Communion Controversy

Hi Doc. You said, “Yes, you are wrong, as usual. He obviously was never baptized and never joined the local body of believers in Jerusalem.”

I'm not usually wrong. Nor, am I wrong on this subject. By admitting to the above, you are agreeing that the INDIVIDUAL becomes a member of the body of Christ on his own – NOT by being a member in a “local congregation.”

You said, “Can you post a verse which proves he joined the local body of baptized believers at Jerusalem? Chapter and verse please.”

I never said that the “thief on the Cross” was a member of the “Jerusalem” church or ANY congregation. I am saying the exact opposite, that he was a member of the body of Christ as an individual, not as a member of a local congregation. The corporate church is NOT the body of Christ - that is what you have argued. The individual saved person comprises the body of Christ, just like the “thief on the cross.”

You said, “I don't know where you got the idea that church membership was required for salvation, but you could not be more hetrodox in that belief. Now that is pure Romanism!”

I do NOT believe that church membership has anything to do with salvation and being in the body of Christ. I have been arguing the exact opposite. The original post that started this question was when it was said; “Since the body of Christ is a local congregation of baptized believers...” I have said NO to that. You have said YES to that. Now you say NO.

latterrain77

[ September 15, 2002, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

You have still not proven that the term "body of Christ" refers to a "catholic church." The burden of proof is on you to support your specious claim. Chapter and verse please.

 

Hi Doc. I have already proven my point and you have agreed. Your original position was that the body of Christ is a "local congregation." I presented you with the examples of the "thief on cross," the "publican," a child in the womb, death-bed confession individuals and others who are members of the body of Christ WITHOUT a local congregation. All that you could do was respond in a manner that is inconsistent with your original position. I'm glad you see it the correct way now Doc.

latterrain77

 

Please do not tell lies. Lying is a terrible sin. A person who continually and consistantly lies is, in my opinion, unregenerate.

You have produced no evidence at all, not one shred, that any of the above were members of either a local congregation of baptized believers or that they were part of a catholic body of unbaptized believers unassembled and invisible called "the body of Christ." I am still waiting for chapter and verse.

Once again I admonish you not to lie. Lying is a terrible sin and a sign that a person may well be unregenerate. My position has remained consistant and unchanged. If you cannot be honest please feel free to discontinue this discussion.

 

Hi Doc. I have been honest. Your responses to my examples speak for themselves. You originally argued for the idea that a "local congregation" was the body of Christ. I said NO. You then admitted that the thief on the cross was NOT part of a local congregation. By making that admission, you confirmed that the thief's membership in the body of Christ was individual WITHOUT the local congregation experience (as I have been saying all along and which you originally denied).

Concerning the "publican" the best you could do was "speculate" that he "may well have been one of the 120 in the upper room on the day of pentecost." The Bible says no such thing about the publican. The Bible DOES say what I have been saying, that the publican went down to his house already JUSTIFIED at the time he repented, without any "local congregation" experience (Luke 18: 13-14) - the exact opposite of what you originally argued. So, you are left with your "speculation" about the publican and the upper room, and I'm left with what the Bible actually says. With that backdrop, you brandish me "unregenerate?" You've got that backwards Doc!

The same applies to the examples I raised concerning folks who make "death bed" confessions, children in the womb, and the other examples I provided. Your responses to these examples speak for themselves. I need add nothing more. Your answers already prove my point.

As far as our discussion ending as you have suggested - it already ended a few posts back when you answered my questions as you did. I was extremely satisfied with your comments Doc. You proved my point perfectly.

latterrain77

 

Correct.

It was not an "admission" but a statement of fact.

And here is where you keep misrepresenting me and my position. The "body of Christ" = the local assembly. He was not a member of the local assembly so, obviously he was not in that body of Christ. It is you who keeps making the error of thinking that "salvation" = "body of Christ." You have yet to support your assertion. I am still waiting for chapter and verse.

Once again you are being dishonest. I never stated he was not justified, I stated he was not, as far as we know, a member of a local body of baptized believers which the bible calls "the body of Christ" when using metphorical language. Once again you have either failed to comprehend a simple statement or you have dishonestly twisted it to try to make it mean something it does not mean.

So, once again you have failed to prove your assertion, but instead have mischaracterized my position to make your own look better even though you have not offered one scrap if scripture to indicate that the term "body or Christ" is a reference to either salvation or an invisible church. And, of course, the reason you have to engage in sophistry is that you have no other arguement!

 

Hi Doc. Well, you are simply wrong. I have not mischaracterized your comments at all. Your comments to my examples are self-characterizing and speak for themselves. This includes your original (and wrong) position that the body of Christ is a "local congregation," your utter confusion about the thief on the cross (and what it means to be "the body of Christ"), your inability to answer the questions concerning death bed confessions, children in the womb, etc, as well as your wild "speculations" about the Publican of Luke 18: 13-14 (talk about dishonest Doc).

Joining a "local congregation" is at best, a "work," and has nothing to do with membership into the Body of Christ (which the thief on the Cross, the Publican, death bed confessions, children in the womb, etc) obviously prove. Your comments (and lack of them) to these examples are self-explanatory Doc. The only thing you have proved is that you are not only wrong, but you are terribly wrong.

latterrain77

[ September 18, 2002, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Once again you have utterly failed to understand simple English declarative sentences. If you cannot understand simple statements such as "I do not believe there is a correlation between membership in a local assembly (body of Christ) and salvation," then there is little reason to continue this discussion. I have asked you over, and over, and over, and over again to give me chapter and verse which says being in "the body of Christ" (metaphore used to describe the relationship between believes in the local assembly) is equivalent to "salvation." You have failed to produce one verse, or even part of one verse to support your thesis. Therefore, I can only assume you cannot produce such a verse, and therefore your argument is as specious as your cognitive abilities. End of discussion. Matthew 7:6.

 

Hi Doc. Well, you are just plain wrong again. I have provided many Biblical verses and illustrations throughout this long thread (more than 10 of them). You did not respond to ANY of them so it was not necessary for me to provide any more until you first responded to them. For your part, you have provided NONE, not a single verse - though you did provide your preposterous and Un-Biblical speculation concerning the Publican of Luke 18: 13-14 as being in the "upper room" (an obvious act of desperation and panic on your part when you couldn't resolve the question honestly). All of your other comments throughout speak for themselves.

Finally, with respect to the Matt 7:6 quote that you listed at the end of your post - you needn't be so hard on yourself Doc (Matt. 7: 22-23).

latterrain77