Local Church

[OFIB Preacher]

Let me further clarify my previous post, please.  The LORD has always had His local, visible church (and churches) here, ever since He started the first one in John 20.  They may not have always had Independent Baptist on the shingle (so to speak), but they've been here nonetheless.  I believe there are truly born again folk in man-made denominations/churches and they do grow in grace, because God will honor His word (KJB), even though it may not be rightly divided.  Furthermore, individual, local Independent Baptist churches may and do go liberal and when they do, they cease to be one of God's local churches.  Oh and yes, the enemy has sown tares among the wheat, the LORD will take care of them/that.

[DaveW]

20 hours ago, DaveW said:

What are the requirements for a church to be a church?

Were the 12 disciples saved? (aside from Judas)?

Were they gathered together for the purpose of serving the Lord and doing His will?

Were they baptised?

Were they organised and orderly?

What more did the disciples and Jesus need to be classified as a church?

If it swims like a duck, and flies like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what do you think it might be?

[DaveW]

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 9:19 AM, BobbyH said:

Surely the 120 in the upper room were blood bought born again believers and I agree they were the first "official" members of Christ's Church. I believe that those added after Peter's message were added at the time of their being blood bought, born again believers. Salvation adds to His Church. Baptism is a public demonstration (confession) of that salvation. I still love my local church here at Brookside Missionary Baptist Church - Old Fort, NC .

"Salvation adds to His Church"

in respect to this one single portion, can I ask you to consider something?

Act 2:41
(41)  Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
and:

Act 2:47
(47)  Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
verse 47 clarifies exactly what they were added to - I think there is little debate about that point - added to the church.

However, in considering this passage, what is the order of events here?

Is it not "received his word" (saved), then "baptised", then "added unto them" (the church: see vs 47)?

It is very clear that baptism comes before being added to the church - so if we believe that baptism is not part of salvation (and I certainly believe that baptism is not part of salvation), then we have to understand a couple of things from this passage.

These people were added not to the group of all believers, for that is salvation, and they were clearly baptised BEFORE being added. The church being spoken of here MUST be a local church, or else you MUST follow after baptism being a part of salvation.

The order is clearly noted -  "received his word" (saved), then "baptised", then "added unto them" (the church: see vs 47).

And before someone tries to make this baptism something other than water baptism:

Act 2:38
(38)  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter, in this verse is clearly noting that "baptism" in this context is a separate thing to the "receiving of the Holy Spirit". This baptism IS NOT HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM, because Peter say it is not......

(And I don't believe that Peter is teaching baptism is part of salvation either, but if we go down that trail we will simply be adding confusion - one passage at a time folks.)

 

Funny isn't it, that my use of these passages seems to support baptismal regeneration - but ONLY if you accept the idea of a universal church - if the Bible is speaking of a local church ONLY in this passage, then it absolutely defies the concept of baptismal regeneration...….

 

[swathdiver]

On 1/14/2019 at 6:50 PM, Baptist_Bible_Believer said:

That's okay. I don't even agree with myself half the time. I should probably have said that the church was "empowered" on the day of Pentecost . . . when was it "established"? I agree with you in the sense that there is no verse we can point to which states, on this day I establish the institution which will be known as my body and my bride. But we know it was future in Matthew 16 and present in Acts.

The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem was started on the shores of Galilee when Jesus called Simon Peter and Andrew to follow him.  From this point on the local church functioned as the local, visible, church described in the scriptures.

"And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him." - Matthew 4:18-20

 

"Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.  And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.  And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him." - Mark 1:16-18

[BobbyH]

13 hours ago, DaveW said:

"Salvation adds to His Church"

 

Act 2:41
(41)  Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
and:

Act 2:47
(47)  Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
verse 47 clarifies exactly what they were added to - I think there is little debate about that point - added to the church.

However, in considering this passage, what is the order of events here?

Is it not "received his word" (saved), then "baptised", then "added unto them" (the church: see vs 47)?

 

 

I appreciate your thorough explanation. My prayerful conviction is that baptism does not add you to the Lord's Church. Salvation does. I do believe baptism is an ordinance as well as communion. I believe it is necessary as part of the great commission. I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost after I was saved not to join a local church, but to be obedient to Christ. I want to tell you I had never even heard of this doctrine until recently. I have been Baptist my entire Christian life. I am not Protestant and I am not catholic, but I do believe that Jesus's Church is the collective total of His called out assemblies of true local churches. Prayer Requested.

 

[Jim_Alaska]

3 hours ago, BobbyH said:

 I am not Protestant and I am not catholic, but I do believe that Jesus's Church is the collective total of His called out assemblies of true local churches. Prayer Requested.

 

If this were accurate how would anyone obey this command of Jesus that you referenced in your first post?  Mt 18:17 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.

According to your definition of "church", we would have to tell it to all the collective assemblies. Please note that even in your interpretation you use the plural "assembles" in place of the singular, "church".

Could it be that Jesus is talking about His church as an institution rather than a universal church?

[BobbyH]

46 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

If this were accurate how would anyone obey this command of Jesus?  Mt 18:17 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.

According to your definition of "church", we would have to tell it to all the collective assemblies. Please note that even in your interpretation you use the plural "assembles" in place of the singular, "church".

Jesus was talking about the local church at Jerusalem which was "The Church" at that time. His teachings are applicable to all "local churches" and to "His Church" as scripture. Is what Paul wrote to The Church at Rome not applicable to The Church at Ephesus? These churches did not exist at the Matthew 18:17 time frame, but if you are a follower of Christ it is unto you scripture. I do believe in local churches but just how autonomous are they? There is One Christ. I have noticed that you also use local "church" for several churches.

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by BobbyH
spelling it

[Jim_Alaska]

29 minutes ago, BobbyH said:

 I have noticed that you also use local "church" for several churches.

Bro. H 

My use of the  word "church" (singular) is never meant to be understood as more than one church., but rather it is to be understood as either a single church or the church as an institution.  A worldly example might go like this: "The car is a wonderful invention."  Everyone would understand that I do not mean any one car, but rather the invention of the mechanical thing we call a car.

Scripture never uses the word "church" (singular) to mean anything other than a single church or the church as an institution. When Scripture indicates more than one church it always uses the word "churches" (plural)

 Ac 9:31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. 

 Ac 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. 

 1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 

[DaveW]

5 hours ago, BobbyH said:

I appreciate your thorough explanation. My prayerful conviction is that baptism does not add you to the Lord's Church. Salvation does. I do believe baptism is an ordinance as well as communion. I believe it is necessary as part of the great commission. I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost after I was saved not to join a local church, but to be obedient to Christ. I want to tell you I had never even heard of this doctrine until recently. I have been Baptist my entire Christian life. I am not Protestant and I am not catholic, but I do believe that Jesus's Church is the collective total of His called out assemblies of true local churches. Prayer Requested.

 

Well then, according to the plain order of events laid out in Acts 2:41, you MUST believe that baptism is part of salvation, because the order is: recieved the word, THEN baptized, THEN added unto them (the church).

If the church is that universal group of all believers then according to Acts 2:41 baptism completes your salvation.

If however the church is local, the order does not add baptism to salvation, but they three separate events, occurring in a specific order: salvation, baptism, added to a local church.

Scripture is absolutely clear on this point of the order of events.

Universal church nessecitates baptismal regeneration, local church shows them as separate events.

[BobbyH]

4 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Bro. H 

My use of the  word "church" (singular) is never meant to be understood as more than one church., but rather it is to be understood as either a single church or the church as an institution.  A worldly example might go like this: "The car is a wonderful invention."  Everyone would understand that I do not mean any one car, but rather the invention of the mechanical thing we call a car.

 

 

"Institution" is a curious word. I am going to have to chew on that for a while!  

[Alan]

2 hours ago, DaveW said:

Well then, according to the plain order of events laid out in Acts 2:41, you MUST believe that baptism is part of salvation, because the order is: recieved the word, THEN baptized, THEN added unto them (the church).

If the church is that universal group of all believers then according to Acts 2:41 baptism completes your salvation.

If however the church is local, the order does not add baptism to salvation, but they three separate events, occurring in a specific order: salvation, baptism, added to a local church.

Scripture is absolutely clear on this point of the order of events.

Universal church nessecitates baptismal regeneration, local church shows them as separate events.

Dave has brought out a valid point that should be addressed and not ignored in this discussion.

[BobbyH]

2 hours ago, DaveW said:

Well then, according to the plain order of events laid out in Acts 2:41, you MUST believe that baptism is part of salvation, because the order is: recieved the word, THEN baptized, THEN added unto them (the church).

If the church is that universal group of all believers then according to Acts 2:41 baptism completes your salvation.

If however the church is local, the order does not add baptism to salvation, but they three separate events, occurring in a specific order: salvation, baptism, added to a local church.

Scripture is absolutely clear on this point of the order of events.

Universal church nessecitates baptismal regeneration, local church shows them as separate events.

I do NOT believe baptism is part of salvation, baptism is an ordinance and should not precede "church" membership. Acts 2:47 confirms that:

"Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2:47 KJV

[DaveW]

1 minute ago, BobbyH said:

I do NOT believe baptism is part of salvation, baptism is an ordinance and should not precede "church" membership. Acts 2:47 confirms that:

"Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2:47 KJV

I didn't think you did believe that baptism is a part of salvation, but the verses that I have pointed to show that in order to make "church" from that passage the universal group of all believers, a person MUST believe in baptismal regeneration, for the order of events is indisputable. 

The order of events in vs 41 is: received the word, baptised, added unto them - this order states clearly that they were baptised before they were added (vs 47 identifies what they were added to, the church).

There are two possible ways to look at this passage then - either:

• "the church" mentioned is not the universal group of all believers, and then we can easily say that salvation and baptism are not part of the same process, or
• "the church" IS the universal group of all believers, in which case baptism is clearly a requirement to finish salvation, for it is ONLY AFTER being baptised that they were added to the church.

This is the simple issue in this passage - the order is exceptionally plain - received the word (saved) THEN baptised, THEN added unto them (the church).

This is what the Bible says - there is no way around this matter. either it is a local church and salvation is totally separate to baptism and totally separate to being added to the church, or it is a universal church and baptism comes after receiving the word, BUT before being added

The order of the events mentioned in Acts 2:41 is clear:

Received (saved) -----------------------------> Baptised -------------------------------> Added (vs 47 to the church).

If church is universal group of all believers, then baptism MUST happen before you are added to that group. This equals baptismal regeneration, or baptism as part of salvation.

If church is local church. then salvation can still add to the group of all believers (unstated in this passage), but then the order remains as above, baptised, then added to the local church.. Salvation is separate to baptism, and baptism is separate to church membership - the timing of these things is not referenced in the passage ONLY THE ORDER.

 

And vs 47 does not say that baptism doesn't come before church membership - that would contradict vs 41. Vs 47 simple omits that information because it is commentary, not instruction. That they were baptised is already referred to in vs 41.

 

I have done nothing more than highlight the order of these events from the Bible passage, and show the logical conclusions involved.

There would appear to be no further purpose to me taking part in this discussion as I will only be restating the same information.

[BobbyH]

14 hours ago, DaveW said:

 

The order of events in vs 41 is: received the word, baptised, added unto them - this order states clearly that they were baptised before they were added (vs 47 identifies what they were added to, the church).

There are two possible ways to look at this passage then - either:

• "the church" mentioned is not the universal group of all believers, and then we can easily say that salvation and baptism are not part of the same process

This is the simple issue in this passage - the order is exceptionally plain - received the word (saved) THEN baptised, THEN added unto them (the church).

This is what the Bible says - there is no way around this matter. either it is a local church and salvation is totally separate to baptism and totally separate to being added to the church, or it is a universal church and baptism comes after receiving the word, BUT before being added

The order of the events mentioned in Acts 2:41 is clear:

Received (saved) -----------------------------> Baptised -------------------------------> Added (vs 47 to the church).

If church is universal group of all believers, then baptism MUST happen before you are added to that group. This equals baptismal regeneration, or baptism as part of salvation.

If church is local church. then salvation can still add to the group of all believers (unstated in this passage), but then the order remains as above, baptised, then added to the local church.. Salvation is separate to baptism, and baptism is separate to church membership - the timing of these things is not referenced in the passage ONLY THE ORDER.

 

And vs 47 does not say that baptism doesn't come before church membership - that would contradict vs 41. Vs 47 simple omits that information because it is commentary, not instruction. That they were baptised is already referred to in vs 41.

 

I have done nothing more than highlight the order of these events from the Bible passage, and show the logical conclusions involved.

There would appear to be no further purpose to me taking part in this discussion as I will only be restating the same information.

Well, I hate that you want to give up on this discussion. You have helped me to understand your interpretation. Here is what I have learned so far.

1. "The Church" in Acts was a local church which included all those saved and baptized at the time.

2. That it took Salvation and Baptism to be added to "The Church"  at that time.

3. Without baptism you could not be added to "The Church" at that time. You can be saved and not be part of "The Church".

If you respond, good, if not I appreciate your time.

[DaveW]

On 1/18/2019 at 1:26 AM, BobbyH said:

Well, I hate that you want to give up on this discussion. You have helped me to understand your interpretation. Here is what I have learned so far.

1. "The Church" in Acts was a local church which included all those saved and baptized at the time.

2. That it took Salvation and Baptism to be added to "The Church"  at that time.

3. Without baptism you could not be added to "The Church" at that time. You can be saved and not be part of "The Church".

If you respond, good, if not I appreciate your time.

It is not that I "want to give up", it is simply that there is basically no point to me constantly restating what the Bible says and what I have clearly explained.

As to your points, I do not like and do not agree with your added proviso of "at that time."

By adding that phrase in each of the points as you have done, you are redefining my statements, because you are attempting to summarise what I have said, but you are adding in a thought which I have not presented, did not suggest, and do not believe.

And as you have added that same phrase in each of the points, I can only assume you have done so with careful consideration.

As such you are misrepresenting me.

I was not going to bbn other clearing that up, but it is a misrepresentation of what I have stated.

What I have stated is best summarized by my little simple graphic representation of Acts 2:41.

There is no need to redefine and re-present what is the simplest form of what the Bible says in that passage.