Doctrinal Differances

[RAdam]

When Jesus ascended there were 120 disciples. Why didn't He give the GC to them all? Why only the 11? Were the others not part of the church? Obviously there is some significance to this. I may be wrong on the significance, but ya'll aren't even acknowledging it.

The Book of Acts is about the Acts of the Apostles in carrying out the Great Commission given to them. Yes, it is church history, but it is about what the apostles did through the grace of God, not about what the church did. I'm not
trying to do draw an absolute line of separation between the church and the ministry. In a sense the ministry is still part of the local assembly, but in an sense they have been separated (Paul's word). There are commands given to the ministry not given to all believers. The ministry are not superior to other beleivers, in fact Paul says we are debtors, and the very word minister means to serve. But, there are some things particularly meant for those whom God had set aside to preach the gospel of His Dear Son.

I also want to stress I say all of this in love, not meant in strife.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Then why did you come to the Fundamental Baptist Forum?

Our job is to arueth and fighteth with each other and
make fun of Saddleback!

:tonofbricks:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Again, the statement is made, not to all disciples of Jesus Christ at that time, but only to the eleven. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

No. The eleven were the apostles through whom Christ founded the church.

Why, if the commission was to the church and all believers, wasn't it then given to all believers? Why was it only given to the ministry?

"The ministry" is never a term associated with the eleven/twelve in the NT. It was given to the apostles because they were the ones through whom Chrst founded the church.

So, anyone in the church can baptize?

Yes, so long as they are designated by the congregation to baptize on behalf of the body.

If a child comes forward for baptism, their parent (not a God-called minister) could then baptize him/her?

Yes.

If the commandment is to all believers then that is the logical result.

You got it, so long as it is done through the church. Baptism is a church ordinance.

The church at Antioch sent Barnabas and Paul when the Holy Ghost directed them to. They didn't have a man run board that sent out preachers, but rather God was directing.

Exactly. The church sent them out and the Bible says that was the sending of the Spirit. You see the Spirit working through the church. You see the same thing in Acts 15:22.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Were the others not part of the church?

There was no church when he gave the commission. THe church didn't start until ACts 2.

Obviously there is some significance to this. I may be wrong on the significance, but ya'll aren't even acknowledging it.

I think the significance is in the leaders being charged about how to lead the church, and teach the church to do what God called them to do. If Christ had given it to all 120, you would probably complain that he didn't give it to the 3000.

I'm not trying to do draw an absolute line of separation between the church and the ministry. In a sense the ministry is still part of the local assembly, but in an sense they have been separated (Paul's word). There are commands given to the ministry not given to all believers. The ministry are not superior to other beleivers, in fact Paul says we are debtors, and the very word minister means to serve. But, there are some things particularly meant for those whom God had set aside to preach the gospel of His Dear Son.

In the NT, all believers are to be in ministry. This distinction you are drawing is not a biblical one.

 

[RAdam]

So women are to be in the ministry?

 

[HankD]

How does a Church that doesn't support any missionaries Quote: "Go into All the World"? They may be active in their Jerusalem or Judea but the ends of the earth are being neglected!

Jesus did not only say "Go into All the World".

Matthew 9

37 Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;
38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

You can pray for those in the harvest field no matter where they are in the ends of the earth, that the Lord of the harvest will send forth laborers.

HankD​

 

[Pastor Larry]

So women are to be in the ministry?

Absolutely. But only if they are believers.

You are equating ministry with the pastoral office. The two are not the same in the Bible.

 

[RAdam]

I'm talking specifically about preaching ministry.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I'm talking specifically about preaching ministry.

No, women are not to be in preaching ministry over men. But that doesn't stop them from making disciples. The GC involves much more than preaching.

 

[Harold Garvey]

The Great Commision is for all the church beginning with Jesus, passed on from Him to the 12-1, then add 1/Paul, then passed onto the 120 UR disciples and then into all the world.

 

[Tom Butler]

There was no church when he gave the commission. THe church didn't start until ACts 2.

Actually, there was a church, the one established during Jesus' earthly ministry. It had a Head, it was organized, it had marching orders (Matthew 9) it was involved in evangelism, the disciples were ordained (Mark 3). It's ministry, however, was confined to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. The Great Commission expanded that to include the world.

Before Pentecost, the church baptized, observed the Lord's Supper, received instruction on church discipline.

One might say that the church was empowered on the Day of Pentecost, but it was already empowered as long as Jesus was on the earth. Did the disciples tell Jesus after their mission trip that "even the demons are subject to us?"

think the significance is in the leaders being charged about how to lead the church, and teach the church to do what God called them to do. If Christ had given it to all 120, you would probably complain that he didn't give it to the 3000.

In the NT, all believers are to be in ministry. This distinction you are drawing is not a biblical one.

Agree

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually, there was a church, the one established during Jesus' earthly ministry. It had a Head, it was organized, it had marching orders (Matthew 9) it was involved in evangelism, the disciples were ordained (Mark 3). It's ministry, however, was confined to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. The Great Commission expanded that to include the world.

Um, no. It wasn't Spirit-baptized, which is the forming act of the church (1 Cor 13:12). Spirit baptism, which is how we get into "one body" was still future in the time of Christ as Christ himself said (Matt 3:11||). There were groups of believers in during Christ's ministry, just as they were in the OT. But that is not a church, biblically speaking.

Before Pentecost, the church baptized, observed the Lord's Supper, received instruction on church discipline.

No it didn't, for the simple reason that there was no church.

Did the disciples tell Jesus after their mission trip that "even the demons are subject to us?"

Yes, but the NT never makes that the mark of the church.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The main difference is in separation. IFB's refuse to cooperate with any other church.

It is important to note that the SBC is not a denomination but a cooperative of Independent Baptist Churches. Now within that cooperative there are liberal churches and Fundamental conservative churches.

I must strongly disagree with your definitions. You mean to tell me that the Baptist Bible Fellowship, the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International, et al. do not exist "IFB's refuse to cooperate with any other church".

The problem is you are looking at the situation through SBC perscription lenses. I can only speak from a Historic Northern (Regular) Baptist perspective (FBFI, I can't speak for the GARBC). For us the split came in the 1830's split of the Triennial Baptist Convention on Missions. We took the position that a Baptist Church could not be represented in a higher body. So we organized our cooperative efforts on a functional basis e.g. The Northern Baptist Home Missionary Society, the Northern Baptist Bible and Publications Society, ect. Each organiztion was made up of like minded individuals representing only themselves. Though, churches did budget funds for the support these various agencies. The older editions of Hiscox's New Directory for Baptist Churches give a snapshot if late 19th century Northern Baptists life.

In the 21st Century, even if there were no liberal churches "within that cooperative", there are suffecent reasons for me not to be a part of the SBC. For many of us, we split from the Northern Baptist Convention over liberalism and modernism and we split from the CBA over the degrees of cooperation with the NBC. Why sould we join the SBC?

 

[Tom Butler]

Um, no. It wasn't Spirit-baptized, which is the forming act of the church (1 Cor 13:12). Spirit baptism, which is how we get into "one body" was still future in the time of Christ as Christ himself said (Matt 3:11||). There were groups of believers in during Christ's ministry, just as they were in the OT. But that is not a church, biblically speaking.

Um, yes it is. I understand that you are filtering your view of the church through a dispensational lens. The church which Jesus established already had everything it needed on the day of Pentecost. It was already formed. Jesus, who empowered the church he founded, said the Holy Spirit would come to empower it after he ascended.

The passage you cite (I Cor 12:13) could just as easily speak of water baptism which places one into the local church.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I understand that you are filtering your view of the church through a dispensational lens.

No. I am taking what Scripture says about the church.

The church which Jesus established already had everything it needed on the day of Pentecost.

Except Spirit baptism.

The passage you cite (I Cor 12:13) could just as easily speak of water baptism which places one into the local church.

Not exegetically. You have to make the passage stand on its head in a number of ways, and bring some completely foreign ideas into the text. Paul there is not talking about the local church, as is clear from his inclusion of himself. He wasn't baptized into the local church at Corinth and yet says "We all..." So you really end up putting Paul in a difficult position if you claim this means water baptism. The idea that this passage refers to water baptism has been soundly answered in numerous places.

The only way to get water baptism in 1 Cor 12 is to start with the idea that it has to be water baptism. If you have no other options, then you have to conclude it is water baptism, and you end up making the text get there one way or another. But if you don't start there, I don't think you would ever get there.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The "Church's" Beginning

Mind y'all, I'm basing these comments thirty some odd years after my Baptist Polity class under the late Dr. Richard Weeks and my own conjugations on the matter.
First, Matthew 16 was the conception of the church. From that point, it continued to develop in embryonic form until its birth on Pentecost. So, yes various matters were "given" to the church (discipline, Lord's Supper, baptism etc.) just as an embryo develops various body parts in the womb.

 

[Tom Butler]

Mind y'all, I'm basing these comments thirty some odd years after my Baptist Polity class under the late Dr. Richard Weeks and my own conjugations on the matter.
First, Matthew 16 was the conception of the church. From that point, it continued to develop in embryonic form until its birth on Pentecost. So, yes various matters were "given" to the church (discipline, Lord's Supper, baptism etc.) just as an embryo develops various body parts in the womb.

But this little band did actual preaching, actual healing, actual casting out demons, actual baptizing of actual converts, actual observance of the Lord's Supper. This appears to me, Squire, to be an entity already born--small, to be sure, but something more than embryonic.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But this little band did actual preaching

Which isn't only a church age thing.

actual healing

Which wasn't only a church age thing.

actual casting out demons

Which wasn't only a church age thing.

actual baptizing of actual converts

Which wasn't only a church age thing.

actual observance of the Lord's Supper

It was actually the Passover, which is different, and it was once, on the night before Jesus died.

This appears to me, Squire, to be an entity already born

On what basis? Most of what you list is not unique to the church age. The only one that is was actually the Passover which was unique to the OT.

So you haven't actually dealt with the exegetical argument or the historical ones. These things you mention were all present long before the church, even if you start it during the time of Christ.

 

[Tom Butler]

No. I am taking what Scripture says about the church.

I understand that, and don't question it. I simply differ about what I believe the Scripture says about the church.

Except Spirit baptism.

Spirit baptism was designed to empower the church, and their actions following the experience bear that out. But while Jesus was on earth, the small congregation certainly had power, because the source of that power was personally with them.

Re: I Cor 12:13, which said could be water baptism, you said:

Not exegetically. You have to make the passage stand on its head in a number of ways, and bring some completely foreign ideas into the text. Paul there is not talking about the local church, as is clear from his inclusion of himself. He wasn't baptized into the local church at Corinth and yet says "We all..." So you really end up putting Paul in a difficult position if you claim this means water baptism. The idea that this passage refers to water baptism has been soundly answered in numerous places.

The only way to get water baptism in 1 Cor 12 is to start with the idea that it has to be water baptism. If you have no other options, then you have to conclude it is water baptism, and you end up making the text get there one way or another. But if you don't start there, I don't think you would ever get there.

I Cor 12:13 could easily be translated "IN (Greek en) one Spirit, we are all...." This is consistent with the statements of John the Baptist (Matt 3:16) and Jesus in Acts 1:5 (you shall be baptized WITH (or in) the Holy Spirit not many days hence). John the Baptist clearly states that the baptizer will be the Christ himself. The Holy Spirit baptizes no one. This passage could be easily interpreted as follows: Under the power of the Holy Spirit we were all brought by the Lord to baptism, and thus were made members of His body. Therefore, baptism is the ceremonial door into the church, a local body.

If we also describe it as "immersion in the Holy Spirit" it makes more sense.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Spirit baptism was designed to empower the church, and their actions following the experience bear that out. But while Jesus was on earth, the small congregation certainly had power, because the source of that power was personally with them.

Of course the congregation had power. So did Elijah and Elisha, and Moses. But the existence of power doesn't mean the existence of the church.

I Cor 12:13 could easily be translated "IN (Greek en) one Spirit, we are all...." This is consistent with the statements of John the Baptist (Matt 3:16) and Jesus in Acts 1:5 (you shall be baptized WITH (or in) the Holy Spirit not many days hence). John the Baptist clearly states that the baptizer will be the Christ himself. The Holy Spirit baptizes no one.

Of course.

This passage could be easily interpreted as follows: Under the power of the Holy Spirit we were all brought by the Lord to baptism, and thus were made members of His body. Therefore, baptism is the ceremonial door into the church, a local body.

Not really. That is foreign to the context. The context is about spiritual gifts, and why we have them. It is not because we were baptized in water, but because we were baptized in the Spirit. That is why we all have spiritual gifts -- because we were all baptized in the one Spirit.

If we also describe it as "immersion in the Holy Spirit" it makes more sense.

I wouldn't argue with that, but I don't see how that helps your point. It seems better to make mine. That it wasn't "immersion in water" but "immersion in the Spirit."