Featured Inter-Denominational Fellowship

I'm not sure whether this post is due to your consistent reluctance actually to read what other people write, or whether it is just a snide comment devoid of any serious thought, but whatever the shortcomings of the confession (and it is certainly not perfect), it contains a number of specific statements which would make it quite impossible for a Roman Catholic to adhere to it.

I understand that you believe this, due to you inability to see the vast amount of Biblical evidence for a Universal Church.

 

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!

 

Why is it judging the servant of another when you are condemning false doctrine? It is one thing to claim a person is lost, it is quite another thing to claim they are in error! It seems you are confusing the two and making it a personal judgment on the servant of another by simply condemning, exposing errors that person embraces, teaches or preaches? From my understanding of Scriptures we are COMMANDED by the Lord to prove and examine all things, reject that which is false and cling to that which is good. Sounds like sloppy agape to me that you are embracing.

So, exposing and condemning their false doctrine is one and the same as trying to change them? I thought the whole process of sanctification is the process of change and that is precisely what God uses the church, the ministry and brethren who preach and teach his word for???????? Indeed, brethren who embrace false doctrine and will not change we are told explicitly to WITHDRAW from such that they may be ashamed. I suppose your view of love would condemn that as unloving too???

What you are saying here has many problems. First, you imagine that the gospel is the one and only test of fellowship and where you get that idea I know not because that is simply false. Second, your use of 'love" seems more like sloppy agape than Biblical love. Biblical love does not turn a blind eye to manifest errors.

No, I have never wondered why Christ said that because the context is clear why he said that. Saul was jailing Christians, killing them, making them blaspheme. I guess you are spiritualizing these things and making it one and the same as exposing and condemning errors that Christians embrace????????????? I am glad your not my pastor if this is the way you handle scriptures.

 

Practice what you preach! I not only read it but gave it a compliment as about the best attempt I have seen joint evangelicals with paedobaptists.

It leaves the very issues that divide paedobaptists from Baptists UNDEFINED so that each side can define the Biblical language for themselves. For example they use the ecclesiastial language of "baptism" thus making it putty to be shaped anyway one wants. Thus the analogy with Evangelicals and Catholics Together where they used Biblical langauge void of Biblical definitions as truth would ruin the merger.

Not only is there NOTHING in scripture to support this heresy but it violates the very basics of salvation and only exists due to violating basic laws of heremeneutics. See my thread on the Abstrace Institutional use of ekklesia and its synonyms.

 

The doctrine of eternal life (eternal security) is stated as clearly as any other essential doctrine in the scriptures (Jn. 3:16; 5:24; 6:47-40; 10:26-30; 1 Jn. 5:13; etc.). It is the very essence of what christ came to secure (Jn. 6:38-39) through His own provision by his life and death. If this doctrine is not a "test of fellowship" for the true gospel than nothing is because denial of this doctrine is denial of the whole eternal covenant of God as far as its sufficency and efficiency. Moreover, it is the hinge on which grace versus works turns. Denial of eternal security is the assertion of works as the ultimate effecient means for eternal life.

All who embrace justification by works plus faith deny eternal security because they see it clearly demands justification by grace alone through faith alone in Chrsit alone without works - which IS eternal security spelled out in definitive terms. If Justification is by grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone WITHOUT works that is the doctrine of eternal security and to deny it is to deny its basis. Therefore, the denial of eternal security is not only the denial of justification by grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone but is the assertion of justification by works.

Moreover, all who believe in eternal security believe the human will is secured by the new birth. Only those who reject the doctrine of eternal security consistently believe that the human will is the sovereign governing mechanism for both obtaining and losing salvation.

Making it a test of fellowship does not unsave anyone that is really saved, because if they are saved it is in spite of what they are teaching. However, making it a test of fellowship is saying this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ as it denies the gospel at its efficient point which denies it altogether as it denies it can obtain what it promises based upon the work of Christ alone.

 

You constantly pervert what I say and I am tired of it. I said no such thing. I never said at any time the gospel which they proclaim is the gospel that saved them or anyone else. The Galatians embraced a false gospel and yet they were saved. Saved people can be deluded and preach a false gospel but that does not mean that false gospel determines their own salvation, as they can be truely saved, deluded into embracing and preaching a false gospel and STILL BE SAVED.

The purpose of a symbol is to provide a distinct exact visible form that will convey an intended truth. Pervert the precise form and you pervert what is being conveyed, thus pervert the truth. Baptism is designed to convey the truth of the gospel in symbolic form. Therefore, SAVED paedobaptists preach a false gospel by their perverted administration of baptism. If you don't understand what I am saying then ask me. I have straightened you out on this misrepresentation before but it seems you are intent on continuing to misrepresent my position. Stop it!

I am not talking about undefined Armininism as I gave a precise definition if you would simply read more carefully. I said that those who embrace eternal security believe the will is secured by the new birth - that includes Armininians who embrace eternal security.

In contrast, to these Arminians, I explicitly defined those who pervert the gospel as those who are consistent Arminians - they believe in the absolute sovereingty of the human will in both the reception and LATER rejection of Christ and thus the doctrine of apostasy by true born again children of God. This is a false gospel and regardless if some are saved among them IN SPITE OF their false gospel is completely another issue altogether. To deny "eternal life" but to teach "conditional life" is a clear assertion of justification by works as the conditional aspect stands firmly on the believer alone.

Pleeeeease give me a break from your absolute nonsense!!! The same criteria to bring a person into church fellowship, which is what membership does, must be the same criterial to recognize any other church as a church of Christ. The same gospel, the same baptism and the same other doctrinal essetnials of scripture. Where there is no scriptural gospel there is no church. Where there is no scriptural baptism there is no true church to fellowship with. Where there is no other essentials of the fiath there is no true church existing. The Great Commission is not a suggestion but is a command - imperative verb with a decisive order and essential content.

It didn't work too well for him in the downgrade controversy did it??? Spurgeon is wrong as he is contradicting the very commands of scritpure to remove such brethren who are embracing false doctrine from the assembly (2 Thes. 3:6) and don't tell me this only refers to moral issues but it refers to doctrinal issues. Even you must admit that some FALSE DOCTRINE is grounds for separation and condemnation and repudiation of some professed true churches of Christ - be consistent.

! Of course love includes discipline but it does not rejoice in iniquity or embrace it but true love HATES error and if it does not HATE error it does not LOVE God. I did not say hate PEOPLE and so don't pervert what I said as that seems to be your habit. I can love a lost man knee deep in paganism but I am not going to bring him into "church fellowship." I can love members of false churches without embracing them in "church fellowship."

You need to be more careful in what you call a "church" of Christ! You need to be careful what you call "the gospel." You need to be careful in offending God for the sake of unity and sloppy agape.
Where there is no Biblical baptism there is no true church of Christ. NOTE I did not say where there is not Biblical baptism there are no true Christians - so don't twist my language. If you don't agree then find either precept or example of any unbaptized congregation in the scriptures! Don't say that I am basing this on silence either, because there is precepts in the form of imperative mode that demand BIBLICAL baptism precedes church fellowship - Mt. 28:19-20. (1) salvation; (2) baptism; (3) assembled under instruction for observing all things.

 

You are making "church" synonymous with "Christians" and that is not true. He is speaking about PHYSICAL persecution of a local visible congregation at Jerusalem FOR THEIR FAITHFULNESS rather than some quasi universal invisible church or unbaptized institutions or Christians steeped in errors. He is not speaking about condemning churches holding false doctrines contrary to the faith, because if he was then you better rebuke Paul because just about every single letter he wrote rebuked TRUE churches that HE FOUNDED on the SAME FAITH AND ORDER, much less harlot churches or metaphorical "espoused" churches (2 Cor. 11;2) that had been "corrrupted" (thus a metaphorical harlot). He is not speakig about condemning institutions which are not true churches of Christ even though they might profess it, unless you think Catholic, SDA, Mormons, Pentecostal, etc. etc. are true churches and it is unloving to condemn them as false churches EVEN THOUGH SAVED PEOPLE MAY EXIST IN THEM (Rev. 18:4). There are essentials to be regarded as a true church of Christ and those essentials must include the Great Commission essentials of both the right gospel and right baptism at MINIMUM as both are gospel based doctrinal declarations.

First, your are embracing the very doctrine of the Great Whore herself when you claim all Christians are "members of Christ's body" as that is manifestly untrue (Rev. 18:4; 21:24). The church cannot precede its own "foundation" and its foundation excludes OT saints as the first gifted men "set in" the church are "apostles" and the second are "prophets" thus excluding all OT saints from the church. Your universal inivisble church body is the root of all ecumenical error and that is why you are blind to basic truths about separation from heretical predicted apostate Christianity which contains TRUE Christians (Rev. 18:4) in spite of the errors they embrace and promote.

Your disagreement is with God's word (2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17-18) and not with me only. Your disagreement is with yourself as even you admit that SOME FALSE DOCTRINES require disfellowshipping from professed Christian denominations. So the truth is, you want to draw the line so that it includes what you want to include rather than draw the line where the Bible draws it. You want to redefine "the faith once delivered" to simply include salvation essentials when that faith was "delivered" it included such things as service essentials ("baptize them...teaching them to observe"). thanks but no thanks. Maybe that is something you need to work on?

 

Bib first you have no bible. Being that you only hijack the canon of the heretical folks who taught you everything you know in the first place.



Scripture says Gospel proclaimed world wide along with world wide sacrifice to God. Your "church" can't even cover 2 blocks.


" To deny "eternal life" but to teach "conditional life" is a clear assertion of justification by works as the conditional aspect stands firmly on the believer alone."


Bib if works are not justifying why are you condemning them for not doing the good work of not denying eternal life?


Its like an IDIOT walk up to me and say THE #1 RULE IS YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY RULES.


You whine about folks preaching the wrong way when the right way declares preaching the right way GOOD WORKS does not lead to salvation.



Scripture says the world knows Christians.

Bib no one even knows what denomination you are. Flat out unknown.

 

Bib,
YOU slap the face of the parent religion who taught you Jesus. You slap your parents face because you think your better then them. You started to notice flaws, they were not perfect to your standard.

Instead of being grateful for them doing their best with what they had you spit in their face.

You call them heretics traitors against Christ..



All these folks in this thread, That's your people and your doctrine.

There is only 2 churches on this thread. SOLA SCRIPTURA and Catholic.



The problem of EGO. NAME ONE LIVING PERSON who has scripture right OTHER then you.


You can't name anyone because you think you are the highest authority.

 

Look at the text! He does not say "WE" but he says "YE" - he is taking the abstract teaching in verses 12-26 and now making concrete application to the temple of God, the house of God, the church of God, the metaphorical body of Christ located in Corinth.

I don't have time and space right now to show you that 1 Cor. 12:13 is a summary of chapters 1-4:7. But it is and if need be I will take the time and effort to demonstrate it.

Second, the church of God is the body of Christ, which is the House of God, which is the temple of God but the church referred to in the NT cannot precede its own "foundation" (1 Cor. 12:28 with Ephes. 2:20). The FIRST gifted men "set in" the church are not Old Testament prophets or saints but FIRST "apostles" then secondarily "prophets" - NT prophets. Therefore, the body of Christ the church does not include all saints in all ages or all the elect.

 

The principal aim of the statement is to avoid the very ecumenism that the ECT documents promote, so do not expect me to be grateful for your compliment.

The purpose of the confession is to lay the basis for Gospel unity. It separates from the Church of Rome and from 'High Church' Anglicanism by specifically denying baptismal regeneration. But you are correct that it does not address the question of credo- or paedobaptism. The reason for this is that baptism is an outward ordinance, and does not confer salvation. Therefore, although it may preclude church unity- an individual church cannot be both credo- and paedo- it should not preclude Gospel unity. To insist that it does makes baptism into a work and divides the people of God (Ephesians 4:1-3).
Apollos very obviously had a problem in his understanding of baptism in Acts 18:24-26, but Aquilla and Priscilla did not ostracize him, but rather helped him to understand the correct doctrine. Likewise, Baptists will not persuade paedobaptists of the truth of their position by refusing fellowship, but rather by treating them as brothers and seeking to show them the more excellent way.

The Scriptures are entirely clear. Many times in the NT, ekklesia very obviously refers to the one universal Church. Your hermeneutical approach in that thread was faulty as you endeavoured to prove your point by going outside of the Bible. This may sometimes be necessary in the case of a hapax legomenon, but in the case of ekklesia, the word is used often enough in the Bible to make its meaning clear.

 

Correct, as that is precisely the purpose of Articles of Faith or a general confession as the New Hampshire Confession (in my case).

Here is a tremendous difference of opinion. Contrary to your belief a disciplinary structure was established in the church before Pentecost (Mt. 18:15-18). Gospel ordinances were established before Pentecost (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30; Mt. 26:12-30). Church leadership was established before Pentecost (1 Cor. 12:28 wth Luke 6:12-13 and Acts `1:15-26). An orderly process for making disciples was established before Pentecost (Mt. 28:19-20). A church treasurer existed before Pentecost. A church roll of names existed before Pentecost, A orderly church membership under the direction of ordained leadership occurred before Pentecost. Habitually assembling under a Pastor occurred before Pentecost (Acts 1:21-22). Everything ESSENTIAL as an organized congregation had been establisehd before Pentecost.

In addition your interpretation of "added" is completely wrong. Matthew 28:19-20 provides an ORGANIZED PROCESS for making disciples and that process is followed to the letter in Acts 2:40-41.

1. Gospelize - "as many as received the word"
2. Baptize - "were baptized
3. Congregationalize to be instructed how to observe - "added unto them - continued stedfastly in...."

This commission reproduces "disciples" that are LIKE FAITH AND ORDER in the same gospel, same baptism and same doctrine and practice. That is the meaning of "disciple" one who follows the Master or is a duplicate of the mold. It is not one who is an inovater or one who produces another system or order for making disciples. Those who do that are called "heretics" in the Scriptures not "disciples."

Luke uses the periphrastic construct in Acts 2:41 translated "continued stedfastly" which is a combination of verbs, the imperfect linked with the present tense "to be" verb. Luke is most likely writing after the two years of imprisonment by Paul in Rome. The periphrastic construct is saying from the writers perspective that on the day of Pentecost this was the practice that began at some previous point in the past (imperfect verb) which context shows to be with Christ in his ministry with the church (Acts 1;21-22) and continued to some undetermined point in the future that is further clarified by the present tense verb meaning this has been the continued practice from the ministry of Christ until at least two yeasrs after Paul reached Rome.

Moreover, after Luke has spelled out this practice, from this point forward he simply summarizes this practice by taking the word "added" in verse 40 and repeating it whenever people were saved afterwards and "added" unto them - MEANING THEY WERE ADDED EXACTLY AS SPELLED OUT IN ACTS 2:40-41 or as the periphrastic construct demands. The precise numbers are given for such additions between Acts 2-5. However, when the numbers began to be too many to add up, he changes math terms from "added" to "multiplied" but through the very same means (1) preaching the gospel; (2) baptism; (3) added to church fellowship.

 

Again, look at the text it does not say "we" but "ye". Again the church is the body of Christ and it cannot precede its own foundation (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).

So I guess by "all Christians" you discount anyone prior to Pentecost as a Christian because NONE of them are in the church body of Christ and that is easy to prove.

All of Paul's letters begin with doctrine as doctrine is the basis for practice. So where you get the idea of false doctrine versus error is beyond me - perhaps you might provide clear explicit scripture to explain what you mean????

How do you know what my standard is? Please tell me what is my standard according to your perspective and then we can continue this discussion. The only standard that I have set forth is the essentials of the Great Commission. Is there some other standard you think I have?

 

Martin, let us do a reset. Just like Clinton had a reset button she took the United nations and presented it to the Russian Ambassador, let you and me have a reset, because we are talking past one another and you are surely misrepresenting me as much as you claim I am you. So let's reset. Let's put any past animosity there may or may not be aside and start anew.

I know the purpose, as that was the same purpose of ECT but it fails just as does the ECT. It fails because the gospel is not merely a declaration but is part and parcel with the very fabric of church constitution and its ordiances as a matter of ecclesiastical PRACTICE.

Reformed Paedobaptists claim the DOCTRINE of justification and proclaim it from their pulpits while their church constitution and ordinances repudiate it by their Ecclesiastial PRACTICE. The issue between us is not PERSONAL fellowship, as I will personally fellowship with any true gospel believer even if they belong to the church of Rome. The issue is ECCLESIASTICAL fellowship and their ecclesiastial PRACTICE repudiates the gospel entirely. More on this later.

There was no problem with the baptism of Apollos as he was never rebaptized. The problem is that he knew "ONLY" the baptism of John and did not know of the baptism in the Spirit, just as the twelve in chapter 19 were ignorant of the very same baptism. Apollos was only "instructed" better in "the way of the Lord" he was not lost, nor was there any problem in his baptism as he was not rebaptized and you know there is not a single word about rebaptism in the text. What he did not know was that it was the church that was baptized or authenticated by God as the proper administrator of baptism. When he heard this instruction he responded by thenceforth ceasing an independent ministry and worked through the approved authenticated administrator of the Great Commission the church and this is indicated by him joining himself with the brethren at Ephesus and then receiving a letter of recommendation to the church at Corinth. He was next instructed that Jesus of Nazereth was the Messiah, and so he continued preachng the same OT gospel of Christ (Acts 10:43) but with the addition that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah or Christ.

This is not an issue of mistreating individual believers as brothers in Christ. This is an issue of what constitutes a NT. congregation - lost infants who neither profess Christ by mouth or by baptism or baptized believers. The very constitution of their congregations repudiates the gospel of Christ as a matter of PRACTICE both in their ordinances and in their membership.

No, it does not. If you were living in NT times you would never ever read into the usage of ekklesia or its synonyms such nonsense. That is read into the text by post-New Testament denominational bias.

What you are saying is wrong and you need to reread what I said because I provided both BIBLICAL and HISTORICAL evidence for the abstract institutional use of ekklesia. And it is only by ignoring this historical and biblical usage was the completely contradictory meaning of ekklesia invented, and I might say it was invented by those desperately seeking to avoid disfellowship.

However, it is from its historical usage prior to and including the time of the New Testament that the ordinary normal meaning is determined. The exegete must approach the NT according to established historial meanings of term being used unless those meanings cannot make sense. Willfully ignorning this historical usage of ekklesia is what gives rise to a supposed new and contradictory meaning of universal and invisible.