tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post582318688992406097..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Answering David Cloud on the Church, pt.1Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59697253990157639202018-04-06T10:33:52.630-07:002018-04-06T10:33:52.630-07:00Hi I am a missionary. As what the Bible describes,...Hi I am a missionary. As what the Bible describes, the My Church of our Lord and Saviour can only mean a local visible church. This doctrine is very important in the minstry entrusted to us. Teach, Baptize, Teach (Matthew) can only be done through a local church. And cannot be invented as well. It can only be continued. Having given the authority to baptize in - behalf of the church, can only mean that if we baptized, they are added to the church that we belong to, identified with that church. Saved and scripturally baptized are the only members of the church. Universal Invisible Church does not agree with, what they believe is that irregardless of your baptism, if you are saved, you are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body Of Christ - church. Thats the foundation of this false doctrine. Baptism of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts as mentioned in the Gospels, the administrator is Jesus Christ, the element is the Holy Spirit, and the one that is baptized is the church, not individual believers. It only happened twice, acts 2, Jews, and acts 10, Gentiles. That is the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. The universal invisible church, are the invention of Luther and Calvin, for that they were never baptized. The moment a church changed their doctrine in this, the church dies, it may have some few left, but it can no longer add anybody to the church. And as a pastors and missionaries, we should be careful about this. Otherwise the church that we are building is not Christ's - Matthew 16:18 . Another false church. I made it very brief, but please search carefully the scripture. The true local churches have no schism on this, in fact the more they help each other in sending missionaries. Take a look at the statement of faith of your church. From there you will know if you are a true baptist or a protestant baptist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-68704580548789185912016-11-27T14:37:54.478-08:002016-11-27T14:37:54.478-08:00What characteristics constitute a proper Baptist a...What characteristics constitute a proper Baptist assembly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-82457848265183852202016-01-28T13:33:38.895-08:002016-01-28T13:33:38.895-08:00Hi Terry,
Thanks for asking. Waite is universal ...Hi Terry,<br /><br />Thanks for asking. Waite is universal church. Waite hates local only ecclesiology. Waite is an English separatist. "Not a solid Baptist" is a good way to say that. He doesn't believe in the same view of Baptist history as we do, which to me is why I am a Baptist. I might consider being a good Roman Catholic, a very pure Catholic if I didn't believe in Baptist perpetuity.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26988160239675016532016-01-28T12:26:00.206-08:002016-01-28T12:26:00.206-08:00Why wouldn't you call waite a solid baptist?Why wouldn't you call waite a solid baptist?Terry Basham, IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15354045499775379475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-80761000039304832702015-12-12T09:06:04.678-08:002015-12-12T09:06:04.678-08:00Mark,
George doesn't have a biblical view of ...Mark,<br /><br />George doesn't have a biblical view of the Trinity, so you're not in good company with him here. I really can't go through all your articles to see what they say. Maybe Thomas Ross will want to do that, and I would be happy if he did, even though he doesn't have to do that. The Bible teaches a local only position. That the "true church" is "all believers" can't be shown from the Bible. You have to put that position in to get it out. The church is local only in the NT. Only something local only assembles, which is what the Greek word ekklesia means, "assembly."<br /><br />I might go over to the sites you linked to and deal with just a sample to see how it goes, if you want to interact.<br /><br />I respect D.A. Waite for a lot of reasons, but I don't see him as a "solid Baptist." Thanks for dropping by though.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-3200663711278727352015-12-12T08:34:12.781-08:002015-12-12T08:34:12.781-08:00Fellow brothers in Christ, good day to you. George...Fellow brothers in Christ, good day to you. George is actually "very correct" but I believe his point can be explained in another way which would be most helpful.By the way, I do attend a bible baptist church, and in time past was a pastor of a baptist church. All of this is my opinion, and I know some will disagree!!<br /> The following articles would be very beneficial for all to read: <br /> http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/lochurch/landmark.htm<br /> http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/begin.htm<br /> http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/1cor1213.htm<br /> http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/lochurch/beginjd.pdf<br /> http://www.bethelbaptistlondon.com/The%20Beginning%20of%20Baptism,%20Body%20and%20Bride.pdf<br /><br /> Now these articles/pdf's will help hopefully to explain why I believe there are problems with the so-called local church position.<br /> Also, Dr. D.A. Waite has some good articles on this subject, if you are interested, I will post or can send them to you. DA Waite and Jack Moorman are solid bapists who also believe in our king james bibleMark Amenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568103730630227515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-18774052443945118072013-10-21T08:15:07.436-07:002013-10-21T08:15:07.436-07:00George, if you practice any sort of separation fro...George, if you practice any sort of separation from erring brethren in your universal church, you are a schismatic. The only way to be truly consistent as a universalist is to join hands with all that calls itself Christian and sing kum baya with every wind of doctrine. Protestant fundamentalists oppose themselves in this matter greatly. It reveals their doctrine to be based on an unbiblical premise and their practice to be reactionary. The universal, invisible, mystical concept of "church" cannot be found anywhere in Scripture. This matter of a universal church (and a spirit baptism of regeneration) is the root difference between Protestants and the NT church (Baptists). It has nothing to do with salvation, but it has everything to do with the NT church. Protestants believe that "the church" is comprised of all who are saved. Baptists maintain that salvation is by grace but the church was appointed the executorship of the kingdom of God (Luke 22:29). Saved Christian brethren outside the NT church have always hated and despised the NT church. The fact that so many Protestant brethren call themselves "Baptist" creates great friction with those who despise the prime distinction of true Baptists. They feel that they only way to be rid of this is to castigate and misrepresent the distinction of the NT church - just as their Protestant brethren did for centuries. But the Lord promised the perpetuity of His church - and He did not make "church" and "Salvation" synonymous. We recognize the saving grace upon all who call upon Christ - regardless if they despise the Lord's church. <br /><br />Pastor Les Potter, Glenrock, WyomingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-10580099178100633542013-09-27T20:29:26.875-07:002013-09-27T20:29:26.875-07:00George - it's plainly apparent that you don...George - it's plainly apparent that you don't even understand the passages you try to appeal to to make your argument. <br /><br />Acts 2:46-47 - the church at this time was meeting in the temple (v. 46). This was their point of assembly. "House to house" is not indicating assembling for worship, but fellowship among church members day by day. You seem to be assuming that the breaking of bread is the referring to the Lord's Supper, when there is no contextual reason to think it is. <br /><br />Acts 14:27 - Exactly. Two local churches interacting as if they were...two local churches. Nothing here that even suggests any "mystical, invisible universal church."<br /><br />Acts 20:28 - local churches even today often have plural overseers (assistant pastors, anyone? An assistant pastor is still a pastor/bishop/overseer/elder). I'm not sure I see the significance you're trying to attach to a single local church in Ephesus having a pastoral staff.<br /><br />Romans 16 - the evidence does not support the argument you're trying to make. Indeed, the very fact that Paul twice specifies the churchES (plural) of Christ refutes your argument. There is absolutely nothing in those two verses that suggests any "corporate" action of some universal church. It means simply what it says it means - the various local churches that Paul was interacting with were greeting another local church. Nothing here demands, or even suggests, a universal church application. This is entirely of your own creation.<br /><br />Sorry, George, but your arguments are completely and utterly unconvincing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-45841162920922467312013-09-22T21:18:52.921-07:002013-09-22T21:18:52.921-07:00To all:
There is nothing in the bible that teache...To all:<br /><br />There is nothing in the bible that teaches a "local church" only position that separates the body of Christ into schisms, but rather it teaches individual local assemblies (the church) that are part of the whole (the church).<br /><br />-------------------------<br />Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.<br />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 a heathen man and a publican.<br /><br /> In this context, the church represents a local body of believers<br /><br />Acts 8:2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.<br />3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.<br /><br /> In this context, the church (singular) had been assembling in houses (plural).<br />============================<br /><br />Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.<br /><br /> The church is specified as the one which was at Jerusalem, BUT it says that that church (singular) was scattered abroad throughout... (plural)<br />=====================<br /><br />Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,<br />47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.<br /><br /> They broke bread from house to house (plural) and in this context he added to the church (singular) daily. <br />============================<br /><br />Acts 14:27 cf. 15:4<br /><br /> This is the church at Antioch (singular) sending forth Paul and Barnabas to the church at Jerusalem (singular).<br />============================<br /><br />Acts 20:17-28<br /><br />v28- Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.<br /><br /> The context is overseers (plural) that are to feed the church of God (singular).<br />==============================<br /><br />Romans 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.<br />Romans 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.<br /><br /><br />Here the church corporately (Paul is writing from Corinth and includes Corinth and ALL the Gentile churches) salutes the brethren in Rome which includes individual churches of households (v5, v10, v11, v14, v15)<br /><br />Conclusion:<br /><br />How one can come to a conclusion that the bible teaches ONLY individual local churches are separate assemblies apart from the whole teaches nothing less than a schism in the body of Christ. Each local assembly was not only subject one to another "locally", but it was subject one to another as THE church of God "corporately".The Preacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555338497068482867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-81198091894792057252013-09-20T09:30:16.278-07:002013-09-20T09:30:16.278-07:00I can't see how Bro. Cloud would reconcile the...I can't see how Bro. Cloud would reconcile the universal church position with the process of church discipline and reconciliation in Matt. 18, unless he wants to accept that the pope has the right to excommunicate someone, as the Catholics believe. I don't mean this comment to be sassy; I genuinely don't see how Matt. 18 can be taken universally *unless* someone goes full bore Romanist with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-37750342173716199002013-09-19T22:26:31.721-07:002013-09-19T22:26:31.721-07:00I must confess that I also found Bro. Cloud's ...I must confess that I also found Bro. Cloud's article very disappointing. Matthew 16:18 is an obvious example of a generic noun, 1 Corinthians 12:13 is considered water baptism by the general body of even universal church commentators before Chafer, and to say that unsaved people are members of local churches, so Ephesians 2 must be something else, ignores the fact that an unregenerate person is not truly baptized and therefore is not truly a member of the church, so to describe the church as an assembly only of the regenerate is exactly the truth.<br /><br />May many of God's people be strengthened by many great things Brother Cloud writes on many topics from the King James Version to separation to repentance, and avoid the damage of this article, which truly is simply the standard universal church position.KJB1611https://www.blogger.com/profile/09696273086955004524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83980717860693763872013-09-19T11:35:21.457-07:002013-09-19T11:35:21.457-07:00Thanks Jim and thanks Titus.
I'll be conti...Thanks Jim and thanks Titus. <br /><br /><br />I'll be continuing the critique.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-90654524153265190902013-09-19T10:02:34.366-07:002013-09-19T10:02:34.366-07:00Thank you for this response, Pastor Brandenburg, i...Thank you for this response, Pastor Brandenburg, it is very useful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-13407242058542178282013-09-18T07:20:42.986-07:002013-09-18T07:20:42.986-07:00I appreciate the rebuttal. I also enjoy & sup...I appreciate the rebuttal. I also enjoy & support Bro. Cloud. He has taken much grief over the years for unpopular positions against glaring errors among the brethren. That being said, I find more & more Baptist who are protestant in their ecclesiology. IMO, this is making the transition to emergent much easier for the hip & cool. When we are all part of a mystical spiritual church, then mere baptism in a physical church is of very little importance. If I remember correctly, Pendleton's "An old landmark reset" was an argument against having pedobaptist preachers in our pulpits. I suspect that the idea of accepting protestant baptism was so alien as to not be worth discussion (only my guess). <br /><br />Back to lurking<br />Jim CampAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com