My Gospel by Paul

[Clare73]

Those aren't about organised religion.
For the most part, Paul is saying "preach the Gospel, don't allow false doctrine, avoid arguments and disputes, pray for those in authority, keep the faith.

And that is organizing religion. . .instructions to a group of Christians on how to live.

Yes, he talks of leadership; any medium/large-sized group that meets together needs some kind of order and leadership. But I don't see that as being the same.

Organized religion, for me, is church buildings,

Your mistake is viewing religion as simply church buildings, etc., rather than what those buildings are for.

rituals, rules and hierarchy in leadership (with the message 'don't get ideas above your station'). These might seem necessary but they are usually restrictive and stifling.
Some - maybe most - of them are not Scriptural but people aren't allowed to challenge the status quo or "the way it's always been done." And I'm not just thinking of mainstream denominations. A member of another church had someone sit beside her and query her finances to see if she could increase her tithe. They lost out altogether in the end; she left the church.

Your issue is with the way some practice organized religion, not with organized religion itself.
Everything on earth that is good is likewise abused.

Wisdom is not to throw the baby (organized religion) out with the dirty bath water (abuse of it).

 

[Strong in Him]

And that is organized religion. . .instructions to a group of Christians on how to live.

I don't agree with that, because Jesus told, and showed, us how we should live.
He came to bring fulness of life and reconciliation with God which would allow us to become his children; not to set up a religion.

Your mistake is viewing religion as church buildings, etc.

It is.
Christianity is a relationship with Father God through the One who came to give us life.

Your issue is with the way some practice organized religion, not with organized religion itself.

That is all part of organised religion - someone has organised it to be that way.

Don't throw the baby (organized religion) out with the dirty bath water (abuse of it).

Organised religion is not a baby.
New life is through Jesus. We are born again and made new creations through Jesus. Someone could trust in Jesus, be converted and be a babe in the faith without encountering organised religion.

 

[Clare73]

I don't agree with that, because Jesus told, and showed, us how we should live.
He came to bring fulness of life and reconciliation with God which would allow us to become his children; not to set up a religion.

Who made that rule?

If you think Christianity is simply about being saved from your sin and does not involve a way of life based on God's word written, you are sadly misinformed.
And that "way of life based on God's word written" is religion organized according to the instructions of the NT.

It is.
Christianity is a relationship with Father God through the One who came to give us life.

The word "relationship" is not in my Bible.

That is all part of organised religion - someone has organised it to be that way.

You'll find the who and the what of "organizing it to be that way" in such NT Scriptures as
1 Tim 1:3-7, 18, 2:1-15, 3:1-13, 4:1-8, 5:17-25, 6:3-5, 20-21,
2 Tim 1:8, 14, 2:3, 3:14, 4:2, 22,
Tit 1:5, 2:1, 7.

Organised religion is not a baby.
New life is through Jesus. We are born again and made new creations through Jesus. Someone could trust in Jesus, be converted and
be a babe in the faith without encountering organised religion.

While the goal is not to remain a babe in the faith.
So what provision have the apostles made for that?

 

[KingdomLeast]

The verse may not be talking about”water” baptism. Jesus didn’t mention water here.

Matthew 28: 19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

That's a big "may not" .... and if I'm not mistaken He doesn't mention water at all when speaking of baptism.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

​

Matthew 28:19

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," ​

There is evidence to suggest that this verse is spurious, but let's say it isn't. Tell me, why didn't any of the Apostles follow this formula?

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.​

Acts 8:12

But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. ​

Acts 8:16

For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.​

Acts 8:48

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.​

​

Acts 19:5

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.​

Romans 6:3

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? ​

​

This is because the actual act of baptism was more important than following a ritualistic formula. Anyway, being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ is equivalent to being baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because John's baptism was under the Old Covenant, whereas being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ is under the New Covenant. So, being baptised under the right Covenant is more important than following a ritualistic formula. It is sad that many churches are following rituals that have no moral value to God at all.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

To the Christian churches

Revelation 2:5 "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Revelation 2:16 "Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."

Revelation 3:3 "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon you."

Revelation 3:5 "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels."

Revelation 3:19 "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent

These are just some of the examples laid out to Christians about the importance of repentance. It is not a one time event. Christ is talking to Christians that have fallen into sin, etc.

True repentance which means a change of mind and heart can also take time with problem sins, etc. But we should always strive to find it.

Romans 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

Christ became that one time sacrifice for all time but repentance still has to come into play when we fall into sin after we become a Christian as noted by Christ in the above scriptures and the danger of not doing so.

Christ was talking to a church as a whole, not the individuals in it. His instructions were directed to the leadership of the church, because a church is no better than its leaders, even though there may be many faithful members in it.

A believers is born again only once, and thereafter has the righteousness of Christ, and the indwelling Holy Spirit. He is a new creation in Christ. If a professing Christian continues in a willful sinful lifestyle, retaining the works of the flesh, then it shows that he is not living in the Spirit, and therefore not genuinely converted to Christ.

 

[KingdomLeast]

But at least you are acknowledging that baptising in the name of the Trinity is in the Bible. That's progress.

Where did you get that thought from?

 

[KingdomLeast]

Anyway, being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ is equivalent to being baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because John's baptism was under the Old Covenant, whereas being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ is under the New Covenant. So, being baptised under the right Covenant is more important than following a ritualistic formula. It is sad that many churches are following rituals that have no moral value to God at all.

There was no baptism under the Old Covenant. John didn't use a formula when baptizing his disciples, and when Jesus gave the command, it was to the New Testament Church.

 

[Strong in Him]

Where did you get that thought from?

The fact that you asked me to show you where the teaching of baptising in the name of the Trinity was in Scripture.
It suggested that either you didn't know or you didn't believe it.

 

[Strong in Him]

Who made that rule?

If you mean the "rule" that organised religion is teaching Christians how to live; you did.

If you think Christianity is simply about being saved from your sin and does not involve a way of life based on God's word written, you are sadly misinformed.

Who said anything about that?
I am talking about organised religion = "believe this doctrine", "follow these rules", "get involved in buildings/stewarding/church finances", "try to think of activities that will persuade people to come to a service/set foot in the building," etc.
Personally, I don't like any of these things; I think they are restrictive, stifling and give us the wrong focus.

Of course the way we live our lives is important. We are to be salt and light in our communities. We are to be ambassadors for Christ and his witnesses.
Ambassadors for Christ is not the same as ambassadors for a particular denomination, church community or set of rules.
Jesus told the Pharisees exactly what he thought of their insisting on obedience to the detailed points of the law. He criticised them for putting heavy burdens on to others. He called them hypocrites because they would pull an animal out of a ditch on the Sabbath, but they criticised Jesus for saying "stretch out your hand" and healing on the Sabbath. He said that they measured out 1/10 of all their herbs so that they did not break the law on tithing, but they neglected all the laws about showing mercy or forgiveness.

The word "relationship" is not in my Bible.

Neither is the word "computer", but you're using one.

God has many names - Lord, King, Creator, All-knowing, All mighty etc. Jesus taught that we can call him "Abba"; an informal name best translated as "daddy". What is that, if not relationship?
Before Jesus, people went to prophets to ask for a "word from the Lord". Jesus taught that we can pray in the privacy of our own rooms.
The rule was that if 10 men were present there could be a synagogue, to worship and read the Scriptures. Jesus said "where 2 or 3 are gathered ..."
Both those things speak of an intimacy with God. How can someone be intimate without having, or being in, a relationship?
In the OT, the Spirit came upon certain people - prophets or kings - for a certain purpose and a specified time. Since Pentecost, the Holy Spirit can come and live in all believers. Indeed, we are encouraged to keep on being filled with the Spirit. God himself living IN us; what is that, if not relationship?

While the goal is not to remain a babe in the faith.
So what provision have the apostles made for that?

The Apostles tell us to be true to the faith, hold onto what we were taught and first believed, study the Scriptures, have fellowship with other Christians (which involves more than socialising or talking about families) and live our lives for him.
I don't deny that some, maybe most, Christians find that a helpful way of doing that is to belong to a church, follow a liturgy, lectionary readings and so on. Anything which helps someone to express their faith and to grow in their relationship with Christ is fine. Even structure and church rules - if they help people - are good.
As long as the liturgy, rules and so on, are a guide and not the master.

 

[LoveofTruth]

That's a big "ay not" .... and if I'm not mistaken He doesn't mention water at all when speaking of baptism.

Acts 1: 5. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

Showing the difference and Jesus attached “water” to John old testamebt baptism which would fall under the category of the many “diverse washings” (baptismos in Greek, of the old covenant that were imposed upon them until the time of reformation and the old covenant was passing away ready to vanish. And the shadows and types gave place to the reality.

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; 10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”

And many Jewish believers in Jesus were still struggling under the law for a long time as we see all through Acts. So Water baptism in the physical washing was also a part of that.

 

[Clare73]

If you mean the "rule" that organised religion is teaching Christians how to live; you did.

I meant what I said in its context.

 

[Strong in Him]

I meant what I said in its context.

You asked, "who made that rule?"
I was trying to establish what rule you meant.

 

[Clare73]

You asked, "who made that rule?"
I was trying to establish what rule you meant.

I was referring to your rule that Jesus did not come to set up/establish a religion.

That is exactly what salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9) is--faith (Jn 3:18) and practice of God's law (Mt 22:37-40), taught by the apostles in an organized and practical form (see Romans).

 

[Strong in Him]

I was referring to your rule that Jesus did not come to set up/establish a religion.

It's not a rule; it's a fact.

Yes, he said, "I will build my church". But nowhere did he say that that church would be split into hundreds of denominations, each with their own rules - and often conflicting with each other.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Twice Paul said my Gospel in Rom2v16 and 16v25.
This is our Gospel, of Grace by Faith, that we have had for the last 2000yrs. No one has been saved by the 1st Gospel of the Kingdom, found in Matt, Mark, Luke and John, since all those years ago.
This was because it was for the Jews only, as a Gospel of works, where by they have to endure to the end to be saved.
We don’t have works, just Grace by Faith, which is the free gift of God.
Unfortunately all denominations and non denominations are man made, dating back to Emperor Constantine, who to appease the Goths, Huns and Vandals, who were attacking Rome, allowed their paganism into the Church, and all subsequent churches and religions. They all mix the 2 Gospels together, making them void.
Church is ekklesia in the Greek, meaning called out ones, so for most going along with your particular brand of Christianity, along with adherence to all the rules, and rituals, think again!
His Grace is sufficient, nothing added. Eph2v8, God’s free gift to us.
The whole bible was written for us, but only Paul’s 13 Epistles were written to us!

How many times did Paul say that he preached Christ’s gospel? He said it numerous times. There’s no difference between the gospel of the Kingdom and the gospel Paul taught, it’s the same gospel.

 

[Dan Perez]

This is because the actual act of baptism was more important than following a ritualistic formula. Anyway, being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ is equivalent to being baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because John's baptism was under the Old Covenant, whereas being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ is under the New Covenant. So, being baptised under the right Covenant is more important than following a ritualistic formula. It is sad that many churches are following rituals that have no moral value to God at all.

And in Acts 19:5 They were BAPTIZED in the name of the Lord Jesus .

WATER // HUDOR is not mentioned in Acts 19:5 !!

Also notice verse 6 , And Paul , having laid hands upon them THE // HO Holy Spirit came u[on them and they were speaking

in languages and were prophesying ,

So this Pauline BAPTISM was not with water and means it was a NON-WATER , BAPTISM , PLACING those in the Kingdom of God

verse 8 .

dan p

 

[KingdomLeast]

The fact that you asked me to show you where the teaching of baptising in the name of the Trinity was in Scripture.
It suggested that either you didn't know or you didn't believe it.

The fact that you didn't tell me what verse you were referring to tells me the same. So why not tell me what verse you had in mind to prove your view and we can continue this discussion.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There was no baptism under the Old Covenant. John didn't use a formula when baptizing his disciples, and when Jesus gave the command, it was to the New Testament Church.

In actual fact, the Jews did practice baptism. If baptism wasn't part of Jewish religious culture John would not have been accepted the way he was. He was accepted by the Jews as a true prophet, therefore baptism was accepted also as part of Jewish religious observance.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

And in Acts 19:5 They were BAPTIZED in the name of the Lord Jesus .

WATER // HUDOR is not mentioned in Acts 19:5 !!

Also notice verse 6 , And Paul , having laid hands upon them THE // HO Holy Spirit came u[on them and they were speaking

in languages and were prophesying ,

So this Pauline BAPTISM was not with water and means it was a NON-WATER , BAPTISM , PLACING those in the Kingdom of God

verse 8 .

dan p

Interesting. It follows what John said: "I am baptising you with water, but the One who comes after me will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."