Can't answer the question so you change the subject?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Essential truth of Landmarkism preserves the gospel
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
Successionism is a myth perpetuated by those who can't deal with what Landmarkism really is. The primacy of the local New Testament church.
Not trying to change the subject - just saying your initial question is not a valid one.Can't answer the question so you change the subject?
Of course it is. Show me any language in the New Testament that testifies as a universal, invisible church with all the saved being members.
I can show you a dozen passages of scripture that evidence the Triune nature of the Godhead. So, your response is a non-sequitur.
Thats the point - just by saying the word is not in the Bible - does not discount the doctrine.
Salty, isn't the point of the universal invisible church theory about spiritual union in Christ and that is then the basis of true Christian unity? Am I correct in making that evaluation?
What if spiritual union in Christ has nothing to with any kind of church nor any kind of baptism then what would be the value of that kind of church?
Not a single person on this forum has yet attempted to deal with the following words:
ALL who are "in Adam" are "in the flesh" BECAUSE they are "BORN" of the flesh or PROCREATION and all who are "in the flesh" are "none of his" - Rom. 8:8-9
ALL who are "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" BECAUSE they are "BORN" of the Spirit or NEW CREATION - Eph. 2:1-10 and indwelt by the Spirt or else they are "none of his" - Rom. 8:8-9
Not a single person on this forum has been able to successfully demonstrate how the church can precede its own "foundation" which consists of apostles and prophets which aposltes are FIRST to be "set in" this church then secondarily prophets - 1 Cor. 12;28
Not a single person on this forum has been able to successfully demonstrate how a Pentecost baptism in the Spirit, as an ACTION necessary to remove a person from his state of condemnation "in Adam" to a saved state "in Christ" can occur prior to Pentecost? However, if this baptism is the action that does this, then none prior to Pentecost was "in Christ" during their own life time or in death.
Not a single person on this forum has demonstrated how anyone OUTSIDE of Christ at any time in history can be called "saved" or ACT like they are saved and yet this must be the fate of all prior to Pentecost if it is the baptism in the Spirit as an action that places one "in Christ."
Not a single person on this forum has even attempted to deny that spirutal death is spiritual SEPARATION and therefore the reverse must be equally true and that is spiritual life is spiritual UNION. and therefore to be "in Christ" must be the creative act of God called quickening/life.
Therefore, there is no baptism in the Spirit as the big church theory defines it before Pentecost.
Therefore, there is no church as the NT defines it before its own own NT foundation
Therefore, there is no spiritual union by the baptism into such a church as defined by Universalists between Genesis and Pentecost and all those in between are therefore OUTSIDE of Christ and there is no salvation outside of Christ so this theory damns to hell all before Pentecost.
CONCLUSION: Neither the baptism in the Spirit or the church have anything to do with spiritual union of believers "in Christ." Beleivers are "created in Christ Jesus" by new birth not by any baptism or any kind of church membership and this is how all who have been saved since the fall of mankind.
Except I didn't say the word is not in the bible. I said "Show me one time where the bible says "universal church.""
Show me where the term or words to that effect states that the church is made up of all believers everywhere.
The very concept is an oxymoron. What, exactly, is an unassembled assembly? What, exactly, is a disjointed body? What, exactly, is an unbuilt building?
Where, in Ephesians or anywhere else, does the bible use the term "universal" or words to that effect to describe the church?
And where in the bible do we find the term "True Church." You must have been reading the notes in the Scofield Bible again.
The church is a local, organized, assembly, of baptized believers. Please explain to me what an unconverted believer is. ???
First, I never used the term "unconverted believer." Strawman.Where, in Ephesians or anywhere else, does the bible use the term "universal" or words to that effect to describe the church?
And where in the bible do we find the term "True Church." You must have been reading the notes in the Scofield Bible again.
The church is a local, organized, assembly, of baptized believers. Please explain to me what an unconverted believer is. ???
Secondly, you are talking about a local fellowship of Christians who assemble for corporate worship of Jesus Christ.
That's not the context of Ephesians 5, particularly the analogy of the relationship of the husband and wife and Christ and the Church. You cannot fit the local assembly into that analogy because not everyone may be regenerated.
You seem a bit confused. I never said you used the term "unconverted believer," I posted the Baptist Distinctive that describes the church as an "organized, assembly, of baptized believers." You had said that the local church had potentially "unconverted souls." But a church is a church of believers. If a person is unconverted they are not part of the "organized, assembly, of baptized believers." As you seem to think so I asked you what an unconverted believer was.
Yes. What the bible called a "church."
Once again you fail to understand what a church is. A church is an organized assembly of baptized believers. If they are unconverted they are not part of the church. I used to have a white cat who, every Sunday morning, would walk into the church building, walk down the aisle, and jump up into the lap of an older man, curl up and go to sleep. That cat was more faithful than some of our members, but the cat, regardless of the fact that she attended every Sunday, was not a member of the church. She just took up space in a pew.
Ephesians 4You seem a bit confused. I never said you used the term "unconverted believer," I posted the Baptist Distinctive that describes the church as an "organized, assembly, of baptized believers." You had said that the local church had potentially "unconverted souls." But a church is a church of believers. If a person is unconverted they are not part of the "organized, assembly, of baptized believers." As you seem to think so I asked you what an unconverted believer was.
Yes. What the bible called a "church."
Once again you fail to understand what a church is. A church is an organized assembly of baptized believers. If they are unconverted they are not part of the church. I used to have a white cat who, every Sunday morning, would walk into the church building, walk down the aisle, and jump up into the lap of an older man, curl up and go to sleep. That cat was more faithful than some of our members, but the cat, regardless of the fact that she attended every Sunday, was not a member of the church. She just took up space in a pew.
"One body"
Yes, the one body of believers belonging to Christ at Ephesus.
Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
Revelation 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
And even the scribal subscript gives us an insight into the position of the scribes.
2 Timothy 4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen. The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.
You cannot interpret the book of Ephesians from a Post-Biblical perspective. It must be interpreted in its historical context. In its historical context, the "we....us....ye...you" are all members of "one" kind of congregational body which is found in many cities - the NT kind. Thus from the historical perspective of the reader of the Ephesian epistle there is but "ONE" body IN NUMBER and that is the one the reader is a member, and there is only "ONE" body IN KIND because all the readers of this epistle were members in the very same kind of body - the NT kind found in Jerusalem, in Ephesus, in Sardis, in Thessalonica, etc. Meaning, if the congregational body at Laodicea (Col. 4:16) read this epistle they would read it as "ONE" body in number, the one where their membership resided in Laodocea and view it as "ONE" in kind, the same kind that resided at Epehsus - the local visible kind.
However, that is not how many read this epistle because they are interpreting it from a Post-Biblical multidenominational perspective and READING INTO IT their own post-Biblical ecclesiology.
However, that is not how many read this epistle because they are interpreting it from a Post-Biblical multidenominational perspective and READING INTO IT their own post-Biblical ecclesiology.
Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
So if there was multiple fellowships at Ephesus, which there probably was, and they all passed around this letter, which they probably did, then what Did "one body" mean to them?
there is "one body" at one gathering? That is asinine. There are multiple fellowships, but we are all "one body."
this letter is HEAVY in ecclesiology. And it speaks against what you guys are saying.
So if there was multiple fellowships at Ephesus, which there probably was, and they all passed around this letter, which they probably did, then what Did "one body" mean to them?
there is "one body" at one gathering? That is asinine. There are multiple fellowships, but we are all "one body."
this letter is HEAVY in ecclesiology. And it speaks against what you guys are saying.
So, Acts 20:17, Revelation 2:1, and the subscript of 2 Timothy 4:22 are all "asinine?"
How many assemblies were in Ephesus?
Stating that "there is one body at this one gathering" is asinine.
Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding something. Which that is always a possibility
Jon, may I ask where you get the idea there were many different and separate gatherings in Ephesus? Furthermore, are you identifying each one as an ekklesia or are you trying to claim that all these separate isolated gatherings are but one ekklesia or one part of one ekklesia? I am just trying to see where you are coming from and what is the Biblical basis for your reasonings.
Last edited:
I am assuming (yes I know what happens when you assume) that when Paul gathered the elders, they were the leaders of the Church from different assemblies...
Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
I would think that there would be at least one elder in each gathering...
Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
and when He addressed the Ephesians, it was the assemblies at Ephesus.
Acts 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,