Baptism and the existence of a church

Depends upon whether they were Baptists or not.

HankD

 

I thank you for bringing this point to our remembrance. I understand the term Calvinism refers to a train of thought or theological position, but none-the-less, I wonder at how comfortably many Baptists accept this appellation - which would make me cringe in disgust to be known as, associated with, or kindred spirit to such as John Calvin.

I understand why too, that many prefer the concept 'doctrines of grace.' It is still bad theology - but it sounds better!

 

He is human. No one is perfect (apart from Jesus). That was my point, we are all flawed.

Also we have a saying "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Reading The Institutes of the Christian Religion is like eating a fish... eat the flesh, spit out the bones.


HankD

 

Brother, you haven't shown I have taken anything out of context. You haven't shown I "tear apart...truth" or "deny it very effectively". The only thing you have shown is that I disagree with you and you are prone to attack people personally who disagree with you.

You are demonstrating a very contentious spirit that is clearly condemned by scripture.

You continue to ignore the call of Matthew. You are making assumptions based on your theology. I see scripture in context.

The gospel of Matthew. John is baptizing in Judea. Jerusalem is coming to him. Jesus is baptized there, in the Jordan, in Matt. 3:13-17. Jesus is tempted for 40 days and nights. He travels around, settling in Capernaum. Jesus gives His sermon on the mount in Chp. 5-7. Jesus travels across the sea of Galilee and then returns to Capernaum. It is here that Jesus encounters Matthew, the tax collector, sitting in the tax collectors booth.

You contend, without any evidence from scripture, that Matthew was a disciple of John the Baptist and witnessed the baptism of Jesus, and then returned to his job as a tax collector.

You are reading into scripture things that aren't there. You are arguing from silence. You are ignoring the context of scripture because it doesn't fit your theology.

You completely ignored the passage concerning the meaning the Christian baptism. We are baptized into the death of Christ. Rom. 6:3. John's baptism is a baptism of repentance as you have already stated. How is that the same baptism? Where does John mention that we are baptized into the death of Christ?

John 's disciples were baptizing at the same time as Jesus' disciples. Were they acting in disobedience to John? Were those disciples of John building a Christian Church? Show me from scripture were these things are true.

peace to you:praying:

 

Every objection you give I have already answered - just read my post this time.

 

So, you believe that God sent John to baptize and although Jesus by personal example submits to John's baptism and administers the baptism of John to others (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29) through "his disciples" but you believe that some of those called the "disciples" of Jesus walk to the beat of another drummer different than John or Jesus because according to you there is no explicit stated evidence to prove EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Apostles were baptized at all. Even though Christ calls them his "disciples" and states they "have" been taught to observe all things commanded (which included baptism) in the Great Commission. What do you base this upon? PURE SILENCE.

Thanks for straightening me out for my stupidity in believing that the word "disciple" meant one who follows after another. If your theory is true, then obviously that cannot be the meaning of the term "disciple" and Matthew is certainly called a "disciple" of Christ just as all the other eleven were called "disicples" of Christ. However, that cannot possibly be the meaning if your theory is right because if your theory is correct and some were unbaptized then they could not have followed after Christ much less obeyed God because Luke makes it clear that to submit to the baptism of John was to "justify God" (Lk. 7:29) but to refuse to submit to the baptism of John was to "reject the counsel of God against yourselves" (Lk. 7:30). We know that by personal example Jesus "justified God" and did not "reject the counsel of God" but obviusly by your theory Matthew did and all the other apostles. Thank you for straightening out that "disciple" cannot possibly mean a follower of Christ much less a follower of God.

Following your kind of reasoning I could make the same argument about the Great Commission. I could argue that although the great commission was given by Christ to His "disciples" we only have the explicit mention of it at the end of the gospels and once in the beginning of Acts (2:41-42) and so there is no proof that the church at Jerusalem or any other church or any other believer mentioned in the New Testament after Acts 2 ever practiced it because it is never fully spelled out again. That is the same logic you are using in your argument that admits the first apostles had the baptism of John but there is no explicit stated evidence that the other apostles have the baptism of John. Of course, you completely ignore the fact that I stated you did not have to be baptized by John himself to have the baptism of John as Luke 7:29-30 and Jn. 4:1-2 clearly demonstrate.

Your objection that the theological writings of Paul demonstrate that we are baptized into the death of Christ whereas the historical biographical gospel accounts do not provide any theological treatise to verify that this is the inherent intent and design God had for introducing baptism through John is very enlightening. Of course I would think that since the gospel records were given primarily to give the historical and biographical record of the life of Christ whereas the epistles of Paul were given to provide theological explanations, that this may be part of the reason we don't have a theological treatise on baptism in the gospel records. Foolish me, how could I ever imagine that Christ had "CHRIST-ian" baptism. I hope you never tell anyone to follow Christ in baptism if His baptism was UnCHRIST-ian.

Thanks also for pointing out that John's baptism was a baptism "of repentance." Matthew tells us that he would not baptize people who did not bare "fruits of repentance" (Mt. 3:6-8) and Paul tells us that he baptized only those who would believe in Christ (Acts 19:4) while John says that he preached they must believe in Christ for eternal life (Jn. 3:36). So that is what the "baptism of repentance" is all about??? Wow! Don't sound like anything our baptism does it. We don't demand people repent and believe in Jesus Christ before we baptize them do we????? Thank you for that wonderful clarification.

Oh yeah! John tells us that Jesus baptized more disciples than John the Baptist through his disciples (Jn. 4:1-2) and yet that baptizing was referred to as "the baptism of John" (Lk. 7:29-30). Let me see here, that means that later disciples, like Matthew, could still have the baptism of John without being baptized by John himself. But you are right, just because Jesus made disciples this way in John 4:1-2 and in Luke 7:29-30 does not mean that Matthew or other "disciples" or apostles submitted to the "baptism of John" even though that would be open rejection of the "counsel of God" because as you said, there is no explicit detailed record where each and every apostle is individually baptized and so we can't assume they "justified God" or were "made disciples" the way John and Jesus and His "disciples" made disciples in John 4;1-2 and Luke 7:29-30. Thanks for straightening me out there because I would be foolish enough to believe these texts place before us a standard method of how disciples are made.

Oh, one last thing. Luke 1:17 says that John's purpose was simply to prepare the materials for Christ rather than to build a church. Of course I never did say John built the church did I???

Happy reading.

 

I am, and will always be, a Christian before I am a Baptist.

 

So, you believe these passages are plain, precise, and detailed enough to justify declaring the bulk of Christianity on earth as being of the spirit of Satan?

This I know; reveling in your correctness and setting all others at nought is not the spirit of Christ. That's the attitude that Landmarkism engenders.
As far as I'm concerned that's what the intent of this thread was all about.

It's as I said, those you set at nought don't stand or fall to the likes of you.

 

I have never said that non-baptists are "of the spirit of Satan." The only thing that is "of the spirit of Satan" is false doctrines (1 Tim. 4:1). False doctrine and practice is the opposite of true doctrine and practice. Scriptural baptism and scriptural constituted churches are true and unscriptural are false. It is just that simple.

What you are upset about is that you cannot answer the simple question I have asked over and over again and here it is again: "Can you find a single solitary church of unbaptized believers in the New Testament?"

When you can't answer the questions or when the question condemns your position then you personally attack the person asking the question - this is your modus operandi.

Why not put the personal stuff aside and simply answer the question?

 

Why is it that such a simple question gets such a silly answer like the above answer. No one is teaching that you must be a Baptist before being a Christian - no one. Indeed, your answer above demonstrates your position on this issue to be wrong for that is my point exactly - the church has nothing to do with salvation and therefore, simply because we distinguish false churches from true churches that does not affect the salvation of those in false churches at all.

Again, "Can you find any church in the New Testament composed of unbaptized believers?"

Again, "Can you find any precept in Scripture that would support calling a group of unbaptized believers a true church of Christ"?

 

You said:

What exactly is the 'other spiritual source' that you're referring to if it's not Satan?

The Pharisees asked:

........Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. Jn 7:52

.........and they were ever so wrong.

 

Ask yourself a question. Is there a difference between true and false churches? If in your mind there are no differnces then forget this thread and go on to something else. On the other hand, if there are differences than obviously something "false" does no originate from God does it? For example, a true believer can embrace a "false" doctrine. That does not mean this person is not a TRUE believer but rather it only means he has embaced something that has been derived from Satan.

Now, true believers can be unbaptized and still be true believers unless you believe you can't be saved apart from baptism. Since I assume you do not believe baptism is essential to salvation then true believers can be unbaptized. Now, if scriptural baptism to be scriptural must be at least by immersion then from whence does the idea, doctrine and practice of sprinkling and pouring come from??? God or Satan? The Scripture only gives two options when it comes to doctrine and practice (I Tim. 4:1; 1 Jn. 4:6).

Hence, where does the doctrine and practice of constituting a church out of unbaptized believers come from?????

We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Is it possible that true Christians can embrace "doctrines of devils" or be led by the "spirit of error"??? If not, then why does John command us to "try" or test the spirits (I Jn. 4:1)? If not, then why all the warnings in Scripture to stand fast and not be misled?????

Again, "Can you find any church in the pages of the New Testament that consists of unbaptized believers"?

Again, "can you find any precept in the New Testament to recognize a group of unbaptized believers as a church of Christ"?

If you cannot, then isn't such a professed "church of Christ" really a false claim and isn't the doctrine and practice for constituting such churches originate from the "spirit of error" instead of the "Spirit of truth" and do not all doctrines and practice that originate from the "spirit of error" originate with "doctrines of demons"?????

You are a fine fellow and I mean no disrepect toward you.

 

No, they were precisely right. There were no scriptures that predicted that any prophet would arise out of Galilee. Jesus did not arise out of Galilee but out of Bethlehem.

Likewise, I am asking you on the basis of what is IN the scriptures, "Can you find any church in the New Testament composed of unbaptized membership"?

More importantly, can you find any SCRIPTURAL FOUNDATION for recognizing any group of unbaptized believers as a New Testament Church?

I can find plenty of Scriptural evidence to demonstrate they cannot possibly be recognized as a church of Christ IF the Bible is our final authority.

 

Yes. Thank you. My point exactly. At one and the same time the Pharisees were dead on correct by the letter, and yet absolutely wrong in reality. Your demand 'show me' from the scripture proves nothing.

It figures you would agree with the Pharisees. Thirteen times I'm aware of that He is referred to as Jesus of Nazareth IN the scriptures. Do you know where Nazareth is?

--------------------------------------------------------------

The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, Toward the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, The people that sat in darkness Saw a great light, And to them that sat in the region and shadow of death, To them did light spring up. Mt 4:15,16

How could they have known?

 

My friend it seems you do selective reading. I did not merely challenge you to show where any church in the New Testament was composed of unbaptized believers but I asserted that such a church would violate the clear and explicit teaching of Scripture. Scriptural baptism is not only a scriptural requirment to church membership but is a the command of scripture. Unbaptized believers are not only violating clear Biblical precepts but equally without clear scriptural authority to administer any form of baptism, ordain ministers or constitute churches.

The authorized "ye" in Matthew 28;19-20 to do all these things are not unbaptized believers. However, those identified as "them" in the same text are at one point unbaptized believers and are without authority to administer any aspect of this commission.

Isaiah 8:20 says that if any man speak not according the scriptures there is no light in them. Your position is contrary not only to what we find in the scriptures but contrary to the very command of the scriptures even as those churches composed of unbaptized believers are.

 

No one on this forum has been able to show from the Scriptures there is any such thing as a New Testament Church composed of unbaptized believers.

Neither can anyone deny that baptism is the clear and explicit command of the scriptures that precedes church membership.

Therefore any church at any time in history, then or now, could not be recognized as a church of Christ if it is composed of unbaptized believers.

Morover, there is a distinct contextually defined plural group of disciples that have been given authority to administer baptism and constitute churches and they are not unbaptized believers.

Hence, a group of unbaptized believers have no Biblical authority to administer the ordinances, constitute churches, ordain a ministry IF the scriptures are the final authority for faith and practice.

 

Actually, you mean specifically 'unimmersed' believers. It matters not to you whether they had the right spirit, or believed that they were fulfilling the ordinance of the rite of water baptism or not. It matters not to you whether the Lord judges as harshly as you do or not.

So, now what? What have you accomplished here? Once again, where is the benefit of such a discussion as this? How are we now to look upon our our unimmersed, incorrectly water baptised brothers and sisters in the Lord of the non-Baptists denominations?

I will not set them at nought the way you do. Nothing will change here with me. I hope no one gets infected with the odious spirit of Landmarkism from this thread.

 

You have written a lot of angry, sacastic words but you haven't shown any evidence from scripture that Matthew was a disciple of John or that Matthew witnessed the baptism of Jesus, or that Matthew had been baptized... and then returned to his job as a tax collector.... and then was later called by Jesus as a disciple....because it isn't there.

You are reading your theology into scripture and when challenged to support your assertions with scripture (which you cannot do because scripture is contrary to your assertions) you attack personally those who ask the questions.

Therefore, I leave you with your sarcastic, contentious spirit and pray for...

peace to you:praying:

 

You still can't separate salvation from service can you??? How do I look upon them? In regard to salvation, I look upon them as fellow brethren in Christ, which I can have personal and individual fellowship with in those things we agree upon.

In regard to service, I look upon them as disobedient to God's word and unauthorized to administer the ordinance, constitute churches, in need of teaching, unbaptized, unordained, unchurched and impossible to have "church" fellowship with as there is nothing to fellowship with in that regard.

For example, in regard to church recognization and fellowship, I can't grant a letter of recommendation for any of our members to join their institution and I can't accept their unscriptural baptisms for membership in our church. I can't accept their ordinations or authority to constitute churches. Why? Because it would force me to accept what is clearly unscriptural and anti-scriptural.

Do you have any authority from God, meaning from God's Word to recognize as scriptural and authorized what the Scriptures deny to be scriptural and authorized regardless if saved persons or lost persons are promoting it?????

 

Does that mean that you recant this odious statement?: