Alien Baptism

[Squire Robertsson]

I would remind folks, the idea of a local church only interpertation of ekklesia is fairly long standing among some sectors of Baptists. TCassidy didn't just pull it out of his ear.

 

[TCassidy]

And I don't deny the existence of the organization they call the "universal church." I just avoid diminishing the emphasis on Christ's local New Testament churches by calling the Family of God and/or the Kingdom of God a "church." Such nomenclature is foreign to the bible.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

the fact is both are true, there is the local assembly where we are to serve God faithfully and there is the broader world wide church made up of believers everywhere. It is poor exposition to emphasize one over the other except where certain things can only be applied. Jesus said He would build his church. He said this knowing that his disciples were to go out and start churches everywhere.

Amen. I agree with the above position completely. That is exactly what I am saying. There is one church, and that one church expresses itself locally in numerous churches regionally. The Bible is pretty clear on this. We don't need seminarians and extensive learning in Greek to understand something so simple that is presented to us in the English language in the KJV.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

And I don't deny the existence of the organization they call the "universal church." I just avoid diminishing the emphasis on Christ's local New Testament churches by calling the Family of God and/or the Kingdom of God a "church." Such nomenclature is foreign to the bible.

So you do believe in the "universal church" but are debating me because you don't like the semantics of my argument? That doesn't even make sense.

As I showed numerous times, Christ himself calls it "the church" the first time the word appears in the Bible and "the body" is equated with "the church" numerous times in the Bible. And in those passages where this occurs, Paul is not speaking about the local body in those passages, but making a broader point about the one church.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

You seem confused about the meaning of the word "body." We have, in this country, "the body politic." Your position denies that any other country also has a body politic.

Clearly, when Paul spoke of Jesus' body, He was not referring to it in the sense that you are above.
He used a head and body as a metaphor. Elsewhere he used the same metaphor of members of that body being an eye, or a hand, etc.

This verse proves that baptism symbolizes our baptism into Christ, not in the local church:

1 Corinthians 12:12-13:
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 >>> For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body <<<, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

If you believed this meant the local church, how could ALL be baptized into one local church? This All is, again, speaking of all believers generally. One body, one Spirit, one baptism, one faith, one God and Father of All.

All universal terms.

When I got baptized, I was not praising God for being baptized into a local church. I was praising God for my salvation and to be grafted into His body.

 

[TCassidy]

Clearly, when Paul spoke of Jesus' body, He was not referring to it in the sense that you are above.

Yes, he was talking about the body that was fitly joined together, not spread all over the world.

If you believed this meant the local church, how could ALL be baptized into one local church?

All the members at Corinth were baptized into the membership of the church at Corinth.

When I got baptized, I was not praising God for being baptized into a local church.

Who said or suggested you were?

I was praising God for my salvation and to be grafted into His body.

You were proclaiming your participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

So you do believe in the "universal church" but are debating me because you don't like the semantics of my argument?

No, I am explaining that improper nomenclature results in doctrinal deviation from the truth of God's word.

That doesn't even make sense.

Words mean things.

As I showed numerous times, Christ himself calls it "the church" the first time the word appears in the Bible and "the body" is equated with "the church" numerous times in the Bible.

This false exegesis has already been debunked in my previous post.

And in those passages where this occurs, Paul is not speaking about the local body in those passages, but making a broader point about the one church.

This false exegesis has also already been debunked in my previous post.

 

[Revmitchell]

So you do believe in the "universal church" but are debating me because you don't like the semantics of my argument? That doesn't even make sense.

I understand Tcassidy's concern regarding what you have said about Baptism. My disagreement is how he addressed that. We all need to be equally true to what each other says.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now, God said, in Acts 13:1 "ησαν δε τινες εν αντιοχεια κατα την ουσαν εκκλησιαν προφηται και διδασκαλοι ο τε βαρναβας και συμεων ο καλουμενος νιγερ και λουκιος ο κυρηναιος μαναην τε ηρωδου του τετραρχου συντροφος και σαυλος

Please, show me a definite article in that sentence that agrees with εκκλησιαν in case, number and gender.

την........ εκκλησιαν or am I going completely mad?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. The generic use of the term. Just as I can say "I believe the horse is the most magnificent animal in God's creation."

"Horse." Singular. Meaning: No horse in particular, all horses in general.

"Church." Singular. Meaning: No church in particular, all churches in general.

This is a non sequitur with reference to Matthew 16:18.
If I say, "I believe the horse is the most magnificent animal in God's creation" that might be a generic use of the term 'horse,' although it might equally be a universal use, meaning 'every horse.' However if I say, "I believe my horse is the most magnificent animal in God's creation," then I am speaking of a particular horse and one that belongs to me.

So when the Lord Jesus says, "I will build My Church........." He is not referring to 'no ekklesia in particular;' He is excluding, for instance, the ekklesia described three times in Acts 19:21ff. This is His Church and although it was quite possible for Him to say, "I will build My churches" He didn't do that. Starting at Pentecost, He is building His universal Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
This universal Church is His bride. 'This is a great mystery, but I speak of Christ and the Church' (Eph. 5:32; cf. also v.25). Once again, it was open to the Holy Spirit to speak of 'Christ and the churches,' but He didn't.

Likewise in Philippians 3:6, 'concerning zeal, persecuting the Church.' It is the body of Christ that Paul was persecuting, since the Lord asked him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" I know it is claimed that there was only one church at that time, in Jerusalem, but we know there were believers in Samaria and Damascus. Is it really likely that there were none in Judea or Galilee and that Saul would not have sorted them out first before trekking off to Damascus?

There are several other examples, including Colossians 1:18 & 24 which have already been mentioned. To deny all this really is kicking against the goads.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

No, I am explaining that improper nomenclature results in doctrinal deviation from the truth of God's word.

Words mean things.

This false exegesis has already been debunked in my previous post.

This false exegesis has also already been debunked in my previous post.

You have done no such thing, but we can agree to disagree in brotherly love.

 

[TCassidy]

την........ εκκλησιαν or am I going completely mad?

You missed the point.

 

[TCassidy]

You have done no such thing,

Of course I have, which is why you can't offer a cogent response.

 

[TCassidy]

This is a non sequitur

Nobody has yet explained to me what an unassembled assembly is.

Nobody has yet explained to me what an unjoined body is.

Nobody has yet explained to me what an unbuilt building is.

Still waiting for answers.

 

[SovereignGrace]

And I don't deny the existence of the organization they call the "universal church." I just avoid diminishing the emphasis on Christ's local New Testament churches by calling the Family of God and/or the Kingdom of God a "church." Such nomenclature is foreign to the bible.

Wouldn't 'universal church' be better said as the body of Christ? And yes, I believe in the 'universal church'..

 

[TCassidy]

Wouldn't 'universal church' be better said as the body of Christ?

Yes, provided you make a distinction between the Family of God, all of which are "in Christ" and therefore seated with Him in the Heavenlies, and each local church as a body of believers belonging to Christ.

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

Of course I have, which is why you can't offer a cogent response.

Saying you've refuted my arguments, doesn't make it so was my point. We are clearly in disagreement on this. I've shown numerous passages and made numerous arguments that support my point and have debunked your point.

See? I can easily say the same thing.

The Bible is clear to everyone who cares nothing for Baptist tradition (but rather prefers the truth of God's Word) that both the universal church and the local church exist simultaneously.

These arguments about "the universal church not having a physical location or an address" are straw-man arguments. They prove nothing. The Universal Church is the assembly of the first born ... just because we do not currently meet together all at once in the same physical space, does not mean that we are not the one universal body (church).

 

[TCassidy]

These arguments about "the universal church not having a physical location or an address" are straw-man arguments. They prove nothing. The Universal Church is the assembly of the first born ... just because we do not currently meet together all at once in the same physical space, does not mean that we are not the one universal body (church).

So, you admit the "universal assembly" does not assemble? So, again, I ask, "what, exactly, is an unassembled assembly?" What exactly, is an unbuilt building?

And you still continue to avoid the question, why turn local church ordinances over to those who deny their meaning and mode?

It seems to me your meaning of "straw man" is "I can't answer the question so I will make a silly accusation and run away."

 

[Afshin Yaghtin]

I'm sorry to say this to an elder brother in the Lord, but your method of debate lacks Christ's love and is arrogant.

You're also stuck on the word "assembly" and miss the greater point here. You ignore the greater, one body (which Paul calls "the church" in numerous passages which you failed to address correctly). You never addressed why Jesus uses the word, "church" singular, and not "churches" when He first says He will build His church.

Yes, the universal assembly will assemble in heaven at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. The church is the lively stones (the people), not the building or meeting place. Just because we are not all gathered together right now at once, it doesn't mean we aren't the lively stones which make up the church. Do you stop being a lively stone when you step outside of the building and go home? We are the church, wherever we are. But we organize locally also. You are missing the duality of this doctrine.

I believe at this point, we are beginning to go in circles and there's no point in further discussion, as neither of us will ever be persuaded by the other.

 

[TCassidy]

I'm sorry to say this to an elder brother in the Lord, but your method of debate lacks Christ's love and is arrogant.

Translation: I can't answer your question so I will accuse you of being arrogant and un-Christlike.