tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post2703034554785586458..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: An Analysis and Review of Kevin Bauder's "Landmarkism", pt. 7: What Marks a True, Actual Church?Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-50728058340982580002017-02-19T20:54:47.944-08:002017-02-19T20:54:47.944-08:00Larry,
I don't know all the facts, but, they ...Larry,<br /><br />I don't know all the facts, but, they could be, answers your question. Just based on what you said, they could be. They aren't inhibited from being a church, based on just what you said.<br /><br />I believe in succession of the church based on biblical presuppositions. I believe there were always true churches since Christ. I don't believe in total apostasy. I also don't believe the truth was preserved through Roman Catholicism.<br /><br />My point in this post was that it isn't a church if it doesn't have a true gospel or actual baptism. Salvation and baptism are necessary. I gave a scriptural argument.<br /><br />Baptism must be authoritative. Jesus traveled 90 miles to be baptized by John the Baptist because he received his baptism from heaven. Baptism is an ordinance of the church. Since it is an ordinance of the church, then it must be a church, someone with authority from a church, that performs the baptism, which means someone who has been actually baptized.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-38175470837776403222017-02-19T14:40:08.802-08:002017-02-19T14:40:08.802-08:00You say they might not be? What would make that so...You say they might not be? What would make that so? <br /><br />You sound like a successionist type of some sort that all true baptisms must come from a true baptism. That's what I am trying to figure out. Perhaps I misunderstood you. <br /><br />Perhaps a clearer question is this: Can a group of believers constitute as a church for the first time based on studying the NT alone and baptize each other without having someone who was baptized by another church?Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-42144150789027399762017-02-18T22:11:34.906-08:002017-02-18T22:11:34.906-08:00Larry,
I'm just answering the two bottom ques...Larry,<br /><br />I'm just answering the two bottom questions, because that looks like what you wanted.<br /><br />If they are truly saved and baptized they could be a real church. That's based just on what you wrote. They might not be too. You seem to be saying they were genuinely saved and baptized.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-44871377824069132212017-02-18T16:54:58.511-08:002017-02-18T16:54:58.511-08:00Kent,
What would you say about a group of believe...Kent,<br /><br />What would you say about a group of believers who were part of a Presbyterian church who leave it and form a Baptist church? <br /><br />I recently attended a building dedication for such a group. They were part of a Baptist church that split due to pastoral immorality and the refusal of part of the membership to accept his resignation. This group split off and came under a Presbyterian influence and met as Presbyterians for a while. After a period of several years, they invited a Baptist pastor whom some of them knew to come and teach them. After several years of teaching they constituted as a Baptist church.<br /><br />Are they a real church? Can they baptize?Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-56558575280868799542017-02-16T21:05:22.838-08:002017-02-16T21:05:22.838-08:00Thomas,
Thanks for your comment.Thomas,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26956660914040707602017-02-16T13:37:32.468-08:002017-02-16T13:37:32.468-08:00Anonymous,
I printed your comment because it'...Anonymous,<br /><br />I printed your comment because it's funny. Is it the first epistle of Grandma? A lot of people call themselves Baptist, who aren't. Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn't.<br /><br />Baptists as a whole are more teetotalling, actually so, than other denominations. Sure, you've got your Baptists who spit out their chew into the spatoon before they walk into the church building. That doesn't discredit what I've written here.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91640525192143031182017-02-16T12:52:23.253-08:002017-02-16T12:52:23.253-08:00This may not be totally relevant to the topic, but...This may not be totally relevant to the topic, but speaking of churches and church members, my grandma always told me to invite to Baptists to go fishing with you so you can have all the beer to yourself. If you invite two Baptists, they'll both pretend they've never touched a drop in their lives and look down on those who do. If you invite only one, he will be selfish and drink it all up without sharing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-66175518637641699672017-02-16T11:36:23.808-08:002017-02-16T11:36:23.808-08:00E.T.,
Thanks. I appreciate it. I don't think...E.T.,<br /><br />Thanks. I appreciate it. I don't think I was complaining, just to let you know, just stating what I think happens.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-66215443197809333642017-02-16T11:35:48.715-08:002017-02-16T11:35:48.715-08:00Anonymous,
I don't think something with a fal...Anonymous,<br /><br />I don't think something with a false gospel is a church, because a church is an assembly of genuine believers.<br /><br />Thanks. Yes, it's reality I'm basing this on, not just labels.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91864823663813025492017-02-16T10:49:06.624-08:002017-02-16T10:49:06.624-08:00Brother Brandenburg, here's what you wrote:
&...Brother Brandenburg, here's what you wrote:<br /><br />"I'll be writing more about it. I knew I wasn't done with this series or the epistemology series. Sometimes I don't finish series. They are not popular, maybe there is supply and demand law here. There more there is of something, the less people want it. As a series grows longer, people want something else that is new. Coming back to the series can bring fresh perspective."<br /><br />I would like to say that just because not many respond does not mean not many are reading. Some of us do read your writings when we can fit it into our schedules. However, not always do we have time to respond. I, for one, really appreciate reading what you write. Thank you.<br /><br />E. T. Chapman<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-65677619785307542902017-02-16T04:03:31.921-08:002017-02-16T04:03:31.921-08:00Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
You are correct that the...Dear Pastor Brandenburg,<br /><br />You are correct that the Bible congregation is the less easy call than the Presbyterian congregation--the latter is very easy. I believe the answer is still "no" to the Bible assembly for the reasons from this quote:<br /><br />3.) All “baptisms” not administered by a true church are invalid. Baptism is a church ordinance—Christ gave the church as an institution, not the Apostles, or Christian individuals as such, the authority to baptize (Matthew 28:19-20).[1] Baptism adds one to the membership of the congregation that authorizes the ordinance (Acts 2:41, 47; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Christ started His church, His assembly of baptized believers, in the first century, and promised that true churches would exist until His return (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 3:21), practicing the ordinances of baptism (Matthew 28:19-20) and communion (1 Corinthians 11:26). Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy did not exist in the first century, and all Protestant denominations did not exist for the first three-fourths of church history. Only Baptist churches have existed from the first century until the present age, in fulfillment of Christ’s promises.[2] Since Catholic and Protestant religious assemblies are not the churches founded by Jesus Christ, they did not receive authority to baptize from Him in the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20, and therefore all their baptisms are invalid. Even when religious organizations such as Bible churches, Pentecostal congregations, or non-denominational churches practice the immersion of a believer in water, no Biblical baptism has taken place, as the Bible church, Pentecostal, and non-denominational movements did not exist for the overwhelming majority of church history, and thus their assemblies certainly cannot be the churches founded by Jesus Christ. Since the church was given the authority to baptize, not Christian individuals, the invalidity of non-Baptist baptism remains even if both the individual performing the immersion and the one being dipped are Christians. It is thus clear that all non-Baptist baptisms are invalid, having no Divine authority, and that no one who has not been immersed upon the authority Christ gave to His first church in the first century, and to the Baptist churches that succeeded that first church, has been validly baptized.<br /><br /> Since all non-Baptist baptisms are invalid, all those who have been truly converted should leave all other religious organizations (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14) and be baptized into the membership of a Bible-believing and practicing Baptist church, and faithfully serve the Lord Jesus Christ in His true church, His sole institution for public worship in this age (Acts 2:41-47; Hebrews 10:25). Furthermore, Baptist churches should reject as invalid all non-Baptist baptisms and accept into membership only believers who have been immersed by their own church or by other true Baptist churches.<br /><br /><br />http://faithsaves.net/non-baptist-baptism/<br /><br />Thanks for the series and this post in particular. KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-9703066666349474652017-02-15T12:48:47.075-08:002017-02-15T12:48:47.075-08:00I think I understand what you are saying, and agre...I think I understand what you are saying, and agree very strongly (if this is the case).<br /><br />You would say that many "Baptist Churches" are neither churches nor baptist because they do not preach the true gospel.<br /><br />You might call some groups baptist churches, even if they have never taken the formal title "Baptist Church". This would be based on true gospel preaching, scriptural baptism, and a lack of evidence that they came from Catholicism, Protestantism, or any other man's teaching.<br /><br />In other words, I understand you to emphasize doctrine and practice, not the name that a group calls itself. Is this correct?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80865922144891064352017-02-15T11:53:32.606-08:002017-02-15T11:53:32.606-08:00One more thing,
I think the Presbyterian is an ea...One more thing,<br /><br />I think the Presbyterian is an easier call that what I'm (and Bauder) am bringing into play, maybe a Protestant church, such as a Bible church. The Presbyterians don't have a right recipient (a child) or mode (sprinkling). I'm even going to authority, which Bauder would have a hard time with. I think that's what he's criticizing. I'll be writing more about it. I knew I wasn't done with this series or the epistemology series. Sometimes I don't finish series. They are not popular, maybe there is supply and demand law here. There more there is of something, the less people want it. As a series grows longer, people want something else that is new. Coming back to the series can bring fresh perspective.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-85259929769311366362017-02-15T11:49:22.322-08:002017-02-15T11:49:22.322-08:00Tyler,
I think I'm being very objective here ...Tyler,<br /><br />I think I'm being very objective here in going through the following progression. Can someone join a church scripturally without baptism? Do you have a church then without baptism? Is infant sprinkling baptism? If the latter is no, and baptism is necessary to be a church, then a Presbyterian church is in fact not a church. This isn't argument that is difficult, like some Constitutional arguments made from the text of the constitution. Keeping to the four corners of the text (something I wrote about for Monday's post), it isn't a church. That isn't politically/theologically correct, but it is textual.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-40024249383776922082017-02-15T11:33:11.240-08:002017-02-15T11:33:11.240-08:00You wrote:
Church membership is regenerate member...You wrote:<br /><br />Church membership is regenerate membership. A false gospel is not regenerate. It is apostate. Those are not true churches.<br /><br />Let me ask these questions: (1) Do you believe (for example) a conservative Presbyterian church (e.g. OPC, PCA) is a Gospel-preaching church? (2) Does (for example) infant baptism rule out a congregation from being a true church? To get down to brass tacks - is Carl Trueman a Christian minister of a Gospel church? <br /><br />I'm not asking about Lutherans, who have issues with baptismal regeneration. I'm talking about conservative Presbyterians who (allegedly, according to their doctrine) believe baptism places the child into the New Covenant, which they consider to be a mixed multitude - like the Old Covenant was for Israel. They do not believe baptism saves. They're terribly wrong, but I don't think you could accuse them of preaching baptismal regeneration. <br /><br />I'm trying to see where you draw the line between (1) a church in error, and (2) no church at all. <br /><br />I'll say more later, once I get home and take a look at Bauder's book. Thanks for this series. Tyler Robbinshttps://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com