The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[Swag365]

Did you read what I said i did not say Peter was acting intentially wrong etc. He was walking in the light he had.If you believe the scriptures. Peter was to be blamed at times, and did not always see aright.

consider

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"(Galatians 2:11-14 KJV)

and

"Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."


This is your weakness you think just because I one simple person does not agree with centuries of mans tradition that I must be wrong. That snot right. Others have also disagreed with water baptism for today all through history.

But Paul himself did say that Christ d=sent him not to baptize. He went to the gentiles and preached the gospel. In the gospel we do not see any water baptism, or the Lords supper for salvation or circumcision, or the sabbath etc.

read 1 Cor 15:1-5, and consider that that is the gospel.

and if we use your thinking then jesus Paul and all early believers were wrong because they went against the majority.

1) Well, how about 1 Peter 3 and his reference to water baptism there? Was Peter still "only walking in the light" he had then? God still had not revealed to Peter at that point in his life that water baptism had been abrogated?

2) Was St. Paul also confused (or merely "walking in the light that he had at that time") when he baptized Crispus during his trip to Corinth? This occurred in Acts 18, so your "Anything before Acts 15 argument doesn't count" fails here.

5When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. 6And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” 7And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. 8Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. 9And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, 10for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” 11And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

10I appeal to you, brothers,a by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
​

I suppose your magic this time will be to say that St. Paul didn't understand the gospel and that water baptism had been abrogated, at the time when he baptized Crispus at Corinth, and had likely already written the letter to the Galatians?

 

[LoveofTruth]

1) What is your exact definition of "the church" or "the body of believers"? I would like to know precisely who is in it, and who is not, according to you.

The church is the body of Christ and the entire body of believers on the Earth make up the church wherever they are. But these believers gather together in local areas in homes and edify one another. If the foundations were laid properly and the gospel foundation laid, the order will also be there in every church. Paul went around itinerantly with Timothy and others to preach, teach and to help set in order the things lacking in every church. And we even see apostolic workers like Timothy and Titus bringing others to remembrance of Paul's ways in Christ. As we see in scripture ,

"For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.(1 Cor, 4:17 KJV)

This order he set was given by God. And if it was shown to Paul, there was no need for everyone to just make up a new order. So Paul taught other faithful workers and apostles and handed this down in the Spirit and wrote it in scripture as well. So today of a person is saved and gifted as an apostolic worker and the gathering he is in does not believe in such workers and has a man made tradition that exalts a one man pastor or priest over all, he is still able through the Spirit to see the order all through the New testament in the churches and the way God commanded the order to be done. This was seen in Paul's words and actions and in Timothy's and peter etc. These apostolic workers and prophets are still needed today. It is God that sends them and works though them. The order today has been established in scripture and can be seen what God requires if the men he sends can discern it and be free from the trappings and traditions of men that have bound many for centuries. The traditions of men often make the word of God of no effect.

Paul taught the same things in every church.

So no, the order should not be what anyone thinks it should be or some random chaos. True gatherings are in the Spirit and every joint supplies, where Christ is in the midst as we see in scripture,

"But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."(Ephesians 4:15,16 KJV)

"Jesus told believers you bring issues before the whole church Matthew 18, and all had a say, consensus. I can show other aspects of this order of consensus as well if needed.

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.Matthew 18:17 KJV) Notice Jesus did not say, "tell it unto the priest or one man pastor controlling all".No, Jesus says tell it to the church.

2) Does the body of believers include the 1% (roughly speaking) of professing Christians who hold that water baptism and the Lord's Supper are to be rejected?

Yes, as I have said any believer anywhere who is in Christ, no matter what religious form they are in, whether a functioning church in Christ with Christ working in the midst or a man made religious form with traditions of men and false doctrine. They are still in Christ . As long as they have the true gospel and the foundations. But they will be hindered and in danger if they are not walking after Christ and his leading, or if they are led astray by false doctrine and bound up under a false one man system Lording over them.. They will also be quenched and bound up in such places. I believe God will speak to them in many ways to come out from among such groups and gather in Christ with others in God's order. But not all leave. I consider many believers in many assemblies my christian brothers and sister. i seek often to help them to walk in the freedom of Christ and body ministry. i have visited many churches and seen whole assemblies set in order and changed everything for many years. I travel itinerantly often, although we also had about 6 home meetings set up and I was a local elder overseer for 18 years among the home meetings and in our home specifically. I was not the only overseer, there were others in our gathering and in every church.

3) Does the body of believers include the 99% (roughly speaking) of professing Christians who hold that water baptism and the Lord's super are to be participated in by modern Christians?

I never said anything about stopping the meal or supper together. This is not for salvation it is a covenant meal in love with the church remembering the Lord and the salvation we partake of. It was called a love feast in the early days. This full meal is still for today but few practice it this way. The true supper is where Christ comes into our hearts and sups with us and as we are all one bread we all partake of that one bread as the body of Christ where we can live and move in Christ and edify one another.

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."(Revelation 3:20 KJV)

4) What, specifically, must a person believe, do, or have received, to be a part of the body?

A person must repent and believe the gospel. When they have a humble heart the ground is broken up and the Seed (Christ) is formed in them. Through faith Christ comes into them and they are baptized into Christ by the Spirit. All are baptized into Christ this way. As scripture shows,

"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."(1 Cor 12:13 KJV)

They are then in the body of Christ. There is no ritual or ordinance that can save a person. It is not by works of righteousness that we are saved. It is by grace through faith. Yes, water baptism of John in the Old Covenant was a work of righteousness. Jesus fulfilled all righteousness as he said when he was about to be baptized in water. al diverse washings and carnal ordinances are types and shadows of a reality in the spirit. They were only imposed on the Jews until the time of reformation, as scripture says,

"Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."(Hebrews 9:9,10 KJV)

I attached a Newsletter i wrote for all churches with another worker, if your interested. It covers some of the order of God for the churches everywhere.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Semantics. When people say "I'm going to church" they are not implying that the Christian church consists of a building. You know that plenty well.

No, I have even argued with so called pastors and others that the church is the body of Christ. they say the church is a building and have even tried to show it from scripture.It is a lie to call a man made religious building of brick a "church". But so many do this all the time. What happens is that the true church, which is the body of Christ is misplaced and the function of the true church is hindered and body ministry is hindered. The very structures and designs of such buildings fights against the church order and body ministry by putting one man at the front and all seats facing forward. This is not effective for body ministry and functioning where al can use their gifts and ministries. So much could be said here but read the newsletter I discuss more there.

So to clarify your view:
1) There is no such thing as "the Church".

False, the church is the body of Christ and the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. They believers all over the world make up the body of Christ. many of them are bound up in babylon so to speak. God tells the believers to come out of her my people, so they are scattered all over in babylon, or Mystery babylon to be exact. But the church gathers together in every place in an autonomous gathering with no Pope like figure Lording over them. To say that the church needs such a Pope like man over them is unbiblical. Yes, when a gathering has been properly set in order in God's order every part can edify eachother and there will be the need for elders to be known and recognized. But such plurality of elder is not a single one manLord over the flock. They ate merely mature brothers who help the weaker and teach and exhort the gainsayers etc. They serve no t Lord over, or control. The only authority they or any other believer has is when they live and speak the word of God. It is God's word that has the authority. The pharisees tried to attack Jesus on this matter of authority, because in their minds he was not a religious or political authority. Yet he spoke not as the pharisees, Jesus spoke as one having authority. His authority is in His word and life and from God. This is the same type of authority any believer can have it they live and speak the word of God. Even the ploughboy with the scriptures would ave more authority over a false one man over the church without the scriptural word and life from God. etc. .

There is no "one" Christian Church, but only numerous "autonomous assemblies," each of them free to disagree with the others with respect to doctrine. Each of them free to teach doctrine that contradicts each other. They are all essentially independent, following the dictates of the Holy Spirit independently from the others. Is this your view?

There is one bod of Christ the "church" all over the world. They are connected in Spirit, but not physically gathered together in local assemblies all at once. Each church gathering in places like Rome or Corinth etc, was made up of believers who edify eachother. they all had the foundations laid of the gospel and the order of the church. They all were free to edify eachother and minister freely to one another. This mutual edification was totally dependant on Christ in the midst working in all of them. Yes at times there would be disorder or false teachings that needed to be judged and corrected. But within the order of God these are dealt with. God uses direct prophecy and teaching to address many of these things. If the believers are true christians, then God works in them. This takes total radical trust and faith in the working and promises of God to supply all we need. God will show us if anything is lacking. he may use an itinerant apostolic worker to come and help us, or a prophet within our groups, or a local apostle in the assembly. But he may also use a babe in Christ who has a revelation and he uses teachers as well who he has gifted to do the work. We do not depend on man and carnal reasonings of the flesh. Our faith does not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. As scripture shows in many places all these things. here is a small sample,

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.:(Ephesians 4:11-16 KJV)

"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints...If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."(1 Cor 14:26-333,37 KJV

"As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."(1 Peter 4:10,11 KJV)


Paul and Peter both knew this order and set the order in churches, we have scripture as well as the Spirit directly to show us these things. But how many are gone away from this by following the traditions of men that make these words of no effect?

2) The apostles themselves did not have authority over these "autonomous assemblies," correct?

The authority that any believer has, whether they are an apostle or teacher or in any part of the body, is only when they speak and live the word of God. A mature brother who speaks and lives the word of God may have more authority in this word than a babe who is unskillful in the word . But both can speak and live in the word and both have spiritual authority as they do. It is the word of God that has the authority. The authority is not in the mans person or a position. We see this in scripture as i have shown,

"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:"(Matthew 20:25-27 KJV)

"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."(Hebrews 13:7 KJV)

Jesus said , ”Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:” (Matt. 20:25-27, Mark 10:42,43, Luke 22:25,26). Jesus corrected the false idea of men ruling over others by telling them to be “servants”. A servant has no authority in the world, but as they serve others, speaking and living the word of God they do.
The word “dominion” means to control and lord over. Jesus said this should not be among the saints and “authority” is not to be like the Gentile rulers. But many gatherings are set up this way today .
The pharisees challenged Jesus authority and asked him “By what authority doest thou these things?” (Matt. 21:23), they asked this because they did not recognize him in authority. Jesus was not a political,
Jesus said , ”Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:” (Matt. 20:25-27, Mark 10:42,43, Luke 22:25,26). Jesus corrected the false idea of men ruling over others by telling them to be “servants”. A servant has no authority in the world, but as they serve others, speaking and living the word of God they do.
The word “dominion” means to control and lord over. Jesus said this should not be among the saints and “authority” is not to be like the Gentile rulers. But many gatherings are set up this way today .
The pharisees challenged Jesus authority and asked him “By what authority doest thou these things?” (Matt. 21:23), they asked this because they did not recognize him in authority. Jesus was not a political,

The apostles were merely sent to preach a nice sermon every now and then, but otherwise the assemblies were free to accept or reject what the apostles taught, according to the "consensus government" of the "autonomous assembly." Is this your view?

Even if all in the assembly did prophesy they would be speaking in the authority of God and all should listen and obey the truth spoken, not just the apostles. If an apostle speaks But we see that some were following men in their authority and they were being deceived by false apostles. Paul shows this in Corinth and warns against them.

"29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."(1 Cor 14:29-31 KJV)

If an apostle speaks But we see that some were following men in their authority and they were being deceived by false apostles. Paul shows this in Corinth and warns against them. Even though it seems they did not just listen to Paul and did not think he loved them. It seems that Paul had to hope they would hear the word of God from him and believe and he even warned against the false apostles they were listening to. But at no time does Paul set himself up as a Lord exalting himself over them. In fact he warned against that very thing.

"But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."(2 Cor. 11:12-15 KJV)


Even when Paul left the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 whom the Holy Ghost made them overseers. He did not commend them to one pope like figure over them. He in fact warned of such men coming. But he commended them to the Lord and knowing that God will build His church. Some today seem like they don't really believe that Christ is building His church and that he is actually in the midst of them working. Maybe , sadly that is true with many churches that are like Laodicea in revelation today. Maybe Jesus is outside knocking wanting to come into them and sup and participate with them, working n them to edify eachother, but they wont have him there. they have their religious form without the power. We are told to withdraw from such .

Ill answer the rest in this post later, busy now

 

[Swag365]

The church is the body of Christ and the entire body of believers on the Earth make up the church wherever they are. But these believers gather together in local areas in homes and edify one another. If the foundations were laid properly and the gospel foundation laid, the order will also be there in every church. Paul went around itinerantly with Timothy and others to preach, teach and to help set in order the things lacking in every church. And we even see apostolic workers like Timothy and Titus bringing others to remembrance of Paul's ways in Christ. As we see in scripture ,

"For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.(1 Cor, 4:17 KJV)

This order he set was given by God. And if it was shown to Paul, there was no need for everyone to just make up a new order. So Paul taught other faithful workers and apostles and handed this down in the Spirit and wrote it in scripture as well. So today of a person is saved and gifted as an apostolic worker and the gathering he is in does not believe in such workers and has a man made tradition that exalts a one man pastor or priest over all, he is still able through the Spirit to see the order all through the New testament in the churches and the way God commanded the order to be done. This was seen in Paul's words and actions and in Timothy's and peter etc. These apostolic workers and prophets are still needed today. It is God that sends them and works though them. The order today has been established in scripture and can be seen what God requires if the men he sends can discern it and be free from the trappings and traditions of men that have bound many for centuries. The traditions of men often make the word of God of no effect.

Paul taught the same things in every church.

So no, the order should not be what anyone thinks it should be or some random chaos. True gatherings are in the Spirit and every joint supplies, where Christ is in the midst as we see in scripture,

"But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."(Ephesians 4:15,16 KJV)

"Jesus told believers you bring issues before the whole church Matthew 18, and all had a say, consensus. I can show other aspects of this order of consensus as well if needed.

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.Matthew 18:17 KJV) Notice Jesus did not say, "tell it unto the priest or one man pastor controlling all".No, Jesus says tell it to the church.




Yes, as I have said any believer anywhere who is in Christ, no matter what religious form they are in, whether a functioning church in Christ with Christ working in the midst or a man made religious form with traditions of men and false doctrine. They are still in Christ . As long as they have the true gospel and the foundations. But they will be hindered and in danger if they are not walking after Christ and his leading, or if they are led astray by false doctrine and bound up under a false one man system Lording over them.. They will also be quenched and bound up in such places. I believe God will speak to them in many ways to come out from among such groups and gather in Christ with others in God's order. But not all leave. I consider many believers in many assemblies my christian brothers and sister. i seek often to help them to walk in the freedom of Christ and body ministry. i have visited many churches and seen whole assemblies set in order and changed everything for many years. I travel itinerantly often, although we also had about 6 home meetings set up and I was a local elder overseer for 18 years among the home meetings and in our home specifically. I was not the only overseer, there were others in our gathering and in every church.



I never said anything about stopping the meal or supper together. This is not for salvation it is a covenant meal in love with the church remembering the Lord and the salvation we partake of. It was called a love feast in the early days. This full meal is still for today but few practice it this way. The true supper is where Christ comes into our hearts and sups with us and as we are all one bread we all partake of that one bread as the body of Christ where we can live and move in Christ and edify one another.

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."(Revelation 3:20 KJV)



A person must repent and believe the gospel. When they have a humble heart the ground is broken up and the Seed (Christ) is formed in them. Through faith Christ comes into them and they are baptized into Christ by the Spirit. All are baptized into Christ this way. As scripture shows,

"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."(1 Cor 12:13 KJV)

They are then in the body of Christ. There is no ritual or ordinance that can save a person. It is not by works of righteousness that we are saved. It is by grace through faith. Yes, water baptism of John in the Old Covenant was a work of righteousness. Jesus fulfilled all righteousness as he said when he was about to be baptized in water. al diverse washings and carnal ordinances are types and shadows of a reality in the spirit. They were only imposed on the Jews until the time of reformation, as scripture says,

"Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."(Hebrews 9:9,10 KJV)

I attached a Newsletter i wrote for all churches with another worker, if your interested. It covers some of the order of God for the churches everywhere.

Thank you. You have an interesting view of the structure of the Church, but your view cannot be reconciled with Scripture. You cherry-pick individual verses from Scripture to support your views, but when we go to the Bible and read the full-passage, in many instances not only does Scripture not support your view, but explicitly contradicts it.

As one example, you cherry-picked St. Paul's "I did not come to baptize" verse, but when we look at the entire passage and the corresponding passage in Acts as I noted above, we see that St. Paul did in-fact water baptize in at least three instances, which contradicts your previous argument.

As another example of cherry-picking, in your article you write:

The word "consensus" means, to make judgements, opinions, or decisions as a whole group". We see different examples in the New Testament of decision making where they came to a consensus, "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men . . ." (citing Acts 15).​

But if we we look at the full-passage in Acts 15 we notice a few things that contradict your argument that decision making in the church is made by a consensus of the local community:

1) The "whole church" recited in acts 15:22 was the church at Jerusalem. Specifically, the "whole church" at Jerusalem chose Barsabbas and Silas (leading men among the brothers at Jerusalem) to accompany Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch to deliver the instruction concerning circumcision.

2) The "whole church" at Jerusalem clearly did not decide the matter of circumcision as a matter of consensus. That matter was either decided by Peter or James (depending on one's interpretation). The "whole church" was not even present at the Jerusalem council, only the "apostles and elders" were even at the council to discuss the issue.

3) The issue concerning circumcision arose at Antioch, but was not decided by the brothers at Antioch. It was decided by the "apostles and elders" at Jerusalem, and then after the decision was made at Jerusalem, the instruction was sent to the church at Antioch. So, the brothers at Antioch did not have any say in the decision at all. It was decided for them, by the "apostles and elders" at an entirely different place. This completely contradicts your view that important decisions were made at a local level at each individual community, by a "consensus" of the local community.

We could talk about many other verses that pertain to your argument and that have been ignored, but I need not even do that because your view is clearly proven wrong by what we see in Acts.

 

[Swag365]

No, I have even argued with so called pastors and others that the church is the body of Christ. they say the church is a building and have even tried to show it from scripture.It is a lie to call a man made religious building of brick a "church". But so many do this all the time. What happens is that the true church, which is the body of Christ is misplaced and the function of the true church is hindered and body ministry is hindered. The very structures and designs of such buildings fights against the church order and body ministry by putting one man at the front and all seats facing forward. This is not effective for body ministry and functioning where al can use their gifts and ministries. So much could be said here but read the newsletter I discuss more there.

. . .

Thank you. Please feel free to skip the rest of my questions if you like (not that you were required to answer them in the first place) because I have a good sense of your view now, based on what you have written here and the article that you sent me.

At a high-level it appears that you have an extreme issue with the concept of one person having authority over another, and an extreme distrust of authority or hierarchical structures. But our Lord Jesus has authority over the entire Church. We are to obey his commands, yet he still made himself the least among us by offering himself as a sacrifice for us, and is also our greatest servant. Authority and service need not be in conflict, and there are plenty of instances in Scripture where we see ordained men exercising their authority over others (I gave you one example in my last post concerning Acts 15). And our Lord did create a hierarchy, at least when it came to certain things. He did not give each man in the church the power to bind and loose. He did not give his keys to each man in the church. He did not tell each man in the church that the sins they forgive are forgiven, and the sins that they retain, are retained. He did not tell each man in the church that "He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects me." He did not make every man in the church an apostle.

The other issue I have with your pamphlet is that in almost all of the institutional churches that you seem to disdain, there already exists the type of "small groups" that you advocate for in your article. At my church, for example, there are small groups for men, women, young adults, prayer groups, etc. and we frequently meet together in our homes. And individual parishioners frequently get together in their homes and do the things you advocate for. Here, you seem to set up a false dichotomy, and in practice you simply want to eliminate one form of worship, and replace it with your own. You do that, of course, by saying that "your plan" is actually "God's plan", but I see "your plan" that seemingly rejects all forms of authority in the Church as one of the "traditions of men" that you take issue with. What you are advocating for is not "God's plan". It actually contradicts Scripture, as I demonstrated above.

And there is nothing in Scripture that restricts Christian gatherings to homes, and you can see at least in 1 Cor 11. v 17-22 that Christians did gather in places other than homes for the Lord's Supper, and that St. Paul admonishes them for adding "private suppers" to the Lord's Supper. But adding these "private suppers" St. Paul admonishes are practically the very thing that you advocate for.

So in effect by insisting that Christians can only worship or gather in the particular manner that you advocate for, and then calling this "God's plan" when it is actually "your plan", what you in are in effect doing is making yourself the Pope. With this insistence on the specific manner in which other people are allowed to worship, you are making yourself the "master," which you spend so much time railing against.

So although I understand your viewpoint, I think you are cherry-picking things out of context that support the way you want things to be, while ignoring the many things that refute your view. We could get into a lengthy debate about all of that I'm sure, but at the end of it we will still be in disagreement, so I doubt that it is worth the time for either of us.

Have a good day.

 

[pescador]

@LoveofTruth, your posts are too long.

 

[LoveofTruth]

@LoveofTruth, your posts are too long.

sorry, I try to answer all the errors I read. But I will try to keep them shorter and address the main objections.

I had to respond longer to the following post because there was just soo much error in them to address.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Thank you. You have an interesting view of the structure of the Church, but your view cannot be reconciled with Scripture.

Every thing I shared can be supported strongly with scripture. And I can give many scriptures to support every teaching.

Scripture not support your view, but explicitly contradicts it.

Not even once have i shared something from scripture in these discussions that is contradicted by scripture. The examples you give are not accurate.

As one example, you cherry-picked St. Paul's "I did not come to baptize" verse, but when we look at the entire passage and the corresponding passage in Acts as I noted above, we see that St. Paul did in-fact water baptize in at least three instances, which contradicts your previous argument.

You are not accurate here. Paul said

"...I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;...And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."(1 Cor 1:16-18 KJV)

Here we se that Paul only baptized a few, and then he pushes aside all baptism talk and says that he doesn't know whether he baptized any other. That doesn't sound like he made water baptism a part of the gospel and to continue forever. Paul followed along with the Jewish baptisms of John for a while and among the Jewish believers he even circumcised Timothy so he would not offend the believing Jews. But circumcision and water baptism were not to be part of the gentile conversion. If Paul baptized a few it was a condescension to their weakness and the coming out of the old covenant and Jewish customs that lingered for a while.

But clearly we we see that Christ did not send Paul to baptize. So the question that must be asked is why did he do it a few times? We can also ask why did Paul circumcise Timothy a half Jew half Gentile, if he was not sent to do so in the new Covenant? And yet he would not circumcise Titus ( Galatians 2) who was a Gentile?

We see also that Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. This is telling because he is saying that the gospel is not part of water baptism , or that water baptism does not save or added to the gospel. Paul defines that gospel that they HEARD and believed and were saved by faith in 1 Cor 15:1-4 and no mention of any ordinances added to the gospel. Paul also speaks in the letter to the Corinthians of the true saving one baptism that all must have and that is by the Spirit into the body of Christ or baptized into Christ 1 Cor 12:13 KJV.

So any today who try to add water baptism to the gospel or say a person s not saved unless they are water baptized is making another gospel as it would seem.

Paul does not push up water baptism for the Gentiles in 1 Cor he says he thanked God he baptized no other. Yes they were also denominating into sects and using water baptism as some kind of part of different sects. Paul corrects this also.

As another example of cherry-picking, in your article you write:

The word "consensus" means, to make judgements, opinions, or decisions as a whole group". We see different examples in the New Testament of decision making where they came to a consensus, "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men . . ." (citing Acts 15).​

But if we we look at the full-passage in Acts 15 we notice a few things that contradict your argument that decision making in the church is made by a consensus of the local community:

1) The "whole church" recited in acts 15:22 was the church at Jerusalem. Specifically, the "whole church" at Jerusalem chose Barsabbas and Silas (leading men among the brothers at Jerusalem) to accompany Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch to deliver the instruction concerning circumcision.

2) The "whole church" at Jerusalem clearly did not decide the matter of circumcision as a matter of consensus. That matter was either decided by Peter or James (depending on one's interpretation). The "whole church" was not even present at the Jerusalem council, only the "apostles and elders" were even at the council to discuss the issue.

3) The issue concerning circumcision arose at Antioch, but was not decided by the brothers at Antioch. It was decided by the "apostles and elders" at Jerusalem, and then after the decision was made at Jerusalem, the instruction was sent to the church at Antioch. So, the brothers at Antioch did not have any say in the decision at all. It was decided for them, by the "apostles and elders" at an entirely different place. This completely contradicts your view that important decisions were made at a local level at each individual community, by a "consensus" of the local community.

We could talk about many other verses that pertain to your argument and that have been ignored, but I need not even do that because your view is clearly proven wrong by what we see in Acts.

No you are not accurate here and this understanding is not right.

First we know that the whole church can make decisions in judgement and ak matter sin the church as a whole For Jesus said in Matthew 18 to bring it before the church and if he will not hear the church he is to be rejected. So Jesus directly said the whole church can make decisions.

But in this case in Acts. The church was just in its infancy stage and they had issues that were complex to deal with. We read in Acts 15, that there were certain men come in among the church that taught circumcision and keeping the law to be saved for gentle converts. The Gentles was a harder issue for some Jewish believers, and the Jewish believers were still under the law and old covenant and tied to the temple and sacrifices of the temple. So Paul Barnabas had a strong disagreement with the false teachers in that church. They must have tried to get consensus and the decision to send these men to Jerusalem came from the from the church and they were brought on their way by the church. So the whole church was involved. I have not said that believers can't get teaching or advice or discuss serous matters with other mature brothers who are still part of the church. Sometimes consensus on a issue might need to extend further influence and discussion to achieve it. For example if a church is trying to get consensus on a matter and they are not all agreed. God may send a itinerant works or workers to give a word. Also we see in 1 Cor that all; may prophesy. This is when God speaks to them by revelation. So if ALL can prophecy then all can have input in consensus and not Just a Pope-like figure or a few elders..Paul eve said during matters of faith and issues among the church to set the least esteem to judge if needed.

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church."( 1Cor 6:1-4 KJV)

Never have I said this. So if a church cannot come to consensus it is good to have other input. But clearly we see in Acts

"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them."(Acts 15:4 KJV)

even when the apostles and elders discussed the matters that arose, we see a plurality of interaction among the believers. Not just one dictator over all as a Lord. We see many rising up and speaking. But we do see that when certain brothers were speaking the "multitude", of the church, kept silent and listened vs 12 then

"Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:...It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,..."(Acts 15:22,25 KJV)

 

[LoveofTruth]

At a high-level it appears that you have an extreme issue with the concept of one person having authority over another, and an extreme distrust of authority or hierarchical structures.

I simply use scripture here as i listen to God to show that Jesus said not to be under such authority. The authority as we see in scripture and as I tried to show is a spiritual one not a positional one among the church. A man only has any spiritual authority when he speaks the word of God. For example if a man came in among the believers who just got saved and was a political leader in the world, does that mean he is suddenly an overseer and over all in the spiritual sense in the church? No, even a young believer who has been a believer sitting next to him has the same authority as all is they live and speak the word of God. When all prophesy, God is speaking through them. that person has spiritual authority only in what is said through them. They don't have authority if they go contrary to the word of God. There is an authority we should obey in the world such as police and governments as best we can in the faith. But this is not the authority over the church in spiritual matters and our gatherings.

In the OT Jew did not want to hear God directly speak through the prophet and wanted a king over them like al the other nations. They chose Saul, and God warned them that by doing so they had rejected him from ruling over them. God allowed it as a type but they had problems when they did so. This kind of rule and authority over others Jesus warned against. As I have shown.

Yes mature brothers who are mighty in God and the word will have a spiritual authority among believers. But this is from God;s word and His spiritual direction to them

our Lord Jesus has authority over the entire Church. We are to obey his commands, yet he still made himself the least among us by offering himself as a sacrifice for us, and is also our greatest servant.

Yes Jesus is the one who has all power and authority. He builds His church and He works in every believer. We cannot say that any part is not needed (1 Cor 12). Every joint supplies ( Eph 4:15,16) from the head Christ who works in them. The very function and reality of the body of Christ with many members fights against the one man show and dominant Lording over others type of order we see so much everywhere today. We don't see Paul just giving out orders of himself. He spoke the commands of the Lord as he wrote scripture and he often pleaded with others, tried to use spiritual reason and discussion and at times they did not receive him and thought he did not love them or speak the truth and some even thought he walked according to the flesh. Now Paul was the apostle to the gentiles and a mighty man in the spirit and word, yet he did not have a positional authority to just direct all they way many have today. He as rejected by many believers and questioned.

and there are plenty of instances in Scripture where we see ordained men exercising their authority over others (I gave you one example in my last post concerning Acts 15).

You did not give this. I showed the opposite. I can only agree that there will be more mature brothers with certain gifting that come among believers that will be from God to help and direct the thinking. But all must agree and as Paul wanted for the Corinthians , to speak the same things and the same judgement that there be no divisions among them.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."(1 Cor 1:10)
This is possible if we seek to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and if we allow God to work through every part and the whole body in Christ to edify each other in love.

"And our Lord did create a hierarchy, at least when it came to certain things. He did not give each man in the church the power to bind and loose. He did not give his keys to each man in the church.

Yes I believe all have such ability to forgive and to understand and then teach others when they are taught. He happened to be talking to the church at that time who consisted of the apostles. But many things he said to the apostles extend to all believers as God leads.Teach faithful men who shall be able to teach others. There are certain order among women and men that differs in some areas. But that is another long talk.

He did not tell each man in the church that the sins they forgive are forgiven, and the sins that they retain, are retained. He did not tell each man in the church that "He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects me." He did not make every man in the church an apostle.

The other issue I have with your pamphlet is that in almost all of the institutional churches that you seem to disdain,

The word "insitutional churches" should answer why I make issue. The church is not an institution or religious organization, but rather the living body of Christ a spiritual house of God.

I can simply say if any gathering does not allow the body to edify itself and share their gifts with eachother when they gather and instead set up a building structure for a lecture format with one man dominating over all and quenching the spirit in all, then that is not in Gods order and command. Paul in fact commands the order of God for all the churches , and specifically to the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor 14:37,37. Notice the words of God command. if any do not follow God's commands here Paul says they are ignorant or not known or they d not understand and they will be not known or accepted is the implication.

I notice that you are a Catholic in your info. So being in this group would you accept any other church that does not agree with you on your main doctrines of the mass and Mary and the Pope and the priesthood and water baptism, sacraments etc. if a church denies your teachings strngly in these areas would you say they are ok and part of the body? If not then you have pushed aside a great many churches

there already exists the type of "small groups" that you advocate for in your article.

The church is not referred to as a "small group" study or any thing like that. Yes in many of these so called "small groups" they have more freedom and they are much closer to the functioning church as we see in scripture than the so called "main church " meeting on Sundays. In fact the so called church meeting on Sundays should be reformed to become a evangelistic outreach and use the building to feed and house the poor. or perhaps regroup them and gather all into homes to wait n the Lord. yes the early church could meet in many places. But the pattern we see is to meet in homes as they were led by God to do so, There are many advantages to this but , again that is a long talk.

At my church, for example, there are small groups for men, women, young adults, prayer groups, etc. and we frequently meet together in our homes. And individual parishioners frequently get together in their homes and do the things you advocate for.

No, they do not agree as to what I advocate for. I have been to many many many of these meetings. They often have a single man over all who directs all the activities and even though others are allowed to comment and read etc and pray, (which are good things) the control is quenching often by the so called leader. if a person has a spiritual leading that may go contrary to the program study, they will often not be allowed to go to far and go away from the book they are studying or the commentators notes etc. But many of these meetings are different so it is hard to generalize. Still they are more like the true function of the church than the Sunday meetings. In fact they should all meet in homes on Sunday and ocassionaly use the large buildings for evangelism and other things.

Here, you seem to set up a false dichotomy, and in practice you simply want to eliminate one form of worship, and replace it with your own. You do that, of course, by saying that "your plan" is actually "God's plan",

No I never want to set up my own plan or my order. I seek to follow the revelation of these things from the Spirit and scripture as it can clearly be seen all over the New testament and in many of the letters to the churches. This is clearly God's plan and commands as i could show ( 1 Cor 12, 1 Cor 14:26-37, 1 Peter 4:10,11, Romans 12:1-8, 1 Yhess 5:11, Colossians 3:15,16, etc etc etc)

but I see "your plan" that seemingly rejects all forms of authority in the Church as one of the "traditions of men" that you take issue with. What you are advocating for is not "God's plan". It actually contradicts Scripture, as I demonstrated above.

No, you have not demonstrated any thing even remotely like this. I have not contradicted scripture as I have shown

I reject mans order and anything that fights against the authority that Jesus gives every believer to speak and live in the word of God and their spiritual gift from God. Yes all gifts are needed. Certain gifts may seem to be more needful. But we can never say to one part of the body you are not needed. The least parts are very needed 1 Cor 12.

I reject if any man spoil me (or rob me of my goods (gifts) through their man-made traditions and order and philosophies and rudiments of the world. We are warned against such things. Consider these verses carefully,

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:"(Colossians 2:8-10 KJV)

And there is nothing in Scripture that restricts Christian gatherings to homes, and you can see at least in 1 Cor 11. v 17-22 that Christians did gather in places other than homes for the Lord's Supper, and that St. Paul admonishes them for adding "private suppers" to the Lord's Supper. But adding these "private suppers" St. Paul admonishes are practically the very thing that you advocate for.

And to refer to any man as the head of the church is a wrong teaching. Only Christ is the head of the church from whom all life and gifts ad power flow through the church.

So in effect by insisting that Christians can only worship or gather in the particular manner that you advocate for,

No, Its God's commands, not made up me or anyone else, as i clearly clearly have shown, 1 Cor 14:26-38, 1 Peter 4:10,11, 1 Cor 12, Col 3;15,16 etc

and then calling this "God's plan" when it is actually "your plan", what you in are in effect doing is making yourself the Pope. With this insistence on the specific manner in which other people are allowed to worship, you are making yourself the "master," which you spend so much time railing against.

This is absolutely false I do nothing of the sort. I use the revelation of scripture as shown By God to back up all i say. If you choose to allow yourself to be under one man over all then you may be doing what the jews did when they said, "give us a king" . I cal no man master and yet many in these religious forms call men "master of divinity, or other flattering titles such as His Holiness, or reverend. I do nothing like this. I never make myself anything, If i have any growth it is from the Lord who works in me to make me perfect unto every god work.

So although I understand your viewpoint,

I'm not sure if you do

I think you are cherry-picking things out of context that support the way you want things to be, while ignoring the many things that refute your view.

I don't know what you mean by the word "cherry picking", we are able to rightly divide the word and use scripture quotes as we see many doing in the scripture.

And I certainly have not ignored your view. I have refuted and corrected it in length and with scripture. As you should be able to see. It is not difficult to answer your objections. It just takes some time to go through all the errors. i find that there are so many. But if there is a wrong foundational understanding all the rest of the house will be built up wrongly and will collapse. Christ s my foundation and the church is built up by Him a spiritual house and a living vibrant body working through Him and in Him as we shine forth to the world and be a glorious church without spot or wrinkle. This we seek.

 

[Swag365]

Every thing I shared can be supported strongly with scripture. And I can give many scriptures to support every teaching.



Not even once have i shared something from scripture in these discussions that is contradicted by scripture. The examples you give are not accurate.



You are not accurate here. Paul said

"...I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;...And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."(1 Cor 1:16-18 KJV)

Here we se that Paul only baptized a few, and then he pushes aside all baptism talk and says that he doesn't know whether he baptized any other. That doesn't sound like he made water baptism a part of the gospel and to continue forever. Paul followed along with the Jewish baptisms of John for a while and among the Jewish believers he even circumcised Timothy so he would not offend the believing Jews. But circumcision and water baptism were not to be part of the gentile conversion. If Paul baptized a few it was a condescension to their weakness and the coming out of the old covenant and Jewish customs that lingered for a while.

This is pure speculation. Scripture does not state anything about St. Paul having only baptized in the 3 instances so as to not have offended the Jews. If you put Acts 18 on a timeline you can see that Crispus would have been baptized by St. Paul roughly around the year AD 50, even after he had written the letter to the Galatians.

And the Jews didn't even have water baptism! They had a ritual washing, but they did not have a baptism in God's name. St. Paul baptized the 3 so as to not to offend the Jews, who didn't even have baptism themselves? That does not make any sense at all, and Scripture does not state that St. Paul baptized them for any such reason. That is purely a story that you are making up out of thin air and cherry-picked verses to support your view.

We see also that Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. This is telling because he is saying that the gospel is not part of water baptism , or that water baptism does not save or added to the gospel. Paul defines that gospel that they HEARD and believed and were saved by faith in 1 Cor 15:1-4 and no mention of any ordinances added to the gospel. Paul also speaks in the letter to the Corinthians of the true saving one baptism that all must have and that is by the Spirit into the body of Christ or baptized into Christ 1 Cor 12:13 KJV.

No, St. Paul did not say that water baptism is not part of the gospel. That is pure eisegisis. The Bible states no such thing.

But in this case in Acts. The church was just in its infancy stage and they had issues that were complex to deal with. We read in Acts 15, that there were certain men come in among the church that taught circumcision and keeping the law to be saved for gentle converts. The Gentles was a harder issue for some Jewish believers, and the Jewish believers were still under the law and old covenant and tied to the temple and sacrifices of the temple. So Paul Barnabas had a strong disagreement with the false teachers in that church. They must have tried to get consensus and the decision to send these men to Jerusalem came from the from the church and they were brought on their way by the church. So the whole church was involved.

Nonsense. The issue was decided by the council at Jerusalem. The letter that was delivered from Jerusalem to Antioch States "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” The apostles and elders at Jerusalem laid requirements on the brothers at Antioch, and chose not to make circumcision part of those requirements, resolving the issue. The text does not state anything about there being further discussion back at Antioch, for the brothers there to come into "consensus" with what the apostles and elders at Jerusalem decided. They were given requirements from the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. That wasn't "merely advice" as you want it to be. That's completely false.

 

[Swag365]

Yes I believe all have such ability to forgive and to understand and then teach others when they are taught. He happened to be talking to the church at that time who consisted of the apostles. But many things he said to the apostles extend to all believers as God leads.Teach faithful men who shall be able to teach others. There are certain order among women and men that differs in some areas. But that is another long talk.

The Lord did not tell each man in the church that the sins he forgives are forgiven, and the sins that they retain, are retained. He did not tell each man in the church that "He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects me." He did not give the power to bind and loose to every man in the church. And he did not give his keys to every man in the Kingdom. He did not make every man in the church an apostle.

You can believe whatever you want, but Scripture does not teach that each of these were given to every man in the church. You just want it that way, but Scripture does not teach it. You are making things up and cherry-picking unconnected verses from all over the New Testament to support your story, but the Bible does not teach it.

The word "insitutional churches" should answer why I make issue. The church is not an institution or religious organization, but rather the living body of Christ a spiritual house of God.

More semantics. I do not not care if you don't like that I used the word "institutional church." By that I meant that the denominations that have a concrete, hierarchical, structure, as opposed to your "house church" that consists of 4 guys getting together for dinner and prayer. If you don't like the phrase I used, too bad.

I can simply say if any gathering does not allow the body to edify itself and share their gifts with each other when they gather and instead set up a building structure for a lecture format with one man dominating over all and quenching the spirit in all, then that is not in Gods order and command. Paul in fact commands the order of God for all the churches , and specifically to the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor 14:37,37. Notice the words of God command. if any do not follow God's commands here Paul says they are ignorant or not known or they d not understand and they will be not known or accepted is the implication.

Yeah it just sounds like a whole lot of pride to me. Are you not simply jealous that people are giving attention to a pastor, instead of listening to you? Look, the gifts you have, they can and should be shared with the people in your "church" to edify the whole body. That does not mean that every single time a group of Christians get together, that every person must speak and share, and that it is wrong to have a gathering in which one person leads, or in which one person gives a longer sermon or a homily.

I notice that you are a Catholic in your info. So being in this group would you accept any other church that does not agree with you on your main doctrines of the mass and Mary and the Pope and the priesthood and water baptism, sacraments etc. if a church denies your teachings strngly in these areas would you say they are ok and part of the body? If not then you have pushed aside a great many churches.

I'd say that all baptized Christians everywhere are part of the Catholic Church, although many are in error and therefore not in perfect union with the church. I'd also say that those with a genuine desire for baptism are part of the church, and even those who have no desire for baptism because they are very confused and have not received proper instruction, but who love the Lord and seek to follow his will, are part of the church.

The church is not referred to as a "small group" study or any thing like that. Yes in many of these so called "small groups" they have more freedom and they are much closer to the functioning church as we see in scripture than the so called "main church " meeting on Sundays. In fact the so called church meeting on Sundays should be reformed to become a evangelistic outreach and use the building to feed and house the poor. or perhaps regroup them and gather all into homes to wait n the Lord. yes the early church could meet in many places. But the pattern we see is to meet in homes as they were led by God to do so, There are many advantages to this but , again that is a long talk.

Well that is merely your opinion. I reject it.

No, they do not agree as to what I advocate for. I have been to many many many of these meetings. They often have a single man over all who directs all the activities and even though others are allowed to comment and read etc and pray, (which are good things) the control is quenching often by the so called leader. if a person has a spiritual leading that may go contrary to the program study, they will often not be allowed to go to far and go away from the book they are studying or the commentators notes etc. But many of these meetings are different so it is hard to generalize. Still they are more like the true function of the church than the Sunday meetings. In fact they should all meet in homes on Sunday and ocassionaly use the large buildings for evangelism and other things.

The "control is quenching" yet it is YOU who wants to dictate the way that other people must worship on Sunday and other days. Very ironic.

No I never want to set up my own plan or my order. I seek to follow the revelation of these things from the Spirit and scripture as it can clearly be seen all over the New testament and in many of the letters to the churches. This is clearly God's plan and commands as i could show ( 1 Cor 12, 1 Cor 14:26-37, 1 Peter 4:10,11, Romans 12:1-8, 1 Yhess 5:11, Colossians 3:15,16, etc etc etc)

No, "God's plan" is not what you have advocated for. What you have advocated for is "your plan" and you are cherry-picking scriptures from the Bible to support your plan.

I reject mans order and anything that fights against the authority that Jesus gives every believer to speak and live in the word of God and their spiritual gift from God. Yes all gifts are needed. Certain gifts may seem to be more needful. But we can never say to one part of the body you are not needed. The least parts are very needed 1 Cor 12.

Nobody says that one part of the body is not needed, so that's irrelevant.

I reject if any man spoil me (or rob me of my goods (gifts) through their man-made traditions and order and philosophies and rudiments of the world. We are warned against such things. Consider these verses carefully,

From my standpoint it is you who are trying to deceive through your own man-made tradition, which rejects the authority structure that we see in Scripture.

I don't know what you mean by the word "cherry picking", we are able to rightly divide the word and use scripture quotes as we see many doing in the scripture.

Your entire manner of proving your points is "cherry picking". Instead of choosing one passage of scripture and exploring it in depth to fairly discern what it teaches, you pick half a verse from Book X, another half a verse from Book Y, and another half a verse from book Z, pulling each one out of context because each verse may superficially appear to support your view. You haven't rightly divided the word. You have ripped it apart, mangled it, and pasted-it back together to support "your plan".

 

[LoveofTruth]

This is pure speculation. Scripture does not state anything about St. Paul having only baptized in the 3 instances so as to not have offended the Jews. If you put Acts 18 on a timeline you can see that Crispus would have been baptized by St. Paul roughly around the year AD 50, even after he had written the letter to the Galatians.

Well, you seem to be speculating now. Show me all the other baptisms. Im not fully denying them, but show me, or else your just assuming and speculating. I don't think I said he only baptized three people. However Paul himself seemed to say he only baptized those three, with the family of Stephanus. He did say he didn't know if he baptized any other. You seem to find that a hard issue because of tradition of men. But Paul pushed water baptism aside and said,"besides". Then the clearly said Christ sent him NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel. How much clearer can he be. He was not sent to water baptize. He went mainly to the Gentiles at one point and they were not to be brought under the Old Covenant and law and customs of the Jews. But it seems that some were still trying to do this in the transition or reformation period . As we see clearly in scripture.
You seem to assume that because the Jews did something that that was for all believers of all times, or so it seems that you think this. But we know clearly this is not the case. In Acts we see the believing Jews going into the temple and doing sacrifice, circumcision, all the law customs and dietary laws etc. But no Gentile was to be under this as we read in Acts 15 and 21. The diverse washings and carnal ordinances were imposed on the Jews until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9.

So no speculation here. Just revelation, discernment and studying to show myself approved unto God rightly dividing the word of truth, so as not to be ashamed.

And the Jews didn't even have water baptism! They had a ritual washing, but they did not have a baptism in God's name.

The Jews had many "baptisms.

The Jewish Roots of Baptism - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry

And in the Old Covenant they had a specific one, John's water baptism. This was still under the old covenant. They also had full submersion for gentile converts in the Halakah law and many diverse washings ( baptisms) hebrews 9. Check the word in Hebrews 9 for washings, it is "Baptismos" in Greek.

St. Paul baptized the 3 so as to not to offend the Jews, who didn't even have baptism themselves?

The Jews were well familiar with baptisms. And Paul was going along with the Jewish reformation as he worked with them. But he was given much revelation and he was sent to the gentiles. The Gentile issue was different.

That does not make any sense at all, and Scripture does not state that St. Paul baptized them for any such reason.

Paul himself said Christ sent him not to baptize. So if he was not sent to do it, then why did he did is so few times anyway? well, one answer is that he condescended to the understanding and weakness of the Jewish practice following John for a time. Also we can ask, why did Paul circumcise Timothy in Acts 16, when he was not sent to circumcise? he did so so as not to offend the Jews, or to condescend to their weakness.

No, St. Paul did not say that water baptism is not part of the gospel. That is pure eisegisis. The Bible states no such thing.

Yes, Paul did say clearly,

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."(1 Cor 1:17 KJV)

Also, the actual saving gospel is this

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"(1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV)

Notice that there is nothing added to this gospel. No water baptism for salvation, no Lord's supper, no circumcision, no Mosaic law, foot washing Sabbaths etc etc etc. To add to the gospel is t make another gospel. This is clear to those who have eyes to see it here. Paul even said that this gospel is by which they are saved, IF they keep in MEMORY what he preached. So He preached it they heard it and received it , believed it and were saved. No water baptism added. So when Paul divides water baptism from the gospel and said Christ sent him not to baptize, it should be clear to the unbiased reader that water baptism is not part of the gospel. To add it makes another gospel of meritous works for salvation.

Here we see that the gospel and baptism are different and not one in the same. The key here is also the expression, "not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.". Many words and ideas have wrongly developed around water baptism. Many see it as for regeneration and salvation, and others as a sign, or admission into a church, others see baby baptisms and others not, some say to fully submerge others to sprinkle, some baptize in Jesus name, others in the name of the father the Son and the Holy Ghost etc etc etc and all sorts of justifications and words to say why they do things the way they do..But Paul also says the key words

"lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

The cross puts to death al works in the flesh. We are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done. Yes, water baptism was a work of righteousness in the Old Covenant and jesus said so when he was baptized. He spoke of fulfilling all righteousness. He was made under the law at the time and did all the things required for a Jew under the law. he alone fulfills all things for believers.

But the expression "lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." is also seen similar in another section of scripture. In Galatians we see this when the religious legalist were trying to force men to be circumcised, we read,

"As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ."(Galatians 6:12 KJV)

The cross again puts to death all the works of the flesh and allows no boasting. But to not do circumcision as these men were trying to constrain them to do, would cause some to be persecuted for the cross of Christ. We see some persecution the believers had when they did not do things the way the Jews wanted. Similar water baptism is a carnal ordinance of the Old Covenant that is like circumcision, in the fact that it is a outward sign of a inward work. But again no flesh can work their way to God. if they were circumcised they were in debt to do the whole law and in bondage.

Nonsense.

Far from it. I use scripture and sound reasoning to show the truth here.

The issue was decided by the council at Jerusalem. The letter that was delivered from Jerusalem to Antioch States "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” The apostles and elders at Jerusalem laid requirements on the brothers at Antioch, and chose not to make circumcision part of those requirements, resolving the issue. The text does not state anything about there being further discussion back at Antioch, for the brothers there to come into "consensus" with what the apostles and elders at Jerusalem decided. They were given requirements from the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. That wasn't "merely advice" as you want it to be. That's completely false.

The conclusion that was given was given by God working through many different parts of the body. The church at Antioch sent men from their gatherings with Paul and barnabas about the questions, "they determined that Paul and barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem..."and they would have heard as well the wisdom God gave to certain brothers. We se nothing of a one man over all Lord type Pope character, or a few men dictating. We see the church working together and certain gifts manifesting in the meetings for the edification of all. This is far from the man made religious orders and Lording hierarchical forms many are bound in today.

 

[Swag365]

Well, you seem to be speculating now. Show me all the other baptisms. Im not fully denying them, but show me, or else your just assuming and speculating. I don't think I said he only baptized three people. However Paul himself seemed to say he only baptized those three, with the family of Stephanus. He did say he didn't know if he baptized any other.

St. Paul only baptized in those 3 instances. No speculation at all.

You seem to find that a hard issue because of tradition of men.

Nonsense. Water baptism was instituted by our Lord Jesus himself. We know that St. Paul baptized. We know that St. Peter baptized. We know that St. Peter referred to water baptism in a positive light near the end of his life. We know that water baptism has been a constant practice in the church for nearly 2000 years.

The only "tradition of men" is you denying water baptism.

But Paul pushed water baptism aside and said,"besides". Then the clearly said Christ sent him NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel. How much clearer can he be. He was not sent to water baptize.

It makes no difference. I agree with you that he was not sent to baptize. That was not to be his primary role, but to preach. But he did baptize. So did St. Peter. St Peter also refers to water baptism near the end of his life. And we see St. Paul (arguably) refer to water baptism in the other letters he wrote. The disciples were also explicitly instructed to go forth to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit (the common formula for water baptism). There are many other versus. Yet you expect people to deny all of this and 2000 years of Christian history, because 1 random person on the internet claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit and has "rightly divided" the Word? Your expectation is ridiculous. You can believe it all you like. You will never convince me, or 99% of the other Christians on the planet Earth, otherwise.

He went mainly to the Gentiles at one point and they were not to be brought under the Old Covenant and law and customs of the Jews. But it seems that some were still trying to do this in the transition or reformation period . As we see clearly in scripture.

This has nothing to do with water baptism. The Jews never had a water baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or a baptism in the name of Jesus, or even a water baptism in the name of God). That is, the Jews never had Christian baptism. So your point is entirely irrelevant. Water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was instituted by our Lord Jesus. The Jews NEVER did that.

You seem to assume that because the Jews did something that that was for all believers of all times, or so it seems that you think this.

I make no such assumption.

So no speculation here. Just revelation, discernment and studying to show myself approved unto God rightly dividing the word of truth, so as not to be ashamed.

Well it's nice to hear that you and your three man "house church" have reached a consensus. When you feel like joining the other 2 billion Christians on the planet, you are welcome to drop these false views.

The Jews had many "baptisms.

The Jewish Roots of Baptism - ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry

And in the Old Covenant they had a specific one, John's water baptism. This was still under the old covenant. They also had full submersion for gentile converts in the Halakah law and many diverse washings ( baptisms) hebrews 9. Check the word in Hebrews 9 for washings, it is "Baptismos" in Greek.



The Jews were well familiar with baptisms. And Paul was going along with the Jewish reformation as he worked with them. But he was given much revelation and he was sent to the gentiles. The Gentile issue was different.

The Jews had a ritual bathing that resembled Christian baptism in certain respects, but they NEVER baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as noted above. They NEVER did the Baptism that was done by St. Peter, St. Paul, and a billion other Christians throughout history. So you what you wrote is irrelevant.

Paul himself said Christ sent him not to baptize. So if he was not sent to do it, then why did he did is so few times anyway? well, one answer is that he condescended to the understanding and weakness of the Jewish practice following John for a time. Also we can ask, why did Paul circumcise Timothy in Acts 16, when he was not sent to circumcise? he did so so as not to offend the Jews, or to condescend to their weakness.

It does not matter. The Jews NEVER practiced Christian baptism. Christian baptism was NEVER a Jewish practice.

Also, the actual saving gospel is this

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"(1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV)

No, the "actual saving gospel" is not limited to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The Bible teaches no such thing.

Notice that there is nothing added to this gospel. No water baptism for salvation, no Lord's supper, no circumcision, no Mosaic law, foot washing Sabbaths etc etc etc. To add to the gospel is t make another gospel. This is clear to those who have eyes to see it here. Paul even said that this gospel is by which they are saved, IF they keep in MEMORY what he preached. So He preached it they heard it and received it , believed it and were saved. So water baptism added. So when Paul divides water baptism from the gospel and said Christ sent him not to baptize, it should be clear to the unbiased reader that water baptism is not part of the gospel. To add it makes another gospel of meritous works for salvation.

Again, the "actual saving gospel" is not limited to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The Bible teaches no such thing.

It would be just as arbitrary to add "and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." to your "actual saving gospel" if we are apply the same nonsensical logic that you used.

1 Corinthians 15 is not a complete definition of the gospel, nor of what is required of the Christian for salvation.

Here we see that the gospel and baptism are different and not one in the same. The key here is also the expression, "not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.". Many words and ideas have wrongly developed around water baptism. Many see it as for regeneration and salvation, and others as a sign, or admission into a church, others see baby baptisms and others not, some say to fully submerge others to sprinkle, some baptize in Jesus name, others in the name of the father the Son and the Holy Ghost etc etc etc and all sorts of justifications and words to say why they do things the way they do..But Paul also says the key words

"lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

The cross puts to death al works in the flesh. We are not saved by works of righteousness which we have done. Yes, water baptism was a work of righteousness in the Old Covenant and jesus said so when he was baptized. He spoke of fulfilling all righteousness. He was made under the law at the time and did all the things required for a Jew under the law. he alone fulfills all things for believers.

But the expression "lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." is also seen similar in another section of scripture. In Galatians we see this when the religious legalist were trying to force men to be circumcised, we read,

"As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ."(Galatians 6:12 KJV)

The cross again puts to death all the works of the flesh and allows no boasting. But to not do circumcision as these men were trying to constrain them to do, would cause some to be persecuted for the cross of Christ. We see some persecution the believers had when they did not do things the way the Jews wanted. Similar water baptism is a carnal ordinance of the Old Covenant that is like circumcision, in the fact that it is a outward sign of a inward work. But again no flesh can work their way to God. if they were circumcised they were in debt to do the whole law and in bondage.



Far from it. I use scripture and sound reasoning to show the truth here.



The conclusion that was given was given by God working through many different parts of the body. The church at Antioch sent men from their gatherings with Paul and barnabas about the questions, "they determined that Paul and barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem..."and they would have heard as well the wisdom God gave to certain brothers. We se nothing of a one man over all Lord type Pope character, or a few men dictating. We see the church working together and certain gifts manifesting in the meetings for the edification of all. This is far from the man made religious orders and Lording hierarchical forms many are bound in today.

Again, merely your opinions. I reject them.

Why did St. Paul instruct the water baptism here in Acts 19, some 20 years after our Lord's resurrection?

And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7 There were about twelve men in all.
​

So did St. Paul also preside over the baptisms above "so as not to offend the Jews, or condescend to their weakness"? That magical explanation makes absolutely no sense here because they had already been given John's baptism. So even if the Jews had required baptism "so as not to be offended", that requirement was already satisfied by John's Baptism. So you can't use that magical excuse that you made up out of thin air.

St. Paul sees to it that they are given a Christian baptism, after they had already received John's baptism. What is your magical reason for explaining why St. Paul saw it fit for them to receive a Christian baptism, here?

 

[LoveofTruth]

We know that St. Peter baptized. We know that St. Peter referred to water baptism in a positive light near the end of his life. We know that water baptism has been a constant practice in the church for nearly 2000 years.

In 1 Peter 3:21 Peter speaks of the one saving baptism, which is not water baptism, as Peter said, He said it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, (or not an outward washing with water). The saving baptism is to be baptized into Christ. The figure is to be in the ark of Noah and raised up into the heavens on the water. The water was a judgement that covered the old earth, .

also we read in Ephesians of one baptism. This one baptism must be the spiritual one into Christ by the Spirit for we read

1 Corinthians 12: 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.”

notice this baptism into the body if Christ or into Christ is for ALL so it must be the one saving baptism.

It makes no difference. I agree with you that he was not sent to baptize. That was not to be his primary role, but to preach.

Like all who try to escape the clear scripture they will often add words to the text to justify their position.

You add the words "PRIMARY"...it didn't say he was not sent to "primarily baptize. But he said Christ sent him NOT sent to baptize.

The Jews never had a water baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

show me the words "water" in Matthew at the end. You added your own word to the text again to justify or make up your position to be stronger. The words water are not there.

Remember Jesus said in Acts 1 that John baptized (past tense) with water, but ye shall be baptized (future tense) with the Holy Ghost.

 

[Swag365]

In 1 Peter 3:21 Peter speaks of the one saving baptism, which is not water baptism, as Peter said, He said it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, (or not an outward washing with water). The saving baptism is to be baptized into Christ. The figure is to be in the ark of Noah and raised up into the heavens on the water. The water was a judgement that covered the old earth, .

Was that the consensus of your 3-man house church? Well, I reject your consensus. My 3-man house church reached a consensus that baptism in 1 Peter 3 refers to water baptism.

Like all who try to escape the clear scripture they will often add words to the text to justify their position.

Oh that is most comical , considering how much you mangle the Bible to take "your plan" and falsely claim that it is "God's plan".

You add the words "PRIMARY"...it didn't say he was not sent to "primarily baptize. But he said Christ sent him NOT sent to baptize.

Here is the exact verse: For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Are you happy now? Guess what? St. Paul baptized on multiple different instances, and me and my 3-man house church have reached a consensus that these were not instances of St. Paul having been confused, "walking in the light that he had at the time," "not-offending the Jews", "condescending to their weakness", or other such nonsense.

Work some more of your 3-man house church magic on this:

Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch
26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:

“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.
33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.”

34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.​

Now it's clear from the above that the Spirit of the Lord was directing Philips actions the entire time, and Philip baptized the Ethiopian in water. And its clear that Philip told the eunuch about water baptism at the time that he told him the good news about Jesus.

Was Philip also confused and "condescending to the weakness" of the Jews? I suppose you think that the Spirit of the Lord, while prompting him to share the gospel with the eunuch, simply forgot to inform Philip that "oh, by the way, we aren't performing water baptisms anymore"?

Your theory has been disproved by Scripture over, and over, and over. It is quite a false theory, indeed.

Have a nice day.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Was that the consensus of your 3-man house church? Well, I reject your consensus. My 3-man house church reached a consensus that baptism in 1 Peter 3 refers to water baptism.

Oh that is most comical , considering how much you mangle the Bible to take "your plan" and falsely claim that it is "God's plan".

Here is the exact verse: For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Are you happy now? Guess what? St. Paul baptized on multiple different instances, and me and my 3-man house church have reached a consensus that these were not instances of St. Paul having been confused, "walking in the light that he had at the time," "not-offending the Jews", "condescending to their weakness", or other such nonsense.

Work some more of your 3-man house church magic on this:

Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch
26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:

“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he opens not his mouth.
33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken away from the earth.”

34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.​

Now it's clear from the above that the Spirit of the Lord was directing Philips actions the entire time, and Philip baptized the Ethiopian in water. And its clear that Philip told the eunuch about water baptism at the time that he told him the good news about Jesus.

Was Philip also confused and "condescending to the weakness" of the Jews? I suppose you think that the Spirit of the Lord, while prompting him to share the gospel with the eunuch, simply forgot to inform Philip that "oh, by the way, we aren't performing water baptisms anymore"?

Your theory has been disproved by Scripture over, and over, and over. It is quite a false theory, indeed.

Have a nice day.

Philip was simply still coming out of the Old covenant and still attached to the temple, sacrifices etc as the other believing Jews were. And they were still following in some respects Johns water baptism. But in this case we might also see him following the Halakah law of the Jews and customs. This would require a person who enters a new group or belief to water baptize. It is interesting again that you assume Philip told him about water baptism, since no such words by Philip are recorded. You speak from your tradition and bias and again have to add words to the text. It is just as possible that the Ethiopian was familiar with the customs and Halakah law and had practiced it in Jerusalem himself. But notice Philip first said he must believe with all his heart… then he said you “may” not you “must.”

God allowed the time of reformation for the Jews. The Old Covenant was fading away slowly and ready to vanish.
Remember at this time the Jewish believers were still sacrificing in the temple and had not got past a acts 15 yet or resolved those issues.
I could say alit about this event but I think fir now I said some things to consider.

Remember I showed that in the book of Acts where see the Jewish snd Gentile issues and distinctions. We also see the Jewish believer in transition or reformation (Heb 9) from the old to the new.

So I believe you miss the mark here as in every response so far you gave.

 

[Swag365]

Philip was simply still coming out of the Old covenant and still attached to the temple, sacrifices etc as the other believing Jews were. And they were still following in some respects Johns water baptism. But in this case we might also see him following the Halakah law of the Jews and customs. This would require a person who enters a new group or belief to water baptize. It is interesting again that you assume Philip told him about water baptism, since no such words by Philip are recorded. You speak from your tradition and bias and again have to add words to the text. It is just as possible that the Ethiopian was familiar with the customs and Halakah law and had practiced it in Jerusalem himself. But notice Philip first said he must believe with all his heart… then he said you “may” not you “must.”

Even if it was the eunuch's idea, it was Philip who baptized him, and Philip was being led by the Spirit! The Spirit was there at the start of the encounter, and the Spirit was there at the end of the encounter. I suppose you think that the Spirit took a five minute bathroom break during the middle of the encounter, and oops! let a water baptism just slip through accidentally? That's completely nonsensical. If baptism was not proper in the moment, the Spirit would have told Philip not to baptize and to instruct the eunuch otherwise. But we don't see that. Philip was being directed by the Spirit and he baptized the eunuch.

God allowed the time of reformation for the Jews. The Old Covenant was fading away slowly and ready to vanish.
Remember at this time the Jewish believers were still sacrificing in the temple and had not got past a acts 15 yet or resolved those issues.
I could say alit about this event but I think fir now I said some things to consider.

Remember I showed that in the book of Acts where see the Jewish snd Gentile issues and distinctions. We also see the Jewish believer in transition or reformation (Heb 9) from the old to the new.

So I believe you miss the mark here as in every response so far you gave.

My 3-man house church has reached a consensus that all of this mid-Acts dispensationalist Jazz that you seem to be following is false.

Have a nice day.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Even if it was the eunuch's idea, it was Philip who baptized him, and Philip was being led by the Spirit! The Spirit was there at the start of the encounter, and the Spirit was there at the end of the encounter. I suppose you think that the Spirit took a five minute bathroom break during the middle of the encounter, and oops! let a water baptism just slip through accidentally? That's completely nonsensical. If baptism was not proper in the moment, the Spirit would have told Philip not to baptize and to instruct the eunuch otherwise. But we don't see that. Philip was being directed by the Spirit and he baptized the eunuch..

I already told you this, if you read carefully,

"God allowed the time of reformation for the Jews. The Old Covenant was fading away slowly and ready to vanish. Remember at this time the Jewish believers were still sacrificing in the temple and had not got past a acts 15 yet or resolved those issues."

 

[Swag365]

I already told you this, if you read carefully,

"God allowed the time of reformation for the Jews. The Old Covenant was fading away slowly and ready to vanish. Remember at this time the Jewish believers were still sacrificing in the temple and had not got past a acts 15 yet or resolved those issues."

You can use that as a reason to arbitrarily choose any point in the Bible and say "anything before time X does not count" and "anything after time X does count." And you dispensationalists cannot even agree on when "time X" is. Some of you say Acts 2, some of you say Acts 9, some of you say Acts 13, you apparently say Acts 15, a few of you even say Acts 28 or beyond. You want something in your newly created religion you say "Oh that's part of the gospel". You want something out of your newly created religion you say "Oh that was only part of the transitional period." Anyone can use that reason to cut, paste and mangle the Bible into whatever he wants it to be, while claiming to "rightly divide" the scriptures while being led by the Holy Spirit, and that is exactly what you have done. Then you come along and say that this new religion you have concocted according to your own predilections is "God's plan".

No thank you.

 

[LoveofTruth]

You can use that as a reason to arbitrarily choose any point in the Bible and say "anything before time X does not count" and "anything after time X does count." And you dispensationalists cannot even agree on when "time X" is. Some of you say Acts 2, some of you say Acts 9, some of you say Acts 13, you apparently say Acts 15, a few of you even say Acts 28 or beyond. You want something in your newly created religion you say "Oh that's part of the gospel". You want something out of your newly created religion you say "Oh that was only part of the transitional period." Anyone can use that reason to cut, paste and mangle the Bible into whatever he wants it to be, while claiming to "rightly divide" the scriptures while being led by the Holy Spirit, and that is exactly what you have done. Then you come along and say that this new religion you have concocted according to your own predilections is "God's plan".

No thank you.

I am not in any group or category of dispensationalist that you can try to isolate me or generalize me into . I also didn’t say “that’s part of the gospel”.
It is very clear to the unbiased reader that there was a transition and reformation and slow decay and fading away of the old covenant. If any read scripture unbiasedly.

As far as when the old covenant and the new began. The new started after Jesus death and resurrection. When Jesus said “it is finished” the old ended for believers and a new covenant started. Jesus also showed a type of the blood shed the cup at the supper as pointing to the new covenant.

You seem to approach scripture and even this discussion as if your Papal Catholic Church is the true and all others are fakes no matter what scripture or spiritual revelation or evidence you are given. It seems no matter how clear scripture is, in my presentation, I have noticed that some can’t see it, it takes spiritual eyes. They are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2)

consider your correction

Hebrews 9: 9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”

Hebrews 8: 13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Luke 22: 20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

notice this cup was a type or shadow if the actual blood shed by Jesus in time. And the covenant was not in effect until the death of Jesys as scripture says.

Hebrews 9: 16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. ..17. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. …20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. …22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”