Not sure there is a fundamental problem with my thinking, but even if there were such a problem there should be enough valid thinking to get a response to the question.
Contrary to what was suggested, I strongly doubt that simply reading Romans thru Philemon will bring much clarity on these issues.
For they involve much comparison back and forth not only between many passages within Romans thru Philemon, but within and with, the balance of Scripture - and the very fact that there are now different camps within Mid-Acts only proves this point valid.
Your best bet is to sit back, ask your questions, study out the Scriptures on the answers put forth, seek further clarification each time anew, at the same time you enjoy the circus the obvious double-standard of some within so called Mid-Acts cannot but sooner or later resort to, despite claims otherwise.
Know this - most so called MADs on TOL not only do not hold to water baptism nor to the Lord's Supper, but have proven both incompetent at proving their case, as well as very intolerant when opposed a bit too long, with any view but their own.
It is as if such have simply never sought to understand how the grace in the gospel of the grace of God is meant to enable grace towards others during differences in understanding.
Of their group on here, their one exception to that, as far as some measure of grace towards those who present a consistently opposing view to their own, is STP.
He does however aparrantly condone their conduct towards others.
But he is the sharpest of them on here, as far his understanding of their view of the water baptism/Lord's Supper issue.
Too many holes in their views on either of those, though.
Which only points back to a flaw in their study approach somewhere.
But you are already seeing their intolerance with having a thing pointed out to them :chuckle:
Best to view them through the lens of Romans 5:8 throughout.
This way, you are neither personally impacted by their nonsense in their dealings with any opposing viewpoint, but remain able to learn from such, where there might be some learning to be picked up on, anyway.
And some of the greatest minds in the history of Bible study have failed to discern the Apostle Paul's distinctions - meaning it will take much more than some yet newbie's suggestion, arrogantly stated, at that - to just read Romans thru Philemon.
Not sure there is a fundamental problem with my thinking, but even if there were such a problem there should be enough valid thinking to get a response to the question.
Well, in the first place, MAD is not an organized church affiliation/denomination.
Second, I don't condemn any church denomination for celebrating the Lord's supper or baptizing folks in water.
I would only have a dispute if they were insisting those were necessary for their salvation.
As the apostle, Paul, teaches us, those that cling to rituals and certain holy days are the weaker brethren, and he should be considerate of their weakness even though he knew he was not under any obligation to comply with their weakness.
In other words, when he visited a home in which they believed they were prohibited from eating certain foods, he would also not eat the food they prohibited as a courtesy to them, but he knew he could eat anything without repercussion.
Romans 14
You're dead wrong. There's not one church or denomination holding to some form of sacrament that does not, front end or back end, put some degree of salvational weight on it. If you're told you're sinning if you refuse or neglect, say, to submit to water baptism, what they're REALLY saying is, your salvation (as they define it) depends on it.
If pushed far enough, they'll quote Acts 2:38 and tell you to get in the tub.
If they get really mad, they'll throw Mark 16:16 at you and say "Get wet or get out."
I suspect that many, including myself, would hold to an "oughtness" in the use of sacraments, but not a matter of salvation.
OK. For sacraments I would go with the traditional Protestant water baptism and the Lord's Supper/Communion. I do not think that mode or recipients are part of this discussion, unless you feel that it should be a part of it.
Sanctificaton/holiness. As a starting point, let's say attempting, with the Spirit's help, to avoid sin; which for the sake of this thread let's define as any action, thought, or action [or lack thereof] which would cause the damnation of a totally innocent person.
Depending on the way the discussion goes, definitions might have to be clarified. I am thinking of the most general meanings within a Christian context.
Consider that that would depend on what YOU mean in YOUR use of the word "innocent" there.
Case in point...
Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Depends on how a word is being used by it's user.
In which case, what do YOU mean by it in your use of it; in the above?
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
Then again, the soundness of one's study approach will determine what one ends up concluding as to what the Apostle Paul may or may not have actually meant by his use of the words "keep" and "the ordinances" in a passage like that one.
You're dead wrong. There's not one church or denomination holding to some form of sacrament that does not, front end or back end, put some degree of salvational weight on it. .
Hopefully these churches in question understand what is apparently misunderstood given the quote above.
The church confesses what she believes, according to the patterns of sound teaching in Scripture. We interpret in community of the saints, for instruction, worship, and discipline, thereby marking out the boundaries of our faith. The Scripture knows nothing of "Just Me and My Bible" or the "Lone Ranger" Christian, which is why we confess that there is no salvation outside the church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus). Many when reading this statement recoil with immediate thoughts of Romanism. But let's examine the statement carefully.
The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; (1 Cor. 1:2, 1 Cor. 12:12-13, Ps. 2:8, Rev. 7:9, Rom. 15:9-12) and of their children: (1 Cor. 7:14, Acts 2:39, Ezek. 16:20-21, Rom. 11:16, Gen. 3:15, Gen. 17:7) and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, (Matt. 13:47, Isa. 9:7) the house and family of God, (Eph. 2:19, Eph. 3:15) out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (Acts 2:47)
When "church" is used we must define terms.
The visible church has an ideal quality to it, meaning that if it were possible it would perfectly represent the true church, which contains only saints. So, the statement extra ecclesiam nulla salus is speaking principally of of the true church, of whom Christ our Lord is the head.
Wherever He is the true Lord, there is the one and only place of salvation, and all believers are permanent citizens of that kingdom. Clearly, then, outside of that church, there is no salvation, inside that church there is all salvation.
The WCF, from which a portion is quoted above, was written in a period of Protestant church stability and establishment. For the writers of the WCF the visible church was to be formed and governed by this very Creed--extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Hence, it was important that the writers add the word "ordinary," which is not so as to imply or proclaim that there is any other Way of salvation, but to affirm that the earthly church is not in fact the true church.
There is a sacramental connection between the church militant and church triumphant, but one is the Sign, the other the thing Signified. The WCF statement above warns those who forsake the visible church that they do so at their peril. Where else will one find the Gospel but in the church? But if the church forsakes the gospel, as has Rome, then salvation will be found outside it, until the faithful church be Re-formed around the gospel once again.
Calvin sums it up nicely:
Spoiler
But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matthew 22:30].
Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isaiah 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify. Ezekiel agrees with them when he declares that those whom God rejects from heavenly life will not be enrolled among God’s people [Ezekiel 13:9].
On the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true godliness are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem [cf. Isaiah 56:5; Psalm 87:6]. For this reason, it is said in another psalm: “Remember me, O Jehovah, with favor toward thy people; visit me with salvation: that I may see the well-doing of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may be glad with thine inheritance” [Psalm 106:4-5 p.; cf. Psalm 105:4, Vg., etc.]. By these words God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church.
Src: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.I.4, page 1016.
For example, do not assume Rome's claims to being the "one, true, church" on earth ring true. Nor should anyone outside of Romanism assume that there is salvation outside THE one, true, church.
The Belgic Confession states similarly to the WCF:
Article XXVIII
Every One Is Bound to Join Himself to the True Church
We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and outside of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them.
To which, J. Van Bruggen, The Church Says Amen: An Exposition of the Belgic Confession, p. 163, explains:
"This article says that there is no salvation outside of the Church, and it is of paramount importance to understand this correctly. It does not say that no one shall be saved outside the Church, nor does it say that there is no saved person outside the Church; rather, salvation is not outside of her. Salvation is what God gives to His Church. That is why we must seek it there and not anywhere outside of the Church. Neither does this article say anywhere that whoever withdraws himself from the Church cannot be saved, but rather that this is "contrary to the ordinance of God."
Well, then let's regroup and go back to the original question, or the part of the original question that had to do with the MADist approach to sanctification.
The part you seem to have so much trouble with was an attempt to clarify.
Well, in the first place, MAD is not an organized church affiliation/denomination.
Second, I don't condemn any church denomination for celebrating the Lord's supper or baptizing folks in water.
I would only have a dispute if they were insisting those were necessary for their salvation.
As the apostle, Paul, teaches us, those that cling to rituals and certain holy days are the weaker brethren, and he should be considerate of their weakness even though he knew he was not under any obligation to comply with their weakness.
In other words, when he visited a home in which they believed they were prohibited from eating certain foods, he would also not eat the food they prohibited as a courtesy to them, but he knew he could eat anything without repercussion.
Romans 14
Thank you for your response, Tambora.
I understand the non-denominational nature of MAD. But assuming that many/most MADists attend some sort of fellowship on a regular basis, one might expect that MADists would tend to fellowship often with other MADists. If that were the case, I am wondering if such a fellowship would celebrate sacraments.
Speaking of the need to properly understand a thing before concluding on it, a passage like the following is actually referring to a water baptism ritual.
Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
That, of the various kinds of..."divers washings..."
Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
John 2:6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. 3:24 For John was not yet cast into prison. 3:25 Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. 3:28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
Hebrews 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
You're dead wrong. There's not one church or denomination holding to some form of sacrament that does not, front end or back end, put some degree of salvational weight on it. If you're told you're sinning if you refuse or neglect, say, to submit to water baptism, what they're REALLY saying is, your salvation (as they define it) depends on it.
If pushed far enough, they'll quote Acts 2:38 and tell you to get in the tub.
If they get really mad, they'll throw Mark 16:16 at you and say "Get wet or get out."
I've gone to a few regular churches, but didn't stay long enough to see what they preached concerning sacraments....except Catholic in my youth. After I was saved, I attended New Testament churches including home churches where some baptisms were done (in the river) if someone requested them, but it was never required or promoted as a means of salvation. Same with breaking bread...it was done occasionally as a remembrance for those who wanted to partake.
I like a dark church where people go to feel in awe of their maker, not all standing singing loud. It is not so much they are dispensationist, as much as they are not stuck up, 'nose in the air' types who judge people. ; however, this only parents liked high England Church because they believed it had the social element
lost my place or the test moved back into the already written text and mixed me up?
Anyway, I do not ask everyone if they are MAD, rather I look for humble people to fellowship with, and not snobby folks.
people how well off they areI . My text is doing that again, see???never.
One thing I dislike about persons who worked hard all their lives and make it into the better neighbourhoods is their snobby pretentious act. I do not go to church to show off to people
I like a dark church where people go to feel in awe of their maker, not all standing singing loud. It is not so much they are dispensationist, as much as they are not stuck up, 'nose in the air' types who judge people. ; however, this only parents liked high England Church because they believed it had the social element
lost my place or the test moved back into the already written text and mixed me up?
Anyway, I do not ask everyone if they are MAD, rather I look for humble people to fellowship with, and not snobby folks.
people how well off they areI . My text is doing that again, see???never.
One thing I dislike about persons who worked hard all their lives and make it into the better neighbourhoods is their snobby pretentious act. I do not go to church to show off to people
Then again, I knew a MAD up in years, years ago, who was a prince of an individual as a model of grace towards one and all.
One day, while in his neck of the woods, I invited someone I had been witnessing to, to that dear old brother's assembly.
He walks up to my guest with a great big warm smile, and says "welcome; welcome - God loves colored folks too, ya know..."
Obviously, he'd meant well, but time absent of bit of reflection on what such comments reveal to one about one's actual values and beliefs on such issues, had taken its toll, and so out he came with that fopaux :chuckle:
The other guy right off took it too mean that old saint was a racist snob. And with that, he stormed off, and out of the building, never to be heard from again.
These things really often do boil down to where we are looking at them from and it is not always the case that a seemingly intended ill will, was just that.
Thus, why the Believer is so cautioned repeatedly throughout the Scripture of the need to ever be examining what his or her values might actually represent - those of this world, or those of a child of the Most High God.
And this...is a never ending challenge...if not also...a never ending fascination.
Its odd, now...reflecting on the above...
That dear old brother had obviously had Romans 5:8 in mind...
And yet..."colored" over somewhat, by some bygone era's secular indoctrination.
