Baptism and the existence of a church

[kyredneck]

Soooo, you really believe that the Great Commission has been fulfilled? We have no Commission to make disiciples of all nations after A.D. 70. No commission to preach the gospel after A.D. 70. No Commission to baptize believers in water after A.D. 70. No commission to teach baptized believers how to observe all things commanded after A.D. 70.

Soooo, you think that simply because the immediate generation that received this commission obeyed it that this fulfills it for all generations?????

John should have told the seven churches of Asia that in Revelation 2-3.

We just as well assume the whole entire New Testament was written by the Apostles and those under them for ONLY the A.D. 70 generation as well.

So what does your church do? Are they stupid enough to believe something already fulfilled in A.D. 70 should be marching orders for them?????

If that is what you wish to believe so be it.

I'm short on time and writing 'off the cuff'.

'The Great Commission' is a man made term applied to a particular passage and designated by men as such (abused much as Jn 3:16). The Church (collectively) needed no such command to grow, it was inherent in Her to do so. With Christ as Her head that gave the increase and supplied Her with gifts, there was no containing those living waters that the heathen world was ripe and ready to receive (more there are of the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband).

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Church (collectively) needed no such command to grow, it was inherent in Her to do so.

Of course you know better than God. He included the commission/command but you discard it as unnecessary and needless. When anyone has to go to the extent of discarding specific commands of the Word of God as needful you know their position is simply wrong.

 

[canadyjd]

Dr. Walter

I've gone back and re-read some of the posts, attempting to understand your position. Maybe I have misunderstood what you are trying to say.

Are you saying (according to Peter's qualifications for a replacement for Judas, and other passages) that:

1. All 11 apostles were present at the baptism of Jesus?

2. All 11 apostles were baptized into John's baptism?

3. John's baptism and Christian baptism (by water) are the same baptism?

4. Baptism by Holy Spirit is separate from water baptism, Holy Spirit baptism came only after the resurrection, and that is the essential difference that Apollos lacked.

5. The theological explanation for the symbolism of baptism into Christ's death is not really different from the explanation that John's baptism was to repentence.

6. You might be saved without proper baptism, but you can't be a true church without proper baptism.

7. A true church is defined as:

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

Based on the last, let me give you a hypothetical situation.

Suppose there is a group of Methodists meeting together and studying scripture. After careful study, they come to the conclusion that believer's baptism is the way to go.

They are all (with the exception of the children) baptized by immersion upon profession of faith, (assume the profession is genuine) by their Pastor. One of the deacons baptizes the Pastor.

Are they a true church, or must they find a minister from a church that claims to trace it's baptism back to John the Baptist before they are a true church?

Do you suppose they should disband as a "church" until they find someone with the "right historical origin" to baptize them?

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, I don't believe all twelve apostles were present at the baptism of Jesus. All eleven may have been baptized by John himself but that is not necessary to have the baptism of John and be baptized "from the baptism of John" as John was still alive after all were taken out from among the general disciples of Christ and appointed apostles.

Yes baptism in water is different than baptism in the Spirit

There baptism of John is Christian baptism with all the theological implications by inherent design of the "counsel of God" spelled out later in theological epistles.

Yes, you can be saved without baptism but you cannot be a New Testament church without baptism

No, those Methodist would not be a true church of Christ even though they are immersed in water. Why? Because Christ never authorized anyone that fits the character of "them" in the great Commission to administer baptism and that is the condition of those Methodist. Those authorized to administer baptism were previously saved, baptized and instructed in the observance of all things commanded as a New Testament Church. Non-New Testament churches have no biblical authority to baptize or constitute churches.

Lastly, baptism by design is to identify you with those who are like faith and order with those who believe and teach the SAME gospel, administer the SAME baptism and teach the SAME faith and order. Those who are authorized to administer baptism in the Great Commission are the same ones authorized to teach you how to observe all things commanded.

There is no approved administrator of baptism in the New Testament that was not like faith and order with New Testament churches found in the pages of the New Testament. Like begets like, baptism never originates from the unbaptized "them" (Mt. 28:19-20) but the previously baptized, instructed, churched "ye" (Mt. 28:19-20).

I hope I have answered your questions clearly and you understand where I am coming from.

Thanks for asking

Dr. Walter

I've gone back and re-read some of the posts, attempting to understand your position. Maybe I have misunderstood what you are trying to say.

Are you saying (according to Peter's qualifications for a replacement for Judas, and other passages) that:

1. All 11 apostles were present at the baptism of Jesus?

2. All 11 apostles were baptized into John's baptism?

3. John's baptism and Christian baptism (by water) are the same baptism?

4. Baptism by Holy Spirit is separate from water baptism, Holy Spirit baptism came only after the resurrection, and that is the essential difference that Apollos lacked.

5. The theological explanation for the symbolism of baptism into Christ's death is not really different from the explanation that John's baptism was to repentence.

6. You might be saved without proper baptism, but you can't be a true church without proper baptism.

7. A true church is defined as:

Based on the last, let me give you a hypothetical situation.

Suppose there is a group of Methodists meeting together and studying scripture. After careful study, they come to the conclusion that believer's baptism is the way to go.

They are all (with the exception of the children) baptized by immersion upon profession of faith, (assume the profession is genuine) by their Pastor. One of the deacons baptizes the Pastor.

Are they a true church, or must they find a minister from a church that claims to trace it's baptism back to John the Baptist before they are a true church?

Do you suppose they should disband as a "church" until they find someone with the "right historical origin" to baptize them?

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

No, I don't believe all twelve apostles were present at the baptism of Jesus. All eleven may have been baptized by John himself but that is not necessary to have the baptism of John and be baptized "from the baptism of John"...

I have misunderstood your beliefs. The Acts 1 passage, "from the baptism of John...to the resurrection", I took you to mean that from the time John baptized Jesus until Jesus was resurrected.

No, those Methodist would not be a true church of Christ even though they are immersed in water.....Those authorized to administer baptism were previously saved, baptized and instructed in the observance of all things commanded as a New Testament Church. Non-New Testament churches have no biblical authority to baptize or constitute churches.

We are going to disagree on this. Jesus asked God to sanctify His disciples in the truth... "Thy Word is Truth". To be "set apart" or sanctified is according to the Word of God.

I see nothing from scripture that prevent a group of people from reading the bible, discovering the truth of God's Word through the power of Holy Spirit, and then assemble themselves together as commanded by scripture to observe the ordinances.

Lastly, in Christian love, I just want to challenge you on one point.

Your claims mean that for your own ministry (as well as mine) to be valid in the eyes of God, you (I) must trace your (my) own baptism back to John the Baptist.

Please begin with your present church (or the church and/or the person who baptized you) and trace the origin of that church back to John the Baptist. By your own standard, for your ministry to be valid in the eyes of God, you must show an unbroken line of churches back to one of the Apostles.

It would be of great assistance (not to mention credibility) to give the dates and locations of the churches, and you must show that the person(s) who founded the churches had the proper credentials as well.

Now, I want to make sure you understand my point here. It is absolutely essential for your own conscience (since this is the standard you have applied to everyone else) that you take no one's word that you are in a church that can trace it's roots directly to John the Baptist. You must do the geneology yourself. Don't take some guy's word from the 1800's that certain groups meet the standard. Trace your own baptism back the John the Baptist.

If you find even one gap, even one questionable church or church leader in your history, by your own standards, your own ministry is immediately invalidated, as is your baptism, as is your church.

When you get your geneology ready, let me know and we'll go through it together. I love church history.

If for some reason your decide you can't or won't do your own baptismal geneology, then I will ask you why you are holding others to a standard that you, yourself, cannot meet?

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have misunderstood your beliefs. The Acts 1 passage, "from the baptism of John...to the resurrection", I took you to mean that from the time John baptized Jesus until Jesus was resurrected.We are going to disagree on this. Jesus asked God to sanctify His disciples in the truth... "Thy Word is Truth". To be "set apart" or sanctified is according to the Word of God.

I see nothing from scripture that prevent a group of people from reading the bible, discovering the truth of God's Word through the power of Holy Spirit, and then assemble themselves together as commanded by scripture to observe the ordinances.

Lastly, in Christian love, I just want to challenge you on one point.

Your claims mean that for your own ministry (as well as mine) to be valid in the eyes of God, you (I) must trace your (my) own baptism back to John the Baptist.

Please begin with your present church (or the church and/or the person who baptized you) and trace the origin of that church back to John the Baptist. By your own standard, for your ministry to be valid in the eyes of God, you must show an unbroken line of churches back to one of the Apostles.

It would be of great assistance (not to mention credibility) to give the dates and locations of the churches, and you must show that the person(s) who founded the churches had the proper credentials as well.

Now, I want to make sure you understand my point here. It is absolutely essential for your own conscience (since this is the standard you have applied to everyone else) that you take no one's word that you are in a church that can trace it's roots directly to John the Baptist. You must do the geneology yourself. Don't take some guy's word from the 1800's that certain groups meet the standard. Trace your own baptism back the John the Baptist.

If you find even one gap, even one questionable church or church leader in your history, by your own standards, your own ministry is immediately invalidated, as is your baptism, as is your church.

When you get your geneology ready, let me know and we'll go through it together. I love church history.

If for some reason your decide you can't or won't do your own baptismal geneology, then I will ask you why you are holding others to a standard that you, yourself, cannot meet?

peace to youraying:

Authority to baptize was given by Christ to those identified as "ye" in the Great Commission. This "ye" stands between Christ and those identified as "them" in the Great Commision. Therefore, Christ has not given DIRECT authority through His Word to "them" to administer baptism. However, this is the position you are taking. You believe that merely reading the Word of God and believing it gives you direct authority to administer whatever you read and believe.

However, in regard to making disciples as instructed by Matthew 28:19-20 there is no DIRECT authority given by Christ to those defined as "them."

Only those defined as "ye" have been given authority to administer baptism to "them."

Who are the "ye" versus the "them"? Those identified as "them" in Matthew 28:19-20 are those formerly lost but called out by the Gospel from "all nations" and are unbaptized and untaught and unchurched believers. They are those who stand in need of baptism, in need of being assembled together in order to be instructed in the all things - THESE ARE YOUR METHODISTS

Who are "ye"? In this context they are those who "have" already been through this process and thus are called "disciples" (v. 16) as they "have" already been gospelized, baptized, assembled together as body and been instructed how to observe all things Christ Commanded (Acts 1:21-22). They are the New Testament Church that companied with Christ "from the baptism of John" and were still assembling in Acts 1 and Acts 2:1 unto which the 3000 on the day of Pentecost were "added unto" in Acts 2:41 and called "the church" at Jerusalem in Acts 2:47. In other words, Christ has given this commission to the New Testament Church or those who "have" already been through this process not to "them" or Christians who have not been through this process.

Not only is this clear from the Scriptures but it is the only position that makes common sense. Christ would never send the ungospelized to gospelize others or the unbaptized to baptize others or the untaught to teach others.

Your Methodists may be gospelized, but they are unbaptized and this commission gives no authority to unbaptized believers to baptize anyone any more than it gives untaught believers ("them") to teach what they haven't been taught any more than he would send the ungospelized to gospelize "them."

This Great Commission authority is the same thing as the "keys of the kingdom" exercised by the Church in Matthew 18:17-18.

This was exactly the problem of Apollos. Even though Apollos was a scripturally baptized believer he was untaught concerning the commissioned authority to administer baptism and make disciples or the Spirit baptized/accredited House of God. Hence, he was still part of "them" in need of the third aspect of the Great Commission. It was the church members at Ephesus that took him aside and when they finished with him he no longer worked apart from the Lord's churches.

Bottom line, authority to administer baptism has not been given by Christ to anyone characteristic of "them" in Matthew 28:19-20. It has been given to PLURAL previously baptized believers ("Ye") who have been regularly assembled into an instructed body observing all things Christ commanded - the church.

Where there is no previous existing church there is no authorized administrator of baptism.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Church perepetuity

You are correct in your assessment that my position requires the existence of New Testament churches in every generation "from the baptism of John" until Jesus returns reproducing after themselves through the administration of this commission.

We see this actually occurring in the book of Acts. Every single church in the book of Acts comes into existence through the membership of a previous existing church.

The Great Commission is a reproductive cycle. First, it is disciples that are commissioned to "make disciples." This requires at the very minimum a previous existing disciple as defined by this commission (baptized believing church member) to produce a disciple by the three-fold process commanded.
The three fold process is a natural cycle of reproduction. If you go, baptized and teach them to observe all things commanded that includes the first command to "go" and thus the process recycles itself.

The threefold process is an organic cycle of reproduction. You cannot "go" preach the gospel unless you actually make contact with those you preach to. You cannot baptize "them" without organically placing your hands on their physical bodies. You cannot teach them how to observe all things commanded without physically and organically as well as habitually assemblying with them for some period of time.

Finally, the promise, "lo, I will be with you always even unto the end of the world" more literally reads, "I will be with you all the days unto the end of the age" or as one well known Greek scholar translates it "I will be with you day in and day out until the end of the age" (William Hendriksen).

The final analysis is that such New Testament churches are found in such a reproductive cycle in the book of Acts and Christ's promises they will continue to reproduce after their own kind until the end of the age.

Historically the only thing this commission requires any church to prove is that it originated from a previous link that fits the description of the "ye" in the commission. If it originates from a previous church that preaches the same gospel, administers the same baptism and teaches the same faith and order and observes these very same things in reproducing after its own kind then it is a true church of Christ. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it is because it is a duck.

The Bible teaches that God created all living things to reproduce after their own kind. If we find an animal that was born from a previous animal we call a duck and it looks like the previous animal it was born from, walks like it and quacks like it and reproduces the same we don't require that duck to prove every link back to Genesis in order to prove it came from the first pair of ducks.
The Great Commission demands only two historical links (1) the previous existent "ye"; (2) "them" who are discipled into the same "ye".

Therefore there are but two Scriptural tests to qualify as a true New Testament Church of Christ; (1) Like faith and order with the threefold commission (same gospel, same baptism, same doctrine and practice) and (2) Historically reproduced/constituted from like faith and order.

All true New Testament churches will demand both of these tests in order to recognize another body of Christians as true Church of Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have misunderstood your beliefs. The Acts 1 passage, "from the baptism of John...to the resurrection", I took you to mean that from the time John baptized Jesus until Jesus was resurrected.We are going to disagree on this. Jesus asked God to sanctify His disciples in the truth... "Thy Word is Truth". To be "set apart" or sanctified is according to the Word of God.

I see nothing from scripture that prevent a group of people from reading the bible, discovering the truth of God's Word through the power of Holy Spirit, and then assemble themselves together as commanded by scripture to observe the ordinances.

Lastly, in Christian love, I just want to challenge you on one point.

Your claims mean that for your own ministry (as well as mine) to be valid in the eyes of God, you (I) must trace your (my) own baptism back to John the Baptist.

Please begin with your present church (or the church and/or the person who baptized you) and trace the origin of that church back to John the Baptist. By your own standard, for your ministry to be valid in the eyes of God, you must show an unbroken line of churches back to one of the Apostles.

It would be of great assistance (not to mention credibility) to give the dates and locations of the churches, and you must show that the person(s) who founded the churches had the proper credentials as well.

Now, I want to make sure you understand my point here. It is absolutely essential for your own conscience (since this is the standard you have applied to everyone else) that you take no one's word that you are in a church that can trace it's roots directly to John the Baptist. You must do the geneology yourself. Don't take some guy's word from the 1800's that certain groups meet the standard. Trace your own baptism back the John the Baptist.

If you find even one gap, even one questionable church or church leader in your history, by your own standards, your own ministry is immediately invalidated, as is your baptism, as is your church.

When you get your geneology ready, let me know and we'll go through it together. I love church history.

If for some reason your decide you can't or won't do your own baptismal geneology, then I will ask you why you are holding others to a standard that you, yourself, cannot meet?

peace to youraying:

If you want to know precisely what I believe on this subject there is a book printed on line at the following address:

http://s.webstarts.com/victorybaptistchurch/uploads/In_Search_of_New_Testament_Churches2.pdf

This author methodically presents my position in a very readable and easy understandable way. Just read the first three chapters and you will have absolutely no questions about what I believe and why I believe it. BTW read the introduction first and then proceed through the first three chapters. Couldn't have said it better if I had written the book myself.

 

[canadyjd]

Historically the only thing this commission requires any church to prove is that it originated from a previous link that fits the description of the "ye" in the commission. If it originates from a previous church that preaches the same gospel, administers the same baptism and teaches the same faith and order and observes these very same things in reproducing after its own kind then it is a true church of Christ. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it is because it is a duck.

So, the Methodists turned Baptists form a church, (I know you don't believe they are a genuine church) and reproduces.

Over the next 800 years, that church has reproduced several dozens of times. The origin of the church is lost to history. The leaders in the church read scripture and come to the same conclusions that you do. They believe they came from the "ye". They believe the church that produced them is part of the "ye". They believe the church that produced that church is part of the "ye".

As far back as their history records, they have believed exactly the same thing that you do. They "preach the same gospel, administer the same baptism and teach the same faith and order and observes these very same things in reproducing after its own kind then it is a true church of Christ."

Do you agree that by your definition, this church is a New Testament Church because they have shown that the church that immediately begat them preached the same gospel, administered the same baptism and teach the same faith....?

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Walter]

The fatal flaw in your analogy is the first step. This church begins with "them" not "ye" and therefore it could never teach or pass on to following churches the necessity of a prexisting "ye." Furthermore, how would it even regard itself as "Baptist" in the first place if it has no connection with Baptists. However, if it were known by other New Testament Churches then they would deny it as one of its own and therefore you not only have to rid all previous history of that church but all history of New Testament churches that were aware of how it began and deny it is scriptural in its origin.

Last, your conjectures invalidate the promise of Christ that he would be with this kind of "ye" reproducing itself "all the days until the end of the age." In essence, you are using this conjecture to completely invalidate the promise of God's Word.

Can you find any church in existence that claims to have originated in the apostolic age with the first church at Jerusalem that believes the same gospel, same baptism, same faith and order that is inclusive of the doctrine that Great Commission authority resides with the church that you can PROVE originated contrary to what they believe and practice??????? No, you can't or the history would not be lost. So your conjecture is complete speculation that really opposes the promise of God.

So, the Methodists turned Baptists form a church, (I know you don't believe they are a genuine church) and reproduces.

Over the next 800 years, that church has reproduced several dozens of times. The origin of the church is lost to history. The leaders in the church read scripture and come to the same conclusions that you do. They believe they came from the "ye". They believe the church that produced them is part of the "ye". They believe the church that produced that church is part of the "ye".

As far back as their history records, they have believed exactly the same thing that you do. They "preach the same gospel, administer the same baptism and teach the same faith and order and observes these very same things in reproducing after its own kind then it is a true church of Christ."

Do you agree that by your definition, this church is a New Testament Church because they have shown that the church that immediately begat them preached the same gospel, administered the same baptism and teach the same faith....?

peace to youraying:

 

[Dr. Bob]

Long past much value or anything new. And long past the normal cut-off (10-page limit) of threads. Like double.