Featured Salvation reduced to its most simplest level

Did I ever say you "said" this? You and OR need to understand that I am responding to the consistency or inconsistency of YOUR POSITION or INTEPRETATION of the baptism in the Spirit in its relationship with your concept of the church.

I am pointing out the inconsistency of your primary view of this baptism and church with other the truth of salvation. When you actually say something I am commenting on I always quote your words. However, when I do not quote your words, I am simply pointing out an inconsistency between your viewpoint or interpretation and what I perceive to be the truth of scripture.

So most of your responses that begin with "where did I ever say this" are simply straw man arguments as I never claimed you did say it, instead I am saying that your interpretation as a whole is saying that.

 

But is is "built" and it is "assembled" and that speaks of locality and structure in keeping with an INSTITUTION with ORGANIZATION and officers, ordinances and disciplinary standards to RETAIN MEMBERSHIP of which your kind of church is completely missing.

Again, you are confusing an institutional organization with salvation. The above texts speak only of salvation.

My point exactly. If the subject were salvation it would not be NT times but linkage with OT prophets, but it is something that cannot be found prior to the ministry of Christ. You cannot find what Christ spoke about 22 more times he uses the word ekklesia in Mt. 16:18 previous to Matthew 16:18. You cannot find the institutional organization with officers (pastor, deacons, apostles, etc.). You cannot find its ordinances (baptism, Lord's Supper). You cannot find its disciplinary standards to retain membership IN THAT KIND OF BODY (2 Thes. 3:6).

Your theory says it loud and clear.

Your interpretations and doctrine declares that you must in spite of your denial. For example, don't you claim the baptism in the Spirit is what brings ALL BELIEVERS in heaven and earth into SPIRITUAL UNION with Christ? Or have we been arguing about some other view of the baptism in the Spirit?????

You are repeating the same error of Augustine who took the very same KINGDOM parable and attempted to apply it to the church and thus invented the UNIVERSAL church theory.

You are repeating the same error of Luther who took the interpretation of Augustine concerning this KINGDOM parable and applied it to the church and came up with the universal INVISIBLE church theory.

This parable has to do with the VISIBLE PROFESSING KINGDOM on earth at any given time and has nothing to do with the church.

In regard to the churches GOD INTENTIONALLY SETS tares in the membership (Judas, 1 Cor. 11:18; 12:18) in order to sanctify the churches and test their faithfulness

You need to study the proper use of metaphors. The term "head" in scripture is obviously a metaphor as the church does not have a LITERAL physical head because the church body is not a LITERAL physical body. The metaphorical use of "head" ALWAYS refers to "authority" NEVER to spiritual union and always found in passages dealing with SANCTIFICATION and NEVER in passages dealing with spiritual union or salvation.

Moreover, the rules that govern the proper use of metaphors demands that both nouns MUST be understood in their literal sense or the metaphor means nothing. Hence, the term "body" and the term "church" have to be understood in their literal sense first before any transfer of characteristics from one to the other is possible. If you don't understand this, then go find a book on the proper use of metaphors. What is transferred is CHARACTERISTICS that can be literally found in the first noun which are transferred to the second noun. Hence, "I am the door" means "I REPRESENT THE CHARACTERISTICS found in a door." Thus "Ye are the body of Christ" mans "Ye REPRESENT THE CHARACTERISTICS found in a body." Please find for us a literal body with charateristics of UNIVERSALITY or INVISIBILITY???? can't be done.

That is simply false. An "individual believer" is not an assembly as an assembly by its very character requires at least TWO for an actual visible assembly to occur. An "individual believer" can be family. The New Testament assemblies throughout the book of Acts and Epistles CAN and DO actually assemble. Your concept does not assemble.

If you take the view of Dr. J.M. Pendleton or Dr. B.H. Carroll that is more preferrable, as they both rejected any present state of a church that includes all of the elect but rather claimed that had no existence until the actual assembly of all the elect in heaven. I don't agree with that theory for many reasons, but it is far more acceptable than the Reformed Roman Catholic view of a universal invisible church presently existing by spiritual union with Christ based upon the baptism in the Spirit.

However, the very same interpretative flaws in this future church isthe very same flaws that support and demand the false present universal invisible church theory - the flawed interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit.

 

Yes, and their position is much more acceptable than yours. However, they are inconsistent by their interpretation of the baptism in the Spirit, which if viewed consistently will lead to your theory. That is why I reject both the present and future glory glory church view that consists of all the elect. I do believe in a future glory church view that consists of all the faithful elect found in scriptural NT churches between the first and second coming of Christ while the rest of the elect are also found in the New heaven and earth described as "guests" at the wedding feast, or "saved nations" living upon the newly created earth or Jewish bride of the Father living in the New Jerusalem living with the church bride of Christ in the New Jerusalem.

 

What many may know but forget, is that the English Baptists came out of a period they called "The Great Tribulation from 1660 to 1688. That Period was when the Catholics were in control of the throne of England and both Baptists and Presbyterians were equally persecuted and had to hide and often were found hiding together.

In 1688 the throne of England fell into the hands of the Presbyterians and the Baptists intentionally designed their 1689 confession of Faith after the pattern of the Westminister Confession for one particular reason - to show that they were orthodox in their beliefs with the hope that the Presbyterians would not persecute then as did the Catholics. In 1688 the new powere granted a religous toleration act which gave further hope to the Baptists.

Now, if you really want to understand what the 1689 Baptists meant by their article on the church, then just carefully compare the contrasting features with the Westminister Confession article on the church.

Language must be defined in its historical context and that is only way you will properly understand what these Baptists believed and did not believe in contrast to the Presbyterians. When it is carefully examined, you will see they had not changed their belief on the church at all from their early London Confession of faith, but very tactfully agreed with all the langauge of the Westminister they could but redefined the terms to fit their own beliefs.

Notice the contrast between Article 1 in the Westminister compared to article 1 in the 1689 London confession.

First the Westminister:

"I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that haven been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof: and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all.

Now the 1689 Baptist:

I. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect......

The parenthetical explanation is important when you read the contrasts between the Baptist and Westminister in sections 2-5.

However, the contrast between the two confessions is really highlighted by the Baptists in Article 2.

First the Westminister:

2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the whole world that profess the true religion; and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Now, the Baptist:

2. All Persons throughout the world professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints, and fo scuh ought all partcular congregations to be constituted.

First notice how the Presbyterians define "catholic" = "not confined to one nation, as before under the Law".

Notice also, that the Westminister defines "church" to consist "of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion."

I would say you probably interpreted article one in both confessions to agree with this Westminister definition of Catholic. However, the Baptists did not agree with that definition of the "church".

The Baptist Confession takes issue with both of these points. (1) Baptist refused to call all beleivers in the world "the church," instead, they said "all persons throughout the world professing the faith....may be called visible saints." (2)Baptist refused to define the church as being constituted of such saints, who did not embrace essential errors contrary to the faith, or were ungodly.

In sections three and four the Baptists condemned all churches that contained such error as "no churches of Christ" but "synogogues of Satan" and called the Pope "the antichrist."

In other words these Baptist (consisting over 100 churches) in section 2 rejected the Protestant Reformed concept of a universal invisible church made up of all saints, in all denomination worldwide.

Positively, they did believe in the future glory church made up of all true believers as section one states. Section one does not assert any PRESENT existence of this church but rather speaks of its as the "whole body" that "shall be gathered" consisting of all that have been and are true Christians.

However, this future glory church is then defined by section 2 as including all that are in true churches now. They denied that pedobaptist churches consisted of born again members. and that is why they carefully defined members of this glory church as excluding those within what they called Babylon the Great Whore.

When their minutes of their associations are studied it will be seen that this singular church was believed to contain only those truly saved within what they regarded as saved members of their own kind of churches. I can substantiate this by the associational records of Early English Baptists.

 

You know this is a completely false argument! They were literally assembled in the wilderness in a local and visible fashion. This is not the church Jesus built. The church Jesus built had no existence prior to the laying down of its "foundation" which is New Testament in time and nature.

 

So, are you willing to admit that the true church contains lost people as well as saved people?????

Again, this only refers to a literal visible assembly where Christ manifested himself.