Baptism and the existence of a church

[kyredneck]

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.

I'm not takling about doctrines and practices, I'm talking about this:

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
.... (2) right historical origin - a previous existing New Testament church.

What's to be gained by emphasizing to others 'We're the true Church'? I suggest to you that that attitude has caused far more harm down through the ages than good.

 

[RAdam]

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

You can call it whatever you want to but most PBs, myself included, believe there is a straight line of the true church all the way back to Jesus Christ. We believe that we are members of the true church of Christ. You can call that whatever you want to but I call it biblical.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No I do not! I do not have to define it at all! The fact that Paul says there is "another gospel" which is accursed proves it exists. My argument rests upon that fact regardless of what gospel you make that application to. Whatever gospel YOU regard as applicable to this curse YOU cannot at the same time claim to be the church of Christ preaching that gospel.

Whatever church is killing Christians you cannot claim to be the "church of Christ" as that is defined by Christ to be a cheif character of the enemies of God not the church of Christ.

Revelation 17-21 contrasts two entities. They are both symbolized as women and as cities. The first is a polluted woman (whore) while the second is a pure woman (bride). The first is a worldly city (Rome) while the second is a heavenly city (New Jerusalem). The first has truly saved within it (Rev. 18:4) so does the second (Rev. 19:6-7). Neither are literal women or literal cities but represent the counter-opposite of each other. Define what one is literally and you define what the other is by contrast. The bride, heavenly city represents the Church of Christ, thus the whore, earthly city represents false instutionalized religion and true Christians are found in both.

You cannot make the "harlot" in Revelation one and the same as government as the woman rides on the beast and therefore is not the beast. You cannot restrict the Harlot to the first century because it is destroyed at the second coming of Christ by the ten kingdoms who join with the beast that John says have not yet risen during his day. This destruction occurs just before the coming of Christ to earth and therefore the harlot is existent now.

Sure 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. 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 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.

 

[RAdam]

I'm not takling about doctrines and practices, I'm talking about this:



What's to be gained by emphasizing to others 'We're the true Church'? I suggest to you that that attitude has caused far more harm down through the ages than good.

It's not about emphasizing it to others, it's about believeing the church one is a part of is the true church. If it isn't, why be a member of it?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm not takling about doctrines and practices, I'm talking about this:



What's to be gained by emphasizing to others 'We're the true Church'? I suggest to you that that attitude has caused far more harm down through the ages than good.

I never said a word about "we're the true Church." You did!!!! My point is simply to prove by Biblical doctrine the characteristics of what the Bible demands to distinguish a true church from a false church just as what the Bible demands to distinguish a true Christian from a false christian.

Your argument is no more valid for the first (true from false church) than the second (true from false Christian).

 

[kyredneck]

You can call it whatever you want to but most PBs, myself included, believe there is a straight line of the true church all the way back to Jesus Christ. We believe that we are members of the true church of Christ. You can call that whatever you want to but I call it biblical.

What about the Doc's Church? I assume he's Fullerite and appears to take great pride in his Landmark heritage. Does his Church have a a straight line all the way back to Jesus Christ also? Or the SB's or the IB's or the IFBs or the Missionary Baptists, or what about the Cambelites, you know the COC that is a direct spinoff from the PBs like the Missionarys are; are they a straight line all the way back to Jesus Christ also?


I've been surrounded by Landmarkism all my Baptist life (SB & PB) and see no benefit in it. Period.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have no clue where you get the idea that Jesus and John preached some other kind of gospel than what Peter preached (except for the tense - future versus past)???

Jesus bluntly restricts salvation to but one way BEFORE Penecost (Mt. 5:13-14) and that way is faith in him (Jn. 14:6) just as Peter limits it to the same way after Pentecost (Acts 4:12).

Your position contradicts Peter in Acts 10:43 and Paul in Acts 26:22-23 and the writer of hebrews (Heb. 4:2) and too many more scriptures to point out.

Do you preach a different gospel than Jesus preached in John 3:16-19? Do you preach another gospel than what John the Baptist preached in John 3:36? Do you understand that baptism is for only those who repent (Mt. 3:6-8) and believe in Christ (Acts 19:4)?

There are not two different kinds of human nature in the Bible one before the cross and one after with two different problems! The same gospel, the same Savior, the same cure for sin before the cross is the same after the cross. The gospel before the cross pointed foward to the cross and the same gospel after the cross points back.

Peter says that there is NTHER NAME GIVEN AMONG MEN UNDER HEAVEN (Acts 4:12) and yet you claim that both Jesus and John and all Old Testament prophets preached there was (Acts 10:43)?????????

Paul says he preached "NTHER THINGS" than what all the prophets preached (Acts 26:22-23) but yet you say he did.

Peter says that the gospel he preached is the same gospel all the prophets preached - Acts 10:43 but you say they didn't

The writer of hebrews says the same gospel preached in the wilderness during the time of Moses was the same gospel preached now by the apostles and those who followed them (Heb. 2:1-4; 4:2) but you say it wasn't????

Sure 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. 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 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]

What about the Doc's Church? I assume he's Fullerite and appears to take great pride in his Landmark heritage. Does his Church have a a straight line all the way back to Jesus Christ also? Or the SB's or the IB's or the IFBs or the Missionary Baptists, or what about the Cambelites, you know the COC that is a direct spinoff from the PBs like the Missionarys are; are they a straight line all the way back to Jesus Christ also?


I've been surrounded by Landmarkism all my Baptist life (SB & PB) and see no benefit in it. Period.

Your assumptions are wrong. I am not a fullerite. However, that is precisely why the essentials must be defined from relatively non-essentials. Limited atonement is not made the explicit test for being the Lord's Church in the New Testament. However, the doctrine of justification by faith without works is made such a test (Gal. 1:8-9; 3:1-11). Wine versus grape juice is not made such a test by the scriptures. Washing feet is not made such a test by the Scriptures. Close or closed communion is not made to be such a test by the Scriptures.

All you have done from the beginning of this discussion is an attempt to divide and conqueor and yet you charge us with that when we are simply defining the Biblical essentials to distinguish between true and false.

 

[kyredneck]

What about the Doc's Church? I assume he's Fullerite and appears to take great pride in his Landmark heritage. Does his Church have a a straight line all the way back to Jesus Christ also? Or the SB's or the IB's or the IFBs or the Missionary Baptists, or what about the Cambelites, you know the COC that is a direct spinoff from the PBs like the Missionarys are; are they a straight line all the way back to Jesus Christ also?


I've been surrounded by Landmarkism all my Baptist life (SB & PB) and see no benefit in it. Period.

..........and besides, I never joined the Old Baptists because I thought they had a straight line back to Jesus Christ. I joined them because I agreed with their essential doctrines and mostly because of the love that I felt there.

 

[kyredneck]

....All you have done from the beginning of this discussion is an attempt to divide and conqueor and yet you charge us with that when we are simply defining the Biblical essentials to distinguish between true and false.

Which Baptist Church, pray tell, is the TRUE Church of Christ?

 

[Dr. Walter]

..........and besides, I never joined the Old Baptists because I thought they had a straight line back to Jesus Christ. I joined them because I agreed with their essential doctrines and mostly because of the love that I felt there.

You can get the same "love" in a Presbyterian, Congregational, Methodist, or outside of all churches just among true Christians wherever they are found.

It is amazing that you can argue that there is one way of Salvation and yet think God is the author of confusion on the way of service and accepts any way man wants to serve him.

My original question is simple - do you believe that any church of unbaptized believers/non-believers/mixed can be regarded as a true "church of Christ"?

My next question is very simple - what constitutes the necessary essentials for an administration to be called and recognized as scriptural baptism?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have no clue where you get the idea that Jesus and John preached some other kind of gospel than what Peter preached (except for the tense - future versus past)???

Jesus bluntly restricts salvation to but one way BEFORE Penecost (Mt. 5:13-14) and that way is faith in him (Jn. 14:6) just as Peter limits it to the same way after Pentecost (Acts 4:12).

Your position contradicts Peter in Acts 10:43 and Paul in Acts 26:22-23 and the writer of hebrews (Heb. 4:2) and too many more scriptures to point out.

Do you preach a different gospel than Jesus preached in John 3:16-19? Do you preach another gospel than what John the Baptist preached in John 3:36? Do you understand that baptism is for only those who repent (Mt. 3:6-8) and believe in Christ (Acts 19:4)?

There are not two different kinds of human nature in the Bible one before the cross and one after with two different problems! The same gospel, the same Savior, the same cure for sin before the cross is the same after the cross. The gospel before the cross pointed foward to the cross and the same gospel after the cross points back.

Peter says that there is NTHER NAME GIVEN AMONG MEN UNDER HEAVEN (Acts 4:12) and yet you claim that both Jesus and John and all Old Testament prophets preached there was (Acts 10:43)?????????

Paul says he preached "NTHER THINGS" than what all the prophets preached (Acts 26:22-23) but yet you say he did.

Peter says that the gospel he preached is the same gospel all the prophets preached - Acts 10:43 but you say they didn't

The writer of hebrews says the same gospel preached in the wilderness during the time of Moses was the same gospel preached now by the apostles and those who followed them (Heb. 2:1-4; 4:2) but you say it wasn't????

No I hold to John 3:16 but what did Jesus tell his disciples? Luke 10:8-9

When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. 9Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you...Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.'

Also note Matthew 10:5-10

5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

I'm not saying anything Jesus didn't but note he doesn't tell them say "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosever believes on him shall not perish but have everlasting life" He told them to tell the people that the kingdom of heaven is near. There is a significant change in what the apostle were saying here and in the Acts of the apostles. That was my point. You jump to way too many conclussions. So of course you don't find acts teaching what jesus message thrust was. Note he kept the intimate details of John 3:16 primarily with his disciples and on a few spoken occassions. And what does baptism have to do with anything I've said. I said you got Revelation wrong and you make all sorts of logical jumps into the void. calm down and read what is being said.

 

[kyredneck]

You can get the same "love" in a Presbyterian, Congregational, Methodist, or outside of all churches just among true Christians wherever they are found.

Perhaps. But I've never experienced anywhere else like I have with the Old Baptists.

It is amazing that you can argue that there is one way of Salvation and yet think God is the author of confusion on the way of service and accepts any way man wants to serve him.

Again, your imagination is working overtime. I've never even mentioned any of the above.

My original question is simple - do you believe that any church of unbaptized believers/non-believers/mixed can be regarded as a true "church of Christ"?

I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. The Lord knows those that are his.

My next question is very simple - what constitutes the necessary essentials for an administration to be called and recognized as scriptural baptism?

What scripture cocisely defines that?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Which Baptist Church, pray tell, is the TRUE Church of Christ?

Who says it is limited to the name "Baptist"???? I didn't!

Any church is a true church if it meets the four basic essentials found in the Great commission.

1. Going with the same gospel Jesus preached (Jn. 3:1-21)
2. Administering the same baptism Jesus submitted to (Jn. 4:1-2; lk. 7:29-30)
3. Teaching the same essential faith and order delivered by Christ (Acts 2:42)
4. Reproduced from a church of like faith and order.

Each of these four basic categories must be expanded to the essential characteristics of each. What is "essential"? There are three characteristics of what I define as "essentials."

1. "Essentials" are defined as what the Scriptures either explicitly or implicitly demand are non-negotiable.

2, "Essential" are all doctrines and practices necessary to distinguish between Biblical Christianity and other world religions or predicted apostasies.

3. "Essential" are all those doctrines or practices that are required to sustain the two above definitions of "essential."

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. The Lord knows those that are his.

Again, you confuse salvation with Scriptural service. The Lord knows his among the Great harlot too (Rev. 18:4) but would you argue she is a true church of Christ because God knows those that are his within her???????????

 

[RAdam]

What about the Doc's Church? I assume he's Fullerite and appears to take great pride in his Landmark heritage. Does his Church have a a straight line all the way back to Jesus Christ also? Or the SB's or the IB's or the IFBs or the Missionary Baptists, or what about the Cambelites, you know the COC that is a direct spinoff from the PBs like the Missionarys are; are they a straight line all the way back to Jesus Christ also?


I've been surrounded by Landmarkism all my Baptist life (SB & PB) and see no benefit in it. Period.

I don't believe he does, seeing how Fullerites departed from the true doctrines of the church. Same with all the rest.

I'm not going to argue against the idea that some have misued "landmarkism" or whatever you choose to call it. But that isn't a reason to abandon the fact that Christ has always had His church in this world that has believed and practiced exactly what He delivered to the saints.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No I hold to John 3:16 but what did Jesus tell his disciples? Luke 10:8-9 Also note Matthew 10:5-10 I'm not saying anything Jesus didn't but note he doesn't tell them say "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosever believes on him shall not perish but have everlasting life" He told them to tell the people that the kingdom of heaven is near. There is a significant change in what the apostle were saying here and in the Acts of the apostles. That was my point. You jump to way too many conclussions. So of course you don't find acts teaching what jesus message thrust was. Note he kept the intimate details of John 3:16 primarily with his disciples and on a few spoken occassions. And what does baptism have to do with anything I've said. I said you got Revelation wrong and you make all sorts of logical jumps into the void. calm down and read what is being said.

Sooo, you think Christ is schizophrenic! He preaches one gospel to one Jew (Nicodemus - Jn. 3:1-21) but preaches another gospel to other Jews?????

Could it possibly be that you do not understand what Christ meant by the words preaching the "gospel of the kingdom" or preaching the kingdom of God????? Jesus continued preaching it after his resurrection (Acts 1:3). Paul preached the same kingdom gospel througout his missionary journies in the book of Acts (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31).

The term "kingdom" refers to the person, realm, and rule of the king. John preached the good news that the King has come, is present and called on men to repent and believe in him (Acts 19:4; Jn. 1:29). Jesus preached the good news of that the King is present and that men should repent and believe in him (Jn. 3:16).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sooo, you think Christ is schizophrenic! He preaches one gospel to one Jew (Nicodemus - Jn. 3:1-21) but preaches another gospel to other Jews?????

Could it possibly be that you do not understand what Christ meant by the words preaching the "gospel of the kingdom" or preaching the kingdom of God????? Jesus continued preaching it after his resurrection (Acts 1:3). Paul preached the same kingdom gospel througout his missionary journies in the book of Acts (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31).

The term "kingdom" refers to the person, realm, and rule of the king. John preached the good news that the King has come, is present and called on men to repent and believe in him (Acts 19:4; Jn. 1:29). Jesus preached the good news of that the King is present and that men should repent and believe in him (Jn. 3:16).

Now you're jumping to Nicodemus who had a very specific question for Jesus. I understand exactly what Jesus meant when he spoke of the kingdom being near. Do you? You're jumping around a lot. You know there is a chronological aspect to the occurance of the preaching of the gospel. Its like progressive revelation. Jesus gives information here and there and spells it all out later on. And the Apostles now armed with a full understanding and the power of the Holy Spirit preach the Gospel. And when you quote books you don't indicate the means in which they are writen. How John had a specific purpose and approach to the ministry of Jesus christ that was different than the Synoptic gospels. Look at John 3:16 more closely who's speaking and when in his ministry is this taking place when you compare it to the synoptics. Chronological. try it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Who says it is limited to the name "Baptist"???? I didn't!

Any church is a true church if it meets the four basic essentials found in the Great commission.

1. Going with the same gospel Jesus preached (Jn. 3:1-21)
2. Administering the same baptism Jesus submitted to (Jn. 4:1-2; lk. 7:29-30)
3. Teaching the same essential faith and order delivered by Christ (Acts 2:42)
4. Reproduced from a church of like faith and order.

Each of these four basic categories must be expanded to the essential characteristics of each. What is "essential"? There are three characteristics of what I define as "essentials."

1. "Essentials" are defined as what the Scriptures either explicitly or implicitly demand are non-negotiable.

2, "Essential" are all doctrines and practices necessary to distinguish between Biblical Christianity and other world religions or predicted apostasies.

3. "Essential" are all those doctrines or practices that are required to sustain the two above definitions of "essential."

Let me illustrate principles 1-3. Non-negotiables are very clearly marked by the scriptures. For example, Gal. 1:8-9 defines any other gospel but the one preached by Paul as "accursed." For example, Luke 13:3,5 provides no other alternative to repentance but to perish. For example, John 3:3-5 provides no other option to see or enter the kingdom of heaven except by new birth. For example, Mt. 25:41 gives no other options but eternal life and eternal punishment. Every non-negotiable has essential non-negotiable characteristics as well. For example, the one and only gospel that is not accursed (Gal. 1:6-9) is by grace and grace cannot be defined to include works (Rom. 11:6).

Let me illustrate priniciple #2. Forgiveness of sins through only the Person and work of Jesus Christ separates Christianity from all other world religions. Salvation by grace through faith without works separates Biblical Christianity from all other world religions.

Let me illustrate principle #3 - The Old and New Testament as the final authority for doctrine and practice; its inspiration and preservation are essential to everything in principles #1-2. The doctrine of the New Testament Church and its ordinances as the "pillar and ground of the truth" or the custodian of the keys. The Great commission reproduction of practical Christianity until Christ comes again.

All those essentials of "othodoxy" by former fundementalists are included in principles #1-2 (virgin birth, absolute humanity and deity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the resurrection, eternal judgement, heaven and hell, etc.).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Now you're jumping to Nicodemus who had a very specific question for Jesus. I understand exactly what Jesus meant when he spoke of the kingdom being near. Do you? You're jumping around a lot. You know there is a chronological aspect to the occurance of the preaching of the gospel. Its like progressive revelation. Jesus gives information here and there and spells it all out later on. And the Apostles now armed with a full understanding and the power of the Holy Spirit preach the Gospel. And when you quote books you don't indicate the means in which they are writen. How John had a specific purpose and approach to the ministry of Jesus christ that was different than the Synoptic gospels. Look at John 3:16 more closely who's speaking and when in his ministry is this taking place when you compare it to the synoptics. Chronological. try it.

I fully realize and accept that the gospel since it was first preached in Genesis 3:15 by God and then preached by Abel the first prophet was given in a "seed" stage. I fully understand that progressive revelation has developed that "seed" stage with additional information until it was fulfilled completely in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I fully understand that prior to the cross the gospel was progressive and predictive but after the cross it was complete and fulfilled.

Peter makes it clear that the essentials for salvation were contained in the "seed" form right from the beginning and that nothing provided by progressive revelation changes that essential good news but only enhances it (Acts 10:43).

However, never at any time from Genesis to Revelation is there any other gospel of salvation that what was preached in Genesis 3:15 by God or will be preached until Jesus comes again. The King's presence and rule were announced by John the Baptist and Jesus. Jesus never came to set up a earthly kingdom but came to die as the sacrificial lamb. He denied from the beginning right to the halls of Pilot that his kingdom was of this world or that he had come to set up a visible kingdom. That kingdom was future and part of the prayer he taught his disciples ("thy kingdom come"). The rule of the King begins in the hearts of men, whereas the Temple administration and the church administrations were visible expressions of His authority until He comes again to reign and rule over this world.