Salvation reduced to its most simplest level

[OldRegular]

Yes, it would have caused such a rift because my point is that the universal invisible church interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit is false and when that idea is proven false the whole idea of the universal invisible church falls with it.

Another example of twisting other peoples statements. Can you show anywhere on this thread where anyone, other than you has said:

the universal invisible church interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit is false and when that idea is proven false the whole idea of the universal invisible church falls with it.

You see, if spiritual union is salvation reduced to its most simple form than that is indwelling of the Spirit as it is impossible to be in spirtiual "union" with God's Spirit and not be indwelt by God's Spirit or else there is no spiritual union at all. Your human spirit resides inside your body and for union between your human spirit and God's spirit to exist God must equally dwell where you spirit dwells or else no spiritual union exists.

Do you really understand what you wrote. Does anyone?

If spiritual union is indwelling then the whole universal invisible church interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit is impossible, because Pentecosts fixes in time the baptism in the Spirit but spiritural union/indwelling precedes Pentecost. Therefore, the whole doctrine of the universal invisible church collapses in on itself as you must choose between its salvation equals church membership or salvation has no connection with the church at all.

Can you find where anyone else wrote anything that resembles the collection of words strung together above?

Do you really understand what constitutes Union with Jesus Christ? In my initial post I said:

If Jesus Christ died for you you are a part of His Church!

and that pulled your chain!

 

[convicted1]

Brother The Biblicist,

I enjoy debating...I enjoy debating you...eventhough I am more often than not in agreement with you...

TBS, this is a debate site. We are to debate. We are debate HARD, imo. But, in debates, there's 'give and take'. I have never seen you 'give/concede', but I have only witnessed you 'take/always right'. That's not the way debates operate.

That's why most of your posts are you quoting yourself. No one will debate with someone who's 'always right'.....

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist;

However, you have a THIRD OPTION the Bible knows nothing about

.
Really...maybe you could show where I said anything like this at all??

You have a type of fallen Adam prior to Pentecost who is "in the flesh" and yet came come to Christ

Show me where I said this? This might be in your imagination, but show where I posted fallen sinners coming to Christ in the flesh.
This is exactly what I asked you not to do....show the post.

 

[percho]

that to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Christ Jesus, that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith. Gal 3:14 YLT

What was, "the faith," through which the promise of the Spirit was given.

Verse 23 says that, "faith," was revealed at a given point in time. Verse 2 says that, "faith," was something (a noun) heard about.

Verse 23 and 24 says before, "the faith," came by which the nations could be given the promise of the Spirit, someone was kept under the law, the schoolmaster. The Holy Spirit could not be given as long as they were under the schoolmaster. Verse 25 says after the coming of, "the faith," they were no longer under the schoolmaster.

I would say the promise of the Spirit was not given to anyone until that moment in time.

When was that moment?

How is that moment relative to the church being built with lively stones?

 

[Iconoclast]

So, God never dwelt (spiritual union) in anyone prior to Pentecost, and therefore all before Pentecost are spiritual separated (dead)?? That is exactly what you are teaching and it is false.

I never said or taught this. If you are going to twist what I said there will be no progress made at all.God's Spirit and grace are active from genesis to revelation.

The materials for the PUBLIC HOUSE OF WORSHIP is different than before. You are correct about that. But it is STILL the PUBLIC HOUSE OF WORSHIP that is the object of the baptism.

It is not any one physical place...it is the assembled people.

This PUBLIC HOUSE of worship is an ORGANIZATION, and INSTITUTION

In the Ot is was outward and external.....the believers had to take what was external and internalize it...it was more in types and shadows that the lessons were to be gleaned and then internalized.

(officers, ordinances, rules of discipline, members can be excluded) but WHERE IS THIS ORGANIZATION before Pentecost?????

The NT church[assembly was not in the Ot....In the Ot the believers did assemble however in the way prescribed by God. it was found in the tabernacle and the temple system.

Can't be found!

yes it can....
40 And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.
The building was described by God...the priesthood was regulated by God.

I find it here;

Hebrews 9 King James Version (KJV)

9 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

God's people assembled with a prescribed way of worship.

But where are the elect before Pentecost (Heb. 11) from Genesis to Matthew CAN BE FOUND in SPIRITUAL UNION with God through Christ.

no one said otherwise.....what you do not grasp is that all these were saved by the Blood of Jesus in time...but the blood had to be shed after they had lived and left their bodies...

in the same way....SPIRIT BAPTISM....
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
it is over the whole house of God;
3 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.





Spirit baptism is what makes all believers able to enter beyond the veil ...In Christ...Our Great High Priest led captivity captive...he being the first fruits ....redemption accomplished and applied.....it was a Covenant death with Jesus as our mediator and surety, which you make no mention of at all.

.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hebrews 11 says no such thing. Hebrews 11:40 explicitly states that it is the STATE OF PERFECTION - the GLORIFIED state they looked forward to and we with them STILL ARE WAITING for it:

exactly....

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

This promise of the glorified state where the New Jerusalem has come down from heaven is the explicit promise and hope they were looking for and it is spelled out in clear English in Hebrews 11:13-17

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

This has NOTHING to do with spiritual union or the baptism in the Spirit but with what we are all still waiting for - GLORIFICATION in the new heavens and earth.

This in part is where you miss it completely.....all takes place on the last day as far as glorification goes.....Spirit Baptism unites all believers in the eternal body of Christ....those who looked forward to the promises and those who look back on the promises contained in the Covenant cross work.

No edifice can be built BEFORE its foundation is laid (Eph. 2:20).

It is built with living stones....not physical bricks.

There are links for the ot prohets to the nt prophets that focus on the church;

18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

The Church Jesus built was always in view....you make as if it was not.

No edifice can be built without materials to build it (1 Cor. 12:28). The NT Church is an ORGANIZATION, as the NT church has officers, ordinances and disciplinary order. NO SUCH CHURCH PRECEDES THE coming of Christ.

wrong...this is where your ecclesiology goes off...

You are simply speaking without any scriptural basis whatsoever!

those quoted in acts 3 are all the scriptural authority I need.
Because you do not process it correctly with your landmark ideas is not my fault.

Again the NT church is an ORGANIZATION consisting of officers, ordinances, disciplinary order, membership that has NO EXISTENCE prior to the first coming of Christ.

that's why it is called the NT church...it is in the Nt time:thumbs:

Prior to Acts 10 it was strictly a JEWISH organization. The baptism in the Spirit had to be repeated by God in order for the JEWS to receive them into the ORGANIZATION as members through WATER baptism. The question was who will deny WATER BAPTISM from those God has accredited to be part of his NEW HOUSE OF GOD, the INSTIUTION, the ORGANIZATION.

the baptism in the Spirit was not repeated...

What???? So, by your church theory the Old Testament saints are still not in your big church. Still OUTSIDE of what you define as spiritual union with Christ (the church)???????

I never said that at all.

Yes you do believe in a universal invisible church right now or else the Old Testament saints are STILL LOST, STILL OUTSIDE OF SPIRITUAL UNION and yet in heaven and that is absurd!

have fun with your strawman....I clearly said I do not believe in a universal invisible church. There are visible saints that assemble...tares come among the wheat, but they are not really the church at all.

I told you I will not answer to your strawmen...you can do battle with the strawmen you create.

The NT CHURCH as an institution consist of concrete churches plural that can be placed ANYWHERE ON EARTH just as we see in the book of Acts and the epistles.

It is not the building, it is the body...Jesus is the head, we are the body.

So you still believe all before Pentecost existed their entire life in SPIRITUAL SEPARATON(death)

never said it, do not believe it...again another strawman.

and since you don't believe your BIG CHURCH even now exists but only will exist yet in the future

Individual believers are in the Kingdom..... an assembly, a church, is a church or assembly...WHEN IT ASSEMBLES....do you get it?

An unassembled assembly,,,,is not an assembly:thumbs:

My one BIG Church assembles on the Last Day....no matter what you say.
it has never assembled yet......the One true Church assembles on the last day.
all believers from all time....

therefore the Old Testament saints are STILL in spiritual separation (spiritually dead) and OUTSIDE of Christ?????

I suppose if you cannot grasp the discussion...you can keep making up things I never said...but this does not really get at truth does it.....I asked you to present what you believe...not to project what you think, or suggest I might believe.....you are not getting even close to what I have said

 

[OldRegular]

My one BIG Church assembles on the Last Day....no matter what you say.
it has never assembled yet......the One true Church assembles on the last day.
all believers from all time....

As I indicated earlier that is what B. H. Carroll called the Glory Church!

 

[Iconoclast]

As I indicated earlier that is what B. H. Carroll called the Glory Church!

yes...his writings I found helpful in times past...I have his works saved on a flash drive...

I do believe there is a difference in an individual believer who is saved...I would describe him as a member of the kingdom of God.

I believe however that the church is an assembled assembly. I do not refer to individuals as part of a universal church...or a universal body.

While I do have opposition to B on many areas of ecclesiology....this is not one. I am similar in this distinction. The church is local and assembled.
On the last day...it will be local and assembled, from every tribe ,kindred tongue and nation...universal in that way, when assembled and local.

it is possible when speaking about the church in general terms...like speaking about...the jury.
When an actual jury assembles it has actual members for each assembled jury at a location .

This is a different discussion however, but I note this by way of full disclosure:laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist;

.
Really...maybe you could show where I said anything like this at all??



Show me where I said this? This might be in your imagination, but show where I posted fallen sinners coming to Christ in the flesh.
This is exactly what I asked you not to do....show the post.

Did I ever say you "said" this? You and OR need to understand that I am responding to the consistency or inconsistency of YOUR POSITION or INTEPRETATION of the baptism in the Spirit in its relationship with your concept of the church.

I am pointing out the inconsistency of your primary view of this baptism and church with other the truth of salvation. When you actually say something I am commenting on I always quote your words. However, when I do not quote your words, I am simply pointing out an inconsistency between your viewpoint or interpretation and what I perceive to be the truth of scripture.

So most of your responses that begin with "where did I ever say this" are simply straw man arguments as I never claimed you did say it, instead I am saying that your interpretation as a whole is saying that.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is built with living stones....not physical bricks.

But is is "built" and it is "assembled" and that speaks of locality and structure in keeping with an INSTITUTION with ORGANIZATION and officers, ordinances and disciplinary standards to RETAIN MEMBERSHIP of which your kind of church is completely missing.

There are links for the ot prohets to the nt prophets that focus on the church;

18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Again, you are confusing an institutional organization with salvation. The above texts speak only of salvation.

that's why it is called the NT church...it is in the Nt time:thumbs:

My point exactly. If the subject were salvation it would not be NT times but linkage with OT prophets, but it is something that cannot be found prior to the ministry of Christ. You cannot find what Christ spoke about 22 more times he uses the word ekklesia in Mt. 16:18 previous to Matthew 16:18. You cannot find the institutional organization with officers (pastor, deacons, apostles, etc.). You cannot find its ordinances (baptism, Lord's Supper). You cannot find its disciplinary standards to retain membership IN THAT KIND OF BODY (2 Thes. 3:6).

I never said that at all.

Your theory says it loud and clear.

I clearly said I do not believe in a universal invisible church.

Your interpretations and doctrine declares that you must in spite of your denial. For example, don't you claim the baptism in the Spirit is what brings ALL BELIEVERS in heaven and earth into SPIRITUAL UNION with Christ? Or have we been arguing about some other view of the baptism in the Spirit?????

There are visible saints that assemble...tares come among the wheat, but they are not really the church at all.

You are repeating the same error of Augustine who took the very same KINGDOM parable and attempted to apply it to the church and thus invented the UNIVERSAL church theory.

You are repeating the same error of Luther who took the interpretation of Augustine concerning this KINGDOM parable and applied it to the church and came up with the universal INVISIBLE church theory.

This parable has to do with the VISIBLE PROFESSING KINGDOM on earth at any given time and has nothing to do with the church.

In regard to the churches GOD INTENTIONALLY SETS tares in the membership (Judas, 1 Cor. 11:18; 12:18) in order to sanctify the churches and test their faithfulness

It is not the building, it is the body...Jesus is the head, we are the body.

You need to study the proper use of metaphors. The term "head" in scripture is obviously a metaphor as the church does not have a LITERAL physical head because the church body is not a LITERAL physical body. The metaphorical use of "head" ALWAYS refers to "authority" NEVER to spiritual union and always found in passages dealing with SANCTIFICATION and NEVER in passages dealing with spiritual union or salvation.

Moreover, the rules that govern the proper use of metaphors demands that both nouns MUST be understood in their literal sense or the metaphor means nothing. Hence, the term "body" and the term "church" have to be understood in their literal sense first before any transfer of characteristics from one to the other is possible. If you don't understand this, then go find a book on the proper use of metaphors. What is transferred is CHARACTERISTICS that can be literally found in the first noun which are transferred to the second noun. Hence, "I am the door" means "I REPRESENT THE CHARACTERISTICS found in a door." Thus "Ye are the body of Christ" mans "Ye REPRESENT THE CHARACTERISTICS found in a body." Please find for us a literal body with charateristics of UNIVERSALITY or INVISIBILITY???? can't be done.

Individual believers are in the Kingdom..... an assembly, a church, is a church or assembly...WHEN IT ASSEMBLES....do you get it?

That is simply false. An "individual believer" is not an assembly as an assembly by its very character requires at least TWO for an actual visible assembly to occur. An "individual believer" can be family. The New Testament assemblies throughout the book of Acts and Epistles CAN and DO actually assemble. Your concept does not assemble.

If you take the view of Dr. J.M. Pendleton or Dr. B.H. Carroll that is more preferrable, as they both rejected any present state of a church that includes all of the elect but rather claimed that had no existence until the actual assembly of all the elect in heaven. I don't agree with that theory for many reasons, but it is far more acceptable than the Reformed Roman Catholic view of a universal invisible church presently existing by spiritual union with Christ based upon the baptism in the Spirit.

However, the very same interpretative flaws in this future church isthe very same flaws that support and demand the false present universal invisible church theory - the flawed interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit.

 

[The Biblicist]

As I indicated earlier that is what B. H. Carroll called the Glory Church!

Yes, and their position is much more acceptable than yours. However, they are inconsistent by their interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit, which if viewed consistently will lead to your theory. That is why I reject both the present and future glory glory church view that consists of all the elect. I do believe in a future glory church view that consists of all the faithful elect found in scriptural NT churches between the first and second coming of Christ while the rest of the elect are also found in the New heaven and earth described as "guests" at the wedding feast, or "saved nations" living upon the newly created earth or Jewish bride of the Father living in the New Jerusalem living with the church bride of Christ in the New Jerusalem.

 

[OldRegular]

yes...his writings I found helpful in times past...I have his works saved on a flash drive...

I do believe there is a difference in an individual believer who is saved...I would describe him as a member of the kingdom of God.

I believe however that the church is an assembled assembly. I do not refer to individuals as part of a universal church...or a universal body.

While I do have opposition to B on many areas of ecclesiology....this is not one. I am similar in this distinction. The church is local and assembled.
On the last day...it will be local and assembled, from every tribe ,kindred tongue and nation...universal in that way, when assembled and local.

it is possible when speaking about the church in general terms...like speaking about...the jury.
When an actual jury assembles it has actual members for each assembled jury at a location .

This is a different discussion however, but I note this by way of full disclosure:laugh:

Many people do not believe in a universal Church, which is obviously not an a visible assembly. However as I noted earlier both the 1687 London Confession and the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message support a universal Church, the London Confession is more explicit! From my post #17:

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Chapter 26: Of the Church

1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 )

2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )
But of course the 1689 Confession and the Bible preceded pre-trib-dispensationalism!

And the Southern Baptist Faith and Message of 2000AD.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Now if people do not want to believe in a universal Church that is fine. I had some beloved Brothers {In the flesh and in the Spirit.} who did not believe in a universal Church. However, attempting to prove there is no universal Church on the basis of baptism in the Holy Spirit is utter nonsense!

Icon, if you will read the Scripture references presented in the London Confession you will see they make a strong case, especially the passage from Hebrews and Colossians. I believe you have used the passage from Hebrews to support your gathered assembly on the last day. However I do not believe that passages is limited to the last day but to the present.

 

[Iconoclast]

Many people do not believe in a universal Church, which is obviously not an a visible assembly. However as I noted earlier both the 1687 London Confession and the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message support a universal Church, the London Confession is more explicit!
Now if people do not want to believe in a universal Church that is fine. I had some beloved Brothers {In the flesh and in the Spirit.} who did not believe in a universal Church. However, attempting to prove there is no universal Church on the basis of baptism in the Holy Spirit is utter nonsense!

Icon, if you will read the Scripture references presented in the London Confession you will see they make a strong case, especially the passage from Hebrews and Colossians. I believe you have used the passage from Hebrews to support your gathered assembly on the last day. However I do not believe that passages is limited to the last day but to the present.

yes old regular I know the 1689 any other confession speak of universal church idea and also to the church being made up of a mixed assembly and I guess it's where I branch of a little bit and I have a little bit of difference with the teaching in a confession even though I am a member of the congressional church and understand what that confession says I don't think I agree with a that this point in time so I I hold the distinction make it distinction here that not everyone

 

[The Biblicist]

yes old regular I know the 1689 any other confession speak of universal church idea and also to the church being made up of a mixed assembly and I guess it's where I branch of a little bit and I have a little bit of difference with the teaching in a confession even though I am a member of the congressional church and understand what that confession says I don't think I agree with a that this point in time so I I hold the distinction make it distinction here that not everyone

What many may know but forget, is that the English Baptists came out of a period they called "The Great Tribulation from 1660 to 1688. That Period was when the Catholics were in control of the throne of England and both Baptists and Presbyterians were equally persecuted and had to hide and often were found hiding together.

In 1688 the throne of England fell into the hands of the Presbyterians and the Baptists intentionally designed their 1689 confession of Faith after the pattern of the Westminister Confession for one particular reason - to show that they were orthodox in their beliefs with the hope that the Presbyterians would not persecute then as did the Catholics. In 1688 the new powere granted a religous toleration act which gave further hope to the Baptists.

Now, if you really want to understand what the 1689 Baptists meant by their article on the church, then just carefully compare the contrasting features with the Westminister Confession article on the church.

Language must be defined in its historical context and that is only way you will properly understand what these Baptists believed and did not believe in contrast to the Presbyterians. When it is carefully examined, you will see they had not changed their belief on the church at all from their early London Confession of faith, but very tactfully agreed with all the langauge of the Westminister they could but redefined the terms to fit their own beliefs.

Notice the contrast between Article 1 in the Westminister compared to article 1 in the 1689 London confession.

First the Westminister:

"I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that haven been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof: and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all.

Now the 1689 Baptist:

I. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect......

The parenthetical explanation is important when you read the contrasts between the Baptist and Westminister in sections 2-5.

However, the contrast between the two confessions is really highlighted by the Baptists in Article 2.

First the Westminister:

2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the whole world that profess the true religion; and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Now, the Baptist:

2. All Persons throughout the world professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints, and fo scuh ought all partcular congregations to be constituted.

First notice how the Presbyterians define "catholic" = "not confined to one nation, as before under the Law".

Notice also, that the Westminister defines "church" to consist "of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion."

I would say you probably interpreted article one in both confessions to agree with this Westminister definition of Catholic. However, the Baptists did not agree with that definition of the "church".

The Baptist Confession takes issue with both of these points. (1) Baptist refused to call all beleivers in the world "the church," instead, they said "all persons throughout the world professing the faith....may be called visible saints." (2)Baptist refused to define the church as being constituted of such saints, who did not embrace essential errors contrary to the faith, or were ungodly.

In sections three and four the Baptists condemned all churches that contained such error as "no churches of Christ" but "synogogues of Satan" and called the Pope "the antichrist."

In other words these Baptist (consisting over 100 churches) in section 2 rejected the Protestant Reformed concept of a universal invisible church made up of all saints, in all denomination worldwide.

Positively, they did believe in the future glory church made up of all true believers as section one states. Section one does not assert any PRESENT existence of this church but rather speaks of its as the "whole body" that "shall be gathered" consisting of all that have been and are true Christians.

However, this future glory church is then defined by section 2 as including all that are in true churches now. They denied that pedobaptist churches consisted of born again members. and that is why they carefully defined members of this glory church as excluding those within what they called Babylon the Great Whore.

When their minutes of their associations are studied it will be seen that this singular church was believed to contain only those truly saved within what they regarded as saved members of their own kind of churches. I can substantiate this by the associational records of Early English Baptists.

 

[OldRegular]

Just noticed! I believe the title contains a double superlative!

 

[kyredneck]

(well phffft!...blow me down...how does a transplant in SC learn such words!!) :laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us: Acts 7:38

Spoken expressly by the Author of the Book through His servant Stephen, AND THIS CHURCH WAS NOT EVEN OBEDIENT TO THE GOSPEL TO GO IN AND POSSESS THE LAND!

Go figure.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us: Acts 7:38

Spoken expressly by the Author of the Book through His servant Stephen, AND THIS CHURCH WAS NOT EVEN OBEDIENT TO THE GOSPEL TO GO IN AND POSSESS THE LAND!

Go figure.

You know this is a completely false argument! They were literally assembled in the wilderness in a local and visible fashion. This is not the church Jesus built. The church Jesus built had no existence prior to the laying down of its "foundation" which is New Testament in time and nature.

 

[kyredneck]

37 This is that Moses, who said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me.
38 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us: Acts 7

It was Christ who was in that Church!

 

[The Biblicist]

37 This is that Moses, who said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me.
38 This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us: Acts 7

It was Christ who was in that Church!

So, are you willing to admit that the true church contains lost people as well as saved people?????

Again, this only refers to a literal visible assembly where Christ manifested himself.