Featured The Basis of Christian Unity

First, you start too late in your text. Back up to John 17:17 and then proceed or else you will have a perverted view of unity (and you do).

Second, PRACTICAL UNITY has to do with VISIBLE unity or else it means nothing.

Third, the New Testament identifies the basis of unity to be "the faith once delivered" which is more inclusive than the mere gospel. Jude is referring to the Great Commission and if anything in scripture is the basis for a PRACTICAL WORKING UNITY between Christians it is the Great Commission.

Martin, your view can't be found in any PRACTICAL sense in Scripture. You will find no churches in Scripture that consist of believers with no other prequalification than the gospel. The precepts of Scripture repudiate your view. the examples of Scripture repudiate your view.

Gospel unity certainly means all are in the same family - the family of God. But the very structure of the church institution found in Scripture and its doctrine of discipline repudiates any other unity in that family in any practical sense other than like faith and order with the Great Commission principles.

 

I looked again at the OP and saw nothing but John 17:20-22 quoted and it appeared that was the emphasis of your post.

Mormons sincerely believe they are preaching the gospel too! Quakers are sincere in their belief too! Since when is sincerity the test of truth????? That is why I pointed you back to John 17:17. It does not matter how sincere a person or institution may be.

He is talking to properly baptized believing church members! So what is your point?

Again, you are confusing what is essential to be a "CHRISTIAN with what is essential to be a true church. Your view contradicts the Great Commission, it contradicts New Testament practice, you have NOTHING to base your opinion on except your self while your opinion is in complete defiance to God's Word.

Again, you are confusing PERSONAL fellowship with CHURCH fellowship. For example, you have a saved Presbyterian come to your church and ask to be accepted into your membership only on his profession of faith as he is convinced his sprinkling is baptism. Do you accept him? If you are consistent with your whole argument in this OP you must accept him as you demand that salvation alone is all that is necessary to constitute a true church and thus be a church member. If you deny him membership due to his baptism then you are not practicing what you are preaching in this OP. So does your church received sprinkled or poured for membership? If not why not?

So do Catholics of the Augustinian order, so do Mormons, Methodists, etc. Since when is sincerity the test of truth? (Jn. 17:17).

 

Martin, you have argued on the basis of sincerity that violation of one of God's symbols in public worship is not something that should divide Christians or something that should disqualify their PUBLIC worship before God.

However, Moses was a justified man before God as was Abraham and all OT believers and when he; violated one of God's symbol he was refused to enter the promised land by God.

David was a justified man before God but when he violated one of God's symbols in public worship, God killed one of his servants while in the act of SINCERE public worship and refused their worship.

The Corinthians were justified men before God but when they violated one of the symbols of public worship God killed some of them (1 Cor. 11) and repudiated their worship denying they were even observing what they claimed to be observing (1 Cor. 11:20).

However, that is precisely what you are promoting by your view of sincerity with regard to both of these symbolic ordinances in the public worship of God -the ekklesia. You are saying that justified men can worship God any way they please and should still be recognized as a true NT. ekklesia of Christ by all other justified men as salvation takes precedence over all other things and that is the really the only priority in the sight of God to be recognized as a true NT. ekklesia.

However, scripture places Baptism SECOND in the Great Commission only to the gospel but PRIOR to observing all other things commanded - Mt. 28:19-20. In contrast you are placing Baptism THIRD in priority to observing all other things commmanded. Scripture demands baptism is the prerequisite to church membership (Acts 2:40-41) but your position denies that it is even necessary for church membership, thus for church constitution. So its Martin's opinion versus God's Word!

The examples of Moses, David and the Corinthians demonstrate that it does make a difference to God when justified men pervert His symbols. The reason it makes a difference to God is that the divine purpose of symbols is that the visible form is designed to convey truth and when the form is perverted so is the truth that it was designed to convey by the established form. Baptism is a symbol of salvation and therefore the perversion of the form perverts and denies the truth that established form was designed to portray. Hence, Paedobaptists are preaching another salvation by their perverted form of baptism. Their assembly is based upon submitting to and administering a perverted salvation.

Finally, for Baptists to recognize such justified men as a true NT Ekklesia is to recognize an ekklesia that is constituted upon and consisting of and the continued administering of another salvation, thus "another gospel". In addition their willing and knowing acceptance of unregenerates (infants) into their membership as the NORM for populating their membership defies the truth of the gospel by their VERY CONSTITUTION and MEMBERSHIP. You really think that God is going to recognize as a true ekklesia that which by its very constitution and membership repudiates the truth of the gospel? You really think that God is going to recognize as a true ekklesia that which perverts the gospel by its perversion of his gospel symbols? You may think that but what basis do you have to defend that? Not the bible, just your own personal opinion.

 

The prayer was that we be as one as the Father and Son are one. But not only they, but those who believe through their word.

So we are all one. We, the first century believers and those who live today. We are one through our union with Christ.

What was the visible unity between the invisible Father and the Son?

But the things that all Christians on earth have in common are the Scriptures, and the Head of the Body, and the Spirit.

Biblicyst proves this in his rants when he appeals to the Scriptures. Why should anyone who doesn't go to his local church, and is not under the authority of that assembly and does not sit under the teaching of those elders listen to him? Because he is saying what the Scriptures say, says he. And through the Scriptures, there is unity.

 

Nobody denies the spiritual unity of all true believers "in Christ." However, that unity "in Christ" is due to COMMON BIRTH by the Spirit not by any kind of baptism, whether water or spirit as that is 4000 years too late to resolved the "in Adam" problem. Thus your whole UIC doctrine is repudiated by that single fact.

Your kind of church body cannot exist prior to its own "foundation" (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 14:28). Hence, you have no "in Chriist" spiritual union by baptism in the Spirit or by being members in "one body" for all who are "in Adam" between Genesis and Pentecost. Yet there can be and there is no possible salvation from SPIRITUAL SEPARATION/DEATH from God EXCEPT by spiritual union with God, just as there is no possible salvation for anyone, at anytime, anywhere OUTSIDE of Christ, and so your false theory perverts Biblical salvation and condemns all before Pentecost to spiritual separation/death both in their life and death, proving your church salvation doctrine is another false gospel.

1. Spiritual separation = spiritual death
2. Spiritual union = spiritual life
3. Spiritual union "in Christ" is a creative work of God called quickening (Eph. 2:1-10)
4. All BORN of Adam are "in the flesh" and all BORN of the Spirit are "in the spirit" it is NEW BIRTH rather than any kind of baptism or membership in any kind of church that saves.

The biblical doctrine condemns your Roman Catholic Church Salvation doctrine and preserves and protects the true gospel of Christ as well as the true nature of the institutional congregation of Christ.

 

Martin, you made "sincerity" the basis for dealing with paedobaptism. You said they sincerely believe they are administering proper baptism and thereby implying quite forcefully that their sincerity is the operative principle in dealing with them. I brought Mormons and JW's into the mix because they equally are SINCERE in their errors and if SINCERITY is the operative basis for dealing with one error why not another error as both are errors?? That s why I repeatedly pointed you back to Jn. 17:17 and "truth" as the operative means for unity NOT SINCERITY! Worship must be "in Spirit AND in truth." Sincerity is insufficient to make error acceptable regardless of how serious the error may or may not be in your estimation.

Rightly so, because none of his readers were rejecting scriptural baptism or rejecting scriptural baptism as the prerequisite for church membership. Their error was making baptism MORE important than the gospel WITHIN A NEW TESTAMENT CONGREGATION. We do not do that. First the gospel, SECOND baptism. The gospel is first with regard to salvation, while baptism is first with regard to service as its very first step. That is the proper order and proper significance which you are denying by your position.

You can't be serious! This is completetly absurd and irrational beyond belief!!! The Bible clearly COMMANDS baptism and places it second only to the gospel in the Great Commission and BEFORE being placed in a position of instructing how to observe all things (church membership). In the very first spelled out obedience of the Great commission baptism precedes church membership (Acts 2:40-41). You cannot find any example of any unbaptized congregation or any paedobaptism congregation or any congregation sprinkled or poured membership. The Bible is completely SILENT for your position and completely VOCAL against your position by precept and example. You have absolutely NOTHING but your tradition, opinion, imaginations - NOTHING! And you have the gaul to charge me with definance against God's word and call my position "your traditions"???? Do you actually think that any reader on this forum will swallow such absolute irrational charges??????

Another unhinged irrational charge. Are you going to tell us there is no difference between PERSONAL fellowship and PUBLIC CHURCH fellowship? You didn't respond to my question! Will your church received sprinkled believers INTO YOUR PUBLIC FELLOWSHIP as members? If your church won't then they are distinguishing between PERSONAL and CHURCH fellowship and thus contradicting you. Will they????? Don't lecture me on this if your own church wont practice what you are preaching.

So does our church but we don't welcome them as MEMBERS with MEMBERSHIP priviledges.

You are simply wrong as there are other qualifications for observing the Supper other than loving the Lord. We have discussed this in another post and we are at an impasse on this discussion.

Then your church constitution is admittedly nothing but TRADITION at odds with what you believe the Word of God teaches then? Either baptism is BIBLICALLY no hinderance to church fellowship or it is - which is it? If it is a Biblical hinderance then your whole position is nothing but tradition and unbiblical. If it is not then your church constitution is tradition and unbiblical. Which is it?

I believe that is ecclesiastical apostasy and that is why I do not believe you are either a true historical baptist or a biblical baptist but a Reformed Roman Catholic under the Baptist name just as those your quote. Nevertheless, I accept you as a brother in Christ based upon your gospel belief as your baptism has nothing to do with your salvation, but simply wrong on baptism and the church and in more alignment with Reformed Roman Catholicism than historical Baptists.

 

I personally would like to know just what the clear directive is for "The Church".... I thought it was discipleship. Am I wrong?

 

Precisely, and discipleship is walking as Christ walked and he began his public ministry by submitting to baptism. The Great Commission order is evangelization, baptism, assembled under instruction to observe all things commanded, and that is spelled out in clear terms in Acts 2:40-41.

However, Martin wants to exclude baptism from this order and make it irrelevant. Believers are to be saved, then baptized, then church instruction in practical observance of all other commands.

 

You cannot pervert baptism without perverting the gospel. The whole purpose of a symbol is to convey in a precise VISIBLE FORM a designed truth. Pervert the VISIBLE FORM and you are guilty of perverting that truth. Ask Moses concerning the water from the rock. Ask David about his new cart theology. Ask the Corinthians about failing to discern the symbolism in the Lord's Supper.

The design of the ekklesia by God is to be a METPHORICAL "body of Christ" and individual METAPHORICAL "members"s thereof. Intentionally and willfully place unregenerate persons (infants) who neither profess Christ by mouth or in baptism and you have perverted the metaphorical "body of Christ" which to be metaphorically true MUST require at minimum ONLY members who PROFESS Christ with the mouth and in baptism.

Paedobaptist institutions are not true New Testament congregations, as they pervert the gospel by their mode and subjects of baptism and pervert the metaphorical body of Christ by their willful and intentional placement of unregenerate persons who neither profess Christ with their mouth or by their administration of water they call baptism.

 

2 Chronicles 30:16-20 deals with the PERSON not with PUBLIC WORSHIP. You know very well that God rejects all PUBLIC WORSHIP that does not VISIBLY CONFORM to his commands. That is why Moses was refused entrance into the promised land. That is why God killed David's servant. That is why God killed the Corinthians. That is why paedobaptism and paedbaptist institutions must be rejected as true churches (NOT REJECTING THEIR PERSONS AS SAVED IF their profession of faith conforms to the gospel.)

 

We all know what you are saying and we all know you have NOTHING to support what you are saying and that all precepts and examples in Scripture contradict what you are saying. .

TRADITIONS OF MEN that is the only foundation for your position - and we get that. Scriptures do not support these traditions. Scripture demands immersion as the only mode. Scripture demands only repentant believers as the only subjects. Scripture demands only symbolic identification as its design. Your TRADITIONS oppose God's Word and therefore your traditions are WRONG!

You believe one thing and practice another thing as you accept their sprinklings, pourings, infant membership institutions as New Testament in character when you accept their congregations as congregations (not as persons) as NT congregations.

H

The Galatians embraced "another gospel" were they doomed to hell? No! It is possible for true Christians to be deceived into embracing another gospel and teaching it. It is possible for true Christians to preach another gospel through a perverted baptism and not be doomed to hell. But we are not to accept such congregations as true NT. churches if they continue in that practice whether many among them are saved or not.

Notice you made a distinction between "true Christians AND to churches." They are not one and the same are they. You admitted that "churches" have a constitution and creed that define their terms of FELLOWSHIP with regard to membership. Those who do not subscribe to their terms of fellowship are not allowed into the COMMUNION of their church fellowship. Hence, you must admit that church fellowship stands on a different level of terms and communion than individual fellowship OR ELSE your church would have membership communion extended to unbaptized believers.

NT churches have a standard of CHURCH COMMUNION that determines membership FELLOWSHIP and it is the same standard for COMMUNION with all TRUE NT churches and it is found in the Great Commission essentials where baptism stands SECOND in importance and PRIOR to membership communion. Hence, paedobaptists should not be received into CHURCH COMMUNION as their own terms of church communion EXCLUDE Baptists and the Baptist terms of CHURCH COMMUNION exclude them. Think about it!

I wait!

 

It does not matter what I think, It only matters what God says the reason is:

1 Chron. 15:For because you did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach on us, for that we sought him not after the due order.
14 So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel.
15 And the children of the Levites bore the ark of God on their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according to the word of the LORD.

 

Moreover, the whole crowd including David and Uzza were doing this in SINCERITY as Uzza was trying to protect the Ark from falling. IF God looks upon the heart and NOT the outward appearance or form with regard to HIS WORSHIP then why did God kill Uzza as Uzza was serving God SINCERELY!

God demanded absolute conformation to his precepts with regard to the FORM of worship or he rejected it as worship. Baptism is a New Testament form of worship which is spelled out in no uncertain terms that demands:

1. The right mode - immersion only
2. The right subject - repentant gospel believers only
3. The right design - symbolic identification with Christ
4. The right administrator - the "ye" of Matthew 28:19 who is like faith and order with Christ in the same gospel, same baptism and same faith and order.

 

Thethird view is corect one, as we ALL are one in Christ who agreeon to essential ofte Faith, and God alows us to have our distinctions such as worship, versions, Covenant/Dispy/Pre/Amil etc!

 

Another brilliant mindless answer! Deal with the evidence or please bow out.