1 Cor. 6:15 defines the nature of the TRUE body of Christ

[The Biblicist]

I feel sorry for the "students" that you indoctrinated for so long into error. We are not your students, and we don't need your interminable lecture notes. We are adults able to examine the evidence and make up our own minds without fear of repercussion from some "professor" who has climbed out on a Landmark limb. A very few of us disagree with you. I suspect most believe you are right. You can post page after page after page and it will not change anything. But that will not stop you; so be it. But I will oppose you because you are flat out wrong on the Church Universal being a threat to your ecclesicology; it is not and if you throw off your blinders you could see it.

Again, you are attacking the messenger and refusing to address the message. I have presented very clearly the problems of your doctrine and this is your response? That is sad!

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.libcfl.org/articles/bapbride.htm
http://www.libcfl.org/articles/LUF/ch3.htm;
Presbytery Or Elders Not Essential to Church Constitution

EMDA further maintains you cannot constitute a church without the presence of an ordained minister. Apparently they believe there is some essential episcopal power flowing through the fingers of ordained men which can be obtained in no other way. Is this what Graves believed? Let him tell us.

Wherever there are three or more baptized members of a regular Baptist church or churches covenanted together to hold and teach, and are governed by the New Testament,’ etc., ‘there is a church of Christ, even though there was not a presbytery of ministers in a thousand miles of them to organize them into a church. There is not the slightest need of a council of presbyters to organize a Baptist church.[83]

 

[The Biblicist]

http://www.libcfl.org/articles/bapbride.htm
http://www.libcfl.org/articles/LUF/ch3.htm;
Presbytery Or Elders Not Essential to Church Constitution

EMDA further maintains you cannot constitute a church without the presence of an ordained minister. Apparently they believe there is some essential episcopal power flowing through the fingers of ordained men which can be obtained in no other way. Is this what Graves believed? Let him tell us.

Wherever there are three or more baptized members of a regular Baptist church or churches covenanted together to hold and teach, and are governed by the New Testament,’ etc., ‘there is a church of Christ, even though there was not a presbytery of ministers in a thousand miles of them to organize them into a church. There is not the slightest need of a council of presbyters to organize a Baptist church.[83]

So, are we going down another rabbit trail? I don't see how this issue has any relationship to the OP? It seems now that you have adopted a divide and conquer approach instead of dealing with the evidence I just provided as logical consequential unit? Your compadres have attempted to avoid the issues by attacking the messenger and now you are trying a divide and conquer approach rather than dealing with the eight issues AS AN INSEPARABLE UNIT set before you in post #239

Moreover, you are building a straw man argument. EMDA (Essential Mother Daughter Authority) or church authority in constitution of new churches, does not believe "there is some essential episcopal power flowing through the fingers of ordained men." That is absolutely false, as a church can directly authorize the constitution of a new church OR administer that authority through its ordained representatives, such as ordained men sent out on the mission field. Do church sent ordained missionaries represent the authority of the church in preaching the gospel, administering baptism and constituting new churches? Before you take off on this tangent and try to defend the LUF position remember that a group of people are not a church until AFTER their constitution and so it is not any usurpation of a church or its authority while it is yet unconstituted as it is not a church until after constitution. Secondly, the "ye" of the Great Commission is a horizontal authorized medium through which the Great Commission is administered to "the nations" and to "them" thus disproving the LUF theory altogether. So you have errected a straw man arguement and completely presented a false charge.

If this is an issue you want to pursue than I have written an entire book repudiating the LUF position of direct authority which can be downloaded free at:

http://victorybaptistchurch.webstarts.com/uploads/Church_Authority_Final_Printer_fix.pdf

As I have repeatedly told you and others, my position is not based upon Graves view (which differed from Moody, Eaton, Pendleton's and Daytons in some points) but completely upon scripture. I do not make tradition my final authority.

I would ask you to honor the rules of this forum and stay with the subject of the OP instead of trying to derail it with a completely different subject. Before defending LUF I advise you to read my book that thoroughly repudiates that position. But please start another thread if that is the rabbit trail you are now wanting to pursue.

However, neither you or anyone else has attempted to deal with the position I just set forth as a UNIT in post #239. I give you full credit that you have at least attempted to deal with individual aspects of my position, but have failed to prove your point with regard to essential aspects.

For example, your whole response falls apart due to the fact that Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 provide a numerical order which demands the "foundation" is composed of ONLY NT. materials whereas your response hinged on including OT prophets.

Your response hinged on making the baptism in the Spirit a completed act for all the elect on Pentecost but that failed because (1) Not only do all theologians who interpret the baptism in the Spirit as being removed from "in Adam" and placed "in Christ" demand it is an INDIVIDUAL action that is repeated at the time of individual salvation (2) but the very nature of that kind of definition must be individualized at the point of time when each person is saved because prior to that exact point in time they are not "in Christ" but still only "in Adam." So it can't be compared to the action of the cross which must be a non-repeatable action, but the very application as defined by your camp demands it must be an individualized action at the point of the salvation of each individual and yet the Biblical baptism in the Spirit is impossible to apply in that manner.

Furthermore, you have not been able to overthrow the foundations of my position that are represented in the first 5 listed arguments. You have attempted to overthrow my position but have failed and the failures are specifically identified by me, which as of this date you have been unable to respond.

So now you are attempting to change the subject, depart from the OP, and start a divide and conquer approach on a completely different subject? Please start a new thread on your new rabbit trail if this is the course you wish to pursue.

 

[The Biblicist]

The universal invisible church theory is a serious error as it undermines Biblical soteriology. Here is the issue which none on this forum have yet dared to address in its totality as the following issues are logically inseparable from one another.

1. The universal problem is spiritual separation from God which is spiritual death because it is separation from God who is life, light, holiness and love and this problem begins in Genesis not in Acts.

2. The only possible solution to that kind of problem is its reverse - spiritual union or else that person is still separated from God, thus separated from life, light, holiness and love.

3. All mankind are either "in Adam" or "in Christ" there is no third option - Rom. 5

4. There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at anytime or anywhere - Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6

5. The universal church solution is to this problem is baptism in the Spirit but that is 4000 years too late and the church cannot precede its own "foundation" which consists FIRST of apostles and then SECOND of prophets - Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28.

6. Without spiritual union there is only spiritual death and that leaves all living before Pentecost in the state of spiritual death in their lifetime and in death.

7. You cannot claim PART of the cross benefits are applicable prior to the cross if your primary argument against the most important part is that the cross had not yet occurred.

8. You cannot have spiritual union without indwelling as the human spirit resides INSIDE the body and for SPIRITUAL union to exist it must be indwelling or there is no spiritual union.

My friends do not want to deal with these 8 statements in their relationship order. Because the first leads logically to the second and the second to the third and so on. It is an indivisible unit where one demands the next.

No one can deny the foundation of this unit presented in number 1 above. They have attempted to separate and isolate one point from the rest but they cannot deny its logical necessity based on the previous point and therefore the whole 8 points stand irrefutable as each is necessarul;y demanded by the previous point and one can deny the foundation point stated in number one.

Try to separate any point from its previous one?

 

[Yeshua1]

I am glad that you responded, but I anticipated your response.

We will never agree on this.You think the signers of the Second Confession were apostates. You think I am a "Reformed Catholic/" and not really a Baptist at all.

I can live with that because you are manifestly wrong; I cling to the basic Baptist values. You reject that, and I could not care less because you have drawn Baptist values so tightly as so to exclude everyone but your tiny circle.

There is just something wrong when one hobby horses a pet doctrine so hard as he is, as he seems to be just like trying to carry on discussion with one affirming Sat Sabbath must be held, or that one must apeak in other tongues!

 

[Yeshua1]

My friends do not want to deal with these 8 statements in their relationship order. Because the first leads logically to the second and the second to the third and so on. It is an indivisible unit where one demands the next.

No one can deny the foundation of this unit presented in number 1 above. They have attempted to separate and isolate one point from the rest but they cannot deny its logical necessity based on the previous point and therefore the whole 8 points stand irrefutable as each is necessarul;y demanded by the previous point and one can deny the foundation point stated in number one.

Try to separate any point from its previous one?

Are only landmark Baptist churches then only real churches today?

 

[The Biblicist]

Are only landmark Baptist churches then only real churches today?

The term "landmarkism" was just a name devised to define the New Testament essentials of a true church. That term is not essential for a church to be a true church but the New Testament essentials it represents are essential to be a N.T. Church. In essence, where there is no scriptural baptized believers covenanted together in keeping with the Great Commission authority there is no true NT. Church.

And pleeeeease do not respond that this somehow makes all others lost!!! Church membership is not essential to salvation, EXCEPT BY YOUR DOCTRINE of the UIC which no one can be saved and be outside of that theory - church salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is just something wrong when one hobby horses a pet doctrine so hard as he is, as he seems to be just like trying to carry on discussion with one affirming Sat Sabbath must be held, or that one must apeak in other tongues!

That is a ridiculous argument as the same could be said for anyone defending any true doctrine against those who oppose it. For you to compare it to cultic doctrines when YOU NOR THE OTHERS WITH YOU can refute 8 simple obvious points that are essential to salvation is the height of folly.

Furthermore, these 8 simple principles prove your doctrine is a serious error that repudiates the very fundamentals of Biblical salvation and that is a serious error comparable to the Saturday Sabbath and tongues.

 

[The Biblicist]

The universal invisible church theory is a serious error as it undermines Biblical soteriology. Here is the issue which none on this forum have yet dared to address in its totality as the following issues are logically inseparable from one another.

1. The universal problem is spiritual separation from God which is spiritual death because it is separation from God who is life, light, holiness and love and this problem begins in Genesis not in Acts.

2. The only possible solution to that kind of problem is its reverse - spiritual union or else that person is still separated from God, thus separated from life, light, holiness and love.

3. All mankind are either "in Adam" or "in Christ" there is no third option (Rom. 5) and all mankind are "in Adam" or "in Christ" by creation (Gen. 1:26-27; Eph 2:10) and all "in Adam" are "in the flesh" by birth and all who are "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" by birth rather than any kind of baptism.

4. There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at anytime or anywhere - Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6

5. The universal church solution is to this problem is baptism in the Spirit but that is 4000 years too late and the church cannot precede its own "foundation" which consists FIRST of apostles and then SECOND of prophets - Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28.

6. Without spiritual union there is only spiritual death and that leaves all living before Pentecost in the state of spiritual death in their lifetime and in death.

7. You cannot claim PART of the cross benefits are applicable prior to the cross if your primary argument against the most important part is that the cross had not yet occurred.

8. You cannot have spiritual union without indwelling as the human spirit resides INSIDE the body and for SPIRITUAL union to exist it must be indwelling or there is no spiritual union.

Here are 8 simple points that stand as the foundation for my position. The first point demands the next and so on and so try to repudiate them. Address the issues directly or as one has said, Put up or shut up?

In addition to the above propositions, I challenge anyone on this forum to produce precept or example of any unbaptized congregations in the New Testament.

I challenge anyone to claim that baptism is not the second most important doctrine next to salvation in the Great Commission and in the practice of New Testament congregations when receiving members.

I challenge anyone to disprove this statement "where there is no scriptural baptism there is no scriptural congregation of Christ" IF the Bible is our final authority.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is a ridiculous argument as the same could be said for anyone defending any true doctrine against those who oppose it. For you to compare it to cultic doctrines when YOU NOR THE OTHERS WITH YOU can refute 8 simple obvious points that are essential to salvation is the height of folly.

Furthermore, these 8 simple principles prove your doctrine is a serious error that repudiates the very fundamentals of Biblical salvation and that is a serious error comparable to the Saturday Sabbath and tongues.

The truth still stands though, in that those holding to landmark Baptists positions must see all other NT churches as being false, and that other Baptists might be reformed Proteatants, but to you not real Baptists!

 

[Yeshua1]

Here are 8 simple points that stand as the foundation for my position. The first point demands the next and so on and so try to repudiate them. Address the issues directly or as one has said, Put up or shut up?

In addition to the above propositions, I challenge anyone on this forum to produce precept or example of any unbaptized congregations in the New Testament.

I challenge anyone to claim that baptism is not the second most important doctrine next to salvation in the Great Commission and in the practice of New Testament congregations when receiving members.

I challenge anyone to disprove this statement "where there is no scriptural baptism there is no scriptural congregation of Christ" IF the Bible is our final authority.

If there are persons who have received jesus as Lord and Savior, and study the scriptures and worship Him, is he not in their midst regardless of some have been water baptized or not?

Isn't it ALL important on wther one is in the Church of Christ Universal, before if they are members of the local church?

And you do see ONLY baptist churches as being seen by God the true real church, correct?

Like Catholics see their church?

 

[The Biblicist]

The truth still stands though, in that those holding to landmark Baptists positions must see all other NT churches as being false, and that other Baptists might be reformed Proteatants, but to you not real Baptists!

Another absurd argument and another way to avoid dealing with the real issues. Suppose there are minimum Biblical qualifications to be recognized as a true New Testament church, would not that automatically disqualify all organizations which don't match those Biblical requirements???

For you to deny there are any minimum requirements is equally absurd as that would allow for SDA, Mormons, Assemblies of God, Roman Catholics to be recognized as true NT congregations!

To claim that the only requirement is gospel truth is repudiated by the whole New Testament and the Great Commission as baptism is clearly stated to be the NEXT prerequisite BEFORE congregational membership. Hence, where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no true scriptural churches and I challenge anyone to use the bible and disprove that - anyone!

I challenge anyone on this forum to produce precept or example of any unbaptized congregations in the New Testament.

I challenge anyone to claim that baptism is not the second most important doctrine next to salvation in the Great Commission and in the practice of New Testament congregations when receiving members.

I challenge anyone to disprove this statement "where there is no scriptural baptism there is no scriptural congregation of Christ" IF the Bible is our final authority.

Again, deal directly to the problems being placed right in front of your eyes. You need to put up or shut up and so far you have not dealt with a single challenge.

 

[Yeshua1]

Another absurd argument and another way to avoid dealing with the real issues. Suppose there are minimum Biblical qualifications to be recognized as a true New Testament church, would not that automatically disqualify all organizations which don't match those Biblical requirements???

For you to deny there are any minimum requirements is equally absurd as that would allow for SDA, Mormons, Assemblies of God, Roman Catholics to be recognized as true NT congregations!

To claim that the only requirement is gospel truth is repudiated by the whole New Testament and the Great Commission as baptism is clearly stated to be the NEXT prerequisite BEFORE congregational membership. Hence, where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no true scriptural churches and I challenge anyone to use the bible and disprove that - anyone!

I challenge anyone on this forum to produce precept or example of any unbaptized congregations in the New Testament.

I challenge anyone to claim that baptism is not the second most important doctrine next to salvation in the Great Commission and in the practice of New Testament congregations when receiving members.

I challenge anyone to disprove this statement "where there is no scriptural baptism there is no scriptural congregation of Christ" IF the Bible is our final authority.

The ONLY qualification that I see in the scriptures would be to teach the real Gospel and have the real Jesus, so that would include AOG/Baptists etc, and exclude Mormons/JW/7th day etc!

The Church can still differ on the secondary issues like timing of the Second Coming, modes of Baptising etc!

 

[The Biblicist]

If there are persons who have received jesus as Lord and Savior, and study the scriptures and worship Him, is he not in their midst regardless of some have been water baptized or not?

Isn't it ALL important on wther one is in the Church of Christ Universal, before if they are members of the local church?

And you do see ONLY baptist churches as being seen by God the true real church, correct?

Like Catholics see their church?

The issue is not salvation as salvation does not equal church membership in the Scriptures. The issue is not whether the Lord is indwelling individuals and thus with them, the issue is what are the minimum Biblical requirements to be recognized as the Lord's churches. The Bible is the final authority for that answer not your personal opinion or majority opinion.

I challenge anyone on this forum to produce precept or example of any unbaptized congregations in the New Testament.

I challenge anyone to claim that baptism is not the second most important doctrine next to salvation in the Great Commission and in the practice of New Testament congregations when receiving members.

I challenge anyone to disprove this statement "where there is no scriptural baptism there is no scriptural congregation of Christ" IF the Bible is our final authority.

 

[The Biblicist]

The ONLY qualification that I see in the scriptures would be to teach the real Gospel and have the real Jesus, so that would include AOG/Baptists etc, and exclude Mormons/JW/7th day etc!

The Church can still differ on the secondary issues like timing of the Second Coming, modes of Baptising etc!

Are you honestly telling us that you don't see baptism commanded in the Great Commission prior to assembling for observing his commands (Mt. 28:19 before verse 20)? Are you honestly telling us that you don't see in the very first administration of the Great Commission in Acts 2:40-41 that baptism precedes being "added" to the church? Are you honestly telling us you can find a congregation of unbaptized believers addressed as the church of Christ anywhere in the New Testament OR are you simply giving YOUR PERSONAL OPINION?

 

[The Biblicist]

The Church can still differ on the secondary issues like timing of the Second Coming, modes of Baptising etc!

Says who? What scripture teaches that? How is that idea not dimetrically opposed to the Great Commission command and practice of the New Testament churches? Where is your authority for even SUGGESTING such an idea?

 

[The Biblicist]

No one has accepted my challenges, no one, and yet they are simple straightforward and basic to New Testament soteriology. Yeshua is simply telling everyone his opinion without a shred of scripture to support anything he says, when both precept and examples of Scripture contradict everything he says. Surely, there is someone out there that has the integrity to simply address my 8 simple propositions instead of giving personal opinions based on traditions of men?????

 

[The Biblicist]

The universal invisible church theory is a serious error as it undermines Biblical soteriology. Here is the issue which none on this forum have yet dared to address in its totality as the following issues are logically inseparable from one another.

1. The universal problem is spiritual separation from God which is spiritual death because it is separation from God who is life, light, holiness and love and this problem begins in Genesis not in Acts.

2. The only possible solution to that kind of problem is its reverse - spiritual union or else that person is still separated from God, thus separated from life, light, holiness and love.

3. All mankind are either "in Adam" or "in Christ" there is no third option - Rom. 5 - All are "in the flesh" by BIRTH not baptism, all who are "in the Spirit" are in the Spirit by BIRTH not baptism.

4. There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at anytime or anywhere - Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6

5. The universal church solution is to this problem is baptism in the Spirit but that is 4000 years too late and the church cannot precede its own "foundation" which consists FIRST of apostles and then SECOND of prophets - Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28.

6. Without spiritual union there is only spiritual death and that leaves all living before Pentecost in the state of spiritual death in their lifetime and in death.

7. You cannot claim PART of the cross benefits are applicable prior to the cross if your primary argument against the most important part is that the cross had not yet occurred.

8. You cannot have spiritual union without indwelling as the human spirit resides INSIDE the body and for SPIRITUAL union to exist it must be indwelling or there is no spiritual union.

In addition to these 8 principles, I challenge anyone on this forum to produce precept or example of any unbaptized congregations in the New Testament.

I challenge anyone to claim that baptism is not the second most important doctrine next to salvation in the Great Commission and in the practice of New Testament congregations when receiving members.

I challenge anyone to disprove this statement "where there is no scriptural baptism there is no scriptural congregation of Christ" IF the Bible is our final authority.

 

[Iconoclast]

Well B,
You are clearly in a defensive posture as all are not supportive of you.
I am closest to what you would hold but I am giving you some stress...lol
I agree that regardless of who has the truth here, most of the resistance is becoming more personal in nature than scriptural.
Part of the problem is when you are in a defensive posture....you gloss over answers offered that go against your position in part.
I offered those two links in part because I am looking over the new Testament church, by W.R.Downing,pgs 87,88.....and tried to follow up on some of the footnotes.
The links allow for ppl to see what some of these men offered in their own words.
Thanks for the link to your book as I will look it over if not buy a copy.
I am not afraid to re-examine most any doctrine.
That being said.....it is always questionable that some would claim that basically the whole church world, the whole family of God, all members of the Kingdom of God somehow missed coming to the same conclusions as a very small handful of persons.
It could happen that way.....but it does not seem to be likely.
I do find many things to agree on......but do not go where you go on everything . ....you have some clear error.....but it is not clear to you yet.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well B,
You are clearly in a defensive posture as all are not supportive of you.

Yes, because it is easier for my opponents to attack me or "Landmarkism" than to deal with the issues I set before them. I give you full credits for at least attempting to deal directly with the issues I posed.

I am closest to what you would hold but I am giving you some stress...lol
I agree that regardless of who has the truth here, most of the resistance is becoming more personal in nature than scriptural.
Part of the problem is when you are in a defensive posture...

My response is the same as above

.you gloss over answers offered that go against your position in part.

For example? When you attempted to read into Ephesians 2:20 Old Testament prophets, I directly responded by demonstrating the order given by Paul denies that as 1 Cor. 12:28 proves ("FIRST apostles, SECONDARILY prophets). That response completely destroyed any pre-first advent church or body of Christ. Your whole position went down the drain as a church=body of Christ cannot exist prior to its own "foundation".

When you freely admitted the baptism in the Spirit was a historical fixed act in time and a completed act and then suggested it was applied like the cross to those previous to the cross, that is not only contradicted by the fact the church=body of Christ cannot predate its own "foundation" consisting entirely of NT materials, BUT it is contradicted by all theologians who interpret the baptism in the Spirit as removing a person out of "Adam" into "Christ" as all such persons are "in Adam" up to the point in time of their salvation and therefore that kind of interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit must be a repeated act with each individual or else they remain "in Adam." It can't be both a completed action and a repeatable action. Moreover, the cross is not a repeated act and cannot be a repeated action by the very nature of what it is. Finally, salvation prior to the cross is directly applied by God to the individual elect according to the "blood" of the everlasting Covenant. Penteost ocurrs AFTER the cross and is not inclusive of the REDEMPTIVE work of Christ on the cross or during his own life. None of this meshes with your theory but contradicts it.

These two facts compleltely dismantles and destroys your whole theory even before we get to the 8 simple propositions which none yet dare tackle as they are necessarily interelated with each other as one demands the other.

So please, point out any serious answer that I glossed over. I know of none! If I have, then please give me the opportunity to address it directly.

I offered those two links in part because I am looking over the new Testament church, by W.R.Downing,pgs 87,88.....and tried to follow up on some of the footnotes.
The links allow for ppl to see what some of these men offered in their own words.
Thanks for the link to your book as I will look it over if not buy a copy.
I am not afraid to re-examine most any doctrine.
That being said.....it is always questionable that some would claim that basically the whole church world, the whole family of God, all members of the Kingdom of God somehow missed coming to the same conclusions as a very small handful of persons.
It could happen that way.....but it does not seem to be likely.
I do find many things to agree on......but do not go where you go on everything . ....you have some clear error.....but it is not clear to you yet.

The download is free. The book is for sale and it is a revised version and it can be obtained from Bryan Station Baptist Church in Lexington Ky. Happy reading brother!