The Baptism Of Jesus

It is obvious what you believe by your post so I will quickly address some things you brought up.

1. Wrong. In Eph. 5 (just to give an example), Christ is said to have died for the church (singular). Which local assembly (which could include unbelievers) did Christ die for, is the head, and the one who will purify?

2. Ekklesia means a "called out assembly". All true believers are called out from the world and assembled in one body. In the universal church truth, the church is made up entirely and only of believers. Not so in your doctrine.

3. I would love to see the gymnastics pulled to get around Hebrews 12 (general assembly and church of the firstborn).

 

That is your definition. Throughout the N.T., the CHURCH is said to be Christ's body. His body is universal.

I can't believe I got suckered into this again.

 

For starters, I don't deny that the N.T. teaches the local church doctrine. I just don't ignore the invisible, universal church doctrine.

Btw, nice work on Eph. I think it is plain to all the stretch that must be made. It says that Christ died for the church. He did not say churches. Come on now.

Since when is the test of whether or not this is true based on if you have seen with your eyes? Is that how you determine if Paul really existed or that Christ was crucified? It is there for those who will rightly interpret Scripture.

 

I am stunned right now.

It says they are written in heaven. It doesn't say they are IN heaven. Where did you pull that from?

 

That is your definition. Throughout the N.T., the CHURCH is said to be Christ's body. His body is universal.

I can't believe I got suckered into this again. </font>[/QUOTE]The church is not defined as such in the New Testament. It is referred to as the body of Christ, but that is hardly a definition. If you read 1Cor. 12, you will find an expanded description of the body of Christ which can only fit a local body. For example:

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
--This can only hold true in a local assembly. If your child is sick or a member of your local church dies, then it affects all in your church. All may grieve for that loved one. Or all may do what they can for one who is very sick.
However, if a believer dies or is very sick over in Africa or South America, how does that affect you? Do you suffer with them? Do all the members suffer with him. Of course not. It is impossible. This scenario can only apply to a local church (an assembly). That is what this picture of the body was meant to portray--the local church. The church is the body--the local church. Read the chapter in the context in which it should be read
DHK

 

1. Ephesians 5
29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

30 because we are members of His body.

Whether you call that a synonym or definition is up to you. The point is that the body of Christ is the church. The body of Christ did not begin until pentecost.

2. Here is some more of 1 Cor. 12:

verse 12
For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ .

verse 13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

a. according to Paul in verse 12, the example of the local church having such diversity of gifts and still being one body is parallel to Christ's body having many members that are one. The local church is used to prove the body of Christ. Look at the end of verse 12: SO ALSO IS CHRIST.

b. consider verse 13 on the heels of saying "so also is Christ": by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Spirit baptism plain and simple. Only a prostitution of the text can ignore it.

c. "and have all been made to drink into one Spirit" - when does this happen according to you? I say at salvation. You probably say at water baptism. That would mean that water baptism has priority over Spirit baptism. Nice.

 

The above quote was received through Landmark Southern Baptist Group a group e-mail forum through Yahoo.com.

I can't remember if it was in this thread or another, but I put it here to bring the topic back up because it is yet on my heart to discuss. In regards to the baptism of John (that which he administered) I have read that Acts 19 disproves the connection between John's and the "Christian" baptism. It was offered that because John did not preach or teach concerning the Holy Spirit, nor baptized in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit that he administered something different. I deny this statement and provide from Scripture to show that those Paul encountered at Acts 19 did not receive teaching at the hand of John, nor their baptism:

John 3.22-36