The Town of Odyssey

Sorry yes not better but good, you are absolutely right. I agree St. Paul was probably a widower.

Have you ever met a monastic? Monastic communities are very much about their brethren, the brethren in their monastic community first of all, but monastics are also engaged in a very active prayer life for the world and in the study of Scripture and the writings of the Monastics and Christians before them and the education of the Church about Scripture and those writings.

Yes I meant the first definition of asceticism.

I first disagree that those terms are interchangeable but that's largely unimportant and I think your way is one way to appoint elders and deacons but not the only way. But you're saying that the Apostles set up a hierarchical church government but then were like oh but this isn't how you should do it after we're dead?

Liturgy is a prescribed order of service here is the one written by St. James http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.ii.html

But what doctrines do you as a Reformed Baptist hold to that the Apostles would have held to? And what happened to Reformed Baptist from the time of the Apostles until the first Reformation and then the Revival movements here in America?

Okay, I can live with your monasticism. I don't think it was specifically taught by the apostles, but I guess it can be a legitimate form of Christian living. As long as there is a church that these monks are attending on the Lord's Day, I guess I wouldn't see a problem with them spending their days exclusively in prayer and in the Word.

Acts 20:17 states that Paul is talking to the elders of the church in Ephesus. The Greek word translated "elder" is presbuteros, the word from which you get presbyters. In Acts 20:28, Paul commands these elders to "take heed...to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers." The Greek word translated "overseer" is "episkopos" which is also translated "bishop" in Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:7, and 1 Peter 2:25.

In addition, in 1 Peter 5, Peter says that "elders"/presbuteros are to take "oversight"/episkopeo of the flock of God. The word for bishop and the word for presbyter are here used for the same office. How then can you say that the terms are not interchangable?

In Titus 1:5-7, Paul commands Titus to ordain "elders" in every city, and then two verses later in verse 7, Paul begins to give qualifications for this office, which he there calls "bishop." What then is your evidence that these are two different offices?

With regard to the apostles' method of appointing these officers: I didn't say that they set up a hierarchical church government and then allowed the churches to abandon the idea after their deaths. I said that the apostles established churches because they had the authority of Christ to do so. That was a one-time thing. No church was ever established thereafter by an individual with the kind of authority the apostles had. Nowhere in Scripture do we see a description of or qualifications for an office of someone who will appoint elders in churches. Therefore, we follow the only method prescribed in Scripture: election by the congregation.

Oh boy. I know you're not going to like this, but I seriously doubt that that was actually written by the apostle James. For one thing, where would he have gotten the idea that a priest was to lead worship in churches? Where can that be found in the New Testament? As I just got done saying, the only leader in the church is to be the elder/bishop/overseer. Where did we ever get the idea that there is the office of priest in the Christian church?

I'm fine with there being a prescribed order to services. And although I personally wouldn't advocate it, I'm even fine with a prescribed "script" or liturgy for exactly how the service is to be conducted and what the officers and the congregation are to say. But because that idea is never even hinted at in Scripture, I wouldn't do it, personally.

Ayn Rand wrote:But what doctrines do you as a Reformed Baptist hold to that the Apostles would have held to? And what happened to Reformed Baptist from the time of the Apostles until the first Reformation and then the Revival movements here in America?

Well, I'm sure you know that the name "Reformed Baptist" didn't come around until even centuries after the Reformation, so there's no use in trying to defend the existence of "Reformed Baptists" all the way back to the early church. But I believe that there were individuals that held to the "reformed" doctrines of Scripture as specifically exposited by the Reformers throughout all the ages of the church. Doctrines like election and total depravity were very obviously held by Paul and other New Testament writers. Iraneus, who lived during the second century has comments about election and reprobation somewhat extensively. Augustine propogated original sin in his debates against Pelagius. Sure there weren't many good theologians throughout the Dark Ages, due to the domination of the Catholic church, but there were always those who held to the truth. And I believe that the consummation of the work and writings of the early church fathers came when Martin Luther understood that the just shall live by faith. And, obviously, then Calvin also expounded heavily upon doctrines like election and reprobation and effectual calling, etc.

By the way, now that we're getting totally off topic, do you want to start a new thread for this discussion?

Just here to answer the questions... too tired to stand up for myself.

How much truth is there in religion?

F: Insane amount of truth in one religion, some tidbits of validity in others.

What do you consider your religious persuasion?

C: Baptist.
K: Nondenominational. (I associate with Baptist communities, and most of their held beliefs, but I think denominations are unneeded barriers inside the Body.)

Do you consider your religious beliefs to be:

C. Conservative (As far as worldliness, modesty, music and such, I think we should strive towards a conservative lifestyle. But I fail.)

Do you consider your political beliefs to be:

C. Conservative (Anti-abortion, pro-marriage, less government-controlled welfare, tax cuts for all including wealthy business owners... but I'm not a big fan of our current wars, which a lot of the GOP supports.)

I'm totally pro-marriage, too! Marriage equality for everyone!

Including babies and cousins and threesomes? Finally!

Oh wait, not everyone? Only the ones that you deem morally acceptable? Snap.

American Eagle wrote:Including babies and cousins and threesomes? Finally!

Oh wait, not everyone? Only the ones that you deem morally acceptable? Snap.

It really has nothing to do with me "deeming" anything morally acceptable so much as wanting social justice for marginalized groups. What's that? You say that at one time interracial marriage was illegal and Christians used the bible to justify it? Snap. Funny how that works.

Kait wrote:

American Eagle wrote:Including babies and cousins and threesomes? Finally!

Oh wait, not everyone? Only the ones that you deem morally acceptable? Snap.

It really has nothing to do with me "deeming" anything morally acceptable so much as wanting social justice for marginalized groups. What's that? You say that at one time interracial marriage was illegal and Christians used the bible to justify it? Snap. Funny how that works.

Exactly why gay marriage will be a conservative position in fifty some years.

I'm of the firm opinion that just as people today are ashamed of their parents/grandparents who were against interracial marriage and desegregation, those who oppose gay marriage will be in the same boat 50 years down the line. Their children and their children's children will be ashamed of them.

Kait wrote:You say that at one time interracial marriage was illegal and Christians used the bible to justify it? Snap. Funny how that works.

I have yet to find any basis in the Bible for racial prejudice. Especially not over marriage...

jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:Though this wouldn't be an issue if the government wasn't involved in marriage.

I do agree with this statement.

Ok....my answers
1. F (for reasons most have answered--there are bits of truth in every religion, but Christianity holds most the pieces to the puzzle)
2. M - Nazarene/Wesleyan, with a few other tendancies
3. B - Moderate
4. B/D - Libertarian

Q: How much truth is there in religion?

Echoing the words of Pontius Pilate, "Quid est veritas?" (What is Truth?)
So, assuming that we all agree Truth refers to a body of observable phenomena leading to some objective conclusions about the nature of reality, I would answer B/F. I think many religions contain elements of truth to them, while others probably do not. For example, I'm not wholly familiar with the intricacies of the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, but to the extent that it teaches certain norms that coincide with objective, moral realism, I would say sure, it can contain truth.

Q: What do you consider your religious persuasion?

A: Catholic.

Q: Do you consider your religious beliefs to be:

D: Traditionalist. I'm pretty strongly opposed to attempts to re-interpret doctrines or practices in light of modern practices and preferences.

Q: Do you consider your political beliefs to be:

D: I guess you could call me a libertarian. I believe that people should be able to peacefully carry on their lives without fear of government intrusion. However, pragmatically speaking - I am opposed to privatizing certain essential social services which would unfairly affect those with little bargaining power in the market. That said, I believe states often most well-equipped to handle the many social issues of their citizens, and I prefer laws that protect state sovereignty where possible. On matters of foreign policy, I guess I'm mostly an isolationist. I believe in strong national defense in case of invasion or attack on our soil, but am mostly opposed to our meddlesome foreign aid and nation-building programs that are both expensive and trample on the sovereignty of other nations to make their own laws. Unlike most conservatives, I do not believe that it is the role of the United States to maintain peace around the world or get involved in conflicts between other nations. I am in favor of US self-sufficiency and believe we should be actively working to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil and foreign manufacturing. I believe we can balance the budget by immediately getting out of the Middle East, closing our foreign military bases (which cost millions upon millions to operate), cutting non-essential government programs, cutting foreign defense spending, eliminating corporate tax loopholes, non essential programs and bloated government salaries. I would want to provide significant tax incentives for companies who keep all their business in the US, while increasing taxes on companies that outsource jobs and manufacturing overseas. Then I would want a thorough federal audit (including the Federal Reserve!) which would result in cutting bloated government salaries, eliminating non-essential government offices (or moving offices where leases are expensive or buildings are too lavish). The results of this audit would be published comprehensively so people would be able to know exactly where every federal tax dollar is being spent and how. On the matter of education, I want the audit to cover exactly how our education dollars are being spent, so they can be re-allocated as necessary towards essentials for students. I would want to make sure that unqualified teachers aren't hiding behind the power of the Teacher's Unions and want to make sure that an incompetent teacher doesn't step anywhere near a classroom. No more full pay for incompetent teachers on "leave" for being incompetent and more effort being spent on bringing students up to speed with the rest of the world so they won't be losing jobs to foreign kids 20 years down the road. More focus on the importance of trades and trade schools rather than teaching kids the lie that they have to get a BA degree to be successful.

...and I realize this just sort of evolved into a platform but whatever.

How much truth is there in religion?

A: Basic truth in all religions.
B: Basic truth in some religions.
C: Basic truth in one religion only.
D: Little truth in religion.
E: No truth in religion.
F: Other (Please Specify).

Ayn Rand wrote:How much truth is there in religion? I would say F: Other, I think there are seeds of truth in every religion. I would argue that many Christian denominations have many of the basic truths while my specific one has the fullness of truth but at the same I think we see other religions striving for truth too and finding parts.

This. Or A/B.

What do you consider your religious persuasion?

A: Catholic.
B: Orthodox.
C: Baptist.
D: Methodist.
E. Lutheran.
F: Presbyterian.
G: Pentecostal.
H: Seventh-Day Adventist.
I: Anglican.
J: Unitarian.
K: Nondenominational.
L: Non-religious. (atheist, agnostic)
M: Other (please specify).

M. Other: I would say I am a cross between C and K

Do you consider your religious beliefs to be:

A. Liberal
B. Moderate
C. Conservative
D. Other

D. Other: Most Southern Baptist Christians (or Conservative Christians) would probably think I am Liberal (on acquaintance). But I consider myself to be Conservative.

Do you consider your political beliefs to be:

A. Liberal
B. Moderate
C. Conservative
D. Other

Probably C. Conservative.