Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Optional, see what I mean. Tell them the same thing over, and over, and over again and they ignore it and post the same vacuous objections that have already been dealt with ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Why bother?

 

First question: Where have you offered any exegesis for your position? The only time you attempted that I remember, I answered it with a number of objections from the text and theology and you never bothered to respond for some reason. The "vacuous objections" are apparently some that you can't answer since you haven't done it yet. As I have said, I am more than willing to interact with exegesis. YOu simply haven't offered any.

Second question: How does this type of post contribute to the discussion? Did you intend to say something about spirit baptism (the topic of the discusson) or something about me (not the topic of the discussion)? While the first should be true, the second should not be.

Third question: Why bother?? Becuase this is a "discussion board" not a demagogery. If you are willing to discuss then please do so. Your comments here have not furthered the discussion in any way that I can see. There are a number of good solid objections to your position that have prevented the vast number of conservative exegetes from taking it. They ought to be given some weight. The only reason I can see for not posting your objections and comments is becuase you know they can be answered from the text. That would be a good reason not to post them. Another good reason would be that you don't want to participate in the conversation. However you obviously do since you have made a few comments here (although their worth for the conversation is negligible). Again, if you want to participate, feel free: comment on the topic at hand, not on the posters.

Optional, I would be more than happy to carry on the conversation with you about this. I would like to know your arguments in favor of your position, if you are willing to discuss. We can overlook the rest.

[ September 29, 2002, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I, too, would urge the participants of this thread to seperate the issues from the personalities. Please.

This topic is worthy of discussion and debate. Let us proceed with respect and charity.

Clint Kritzer
Moderator

 

Frogman Said

A false premise at best!

First, the scriptures speak of a "Body of Christ" and of a "Bride of Christ" as separately distinct entities. The scriptural context reveals that the Body of Christ is the physical collective of like minded persons who actually carry out the work that Jesus began in accordance with the great commission which is "Go! Make disciples, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". The Body of Christ is the physical arms, legs, and torso of Jesus that enables the Head which is Jesus, to carry out, do the physical work of, the great commission. The body has subsequently been divided, by man, into factions and denominations. Factions such as Eastern, Roman, Protestant, and denominations such Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Four Square, Lutheran, etc.

The "Bride of Christ" is the invisible church which is comprised of the spirits of all who believe in Jesus. It is what makes us all brother's and sisters, it is the washed and regenerated spirits that God has redeemed through an individual's belief in his Only Begotten Son, Jesus. There are no divisions or factions or denominations in the "Bride of Christ", only those who are Justified by the Christ, Sanctified by individual belief in Jesus, thus are Saved.

The Body of Christ is comprised of the physical individuals, many of whom are not of the 'Bride of Christ' through their unbelief. The Bride of Christ on the other hand, contains not one who is not washed and regenerated by the Blood of Jesus, Justified by Jesus and Sanctified by individual belief in Jesus. The bride of Christ is what will be "caught up in the air" (raptured) when Jesus returns. The remainder of the Body of Christ will continue to exist on earth to do the bidding of the man of perdition through the false prophet. Some of those left in the body may be saved through the tribulation, but in my opinion, not very many.

===========================

Jesus never referred to the Twelve as "the church", that is a man made invention! Jesus did say that he would build His church upon the rock of Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. In the same manner that the Twelve were made disciples, they, in turn, made disciples. When one makes disciples, the authority given to the disciple maker must be handed down to the new disciple else the building of the church falters at the point where authority ceases to be handed down. Every pastor of every church is commanded by the Holy Spirit to pass on Jesus' authority to those whom he disciples. The pastors must instruct the disciples in the manner that he himself was instructed. If he doesn't, the church stops being built! That which is not growing and renewing soon begins decomposing and decaying.

Every disciple that receives the authority Jesus handed down to the first disciples is therefore ordained by Jesus to carry out His work! Those who receive it but do nothing with it soon lose that authority because they produce none of the fruit such authority produces.

Frogman, if you believe what you said here

then you are sadly miss-guided. The Holy spirit is not constrained by a man made organization, God is no respecter of man, any man! If the Holy Spirit only worked in the church, then YOU WOULD NOT BE SAVED! The Holy Spirit came to you while you were yet a sinner and did a work in your sinful self that caused you to confess Jesus and your sins and thus, be saved. The authority of the Holy Spirit is wherever the Holy Spirit is, and no church walls can constrain Him.

If you have not already done so, I strongly suggest you obtain a copy of A. W. Tozer's, "KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY". You will receive a whole new perspective of the three persons of the Godhead, and your confusion regarding authority will be removed from you.

 

Yelsew, (Wesley spelled backward? Indicating you may be a Wesleyan or Methodist?) please be advised you are posting in a BAPTIST ONLY section of the Baptist Board. As your profile does not identify you as a Baptist, please refrain from posting in the BAPTIST ONLY sections of the Baptist Board.

Thomas Cassidy
Baptist Board Administrator

 

I appreciate your comments Dallas. I will respond to just the highlights to offer a different perspective.

This seems unrelated. No one denies that there were believers prior to Acts 2. But if what Paul says is accurate—that we were brought into the body by Spirit baptism—then there could be no body prior to Spirit baptism (no matter how you define the body or Spirit baptism) and thus no church prior to Acts 2. There have been believers since Genesis 3. There has only been a church since Acts 2.

So then how you do suggest that Christ has many brides? I believe Christ only has one recognized as the “bride.” Yet for you, the absence of the invisible church seems to indicate numerous brides. I don’t understand how you can miss the strength of the argument that you made. You are not a member of my church so therefore am I to assume that either you or I are not a member of the bride? Or does Christ have more than one bride? Or are our churches related in some way that supercedes the locality in which we live? (I obviously opt for the former—the invisible church).

Here you appear to assert the absence of a local church if the invisible church exists. Yet we say no such thing. The Scripture clearly indicates the reality of local churches and it is the local church to whom grievances are taken and by whom discipline is administered. I believe this fallacy is the fallacy of the excluded middle – assuming that you must believe either the local church or the invisible church. I believe both. The local church is the visible manifestation of the body of Christ.

Again, I think you totally miss the point. You say that “commission given to the church.” I would ask, Which church? Mine or yours … or Thomas’s … or one of the other good members of this board (or bad members as the case may be ). Your wording belies your problem. You believe in the existence of a church … yet you admit the existence of churches in every city and locality.

Then are you denying that the body is the church or that the baptism is “en eni pneumati”? Or do you have some third option? The text says what it does and we cannot so easily do away with it. Paul’s argument is about the gifts of the Spirit. Why would he argue water baptism in relation to spiritual gifts? The reason that the church should not be divided has nothing to do with water baptism but with the facts that the gifts over which they were divided all came from the same Spirit, the same Spirit who baptized them into one body. Remember their contention is about who has which gifts and which gifts are better. Paul says that all gifts come from the same Spirit and we were all baptized by that same Spirit into the body. Water baptism simply is not in the context and cannot even be shoe-horned in without twisting the text beyond recognition.

Non sequitur. Water baptism is not for the benefit of God. It is for the benefit of the people viewing who are seeing the outward sign of the inward condition. It is not approval but rather testimony.

By members of a local church who are also members of the invisible church experiencing schism. Was this question a lighthearted attempt at humor? Surely you didn’t miss it did you? It seems like you were throwing me a softball on that one.

In no way at all.

Again, in no way at all. This is a total non sequitur. It is not in any way about the sovereignty of God. Christ did not wait 30 years until someone began to move and amass a following. Christ started the church 50 days after his ascension, not thirty years. Furthermore, it is not about what God could do; it is about what he did do.

I do think doctrine matters so I disagree with your friend. However, I do not think this is a fundamental doctrine. One can be saved and be orthodox while differing on it. I think doctrine and church affiliation are of extreme importance. In fact, I think if a person is not an active member of a local fundamental separated Baptist church, they are out of order. But I am not going to say that they are unsaved. I have many good friends who are not in that category. I do not in anyway minimize the local church and its importance. Too many people have too many other things going on when the church should be the first priority over everything else. Yet that does not do away with the invisible church since Christ only has one bride.

 

No Brother Dallas, I don't believe that holding a different view than someone else concerning the local church means that an individual has ceased (or begun to stop) walking with the Lord.

The way I see it...

The unseen church:
The invisible or unseen Church is the collection of all the redeemed of the NT age.
This is the Church which Jesus spoke of...

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

"I will build" Future tense.

"My Church" It is His Church, "church" here is singular.

The Scripture also teaches the plurality of "churches" or the local Church. As the seven local churches of Revelation (for instance).

Revelation 3:6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Each local church has the potential to have the unsaved on the physical membership roll. Some local churches may be mostly or all unsaved.
Are they part of the Body of Christ?
Only those members who are acually saved (born again) belong to the Church of Matthew 16:18.

I suppose there are three questions we should be asking:

1) What is the significance of the use of the singular for "church" in Matthew 16:18?

2) where is the location of the Matthew 16:18 Church?

3) What is the relationship of the local churches (plural) to the "Church" (singular) of Matthew 16:18?

I was somewhat reticent about getting into this thread because of the passion surrounding this question.

However, I personally believe that the Scripture teaches both the "unseen" Church and the "local" Church.

I am personally willing to modify my view if anyone can exegete Matthew 16:18 in a credible fashion. I don't remember seeing anyone do this but perhaps I missed it.

Until then my choice is to accept the surface meaning of Matthew 16:18 as well as the teaching of the validity and authority of the local Church in the epistles and the Revelation.

HankD

[ October 02, 2002, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

But my question stands, how can "bodies" (your word) be one "bride" (again, your word) unless they are related to each other in some way? I assert that they cannot. If your church is part of the bride and my church is part of the bride, then we must have some relation. Furthermore, surely not all in my church are part of the bride as surely not all in your church are because they do not possess true salvation. Therefore, the bride must be defined some way other than local church for the Scripture's teaching about this issue to stand, it seems to me.

Are you a Baptist brider? This creates even more difficulties. I admit the existence of believers who are not part of the bride. They are usually called OT saints. The Scriptures know nothing of a person saved in this age who is not a part of the bride.

The OT does not teach us about the church since, according to Scripture, it was a mystery not then revealed (Eph 3). Therefore, these passages do not have much to contribute.

This does not make sense to me. Perhaps in rewording it, you can make your point. I do not see what you are trying to say here.

 

Dear brother Dallas,

I agree that the local Church is not held by many to the place of authority it is given by the Word of God,

We are so mobile here in America and churches so prolific that we can change churches as easy as changing a hat.

HankD

[ October 02, 2002, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

It is unfortunate that so many baptists fail to recognize metaphorical language when they see it. The writings of Paul use three metaphors to illustrate church truth. Paul likens the local, organized, assembly of baptized believers to:

1. A body, fitly joined together, working in unity for the good of the whole. He calls this body "the body of Christ." This metaphor speaks of our service for the Lord. Hands to reach out with, feet to carry the gospel, ears to hear and lips to speak words of encouragement.

2. A building, fitly framed together, which serves as a place of shelter from the storms of life and a place of worship for the assembled body of believers belonging to Christ. This metaphore speaks of the mutual comfort we find in the local church.

3. A bride, adorned for her bridegroom, faithful and loving, obedient and chaste. This speaks of the love/faithfulness relationship between Christ and His local assembled body of believers.

To try to make these metaphors mean more than they obvious do is to seriously err in doctrine. Furthermore, to mistake the metaphorical body, which is the church, with His physical body, seated in Heaven on the right hand of the Father, in Whom we also are seated with Him, and in Him, and united to Him, is to compound that error of doctrine.

 

In that case, Doc, it would seem that Christ is a polygamist!

His Kingdom is NOT of this world.

The Marriage Feast of the Lamb is not of this world either.

The Bride is ONE Bride. Those who are born again in Him are one body.

There is one body and one Spirit -- just as you were called to one hope when you were called -- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all...
Eph. 4:4-6

This is why we reach out to Christians in other lands. This is why I can recognize in love a Christian from another culture and another place almost instantly -- we are one.

Our shelter is not in a manmade building, but in Christ Himself. He is the head, not a pastor or elder. Christ Himself, of all of us who are His.

 

Once again, Helen, you have demonstrated just what I was talking about. You fail to discern metaphorical language, and try to make the bride of Christ be some kind of kinky relationship with all the redeemed. It isn't. It is a metaphore. I will not reply to the rest of your post for it is meaningless.

 

This is neither a fair way to debate an issue nor an accurate portrayal of Helen's response Doc. You are using a coercive argument (prejudicial language, attaching value or moral goodness to your position and negative value and morality to Helen's view. That it is a fallacious way to argue is demonstrable by reversing it:

"Helen makes out the relationship of the Church to her Lord as something beautiful and imtimate whereas yours is a sterile is one where the church is the platonic live in of Christ and not the Bride; a stale relationship more like folks who've lived together a long (perhaps too long) time, rather than the one described (yes, metaphorically) in the Song of Solomon."

Helen does take this as a metaphor obviously. She simply presses the details further than you.

 

I haven't seen anyone dispute the use of metaphors or their meaning. I am not sure who you are replying to here since you didn't identify them.

However, the point is still that a body is a body, one unit. There is a body of Christ that exists as one. You and I are a part of the same body even though we attend different churches thousands of miles apart. That body is the metaphor that ties the local churches together into the church of Christ which is his body.

 

What do you base this on? I have never held that Christ is not revealed in teh OT. YOu have misread something. I said the church is not revealed in the OT, which is what Paul says in Ephesians 3 so I think that puts me on pretty solid ground.

Not nearly as much as people make it out to be. The OT stands on its own. Very little of it typological. People with overactive imaginations find meaning that was never intended. A simple rule is that a type is a type when it is identified as such in Scripture. Apart from that, we should probably let it stand on its own.