Church fellowship is based upon the essentials for being a New Testament church whereas personal fellowship is based upon essentials for personal salvation requirements.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
1 Cor. 12:13 and water baptism and local church body
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
Church fellowship is based upon the essentials for being a New Testament church whereas personal fellowship is based upon essentials for personal salvation requirements.
Jack Matthews
New Member
I see no passage of scripture anywhere in the New Testament that shows water baptism as a requirement for membership in the Ecclesia. In fact, I see no formal "membership" in the Ecclesia.
So here's a question. This is Acts 1:4-6:
"4And while staying[a] with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. Afterward, Peter preached and offered an invitation, Acts 2:37-38:
37 "Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
If John's baptism was with wather, but the promise of the Father was that the believers would be baptized with the Holy Spirit, in context, isn't that the baptism that is spoken of in Acts 2?
41 "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls."
So here's a question. This is Acts 1:4-6:
"4And while staying[a] with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. Afterward, Peter preached and offered an invitation, Acts 2:37-38:
37 "Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
If John's baptism was with wather, but the promise of the Father was that the believers would be baptized with the Holy Spirit, in context, isn't that the baptism that is spoken of in Acts 2?
41 "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls."
The baptism in the Great Commission is water baptism not baptism in the Spirit simply because "ye" are the ones administering it and the command to make disciples inclusive of water baptism is to the "end of the world."
The baptism in Acts 2:41-42 is in direct obedience to the Great Commission and each aspect is according to the precise order given in the Great Commission:
1. "Go preach the gospel" - As many as received the word
2. "baptizing them" "were baptized"
3. "Teaching them to observe" - "continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine.
Furthermore, throughout the book of Acts water baptism is administered as it is men who are administering it. In 1 Cor. 1:10-17 it is the administrator of water baptism that divided the members in the church at Corinth.
The New Testament is clear that water baptism precedes church membership just as a profession of salvation precedes church membership as baptism was part of that public profession of salvation.
That is where it all started isn't it? The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.
The membership is here:
Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Note that it says "the number of names," not the number of people, indicating that there were a record of names that were kept somehow, somewhere. The word "names" is significant.
They were baptized in water. But they were baptized in water after they heard the word of God and were saved, at which time they were "baptized in the Holy Spirit," or to be more accurate, the Holy Spirit came and indwelt them.
They received his word (were saved), were baptized (in water), and were added unto the First Baptist Church in Jerusalem about 3,000 souls that very day.
Continue on:
Acts 2:47 ...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
--The Lord added to the local assembly in Jerusalem (there was no other) those that were saved. They were saved, baptized, and then became members of the church.
This church continued to grow. It became very large.
Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
--This is that same church in Jerusalem. The apostles needed to give themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word. To take care of the more mundane affairs the church appointed seven men: foll of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, to oversee the other affairs of the church. Most believe these were deacons.
Continue on:
Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Acts 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
--It is still the local church of Jerusalem that is being spoken of here. There is no other church in existence at this point. The apostles stay in Jerusalem, but the members scatter because of the persecution. They are the ones that go abroad everywhere preaching the gospel. They are mission-minded. Now we will see other churches being planted as a result of this persecution.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jack Matthews
New Member
I understand the idea of water baptism as being symbolic of being cleansed of sin, originating from the Jewish ceremonial washing which John the Baptist incorporated into his message of repentance. Obviously Jesus didn't need to repent, but participated in the cleansing ceremony which tied the message of John to the gospel. But Jesus himself, prior to his ascension, seems to make yet another advance toward a complete picture in Acts 1:5,
For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
From that point on, water baptism is administered only in cases where spirit baptism is in evidence, such as Acts 10:47-48, and Acts 19:1-7. The common element in these instances is that the Holy Spirit is received by the laying on of hands, evidenced by speaking in tongues, which seems to be the emphasis. The appearance is that it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is required for salvation and which unites believers with the church, not getting dipped in the water. Water baptism is not mentioned in all of the instances where people receive the Holy Spirit.
For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
From that point on, water baptism is administered only in cases where spirit baptism is in evidence, such as Acts 10:47-48, and Acts 19:1-7. The common element in these instances is that the Holy Spirit is received by the laying on of hands, evidenced by speaking in tongues, which seems to be the emphasis. The appearance is that it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is required for salvation and which unites believers with the church, not getting dipped in the water. Water baptism is not mentioned in all of the instances where people receive the Holy Spirit.
Did he or was it the counsel of God and commanded by God?
Jn. 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me,
Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
Also, it appears that Jesus did not think it was merely restricted to John's ministry as He "baptized" and made more disciples than John (Jn. 4:1-2):
Jn. 4:1 ¶ When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
Verse 2 demonstrates it is water baptism.
How do you then explain a world wide commission and to the end of the world commission that includes water baptism (Mt. 28:19-20)? This has to be water baptism as it is "ye" that are "baptizing THEM."
This commission uses the imperative mode for the primary verb "teach" (lit. make disciples) and the following participles modify that main verb thus not leaving the disciples in the dark as to what he means by that command.
BTW the first participle "go" is an Aorist tense completed action verb assuming they have already evangelized those who are they "baptizing" (present tense participle" BEFORE they assemble with "them" for "teaching them to observe all things" Christ commanded.
Matthew 28:19-20 provides the commission pattern while Acts 2:41-42 demonstrates obedience to the commission as their pattern throughout the book of Acts. Take note of the periphrastic construct in Acts 2:42 "continued stedfastly" where an imperfect tense verb is joined with the present tense verb implying what they were doing they kept on doing. In Acts 2:47 that pattern is summarized in the word "added" as first described in Acts 2:41 "as many as received the word were ADDED unto them." Why would you assume those in verse 47 were added any differently than those in verse 41-42? The pattern is set forth and from that point forward it is summarized by the word "added" or when the numbers were to great to add up they were "multiplied".
Why would you assume the apostles and New Testament Churches disobyed the Great Commission command or departed from it?
Baptism was important simply because it was a command from Christ, as stated in the Great Commission.
It also was a symbolic picture of our death to our old self and our resurrection to a new life in Christ as described in Romans 6:3,4
It has nothing to do with salvation; nothing to do with the washing away of sins. If it did, why would Paul make such statements as these:
1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
It was, and is, the preaching of the cross (that gospel message) that saves, not baptism. Paul states quite frankly that God did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. He was thankful that he didn't baptize those at Corinth. And yet, Paul spent one and a half years at Corinth starting the church there, leading people to Christ, discipling them, and building up the church.
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
At the same time there is never an instance (apart from the thief on the cross) of a believer who was not baptized in water. But again water has nothing to do with salvation itself.
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
At the same time there is never an instance (apart from the thief on the cross) of a believer who was not baptized in water. But again water has nothing to do with salvation itself.
Opinions are not worth two cents unless they can be backed up with Scripture.
The saved may receive the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" at salvation, but from their they enter the family of God, for the correct term is "born again," born into the family of God. See John 1:12,13. As many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God...
The body of Christ is equivalent to the local church, for every local church is a body of Christ. Please read 1Cor chapter 12 and tell me that you cannot see that Paul is describing a body when addressing the local church at Corinth. Why haven't you addressed that yet?
"You are A body of Christ and members in particular."
The definite article is not in the Greek and the above is an accurate translation.
Paul goes on and describes all the members of the body. He also describes how all the members suffer when one member suffers. That is not possible with any such concept of an existential, metaphysical, esoterical so-called universal church which you believe in. It doesn't exist. An unassembled assembly is a contradiction.
Then, baptism is ALWAYS an ordinance that is given to the local church. This is a Baptist distinctive which you cannot move them away from. It is Biblically true (Acts 2:41), and historically true. Look at all denominations throughout history (even the RCC). Baptism has always been the door to the church. It has always been that for everyone. It is grounded on Scripture and in history. In Acts 2, after salvation, they did not wait long to be baptized did they? How long did those of Cornelius household wait to be baptized? What about the Philippian jailor? They were not baptized into a "universal church." No such thing existed or does exist.
Correct, in that the ordinance of water baptism was given to saved persons in a local church setting, but also true that the Spirit units us to Christ spiritual sense, as we are now part of his One Bride!
I am referring to "baptizing by/in Holy spirit", as that act at rebirth in which the saint is oneplaced in Christ, in his Bride
I am referring to "baptizing by/in Holy spirit", as that act at rebirth in which the saint is oneplaced in Christ, in his Bride
I do not believe the baptism in the Spirit has anything to do with personal individual salvation at all. The case at the house of Corneilus should clearly prove it does not. The nearest reference point that Peter could cite for the baptism in the Spirit was "AT the beginning" or day of Pentecosts and he is referring exclusively to the baptism in the Spirit - Acts 11:15-16. Yet thousands had been saved between "the beginning" and the house of Corneilus.
Neither do I believe all the elect/saved are part of the metaphorical bride of Christ. Each local church is "espoused" to Christ right now (2 Cor. 11:2) and the metaphor has to do with nothing else than FAITHUFLNESS and PURITY when it comes to the "faith once delivered" - see 2 Cor. 11:2-4.
IF the saved are NOT part of His Body/Bride, what are they part of? Where would that be with spiritual union with Christ if not in there?
The body does not equal the bride.
The body refers to local churches.
Please read 1Cor.12 and explain to me if you cannot see a body being described there.
The Bride consists of all believers everywhere. Christ will come for his bride.
The "bride" is merely a metaphor for the faithful. Not all of God's saints are part of his bride as there are the guests at the wedding (Psa. 45; Rev. 19:8-10). Not all the saved dwell in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:25).
The "bride" is merely another metaphor used to describe the church as an institutions along with "building...house....temple...." etc.
The future bride does not include all the saved and therefore "bride" does not equal salvation.
The spiritual union on an individual level is metaphorically described as already existing marraige with metaphorical "fruit" (children) - Rom. 7:1-5.
I would have to disagree with this.
After the Rapture takes place we will face the Lord at the Judgement seat of Christ and give account of the things done in the flesh whether good or bad. Our faithfulness to him is judged there.
All the saved in Christ, faithful or not, will be part of the bride. The OT saints may not be, for John the Baptist identified himself as a "friend of the bridegroom" (John 3:29). Thus the "bride" consists of NT believers.
Shortly after the Judgement Seat of Christ, the marriage supper of the Lamb will take place. I can't imagine any believer not taking part in that supper.
From the cross forward, yes. He will come for his chosen bride--all believers in Christ. The OT saints occupy a different position, though they will be there.
Our individual rewards for faithfulness will be judged there. However, as 2 Cor. 11:2 demonstrates the New Testament church is already "espoused" AS A BODY to Christ before the judgement occurs. Paul is referring to the Jewish "espousal" which is a legal marriage contract right now and only can be voided by divorce. The only thing left is presentation. In contrast, the individual believer is presented in the figure of an already consummated marriage in regard to spiritual union with metaphorical "fruit" (children) - Rom. 7:1-5.
Do you actually believe there is any kind of salvation OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at anytime? Do you believe there can be eternal life for anyone at anytime without spiritual union with God? Do you beleive that spiritual union with God can occur OUTSIDE of Christ? If I took the position that "in Christ" occurred at Pentecost and that is equal to being in "the bride" (as your logic is demanding) then there is no way I could reject the universal invisible church theory because Ephesians 5:22-27 makes it very clear that the church is in the very same relationship to Christ as the wife is to her husband and 2 Corinthians 11:2 demands the church is "espoused" to Christ right now and both Ephesians 5 and 2 Cor. 11:2 demand a future PRESENTATION of the church to Christ in the sense of a wedding as a bride.
What do you do with Ephesians 3:21 as the language denies that the church ever ceases to exist in this age or the age to come but your position demands it does?
Hence, you have two divisions of saints just as the dispensational universal churchites.
I know of no Jewish ceremony where the Bride must be invited to either the wedding or the marriage supper, do you? However, it is clear that AFTER John describes the bride in Rev. 19:6-7 it is clear that those that partake of the marriage supper are invited guests. Furthermore, the "righteousness" in Rev. 19:7 is PLURAL not singular. The imputed righteousness of Christ is never referred to in the plural - never!
In the new heaven and earth AFTER the great white judgement seat and AFTER death has been cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20) we have nations of the "saved" existing and living outside the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:24) versus those living in the city and the difference is not salvation as none but saved people exist outside of gehenna at this point in time.
Finally all Christians between Pentecost and the Second coming cannot be honesly portrayed by the figure of faithfulness. Unbaptized, unchurched children of God are not faithful to the Lord's commandments and the metaphor of "chaste virgin" or "bride" depicts both purity and faithfulness.
Last edited by a moderator:
2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
--There is nothing to say that in this verse he is speaking to the church collectively or as each one individually, as he does in other places. He often speaks to them, for example as their father, and they his children. Thus he is jealous over them. It is impossible for Paul to present them as a bride. That is the work of Christ (see Eph.5). Christ prepares his own bride. This is a work of discipleship, sanctification.
Where do you get that idea? I said very clearly that all the saved; all who are in Christ, are part of the Bride of Christ, no one excluded. That is not a difficult position. I am not a Baptist-brider, which I believe is an extreme position.
First, I believe your interpretation of 2Cor.11:2 is wrong.
Secondly, I believe there is one interpretation of Eph.5 but more than one application.
Thirdly, by implication you have inferred that the thief on the cross and the Ethiopian Eunuch were never saved. What churches did they belong to? Church membership is a matter of obedience. It does not mean one is excluded from the bride.
Will all believers be raptured? All those believers that will be raptured will be a part of his bride. When Jesus comes again, he will come for his bride. No one will be left behind.
Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
--What is your point here? This is the conclusion to a magnificent prayer, almost like a benediction.
Ephesians 3:21 to him be the glory in the assembly and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (WEB)
--This perhaps is a more accurate translation. The "church" will last for the generations on this earth, but will cease to exist when the rapture occurs. Paul was speaking to the assembly at Ephesus. It is Christ who will be to all generations forever and ever.
Nonsense! The belief or non-belief in the universal church does not affect one's belief in dispensations. That is a side issue.
First, Christ is preparing his bride.
Second, Christ presents his bride.
Third, this does not follow Jewish custom.
Fourth, this does not follow western custom.
Fifth, this follows what is written in the Word of God.
I don't find such a dichotomy. There will no doubt be the ability for the saints to go from one place to the other at that time. We are not given enough information to make such dogmatic statements as you have.
Like the thief on the cross?
Are you the arbitrary judge of God to determine who is faithful and who is not? What is your standard for faithfulness that you will impose on God?
If it were OT characters would Lot have been a "righteous and just person" in your eyes? Probably not, but he was in God's eyes.
Your whole system is arbitrary and man-made.
Our works will have been taken care of: first at the cross, and then again at the Judgment Seat of Christ. By the time some of these events take place we will already have been abiding in heaven, then reigning with Christ, heirs of God and joint heirs with him.
1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: