Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ptwild

  1. Check your messages Jerry.
  2. I have not called you any names. In fact, I have tried to help you. I pm'd you some very serious invofmation that you should look into immediately.
  3. John: You and I OBviously have some differences that you see as warranting "separation." From what you say, I understand that "separation" does not mean you would not come to my aid if I were in need (an act of brotherly love). Am I to understand it to mean that we could not sing hymns together, or that we could not pray together, or that our families could not share a meal together?
  4. Or David could have simply been speaking in a figurative sense. It just seems to me that when the Bible applies human conditions to God, the writer is merely doing the best he can to relate things in terms humans can understand. For example, I don't necessarilly thing there will be "streets of gold" or even streets at all, in heaven. I see that as a human doing the best he can to describe the grandness of heaven by using something (gold) that we as humans see as grand. Now, I could be absolutely wrong and there could be mile after mile of golden paved streets in heaven. But, I don't think we can even comprehend how marvelous heaven will be.
  5. I believe that would be a clear violation of equal protection. We can't treat one group of people different from everyone else based solely on their religion.
  6. No one said he wasn't using a book. I said, "is it not possible . . ." And while I do believe that in this instance, "book of life" does not refer to an actual bound group of pages, it is of course more than possible for it to mean that. It's just as possible that it is figurative.
  7. I have a feeling God "could" do anything he so wills.
  8. I'm not really sure what that has to do with my previous comments but, yes, if a legitimate law that could withstand constitutional scrutiny were passed prohibiting a mosque (and any and all other places of worship) from being build in a certain location (I'm thinking of maybe a zoning ordinance), then that would be ok. However, to withstand constitutional scrutiny, there would have to be a rational basis, it couldn't be passed to keep certain people from getting their feelings hurt or because a specific group just doesn't like the idea or based simply on emotionalism.
  9. Do you believe that God needs a literal book to keep track of us? We are talking about God here. He knows how many hairs are on our heads - I'm pretty sure he can remember if we have accpeted his son as our Lord and Saviour.
  10. John: No doubt that if someone has to break the law to practice their religion then we must prohibit the practice to the extent that it breaks the law. However, until we have evidence that they are breaking the law, there isn't any reason to prohibit them from practicing their religion. Your snake handling example is a good one. Those folks claim to be Christians. Should we prohibit everyone from practicing Christianity because one group of supposed Christians happens to endanger themselves and others in their practice of Christianity?
  11. Is it not possible that the "Book of Life" is a figurative phrase? I don't believe God is standing behind a podeum in heaven with an ink pen in his hand writing down everyone's name at the moment their faith in Christ is manifested. I see it more as we humans' best attempt to illustrate the fact that only those who have accepted Christ will ever receive his salvation.
  12. First of all, quit comparing your self to Christ. It's insulting. And I didn't threaten you. You are a Christian and I am a Christian. Christ died for both of us, not prefering one to the other. One day, we will both be in heaven and I'm afraid that once we get there, you won't have a choice as to whether you will fellowship with me or not. That's the reckoning I am looking forward to. I don't think you (or a reasonalbe person I should say) could have have honestly concluded that I was threatening you in any way - you just want to sensationalize the issue. The above part in bold is an great example of why you are wrong. If there were ever an occassion where you had little food and I had plenty, or you had some other trouble and I offered to help. You would reject me because I was baptized as a baby. On the flip side, I had little food and you had plenty, or I had some other trouble, you would not offer to help. You would sit in your pseudorighteous corner thanking Jesus for how "right" you are. You don't love your neighbor as yourself. You love yourself and you judge your neighbor. Like I said, one day you are going to be surrounded by whole host of Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians . . . and I don't believe you'll have any choice, or desire, but to join with them in worshiping our Lord. God never commanded you to not fellowship with other Christians. I love how you try to twist scripture to say how "Jerry" feels. Other than that, pickles to you Sir, pickles I say.
  13. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. All Irishman is saying is that he can fellowship with someone he doesn't agree with 100%. You and I believe the same thing about salvation and I suspect our only real difference is that I believe in infant baptism. Should that keep us from setting down to dinner together and talking about how good God is and how blessed we are to have such a merciful saviour? Should supposedly infamous differences keep us divided when we have so much more in common? Do you ever think that it might be you whom Christ tells to depart from him?
  14. This is for the best. We all need to forget about the way things were or the way they are supposed to be. The leaders are in place for the best of our society. Let them do their jOB. We all have a role to play, and roles not to play. The ones in charge know what is best.
  15. You mean these commandments: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself? The prOBlem with you Jerry is that you are always right. You never make a mistake, you never sin. And if you do, you never admit it, you never confess it. At least not publically. And that is why there can be no fellowship between you and the whole Church. It is because while the rest of us are solmnly confessing our sins in humble repentence, you and your crowd are too busy shining your shoes and ironing your starch white shirts (come on and admit it, I know where you're from and your kind love their startched white shirts). I believe you are a Christian. The most unsavory of kinds, but still a Christian. You and I will have a reckoning one day. And I for one cannot wait.
  16. Are you kidding me? One day? Need I remind you of the presidential election of 2000 and a little case known as Bush v. Gore? If the majority is allowed to rule we will be nothing more than a horrid bunch devouring ourselves in our own ignorance. Are you honestly suggesting that just because the majority of people want it, it should be? You just need to look reality in the eyes and see that most people in this country have no idea what is good for themselves, much less the rest of us.
  17. I'm sure that the administration of most Churches is essentially the same. And we support the dioceses because we do not exist without it. It performs a service, for which we compensate it more or less. It owns the building and it is the office of the Bishop, both of which are essential to our congregation.
  18. Praise be to God! Thank you very much for sharing this with us Irishman. I am truely inspired when a man who has been in Christ for such a long time is still able to learn from the Lord. There is no doubt that it is almost impossible to find two Christians who agree on every aspect of our faith. The important thing is that we are all striving for the same thing. For some, they only know what they have been exposed to or what others have taught them. Is it there fault that they may be mistaken about a few things? Should they be "separated" from because of these differences? Of course not. Let us not forget those Churches in the Bible whom Paul addresses, and at time chastizes, for their errors. He never once proclaimed them "not saved" or ordered that they be separated from. And I agree with you that it is 100% like a pharisee for us to think we are so much better because we perceive ourselves to be more in line with scripture, as if any of us can honestly stand before God and proclaim that we are blameless. After all, it is always the person screaming "I'M RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG" all the time that indeed is most often the one in error. People like that who "separate" from everyone else eventually find themselves alone in a corner consumed with their own vanity. Again thank you. I will forever remember your example of humbleness and your willingness to learn as you continue on your journey home. All the glory be to God.
  19. Anglicans don't send their offerings to headquarters. The money is kept within the parish and administered by the vestry (who is elected by the congregation) as they see fit. Of course, each parish contributes its share to the support of the dioceses. Chev1958: You would be known as a vicar in Anglican terminology - you are the leader of a congregation that still relies on another congregation for support. Once your new congregation is able to fully support itself, you would become a rector.
  20. You'll also have to settle for one that includes the Anglican lectionary.
  21. I think this prOBably has to do with the increased role the pastor plays in Baptist churches. If my priest had as much control and influence as I believe most pastors do, I wouldn't want anyone else having anything to do with picking my priest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it indeed a pastor who is usually the one that actually "starts" (don't know if that's the right word) the church? Whereas in Anglicanism, the dioceses plants a church whereever there is a large enough congregation of practicing Anglicans to support it. A priest has a much less active role in the affairs of the local church (at least in the Anglican Church). He is there to administer the sacraments and lead the worship service (and even that is a limited role considering that the BCP dictates the order of service). The administration of the Church's business is left to what we call the vestry (made up of a senior warden, junior warden, secretary . . .).
  22. Good points about the hierarchy system. I don't believe that it is necessary and that it is right for everyone, but I do prefer it. Not only do I believe that it is in line with the practices of the early church, but I also believe it is what keeps us all together. In other Christian communities in which there is no heirarchy, it seems that once the leader (usually a pastor or preacher) goes against the will of the congregation, or starts promoting unsound doctrine, the only reaction is to split up. Those who oppose the pastor leave and those who agree with him stay. Then, a few months or years later, the pattern repeats itself. Someone gets upset over nothing, or the pastor (or maybe even the congregation) starts delving into unsound doctrine (or perceived unsound doctrine) and they split again. And so it goes, on and on, until you have a town of 3,000 people and 30 Baptist Churches (not picking on Baptist -just using them as an example - it could be anyone) with a new one popping up every few years. On the other hand, if you have a Bishop, there is no splitting. The Bishop simply removes the priest from the Church. Now, there could be a huge prOBlem if the Bishop himself is not acting in accordance with scripture. Well, in the Episcopal Church, the Bishop is elected by his dioceses and thereby can be removed by the popular vote of the congregations. Sure, it can get bogged down at times, but it provides by a continuity that keeps us together through the good times and the bad.
  23. Alright, fair enough. But, based on how you have described what "yoked" together means, the many Episcopal Churches within my dioceses are "yoked" to the Bishop. He is who connects us all to the other. It's not like each of the several churches are sharing bank accounts, or priests, or anything else for that matter (there are three other Episcopal Churches in my town and I have never been to them or had anything to do with them other than a softball game once). My Bishop will denounce homosexuality and the ordination of females in a heartbeat (and prOBably agrees with you as opposed to me on several other issues). On a larger scale, all Anglicans are "yoked" together by Canterbury. The Archbishop and the holy see is what in fact makes us all part of the Anglican Communion. The current Archbishop has requested (he has no power to order as we are all independent as well) that the Episcopal Church cease the ordination of homosexuals and has definitively stated that homosexuality is contrary to scripture and is therefore not accectable within the Church. You mentioned that some Episcopal Churches have removed themselves. What you mean is that they renounced their Bishop and came under the Bishopric of a foreign Bishop. That didn't stop being Anglicans, or even Episcopalians for that matter. I have a feeling that my local Church would do the same thing in the event that our Bishop began ordaining female priests or confirming homosexuals.
  24. Correct me if I'm not understanding you, but are you saying that if an IFB Church three states and a hundreds of miles away from you had a female pastor, that you would not longer go to your local IFB Church? That's what you understand not being "yoked" together means? The thing about kicking people out of your denomination is that they are free to put whatever sign they want on the front of their churches. It's not like the Anglican Communion owns the trademark "Anglican" or "Episcopal." Technically, a congregation of gay women preachers could start their own church and call it IFB. And the point is that my local church can't control what some church out in California or in New Hampshire does anymore than those churches can control my local church. I don't go to those churches. I don't support what they do. I go to my local Anglican Church and I don't see anything wrong with our doctrine. Why should I leave?
  • Create New...