The beginning of the church in light of baptist bridism

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Daniel David, Jun 7, 2004.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The answer would really shed some light on those who wish to confuse true believers about the doctrine of the church.

    John said that his ministry was marked by the baptism with water.

    He then said that a GREATER one would have a GREATER ministry that would be marked by the baptism with the Spirit.

    John < Christ
    water < Spirit

    Get it?

    Christ and Peter mark off the baptism with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when the church began.

    Since that day, all true believers are baptized with the Spirit into Christ's body -universal and invisible- -Rom. 6, Gal. 3, I Cor. 13, Eph. 1 & 4-.

    Water baptism is the outward sign that you are Christ's disciple. When water baptism is combined with a proper profession, one can join a local assembly.

    ALL TRUE BELIEVERS ARE IN CHRIST'S CHURCH SINCE THE DAY OF PENTECOST. There is no judgment -kreno- upon the one in Christ. The judgment -bema- is a reward.
     
  2. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    This all seems Biblical. I guess I just don't understand what the controversy is. Perhaps, I didn't grow up with some terminology. What is Baptist Bridism and how does it relate to this thread?

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  3. Pluvivs

    Pluvivs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    In short, the controversy has several parts in contrast to Daniel's post. Namely, 1) that the church started during Christ's earthly ministry, not at Pentecost (which is not an exclusivly Baptist Brider position--many many folks see this as truth), 2) that the church, which is Christ's bride, does NOT include all the saved, only all the faithful who are part of a proper local church (similar to the two faithful servants vs the one faithless servant of Matt 25:14), 3) that proper, scriptural water baptism comes only from proper, scriptural, doctrinally sound churches.

    There are many different facets to this. It get's the name Baptist Brider/Bridism from the fact that, since Baptists have the form of chruch and doctrine closest to that of the New Testement, and that they have traditionally not accepted baptisms from other groups (like the Assy of God, Church of Christ, etc), they are the faithful bride preparing for the marriage spoken of in Revelation. There is a line of reasoning called Succesionism, in which it is believed that, since no outsider (either an unregenerate infidel or a faithless saved child of God) could legitimately baptize anyone, a pure line of successive baptisms have come down through history from the Apostles to the modern-day faithful--the Baptists. Carrol's book "The Trail of Blood" is a pretty good outline of this belief.

    Some try to show historical evidence of this lineage, other admit that proving it is impossible, but both say it's the truth. I've not been able to find anyone who can describe when or how a chruch can fall away from being faithful.

    So in short summary, BBism is a little known position held by more Baptist churches than people realize with enormous ramifications on one's faith.

    -Pluvivs
     
  4. PastorGreg

    PastorGreg
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not Baptist Bride (although my wife is one ;) ), but I believe the church began before Pentecost. The Bible never says the church began on Pentecost, in fact, Acts 2 says those who were saved and baptized on the Day of Pentecost were "added to" them. Who is them? The church in Jerusalem, which was already in existence.
     
  5. Pluvivs

    Pluvivs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have never understood why the starting at Pentecost argument is even an issue--seriously, what doctrines are changed if the chruch did start on Pentecost?

    -Pluvivs
     
  6. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those who got saved on Pentecost were added to those who were already baptized with the Spirit earlier that day (the apostles and others in the upper room).

    The baptism with the Holy Spirit is spoken of as the beginning of something in Acts 11. I wonder what that could be. Actually, I don't.
     
  7. Pluvivs

    Pluvivs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet the Gospels show that the Apostles already had the Holy Spirit in them--the "Baptism with fire" was, as many put it, an annointing of the Spirit. Those who were "added" were added in a physical sense, since there is no indication that they were "baptized with fire" as were the Apostles. In other words, the Apostles and disciples spoken of in the beginning chapters of Acts were already together and already had salvation and the Holy Spirit, and therefore could potentially have had people added to their number prior to Pentecost.

    -Pluvivs
     
  8. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, no the gospels don't. In fact, Christ said that the Holy Spirit was with them, but would be in them. Sorry about that. Any argument that the church began anywhere but Pentecost is just a stretch of the imagination (as the baptist bride threads prove).
     
  9. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    For one thing, it is a simple matter of truth that the church didn't start on Pentecost. Truth matters simply because truth matters.

    But if you must have a practical reason, I will give you one: it is now commonly taught in Protestant and Jewish infidel academia that Jesus did not start a church separate and distinct from Judaism and that the church was started by later Christians. The surest safegaurd against such heresy is the truth that Jesus did start a church and did so while He was here on earth.

    Just last week in the religious section of the Arkansas Democrat newspaper the question was posed to three Little Rock "clergy" as to why there were so many denominations if Jesus started only one church. One of those asked the question was a Methodist pastor. Here is part of her answer:

    "The Greek word for 'church' originates in Matthew's Gospel, including Jesus' words to Peter, 'Upon this rock I will build my church' (Matt. 16:18). What this means is unclear, since Jesus and his early followers were Jewish, attempting to reform their religion. It took decades for Christianity to emerge from Judaism and for the church to separate from the synagogue."

    The same arguments that disprove the Pentecostal origin of the church disprove this infidel "decades" later heresy. False history must be met with true history - and the true history of the matter is that Jesus started a church, separate from the synagogue, with it's own ordinances, officers, discipline, treasury and commission, before Pentecost.

    What did happen on Pentecost is that the church at Jerusalem was empowered by the Holy Spirit to carry out it's commission to preach the gospel and reproduce itself in new localities, even unto the ends of the world. We are still reaping the benefit of that outpouring at this day.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  10. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. So since some lost people believe something we are expected to protect doctrine by changing it around? Mark, I don't get my theology from Methodists preachers. You shouldn't either.

    2. Please note that Mark failed to address any of the Scriptures. I find that very telling.

    In Acts 11:15-16, Peter says the Holy Spirit fell on the gentiles like He did upon the Jews in the beginning. What beginning happened earlier than Acts 11? Why the start of the church in Acts 2 of course.
     
  11. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who said anything about "changing it around" or getting their doctrine from Methodist preachers? If you are going to address what I said please do so honestly. But you said,

    Actually, I did not fail to address the Scriptures. I noted that, before Pentecost, Jesus had a church separate from the synagogue, with ordinances, officers, discipline, treasury, and commission.

    The only "telling" thing about that is that I am got up yesterday at 6:00 am, worked till 5:30 pm, went to church and preached, then came home, called my bereaved father and cousin, then ate supper, and then sat down for a few moments to answer this post and didn't feel like staying up half the night typing out Scripture references for what ought to be well known facts to anyone who presumes to discuss such matters.....before having to get up and go again.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  12. Pluvivs

    Pluvivs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel, how does Acts 11:15, 16 back up anything you said? Certianly it is talking about the Holy Spirit working as it did in Acts 2, but that says absolutely nothing about the start of the church, only that those saved in v14 received the Holy Spirit in portion and manner similar to those in Acts 2. You must recall that Acts 8:14-17 shows that the "falling" of the Holy Ghost upon the saved was not a universal event, and clearly some (many) did not see such a thing happen on themselves. So the distinction of 11:15 is that "something happened like it happened before, though it doesn't happen all the time to everyone."

    Christ said that _He_ would build his church. It can (and oft is) argued that He did just that starting at Pentecost through the Holy Spirit, and that he continues to build it today (to the which, I would agree). But there is no scripture wherein Christ gives the authority to build his church to anyone else or to any other time. And since he was present on earth, since he gathered the disciples unto himself (who were baptized all), and since he gave them sweeping commisions to do the work of the church while present, there is not reason in assuming that anyone else did it at any other time.

    Shortly, there is no scripture which says that the church started any time other than during Christ's existance on earth in the flesh, and there is no reason to believe otherwise.

    -Pluvivs
     
  13. Bethelassoc

    Bethelassoc
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess if the argument is dependent upon the receving of the Holy Spirit, I always refer to this verse:

     
  14. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. There was a group of disciples, but Christ's church would be known by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist knew this. Christ said he would send the Spirit. On Pentecost, the Spirit baptized the disciples, and then those who believed.

    2. Actually, this is false. Christ didn't say ANYTHING ABOUT BAPTISM, until the great commission. He didn't say ANYTHING ABOUT THE LORD'S SUPPER until right before he died.

    This was hardly something this "church" had. Come on Mark.

    3. Officers? Who?

    4. Actually no. He did tell them what to do when it happens though.

    5. So Judas (a lost person mind you) was the treasury?

    6. That wasn't until the very end. Further, he gave them instruction for when the church would start. Note that he specifically commanded them NOT to start the commission until Pentecost.

    Sorry Mark, but everything you have argued is just such a stretch.
     
  15. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    </font>[/QUOTE]Do you also believe that you have the ability to discern a person's salvation?
     
  16. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    John prophesied that Jesus would baptize those he had baptized in water in the Holy Spirit. That confirms that the church which was baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was the same church baptized in water by John.


    Wrong. "When therefore the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)."

    And this is supposed to support your side of the arugment? The last time I checked "right before he died" was during His personal ministry and before the day of Pentecost.

    "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."

    "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles."

    So Jesus told them to practice discipline but they didn't have discipline? How am I supposed to respond to such reasoning?

    Yes: "This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein."

    What if your church treasurer came forward next week and made a profession of faith? Would that mean that your church did not exist while it had a lost man serving as treasurer? I really fail to comprehend your logic.

    For the record, Judas was not only the treasurer but also an apostle; and remember, apostles were set "in the church" according to Paul. And Peter explicitly said that Judas fell from his "office."

    Now perhaps you could tell me in which institution Judas served in the office of bishop, if not the church?

    So, the church had the commission before Pentecost and part of that commission was to wait till Pentecost when the power would come to carry it out. Again, I fail to see how this is supposed to prove the church did not exist till Pentecost.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  17. Pluvivs

    Pluvivs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark, a very solid response, full of scripture and proof. Amen.

    -Pluvivs
     
  18. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark said:

    1. John prophesied that Jesus would baptize those he had baptized in water in the Holy Spirit. That confirms that the church which was baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was the same church baptized in water by John.

    2. Wrong. "When therefore the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)."

    3. And this is supposed to support your side of the arugment? The last time I checked "right before he died" was during His personal ministry and before the day of Pentecost.

    4. "And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."

    "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles."

    5. So Jesus told them to practice discipline but they didn't have discipline? How am I supposed to respond to such reasoning?

    6. Regarding judas

    7. regarding the commission

    My response:

    1. Neither John nor the Scriptures ever referred to his followers as the church. This is what we like to call eisegesis. Sorry.

    2. I am well aware of that Scripture. Nothing is said about a church or a requirement to be part of a church. The baptism with water (precross) was a sign of REPENTANCE.

    3. How do you miss the significance of this? You said that the church had its two ordinances during his ministry. So really, they went almost the entire earthly ministry having never observed one of the ordinances. Not a very good argument Mark. In fact, Jesus was preparing his disciples for what they WOULD do.

    Again, think of when Christ introduced this and what the events were that followed when Christ chose to introduce the Lord's supper.

    4. Christ chose 12 preachers.

    Let me quote the rest of the verse as just doing the first part is deceiving:

    And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

    Is Paul talking about chronology or priority Mark? Think about it. Further, the gifts were not given until after the resurrection. Man, this verse really doesn't help you at all. In fact, it exposes you quite well.

    5. Hopefully with willingness to embrace truth. Like the Lord's supper, Christ was explaining what TO DO when it does happen. Good grief. I hope you were joking with your question.

    6. But Christ chose him. You are saying that Christ chose a lost person to be a church officer. That is nonsense but consistent with the rest of the baptist bride theory.

    7. It is in the commission that the command to go and baptize is present. This goes back to the issue with the Lord's supper. It is you who said that the church had its two ordinances.
     
  19. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pluvivs, using Scripture isn't impressive. It is using it acurately that the Lord demands. Cults, false religions, and the baptist briders all use Scripture.
     
  20. Pluvivs

    Pluvivs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    They also mix and mingle scripture with nonesense and human resoning and pathos. A good position is one based on scripture. Though I do not agree with the brider position, that does not mean that it is without reason or virtue.

    I do not like the manner in which you twist words, Daniel--I never said I was "impressed" by Mark's post, only that it was good. I believe Mark put his thoughts in a concise manner, backing his points up with scripture that, in my eyes, clearly supports his statements.

    -Pluv
     

Share This Page

Loading...