What Mt 18:20 in its Context really means

[The Biblicist]

What Matthew 18:20 Really Teaches


No one can dispute that Matthew 18:20 is found in a church context (Mt. 18:15-20). Even Direct Authority advocates admit that Matthew 18:19-20 is a church context, as they insist it refers to the constitution of a church.


Neither does anyone dispute that this text sets forth the minimum number necessary to be an assembly. One person cannot be an assembly.


What makes Matthew 18:17-20 particularly interesting is the use of the very same “ye” and “you” as found in Matthew 28:19-20 in regard to the very same subject of authority.


17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19 Again I say unto you, That if two ofyou shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


However, Matthew 18:15-20 explicitly mentions “the church” in direct connection with the contextual “ye” and “you” with church administration of the keys of the kingdom.


The issue is whether Matthew 18:19-20 simply continues the discussion about church discipline begun in Matthew 18:15-18 or has the Lord changed subjects between verse 18 and verse 19?



1. The Contextual Evidence for Continuation


Evidence that this is a continued development of the same subject is confirmed by three facts.


First, there is continuation of the very same “ye” and “you” addressed in Matthew 18:18, as in Matthew 18:19-20. So whoever is being addressed in Matthew 18:18, is still being addressed in Matthew 18:19-20.


Second, the word “again” in Matthew 18:19 demonstrates continuation of the same subject in Matthew 18:18 as in Matthew 18:19-20.


Verily I say unto you….Again I say unto you – Mt. 18:18, 19

The introductory term “Again” demands continuation rather than introduction of another subject. It is the subject of administrative church authority, or church administration of the keys of the kingdom by the existing church in Matthew 18:17.


Third, there is development of thought. The very issue in Matthew 18:15-16 is one of disagreement. The issue is brought before the church in order to settle this internal conflict between members (v. 17). The church has the authority to make a final judgment (vv. 17-18). However, authority requires both wisdom and unity for its proper administration. Matthew 18:19-20 provides the practical directions for the church to obtain the necessary wisdom in resolving such internal conflicts:


Dr. A.T. Robertson says of verse 19:


Shall agree (συμφωνησωσιν). Our word "symphony" is this very root. It is no longer looked at as a concord of voices, a chorus in harmony, though that would be very appropriate in a church meeting rather than the rasping discord sometimes heard even between two brethren or sisters. – A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures on Matthew 18:20


This is especially true when cases of dispute are brought before the assembly, as characterized in verses 15-17. The church needs to be unified under the leadership of Christ to settle such disputes. This comes by seeking the presence and leadership of Christ (vv. 18-20).



2. Historical Evidence for Continuation


There are examples in church history where this understanding of the text is clearly expressed by small churches seeking to come to a unified agreement in the exercise of authority.


One example is found among the early English Baptists during 1644-1722:


On the thirteenth day of the fifth month, it being appointed to be observed, by prayer and fasting, for the election and ordination of a deacon in the church, the elders of the church being together at Eltisly, where the meeting was appointed, and very few of the brethren being present, it did so discourage those that were assembled, that they knew not what to do. But at length remembering the words of the Lord, saying, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I will be in the midst of them, it was resolved to proceed. Whereupon, much time being spent in prayer, bewailing our negligence, and craving forgiveness and assistance from the Lord, we then went about to choose one. But our company being so small, it was questioned by some whether it was meet for us to proceed to choose any that day. Whereupon we again sought the Lord for direction.” – E.B. Underhill, Records of the Churches of Christ Gathered at Ferstanton, Warboys, and Hexsham, 1644-1720, p. 177 – The Baptist Collection of History, Version 1.0


The Orthodox Creed presented by Baptists to Charles II in 1678 also gives Matthew 18:20 as a reference for disciplinary authority as an existing church in article 39. It is also found in article 41 for regular public worship (W.J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, pp. 120, 121 – The Baptist Collection of History, Version 1.0).


As previously demonstrated, when Dr. Graves was defending the authority of an existing church, he applied this text for that purpose. He admitted that it “may” more properly apply to the administration of church discipline:


To sustain. See 2 and 4, see Matt xviii 20 To be gathered together in the name of Christ may mean in the capacity of a Church. See 1 Cor. 5 4 which undoubtedly means in Church capacity - J.R. Graves, The Great Iron Wheel; or Republicism Backwards and Christianity Reversed. “Church Constitution,” Southwest Publishing Company, New York, 1860, p. 553 – emphasis mine


Even one the most prominent universal invisible church Reformed Baptist exegete, and commentator John F. MacArthur admits this when he says:


18:20; two or three. Jewish tradition requires at least ten men (a minyan) to constitute a synaguogue or even hold public prayer. Here Christ promises to be present in the midst of even a smaller flock – “two or three witnesses” gathered in His name for the purpose of discipline (see note on verse 15). – John F. MacArthur, MacArthur Bible Commentary,

“Matthew” (Thomas Nelson, 2005) p 1158


So we have the same persons, and same subject being thoughtfully developed throughout Matthew 18:18-20.



CONTINUED -

 

[The Biblicist]

CONTINUED -

3. The Contextual Identity of “Ye” and “You”



Now, just who are those being addressed as “ye” and “you” in Matthew 18:18-20? The answer to that is a matter of grammar and context.


To find out who is being represented by these pronouns, one must trace the pronouns to its nearest contextual antecedent. The identity of the pronouns in Matthew 18:18-20 is revealed by its nearest antecedent “the church” in Matthew 18:17. The term “church” is a collective noun inclusive of a plurality. Hence, “ye” and “you” refer to the very same already existing church described in Matthew 18:15-17.[1] Biblical writers frequently address the church by the plural “you” ( e.g. 1 Thes. 1:1-2) as the church is a collective singular noun which consists of plural disciples.


Furthermore, what is declared to be church authority in Matthew 18:17-18, is later formally granted, or commissioned to the church in Matthew 28:19-20. The administration of the keys of the kingdom can be summed up in “making disciples” through instructive, corrective, and if necessary, purgative discipline. All of these are aspects of church discipline, and are inherent in teaching disciples how to observe all things commanded.


Indeed, the historic definition of Landmarkism demands that Matthew 28:18-20 refers to church administrative authority in all areas listed. Matthew 18:17-18 declares the church is final in its use of administrative authority.


And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.



Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. – Mt. 18:17-18



[1] Some attempt to argue that “ye” and “you” do not have “the church” for its contextual antecedent but have “the disciples” in Matthew 18:1 as its antecedent, which they further define as either the office of apostle or the ordained office.


This is the very same argument used by those who deny church authority in Matthew 28:19-20. In Matthew 28:19-20 they argue that the “ye” and “you” does not refer to the church but rather to “the eleven disciples” in Matthew 28:16 or the apostolic office and/or the ordained.


There are several problems with this line of thinking and interpretation for Landmarkers.


First, this would be an outright denial of the historic definition of Landmarkism which is based upon the interpretation that Matthew 18:17-18 and Matthew 28:19-20 falls under the authority of the church in contradistinction to elder rule or ministerial authority over the church.


Second, Christ does not say “if they hear not the elders” as the final administrator of the keys. No, the final authority is “the church” and the reason it is final is because the keys of the kingdom have been given to the church (v. 18). Also, Matthew 18:17-18 proves that Jesus had initially promised the keys to Peter only as a representative type of the material used by Christ to build His church. This is precisely how Peter interpreted it (1 Pet. 2:5).

 

[Yeshua1]

CONTINUED -

3. The Contextual Identity of “Ye” and “You”



Now, just who are those being addressed as “ye” and “you” in Matthew 18:18-20? The answer to that is a matter of grammar and context.


To find out who is being represented by these pronouns, one must trace the pronouns to its nearest contextual antecedent. The identity of the pronouns in Matthew 18:18-20 is revealed by its nearest antecedent “the church” in Matthew 18:17. The term “church” is a collective noun inclusive of a plurality. Hence, “ye” and “you” refer to the very same already existing church described in Matthew 18:15-17.[1] Biblical writers frequently address the church by the plural “you” ( e.g. 1 Thes. 1:1-2) as the church is a collective singular noun which consists of plural disciples.


Furthermore, what is declared to be church authority in Matthew 18:17-18, is later formally granted, or commissioned to the church in Matthew 28:19-20. The administration of the keys of the kingdom can be summed up in “making disciples” through instructive, corrective, and if necessary, purgative discipline. All of these are aspects of church discipline, and are inherent in teaching disciples how to observe all things commanded.


Indeed, the historic definition of Landmarkism demands that Matthew 28:18-20 refers to church administrative authority in all areas listed. Matthew 18:17-18 declares the church is final in its use of administrative authority.


And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.



Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. – Mt. 18:17-18



[1] Some attempt to argue that “ye” and “you” do not have “the church” for its contextual antecedent but have “the disciples” in Matthew 18:1 as its antecedent, which they further define as either the office of apostle or the ordained office.


This is the very same argument used by those who deny church authority in Matthew 28:19-20. In Matthew 28:19-20 they argue that the “ye” and “you” does not refer to the church but rather to “the eleven disciples” in Matthew 28:16 or the apostolic office and/or the ordained.


There are several problems with this line of thinking and interpretation for Landmarkers.


First, this would be an outright denial of the historic definition of Landmarkism which is based upon the interpretation that Matthew 18:17-18 and Matthew 28:19-20 falls under the authority of the church in contradistinction to elder rule or ministerial authority over the church.


Second, Christ does not say “if they hear not the elders” as the final administrator of the keys. No, the final authority is “the church” and the reason it is final is because the keys of the kingdom have been given to the church (v. 18). Also, Matthew 18:17-18 proves that Jesus had initially promised the keys to Peter only as a representative type of the material used by Christ to build His church. This is precisely how Peter interpreted it (1 Pet. 2:5).

The problem with this is i that there is no doctrine/practice of Landmarkism decribedin he Bible...

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem with this is i that there is no doctrine/practice of Landmarkism decribedin he Bible...

It is really, really difficult to be civil with your kind of mentality. You obviously cannot find any fault in the exposition or you would have pointed it out. I have never read anything by you that made any real contribution to any post. Why are you even a member of this forum if you are never willing to engage debate in what is said?????

HOWEVER, THE REAL POINT IS THAT YOU CAN NO LONGER LEGITIMATELY USE MT 18:20 FOR YOUR DEFINITION OF A CHURCH CAN YOU?????? ONE MORE PROOF AGAINST YOUR INVISIBLE CHURCH THEORY. ONE MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE IDEA THAT A PAEDOBAPTIST GROUP IS A CHURCH

 

[Yeshua1]

It is really, really difficult to be civil with your kind of mentality. You obviously cannot find any fault in the exposition or you would have pointed it out. I have never read anything by you that made any real contribution to any post. Why are you even a member of this forum if you are never willing to engage debate in what is said?????

HOWEVER, THE REAL POINT IS THAT YOU CAN NO LONGER LEGITIMATELY USE MT 18:20 FOR YOUR DEFINITION OF A CHURCH CAN YOU?????? ONE MORE PROOF AGAINST YOUR INVISIBLE CHURCH THEORY. ONE MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE IDEA THAT A PAEDOBAPTIST GROUP IS A CHURCH

The teach the true Gospel, hold to essential Christian doctrines, practice Baptism/Communion, what part of a local curch are you missing?

Jesu accepts their assembling together to preach/teach/worship Him, why not you then?

 

[The Biblicist]

The teach the true Gospel,

That is simply not true! You mean they teach the true gospel with their mouth but repudiate it with their ordinances. They repudiate the gospel by their action of baptism. Jeshua, do you understand the significance of a symbol? The precise visible form is designed by God to convey a certain truth. If the symbol is perverted so is the truth it was designed to convey is perverted. The mode of immersion is the percise visible form to convey the truth of the gospel. When Paedobaptists pervert that precise visible form they are perverting the truth that form was designed by God to covey. Thus their form of baptism PERVERTS THE GOSPEL. Pouring and sprinkling PERVERTS THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. Applying water to an infant, an unregenerate additionally PERVERTS THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. So the truth is by THEIR MOUTH they do teach the truth gospel but by their actions they pervert the gospel of Christ.

Moreover, the church is called the metaphorical "body of Christ." Do you know what is a metaphor? A metaphor is something that REPRESENTS something else. The church is not the LITERAL body of Christ as the LITERAL body of Christ is visible and physical flesh and blood and is in heaven seated on the right hand of the Father. The church REPRESENTS Christ's body. When Paedobaptists intentionally bring infants, the unregenerate into their congregational body and call that the "body of Christ" they are MISREPRESENTING Christ.

Their church government misrepresents the body of Christ as the NT Church is a congregational ruled government.

Their ministry misrepresents the body of Christ as the NT. ministry consists of only Elders and Deacons, there is no heirachy as in the Church of England and in the Methodist and some other paedobaptist congregations.

They do not "practice baptism" or the ordinances in any scriptural sense whatsoever any more than Rome does.Rome beleives in the Trinity, deity of Christ, incarnation, inspiration of the scriptures, etc.

Jesu accepts their assembling together to preach/teach/worship Him, why not you then?

And just how do you know that? So Jesus accepts their ordinances administered to infants does he? So Jesus accepts their infant membership does he? Where is the doctrine of confirmation of previously baptized persons taught in the Scriptures? Where in the Scriptures can we find baptized infants and children received as members but who cannot partake of the Lord's Supper until after something called "confirmation"? Where do we find archbishops, and Most holy right Reverends in scripture.

What you and Martin never ever address is where in the NT can we find any group of unbaptized mixture of infants and adults called a "church"??????? Your only response thus far is that THEY THINK THEY ARE BAPTIZING and God looks at their heart and that external ordinances are not what God breaks fellowship over. However, I have proven every example and text used to support that argument as false. When God said that of David, he was contrasting the heart to the PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, rather than to worship forms. Jesus said worship MUST be "in spirit" but also MUST be "in truth"as well. God did refuse worship by true believers and kill believers for perverting external ordinances even when their hearts were right (David and the ox cart worship, Corinthians and abuse of the Supper). God denied Moses entrance into the promised land for abusing external symbols.

So neither Martin or you have any responses to these facts of Scripture other than simply doing what you are famous for doing, ignoring the Biblical data and repeating the same disproven false teachings.

Furthermore, we can and do fellowship with truly saved paedobaptists on a PERSONAL basis, but we cannot do so on a CHURCH basis simply because NO SUCH CHURCH like theirs can be found in the NT. No CHURCH of unimmersed people can be found or can exist as the NT both by precept and example DEMANDS that its material for constitution consist of IMMERSED professing believers in Christ. Jeshua, Christ DEMANDS immersion of professed believers precede church constitution or membership - DEMANDS it (Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15) by precept and by example (Acts 2:41). The Biblical term used for this ordinance DEMANDS it (baptizo). The Greek has terms for sprinkling (rantizo) and pouring (epicheo) and both terms are found in the Scriptures but NEVER ONCE for this ordinance. Just because true believers call sprinkling and pouring "baptism" does not make it baptism. You and Martin keep repeating that they believe and practice baptism WHEN IN FACT THEY DO NOT IF THE BIBLE IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY TO DEFINE WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT BAPTISM. So why do you keep perverting the Scriptures by claiming they practice baptism????? Are not these your words and I quote, "The[y]....practice Baptism/Communion"???? Do you really believe pouring and sprinkling is the practice of baptism? Do you really believe administering water in any mode to infants is practicing baptism? Are you really being honest when you say that? Do you really believe that is what the Bible teaches?

 

[Yeshua1]

That is simply not true! You mean they teach the true gospel with their mouth but repudiate it with their ordinances. They repudiate the gospel by their action of baptism. Jeshua, do you understand the significance of a symbol? The precise visible form is designed by God to convey a certain truth. If the symbol is perverted so is the truth it was designed to convey is perverted. The mode of immersion is the percise visible form to convey the truth of the gospel. When Paedobaptists pervert that precise visible form they are perverting the truth that form was designed by God to covey. Thus their form of baptism PERVERTS THE GOSPEL. Pouring and sprinkling PERVERTS THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. Applying water to an infant, an unregenerate additionally PERVERTS THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. So the truth is by THEIR MOUTH they do teach the truth gospel but by their actions they pervert the gospel of Christ.

Moreover, the church is called the metaphorical "body of Christ." Do you know what is a metaphor? A metaphor is something that REPRESENTS something else. The church is not the LITERAL body of Christ as the LITERAL body of Christ is visible and physical flesh and blood and is in heaven seated on the right hand of the Father. The church REPRESENTS Christ's body. When Paedobaptists intentionally bring infants, the unregenerate into their congregational body and call that the "body of Christ" they are MISREPRESENTING Christ.

Their church government misrepresents the body of Christ as the NT Church is a congregational ruled government.

Their ministry misrepresents the body of Christ as the NT. ministry consists of only Elders and Deacons, there is no heirachy as in the Church of England and in the Methodist and some other paedobaptist congregations.

They do not "practice baptism" or the ordinances in any scriptural sense whatsoever any more than Rome does.Rome beleives in the Trinity, deity of Christ, incarnation, inspiration of the scriptures, etc.


And just how do you know that? So Jesus accepts their ordinances administered to infants does he? So Jesus accepts their infant membership does he? Where is the doctrine of confirmation of previously baptized persons taught in the Scriptures? Where in the Scriptures can we find baptized infants and children received as members but who cannot partake of the Lord's Supper until after something called "confirmation"? Where do we find archbishops, and Most holy right Reverends in scripture.

What you and Martin never ever address is where in the NT can we find any group of unbaptized mixture of infants and adults called a "church"??????? Your only response thus far is that THEY THINK THEY ARE BAPTIZING and God looks at their heart and that external ordinances are not what God breaks fellowship over. However, I have proven every example and text used to support that argument as false. When God said that of David, he was contrasting the heart to the PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, rather than to worship forms. Jesus said worship MUST be "in spirit" but also MUST be "in truth"as well. God did refuse worship by true believers and kill believers for perverting external ordinances even when their hearts were right (David and the ox cart worship, Corinthians and abuse of the Supper). God denied Moses entrance into the promised land for abusing external symbols.

So neither Martin or you have any responses to these facts of Scripture other than simply doing what you are famous for doing, ignoring the Biblical data and repeating the same disproven false teachings.

Furthermore, we can and do fellowship with truly saved paedobaptists on a PERSONAL basis, but we cannot do so on a CHURCH basis simply because NO SUCH CHURCH like theirs can be found in the NT. No CHURCH of unimmersed people can be found or can exist as the NT both by precept and example DEMANDS that its material for constitution consist of IMMERSED professing believers in Christ. Jeshua, Christ DEMANDS immersion of professed believers precede church constitution or membership - DEMANDS it (Mt. 28:19-20; Mk. 16:15) by precept and by example (Acts 2:41). The Biblical term used for this ordinance DEMANDS it (baptizo). The Greek has terms for sprinkling (rantizo) and pouring (epicheo) and both terms are found in the Scriptures but NEVER ONCE for this ordinance. Just because true believers call sprinkling and pouring "baptism" does not make it baptism. You and Martin keep repeating that they believe and practice baptism WHEN IN FACT THEY DO NOT IF THE BIBLE IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY TO DEFINE WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT BAPTISM. So why do you keep perverting the Scriptures by claiming they practice baptism????? Are not these your words and I quote, "The[y]....practice Baptism/Communion"???? Do you really believe pouring and sprinkling is the practice of baptism? Do you really believe administering water in any mode to infants is practicing baptism? Are you really being honest when you say that? Do you really believe that is what the Bible teaches?

Many of them , who hold to Covenent Theology, would see that your thology"perverts the Gospel also, in the sense tha you are not seeing the Lord accepting thm as fellow Bethren in Christ...

Your arguement aginst them here would indeed work in regards to those in hof Rome, or Lutheryn one, as they both teach and hold to sacramental Grace saving sinners, but I have yet to read or meet someone in say conservation Reformed chuches not teach that a sinner must still get saved by Grace faith alone, despite theirview on te ordinnces!alone!
And their method of chuch leadership falls under areas tha we can freely disagrre upon......

 

[The Biblicist]

Many of them , who hold to Covenent Theology, would see that your thology"perverts the Gospel also, in the sense tha you are not seeing the Lord accepting thm as fellow Bethren in Christ...

When will you and Martin stop making this absolute false accusation. I accept any person in any denomination as a "brother" in Christ if their profession faith is in the true gospel, because their condition as a "brother" is determined by BIRTH not by baptism or church membership.

When I say I don't accept them as a "church" I am speaking about their INSTITUTION which they assert is a true church, not about their personal salvation. Your confusion originates with the fact that you believe in CHURCH SALVATION and so even when you discuss a local assembly, if I, or anyone rejects that local assembly as NT in faith and order, you think they are rejecting the salvation of those in that assembly. Think for a moment. Don't you believe there are truely saved people in the Roman Catholic church???? However, do you believe the Roman Catholic Church is a true church of Christ?? So, if you reject the Catholic Church as a true church, that does not mean you are asserting all within her membership are lost does it???


When are you going to get it in your head that "church" does not equal "salvation"???????? So, when I say they are not a true NT church, I am speaking of them as an INSTITUTION. I am not speaking of them as "brethren" because the qualifications for being recognized as "brethen" is simply the gospel, but the qualifications for regarding them as a true "church" IS MORE THAN SALVATION, but what constitutes their membership, their ordinances, their church government, their officers. You don't understand that because you confuse "church" with salvation when salvaiton MUST BE a prerequisite for membership in any church and therefore the church refers to SERVICE by saved people and whether that service is "acceptable" according to God's Word.

Please don't open your mouth just to change feet, but think a little before speaking.

 

[Yeshua1]

When will you and Martin stop making this absolute false accusation. I accept any person in any denomination as a "brother" in Christ if their profession faith is in the true gospel, because their condition as a "brother" is determined by BIRTH not by baptism or church membership.

When I say I don't accept them as a "church" I am speaking about their INSTITUTION which they assert is a true church, not about their personal salvation. Your confusion originates with the fact that you believe in CHURCH SALVATION and so even when you discuss a local assembly, if I, or anyone rejects that local assembly as NT in faith and order, you think they are rejecting the salvation of those in that assembly. Think for a moment. Don't you believe there are truely saved people in the Roman Catholic church???? However, do you believe the Roman Catholic Church is a true church of Christ?? So, if you reject the Catholic Church as a true church, that does not mean you are asserting all within her membership are lost does it???


When are you going to get it in your head that "church" does not equal "salvation"???????? So, when I say they are not a true NT church, I am speaking of them as an INSTITUTION. I am not speaking of them as "brethren" because the qualifications for being recognized as "brethen" is simply the gospel, but the qualifications for regarding them as a true "church" IS MORE THAN SALVATION, but what constitutes their membership, their ordinances, their church government, their officers. You don't understand that because you confuse "church" with salvation when salvaiton MUST BE a prerequisite for membership in any church and therefore the church refers to SERVICE by saved people and whether that service is "acceptable" according to God's Word.

Please don't open your mouth just to change feet, but think a little before speaking.

Just would be saying that the Bible allows for NT churches other than just LM Baptists ones, as the assembly of Christians would be same function, to worship/praise/be taught etc the Lord Jesus!

 

[The Biblicist]

Just would be saying that the Bible allows for NT churches other than just LM Baptists ones, as the assembly of Christians would be same function, to worship/praise/be taught etc the Lord Jesus!

Your confusing the FUNCTIONS with the CHARACTERISTICS of the NT church. Rome does all the FUNCTIONS. Mormons do all the FUNCTIONS. SDA does all the FUNCTIONS. Paedobaptists do all the FUNCTIONS. None of these have the NT CHARACTERISTICS of the NT church.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your confusing the FUNCTIONS with the CHARACTERISTICS of the NT church. Rome does all the FUNCTIONS. Mormons do all the FUNCTIONS. SDA does all the FUNCTIONS. Paedobaptists do all the FUNCTIONS. None of these have the NT CHARACTERISTICS of the NT church.

Except the Church of Rome/JW/Mormons teach a false Gospel, and they do the real one!

 

[The Biblicist]

Except the Church of Rome/JW/Mormons teach a false Gospel, and they do the real one!

The Bible does not characterize NT churches by this single characteristic. The Great Commission does not characterize NT churches by this single characteristic. The Acts of the Apostles does not characterize NT churches by this single characteristic. ONLY YOUR TRADITION does!!!

The NT church is charged with "making disciples" as part of its essential duty. The Great Commission is a command and there are three participles that define how that command is to be carried out and all three participles are restricted within the narrow confines of "all things whatsoever I HAVE COMMANDED YOU." or LIKE FAITH AND ORDER with Christ.

These three partciplse that define HOW that command is to be carried out are:

1. "go" with the SAME gospel Jesus already had COMMANDED (not another gospel)
2. "baptizing" with the SAME baptism Jesus already COMMANDED (not another baptism)
3. "teaching" to "OBSERVE" the SAME faith and order already COMMANDED (not another faith and order). This third aspect is further defined by the apostles to include membership in the kind of churches characterized in the New Testament (Acts 2:40-41).

Paedobaptists have one out of three essentials of this command. The true churches of Christ had THREE out of THREE.

Paedobaptism do not administer the baptism Christ "COMMANDED"
Paedobaptists do not teach to OBSERVE what Christ "COMMANDED"

All you can say is that they administer something they call baptism.
All you can say is that they observe something they call a church but is a perversion of all the major characteristics of NT churches.

Just as what they CALL baptism is not scriptural baptism so also what they CALL a church is not a scriptural church. What they CALL church government is not scriptural church government. What they CALL "sacraments" are not scriptural ordinances.

The only thing they have in common with NT church is the gospel and that comes BEFORE the church and its membership and has nothing to do with church CHARACTERISTICS and its Biblically defined FUNCTIONS.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your argument is like arguing that since Americans are all humans therefore all humans must be Americans. Or if some humans come together and form a government then it must be an American government.

No, one must go through the proper procedures to become an American citizen and being human is a bare prerequisite but not sufficient. Being a Christian is a bare prerequisite for church membership but it is not sufficient for church constitution or church membership as even Paedobaptists do not allow all Christians who simply show up to be members. They require a profession of faith. They admit that baptism is a necessary prerequiste for church constitution and membership. However, they simply don't HAVE TRUE BAPTISM and therefore are in disobedience to the very thing they admit the Bible demands to be a church of Christ - do you get it????

 

[The Biblicist]

If your view of the Universal invisible church that claims that water baptism and the local church body are designed by God to be mere VISIBLE expressions of the TRUE body and TRUE baptism of God then don't you think the visible expressions should conform to what they are to visibly express????


If that were true, then no local church should demand any kind of water baptism for membership as the so-called TRUE body DOES NOT make it a requirement for its membership does it?????? Don't respond the scriptures demand it BECAUSE YOU DON'T DEMAND IT FOR PAEDOBAPTISTS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A TRUE CHURCH AS YOU KNOW THEY ARE WITHOUT SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY CLAIM. WHAT A PERSON CLAIMS DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. ONLY CONFIRMATION TO THE BIBLE MAKES IT SO.

If that were true, then no local chuch should demand any professed Christian that shows up to be a member to participate in its body functions as the so-called TRUE body DOES NOT as all partake of it by simply BEING Christians. So your local churches should practice membership just as they practice OPEN communion - no membership requirements but salvation.

If that were true, then no local church should practice church discipline as the so-called TRUE body of Christ does not as NONE in its body can be kicked out of that body.

So if you really believe in this doctrine why don't your churches practice what they preach???? Do away with water baptism as a necessary requirement BECAUSE YOU DO SO WITH PAEDOBAPTIST CHURCHES BY CALLING THEM CHURCHES AND YET KNOWING THEY ARE WITHOUT SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. Do away with membership requirements in addition to salvation. Do away with church discipline and learn to simply co-exist as all do in your so-called TRUE church????

 

[Yeshua1]

If your view of the Universal invisible church that claims that water baptism and the local church body are designed by God to be mere VISIBLE expressions of the TRUE body and TRUE baptism of God then don't you think the visible expressions should conform to what they are to visibly express????


If that were true, then no local church should demand any kind of water baptism for membership as the so-called TRUE body DOES NOT make it a requirement for its membership does it?????? Don't respond the scriptures demand it BECAUSE YOU DON'T DEMAND IT FOR PAEDOBAPTISTS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A TRUE CHURCH AS YOU KNOW THEY ARE WITHOUT SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY CLAIM. WHAT A PERSON CLAIMS DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. ONLY CONFIRMATION TO THE BIBLE MAKES IT SO.

If that were true, then no local chuch should demand any professed Christian that shows up to be a member to participate in its body functions as the so-called TRUE body DOES NOT as all partake of it by simply BEING Christians. So your local churches should practice membership just as they practice OPEN communion - no membership requirements but salvation.

If that were true, then no local church should practice church discipline as the so-called TRUE body of Christ does not as NONE in its body can be kicked out of that body.

So if you really believe in this doctrine why don't your churches practice what they preach???? Do away with water baptism as a necessary requirement BECAUSE YOU DO SO WITH PAEDOBAPTIST CHURCHES BY CALLING THEM CHURCHES AND YET KNOWING THEY ARE WITHOUT SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. Do away with membership requirements in addition to salvation. Do away with church discipline and learn to simply co-exist as all do in your so-called TRUE church????

The Bible states in Ephesians 4 tha all critians are placed by God into the Church body, all hae been given gifted teachers/pastors/evangelists for the Body itself to b equpped and edified and built up, and that is dne in the local churches such as Baptists/Reformed etc!

 

[Yeshua1]

Your argument is like arguing that since Americans are all humans therefore all humans must be Americans. Or if some humans come together and form a government then it must be an American government.

No, one must go through the proper procedures to become an American citizen and being human is a bare prerequisite but not sufficient. Being a Christian is a bare prerequisite for church membership but it is not sufficient for church constitution or church membership as even Paedobaptists do not allow all Christians who simply show up to be members. They require a profession of faith. They admit that baptism is a necessary prerequiste for church constitution and membership. However, they simply don't HAVE TRUE BAPTISM and therefore are in disobedience to the very thing they admit the Bible demands to be a church of Christ - do you get it????

THE distinctive fator in detrmining ifa real NT church would b what they teach cncerning Gospl ad Jesus, not in water baptism/communion, as saved differ on hthoe issues!

We Baptist haethe most bibical views on them, but not only allowable ones!

 

[The Biblicist]

THE distinctive fator in detrmining ifa real NT church would b what they teach cncerning Gospl ad Jesus, not in water baptism/communion, as saved differ on hthoe issues!

We Baptist haethe most bibical views on them, but not only allowable ones!

I can't even understand what you are saying.