Baptism and the existence of a church

[swaimj]

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."

If the pedo-baptists are truly saved then the Holy Spirit indwells them. Not so of the Hindus.

If the pedo-baptists are truly saved then they belong to Christ and are part of his body. Not so with the Hindus.

When Christ returns, the pedo-baptists will be part of those who are gathered to Him, not so with the Hindus.

For these reasons and more, the pedo-baptists are a church--a church with error, but a church nevertheless. They are a church because they are a group of believers who have gathered together to worship, to fellowship, to edify the saints, and to evangelize the lost. They are my brothers in Christ though I will say to them directly that they are disobedient in the area of baptism. They have very little in common with Hindus.

 

[kyredneck]

....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.

I haven't denied that or abandoned it. I just think it ought not be something that we flaunt, especially to outsiders. That's no different than the attitude those Pharisees had. There's really no benefit in it. I know from experience that it's a turn off to many.

[edit] I'm referring to the straight lineage back to Christ thing. There's many who make a big deal of that.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If the pedo-baptists are truly saved then the Holy Spirit indwells them. Not so of the Hindus.

If the pedo-baptists are truly saved then they belong to Christ and are part of his body. Not so with the Hindus.

When Christ returns, the pedo-baptists will be part of those who are gathered to Him, not so with the Hindus.

For these reasons and more, the pedo-baptists are a church--a church with error, but a church nevertheless. They are a church because they are a group of believers who have gathered together to worship, to fellowship, to edify the saints, and to evangelize the lost. They are my brothers in Christ though I will say to them directly that they are disobedient in the area of baptism. They have very little in common with Hindus.

You confuse salvation with visible church constitution. You think because you are saved and gather together regardless of baptism or doctrine and practice that makes you a true visible church of Christ????????? No wonder you are confused.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I haven't denied that or abandoned it. I just think it ought not be something that we flaunt, especially to outsiders. That's no different than the attitude those Pharisees had. There's really no benefit in it. I know from experience that it's a turn off to many.

[edit] I'm referring to the straight lineage back to Christ thing. There's many who make a big deal of that.

You would make a fine politician. BTW do you take a poll before answering questions?

 

[swaimj]

No wonder you are confused.

No, then I would have to be a follower of Confuscious.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, then I would have to be a follower of Confuscious.

good come back (grin).

 

[swaimj]

:thumbs:Thanks!

 

[Dr. Walter]

The question of what is the church and what are the essential characteristics of a true New Testament church is the central issue that has always divided professing Christians.

The Invisible Church advocate includes the unbaptized, the sprinkled, the poured, the immersed, the sacramentalists, the excommunicated and persons holding every heresy under the sun. The Invisible advocates can't agree when their church started or who is in their church. Some start it in Genesis others on the day of Pentecost and still others in the middle of the book of Acts.

The local visible advocates differ in regard to salvation. Does membership in a specific church or denomination determine salvation? So, the local church advocate reduces all the confusion down to essential doctrine and practice. If you can believe salvation is inseparable from membership in a particular local church then you have reduced the universal invisible concept down to a local visible salvation concept.

Historic Baptist deny both. They deny the church has anything to do with salvation or being "in Christ" redemptively. They demand a complete salvation "in Christ" profession before they will baptize you much less bring you into the membership of their church. This is the only sane and biblically based view of the doctrine of the church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

Ok so we're on the same page with regard to how the gospel became presented. Which is a key point. Now that the apostles were given the gospel (slightly different in nature than during the ministry of our Lord for the kingdom had come) they were sent to 1) Make disciples of all peoples 2) to baptise them 3) and to obey everything Jesus taught.

 

[kyredneck]

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

Just curious. Are you personally aware of any non-Baptist Churches that meets all the criteria you've laid out?

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."

......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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Just curious. Are you personally aware of any non-Baptist Churches that meets all the criteria you've laid out?

Yes. There is a church that call themselves "Anabaptist" that were constituted by a New Testament Baptist church. However, most New Testament chuches that I am aware of have the name "Baptist" over their door.

 

[kyredneck]

Yes. There is a church that call themselves "Anabaptist" that were constituted by a New Testament Baptist church. However, most New Testament chuches that I am aware of have the name "Baptist" over their door.

Is this one assembly or several? Where are they located? Why did they add the 'ana'?


[edit] How do you scripturally describe all other the other 'churches' that don't meet the criteria?

 

[HankD]

The major problem here IMO is that we have forgotten that the Trinitarian water baptism done on earth is an indication and a witness that another heavenly baptism has already happened.

A baptism that does not have its origin in John the Baptist.

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

I used the ASV because (again IMO) the preposition is en not meta pneumati hagio. It is primarily a locative preposition not instrumental.​

But in either case, Jesus Christ is our Baptizer not John the baptist or any other mortal man.​

There is therefore no need to trace ourselves back through the works of dead men's hands but directly to the living Jesus Christ.

Revelation 1

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.​

HankD​

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ok so we're on the same page with regard to how the gospel became presented. Which is a key point. Now that the apostles were given the gospel (slightly different in nature than during the ministry of our Lord for the kingdom had come) they were sent to 1) Make disciples of all peoples 2) to baptise them 3) and to obey everything Jesus taught.

"Slightly" (fulfilled, past tense) but nothing substantially different that would alter it or make it "another" gospel. It is the very same gospel except fulfilled or in a more completed form.

However, this comission is a reproductive cycle as the last aspect of this command initiates the first aspect all over again. It is a reproductive command as the primary verb "make disciples" means to reproduce yourself or like kind. The three participles form a reproductive mold to reproduce like kind as those being commissioned "have" already been through this same process. It is impossible to carry out this commission without organic successive reproduction of like kind. What I mean by "organic" is that the reproduction process requires hands on between each link ("ye" to "them") as the ye must physically go to "them" must physically lay their hands on "them" in baptism and must physically assembly with them in teaching "them" how to observe all things commanded.

The promise "I will be with you all the days until the end" promises the success of this reproductive cycle as it demands by divine promise that "you" (baptized churched believers) will always be present in every generation to reproduce after their own kind.

There is no DIRECT authority to those identified as "them" in this commission to disciple themselves, baptize themselves, teach themselves. This commissioned "ye" stands between Christ and "them" and this commissioned "ye" by context are those who "have" already been through this process so Christ is not sending the blind to lead the blind, or the unbaptized to baptize or the ignorant to teach.

The third aspect of this commission requires the previous existence of a New Testament church as well as the authority to bring newly baptized believers into that existent body or to constitute them into a new church body. You cannot observe the third aspect apart from church constitution.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"Slightly" (fulfilled, past tense) but nothing substantially different that would alter it or make it "another" gospel. It is the very same gospel except fulfilled or in a more completed form.

However, this comission is a reproductive cycle as the last aspect of this command initiates the first aspect all over again. It is a reproductive command as the primary verb "make disciples" means to reproduce yourself or like kind. The three participles form a reproductive mold to reproduce like kind as those being commissioned "have" already been through this same process. It is impossible to carry out this commission without organic successive reproduction of like kind. What I mean by "organic" is that the reproduction process requires hands on between each link ("ye" to "them") as the ye must physically go to "them" must physically lay their hands on "them" in baptism and must physically assembly with them in teaching "them" how to observe all things commanded.

The promise "I will be with you all the days until the end" promises the success of this reproductive cycle as it demands by divine promise that "you" (baptized churched believers) will always be present in every generation to reproduce after their own kind.

There is no DIRECT authority to those identified as "them" in this commission to disciple themselves, baptize themselves, teach themselves. This commissioned "ye" stands between Christ and "them" and this commissioned "ye" by context are those who "have" already been through this process so Christ is not sending the blind to lead the blind, or the unbaptized to baptize or the ignorant to teach.

The third aspect of this commission requires the previous existence of a New Testament church as well as the authority to bring newly baptized believers into that existent body or to constitute them into a new church body. You cannot observe the third aspect apart from church constitution.

So in effect we have baptized believer baptising new believers and making "copies" of themselves in new areas. Now what was the next step in this process. In Acts Chapter 2 we have pentecost where Peter preaches his sermon to those celebrating the festival in Jerusalem. After comming to the Lord and being baptized what happened to the believers? Some stayed in Jerusalem and others went to their home provinces in the empire and what? Spread the Good News right. Now look at the make up of the church at this point in time. It doesn't really look baptist but rather "reformed Jewish" with the added completion of having a Messiah and an introduction of communion.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The major problem here IMO is that we have forgotten that the Trinitarian water baptism done on earth is an indication and a witness that another heavenly baptism has already happened.

A baptism that does not have its origin in John the Baptist.

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

I used the ASV because (again IMO) the preposition is en not meta pneumati hagio. It is primarily a locative preposition not instrumental.​

But in either case, Jesus Christ is our Baptizer not John the baptist or any other mortal man.​

There is therefore no need to trace ourselves back through the works of dead men's hands but directly to the living Jesus Christ.

Revelation 1

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.HankD​

The problem with your theory is that the baptism in the Great commission is commisioned unto the end of the age and it is not a baptism in the Spirit but in water. Ephesians 4:5 was written long after the house of Corneilius incident and when it was written Paul limited only "one baptism" for Christians and it could not be the baptism in the Spirit but the age long promised baptism in water in Matthew 28:19-20.

Second, John's baptism is a Trinitarian baptism and the only baptism existent when Jesus gave the Matthew 28:19-20 commission.

For example, there are many cases of baptism in the book of Acts but where can we find a single case that used the expression in Matthew 28:19 as a verbal formula in baptism??? Not a single solitary example. Where in the epistles can we find any reference to it as a verbal formula? Not a single solitary example!

Matthew 28:19 is not given as a verbal baptismal formula but is expressive of the "name" or authority that is representative of the trinune God. John the Baptist administered baptism in the authority of the Trinune God. He beleived in the Trinune God. He claimed that his baptism had been authorized by the Trinune God. He recognized Jesus as the Son of God from heaven who was over all (Jn. 3:30-36). He recognized the Holy Spirit as God and it was this Trinune God He claimed that had authorized or "sent" him to baptize. When he baptized he baptized in reference to faith in Jesus as Christ (Acts 19:4). The Trinune God confirmed his baptism (Mt. 3:15-17) and this Trinune God confirmed that his baptism was His "counsel" and all who rejected it rejected the counsel of this Trinune God (Lk. 7:29-30).

In contrast the Baptism in the Spirit was viewed as a future tense event in every mention through the gospel accounts up to Acts 1:5 where it is pinpointed with the words "not many days hence." After Pentecost, there is but one mention of it and it looks back to Pentecost (Acts 11:15-16). The nearest reference point that Peter could identify what happened in the house of Corneilius was not the last persons just saved but to Pentecost "AT the beginning" demonstrating it was not a ongoing repetitive act with each individual having been saved since Pentecost but an historical event for JEWISH believers that happened once at Pentecost.

 

[kyredneck]

....."reformed Jewish" with the added completion of having a Messiah and an introduction of communion.

Good articulation IMO.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is wide spread and extreme ignorance concerning the nature of the baptism in the Spirit. The baptism in the Spirit has nothing to do with the individual believer. It has nothing to do with personal spiritual advancement or placement of individual "in Christ" as a mystical body.

The baptism in the Spirit is nothing more or less than the shikinah glory that occurred in the dedication ceremony of every new house of God in the Old Testament.

Every new house of God in the Old Testament had an assigned builder and only when the builder had finished the house of God, did God approve it by the Shikinah glory covering it and filling it. At the same time, fire from heaven would lite the altar which the preists were never to let die out and from that lit fire the candlestick, altar of incense and censers would get their fire as any other source of fire was "strange fire."

1. Moses was the chosen builder of the first house of God the Tabernacle:

So Moses finished the work.
34 ¶ Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.
35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

2. Solomon was the chosen builder of the second house of God the Temple


1 ¶ Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the house.
2 And the priests could not enter into the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD had filled the LORD’S house.
3 And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the LORD upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever. 2 Chron. 7

3. Jesus Christ was the chosen builder of the Gentile House of God - the church

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Mt. 16:18


And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost..." - Acts 2:1-4

4. The Tabernacle/temple was composed of three primary sections (outer court, holy place and holy of holies). The new house of God (1 Tim. 3:15) was to include Jews (Acts 2:1) half-Jews (Acts 8:14-16) and gentiles (Acts 11:15-16).

Peter told the Jewish members (Acts 11:1-2) that the last time the Jewish members identified with the baptism in the Spirit was "AT the beginning" (Acts 11:16).

The perpetual fire that characterized all true worship functions in the tabernacle and the temple as the public institution of worship is the promised presence of Christ in the Great Commission until the end of the age where each New Testament church is a temple of the Spirit of Christ (1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:21) where a qualified ministry publicly administer the ordinances (1 Tim. 3:1-13) so that true public worship as the "house of God" (I Tim. 3:15) continues from generation to generation until Christ comes again.

 

[kyredneck]

.....There is therefore no need to trace ourselves back through the works of dead men's hands but directly to the living Jesus Christ....

.......and no benefit in it either.

Consider the Baptist's own explanation as to why he baptised:

".....that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water. Jn 1:31

 

[Dr. Walter]

So in effect we have baptized believer baptising new believers and making "copies" of themselves in new areas. Now what was the next step in this process. In Acts Chapter 2 we have pentecost where Peter preaches his sermon to those celebrating the festival in Jerusalem. After comming to the Lord and being baptized what happened to the believers? Some stayed in Jerusalem and others went to their home provinces in the empire and what? Spread the Good News right. Now look at the make up of the church at this point in time. It doesn't really look baptist but rather "reformed Jewish" with the added completion of having a Messiah and an introduction of communion.

There are no "new areas" at all. There is no new gospel, no new baptism and no new commandments but only those things they "have" been already discipled in and that is clear from Acts 2:41-42.

The pattern is laid down again in Acts 2:41-42 and so to assume as you have done that these 3,000 were not discipled into this pattern is presumption contrary to what is clearly stated in Acts 2:41-42. Again, to presume they went back home and function apart from or contrary to this pattern assumes disobedience to the Great Commission by both the church at Jerusalem and these newly baptized disciples.

If we are going to assume anything we should assume that both the church and these disciples acted in accordance with this pattern not contrary to it. For example notice the words "added unto" in Acts 2:41 where the same Great Commission threefold pattern is spelled out. In Acts 2:47 the words "added unto" does not mean the Lord added DIFFERENTLY than what is spelled out in Acts 2:41-42 but it is a summary expression for that same pattern. To assume anything differently is to presume obedience turned into disobedience by the church and God Himself led in disobeying His own commission.

The pattern we see laid down and observed consistently by the Church at Jerusalem in Acts 1-8 is the same pattern we see followed by the church at Antioch in Acts 13-18 through their missionaries Paul and Barnabas and Paul and Silas.

Why would you assume the Lord's churches disobeyed this Great Commission pattern??????