Did not Paul have a similar view when concerning a home were one partner became a believer?
The believers are light and salt in a community when they follow the principles of the Scriptures.
-
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!
Corporate Faith?
- Thread starter AustinC
- Start date
- Status
The believers are light and salt in a community when they follow the principles of the Scriptures.
unprofitable
Active Member
If you thought I was saying that church membership saved, you read too much into my post. My statement that a mixed multitude was in the church should have been sufficient to clarify that for you. If church membership or baptism saved, why did it not save the false brethren in Jude 1:4 and Gal 2:4?
We do not in any sense believe that church membership saves or constitutes corporate salvation. However, we do believe that
church membership constitutes covenant positioning and all those who truly are made alive will receive it. This is evidenced by the witness that Paul gives to the church at Corinth in 1 Cor 12:18, "But now hath God set the members EVERYONE (without exception) in the BODY, as it has pleased. In the context of his chapter, do you see the body of which he speaks catholic universal and invisible or Baptist literal, local, and visible? The latter I hope. I will also ask what can a universal invisible church ever do?
There are certain actions that only a body of Christ can perform therefore they require a corporate faith. Faith in that the actions performed by that body accomplishes the will of God. Here are a few examples.
1-Baptism and resulting church covenant positioning/membership. We would never baptize a person who said they did not want to be a member of our church afterward.
2-The Lord's supper and subsequent bringing to remembrance the work of Christ that he might save his people from their sins and the resulting blessings that accompany that salvation. (Jn 17:3).
3-Church discipline and its purging leaven from the lump that it might be a new lump. Sometimes those members spoken of in 1 Cor 12:18 must be excluded or corrected. This pruning is to make the body more fruitful.
These are just a few but all require a faith that they are new covenant commandments given by Christ to his people and they are to keep them.. (Jn 14:15,21, Eze 36:24-27)
We do not in any sense believe that church membership saves or constitutes corporate salvation. However, we do believe that
church membership constitutes covenant positioning and all those who truly are made alive will receive it. This is evidenced by the witness that Paul gives to the church at Corinth in 1 Cor 12:18, "But now hath God set the members EVERYONE (without exception) in the BODY, as it has pleased. In the context of his chapter, do you see the body of which he speaks catholic universal and invisible or Baptist literal, local, and visible? The latter I hope. I will also ask what can a universal invisible church ever do?
There are certain actions that only a body of Christ can perform therefore they require a corporate faith. Faith in that the actions performed by that body accomplishes the will of God. Here are a few examples.
1-Baptism and resulting church covenant positioning/membership. We would never baptize a person who said they did not want to be a member of our church afterward.
2-The Lord's supper and subsequent bringing to remembrance the work of Christ that he might save his people from their sins and the resulting blessings that accompany that salvation. (Jn 17:3).
3-Church discipline and its purging leaven from the lump that it might be a new lump. Sometimes those members spoken of in 1 Cor 12:18 must be excluded or corrected. This pruning is to make the body more fruitful.
These are just a few but all require a faith that they are new covenant commandments given by Christ to his people and they are to keep them.. (Jn 14:15,21, Eze 36:24-27)
I like your thinking, but have a couple questions.
In point 1,
Would you consider it appropriate to baptize a traveler who was brought to Christ, wanted baptism but was not a resident? Example, Ethiopian whom Philip baptized.
Point 2,
Would one visiting the assembly also be able to partake?
Example Paul, He was a traveling tent maker, and, other then Antioch, perhaps had no specific church assembly membership.
Again, I am not questioning your presentation, but desiring to know your opinion on these points.
Yes, you can read the scope of your choice into the ambiguous text. (1) All the people, (2) all the supposedly chosen people, or (3) some of the people. However, the least God is saying is (3) some of the people. To go beyond that is to add to scripture via speculation.
Read Hebrews 9, which tells us that God wrote the names of everyone who receives the Inheritance into the New Covenant. Each individual name is written by the one making the Covenant (Will). The names are known only by the one making the Covenant. When these people of the promise come together their faith is joined in corporate action, exactly as God has ordained.
This is not speculation. This is evidenced by scripture itself.
unprofitable
Active Member
Bro agedman,
Thank you for your questions. I find that I sometimes do not go into sufficient depth to clarify my position. When I am questioned, it helps me to be more specific regarding a certain point.
My point in our refusing to baptize someone who refused to become a member our church is aimed at someone who believes that baptism is simply optional. Christ did not leave it optional to his church but commanded them (Mt 28:19) to exercise that ordinance that only they had authority to administer. Since authority is given to the church (Lu 9:1), it no longer is in the hands nor does the decision belong to the individual. Not only is the command to baptize contained in Mt 28:18 but also to immerse in the doctrines of the new covenant which reveals the only true God (Jn 17:3). Since we believe that the Holy Spirit is given to the church, it is where we must abide in Christ in order to come to this knowledge and manifold knowledge (Eph 3:10) of his works for his people. Therefore, a person refusing baptism also refuses church covenant membership and denies church authority. We do not believe that someone who would take such a position has come to a sufficient knowledge of what salvation truly constitutes.
The Ethiopian treasurer was a proselyte as evidenced by the verse in Acts 8:27 saying, "...had come to Jerusalem for to worship." This verse proves he was not ignorant of the scriptures and was under the old covenant teaching. Philp went into great depth in teaching which resulted in the treasurer desiring baptism. It would seem that either he was joined to the church at Antioch or because of the caravan of people traveling with him, he and the people accompanying him, as Cornelius and his house, the Phillipian jailer and his house, or Lydia with her house, became a new body of Christ.
If a visitor came to Christ while with us and desired to be baptized but wanted membership at another church we would, presuming that church was of like faith and practice, baptize them and make them a member of our body. At a later date when they returned home, we would transfer their membership to that like-minded body by letter.
The question regarding Paul is even more difficult. It is difficult to believe that, given Paul's extensive travels, he would have gone many years without observing the Lord's supper before returning to Antioch. It is the practice of some Baptist churches to direct the evangelist to baptize the initial members of the new assembly into the parent church until they have sufficient members to continue on their own. If this were the case, Paul, as a member at Antioch, would have been authorized to observe the Lord's supper with the new members. After they became a new body, he would no longer be authorized to do so.
Regardless, we as a body of Christ at Monarch, do not practice open communion.
May the Lord lead us unto all truth.
Thank you for your questions. I find that I sometimes do not go into sufficient depth to clarify my position. When I am questioned, it helps me to be more specific regarding a certain point.
My point in our refusing to baptize someone who refused to become a member our church is aimed at someone who believes that baptism is simply optional. Christ did not leave it optional to his church but commanded them (Mt 28:19) to exercise that ordinance that only they had authority to administer. Since authority is given to the church (Lu 9:1), it no longer is in the hands nor does the decision belong to the individual. Not only is the command to baptize contained in Mt 28:18 but also to immerse in the doctrines of the new covenant which reveals the only true God (Jn 17:3). Since we believe that the Holy Spirit is given to the church, it is where we must abide in Christ in order to come to this knowledge and manifold knowledge (Eph 3:10) of his works for his people. Therefore, a person refusing baptism also refuses church covenant membership and denies church authority. We do not believe that someone who would take such a position has come to a sufficient knowledge of what salvation truly constitutes.
The Ethiopian treasurer was a proselyte as evidenced by the verse in Acts 8:27 saying, "...had come to Jerusalem for to worship." This verse proves he was not ignorant of the scriptures and was under the old covenant teaching. Philp went into great depth in teaching which resulted in the treasurer desiring baptism. It would seem that either he was joined to the church at Antioch or because of the caravan of people traveling with him, he and the people accompanying him, as Cornelius and his house, the Phillipian jailer and his house, or Lydia with her house, became a new body of Christ.
If a visitor came to Christ while with us and desired to be baptized but wanted membership at another church we would, presuming that church was of like faith and practice, baptize them and make them a member of our body. At a later date when they returned home, we would transfer their membership to that like-minded body by letter.
The question regarding Paul is even more difficult. It is difficult to believe that, given Paul's extensive travels, he would have gone many years without observing the Lord's supper before returning to Antioch. It is the practice of some Baptist churches to direct the evangelist to baptize the initial members of the new assembly into the parent church until they have sufficient members to continue on their own. If this were the case, Paul, as a member at Antioch, would have been authorized to observe the Lord's supper with the new members. After they became a new body, he would no longer be authorized to do so.
Regardless, we as a body of Christ at Monarch, do not practice open communion.
May the Lord lead us unto all truth.
The names are written when enrolled in the general assembly, not before being chosen through faith in the truth. This is not speculation. This is evidenced by scripture itself.
You can deny scripture (Hebrews 12:23) till the cows come home, but the church of the first born refers to those belonging to Christ.
Christ being the first born certainly did have and has those who belong to Him which is the Bride.
Perhaps you neglect to consider is that prior to Christ’s coming and earthly death, Hebrews 9 remarks how the old believers were preserved and waiting for the pure sacrifice from heaven. This is as @AustinC has been showing.
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood….
23It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. …
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
So, both of you are correct.
Why would I deny any scripture?
Let's look:
Hebrews 12:22-24,28
No, you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to countless thousands of angels in a joyful gathering. You have come to the assembly of God’s firstborn children, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God himself, who is the judge over all things. You have come to the spirits of the righteous ones in heaven who have now been made perfect. You have come to Jesus, the one who mediates the new covenant between God and people, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks of forgiveness instead of crying out for vengeance like the blood of Abel.
Since we are receiving a Kingdom that is unshakable, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
Van, I love this passage. It expresses the truth that when we assemble in our local "embassy" (church), we join with all the Kingdom, both past and present as well as all the holy ones, in communal worship of our King. All the names of the elect are written down as citizens of the Kingdom of God. What a glorious truth. It is one of many reasons that I love going to church.
Do you grasp the fullness of what the speaker is declaring to his audience? Do you see how encouraging these words are to every believer?
Totally off topic diversion, no one claimed the NT believers preceded the OT believers, only that the OT believers had to wait to be made perfect until after Christ died. Not really too difficult to grasp...
Lets see - because you reject 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where individuals are chosen for salvation through faith (a conditional election).
You reject 1 Timothy 2:6 where Christ died as a ransom for all.
You reject 1 Timothy 2:4 where God desires all people to be saved.
You reject Matthew 23:13 where people were prevented from entering the kingdom because of false teaching.
You reject Romans 4:16 which teaches our faith is according to grace, thus not works of righteous merit.
I could go on and on...
You could go on...
You would be wrong every time.
Simple, quote each place where I reject a Bible verse. Since you made the assertion, you are personally responsible to show me exactly where I reject these verses.
Be honest, I reject your interpretation of verses. Why? Because you consistently ignore context. Look at your claim, in each case, you pick one verse, yet you ignore all the verses surrounding. Why? Why is it so hard for you to see the forest of God's word to the point that you misidentify the tree?
I believe you owe me an apology here because you assert something about me that you cannot show in any way, shape, or form.
Quote me rejecting the verses you picked. If you cannot, then you have not been truthful and you should apologize.
That is your opinion expressing itself without offering support.
While in paradise, did they posses bodies, and were these bodies less than perfect?
Certainly, for the rich man in torment recognized Lazarus, though there is no mention that Lazarus was aware of the rich man.
From whence came these glorified bodies?
Does not the Scripture state that believers are new creatures created in Christ?
Where not all in paradise believers in the promised messiah?
Therefore, the Scriptures do not support your opinion.
Calvinists deny their Calvinist doctrine...
Lets see - because Calvinists reject 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where individuals are chosen for salvation through faith (a conditional election).
Calvinists reject 1 Timothy 2:6 where Christ died as a ransom for all.
Calvinists reject 1 Timothy 2:4 where God desires all people to be saved.
Calvinists reject Matthew 23:13 where people were prevented from entering the kingdom because of false teaching.
Calvinists reject Romans 4:16 which teaches our faith is according to grace, thus not works of righteous merit.
I could go on and on...
Yet another subject change from those denying the lost have an opportunity during their lifetime to be saved through faith.
Once again we see "the same old insults" used to deflect away from scriptural truth:
Lets see - because Calvinists reject 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where individuals are chosen for salvation through faith (a conditional election).
Calvinists reject 1 Timothy 2:6 where Christ died as a ransom for all.
Calvinists reject 1 Timothy 2:4 where God desires all people to be saved.
Calvinists reject Matthew 23:13 where people were prevented from entering the kingdom because of false teaching.
Calvinists reject Romans 4:16 which teaches our faith is according to grace, thus not works of righteous merit.
I could go on and on...
But why because here they are again, the same old insults: Your generalization, you have no understanding, your claims illegitimate, you are off topic, your own self constructed boogeyman. Not one, not even one, verse rejected by Calvinism is addressed. See a pattern?
- Status