Alright - I'm back.
To be blunt - I'm not even sure where to begin with this whole issue. Let me start by agreeing that there is only one church. I also concur that the church is made up of individuals and not churches.
Okay, as a reminder, here is the issue at hand:
Originally Posted by Splayd
1) "We are not the only Christians" acknowledges that there are Christians that don't attend RM churches as Hey Homie said. I certainly believe that there are Christians that attend Baptist, Methodist, Brethren, Non-denominational etc.. etc... congregations.
Good. We agree there is one body or church per Eph. 4:4, and we agree the church is made up of individual Christians and not churches per 1 Corinthians 12. Great. We have established some common ground that is scripturally based.
So then - are our differences based around an understanding of who those individuals are? Do I need to establish from scripture who is a christian? I imagine we'd basically agree on what scripture says about that anyway.
Let's
not assume we "basically agree" about what it takes to become a Christian. Let's go to our Bibles and see. In Acts 2:37-38, I see that faith (implied by the Jew's response in verse 37), repentance, and baptism were required to have sins taken away (i.e. become a disciple of our Lord - a Christian). Is that what you see in those verses? And, in the conversion of the eunuch in Acts 8:35-39, I see faith, confession, and baptism being involved in the conversion. Agree, or not? Therefore, by harmoning the texts (accepting both texts and other passages e.g. John 3:16; Luke 13:3,5; Matthew 10:32-33; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-11, Romans 10:9-10; and Acts 17:30), I understand that faith in Jesus, repentance, confession, and baptism are required for one to initially have their sins taken away and become a Christian. Are we in agreement? If we aren't in agreement, then we need to open our Bibles together and figure out it takes to become a Christian.
Because I will be away from the Forum for 2-3 weeks, I am going
to assume we agree on what it takes to have one's sins removed - which makes us a Christian by submitting to the Lord and becoming His disciple.
See - from my perspective, it seems that you've added additional requirements that aren't in scripture. ie: those individuals must also meet in the right building with the right sign out the front and they must also have a 100% perfect understanding of all doctrine and practice.
Whooa. Back up.
Still assuming we agree on what it takes to become a Christian (i.e. faith, repentance, confession, and baptism), do you know any "Baptist, Methodists, Brethren, Non-denominational etc.. etc... congregations" that are teaching and practicing these requirements for salvation under the gospel of Christ? I am not aware of any that are. Not a single one. I'm not trying to be mean or ugly. They just simply aren't teaching and requiring these things. In short, their teachings about salvation fall short of what the N.T. teaches is necessary for salvation under the gospel of Christ. They think they are saved and serving the Lord, but are not (i.e. Matt. 7:21-23). Therefore, my responsibility as a disciple of our Lord is to try to help them realize their spiritual condition and to impress the need to simply do what God requires for salvation - nothing more - nothing less.
One point you may want to consider is the "one baptism" in Ephesians 4:5. In Acts 19:5, we see the "one baptism" the Ephesians submitted to (NOTE: Yes, they previously had been baptized with John's baptism, but that was no longer applicable. Therefore, they were baptized "in the name of the Lord," which is in water per Acts 10:47-48). The "one baptism" is in the name of the Lord and is "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 (or, to wash sins away per Acts 22:16). To baptize for any other reason is not the "one baptism" that unifies believers. What baptism do the Baptists, Methodists, etc. teach and practice? Is it the "one baptism" that unifies us as God's people? It's not. Simple as that. It's not the same at all. Many denominationalists I know view baptism in water as an optional thing that occurs after salvation. That's not the "one baptism" that unites God's people. Other denominationalists claim a spiritual baptism that occurs at the point of belief, which results in their salvation. That is not the "one baptism" that unites God's people.
Now, back to your points about the "right sign" in front of the church building and requiring a "100% perfect understanding of all doctrine and practice." As for the "right sign," I want to remind you that we agreed there there is "one body" or church per Ephesians 4:3. Going back to the example of the Jews in Acts 2, the 3,000 and others that obeyed the Lord (i.e. verse 41) were saved and added to the church by the Lord. Which church was that? Was it the Baptist or Methodist Church? Nope, they didn't come about until hundreds of years later. There was only "one body or church" to be added to in the first century. It was the church Jesus promised to build, and then built - purchasing it with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Later, apostasy arose and Christians fell away from the Lord and established the Catholic Church (i.e. 1 Timothy 4:1-3). Years later, folks rebelled against Catholicism and formed Reformation or Protestant Churches to protest against Catholicism in some way. The Baptists, for instance, believed in baptism by immersion versus sprinkling. The Methodists believed in a strict method of living versus the lifestyle many Catholics were living. Today, I also believe in baptism by immersion and a strict method of living. However, I am neither a Baptist nor a Methodist. Rather, I am a Christian who believes and practices what the New Testament teaches under the gospel of Christ. Thinking back to the New Testament church, it was not built upon in protest of another church, but focused on the Lord and His leadership over His people. The church spread from Jerusalem when disciples left there and went to other areas. In brief, they took the word of God with them and taught other people who obeyed it. As a result, churches arose in different cities. But, they were unified. They believed the same things (i.e. Eph. 4:3-6). They taught the same things. They all became Christians in the same way. We have the same word today they had back then. Therefore, we can take the same word and be unified today just as they were in the first-century.
As for the sign on the church building, do you really think any of the first-century churches bore signs that reflected their protest of a particular practice of the Catholic Church? That particular church did not officially come about until a few hundred years later. So, from a practical perspective, it wouldn't make sense. And, from a scriptural perspective, we know there were no Baptist, Methodist, etc., churches. However, we do find the "one church" did have different Scriptural designations e.g. the church of God in Acts 20:28, churches of Christ in Romans 16:16, and simply "the church" in numerous places. Is there a problem doing things by the Lord's authority (Col. 3:17)?
Now, for that 100% perfect understanding concern, note the sequence of events in Matthew 28:19-20. First, sinners are taught the gospel and become converted to the Lord. Then, additional teaching occurs that strengthens thems for continuing service to the Lord. Now, let's go back to the first part of the process. Suppose someone is taught of salvation through Jesus, but told they only need to belief in Him to be saved. So, they believe in Jesus in their heart and feel they are saved. Are they truly saved? You know, this scenario isn't far-fetched. Basically, this is the denominational teaching for salvation. Therefore, the issue really isn't exactly as you describe it. Let's not confuse the initial obedience to the Lord (e.g. Acts 2:38) with growth and develop that comes later as a result of additional study (e.g. Acts 2:42).
If I'm understanding your perspective correctly, then the onus is on you to provide scriptural support, because I simply can't see it in scripture. If I'm not understanding you though, then please explain your position better so I can address it from scripture.
Peace
Hopefully, now you have a better perspective of how I view these things. Let me add an additional thought ...
Consider the command given in Acts 2:38. Three thousand responded favorably in verse 41. What about those who didn't obey? Did they receive the blessings promised in verse 38, also? What if they didn't obey, but wanted to claim the blessings anyway? Would they have been among those who were saved and added to the Lord's church in verse 47, or would they fall into the category of folks in Matthew 7:21-23? I'll give you some time to think about these things. After careful thought and study, if you still believe the disobedient also receive the blessings promised, then I believe the burden of proof is yours to
scripturally show how this is true. In essence, this is what the denominational folks are doing. They want the blessings, but don't submit to the requirements of God.
As I stated earlier, I'll be away for 2-3 weeks. Lord willing, and with your consent, we can resume our study then.
Must you consistently resort to snide comments and innuendo. As for your accusations of red herrings, your responses are littered with them. I'm at work right now so I can't go into depth with this response. I'll come back to it when I have time.
