1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Baptists Many Years Ago

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by rufus, Apr 4, 2007.

  1. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you are not willing to debate scripture in the debating area of the board, then please refrain from posting in the debating section...

    If you refuse to debate, then you are wasting our time by just posting your beliefs...

    Pick one of Grasshoppers questions and answer it...
    I would like to see your answer to his question "which church?"

    I have not seen that particular scripture used in the universal/local church debate.
     
  2. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why, the church to whom he was writing. The congregation at Ephesus.

    Paul is speaking in the same way he did to the elders from Ephesus in Acts 20:28 where he said: "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood."

    The flock Paul referred to was the church at Ephesus. The HS made them overseers over the local church at Ephesus. They were also to feed that same church, which he had bought with his blood. In v.29, he warns the elders (overseers) about the wolves who would infiltrate that congregation--a local church.
     
  3. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2




    Grasshopper said
    A couple of them. In Acts 20:7, Luke records that Paul and the others in the group spent several days at Troas. On Sunday, they "came together" to break bread.

    In I Corinthians 11:2 Paul urged the members of the church at Corinth to "keep the ordinances" as he had delivered them. Later, in vv23 and following, he related to the congregation the teaching from the Lord Jesus about the Lord's Supper.

    The gospels record that the first Lord's Supper was closed to all but the 12 disciples and Judas had left, leaving only the saved 11 to participate. It was not open in the least bit, except to the original members of the church Jesus established during his earthly ministry.

    In I Cor 5, Paul commands the church at Corinth to disfellowship a member who was having an illicit relationship with his father's wife. Verse 11, Paul says basically have nothing to do with them, and don't even eat with them. One could make a case that he means don't let him observe the Lord's Supper with you. Closed communion and church discipline are closely related.

    There is no scriptural evidence that the Lord's Supper was ever observed by any but a local church and its members.
     
  4. rufus

    rufus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Waste of Your Time, Sorry

    Refusing to waste your time by proving my beliefs is NOT the same thing as refusing to debate, good sir.

    But I do apologize for wasting your time with the sharing of truths that I hold dear.

    :godisgood:
     
  5. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no need to apologize, just debate.:wavey:
     
  6. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is the following verse talking about a local church or a universal church?
    If local does this mean that Paul was a member of the Corinthian church since he includes himself in the statement by using the word "we"?

    1 Corinthians 12:13
    (13)
    For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Baptist Distinctives:

    * Biblical authority

    * Autonomy of the local church

    * Priesthood of all believers

    * Two ordinances (baptism and communion)

    * Individual soul liberty

    * Separation of Church and State

    * Two offices of the church (pastor and deacon)
     
  8. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Tim, this is called cutting to the chase. Interpreting this verse may take a while. My own view has been influenced by a number of scholars, but the best user-friendly treatment I've seen is by Dr. Herschel York, Professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary--and his father, Wallace York. It's pretty long, so I'll paraphrase them for brevity's sake.

    Here's the link, but you have to join to see it:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/message/210

    Since scripture interprets scripture, Ephesians 4:4-5 helps intepret I Cor 12:13.

    4 There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
    5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.....

    Question: One body or one kind of body? V.5 "one baptism" speaks of one kind of baptism (immersion, non-sacramental, picture of the gospel, public testimony). V4. "One body" means one kind of body. Not two bodies, not two baptisms. Paul is not saying he has been baptized into the church at Corinth. He and the Corinthians are all baptized into one kind of body.

    So, in I Cor 12:13, what kind of body is it? Vv 25-26 tell us two things: There should be no schism, and when one member of the body suffers or is honored, we all suffer, or rejoice with the one honored. Those are possible only in a local church, and are an impossibility in a universal church. An impossibility even within the Baptist denomination. The Yorks: "How can v 26 apply to a universal church?"

    Now, v.27 "Ye are the body of Christ and members in particular." Paul calls the church at Corinth the body of Christ. So the inevitable conclusion is that the body into which one is baptized in v23 is a local congregation.

    Next, the Yorks ask "what kind of baptism is it in v. 13?" If it is Spirit baptism, then why baptize anyone in water? Remember Ephesians 4:4--"one baptism."
    It's an obvious reference to believer's immersion.

    The Yorks contend that apart from v13, there is no other hint that the Holy Spirit ever baptized anyone. Believers are baptized with the Spirit (Matt 3:11, Acts 1:5)

    The Greek "en," translated by, can properly be translated in, and Spirit probably should not be capitalized. The Greek is translated in 1800 times, by 142 times in the NT. Pretty shaky to hang a doctrine on one tiny English word, say the Yorks.

    So what is Paul saying in 12:13? The Yorks say it this way: "He is speaking of a spirit of unity that the believer has that leads him to be baptized into one of the Lord's churches."

    Now my thoughts: Those of you who hold to a universal church made up of all believers, please give us a purpose for its existence. And which is better suited and perfectly equipped to carry out the Great Commission? Which is better suited to guard the integrity of and administer the ordinances? Which is more likely to achieve unity and harmony among its members? Which one never has?

    The local church wins, folks, hands down.
     
    #28 Tom Butler, Apr 6, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 6, 2007
  9. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Somewhere around the last half of '85 to mid '86. I believe Curtis Hutson was still the editor at that time. I think the IBF'r in question was a man with the last name of Lee and on the east coast. He was the subject of an editorial because he had WA Criswell speak at his church. The commetary indicated that real IFBr's should disassociate themselves from this man until he comes back to his senses. His crime was associating with WA Criswell.
    The logic: Criswell was a Sothern Baptist and all Sword readers knew the SBC was full of liberals. Therefore if you associated with Criswell or any other SBC'r you associated "indirectly or directly" with liberals.

    With your knowledge of the Sword of the Lord I find it hard to believe this would come as a suprise to you. SBC'rs were their favorite targets at that time right behind the Catholics.
     
  10. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23


    Does the church at Ephesus still exist today? If not then Jesus can’t have His glory in that church and certainly doesn’t last throughout all the ages.

    I guess this only applies to the Church at Thessalonica:

    1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

    Or does your logic break down on eschatology?



    What does this prove? Were they all members of the same Church? Was anyone excluded who wished to participate?




    So the church existed prior to Pentecost? I don’t know that I would disagree with this view, but it must be held by you in order to use this passage. Secondly it still proves nothing about whether I could visit a cooperating Baptist Church and take the Lord’s Supper or any church for that matter.



    Or one could make a case that they just kicked him out of the Church. Why would a member in good standing of another church be excluded from the Lord’s supper based on this scripture?



    Not really. It is hard to have any kind of fellowship with one who has been tossed out of the church. It is no more tied to closed communion as it is to tithing.



    Show me in the NT how one was to become a member of the local Church. I seemed to have missed the “walking down the aisle” and “raising of hands or a hearty amen” verses.
     
  11. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It doesn't surprise me about the Curtis Hutson era. Actually, I quit taking the SOTL and lost track of SOTL events sometime during the late '80's I guess it was. Hutson signed my ordination certificate since I was ordained there in Murfreesboro, but his approach never did click with me. I only again started taking it again about a year ago.

    John R. Rice was a close friend of W. A. Criswell, even printing his sermons in the Sword occasionally, so he would never have taken the tack Hutson did on that.

    God bless.
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grasshopper: //The logic: Criswell was a Sothern Baptist
    and all Sword readers knew the SBC was full of liberals.
    Therefore if you associated with Criswell or any
    other SBC'r you associated "indirectly or directly" with liberals.//

    Yep, that is the credit some of us get for our thirty year* struggle
    to liberate the SBC from the liberals. Today the SBC churches are
    MORE CONSERVATIVE than the IFB churchess for many
    IFB churches (not all) have abandoned conservative religion for
    IES = itchy ear syndrome.

    *that is half a lifetime, you know.

    Ah for the old "a Million more in '54 push again :applause:
     
  13. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Don't know if a New Testament congregation exists in Ephesus today, but it wouldn't surprise me if one does.


    Yes, Jesus established the first church when he chose his disciples. When he ascended after his resurrection, this group had everything today's NT church has. Jesus gave his Great Commission to this church.

    Grasshopper on the man in Acts 5:
    The point is, under Open Communion, the church at Corinth could not deny him communion, even though it had disfellowshipped him. And similar churches today would have no cause to deny it to even a flagrant adulterer kicked out of another church who shows up for the Lord's Supper.

    Members of other churches, even other Baptist churches, are not in covenant relationship with members of my church. Nor are they under the authority of my church and not subject to either the discipling or disciplining authority of my congregation.

    Further, they may not be scripturally baptized, and nowhere in the NT do unbaptized believers participate in the Lord's Supper.

    So closed communion is closely related to church discipline, and to guarding the integrity of the ordinances given to the local congregation by Jesus himself.

    Local Baptist churches who practice close (Baptists only) or Open communion (any believer) may invoke their autonomy in doing so, but would be wise to rethink their practice. BTW, my own church does not practice Closed Communion. I am in the minority with this view.


    One becomes a member of a local church by following the example of I Corinthians 12:13, and submitting to water baptism. For a flawless exegesis of this verse, see post #28 in this thread.

    BTW, the "walking down the aisle" and raising of hands or a hearty amen" I question myself. You meant is as sarcasm, but I think those practices have been abused and should be re-examined.
     
    #33 Tom Butler, Apr 6, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 6, 2007
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom Butler: //Local Baptist churches who practice close (Baptists only)
    or Open communion (any believer) may invoke
    their autonomy in doing so, but would be wise to rethink
    their practice. BTW, my own church does
    not practice Closed Communion. I am in the minority
    with this view.//

    The definitions i grew up with (I became a Christian &
    Baptist church member 55 years ago this week):

    Closed communion - local church members only
    Open communion - Baptists only
    Liberal communion - any believer
     
  15. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ed, here are the definitions I've heard:

    Closed communion: local church members only
    Close communion: Baptists only
    Open Communion: Any professed believer.
     
  16. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    ditto here
     
  17. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    RE: The Church...

    No one has mentioned the following "Universal Church" proof text(s) (or did I miss it)?

    Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​

    Also...​

    1 Corinthians 10:32
    Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

    and...​

    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​

    While I will admit that the Scripture speaks more abundantly of the local Church than the "universal" these passages (IMO) are clear "universal Church" proof texts.​

    I have seen one objection to this Matthew passage as indicating a "universal" Church but not convincing enough to change my mind that the Scripture clearly teaches both a local/universal Church doctrine.​

    Also, it is not so great a matter that would cause me to break fellowship with a local Church which officially disagrres, I would just be quiet about my conviction.​


    HankD​
     
  18. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    This often means, "Give me time and I will show you why this passage of Scripture doesn't say what it says."

    I used to be a member of an American Baptist Association church in the past. These Landmark Baptist are wrong; they cannot honestly use the Scripture to prove their theology. Therefore, they twist and distort Scripture to conform to their erroneous beliefs.
     
  19. rufus

    rufus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    No Universal Church

    Since I started this thread, without wishing to debate it, and still do not wish to debate it, I'll just throw this into the mix and see what "goodie" comes out. Humm...Hummm!

    Reasons Why the Church Cannot Be Universal

    Discipline
    No universal agency on earth exists which determines who is and who isn't a faithful Christian. These questions can only be determined locally (1 Cor. 5:1-5 'When ye are gathered together' )-- that is, only at the local level. The universal church can't withdraw from anyone! The same is true with Matthew 18:15-17 and 2 Thess. 3:6-15. These passages can only be fulfilled by the local congregation.



    Organization
    The Universal church has no organizational structure on earth. It has no joint action, no common fund, and no meetings. It has no elders or deacons, for these offices are only found on the local level (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23; 1 Peter 5:2). Scripture only discusses the qualifications of the officers in the local church, but there is no mention of an earthly office in the universal church and no list of qualifications for such an officer.


    The Local church, on the other hand, has organizational structure. Each has a treasury (1 Cor. 16:1-2; Phil. 4:15-17). Each has the rules to appoint oversight (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-3; Acts 14:23; 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). Note that their oversight is specifically limited to the "flock of God which is among them".


    Function:
    The New Testament never mentions the universal church at work. The New Testament Scriptures are completely silent as to any organized function of the universal church. The necessary conclusion then is that since God has given the church only a local organization--the congregation--He intended that to be the medium to accomplish His work.


    a. Preachers were sent out by the local church (Acts 13:1-3). They reported back to the local church. (Acts 14:25, 30). The universal church never supported a preacher.


    b. Edifying itself (I Cor. 14).


    c. Caring for the needy. In Jerusalem, they looked out men from among themselves. Men to set over the business of caring for their needy widows. (Acts 6). Funds for poor saints in Judea were placed in hands of elders of Judean churches to be administered by them.


    d. Only the local congregation selected elders/deacons (Acts 6:1-3).


    e. Only the local congregation gathered for worship and observed the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7).


    Treasury
    Concerning the collection mentioned in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2: It was funds from the members in Corinth that was pooled into a common treasury. Paul again specifies that he wants this monetary prosperity already pooled when he arrives. Never do we find congregations contributing funds into a universal treasury. Their funds remained distinct from the funds of other churches, even when sent to another church in need (I Cor. 16:3-4)


    Accountability
    Such is a definite lesson we learn from Revelation chapters 2-3. Here we find a great lesson demonstrating the reality of congregational autonomy. The sins and or successes of one congregation in no way tainted or credited the other congregations in the same geographical region. Jesus did not direct the Revelation letter to the 'association of churches in Asia', or the 'church board of Asian churches', or even 'the Asian Diocese.' The church in Ephesus or Smyrna was not accountable, was not told to repent for the error that was being tolerated in another congregation. This demands a distinction between the local congregation and the church universal.


    Reasons The Church Is NOT Universal​
    1. The classical Greek usage of ecclesia knows nothing of a universal assembly.

    2. The Koine Greek of the NT knows nothing of a universal assembly.

    3. Jesus used ecclesia 22 times to refer to local churches.

    4. Matthew used ecclesia twice (Mt 16 and 18) and context specifies a local assembly.

    5. Acts refers to ecclesia many times in the plural as local assemblies established by Paul and others.

    6. Most of Paul’s letters were written to local assemblies.

    7. John’s letters and Revelation were written to local assemblies.

    8. Jesus’ command to evangelize, baptize and teach was given to local assemblies.

    9. God placed Spirit-gifted leaders in local assemblies.

    10. Believers were commanded to assemble together in local assemblies.

    11. The Lord’s Supper can only be practiced in local assemblies.

    12. The gifts of the Spirit are to be used in the local assemblies for edification.

    13. Local assemblies aide other local assemblies and missionaries in times of need.

    14. The Universal Church CANNOT:

    1. Assemble (Heb. 10:24-25)
    2. Fellowship (Acts 2)
    3. Baptize (Matthew 28)
    4. Take Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 11)
    5. Enjoy teaching gift in assembly (Ephesians 4)
    6. Aide other assemblies (2 Corinthians 8-9)
    7. Evangelize the world (Mark 16)

    15. There is NO universal assembly made up of ALL believers of all times ( or ALL believers since Pentecost).

    Rufus

     
  20. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tom Butler
    Tim, this is called cutting to the chase. Interpreting this verse may take a while.

    Terry Harrington replied
    If you'll look at Rufus's post (#39) it will clearly show why defending this ecclesiology cannot be done in a short post. I tried to answer Tiny Tim's question about I Cor 12:13 as concisely as possible, but sometimes proper exegesis takes time.

    In addition, I make every effort to let the scripture drive my ecclesiology, not vice versa. I would assume that all of us on the BB do the same.

    Rufus has outlined what the "universal church" does not and cannot do. In light of his comments, I repeat my question that still has yet to get any answer: "For what purpose does the universal church exist?"
     
Loading...