Unbelievers in Churches

[The Archangel]

Really? Let's look at the whole passage, hm?

2 Corinthians 13, NASB
2 I have previously said when present the second time, and though now absent I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well, that if I come again I will not spare anyone,
3 since you are seeking for proof of the Christ who speaks in me, and who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you.
4 For indeed He was crucified because of weakness, yet He lives because of the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, yet we will live with Him because of the power of God directed toward you.
5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-unless indeed you fail the test?
6 But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test. [Emphasis added]​

Paul was not speaking of a lack of faith in Christ, an absence of the Holy Spirit, in the Corinthians. The context proves his reproof was regarding their refusal to accept his own authority as coming from Christ. When Paul says, "test yourselves to see if you are in the faith," he admonishes them against rejecting him as Christ's apostle simply because they don't like what he's saying. He has just spent the whole of chapter twelve chastising them, not for "lack of faith," but for confidence in his calling.

Nope.

By referring to "the faith" rather than saying something like "my gospel" Paul has raised the stakes to the highest level.

Here's a good summary:

The Corinthians may have in mind to bring charges against him, and to test his claims to be a true apostle, but here Paul tells them to examine themselves, to ensure that they are in the faith. He reminds them that Christ Jesus indwells them (with all the moral implications of that fact; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19–20), that is, unless they fail the test! Paul then says, I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. This is somewhat surprising, for the context leads us to expect that Paul’s hope would be that the Corinthians would be the ones to pass the test. The explanation is that by testing themselves and reaching the conclusion that they do hold to the faith, the Corinthians will at the same time be acknowledging that Paul has not failed the test. If they hold the faith and Christ indwells them, that is so because of what they received through the ministry of Paul, and that in turn proves that he is a true apostle, one who has passed the test.

New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer and G. J. Wenham, 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1205.

It is clear, however, that self-examination is required. James, likely, agrees when talking about how one's works demonstrate one's faith, and how the lack of works calls any claimed faith into question.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Well, I'd like the time stamp in the video where Piper says to examine ourselves to see if we're in the faith.

Of course you would. But the "time stamp" and the "quote" isn't the point. It isn't a crime against the faith to question one's faith. Paul did it and many pastors do it--all the while pleading to come to Christ if they find themselves lost.

The Archangel

 

[JamesL]

It is clear, however, that self-examination is required. James, likely, agrees when talking about how one's works demonstrate one's faith, and how the lack of works calls any claimed faith into question.

Sorry, I don't agree.

And that other James doesn't, either

 

[InTheLight]

Of course you would. But the "time stamp" and the "quote" isn't the point. It isn't a crime against the faith to question one's faith. Paul did it and many pastors do it--all the while pleading to come to Christ if they find themselves lost.

The Archangel

M-kay... You realize you've completely changed the subject matter away from your OP, and away from the contents of the video clip. I can play too. Who are the brethren Jesus speaks about in Matthew 25:40? Gentiles who helped the Jews during the Tribulation? Or....?

 

[The Archangel]

M-kay... You realize you've completely changed the subject matter away from your OP, and away from the contents of the video clip. I can play too. Who are the brethren Jesus speaks about in Matthew 25:40? Gentiles who helped the Jews during the Tribulation? Or....?

No, no... Changing the subject is what you've tried to do...

The Archangel

 

[go2church]

Well Piper should know, he's right about everything:tongue3:

You sound like the "workers" more worried about pulling up the tares than caring for the wheat.

 

[Jedi Knight]

So they don't teach the gospel clear enough for the non elect to reject it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Nope.

By referring to "the faith" rather than saying something like "my gospel" Paul has raised the stakes to the highest level.

First, that ignores the context that I quoted, and your "Nope" is woefully lacking in exegesis. :laugh:

Secondly, this ...

The Corinthians may have in mind to bring charges against him, and to test his claims to be a true apostle, but here Paul tells them to examine themselves, to ensure that they are in the faith. He reminds them that Christ Jesus indwells them (with all the moral implications of that fact; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19–20), that is, unless they fail the test! Paul then says, I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test. This is somewhat surprising, for the context leads us to expect that Paul’s hope would be that the Corinthians would be the ones to pass the test. The explanation is that by testing themselves and reaching the conclusion that they do hold to the faith, the Corinthians will at the same time be acknowledging that Paul has not failed the test. If they hold the faith and Christ indwells them, that is so because of what they received through the ministry of Paul, and that in turn proves that he is a true apostle, one who has passed the test.

New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer and G. J. Wenham, 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1205.

... is a miserable excuse for a commentary on the passage. John Gill and Matthew Henry both saw the passage as I do. The comment "This is somewhat surprising ... " should lead you to realize the commentators don't know what they're talking about. They missed the point. There is only one reason that Paul would have hope that the Corinthians see that he passes the test is because they are -- just as I said -- challenging his authority as a teacher and apostle. Your authors here even alluded to that concept in the opening sentence, and managed to derail their own rational thoughts.

Reference to "the faith" is not regarding whether or not they are true believers. They are. The entirety of the two letters to the church at Corinth gives us that indication, though they are decidedly off balance and not walking in the Spirit. When Paul came to the Church in Corinth the second time -- as he references in 2 Corinthians 13:1 -- he did not say to them, “Look, you are not living like Christians so let’s go back to that one moment in your life when you were first indwelt by the Holy Spirit and let’s see if you were sincere.”

He said this, “Test yourselves, examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith.” He knows they are sincere. That is beyond question. It isn't a question of salvation as you erroneously try to make it. Salvation is by faith alone. It is a work of God. It is a grace upon grace upon grace. But the evidence of conversion is not just your examination of your sincerity at the moment of your conversion. It is the on going fruit in your life. By questioning Paul's authority, they were acting in the flesh of jealousy, anger and resentment. None of those, you might note, are "the fruit of the Spirit."

 

[The Biblicist]

Nice caricature you created, but is only fit for a fiction novel.

Calvinists have always recognized that wheat and tares are present together in the visible church.

But do you recognize that it is God himself that has placed them in the membership of the church for special purpose (Mk. 3:13; Lk. 6:12 - Judas; 1 Cor. 11:19) for the maturing of the body???

 

[The Biblicist]

Saved people come in all stages of spiritual growth. Their circumstantial and emotional experiences are varied. The bottom line for salvation is a CHANGED heart toward sin with a confession of "the truth of the gospel." Where there is no changed heart toward sin and/or where there is not "the truth of the gospel" there is no salvation. Where there is a changed heart toward sin with a confession of the "truth of the gospel" there is salvation regardless of how ignorant or what stage of spiritual growth they may or may not have arrived at.

The "truth of the Gospel" is a phrase found often in the book of Galations and has to do with the issue of the substitutionary satisfaction of the Law in the Person and works of Christ. Simply trusting in Christ alone as wholly sufficient for their total salvation. Remember, true salvation includes both a changed heart toward sin and a confession of "the truth of the Gospel" whether than one or the other.

 

[Reformed]

But do you recognize that it is God himself that has placed them in the membership of the church for special purpose (Mk. 3:13; Lk. 6:12 - Judas; 1 Cor. 11:19) for the maturing of the body???

God used unrighteous Pharaoh to accomplish His purpose (Rom. 9:17). He turned the evil of Joseph's brothers on its head and used it to "preserve the life of many people" (Gen. 50:20). But my post was not about how God uses the unrighteous for His purpose. My post was to refute the unbiblical notion, by the poster I quoted, that there are multitudes of unbelievers in churches, and we treat them as though they are unable to respond to the Gospel. Certainly God knows the number of those whom "He predestined [us] to adoption as son through Jesus Christ to Himself" (Eph. 1:5), but that is a knowledge that is withheld from us. We are to proclaim the Gospel to all and plead with them to believe its message.

Are you implying that we should seek to add unbelievers to the visible church?

 

[The Biblicist]

God used unrighteous Pharaoh to accomplish His purpose (Rom. 9:17). He turned the evil of Joseph's brothers on its head and used it to "preserve the life of many people" (Gen. 50:20).

God sets them in the church body on purpose by design for the maturing of the body. Jesus went up to pray seeking whom the Father wanted among his assembly of disciples who had been assemblying with him from the baptism of John (Acts 1:21-22) to fill the church office of Apostle. The Father chose Judas, one who never was a true believer (Jn. 6:64) but a demon from the beginning WHO SIMPLY PROFESSED CHRIST and Jesus acknowledged that the Father gave him Judas in Jn. 17. Paul told the congregational body of baptized beleivers at Corinth that there "MUST" be those among them like Judas for the divine purpose to "prove" among them who were really of God (1 Cor. 11:19; 12:18).

Are you implying that we should seek to add unbelievers to the visible church?

"we" should not seek to place lost people in the congregational body of baptized believers. However, "God" purposely places such in the congregational body of believers (1 Cor. 12:18) for the practical maturing of the body.

 

[Reformed]

God sets them in the church body on purpose by design for the maturing of the body. Jesus went up to pray seeking whom the Father wanted among his assembly of disciples who had been assemblying with him from the baptism of John (Acts 1:21-22) to fill the church office of Apostle. The Father chose Judas, one who never was a true believer (Jn. 6:64) but a demon from the beginning WHO SIMPLY PROFESSED CHRIST and Jesus acknowledged that the Father gave him Judas in Jn. 17. Paul told the congregational body of baptized beleivers at Corinth that there "MUST" be those among them like Judas for the divine purpose to "prove" among them who were really of God (1 Cor. 11:19; 12:18).

I addressed this in my previous response and you obviously did not read what I wrote. I am not in the habit of repeating myself.

"we" should not seek to place lost people in the congregational body of baptized believers. However, "God" purposely places such in the congregational body of believers (1 Cor. 12:18) for the practical maturing of the body.

God can do whatever He chooses. The visible saints that make up a local church are considered to be just that - visible saints. If one of them is revealed to be an impostor then they are dealt with scripturally. Typically that is in the form of church discipline.

Honestly, I don't know what you're objecting to.

 

[The Biblicist]

I addressed this in my previous response and you obviously did not read what I wrote. I am not in the habit of repeating myself.



God can do whatever He chooses. The visible saints that make up a local church are considered to be just that - visible saints. If one of them is revealed to be an impostor then they are dealt with scripturally. Typically that is in the form of church discipline.

Honestly, I don't know what you're objecting to.

I am objecting to the unscriptural notion of a universal invisible church made up of all the elect from Genesis to Revelation. Neither the terms "universal" or "invisible" nor the doctrine is found in the scriptures. It confuses the kingdom of God with the church of God. The Church of God has no existence prior to its builder, foundation and first members, baptism in the Spirit which are all Post-first coming.

 

[Reformed]

I am objecting to the unscriptural notion of a universal invisible church made up of all the elect from Genesis to Revelation. Neither the terms "universal" or "invisible" nor the doctrine is found in the scriptures. It confuses the kingdom of God with the church of God. The Church of God has no existence prior to its builder, foundation and first members, baptism in the Spirit which are all Post-first coming.

I am going to respond more fully to your post later this afternoon. But I am really surprised that you wrote what I bolded in this post. The term "Trinity" is not found in the Bible either, but would you deny that? I think you know better that to denigrate a doctrine just because it is defined using extra-biblical terms.

 

[The Archangel]

First, that ignores the context that I quoted, and your "Nope" is woefully lacking in exegesis. :laugh:

Secondly, this ... ... is a miserable excuse for a commentary on the passage. John Gill and Matthew Henry both saw the passage as I do.

Ah... I see... Your commentators are better than mine. It doesn't matter that mine contradict your opinion, it only matters that you have "back up."

That isn't even anything approaching I have the time to interact with....

Now you will likely say that you have won the day... You haven't. Your tomfoolery isn't worth my time.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

Ah... I see... Your commentators are better than mine. It doesn't matter that mine contradict your opinion, it only matters that you have "back up."

That isn't even anything approaching I have the time to interact with....

Now you will likely say that you have won the day... You haven't. Your tomfoolery isn't worth my time.

The Archangel

Is the Apostle paul and peter yalking about the same thing, when peter exhorted us to make sure that our election was true from God?

Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;

2 peter 1:10 Nasb

 

[Reformed]

I am objecting to the unscriptural notion of a universal invisible church made up of all the elect from Genesis to Revelation. Neither the terms "universal" or "invisible" nor the doctrine is found in the scriptures. It confuses the kingdom of God with the church of God. The Church of God has no existence prior to its builder, foundation and first members, baptism in the Spirit which are all Post-first coming.

I am going to respond more fully to your post later this afternoon. But I am really surprised that you wrote what I bolded in this post. The term "Trinity" is not found in the Bible either, but would you deny that? I think you know better that to denigrate a doctrine just because it is defined using extra-biblical terms.

There has been one called-out people of God from Adam through the end of this present age. This has always been on the basis of faith in God (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). Old Testament saints may not have had firsthand knowledge of the Christ, but their faith was in Him nonetheless. The elect of God, regardless of when, have been predestined from all eternity. Their salvation was wrought in Christ; even those who died prior to Christ's advent:

Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him [emphasis mine].

Did the Father choose only those who would be in the New Testament Church, or did He choose all who He intended to be holy and blameless before Him (in Christ)? It's a rhetorical question, with the answer obviously being the latter proposition.

The visible church is simply a way of explaining of what the eye can see in regards to the physical construction of the local church. If a person professes faith in Christ, and does not display by their behavior an obvious contradiction of their profession, we accept them as members of the body of Christ. But the secret things belong to the Lord (Deut. 29:29). God looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). He knows who is truly part of the flock, the elect. It's possible for even the most discerning of Christians to be fooled. This is why those that are truly saved are member of the invisible church; the church that cannot be seen with eyes, but that is known by God.

I am not just a Calvinist, but I am also subscribe to Baptist Covenant Theology, so naturally we are going to disagree on ecclesiology. I am content to let our disagreement stand.

 

[Iconoclast]

There has been one called-out people of God from Adam through the end of this present age. This has always been on the basis of faith in God (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). Old Testament saints may not have had firsthand knowledge of the Christ, but their faith was in Him nonetheless. The elect of God, regardless of when, have been predestined from all eternity. Their salvation was wrought in Christ; even those who died prior to Christ's advent:

Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him [emphasis mine].

Did the Father choose only those who would be in the New Testament Church, or did He choose all who He intended to be holy and blameless before Him (in Christ)? It's a rhetorical question, with the answer obviously being the latter proposition.

The visible church is simply a way of explaining of what the eye can see in regards to the physical construction of the local church. If a person professes faith in Christ, and does not display by their behavior an obvious contradiction of their profession, we accept them as members of the body of Christ. But the secret things belong to the Lord (Deut. 29:29). God looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). He knows who is truly part of the flock, the elect. It's possible for even the most discerning of Christians to be fooled. This is why those that are truly saved are member of the invisible church; the church that cannot be seen with eyes, but that is known by God.

I am not just a Calvinist, but I am also subscribe to Baptist Covenant Theology, so naturally we are going to disagree on ecclesiology. I am content to let our disagreement stand.

:thumbs::wavey::thumbs: My view of the local church is as close to being the landmark position as you can be....without holding the landmark position.
I think they go beyond what is written, down playing the Spirit's work if I understand what they say, as well as elevating baptism beyond what is written.

 

[Yeshua1]

There has been one called-out people of God from Adam through the end of this present age. This has always been on the basis of faith in God (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). Old Testament saints may not have had firsthand knowledge of the Christ, but their faith was in Him nonetheless. The elect of God, regardless of when, have been predestined from all eternity. Their salvation was wrought in Christ; even those who died prior to Christ's advent:

Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him [emphasis mine].

Did the Father choose only those who would be in the New Testament Church, or did He choose all who He intended to be holy and blameless before Him (in Christ)? It's a rhetorical question, with the answer obviously being the latter proposition.

The visible church is simply a way of explaining of what the eye can see in regards to the physical construction of the local church. If a person professes faith in Christ, and does not display by their behavior an obvious contradiction of their profession, we accept them as members of the body of Christ. But the secret things belong to the Lord (Deut. 29:29). God looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). He knows who is truly part of the flock, the elect. It's possible for even the most discerning of Christians to be fooled. This is why those that are truly saved are member of the invisible church; the church that cannot be seen with eyes, but that is known by God.

I am not just a Calvinist, but I am also subscribe to Baptist Covenant Theology, so naturally we are going to disagree on ecclesiology. I am content to let our disagreement stand.

So did the Church exist out in the wilderness then under the Exodus?