Even those who are adamantly opposed to the calendar but also insist rightly, in my view on expositional preaching through books of the Bible take time to organize their preaching schedule. Sometimes this is simply organizing how one will continue to preach through the same book as the year before; other times it includes deciding which new book or books to preach through in a given season. The point is that everyone has an organizing principle for how they preach, even expositional, book-by-book preachers and teachers.
The calendar is not antithetical to this, but is merely one way of providing an organizing schema. They are non-negotiable elements of corporate worship. The calendar merely helps organize these God-given ecclesial tasks. As a Baptist and therefore a proponent of local church autonomy, of course I would not say that any particular church must use the calendar. A pastor and their team can use any number of organizing mechanisms for their preaching and Scripture reading schedules. A subsequent objection to the calendar is that it prevents expositional preaching. There are at least a couple of points to make here.
The lectionary — the prescribed readings each day, including Sunday, from a Psalm, an Old Testament passage, a New Testament passage, and a Gospel passage — mostly moves passage by passage through a particular book in each of those sections. During the 6 months of the calendar focused on the life and work of Jesus in the Gospels Advent, Christmastide, Epiphany, Lent, Holy Week, Eastertide, Pentecost , a pastor could preach expositionally through whatever Gospel is being read in the lectionary that year.
During the 6 months between Trinity Sunday the Sunday after Pentecost Sunday and Advent, called Ordinary Time, the pastor can preach through any of the Old or New Testament books being read, or through a portion of the Psalms. Some might say here that some lectionaries, especially the Revised Common Lectionary, do not always include every passage in a biblical book, or they move around in a book instead of moving verse by verse. This is true, at least in a few limited cases. I would also add that these instances of variance in the lectionary are relatively few and far between.
But the overall schema of the calendar — spending half our year thinking about the life and work of Christ in the Gospels, and half our year in the rest of the Prophets and Apostles who proclaimed him — is simply an organizing principle for which books a pastor will exposit during which time of year. It is no different in that sense from a notebook a pastor brings back from a preaching retreat, with the exception that the calendar is common to many traditions and used in many churches throughout the world.
Those objections aside, there are at least two benefits to using the calendar for organizing our Scripture reading and expositional preaching. I want to emphasize again that I am only suggesting this as one possible way Baptists might think about organizing these worship elements; I am not making a demand. Nevertheless, there are two reasons I find the calendar beneficial.
First, it helps me read the whole Bible together as one book. If we are honest, I think many conservative evangelicals have precisely this temptation, to only or mostly read and teach from Paul, and particularly Pauline passages about substitutionary atonement. As wonderful as Paul is, all Scripture, including but not just Paul, is God-breathed and therefore the inspired Word of God for the people of God. Reading the Bible canonically and seeing how it is all ultimately one Book by one Author with one Subject is hermeneutically impinged on us through reading the verses listed in the lectionary.
This canonical reading inherent in the lectionary is also Christocentric. This in and of itself centers our Bible reading and therefore our faith exactly where it should be, on the person and work of Jesus. It also centers our life, through the yearly repetition of the ecclesial calendar, on the person and work of Jesus.
Popular objections to Baptist principles and practices [microform]
Advent through Pentecost is all about Jesus. This is not to pit the Old Testament or the rest of the New Testament against the Gospels; far from it! But the idea that baptism is not a part of the gospel plainly does. It is more likely that Paul was saying Christ did not send him to personally baptize but he did send him to personally preach. In the context of this passage the Corinthian church was full of division and they need to become one again. Some were claiming to follow Paul, some Cephas, some Apollos and some were following Christ 1 Corinthians The context indicates that Paul often followed the example of Jesus in teaching baptism but leaving the actual baptizing of new converts to others cf.
John Some at Corinth were saying "I am of Paul" This kind of attitude is sinful and should never exist among Christians. Paul was thankful that he had not baptized more than he did because he was deeply offended that brethren were using his name in such a way so as to bring division to the body of Christ and rob Christ of His glory His job was to go out and preach the gospel, not to go out and baptize people.
Baptism alone does no good, but when the gospel is preached, people hear and understand the good news of Jesus and as a result, they are baptized, then they are added by the Lord to His church. No one baptized in the name of Paul is saved, but those baptized in the name of Christ are Acts In Mark the apostles were taught to preach the gospel to the whole world. They were to teach that whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.
In Acts Philip taught Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch. After teaching Jesus to this man, he knew enough that he asked to be baptized when they came to water vs These two passages show that baptism is part of the gospel and is part of the preaching of Jesus. To understand what the purpose of baptism is we must look at these and other verses that tell us. The full picture is not given in one passage, but we must put all of the Word together to properly understand baptism or any other subject.
We must read what Paul wrote concerning baptism in other passages and also see how he and the people that he taught throughout all of his journeys were baptized. To lift this statement out of its context and ignore all the others is silly. Consider, are these the words and actions of a man that believes baptism is not important? Romans ; Galatians ,27; Colossians ; Also, what words did Paul hear about baptism when he obeyed the gospel? Acts Those words are the truth about baptism and its purpose.
Often one will see contrasts drawn by offsetting something affirmed with something negated. In this construction of contrast, the word 'not' is made to deny a proposition and the word 'but' comes before the something affirmed which directly contrasts the statement before it, for the purpose of emphasis. Let me try that again. In writings, this technique for contrasting has 2 parts. The first part contains the word 'not' in order to deny or negate whatever is being proposed in that statement.
The second part contains the words 'but' in order to set the second statement in contrast with the first. This is done for the purpose of emphasizing the second statement, not to completely do away with the first. The first part is negated in order that the second part may be particularly emphasized. One is denied that the other may be affirmed.
Popular Objections To Baptist Principles And Practices - ohyqukecew.cf
The contrast is verbal, not absolute. Does this mean that one cannot have earthly wealth of any kind? Is Christ teaching that one absolutely cannot accumulate earthly treasures of any kind? If so, then all Christians are obligated to a state of absolute poverty. If so, then great men of the past that most of us expect to see past the pearly gates probably will not be there due to their earthly wealth David, Abraham, etc. Furthermore, there would simply be contradictory concepts presented in scripture. The Prodigal son had a storage of earthly treasure, yet his action of squandering his goods is what is put in a negative light.
Christ does not rule out having any sort of earthly wealth. Christ here denies seeking earthly treasures in order to emphasize the importance of seeking treasures in heaven. The point of this reasoning being that Christ says what He says so that it is evident that storing up heavenly treasure is of greater importance than storing up earthly treasure.
He does not separate the two. In order to store up treasures in heaven, among other things we will have to be good stewards with our earthly treasures--knowing when to store and when to give. Does that mean it is absolutely wrong for me to have a job in which I take my wages and buy the 'meat that perisheth' in order to feed my body and the bodies of my family? More importantly, in this verse, Christ has not separated laboring for meat that perishes from laboring for meat which endures.
It is the case that in laboring for enduring meat, that we must labor for meat that perishes. Are we to conclude that it is wrong to be in conformity with any practice of worldly people; if they travel in automobiles, we are to ride in horse-drawn vehicles; if they light their homes with electricity, we must use kerosene lamps; if they wear light-colored clothing, we must wear dark?
There are those who draw such conclusions, absurd as they are. The Bible here denies the conformity to the world in order to emphasize the transformation of the mind. Paul also here does not separate the two. For Paul himself 'became all things to all men so that by all possible means he might save some' 1Corinthians So then Paul, even though 'transformed by the renewing of his mind,' still had to conform to certain ways of certain men that he might make the impact necessary to bring them to Christ this, of course, does not mean that we must go out and sin in order to win sinners--I believe a child of God who is a diligent student of the word can plainly see what is helpful to conform to and what is sinful to be in conformity with.
Is Paul saying that it is wrong for him to baptize?
- Southern Baptist Beliefs and Teachings;
- Conversations on Infant Baptism, and Some Popular Objections Against the - Google Books.
- Cardiac Anaesthesia: Problems and Innovations (Developments in Critical Care Medicine and Anaesthesiology).
- Voodoo Child (Slight Return)!
- Infant Baptism: Answers to Common Objections | Ascending Olympus.
- ROLE OF A LIFETIME?
- Willie And The Hand Jive!
Has Paul done away with baptism in this statement? If baptism is done away with, then Paul has clearly sinned, or gone beyond divine authority by baptizing anyone. Has Paul separated baptism from the gospel? Paul says that his purpose is to preach the gospel. He also gives a list of those he has baptized. Obviously Paul had preached the gospel to these people in Corinth. If Paul preached the gospel to them, why would they wish to be baptized? Where would they learn about baptism other than Paul's preaching?
What was it that Paul preached? So where other than the gospel would they learn about baptism? Jesus said in Mark "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Where would 'he' have learned to do these two things other than from what was preached to him? What was it that was preached to him?
- Infant Baptism: Objections Answered (Samuel Miller).
- Gestion et administration des entreprises: Management & stratégies - Concepts clés (Études africaines) (French Edition);
- In a World of Darkness, Let There Be Light!.
If I am standing there with Jesus, listening to these instructions, then I know that my job is to preach the gospel to everyone. Then Jesus tells me about these people that have heard me preach to them the gospel. He says that 'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Now I don't necessarily have to instruct them about belief, because if they believe the gospel while I'm preaching it to them, then I would be telling them to take a step they've already made.
So then, if I am to 'preach the gospel to the whole creation,' and if 'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,' then I must conclude that preaching the gospel includes preaching baptism. It must be a part of the gospel. Otherwise, the 'he' of verse 16 would never know about baptism because I was instructed to preach no more and no less than the gospel. If baptism is not a part of the gospel, and I preach baptism, then I have obviously not followed instructions.
But since I am only to preach the gospel, and somehow these hearers of my preaching are to find out about baptism, then obviously preaching the gospel must include those instructions. The best example for this is the story of the ethiopian Eunuch. All we know is that Phillip preached the 'good news about Jesus' to the Eunuch. Some translations only say that Phillip 'preached Jesus.
How could the Eunuch have learned about baptism except from Phillip? What was it that Phillip preached to the Eunuch? Also, going back to Christ's last instruction for his disciples. He told them, as we already read, to 'preach the gospel to the whole creation. It was given by Peter in Acts 2. Peter, of course, began with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for is this not the foundation of the gospel? When he had proven to them the deity of Christ, and realizing that many of them believed otherwise they would not have asked 'what shall we do?
Now Peter's instructions were clearly to preach the gospel according to the text we read in Mark Now if baptism is separate from the gospel, then Peter did not follow instructions. For this would mean that he was preaching things Christ never told him to preach. So then, one can conclude from logical reasoning that baptism is included in the gospel. SO--Is Paul, in this statement 1Corinthians , deprecating the meaning of baptism?
If Paul's intentions were to show that baptism was of little importance, then his reasoning of 'were you baptized in the name of Paul? One must remember that the context of the passage concerns division caused by following men. If Paul is to convince them that the important thing is to follow Christ rather than men, then Paul will have to use examples of important matters in which only Christ should be given credit--not men. He begins with vs 13 "was Paul crucified for you?