commission.



Madman said:


> Make no mistake, the Holy Scriptures and the teachings were given into the hands of the church, without it people do exactly what we are warned not to do, privately interpret Scripture.



Can you quote this purported Scriptural warning not to "privately interpret Scripture"?


----------



## Madman (Nov 30, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Can you quote this purported Scriptural warning not to "privately interpret Scripture"?


2 peter 1


----------



## Madman (Nov 30, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The example I quoted was not "apostles, priests, and deacons" but rather apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.  So are prophets clergy or laity?  Are evangelists clergy or laity?  Are teachers clergy or laity?  Are elders clergy or laity?  In your distinction between clergy and laity, you are left without Scriptural answers to those questions.



Apostles was referring to bishops the balance can pretty much be handled by laity.  

I am still waiting on biblical references to congregational government and christian freedom.  

I believe our freedom is in christ and the church he started.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Dec 1, 2019)

Madman said:


> 2 peter 1



I read the whole chapter and consulted a number of translations.  I don't see any warning not to "privately interpret scripture" as you claim.  Is your claim a private interpretation or can you cite a Church authority that makes this same interpretation?  And which verses in this chapter support such a conclusion that believers are warned against a private interpretation of any passages of scripture?


----------



## Madman (Dec 1, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I read the whole chapter and consulted a number of translations.  I don't see any warning not to "privately interpret scripture" as you claim.  Is your claim a private interpretation or can you cite a Church authority that makes this same interpretation?  And which verses in this chapter support such a conclusion that believers are warned against a private interpretation of any passages of scripture?


When everyone is "alone with their Bible" forming their own theology what do you get?  Pay attention to vs. 20-21.  The Scriptures were given into the care of the Church for teaching and edification of the saints.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 1, 2019)

Concerning privately interpreting scripture, isn't there something about the Holy Spirit revealing it to you? Could not a person on an island be given a general calling or effectual calling?

It just seems to me that God could send His spirit to awaken one of His children. I don't see where we all need a certain group of ancient men beyond the original prophets and apostles.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 1, 2019)

The basic argument I see is when was it OK for us as individuals to use privately interpreted scripture, with the Holy Spirit's help vs having to follow the interpretations of a certain group of men?

It is hard to a certain extent. We had to have or follow some group of men to a certain length of time. We can't rule out the importance of the Church. Maybe it's the definition of that Church. 

Yet later when we all have that information and we all have scripture, is that certain group of men's interpretations still needed? 

Can we now follow just guidance from our own reading of scripture using our guidance from God's spirit. Do we have general revelation's from God. Does God send us effectual callings that lead us to salvation?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Dec 2, 2019)

Madman said:


> When everyone is "alone with their Bible" forming their own theology what do you get?  Pay attention to vs. 20-21.  The Scriptures were given into the care of the Church for teaching and edification of the saints.



2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Madman (Dec 2, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


 OK?  
what are your thoughts?


----------



## Madman (Dec 2, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> The basic argument I see is when was it OK for us as individuals to use privately interpreted scripture, with the Holy Spirit's help vs having to follow the interpretations of a certain group of men?
> 
> It is hard to a certain extent. We had to have or follow some group of men to a certain length of time. We can't rule out the importance of the Church. Maybe it's the definition of that Church.
> 
> ...




So anyone 2000 years removed from the writings, fully understands the language, the customs, the teachings, the traditions, can fully grasp all the nuances of potentially difficult Scriptures, and be ASSURED that they are listening to the Holy Spirit in that interpretation?

There were some early heresies that had to be corrected by the church councils from that very practice.  Still have them today.

Added:
Art,  there are VERY FEW people, if anyone, who has sat down and formed their own beliefs based on a complete understanding of Holy Scripture.  Most of us form an opinion based on very little, maybe a verse or two.  Then we listen to our preacher, then we read a book that a friend recommended because it really helped them, then we roll up our own theology because it fits best with what we want to believe.

The church, not just the Romans, but the church that existed before the 7th ecumenical council that met in 787, is what I believe has the best authority on the faith.  That was the last time the Church met as one body and decided.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Dec 3, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.





Madman said:


> OK?
> what are your thoughts?



The passage means what it says and does not mean what it does not say.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 3, 2019)

Madman said:


> there are VERY FEW people, if anyone, who has sat down and formed their own beliefs based on a complete understanding of Holy Scripture.  Most of us form an opinion based on very little, maybe a verse or two.  Then we listen to our preacher, then we read a book that a friend recommended because it really helped them, then we roll up our own theology because it fits best with what we want to believe.



Speak for yourself.


----------



## Madman (Dec 3, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Speak for yourself.


I am truly blessed to sit at the feet of a man like you, who can read and fully comprehend the deep spiritual meaning, the culture, and language of such an ancient text.
I will wait with baited breath for your next insightful post.


----------



## Madman (Dec 3, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The passage means what it says and does not mean what it does not say.


Perhaps Welderguy will helps us with the meaning.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Dec 3, 2019)

Madman said:


> Perhaps Welderguy will helps us with the meaning.



Why do you keep asking group members for their private interpretations if you think this passage is warning against private interpretations?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 3, 2019)

Madman said:


> So anyone 2000 years removed from the writings, fully understands the language, the customs, the teachings, the traditions, can fully grasp all the nuances of potentially difficult Scriptures, and be ASSURED that they are listening to the Holy Spirit in that interpretation?
> 
> There were some early heresies that had to be corrected by the church councils from that very practice.  Still have them today.
> 
> ...



It sorta is a  Catch-22. Even the Protestants believe and follow the private interpretations of those ancient men. Men such as the Councils of Nicea. etc. They truly believe those men had insider input directly from God. 

So after 787, it all stopped? No more direct insider information from God directly to men? At that point God had given all the scriptural interpretations that would ever be needed? 

Then over the years since 787, man has decided that individuals can sit alone with scripture and with input from the Holy Spirit, interpret.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 3, 2019)

What is the date in History that the Reformation believed God quit giving input directly to Man? I'm assuming Martin Luther had a date in his head that he used. Maybe it was 787. 
Like was it 787 that Martin Luther said, we no longer believe that God was in direct communication with Church any longer.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 3, 2019)

Let's just pick any denomination or sect. Is God now in direct communication with individuals in those denominations or sects? Are individuals lead by God today? Does God communicate and lead a preacher as to what to say? Is that same individual lead to scriptural interpretation?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 3, 2019)

Take the Trinity vs Oneness belief. Those ancient men voted and settled on the Trinity. Later some Protestants had new information, directly from God that is has always been Oneness. 

How and a denomination believe those ancient men got it all right except one issue or belief? I'd think either it's all right or it's all wrong. 

These ancient men presented a list of their interpretations, etc. Even what books were Canon. Later can a group of other men pick and choose what to believe off of that list?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 3, 2019)

Romans 1:21
Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.

Are we to assume this group was required to worship God without ever having the "belief interpretation list?" Heck, they didn't even have scripture. Or did they?


----------



## Israel (Dec 3, 2019)

Madman said:


> When everyone is "alone with their Bible" forming their own theology what do you get?  Pay attention to vs. 20-21.  The Scriptures were given into the care of the Church for teaching and edification of the saints.


There is a testing though...isn't there?

How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 

Who can discern? In regards to the _giving of a revelation, _who can discern whether such is shared for the edifying of others or just plain ole self aggrandizing? If I say such is "crazy stuff" can you understand? The seeking to "sort" through.

It'll take "a" man places _in man_...where all sortsa stuff gets exposed for judging. "Why do I speak, at all?" "To what end is any expression...at all" "How much...do "I like" appearing right?" (Can I just be self manufacturing stuff to enhance my view of self?) "if indeed something is given "me" (or any man for that matter)...why? what for?" 

Just because we may readily admit "God gives revelation"...there is no guarantee that anything there implies to any man..."therefore what I have or say is of God".  

What a place! 

There's no "calling" or office that guarantees faithfulness or can be used as such. Might we think of Paul again "but even if we or an angel of heaven preach to you another gospel than that which you have received..."? How is a man used (and can one ever even recognize such a man?) that can lay a foundation that "goes beyond him"? Is measured not even by that man who is seemingly _doing the laying_...but is true? How can any...ever "work beyond themselves"?

"My message and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith would not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. "

That's what I mean by crazy...there's no place for compass or map, no place for anything...but God. And no less...than God, for everything else is as subject to the handling of man...to man's own ends. 

If any man can tell me who might say "I follow the scriptures...only"...how does one reconcile these_ in the doing? The following?_

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Therefore...how does one work through this? I am not seeking to "weaken" the scriptures, (God forbid for that is to my own shame) but I dare not allow myself far from hearing Jesus, in form, asking me..."What are you looking for?" 

That this is too easily only assigned as reproof_ only to others:_

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.  
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Can I easily confess "I have sought to elevate myself"? I'd be a liar to deny it. But, just as now I am able to "look back" and see that vain work, how my own vanity has been served...can I say that "Oh, but now i know..." God forbid.

The same working that has let me see my own vanity yesterday, may tomorrow allow for my confession of vanity, _in the_ today. 

The "spirit of faith" (is it given only to some?)

We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 

Still gives no man any assurance as to his own rightness about anything. At best he is bidden to speak what he believes. Do we have any confidence that idle words are judged...as Jesus says? Do we not therefore...in the speaking...find agreement to such words as may be ours...subject to judgment...and rightly so? 

Are we so silly to believe..."my words are not UP for the dissecting, laying open...to see who or what is served in them?" 

Who wants to pile up "shock" for themselves? Lay up in store for a day..."sometime else" I will submit to judgment!

The question of "what (or Who) might appear in absence of self confidence?"...is it ever far from any of us?

Or as the apostle said "who is equal to such a task?" of being made so...smelly?

Life and death in the same skin.

But then...that is not our own work.


----------



## Madman (Dec 3, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Why do you keep asking group members for their private interpretations if you think this passage is warning against private interpretations?



I do believe in #75 I was asked about private interpretation and I provided Biblical text. I was then told that 2 Peter does not say what I have been lead, by 2000 years of teaching, to believe, but no one is willing to tell me what it does say.  Pretty frustrating. 

I do not say that we should not read Scripture and apply it to our lives, what I am saying is that there are very difficult parts, as Peter says in 2 Peter and to simply believe that we can pull out Holy Scripture and completely understand the complete deep spiritual meaning every time probably is not so.

Then I provide Scripture to support my beliefs and they are shunned or ignored.  My belief is it is the responsibility of the church to teach and the Bible to prove, not every man and his Bible and his own theology.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 3, 2019)

Madman said:


> I do believe in #75 I was asked about private interpretation and I provided Biblical text. I was then told that 2 Peter does not say what I have been lead, by 2000 years of teaching, to believe, but no one is willing to tell me what it does say.  Pretty frustrating.
> 
> I do not say that we should not read Scripture and apply it to our lives, what I am saying is that there are very difficult parts, as Peter says in 2 Peter and to simply believe that we can pull out Holy Scripture and completely understand the complete deep spiritual meaning every time probably is not so.
> 
> Then I provide Scripture to support my beliefs and they are shunned or ignored.  My belief is it is the responsibility of the church to teach and the Bible to prove, not every man and his Bible and his own theology.


Isn't there a lot of scripture that hasn't been interpreted by the Church? Meaning those men before 787 didn't read Romans 11:1 and then say, "OK, this means ____." And so on with verse 2, etc. True they did interpret some or perhaps even the important parts but did they interpret every verse and passage?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 3, 2019)

2 Peter 1:20-21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever brought about through human initiative, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

"no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation."

Could that mean what is actual Scripture never comes from man's interpretation? Regardless even if it's interpretation, it never comes from any human. Meaning if it's just me or a group of ancient men.
The interpretation has to come from God.

The infinitive, scripture and interpretation, has to come from God! Either to me from the Holy Spirit or to me, through a group of ancient men, from the Holy Spirit.

I don't see Peter telling me it's one or the other. I think it can be both or all. From God, through the Holy Spirit, with various avenues. Ancient men, todays Church leaders, lay people, and through myself. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.


----------



## Madman (Dec 3, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> It sorta is a  Catch-22. Even the Protestants believe and follow the private interpretations of those ancient men. Men such as the Councils of Nicea. etc. They truly believe those men had insider input directly from God.


Yes some do and many shun those interpretations when they don't fit what they want to hear.  My father-in-law used to profess "no creed but Christ" which in itself is a creed. 



Artfuldodger said:


> So after 787, it all stopped? No more direct insider information from God directly to men? At that point God had given all the scriptural interpretations that would ever be needed?



I don't believe that, my point was 787 A.D. was the last time the entire church spoke with one voice.  Christ prayed that we would all "be of one mind".  I do believe that the foundations of the faith were solidified and put in a vernacular that could be taught and understood by everyone.  The Holy Scriptures had been canonized by then and were used for teaching, the creeds penned so that the basics of the faith could be easily memorized, etc., however, the Spirit still moves in the Church and deeper and fuller understanding are developed.  We seem to forget that in a worldwide church theological language, and descriptors had to be developed.  The belief of God being 3 in person and 1 in essence, even though Biblical, needed to be thought out.  The belief that Christ was 1 in person and 2 in essence had to be thought out as the church was meeting to discuss the heresy of Arius.  (Homoousios) 



Artfuldodger said:


> Then over the years since 787, man has decided that individuals can sit alone with scripture and with input from the Holy Spirit, interpret.



And in many things we can, but not every spirit is the Holy Spirit.  The Church has always believed and taught that the Holy Scriptures are written in such a manner that even the unlearned or simple or young, can read and understand salvation.  "Everything necessary for salvation is contained in the Scriptures, but not everything in the Scriptures is necessary for salvation".  

What we have seen since 787 is the fracture in church were someone reads scripture and decides it means something other than what has been taught for 2000, especially concerning salvation, then they run off and start their own "church".  Then we see the Great East-West Schism, the English Reformation, and the Protestant reformation, I would are argue all came about because men were not willing to sit down and allow the Spirit of God to work out these problems.  I will add the the Coptic Church "bowed out" of the councils a little early because they believed someone was dissing one of their Saints.  It has since been agreed on by the church catholic that it was most likely a misunderstanding due to language barriers and the Coptics are discussing coming back into communion. 

There are no innocents in the history of the church, any time men move of their own volition bad things happen.  

In this forum we all lay out our "sacred cows", and I will write what I believe and why, sometimes I am not very charitable, but me and the Holy Spirit are working on that, but I will never apologize for defending the Gospel, I will never apologize for defending the faith as it has been passed down for 2000+ years, I will never apologize for believing that Christ instituted his church for the teaching and edification of the saints for the purpose of spreading the Gospel and the hopeful salvation of all men, I will never apologize for my belief that God has given his Grace to be directly applied by the church to help His people through this part of life.

In the AAA forum I will "always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have". 

In the Christian forums I will write on the topic and hope and pray that once again we all be of one mind, which I believe is, as the creed says, is "One Holy, catholic, and apostolic, church", but we are not there yet.


----------



## Madman (Dec 3, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> 2 Peter 1:20-21
> Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever brought about through human initiative, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> "no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation."
> ...




We must understand that the church does not strictly define every verse in Scripture but it does have teachings.  On this section it gives the context and basic idea of what Paul is trying to convey.

For the sake of this post let's just start at vs. 16.  Peter is reminding the reader of the Apostles pedigree, and that what the the Apostles teach is true, vs. 19.  He is telling the reader that the Apostles message is "confirmed" and needs to followed as a "lamp shining in a dark place" and they need to follow the Apostles' teaching closely until they become more mature in the faith.

However he warns in vs. 20 that the Scriptures are not for the interpretation of just anyone because the Scriptures did not come by the will of man, i.e. no one sat down and decide to make up some story, but it was written by men motivated by the holy Spirit. the church has seen this as "Holy Men" not just men who think they are spirit motivated.   Human writings are easily understood by human thought, spiritual writings are not so easily understood by human thought.  This is more completely explained in 2 Peter 2.

In 2 Peter 2 he warns of false prophets.  We have seen those since the beginning of Christendom, some are nefarious, others are misguided, but ultimately they can all lead a flock to da^^nation.

So how do we know what to believe? We look to the Church, the Holy Scriptures were given to the church.  A pretty good book to read... The Bible is a catholic book, by Jimmy Akin.

The church helps us to interpret the difficult passages for the teaching and edification of the saints for the spreading of the Gospel, it helps us lead a holy life.

We need the church, we need to know the Scriptures, the teachings of the church are based in the Holy Scriptures.


----------



## Madman (Dec 3, 2019)

Israel said:


> There is a testing though...isn't there?



Most certainly there is a testing.  I explained my view on some of it in #100.  We must always look to Scripture and test what is being taught, if there appears to bee a difference in the two we need to ask for confirmation.

We also have writings and traditions, we can look too for clarification, baptism as an example.  While it is not canonized Scripture the Didache further explains how the Apostles taught baptism should be performed.

Should we baptize in the name of Jesus only or should we use the Trinitarian language?


----------



## Madman (Dec 3, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> What is the date in History that the Reformation believed God quit giving input directly to Man? I'm assuming Martin Luther had a date in his head that he used. Maybe it was 787.
> Like was it 787 that Martin Luther said, we no longer believe that God was in direct communication with Church any longer.



I have no idea or if that is a belief.  I do know some who believe the faith was lost with the death of the last Apostle and did not returned until their particular denomination came back.

I do not know of any church teaching saying that God does not "communicate" with people or the church but I doubt it.

Whatever Martin Luther believed and why is a reformation topic.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 3, 2019)

Madman said:


> When everyone is "alone with their Bible" forming their own theology what do you get?  Pay attention to vs. 20-21.  The Scriptures were given into the care of the Church for teaching and edification of the saints.



This has cult written all over it.


----------



## Madman (Dec 3, 2019)

welderguy said:


> This has cult written all over it.


Take that up with Holy Scripture.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 3, 2019)

Madman said:


> Take that up with Holy Scripture.



Already have.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Dec 4, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.





LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Why do you keep asking group members for their private interpretations if you think this passage is warning against private interpretations?





Madman said:


> I do believe in #75 I was asked about private interpretation and I provided Biblical text. I was then told that 2 Peter does not say what I have been lead, by 2000 years of teaching, to believe, but no one is willing to tell me what it does say.  Pretty frustrating.
> 
> I do not say that we should not read Scripture and apply it to our lives, what I am saying is that there are very difficult parts, as Peter says in 2 Peter and to simply believe that we can pull out Holy Scripture and completely understand the complete deep spiritual meaning every time probably is not so.
> 
> Then I provide Scripture to support my beliefs and they are shunned or ignored.  My belief is it is the responsibility of the church to teach and the Bible to prove, not every man and his Bible and his own theology.




Are you saying that there is 2000 years of teaching by authoritative church sources that these verses in 2 Peter are warning against private interpretations of Scripture? 

I doubt that.  Please provide citations from authoritative church sources from each 500 year period supporting your claim - at least 1 from the first 500 years of church history, 1 from the second 500 years, and so on.  You need at least 4 sources to support your claim.


----------



## j_seph (Dec 4, 2019)

Man cannot teach God's word without the holy spirit leading it.


----------



## Madman (Dec 4, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Are you saying that there is 2000 years of teaching by authoritative church sources that these verses in 2 Peter are warning against private interpretations of Scripture?
> 
> I doubt that.  Please provide citations from authoritative church sources from each 500 year period supporting your claim - at least 1 from the first 500 years of church history, 1 from the second 500 years, and so on.  You need at least 4 sources to support your claim.


I gave you Holy Scripture as a source.  If I gave you any documentation from the church fathers you would not recognize it as reliable any way.


----------



## Madman (Dec 4, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Man cannot teach God's word without the holy spirit leading it.


I agree 100%.


----------



## Madman (Dec 4, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Please provide citations from authoritative church sources from each 500 year period supporting your claim - at least 1 from the first 500 years of church history, 1 from the second 500 years, and so on.  You need at least 4 sources to support your claim.


I really like this!!


----------



## Madman (Dec 4, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Are you saying that there is 2000 years of teaching by authoritative church sources that these verses in 2 Peter are warning against private interpretations of Scripture?
> 
> I doubt that.  Please provide citations from authoritative church sources from each 500 year period supporting your claim - at least 1 from the first 500 years of church history, 1 from the second 500 years, and so on.  You need at least 4 sources to support your claim.



LittleDrummerBoy, 

What we are really discussing here is not church membership but church authority.  If you want to go do that path let me know and we can start another thread.

If I become uncharitable let me know and if I may I will do the same.  I have no intention of getting into a fight with one I believe to be a brother in Christ.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Dec 4, 2019)

since 2 Peter has come up so often in this thread, let me run down another rabbit trail with you guys as it relates to 2 Peter 3:16

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable _people_ twist to their own destruction, as _they do_ also the rest of the Scriptures.  (NKJV)

I was studying on this a few weeks back, and for some reason the last part of this verse stuck with me... it seems that Peter, even at this early stage of the church, may have been equating Pauls writings as scripture.

In other versions, it says something like "in the other scriptures"

Did Peter consider Pauls writings as scripture?


----------



## Madman (Dec 4, 2019)

I don't know it is interesting.  My Greek Orthodox Bible use the word Scriptures.

I found the following note in an old Orthodox concordance;  
"3:16 The author knows of a collection  of Paul's letters and regards it as equal.in authority to Scripture, that is, the Old Testament writings. This is an indication of the collection of an New Testament canon."


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Dec 5, 2019)

Madman said:


> I don't know it is interesting.  My Greek Orthodox Bible use the word Scriptures.
> 
> I found the following note in an old Orthodox concordance;
> "3:16 The author knows of a collection  of Paul's letters and regards it as equal.in authority to Scripture, that is, the Old Testament writings. This is an indication of the collection of an New Testament canon."



I really think it is amazing that Peter, who died in 64AD, puts Paul's writings on the same level (it seems) as the Scriptures from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and other prophets.  It tells me that this men had a communion with God of which I can only dream.  This is less than 35 years after the crucifixion of Christ.

After all, Scripture states that a shadow of Peter falling on an ill person sometimes resulted in healing.  amazing stuff


----------



## Madman (Dec 5, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I really think it is amazing that Peter, who died in 64AD, puts Paul's writings on the same level (it seems) as the Scriptures from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and other prophets.  It tells me that this men had a communion with God of which I can only dream.  This is less than 35 years after the crucifixion of Christ.
> 
> After all, Scripture states that a shadow of Peter falling on an ill person sometimes resulted in healing.  amazing stuff


Yep.  The Apostles were amazing men.


----------



## Israel (Dec 5, 2019)

Madman said:


> Yep.  The Apostles were amazing men.


Yes, someone got them to understand they are the most common of all. Amazing.
And what they were given...was given for all.


----------



## Madman (Dec 5, 2019)

Israel said:


> Yes, someone got them to understand they are the most common of all. Amazing.
> And what they were given...was given for all.


Good points.  Do you mind fleshing them out?


----------



## Israel (Dec 6, 2019)

Madman said:


> Good points.  Do you mind fleshing them out?




There is little I can say that *might* _not sound _as though I were fault finding in these brothers, as though I could sit in judgment upon them.

Rather, what I can receive of them by their being chosen and faithful discharge of their callings in devotion to truth, seeking not to hide any testimony borne in the gospels or their strong encouragements in their own words after; is to me, life itself.

I am allowed to see men, in light of whose very testimony of the Christ has allowed me to see _a man_. They have, in their faithfulness, not neglected to always proclaim Christ to preeminence in all things. In so doing they have not sought to hide certain other matters...that at first glance could appear a "shame", knowing that as witnesses truth can never be served in part, but only in whole.

And in their being neither willing nor inclined to have anything less than that "whole truth" made plain so that their testimony of the sum of all truth, Jesus Christ be made plain, I salute them. I cannot but do so. Yes, they are amazing men. For through their testimony a man has been given faith to see Jesus Christ. And to see what He has done, and _is doing_ for such a man. John 17:20, Heb 7:25

The man they have allowed me to see, for whom they claim Jesus Christ has come is of such deranged reason and corrupt interests, that, were it not for this testimony of Jesus Christ as exceeding in every way the corruption of that man, he would have no hope.

Such a man as this is so easily given to some of the following:

When another speaks of their impending sufferings, and therefore any reasonable man would understand consideration of such _as this impending_ would itself be a source of suffering in that other....this man has only been concerned with his own appearance and station, even to carrying on before others of how he might appear to their exceeding. Such a man as this does not think himself hard hearted, he must be shown.
Luke 9:44-46

Such a man is also easily given to self delusion, imagining himself something he is not, able to withstand things in such self aggrandizement that he believes he exceeds his fellows. Matt 26:33

In the above, such a fellow is even not found beyond correcting the Lord in his words. Matt 26:31

He is a dense man, being told things, seeing things, even to the "hands on" experiencing of things that which...when circumstances change is found consumed with fears, as though all before were nothing more than the misty vapors of a dream. Such a man as this is more forgetful than a beast, needing again and again to be re-minded. John 20:19

This man of course finds himself not above denying the Lord. Even to learning he has held an enmity against the Lord's people...while believing himself doing "God's service". Acts 9:1

I could go on and on in regalings of how these men, so chosen, have helped a wretched man to see something they knew as exceeding and proclaimed faithfully to their own deaths. They have, by their proclamation of this Exceeding One, made it "safe" for this man to come out of hiding, shucking the all previously known burdens of trying to appear other than he is, the most common of men.

And they were also made quite keen to show this was not their own doing, nothing innate to themselves or of themselves; that they seemed to have grasped firmly an understanding (made clear in their plain confessions)...that all they might consider as "once" loss, was all, and only to gain and profitable...but not only to themselves...but all.

They refused steadfastly to present themselves...as "more" than they were. (1 Cor. 3:7)

By this, they have been a conduit for the Lord's chastenings and rebuke to the man so given to "otherwise". Yes, I salute them for their cooperation. Even to their own deaths. That in their not denying of their appearance to themselves, they set about nonetheless, to proclaim all that would be, except by the instruction of that Exceeding One, supremely presumptuous to do. They would rather proclaim Him, knowing how they would appear in the so doing...than deny Him, and their deny their own hope. But more importantly, deny such hope to others.

When one wants to demonstrate the power of a stain remover he might be called crafty were he to only find a piece of cloth with nothing more than a slight water stain. It is to the Maker's credit in His knowing of efficacy that he choose not what merely appears as only slightly stained, but that which appears the most irredeemable of all. These men have helped such a rag see itself...but, by their testimony of faith...demonstrated that efficacy. I cannot but salute them, but more...see the One (as was their most fervent desire) who has made them so, and for such.


I am somewhat persuaded that what Jesus Christ has chosen to help lay the foundation of His church are sent with this knowledge carried in testimony down to their bones, not denying, that others may have hope. It is this, since Jesus Christ has shown he is able, _even_ with one such as me, the way is made smoother for one such as may hear. 1 Tim 1:15-16

There is only one shame, believing a man can appear more than he is. The man who "needs" salvation...just a little less than his fellows.


----------



## Madman (Dec 6, 2019)

Israel said:


> There is little I can say that *might* _not sound _as though I were fault finding in these brothers, as though I could sit in judgment upon them.
> 
> Rather, what I can receive of them by their being chosen and faithful discharge of their callings in devotion to truth, seeking not to hide any testimony borne in the gospels or their strong encouragements in their own words after; is to me, life itself.
> 
> ...


Thank you.

Ah. The stain that the waters of baptism removes.  The universal cleaner.


----------



## Israel (Dec 6, 2019)

For whatever reason I am reminded of the nostrum that has become so popularly repeated in political considerations of late as to be almost rote wisdom:

The attempt at cover-up is always more involved and worse than the original offense.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 7, 2019)

Madman said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Ah. The stain that the waters of baptism removes.  The universal cleaner.



Ah, yet not the waters, but the Holy Spirit.
You are "denying the power thereof".(2 Tim.3:5)


----------



## Madman (Dec 7, 2019)

welderguy said:


> Ah, yet not the waters, but the Holy Spirit.
> You are "denying the power thereof".(2 Tim.3:5)


Here we go again.  I deny the power of the Holy Spirit no more than you deny the truth of the Holy Scriptures.
Acts 22:16. 
Please connect 2 Timothy 3:5 to baptism.
Proof texting is dangerous hermeneutics.


----------



## Madman (Dec 7, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Are you saying that there is 2000 years of teaching by authoritative church sources that these verses in 2 Peter are warning against private interpretations of Scripture?
> 
> I doubt that.  Please provide citations from authoritative church sources from each 500 year period supporting your claim - at least 1 from the first 500 years of church history, 1 from the second 500 years, and so on.  You need at least 4 sources to support your claim.



I know this will in no way change your mind but I really enjoy this type of conversation.
There is no need to lay out 500 year increments, all that is needed to to show that the Church, which Jesus Christ instituted  was designed to passed on through apostolic succession. 

We have covered so Biblical verses so now let's touch a couple of the church fathers.

"Every word will also seem consistent to him if he diligently reads the S Scriptures in company with those who are oresbyters in the church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine.  Irenaeus 

It is impossible to learn anything true from your teachers for by their mutual disagreement, the havefurnished you with sufficient proof of their own ignorance. Therefore, I think it reasonable to return to our forefathers.  ....................
Justin Martyr


----------



## welderguy (Dec 7, 2019)

Madman said:


> Here we go again.  I deny the power of the Holy Spirit no more than you deny the truth of the Holy Scriptures.
> Acts 22:16.
> Please connect 2 Timothy 3:5 to baptism.
> Proof texting is dangerous hermeneutics.



1 Peter 3:21 should clear up your confusion about Acts 22:16.
It states clearly that the figure of baptism (water)does not do away with the filth of the flesh.
If you think it's the water that does it, you are denying the power of the Spirit.


----------



## Madman (Dec 7, 2019)

welderguy said:


> 1 Peter 3:21 should clear up your confusion about Acts 22:16.
> It states clearly that the figure of baptism (water)does not do away with the filth of the flesh.
> If you think it's the water that does it, you are denying the power of the Spirit.


You need to reread what you just quoted.  It says baptism saves you, not by removal of dirt but by clear conscious toward God.  You really should surrender to the Word of God.


----------



## Israel (Dec 8, 2019)

In considering baptism, these two accounts come to mind:

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer _it to be so_ now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 


Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also _my_ hands and _my_ head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash _his_ feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. 


The first account is of the man who first recognized, quite publicly, (for we dare not disregard Simeon)  Jesus in proclamation as the Lamb of God. The One for whom he (John) had been sent to prepare the way. 

Before he "saw" Jesus he testified to the superiority of both He (the One that cometh after) and _his baptizing_ in both the Holy Spirit and fire. (I indeed baptize with water...but...). He testified, before seeing Jesus, of His preeminence (as the coming one) in all things. John saw the order of things...even his own place, in that order. As herald. A voice "crying in the wilderness."

When seeing Jesus in the flesh we know his exclamation. This is He. The head of the order. The very Lamb of God. How very strange for John, seeing in spirit and discerning this order, with himself in all subordination, that Jesus had come to receive at his hand, baptism. All that he might infer from his seeing was here contradicted, and at first he could not bear it. This is not "right"...the superior One coming to me for a thing _I need from Him_. It is to be "the other way round". It simply cannot be, does not square at all, makes no sense, whatever. And he told Jesus so.

It is written he forbad him (Jesus).

Jesus understood. And He did not deny John saw rightly. But He knew where such seeing put him in this seeming contradiction of all. 

And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer _it to be so_ now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then _he suffered him._ 

(It is quaint usage of suffer for allow, but not as odd as one might first think.)

The perception of righteousness and the walking in the outworking of that righteousness often appear at odds...till walked. There is a suffering in that seeming contradiction. To "allow" what does not appear...right. As it was with John, so must it be for all, and any of us...only the word of the Lord, the word from the Lord...can cause us to enter into cooperating with His obedience. The obedience is always His, yet, he bids us cooperate...allow it, even suffer [in] it. Jesus did not baptize Himself. He did nothing "of Himself". 

The Lord does not deny the seeming contradiction to us, the how of "it doesn't seem to square"...but He has something greater for us than the seeming contradiction, the joy found in suffering it. Joining...and being joined...in them. We are told: 

For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 

Then He suffered him.

Paul was no heretic when he said this:

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: 

He was not saying "Jesus Christ did not suffer enough". God forbid.

But there is a participation, an invitation now (if one can bear it being said so, though it _seem contradictory, _God not denying..._it seem so_) that so crosses time as to make it of no consequence, erases histories (personal _and otherwise_) through which abundant entrance is to us made manifest.


It is neither ever too late nor too soon for any to hear if set to the hearing they have been made.

It appears as to us almost a "do over", an invitation to not do and be as once we saw, as that become the _less real_ as another is being made the more to us. In us. The fading darkness as beholding the light shining in a once dark place...and His rising.

He calls. Still, He calls.

For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 


He calls still.

The _seeming contradiction_, whose work is finished. The call...is in Him. And to Him. Nothing else.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 8, 2019)

Madman said:


> You need to reread what you just quoted.  It says baptism saves you, not by removal of dirt but by clear conscious toward God.  You really should surrender to the Word of God.



The "figure" of something is never the thing that has the power. The thing which truly has the power is being represented by the figure. 1 Peter 3:21 tells us water baptism is a "like figure".


----------



## Madman (Dec 8, 2019)

welderguy said:


> The "figure" of something is never the thing that has the power. The thing which truly has the power is being represented by the figure. 1 Peter 3:21 tells us water baptism is a "like figure".


Not necessarily but I will agree that the "figure" or the "type" is never greater than what is being represented.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> Not necessarily but I will agree that the "figure" or the "type" is never greater than what is being represented.



Well, there you go then.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 9, 2019)

Madman said:


> Not necessarily but I will agree that the "figure" or the "type" is never greater than what is being represented.


So is baptismal water a figure or type? How does this compare to communion or is that completely different in regards to a figure or type?


----------



## Madman (Dec 9, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> So is baptismal water a figure or type? How does this compare to communion or is that completely different in regards to a figure or type?


Water is the matter, it is the sacramental.


----------



## Israel (Dec 10, 2019)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Has not God chosen the weak things for His demonstration of the exceeding greatness of His power? To the natural man it is all unacceptable, un-receivable...even the greatest of shames to mind insurmountable; which we find resisted by the reasonings of man in that end.

The "Why _would_ God (or "a" god)..?" _Have_ to, _need _to, in any way...involve Himself (or submit Himself) in the realm of created things to the end of making Himself plain...even in that most seeming contradiction against which all of reason would seem to have no choice _but_ resistance? What offense is there encountered against that very God...who works thus! 

Any seeming entry...at all...is a prima facie diminishing.

The very consideration of it meets the context in which _all of man_ is rebuffed, rebuked, corrected that might be found in this "If I were God...I would not..." The man's imaginings of this, that that peculiar _assumption to that place_ is known to him, is attainable by his reasoning, or is even attained...in _that reasoning,_ so that he (for himself) decides to himself what God would or would not do...can, and cannot do. Man is completely self convinced he knows..."what it is like to sit upon that throne"...and proceeds from there...

I don't know that the new creature ventures very far in this new life in discovery of the righteousness that is of God to his own amazement..."there is a great impetus/motive toward insertion into that place"...(which he discovers is that seeming form of pervasive usurpation in which he was once immersed, _disobedience_) that in resistance to God...is now given him to be resisted through Christ.

I think in short, the man discovers not only "how easy" it is to think of himself in God's place, but how totally a certain mind is convinced of it. There is a "god of this world" in whom is no light, no knowing, (not _even_ and _particularly _of his own estate as evil) and how by his capture to this mind he himself had not the slightest inkling of how deranged was his participation in believing he knows what "good" is.

And not only so...but that it is his, by that false apprehension...to be able to work it. Work in it. Work, to it. No, I do not believe the Devil himself knows he is evil, or even thinks of himself thus...but rather to the complete contrary. How great a salvation is demonstrated from that which appears, (and we are warned)...has to the natural, an appearance of light.

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2 Cor 11:14

What mind of the redeemed is not informed thus? What mind is not rebuked in:

And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

Is this not why the apostle was careful to say:

"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,..."?

To what...or to Whom is such such sobering to work in directing? Who alone can bear the all knowing of God of himself, in Himself? Who is able to be so completely examined in "that eye"...to anything _but complete and utter destruction_? So it becomes plain, or plainer...that it is not at all what a man says of himself, or thinks of himself...before the eyes of Him (or under the eye of Him) with whom we have to do that matters at all...all direction is made to _those eyes._



For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Paul once had ballast he once entertained:

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, _of_ the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

Again:

But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

As soon as they were recognized to himself as those things by which he kept his own soul afloat, as soon as those eyes made clear to him in His knowing of him as what they were, mere things by which and to which his soul clung for a form of righteousness...over the side they went...without hesitation.

To the end of  "do count them _but_ dung, that I may win Christ,"

and

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

"That I may know him"

How odd upon the ear to what may yet be inclined to idols and any movement toward, or _for them:_

"That I may know him,"

To hear, what is all too commonly received (in certain circles)...as being said by such as is yet idolized,


That I may know him,

and all_ too quickly answers_ "But Paul, _we believe_ [mostly] none other has known as you..."

There is the ever living God in our direction, and all else is idolatry...even those whom we would seek to make dumb to their silence...by any refusings of ourselves to hear.

Who of us can withstand this:

The foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, the Lord knows those who are His.

If we have not yet asked...might we? Is it enough...the Lord knows?


----------

