1 Cor. 6:15 defines the nature of the TRUE body of Christ

[Iconoclast]

From the second lecture on the church;
It was this heavenly ecclesia, which as a coming event, cast its shadow before David and Solomon and constituted their inexorable plan for the typical temple. Because the plan given them was a shadow of better things to come they were not allowed to vary a hair's breadth from the pattern of the Divine Architect.
There is nothing in the word ecclesia itself to forbid its application to "the Spirits of the just made perfect" now in heaven and continually receiving accessions. They are an assembly in fact. And Thayer seems to so understand Hebrews 12:23. I do not agree with him in making "general assembly and church of the first born" synonymous with "the spirits of the just made perfect." To my mind, they represent two very distinct ideas. But he is certainly right in supposing that the assembled spirits of the righteous dead may be called an ecclesia. But when one defines the general assembly to be the aggregate of all the elect, and then affirms its present existence, he does violence to philology, common sense and revelation. The earthly ecclesia is an organization now, an assembly now, though not always in session. The general assembly is not an organization now, is not an assembly now, and therefore exists only as a prospect.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is pure vain imagination on your part.

I think you'll find that it isn't.

Landmarkism denies the church or baptism has ANYTHING to do with spiritual union in Christ. Landmarks demands blood before the water.

But, you see, Landmarkism denies spiritual unity to those who are not Landmarkists. You (or some Landmarkists at least) require re-baptism of those joining their churches, even if they have been baptized previously. This is elevating baptism into a sacrament of your cult. You also deny that churches that cannot pronounce your baptismal shibboleth are the body of Christ. I do not see this in Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 1:1-9, Paul describes 'the church of God which is at Corinth,' and though he mentions many of their attributes, baptism is not one of them. That is not to say that baptism by immersion is not an ordinance of God- clearly it is, and those who err on this matter are building on their profession with wood, hay and stubble- but it is the Church of Rome that denies fellowship (not that we want it!) to those who have not undergone its sacraments.

.However, your Reformed Roman Catholic view makes the church inseparable from spiritual union in Christ and thus one with salvation and thus your view makes the church completely sacramental.

Exactly the opposite. The Church of Rome, like the cult of Landmarkism, makes membership dependent on a sacrament, baptism. The Universal Church depends on nothing but the blood of Christ shed for sinners.

Your problem is that you can't distinguish between salvation and service or to say it another way you can't distinguish between initial salvation (regeneration/coversion) and progressive sanctification. The church and its ordinances have to do ONLY with progressive sanctification.

On the contrary, I distinguish between them very well.

That is simply a complete and utter falsehood as the very tenet of Landmarkism is a denial of that very issue.

I look not at what people say, but what they do. Landmarkism denies Christian fellowship to those who do not pronounce its shibboleths, regardless of whether they are regenerate.

You can't discern the difference between salvation and service and the church has nothing to do with getting anyone into heaven or obtaining spiritual union with Christ. That is the work of regeneration which precedes membership in the Lord's churches.

The Church, as you are about to say below, is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18 etc.). We become the body of Christ when He takes up residence within us (John 14:23). When you cast out Christians from the body of Christ, you cast them out as Christians. Again I say to you, 'what God has cleansed, you must not call common.' But in any case, a large part of the work of a church is evangelism- proclaiming the good news of Christ Jesus. So it does have something to do with 'getting anyone into heaven or obtaining spiritual union with Christ' (Acts 4:29; 11:26; 1 Peter 2:9).

I got news for you, you and your kind of churches are not even in the body of Christ, therefore, there is no danger of rending it. Those saved among you are certainly in the kingdom and family of God but no part of the church of God.

First of all, as far as you are concerned, 'With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you' (1 Cor. 4:3). Secondly, where are in N.T. Scripture are these saved people who are not part of the body of Christ? Where do we find that people are refused entry into a church and yet are regarded as saved? Where do the apostles command churches on the one hand not to recognize a church as such, and at the same time to recognize its members as Christians? I think you may have offered 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, but this has no reference to another church but to certain errant church members who are declining to support themselves in work and are scrounging off others, expecting the imminent return of Christ. [Note the successive use of the word 'for' which connects the verses together]

Doubtless every church, being independent of all but Christ, is entitled to set its rules for membership the way it sees the teaching of the Bible. I have no problem with that as we do the same ourselves. My problem is when a church sets itself apart from other churches on the basis of an outward ordinance, and divides Christians into first and second classes.

 

[The Biblicist]

Exactly the opposite. The Church of Rome, like the cult of Landmarkism, makes membership dependent on a sacrament, baptism. The Universal Church depends on nothing but the blood of Christ shed for sinners.

Here is the crux of your error. You deny that baptism is the prerequisite for church membership when both Biblical precept and examples, as well as Baptist History repudiate your belief. Rome is correct for demanding baptism prior to membership, as do all Paedopbaptists and nearly all denominations. You are the one that is isolated from professing Christendom by your claim this is cultic.

To require baptism prior to church membership does not make baptism sacramental as you charge UNLESS it is required for salvation.

I have challenged you numerous times to produce one example of any unbaptized congregation in the New Testament. You can't respond. I have challenged you numerous times to provide one text of scripture where baptism is not the first step of obedience after salvation thus before church membership and you cannot respond. I have challenged you numerous times to provide any scripture that makes padebaptism, sprinkling, pouring as acceptable as Biblical baptism and you cannot respond. I have challenged you numerous times to provide any scripture or examples to deny where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no scriptural congregation and you cannot respond.

 

[The Biblicist]

But, you see, Landmarkism denies spiritual unity to those who are not Landmarkists.

Why are you making such obvious false charges? Is this the best you can do? Spiritual union has nothing to do with the church or the baptism in the Spirit as both of those are TIME FIXED (time located and restricted) but the people of God span from Genesis Revelation.


The baptism in the Spirit has no existence prior to Pentecost as every single text previous to Pentecost on this subject uses the future tense. The church is the body of Christ and it has no existence prior to its own foundation which consists of New Testament materials (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).


So according to your doctrine of the church everyone prior to the "foundation" of the church, prior to Pentecost are OUTSIDE OF CHRIST as you have no mechanism to place them "in Christ" as there was no baptism in the Spirit (as you define it) prior to Pentecost. They have no body of Christ to be placed into as there is no church prior to its own "foundation."


Yet Abraham was "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) justified by faith and manifesting all the fruits of the Spirit and chosen "in him" before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) and he is the gold standard for all who are "in Christ" (Rom. 4:11,16; Gal. 3:6-17) as there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF CHRIST for anyone at anytime anywhere. But you doctrine demands by its very TIME FIXED RESTRICTIONS that all prior to Pentecost are OUTSIDE OF CHRIST as your doctrine has no CHURCH BODY OF CHRIST, no BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT for them. So according to your doctrine you deny spiritual union with God and other saints to over 4000 years of the people of God and we have only lived 2000 since Pentecost.


So you are teaching a false doctrine, which doctrine had no existence prior to Pentecost or prior to the "foundation" of the church, but spiritual union between all who are in the family of God did exist. Spiritual union is simply the reverse of spiritual separation. Spiritual separation placed all mankind in the family of Satan (Jn. 8:44-45) while spiritual union reverses that and places one in the family of God and its is called regeneration not baptism and regeneration did exist prior to both Pentecost and the "foundation" of the church (Jn. 3:3-6; Ezek. 44:7-9; Deut. 5:29; 29:4; etc.).

You (or some Landmarkists at least) require re-baptism of those joining their churches, even if they have been baptized previously.

There is a great difference between getting wet and getting baptized. You get wet every time you take a shower/bath or walk in the rain but that is not scriptural baptism. Paedbaptism simply gets a baby wet but not baptized. Paedobaptists have no baptism and all stand in the need of baptism. Nothing but a New Testament church is authorized to administer baptism (Mt. 28:19 “ye” in contrast to “them.”)

 

[The Biblicist]

When kingdom members assemble in the local church...it is the church. They do not cease from being in the kingdom.
When not assembled......I use the term kingdom .
The ot saints......have left their body . ...they are.in the Heavenly zion,they are.part.of that assembly. it will fully assemble on the last day, but I believe they do assemble now also....

All meaningful conversation with you has ceased. When you simply ignore the foundational problems to your theory of Hebrews 12:17-25 and continue building your theory on that false foundation there is no sense for me to continue in a one sided conversation. Both verbs are identical "have come" in meaning and in grammar. You simply ignore that and build your whole system on this error. Until you acknowledge the fact about these two verbs and treat them in the same manner (which you do not) it is futile to continue our discussion as you simply are building a whole theory on a false foundation.

 

[The Biblicist]

I look not at what people say, but what they do. Landmarkism denies Christian fellowship to those who do not pronounce its shibboleths, regardless of whether they are regenerate..

You again charge us falsely as you confuse "church" with "Christian." This is the crux of your problem, you confuse the church with salvation or being a Christian. We do not deny "Christian" fellowship with any professed child of God that professes the true gospel. We cordially invite "Christians" to our services. But their presence does not make them a member of our congregations nor does their presence within "harlot" congregations make them members of N.T. congregations (Rev. 18;4)

We deny "church" fellowship with churches that are not like faith and order. Why? Because they are not like faith and order with what we believe the New Testament defines as a true congregation of Christ. Even our opponents practice this principle as they don't recognize all PROFESSING CHRISTIAN congregations as true NT congregations and refuse to fellowship with them on a congregational basis (JW's Mormons' SDA, etc.). So their charge is inconsistent with their own practice as in principle they practice what we practice except they draw their lines in the wrong place, simply because they confuse "church" with being "christian."

 

[The Biblicist]

Both Iconoclast and Martin have not only strayed from the OP but neither have been able to disprove the OP which is strictly exegetical in character.

Iconoclast has admitted the OP is correct as far as its exegetical character proving the body of Christ that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians is not an INVISIBLE or UNIVERSAL entity but consists of PHYSICAL BODIES (spirits within) of water baptized professing believers in Christ that is spiritual in the sense of its work, worship and mission. However, he then contradicts his concession by claiming another kind of body or congregation now meeting in heaven based upon improper exegesis of the terms "have come" in Hebrews 12.

Martin, can't deal with the issue or exegesis so attacks us personally thinking by vilifying Landmarkism he frees himself of the exegetical problem presented in the OP.

Both of their views depend upon their view of spiritual union with Christ which both admit is through the baptism in the Spirit. However, even according to their wrong view of the baptism in the Spirit, it is an ACTION that places a beleiver "in Christ" spiritually, when in fact neither the baptism in the Spirit nor the church have any existence before the personal ministry of Christ as the "foundation" of the church is New Testament in origin as demanded by the materials that make it up (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28) and the baptism in the Spirit as an ACTION is time fixed no sooner than Pentecost.

Hence, they have 4000 years of the people of God between Genesis and Matthew OUTSIDE OF CHRIST spiritually or still in spiritual separation from God, when in fact, Abraham, the gold standard for "all who are of faith" is "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) in time and in eternity by purpose (Eph. 1:4) as are all true children of God.

However, the scriptures clearly teach that spiritual union is the exact opposite of spiritual separation from God. Spiritual separation is the spiriutal condition of being in the family of Satan, whereas, spiritual union is the spiritual condition of being in the family of God and the New Testament clearly and explicitly teaches that spiritual condition is an act of creation by God "created in Christ" defined contextually as being quickened, the new birth, regeneration and NOT baptism in the Spirit or membership in any kind of church.

The New birth does occur before the "foundation" of the church and before Pentecost (Jn. 3:3-6; Ezek. 44:7-9; Deut. 5:29; 29;4 Ezek. 36:26-27 for individuals (not for Israel as a nation, which is yet future).

Furthermore, Paul makes it clear that any man who is without the indwelling Spirit is "none of his" but "in the flesh" (Rom. 8:8-9) as there are only two possible spiritual conditions of mankind from Genesis to Revelation those who are "in the flesh" because they were BORN "of the flesh" and those who are "in the Spirit" because they were BORN of the Spirit (not baptized in the Spirit).

Neither Iconoclast or Martin have been able to disprove this position. Martin simply attacks a straw man and makes it a personal argument. Iconoclast refuses to deal with the grammar and proper exegesis. Both have left the OP and are trying to defend their positions on something other than the exegetical problem they have been faced with in the OP.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin, can't deal with the issue or exegesis so attacks us personally

The pot calls the kettle black. Right from the O.P. 'Biblicist' has insulted his opponents by accusing them of supporting Roman Catholic doctrine. But when the tables are reversed, he cries 'foul.' Either be more respectful yourself, or toughen up (Matthew 7:2).

I didn't reply initially to the O.P. because it is too silly for words. Our bodies do not become 'members of Christ' when we are baptized, but when Christ takes up residence within us (John 14:23 again).
With regard to his theory about unleavened bread, this has been exploded in another thread. He cannot show from the N.T. that the bread used at the Lord's Supper was unleavened. It is invariably referred to as artos the simple word for bread. The word for unleavened bread is azumos. We may assume that the bread used at that first Lord's Supper was unleavened because it was celebrated at Passover, but to make whole doctrines up out of azumos when it is never used in connection with the Lord's Supper is silly beyond words.

 

[Iconoclast]

I do not have to disprove a position or concede anything I already believe in.....that is local church view.
It is just not your narrow local church view, as it takes into account jn7, heb12,eph 5.......and is not bound by your wrong understanding of it.
Others have offered a different understanding of Hebrews12:22-24....based on the same tense used, but see it different than you.

 

[Iconoclast]

Your view has ot. saints, as Christians before there was Christians .
Your view has ot.saints in the Christian Church before it actually existed.....
My view has all Saints from all time allowed access and placed in the church at one time, past, present, or future saints.....The High Priest had to enter in first.....then us.

 

[The Biblicist]

The pot calls the kettle black. Right from the O.P. 'Biblicist' has insulted his opponents by accusing them of supporting Roman Catholic doctrine. But when the tables are reversed, he cries 'foul.' Either be more respectful yourself, or toughen up (Matthew 7:2).

Attacking doctrine is fine! Attacking us personally is not fine ("cult....cult...etc.).And despite your definition your inference is clear by directly claiming we are like JW's when we do not deny the gospel, nor do we deny saved people in other denominations or tie salvation with any denomination but deny that any church affiliation of any kind saves or membership in any kind of church saves or is inseparable from salvation. But you admittly teach church salvation as no one can be saved outside your church membership.

I didn't reply initially to the O.P. because it is too silly for words. Our bodies do not become 'members of Christ' when we are baptized, but when Christ takes up residence within us (John 14:23 again).

Again, you are not dealing with the exegetical and expository context of the OP! Why? Because you know you can't. Prove me wrong and deal with the text in an exegetical fashion.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your view has ot. saints, as Christians before there was Christians .

No, my view has them as "saints" in spiritual union with God through Christ before Pentecost, before the "foundation" of the church which is the body of Christ was ever laid.

My view has them in spiritual union by what the Bible repeatedly says and demonstrates to be the ONLY MEANS for that union - "CREATED in Christ" not by any kind of baptism but by quickening as quicken means MAKE ALIVE where as "spiritual separation" IS DEATH.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not have to disprove a position or concede anything I already believe in.....that is local church view.

You deny you believe in an invisible or universal congregation but then you turn right around and deny the only other possible alternative (visible, local) and claim there is ANOTHER KIND in heaven than on earth thus TWO different kinds and yet the kind on earth demands regeneration BEFORE membership but your kind demands regeneration AS membership. Yours in heaven is UNSEEN (invisible) and yet you deny and "invisible". The local visible one on earth cannot possible include all saints on earth as many are found in the Great Whore (Rev. 18:4) and so that can't be even in your kind of body of Christ on earth unless you contradict 1 Cor. 6:15.

It is just not your narrow local church view, as it takes into account jn7, heb12,eph 5.......and is not bound by your wrong understanding of it.

My view fits perfectly with Hebrew 12, Jn. 7 and Eph. 5 IF you are consistent in interpretation with the two verbs and the two ecclesias in Hebrews 12. My view fits fine with Ephesians 5 as there is no universal invisible church any more than there is a universal invisible wife and husband - the common use of the generic sense of nouns. My view is fine iwth Jn. 7 as the Holy Spirit must first be "in" you before it can flow OUT of you and when the proper subject of the baptism in the Spirit is recognized as water baptized members of the congregation Christ built, as every single text define the plural "you" as having already received water baptism as believers in the gospel.

Others have offered a different understanding of Hebrews12:22-24....based on the same tense used, but see it different than you.

Just like you they are INCONSISTENT with the verbs as they interpret one verb one way and interpret the other verb in a completely opposite way. If the same verb with the same tense is interpreted the SAME WAY you cannot escape my view. No, you and your commentators cannot be consistent because it destroys your ecclesiology and so the ecclesiastical bias governs your interpretation instead of exegetical consistency.

 

[The Biblicist]

This issue about spiritual union is so simple. Spiritual separation IS death. Spiritual union IS life. It is QUICKENING that produces LIFE. Spiritual union is merely the opposite of spiritual death - period - end of story. Neither the church or the baptism in the Spirit bestow life - what bestows life is regeneration and that is how we are "created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:10) by the divine creative act of quickening!

We talk about PROCREATION meaning BIRTH the giving of life, bringing one into the family. Likewise, there is a supernatural PROCREATION meaning BIRTH the giving of life which is UNION with the Family of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, my view has them as "saints" in spiritual union with God through Christ before Pentecost, before the "foundation" of the church which is the body of Christ was ever laid.

My view has them in spiritual union by what the Bible repeatedly says and demonstrates to be the ONLY MEANS for that union - "CREATED in Christ" not by any kind of baptism but by quickening as quicken means MAKE ALIVE where as "spiritual separation" IS DEATH.

No.....you called them Christians twice in post 12 of the lk thread on.preparing a people . ....you seek to have it both ways when it is to your advantage , but if I or The Commentators I linked to suggest anything like it you object.
How does your view get them into the Church ? or do you keep them outside.

 

[Iconoclast]

All meaningful conversation with you has ceased. When you simply ignore the foundational problems to your theory of Hebrews 12:17-25 and continue building your theory on that false foundation there is no sense for me to continue in a one sided conversation. Both verbs are identical "have come" in meaning and in grammar. You simply ignore that and build your whole system on this error. Until you acknowledge the fact about these two verbs and treat them in the same manner (which you do not) it is futile to continue our discussion as you simply are building a whole theory on a false foundation.

I did not ignore it at all. I offered Owen who not only answered you, but showed why you are wrong....the other men chimed in...you disliked each post, but that is because they looked at the text, and understand it correctly . You have to deny them or modify your view.....that is what is happening here.

 

[The Biblicist]

No.....you called them Christians twice in post 12 of the lk thread on.preparing a people . ....you seek to have it both ways when it is to your advantage , but if I or The Commentators I linked to suggest anything like it you object.
How does your view get them into the Church ? or do you keep them outside.

Brother, they believed in "Messiah" (Christ) so what do you call people who believe in Messiah (Christ)???? - Acts 10:43 They believed in Jehovah is salvation (Jesus) so what would you call them?

NOW BEFORE YOU RESPOND what would you call those who believed in Christ between Acts 2 and Acts 10???

 

[The Biblicist]

I did not ignore it at all. I offered Owen who not only answered you, but showed why you are wrong....the other men chimed in...you disliked each post, but that is because they looked at the text, and understand it correctly . You have to deny them or modify your view.....that is what is happening here.

I hate repeating, but Owen and others did exactly as you did - INCONSISTENT with the same verb, same tense.

 

[The Biblicist]

This issue about spiritual union is so simple. Spiritual separation IS death. Spiritual union IS life. It is QUICKENING that produces LIFE. Spiritual union is merely the opposite of spiritual death - period - end of story. Neither the church or the baptism in the Spirit bestow life - what bestows life is regeneration and that is how we are "created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:10) by the divine creative act of quickening!

We talk about PROCREATION meaning BIRTH the giving of life, bringing one into the family. Likewise, there is a supernatural PROCREATION meaning BIRTH the giving of life which is UNION with the Family of God.

I state the truth so clearly here and so simply that it is hard to respond to isn't it?

 

[The Biblicist]

Spiritual separation = spiritual death

Spiritual union = spiritual life


Quickening means “make alive” spiritually those who were spiritually dead

Spiritual life is by quickening not by any kind of baptism


To be “in the flesh” is by being BORN of the flesh

To be “in the Spirit” is by being BORN of the Spirit


Spiritual union with God is FAMILY union due to BIRTH not due to baptism.


All his saints in both heaven and earth are the FAMILY of God (Eph. 3:15) because all were formerly spiritual dead (Eph 2:1) but have been “quickened” (made alive spiritually) by supernatural procreation (Eph. 2:10) or New birth.

Spiritual separation has been the problem since the fall
Spiritual union has been the ONLY solution to this problem since the fall

There has been NO CHURCH prior to its NT "foundation" - Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28
There has been NO BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT prior to Acts 2 or else there would have been no use of the FUTURE TENSE for every single passage prior to Acts 2 concerning that baptism.

Hence, neither the church or the baptism in the Spirit have anything to do with the solution for the problem of spiritual SEPARATION.


The baptism in the Spirit has NOTHING to do with spiritual union.

The baptism in the Spirit has NOTHING to do with family

The baptism in the Spirit has NOTHING to do with new birth


Once, you accept this undeniable truth the so-called universal invisible church and their view of the baptism in the Spirit simply vanishes.

Because what they are inappropriately calling all saints in spiritual union with God to be "the church" is really the "family" of God, as the church has nothing to do with salvation but only with service.