Inter-Denominational Fellowship

[Martin Marprelate]

I will say this, this is as good as a confession possible for union between paedobaptists and Baptists. It reminds me of the Evangelical and Catholics together agreement. Use the same biblical language but don't define the terms being used too carefully so it allows all parties to interpret them for themselves and feel good about it.

I'm not sure whether this post is due to your consistent reluctance actually to read what other people write, or whether it is just a snide comment devoid of any serious thought, but whatever the shortcomings of the confession (and it is certainly not perfect), it contains a number of specific statements which would make it quite impossible for a Roman Catholic to adhere to it.

Of course this confession is heretical in points 7 and 8.

I understand that you believe this, due to you inability to see the vast amount of Biblical evidence for a Universal Church.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And here is the crux of the issue isn't it! What you might define as non-essentials other may define as essential. It seems that your kind (Jon's kind) of church wants to limit the "non-negotiables" merely to what is essential to salvation - period. However, scriptures also include into the area of "non-negotiables" doctrines and practices of service or church related issues.

For example, in the Great Commission baptism stands SECOND. I have said this before and I will say it again, please find either by precept or way of example any such thing as an unbaptized congregation in the scriptures. Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no true NT congregation. BTW we are not called "Bapitsts" for no reason. If salvation essentials were the only non-negotiables we ought to have been called "Salvationists" but we are called 'Baptists."

Where there is not the:

1. Right mode - immersion only there is no baptism and therefore no true NT church but only wet believers at best and no church to fellowship with.

2. Right candidate - repentant believers in the gospel and where there is no such proper candidates there is no true NT congregation but only wet unregenerates and no church to fellowship with.

3. Right design - public symbolic identification with Christ, his gospel and his church - where these things are deficient there is no true NT church but only wet unregenerates or misguided believers at best and no church to fellowship with.

4. Right administrator - the contextually defined "ye" of the Great Commission and not those identified as "them" in the Great Commission - administrator that is like faith and order with Great Commission essentials. Where this essential is not present there is just wet believers at best and no church to fellowship with.

The proper administration of baptism requires the administrator to identify correctly with every major aspect of Biblical theology and that is why baptism precedes church membership and why the Great Commission restricts the administrator to those like faith and order with churches in the NT.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!

 

[The Biblicist]

I deal with other churches (who teach error yet hold to the gospel of Jesus Christ) on the basis of the gospel and the principle that we are not to judge the servant of Another.

Why is it judging the servant of another when you are condemning false doctrine? It is one thing to claim a person is lost, it is quite another thing to claim they are in error! It seems you are confusing the two and making it a personal judgment on the servant of another by simply condemning, exposing errors that person embraces, teaches or preaches? From my understanding of Scriptures we are COMMANDED by the Lord to prove and examine all things, reject that which is false and cling to that which is good. Sounds like sloppy agape to me that you are embracing.

It is not up to me to talk the freewill Baptist church into changing their doctrine.

So, exposing and condemning their false doctrine is one and the same as trying to change them? I thought the whole process of sanctification is the process of change and that is precisely what God uses the church, the ministry and brethren who preach and teach his word for???????? Indeed, brethren who embrace false doctrine and will not change we are told explicitly to WITHDRAW from such that they may be ashamed. I suppose your view of love would condemn that as unloving too???

It is up to me to guard my church against error. But if the church in question believes the gospel of Jesus Christ, then it is up to me to love them as if that love is directed towards Christ – because it is.

What you are saying here has many problems. First, you imagine that the gospel is the one and only test of fellowship and where you get that idea I know not because that is simply false. Second, your use of 'love" seems more like sloppy agape than Biblical love. Biblical love does not turn a blind eye to manifest errors.

(Ever wonder why Jesus asked Saul – “why are you persecuting me?”….I suspect many well meaning Christians will be asked the same).

No, I have never wondered why Christ said that because the context is clear why he said that. Saul was jailing Christians, killing them, making them blaspheme. I guess you are spiritualizing these things and making it one and the same as exposing and condemning errors that Christians embrace????????????? I am glad your not my pastor if this is the way you handle scriptures.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not sure whether this post is due to your consistent reluctance actually to read what other people write,

Practice what you preach! I not only read it but gave it a compliment as about the best attempt I have seen joint evangelicals with paedobaptists.

or whether it is just a snide comment devoid of any serious thought, but whatever the shortcomings of the confession (and it is certainly not perfect), it contains a number of specific statements which would make it quite impossible for a Roman Catholic to adhere to it.

It leaves the very issues that divide paedobaptists from Baptists UNDEFINED so that each side can define the Biblical language for themselves. For example they use the ecclesiastial language of "baptism" thus making it putty to be shaped anyway one wants. Thus the analogy with Evangelicals and Catholics Together where they used Biblical langauge void of Biblical definitions as truth would ruin the merger.

I understand that you believe this, due to you inability to see the vast amount of Biblical evidence for a Universal Church.

Not only is there NOTHING in scripture to support this heresy but it violates the very basics of salvation and only exists due to violating basic laws of heremeneutics. See my thread on the Abstrace Institutional use of ekklesia and its synonyms.

 

[The Biblicist]

The doctrine of eternal life (eternal security) is stated as clearly as any other essential doctrine in the scriptures (Jn. 3:16; 5:24; 6:47-40; 10:26-30; 1 Jn. 5:13; etc.). It is the very essence of what christ came to secure (Jn. 6:38-39) through His own provision by his life and death. If this doctrine is not a "test of fellowship" for the true gospel than nothing is because denial of this doctrine is denial of the whole eternal covenant of God as far as its sufficency and efficiency. Moreover, it is the hinge on which grace versus works turns. Denial of eternal security is the assertion of works as the ultimate effecient means for eternal life.

All who embrace justification by works plus faith deny eternal security because they see it clearly demands justification by grace alone through faith alone in Chrsit alone without works - which IS eternal security spelled out in definitive terms. If Justification is by grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone WITHOUT works that is the doctrine of eternal security and to deny it is to deny its basis. Therefore, the denial of eternal security is not only the denial of justification by grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone but is the assertion of justification by works.

Moreover, all who believe in eternal security believe the human will is secured by the new birth. Only those who reject the doctrine of eternal security consistently believe that the human will is the sovereign governing mechanism for both obtaining and losing salvation.

Making it a test of fellowship does not unsave anyone that is really saved, because if they are saved it is in spite of what they are teaching. However, making it a test of fellowship is saying this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ as it denies the gospel at its efficient point which denies it altogether as it denies it can obtain what it promises based upon the work of Christ alone.

 

[JonC]

I thought the whole process of sanctification is the process of change and that is precisely what God uses the church, the ministry and brethren who preach and teach his word for.

The process of sanctification is not a process by which one church turns another “false church” into a “true church”. Remember, we are talking about inter-denominational fellowship and using your example that any church that believes Christian apostasy possible is a “false church”.

I suppose your view of love would condemn that as unloving too???

No, your suppositions are yet again wrong. In fact, what set the tone for us here were the things that you supposed of my positions. You are not good at supposing. But again, we are not talking about judging within our own churches. You seem to want to return to a “romish” form of church government.

Here you tend to use “double-speak”. You will say that those churches teach a false gospel because they deny eternal security. And then you will say that you are not calling into question the salvation of those Christians saved through that gospel. There is but one gospel, brother. I agree that Arminianism is error. But having been saved attending that type of church, believing that type of doctrine, I can assure you that the gospel is the same. I once held to free-will doctrine, now I don’t. But my view of the gospel itself never changed. My understanding of doctrines of the gospel did.

What you are saying here has many problems. First, you imagine that the gospel is the one and only test of fellowship and where you get that idea I know not because that is simply false.

No, that….again….is not what I am saying. But I grant that you are like me in these discussions. You use “what you are saying” not as a charge but to clarify.

There are tests of fellowship within a local church. But here you confuse how churches treat members with how churches should treat other churches within some “universal church”. You keep returning to Rome in church structure.

I am saying that Spurgeon was correct that doctrinal divisions (he was, in fact, speaking of our example as well) are necessary and help to bring out truth in general. He was not denying the legitimacy of those churches, he opposed their “error”, but he did so in such a way as not to bring condemnation upon himself.

Second, your use of 'love" seems more like sloppy agape than Biblical love. Biblical love does not turn a blind eye to manifest errors.

I simply stated that we are to love one another as Christ loved the Church. If you consider that “sloppy agape” then your problem is not with me but with Jesus Christ. Since your issue is with God’s word and not mine, I’ll help you out a bit. Even when we exercise church discipline it is in love – both in love for the church by expelling the one practicing sin and in love for the expelled person in hope that God will return him to the fold. Perhaps this one comment is enough to reveal the issue here. You love the church, want to please God and do kingdom work, but you want to do kingdom work worldly ways.

No one said to “turn a blind eye to manifest errors”. If that is what you’d like to discuss, then I recommend you start another thread.

No, I have never wondered why Christ said that because the context is clear why he said that. Saul was jailing Christians, killing them, making them blaspheme. I guess you are spiritualizing these things and making it one and the same as exposing and condemning errors that Christians embrace????????????? I am glad your not my pastor if this is the way you handle scriptures.

You have misunderstood both my comment and Scripture. My comment is that we have to be careful when we seek to go on the offensive against other churches (again, against congregations comprised of Christians, believing the gospel, gathered for Kingdom work, but also containing error in some doctrines) because we are going on the offensive against Christ.


Within the passage you seek to minimalize (at best) or deny (at worse), Jesus identifies Himself with His Church. Paul is, as you say, persecuting the Church. But what you are denying (or minimalizing) is that Jesus doesn’t ask Paul why he is persecuting the Church, or those people in Jerusalem, or even Christians in general. Jesus asks Paul why he is persecuting HIM. Jesus identifies with the Church. You would do well also to read Matthew 25. Jesus was not spiritualizing things. He was speaking truth.


And the warning remains. We have to be very careful when we decide to attack other churches because if they are indeed members of Christ’s body then we are attacking Christ. What you need to learn is how to deal with doctrine, and confront false doctrine, without going beyond that by attacking the individual or the church. Your replies on this thread show you have difficulty in this area (mine probably show the same). Maybe that is something you should work on.

I fully agree that we do not fellowship with churches that are practicing immorality. I disagree that we cannot fellowship with churches that differ in doctrine.

I am glad your not my pastor if this is the way you handle scriptures.

I am not sure why you went here. Until this point I thought we merely disagreed and argued fairly strongly. We never got in to "handling scripture" but stayed on the surface of things. If you wanted to simply be hurtful, then you indeed were successful. I found the comment both unnecessary and personal.

 

[The Biblicist]

The process of sanctification is not a process by which one church turns another “false church” into a “true church”......You will say that those churches teach a false gospel because they deny eternal security. And then you will say that you are not calling into question the salvation of those Christians saved through that gospel.

You constantly pervert what I say and I am tired of it. I said no such thing. I never said at any time the gospel which they proclaim is the gospel that saved them or anyone else. The Galatians embraced a false gospel and yet they were saved. Saved people can be deluded and preach a false gospel but that does not mean that false gospel determines their own salvation, as they can be truely saved, deluded into embracing and preaching a false gospel and STILL BE SAVED.

The purpose of a symbol is to provide a distinct exact visible form that will convey an intended truth. Pervert the precise form and you pervert what is being conveyed, thus pervert the truth. Baptism is designed to convey the truth of the gospel in symbolic form. Therefore, SAVED paedobaptists preach a false gospel by their perverted administration of baptism. If you don't understand what I am saying then ask me. I have straightened you out on this misrepresentation before but it seems you are intent on continuing to misrepresent my position. Stop it!

There is but one gospel, brother. I agree that Arminianism is error. But having been saved attending that type of church, believing that type of doctrine, I can assure you that the gospel is the same. I once held to free-will doctrine, now I don’t. But my view of the gospel itself never changed. My understanding of doctrines of the gospel did.No, that….again….is not what I am saying. But I grant that you are like me in these discussions. You use “what you are saying” not as a charge but to clarify.

I am not talking about undefined Armininism as I gave a precise definition if you would simply read more carefully. I said that those who embrace eternal security believe the will is secured by the new birth - that includes Armininians who embrace eternal security.

In contrast, to these Arminians, I explicitly defined those who pervert the gospel as those who are consistent Arminians - they believe in the absolute sovereingty of the human will in both the reception and LATER rejection of Christ and thus the doctrine of apostasy by true born again children of God. This is a false gospel and regardless if some are saved among them IN SPITE OF their false gospel is completely another issue altogether. To deny "eternal life" but to teach "conditional life" is a clear assertion of justification by works as the conditional aspect stands firmly on the believer alone.

There are tests of fellowship within a local church. But here you confuse how churches treat members with how churches should treat other churches within some “universal church”. You keep returning to Rome in church structure.

Pleeeeease give me a break from your absolute nonsense!!! The same criteria to bring a person into church fellowship, which is what membership does, must be the same criterial to recognize any other church as a church of Christ. The same gospel, the same baptism and the same other doctrinal essetnials of scripture. Where there is no scriptural gospel there is no church. Where there is no scriptural baptism there is no true church to fellowship with. Where there is no other essentials of the fiath there is no true church existing. The Great Commission is not a suggestion but is a command - imperative verb with a decisive order and essential content.

I am saying that Spurgeon was correct that doctrinal divisions (he was, in fact, speaking of our example as well) are necessary and help to bring out truth in general. He was not denying the legitimacy of those churches, he opposed their “error”, but he did so in such a way as not to bring condemnation upon himself.

It didn't work too well for him in the downgrade controversy did it??? Spurgeon is wrong as he is contradicting the very commands of scritpure to remove such brethren who are embracing false doctrine from the assembly (2 Thes. 3:6) and don't tell me this only refers to moral issues but it refers to doctrinal issues. Even you must admit that some FALSE DOCTRINE is grounds for separation and condemnation and repudiation of some professed true churches of Christ - be consistent.

I simply stated that we are to love one another as Christ loved the Church. If you consider that “sloppy agape” then your problem is not with me but with Jesus Christ. Since your issue is with God’s word and not mine, I’ll help you out a bit. Even when we exercise church discipline it is in love – both in love for the church by expelling the one practicing sin and in love for the expelled person in hope that God will return him to the fold. Perhaps this one comment is enough to reveal the issue here. You love the church, want to please God and do kingdom work, but you want to do kingdom work worldly ways.

! Of course love includes discipline but it does not rejoice in iniquity or embrace it but true love HATES error and if it does not HATE error it does not LOVE God. I did not say hate PEOPLE and so don't pervert what I said as that seems to be your habit. I can love a lost man knee deep in paganism but I am not going to bring him into "church fellowship." I can love members of false churches without embracing them in "church fellowship."

You have misunderstood both my comment and Scripture. My comment is that we have to be careful when we seek to go on the offensive against other churches (again, against congregations comprised of Christians, believing the gospel, gathered for Kingdom work, but also containing error in some doctrines) because we are going on the offensive against Christ.

You need to be more careful in what you call a "church" of Christ! You need to be careful what you call "the gospel." You need to be careful in offending God for the sake of unity and sloppy agape.
Where there is no Biblical baptism there is no true church of Christ. NOTE I did not say where there is not Biblical baptism there are no true Christians - so don't twist my language. If you don't agree then find either precept or example of any unbaptized congregation in the scriptures! Don't say that I am basing this on silence either, because there is precepts in the form of imperative mode that demand BIBLICAL baptism precedes church fellowship - Mt. 28:19-20. (1) salvation; (2) baptism; (3) assembled under instruction for observing all things.

 

[The Biblicist]

Within the passage you seek to minimalize (at best) or deny (at worse), Jesus identifies Himself with His Church. Paul is, as you say, persecuting the Church. But what you are denying (or minimalizing) is that Jesus doesn’t ask Paul why he is persecuting the Church, or those people in Jerusalem, or even Christians in general. Jesus asks Paul why he is persecuting HIM. Jesus identifies with the Church. You would do well also to read Matthew 25. Jesus was not spiritualizing things. He was speaking truth.

You are making "church" synonymous with "Christians" and that is not true. He is speaking about PHYSICAL persecution of a local visible congregation at Jerusalem FOR THEIR FAITHFULNESS rather than some quasi universal invisible church or unbaptized institutions or Christians steeped in errors. He is not speaking about condemning churches holding false doctrines contrary to the faith, because if he was then you better rebuke Paul because just about every single letter he wrote rebuked TRUE churches that HE FOUNDED on the SAME FAITH AND ORDER, much less harlot churches or metaphorical "espoused" churches (2 Cor. 11;2) that had been "corrrupted" (thus a metaphorical harlot). He is not speakig about condemning institutions which are not true churches of Christ even though they might profess it, unless you think Catholic, SDA, Mormons, Pentecostal, etc. etc. are true churches and it is unloving to condemn them as false churches EVEN THOUGH SAVED PEOPLE MAY EXIST IN THEM (Rev. 18:4). There are essentials to be regarded as a true church of Christ and those essentials must include the Great Commission essentials of both the right gospel and right baptism at MINIMUM as both are gospel based doctrinal declarations.

And the warning remains. We have to be very careful when we decide to attack other churches because if they are indeed members of Christ’s body then we are attacking Christ. What you need to learn is how to deal with doctrine, and confront false doctrine, without going beyond that by attacking the individual or the church. Your replies on this thread show you have difficulty in this area (mine probably show the same). Maybe that is something you should work on.

First, your are embracing the very doctrine of the Great Whore herself when you claim all Christians are "members of Christ's body" as that is manifestly untrue (Rev. 18:4; 21:24). The church cannot precede its own "foundation" and its foundation excludes OT saints as the first gifted men "set in" the church are "apostles" and the second are "prophets" thus excluding all OT saints from the church. Your universal inivisble church body is the root of all ecumenical error and that is why you are blind to basic truths about separation from heretical predicted apostate Christianity which contains TRUE Christians (Rev. 18:4) in spite of the errors they embrace and promote.

I fully agree that we do not fellowship with churches that are practicing immorality. I disagree that we cannot fellowship with churches that differ in doctrine.

Your disagreement is with God's word (2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17-18) and not with me only. Your disagreement is with yourself as even you admit that SOME FALSE DOCTRINES require disfellowshipping from professed Christian denominations. So the truth is, you want to draw the line so that it includes what you want to include rather than draw the line where the Bible draws it. You want to redefine "the faith once delivered" to simply include salvation essentials when that faith was "delivered" it included such things as service essentials ("baptize them...teaching them to observe"). thanks but no thanks. Maybe that is something you need to work on?

 

[utilyan]

Bib first you have no bible. Being that you only hijack the canon of the heretical folks who taught you everything you know in the first place.



Scripture says Gospel proclaimed world wide along with world wide sacrifice to God. Your "church" can't even cover 2 blocks.


" To deny "eternal life" but to teach "conditional life" is a clear assertion of justification by works as the conditional aspect stands firmly on the believer alone."


Bib if works are not justifying why are you condemning them for not doing the good work of not denying eternal life?


Its like an IDIOT walk up to me and say THE #1 RULE IS YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY RULES.


You whine about folks preaching the wrong way when the right way declares preaching the right way GOOD WORKS does not lead to salvation.



Scripture says the world knows Christians.

Bib no one even knows what denomination you are. Flat out unknown.

 

[utilyan]

Bib,
YOU slap the face of the parent religion who taught you Jesus. You slap your parents face because you think your better then them. You started to notice flaws, they were not perfect to your standard.

Instead of being grateful for them doing their best with what they had you spit in their face.

You call them heretics traitors against Christ..



All these folks in this thread, That's your people and your doctrine.

There is only 2 churches on this thread. SOLA SCRIPTURA and Catholic.



The problem of EGO. NAME ONE LIVING PERSON who has scripture right OTHER then you.


You can't name anyone because you think you are the highest authority.

 

[JonC]

First, your are embracing the very doctrine of the Great Whore herself when you claim all Christians are "members of Christ's body" as that is manifestly untrue (Rev. 18:4; 21:24).

Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. 1 Cor 12:27

Yes, I am saying that all Christians are individually members of Christ's body. But it is not I but Paul, and not Paul but Christ in him. Are you suggesting that God Himself has embraced the very doctrine of the Great Whore???? Is that what you preach would preach in the pulpit???

To prevent misinterpretation here - yes, Paul is speaking of individual Christians (believers who have been converted and are "in Christ", born again/ born from above...Christians) as being members of Christ's body. This is the passage discussing spiritual gifts given to individuals within a local congregation and the exercise of those gifts to function as one body. Scripture always assumes the place of believers to be within a local church, functioning as members of Christ's body for Kingdom work.

 

[JonC]

You are making "church" synonymous with "Christians" and that is not true. He is speaking about PHYSICAL persecution of a local visible congregation at Jerusalem FOR THEIR FAITHFULNESS rather than some quasi universal invisible church or unbaptized institutions or Christians steeped in errors. He is not speaking about condemning churches holding false doctrines contrary to the faith, because if he was then you better rebuke Paul because just about every single letter he wrote rebuked TRUE churches that HE FOUNDED on the SAME FAITH AND ORDER, much less harlot churches or metaphorical "espoused" churches (2 Cor. 11;2) that had been "corrrupted" (thus a metaphorical harlot). He is not speakig about condemning institutions which are not true churches of Christ even though they might profess it, unless you think Catholic, SDA, Mormons, Pentecostal, etc. etc. are true churches and it is unloving to condemn them as false churches EVEN THOUGH SAVED PEOPLE MAY EXIST IN THEM (Rev. 18:4). There are essentials to be regarded as a true church of Christ and those essentials must include the Great Commission essentials of both the right gospel and right baptism at MINIMUM as both are gospel based doctrinal declarations.




First, your are embracing the very doctrine of the Great Whore herself when you claim all Christians are "members of Christ's body" as that is manifestly untrue (Rev. 18:4; 21:24). The church cannot precede its own "foundation" and its foundation excludes OT saints as the first gifted men "set in" the church are "apostles" and the second are "prophets" thus excluding all OT saints from the church. Your universal inivisble church body is the root of all ecumenical error and that is why you are blind to basic truths about separation from heretical predicted apostate Christianity which contains TRUE Christians (Rev. 18:4) in spite of the errors they embrace and promote.



Your disagreement is with God's word (2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17-18) and not with me only. Your disagreement is with yourself as even you admit that SOME FALSE DOCTRINES require disfellowshipping from professed Christian denominations. So the truth is, you want to draw the line so that it includes what you want to include rather than draw the line where the Bible draws it. You want to redefine "the faith once delivered" to simply include salvation essentials when that faith was "delivered" it included such things as service essentials ("baptize them...teaching them to observe"). thanks but no thanks. Maybe that is something you need to work on?

I am going to try to extract in summary our disagreements from the plethora of insults you’ve shot in my direction. If I misunderstand or misrepresent your position, then please feel free to correct that error. This is how I see our positions:

1. We both agree that immorality and false teachings should not be tolerated within the local church. I think it fair to say that we both agree that, concerning disputable interpretations and doctrines, that local churches should internally stand for those positions and interpretations that are collectively agreed upon as this forms the “doctrinal boundaries” of Christian churches within the Faith.

2. Neither of us believe that the “church” is synonymous with “Christians”.

I consider the ingathering of believers as described in Acts 2:37-47 as constituting an assembly and community of believers which would rightly be called a “church”. To this people (not an organization with the established ecclesiastical government you describe, or the worked out soteriological doctrines you require) God was adding to their number daily, those who were being saved (Acts 2:47). These were a community of believers that devoted themselves to the apostle’s teachings, to living their lives together, to fellowship and to prayer (2:42). And do you know what these people were? They were the local expression of a people that the Lord our God called to Himself. And this congregation (or multitude, πρέσβυς) of believers lived life together – they constituted a community of believers (Acts 4:32) and God added to their number daily.

We differ because I believe that God was adding to the church those people who were being saved in Acts 2-6. I believe that this assembly of believers who devoted themselves to the work of the Kingdom, to prayer, to worshipping God, and to each other constituted a local church. This was before an “overseer” was appointed and before deacons were selected. This was before a theological explanation of how God effected salvation was explained and recorded, and before secondary issues gained prominence in consuming the hearts and minds of believers. And I believe that this people called out by God and assembled as a people for God, devoted to Kingdom work, to prayer and to each other rightly constitutes a church (ἐκκλησία). To this church offices were given. Within this church doctrines were developed and expounded. But nonetheless, the assembly….the “congregation” of which Luke speaks in Acts is the church.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that a congregational community of God’s people assembled for the purpose of Kingdom work, devoted corporately for the purpose of prayer, worship, God’s Word, fellowship and the glorification of God only constitutes a church if it possesses a specific church government and adheres to a specific understanding of how God effected their salvation. If I misunderstood your points here, please feel free to correct me. But as it stands, you reject any church (Presbyterian, Nazarene, Methodist, Free-Will Baptist, Anabaptist and Quaker congregations, American Baptist Churches, Calvary Chapel, etc.) as false churches because they either deny or fail to affirm the doctrine of eternal security.

So our difference is that where I see churches in error you see religious societies comprised of Christians.

3. I do claim that all Christians are members of Christ’s body (I affirm Scripture, not that it ever needed my affirmation). Scripture assumes that those who believe will be added to the church.

I am not sure how or why you reject that Christians comprise the body of Christ, but being members of Christ’s body is Paul’s explanation as to not defiling ourselves in sin. Not only that, but your comment that the belief Christians now comprise Christ’s body equates to embracing the “doctrine of the Great Whore” is blasphemous. Scripture itself states that we are “Christ’s body, and individual members of it (1 Cor: 12:27).”

Using your own “rules of engagement”, would your false doctrine here not also necessitate Christians to “dis-fellowship” with you?

4. I do admit that false doctrine requires “dis-fellowship”. In a local church, doctrine to that church either requires acceptance or expulsion (of that doctrine) depending on how it aligns with Scripture. That said, I believe that there is a difference between false doctrine and error and Scripture plainly tells us that believers will have differences of opinion and understanding over which we are not to argue. It depends on the doctrine (remember, I’m Baptist so I do believe in a bit more liberty than you may like).

But again, using your standard, that one stark denial of Scripture on your part would classify you as a false teacher spreading false doctrine. By your standard you are a heretic, perhaps a Christian but a heretic nonetheless, who needs to be expelled from the congregation. By my standard, you are a brother who made an error and I am pointing it out to you. Even if you don’t accept that, we are united in Christ because we believe the same gospel, share the same baptism, and argue like family.

Conclusion: Our biggest difference is where to "draw the line". By your standard, you are a false teacher who needs to be expelled from the congregation. By my standard, your line is too narrow. There exists room within the local church for disagreement (this is clear by Paul's admonishments not to argue over such disagreements). If this is true (and it is, it's in the Bible) then there exists greater disagreement within Christianity in general but external to the local church. I believe that you are in error, but as we share the same baptism and are united in Christ, your error does not necessarily mean that you should be expelled. Are you teaching false doctrine? Yes. But it is not what I consider Scripture to be referring to as "false doctrine". It is an error, not a false gospel. We simply draw the line in different places.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. 1 Cor 12:27

Yes, I am saying that all Christians are individually members of Christ's body. But it is not I but Paul, and not Paul but Christ in him. Are you suggesting that God Himself has embraced the very doctrine of the Great Whore???? Is that what you preach would preach in the pulpit???

To prevent misinterpretation here - yes, Paul is speaking of individual Christians (believers who have been converted and are "in Christ", born again/ born from above...Christians) as being members of Christ's body. This is the passage discussing spiritual gifts given to individuals within a local congregation and the exercise of those gifts to function as one body. Scripture always assumes the place of believers to be within a local church, functioning as members of Christ's body for Kingdom work.

Look at the text! He does not say "WE" but he says "YE" - he is taking the abstract teaching in verses 12-26 and now making concrete application to the temple of God, the house of God, the church of God, the metaphorical body of Christ located in Corinth.

I don't have time and space right now to show you that 1 Cor. 12:13 is a summary of chapters 1-4:7. But it is and if need be I will take the time and effort to demonstrate it.

Second, the church of God is the body of Christ, which is the House of God, which is the temple of God but the church referred to in the NT cannot precede its own "foundation" (1 Cor. 12:28 with Ephes. 2:20). The FIRST gifted men "set in" the church are not Old Testament prophets or saints but FIRST "apostles" then secondarily "prophets" - NT prophets. Therefore, the body of Christ the church does not include all saints in all ages or all the elect.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Practice what you preach! I not only read it but gave it a compliment as about the best attempt I have seen joint evangelicals with paedobaptists

The principal aim of the statement is to avoid the very ecumenism that the ECT documents promote, so do not expect me to be grateful for your compliment.

It leaves the very issues that divide paedobaptists from Baptists UNDEFINED so that each side can define the Biblical language for themselves. For example they use the ecclesiastial language of "baptism" thus making it putty to be shaped anyway one wants. Thus the analogy with Evangelicals and Catholics Together where they used Biblical langauge void of Biblical definitions as truth would ruin the merger.

The purpose of the confession is to lay the basis for Gospel unity. It separates from the Church of Rome and from 'High Church' Anglicanism by specifically denying baptismal regeneration. But you are correct that it does not address the question of credo- or paedobaptism. The reason for this is that baptism is an outward ordinance, and does not confer salvation. Therefore, although it may preclude church unity- an individual church cannot be both credo- and paedo- it should not preclude Gospel unity. To insist that it does makes baptism into a work and divides the people of God (Ephesians 4:1-3).
Apollos very obviously had a problem in his understanding of baptism in Acts 18:24-26, but Aquilla and Priscilla did not ostracize him, but rather helped him to understand the correct doctrine. Likewise, Baptists will not persuade paedobaptists of the truth of their position by refusing fellowship, but rather by treating them as brothers and seeking to show them the more excellent way.

Not only is there NOTHING in scripture to support this heresy but it violates the very basics of salvation and only exists due to violating basic laws of heremeneutics. See my thread on the Abstract Institutional use of ekklesia and its synonyms.

The Scriptures are entirely clear. Many times in the NT, ekklesia very obviously refers to the one universal Church. Your hermeneutical approach in that thread was faulty as you endeavoured to prove your point by going outside of the Bible. This may sometimes be necessary in the case of a hapax legomenon, but in the case of ekklesia, the word is used often enough in the Bible to make its meaning clear.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am going to try to extract in summary our disagreements from the plethora of insults you’ve shot in my direction. If I misunderstand or misrepresent your position, then please feel free to correct that error. This is how I see our positions:

1. We both agree that immorality and false teachings should not be tolerated within the local church. I think it fair to say that we both agree that, concerning disputable interpretations and doctrines, that local churches should internally stand for those positions and interpretations that are collectively agreed upon as this forms the “doctrinal boundaries” of Christian churches within the Faith.

Correct, as that is precisely the purpose of Articles of Faith or a general confession as the New Hampshire Confession (in my case).

2. Neither of us believe that the “church” is synonymous with “Christians”.

I consider the ingathering of believers as described in Acts 2:37-47 as constituting an assembly and community of believers which would rightly be called a “church”. To this people (not an organization with the established ecclesiastical government you describe, or the worked out soteriological doctrines you require) God was adding to their number daily, those who were being saved (Acts 2:47). These were a community of believers that devoted themselves to the apostle’s teachings, to living their lives together, to fellowship and to prayer (2:42). And do you know what these people were? They were the local expression of a people that the Lord our God called to Himself. And this congregation (or multitude, πρέσβυς) of believers lived life together – they constituted a community of believers (Acts 4:32) and God added to their number daily.

We differ because I believe that God was adding to the church those people who were being saved in Acts 2-6. I believe that this assembly of believers who devoted themselves to the work of the Kingdom, to prayer, to worshipping God, and to each other constituted a local church. This was before an “overseer” was appointed and before deacons were selected. This was before a theological explanation of how God effected salvation was explained and recorded, and before secondary issues gained prominence in consuming the hearts and minds of believers. And I believe that this people called out by God and assembled as a people for God, devoted to Kingdom work, to prayer and to each other rightly constitutes a church (ἐκκλησία). To this church offices were given. Within this church doctrines were developed and expounded. But nonetheless, the assembly….the “congregation” of which Luke speaks in Acts is the church.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that a congregational community of God’s people assembled for the purpose of Kingdom work, devoted corporately for the purpose of prayer, worship, God’s Word, fellowship and the glorification of God only constitutes a church if it possesses a specific church government and adheres to a specific understanding of how God effected their salvation. If I misunderstood your points here, please feel free to correct me. But as it stands, you reject any church (Presbyterian, Nazarene, Methodist, Free-Will Baptist, Anabaptist and Quaker congregations, American Baptist Churches, Calvary Chapel, etc.) as false churches because they either deny or fail to affirm the doctrine of eternal security.

So our difference is that where I see churches in error you see religious societies comprised of Christians.

Here is a tremendous difference of opinion. Contrary to your belief a disciplinary structure was established in the church before Pentecost (Mt. 18:15-18). Gospel ordinances were established before Pentecost (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30; Mt. 26:12-30). Church leadership was established before Pentecost (1 Cor. 12:28 wth Luke 6:12-13 and Acts `1:15-26). An orderly process for making disciples was established before Pentecost (Mt. 28:19-20). A church treasurer existed before Pentecost. A church roll of names existed before Pentecost, A orderly church membership under the direction of ordained leadership occurred before Pentecost. Habitually assembling under a Pastor occurred before Pentecost (Acts 1:21-22). Everything ESSENTIAL as an organized congregation had been establisehd before Pentecost.

In addition your interpretation of "added" is completely wrong. Matthew 28:19-20 provides an ORGANIZED PROCESS for making disciples and that process is followed to the letter in Acts 2:40-41.

1. Gospelize - "as many as received the word"
2. Baptize - "were baptized
3. Congregationalize to be instructed how to observe - "added unto them - continued stedfastly in...."

This commission reproduces "disciples" that are LIKE FAITH AND ORDER in the same gospel, same baptism and same doctrine and practice. That is the meaning of "disciple" one who follows the Master or is a duplicate of the mold. It is not one who is an inovater or one who produces another system or order for making disciples. Those who do that are called "heretics" in the Scriptures not "disciples."

Luke uses the periphrastic construct in Acts 2:41 translated "continued stedfastly" which is a combination of verbs, the imperfect linked with the present tense "to be" verb. Luke is most likely writing after the two years of imprisonment by Paul in Rome. The periphrastic construct is saying from the writers perspective that on the day of Pentecost this was the practice that began at some previous point in the past (imperfect verb) which context shows to be with Christ in his ministry with the church (Acts 1;21-22) and continued to some undetermined point in the future that is further clarified by the present tense verb meaning this has been the continued practice from the ministry of Christ until at least two yeasrs after Paul reached Rome.

Moreover, after Luke has spelled out this practice, from this point forward he simply summarizes this practice by taking the word "added" in verse 40 and repeating it whenever people were saved afterwards and "added" unto them - MEANING THEY WERE ADDED EXACTLY AS SPELLED OUT IN ACTS 2:40-41 or as the periphrastic construct demands. The precise numbers are given for such additions between Acts 2-5. However, when the numbers began to be too many to add up, he changes math terms from "added" to "multiplied" but through the very same means (1) preaching the gospel; (2) baptism; (3) added to church fellowship.

 

[The Biblicist]

3. I do claim that all Christians are members of Christ’s body (I affirm Scripture, not that it ever needed my affirmation). Scripture assumes that those who believe will be added to the church.

I am not sure how or why you reject that Christians comprise the body of Christ, but being members of Christ’s body is Paul’s explanation as to not defiling ourselves in sin. Not only that, but your comment that the belief Christians now comprise Christ’s body equates to embracing the “doctrine of the Great Whore” is blasphemous. Scripture itself states that we are “Christ’s body, and individual members of it (1 Cor: 12:27).”

Again, look at the text it does not say "we" but "ye". Again the church is the body of Christ and it cannot precede its own foundation (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).

So I guess by "all Christians" you discount anyone prior to Pentecost as a Christian because NONE of them are in the church body of Christ and that is easy to prove.

4. I do admit that false doctrine requires “dis-fellowship”

. In a local church, doctrine to that church either requires acceptance or expulsion (of that doctrine) depending on how it aligns with Scripture. That said, I believe that there is a difference between false doctrine and error and Scripture plainly tells us that believers will have differences of opinion and understanding over which we are not to argue. It depends on the doctrine (remember, I’m Baptist so I do believe in a bit more liberty than you may like).

All of Paul's letters begin with doctrine as doctrine is the basis for practice. So where you get the idea of false doctrine versus error is beyond me - perhaps you might provide clear explicit scripture to explain what you mean????

But again, using your standard

How do you know what my standard is? Please tell me what is my standard according to your perspective and then we can continue this discussion. The only standard that I have set forth is the essentials of the Great Commission. Is there some other standard you think I have?

 

[TCassidy]

Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. 1 Cor 12:27

Yes, I am saying that all Christians are individually members of Christ's body. But it is not I but Paul, and not Paul but Christ in him. Are you suggesting that God Himself has embraced the very doctrine of the Great Whore???? Is that what you preach would preach in the pulpit???

Isn't Paul addressing the people who are in the church at Corinth?

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2 to the assembly of God which is at Corinth . . .

 

[The Biblicist]

The principal aim of the statement is to avoid the very ecumenism that the ECT documents promote, so do not expect me to be grateful for your compliment.

Martin, let us do a reset. Just like Clinton had a reset button she took the United nations and presented it to the Russian Ambassador, let you and me have a reset, because we are talking past one another and you are surely misrepresenting me as much as you claim I am you. So let's reset. Let's put any past animosity there may or may not be aside and start anew.

The purpose of the confession is to lay the basis for Gospel unity. It separates from the Church of Rome and from 'High Church' Anglicanism by specifically denying baptismal regeneration. But you are correct that it does not address the question of credo- or paedobaptism. The reason for this is that baptism is an outward ordinance, and does not confer salvation. Therefore, although it may preclude church unity- an individual church cannot be both credo- and paedo- it should not preclude Gospel unity. To insist that it does makes baptism into a work and divides the people of God (Ephesians 4:1-3).

I know the purpose, as that was the same purpose of ECT but it fails just as does the ECT. It fails because the gospel is not merely a declaration but is part and parcel with the very fabric of church constitution and its ordiances as a matter of ecclesiastical PRACTICE.

Reformed Paedobaptists claim the DOCTRINE of justification and proclaim it from their pulpits while their church constitution and ordinances repudiate it by their Ecclesiastial PRACTICE. The issue between us is not PERSONAL fellowship, as I will personally fellowship with any true gospel believer even if they belong to the church of Rome. The issue is ECCLESIASTICAL fellowship and their ecclesiastial PRACTICE repudiates the gospel entirely. More on this later.

Apollos very obviously had a problem in his understanding of baptism in Acts 18:24-26, but Aquilla and Priscilla did not ostracize him, but rather helped him to understand the correct doctrine.

There was no problem with the baptism of Apollos as he was never rebaptized. The problem is that he knew "ONLY" the baptism of John and did not know of the baptism in the Spirit, just as the twelve in chapter 19 were ignorant of the very same baptism. Apollos was only "instructed" better in "the way of the Lord" he was not lost, nor was there any problem in his baptism as he was not rebaptized and you know there is not a single word about rebaptism in the text. What he did not know was that it was the church that was baptized or authenticated by God as the proper administrator of baptism. When he heard this instruction he responded by thenceforth ceasing an independent ministry and worked through the approved authenticated administrator of the Great Commission the church and this is indicated by him joining himself with the brethren at Ephesus and then receiving a letter of recommendation to the church at Corinth. He was next instructed that Jesus of Nazereth was the Messiah, and so he continued preachng the same OT gospel of Christ (Acts 10:43) but with the addition that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah or Christ.

Likewise, Baptists will not persuade paedobaptists of the truth of their position by refusing fellowship, but rather by treating them as brothers and seeking to show them the more excellent way.

This is not an issue of mistreating individual believers as brothers in Christ. This is an issue of what constitutes a NT. congregation - lost infants who neither profess Christ by mouth or by baptism or baptized believers. The very constitution of their congregations repudiates the gospel of Christ as a matter of PRACTICE both in their ordinances and in their membership.

The Scriptures are entirely clear. Many times in the NT, ekklesia very obviously refers to the one universal Church.

No, it does not. If you were living in NT times you would never ever read into the usage of ekklesia or its synonyms such nonsense. That is read into the text by post-New Testament denominational bias.

Your hermeneutical approach in that thread was faulty as you endeavoured to prove your point by going outside of the Bible. This may sometimes be necessary in the case of a hapax legomenon, but in the case of ekklesia, the word is used often enough in the Bible to make its meaning clear.

What you are saying is wrong and you need to reread what I said because I provided both BIBLICAL and HISTORICAL evidence for the abstract institutional use of ekklesia. And it is only by ignoring this historical and biblical usage was the completely contradictory meaning of ekklesia invented, and I might say it was invented by those desperately seeking to avoid disfellowship.

However, it is from its historical usage prior to and including the time of the New Testament that the ordinary normal meaning is determined. The exegete must approach the NT according to established historial meanings of term being used unless those meanings cannot make sense. Willfully ignorning this historical usage of ekklesia is what gives rise to a supposed new and contradictory meaning of universal and invisible.

 

[JonC]

Isn't Paul addressing the people who are in the church at Corinth?

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2 to the assembly of God which is at Corinth . . .

Yes, Paul is addressing people who are members of the local church at Corinth. But it echos Romans 12 which was addressed to Christians in Rome (not to a single local church). And there Paul says to everyone among them that they, who are many, are one body in Christ and individually members of one another. All Christians are a part of that "Body of Christ" of which Paul often references. Paul is not introducing a different concept in 1 Corinthians than he had discussed in Romans 12.

Both passages present all Christians as members of the Body of Christ.

As Douglas Moo points out, here Paul "touches briefly on themes that he has developed more fully in 1 Corinthians 12. The church, Paul explains, is like the human body. All Christians are part of that one body." (Romans, EBS, pg 178).

 

[TCassidy]

But it echos Romans 12 which was addressed to Christians in Rome (not to a single local church).

How do you know they were not part of the church that was at Rome?

All Christians are part of that one body.

The body in question is described as "fitly joined together." The body you are taking about is scattered all over the world. A part here. I part there.

But Paul admonishes they to "Rejoice with those who rejoice. Weep with those who weep." That sounds to me as if they knew each other, worshiped together, shared their prayer concerns with one another.

If it means a bunch of people not fitly joined together, but scattered all over Rome, the largest city in the world, how could they obey Paul's command?