"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Do You Define "Church" the Way the Bible Defines It?

Last Wednesday night I gave an exegesis and interpretation of I Corinthians 14:34-35 where the Apostle Paul writes:

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but they should be subordinate, as even the Law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church" (I Corinthians 14:34-35).

I showed how these two verses articulated the views of Judaizers in the Corinthian church who sought to bring the 1st Century synagogue traditions into the Christian assembly. These Judaizers were "zealous for the Law," or the teachings of the Talmud (Acts 21:21), and caused all kinds of problems in the early church. Paul is blunt about their them in II Corinthians 11, calling them "false apostles" and "deceitful workers" (II Cor. 11:13), and telling the Christians at Corinth to resist the false practices of the Judaizers and stand firm to the New Covenant "traditions" that Paul had taught them (see  I Corinthians 11:2).

Paul taught that all the members of the assembly, both male and female, could participate in congregational worship (see I Cor. 14:31 and 14:39), and it is expected that women in the church will publicly pray and teach just as men publicly pray and teach (see I Corinthians 11:5). The entire discourse of the New Covenant Scriptures is that God's priesthood is composed of males and females, slave and free, Jews and Gentiles. There is no separation of race, nationality, gender or color in the God's New Covenant priesthood. Each of us has been made a priest (Revelation 1:5) and we all form a royal priesthood (I Peter 2:9).

So, the startling prohibition of I Corinthians 14:34-35 seems discordant and unconnected to the rest of the New Covenant Scriptures. There's a reason for this -- it is.

Paul is quoting the views of the Judaizers regarding women in I Corinthians 14:34-35. He quotes it in order to correct the Judaizers' false views which were being imposed upon the early Christian churches, including the church at Corinth. The Judaizers had been taught four things about the role of women in the synagogues when they were Jews, and they wished to make "the church" conform to these restrictions.

(1). The Jews believed women were not qualified to be learners in the synagogue because the talmudic literature forbad them from learning. Their presence in the synagogue was tolerated, but they were to be unobtrusive and silent, never interferring with the work of the men. The Judaizers wished this tradition to be carried over into all the churches. But Paul argues throughout I Corinthians for full participation of women within the assembly (see I Corinthians 14:31 and 39).

(2). The Jews recognized that a woman in the synagogue might at some point wish to move from passive attendance to actually learning something in the synagogue, but this was viewed as an exceptional occurance and not the norm. Therefore, on the rare occasion a woman desired to ask a question in order to learn, she was instructed to maintain her silence in the assembly and wait to ask her husband after leaving the synagogue and returning home. The Judaizers wished to keep the same passivity of women in the earkt Christian churches. But Paul expects women to pray and prophesy, the two acts of worship in the assembly, in the same manner that men pray and prophesy. Women compose half the priesthood (see I Corinthians 11:5).

(3). There is the assumption in the synagogue that all Jewish women would be married; it was even expected by leaders in the synagogue that Jewish women would marry. The Judaizers believed the same thing should be true about all women in the early church. But Paul argues his preference that Christian women remain single for the purpose of ministry (see I Corinthians 7:34).

(4). The Jews believed, and it was reinforced by the Talmud, that only the males should receive religious instruction. Jewish husbands were the source of their wives learning. Women should remain silent within the context of the synagogue. The Judaizers carried this tradition into the early churches and taught just as firmly that all Christian women should be silent in the churches. But Paul has taught that the priesthood of God is composed of both males and females, and there is an equality within the priesthood in both role and function (see I Corinthians 11:11 and Galations 3:28-29)

I taught Wednesday night that Paul states the Judaizers beliefs about women in I Corinthians 14:34-35 to only refute it. In other words, the "women keep silent" passage is not God's commandment, but it is the Judaizers corrupt teaching. I showed them additional internal evidence that identifies this as false Judaizer teaching, including the Greek conjuction prior to verse 36, the absence of quotations in the original Greek which caused many translators to be unable to identify the verses as from another, and the important verses before and after the text that shows Paul's teaching that corrects the Judaizers' false beliefs. I then spent the remaining few minutes of the Bible study reviewing the overwhelming number of verses, including those from Paul's own letters, which are diametrically opposed to the principles taught by the Judaizers. If you think I Corinthians 14:33-35 is from God and not the Judaizers, then you will have a hard time explaining how the rest of the Word of God contradicts the teaching of I Corinthians 14:34-35.

We always have a question and answer time at the end of Bible study and a new member of our church, a woman about seventy years of age who was life long member of a traditional SBC church in Nevada,desired to comment about what I had taught. She was seated next to her husband, and she raised her hand to be recognized and was called upon, she spoke and disagreed quite strongly with my interpretation. She believed I Corinthians 14:33-35 was a COMMANDMENT FROM GOD and after explaining her reasoning, she conluded emphatically that God wanted women to be silent "in church."

When she was finished I gently suggested that if she believed my interpretation of I Corinthians 11:34-35 was wrong and her's was right, then she should have never raised her hand to be recognized, she should have never voiced her beliefs in the assembly, and she should have waited until she and her husband arrived  home before she asked a question of HIM or made a comment to HIM about what I had taught. That is what the text says! So either she must believe that what I'm teaching is right and then she is FREE to ask questions of her pastor, at any time, any place, for any reason the assembly is gathered, or she must be true to and consistent with her beliefs and remain absolutely silent in church.

Her response?

She said she was not "in church," so she could speak. Mind you, we were in our Fellowship Hall on Wednesday night with a couple of hundred believers present. There were numerous other small groups from our church meeting throughout our facility and around the city that night. But, in our new member's mind, we were not "in church" that night because we weren't in the "auditorium" and having a typical Sunday morning "church" service.

Her comment led me to to think many Southern Baptists don't have a working, biblical understanding of what the church is. Traditional Southern Baptists often seem more Jewish or Roman Catholic in their views of the assembly (church) and authority (clerics) than the writers of the New Testament. I believe that the Bible teaches that where two or three are gathered in the name of the Jesus Christ, the assembly is gathered and Christ is at the center of His people. So Wednesday night is as much church as Sunday morning. Tuesday night small group is as much church as Wednesday night Bible study. Tuesday morning's gathering for fellowship, service and worship is as much church as Sunday night's discipleship classes.

We, the people, are His church, and when or where we assemble, as few as two or three, His church is convened.

So move over Judaizers; all the people of God are free to function.

In His Grace,

Wade

78 comments:

John Wylie said...

Wade if I send you my email address may I have a copy of your notes? For transparency's sake I am nowhere near where you on this issue but I would still like to read your argument.

Rex Ray said...

Wade,
Long time since I checked your blog. Interesting – very interesting since some of your comments is my ‘favorite’ subject on Judaizers in the early church.

How many were there is an important question. You said: “These Judaizers were “zealous for the Law” and referenced Acts 21:21. But it’s actually 21:20 which says: “When they heard it, they glorified God and said, “You see, brother, how many THOUSANDS of Jews there are who have believed, and they are ALL zealous for the law.” (Holman)

Some have said “thousands” would be more correct if written ‘tens of thousands’. (With Peter’s first sermon was 5,000 and another day 3,000 was added.)

Who said this to Paul and WHY? Verse 18 identifies “they” as James and the elders, and the pastor was probably the spokesman. The WHY is debatable but I believe Paul was being told ‘his doctrine of Jesus only for salvation’ didn’t stand a chance against so many that were zealous for the Laws of Moses.

Further Scripture that ‘contradicts’ 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 is Paul’s conclusion of that chapter in verse 39 saying: “So, my dear brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and don’t forbid speaking in tongues. (NLT) “Therefore, my brothers…(Holman) “So, my fellow believers, long to be prophets so that you can preach God’s message plainly; and never say it is wrong to speak in tongues.” (Living)

P.S.
Glad you’re back.

Gene Scarborough said...

Wade--

Isn't it interesting how conflict seems to enter the picture of Christ-followers so early!!!

I think the proof you are on a God-honoring / Christ-following track is the fact Satan is trying to wreck it with conflict.

On this 10th Anniversary of 9/11, I would hope we all speak kind words to anyone wearing the garb of the Middle East. They, too, try and keep women in submission instead of honoring their beauty and ability to see things men miss.

Somewhere between lust over beauty and denial of human passion is a wonderful place where both sexes could get along.

Is it possible we have in Adam and Eve the archetype of why humanity is so conflicted?

When God made Eve and said, "It is good," I think he had a wicked grin on his face which reflected a silent thought: "I have created a creature to keep man humble and let him know that no matter how smart or arrogant he gets, this beautiful creature will make him beg for her love!!!!"

Wade Burleson said...

Sure John,

Send your email address to wwburleson@gmail.com.

It will be next week before I can get to it.

Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Rex and Gene,

Good thoughts both. And, Rex, thanks for the correction to Acts 21:20 instead of 21:21.

My eyes are getting poor!

Lydia said...

"So, the startling prohibition of I Corinthians 14:33-35 seems discordant and unconnected to the rest of the New Covenant Scriptures. There's a reason for this -- it is.
"

Actually, Paul refutes verses 34-35 in verse 36. Too bad so many translators mangled it but the KJV gets it better than most:

36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

Paul is being sarcastic... as in "You have to be kidding!"

But then, we also have to ask why Paul would be teaching the oral law to the Corinthians? If one does not think this is a reference from the oral law then they must be able to find this "law" in the OC or NC writings. They can't.

And in this passage, silent means silent as in no singing, etc. the same as their keeping oral law for synagogue. Talmud says that a woman's voice is lewd and vulgar. It also says that it is better to burn Torah than teach it to a woman. The "quote" from the letter Paul received that he repeats in verses 34-35 are almost word for word from the Talmudic writings.

But the larger point of your post is right on. Many think the building is sacred. Or the sanctuary is sacred. Or the furniture on the stage is sacred.

They do not understand that now the Holy Spirit dwells in us as the temple.

What saddens me the most is that this poor woman thought for decades she was being holy by believing this and acting accordingly.

Jim Collins said...

Can you relate this to 1 Timothy 2:12? Help, please!

Obie Holmen said...

I wholeheartedly agree with the general thrust of your post, which is that we must understand Paul (and his attitude toward women) by reading his work as a whole and not focusing on single "proof texts" that seem inconsistent with his general thought.

However, I'm not sure I agree with your thesis that the Corinthian verses were Paul speaking about the Judaizer views. I think most scholars see these verses as most likely a later interpolation by others--quite likely the same folks behind similar language in the pastoral epistles.

With apologies for blatant self-promotion, I explore Paul's supposed misogyny, as well as the rest of Paul's life, through the lens of historical fiction in my recently released book called, A Wretched Man, a novel of Paul the apostle. For any who are interested, more information (including several pages of reviews and reader comments) may be found at the novel website (click on my name).

Bob Cleveland said...

Paul, in Galatians (which we're going through in small group right now) is quite open in attacking false beliefs. In calling things what they are.

I can hardly imagine his being so roundabout in the 1 Corinthians passage, as to not warn the Corinthians to beware of that false teaching, if that's what it was to him. So, sorry, I cannot buy it.

There may well be other scripture which stand to nullify the instructions in this passage for us, today, but the passage itself sure doesn't to that, in my mind.

Or not....

believer333 said...

Great post pastor Wade. Good to see you digging in.

believer333 said...

Bob,

it's important to read things in context. In context we note some important clues. One clue is that Paul just got finished admonishing wives to be appropriate in the attire publicly while praying and prohesying (prophesying was also considered preaching). Another clue is that there is no OT command for women to be silent in meetings.

Tom Kelley said...

Wade,
This is an intersting interpretation, one I don't recall hearing before. Are there any commentators or scholars (contemporary or historical) who have also proposed this interpretation? I'd be interested in seeing a grammatical exegesis of the passage by someone who holds to this view, if you know of one.

Also, it sounds like you need to spend some time teaching your congregation (or at least your new members) about what "church" is and isn't. :)

-----
Tom

That Jeremy Guy said...

I have been thinking about this a lot lately because I am in the ministry and am presented with what I should do with a woman teaching men in Sunday School.

My question to those who believe women should not teach based on 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2: Why do you allow women to speak in church?

Don said...

As a Biblical egal, I agree with Wade's exegesis.

I translate the section as follows:

My translation of 1 Cor 14:33b-36:
1 Cor 14:33b [Corinthian legalists:] “As in all the assemblies of the saints,

1Co 14:34 the women should keep silent in the assemblies. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the [Oral] Law also says.

1Co 14:35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly.”

1Co 14:36 [Paul:] Bunk! Was it from you (legalists) that the word of God came? Bunk! Are you (legalists) the only ones it has reached?

See Bruce Fleming's book, "Familiar "Leadership" Heresies Uncovered" for discussion similar to this and other gender verses. Strange title but lots of good insights.

Also see Nyland's translation of the NT.

Lydia said...

"I can hardly imagine his being so roundabout in the 1 Corinthians passage, as to not warn the Corinthians to beware of that false teaching, if that's what it was to him. So, sorry, I cannot buy it.
"

Some translators have put quotes around some of the obvious "
questions" sent to Paul that he was responding to in that letter.

vs 36 is the most obvious clue he was responding to a question. The next one is that there is NO such law given by God. And God is very clear on His laws. The next is the Greek word for "silent" which means total silence...not even singing. Not even a hello.

The next clue is that vs 34-35 are almost word for word from the Talmudic writings.

What if the woman was not married? Or was attending the ekklesia without her husband because he was not a believer? What then? The whole aspect is absurd that Paul would tell women to wait until they are home to ask their husbands.

I also do not believe for one minute that Lydia was "silent" not asking questions in her own living room where the ekklesia met. :o)

Lydia said...

"This is an intersting interpretation, one I don't recall hearing before. Are there any commentators or scholars (contemporary or historical) who have also proposed this interpretation? I'd be interested in seeing a grammatical exegesis of the passage by someone who holds to this view, if you know of one."

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/16/the-elusive-law/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/19/is-a-womans-voice-filthy/

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/10/05/1-cor14-concludes/

There is much more on 1 Corin 14 on her site you can research

Christiane said...

"The next clue is that vs 34-35 are almost word for word from the Talmudic writings."

Does anyone have a Talmudic tractate reference, and a date (approxiate to the century) as to when it was written?

Thanks if you can help.

Lydia said...

•"A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative" (Talmud, Berachot 24a)

•"Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent" (summary of Talmudic sayings).

•"It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men" (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)

•"The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness" (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)

There are a bunch more but I don't have time to find all the ones I saved. I had one from the Mishna but cannot find it right now...

And this from something I saved that Zens wrote about:

Another source is the German lexicographer, Schleusner, in his Greek-Latin Lexicon, says thatthe expression "as also saith the law" refers to the Oral Law of the Jews.

Here are his words: "The oral laws of the Jews or Jewish traditions . . . in the Old Testament no precept concerning the matter exists," and he cites Vitringa as showing that it was "forbidden by Jewish traditions for women to speak in the synagogue."

Not sure who Vitringa is...have not gotten that far. And you would need a moving truck to deal with the entire oral law in writing!

The point is, there is no "Law" in the OCconcerning women speaking in the assembly or in the NC. And the quote in 1 Corin 14 falls in line with what the Oral law taught in many places after it was written down.

Cheryl Schatz may have more references to share. You might ask over at her site.

natamllc said...

I haven't got to the comments, yet, so if I make a comment that is redundant, sorry!

First, I like your premise being built from the Talmud and not the Tanakh/Torah. The Torah has a different view of a woman's role in Life changing life decisions and behavior!

And I like the emphasis you put on New Covenant thinking that Christ Himself fell out of favor with those Judaizers, because of! He is God and you would think we would want to think like He does? :)

Here's just a couple of Scriptural ideas that carry my pointed comment about your excellent teaching, Wade!

Gen 25:21 And Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife, because she was barren. And the LORD granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Gen 25:22 The children struggled together within her, and she said, "If it is thus, why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger."
Gen 25:24 When her days to give birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb.
Gen 25:25 The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau.
Gen 25:26 Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.
Gen 25:27 When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents.
Gen 25:28 Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob.


It was Rebekah's Faith that Jacob carried into his father's tent that infamous day of God ordained deception, not Jacob's alone. He did what his mother directed him to do based on the Word of God "she" received directly from Him in answer to her prayer, as we read it there reflected at verse 23 of Genesis 25.

And, now consider what Jesus Himself believed and taught about the role of both men and women in functioning ministry in the Church by these verses from Luke's account:

Luk 20:32 Afterward the woman also died.
Luk 20:33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife."
Luk 20:34 And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,
Luk 20:35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage,
Luk 20:36 for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.


As can be understood by the fierceness of the debate about women being silent in the Church and your apropos response to that new woman member of your congregation at Wednesday's something gathering, ah, Church gathering, Jesus' understanding of the role of the Bride of Christ is not understood on earth as He and your teaching teaches would like Her to be!

Don said...

P.S. "filthy nakedness" is a euphemism, but I think a little reflection will allow anyone to figure out what it means.

I think there was one Jewish sage that was willing to teach his daughter Torah at home, the vast majority would not do even that, and now Jesus is teaching women in public. Scandalous!

And Paul is repudiating those that want to keep women in their place. Horrors! What might the future hold for such a strange teaching?

Pege' said...

HI WADE, WELCOME BACK!!! Missed your Blog. All I can say right now about this is Hmmmmmmmmmm. I must talk to hubby about it ;)
Get back to you.
Blessings

Steven Stark said...

I think these particular verses are a later interpolation by a scribe into Paul's letter.

The text reads more fluidly if one eliminates verses 34 and 35. Also, those verses appear in different locations in early manuscripts. And lastly, as you mention, those verses directly counter Paul's instructions to women within the same letter.

I think the interpolation hypothesis fits the data best.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Wade,

Could you please reveal the preposition to which you refer that is "prior to verse 33" and your conclusion--as to how this helps your thesis?

Thanks

Christiane said...

I was thinking about the question Wade has asked concerning a definition of 'Church',

and I found a good one from my own tradition that works for all Christian people (I believe).

It comes from a letter (epistle) written by St. Ignatius to the Smyrneans circa the year 110 A.D.

He wrote to them:

' . . wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Church . . . '

St. Ignatius was speaking about the 'universal' Church, His Church, the Ekklesia, which can be found, even among two or three, who are gathered together in His Name'

That's a good definition that works in many traditions, each one adding their own specifics. St. Ignatius wrote additional specifics also, but they are for my own tradition and from Scripture.
Those of the Protestant tradition find their other specifics within the Holy Scriptures.

But the shared 'core' or heart of St. Ignatius' statement,
which I shared, reveals the one necessary absolute requirement for 'Church': the Presence of Jesus Christ among His people,
wherever they may be found, as they call out to Him.

Christiane said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHi-1taeqeo&feature=related

Come and visit with 'Church' from the other side of the Earth:
a group of orthodox Christians calling out in prayer to Lord Christ:
the ages-old 'Trisagion' is being prayed to Him, in song:

'Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.'

Wade Burleson said...

Kevin,

I can't replicate Greek symbols here, but prior to verse 36 there is a conjuction, the eta symbol, that is translated "What!" or as Lydia says, "Bunk!" It conveys a sharp contrast to the quotation of the Judaizers views in the three preceding vereses

Wade Burleson said...

By the way, Kevin, I had a typo in the post and put verse 33 instead of verse 36. Thanks for the question, it allowed me to correct the post.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Wade,

Thanks for the clarification and correction.

There is a lot of information to unpack here, and a ton of research to consider. I would hope your readership would consider this and not blindly follow your conclusions--conclusions made previously by Philip B. Payne in his book: "Man and Women: One in Christ," which was recently reviewed by Thomas Schreiner in the (Spring 2010) Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. No one here would deny the brilliant contributions Dr. Scheiner has made to New Testament Theology, but many would scoff at his distinct complementarian views. Payne has written a critique of Schreiner's Review on his blog here, a read many of your readers might find enjoyable. Schreiner's Journal Article: A Review of Payne's afore mentioned work can be found here.

I post these to show that neither the debate, nor Wade's position is new, but recently has garnered attention due to these articles and blog posts.

Both men hold to biblical inerrancy (of the "Chicago" brand) and should be read with respect, as both bring much to the table. That being said, neither the Review, nor the Critique is likely to sway those who have firmly rooted positions, but may help those who are joining our party for the first time. :)

Don said...

Note that the eta occurs twice in 1 Cor 14:36, so, as a pun, I refer to it as Paul's "missing double bunk." Eta'a are found throughout 1 Cor, it is as if Paul is speaking to the Corinthian church, as the letter was read aloud to them.

Another English phrase is "Pffft!" but many do not know this term.

daveg4g said...

Dear Wade,

Is Half of The Story Sufficient For Salvation?

How many sides are there to a story? If you say two, then you are wrong. If you had one side and I had one side that would make two sides. However, there is a third side, the side of truth.

Rule # 1... One half of truth does not a truth make. Neither does one half of a story make the full story. No intelligent person can hear one side of a story and decide which side has the truth.

Both sides have to be heard, then analysed, and then a decision has to be made as to which side (if either) has a valid story, and after that, the right side(s), or truth side, can be determined.

This thinking holds true for discerning what Holy Scripture tells us.

Throughout the Bible there are double standards, yet the fundamentalist thinking shows only one standard, or one side of the story, or only one half of the truth.

Their thinking is in violation of rule # 1. With only one half of truth, you do not have truth. Anything less than the whole truth is error.

In the following examples, side 'A' is the first side, side 'B' is the second, and side 'C' is the right, or truth side.

Example # 1... Sola Scriptura...? Only the Bible. Fundamentalist thinking is that the Bible is sufficient and nothing else is needed for salvation.

First of all, in order to believe in the 'Bible Only' philosophy, you have to show that Scripture says it. Is that not true? The doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura' is not to be found in Scripture.

A. Tradition is condemned in many places in Scripture, such as Job 22:15, Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:3-13, Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8, 1Timothy 1:4, Titus 1:14, and 1Peter 1:18. Look at these verses and grasp their meaning.

They all address 'vain' human traditions and are rightly condemned. This is one half of the truth.

B. Tradition is supported in more places in Scripture than it is condemned. Study Isaiah 59:21, Luke 1:2, 2:19,51, Luke 10:16, 2Thessalonians 2:14-15 - "Stand firm and hold the traditions you have learned..", 2Timothy 1:13,2:2, 1Peter 1:25, 1Jn 1:1,2:24, 2Jn 1:12, Revelation 12:17,19:10.

These are different traditions than mentioned in 'A'. These are the Traditions of GOD, or 'Apostolic' Tradition.' Again, this is only half of the truth.

C. The truth is, yes, we do condemn the vain tradition of men, as shown in 'A', and we must keep the Tradition of GOD, as shown in 'B'.

Thus we have half the truth in 'A', and the other half in 'B', and combined we have the full truth.

The false doctrine of Sola Scriptura adds A and B together and puts the total in A, rejecting all of tradition. A+B=C.

Continue>>

Tortoise said...

The Bible Tells Us That There Is No Salvation For Those Who Do Not Believe In Its Teaching!

Romans 15:5-6,
"Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind, one towards another, according to Jesus Christ: Romans 15:6. That with one mind and with one mouth you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Are those 39,000 sects of one mind?

Well if they were, there would be only one, not 39,000 with all teaching the same truth and not teaching something different from one another.

More>>>

a39greenway said...

Wade,

Dry water and cold fire! Do Catholics believe we can earn Salvation?

In a word, no!


In fact, those who claim we do think that are making a wholly disingenuous argument based on false dilemma.

That false dilemma is that salvation is either by faith alone or by works alone.

Let's start with that with which all Protestants and Catholics agree.

1) Man is fallen.

2) Man cannot save himself.

3) Man needs a Saviour.

4) Jesus is the only one qualified for the job.

Some Fundamentalists act as if Catholics don't understand who Salvation comes from. Ironic, since they also condemn us for the fact that we supposedly spend too much time commemorating the Crucifixion - the defining act making salvation available to us. True, the Resurrection completes it and codifies it but the Resurrection is of little value to us without the Crucifixion.

Nevertheless, all Christians agree that the availability of Salvation is manifested, to the world, through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. The price has been paid and the money put in the bank account. We call this part of the process Redemption.

Redemption is available to every person on earth. That is, there are sufficient funds in the bank to cover the salvation of every person.

Hebrews 9:12 he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

Yet,Catholics agree with the Apostles Paul & Peter that we must, in fact, fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,

1Peter 4:13 But rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly.

Are Paul and Peter suggesting insufficiency in the Sanctifying power of Christ's blood? Not at all. What they are saying is that it is not enough that Christ died for us, if we do not have faith enough to benefit from it by joining in His sacrifice.

When fundamentalists claim that Catholics believe in a weak Jesus whose blood is insufficient to forgive every sin, they are simply whistling past the grave yard. In fact, that is actually a pretty ridiculous argument. For, if I believed that Christ is not strong enough to save me, by what means could I possibly believe that I could do it?

Yet, there are actually people who have the audacity to suggest that we Catholics think we can out save Jesus because His sacrifice just wasn't good enough. Um! We don't. The sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice to save every single man, woman and child on earth is affirmed by our assent to the doctrine of Redemption. The argument; we believe in a weak Jesus, is a red herring created by clever liars to detract from what is the real question at hand.

MORE>>>

Anonymous said...

Truthful and Thoughtful Replies to False Charges...

*The Bible alone is our sole authority. We do not need the Catholic Church.

Oh? What did Jesus Christ found, a teaching Church, or a book?

Since the Gospels are the heart of the New Testament, please show me the verse(s) where He commanded anyone to write them?

Please show me where the Bible says that it alone is the sole authority?

*The Eucharist is "obviously" only a symbol.

Please show me the " obvious " Scriptural verses which say that it is only a symbol after you have read and studied the two links in this section?

MORE>>>

daveg4g said...

Two Extremely Simple Questions
For Non-Catholics to Answer.


They are about as basic as you can get, and are both extremely important for your salvation. If they are so simple and are so basic, why then do non-Catholics refuse to answer them?

Why don't you be the first to answer them with the truth?

Question #1:

Every church on earth had a founder with a name. Please name the founder of the Catholic Church? No guesses please, or personal opinions just the facts.

Backup your answer with genuine historical documents and/or Bible verse(s).

Question #2:

After studying this page , please show me the Bible verse(s) which gave authority to anyone to found another church other than the one which Jesus Christ founded?

Here are a few hints to make it even easier for anyone to come up with the correct answers:

For Question #1:

Acts 8:1-3,
"And at that time, there was raised a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem.

And they were all dispersed through the countries of Judea, and Samaria, except the apostles. And devout men took order for Stephen's funeral and made great mourning over him.

But Saul made havoc of the church, entering in from house to house: and dragging away men and women, committed them to prison."


So here we have Saul making havoc of the Church which Jesus Christ founded.

It is obvious that Saul knew almost nothing about who the founder of that Church really was, or else he would not have been persecuting it.

Acts 9:1-5,
"And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus. And suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him.

And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad."


So, Saul thought he was persecuting the Church that Jesus Christ founded, when in fact he was persecuting its founder.

Saul found out the hard way. Do you wish to find out the hard way also?

When you stand before Jesus Christ in judgment, do think He might ask you the same question that He asked Saul? "(substitute your name here) why persecutest thou me?"

I strongly suggest that you who persecute the Catholic Church had better find out who founded it,
that is if you value your salvation at all.

For Question #2:

Read these verses in your Bible:

Psalms 127:1, 1Corinthians 3:11, John 10:1-2, John 10:16, 1Peter 4:17, 2Peter 2:1, 1Corinthians 14:33, Luke 11:23, 2John 1:9, and Romans 10:15.

Now who will be the first non-Catholic to give me truthful answers to these two ever so simple and basic questions?

Michael Gormley said...

DEAR WADE,

DO YOU PLAY RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH YOUR SALVATION?

Abide in Me, and I in You...


Jesus said:
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you."
(John 15:1-7)

Wow! In those seven verses, the word ABIDE is mentioned seven times. The context of those verses provides us with a lot of light as to what is required of us by GOD for our eternal salvation.

Jesus said:
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matthew 7:13-14)

So we must not only ABIDE in Him but we must also strive to enter by the narrow gate. If we do not ABIDE in Him, then it is obvious that we are not on the path to the narrow gate of salvation, but on the path to the wide gate and to eternal destruction.

So Jesus said that if we do not ABIDE in Him (the Vine) then we will be taken away from the Vine by the Father, and will be cast off only to wither, to be gathered, and then to be thrown into the fire and burned.

Now that I have your attention, shouldn't we now find the meaning of the word ABIDE?

The theological meaning of ABIDE is to dwell within. Jesus would come and dwell in us and we likewise in Him. So as long as we do what Jesus requests of us then we are on the path to the narrow gate to salvation.

So to assure that we are on right path, Jesus has commanded that we must ABIDE in Him.

What is required in order to have Jesus ABIDE in us and we in Him?

Can we do it:

1. By accepting Him as our our own personal Lord and Savior ?
No. Where does the Bible say that?

2. By the grace of GOD only? Sola Gracias?
No. Where does the Bible say that?

3. By faith in GOD alone? Sola Fides?
No. Where does the Bible say that?

It is simple common sense that since He commanded that we must do something, then doesn't it stand to reason that He would also tell us how to do it?

Jesus was very clear in what we must do in order to have Him ABIDE in us and we in Him.

Jesus left this command for us in John 6:53-57:

53 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (the taken away branch);

54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 HE WHO EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD ABIDES IN ME, AND I IN HIM.

57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."

Christiane said...

Hi 'TORTOISE' and 'anonymous'
(I assume you are the SAME person)

My guess is that you are NOT Catholic or Orthodox, because you come here without respect for the faith of your Christian brothers and sisters who are non-Catholic Christians.

My bet is that you are not of my Catholic religion, as your tone is not one that reflects the spirit of my Church towards those who come from other faith traditions,
who, if baptized and calling out in faith to Christ the Lord, are members of the Body of Christ, the ekklesia, and therefore connected to all Christian people in Him.

I feel sorry for you, in your obvious anger and contempt for these good people, but there it is.
I don't think that you have a Catholic heart for the goodness in others, who see things from a different perspective, and yet they love Our Lord with a great love.

Speaking as a Catholic woman, I am sad for you, whoever you are. I hope you find a better way to be with people of faith than a way of contempt. There is a better Way.

Pege' said...

Wade, Now you know I have taught the direct opposite of what you have written here. When I asked a question in church I have always asked Jeff if it was alright for me to...and he has never said no to me. We do allot of talking and discussion at home about a sermon and have even had a few discussions over some of your sermons :) It does seem confusing that in every church we have been in women are allowed to sing or present ministry opportunities or talk about the children/woman's ministries before a sermon. I have seriously considered and studies this and other posts you have made concerning women ministry in the church.I have so far realized women have the freedom in Christ to every ministry a man has EXCEPT....head Pastor/ Teacher...sorry...I cannot agree with you on that one. I will take time to look at this new information you have presented and see what the Lord will teach me from it. Hey it takes me a while.
Keep it coming...men are not the only one who need this challenge.
BLESSINGS
Peg

Thy Peace said...

That Mom [Karen Campbell] > september 9 podcast: patriarchy/patriocentricity two, part twelve ~ Jon Zens and What’s with Paul and Women, part three

Tortoise said...

Christiane said...
Hi 'TORTOISE' and 'anonymous'
(I assume you are the SAME person)
Speaking as a Catholic woman, I am sad for you, whoever you are.


Dear Christine,
I felt some pain reading your DIATRIBE; I imagine you were RAGING ove your fear, pain & shame.

Your PROCESS is not about me, but unresolved issues from your childhood.

Was your father a RAGE-A-HOLIC?

Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. (Matthew 7: 1-2)

Christiane said...

Tortoise, now I KNOW you're not Catholic.

Tortoise said...

Dear Christine,

I was saved, I am saved and I am being saved. Yes, but only GOD knows who they are.

Christiane said...

TORTOISE,

I do not challenge your salvation, but I discern that, for whatever purposes, you have come here 'posing' as a member of my faith.

Tortoise said...

Dear Christine,

Private interpretation of Scriptures can be exceedingly harmful to self and others. This has divided Christianity into hundreds if not tens of thousands of segments.

Too many individuals claim their position is right and are unwilling to freely discuss the position taken or to be submissive to moral authorities.

Holding to a personal position, or one of heretical source, places one's eternal soul in jeopardy. Such people often become instruments that lead others to perdition.

daveg4g said...

Is Half of The Story Sufficient For Salvation?

How many sides are there to a story? If you say two, then you are wrong. If you had one side and I had one side that would make two sides. However, there is a third side, the side of truth.

Rule # 1... One half of truth does not a truth make. Neither does one half of a story make the full story. No intelligent person can hear one side of a story and decide which side has the truth.

Both sides have to be heard, then analysed, and then a decision has to be made as to which side (if either) has a valid story, and after that, the right side(s), or truth side, can be determined.

This thinking holds true for discerning what Holy Scripture tells us.

Throughout the Bible there are double standards, yet the fundamentalist thinking shows only one standard, or one side of the story, or only one half of the truth.

Their thinking is in violation of rule # 1. With only one half of truth, you do not have truth. Anything less than the whole truth is error.

In the following examples, side 'A' is the first side, side 'B' is the second, and side 'C' is the right, or truth side.

Example # 1... Sola Scriptura...? Only the Bible. Fundamentalist thinking is that the Bible is sufficient and nothing else is needed for salvation.

First of all, in order to believe in the 'Bible Only' philosophy, you have to show that Scripture says it. Is that not true? The doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura' is not to be found in Scripture.

A. Tradition is condemned in many places in Scripture, such as Job 22:15, Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:3-13, Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8, 1Timothy 1:4, Titus 1:14, and 1Peter 1:18. Look at these verses and grasp their meaning.

They all address 'vain' human traditions and are rightly condemned. This is one half of the truth.

B. Tradition is supported in more places in Scripture than it is condemned. Study Isaiah 59:21, Luke 1:2, 2:19,51, Luke 10:16, 2Thessalonians 2:14-15 - "Stand firm and hold the traditions you have learned..", 2Timothy 1:13,2:2, 1Peter 1:25, 1Jn 1:1,2:24, 2Jn 1:12, Revelation 12:17,19:10.

These are different traditions than mentioned in 'A'. These are the Traditions of GOD, or 'Apostolic' Tradition.' Again, this is only half of the truth.

C. The truth is, yes, we do condemn the vain tradition of men, as shown in 'A', and we must keep the Tradition of GOD, as shown in 'B'.

Thus we have half the truth in 'A', and the other half in 'B', and combined we have the full truth.

The false doctrine of Sola Scriptura adds A and B together and puts the total in A, rejecting all of tradition. A+B=C.

Continue>>

shadowspring said...

Thanks, Christiane, for your gentle and patient words, completely lacking in rancor and full of generous welcome to all who love our Lord Jesus. It is appreciated.

Michael Gormley said...

Papal Infallibility

Based on Christ’s Mandate


Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility.

This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church.

For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14).

In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

Read More > > >

daveg4g said...

When discussing Apologetics with non-Catholics, you must do it right from Holy Scripture. When Protestantism was first formed in the 16th century, the reformers lost all Authority which they enjoyed in the Catholic Church.

They therefore turned to the Bible as their 'sole rule of authority'. This is called 'Sola Scriptura', or 'Bible Alone'.

They also could not claim Apostolic Tradition anymore since they could not show Apostolic Succession.

They put Apostolic Tradition in the same category as man made tradition and in so doing condemned all tradition.

Holy Scripture specifically says to keep the traditions with which you have been taught, which are the Apostolic traditions, and to reject man made traditions. Interestingly, the false doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura', is a man made tradition with its origin at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Using the reformers very own rules, 'Sola Scriptura' should then be condemned by themselves.

Read "For Whom the Bell Tolls", and "The Origin of Sola Scriptura."

Anonymous said...

Wade,

I agree that too may Southern Baptist confuse a building as the church. But, while it is important to clarify that a building is not the church, I think we also need to be careful not to claim that any gathering of believers constitutes a church.

I live in S.E. Asia and today I was just discussing this topic with missionaries from other organizations. Some want to define a church as “where 2 or 3 are gathered together in Jesus’ name.” I do not believe this constitutes a church. If we simply start groups of 2 or 3 people praying together, we will not have churches that will reproduce. The IMB trustees have given us a good guideline (see below). Though, I do not think it is necessary for a church to have every one of these qualifications met to constitute a church, these are marks of a healthy, mature church. A church in its infancy may not meet all of these criteria, but it should be moving in that direction.

Trustee Guidelines for Church
1. A church is intentional about being a church. Members think of themselves as a church. They are committed to one another and to God (associated by covenant) in pursuing all that Scripture requires of a church.
2. A church has an identifiable membership of baptized believers in Jesus Christ.
3. A church practices the baptism of believers only by immersing them in water.
-----------------------------
7. A church meets regularly for worship, prayer, the study of God’s word, and fellowship. Members of the church minister to one another’s needs, hold each other accountable, and exercise church discipline as needed. Members encourage one another and build each other up in holiness, maturity in Christ, and love.
9. A church is autonomous and self-governing under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of His Word.
6. A church submits to the inerrant word of God as the ultimate authority for all that it believes and does.
4. A church observes the Lord’s Supper on a regular basis.
5. Under the authority of the local church and its leadership, members may be assigned to carry out the ordinances.
8. A church embraces its responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission, both locally and globally, from the beginning of its existence as a church.
-------------------------------

10. A church has identifiable leaders, who are scrutinized and set apart according to the qualifications set forth in Scripture. A church recognizes two Biblical offices of church leadership: pastors/elders/overseers and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

I agree that too may Southern Baptist confuse a building as the church. But, while it is important to clarify that a building is not the church, I think we also need to be careful not to claim that any gathering of believers constitutes a church.

I live in S.E. Asia and today I was just discussing this topic with missionaries from other organizations. Some want to define a church as “where 2 or 3 are gathered together in Jesus’ name.” I do not believe this constitutes a church. If we simply start groups of 2 or 3 people praying together, we will not have churches that will reproduce. The IMB trustees have given us a good guideline (see below). Though, I do not think it is necessary for a church to have every one of these qualifications met to constitute a church, these are marks of a healthy, mature church. A church in its infancy may not meet all of these criteria, but it should be moving in that direction.

Trustee Guidelines for Church
1. A church is intentional about being a church. Members think of themselves as a church. They are committed to one another and to God (associated by covenant) in pursuing all that Scripture requires of a church.
2. A church has an identifiable membership of baptized believers in Jesus Christ.
3. A church practices the baptism of believers only by immersing them in water.
-----------------------------
7. A church meets regularly for worship, prayer, the study of God’s word, and fellowship. Members of the church minister to one another’s needs, hold each other accountable, and exercise church discipline as needed. Members encourage one another and build each other up in holiness, maturity in Christ, and love.
9. A church is autonomous and self-governing under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of His Word.
6. A church submits to the inerrant word of God as the ultimate authority for all that it believes and does.
4. A church observes the Lord’s Supper on a regular basis.
5. Under the authority of the local church and its leadership, members may be assigned to carry out the ordinances.
8. A church embraces its responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission, both locally and globally, from the beginning of its existence as a church.
-------------------------------

10. A church has identifiable leaders, who are scrutinized and set apart according to the qualifications set forth in Scripture. A church recognizes two Biblical offices of church leadership: pastors/elders/overseers and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

Anonymous said...

To ANON--9/14/10 11:32 am

Who cares what the IMB says as to what constitutes a church? I am a lifelong SBCer and quite frankly most of the kids in my wife's Children's Church have a better understanding of the Gospel than those denominational Hacks.

Proof in the pudding is that they espouse (or at least in the past have espoused) garbage like "The Shack", "Experiencing God", and false teachers like TD Jakes, and Joel Osteen among others. So yes, let me say it here loud and clear--that a significant portion of the problems in SBC Life lie at the feet of those who proclaim themselves to be Ministers of the Gospel! PERIOD.

BTW, in regards to #3, you do realize that you are calling into question the salvation (because of their view of baptism)of much of Christianity including Presbyterians, Anglicans, and others correct? Do you still wish to stand on that statement?

I am now quite sure that Wade will ban me, but Let's be careful in who we quote and how we use them.

Regards in Christ

pastorbillm

Romans 5:1

John Wylie said...

Anon 1:45 said...
"BTW, in regards to #3, you do realize that you are calling into question the salvation (because of their view of baptism)of much of Christianity including Presbyterians, Anglicans, and others correct? Do you still wish to stand on that statement?"

How does a belief in baptism by immersion call into question the salvation of other Christians? We as Baptists do not believe that baptism adds to or takes away from our salvation. It's only a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and our identification with Him. #3 in no way could be construed as calling anyone's salvation into question.

Anonymous said...

John W

The IMB says that a true Church MUST CONSIST OF IMMERSED BELIEVERS (the #3 mentioned)

IE I am only quoting what they say!

To say that churches who do not immerse are really what? cults? apostate? BTW, I do think that they are unbiblical; however, they are still churches; something which the IMB is obviously unwilling to acknowledge--at least according to what the othr person wrote in regards to them.

pastorbillm

Romans 6:23

Anonymous said...

some Churches do all three: immersion, pouring, sprinkling

the 'amount' of water is not an issue for them

Michael Gormley said...

John Wylie said...
We as Baptists do not believe that baptism adds to or takes away from our salvation.

Dear John,

The Necessity of Baptism

Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).

The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism.

He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved."

John Wylie said...

Michael,

I appreciate the fact that you have respectfully presented your argument, here is my counter argument, respectfully submitted.

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17)

If baptism were necessary for salvation Paul would have never said this.

"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47)

Peter said that the house of cornelius received the Spirit before baptism.

"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."
(1 Corinthians 12:13)

The only baptism required for salvation is spirit baptism also known as the new birth.

Even though it is referred to as an ecumenical council the 325 Nicene Council was decidedly Catholic in nature. Although I appreciate your church's contributions in fighting against the Arian heresy and standing for the Trinity and the deity of Christ, I can't buy into the doctrine of baptismal regenration.

John 3:5 is not talking about water baptism it is saying that man must not only have a physical birth but a spiritual one as well. John 3:6 explains verse 5 very well. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
(John 3:6)

Thank you.

Michael Gormley said...

John Wylie said...
"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17)

Dear John,
I imagine you forgot to read the previous verses!

14 I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.
16 (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
1 Corinthians 14 -16

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19)

Soon after the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles began Baptizing the people...

"But Peter said to them, 'Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'."
(Acts 2:38)

"Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand." (Acts 2:41)

"And now why do you delay? Get up and be Baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name." (Acts 22:16)

a39greenway said...

Show me in the Bible where every time a Baptism was performed, it was said it was done by immersion?

Show me where Jesus Christ was immersed? Scripture says He came up from the water, Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10.

It does not say He was immersed. Throughout Scripture it says Baptize with water. Never does it say Baptize immersed in water.

Jesus Christ said in John 3:5, "...unless a man be born again of water..." Again He did not say, 'born again Immersed in water'.

John Wylie said...

Baptism means to immerse. It's the Greek word baptizo and it means to immerse or submerge.

Further according to Rom. 6:3-5 baptism is a "likeness" of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. You can't picture a burial by sprinkling water on the head.

Further, why would Jesus step down into a river to have water poured on His head? They had water pitcher back then.

All true baptisms are by immersion otherwise you miss the whole idea of what baptism pictures.

Further John 3:5 isn't atlking about baptism, read verse 6.

Michael, I did read the previous verses this is what stuck out to me "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."
(1 Corinthians 1:14-15)

Paul was actually thanking God that he had not baptized very many people at Corinth. Why? "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17)

Obviously Paul did not regard water baptism as an element of the Gospel. If water baptism were essential for salvation, Paul would have included it in the Gospel. He would not have thanked God that he hadn't baptized very many.

Michael Gormley said...

Dear John,
PAUL'S WORDS DEMONSTRATE THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

NOTE CAREFULLY PAUL'S REASONING...

For one to call himself after Paul (or any other man) required two things:

1. Paul would have to be crucified for the person - 1 Corinthians 1:13

2. One would have to be baptized in the name of Paul - 1 Corinthians 1:13

Neither happened, of course, which is why they should not be calling themselves after men

But consider what Paul's argument means positively...

TO BE CALLED AFTER CHRIST, TWO THINGS ARE REQUIRED...

1. Christ would have to die for the person...which of course He did.

2. The person would have to be baptized in the name of Christ!

Have you been baptized in the name of Christ, John?

If not, then you cannot rightfully be called a Christian!

In the very context of a passage which many use to claim that baptism is not essential, Paul implies one cannot be called a Christian unless they have been baptized in the name of Christ!

How then are we to understand Paul's statement;"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..."?

The answer is easy...

PAUL WAS EMPHASIZING HIS ROLE AS AN APOSTLE

PAUL WAS SENT TO PREACH, NOT BAPTIZE...

As an apostle...which means "one sent"...Paul's role was to proclaim the gospel.

As explained to the Ephesians, he was given the task to preach "the unsearchable riches of Christ" - Ephesians 3:8

Which he did by inspiration...Galatians 1:11-12

Though his preaching resulted in baptism...Acts 18:8...it was not imperative that he do it.

Others could easily do the baptizing...his travelling
companions.

Which happened at Corinth, for while many were baptized, he personally baptized few.

John Wylie said...

Michael,

If baptism were a requirement for salvation it would be included in the Gospel message. Paul very clearly excluded baptism from the gospel when he said "Christ sent me not baptize, but to preach the gospel..."

98 times in the book of John one is told to believe to be saved with no mention of baptism. Faith alone saves, baptism, like the Lord's Supper, has no saving efficaciousness (I looked it up it's really a word...lol).

Anyhow, I will say this though this is the nicest disagreement I've ever had on this blog. Thank you for kindly demonstrating your position.

P.S: I have been water baptized.

Anonymous said...

Did this older new church member consent to be blogged about in an identifiable way, in which she is held up to the blogosphere as wrong several counts?

Also, assuming she persists in believing that women should not ask questions in church, Pastor Burleson says that means any group of two or three believers, so the lady should not ask questions in small groups, Bible study, etc....?

That seems a high cost for asking a question about, of all things, egalitarianism.

Michael Gormley said...

John Wylie said..
If baptism were a requirement for salvation it would be included in the Gospel message.

Dear John,
PAUL USED A COMMON STYLE OF SPEAKING...

1. Notice the words of Jesus in John 6:27...

a. "Do not labor for the food which perishes"

b. "but for the food which endures to everlasting life"

c. Jesus was not saying one should not work, but rather was emphasizing the importance of seeking after spiritual food over physical food.

2. In a similar way Paul says 1Corinthians 1:17...

a. "For Christ did not send me to baptize"

b. "but to preach the gospel"

c. Paul was not saying he was not to baptize, but that his role as an apostle to preach the gospel was more important!

John Wylie said...

Michael,

Of course preaching the gospel is more important, you and I finally agree. Why is preaching the gospel more important? Because
"...it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes..." Rom. 1:16 If baptism were essential for salvation it would be just as important as preaching the gospel, in fact it would be included in the gospel. It is not included because it is just a symbol of the salvation experience. Baptism does not save.

Michael Gormley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Gormley said...

Baptism does not save.

Dear Johnny,

ORIGEN:
"It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism" (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).

AUGUSTINE:
"[According to] apostolic tradition . . . the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal.

This is the witness of Scripture too"
(Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).

"Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism.

For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ [Matthew 10:32]"
(The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).

daveg4g said...

Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin.

This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ.

This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo."

"Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin.

It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

a39greenway said...

"For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious?

These verily are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head."
John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, 3:5-6 (A.D. 387).

Tortoise said...

"But the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration: Wherefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again.

From which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could possibly have been born again in his father.

Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God' Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins.

And so much does Christ show us in this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be?

He reminded His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent.

Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from the serpent's poisonous bite, unless we wilfully wander from the rule of the Christian faith.

This bite, however, they did not receive in their own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted."
Augustine, On Forgiveness of sin and baptism, 43:27 (A.D. 412).

John Wylie said...

Michael,

You and I are never going to agree on this matter. John 3:5 isn't talking about baptism.

If baptism were necessary for salvation, it would have been included in every salvation passage, it is not.

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:1-5)

Any way you slice it, baptism is a religious work. Salvation is not by works of righteousness. Titus 3:5

As far as your church father quotes. "And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual."
(1 Corinthians 2:13) ESV

Respectfully,

John Wylie

Anonymous said...

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned."

This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer.

This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized.

There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

John Wylie said...

Anon,

Sorry but every baptism recorded in the scriptures was after belief. Jesus mentioned belief before baptism in text you cited.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
(Acts 2:41)


"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 8:36-37)

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized."
(Acts 18:8)

Furthermore even if I bought into the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration, fact is none of you Catholics have been baptized, you've been sprinkled. Baptizo means to dip, immerse, or submerge. So if you really believe what you preach you need to go get baptized.

Let's not get into your praying to Mary, and the saints.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (1 Timothy 2:5)

Michael Gormley said...

Dear Jack,

18 11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
(Matthew 28: 18-20)

Michael Gormley said...

Dear Johnny,
1 1 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

2
2 He came to Jesus at night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him."

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born 3 from above."

4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?"

5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit (John 3: 1-5)

Anonymous said...

3 Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

4 We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. (Romans 6: 3-4)

Michael Gormley said...

Dear John Wylie,

4 2 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.
(Ephesians 4: 4-7)

John Wylie said...

Dear Mikey,

Of course there is one baptism that counts and it is spirit baptism. 1 Cor. 12:13

Michael Gormley said...

Dear Mr Wylie,

BAPTISM IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION

Prefigurations of Baptism in the Old Covenant

1217 In the liturgy of the Easter Vigil, during the blessing of the baptismal water, the Church solemnly commemorates the great events in salvation history that already prefigured the mystery of Baptism:

Father, you give us grace through sacramental signs, which tell us of the wonders of your unseen power.

In Baptism we use your gift of water, which you have made a rich symbol of the grace you give us in this sacrament.11

1218 Since the beginning of the world, water, so humble and wonderful a creature, has been the source of life and fruitfulness. Sacred Scripture sees it as "overshadowed" by the Spirit of God:12

At the very dawn of creation
your Spirit breathed on the waters, making them the wellspring of all holiness.13
1219 The Church has seen in Noah's ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it "a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water":14

The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism, that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.15
1220 If water springing up from the earth symbolizes life, the water of the sea is a symbol of death and so can represent the mystery of the cross.

By this symbolism Baptism signifies communion with Christ's death.

1221 But above all, the crossing of the Red Sea, literally the liberation of Israel from the slavery of Egypt, announces the liberation wrought by Baptism:

You freed the children of Abraham from the slavery of Pharaoh,
bringing them dry-shod through the waters of the Red Sea, nto be an image of the people set free in Baptism.16

1222 Finally, Baptism is prefigured in the crossing of the Jordan River by which the People of God received the gift of the land promised to Abraham's descendants, an image of eternal life. The promise of this blessed inheritance is fulfilled in the New Covenant.

11 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water.
12 Cf. Gen 1:2.
13 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water.
14 1 Pet 3:20.
15 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water.
16 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water: "Abrahae filios per mare Rubrum sicco vestigio transire fecisti, ut plebs, a Pharaonis servitute liberata, populum baptizatorum præfiguraret."

Kelly Reed said...

New slant on this topic...

Here is another contrast between Christianity and Islam.

When the early church was confronted by the Talmudic understandings of separating men and women in worship--Paul and others put stood against it and to a degree, were successful, but not as long lasting due to many misinterpretations like you've been discussing.

Islam, on the other hand, when Muhammad was consulting the Jewish community in Medina, much of Judaism's practice and structure was re-incorporated into Islamic practice and so men and women are separated and women are not allowed to participate by divine dictate.

Here's to the hope and future of men and women glorifying God together.