Baptism and the existence of a church

[Dr. Walter]

That's good stuff!

It is "good stuff" to those who love the truth but it is a bitter pill and regarded as the height of arrogancy to those who do not.

 

[kyredneck]

That is what most people would call a guy that believes like I do. I just call myself a Baptist and a Biblicist. It seems when people can't deal with the Scriptures and what they teach they resort to epitaphs, name calling as though that justifies their errors.

Really, you're beginning to sound more and more like Winman. I honestly wasn't resorting to name calling, just trying figure the intent of the thread. What you're saying is that there are no true Churches unless they are a Landmark Church. Right?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is what most people would call a guy that believes like I do. I just call myself a Baptist and a Biblicist. It seems when people can't deal with the Scriptures and what they teach they resort to epitaphs, name calling as though that justifies their errors.

Sorry, I personally believe Landmarkist to hold to a myth of church development that doesn't account for the evolution of christianity through out the years. Reading pamphletes like Trail of Blood makes to many assertions and connections that are strained at an for which there is no historical evidence to support other than a fellowship of heresy which baptist do not hold. So though initially I thought your premise good now I will hold back in reservation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Really, you're beginning to sound more and more like Winman. I honestly wasn't resorting to name calling, just trying figure the intent of the thread. What you're saying is that there are no true Churches unless they are a Landmark Church. Right?

Sorry for being abrasive. I am not a fan of terms. The term "Baptist" doesn't mean very much but is just a big unbrella that covers a lot of territory. The term "Landmark" doesn't mean too much today either as it covers a lot.

New Testament churches are churches that go with the same gospel Jesus (Jn. 3:1-21) and what John the Baptist preached (Jn. 3:36), administer the same baptism Jesus submitted to and administered through his disciples (Jn. 4:1-2 with Lk. 7:29-30) and teach the same faith and practice (Jude 3) and reproduce after their own kind starting with the church at Jerusalem before Pentecost (Mt. 16:18 with 18:17-18 with 28:19-20).

Therefore, New Testament churches have two clear earmarks (1) right essential doctrine and practice; (2) right historical origin - a previous existing New Testament church.

 

[kyredneck]

.... (2) right historical origin - a previous existing New Testament church.

...think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mt 3:9

That's my view on that line of thought. You believe what you want.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Sorry, I personally believe Landmarkist to hold to a myth of church development that doesn't account for the evolution of christianity through out the years. Reading pamphletes like Trail of Blood makes to many assertions and connections that are strained at an for which there is no historical evidence to support other than a fellowship of heresy which baptist do not hold. So though initially I thought your premise good now I will hold back in reservation.

Well, at least you will hold back in reservation. That is good! I think you will find that my premise is Biblically sound. Can you find where Christ commissioned unbaptized believers to make disciples, administer the ordinances, constitute churches or ordain a ministry??????? Can you find any example of a church of unbaptized believers in the pages of the New Testament???????

This is not merely an argument based upon silence but it is an argument based upon explicit precept. Those commissioned by Christ in Matthew 28:19-20 were previous baptized believers who "have" already been discipled in every aspect of the Great Commission. This is the explicit apostolic blue print laid down the very first time they administered this commission in Acts 2:41-42

Remember, secular church history is not only (1) uninspired and therefore biased; (2) incomplete and therefore with gaps but often (3) inaccurate and therefore wrong in many instances.

In direct contrast, the inspired completed accurate prophetic Word of God makes explicit predictions as to how New Testament churches will be treated and referred to beyond the Apostolic age and how apostate Christianity and false churches will arise. In other words, the Scriptures tell the Bible student where not to look for New Testament churches beyond the apostolic era:

1. Don't look for them among denominations that persecute other Christians - Jn. 16:1-3, Rev. 17:6

2. Don't look for them among institutions united with the secular governments - Rev. 17:1-5

3. Don't look for them among predicted apostates - 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Gal. 1:8-9

4. Don't look for them among those called and treated as orthodox - Mt. 10:25; Lukeh 6:22; 7:33

5. Don't look for them among those who originate different denominations out of New Testament Churches or among New Testament Churches led into apostasy - Acts 20:29-31;

6. Don't look for them among those who make disciples by ANOTHER gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), baptism (Lk. 7:29-30), and doctrine (1 Tim. 4:1; Jude 3) than what Jesus commanded - Mt. 28:19-20

7. Don't look for them among Johnny come latelys who justify their existence by claiming Christ lied - Mt. 28:20; 16:18; I Cor. 11:26; Eph. 3:21


Gnostic Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Reformed Roman Catholics, Arians, etc., all fail test number 1 above so where do you look between the second century and the sixteenth century for New Testament churches????

 

[Dr. Walter]

...think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mt 3:9

That's my view on that line of thought. You believe what you want.

Look, at least use the text in regard to what it means! It refers to salvation not constitution of churches, administration of the ordinances or ordaining men to the ministry.

There is the little pronoun "ye" found in Matthew 28:19-20 that stands BETWEEN God and those identified by the little pronoun "them." Hence, the Great Commission is not administed DIRECTLY by God to "them" but there is an authorized administrator that has previously been through this discipling process already ("have") defined as "ye." This process includes an already EXISTENT church as demonstrated by the term "added unto them" in Acts 2:41 and as demonstrated by Acts 1:22-23.

Your application of the above text to churches is simply wrong.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, at least you will hold back in reservation. That is good! I think you will find that my premise is Biblically sound. Can you find where Christ commissioned unbaptized believers to make disciples, administer the ordinances, constitute churches or ordain a ministry??????? Can you find any example of a church of unbaptized believers in the pages of the New Testament???????

This is not merely an argument based upon silence but it is an argument based upon explicit precept. Those commissioned by Christ in Matthew 28:19-20 were previous baptized believers who "have" already been discipled in every aspect of the Great Commission. This is the explicit apostolic blue print laid down the very first time they administered this commission in Acts 2:41-42

Remember, secular church history is not only (1) uninspired and therefore biased; (2) incomplete and therefore with gaps but often (3) inaccurate and therefore wrong in many instances.

In direct contrast, the inspired completed accurate prophetic Word of God makes explicit predictions as to how New Testament churches will be treated and referred to beyond the Apostolic age and how apostate Christianity and false churches will arise. In other words, the Scriptures tell the Bible student where not to look for New Testament churches beyond the apostolic era:

1. Don't look for them among denominations that persecute other Christians - Jn. 16:1-3, Rev. 17:6

2. Don't look for them among institutions united with the secular governments - Rev. 17:1-5

3. Don't look for them among predicted apostates - 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Gal. 1:8-9

4. Don't look for them among those called and treated as orthodox - Mt. 10:25; Lukeh 6:22; 7:33

5. Don't look for them among those who originate different denominations out of New Testament Churches or among New Testament Churches led into apostasy - Acts 20:29-31;

6. Don't look for them among those who make disciples by ANOTHER gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), baptism (Lk. 7:29-30), and doctrine (1 Tim. 4:1; Jude 3) than what Jesus commanded - Mt. 28:19-20

7. Don't look for them among Johnny come latelys who justify their existence by claiming Christ lied - Mt. 28:20; 16:18; I Cor. 11:26; Eph. 3:21


Gnostic Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Reformed Roman Catholics, Arians, etc., all fail test number 1 above so where do you look between the second century and the sixteenth century for New Testament churches????

First I will answer your very first question. Jesus did not commission non-baptized believers for anything.

Second I find several problems with the rest of your thesis

Remember, secular church history is not only (1) uninspired and therefore biased; (2) incomplete and therefore with gaps but often (3) inaccurate and therefore wrong in many instances.

1) I can agree secular history is uninspired but I don't follow with therefore biased. Not always. Facts often speak for themselves and reveal the truth. Certainly, some history is biased , and elsewhere not. Few things are a clearly spelled out in history as the development of christianity. 2) incomplete but not necisarily do gaps = inaccurate and wrong. Gaps are just that gaps. Also Your list of what the church should look like does not necissarily mean that what it did look like. Paul kick John Mark of the missionary team and ended up arguing. Not very apostle like. Not really showing the fruit of the holy spirit. So in an imperfect church every one of those points may have been exhibited by the church.

 

[kyredneck]

....Your application of the above text to churches is simply wrong.

No Doc. I think the passage precisely applies to the attitude that Lankmarkism engenders.

 

[swaimj]

As you can see Dabney does not deny such may be saved. He simply denies they can be recognized and treated as true churches of Christ.

However, he also refers to them as a "Synagogue of Satan". I disagree with that description of them and I disagree with treating them as though they hold to a doctrine of salvation by works as the RCC does when they do not hold to such.

 

[Dr. Walter]

First I will answer your very first question. Jesus did not commission non-baptized believers for anything.

Second I find several problems with the rest of your thesis 1) I can agree secular history is uninspired but I don't follow with therefore biased. Not always. Facts often speak for themselves and reveal the truth. Certainly, some history is biased , and elsewhere not. Few things are a clearly spelled out in history as the development of christianity. 2) incomplete but not necisarily do gaps = inaccurate and wrong. Gaps are just that gaps. Also Your list of what the church should look like does not necissarily mean that what it did look like. Paul kick John Mark of the missionary team and ended up arguing. Not very apostle like. Not really showing the fruit of the holy spirit. So in an imperfect church every one of those points may have been exhibited by the church.

Inspired history is completely trustworthy because it is the perspective of an infinite and omniscient God. Secular history is the limited finite perspective of one or a few human beings and thus is biased from the limited human perspective. It may or may not be dependable as all historians write from their own perspective and for their own reasons.

Incomplete necessarily means there are gaps. Whether the gaps change the overall intepretation of what is given may or may not be important but you don't know for sure.

However, my point is that when and where secular historians contradict or oppose prophetic criteria then that statement or conclusion of the secular historian(s) must be regarded as wrong.

Again, what ALL Roman Catholic and Protestant historians regard as "the church" between the second and sixteenth centuries contradicts those seven prophetic issues I pointed out from the Scriptures.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No Doc. I think the passage precisely applies to the attitude that Lankmarkism engenders.

That is exactly what the Hindu and other "inclusive" world religions think of Christians who say that there is but one way to heaven and that is through the Christian Christ! Your argument as well as your use of that text does not hold water at all.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Inspired history is completely trustworthy because it is the perspective of an infinite and omniscient God. Secular history is the limited finite perspective of one or a few human beings and thus is biased from the limited human perspective. It may or may not be dependable as all historians write from their own perspective and for their own reasons.

Incomplete necessarily means there are gaps. Whether the gaps change the overall intepretation of what is given may or may not be important but you don't know for sure.

However, my point is that when and where secular historians contradict or oppose prophetic criteria then that statement or conclusion of the secular historian(s) must be regarded as wrong.

Again, what ALL Roman Catholic and Protestant historians regard as "the church" between the second and sixteenth centuries contradicts those seven prophetic issues I pointed out from the Scriptures.

I'm not certain your scirpture verses were meant to be prophetic measurements. Certainly instructive and commending.

 

[Dr. Walter]

However, he also refers to them as a "Synagogue of Satan". I disagree with that description of them and I disagree with treating them as though they hold to a doctrine of salvation by works as the RCC does when they do not hold to such.

The application was in regard to the validity of the institution as a "church of Christ" not in regard to their personal individual salvation. If you will re-read the entire quotation you will see that is his intent. So, I agree with him. A "church" constituted by pedobaptists is no more a true church of Christ than if a group of Hindu's constituted it and called it a "church of Christ." It is the constitutional correctness as a "church" rather than individual salvation that is in view.

 

[RAdam]

...think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mt 3:9

That's my view on that line of thought. You believe what you want.

You are a primitive baptist and don't hold to that view? Wow.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm not certain your scirpture verses were meant to be prophetic measurements. Certainly instructive and commending.

Well, lets put them to the test. I think you will agree that a group of people who preach "another gospel" are to be regarded and treated as accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). Can you regard such a people as "accursed" and yet a New Testament Church? If simply preaching another gospel calls for you to regard them as accused how much more if they are guilty of killing Christians - Jn. 16:1-3; Rev. 17:6???????????

Whether you apply the harlot of Revelation to the Jewish religion or the Papal religion or any other false religion there is a clear MARRIAGE or UNION between the religious symbol of the woman and the secular state. This union is the basis for calling it an "harlot" and the mother of "harlots" or those who enter into this same kind of union with secular governments. A church cannot be regarded a "harlot" and a "chaste virgin" at one and the same time.

You can't look for New Testament churches among what the scriptures predict and characterize as apostates (1 Tim. 4:1-5)????? A church cannot be at one and the same time "the pillar and ground of the truth" and apostate.





1. Don't look for them among denominations that persecute other Christians - Jn. 16:1-3, Rev. 17:6


2. Don't look for them among institutions united with the secular governments - Rev. 17:1-5

3. Don't look for them among predicted apostates - 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Gal. 1:8-9

4. Don't look for them among those called and treated as orthodox - Mt. 10:25; Lukeh 6:22; 7:33

5. Don't look for them among those who originate different denominations out of New Testament Churches or among New Testament Churches led into apostasy - Acts 20:29-31;

6. Don't look for them among those who make disciples by ANOTHER gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), baptism (Lk. 7:29-30), and doctrine (1 Tim. 4:1; Jude 3) than what Jesus commanded - Mt. 28:19-20

7. Don't look for them among Johnny come latelys who justify their existence by claiming Christ lied - Mt. 28:20; 16:18; I Cor. 11:26; Eph. 3:21

 

[kyredneck]

That is exactly what the Hindu and other "inclusive" world religions think of Christians who say that there is but one way to heaven and that is through the Christian Christ! Your argument as well as your use of that text does not hold water at all.

I believe the Pharisees John the Baptist was addressing in the passage had a Landmarkist attitude. They were the true Church, they had Abraham as their father. What's the difference in that attitude, and taking pride or solace in the belief that's there's an unbroken chain of water baptisms to the Apostles with the Church you belong to? The attitude Doc. The attitude. What's the usefulness in this topic? Does it unify or divide?

 

[kyredneck]

You are a primitive baptist and don't hold to that view? Wow.

I don't understand. Are you implying that because I am PB that I should be Landmarkist also?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, lets put them to the test. I think you will agree that a group of people who preach "another gospel" are to be regarded and treated as accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). Can you regard such a people as "accursed" and yet a New Testament Church? If simply preaching another gospel calls for you to regard them as accused how much more if they are guilty of killing Christians - Jn. 16:1-3; Rev. 17:6???????????

Whether you apply the harlot of Revelation to the Jewish religion or the Papal religion or any other false religion there is a clear MARRIAGE or UNION between the religious symbol of the woman and the secular state. This union is the basis for calling it an "harlot" and the mother of "harlots" or those who enter into this same kind of union with secular governments. A church cannot be regarded a "harlot" and a "chaste virgin" at one and the same time.

You can't look for New Testament churches among what the scriptures predict and characterize as apostates (1 Tim. 4:1-5)????? A church cannot be at one and the same time "the pillar and ground of the truth" and apostate.





1. Don't look for them among denominations that persecute other Christians - Jn. 16:1-3, Rev. 17:6


2. Don't look for them among institutions united with the secular governments - Rev. 17:1-5

3. Don't look for them among predicted apostates - 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Gal. 1:8-9

4. Don't look for them among those called and treated as orthodox - Mt. 10:25; Lukeh 6:22; 7:33

5. Don't look for them among those who originate different denominations out of New Testament Churches or among New Testament Churches led into apostasy - Acts 20:29-31;

6. Don't look for them among those who make disciples by ANOTHER gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), baptism (Lk. 7:29-30), and doctrine (1 Tim. 4:1; Jude 3) than what Jesus commanded - Mt. 28:19-20

7. Don't look for them among Johnny come latelys who justify their existence by claiming Christ lied - Mt. 28:20; 16:18; I Cor. 11:26; Eph. 3:21

Sure

Well, lets put them to the test. I think you will agree that a group of people who preach "another gospel" are to be regarded and treated as accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). Can you regard such a people as "accursed" and yet a New Testament Church? If simply preaching another gospel calls for you to regard them as accused how much more if they are guilty of killing Christians - Jn. 16:1-3; Rev. 17:6???????????

First you have to define what the gospel was the the Apostles taught. Jesus' Gospel was a bit different then theirs. As can be seen in Matthew and Luke during and just after the baptism of Jesus Christ. Also note that you don't take into consideration that there were non believers in a believing body Jesus makes mention of this as do the apostles. Strange how it wasn't seperated at that time. Though the non-believers often sought to break away.

Whether you apply the harlot of Revelation to the Jewish religion or the Papal religion or any other false religion there is a clear MARRIAGE or UNION between the religious symbol of the woman and the secular state. This union is the basis for calling it an "harlot" and the mother of "harlots" or those who enter into this same kind of union with secular governments. A church cannot be regarded a "harlot" and a "chaste virgin" at one and the same time.

I think you read too much of your eschatology onto the harlot mentioned in revelation. In fact its one of the few verses in scripture that scripture interprets. The harlot is a city with seven hills and is a center of trade. There is no mention of combining religion with the harlot. Here are the corrisponding passages

I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns...The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits...The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."

The only thing "religious" about this passage is they make war on christians who live in contradiction to the standard world view. its not a marriage of religion but a secular city.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I believe the Pharisees John the Baptist was addressing in the passage had a Landmarkist attitude. They were the true Church, they had Abraham as their father. What's the difference in that attitude, and taking pride or solace in the belief that's there's an unbroken chain of water baptisms to the Apostles with the Church you belong to? The attitude Doc. The attitude. What's the usefulness in this topic? Does it unify or divide?

Hopefully it divides right from wrong belief and practices. This is not an attitude but a doctrine that affects fundemental faith and practice and it is easy to demonstrate. Just as there are essential doctrines that characterize anyone who is truly saved and therefore provide a basis to recognize the saved from the lost or else there is no recognizable distinctions between the saved and lost and all are to be treated and recognized as saved.

There is also essential doctrines that characterize a group of saved persons to be a true New Testament church and therefore provide a basis to recognize that group as a true church. If not, then there is no distinctions to distinguish true from false and all churches are to be recognized and treated as true churches of Christ.

There can be no true church consisting of unbaptized beleivers and there can be no true baptism without the essential characteristics of baptism.

Those who claim to be saved but are clearly without the Biblical essentials that characterize true salvation would use your argument about "attitude" and they would say you think you are better than us because we don't measure up to your interpretation of salvation. In other words, your argument is demonic in character and really stupid if you try to apply it to any truth of God's Word that is designed to distinguish between truth and error.