The Church

Hi Tim, I did not read all the other answers to your questions, so if any of this is redundant, I am sorry.
Sometimes in scripture we see a word and think it means this, but sometimes it means that. For example, church could refer to an earthly assembly of believers, made up of both wheat and tares. Or the same word might refer to the universal church, the bride and body of Christ, made up of all those "in Christ" from Christ's death to the present and will include those "added" in the future until the end of the age.

Baptized is another double duty word, does it refer to being water baptized by men, or being spiritually baptized into Christ? Study the word and by context, add an "s" for being placed in Christ, and a "w" for the commanded symbolic water baptism to mirror your prior "s" baptism.

Consider reversing the order of your words, "when they become saved and are baptized." The actual order is when we are baptized (spiritually set apart in Christ) we are saved. That action by God (the Holy Spirit) to transfers us out of the realm of darkness, into the kingdom of His Son is our redemption, salvation (positional sanctification).

Here is the NASB version of Acts 2:41, So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls [or persons]. I think "received his word" means they trusted fully in Christ. Thus the statement implies they were immediately placed into Christ by the Holy Spirit, their spiritual baptism. "Were baptized" refers to the following water baptism, which joins them to the local church. Thus the 3000 refers to those people who professed Christ and joined through water baptism, the church of Jerusalem.

Here is the NASB version of Acts 9:26 When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.

Several points here: 1) Christianity is a team sport, we work together to accomplish Christ's ministry. Thus we should associate ourselves with the local church in our area, which is what Paul was doing. 2)However because Paul (Saul) had a reputation of turning in church members, they were afraid, not knowing if he was just saying he believed as a trick.

1 Cor. 12:13 refers (I believe) to our spiritual placement in Christ, and the drinking refers to being sealed in Christ spiritually with the Holy Spirit which helps each of us.

 

How do you explain away St. Paul's words, "That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another." [1 Corinthians 12:25].

 

Paul was speaking to those in the true Church, not adressing them in church of Rome!

 

I read the entire context of 1 Corinthians 12 for starters. I quickly recognize that Paul is addressing those who make up the body of Christ, the elect, the church.
Note: Rome was still just a blip on the radar at the time Paul writes to the Corinthians so he is not referring to Rome at all when he references the church. He is referencing the members of Christ's body, the chosen elect of God.
Paul is saying that just as God has made a physical body with many parts that must all cooperate as one to survive, so God has made the body of Christ, the elect, the church with many roles and functions that give life to the church and make it healthy. God chooses each person's role and gift in the body (the church).
Paul is not even thinking about Rome. He is thinking about God's Supreme choice to give gifts that help the body.
Please, in the future, take time to actually understand what the passage is about before attempting to rip a verse out of its context.

1 Corinthians 12:14-31 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.

 

Well, that's one small step for man and giant leap for Particular. You just admitted the Body of Christ is the Church of Rome.

Now you want to tell us the attributes of the Body of Christ.

JoeT

 

Your comprehension is off ain't it there Joe.
Rome was a late comer as a church. It certainly isn't THE church. It is a church.
The body of Christ is much, much greater than little ole Rome.

 

There is a universal, spiritual body of Christ (Eph.1, 5).
And then there are local physical manifestations of that, assemblies, i.e. local churches.
Acts 2:41/47 are simply saying that the new converts hooked up with the rest of the believers.
V.47 has church in the singular because at that point in time, there was only one local church in the world, the Jerusalem church.
So for that brief state, the universal/spiritual church and the local church were one and the same thing, which may explain your confusion. God was adding spiritually to the universal church members into the spiritual body of Christ as they were getting saved, but he was also adding members to that local church.
The answer is: "No, a man cannot be saved and yet not a member of the body of Christ" because every convert is automatically joined up the spiritual body by the Holy Ghost:
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit [note that word. It's a spiritual baptism here, not a water one, as claimed by Baptist-briders] 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 [again, Spirit, not water].

You drink of the Spirit the day you get saved (John 4, 7; 1Co.10) not the day you get dunked in water.

 

Contrary to what you think, my comprehension is quite enhanced, I take something for it on the each of the Lord's Days.

JoeT

 

Having a shot of wine and a wafer does nothing to increase your comprehension of scripture, Joe.
We all celebrate by remembering Jesus body given for us and his blood shed for us. You are not extra-special for your own celebration. Moreso, bringing it up as a means of you having better mental capacity to comprehend scripture is a silly correlation that is unmeasurable.

 

Is yours the true Church and all the other the false Church?

JoeT

 

Scripture says it is "supersubstantial bread."? [Matthew 6:11]. Is Scripture wrong?

JoeT

 

No, your church claims it is real flesh and real blood. Your church has turned a remembrance into a magic show that has theological problems, which remove grace and make salvation to be by human works.

 

“Who hath predestined us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will:" [Ephesians 1:5]

Before addressing the concept of “predestination” let’s look at a few things. St. Augustine said that predestination was nothing more the foreknowledge of what was to be. The all knowing all loving God knows how and when one will turn to him or not. One is not judged on that foreknowledge, rather on our own will and acts. One more thing before turning to your comment; it is best to know that sin is a voluntary immoral act of thought, word or deed. [Augustine]. By “voluntary” Augustine means that one knowingly and willingly acted.

I think your comment is best addressed by looking at Adam and Eve. If sin entered the world through one man by having a nature of sin, then Adam was originally created with the laws of sin in his nature. Logically, the act of disobedience could not have been a sin, (remembering that sin is a voluntary act, nothing in our nature is voluntary), we must obey the laws of our nature or we are not humans. We can conclude then Adam was a just man and the fall must have come about another way.

Remembering that Adam walked with God, the original man was created with a soul that was perfectly joined to the intellect and united with the will of God, overflowing with the knowledge of truth; the intellect functioned in the light of God's will disciplining the lower appetites through reason alone; just as ours can be after baptism begins the process of becoming just. Adam could ‘reason’ why he should be honorable, just, prudent, and strong in his virtuous graces simply because he knew God, spoke with God, and was befriended by God. However, because Adam acted unjustly we bear the just punishment for the sin of that one man. Death was that punishment; but how?

If Adam was “predestined” to sin, then the same God who created Adam and found him good, condemned Adam. So, predestination is not a Divine Lottery, the good aren’t made good and the bad are not made bad. Predestination then is not a grand Lotto where one buys a ticket having astronomical chances of being the “lucky winner”. The concept that predestination is not a list of future kings and queens of heaven, a concept held predominately by the Protestants. The Catholic concept of predestination is that all our names are written in heaven, until our voluntary immoral acts erases them. Otherwise, a newborn child who dies is ‘predestined as reprobate’ who cannot and has not declared Jesus Christ his Lord and savior – having never sinned as cannot voluntarily act. That doesn’t seem like a loving God, It sounds like a pernicious God.

In Baptism, water and spirit, [John 3:5] we receive the grace of justice making us right (i.e. righteous) with God. These are the real effects of the graces one receives in Baptism. “Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved”[V47] is the effect of Baptism with which we cooperate daily in our ‘temple’ (the Church) “breaking bread”, i.e. participating in the Eucharist communion. V46

This is the only true statement made; there is no salvation outside the Church. Why? There is no altar on which to participate in the grace “breaking the bread” of eternal life [John 6:51 sqq.] except in the One True Church of Jesus Christ.

JoeT

 

First of all partaking of the Eucharist is not a "remembrance". In another post I said "In the sacrifice of the Pascal lamb the blood of the lamb was “sprinkled upon the people”. This blood was a covenant. Hyssop was used as a medium to seal the covenant [bind the deal] with the people with the blood from the sacrifice, to consummate the covenant. Jesus fulfills every tittle, every jot of the Prophetic Law. [Matthew 5:18][ Luke 16:17] requiring sealing the deal; “And he took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people, and he said: This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." [Exodus 24:8]." Hence, the Eucharist is the culmination, the fulfillment of the Prophetic Law. Either it is real and efficacious or it is not revealing there is no Jesus Christ nor is there a God. Frankly, I don't like the latter alternative.

In this context the 'magic', turning the real into the unreal, strictly belongs to your church. God is with us.

JoeT

 

The thief on the cross next to Christ died just as saved as Paul. No baptism required. There is nothing in Scripture that tells us baptism saves. If it did your salvation would be based on a work.

Also this is an irreconcilable subject as one side rejects the other outright.

 

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you.

Do this in remembrance of me.”

We remember.
Jesus was celebrating the Passover with his disciples. Specifically, he was partaking in the sedir meal. Jesus was changing the sedir. He was declaring that he is the Lamb that is slain for his people.
Just as the Jews remember Passover, so Christians remember Jesus as the Lamb that is slain for our sins.
No real flesh. No real blood. We Christians are not cannibals.

 

Excuse me for asking the dumb question, but where does Scripture say the thief was not Baptized?

JoeT

 

That's right a commemoration of the continuance just like the high Holy days in Judaism of Pasch or Passover but a perfected sacrifice, a new on going Sacrifice. Christ our high priest , is saying this Sacrifice continues in reality being offered until the end of time which we are to hold in remembrance or commemorate each and every time we "do this", partake of His real Body and His real Blood.

I would certainly hope you are not cannibals, I certainly wouldn't want to visit if you were. It is the attributes (accidents) of bread and wine which remain in the essence of the real presence of Jesus Christ, a blood sacrifice offered offered by the New Israel, the Catholic Church.

JoeT

 

I’m sorry for assuming that somebody was here wanted to have an intelligent conversation.

 

Jesus doesn't say "This is my real body and my real blood." His disciples would have been disgusted. They knew the symbolism, just like they knew the symbolism in the sedir meal.
Again, if it's real flesh and real blood, then Christians are cannibals.
Do you realize that cannibals eat their victims in order to get the spirit energy of the victim and become stronger? Your claim is a variation of cannibalism. Jesus would never have done such a thing. Thus the idea of real flesh and real blood is not true. Just as the Lutheran idea of real presence is not true. Both misunderstand Jesus last supper and what Jesus was saying. The Roman Church twists it even worse by claiming the need to eat the flesh and drink the blood to retain salvation.