Help me with your definition of "cult"

[Baptistgal]

What difference does it make? Who cares if one person calls a specific group a cult or just says they disagree? If you know what the Bible says, than you know who to agree with.....why get so worked up over the word "cult"?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Baptistgal:
What difference does it make? Who cares if one person calls a specific group a cult or just says they disagree? If you know what the Bible says, than you know who to agree with.....why get so worked up over the word "cult"?

What difference does it make? Here is what Jesus said:

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Paul said:
Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Jesus said, though they will call me "Lord, Lord." I will say unto them, "I never knew you, depart from me."

Paul said if they preach another gospel, therefore let them be accursed.

It does matter. They are false teachers leading others to Hell by preaching a false gospel. We are to warn others of this cult lest they fall into their pernicious ways. We are to pray for them that are in this cult that they may come out of it and understand what the gospel is, that they also may be saved. Works does not save a person. Only the blood of Jesus Christ washes away sin (1John 5:7). Not tongues; not baptism--trusting in Jesus and his atoning work--that is all.
DHK

 

[Mitsy]

It matters because oftentimes unchurched people or those seeking a new church might think that the UPC (and those denominations like it) are just another church group or denomination. What a lot of people don't know (until they are in such a group) is that they are very exclusionary (cultish if you will), thinking that THEY are the only ones who are saved, going to heaven, etc. The message that they are the only ones with the truth is sometimes plainly seen by people and sometimes it is a subliminal message that comes through after you've been attending for a period of time (like my own situation). By the time you realize that something isn't quite biblical here, you have made friends and bonds that are hard to break or sometimes hard to maintain. Some UPC (or other Pentecostal groups) even shun people who leave the faith--even if they attend another Bible based church. Thankfully, that did not happen to me, but it does happen. People need to know the truth about some of these organizations. I frequently post on another board: http://www.ex-pentecostals.org/

Although never fully a member, I now understand more of some of the emotional/spiritual abuse that goes on in some churches. I believe it is a far cry from what Christ's message is about.

 

[GREG S]

DHK,
It is quite common for independent baptists to
require someone coming into their church to be
rebaptised if they are not sure of that person's
previous church association and validity of their
baptism. While I do not believe that baptism saves
or washes away sins, I certainly believe it is an
ordinance to be administered by the church as part of the authority given to her by her Redeemer. It is not a take it or leave it proposition as many baptists believe. I must ask, the ordinance of baptism, is it of heaven or men? If the ordinance is of men then why bother with it? If the ordinance,including the Lord's supper, is of heaven, then we better observe it.
Why would Christ command his people to follow his
commandments, of which baptism is one, then decide to change his mind and say it wasn't that important anyway. This line of reasoning creates a conflict for me. Baptism is the means by which one receives convenant identification with a baptist people and you will certainly not be saved without it. This neither adds nor takes away from grace. The commandment to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" includes believing on ALL the doctrines that Christ taught and was taught by the Father.
Greg

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GREG S:
DHK,
It is quite common for independent baptists to
require someone coming into their church to be
rebaptised if they are not sure of that person's
previous church association and validity of their
baptism. While I do not believe that baptism saves
or washes away sins, I certainly believe it is an
ordinance to be administered by the church as part of the authority given to her by her Redeemer. It is not a take it or leave it proposition as many baptists believe. I must ask, the ordinance of baptism, is it of heaven or men? If the ordinance is of men then why bother with it? If the ordinance,including the Lord's supper, is of heaven, then we better observe it.
Why would Christ command his people to follow his
commandments, of which baptism is one, then decide to change his mind and say it wasn't that important anyway. This line of reasoning creates a conflict for me. Baptism is the means by which one receives convenant identification with a baptist people and you will certainly not be saved without it. This neither adds nor takes away from grace. The commandment to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" includes believing on ALL the doctrines that Christ taught and was taught by the Father.
Greg

Baptism, as the Lord Supper, is indeed an ordinance commanded by the Lord to be kept by all Baptist churches. It is a Baptist distinctive, not required for salvation. It has nothing to do with one's salvation, but a step of obedience after salvation. Like many of the Lord's commands: witnessing, praying, fellowshipping with other believers, giving, etc., it is but one of the many commands that Christ has given to us. It has nothing to do with salvation. To say that it does is to succumb to the heresy of baptismal regeneration which the Oneness cult believes in. This takes away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ in making atonment for our sins. In effect it is like throwing dirt in the face of God, saying:

that His sacrifice is not good enough to forgive my sins, therefore I have to pay for them too. I have to pay for my sins by speaking in tongues and being baptized because Jesus was unable to pay that sacrifice himself. He wasn't able to do it.

That's not what I believe, and I hope it is not what you believe.
Baptism is important, as you say, but not important enough to be part of salvation. I don't know what you mean when you say it is the means by which we receive the "covenant" identification with the Baptist people. No it isn't. It may be the means by which we identify ourselves with the Baptists, but I did not make any covenant at that time. I am not a covenantal theologian, and even if I were, as far as I understand it a person entering into a covenantal relationship with Christ comes far before the time of baptism--it comes at salvation.

I used to be a Roman Catholic. I was saved when I was 20. But I didn't get baptized (in a Baptist church BTW), until two years later. I was still saved during those two years, whether I was baptized or not. Baptism had nothing to do with my salvation. If I were a member of the Oneness, or according to the Oneness, I was definitely not saved, because I was not baptized. This is the heresy. Had I died the day after I had been saved I would have gone to Hell because I was not baptized. Go figure!
DHK

 

[GREG S]

DHK,
You see salvation in individuality. God does not establish a covenant or salvation with an individual apart from a church people. While an individual must come and submit himself to a church and be convinced in himself that their doctrines are true, he cannot of his own self be saved apart from a body of Christ. The example everyone wants to use is that of God establishing the covenant with Abraham as a means of establishing individuality. God gave the covenant to Abraham and those of like faith, his seed according to the covenant. The word covenant is use at least 299 times in the scriptures so I don't think that God is using it just to fill up space. It is especially significant because it teaches us of the marriage relationship of Christ to his bride and the marriage vows. As I previously stated I do not believe baptism imparts salvation. I must still ask then if baptism is a directive given by God to the Baptist people, then is it necessary or not? And yes, you would have gone to hell because salvation, forgiveness of sins are given to a Baptist people. Would your baptist church accept the sprinkling of the roman catholics, methodists or presbetyrians? If so, you are the one who has slapped God in the face for throwing away your inheritance as being a baptist. If Christ himself gave the command to baptise, then you have usurped the authority of the very head of the church.
Greg

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GREG S:
DHK,
You see salvation in individuality.

Absolutely. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who loves me and saved me. My personal relationship exists with a living Saviour, not with a Baptist Church, even if I am the pastor of one. It is Christ that saves not the church. He saves individuals, not corporations. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord means exactly what it says. Whosover means who ever, or each and every individual, whether in or outside of a church that calls upon the name of the Lord (baptized or unbaptized) shall be saved.

God does not establish a covenant or salvation with an individual apart from a church people.

This is your opinion not based on Scripture. It remains unsubstantiated opinion, if not blatant heresy. Here is the truth:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God grants salvation:
1. apart from a covenant.
2. apart from a church.
3. apart from baptism.

He simply says: "Whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Fairly simple isn't it?

While an individual must come and submit himself to a church and be convinced in himself that their doctrines are true, he cannot of his own self be saved apart from a body of Christ.

Chapter and verse please??
If you are going to make such outlandish claims you had better be able to back it up with Scripture. Study 1Cor.15:1-4, where the gospel is defined by Paul. Paul says it is by this gospel that you are saved. There is none other. The thief was saved dying on a cross, not in a church. The Ethiopian Eunuch was saved crossing the desert, not in a church. Lydia, a seller of purple was saved by the riverside, not in a church. The philippian jailor was saved by the jail cell, not in a church. All of the above were saved without being baptized. The thief never had the chance to be baptized. And none were part of "a body of Christ" (in the strict baptist sense) when they were saved.

The example everyone wants to use is that of God establishing the covenant with Abraham as a means of establishing individuality. God gave the covenant to Abraham and those of like faith, his seed according to the covenant. The word covenant is use at least 299 times in the scriptures so I don't think that God is using it just to fill up space. It is especially significant because it teaches us of the marriage relationship of Christ to his bride and the marriage vows. As I previously stated I do not believe baptism imparts salvation. I must still ask then if baptism is a directive given by God to the Baptist people, then is it necessary or not?

No it is not necessary--for salvation. What you seem to be propagating here is the heresy of Replacement Theology, at least a very strange brand of it. You seem to be advocating that the "true" Baptists have inherited the covenantal promises of Abraham and have thus replaced the Jews. Consequently Baptism must be a replacement for circumcision, the sign of the covenant.
What ever your beliefs are they are messed up and unscriptural. You have yet to provide a shred of Biblical evidence to support your belief system. Where in the Bible does in even hint at the necessity of baptism being necessary for salvation. Your rationalization doesn't count. Give me Scripture, not opinion.

The covenant that was given to Abraham was given to Abraham and inherited by Isaac, and Jacob, and the nation of Israel. It is not a covenant given to the Gentiles. It is not a covenant given to the Christians. It will yet be fulfilled when Jesus comes again. We have already been partakers of some of the fruit of this covenant between Jehovah and Israel, but the covenant itself was never made with us. We are not the Israelites. If you think that you are, please tell us what tribe you come from.

And yes, you would have gone to hell because salvation, forgiveness of sins are given to a Baptist people.

Romans 9:19-20 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

You claim to know the mind of God, and my heart as well. That is as good as a claim to be God. Again, the Bible simply says:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
"Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."
And yet you condemn me to Hell because I was not baptized! Ludicrous. That shows to me that you have a great misunderstanding of some of the greatest themes of the Bible--soteriology being the most important.

Would your baptist church accept the sprinkling of the roman catholics, methodists or presbetyrians? If so, you are the one who has slapped God in the face for throwing away your inheritance as being a baptist.

No, we baptize by immersion only. We also rebaptize those who have been baptized unscripturally.

If Christ himself gave the command to baptise, then you have usurped the authority of the very head of the church.
Greg

Christ not only gave the command to baptize, he gave the command to evangelize. Which is more important in the mind of God?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

Paul thanked God that he didn't baptize any of the Corinthians. He further says:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

"Christ sent me not to baptize." Well then, baptism is not that important after all, is it? Paul didn't think it was. God had sent him to preach the gospel, not to baptize. He makes the differentiation himself.
DHK

 

[GREG S]

DHK,
Paul realized,as an apostle,that although he could baptize, that it was in the hands of the local assembly to perform this duty. Christ did not baptize but left it to his disciples to do so.
You have no shred of evidence that any of these people were not baptized. Paul,who received the direct revelation of Christ, certainly would have not disobeyed the commandment to baptize.
As for the thief on the cross or any of the others that you listed you have no proof that any of them did not have the baptism of John. These people were already convenantly identified Israelites who had John's baptism and were being prepared as a new covenant people. Just because some says "I've been saved",does not mean they will never fall into temptation and never sin. It does not mean he was unbaptised and apart from a covenantly identified people.The thief on the cross is no different than the man caught in adultery in corinthians. He was having his true savior revealed unto him. The ethiopian eunuch was reading the bible and going to Jerusalem to worship. He as already covenantly identified with Isreal or he would not have been going to Jerusalem to worship in the first place. Of course what I call salvation and what you call salvation are 2 different things. There is a rebirth that is given to a church people out from under the doctrinal lies taught in a covenant house. I therefore apply this to your question of which is more important, to evangelize or baptise. How can you make a difference. Both are commandments of Christ. If you evangelize and then teach them lies about the redeemer or teach them lies in order to fill your pews then what have you accomplished. The old testament is full of pastors teaching lies about who the self existent diety redeemer was. God said I did not send them neither did I tell them to speak. The same is true in the baptist house today. As God said in the OT, MY PEOPLE, the house of Israel if a rebellious house. If you cannot see the parallels and warning to the church from the old testament teachings, then you have not seen the body of Christ. If you cannot see Christ and the church going back to Adam and Eve, then you have not seen the body of Christ. And if all you see the church as, is as a corporation,you most certainly not seen the body of Christ. That is an ungodly statement. Neither do I ascribe to you doctrine that the promises are give to so called Israel in the middle east. The promises are given to the church, the body for which Christ died. As God told Moses, See thou build it exactly after the pattern that I have given you. He was speaking of the church in which we find in the new testament statment, If any man build thereon. What was he building there on but the pattern laid down from the very beginning, restated to Moses, and defined by Christ. Everything that Christ taught in the new testament is found in the old.
For it is written, I come in the volume of the books. He came after the pattern laid down in the old testament but being litterally manifested as the head of his body. As for your accusation of heresy, that an individual cannot have salvation apart from a body of Christ, did not the Lord say (according to the pattern)that in order to have forgiveness of sins that a man must come unto Israel to receive such? My statement seem pretty scriptural to me.
I must ask again? If baptism, as you say was not important to Paul, why do you baptize at all. If it is take it or leave it, if it is merely the commandments of men, even though Christ himself commanded it, why do it at all. You can't have it both way for to do so is hypocracy.
Greg

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GREG S:
DHK,
Paul realized,as an apostle,that although he could baptize, that it was in the hands of the local assembly to perform this duty. Christ did not baptize but left it to his disciples to do so.

A moot point. The church started at Pentecost. The disciples, were just that--disciples--not an "assembly" or church, baptizing individuals into a church.

You have no shred of evidence that any of these people were not baptized. Paul,who received the direct revelation of Christ, certainly would have not disobeyed the commandment to baptize.

"Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures..." (John 5:39). You still fail to provide Scripture to back up your position.

The jailor:
Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
--We believe that the jailor was saved at this point. Why would he tarry?

Acts 16:32-33 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
--Were they baptized? Absolutely! But only after they were saved.

The Ethiopian Eunuch:
Acts 8:36-37 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
--Here the Ethiopian Eunuch, in the middle of the desert makes a confession of faith, and is saved.

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
--After salvation the Eunuch was baptized--in the middle of the desert--no church in sight.

Lydia:
Acts 16:13-14 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
--Down by the riverside, with no church in sight, Lydia's heart was opened by the Spirit of God through the Word of God that Paul was preaching, and she was saved.

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
--In that same water, where there was no church, she was baptized--after her salvation--not as part of it.

The thief on the cross:
His call was to the Lord: "Lord, remember me
when thou comest into thy kingdom."
Jesus answered:
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Your explanation of these verses is typical Roman Catholic rationalization. In order to prove infant baptism the Roman Catholics must argue from silence which you have just done, saying that I have no proof that he wasn't baptized by John's baptism (and you can present proof that he was? ). When confronted with such a situation the Catholics go to Acts 16 where Paul says to the Jailer: you shall be saved, "and thy household," and then proceed to adamantly say that his household had infants. I counter saying that his household did not have infants, but that the Jailer had three sons (aged 21,23, and 26 respectively, and one married daughter that was 19). He had also 3 servants working for him. How do I know all this information? The same way that the Catholics know that there were infants in the household. It is an arguement from silence. It is the same way that you know that thief had John's baptism--an argument from silence. You cannot prove anything by arguing from silence. First, he was a thief, not a repentant believer. He was being crucified for the crimes that he had just committed, not had committed and had repented of, like Zaccheus did. Zaccheus (also a thief) made restitution; this thief did not. John required fruits of repentance before he would baptize anyone. Thus this man did not receive John's baptism. He was a thief, and as he hung on the cross was currently a thief, and admitted it to be so.

As for the thief on the cross or any of the others that you listed you have no proof that any of them did not have the baptism of John. These people were already convenantly identified Israelites who had John's baptism and were being prepared as a new covenant people. Just because some says "I've been saved",does not mean they will never fall into temptation and never sin. It does not mean he was unbaptised and apart from a covenantly identified people.The thief on the cross is no different than the man caught in adultery in corinthians. He was having his true savior revealed unto him. The ethiopian eunuch was reading the bible and going to Jerusalem to worship. He as already covenantly identified with Isreal or he would not have been going to Jerusalem to worship in the first place.

See above. I have just explained it all for you.

Of course what I call salvation and what you call salvation are 2 different things. There is a rebirth that is given to a church people out from under the doctrinal lies taught in a covenant house. I therefore apply this to your question of which is more important, to evangelize or baptise. How can you make a difference.

How can you not make a difference? Paul did. Jesus did. The book of Acts does.
What you call salvation is not what the Bible calls salvation. You have yet to use Scripture. You have yet to back up your beliefs with the Bible. Why should anyone on the board believe anything that you say when all that you offer is you opinion. Hindus offer opinions; Baptists offer the Word of God. What do you have to offer?

Paul said: I am not sent to baptize, drawing a distinction between salvation and baptism. He said" woe unto me if I preach not the gospel of Christ." That is what he was sent to do: Preach the gospel of Christ, not to baptize. Baptism was not part of the gospel of Christ.

Jesus set forth the Great Commission in this way:
Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

There are four commands here, but they do not all have equal value. We can understand this by the grammar that is used both in the English, but it is clearer in the Greek. There is one statement that is a direct imperative. A direct imperative is a command never to be disobeyed. We find such in the Ten Commandments. In the Great Commission, when it says "teach all nations," other translations more accurately translate this phrase as "make disciples" of all nations. It is the only direct imperative in these two verses. The others are commands, but they are all participles, and therefore subject to the primary command. Let me demonstrate:

1. Make Disciples:
a. As you go.
b. baptizing,
c. teaching all things.

There is only one imperative. The rest are all participles subject to the imperative. Jesus puts salvation, and the importance of making that convert a disciple before baptism.

You say: "there is a rebirth given to the church." I say "hogwash!" Jesus said to an individual, Nicodemus by name (not a church): "You must be born again." Never was this given to a church; always to an individual. You must be born again. That is the essence of salvation which is on a personal level. Each and every individual must be born into God's family. This has nothing to do with any church of any kind--baptist or not. Again your lack of Scripture shows your lack of knowledge on this subject--soteriology.

"Doctrinal lies?" Prove it by Scripture. Demonstrate it. List them. I have yet to see the evidence.

Both are commandments of Christ.

Both commandments are not necessary for salvation. (i.e. Believe on the Lord, and 2. be baptized)

If you evangelize and then teach them lies about the redeemer or teach them lies in order to fill your pews then what have you accomplished.

Demonstrate and provide evidence for accusations or shut up about them. It is you that does not understand salvation. You have never been in our church, then how do you know who is in our church, and how do you know what we preach in our church??

The old testament is full of pastors teaching lies about who the self existent diety redeemer was. God said I did not send them neither did I tell them to speak. The same is true in the baptist house today. As God said in the OT, MY PEOPLE, the house of Israel if a rebellious house. If you cannot see the parallels and warning to the church from the old testament teachings, then you have not seen the body of Christ. If you cannot see Christ and the church going back to Adam and Eve, then you have not seen the body of Christ.

These parallels are ridiculous. You are allegorizing the Bible beyond that which is necessary. There was no church in the Old Testament, and thus your comparisons are unwarranted. To compare the church to Israel is ludicrous. BTW, which churh are you comparing: mine or yours? How do you what my church is like? Are you God?
And since when does the church go back to Adam and Eve. Again I say where is the Scripture. Scripture? I want Scripture not opinion. The basis of Hindu belief is opinion. The basis of Baptist belief is the Bible. What is the basis of your belief?

And if all you see the church as, is as a corporation,you most certainly not seen the body of Christ.

No that is not all. I merely referred in a previous statement that most churches are incorporated, and are considered by the world as a business. That is why we pay a higher rate for our telephone bill. Understand? We live in a real world.

That is an ungodly statement. Neither do I ascribe to you doctrine that the promises are give to so called Israel in the middle east. The promises are given to the church, the body for which Christ died. As God told Moses, See thou build it exactly after the pattern that I have given you. He was speaking of the church in which we find in the new testament statment, If any man build thereon. What was he building there on but the pattern laid down from the very beginning, restated to Moses, and defined by Christ.

This is totally unbiblical and unsubstantiated by Scripture, and your lack of it. Here is what the Scripture says:

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
--Jesus Christ is the only foundation that we have. If you have any other foundation (such as Moses or Israel) your very salvation is doubtful.

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
--Christ is that chief corner stone, the foundation. Belief in Him alone (churches excluded) brings salvation).

The church is not built after the pattern of Moses. Where is that in Scripture??

Everything that Christ taught in the new testament is found in the old.

Everything? And that is why the people of His day had never heard such things before?

For it is written, I come in the volume of the books. He came after the pattern laid down in the old testament but being litterally manifested as the head of his body.

No, he came to do His Father's will. It was in fulfillment of prophecy, yes--but not everything was patterned ater the Old Testament. In fact the opposite is true. That pattern, he did away with. The pattern of cerremonial laws, the levitical laws were fulfilled in Christ. We are no longer in bondage to such laws.

As for your accusation of heresy, that an individual cannot have salvation apart from a body of Christ, did not the Lord say (according to the pattern)that in order to have forgiveness of sins that a man must come unto Israel to receive such?

Again where is your quote? Your Scripture? I can't believe anything you say, unless you quote from Scripture. The Lord said no such thing at all.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Those are the words of Christ concerning salvation: nothing to do with Israel; nothing to do with the Baptist church, nothing to do with baptism--simply believing on Christ and that is all.

My statement seem pretty scriptural to me.

Then why were you unable to quote any Scripture?

I must ask again? If baptism, as you say was not important to Paul, why do you baptize at all.

It is a command of Christ for the believer, after salvation, not part of salvation. So is witnessing.

If it is take it or leave it, if it is merely the commandments of men, even though Christ himself commanded it, why do it at all. You can't have it both way for to do so is hypocracy.
Greg

Read it again: It is a command of Christ to be performed after salvation, not as part of salvation. Don't misunderstand or be hypocritical yourself. Christ gave the Great Commission as well. He did not expect unsaved people to carry it out. He expected those that had first been saved, and then afterward had been baptized to carry it out. Even then he would expect that such people would have prayed before they would set out to carry forth the Great Commission. So one could say: Salvation, Baptism, Prayer, are all requirements before evangelization. But they are not requirements of being evangelized. Nor are they requirements of being saved. Baptism is not a part of salvation. If you believe that, then you have taken away from the sufficiency of the atoning work of Christ and, you yourself are not saved.
DHK

 

[GREG S]

DHK,
You asked why I did not give book and verse of scripture when I gave my point. I assumed that since you said you were pastor over a batist church you would know to which scripture I was referring. I will from now on give those. I often post when I am at work and it is difficult to look up some verses because of time constraints. I will post those verses even though it may take a little longer to get back to you or wait until I am at home and am not pressed for time or finish the post during the day, that evening.
You say,"He simply say: "whosoever believes in Him should not perish,but have everlasting life"
Fairly simple isn't it." To believe on Christ means to believe on the blood doctrine in the way he taught it. Knowing this FIRST, no prophesy of the scripture is give of private (individual, must be in agreement with other scriptures)interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) is the same as, For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line,line upon line, here a little there a little. (Isa 28:10) It does great harm to use a scripture one way in one place and disregarding the same scripture or leaving it off in another.
Your quoting of the previous verse must also be in harmony and tied to the same teaching in the other verses where it says, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; (Mark 16:16) just to name one. You can't just leave off portions of a verse because it doesn't fit in with your doctrinal system. There must be consistency in scriptural intrepretation.
How does one obtain membership in a church? Through baptism. As for baptism and other authorities, we must determine to whom it was given and who has the authority to administer it. As pastor, do you baptise by your authority or by the vote and authority of the church? If it is consistent with other baptist teachings,then you do it by the authority of the church. You have already stated that your CHURCH does baptise and when that baptism is in question, you re-baptise. Does your church exclude members for unfaithfulness, rebelliousness,or other reasons? If so, do you do the excluding or is it done by the vote and authority of the church? When someone comes forth for membership, are you, as pastor, the one that admit or rejects or is by vote and authority of the church? Does the one coming forth or being excluded,(and if thy hand offend thee cut it off)(Mark 9:43),i.e, the member excluded form the church at Corinth), Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? (I Cor 5:6)
have any say or authority about the matter. Absolutely not. That power was given to the CHURCH and the CHURCH ONLY by her Savior, Christ himself. It is not given to nor can be exercised by an individual. Your personal relationship with Christ flows out of that church relationship which is her relationship with her husband, Christ, and where he has placed his authority and where you can, as a member of the body, participate. The only people given the authority to observe the Lord's supper is the church but if you take the authority of baptism away then you must also take away the Lord's supper. You can't do one without doing the other. Can't you see what individuality does to a church body? I agree in that each member in the church must have an individual relationship with Christ but what kind of relationship would one have apart from the body and be unable to participate in the blessings
and authority that I have been describing. You are more than welcome to your individuality. You have not seen church authority nor the blessings bestowed upon her. As for me, I will stay in the body of Christ. I would be terrified to walk away from the church. If someone came to our church and asked for membership, then became upset that we told them we required them to be re-baptised, we would not accept them for membership. If they exhibit this rebellious before being admitted for church membership, why should we accept them then expect them to change. People make that mistake in their personal marriages all the time. They marry hoping that their mate will be different after they are married. Why should a church be expected to make the same mistake and admit someone into marriage (covenant) relationship when we already know how they are? You can call this hindu opinion if you want. This is just plain common sense.
In order to be an individualist, people usually justify the great invisible church that no one can see nor attend. As I read somewhere once before, the problem with an invisible church is that people pay invisible tithes. The church is a local assembly, not an invisible one. I read in an old book entitled, "Baptist Church Manual", that a church is a local body of BAPTISED believers. Does your church believe this. It seems to be fairly universal among baptists. Now why would the baptists, of which I am one,say that a church is to be made up of baptised believers then say "Well, baptism is kind of a take it or leave it thing, not really that important"? Can you see the contradiction here?
I need a doctrine that doesn't have this type of
contradiction. Doctrine is of utmost importance because, "For by thy words thou shalt be justified or by thy words thou shalt be condemned"
(Matt 12:37).
This is getting to be a long post. I will continue on with more posts to your previous replies, so that this one doesn't end up running too long. If this needs to be a personal correspondence between the two of us, so it doesn't take up so much space, let me know. I would rather it stay here, but you are the moderator. Let me know.
Greg

 

[GREG S]

DHK,
On the matter of when the church began.
Your lack of being able to see the church from the beginning is your error, not mine. Genesis 3:2 states, Unto Adam and also unto his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and did clothe them. What could those skins represent other than the righteousness of Christ and not their own righteousness made from fig leaves. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (menstrous cloth). (Isa 64:6)

If the church began at Pentecost, why did Christ promise the thief on the cross that "Today thou shalt be wit me in paradise" (you've already quoted that scripture). The scriptures also state, Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved THE CHURCH and gave himself for IT.(Eph 5:25) According to you doctrine, Christ would have had to have lied to the thief. He couldn't have loved him nor died for him because the church wasn't in existence at that time. But the scripture say clearly that he died for THE CHURCH. It doesn't say anything about Him loving anything else. No silent catholicism in that is there. If the church did not come into existence before pentecost then how can anyone born before that time have any hope? Or maybe they are in the universal,invisible church. Pentecost was the giving of the promise of the Holy Spirit as a validation of the new form of the body of Christ, not the beginning of the church.

It doesn't make any sense that Christ, for whom all things were created,(do I really need to quote that scripture for you too?) would have a passive, non-active role in the first 4000 years of a people. The Holy Spirit was in the old testament. God is in the Old Testament. Then why not Christ? How could David describe the crucifixion of Christ in Psalms 22 and not see him nor have his spirit? How could Isaiah say, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given (Isa 9:6) and not have the spirit of Christ in him?
Christ and his wife are inseparable. For he has promised, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.(Heb 13:5). To whom are the promises but to the church, and since those OT brethren saw Him from afar, as to his literally being manifested, and had his spirit, then how can you say that the church was not started until Pentecost?

Your brand of dispensationalism has too many holes in it for me.
I have to sign off now. I am leaving work and will
continue to reply to your previous post this evening.

Greg

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GREG S:
DHK,
On the matter of when the church began.
Your lack of being able to see the church from the beginning is your error, not mine. Genesis 3:2 states, Unto Adam and also unto his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and did clothe them. What could those skins represent other than the righteousness of Christ and not their own righteousness made from fig leaves. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (menstrous cloth). (Isa 64:6)

This "theology" (sic) is absurd. Can you tell me what church Adam and Eve belonged to? What was the name of it? Perhaps "The First Baptist Church of Eden?" Who baptized them since baptism in necessary for their salvation? Since they must be baptized into a body of believers what did the body of believers consist of at that time? Again I ask you: Hindus offer speculation and philosophical opinions; Baptist give Scripture. What do you offer Where is the Scriptural evidence for your unscriptural ideas?

1 Peter 2:9-10 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

There was no church in the Old Testament. It is obvious from ths passage that God has called out a nation, a "people of God," a church, in this age of grace, unto Himself. In verse 10 He specifically says that in "times past were not a people." Those in "times past," that is in the Old Testament times, were not a people--not the church of God. Fairly clear isn't it? It is also clear that the Old Testament saints were saved apart from any church, since the "church" is uniquely a New Testament entity and concept. The Old Testament new nothing of the church. Christ said "I will build my church." That is future tense, not referring to any event in the past. He did build his church; it began at Pentecost. The foundation of the church was Christ himself.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
--The apostles never existed in the Old Testament. They made up the foundation of the church. It was this group of men that were for the work of the ministry of the church--the body of Christ: found only in the New Testament.

Ephesians 2:19-20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens 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 corner stone;
--The foundation of the church consists of the Apostles with Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. You don't find this in the Old Testament.
The church started on the Day of Pentecost.

I give you Scripture. You give me opinion. Substantiate your beliefs. There was no church in the days of Adam and Eve.

If the church began at Pentecost, why did Christ promise the thief on the cross that "Today thou shalt be wit me in paradise" (you've already quoted that scripture).

Jesus healed many before He died. He brought many to righteousness. Many were "saved" as a result of his ministry. The Scriptures say that many believed on Him. That doesn't make them (or the thief) part of the church. It makes the saved, just as Abraham was saved. "Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness sake." Abraham was saved, as were all the heroes of the faith mentioned in Hebrews in 11--all of whom lived during the Old Testament age--all of whom were saved by faith in Jehovah--all of whom never saw Christ, but were saved long before there ever was a church, never having any chance to be baptized into one.

The scriptures also state, Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved THE CHURCH and gave himself for IT.(Eph 5:25) According to you doctrine, Christ would have had to have lied to the thief. He couldn't have loved him nor died for him because the church wasn't in existence at that time. But the scripture say clearly that he died for THE CHURCH. It doesn't say anything about Him loving anything else.

It doesn't say anything about Him loving anythin else.

It doesn't. That is quite an arrogant statemnt to make!

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The world is more than just the church.

Matthew 11:28-30 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Does ALL mean ALL, or does it just refer to the Baptists??

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
--The Scripture definitely says that Jesus loved this Jew, in spite of his riches and his love of riches. He wasn't part of any church, and wasn't even saved-yet Christ LOVED him. This makes your statement a direct lie, or just plain ignorant of the Scriptures.

No silent catholicism in that is there. If the church did not come into existence before pentecost then how can anyone born before that time have any hope?

Read Romans chapter 4. Abraham, called the friend of God, was saved--though there was no church. Righteousness was imputed unto him for the simple fact that he believed in God. He was justified by faith. That is the way that one is always saved: whether in the Old Testament or in the New Testament. That is how David, a man after God's own heart, was saved. He was saved by faith. He believed in Jehovah. There was no church. The church is irrelevant to salvation, and has nothing to do with salvation. So is baptism. It has nothing to do with salvation. It is a human work: a work performed by man, received by man. The only thing that baptism does for you is get you wet.

Or maybe they are in the universal,invisible church.

You probably don't believe in the universal invisible church, and if it makes you feel any better, neither do I. I can, however, argue from both sides of the coin.

Pentecost was the giving of the promise of the Holy Spirit as a validation of the new form of the body of Christ, not the beginning of the church.

To be specific it was the beginning of the church age, or the age of grace. The church present there was the church at Jerusalem, to which the 3,000 were added to. The event was the Day of Pentecost, and event that will never again be repeated in history. It was at that day that the Holy Spirit came to indwell believers. From that day onward, God began to work in churches, not in synagogues, and in the Temple. This was the beginning of the church age. Shortly after that, Paul went on three different missionary journeys and established approximately 100 churches. It was the church age. God's institution was and still is the local church. It is no longer the nation of Israel. There was no church in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament God's people was the nation of Israel. In the New Testament God is calling out His bride, the family of God which will make up his bride--all believers all over the world.

It doesn't make any sense that Christ, for whom all things were created,(do I really need to quote that scripture for you too?) would have a passive, non-active role in the first 4000 years of a people.

For goodness sake, read the Old Testament. Israel's role was anything but passive. Rahab the harlot was saved before Israel even reached Jericho. How? She had heard of the mighty works that Israel had done before they came into the land. She believed on the God of Israel, before she even met the spies that she hid. Conquering the city of Jericho is not being passive; neither was the Exodus out of Egypt.
God sent Jonah, as a missionary to a pagan nation--one that had a reputation of their cruelty for the peoples that it conquered, and even the cruelty that they had shown to Israel in the past. No wonder Jonah did not want to go to Ninevah and preach to those Assyrians. But God sent him anyway; forced him to go by means of His own private sea-going vessel. Israel passive? Hardly!

The Holy Spirit was in the old testament. God is in the Old Testament. Then why not Christ? How could David describe the crucifixion of Christ in Psalms 22 and not see him nor have his spirit? How could Isaiah say, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given (Isa 9:6) and not have the spirit of Christ in him?

God works in different times in different ways. He spoke to Moses through a burning bush, but does He do the same with you? No.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--Verse one speaks of Old Testament times. God spoke to the people through the prophets at different times. But he used different methods. Sometimes he spoke audibly, as he did with Samuel when he was young. He spoke to Ezekiel in visions. To Abraham, he appeared to him in a theophany--as a man accompanied with two angels. To Joseph he appeared in dreams. He spoke to the prophets in different ways at different times in the Old Testament.

Verse two makes it plain that NOW in these days he speaks to us through His Son--Jesus Christ. The dreams and visions, etc. are out. He speaks to us through His Son, who is revealed to us through His Word. Everything that we need to know about Jesus Christ is contained in the Word of God.

In the Old Testament the Holy Spirit came "upon the prophets" at various times. In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit continuously indwells the believer.

Christ and his wife are inseparable. For he has promised, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.(Heb 13:5). To whom are the promises but to the church, and since those OT brethren saw Him from afar, as to his literally being manifested, and had his spirit, then how can you say that the church was not started until Pentecost?

The only people that Christ refers to as his bride is the New Testament beleivers. The last of the Old Testament prophets is John the Baptist. John said plainly that he was not part of the bride, but a friend of the bride. He recognized that he was still part of the Old Testament dispensation, under the Law. He was not actually part of the bride of Christ, though he would be a friend of the bride.

John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
DHK

 

[GREG S]

DHK,

As for the church existing at the time of Adam and Eve, Christ himself gives the answer in Matt 18:20: For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.
I believe that when you add Adam and Eve together you get two. The elements of the church are there, aren't they? The scripture doesn't say anything about one does it. That is because one person cannot perpetuate anything because he doesn't have the authority. Neither can one person be established as a witness. This is in the same chapter of Matthew (vs 15-19) and was established in the old testament (Deut 17:6 and 19:15). Even the binding and loosing authority is given to a church people.And you say you are just fine without a church? (By the way, I still don't have an answer from you on the questions regarding church authority. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, that you are as busy as I am and simply haven't had the time because I still haven't had time to address all of your previous points)

As for their baptism, don't try to put words in my mouth. Baptism, as practiced by the present form of the church, was not given until later but was certainly represented in the washings in the old testament. The important point is covenant identification, and there has always been some method that identified God's people and set them apart and the form that they existed in, whether as a family, nation, or local assembly. It still consists of God's people.

You use I Peter 2:9-10. Peter is teaching the same thing as taught in the old testament as
found in Deut 7:6 For thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God, the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself above all people that are upon the face of the earth. To establish when the church began, you must establish when the spirit of Christ was given for according to Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. How do you give salvation to David or any other old testament saint if they didn"t have a clue as to who Christ was? The scripture just said "there is no other name". Christ said, I am the way, the truth and the live. According to you logic, the old testament saints couldn't have had any of these things. David certainly had it or he couldn't have described the crucifixion. Isa. 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong:because he poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors and bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors. Just who in the world is Isaiah talking about anyway.
You should have backed up one chapter to I Peter in verse 10: Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace (Christ is that grace)
that should ome unto you.
vs 11 Searching what or what matter or time the Spirit of Christ WHICH WAS IN THEM did signify when it testified BEFOREHAND (Isaiah,David, all old testament saints which this verse has just said had the Spirit of Christ in THEM)the suffering of Christ and the glory that should follow. These are included in the verse you use
in Eph 2:20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles, THE PROPHETS,(David was certainly a prophet),Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. How can you not possibly give the spirit of Christ to these old testament brethren when very scriptures say the had it. And if theyhad it then the church was in the old testament. Don't get hung up on a local assembly and miss the whole church. The church in it new formwas definitely new and unique but that doesn't mean the church never existed before that time. Christ is the head of the church. Christ was clearly the head of David. David then clearly was in the church or called out assembly. You only mention the apostles as being the foundation. You seem to have conveniently left out the prophets, and the prophets also were from the beginning. Isaiah 8:20 says, To the law and to the testimony: if the speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. What light is that? The scriptures say that Christ is the light of the world. What is Isaiah talking about something that you say he has no spirit or knowledge of? Do you need me to go back into the old testament and show you that rock that is the chief corner stone. But your rock is not my rock, because I certainly see a different savior in what he did and who he is than you do.
It's 1:00 am here and I have to work tomorrow.
I'll continue later.
Greg

 

[GREG S]

DHK,

-When the church began------
You use Eph 2:10. Which in times past were not a
people but are now the people of God, which has not obtained mercy, but have now obtained mercy.
You also say, "He specifically says that "in times past were not a people." Those in times past,that is in the Old Testament times, were not a people--not a church of God."

This verse says says absolutely nothing about there not being a church in old testament times.
It say this because the present form of the church came out of every kindred, tongue, nation and people. They were not of a single nationality. This is readily seen on those present on the day of Pentecost. The new form of the church was being taken out of covenantly identified Israelites, no matter what race,out of every nation, but they were still identified covenantly with Israel and her God.
Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. These are those to whom the gospel was preached on the day of Pentecost. They were told that the Messiah, the promised one of Isaiah, had been made manifest in the flesh. Even the Samaritan woman at the well knew of this promise. John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called the Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. This woman unto who Christ spoke was of the northern 10 tribes of Israel. She was also covenantly identified. By the way, I'm not look for any lost tribes. The promise of Messiah was a commonly know thing in Israel and for you to say that they has no knowledge is a direct contradiction of scripture.

You say that the verse "upon this rock I will build my church", is future tense. Did not Christ say in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I am." The foundation of Christ has to start somewhere, and that building started with Adam and Eve. Even the arrangement and instruments of the tabernacle in the wilderness are a witness of Christ.

Let's look at Luke 24:27, And beginning at Moses and the prophets (part of the foundation which includes Moses), he expounded unto them IN ALL THE SCRIPTURES the things concerning HIMSELF.
Now to begin in Moses we must begin in Genesis. Wasn't this the first book that Moses wrote?
And are not the prophets the rest of the old testament? This is the very resurrected Christ teaching them, the head of his body, the church.
Since the Christ now is clearly in the old testament, and he is the head of his body, the church, where is the rest of his body? Was he a headless Christ with no body? No, his body is right there with him. It is the old testament saints.

The new testament church is different only in form. This "people of God" were taught by Christ of their government from out of the old testament. It is different in that there was a change in the priesthood. Christ, of the tribe of Judah, the lawgiver, that Prophet, has now been made manifest as the Great High Priest.
We no longer have to go to make sacrifices.
I Cor 12:28 says, And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers........ The church decides who it will admit, whose baptism it will accept, who it will exclude, whose sins shall be bound and loosed. What a great authority, what mercy, what justice the body of Christ can exercise. The greatest authority on earth with Christ as her head. And you think you have salvation apart from the body of Christ? You think you can partake of the root and the fatness out by yourself. You can't do any of the above things apart from the body of Christ, the local assembly. Indiviuality attempts to destroy the body of Christ. People think the church can't tell me how I have to live my life. I will not have this body of Christ rule over me. If you become a member of our church, we will. Individuality is the influence of Satan. It's not about me and its not about you. As a pastor you should know, it's all about Christ and his body.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GREG S:
DHK,
As for the church existing at the time of Adam and Eve, Christ himself gives the answer in Matt 18:20: For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.
I believe that when you add Adam and Eve together you get two. The elements of the church are there, aren't they? The scripture doesn't say anything about one does it. That is because one person cannot perpetuate anything because he doesn't have the authority. Neither can one person be established as a witness. This is in the same chapter of Matthew (vs 15-19) and was established in the old testament (Deut 17:6 and 19:15). Even the binding and loosing authority is given to a church people.And you say you are just fine without a church?

The Bible says that we are saved without the help of a church. By grace are ye saved through faith (not the church), and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God (not of a church).
Mat.18:20 speaks to New Testament church discipline, and in no way defines a church. It is a verse that is most often taken out of its context. It is speaking about the decision that a church makes in regard to the disciplining of an unrepentant member. Read the context.

If you believe that any two saved individuals make a church, then you are not a Baptist, and I do suggest you study what a Baptist is, and what Baptist distinctives are.

There is no church in the Old Testament, and certainly not one in the garden of Eden. Salvation does not equal church.

As for their baptism, don't try to put words in my mouth. Baptism, as practiced by the present form of the church, was not given until later but was certainly represented in the washings in the old testament.

There is nothing in the Old Testament that identifies with baptism of the New Testamaent--nothing. The cerremonnial washings of the Old Testament have been done away, fulfilled by the death of Christ.

The important point is covenant identification, and there has always been some method that identified God's people and set them apart and the form that they existed in, whether as a family, nation, or local assembly. It still consists of God's people.

There was a covenant made with Israel. There was no covenant made with Baptists, neither with Christians in general. We are saved by grace through faith--not through covenants.

You use I Peter 2:9-10. Peter is teaching the same thing as taught in the old testament as
found in Deut 7:6 For thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God, the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself above all people that are upon the face of the earth. To establish when the church began, you must establish when the spirit of Christ was given for according to Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. How do you give salvation to David or any other old testament saint if they didn"t have a clue as to who Christ was? The scripture just said "there is no other name". Christ said, I am the way, the truth and the live. According to you logic, the old testament saints couldn't have had any of these things. David certainly had it or he couldn't have described the crucifixion. Isa. 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong:because he poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors and bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors. Just who in the world is Isaiah talking about anyway.

There is much prophecy in the Old Testament about Christ. Hindsight is better than foresight. It doesn't mean that the Jews living at the time of the prophets understood the prophecies that were written. Their belief was not in a crucified and risen Saviour; it was in Jehovah--the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob--as God always revealed himself to the nation of Israel. Their belief was demonstrated by faith in the sacrifices which pictured Christ. They obeyed God in faith. God called out a people for Himslef in the Old Testament--the nation of Israel.
God is calling out a nation for Himself in the New Testament age--His bride, consisting of all believers in Christ.

You should have backed up one chapter to I Peter in verse 10: Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace (Christ is that grace)
that should ome unto you.
vs 11 Searching what or what matter or time the Spirit of Christ WHICH WAS IN THEM did signify when it testified BEFOREHAND (Isaiah,David, all old testament saints which this verse has just said had the Spirit of Christ in THEM)the suffering of Christ and the glory that should follow. These are included in the verse you use
in Eph 2:20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles, THE PROPHETS,(David was certainly a prophet),Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. How can you not possibly give the spirit of Christ to these old testament brethren when very scriptures say the had it. And if theyhad it then the church was in the old testament.

The Old Testament saints had the same Holy Spirit that we have. David, after he had sinned, prayed:

Psalms 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

It was a true prayer of repentance. He knew he had the Holy Spirit. He didn't want his vile sin to cause him to be eternally separated from God.

Don't get hung up on a local assembly and miss the whole church. The church in it new formwas definitely new and unique but that doesn't mean the church never existed before that time. Christ is the head of the church. Christ was clearly the head of David. David then clearly was in the church or called out assembly.

What kind of logic is this?
In Mat.16, Jesus spoke of His church in the future tense. He said that He WILL build His church. It never existed in the Old Testament, and no David was never a part of it; David was a king in Israel.

You only mention the apostles as being the foundation. You seem to have conveniently left out the prophets, and the prophets also were from the beginning. Isaiah 8:20 says, To the law and to the testimony: if the speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
What light is that? The scriptures say that Christ is the light of the world. What is Isaiah talking about something that you say he has no spirit or knowledge of?

Isaiah 8:20 clearly referst to the Word of God, and the light of the Word of God. Those who do not measure themselves according to God's Word have no light in them--the light of God's Word.
The prophets (that is the writings of the prophets), and the prophets of the New Testament (the prophetic office which ceased near the end of the first century), were part of the foundation of the church.

Do you need me to go back into the old testament and show you that rock that is the chief corner stone. But your rock is not my rock, because I certainly see a different savior in what he did and who he is than you do.

Christ is the rock, the chief cornerstone, that is prophesied of in the Old Testament, came in the New Testament, and is presently our foundation.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

This Scripture was not written for Old Testament saints. They did not have the written knowledge of the New Testament church, and the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. They had faith in Jehovah. There was no church in the Old Testament.
DHK

 

[Ronald]

The definition of a cult is plain and simple. Anyone or group who preaches and TEACHES a false gospel. The one that Paul said was so urgent to believe. Galatians chapter 1. The gospel has nothing to do with being a better person, new age philosophy or name it and claim it teaching. No, none of these.

The gospel has to do with JESUS CHRIST and what he has done FOR you. He DIED for you, and was raised from the grave FOR you. Why is that such a big deal. Because until you accept that simple truth in your heart you are LOST and headed for a Christless hell. Christ died FOR SINNERS!

You are saved by GRACE through FAITH and not of yourself. Eph 2:8. God justifies you or removes all condemnation of sin on your account THROUGH faith alone.Rom 3:26,Rom 5:1.

Now there are many cults out there that teach you must ALSO do this and that as well as trust in Christ alone for salvation. Many of these cults teach you must be baptized, speak in tongues, give to the church,pray to Mary and live the straight and narrow life til you you die. ALL THESE ARE WORKS!. None of these things can save you. Only the grace of God can and it comes through faith ALONE. If salvation comes by works than grace is no longer grace or a work of God, but YOUR DOING. Do you see?

EVERY cult preaches and teaches FAITH + WORKS=SALVATION. That is how you can tell who is preaching the true gospel and who is preaching a false one. REJOICE, in the fact that you ARE saved by the finished work of Christ FOR you and then serve him out of love and gratitude from then on. If someone says you're not measuring up, then tell them, "Yes that's true, but my heavenly Father is slowly conforming me to the image of his Son through my weakness."

I hope I have helped you. I have experienced these entrapments myself over the years and now I am an old man. But stand on the PROMISES of God and humble yourself and LEARN to realize, you can do NOTHING apart from the grace of Christ and you will have true peace in your soul. God bless you.

 

[PeruSeminary Pastor Enoc]

Thank you, Ronald,

I can see your heart by your words. Praise the Lord. Thanks.

In Him,
P. Enoc

 

[GREG S]

DHK,

You say, "We are saved without the help of a church." Chapter and verse. please. If we have no need of the church, why did Christ build one anyway? The book of Ephesians was written to the church at Ephesus, of like faith and practice. How can men be brought to the unity of the faith (Eph 4:13) without a church? This truth was given to the church to preserve and to teach. If no one needs the church to help understand these deep truths, then why did Christ build on anyway? What is the purpose of the church? Why was it commanded, Forsake not the assembling of youselves together, as is the maner of some? Isn't this a commandant to a church people or is everyone supposed to just be out there wandering aroung, not attached to anything, and them still having the Spirit of Christ? For what purpose?
Give me your opinion of what a church is and its purpose. I want to know.
As for the church not beginning with Adam and Eve, I have read many confessions of faith and have yet to see a specific number being mentioned.
You might as well call distinctives what they are,
doctrines. Distinctive is just a watered down word.

You say the ceremonial washings were done away with and fulfilled in Christ. They were fulfilled in Christ but what they mean has not been done away with. Otherwise, you need to tear the old testament out of you Bible for you have no need of it. This seems to be what you believe anyway.

You say that there was no covenant made with the baptists. If you are married to Christ you definitely are in the covenant,because that is what the covenant represents, a marriage contract.
Is not Christ married to his bride? He certainly is not a fornicator .You are so afraid of having a work, that you have become impotent in the things of God.

In reference to you statement on I Peter 1:10,
the verse clearly states that concerning the prophets, that the Spirit of CHRIST WAS IN THEM. No silent catholicism here.
As you say, fairly simple isn't it? And what about Hebrews chapter 11 which says:
24- By faith Moses, when he come to year, refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter
25- Choosing rather to endure affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasure of sin for a season
26-ESTEEMING THE REPROACH OF CHRIST greater riches than the treasures in Egypt for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.

How could Moses esteem the reproach of Christ if the didn't know what Christ would suffer. How could he have recompense of the reward if he didn't know what the reward was? But you say the spirit of Christ was not back there. If those who offered the sacrifices did not know what they represented then it was no more than the blood of bulls and goats. There is no doubt, they saw HIM. Your doctrine sound like a ,as you say, "strange mixture" of Israel is God's wife and the church is Christ's wife and something else. The scriptures are plain that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Are you saying that the blood of bulls and goats was sufficient?
If not, then show me where God ever died to pay for the sins of his people. Show me where the Holy Spirit ever died. Only Christ died. And since only Christ died and you say it only applied to the new testament then there is no remission of sins for old testament saints according to you reasoning. This is the ONLY conclusion I can draw from your doctrine.
The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 says,
"Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after his incarnation, yet virtue, efficacy and benefit arising from him payment were communicated to the elect in all ages from the beginning of the world through those promises, types, and sacrifices in which he was revealed and signified as the seed which should bruise the serpent's head, and also the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, for He is the same yesterday, today and forever."
You might want to re-examine who is a baptist.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GREG S:
DHK,

You say, "We are saved without the help of a church." Chapter and verse. please. If we have no need of the church, why did Christ build one anyway? The book of Ephesians was written to the church at Ephesus, of like faith and practice. How can men be brought to the unity of the faith (Eph 4:13) without a church? This truth was given to the church to preserve and to teach. If no one needs the church to help understand these deep truths, then why did Christ build on anyway? What is the purpose of the church? Why was it commanded, Forsake not the assembling of youselves together, as is the maner of some? Isn't this a commandant to a church people or is everyone supposed to just be out there wandering aroung, not attached to anything, and them still having the Spirit of Christ? For what purpose?
Give me your opinion of what a church is and its purpose. I want to know.

A church "is an assembly of immersed regenrated believers, who have voluntarily associated themselves together for the purposes of keeping the two ordinances of Christ (the Lord's Supper and Baptism by immersion), and carrying out the Great Commission.

By the standard definition of a church--one composed of baptized believers, your theology is outside the norm. You believe that a person must be saved into the church; that baptism is both part of his salvation, and part of his membership in the church. Whereas baptized believers come together to make up a church. They first are saved, then they are baptized; then they become members of the church. The process is threefold, not all in one.

Secondly, answer this. Go back and read Ronald's definition of a cult. By his definition of a cult, are you a member of a cult, or believe as a cult beieves? Have you not added baptism as a requirement to faith in Christ for salvation?
DHK

 

[GREG S]

DHK,

I will answer your last statement first. Is not a false doctrine a lie. Almost every baptist I know believes the spirit of Christ was in the old testament. That means that either you or myself is teaching a lie in how the old testament saints were saved. You may want to apply his definition to yourself and pull the beam out of your own eye. I will say to Ronald what I have said to your repeated times. Literal immersion in water DOES NOT SAVE AND DOES NOT WASH AWAY SINS. Baptism neither adds nor takes away from the grace of Christ. Let's go back to a few points you made to which I have not had time to respond and maybe, you will understand what I am saying.

One example was the Ethiopian eunuch in the middle of the desert. You say there was no church influence in this instance. I certainly disagree. Philip was an ordained elder in the church with authority from that church to baptise. He would have not dared baptise the eunuch without church authority. Please refer to the questions I asked you on who has the authority to administer baptism. Even you said that baptism is an ordinance give to THE CHURCH.
I say it was never given to an individual to administer, only to a church people. I asked you to define a church and you said ," a church is an assembly of immersed regenerated believers, who have voluntarily (I say they are commanded to forsake not the assembling of themselves together) associated themselves together for the purpose of keeping the two ordinances of Christ (the Lord's supper and baptism by immersion) and carrying out the great commission." As I previously asked, can an individual be a church? Even though you did not answer, from your definition I can see that an individual cannot be a church. You said that the members were baptised. If one is not baptised, then by your definition, he cannot be a member of a church, therefore he, on his own, has no authority to observe the ordinances. Then by you own definition, Philip had to have authority of a church people to baptise. Philip with authority, church by the eunuch's side.

The scriptures say that the eunuch was reading from Isaiah. He was a man who worshipped God, just as it is said of Lydia in your other example. He was returning from Jerusalem.
Acts 8:32. The place of the scripture which he read was this, he was lead as a sheep to the slaughter and as a lamb dumb before his shearers, so opened he not his mouth.
33. In his humiliation, his judgement was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34. And the eunuch answered Philip and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man?
35. Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus.
(How can that be? You said Christ was not back there.)
36. And as they came on their way they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised?
Isn't wonderful how even in the desert the Lord can provide water when it is necessary. How did the eunuch know he needed to be baptised? By silent catholicism as you call it or because Philip preached the WHOLE doctrine (gospel) of Jesus. It is clear Philip preached to the eunuch that he needed to be baptised or the eunuch would have not asked that question. It is my contention that a man who says I do not need to be baptised by the church, I am just fine without baptism and without the church, (and you and I know a man can't be a member of a church without baptism), that man does NOT have the Spirit of Christ to begin with. He is acting in individuality and defying the authority of the church to perform the ordinance commanded her. The eunuch was "chomping at the bit" to be baptised. He wanted it. If the Spirit of Christ is in a man, he will accept nothing less. Even your church baptises and rebaptises if you think the individual's baptism is not scriptural. That is the practice of church authority given by Christ to his wife. It cannot be negated by anyone, especially an individual. Why practice it if it doesn't matter. As you said, it does give baptist identification. The marriage covenant of Christ is with the church, not the individual apart from a church. The individuals are the members,(eyes,hands,feet,etc) of a local body. You stated yourself that baptism is how a person becomes a member of a church. Romans 7:4 states, Wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the BODY OF CHRIST, (the church and her doctrines of salvation)(where else is Christ today but in his church people?) that ye should be married (covenant relationship) to another,even to him who is raised from the dead. How can we become dead to the law unless we are in the body of Christ? Is he not the head of the body? Is she (the church) not raised up from out of the dead ones? Tell me anything an individual has apart from the body of Christ, a church people. To God be glory, IN THE CHURCHES. Show me how you can give Him glory any other way.
Now to Lydia. As I previously stated she was in the same position as the eunuch, already covenantly identified with Israel, a worshipper of God, just as the eunuch. She was by the river. Boy, water is everywhere in these scriptures. And there was Paul and Barnabas, sent by God and the authority of the church at Antioch. The church was beside her in the authority of the church given to Paul and Barnabas, as representatives of the church at Antioch. The same is true of the Phillipian jailer. Water everywhere, church everywhere. All three were already covenantly identified.

No, I do not believed that we have added baptism to faith for salvation. A profession must be made first, then baptism by authority of the church is given next, the church is already assembled,they do not come together later. Anyone who says I do not need baptism has already defied the body that possesses the marriage covenant and does not have the spirit of Christ. If baptism is a step of obedience after salvation and they are already being disobedient then they have not believed the full doctrines of Christ, they don't have what they think they have.