Featured What distinguishes a Landmark baptist from the rest?

Again, they are saved but unqualified Bishops and they are heretical in the area of church truth (the nature of the church, its ordinances, its ministry, it government, etc.). We do not hold them as great scholars in all aspects of their teachings. And when you said gifted men should not be excluded from the church you were wrong or else Paul is wrong (Acts 20:29-30). Therefore, gifted men can exist outside the congregations of Christ.

The church that God shed his blood for in Acts 20:28 is the congregation located at Ephesus - a visible congregation of baptized believers. Any Bible student that denies this should not claim to be a reputable Bible exegete (and you and I can name a great many scholars who display their ignorance on this text). He is addressing the elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:17). It is these elders "you" that God made "overseers" of this "flock" (Acts 20:28) and it is this same "flock" that members can enter and exit as well as ordained elders (Acts 20:29-30).

If you remove the local visible congregation, its ministry, its ordinances from the New Testament, you have little New Testament left. To even suggest the church and its ordinances are not essential doctrines to New Testament Christianity is ludicrous. To suggest "church" equals "salvation" is equally as ludicrous as that would demand there was no salvation prior to the ministry of Christ and the apostles as they are the "foundation" of the New Testament church. The foundation is the beginning of a building project and the foundation is exclusively New Testament in origin and in character (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).

Again, you are avoiding the real issue and that is does the Bible teach that baptism precedes membership in a New Testament congregation. If it does, your position is wrong and obviously wrong as constitution of a congregation cannot occur without qualified materials, of which baptism is one essential to qualify as proper materials for church constitution.

Saved but deceived preachers who repudiate the Biblical prerequisites for church membership and pervert the gospel ordinances are undermining the church itself and the doctrine of salvation and should be excluded from all true congregations of Christ and should be regarded as heretical with regard to church truth.

Page 123 proves you were incorrect. He is using history to "support" his view but nowhere does he ever claim he can "provide link by link" history back to Christ. Indeed, that is why he uses the river analogy that disappears under ground and then reappears and the Atlantic cable analogy - both which concede that he cannot and does not try to provide a link by link succession. His illustration of Adam and present day human beings who CANNOT PROVIDE A LINK BY LINK historical evidence to prove they come from Adam also illustrates he NEVER claimed that history can provide link by link evidence of church succession.

And he does attempt to sustain that view by providing statements by historians from other denominations. Whether you agree with those statements or not does not prove he did not attempt to support his view historically.

 

Well, good!

I don't think this is the issue that divides us. The issue that divides us is does the New Testament teach and demand that baptism precedes church membership. Whether baptism is misunderstood is a secondary issue rather than the primary issue, but a vital issue as it is a gospel ordinance and to pervert it is to pervert the truth it was designed to convey. If the Bible clearly teaches that baptism is the prerequisite for N.T. church membership, then the N.T. congregation cannot exist apart from such qualified material.

I would challenge your interpretation of this chapter. I don't think anyone can rightly understand Ephesians 2-3:5 without first understanding the Old Testament Temple and the "middle wall" that divided Jewish worshippers from Gentile worshippers.

No problem, I was more concerned about myself than anyone else.

I appreciate whatever truth that professed Christians hold and teach regardless of their denominational affiliation. However, the Bible holds forth clear and explicit qualifications for the office of Bishop and if a man qualifies according to that Biblical standard he is qualified to pastor any true congregation of Christ as there are not two or more contrasting Biblical standards. Neither Wesley or Whitfield meet those Biblical qualifications as both repudiate the gospel of Christ through their abuse and perversion of the gospel ordinances, among many other things pertaining to church truth. If you remove the New Testament teachings with regard to the local congregation, its ordinances, its ministry, its government, and its mission, you have very little New Testament Scriptures left. It is an essential of "the faith once delivered" or part of the "apostles doctrine" (Acts 2:40-41).

You are welcome.

There is a point when those who disagree come to an impasse and nothing more is to be gained by continuing a discussion. I understand and honor your decision if you think you have reached that point.

 

Jon has chosen to drop out of this discussion and I honor his decision and respect his input as he defended and represented his position about as well as anyone could defend it.

However, to those who choose to continue in this discussion, I have one question for you and only one question. Can you show from Scripture that the command to be baptized does not precede congregational membership? Can you find any unbaptized members of congregations in scripture?

My position is, if the Bible teaches by precept and/or example that baptized believers are the prerequisite for church membership then no true scriptural church can exist apart from baptized believers. Secondarily, if the Bible clearly teaches that baptism is by immersion only and only of professed believers then no other use of water can be called scriptural baptism and therefore all who are sprinkled, poured as adults or as infants merely got wet and are still in need of baptism. All institutions that promote such use of water are religious institutions but are not scriptural congregations of Christ and cannot be scripturally considered as such as no true church of Christ can be constituted out of unbaptized materials.

However, do not confuse the order of significance. The proper definition and application of baptism is secondary not primary. What is primary is do the Scriptures demand that baptism precedes church membership regardless how you may understand or apply baptism.

I consider it a red herring argument to defend unbaptized congregations as true congregations of Christ because they have had, or have men used of God and great scholarly abilities with regard to other truths in scripture. The issue is not what it takes to be a Christian, but what does it take to be a scriptural congregation of Christ with Biblically qualified leadership. Saved people can be misled into false doctrines and be excluded from true congregations (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thes. 3:6). Such can be regarded as saved brethren who are in serious error when it comes to church truth, without denying their value in other areas of Biblical teaching. However "church" fellowship would be impossible with such men as that is the very area of theology they repudiate and pervert.

 

Any congregation that is "like faith and order" with New Testament congregations regardless of the name over their door are true churches of Christ. The term "Baptist" is a generic term that includes diverse doctrines and practice of every conceivable sort. However, true congregations are primarily found wearing that epitaph because it is a Biblical epitaph.

Remember, one does not have to be a "Baptist" to be saved, but one must profess to be saved and baptized to be a "Baptist" in the scriptural use of this term (Mt. 3:6-8). The doctrine of New Testament congregations is about preserving the faith faithfully and that is why they are described as metaphorical "chaste" virgins (2 Cor. 11:2) that can be metaphorically "corrupted" (2 Cor. 11:3-4) thus becoming metaphorical "harlots." The metaphorical "harlots" outnumber the true churches of Christ and contain true Christians (Rev. 18:4). Therefore, true Christians exist outside of the churches of Christ proving that the church and salvation are not one and the same.

 

In classical Greek literature the Greek term ekklesia is commonly used in the abstract institutional sense. The abstract institutional sense refers to the use of a definite noun that is used to speak of something indirectly rather than directly as in the case of "the husband" and "the wife" in Ephesians 5 without changing the common ordinary meaning of "husband" or "wife." No particular specific husband or wife is identified but yet all who are husbands and wives are included. The abstract has no existence apart from concrete realities. For example, if there were no concrete specific husbands and wives there could be no abstract use of these terms. The institutional use of a noun refers to entities that have institutional characteristics (form of government, officers, mission purpose, membership requirements, etc.). Hence, "the assembly" in Classical Greek literature was used abstractly and institutionally both in its singular and plural forms. Even when the ultimate application was to a specific assembly (such as the one located at Athens), it was used in the abstract institutional sense in describing one of the various city institutions by Greek writers. This is equally true in the New Testament usage. The definite singular is used in 1 Corinthians 14:19 in the abstract institutional sense but its ultimate application is to the concrete congregation at Corinth. The plural in 1 Corinthians 14:33 proves the use in 1 Cor. 14:19 is abstract and institutional.

When considering the proper interpretation of ekklesia in any New Testament passage the common historical meaning must be considered first before any new meaning even if a new meaning can make sense it must be rejected if the common meaning can make sense. The historical meaning of ekklesia is "congregation" or "assembly" that is always visible and local. The historical meaning is inclusive of the abstract institutional use of the term. The few times that ekklesia is found in the definite singular in the New Testament where another new meaning, a meaning that is absolutely opposite to the established historical meaning is suggested (universal invisible), the historical meaning as an abstract institutional sense makes perfect sense in every one of these passages. This is true in Matthew 16:18 demonstrated by its second and third instance in Matthew 18:17. In all three cases it is found in the definite singular without any immediate specific geographical location. Christ will build "my church" or more literally "the church of me" and in Matthew 18:17 this church is local and visible but non-specific as he is using the common abstract institutional sense of ekklesia. What this means is that the church as an institution in the abstract sense shall never be overcome by the gates of hades whereas many churches in the concrete sense have been overcome by the gates of hades. Nevertheless, such concrete churches continue to exist in every generation because they have been reproduced by previous churches of like faith prior to those churches ceasing to exist.

To suggest that "the congregation of me" in Matthew 16:18 is one kind (universal invisible) while the next 22 uses of this same term by Christ refers to another kind (local and visible) has Christ claiming to build one kind but then never again speaking of it but using the same term to speak of an entirely different kind that he nowhere claimed to have originated is irrational.

To suggest that "church" equals "salvation" is to declare all previous to the ministries of Christ and the apostles are unsaved as Christ is the chief cornerstone and the apostles and New Testament prophets are the metaphorical "foundation." The origin of any building begins with the foundation. This foundation excludes all before the apostles. To suggest that this "church" built upon the foundation of apostles is equal to salvation damns all living prior to the earthly ministry of Christ to hell. However, the abstract institutional use of the term harmonizes with salvation before and after the building of the ekklesia by Christ in his earthly ministry.

 

Reduction in number is the norm for the last days as apostasy is on the increase, not the decrease (Lk. 18:8). The parable of the tares with its inclusive minor explanatory parables (leaven and mustard seed) clearly teach that the professing kingdom of God will increase in size due to apostasy, false teaching, false churches while the true representatives of the kingdom of God will all but disappear. It is not until the rubbish is separated will the true kingdom citizens (treasure) and institution (pearl of great price) be manifest. Today is the hayday of the Great Whore and her harlot daughters within which are multitudes of saved people (Rev. 18:4).

 

We do not hold to Baptist churches be established in beginning of the NT times, nor to there just being a local assembly, as most of us also hold with the Church Universal so called!