Matthew 28:19-20 demands Landmarkism ecclesiology

[JonShaff]

Biblicist,

And to the which you say that 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 - 12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many

...the baptism here is "Water baptism".Wait wait wait... For BY one Spirit WE (NOT YE) ALL

 

[The Biblicist]

So you are arguing the "Mode" in which people are brought into the family of God? Spirit Baptism or Spirit Regeneration?

And that is so you can argue that the "One Baptism" is with physical water

Not quite! I am arguing that one must distinguish between salvation and service (works). In order to make that distinction one must properly define the presuppositions to salvation which is to properly define the spiritual problem before one can define the spiritual solution.

The spiritual problem all evangelicals are in agreement - spiritual SEPARATION from God or spiritual DEATH. That occurred the instant Adam committed to sin in his heart in the very day he ate the forbidden fruit.

The ONLY possible solution to spiritual SEPARATION from God is spiritual UNION with God as one is the state of DEATH while the other is the state of LIFE (love, holiness, Light - Eph. 4:18-19)

Paul is clear and explicit that quikening (which means make alive) is the CREATIVE act of God whereby one is brought "in Christ" - Eph. 2:1,5,10. Likewise, ALL "in Adam" were CREATED in Adam.

The Bible is clear that ALL "in Adam" are "in the flesh" (state of death) and to be "in the flesh" is inseparable from being "BORN of the flesh." Not by any kind of baptism or any kind of church membership as this is a FAMILY union which comes by BIRTH.

Likewise, the Bible is clear that ALL "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" (state of life) and to be "in the Spirit" is inseparable from being "BORN of the Spirit." Not by any kind of baptism or any kind of church membership as this is a FAMILY union which comes by BIRTH.

Therefore, to bring any kind of baptism or church membership into salvation is to MIX the church with salvation - thus church salvation. This is what Rome did by their Universal Visible church doctrine which all admit, but this is also precisely what Reformed Roman Catholics (Protestants) did by their Universal Invisible church doctrine which again all admit as they openly acknowledge to be outside this church is to be lost and to be inside is to be saved as they agree there can be no salvation for anyone at anytime OUTSIDE of Christ.

Now the issue of "one baptism" is the issue of the Great Commission that baptism in water is promised to the end of the age. To get around this, the universal church advocate argues that water baptism is merely a picture of spiritual baptism that actually places on "in Christ" with regard to salvation. So it as this juncture that the Baptism in the Spirit is brought into the picture to justify more than one baptism in this age and place water baptism in a secondary relatively non-essential role for either salvation OR service. However, the fact that the baptism in the Spirit and the foundation of the church are clearly contextually restricted to the NT period proves this mixture of church and salvation is a false doctrine,a false gospel, a false salvation theory.

Thus the "FAMILY" of God is coexistent with NEW BIRTH from Genesis to Revelation (Ezek. 44:6-7; Jn. 3:3-6) but the church and baptism in the Spirit are not.

Thus the "KINGDOM" of God in the sense of the INWARD rule of God in the hearts of men is coexistent with the NEW BIRTH from Genesis to Revelation but the church and baptism in the Spirit are not.

The Landmark view of ecclesiology is the logical and Biblical consequence of distinguishing between SALVATION and SERVICE.It is absolutely necessary way to distinguish salvation from service and expose the hybrid church salvation doctrine or baptismal salvation doctrine as they are presented as inseparable from salvation but have no Old Testament existence. However, the very same gospel of Christ with repentance and faith in accompaniment with the new birth is the constant way of salvation since Genesis (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You just spiritualize everything away that does not fit your church salvation theory. He did not identify them as "the bride" but as "nations of the saved."

This is an artificial distinction. "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with Men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people" (Rev. 21:3). In the context of v.2, the 'tabernacle is the new Jerusalem, and all saved people will dwell there with Him. 'He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I shall be His God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving...........shall have their part in the lake of fire' (vs.7-8). There are only two sets of people being discussed here: the saved and the lost.

He did not say they were inside Jerusalem

I think you'll find He does. 'The glory of God illuminated [the city] The Lamb is its light.' What does the glory of God illuminate? Of what is the Lamb the light? The city, the new Jerusalem. Where is there even the faintest suggestion that the light goes outside the city? Nowhere! You have to read it in in order to support your wretched system. The nations of the saved are in the city walking in its light. That is the only sensible interpretation.

Nor did he say THEY brought their own glory into the city but rather it is the kings who brought their glory into the city. Any sane reading of the text defies your explanation as the nations and the kings are not the same people and yet both are saved. So you reponse is simply nonsense. You make the kings and the nations one and the same and yet anyone can see that Revelation 21:24-25 denies they are the same. I gave an explanation of the differences in post#48.

In Revelation 21:24-26. John is referencing Isaiah 60:3, 6. 'The Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of Your rising.........The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to You.' Who do you think these kings are? Is ex-king Zog of Albania leading in the Albanian contingent? No, it's you, isn't it? You think you're going to be some special Christian living in the Celestial City and lording it over us peasants? I don't think so! But how very similar is your thinking to the JWs and their 144,000.
No, I gave you ten texts showing that it is Christians, all Christians, who are kings. 'If we endure, we shall also reign with Him' (2 Timothy 2:12). All of us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your wretched ecclesiology perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ and defends those who purposely and intentionally pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Absolutely not!

Presbyterianism and all paedobaptists pervert the gospel of Christ by their mode and subject of baptism. The purpose of a symbol is to provide an explicit and exact VISIBLE FORM that conveys an intended truth. If one perverts the explicit and exact visible form they pervert the intended truth.

You should be telling paedobaptists this, not us.

Charging me with breaking fellowship with the brethren over an external ordinance is as senseless as charging God with breaking fellowship with those he put to death in the Corinthian assembly for failing to discern the SYMBOLISM of the Lord's Supper as that was their very crime. And Paul rightly concluding what they were observing was not what they claimed (1 Cor. 11:20).

Not so. Bible-believing Paedobaptists believe that they are following the requirements of the covenant in baptizing infants. They take baptism very seriously and devoutly. By contrast, the Corinthians were coming to the Lord's table drunk, and were pushing ahead of others. They were taking the Lord's Supper in 'and unworthy manner' by not taking it seriously or devoutly. It comes back to 1 Samuel 16:7 again; 'Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.' The same is found in 2 Chronicles 30:18-20. '"May the good LORD provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary." And the LORD listened and healed the people.'

The very existence of a paedbaptist congregation as a professed church of Christ perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ by its very constitutency as it is PURPOSELY designed to include unregenerates as its primary membership thus reducing the metaphoric "body of Christ" to a body of unregenerates.

You show either your ignorance or your bias of by writing this Are you acquainted with the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England? Consider Article XIX. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached. That very large numbers of Anglican churches have fallen away from this is true, but very many Baptist churches have fallen away also. Those Anglican and other churches who are seeking to be true to God's word deserve our encouragement and support as we seek to show them the more excellent way.

Moreover, you cannot find such a congregational body of comprised primarily by unregenerate infant membership in scripture called a church by God's Word.

Doubtless there are such churches, but in the Church of England a child has to be 'confirmed' at the age of around 11 or 12 before being allowed to take the Lord's Supper. Is this any worse than the hundreds of Baptist churches where children are routinely baptized at a very young age without any real testimony of conversion? In my experience many Baptist churches are choc-a-bloc full of unconverted baptized people.

Moreover, both the precepts and examples in God's word forbid such a thing to be called "the church of Christ" or "the church of God" or a NT church.

Where men and women have come out of the world to seek God in Spirit and truth; where there is proper church discipline and where the word is faithfully preached, you have a church of Christ (Matthew 18:20). Where there are not these things, there is no church of Christ, no matter how exemplary the practice of baptism.

Finally, true Christians found within the harlot (Rev. 18:4) are not found within either the metaphor of a "chaste virgin" (2 Cor. 11;2) now or in the metaphorical bride to come (Rev. 19:6-8) but will be found OUTSIDE the city upon the NEW earth is such great numbers they are called "NATIONS" of the "saved" as opposed to the fewer who comprise a "city" who in fact do rule over the nations just as a capital city now rules over a nation singular much less "nations" plural. The Christians that dwell outside on the New earth are vastly more in number ("nations") compared to those who will dwell inside the city. The idiotic interpretation you have presented that the "nations" and the "kings" are one in the same is easily debunked by the very language of the text as the text distinguishes between the two by calling some "kings" and others "nations" by the nations not bringing their own glory in "into" the city but it being brought in by "their" kings. You must mishandle, pervert and spiritualize away the word of God when there is no contextual foundation for doing that. [/QUOTE]
This is a ridiculous artificial interpretation of these verses, but I have already dealt with it elsewhere and will not repeat it here.

BTW Jesus adopted this "bossing around" others in the world to come in the parable of the pounds (5 cities, 10 cities etc.).

That's a parable. It is an earthly story. It has an earthly king, giving earthly commands to earthly servants and giving them earthly rewards. What do I want with ten cities? I don't want to lord it over others in heaven. God forbid! Heaven is Revelation 7:15-17.

Jesus adopted this in the promise to the overcomers to "rule over the nations" in the age to come. What this consists of we don't exactly know, but we do know it is a form of rule over others in the new world.

There is only one place where one finds this: Revelation 2:26-27 and if you have read it you will know that it can only apply to the unsaved nations, unless you believe that the saved are going to be dashed to pieces like the potter's vessels.

 

[The Biblicist]

Martins responses are simply rediculous and not worth the time and effort to repudiate because they repudiate themselves and he will simply repeat this nonsense no matter what evidence is placed before him. So I think his position has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and I will leave the readers to make their own decisions.

 

[JonShaff]

Martins responses are simply rediculous and not worth the time and effort to repudiate because they repudiate themselves and he will simply repeat this nonsense no matter what evidence is placed before him. So I think his position has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and I will leave the readers to make their own decisions.

Can you please explain how in post #81 the baptism spoken about using "we all" is suppose to, in your ecclesiology, be water baptism?

 

[The Biblicist]

Can you please explain how in post #81 the baptism spoken about using "we all" is suppose to, in your ecclesiology, be water baptism?

Sorry, I did not see you post on this. Yes, I can answer that. However, please bear with me because I want to give you a thorough contextual based answer, ok? Note in verse 12 it is the physical human body that is being set forth to be used as the metaphor in verses 13-27.

12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.

He says "THE body" which all his readers shared in common with each other or "THE" physical body. He is not suggesting just because he uses the definite singular that all his readers share one universal invisible human body. No, eveyone who reads this letter understands that he is talking about "the body" of each reader which they all share in common as it is one in kind but each reader has their own specific body. "so also is Christ" or the metaphorical body of Christ which all of his readers and himself share in common or one in kind. He was a member at Antioch and they at Corinth. He is in teaching mode and speaking ABSTRACTLY from verses 12-26 and then changes in verse 27 to a concrete application.

All the letters Paul wrote were written in the historic context that "we.....us....ye....you" were all members of the very same kind of congregational body, including Paul as he was a member of the body of Christ at Antioch and sent out as its missionary (Acts 13:1-4). So they all shared in common one kind of congregational body - the NT kind that is mentioned in every place he wrote (Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, etc.).

However, let's go back further in the context of this epistle or we will not understand this text. In chapter one the members at Corinth were divided over the issue of who had the better administrator of water baptism (1 Cor. 1:14-17). Paul deals with this issue in chapters 1-4. His solution is found in 1 Cor. 3:5-4:7. What is his solution. Every administrator of water baptism that had come among them all worked as "ONE" together under ONE boss (The Holy Spirit) who was using them to build this congregation at Corinth as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" and it was the same Spirit that had gifted them thus making them different one from another as members (1 Cor. 4:7). So actually it is the Holy Spirit that sent the preachers, that led them to submit to water baptism and placed them in this "house" He was building at Corinth. Here is the passage explaining how the congregation at Corinth had been constituted (v. 10) and who it really is that saved, baptized and added to the congregation thus building it into "the temple of the Holy Spirit."

5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that plants any thing, neither he that waters; but God that gives the increase.
8 Now he that plants and he that waters are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are laborers together with God: you are God’s husbandry, you are God’s building.

Notice all their baptismal administrators worked as "ONE" and "together with God" the Holy Spirit, they all operated under the leadership of ONE boss - the Holy Spirit and so Paul gives the credit to who, for their salvation, their baptism, the constitution of the congregation? "The Lord gave...God gave...God that gives...laborers together with God....you are God's building....you are the temple of the Holy Spirit"

This is equally true with regard to ther individual differences as members:

And these things, brothers, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that you might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
7 ¶ For who makes you to differ from another? and what have you that you did not receive? now if you did receive it, why do you glory, as if you had not received it?

So how does this response by Paul resolve their problem of division over baptismal administrators? Paul simply says all the administrators work under the leadership of the Holy Spirit and so the credit goes to the Holy Spirit and not to any human. This is true with each and every congregation in the New Testament. This was true with congregation at Antioch were Paul was a member. This is true with every congregation constituted by Paul (v. 10) as he worked under the leadership of the Spirit as the "masterbuilder" while other ministers came later and built upon his work (vv. 11-15). However, Paul in the context of 1 Cor. 1-4 is speaking about the specific congregation at Corinth and how it was built and so he says "YOU are the temple of the Holy Spirit" and "YOU are God's building" rather than "we."

So if we summarized his solution into one verse how would it read: "For by (under the leadership) one Spirit, we all have been (water) baptized into one body (one in kind)" and that resolved the issue of human administrators of baptism.

However, in 1 Corinthians 12-14 we have a different issue of division in the church and it is not over water baptism administrators but over spiritual gifts and again they were claiming some gifted persons were more important than other gifted persons within the congregational body at Corinth. However, the very same principle in chapters 1-4 is applicable to this problem of division as well, because as Paul anticipated this problem in 1 Cor. 4:7 the Holy Spirit is who made them to differ. So how would the principle of 1 Corinthians 1-4 be summarized into one verse and applied to resolve all divisions over different water administrators and different gifted persons? After introducing a common metaphor of the body in an abstract sense he summarizes this principle in its abstract form applicable to himself and his readers as they not only shared the same kind of physical body (v. 12) but they shared the same kind of congregational body as did all the congregations in the NT times:

"For by (under the leadership of) one Spirit we are all (water) baptized into one body (in kind) and made to drink into that one Spirit"

In other words there is no basis for division over different administrators of water baptism or over different spiritual gifts as the Holy Spirit is to be credited for both. In NT times baptism and addition to the congregational body occurred at the point of salvation rather than spread out by weeks. Hence, salvation and spiritual gifting occured at the same time. When they were saved and baptized they were also made to drink into the Spirit with regard to spiritual gifts as the Apostle laid his hands upon his converts through which they were gifted (2 Cor. 12:12; Rom. 1:11; Acts 8:14-17; 19:6). In 1 Cor. 12:14-26 it is spiritual gifts that is the subject and that is what they were made to "drink" into the Spirit was about - spiritual gifts.

This was equally true with the first comforter of the first church at Jerusalem in John 4:1-2 where administration of water baptism was attributed to Jesus Christ, although he Himself never administered baptism to anyone. The baptisms by his disciples were atttributed to him because they were working together as one under his leadership. The same is true with the Second Comfortor.

1 Cor. 12-26 is given by Paul in ABSTRACT form and therefore that is why he uses "we" in verse 13 as the ABSTRACT teaching is applicable to each and every congregational body in principle as it is to each and every individual member of such congregational bodies. However, when it comes to APPLICATION of this abract teaching he drops "we" and says "ye" - "Now YE are the body of Christ" with regard to the whole congregation at Corinth, but with regard to its individual members, he continues "and individual members thereof".

Furthermore, verses 25-27 prove that verses 12-26 must be understood in ABSTRACT application because it is IMPOSSIBLE for "all" the members of a universal invisible body of Christ to even know of, much less rejoice or sorrow WITH "one" member who is sorrowing or rejoicing in that kind of body. Abstract teaching makes it applicable as a general principle for anyone reading it that is a member of a NT congregational body of Christ. However, verse 26 is direct concrete application of the previous abstract teaching.

The universal church advocate wants to rob all abstract teaching by Paul and turn it into a different doctrine and different kind of church when Paul is teaching about the only kind of body "one body" which all his readers were members in. When they read "one body" they understood it to mean both one in NUMBER - the one where their individual membership resided, and one in KIND - the same in kind as found all over the NT world.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is an artificial distinction. "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with Men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people" (Rev. 21:3). In the context of v.2, the 'tabernacle is the new Jerusalem, and all saved people will dwell there with Him.

It is not an artificial distinction but a clear Biblical and exegetical distinction. It does not say"all" the saved people will dwell inside that is your eisegetical input. Those living "saved" nations on the earth have access to the city as the "leaves" on the tree of life are their part. But they do not dwell in the city. There is a new earth outside the city you know and it is populated just as Jesus said it would be with plural CITIES (parable of the pounds).

'He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I shall be His God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving...........shall have their part in the lake of fire' (vs.7-8). There are only two sets of people being discussed here: the saved and the lost.

The historical background for "heirs" demonstrates that the "firstborn" received a double portion while the others received one portion but all were joint heirs but not equal heirs. Israel and the church are listed as "firstborn" and the city is characterized by the names of the twelve tribes and twelve apostles, while the "saved nations" and their plural "cities" populate the earth. All the "saved" are overcomers in the sense of salvation and therefore distinct from the lost who are in Gehenna which is outside the city, as well as, outside the new earth. However, not all who overcome by the blood of the Lamb overcome by the word of their testimonies. There are overcomers by faith IN CHRIST and there are those overcomers by FAITHFULNESS to Christ. Those church members at Sardis are specifically told by Christ that he knows they are saved as their fruits demonstrated but he is encouraging them to remain faithful until death in the sure face of death.

I think you'll find He does. 'The glory of God illuminated [the city] The Lamb is its light.' What does the glory of God illuminate? Of what is the Lamb the light? The city, the new Jerusalem. Where is there even the faintest suggestion that the light goes outside the city? Nowhere! You have to read it in in order to support your wretched system. The nations of the saved are in the city walking in its light. That is the only sensible interpretation.

No, the Bible clearly teaches that his light will light THE WHOLE EARTH not just the city as he says explicity there will be "no darkness there" but your view demands there will be darkness in the new earth as your confine the light only INSIDE the city and thus darkness outside the city on the NEW EARTH. Your view repudiates the very langauge being used. If they were already inside, the kings "OF THE EARTH" (not of the city) would not have to bring SOMEBODY ELSES glory "INTO" the city. You must abuse the Scripture to make your view fit. Moreover, John would not have to say they "walk IN THE LIGHT OF IT" if they were walking "IN THE CITY."

In Revelation 21:24-26. John is referencing Isaiah 60:3, 6. 'The Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of Your rising.........The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to You.'

They will come to WHOSE LIGHT? This is referring to the promise of the gospel going to the Gentiles as in Romans 11 not in the new heaven and earth. There are no GENTILES "in Christ" or in the new heaven and earth! The Scriptures abundantly teach that in the new heaven and earth the LIGHT of God will FILL THE WHOLE EARTH not just the city as your view demands and as you explicitly defend above.

Ps 72:19 And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen.

Who do you think these kings are?

Jesus tells those who are faithful to him that some shall reign over 10 cities (plural) and some over 5 WHEN HE COMES AGAIN. These cities are upon the NEW EARTH and they consist of the "SAVED" as there are no lost people on the NEW EARTH.

 

[Yeshua1]

Martins responses are simply rediculous and not worth the time and effort to repudiate because they repudiate themselves and he will simply repeat this nonsense no matter what evidence is placed before him. So I think his position has been thoroughly exposed for what it is and I will leave the readers to make their own decisions.

He is teaching what the Bible states on this topic, as ALL wo are saved are in the Body of Chrsit, the Chuch, an all will be in New Jerusalem!

Your LM teaching smacks of JW/SDA/Mormon as being a remnant true chuch!

And why the railing aainst toehlding to infant baptism? As Nhve been solid defenders ofthe Gospel once and fo ll delivred tothe saints!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am willing to defend that Matthew 28:19-20 demands Landmarkism ecclesiology based upon an exegetical basis for the following factors:

I thought I should make a comment on your O.P. When I first read it, I agreed with the post in general, only disagreeing with your conclusion, which is why I didn't reply to it. If you had headed it "Matthew 28:19-20 demands Baptist ecclesiology, I would have agreed completely, but you didn't write that. I would only add, as I have elsewhere, that the Great Commission is more than this one text. It involves preaching the Gospel and being Christ's witnesses.

The fact is that Reformed Presbyterians and Episcopalians would also agree with the post. They believe that they are carrying out the Great Commission; that they are making disciples; that they are baptizing the nations, and that they are teaching them to obey the teachings of Christ. And whether we like it or not, most of the Bible-believing churches in the Middle East and South Korea are Presbyterian because they were planted by Presbyterians, and most of the Bible-believing churches in Nigeria and other parts of Africa are Anglican, having been planted by Anglicans. In Nigeria especially, most of the really ropey churches, the ones spewing out what Baptist Conrad Mbewe calls 'religious junk,' are Baptistic.

So there are three things that Baptists need to do.
1. We need to humble ourselves and admit that a whole lot of Baptist churches have terrible theology and practice.
2. We need to cast the beam out of the Baptist eye, before we talk about the paedobaptist mote.
3. When we have done that, we can gently (2 Timothy 2:24-25) teach our paedobaptist brethren how the Bible teaches believers' baptism. In this respect, the work of Reformed Baptists like Richard Barcellos and his Reformed Baptist Academic Press, and books by former Presbyterians like Fred Malone and Gary Crampton have already begun to reap a small but steady harvest among Presbyterians.

I notice that you have decided to make another post on this thread. For my part, I have said all I have to say on this subject and am now going to take my delayed leave from this board for a season. I am happy to let people read these threads on Landmarkism and make their own minds up.

 

[The Biblicist]

Absolutely not!

You should be telling paedobaptists this, not us.

How silly can one get as this? Are the Paedobaptists on this forum defending this? YOU are the one defending that position.

Not so. Bible-believing Paedobaptists believe that they are following the requirements of the covenant in baptizing infants. They take baptism very seriously and devoutly.

God accepts only worship that is done "in spirit AND in truth" not mere sincerity as you keep on repeating VAINLY in your defense of their sincere disobedience. God does not just look on the heart when it comes to acceptable worship but acceptable worship "MUST" be "in truth" as well as "in Spirit" so stop repeating this vain attempt to justify error.

By contrast, the Corinthians were coming to the Lord's table drunk, and were pushing ahead of others.

You like to pick and choose don't you? Sincere errors were being performed as well - some beleived sincerely they could eat at the tables of demons and at the Lord's table because they believed no such gods existed. There was schism in the church (1 Cor. 11:17-19). Some but not all were drunk at the table. Others were not examing their own person lives in keeping with the symbolism.

However, all of this is simply a diversion by you from the real point. The real point is GOD WILL and GOD HAS broken fellowship with regard to externals being violated or abused but you deny that. God does break fellowship when worship is "in spirit" (right heart) but is not "in truth" right practice. You are contradicting God's own practice with regard to external ordinances and God's Word.

They were taking the Lord's Supper in 'and unworthy manner' by not taking it seriously or devoutly.

according to your argument this should not matter at all because God does not break fellowship over the abuse of external ordinances!!! It does not matter whether the sin is done in IGNORANCE or ON PURPOSE as the bottom line is the same - GOD DOES BREAK FELLOWSHIP WITH REGARD TO VIOLATING EXTERNAL ORDINANCES. WORSHIP "MUST" BE "IN TRUTH" AND NOT MERELY "IN SPIRIT" AS YOU KEEP VAINLY REPEATING AS AN ARGUMENT.

It comes back to 1 Samuel 16:7 again; 'Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.' The same is found in 2 Chronicles 30:18-20. '"May the good LORD provide atonement for everyone who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary." And the LORD listened and healed the people.'

Pure eisegesis!!! First, in 1 Samuel 16:7 the context is with regard to choosing a king over Isarel and God is more concerned with his heart condition than his PHYSICAL APPEARANCE. However, to take this and justify worship "in spirit" WITHOUT "in truth" is inexcusable eisegesis!!

Second, 2 Chronicles 30:18-20 only teaches that worship "MUST" be "in spirit" in order to have worship "IN TRUTH" be accepted but not as you abuse this text to justify worship "in spirit" to be acceptable WITHOUT worship "in truth." This is inexcusable eisgesis.

You show either your ignorance or your bias of by writing this Are you acquainted with the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England? Consider Article XIX. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached.

They are inconsistent with themselves and that is obvious to any unbiased person as they receive infants for baptism and membership. Do you ignorantly believe that only the church of England are paedobaptists, and defending their position is defending all paedobaptists? Apparently you are!

That very large numbers of Anglican churches have fallen away from this is true, but very many Baptist churches have fallen away also..... In my experience many Baptist churches are choc-a-bloc full of unconverted baptized people..

How pathetic can it get than this? Willful intentional baptism of unregnerates taken into membership is compared with Baptists who never willfully baptize or taken into membership anyone who does not make the right gospel profession and you want to reduce them to the level of paedobaptism because they cannot read hearts and are not required to read hearts to baptize and accept members but only demand a correct profession for both??????????? pathetic!

.

Where men and women have come out of the world to seek God in Spirit and truth; where there is proper church discipline and where the word is faithfully preached, you have a church of Christ (Matthew 18:20). Where there are not these things, there is no church of Christ, no matter how exemplary the practice of baptism.

More inexcusable eigesis! Matthew 18:18-20 is grammatically and contextually referring to an already existing church in Matthew 18:15-17. The least in number to be a assembly is "two or three" as one cannot be called an "assembly." To gather "in his name" is to assemble as instructed for the purposes (Mt. 28:20) instructed and in this case the context refers to church discipline (v. 17) where much prayer and seeking wisdom is necessary for the church to confront and come to the correct judgement concerning such matters. The grammatical connection is the word "again" which ties the following verses 19-20 to the previous context.

Finally, true Christians found within the harlot (Rev. 18:4) are not found within either the metaphor of a "chaste virgin" (2 Cor. 11;2) now or in the metaphorical bride to come (Rev. 19:6-8) but will be found OUTSIDE the city upon the NEW earth is such great numbers they are called "NATIONS" of the "saved" as opposed to the fewer who comprise a "city" who in fact do rule over the nations just as a capital city now rules over a nation singular much less "nations" plural. The Christians that dwell outside on the New earth are vastly more in number ("nations") compared to those who will dwell inside the city. The idiotic interpretation you have presented that the "nations" and the "kings" are one in the same is easily debunked by the very language of the text as the text distinguishes between the two by calling some "kings" and others "nations" by the nations not bringing their own glory in "into" the city but it being brought in by "their" kings. You must mishandle, pervert and spiritualize away the word of God when there is no contextual foundation for doing that. - The Biblicist

This is a ridiculous artificial interpretation of these verses, but I have already dealt with it elsewhere and will not repeat it here.

So you have the same child of God committing unfaithfulness while being described as a "chaste virgin" with regard to doctrinal soundness as the immediate context of 2 Cor. 11:2 is doctrinal soundness (vv. 3-4).

That's a parable. It is an earthly story. It has an earthly king, giving earthly commands to earthly servants and giving them earthly rewards. What do I want with ten cities? I don't want to lord it over others in heaven. God forbid! Heaven is Revelation 7:15-17.

The term "kings" and "rule" have no meaning apart from something to be king over and to rule over. The Lord tells the apostles they shall sit on twelve thrones in the new age and rule. The word "nations' in Revelation 21:24 cannot be perverted into meaning singular "bride" or singular "city." The overcomers in the seven churches are promised to rule "over the nations' and it cannot refer to this present age. The wedding of the bride both in Psalm 45 and in Revelation 19:6-9 includes more than the bride as the bride is never invited as a "guest" to her own wedding.

What you like or don't like does not matter as when you are glorified God will change your moral and intellectual taste bud to be in line with scripture as you will have an eternity outside the city on the new earth to think about it and rejoice that you are in heaven by the blood but what you get IN heaven is determined by faithfulness.

 

[Yeshua1]

How silly can one get as this? Are the Paedobaptists on this forum defending this? YOU are the one defending that position.



God accepts only worship that is done "in spirit AND in truth" not mere sincerity as you keep on repeating VAINLY in your defense of their sincere disobedience. God does not just look on the heart when it comes to acceptable worship but acceptable worship "MUST" be "in truth" as well as "in Spirit" so stop repeating this vain attempt to justify error.




You like to pick and choose don't you? Sincere errors were being performed as well - some beleived sincerely they could eat at the tables of demons and at the Lord's table because they believed no such gods existed. There was schism in the church (1 Cor. 11:17-19). Some but not all were drunk at the table. Others were not examing their own person lives in keeping with the symbolism.

However, all of this is simply a diversion by you from the real point. The real point is that the external ordinance do matter to God and these are just various ways those symbols are violated and yet God breaks fellowship over the way external symbols are abused - that is your big problem as your whole theory denies this very point.



according to your argument this should not matter at all because God does not break fellowship over the abuse of external ordinances!!! It does not matter whether the sin is done in IGNORANCE or ON PURPOSE as the bottom line is the same - GOD DOES BREAK FELLOWSHIP WITH REGARD TO VIOLATING EXTERNAL ORDINANCES. WORSHIP "MUST" BE "IN TRUTH" AND NOT MERELY "IN SPIRIT" AS YOU KEEP VAINLY REPEATING AS AN ARGUMENT.





Pure eisegesis!!! First, in 1 Samuel 16:7 the context is with regard to choosing a king over Isarel and God is more concerned with his heart condition than his PHYSICAL APPEARANCE. However, to take this and justify worship "in spirit" WITHOUT "in truth" is inexcusable eisegesis!!

Second, 2 Chronicles 30:18-20 only teaches that worship "MUST" be "in spirit" in order to have worship "IN TRUTH" be accepted but not as you abuse this text to justify worship "in spirit" to be acceptable WITHOUT worship "in truth." This is inexcusable eisgesis.



They are inconsistent with themselves and that is obvious to any unbiased person as they receive infants for baptism and membership. Do you ignorantly believe that only the church of England are paedobaptists, and defending their position is defending all paedobaptists? Apparently you are!



How pathetic can it get than this? Willful intentional baptism of unregnerates taken into membership is compared with Baptists who never willfully baptize or taken into membership anyone who does not make the right gospel profession and you want to reduce them to the level of paedobaptism because they cannot read hearts and are not required to read hearts to baptize and accept members but only demand a correct profession for both??????????? pathetic!

.

More inexcusable eigesis! Matthew 18:18-20 is grammatically and contextually referring to an already existing church in Matthew 18:15-17. The minimal amount to be a assembly is "two or three" as one cannot be called an "assembly." To gather "in his name" is to assemble as instructed for the purposes (Mt. 28:20) instructed and in this case the context refers to church discipline (v. 17) where much prayer and seeking wisdom is necessary for the church to confront and come to the correct judgement concerning such matters. The grammatical connection is the word "again" which ties the following verses 19-20 to the previous context.



So you have the same child of God committing unfaithfulness while being described as a "chaste virgin" with regard to doctrinal soundness as the immediate context of 2 Cor. 11:2 is doctrinal soundness (vv. 3-4).




The term "kings" and "rule" have no meaning apart from something to be king over and to rule over. The Lord tells the apostles they shall sit on twelve thrones in the new age and rule. The word "nations' in Revelation 21:24 cannot be perverted into meaning singular "bride" or singular "city." The overcomers in the seven churches are promised to rule "over the nations' and it cannot refer to this present age. The wedding of the bride both in Psalm 45 and in Revelation 19:6-9 includes more than the bride as the bride is never invited as a "guest" to her own wedding.

What you like or don't like does not matter as when you are glorified God will change your moral and intellectual taste bud to be in line with scripture as you will have an eternity outside the city on the new earth to think about it and rejoice that you are in heaven by the blood but what you get IN heaven is determined by faithfulness.

Some of the GREATEST teachers/pastors/theologians hve come out frm their ranks though... Compare the qualit of the systematic theologies of Reformed to typical Baptist ones!

Yoy disagree with them on issue of water baptism and how they view scriptures, buty thet still preach/teach the Gospel!

 

[The Biblicist]

The fact is that Reformed Presbyterians and Episcopalians would also agree with the post.

When will it dawn on your mind that God does not accept worship merely "in spirit" or sincerity but it "must" ALSO be "in truth" and so it does not matter if they agree with the WORDING or not as it is their PRACTICE that determines whether or not they really agree with it! Stop making this futile and vain argument.

So there are three things that Baptists need to do.
1. We need to humble ourselves and admit that a whole lot of Baptist churches have terrible theology and practice.
2. We need to cast the beam out of the Baptist eye, before we talk about the paedobaptist mote.
3. When we have done that, we can gently (2 Timothy 2:24-25) teach our paedobaptist brethren how the Bible teaches believers' baptism. In this respect, the work of Reformed Baptists like Richard Barcellos and his Reformed Baptist Academic Press, and books by former Presbyterians like Fred Malone and Gary Crampton have already begun to reap a small but steady harvest among Presbyterians.

What has this to do with anything about the OP? Nothing! It is just your arrogant defense of the undefencable. The OP categorically repudiates the very thing you are defending. You can't deal with it so you atttempt to derail it by going off on this rampage against Baptists.

You either didn't read posts, ,2,3,23 (which define the OP from an exegetical and contextual point of view) or you are simply ignoring the exegetical evidence again because you can't deal with it as it really repudiates everything you have said.

I notice that you have decided to make another post on this thread. For my part, I have said all I have to say on this subject and am now going to take my delayed leave from this board for a season. I am happy to let people read these threads on Landmarkism and make their own minds up.

Praise the Lord, as you need to keep quiet.

 

[Yeshua1]

I thought I should make a comment on your O.P. When I first read it, I agreed with the post in general, only disagreeing with your conclusion, which is why I didn't reply to it. If you had headed it "Matthew 28:19-20 demands Baptist ecclesiology, I would have agreed completely, but you didn't write that. I would only add, as I have elsewhere, that the Great Commission is more than this one text. It involves preaching the Gospel and being Christ's witnesses.

The fact is that Reformed Presbyterians and Episcopalians would also agree with the post. They believe that they are carrying out the Great Commission; that they are making disciples; that they are baptizing the nations, and that they are teaching them to obey the teachings of Christ. And whether we like it or not, most of the Bible-believing churches in the Middle East and South Korea are Presbyterian because they were planted by Presbyterians, and most of the Bible-believing churches in Nigeria and other parts of Africa are Anglican, having been planted by Anglicans. In Nigeria especially, most of the really ropey churches, the ones spewing out what Baptist Conrad Mbewe calls 'religious junk,' are Baptistic.

So there are three things that Baptists need to do.
1. We need to humble ourselves and admit that a whole lot of Baptist churches have terrible theology and practice.
2. We need to cast the beam out of the Baptist eye, before we talk about the paedobaptist mote.
3. When we have done that, we can gently (2 Timothy 2:24-25) teach our paedobaptist brethren how the Bible teaches believers' baptism. In this respect, the work of Reformed Baptists like Richard Barcellos and his Reformed Baptist Academic Press, and books by former Presbyterians like Fred Malone and Gary Crampton have already begun to reap a small but steady harvest among Presbyterians.

I notice that you have decided to make another post on this thread. For my part, I have said all I have to say on this subject and am now going to take my delayed leave from this board for a season. I am happy to let people read these threads on Landmarkism and make their own minds up.

In his zeal for te purity of the Gospel and doctrines, our brother has seemed to forgotten that we are all one in Christ, and that we re notthir enemies, s the have ben used to bring to the Church somegreat theology, and the Reformation!

 

[The Biblicist]

In his zeal for te purity of the Gospel and doctrines, our brother has seemed to forgotten that we are all one in Christ, and that we re notthir enemies, s the have ben used to bring to the Church somegreat theology, and the Reformation!

Why not surpise everybody on the forum and just ONCE actually deal with the OP instead of spouting off pure nonsense and unstainable accusations????

 

[The Biblicist]

He is teaching what the Bible states on this topic, as ALL wo are saved are in the Body of Chrsit, the Chuch, an all will be in New Jerusalem!

So why are aposltes "FIRST"to be 'SET IN" the church if all the saved from Genesis to Pentecost are in the church body? You can't answer and you know why you can't answer? Because your theory is false, all the elect are not in the church.

Your LM teaching smacks of JW/SDA/Mormon as being a remnant true chuch!

This is what you are left with, smear tactics, as you fully well know that neither JW'/SDA/MORMON preach the gospel of Christ.

Right now, there are saints OUTSIDE NT churches which each are metaphroical a "chaste virgin" and there are those INSIDE and that will remain the same in heaven with regard to the bride and the nations.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Great Commission command repudiates infant baptism as the only authorized administration of baptism commanded in the Great Commission is to "them" who are already evangelized.

The Great Commission command repudiates the idea of calling a group of unbaptized beleivers and unregenerate infants a "church" as the church in the Great Commission is composed only of previous baptized believers as illustrated in Acts 2:40-41.

Paedbaptists are part of the Great Whore of Revelation who has committed fornication with the kings of the earth or the ungodly union between state and church as that is the source of all Paedobaptist denominations.

WHO IS THE GREAT WHORE AND HER HARLOT DAUGHTERS:

A. She is not Government


She is sitting on the back of the beast with seven heads and in Biblical typology government is pictured as beasts (Daniel 7). This beast is an amalgamation of the beasts described in Daniel 7. In addition, this woman is said to have committed fornication with the “kings of this world” thus again, distinguishing her from secular rulers and governments as “kings” are heads of government. This “fornication” with kings is metaphorical and refers to the union of state with religion.


B. She is not Jerusalem or representative of Israel

One of the most common interpretations of the Preterist[1] view of eschatology is that the Great Whore is symbolic of Jerusalem and the apostasy of Israel. However, this harlot is said to be presently reigning over the kingdoms of the world at the time John wrote as he uses the present tense in Revelation 17:18. Jerusalem, or Israel did not reign over anyone but was ruled over by Rome and was eventually was destroyed by Rome in the first century. The economical prosperity described in Revelation 18 could hardly describe the state of Israel’s economy in the first century.


C. She is not the secular city of Rome.


There can be no question that she dwelt in Rome at the time John wrote as he described her as sitting on seven hills and as the city who presently ruled over the world. There is early coinage released by Rome prior to the writing of Revelation that pictures Rome as a woman sitting on seven hills:

Archeologists have discovered this coin during the reign of Vespasian dated in 71 A.D. Therefore, it was not in circulation prior to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem but it was in circulation prior to 97-98 A.D. when John wrote the book of Revelation.

However, she is not the physical city of Rome but the chief inhabitant of that city who rules over secular government that dwells in that city. She is distinctly called “Mystery Babylon” which is the designation for the mystery religion of Babylon. The Mystery religions dominated Rome at the time John wrote this book. The Ceasars or rulers of Rome regarded themselves as the high priest of this religion. They were the high priest called Pontif Maxim or Pontifex Maximus and ruled over a college of priests called cardinals. There are ancient coins that display this religious title of the Caesar’s. The coin below was issued by Tiberius in 14-37 A.D. The Latin on the back side of this coin says “Pontif maxim” which was his High Priest title in the mystery religion. On the front side is a picture of Tiberius while on the back side with the title “Pontif Maxim” is a woman who pictured Rome as the seat of the mystery religion ruling over the world.



CONTINUED-

[1] “Preterist” is a person who believes that most if not all eschatological prophecies have already been fulfilled in the past and mostly in the first century and all that remains is the appearance of Christ from heaven.

 

[The Biblicist]

The religious ruler of Rome is still called “Pontifex Maximus” and still is the chief priest over a college of “cardinals” and still issues coins of which the following is one of many.

So the Great Whore is not the physical city of Rome but rather Rome is where this woman was located at the time John wrote. She is the mystery religion of Babylon which headquartered with its high priest in Rome who is personified as a god-man and the object of divine worship. On Sunday once a month all Roman citizens were required to offer a pinch of incense up to Caesar and say “Caesar is Lord.” John refused to do this and it is for that reason he was sent to the prison island of Patmos where Rome exiled its political and religious prisoners.



A. She is the Mystery Religion of Babylon


5 And on her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.


She is responsible for all the deaths of God’s prophets and apostles and the blood of all the saints that have been shed on the earth beginning with the blood of Abel. She is the institutionalized religion of “the way of Cain.”


And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain on the earth. – Rev. 18:24


This includes the future martyrdom of saints as well:


And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. – Rev. 17:6


As well as the martyrdom of the apostles and prophets during the NT period:


Rejoice over her, you heaven, and you holy apostles and prophets; for God has avenged you on her. – Rev. 18:20



B. She remains headquartered in Rome until the Return of Christ


12 And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength to the beast.

14 ¶ These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

15 And he said to me, The waters which you saw, where the whore sits, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

17 For God has put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

18 And the woman which you saw is that great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.



Notice in verse 18 the present tense (“is…which reigns”) identifies her with the city of Rome at the writing of John in 97-98 A.D. The Seventh head has ten horns and neither this head nor horns had yet arisen at the time of John. John was alive at the time of the sixth head or the one that “is” (v. 10). John was alive at the time of the one world Roman Government ruled from the city of Rome.

However, it would not be until the seventh head and during the reign of the beast during the time of the ten horns that the woman will be destroyed. John predicts that time is yet in the future and the time when the woman is destroyed is called “one hour” during which time the same Beast and ten horns make war with Christ as he comes from heaven. However, the secular religious roman government was overthrown in 476 A.D. by the Germanic tribes. The only religious government that has ruled over the world from Rome since 476 is Christianized Mystery Babylon or the Roman Catholic Church. She is the “mother” of both the Reformed Roman Catholic denominations (Protestantism) and the Restored religious denominations in the 19th century as all of these denominations originated by prophets or persons who were formerly Protestants.

Roman Catholicism has and is presently trying to unite all the various aspects of the mystery religions dispersed throughout all the other cultures of the world (Bhudism, Hinduism, Muslim, etc.) back into its bosom as well as reuniting her Protestant daughters back into her fold:

[1] Charles Dickens was raised in the Church of England, which was nothing more than the Roman Catholic Church in England with another head – Henry VIII. However, Dickens was disenchanted with all of institutionalized Christianity. His view of salvation was simply to love others as self. His character of scrooge was not saved by believing in Christ but by viewing himself as worthy for hell because he was unloving. Dickens viewed Christians who opposed Christmas as unloving or as Scrooge.

 

[The Biblicist]

WHO IS SHE - CONTINUED

C. The unifying Doctrine and Practices of Mystery Babylon


The necessary doctrine for unifying Christianize Babylon is the doctrine of the universal invisible church theory. The practices for unifying all facets of diverse cultural aspects of the Mystery religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, Muslim, Christian) is the Roman Catholic Holidays of Christmas and Easter and lent. These things are symbolized under the “cup” that all the world has drank from and been deceived by her.

With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication….And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: - Rev. 17:2,4


Rome’s official colors are “purple and scarlet” as seen in the robes of the cardinals and pope:

The holidays of Christmas, Easter and Lent are all originated from the Mystery Babylon religion and its worship of Baal which was practiced in its sheer idolatry in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 10). December 25th was the birthday celebration of Baal in ancient Babylon. All of the Christmas traditions come from Baal worship. This holiday was Christianized by Rome in the 3rd century in order to keep converts from the mystery religion from leaving the church. Easter gets its name from Queen Ishtar the mystery religion’s fertility goddess and ancient Madonna also called the “Queen of Heaven” in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 44:17-19, 25). These Mystery religious holidays gained foothold in Christianity through appealing to children and family fun (Jer. 7:18).

No Christians during Bible times celebrated any of these holiday nor did they after the writing of the New Testament until the 3rd century and then only among Roman Catholics. The Ancient Montanists, Donatists, Paulicians, Waldenses and Anabaptists refused to celebrate these Christianized pagan holidays. In modern times, neither in America or in Europe were they practiced other than by Roman Catholics (Church of England) primarily until the late 1800’s and principally due to a religious and political activist writer Charles Dickens[1] who wrote the “Christmas Carol” where he reversed the actual social environment where the majority of Christians opposed these holidays but he characterized them as “scrooge” while the majority were characterized as observers of Christmas or as Catholics. This holiday is observed in all religious cultures around the world as it has its source in the Mystery Babylon religion which was spread around the world in the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel. Originally it was the celebration of the birth of Nimrod who is later later mythologized and known in other languages as “Baal, Anu, Marduk, Bel, Zeus, Osiris,” and is actually the “Christ” of the Roman Catholic Church. Many Christians today celebrate it on the basis that it has been Christianized thus approving the Christianization of pagan holidays by the Roman Catholic Church in the third century. However, the old argument “put Christ back into Christmas” has no truth with regard to the origin of Christmas as Christmas in its origin is the celebration of Baal who is the type of the Anti-Christ.


D. Two Contrasting women and cities


Revelation 17-21 contrast two metaphorical cities and metaphorical two woman. One woman is a metaphorical “harlot” and represents all institutional false religion or Mystery Babylon. The other woman is a metaphorical “bride” and represents the New Testament Institution for public worship – the church. However, not all saved people are in the metaphorical bride, but many, if not most are in the metaphorical harlot (Rev. 18:4). The dwelling place of the harlot is characterized as a metaphorical city that is earthly and of this world with regard to its origin, doctrine and practices, while the future dwelling place of the Bride is characterized as heavenly. In the future new heaven and earth the majority of the saved dwell outside that city (Rev. 21:24) while the faithful dwell inside. Those who are outside God’s way of service now will be outside God’s reward for the faithfulness to His way of service then. Those saved that are inside the harlot now are outside the Bride now.

 

[The Biblicist]

Martin argues that Paedobaptist observe the Great Commission simply because they are SINCERE in their abuse of it. Martin is promoting the idea that God approves and accepts worship "in spirit" regardless if it is "in truth" and thus denying "in truth" is a "must" in connection with "in spirit."

The example of David and the ox cart theology proves Martin's theory is wrong. The fact that God did break fellowship over the abuse of external ordinances REGARDLESS OF THE REASON proves that obedience to external ordinances are important to God. Again repudiating Martin's position that fellowship should not be broken for perverting external oridinances.

Paedobaptist, regardless if they are sincere, still pervert baptism,still pervert almost every Biblical characteristic of a NT church (membership, ordinanes, officers, church government) and yet Martin's concept of "love" (sloppy agape) beleives that such organizations should be recognized as true NT churches.

The fact is the ONLY authorized administrators of baptism and the ONLY authorized ones that can constitute NT churches are those identified as "ye" in the Great Commission and the evidence provided in posts 2-3, and 23 demonstrates they must be LIKE FAITH AND ORDER with how Christ perceived the gospel and baptism not how Paedobaptists perceive and practice it.

Finally, the ONLY kind of church that is produced by the Great Commision is one that can acutally assemble in one geographical location and be instructed how to observe all things command such as Mt. 18;15-17 and Mt. 26:12-30 which defies any universal invisible church idea.