The vast majority in church History are Roman Catholic! Should I be a Roman Catholic?
Since when is TRADITION final authority for doctrine and practice?
Since when should TRADITION be used to overrule the Scriptural precepts and examples?
It most certainly does! Do you regard the Great Commission as a COMMAND? Do you regard going with the gospel listed first because it is more essential than baptism? The apostles did (Acts 2:41). Should we not then regard baptism more essential than being assembled to observe all Christs command, thus more essential than membership in the church? The apostles did (Acts 2:41).
The Bible does explicitly teach and exemplify churches are made up of ONLY baptized believers and no precept, practice or example can be found to the contrary! What right have you to say such a precept or practice of unbaptized congregations is right, acceptable or NOT IN DISOBEDIENCE TO SCRIPTURES????
What value is the Bible IF tradition is final authority to determine faith and practice?? What value is the Bible if POPULAR OPINION is final authority to determine fiath and practice?
You shouldn't be Roman Catholic, but that does not mean you can make up a fairly new theology and input it onto the church. As I always say, "If it is new it probably isn't true and if it is true it probably isn't new." Your criteria for a church is new in the scheme of things, it is not true. You are building up a litmus test for a church that is not found in the Bible. The Bible says you should appoint "Elders" in every church. Does that mean that churches with only one Elder is not a church? Does that mean that those who
vote for Elders instead of
appointing them is not a church? You see, the essential elements of a true church is related to the ordinances, but only because of the Ordinance's display of the Gospel. Thus, it is the Gospel that is the essential element, not the ordinance. I will explain more in a second.
What is most concerning is that you are avoiding simple questions I have asked you, probably to grind your own theological axe. Simply, would you recommend someone attend a Presbyterian Church who preached faithfully the Gospel over a Baptist Church who did not? This is a fairly simple question and I do not know why you are avoiding the question because it is a fair question and a question my wife and I have been faced with, so it is not merely a hypothetical question.
Baptists did not traditionally call other denominations "non-churches." That began in the 1800's with Landmarkism. Landmarkism sought to input onto the church a theology and give that theology prominence that was neither taught in Scripture nor understood as having been taught in Scripture. They made a cataclysmic error in putting Baptism higher than the Bible itself placed Baptism.
Secondly, I do believe the Bible is the final authority, but the point I am making is that you insinuated that I was arrogant in using my own interpretation. I countered and said that you are the one who seems to be smarter than the history of Christianity. In combating one argument, you proceed to attacking me for traditionalism. No, it is not traditionalism to support your argument, which was attacked for being my own belief, by use of history. Rather, that is a proper response. Once again, you demonstrate that you would rather attack than really engage in the discussion.
What is the Church?
First, let's be honest, nowhere in the Bible is the church completely defined, this is done by a traditional definition passed down through history. Yes, there is the command to Baptize believers and it appears that people were saved then immediately Baptized, however, there are no didactic teachings that could lead one to believe that Baptism was initiatory into the Church.
I want to remind you that I believe two things (two things that I have continued to grant and you continue to attack despite my granting those issues): 1. Baptism is commanded. 2. Believer's Baptism is taught in the Bible. Thus, those are my stances.
There are issues you fail in your exposition.
First, the Great Commission does command Baptism, but never is Baptism explicitly linked to Church Membership in the Bible. It maybe inferred in the Bible in Acts, but as you know that is not a great case as Acts is not a book of doctrine (didactic teaching) and it is often conveying activity not doctrinal standards (as we note with the charismatic crowd). Thus, if you want to use Acts as you primary source, I would want to ask how you can convey such and reject other doctrines charismatics hold to (these doctrines I denounce as well).
So, where do we get the understanding of Baptism being linked to church membership? I contend we get this theology from Covenant Theology. In fact, without Covenant Theology you cannot derive Baptism as an initiatory right into the Church. This is because we do draw from the Covenant idea God's people and Israel, something that Dispensationalists out rightly reject. I can develop this further, but you must believe in the sign and seal of the New Testament Church, without which I believe that Baptism is meaningless. Some say that since the Great Commission was given to the church then so is Baptism, but this is on shaky ground. Case in point, if you don't reject Acts' practice as conveying didactic teaching then you have a problem with the Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunic. This was not a local church Baptism nor an initiatory right into the church of Jerusalem for membership. Thus, to embrace Acts causes more problems. Thus, the only way we can see it as initiatory, is through an understanding of Covenant Theology. That, my friend, was the initial question.
Secondly, John the Baptist did not Baptize people into the the church, but unto Repentance (Matthew 3:11). Yet, it was the people in Acts who stated they had John's Baptism but still did not know the complete Gospel. Thus, Baptism, while closely aligned with the Church, is not entirely related to the Church. Apollos in Chapter 18 and some disciples of John in Chapter 19 show that Baptism can be separated from the Gospel. The Eunich shows it can be separated from the church. Again, without Covenant Theology, you cannot link Baptism and the Church together as most Baptists do.
Thirdly, you said that we should not divide the Gospel from Baptism and you use Matthew 28 as your example. However, Paul himself divided the two by saying that he did not come to Baptize but to preach the Gospel (I Co 1:17). Thus, not even Paul sees Baptism as important as the Gospel, for he spent much time only preaching the Gospel and felt Baptism was not his most important job. Let's develop this further, it was the Corinthian Church who uplifted Baptism beyond the intended purpose and level of importance. They uplifted Baptism to the Gospel and they divided over who Baptized them (much like modern Landmarkists) rather than upon the Gospel that saved them. Paul's rebuke was seemingly harsh, that he was glad he didn't Baptize them. It is noteworthy that Jesus never Baptized (John 4:2). The importance is not in the work of Baptism, but in the Gospel it represents.
Baptism is clearly a secondary issue even within the Bible. It is you who are taking a command in Scripture and placing an importance on this issue that not even Jesus placed on the issue.
Fourthly, can a church exist without Baptism? This is a tough question. John Calvin believed in the proper use of the sacraments being intrinsic to the church. However, relating to my third point, Baptism is a representation of the Gospel message (Colossians 2:12; I Peter 3:21). Because Baptism represents the Gospel in full array, it was important to include it in the Great Commission. However, in practical outworking, the Gospel was pre-imminent in teaching by Paul, to the almost exclusion of Baptism (I Co 1:17). Baptism, thus, was deemed important because it communicated the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but not essential. It was a secondary issue.
In conclusion, I do believe that Baptism is a sign for inclusion into the local body. However, I believe that the church and the Biblical teachings of the Bible show that Baptism, while a command, was a secondary issue in both doctrine and practice. This was a secondary issue that was to be kept subornation to the Gospel itself. I am not saying baptism is unimportant, I am saying it was important because of what it represented, not essential to a local body being a local body.
Thus, I ask you my question once again, if you had to choose between a Presbyterian Church who preached the Gospel and a Baptist Church who did not, what would you choose?