What does Acts 2:38 really mean ??

adiscplinedlearner,

Let me give you fair warning.
I don't know how you got approved.
Your profile states that your denomination is predenominational which doesn't mean anything,
And your home church is stated as "house church" which again gives no information. You have not given any identity as to who you are. You could be a Muslim in disguise for all I know. You would be wise to identify your denomination. I realize Church of Christ don't even like to recognize the word "denomination" but it is a reality in our world. Update your profile and be honest with the board, or you may find yourself on the outside looking in. The board doesn't like playing games. Dishonesty (with identity issues) is not the best policy.

 

Then why does the Apostle Paul write to local churches and not "the one true church"?

 

The Apostle Paul wrote to the one true church of God as it was made manifest in given locales. All true Christians in those given locales were the one true church of God made manifest.

Jesus talked to Peter about the fact that He was (and still is) building His one true church or spiritual house one lively stone at a time (Mat. 16:18; I Pet. 2:5-10). This is the one fold He predicted would be brought into existence (Jn. 10:16). This one fold has one Shepherd.

Please stop dividing true Christians by practicing denominationalism.

 

If I went to the city in which you live and was looking for Christians to worship with, where would I go?

 

I am not a part of a denomination, but I am a member of a local church. I would never not be a member of a local church. It was the local church at Antioch that sent Paul and Barnabas out as missionaries. They established local churches and went back and visited them.

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
--What church??

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
--What did they do?

Study your Bible. Ekklesia means assembly. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. Your imagination is vivid, but unscriptural.

 

I was a Landmark Baptist pastor for a couple of decades, so I am familiar with your apparent local church-only conviction. Your conviction was my conviction for a long time. My present conviction is that the New Testament must be studied from the perspective that the unity of the one true church, body, and bride of Christ is paramount, and denominational churches are sectarian.

Christ's one true assembly has been built, is now being built, and will one day be built to completion (Mat. 16:18; I Pet. 2:5-10). It is not, however, a denominational church.

 

All of what you said has much truth in it, and yet the denial of the local church is of grave error.
For example:
I don't believe in denominationalism, and am not part of one. I do belong to a local church, but it is independent, totally separate from any denomination.
I also believe that all believers will make up the bride of Christ. Again that has nothing to do with denominations.
BTW, I am not a Landmarkist, and I realize that there are believers outside of local churches. I was only stressing the importance of the local church in the NT. I also believe that those believers, though outside of the local church, will still be a part of the bride of Christ. I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is people's terminology. Study the Greek word ekklesia (assembly), translated church. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly, don't you think. In the light of that a universal church theory goes down the drain.

 

Christ's assembly is not an unassembled assembly, but it is assembled at His holy feet. True Christians are in Christ, and Christ is in true Christians. New Covenant Christians have already come to the general assembly and church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23). They have already been added to Christ's spiritual house, which is His church (Mat. 16:18; I Pet. 2:5).

 

Terribly divisive, eh. Well, let's see. The members of your "one true church" believe in salvation by grace through faith, faith plus baptism, salvation by faith and participating in the sacraments.

They also believe that one who is saved can never be lost; that one who is saved can lose his salvation; that only men may be pastors; that women are allowed to be pastors, but must remain silent in the church.

They believe one sign of one's salvation is speaking in tongues. They believe the gift of tongues ceased 1900 years ago. They believe baptism is by immersion, and by sprinkling. They believe that "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" means water baptism and baptism by the spirit.

They believe Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry and the Holy Spirit formed the church on the day of Pentecost. They believe that Jesus will bodily return to earth prior to the tribulation, and in the middle of the tribulation, and at the end of the tribulation, just before beginning his thousand-year reign, which is not literal.

Your one true church also includes people who revere the Pope, believe that Mary is a co-redemptrix with Jesus, believe that the elements of communion turn into the real flesh and blood of Jesus, they are sacramental, that they are symbolic and pictorial of the gospel and an outer portrayal of what has happened inside.

This is the "unity" of your one true church of Christ--useless, divided and dysfunctional. Useless because it is ill-fitted to carry out the Great Commission, never sends missionaries, never gives a dime to missions, never meets for worship, never preached a sermon, and sends different messages regarding how to come into a right relationship with God.

My local congregation, like the one Jesus established, is in good harmony and unity, preaches a clear gospel, and is united in both doctrine and practice. Members of what you call Christ's body may be saved, but come from congregations which teach error and heresy.

 

Never in the history of the use of the term "ekklesia" has it ever been used as an INVISIBLE UNSEEN assembly and that is exactly what you are teaching. You make many presumptuous interpetations.

Explain what distinctives UNITE this ONE TRUE assembly of yours from the rest of professing Christendom?

For example, can one be without baptism in water and be part of your ONE TRUE CHURCH?

For example, can one be sprinkled or poured and be part of your ONE TRUE CHURCH?

For example, can believe in justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works but is manifested by the fruits of "good works" and be part of this ONE TRUE CHURCH of yours?

I would like an explicit answer to the three examples above please?

 

Again. How does one find this non-assembly assembly? You say you are part of the true church, something I don't doubt, but how does someone find it? You said you were part of the Landmark Baptist. Many years ago, I also worshiped at an ABA (Landmark) Baptist church. You said you left. Well, if someone else wanted to follow suit, how would they know where to meet with God's people?

 

Is this a mystical experience? Do you have visions? Do you actually see his feet? In truth, how do people "assemble" at His feet? Where exactly would that be. Please speak English with clarity. Assemblies have places where they assemble. Now where are these feet where these believers are assembled and how many are there that are assembled there. Can you give me the address as well? Ekklesia is a visible assembly. And that is what Christ meant when he used the word "ekklesia."

That much is true.

So is it New Covenant Church that you are a member of?
Hypothetically speaking, If I am a member of "Vision Baptist Church," then I would say that Vision Baptist Christians believe so and so. Thus I assume you belong to a local church called "New Covenant Church" or something along that line. Am I close?
Secondly, you are in error concerning Heb.12:23 and are misusing the verse.

Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
--You say you have already come here. You already have been to heaven and back? Can you tell me what it was like? Did you see the 12 Apostles there? Were there Catholic Christians worshiping Mary? That would be good to know. If you have been to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, then you better tell us. You have quite a story to tell. For that is entirely a future and heavenly scene. The only one to have risen from the dead is Christ. No one else has (except you apparently).

And you have been there and been back.
Please describe the experience for us.

 

The New Testament Church (of Christ's "mystical" Body) does not worship "here, or, there" but "where two or three ARE, GATHERED, IN MY NAME". (It's existing from the beginning!) That though, is not Jesus' full description or identification of the True 'Church' or Assembling of the Called, because such Assembly may and in fact ALWAYS does include the ungodly or non-Elect. "God knows who are His"; there to me is the preferable indicator of the Body of Christ's Own who are ALWAYS recognised by their fewness, no matter what. I do not believe in a big Church.

 

Matthew 18:20 is one of the most abused passages in the bible. It cannot possibly be applied to any two or three believers that happen to assemble together. Matthew 18:20 is simply an extension of Matthew 18:15-19 which deals with the administrative authority given the New Testament church.

Notice that Matthew 18:16 describes two or three assembling together for the purpose of settling a problem but they are not called a "church" but rather they are simply church members trying to work out a difficulty within the membership of the church in Matthew 18:17.

The New Testament church is the last court of appeal on earth in dealing with internal church membership problems as final authority to settle such problems resides in the New Testament church (Mt. 18:17-18) as the administrator of the keys of the kingdom.

Note the word "again" in Matthew 18:19 that provides the grammatical connection between verses 15-18 with verses 19-20 demonstrating that Jesus is still addressing the use of the keys of the kingdom by a local New Testament assembly. Verses 19-20 simply states that regardless of how small a church may be or whatever the scriptural purposes it may be assemblying to carry out "in my name" (or as authorized by Jesus or in keeping with the use of the keys of the kingdom) Christ promises to honor their faithfulness by His presence and authority behind the proper use of the keys of the kingdom. The term "ekklesia" means an "assembly" and the minimum amount of members for a church to exist is the amount to assemble together as ONE PERSON is not an assembly, therefore if "TWO or THREE" or the minimum amount for an assembly to exist, for a church to exist, assemble to carry out the revealed will of Christ then Christ promises to be with them and affirm the use of the keys or administrative authority they have been invested with as a New Testament church.

This text has absolutely nothing to do with unbaptized, unorganized Christians who simply meet on happenstance. This text refers to baptized believers organized into a New Testament church in their geographical locality for the purpose to carry out the Great Commission and conduct the business of the Kingdom of God as instructed by the scriptures, the same kind of churches we find throughout the New Testament.

 

Biblical unity requires that believers of like faith and order fellowship with one another while contending for the faith once delivered. Biblical unity also requires SEPARATION from those who depart from the faith once delivered (2 Thes. 3:6). By necessity these two aspects of Biblical unity require denominationalism to some extent - Unity around the truth and separation from those who depart, distort and deny these same essential truths.

So the very idea of someone saying "Please stop dividing true Christians by practicing denominationalism" when the very person saying this is trying to disciple others to his particular brand of faith and practice is ludricuous.

 

Are you saying you don't know the specifics of the Great Commission? Let me give you a hint. Try the end of Matthew. Where Jesus gives specific instruction to the disciples.

 

Actually, I'm an independent thinker. However, its you who sounded like the philosopher not me which is why I mentioned Socrates. I accuse you of taking a philosophical tennet and applying to your ecclessiology. Primarily the Caverns of Socrates. Every time I use Socrates I think of Bill and Ted's adventures where they call him So - Crates. As far as you being a fruit inspector I think you need to apply Matthew 7:4-5 to yourself. Because unlike you even Bill and Ted get the point. "Be excellent to each other" What are the fruit you should be inspecting? Well, Galatians 5:22-26 explain it pretty well

But you seem only to accuse when someone disagrees with you. And there is a Hebrew word for Accusor - Satan. So, give it a thought.
I'm glad you think highly of me to title me with Apologist for the Catholics (and all without seminary and education! Well, not entirely true since I went to a pentecostal University and for graduate studies I went to an American baptist university but not for bible!) but again you would be wrong. Especially, since (I'm pretty hyped about this I found out last night) that my brother(who has had many issues - particularily with the Law) told my father that will leave the Catholic Church and seek a bible teaching church! He wants a relationship with Jesus Christ! When my father argued with him my brother used me as an example. So praise the Lord. I never thought I would see it happen after all these years. My father called last night to complain about it and I told him of the power of Jesus Christ. However, go ahead and call me Catholic and like many things classify it under the many things I got wrong.
Also, I'm ashamed of your response. I was pretty detailed in my post an all you can do is accuse me of being catholic? Pretty lame for a highly educated theologian.

 

Look, it is obvious that you are playing mind games and refusing to give your own view. I have asked you a simple and straight forward question and you simply refuse to give a simple and straight forward response. I don't have time to play games with you. If you don't want to answer - fine.

 

I am glad to hear about your brother and that you had an opportunity to talk to your father. I hope someday you will become a Baptist. I wish no evil upon you. You are mistaken in your responses to my post. There was no philosophy inserted into my presentation in the least. Perhaps some day you will become a Baptist in faith.

 

Let me ask you a serious question.

Put the current debate aside and seriously answer this question for me.

Why does Jesus command us to do irrelevant things?

I always wondered about this. There is obviously a need for repentance. But baptism? I mean the usual argument is that its a witness. However, sharing the gospel message is more of a witness than baptism. There is no need for it. Its a big waste of time because someone who isn't save just thinks people are nuts for being submerged in water unless they are swimming. There is no real witness there. And it an irrelevant activity. It doesn't affect my salvation and a better way to share the gospel is by living a right life and "always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within you" Baptism is a waste of time and irrelevant to the gospel message. Its not an effective witness. I might as well wear a Talit. So why did Jesus command us to do it? Why did the Ethiopian Eunuch feel compelled to waste his time? Philip already preached Jesus unto him and he was saved why did he have to be baptized? Also Communion. Its another big waste of time.I remember Jesus Crucifixion every daily devotion I have. No need to eat a cracker with a bunch of crackers (joke btw) and drink grape juice. So what? I give thanks for Jesus sacrifice every dinner I have with my family. Our church often has fellowship lunches and dinners and when we eat with them we always open in prayer and remember God's grace. No need for communion there either. A big waste of time. And who cares about being respectful during it because. 1) it doesn't affect our salvation 2) its not a great witness 3) and it doesn't help me draw closer to God. The bible does that. And so does prayer. But communion? What a waste of time. I'm saved I don't need to ever be baptized or eat one cracker which doesn't even fill me up. Waste of time. Both of these things seem to be very irrelevant to the faith. So why would Jesus command us to do it unless he's a big narcissist in the sky?