Featured Church Fellowship

Nobody said they didn't WITH THEIR MOUTH. However, WITH THEIR ORDIANCES and WITH THEIR MEMBERSHP they preach ANOTHER GOSPEL and they repudiate the gospel of Christ. We are not being asked to recieve their gospel preaching as NT. We are being asked to receive their CONGREGATION as it is constituted and as it administers ordinances as NT and IT IS NOT. Now take your other foot out of your mouth without putting the other foot back in. READ what I say instead of what you want me to say.

 

LET ME BREAK THIS DOWN where even Jeshua can understand the issue clearly.

God killed "brethren" for misrepresenting a gospel ordinance

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and then let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

and God rejected their administration to even be what they claimed it was:

20 When ye therefore come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

So don't tell me THE LIE that an external ordinances does not matter when it comes to FELLOWSHIP as God broke fellowship with those who perverted an external symbol - He killed them - can't break fellowship any stronger than KILLING them. This was not church fellowship but PERSONAL fellowship and nothing is more intimate than PERSONAL fellowship between God and a believer.

So don't tell me THE LIE that what really counts is that paedobaptists are sincere in believing they adminsiter baptism when the Holy Spirit tells a true NT church what they are admnistering IS NOT what they claim but is a PERVERSERION of the symbol and "this is not" the Lord's Supper (baptism) even if they call it that!

A Masonic lodge is more close to being a NT church than a Paedobaptism assembly BECAUSE the Masonic lodge requires a PROFESSION OF FAITH for ANYONE becoming a member of the lodge while Paedobaptists take in UNBELIEVERS with NO PROFESSION on purpose which is the primary source for their membership constitution. Thus the very constitution of their congregation repudiates Christ and the gospel as much as their foul practice of baptism.

We are BIBLE BELEIVERS, so find any group of unbaptized people in the Bible that is called a "church of Christ"!

We are BIBLE BELEIVERS and so why are you transgressing the precepts of the Scriptures in accepting as a NT church what the precepts deny as the precepts demand baptism AS THE NECESSARY PREREQUISITE for constitution of, and therefore necessary TO BE called a church of Christ.

WE ACCEPT THEM AND FELLOWSHIP WITH THEM AS INDIVDIUAL CHRISTIANS based upon a true gospel profession. We cannot accept or fellowship with them as a true "church of Christ' because they are not what they claim. They are an apostate church, a metaphorical "harlot" church who are unfaithful to Christ with regard to what makes a church a true church - they pollute the ordinances, pervert the offices, and repudiate the NT. church government and constitute themselves purposely with unregenerates.

 

No, I don't either but the "least amount" according to scriptures is professon of faith and baptism and that is my point.

Your speaking out of both sides of your mouth! Accusing me of judging Christians is accusing me of judging their persons as they have no existence apart from their person. Condemning false doctrines they embrace and practice and refusing to fellowship within those errors is not judging anyone but rather it is standing with God against those who refuse to obey him.

So you don't believe in rewards as Jesus said some shall rule over 5 cities while others will rule over 10 and I suppose these cities are inanimate objects????????????

Yours is a SLOPPY agape as Biblical love demands loving their PERSONS not their error, nor accepting their errors and their very constituion as a congregation is erroneous.

Very funny! When the Scripture provides POSITIVE COMMANDS it is disobedience to repudiate them by your practice and the Scriptures give POSITIVE command that baptism precedes being in a congregational state of observance - Mt. 28:19. Scriptures give POSITIVE EXAMPLE to support that command - Acts 2:41-42. Scripture furnishes no examples where anything called a congregation of Christ is constituted by infants or constituted by unbaptized believers. You are approving what God condemns by both positive precepts and example and you are asking churches that meet those prerequisites to accept those who do not meet those precepts and examples as NT churches.

God refused fellowship with those who perverted an external ordinance and the proof is he killed them (1 Cor. 11:28-30). So don't give me that lie that God violation of symbolic outward ordinances is not a cause for disfellowship.

You are in willful ignorance and there is no other nice way to put it. Tell that to David when God refused his EXTERNAL worship. Tell that to the Corinthians who failed to discern the proper symbolism of an outward ordinance and violated that symbolism and God killed them. According to your SLOPPY agage true worship is simply "in spirit" while "in truth" is optional.

Yes you are, and in fact you are demanding it in the name of SLOPPY agape. By recognizing in order to fellowship with unbaptized people who are primarily constituted as an institution primarily formed from unregenerates as a NT. Church you are fellowshipping with it as you cannot possibly fail to fellowship with that falsehood as that is the very character and constitution of that institution you are recognizing and fellowshipping with.

The UIC (universal invisible church" theory is rank heresy that has been the cause for more schismatic denominations and divisions than any other false doctrine in existence. You are married to your heresy and there is no sense in discussing this with you as your blind and deaf to scripture. So be it!

 

Martin nor Jeshua can deal directly and objectively with this post as it repudiates their arguments that external ordinances are not grounds for disfellowship. It repudiates their arguments that an organization primiarly constituted of unbaptized unbelievers be regarded as a church of Christ even less than a Masonic Lodge.

It repudiates their arguments based on SLOPPY agape that refusing to fellowship with a PERVERSION that men call a "church" is unloving. It repudiates their arguments that worship need only be "in spirit" (or based on what God sees in the heart) thus making "in truth" optional or unnecessary.

 

No, it is more accurate to state that you both simply IGNORE the Biblical evidence completely because you are so desperate in defending what is clearly a heresy that has absolutely no biblical support and is flat contray to the very precepts and examples of Scripture.

1. I have challenged you both numerous times to find ONE precept or ONE example of unbaptized believers that are recognized as a church in the New Testament! ANSWER? Nothing, because you know you can't.

2. I have challenged you both to defend your theory against explicit precepts and examples that demand scriptural baptism PRIOR TO church membership (Mt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:40-41)! ANSWER? Nothing, because you know you can't.

3. I have challenged you both to find any church in the NT that is constituted primarily on the basis of regenerates (infants) or those who DO NOT PROFESS salvation by mouth or by baptism. ANSWER: Nothing, because you can't.

4. I have challenged your argument that fellowship should not be broken over violation of external symbolic ordiances by showing you explicit examples where God does consider it extremely serious and will break fellowship over the perversion of an outward symbol (The Corinthians abusing an assembly and dying for it, Moses smiting the rock and being refused entrance into the promised land, David's sincere heart worship and external worship REJECTED). ANSWER? Nothing because the examples are so obviously against your arguments.

5. I have challenged your argument that God looks ONLY at the sincerity of the heart and shown you that contradicts what Jesus says TRUE worship "must" involve because it "must" involve more than worship "in Spirit" but also worship "in truth" or it is not worship in God's sight.

6. I have challenged your argument that refusing CHURCH fellowship with a group of unbaptized mixture of professed unbeleivers with believers as the NORM for constitution, perverted ordinances, perverted government, perverted offices is not refusing anyone's personal fellowship as a Christian IF their profession is in keeping with the Gospel. Indeed, the Masonic lodge should be recognized as a NT church over Paedobaptists because they demand all who will be members make a PROFESSION of faith in God while Paedbaptist receive members who make no such profession of even belief in the existence of God or of the gospel in baptism. Their very constitution is anti-gospel. ANSWER: Nothing but repetition of the same disproven nonsense.

7. The very constitution of Paedbaptist congregations and their ordinance of baptism repudiate both Christ and the gospel and it is on the basis of CHURCH status that fellowship as a CHURCH is determined. This has nothing to do with PERSONAL fellowship whatsoever. It is impossible to FELLOWSHIP with a congregation of people who by their very constitution pervert the gospel, by their ordinances pervert the gospel, by their church government pervert the scriptures, by their selection and character of their offices pervert the scripture, therefore, are void of all characteristics for Biblical recognition of a true church. The only sane and biblical thing to do, and the only loving thing to do is to refuse what God refuses to be a true church so they will not perpetuate their errors and live in darkness with regard to what constitutes a true church.

You love your heresy more than you do God's clear and explicit command that baptism precedes church membership and thus precedes church constituion (Mt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:40-41).

 

I will leave it to the objective reader to determine who is right on this issue as these seven points are indisputable as far as I am concerned.