The Bride/Body /Church all same thing!An assembly = a body= a church= an organized gathering = a congragation.
There is "one body", as to kind, a local body and not two bodies, as this
is non-Scriptural to confuse The Living Kingdom of God with The Lord's Kind of church bodies He assembled, as a Divine Institution.
Chapter 3: Church Characteristics as seen in the First Church at Jerusalem
1. The First Church was Composed of Saved Persons.
If John the Baptist had baptized the multitude who applied for baptism (see Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9), it would perhaps have sealed their damnation. Why? Because they were destitute of the Spiritual prerequisites to baptism, and hence their baptism could only have been in "form" or, "according to the letter."
A man must first believe in Christ, and "whosoever believeth in the Son of God hath the witness in himself " (1 John 5:10); "hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation" (John 5:24); "has been born of God" (1 John 5:1) and "overcometh the world" (1 John 5:4-5), "is justified" (Rom: 5:1). Yea, he must have the blessings predicated of Repentance, Faith, Love, Confession, or baptism will lead him awaI
IN\tual qualification? If Spiritual fitness is not inquired into, then soon it will not be required. You need not expect it if you don’t enact it; if not taught it will not be sought; if not held it will not be had. If candidates go down into the water without having died to sin, and that means freedom from sin, and with no newness of life, then his baptism, so called, would be a solemn profession of falsehoods. Romans 6:1-11 has no reference to baptism of the Holy Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit, or in the Holy Spirit, yet it is Spiritual baptism. It is not the natural man conforming to the letter, but the Spiritual man conforming to both better and Spirit of baptism.
How inconceivably high does this lift us above the idea of a natural man submitting to a sacrament in order to be saved. How degrading the thought to a spiritual man. I would prefer idolatry in any of its forms to such a perversion of a holy ordinance and its implied holy doctrines. No likeness of any god can save any man from anything, not even any likeness of the true God or of his Christ. We were saved by the death and resurrection of Christ, and not by the likeness of it. There is no more salvation in baptism than any other likeness of things or beings. If looking through the images to the gods is idolatry, so looking through this likeness to the reality is idolatry also. The reality comes first. We are not allowed to have any likeness of God or of Christ, but baptism, a likeness of salvation, is allowed and ordained as the profession of our previous hope before men. It is a "figure" of our salvation, not the putting away the filth of the flesh which is sin, but the answer of a good conscience by the resurrection of Christ. How was the answering conscience made good? " How much more shall the blood of Christ . . . purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." (Heb. 9:14). "And the worshippers once purged should have no more conscience of sins." (Heb. 10:2). " bet us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our hope without wavering; for he is faithful that promised" (Heb. 10:22-24). Baptists are indeed distinguished for keeping the blood before water and Christ before the church. If baptism is the putting on of Christ and identifies us as Christians, ought we not to be Christians before we put on Christ? If the baptism of infants is infant baptism, and the baptism of believers is believers’ baptism, then is not the baptism of Christians Christian baptism? And if so, where can you find Christian baptism except among the Baptists? Certainly no others hold it as the rule.
Neither John the Baptist nor Peter, on Pentecost, admitted any to baptism till they gave evidence of conversion, and as baptism is before church membership, the evidence of conversion was necessary to that also.
Read Acts, chapters 1 and 2, and it is clear that the whole church was composed of saved persons. Baptist churches today admit only such as profess to be saved. This is the rule only of Baptist churches. Others don’t seek to have saved persons only. Armenians admit only those who are candidates for salvation. They think none are saved before death, and as death takes them out of their churches, none are saved while in their churches. They being witnesses, their churches have none in them that are saved only in process and prospect of salvation; and this prospect exceeding poor, if they are to be saved by works, and that is their only hope and plea.
The question now to be considered is, what is this spiritual kind of material that in the beginning was put into the church—God’s spiritual temple? There is an exception, but I think it helps to establish the rule. Christ knew from the beginning that Judas was a devil, yet he chose him, and put upon him all the honors that belong to a true disciple. He preached, wrought miracles, was treasurer, and had the best associations and influences that were ever provided for men. He was solemnly warned at the last supper, and was driven out on his devilish mission; and in the fare of all this, he sold his Master and betrayed him with kisses. All this was necessary according to the divine purpose and plan, and as none but a devil could do a devil’s work, a devil was chosen to do it. Now, if Judas, an unconverted man in the church, with all of his favorable advantages, was not deterred by detection and exposure " before the act "from its commission, on what ground can we found a hope that the church is the institution for a sinner to join? Yet the Catholic and Protestant world hold to this idea, and the writer entertains grave apprehension that we Baptists, in a large measure, have imbibed the damnable heresy. I fear many of our evangelists think that joining the church might do the sinner good, and with this salve on their doubting consciences they proceed to add fame to their name by large additions as a seal to their ministry.
But how was it in the beginning? With Judas out, the purged church was found tarrying in Jerusalem in protracted prayer-meeting, waiting for the promised enduement of power from on high. (Acts 1): In the second chapter we find they all continued with one accord in one place. Not an unconverted person among them. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spake as the Spirit gave them utterance. Their preaching was greatly blessed, and many were convicted of sin, and when they cried out, asking what they must do, they were not told to join the church for salvation. They were told to repent and be baptized, trusting upon the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and they (as well as the others) should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter preached the same gospel in Acts 2:38 that he preached in Acts 10:43. The Greek idiom requires the above rendering.
The commission in Luke 24:47 has the same idiom: "Repentance unto the remission of sins, trusting upon his name, should be preached among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." So Peter, beginning at Jerusalem, used the same idiom-epi before the dative, signifying trust, reliance upon, etc.
The change from the painful conviction of sin to the glad reception of the Word is evidence. To be publicly baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, whom they had crucified, and with wicked hands had slain, and that in the face of fiery persecution, is evidence again; and if further evidence is wanted, it is abundantly supplied in what follows
"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart; praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."
The last words, as translated, render this doctrine doubtful. Did the Lord add to the church the saved or such as should be saved? If such as should be saved, the Catholics and Protestants are right and the Baptists wrong. If they were saved before they were added, the Baptists are right and the others wrong. The Catholic Bible reads: "And the Lord added daily to their society such as should be saved." King James follows with "the such as should be saved." This makes the salvation prospective, and as all men should be saved, then all should join the church, even infants.
To keep one out of the church until he is saved, and saved forever, is peculiarly Baptist doctrine, and we claim that the text, rightly translated, will prove it. I will introduce a few translations here, just such as have come to hand; also a few commentaries. Were they saved before added or added before saved? That is the question of questions, and upon it rests the doctrine of Regenerated Church Membership.
-
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!
Any church whose origin was in Medieval or modern times is not the church that Christ set up
- Thread starter Alan Gross
- Start date
The Bride/Body /Church all same thing!
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Baptist History Notebook, By Berlin Hisel
"The Lord Jesus Christ built His church during His earthly ministry. To that church He gave the truth. "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15). Israel of the Old Testament was to be a priesthood to the nations. They failed and Jesus commissioned the church which He built to take His truth into all the world (Matthew 28:16-20). As they take the truth into the world they will be persecuted by Satan. That church will be the place where the rule of God will be manifested in outward life, which thing Satan hates.
"This is not to say that only Baptists are saved for that is not true. All who trust the Lord Jesus Christ savingly are saved. Not all Baptists are saved. So we are not saying that all Baptist churches (by name or identification) will exhibit a Trail of Blood. We are saying we are most likely to find this manifestation of warfare between the two kingdoms in true churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our search in the Baptist History Notebook will bear out this truth."
Chapter 3: Church Characteristics as seen in the First Church at Jerusalem
25. The church at Jerusalem was called the church of God. So every Baptist church is the church of God. It is nothing less, nothing more.
It is not a part of it, nor is a part of it somewhere, else.
It is composed of members each in his part, and all equal in authority.
It can meet when and where it pleases, in or out of doors.
It has Christ for its head, and the Holy Spirit for its heart.
No man or men can exercise authority over it.
No member in it has any authority.
The authority is in the body when convened.
What it binds or looses, is bound or loosed in heaven.
There is no authority like this under the heavens.
It is Christ’s executive on the earth, and he has no other.
All of this and more can only be said of a Baptist church.
I heard a preacher say that he thanked God he did not belong to the church of Christ, but to a branch of the same. I thank God that I do belong to the church of God, and not to a branch of the same.
Did members at Jerusalem, Rome, Corinth, Philippi, etc., belong to the church of God, or to a branch of the same?
Every Baptist church is The Church of God, and not a branch of the same.
Every branch has a trunk that bears it, and severed from the trunk, it is fit for nothing but to burn. Where is the trunk of these branch churches? Rome is the trunk of Protestant branches; but Rome has cut off all these branches and consigned them to the fires of hell. If Rome is the heaven ordained trunk, then it had authority to bind and loose, to remit or retain sins, and that means to save or to damn. And that is what it claims. How can a man thank God that he belongs to a branch of such a trunk? Can a branch be better than the trunk that bore it? Shame on such church pride! A Baptist church is not a branch of that trunk, nor any other trunk. It is the thing itself, all to itself. Its members live in Christ, the vine. He is life to the members, but head to the church. The member gets life from the vine, while the church gets authority from its head. Others get life from sacraments and works, and authority from men. I glory in the church of God.
26. With others, church and denomination mean the same thing. The Methodist church is the Methodist denomination, whether taken as a whole or in its several parts. The Methodist Church South is the Methodist denomination South. And so, more or less, with all others.
But not at all so with the Baptists. We cry aloud against a denominational church. With others the denominational church is all—with us it is nothing. It has no doctrines, no officers, no government, no meeting place, no mission and no commission. It never did anything, never will, never can.
If all Baptists living could meet in one place, it would not be a church, because it could not be organized. As each person would be entitled to an equal voice in all matters, and equal authority in all things, the multitude would defeat every object for which a church meets. Such a church meeting would be as impracticable as the denomination is inconceivable. All the statistics that could be gathered of Baptists would leave many out. They are a host that can not be numbered. Many are numbered with other people. They are Baptists, but no one knows them.
Of course, they are out of place, as Baptists often are, or God would not be calling on them to come out. And we doubtless have some numbered with us who are not Baptists. Wish we could exchange prisoners, as all such must be. Would be glad to give ten for one.
27. A Baptist church is composed of volunteers associated in a ngregational effort, each member in equal authority, and each church, complete in itself and independent of all other churches and of all outside authorities. Thus it was in the beginning.
Hence, church fellowship is founded on a common experience of grace, and common responsibility in worship, work, labor, sacrifice, doctrine,and authority.
Denominational fellowship is to be found in the comity of churches or individual concern for the welfare of all the churches instead of all Baptists. A member who is indifferent to the welfare of his own church must be indifferent to the general welfare of all the churches. If the hand or eye or foot respond not to the demands of the body of which it is a member, how can it respond to humanity in general?
If any charity begins at home, this is the charity. If one has no self-respect, what cares he for other people? If we love not those whom we know and see, how can we love those we never saw? This loving all God’s people alike is fanatical foolishness and ludicrous lunacy. A man that fellowships his own church will be a well-wisher of all other like churches because all are engaged in the same cause.
Individual association is for the church’s good, and church association is for the general good. If all the members were loyal to the church’s good, then the churches would be loyal to the denominational good, which with us can only mean the common good of all the churches.
Hence, one must begin with individual loyalty to his church. No one is loyal to what he lightly esteems. Proper esteem compels loyalty. One who properly esteems his family or country would die for them and so of the church.
A Baptist should fellowship a Baptist not so much for his personal qualities as for his ecclesiastical qualities-he is a member of the body or church of Christ-both members of the same body or church or a similar body. or church. So Baptists should have ecclesiastical rather than denominational pride.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
If you knew what a church was in your Bible, yes.
THE EKKLESIA OR ASSEMBLY OF CHRIST.
The English word church comes from the Greek word kuriakon, which means "of or belonging to the Lord." Kuriakon occurs only two times in the Greek New Testament. It is used of the Lord's Supper (I Cor.ll:20), and of the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10).
It is never translated church in the New Testament. Kuriakon was used by the early Greek Christians for the Lord's house or meeting place. The Teutonic tribes, when converted to Christianity, adopted this Greek word for their house of worship. It is found in the German Kirche, the Scottish Kirk, and the Anglo-Saxon Circe. The Greeks never employed kuriakon for the people, but only for the house.
In using the word ekklesia Christ did not coin a new word, but a word in current use and easily understood by both Jew and Greek. He did not employ the word kuriakon, but ekklesia which can only refer to people, a people called out to form an assembly. In response to Peter's confession of His deity, Christ said, "Thou art Peter (petrol) and upon this rock (petra) I will build MY ekklesia (assembly)." Matt 16:18. He thus distinguished between His assembly and other assemblies. Paul makes the same distinction in his letter to the Thessalonians. He writes to the ekklesia which is in God the Father (this distinguishes it from the Greek political assembly), and "in the Lord Jesus Christ," which also distinguishes it from the Jewish synagogue. In this way Paul made sure that his letter would reach the right assembly.
In the Greek New Testament the noun ekklesia occurs 115 times. It is translated church 112 times and assembly three times. The word church actually occurs 113 times in our King James Bible, but in Acts 19:37 it is not ekklesia but the word
for temples. The King James translators tried to use church for ekklesia in all cases, but in Acts 19:32, 39, 41 to do so would have been manifestly absurd; and so in these instances they had to give the correct rendering; ASSEMBLY.
Christ Himself set us the pattern for the use of the word ekklesia. In Matt. 16:18 when He said, "I will build my church (ekklesia)." He used the word abstractly of an institution, without defining, particularizing, or locating it. Just as we speak of the American home, the American boy, and other institutions without referring to any particular home or boy. In Matt. 18:17 our Lord used the word ekklesia (assembly) in the concrete sense of a particular assembly to which one might tell his grievances.
And so when Christ's ekklesia, as an institution, becomes concrete and operational it is an actual assembly of His followers in organized capacity. It is a visible organization seems necessary inasmuch as it is composed of visible people. J. W. Porter says, "If there is any other sort of church than that of a visible congregation, revelation and investigation have alike failed to locate its whereabouts or define its functions. Such an inconceivable, intangible, invisible concern as the imaginary invisible church has never been known to convert anybody or to perform any functions of an actual church."
When Christ said,
"Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell (hades) shall not prevail against it," Matt 16:18. He was speaking of the church prospectively something to be built "I will build."
The church was a concept in the mind of Christ just as the building is a concept in the mind of the architect before it is erected. Christ saw all the material that was to make up this holy sanctuary, every living stone that would go into it, before it had been quarried from the hard rock of sinful humanity. "Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it
to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27).
And so the church Christ founded to build the church for which He died, is promised perpetuity and glory.
The church of Christ as an institution finds expression in two kinds of assemblies: the local assembly here on earth; and the assembly of Firstborn ones, now enrolled in heaven and to be gathered there as a glorious church. Heb. 12:23.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Jesus Built His.
The Great Whore Adulterated hers.
The Harlot daughters came out of her.
Jesus Christ's churches may be identified:
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/hisel.bapt.hst.ntbk.chpt2.html
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
The word "church" means assembly.
The Lord said He would build "His" (My) church.
This was to distinguish it from all other kinds of assemblies.
He built His "kind" of assembly.
That which distinguishes His from all the rest are the doctrines He gave to it.
Those doctrinal peculiarities make it His kind of church.
What are those marks or doctrinal peculiarities?
Dr. J. R. Graves in his book "Old Landmarkism" lists seven.
Dr. Clarence Walker, in his introduction to the "Trail of Blood" (page 5) lists seven.
Dr. D. B. Ray, in his "Baptist Succession"
[p. 8]
lists seven. To these could be added or subtracted, depending on the historian and what his purpose might be. Where one would list two doctrines under one head the next may list them separately. I will list eight but treat primarily three in this Notebook.
(1) The church's Head and Founder is Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18; Colossians 1:18).
(2) Its only rule of faith and practice is the Bible (II Timothy 3:15-17).
(3) Its members are to be only saved people (Acts 2:41).
(4) Its government is congregational (Acts 1:23-26 - equality).
(5) Its teaching on salvation is that it is by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).
(6) It has but two ordinances; Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and these are symbolic (Matthew 28:19-20; I Corinthians 11:24).
(7) Its commission is inclusive (Matthew 28:16-20).
(8) It is independent (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 22:21).
Wherever, in history, in whatever age, you find churches teaching these doctrines, you have a Baptist church, no matter what name it may go by.
It matters not if we cannot, from church to church, trace it back to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.
The succession is there but records may hinder or stop our search.
What it teaches is the important thing.
Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church
so He guaranteed perpetuity.
Chapter 2: The Churches of Christ the Stewards of the Faith
This letter was addressed to the churches of Galatia, the Stewards of the manifold, grace of God. They were instructed how to manage the trust committed to them.
If there were saints in Galatia not in the churches, they were left out, as all such will be when Christ comes to gather his jewels.
The Bride will be made up of the elect and select, who were the faithful collect.
The Galatian churches were clearly recognized as the Stewards of the Faith.
The letter to the Ephesians is supposed by some to justify the belief that Christ has a universal church, visible or invisible.
I don’t see how this can possibly be. Acts 20:17 and 28, just noticed, with Ephesians 2:17-19; and 3:15, as read in the Revision;
with the whole of chapter four, make it impossible for me to interpret 5:23-33 in any different way.
It is common to speak of a wife or husband, father or mother, horse or lion, jury or Sunday-school, as the church is there spoken of; that is, generically, one of a species, comprehending all in the species.
The church at Ephesus is so spoken of in Acts 20:28.
A universal church, visible or invisible, must have organization and officers and doctrine and government, or it can do nothing.
Such a church could not be a steward of anything. It never meets to consult about anything and has no officers to execute anything. This senseless error about a universal church has deceived more people and wasted more energy and begot more bigotry than perhaps any other deceitful device of the devil. I don’t want everybody scattered over the whole creation, living, dead, and yet unborn, to administer on my estate.
What is everybody’s business is nobody’s business.
Everybody’s responsibility destroys individual responsibility. individual obligation to the church and church responsibility to Christ constitute the head and heart and hands and heels of my subject.
The Stewardship of the Faith is in the church; each church, every church;
and as Christ is the head of every man, so is he the head of every church.
Not denominational, sectional, state or universal church, for Christ has none such, and I am sure he would not have. They are not worth having.
All the good that can be done must be done by individual, or cooperative, i.e., congregational effort.
"The Church of God" is a congregation.
The expression "Church of God" occurs twelve times, and any man, though blind in one eye and purblind in the other, can see it so in every case.
The lion is a ferocious beast; every lion is a ferocious beast, but all lions are not a ferocious beast. That is an inconceivable conception; an unsupportable supposition and an unspeakable superstition. The executive ability is in the real beast and not in the unreal buster. So of the horse, man, jury, church, etc.
An individual father may rule well his own house and his own children, but a universal father, with universal wife and children, whether visible or invisible, would be as great a travesty as a universal bishop over a universal church.
"The house of God, which is the church of the living God, is the pillar and ground of the truth."
That means the church is the Stewardship of the Faith.
Ephesians 2:19-22—Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;
21 In whom every building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.
All buildings can’t be conceived of as one building, nor all churches as one church.
This applies to the church at Ephesus and to every other church.
Christ built just such a church,
"to the intent that unto principalities and authorities in heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God."
This is again Church-Stewardship of the Faith. The church is offensive as well as defensive. The keeping or guarding or defending and earnestly contending implies danger and opposition and persecution, and the church is what has been persecuted, and what the gates of Hades have tried to prevail against."
The dragon was wroth with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed (left from previous persecutions) and which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev. 12:17).
"Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:1-2).
Thus we see that where the Principle of Stewardship is taught, that the churches are the stewards, and the members and officers, each in his part, being dutiful to the church, enables the church to fulfill its responsibility to Christ.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
THE SCRIPTURAL ADMINISTRATOR OF BAPTISM
from https://www.grace-ebooks.com/library/C. D. Cole/CDC_Vol 3 Definitions of Doctrine.pdf
Who is to authorize the believer's baptism? This question reverts back to the question to whom or to what was the commission given? It was given to something, an institution that would be perpetuated until the end of the age.
It was spoken to the apostles, not as individuals but as representatives of the church. And so the church is to make disciples, baptize disciples, and teach disciples what God has commanded to be observed or practiced.
The believer must be received by the church; he unites with and his baptism must be authorized by the same church.
Only a church of Christ--a Scriptural church can execute the commission to baptize. And so every group of Christians must prove itself to be a Scripturally constituted church before it can Scripturally execute Christ's command. Until the time of the reformation beginning with Luther, there were widely scattered churches, each a little democracy in contrast to the Roman hierarchy with a human head.
These scattered churches were called Anabaptists because they insisted on baptizing all who came to them from the Roman hierarchy.
The name Anabaptists was applied to them because they were charged with rebaptizing those who came to them from Rome. They rejected the name and claimed that those they baptized had never been baptized.
The early conflict was not over the mode of baptism because the Roman Catholic hierarchy immersed for several centuries. The issue was over the authority to baptize. None but a Scriptural Church has authority to baptize, for the command to baptize was given to the church that would be in existence from the days of Christ to the end of the age.
The strongest argument that Baptist Churches represent the institution to whom the commission was given is the witness or testimony of those who are not Baptists.
Mosheim, the Lutheran historian writes: "The true origin of that sect which acquired the name of Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is, consequently, extremely difficult to be ascertained."
The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge has his to say: "The Baptist's, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mednonnites, were the original Waldenses, and have long in the history of the church received the honor of that origin."
On this account, the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the apostle's, and which has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel through all the ages."
Greek word for sprinkling: Rhantizo: I Peter 1:2 "of the blood of Jesus" Hebrews 12:24; "blood of sprinkling" Hebrews 10:22; "hearts sprinkled... and bodies washed in pure water." THE DIDACHE: An ancient Christian document, referred to as the "Teaching of the twelve Apostles," written in Greek and dealing with the organization, belief, and worship in the early church. Its date is probably between 120 and 150 A.D. and is thought to have originated in Egypt or Syria. It was found in 1873 in an 11th century manuscript in the Monastery of the Holy Sepulchre in Istanbul.
Composed of two parts:
1. A description of the Two Ways, one of life, the other death, in the form of rules for Christian conduct.
2. Deals with the rites of baptism and Lord's Supper and defines the office and duties of Christian leaders. The Didache; Here for the first time pouring (Greek-ekcneo) is used for baptism (baptizo). We give the translation by Philip Schaff, a Presbyterian:
"Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into (eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, in living water, and if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water). But if thou hast neither, pour water thrice upon the head in (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Analysis: This is actually saying, baptize (immerse) in any kind of water; living, cold or warm, but if this is impossible because lack of sufficient water, then ekcheo (pour) water three times upon the head in the name of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. It is actually saying if you can't baptize in water then pour water on the head. Here we have the first error in baptism which was in the design resulting in a change in mode.
Because it was thought that water had power to regenerate it had to be applied in some way to the individual. It is not known who wrote this ancient document. Baptizo is the Greek word for baptism and is never used for anything but immersion. Ekcheo is never used for baptism.
Jesus said that upon that "rock" He would build His Church.
Any church built upon that "rock" is a true church, whether it came into being in the first or twenty first century.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Plenty think they are.
They have any number of ways of 'salvation' and persecute the real followers of Jesus.
What or who do you believe this "rock" to be?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
From SIMMONS- THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
1. VARIOUS FALSE CONCEPTIONS OF THE CHURCH
(1) The Roman Catholic Conception.
Roman Catholics believe that the church is a world-wide, hierarchal organism under the visible headship of the pope at Rome. J. F. Noll, editor of "Our Sunday Visitor," of Huntington, Indiana, in "The Fairest Argument," likens the church to a tree, and says: "The leaves represent the Catholic laity throughout the entire world. They are in direct communion with their respective parish priests (the smaller branches of the mystic tree). The priests, in their turn, are in direct communion with their bishops, that is, the larger branches. And all the bishops are in direct and constant communion with the Sovereign Pontiff, that is, the trunk, or stem, of the entire tree."
Sometimes Roman Catholics expand their conception of the church so as to make it include "all the faithful who have existed from Adam up to the present day, or who shall exist to the end of time" (Catechism of the Council, as put forth in 1566).
(2) The National Conception.
This is exemplified in the "Church of England," a national institution with the King of England as its head.
(3) The Denominational Conception.
We hear of the "Methodist Episcopal Church," Then there is the "Presbyterian Church in the United States." And some people, ignorant of Baptist polity, speak of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention as the "Southern Baptist Church."
(4) The Universal Conception.
A very popular notion is that the church is composed of all the saved throughout the world at any given time or of all saved people that have ever lived, whether now living or dead. Thus the church is conceived of as being universal and invisible.
(5) The Aggregate Conception.
All churches and religious groups, taken in the aggregate, are sometimes spoken of as "the church" in distinction from the world.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH
There is much controversy regarding the meaning of "rock" in the words of Christ, "Upon this rock I will build my church."
The Roman Catholics and others take the rock to be Peter. But the difference in gender and exact meaning between "Petros" translated Peter, and "petra" translated rock makes this idea untenable. In classical Greek the distinction is generally observed (see "petra" in Thayer's Lexicon), "petra" meaning "the massive living rock," and "petros" meaning "a detached, but large fragment."
Others take "petra" as meaning the faith of Peter; still others Peter's confession.
We regard Christ here as using a play upon words. We take "petra" as referring to Christ divinely revealed and implanted in the hearts of men (Col. 1:27). We think this interpretation is borne out by 1 Cor. 3:11. This passage speaks of the foundation of the church at Corinth. This foundation had been laid by the preaching of the gospel and the divine revelation and implanting of Christ in the heart.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
X. THE PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH
The author holds that Matt. 16:18 guarantees the perpetuity of local churches. He believes, as already, indicated, that "church" in this passage refers to the church as an institution, expressing itself in local bodies.
The word translated "build" (oikodomeo) means "build up," and is often translated "edify." Christ was here talking, we believe, about the perpetual building up of His church, by means of which it would be kept alive; just as the human body is kept alive by being constantly built up, worn out cells being replaced.
"Hades" (which is the Greek word brought over into English) does not allude distinctly to the place of torment; but to the realm of the dead or abode of the departed. "Gates" signify entrance. We take it therefore, that Christ was saying, that His church would not be swallowed up in the realm of the dead, would not die, in other words; because he would build it up perpetually.
The author believes this promise has been carried out. In the second century many churches drifted away from the New Testament pattern. A break between these and most of the true churches came about the middle of the second century. The true churches came to be known mainly as Montanists. Later these true churches were known by such other names as Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. As early as the third century the general name of Anabaptists was given to these churches. This name means "rebaptizers." It was given because these churches refused to recognize the baptism administered by the false churches. Finally the prefix "ana" was dropped and the simple name "Baptist" was left.
It is not maintained that any of the churches under the various names given were perfect, or that there were not some called by these various names that were false. But it is maintained that these groups, in the main, held the essentials of New Testament faith.
I think he is stating that if a church deviates from baptist teachings at all, not a NT church, so No Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, etc!
Things such as type of Church government and mode of Baptism are NOT primary!
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
The briefest compendium of distinctions that identify "A New Testament" church are:
(1) The church's Head and Founder is Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18; Colossians 1:18).
(2) Its only rule of faith and practice is the Bible (II Timothy 3:15-17).
(3) Its members are to be only saved people (Acts 2:41).
(4) Its government is congregational (Acts 1:23-26 - equality).
(5) Its teaching on salvation is that it is by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).
(6) It has but two ordinances; Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and these are symbolic (Matthew 28:19-20; I Corinthians 11:24).
(7) Its commission is inclusive (Matthew 28:16-20).
(8) It is independent (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 22:21).
Wherever, in history, in whatever age, you find churches teaching these doctrines, you have a Baptist church, no matter what name it may go by.
While, a deviation from these 8 would put into question the soundness of that organization, Scripturally.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
To who?
EPHESIANS 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,…
If the 8 distinctions are not present there is no church of The Lord Jesus, as He Commands in The New Testament and "unto God be Glory in the church..."
Protestantism says it doesn't matter.
They got that from their Mother, the Catholics, along with their authority, which is none.
Men say it doesn't matter and they are following 'churches' built by men.
A man sent from God to baptize meant enough for Jesus to walk 40 miles to be baptized by him.
If having Ichabod written on the doorpost of your mam-made religious institution doesn't matter to you, so be it.
The Lord's churches and baptism mean enough to Him to distinguish who Love His Word and who could care less, like any other apostates.
if a sinner has been saved, does it really matter to the Lord how Baptized or how church was ran?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
The 'rock' is not your Home Office
Did the Tabernacle matter to God, in any detail at all?
Get some religion.
I agree. The "rock" is not anyone's home office.
Others say the "rock" is their church, their leader, their cult, their "home office".
But what, or who, do you say this "rock" is?
It isn't a difficult question (or, perhaps "it shouldn't be a difficult question" , is more appropriate).