#2 What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"? What do Landmarks Teach men that "a Church is"?

[Alan Gross]

The church is all who believe and receive Christ, John 1:11-13.

You win a cut & paste!!

We have a different understanding of how to read words in a sentence, in our own language.


My position on how to read a word in a sentence;

"The word church is used abstractly in some of these debatable verses, not referring to any particular church at any definite place, but to the church as an institution.

"When a concrete application of the word is made it must be to a particular local church somewhere."

The position the world of Christianity has embraced;.

"Most Bible scholars chose to ignore the abstract usage of the word church in the Bible, although they will freely concede such is true of other words.

"Rather than allowing the word to retain its common meaning throughout the New Testament, a most reasonable and logical thing to do, they ascribe a new meaning to the word. They say it must mean a universal, invisible church."

These 'scholars' have added to the Bible a new meaning to a Bible word, even though that new meaning is the very opposite definition of the original word.

To me, for them or anyone else to do that is not within the realm of sanity.

"ekklesia never had such a meaning in the Greek writings.

"This new meaning is contrary to the primary and literal meaning of ekklesia.

In spite of all the havoc reaped by not using the meaning of the word in all Bible passages using the word "church" how is someone supposed to ever know what God intended for them to understand from it?

That enormous blessing from God is simply robbed from them and they are left with their empty religion that has formed for them something invisible, instead.

Would you please read this statement describing the disastrous problem that Satan has used, to deceive the entire religious world.

"If I can give a word a new meaning so as to fit my creed when the common meaning makes good sense, then I can change the entire Bible to suit my fancy and the next person can do the same!"

From Chapter II: In Search Of The Universal, Invisible Church (Chapter 1) by Elder Milburn Cockrell - Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Pastor

Period

And then, there is the component of insistent unyielding religious dogmatism, like in this word you expressed which is indicating the probability of you reconsidering your stance.

Zero.

In all likelihood.

Somehow, you "already know" what the Bible is supposed to be saying(?)

It just jumps off the page?, from somewhere. Otherwise, it's not there.

Meanwhile, it is the consuming belief as a major fundamental component of their whole religious experience among those who are the greatest opponents of information such as is in "The Trail of Blood", to oppose Baptist Succession, and when we see opposition to "Landmark Baptists".

What happened to them?

If they could read, they would be in agreement with us.

 

[Alan Gross]

I just gave a long explanation of How Jesus is building His church by means of that rock, being by way of His Father.

Your link takes me to post #10, this thread; a short post.

Yeah but, it's still 10X longer than his other posts...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The church is all who believe and receive Christ, John 1:11-13. The organism.

They fellowship in local churches. The organization.

Period.

Good answer and Right!

 

[CJP69]

There is much confusion in the thinking of people who call themselves Baptists, as well as God's people generally, world-wide, as to what Paul was talking about in the epistles, when he spoke of the church as the body of Christ.

There are numbers of reasons, which to me are unanswerable, for maintaining that in these epistles as well as elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul was talking about a local church, for example, the church at Ephesus, or the church at Corinth, not unlike Landmark Baptist churches today, if not some others.

First, the word ekklesia, which is translated church, as B. H. Carroll said has as its "essential ideas, organization and assembly." The only church that has both organization and assembly is a local church. Prof. Royal of Wake Forest College, when asked as to the meaning of ekklesia, said: "I do not know of any passage in classical Greek, where ekklesia is used of unassembled or unassembling persons."

Second, the Lord Jesus used the word ekklesia twenty-three times, three times in Matthew and twenty times in Revelation. In every instance Jesus used the word ekklesia to refer to a local church. Whenever He spoke of a larger group than the members of the local church, He always said churches.

Third, Joseph Cross (Episcopal) in his book, "Coals From the Altar" says: "We hear much of the invisible church as contra-distinguished from the church visible. Of an invisible church in this world I know nothing: the Word of God says nothing: nor can anything of the kind exist, except in the brain of a heretic. The church is a body: but what sort of a body is that which can neither be seen nor identified? A body is an organism, occupying space and having a definite locality. A mere aggregation is not a body: there must be organization as well.

A heap of heads, hands, feet and other members would not make a body: they must be united in a system, each in its proper place and pervaded by a common life. So a collection of stones, bricks, and timber would not be a house: the material must be built up together, in artistic order, adapted to utility. So a mass of roots, trunks and branches would not be a vine or a tree: the several parts must be developed according to the laws of nature from the same seed and nourished by the same sap."

So with the temple of Solomon. It was no temple until the stones were quarried from Lebanon, prepared, gathered into Jerusalem and put each in its own place in the building. Whether the church is referred to as a temple or a house or a body, in every instance these two essential ideas are there, namely, assembly and organization. It is not a body unless the members are assembled and organized. It is not a house unless the materials are assembled and organized. It is not a temple unless the stones and other material are assembled and organized. Peter had exactly the same idea in 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."

Fourth, Hort in his book, "The Christian Ekklesia" confesses the necessity of finding some other than etymological, grammatical or historical grounds by which to prove the idea of a universal church. He admitted that the use of the word ekklesia was "always limited by Paul himself to a local organization, which has a corresponding unity of its own: each is a body of Christ and a sanctuary of God."

Look at his statement.

That "The Christian Ekklesia" ever refers to anything but a local church

1.) cannot be proved by history:

2.) it cannot be proved from the etymology of the word:

3.) and it cannot be proved by the grammatical construction of the Scriptures where used.

The only ground, Mr. Hort says, on which the use of the word
as referring to any thing but a local church can be defended at all, is on theological grounds.

That means you can not prove it from the Greek New Testament at all:
but you perhaps might read it into the New Testament from some book of theology.


Let us sum up a little.

The word church was used by the Master twenty three times and always meant a local church.

Mr. Hort of the Westcott-Hort New Testament admits that Paul never used it of anything but a local church.

Scholars testify that ekklesia was never used in classic Greek except of an assembled or assembling body.

The two essential ideas in the word ekklesia are assembly and organization.

Every illustration of a church in the New Testament such as temple or house or body, only makes nonsense if it is not assembled and organized.

The etymology of the word ekklesia makes it of necessity a local church.

The grammatical construction of the passages where used cannot be twisted to mean anything but a local church.

Both Hort and Harnack testify that historically the word ekklesia was never used of anything but a local church, until long after the close of the New Testament.

So Landmark Baptists are on safe ground, when they say that a "church", which is a "body" of Christ, is always a local church.

This doctrine is straight question begging and eisegesis from the word go. It exists to cement the power of the pastor over his congregation and seemingly has no other purpose or effect. The only churches, that I know of, who teach it are the Independent Baptist Churches, one of which I was a member of for a time. While there, I was confused by the occasional mention of this doctrine and when I asked the assistant pastor about it, instead of just telling me about it himself, he gave me a book to read (I forget the title and the author - it doesn't matter). I could tell almost immediately the book was going to be a rather silly and unconvincing book because the very first thing it said was that the idea of a singular, worldwide (or "universal" was the term it used if I remember correctly) Body of Christ was "a doctrine of demons". That characterization when it comes in right off the bat and with nothing but the author's emphasis to back it up, is the leper's bell of an approaching con artist.

The doctrine isn't even a little bit biblical nor is it even rational. Paul tells us explicitly that there is ONE body - period. Not one body per nation, not one body per city, not one body per neighborhood. What could such a doctrine mean, anyway? It's utter nonsense that accomplishes nothing except helping a pastor of a "local church" exert power of those who are members of it.
No! On the contrary, just as there in One Spirit, one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one God and Father of all, there is one and only one Body of Christ. (Eph 4:4-6).

 

[Alan Gross]

It exists to cement the power of the pastor over his congregation and seemingly has no other purpose or effect.

Guess again.

The pastor is one single member with one single vote.

I could tell almost immediately the book was going to be a rather silly and unconvincing book because the very first thing it said was that the idea of a singular, worldwide (or "universal" was the term it used if I remember correctly) Body of Christ was "a doctrine of demons"

Let's see.

Instead of The Lord's assemblies being diminished and subordinated by a phantom "invisible" nothing,

and Jesus' Headship over His individual assemblies being usurped and the blasphemous charge made against Him as been placed by men to be the "head" of their phony "church" concept,

and not crediting the one who actually is "head" of that phony idea,

and instead of consenting defeat to the one who fabricated and "built" the entire modern, extra-Biblical, deception,

and instead of not giving our full mindless acceptance, to the practice of switching out the meanings of Words in the Bible and replaceing them with our own,

if we would, I t might be a bright idea instead, to consider for one second at least
that nothing of the kind of nothing entity that has a use and purpose of nothing and about which the Bible records nothing,

how about looking at the impossibility of such a thing even being able to be imagined, in the first place, if Satan hadn't first convinced someone to alter and drastically force a new "meaning reversal" onto words in the Bible.

The myth of a "Universal Invisible Church" IS 100%, ENTIRELY DEPENDANT ON SATAN HAVING MEN CHANGE WORDS IN THE BIBLE, FIRST, AS AN ESSENTIAL MANDATORY AND INDISPENSABLE PREREQUISITE?

Ever think of that? Satan HAD TO FIRST GET THE WORD "CHURCH" CHANGED in the minds of the religious world BEFORE HE COULD "BUILD" this false religion, BASED SOLELY ON THE CORRUPTION OF THOSE WORDS.

And then what happened? It took him fifteen-hundred years to get it rolling, after he had The Roman Catholic "Church" initiate his campaign in the forth century.

By now, he has apparently permeated the minds and souls of virtually the entire population of Christiandum.

BOWING TO SATAN and letting him REVERSE GOD'S WORDS TO HAVE THE OPPOSITE MEANING, would be as Godless a sin, as if we were to produce and create new Bible versions, AND BASE THEM ON THE MOST CORRUPT UNRELIABLE AND SELF-CONTRADICTING MANUSCRIPTS KNOWN TO MANKIND.

That wouldn't be the least bit advisable, ether.

Seems to me that we might be able to see the devil in some of that. U?

 

[MrW]

Church is “called out assembly”.

Technically, congress is a church.

There is one body of Christ, not tens of thousands. Those are organizations that house particular members of the one body.

All members are invisible, especially those in Heaven, except the ones you fellowship with at any certain moment.

 

[CJP69]

Guess again.

The pastor is one single member with one single vote.

I don't have to guess. I know for a fact that this was the case at the church I was a member of and I have several friends at similar "Independent Baptist" churches that have the same policy where the pastor is in complete control of all teaching within the church as well as all policies concerning worship within the church, including but not limited to, service times, service length, duration, content and format of both music services and all Sunday school classes.
Also, I don't know whether it was an official policy or just a common practice, but I know of more than one family that has felt at least a desire if not an obligation to get the pastor's approval on major life decisions such as getting married and purchasing a business or even a house. It's ridiculous.

Things may run differently at your particular church but I doubt it very much if they teach this doctrine because there isn't any other motive to teach it.

Let's see.

Instead of The Lord's assemblies being diminished and subordinated by a phantom "invisible" nothing,

Ad hominem fallacy.

and Jesus' Headship over His individual assemblies being usurped and the blasphemous charge made against Him as been placed by men to be the "head" of their phony "church" concept,

Poisoning the well fallacy

and not crediting the one who actually is "head" of that phony idea,

and instead of consenting defeat to the one who fabricated and "built" the entire modern, extra-Biblical, deception,

Two guilt by association fallacies in a row. "Satan did it!"

and instead of not giving our full mindless acceptance, to the practice of switching out the meanings of Words in the Bible and replacing them with our own,

Who's done this? Wasn't me! Are you copy/pasting this from someone else's work or what?

if we would, I t might be a bright idea instead, to consider for one second at least
that nothing of the kind of nothing entity that has a use and purpose of nothing and about which the Bible records nothing,

Argument from silence fallacy.

how about looking at the impossibility of such a thing even being able to be imagined, in the first place, if Satan hadn't first convinced someone to alter and drastically force a new "meaning reversal" onto words in the Bible.

The myth of a "Universal Invisible Church" IS 100%, ENTIRELY DEPENDANT ON SATAN HAVING MEN CHANGE WORDS IN THE BIBLE, FIRST, AS AN ESSENTIAL MANDATORY AND INDISPENSABLE PREREQUISITE?

Ever think of that? Satan HAD TO FIRST GET THE WORD "CHURCH" CHANGED in the minds of the religious world BEFORE HE COULD "BUILD" this false religion, BASED SOLELY ON THE CORRUPTION OF THOSE WORDS.

Nonsensical gibberish that's more "Satan did it!" with no evidence at all presented for any such silly thing.

Did you copy/paste this from the book I was given all those years ago? It sounds very similar!

And then what happened? It took him fifteen-hundred years to get it rolling, after he had The Roman Catholic "Church" initiate his campaign in the forth century.

Oh! So now it's both Satan and the dastardly Roman Catholics too!

By now, he has apparently permeated the minds and souls of virtually the entire population of Christiandum.

And you believe it to be at God's decree, no doubt!

BOWING TO SATAN and letting him REVERSE GOD'S WORDS TO HAVE THE OPPOSITE MEANING, would be as Godless a sin, as if we were to produce and create new Bible versions, AND BASE THEM ON THE MOST CORRUPT UNRELIABLE AND SELF-CONTRADICTING MANUSCRIPTS KNOWN TO MANKIND.

Do you mean like how Calvinists do with the following....

Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:​

....where they say that of course God ordained, decreed and predestined before time began that these children would be murdered in this manner?

Or when they read this....

Genesis 18:21 I (God) will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
​

....they think it means that God already knew because he ordained, decreed and predestined it to happen before time began?

That wouldn't be the least bit advisable, ether.

Seems to me that we might be able to see the devil in some of that. U?

If "the Devil" is involved in anything it is in your own deceptive manner of using scripture, not to mention your evisceration of sound reason to formulate a doctrine that is not only irrational and unbiblical but that has no practical application whatsoever other than to push members of a local church into full submission to the leader(s) of a particular church that teaches this doctrine. That is literally the only effect this doctrine has on anything.

 

[Alan Gross]

Landmark Baptists are on safe ground,
when they say that a "church", which is a "body" of Christ, is always a local church.

See, for the most basic, rudimentary definition of the word "ekklesia",
showing that it is always, without exception, linguistically a "local church" assembly. #2 What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"? What do Landmarks Teach men that "a Church is"?

This doctrine is straight question begging
and eisegesis from the word go.

Independent Missionary Historical Landmark Baptist and Baptist-Doctrine-like local church assemblies,
through the ages, are not the ones that can been seen Playing Religion, by Playing God,
like the Roman Catholics began doing, when they altered and corrupted the word "church",
from its original and only Bible meaning of a "local organized assembly",
to being a "universal unorganized worldwide disconnected disbursement of people",
and called themselves The Universal Catholic Church.

The addition and glomming onto the Bible word "church" a new, extra-Biblical meaning of
being a "universal unorganized worldwide disconnected disbursement of people",
is not only the definition of eisegesis, as "reading into it one's own ideas",
but is genuinely Playing Religion, by Playing God, to create a new word, by instantaneous fiat creation,
speaking ex cathedra.

I can't tell you what to believe, as long as that is your thing to embrace and align yourself with.

It exists to cement the power of the pastor over his congregation and seemingly has no other purpose or effect.

The Christian, and Bible, and Baptist Doctrine of New Testament Church Truth,
is spoken of by Jesus and all of the writers of the New Testament,
as being what the word "ekklesia" was always defined and understood to mean,
at the time of the writing of the Bible.

To say, "It exists to cement the power of the pastor over his congregation
and seemingly has no other purpose or effect", is in direct opposition to Jesus' Own words
and the revealed word of God and clear teachings throughout the New Testament.

I didn't for one second say that you discern or comprehend "Jesus' Own words
and the revealed word of God and clear teachings throughout the New Testament",
I said it was "in direct opposition to" them.

I don't have to guess. I know for a fact that this was the case at the church I was a member of and I have several friends at similar "Independent Baptist" churches that have the same policy where the pastor is in complete control of all teaching within the church as well as all policies concerning worship within the church, including but not limited to, service times, service length, duration, content and format of both music services and all Sunday school classes.

Irrelevant gratuitous antidotal assertions.

Also, I don't know whether it was an official policy or just a common practice, but I know of more than one family that has felt at least a desire if not an obligation to get the pastor's approval on major life decisions such as getting married and purchasing a business or even a house. It's ridiculous.

Irrelevant gratuitous antidotal assertions.

Things may run differently at your particular church but I doubt it very much if they teach this doctrine because there isn't any other motive to teach it.

Unless, the Spiritual discernment and capability to read the Bible, as written,
without completely changing it, were to be Enabled by the Holy Spirit of God.

Argument from silence fallacy.

Turn this around, where it will do some good.

The very nature and existence of a "Universal Invisible Church",
is the epidemy of and gold-standard for any "Argument from Silence".

Did you copy/paste this from the book I was given all those years ago? It sounds very similar!

Every word of it is original with me, in all its content,
although I'm sure other men that are sound in the faith Bible believers
can be found to have said the same things.

They are aware of his devices.

It is the only explanation.

God didn't change what He had said in the Bible, in successive years following its writing.

That is not what God does, to contradict Himself and make Himself out to be a liar.

Satan is a liar.

Satan made the change.

That is Satan's modus operandi, since Day One, when he asked, "Yeh, hath God said?"

You should have already been aware of that.

Before, being inspired by him, and launching your campaign to persecute Jesus.

If "the Devil" is involved in anything it is in your own deceptive manner of using scripture,

"your own deceptive manner of using scripture", based on someone first Playing Religion,
by Playing God with the scriptures, or what?

not to mention your evisceration of sound reason to formulate a doctrine that is not only irrational and unbiblical but that has no practical application whatsoever

"evisceration of sound reason to formulate a doctrine that is not only irrational and unbiblical but that has no practical application whatsoever"

You may NEVER KNOW this, however, again:
The Christian, and Bible, and Baptist Doctrine of New Testament Church Truth,
is spoken of by Jesus and all of the writers of the New Testament,
as being what the word "ekklesia" was always defined and understood to mean,
at the time of the writing of the Bible.

other than to push members of a local church into full submission to the leader(s) of a particular church that teaches this doctrine.

"other than to push members of a local church into full submission to the leader(s)
of a particular church that teaches this doctrine"

Tell that to Jesus.

Or, to some 7 year old.

Ether way.

That is literally the only effect this doctrine has on anything.

The conception and ability to articulate "this doctrine" sanely,
is not something that I maintain that you WILL EVER attain.

 

[Alan Gross]

Church is “called out assembly”.

Technically, congress is a church.

Then, are we expected to believe that this word
entered into a "Meaning Reversal" machine, of some king???

There is one body of Christ

Although, you are saying that Jesus has "two bodies", as directly contradicting, "one body",
have you ever looked up the meaning of the word "body"?

Because, you are postulating a new opposite meaning of "body" to instantaneously contradict,
not only every other use of it in context, in the Bible, but also its meaning, as a word.

not tens of thousands

The meaning of the word "body" is consistent with its use everywhere else in the Bible, in context,
and may certainly indicate thousands, or possibly "tens of thousands",
of Biblically defined local church bodies, which assemble as baptized believers to worship God
and conduct His Business, as His witnesses on earth, throughout the New Testament Church Age.

Did I say that I believe you have the potentiality of becoming cognoscente of this revelation?

No, I did not go there.

Those are organizations that house particular members of the one body.

Be careful. Your unintentionally approaching within striking distance of what a "body" is
that the Bible speaks of.

Those are organizations that house particular members

By saying "those" instead of "bodies" you're able to continue your line of extra-Biblical thinking,
however, be careful. Your unintentionally approaching within striking distance of what a "body" is
that the Bible speaks of.

That would have you in agreement with God, which I do not believe is your intention.

All members are invisible, especially those in Heaven,

Whatever, whenever. Did you know that "a light bulb"
actually is identical to "all of the stars in the Galaxies".

Did you know that?

except the ones you fellowship with at any certain moment.

And "a lit match" is the same in all its essence
to "the existence of the Sun at the center of our Solar System".

It's true.

If that is your religious belief.

 

[Alan Gross]

There is one body of Christ, not tens of thousands. Those are organizations that house particular members of the one body.

All members are invisible, especially those in Heaven, except the ones you fellowship with at any certain moment.

Instead of Satan, Rome, The Pope, Roman Catholicism, etc.,
you would have to bow to The Lordship of Christ, to gain an understanding
of what those words meant in the Bible, before Satan changed them later.

But that is not something you are going to do,
since you would have to have the brains to know that needs to be done, first,
and you haven't done it after the dozens of times we have been through this.

So, therefore, all bets are off.

 

[Alan Gross]

If "the Devil" is involved in anything it is in your own deceptive manner of using scripture, not to mention your evisceration of sound reason to formulate a doctrine that is not only irrational and unbiblical but that has no practical application whatsoever other than to push members of a local church into full submission to the leader(s) of a particular church that teaches this doctrine. That is literally the only effect this doctrine has on anything.

Instead of Satan, Rome, The Pope, Roman Catholicism, etc.,
you would have to bow to The Lordship of Christ, to gain an understanding
of what those words meant in the Bible, before Satan changed them later.

But that is not something you are going to do,
since you would have to have the brains to know that needs to be done, first,
and you haven't done it after going through this, plane enough for anybody.

So, therefore, all bets are off.

 

[CJP69]

See, for the most basic, rudimentary definition of the word "ekklesia",
showing that it is always, without exception, linguistically a "local church" assembly. #2 What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"? What do Landmarks Teach men that "a Church is"?



Independent Missionary Historical Landmark Baptist and Baptist-Doctrine-like local church assemblies,
through the ages, are not the ones that can been seen Playing Religion, by Playing God,
like the Roman Catholics began doing, when they altered and corrupted the word "church",
from its original and only Bible meaning of a "local organized assembly",
to being a "universal unorganized worldwide disconnected disbursement of people",
and called themselves The Universal Catholic Church.

The addition and glomming onto the Bible word "church" a new, extra-Biblical meaning of
being a "universal unorganized worldwide disconnected disbursement of people",
is not only the definition of eisegesis, as "reading into it one's own ideas",
but is genuinely Playing Religion, by Playing God, to create a new word, by instantaneous fiat creation,
speaking ex cathedra.

I can't tell you what to believe, as long as that is your thing to embrace and align yourself with.



The Christian, and Bible, and Baptist Doctrine of New Testament Church Truth,
is spoken of by Jesus and all of the writers of the New Testament,
as being what the word "ekklesia" was always defined and understood to mean,
at the time of the writing of the Bible.

To say, "It exists to cement the power of the pastor over his congregation
and seemingly has no other purpose or effect", is in direct opposition to Jesus' Own words
and the revealed word of God and clear teachings throughout the New Testament.

I didn't for one second say that you discern or comprehend "Jesus' Own words
and the revealed word of God and clear teachings throughout the New Testament",
I said it was "in direct opposition to" them.



Irrelevant gratuitous antidotal assertions.



Irrelevant gratuitous antidotal assertions.



Unless, the Spiritual discernment and capability to read the Bible, as written,
without completely changing it, were to be Enabled by the Holy Spirit of God.



Turn this around, where it will do some good.

The very nature and existence of a "Universal Invisible Church",
is the epidemy of and gold-standard for any "Argument from Silence".



Every word of it is original with me, in all its content,
although I'm sure other men that are sound in the faith Bible believers
can be found to have said the same things.

They are aware of his devices.

It is the only explanation.

God didn't change what He had said in the Bible, in successive years following its writing.

That is not what God does, to contradict Himself and make Himself out to be a liar.

Satan is a liar.

Satan made the change.

That is Satan's modus operandi, since Day One, when he asked, "Yeh, hath God said?"

You should have already been aware of that.

Before, being inspired by him, and launching your campaign to persecute Jesus.



"your own deceptive manner of using scripture", based on someone first Playing Religion,
by Playing God with the scriptures, or what?



"evisceration of sound reason to formulate a doctrine that is not only irrational and unbiblical but that has no practical application whatsoever"

You may NEVER KNOW this, however, again:
The Christian, and Bible, and Baptist Doctrine of New Testament Church Truth,
is spoken of by Jesus and all of the writers of the New Testament,
as being what the word "ekklesia" was always defined and understood to mean,
at the time of the writing of the Bible.



"other than to push members of a local church into full submission to the leader(s)
of a particular church that teaches this doctrine"

Tell that to Jesus.

Or, to some 7 year old.

Ether way.



The conception and ability to articulate "this doctrine" sanely,
is not something that I maintain that you WILL EVER attain.

The deception here and everywhere else this ridiculous doctrine is taught is in the focus on the single word "ekklesia" and then using that to suggest somehow that the members of the church down the street are not member of the same Body of Christ as their own and that the members of the church down this other street over there are members of yet another Body of Christ and so on for every church in town and then every church in every other town everywhere else; that the Body of Christ isn't one thing, its tens of thousands of fragmented "independent" things.

The only, and I mean it when I say this, the ONLY difference this make is their practice is to give the leadership of that local church supreme authority over the congregation. Some might use that authority better than others but that isn't the point nor is the fact that they sit in a place of authority over their congregation the point. The point is that the rational is ridiculous! It's a complete contrivance with no practical application whatsoever apart from cementing a position of authority that a local church's leadership already possesses anyway.

So, if someone who already sits in a position of authority promotes a doctrine that can have no effect other than to solidify that authority, would you trust that someone? Does that sound like a person you'd want to be in a position of authority over you? It doesn't to me! And whether you count my personal experience as anecdotal or not, it still stands as first person, eye witness testimony and when I learned that the pastor of the church I attended was in absolute control to the point of writing every single Sunday School lesson (this is in a church with 500+ members and dozens of Sunday school classes by the way) and determined every song that was sung and in what order, and that people felt the need to consult this person about whether they should allow their own daughter to get married, etc. I realized what the purpose of this doctrine was about and left the church immediately.

Since that time, I've never come across the doctrine again until this thread was posted. Thankfully, it is a rather rare doctrine. It seems that only various flavors of "Independent Baptists Churches" have ever taught, or hardly even heard of it. I also suspect strongly that many of those churches who hold to it don't do so with a clenched fist and don't use it an excuse to exert undo power over their respective churches. In such churches, you wouldn't even be able to tell that they teach the doctrine at all, except that they don't align themselves with the Southern Baptist Convention or any other similar type group, (which no congregation is required to be a part of anyway, by the way).

The funniest part is the fact that they seem to all call themselves "Independent Baptists" and are proud to do so, as though attaching that label to themselves doesn't place them within a larger group that extends well beyond their "local church". I love how its impossible to hold to an irrational doctrine without eventually contradicting that very doctrine.

 

[CJP69]

Instead of Satan, Rome, The Pope, Roman Catholicism, etc.,
you would have to bow to The Lordship of Christ, to gain an understanding
of what those words meant in the Bible, before Satan changed them later.

I understand what those words mean perfectly well!

Umm, which words are you referring to exactly?

Regardless, I can read pretty well so, I'd be willing to bet that whatever words you're cryptically referring to here are perfectly easy to understand.

But that is not something you are going to do,
since you would have to have the brains to know that needs to be done, first,
and you haven't done it after going through this, plane enough for anybody.

So, therefore, all bets are off.

Gibberish.

 

[Alan Gross]

See, for the most basic, rudimentary definition of the word "ekklesia",
showing that it is always, without exception, linguistically a "local church" assembly. #2 What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"? What do Landmarks Teach men that "a Church is"?

Independent Missionary Historical Landmark Baptist and Baptist-Doctrine-like local church assemblies,
through the ages, are not the ones that can been seen Playing Religion, by Playing God, like the Roman Catholics began doing, when they altered and corrupted the word "church",

doctrine is taught is in the focus on the single word "ekklesia" .

You are exactly correct.

The word "ekklesia" is a Bible word.

We believe the Bible.

We are not the ones that can been seen Playing Religion, by Playing God,
like the Roman Catholics began doing, when they altered
and corrupted the word "church", which is translated into English
from the Greek word "ekklesia", and always refers to a "summoned together organized assembly".

The Roman Catholic Hierarchies changed this word , "church", Playing Religion,
by Playing God, to make it apart of the title for their counterfeit religion, that stands and exists in total opposition to God, the Bible, and the Cause of Christ, by calling it "The Universal Roman Catholic "Church".

Prior to this in the Bible, the word "church", or ""body" that has to also be changed,
Never had Any Connotation, or Indication, or Expression, or Understanding, or Usage, or Definition associated with, or related to a "worldwide Kingdom", as The Roman Catholic false church subsequently changed them to refer to, centuries after the Bible was written.

To this day, Bible believers who do not join in with the false counterfeit church of Roman Catholicism, regard the Bible words "church" and "body" as Never having had Any Connotation, or Indication, or Expression, or Understanding, or Usage, or Definition associated with, or related to a "worldwide Kingdom", but as always referring to the definition of those words, to be local self-contained entities, as meant in the Bible.

and then using that to suggest somehow that the members of the church down the street are not member of the same Body of Christ as their own

That is most certainly, absolutely correct. You get an "A for the Day".

And, if it were possible for you to be counter brainwashed to make it intellectually feasible for you to maintain this Biblical definition for a "Body of Christ", back to the Bible definition and stay there, rather than launching yourself into and under the influence of Roman Catholicism, and clinging to their perverted meaning of "Body", you might be mentally capable of understanding why.

However, that water has passed under the bridge and you have been enveloped and encapsulated within their demonic stronghold.

Sorry. Any Bible knowledge whatsoever with regard to the Doctrine of Church Truth, you could have possibly obtained by using a Biblical meaning for the words "church" and "body", has been acquiesced and forfeited, by your allegiance to the Anti-Christ religious activities of man, which you prefer over God.

and that the members of the church down this other street over there are members of yet another Body of Christ

You're right!, Biblically speaking!

and so on for every church in town and then every church in every other town everywhere else; that the Body of Christ isn't one thing, its tens of thousands of fragmented "independent" things.

Hallelujah! If you didn't know better, you'd be able to be describing
Exactly what Jesus built as His Organization on earth in which God is to be Worshipped and served, to whom the Oracles of God, the Manifold Wisdom and Whole Council of God, the Divinely Instituted church Ordinances, the Great Commission, and the Command to contend for the Faith once given to the saints was given, and that it was this type of independent local church assembly organization, as an Institution that Jesus promised He would Supernaturally Sustain, Maintain, and Ensure a Continually Existence, until He Comes Again.

Look at them.

They are all throughout history, obvious as your hand on front of your face

Dogged and hounded to their literal deaths, by Catholics and Protestants, in numbers reaching 10s of millions of martyrs, who felt strongly enough about God and the Bible and salvation by grace alone and believer's baptism, and AUTHORITY IN BAPTISM THAT THEY "RE"-BAPTIZED, those coming to them from heretical religions.

There is your True History of True Christianity.

And you don't get it.

Those independent assemblies aren't up to your standard of MAGNIFICENCE.

And, you know what else? As their opponent, you share the most prominent characteristic with their other opponents who've slaughtered God's children who were worshipping Him and serving Him AS HE HAD COMMANDED THEM. Peacefully. These independent assemblies, Jesus called "My church" were are are persecuted mercilessly by the proponents of A ONE WORLD UNIVERSAL "CHURCH".

And to think, unless Satan had gotten the word "church" changed into being a "kingdom", instead of an "local assembly", HE COULD NOT HAVE FABRICATED A "UNIVERSAL INVISIBLE "CHURCH", in which to receive the worship of 100s of millions of Christians, AS ITS FOUNDER AND HEAD.

The word "church" changed and the word "body" changed. By Satan.

Or there could be no pretended myth of an imaginary phantom fake, PHONY, and false Synagogue of Satan.

My question is, whether your opposition to God and His Word and the churches that Jesus built because of your devotion to him, or just the Pope?

The only, and I mean it when I say this, the ONLY difference this make is their practice is to give the leadership of that local church supreme authority over the congregation. Some might use that authority better than others but that isn't the point nor is the fact that they sit in a place of authority over their congregation the point. The point is that the rational is ridiculous! It's a complete contrivance with no practical application whatsoever apart from cementing a position of authority that a local church's leadership already possesses anyway.

My, my. You do have things stuck in your head.

And yet, by the way. This guesswork of yours is only disappointing to you.

You know why?

Because you know you are just guessing about all that
and don't really know anything about the subject you are talking about.

How could you?

You define a "church" and a "body's the way Satan does.

So, if someone who already sits in a position of authority promotes a doctrine that can have no effect other than to solidify that authority, would you trust that someone? Does that sound like a person you'd want to be in a position of authority over you? It doesn't to me!

If "ifs" and "buts" were cake and nuts, do you think we'd have a nice holiday?

I also suspect strongly that many of those churches who hold to it don't do so with a clenched fist and don't use it an excuse to exert undo power over their respective churches. In such churches, you wouldn't even be able to tell that they teach the doctrine at all,

You can't tell what the Doctrine is God taught, right now, what do you mean?

You need to strongly suspect to get some church.

 

[Alan Gross]

The funniest part is the fact that they seem to all call themselves "Independent Baptists" and are proud to do so, as though attaching that label to themselves doesn't place them within a larger group that extends well beyond their "local church".

"a larger group that extends well beyond their "local church"
that is the MAGNIFICENT one, brought to your imagination,
by the Devil himself, I bet.

That MAGNIFICENT thing chiefly characterized by its attribute of INVISIBILITY.

I love how its impossible to hold to an irrational doctrine without eventually contradicting that very doctrine.

Sovereign Grace, Independent Missionary, Landmark Baptist churches are not a part of any larger group that has any higher authority than she carries.

All children of God and all saved children of God within The Lord's kind of churches are all part of the overall, worldwide Kingdom of God.

The churches of the Lord Jesus operate in each of their specific locations toward a shared goal with all of the Kingdom of God, as being the advancement of the Kingdom of God and the Cause of Christ.

"I love how its impossible to hold to an irrational doctrine without eventually contradicting that very doctrine."

Like being "Spiritually Baptized" "into Christ"
and being "Spiritually Baptized" "into one" Universal Invisible "body"?

Are "all saved people" of the "Universal Invisible Body"
actually Jesus Christ, Himself? when a soul is "baptized" into Him
as if Jesus is the "Universal Invisible Body" of "all saved people"?

When did they come up with putting "Spiritually" next to the word "baptized",
as if anything like that is ever taught in the Bible?

Then, you take this invention out of the clear blue sky of "Spirit baptism" and with taking "water baptism" together with it as still adding up to be "one baptism"?

Or, "one body" being a "local body of baptized believers" AND THE MAGNIFICENT INVISIBLE "BODY" THAT IS THE UTTER AND COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF A "BODY"! BEING ADDED TO EACH OTHER TO STILL MAKE "ONE BODY"!

IT'S MAGNIFICENT.

IT'S STUPID.

BUT THAT'S OK, IT'S INVISIBLE ANYWAY!

WHO CARES IF IT IS ALL TOTALLY "RELIGION WITHOUT GOD".

Made up, like another Sasquatch.


New thread: A Short Description of Historic Baptists, by Raul Enyedi Bocsa, Romania.

 

[CJP69]

If there was a motive for teaching this doctrine other than what I've told you, he couldn't wait to prove me wrong by simply telling us all what it is. He hasn't done so and he won't do so because what I'm telling you is the truth. Most of which, by the way, he is willing to proclaim "Hallelujah!" in response too, moments before chiding me about not knowing what I'm talking about!

In short, this guy's posts are their own best refutation for anyone who doesn't already agree with him and can think clearly.

 

[37818]

. . . within The Lord's kind of churches . . . .

Churchianity

 

[CJP69]

Churchianity

That's an excellent term for it! I'm gonna use that if I ever come across that doctrine again.

 

[MrW]

I cannot read Alan anymore, too radical.

I cannot read Cathode.

Catholicism is the Babylonian religion referenced in Scripture, in my and many other’s opinion. And the RCC has killed millions of Christians over the centuries. I am not saying Catholics today would countenance such again. I am saying it is true historically and I will not read Catholicism/Babylonianism defended on a Baptist Board. He’s free to post, but I am free not to read it.

 

[Alan Gross]

This doctrine is straight question begging and eisegesis from the word go. It exists to cement the power of the pastor over his congregation and seemingly has no other purpose or effect.

What could such a doctrine mean, anyway? It's utter nonsense that accomplishes nothing except helping a pastor of a "local church" exert power of those who are members of it.

I know for a fact that this was the case at the church I was a member of and I have several friends at similar "Independent Baptist" churches that have the same policy where the pastor is in complete control of all teaching within the church as well as all policies concerning worship within the church, including but not limited to, service times, service length, duration, content and format of both music services and all Sunday school classes.

Also, I don't know whether it was an official policy or just a common practice, but I know of more than one family that has felt at least a desire if not an obligation to get the pastor's approval on major life decisions such as getting married and purchasing a business or even a house. It's ridiculous.

Things may run differently at your particular church but I doubt it very much if they teach this doctrine because there isn't any other motive to teach it.

If "the Devil" is involved in anything it is in your own deceptive manner of using scripture, not to mention your evisceration of sound reason to formulate a doctrine that is not only irrational and unbiblical but that has no practical application whatsoever other than to push members of a local church into full submission to the leader(s) of a particular church that teaches this doctrine.

That is literally the only effect this doctrine has on anything.

The only, and I mean it when I say this, the ONLY difference this make is their practice is to give the leadership of that local church supreme authority over the congregation.

Some might use that authority better than others but that isn't the point nor is the fact that they sit in a place of authority over their congregation the point.

The point is that the rational is ridiculous! It's a complete contrivance with no practical application whatsoever apart from cementing a position of authority that a local church's leadership already possesses anyway.

So, if someone who already sits in a position of authority promotes a doctrine that can have no effect other than to solidify that authority, would you trust that someone? Does that sound like a person you'd want to be in a position of authority over you? It doesn't to me!

And whether you count my personal experience as anecdotal or not, it still stands as first person, eye witness testimony and when I learned that the pastor of the church I attended was in absolute control to the point of writing every single Sunday School lesson (this is in a church with 500+ members and dozens of Sunday school classes by the way) and determined every song that was sung and in what order, and that people felt the need to consult this person about whether they should allow their own daughter to get married, etc.

I realized what the purpose of this doctrine was about and left the church immediately.

If there was a motive for teaching this doctrine other than what I've told you, he couldn't wait to prove me wrong by simply telling us all what it is.

He hasn't done so and he won't do so because what I'm telling you is the truth.

In short, this guy's posts are their own best refutation for anyone who doesn't already agree with him and can think clearly.

All independent Baptist churches, such are those that are Landmarks,
practice a Congregational Form of Government,
which are Pure Democracies, under the Headship and Lordship of Jesus,
as their Sole Monarch.

Each member of the Congregation, in these assemblies,
which operates as a Pure Democracy and, as I had mentioned,
each member, including the Pastor, as a member, has one vote,
in all matters of decision-making undertaken as a church body.

In the event, a man of the church body acting as Moderator,
or a Deacon of the church body, calls the church to order,
motions may be entertained and must be allowed to be clearly heard.

Once, a motion is made, it may be seconded,
at which point a vote of the Congregation is taken.

As happens on occasion, if the Pastor is called down
and asked to not continue speaking, if they were in the Pulpit, for example,
and the church body is then convened to conduct the business of the church,
a motion may be made and seconded to vacate the Pulpit, immediately,
and a vote by the Congregation would follow.

Any existence of alleged instances similar to the above assertions, in red,
are shortsighted and improbable, practically, and could not be made by
"anyone who doesn't already agree with him and can think clearly."

So, much for thinking clearly.

Getting shed of an unruly leader takes little more than 60 seconds.

Not a concern.