Why I am now a Baptist

[Amazing Grace]

Bill, I think we have been down this road before -- the visible church only has the sign to go by. If a person is not baptised he is visibly outside the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if he ise regnerated inwardly by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore a member of the invisible church, there is no way for the visible church to recognise him as one of God's people except by baptism.

I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..

The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXVIII
Every One Is Bound to Join Himself to the True Church

We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and outside of it there is no salvation...

The Visible Church is the Invisible Church worked out in time. On cannot work without the other. If one only had the invisible church, people would be chosen, but never come to repentance/faith, for then one embarks into the visible church. It is this relationship that makes the denial of one, detrimental to and tantamount to denying the other.

This is not to say that there isn't tares growing with the wheat. But during the already/not yet, this must be the case. There are exceptions to visible church=invisible church, but that is the rule by which we are to judge, and the kingdom God has established.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV
Of the Church

II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]
2. I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
3. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24
4. Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13
5. Eph. 2:19; 3:15
6. Acts 2:47

Well I will prematurely withold judgment on #3 of the WCF. The BC, of which I adhere to is saying that all who are batpized on profession are saved? This is new water for me, no pun intended.

Scripture proofs for # 3 honestly speak nothing of equating the kingdom of God with the visible church. At least I cannot see it. Now again do not hear what I am not saying Jeff, I am not saying one should not be part of a local assembly. What I am saying is this assembly cannot and does not equal the kingdom of God. If His Kingdom is not of this world, how can it be?

and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

How can one look at this scripture and say the local visible church equals the kingdom of God.

 

[Herald]

What I am saying is this assembly cannot and does not equal the kingdom of God. If His Kingdom is not of this world, how can it be?

Nicolas, the kingdom of God is not an all or nothing proposition. In other words, the kingdom does not have to be in all its unbridled glory for it to be present on earth. While nothing unclean has part in God's kingdom, the church represents the kingdom of God. Consider this:

1689 LBC 26:3

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

The invisible church is made up of visible saints (LBC 26:2), yet only those who are of faith are considered to be part of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is constituted by those who are heavenly citizens; temporarily displaced while on earth in our present estate. We are Christ's representatives. a glimpse of the full glory of the kingdom which is to come.

 

[Arch2k]

Mat 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
Mat 13:25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
Mat 13:28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
Mat 13:29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."’"

 

[DMcFadden]

[/QUOTE]

An individualistic sense of Baptism is really an individualistic sense of discipleship from a family perspective.

That we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is inescapable. Were it not in the Epistles, I am almost certain that many Baptists would deny this is a responsibility of parents because it really fits very poorly with an individualistic sense of discipleship.

The fact is, however, that it is impossible to train at all without reference to the God you serve. An adult who refuses to be trained is in a much different circumstance than the child who must be trained.

It is impossible then, for a child to not have his eyes and ears exposed to the Gospel by that Christian parent and, immediately, that places the child under obligation. He has heard. As I've studied Hebrews recently I have become increasingly concerned that too many place little emphasis on how perilous it is for those that have "tasted" of heavenly things to fall away from them.

Make no mistake about, even if a Baptist father refuses to acknowledge that his child is a disciple, his children will be judged as disciples some day.

The real question will be whether or not you'll be able to say that you were not guilty of their blood if you neglect to be earnest about their discipleship while they are in your charge. God is gracious not to leave us alone for that work but binds that child, life and death, to the Church that administers the means of Grace for their conversion and perfection in sanctification just as it does for all of us who are likewise needful.

Rich, of all people, you have been a member of a Baptist church where you should know that Baptists do NOT neglect evangelism and discipleship of children. Indeed, credo baptists often do so much Bible reading, Sunday School going, VBS attending, mid-week program promoting, Bible memorization programs, reading to them at night, purchasing Bible based and Christian themed DVDs, etc. that their children make a profession of faith as early as 3 or 4 years old. While baptism is typically delayed for some time after this (don't ask me to explain that one!), those kids are raised as believers.

And, while this raises a whole host of other problematic issues, I have seen young children receive communion on the basis of their profession of faith.

As I have freely admitted in manifold threads, I am no knee-jerk defender of things Baptist. Made up sacraments (e.g., infant dedication), delays between "accepting" Christ and experiencing Christian baptism, and the obvious problem of the Baptist assumption that a child is a non-believer despite the fact that in practice Baptist kids are treated much like Presbyterian kids give me fits. However, neither am I willing to pretend that Baptist "practice" is all that different from Presbyterian "practice" with regard to raising children in church.

Agreed Dennis but all this does is serve to highlight what is confessed on the one hand and practiced on the other. It makes sense for a free will Baptist to do all of these things but it doesn't really fit within a context that the children are presumed to be unregenerate until they prove otherwise. In other words, if they are, for all intents and purposes treated like disciples then why does everybody go out of their way to confess that they are not disciples? Since you're loathe to admit that they should be treated like disciples then what do you think the difference is between a disciple and a disciple?

I already noted in this thread that this activity goes on but it is really done "informally". That is to say that the Church sort of accidentally does it because (and rightly so) it would seem a terrible thing to all to simply ignore these little ones who happen to be tagging along with Mom and Dad every Sunday. If their status before God was really as some have argued here in the past, it would be more consistent to drop them off at a pagan friend's home on Sunday until such a time as they confess Christ.

But, as it is, the discipleship of children is generally vague. Pilgrim was very critical of the WLC 167 on improving your baptism which, for all intents and purposes, is the Book of Hebrews in a nutshell with all its warnings to persevere. Presbyterians are deliberate in their means of Grace for all in the congregation. All disciples are identified for what they are and the idea of "striving together" includes the child. We have catechisms designed for the old and the young in our Confessional documents.

Further, this points to a confusion in discipleship at large, which I alluded to earlier when initially answering Houston E's question. Baptists tend to view discipleship beginning at a definitive conversion with the sign designed to mark that conversion. One might get the impression that, in all of this, I deprecate the necessity for conversion. God forbid. The reason I find that model defective, however, is that it leads to presumption about conversion. If the baptized are the converted then there is not this need to fear lest any be found to be unbelieving. In fact, discipleship is a process and baptism simple marks the definitive point where the visible Church marks out that person as one who should be coming to Christ in faith and doing everything within its means to give to that disciple what he needs toward that end. Yes, God alone elects but the Church is visibly earnest toward that end with all disciples. Neither the oldest nor the youngest baptized member should become slack but all should be considering how they might stimulate one another toward love and good works, not forsaking the assembling together as some are in the habit of doing and all the more as they see the Day approaching.

Thus, Dennis, while I agree with you that the activity exists, it is really outside the boundaries (Confessionally) of where the Church actually "exists" since the children are not members of the Church, there is no formalized sense of how that should look since none of the passages in Scripture that teach about Covenant parenting apply any more, and, in fact, the discipleship of adults itself is undermined by a presumption born of a sign that grants far too much confidence to the Church and the individual that definitive conversion has taken place in the baptized.

Rich,

Thanks for an excellent and thoughtful reply. Your points are all worth interacting with but time will permit only a couple at this point.

I already noted in this thread that this activity goes on but it is really done "informally". That is to say that the Church sort of accidentally does it because (and rightly so) it would seem a terrible thing to all to simply ignore these little ones who happen to be tagging along with Mom and Dad every Sunday.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "informally" and "sort of accidentally." If you mean that it lacks coherent integration within the logic of the Baptist view of the church . . . I agree. That is one of the reasons I am on the PB and currently listening to Kim Riddlebarger's MP3 series on amillennialism after having just finished Palmer Robertson's MP3 on covenant theology. If, however, you are speaking programmatically, you are off by a mile. No pastor I know (certainly not me during 22 years of pastoral ministry before coming to my current ministry) takes children's ministry for granted. Indeed, the majority of my wife's job description relates to children's ministry. Indeed, one might argue that the average Baptist church probably devotes more professional staff resources to children's ministry than most Presbyterian congregations (largely due to size since many Presbyterian congregations are smaller without so much paid staff).

I would contend that the paradox of children's ministry in a Baptist church parallels the anomaly of "baby dedication." Virtually every Baptist church does it, despite the complete absence of Biblical warrant, in large part because not doing it leaves a huge hole (as paedo baptists all realize). If you want to say that Baptists are confused or inconsistent, no objection here. It simply seemed that you moved from the philosophical to the empirical and squeezed the data to fit your interpretation. Baptists take children as seriously as any Protestant. The proper question is why? How, based on their view of the church do they practice in such a contrariwise way?

If the baptized are the converted then there is not this need to fear lest any be found to be unbelieving.

That may be true in some of the old "once-saved-always-saved and baptism proves it" types. However, in the congregations I pastored (small, medium, and large), we NEVER assumed that baptism proved a person was a Christian. Indeed, Baptist labor so dilligently to evacuate the sacraments of any real meaning (our view of communion is somethings accused of being the "doctrine of the real absence"), that few would ever make the mistake of equating baptism with salvation. For a Baptist, baptist is done as an "ordinance" "just because Jesus 'ordered' us to do so." Unbaptized professing Christians are acting disobediently (e.g., gossip, slander, greed, lust, envy, etc.), but Baptists would generally not see their salvation as at risk. A baptized professor who lacked the indicia of obedience would be viewed as suspect of not being a disciple at all.

 

[danmpem]

I would contend that the paradox of children's ministry in a Baptist church parallels the anomaly of "baby dedication." Virtually every Baptist church does it, despite the complete absence of Biblical warrant

I am still investigating credo- and paedo- baptism, but one thing I am convicted of is that I am not dedicating my children.

 

[Herald]

I would contend that the paradox of children's ministry in a Baptist church parallels the anomaly of "baby dedication." Virtually every Baptist church does it, despite the complete absence of Biblical warrant...

I oppose baby dedication ceremonies, but believe it is biblical for parents to dedicate themselves as to the raising of their children.

Also, much of the criticism levied against Baptist churches in the area of "means of grace" is being corrected in confessional Baptist churches. These churches are a small but vocal minority in the larger Baptist church genre.

 

[KMK]

I never knew the kingdom of God was = to the visible church = baptism. Am I understanding this correctly? I certainly hope I am....SO before I heartly disagree with this, Ill wait for clarification..

The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXVIII
Every One Is Bound to Join Himself to the True Church



The Visible Church is the Invisible Church worked out in time. On cannot work without the other. If one only had the invisible church, people would be chosen, but never come to repentance/faith, for then one embarks into the visible church. It is this relationship that makes the denial of one, detrimental to and tantamount to denying the other.

This is not to say that there isn't tares growing with the wheat. But during the already/not yet, this must be the case. There are exceptions to visible church=invisible church, but that is the rule by which we are to judge, and the kingdom God has established.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV
Of the Church

II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]
2. I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
3. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24
4. Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13
5. Eph. 2:19; 3:15
6. Acts 2:47

Well I will prematurely withold judgment on #3 of the WCF. The BC, of which I adhere to is saying that all who are batpized on profession are saved? This is new water for me, no pun intended.

Scripture proofs for # 3 honestly speak nothing of equating the kingdom of God with the visible church. At least I cannot see it. Now again do not hear what I am not saying Jeff, I am not saying one should not be part of a local assembly. What I am saying is this assembly cannot and does not equal the kingdom of God. If His Kingdom is not of this world, how can it be?

and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

How can one look at this scripture and say the local visible church equals the kingdom of God.

This is great question for your elders. The 'wild wild west' of the PB Baptism Forum may not be the best place to flesh these things out if you are struggling with the proper subjects of baptism. People often play it 'fast and loose' around here and there might be more confusion than understanding.

(I am not implying that you are not knowledgeable. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on PB, in my opinion.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

NJB: Do Baptists believe that the Visible Church = the kingdom of God? I asked this question before, Rich pointed me to the confessions, but I obviously need a better answer. I honestly did not know they were equal, and I am not saying this to be wise or unbiblical. Many who say Lord Lord can enter the visible church, yet not enter the Kingdom of God, by baptism or profession or any other rubric.

No, not in the way you seem to be getting at. To say that the visible church is an exact representation of the invisible church (which I assume must be what you mean by "kingdom of God") is Romish.

What I am getting at is in response to Winzer's statement: The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, where I understnad the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ to mean the Kingdom of God spoken about by Christ. WHich he[winzer] says is entered upon by baptism into the visible church.

I believe the visible church is an instrument of the Kingdom of God. But I deny it IS the kingdom of God. To quote Augustine: "Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have." My fear is if this is the case, than anyone who finds fault with the visible church, is finding fault with God Himself. That is repugnant to me. Now the church is a vessel to bring people into the Kingdom of God, but not to bring them into the visible church as far as I see scripture speaking. John 3 says only those born anew, from above can see the Kingdom of God, which is within you.

I dont know, perhaps I am just confused.

The confusion stems from visible/invisible Church distinction that is different in Presbyterianism than Baptistic thinking.

Rev. Winzer is not stating that those who are Baptized are elect. That is apparently obvious to the casual observer of this thread. If you simply equate the Kingdom of God with the Elect then that is not what we Confess. I don't have much time to develop this (though it's been all through this thread) but the Kingdom is both visible and invisible. If we simply say that the Elect are in the Kingdom then the Kingdom of God on this Earth is completely invisible.

Yet, there is a visible administration of God's Kingdom on this Earth in the Covenant of Grace. Those that argue for an invisible Covenant of Grace must ultimately argue that Church membership is not membership in the Covenant of Grace and the Kingdom becomes completely invisible at that point.

Also, as I have noted, those in the visible Covenant of Grace are under obligation to the Gospel and to submit to the rule of the Elders within her boundaries. It is not Romish to insist that outside of God's Covenant of Grace there is no possibility of salvation and that Covenant has real, visible Sacraments and not merely ordinances that stand, theoretically, outside of it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I already noted in this thread that this activity goes on but it is really done "informally". That is to say that the Church sort of accidentally does it because (and rightly so) it would seem a terrible thing to all to simply ignore these little ones who happen to be tagging along with Mom and Dad every Sunday.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "informally" and "sort of accidentally." If you mean that it lacks coherent integration within the logic of the Baptist view of the church . . . I agree.

Well, yes, and "what I meant" was fleshed out in my response.

If the baptized are the converted then there is not this need to fear lest any be found to be unbelieving.

That may be true in some of the old "once-saved-always-saved and baptism proves it" types. However, in the congregations I pastored (small, medium, and large), we NEVER assumed that baptism proved a person was a Christian. Indeed, Baptist labor so dilligently to evacuate the sacraments of any real meaning (our view of communion is somethings accused of being the "doctrine of the real absence"), that few would ever make the mistake of equating baptism with salvation. For a Baptist, baptist is done as an "ordinance" "just because Jesus 'ordered' us to do so." Unbaptized professing Christians are acting disobediently (e.g., gossip, slander, greed, lust, envy, etc.), but Baptists would generally not see their salvation as at risk. A baptized professor who lacked the indicia of obedience would be viewed as suspect of not being a disciple at all.

More or less though I've heard more than a few Baptists (including Gene Cook in the Manata-Cook debate), argue that we no longer have to tell a man in the New Covenant to "know the Lord". That is to say, as the argument went, that once a person is converted (baptized?), you no longer need to tell them to believe the Gospel. I think this is perilous. This works itself out on the ground in a dangerous way when people start to confuse categories and shows the impossibility of working from the ideal. This dialogue you and I are having demonstrates how hard it is to figure out what visible discipleship looks like when all disciples are invisible.

Whether or not this is articulated this way, I am not saying that Baptists have a "once saved, only saved" mentality but a certain over-confidence exists with respect to baptism representing conversion from the very start. If the Church is visibly going to be so confident as to baptize those it believes are converted then this instills in all a certain sense that this has definitively occurred. Why is it, do you suppose, that Particular Baptists of the past would examine men for years before baptism to look for signs of true conversion? In my mind, this is consistent with a Baptistic understanding of the ordinance but is not what the Sacrament is for according to the Scriptures. I believe it flips around what baptism is intended for. I know this is the issue of debate but baptism should be at the beginning of the process when a man is interested in being a disciple and not at the end when you're convinced he's converted. The Church's Word and Sacrament are for sanctification and conversion. This is the crux of the difference.

 

[KMK]

If the Church is visibly going to be so confident as to baptize those it believes are converted then this instills in all a certain sense that this has definitively occurred.

Hmmmm...

Confessionally, we baptize those who profess to repent, believe and obey. Any confidence we have is in the biblical promises (or at least general principles) attached to such a profession.

LBC 29:2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Nicolas, the kingdom of God is not an all or nothing proposition. In other words, the kingdom does not have to be in all its unbridled glory for it to be present on earth. While nothing unclean has part in God's kingdom, the church represents the kingdom of God. Consider this:

I agree NJB. Perhaps I have derailed the thread somewhat and for that I apologize.

1689 LBC 26:3

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

The invisible church is made up of visible saints (LBC 26:2), yet only those who are of faith are considered to be part of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is constituted by those who are heavenly citizens; temporarily displaced while on earth in our present estate. We are Christ's representatives. a glimpse of the full glory of the kingdom which is to come.

This is what is confusing to me. I can give a 100% hearty amen to this becasue it does not, as the WCF that Bartel showed, equate the visible church equal with the Kingdom of God. I believe the Kingdom of God is here and is to come in its full glory. The Kingdom of God, to my limited understanding, is ONLY those blood bought, Born Anew (Spirit Baptism) Regenerated people. And the universe here and to come where Christ is the reigning King. I personally see no connection with baptism and the Kigdom of God. NAd none that the earthly visible assembly which contains both elect and reprobate to equal the Kigdom of God.

Again the visible church can point people/lead people into the Kingdom of God, but to declare it as one creates the error of triumphalism. Again to repeat the augustine quote:

"Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."

This is how I view it. Does that make me baptist? Or just wrong!!!!

 

[Herald]

Nicolas, the kingdom of God is not an all or nothing proposition. In other words, the kingdom does not have to be in all its unbridled glory for it to be present on earth. While nothing unclean has part in God's kingdom, the church represents the kingdom of God. Consider this:

I agree NJB. Perhaps I have derailed the thread somewhat and for that I apologize.

1689 LBC 26:3

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

The invisible church is made up of visible saints (LBC 26:2), yet only those who are of faith are considered to be part of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is constituted by those who are heavenly citizens; temporarily displaced while on earth in our present estate. We are Christ's representatives. a glimpse of the full glory of the kingdom which is to come.

This is what is confusing to me. I can give a 100% hearty amen to this becasue it does not, as the WCF that Bartel showed, equate the visible church equal with the Kingdom of God. I believe the Kingdom of God is here and is to come in its full glory. The Kingdom of God, to my limited understanding, is ONLY those blood bought, Born Anew (Spirit Baptism) Regenerated people. And the universe here and to come where Christ is the reigning King. I personally see no connection with baptism and the Kigdom of God. NAd none that the earthly visible assembly which contains both elect and reprobate to equal the Kigdom of God.

Again the visible church can point people/lead people into the Kingdom of God, but to declare it as one creates the error of triumphalism. Again to repeat the augustine quote:

"Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have."

This is how I view it. Does that make me baptist? Or just wrong!!!!

Nicolas, I don't know if that makes you Baptist (one can only hope!), but you're certainly in agreement with the Baptist view of the Kingdom. In this discussion we are approaching the Kingdom from a soteriological, ecclesiastical and eschatological perspective. This perspective does not mitigate God's dominion as the, "owner of the cattle on a thousand hills." God's rightful claim to creation is an aspect of His kingship, although that is not how we are approaching it in our discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If the Church is visibly going to be so confident as to baptize those it believes are converted then this instills in all a certain sense that this has definitively occurred.

Hmmmm...

Confessionally, we baptize those who profess to repent, believe and obey. Any confidence we have is in the biblical promises (or at least general principles) attached to such a profession.

LBC 29:2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.

I rest my case. Thank you for confirming my point.

 

[DMcFadden]

Whether or not this is articulated this way, I am not saying that Baptists have a "once saved, only saved" mentality but a certain over-confidence exists with respect to baptism representing conversion from the very start. If the Church is visibly going to be so confident as to baptize those it believes are converted then this instills in all a certain sense that this has definitively occurred.

I doubt that Baptists have as much confidence that baptism=conversion as paedo-baptists do that their covenant children are Christians. Again, I think we are dealing with empirical facts vs. logical conclusions. You are probably right that the Baptist view of the church leads rather naturally to make this presumptive assumption. However, in practice it does not work that way.

Why is it, do you suppose, that Particular Baptists of the past would examine men for years before baptism to look for signs of true conversion? In my mind, this is consistent with a Baptistic understanding of the ordinance but is not what the Sacrament is for according to the Scriptures.

Because they were better (i.e., more consistent) Baptists than the ones today for whom "Christian experience" is the all-important value, not biblical theology. Your posts on the Baptist topic often take on the quality of faulting Baptists for this or that failure in what their practice should be based on what they claim to believe. So who said they care what they claim to believe? Today, with a few notable exceptions, most Baptists inhabit the orbit of broad evangelicalism with all of its quirks and contradictions (except for those liberals in the mainline ABC, a smallish denomination of 1.3 million dwarfed by the huge SBC). For many of them, Baptist is just the name of the church they work at/worship at that is fiercely independent/autonomous, baptizes believers, and does make much of liturgy or sacraments. I concede that in the SBC, loyalty among both clergy and laity is another thing entirely.

Out here in CA, I don't know that too many people care about denominational loyalty, distinctives, or the original beliefs of the founders of their sect. Outside of the SBC, it is unusual, for example, to find a Baptist pastor who even attended a "Baptist" school. In So. Cal, for example, the percentage of ABC Baptists who came through ANY ABC seminary was less than 5%.

I believe it flips around what baptism is intended for. I know this is the issue of debate but baptism should be at the beginning of the process when a man is interested in being a disciple and not at the end when you're convinced he's converted. The Church's Word and Sacrament are for sanctification and conversion. This is the crux of the difference.

Very interesting point. Again, I am quite open to re-evaluating the whole Baptist thing in light of Scripture. Frankly, if there were more confessional Baptists around, it might not be so existentially pointed for me. However, in their absence, several varieties of Presbyterian are looking pretty good just now.

 

[Amazing Grace]

This is great question for your elders. The 'wild wild west' of the PB Baptism Forum may not be the best place to flesh these things out if you are struggling with the proper subjects of baptism. People often play it 'fast and loose' around here and there might be more confusion than understanding.

(I am not implying that you are not knowledgeable. You are one of the most knowledgeable people on PB, in my opinion.)

Brother Ken:

I am actually not anxious at all about this discussion. In fact, it may be the first time I have put thoughts into words regarding this subject. So there really is no struggle whatsoever on my part.

As an aside, Baptism threads seem to get the most latitude without getting an infraction resulting in suspension!!! Therefore, with my mouth, I better play in this sand box.

 

[Amazing Grace]

No, not in the way you seem to be getting at. To say that the visible church is an exact representation of the invisible church (which I assume must be what you mean by "kingdom of God") is Romish.

What I am getting at is in response to Winzer's statement: The person is thus received as a member of the catholic visible church, which is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, where I understnad the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ to mean the Kingdom of God spoken about by Christ. WHich he[winzer] says is entered upon by baptism into the visible church.

I believe the visible church is an instrument of the Kingdom of God. But I deny it IS the kingdom of God. To quote Augustine: "Many whom God has, the Church does not have. And many whom the Church has, God does not have." My fear is if this is the case, than anyone who finds fault with the visible church, is finding fault with God Himself. That is repugnant to me. Now the church is a vessel to bring people into the Kingdom of God, but not to bring them into the visible church as far as I see scripture speaking. John 3 says only those born anew, from above can see the Kingdom of God, which is within you.

I dont know, perhaps I am just confused.

The confusion stems from visible/invisible Church distinction that is different in Presbyterianism than Baptistic thinking.

Rev. Winzer is not stating that those who are Baptized are elect. That is apparently obvious to the casual observer of this thread. If you simply equate the Kingdom of God with the Elect then that is not what we Confess. I don't have much time to develop this (though it's been all through this thread) but the Kingdom is both visible and invisible. If we simply say that the Elect are in the Kingdom then the Kingdom of God on this Earth is completely invisible.

Yet, there is a visible administration of God's Kingdom on this Earth in the Covenant of Grace. Those that argue for an invisible Covenant of Grace must ultimately argue that Church membership is not membership in the Covenant of Grace and the Kingdom becomes completely invisible at that point.

Also, as I have noted, those in the visible Covenant of Grace are under obligation to the Gospel and to submit to the rule of the Elders within her boundaries. It is not Romish to insist that outside of God's Covenant of Grace there is no possibility of salvation and that Covenant has real, visible Sacraments and not merely ordinances that stand, theoretically, outside of it.

Can I believe there is a visible church/invisible church distinction, yet not equate the visible church with the kingdom of God? Therefore since the vc is not the KOG, then baptism by water, does not put one into the kog. Christ did not die for the visible church, He died for the invisible church. Therefore how can I with good conscious equate the title KOG with the reprobate?

 

[Amazing Grace]

Acts 8.12; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31
812But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized.

198He went into the synagogue and spoke there boldly for three months, holding discussions and persuading them about the kingdom of God.

2025"Now I know that none of you among whom I traveled preaching the kingdom will ever see my face again.

2823So they set a day to meet with him and came in large numbers to see him where he was staying. From morning until evening he continued to explain the kingdom of God to them, trying to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets.

2831He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom.


Perhaps I am going in the wrong direction. But it is impossible to put church in place of Kingdom in these and any other scriptures it is mentioned.


Jesus stated that "among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that he." (Matt. 11:11). This is in itself proof that the kingdom is not the "church".

1. Since Jesus says there is none born of women greater than John the Baptist, the greatest in the "church" is not as great as John the Baptist.
2. But he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that John the Baptist.
3. Therefore, the "church" cannot be synonymous with the kingdom.


Many who have joined the VC by baptism have subsequently fallen away. if the KOG = the Visible church by baptism, this argument requires that Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14) and Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9) are all greater than John the Baptist by virtue of being in the "church"

 

[Herald]

Acts 8.12; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31
812But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized.

198He went into the synagogue and spoke there boldly for three months, holding discussions and persuading them about the kingdom of God.

2025"Now I know that none of you among whom I traveled preaching the kingdom will ever see my face again.

2823So they set a day to meet with him and came in large numbers to see him where he was staying. From morning until evening he continued to explain the kingdom of God to them, trying to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets.

2831He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom.


Perhaps I am going in the wrong direction. But it is impossible to put church in place of Kingdom in these and any other scriptures it is mentioned.


Jesus stated that "among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that he." (Matt. 11:11). This is in itself proof that the kingdom is not the "church".

1. Since Jesus says there is none born of women greater than John the Baptist, the greatest in the "church" is not as great as John the Baptist.
2. But he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that John the Baptist.
3. Therefore, the "church" cannot be synonymous with the kingdom.


Many who have joined the VC by baptism have subsequently fallen away. if the KOG = the Visible church by baptism, this argument requires that Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14) and Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9) are all greater than John the Baptist by virtue of being in the "church"

Nicolas, be careful. You're sounding too much like a Baptist.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Acts 8.12; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31
812But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized.

198He went into the synagogue and spoke there boldly for three months, holding discussions and persuading them about the kingdom of God.

2025"Now I know that none of you among whom I traveled preaching the kingdom will ever see my face again.

2823So they set a day to meet with him and came in large numbers to see him where he was staying. From morning until evening he continued to explain the kingdom of God to them, trying to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets.

2831He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom.


Perhaps I am going in the wrong direction. But it is impossible to put church in place of Kingdom in these and any other scriptures it is mentioned.


Jesus stated that "among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that he." (Matt. 11:11). This is in itself proof that the kingdom is not the "church".

1. Since Jesus says there is none born of women greater than John the Baptist, the greatest in the "church" is not as great as John the Baptist.
2. But he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that John the Baptist.
3. Therefore, the "church" cannot be synonymous with the kingdom.


Many who have joined the VC by baptism have subsequently fallen away. if the KOG = the Visible church by baptism, this argument requires that Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14) and Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9) are all greater than John the Baptist by virtue of being in the "church"

Nicolas, be careful. You're sounding too much like a Baptist.

I have been called much worse NJB!!!! LOL

What I do know is Blood always trumps water. Blood is what puts one into the KOG, not all the water in world. God said When I see the blood, not when I see the water/circumcision...

I just feel very clear and yet confused in all of this..

 

[KMK]

Acts 8.12; 19.8; 20.25; 28.23, 31
812But when Philip proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, men and women believed and were baptized.

198He went into the synagogue and spoke there boldly for three months, holding discussions and persuading them about the kingdom of God.

2025"Now I know that none of you among whom I traveled preaching the kingdom will ever see my face again.

2823So they set a day to meet with him and came in large numbers to see him where he was staying. From morning until evening he continued to explain the kingdom of God to them, trying to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the Prophets.

2831He continued to preach the kingdom of God and to teach about the Lord Jesus Christ with perfect boldness and freedom.


Perhaps I am going in the wrong direction. But it is impossible to put church in place of Kingdom in these and any other scriptures it is mentioned.


Jesus stated that "among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that he." (Matt. 11:11). This is in itself proof that the kingdom is not the "church".

1. Since Jesus says there is none born of women greater than John the Baptist, the greatest in the "church" is not as great as John the Baptist.
2. But he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater that John the Baptist.
3. Therefore, the "church" cannot be synonymous with the kingdom.


Many who have joined the VC by baptism have subsequently fallen away. if the KOG = the Visible church by baptism, this argument requires that Demas (2 Tim. 4:10), Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14) and Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9) are all greater than John the Baptist by virtue of being in the "church"

Nicolas, be careful. You're sounding too much like a Baptist.

I have been called much worse NJB!!!! LOL

What I do know is Blood always trumps water. Blood is what puts one into the KOG, not all the water in world. God said When I see the blood, not when I see the water/circumcision...

I just feel very clear and yet confused in all of this..

Maybe that's because we are on page 10!

 

[Mayflower]

I just feel very clear and yet confused in all of this..

Dear Amazing grace,

What do you think of this ?:

The kingdom is NOT the church. The apostles went about preaching the kingdom of God (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 28:23); it is impossible to substitute "church" for "kingdom" in such passages. However, there is an inseparable relationship. The church is the fellowship of men who have accepted His offer of the kingdom, submitted to its rule, and entered into its blessings. The kingdom was offered to Israel (Matt. 10:5-6), who because of their previous convenantal relationship to God were "sons of the kingdom" (Matt. 8:12), its natural heirs. However, the offer of the kingdom in Christ was made on an individual basis in terms of personal acceptance (Mark 3:31-35; Matt. 10:35-35) rather than in terms of the family or nation. Because Israel rejected the kingdom, it was taken away and given to a different people (Matt. 21:43), the church.

Thus we may say that the kingdom of God creates the church. The redemptive rule of God brings into being a new people who receive the blessings of the divine reign. Furthermore it was the activity of the divine rule which brought judgment upon Israel. Individually the kingdom means either salvation or judgment (Matt. 3:11); historically the activity of the kingdom of God effected the creation of the church and the destruction of Israel (Matt. 23:37-38). This is probably the meaning of Mark 9:1. Within the lifetime of the disciples the kingdom of God would be seen manifesting its power in bringing a historical judgment upon Jerusalem and in creating the new people, the church. Paul announced the rejection of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles (I Thess. 2:16; Acts 28:26-28). However, the rejection of Israel is not permanent. After God has visited the Gentiles, He will regraft Israel into the people of God, and "so all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:24-26), receive the kingdom of God, and enter into its blessings (see Matt. 23:39; Acts 3:19-20).

The kingdom also works through the church. The disciples preached the kingdom of God and performed signs of the kingdom (Matt. 10:7-8; Luke 10:9, 17). The powers of the kingdom were operative in and through them. Jesus said that He would give to the church the keys of the kingdom of heaven with power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19). The meaning of the keys is illustrated in Luke 11:52. The scribes had taken away the key of knowledge, i.e., the correct interpretation of the OT. The key of understanding the divine purpose had been entrusted to Israel; but the scribes had so misinterpreted the oracles of God delivered to them (Rom. 3:2) that when Messiah came with a new revelation of God's kingdom, they neither entered themselves nor allowed others to enter. These keys, along with the kingdom blessings, are to be given to the new people who, as they preach the good news of the kingdom, will be the means of binding or loosing men from their sins. In fact, the disciples had already used these keys and exercised this authority, bringing men the gift of peace or pronouncing the divine judgment (Matt. 10:13-15).

The kingdom is God's deed. It has come into the world in Christ; it works in the world through the church. When the church has proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom in all the world as witness to all nations, Christ will return (Matt. 24:14) and bring the kingdom in glory.

Definition: kingdom, kingdom of God, kingdom of Christ, kingdom of heaven

 

[Pilgrim]

I would contend that the paradox of children's ministry in a Baptist church parallels the anomaly of "baby dedication." Virtually every Baptist church does it, despite the complete absence of Biblical warrant

I am still investigating credo- and paedo- baptism, but one thing I am convicted of is that I am not dedicating my children.

I wouldn't agree that virtually every Baptist church does it. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that many larger Baptist churches do it. There are a good many that I know of that do not and would not practice this innovation.

 

[Arch2k]

Mat 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
Mat 13:25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
Mat 13:28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
Mat 13:29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."’"

Can I believe there is a visible church/invisible church distinction, yet not equate the visible church with the kingdom of God? Therefore since the vc is not the KOG, then baptism by water, does not put one into the kog. Christ did not die for the visible church, He died for the invisible church. Therefore how can I with good conscious equate the title KOG with the reprobate?

Amazing Grace,

The scriptures declare that the kingdom of God is the wheat growing with the tares. It will not always be that way, but for now it is. How would you explain the parable I quoted above?

Here is John Gill's (a baptist btw) explanation:

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: by "the kingdom of heaven", is not meant the ultimate glory of the saints in heaven, or the state of happiness in the other world; for there will be no tares there; nor the Gospel, and the ministration of it, but the Gospel dispensation, and times, and kingdom of the Messiah; or rather the Gospel visible church state, on earth, called a "kingdom", of which Christ is king, and in which the saints are subject to him; where proper laws are made for the orderly government of it, and proper officers appointed to explain, and put those laws in execution; and which consists of various persons, united under one head, and independent of any other government: and it is styled the kingdom of heaven, in distinction from the kingdoms of this world; the subjects of it are, or should be, heaven born souls; the word, laws, and ordinances of it are from heaven; and there is some resemblance between a Gospel church state and heaven, and it is very near unto it, and is even the suburbs of it: or else the king Messiah himself is intended, who is compared to a man, a sower; and so it is explained, Mat_13:37 "he that soweth the good seed is the son of man": which is a name and title of the Messiah, by which he is called both in the Old and New Testament; who, though the seed of the woman, yet was the son of man, as of Abraham, and David; and which denotes the truth, and yet the infirmity of his human nature: he is the sower that went about preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, in the Jewish world, or throughout Judea and Galilee, in his own person: and who also, by the ministry of his apostles, sowed the seed of the word in the several parts of the world, which was made effectual for the beginning of a good work of grace on the souls of many; for by "his field" is meant "the world", as appears from Mat_13:38 and means either the whole world, in which both good and bad men live and dwell; and is the field Christ is the proprietor of, both by creation, as God, and by gift, as mediator: or the church, the visible Gospel church state throughout the world; which is as a field well tilled and manured; and is Christ's by gift, purchase, and grace: and by the good seed sown in it, are meant "the children of the kingdom"; as is said, Mat_13:38 such as have a good work begun in them, and bring forth good fruit in their lives and conversations.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Mat 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
Mat 13:25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
Mat 13:26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
Mat 13:27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
Mat 13:28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
Mat 13:29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."’"

Can I believe there is a visible church/invisible church distinction, yet not equate the visible church with the kingdom of God? Therefore since the vc is not the KOG, then baptism by water, does not put one into the kog. Christ did not die for the visible church, He died for the invisible church. Therefore how can I with good conscious equate the title KOG with the reprobate?

Amazing Grace,

The scriptures declare that the kingdom of God is the wheat growing with the tares. It will not always be that way, but for now it is. How would you explain the parable I quoted above?

Here is John Gill's (a baptist btw) explanation:

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: by "the kingdom of heaven", is not meant the ultimate glory of the saints in heaven, or the state of happiness in the other world; for there will be no tares there; nor the Gospel, and the ministration of it, but the Gospel dispensation, and times, and kingdom of the Messiah; or rather the Gospel visible church state, on earth, called a "kingdom", of which Christ is king, and in which the saints are subject to him; where proper laws are made for the orderly government of it, and proper officers appointed to explain, and put those laws in execution; and which consists of various persons, united under one head, and independent of any other government: and it is styled the kingdom of heaven, in distinction from the kingdoms of this world; the subjects of it are, or should be, heaven born souls; the word, laws, and ordinances of it are from heaven; and there is some resemblance between a Gospel church state and heaven, and it is very near unto it, and is even the suburbs of it: or else the king Messiah himself is intended, who is compared to a man, a sower; and so it is explained, Mat_13:37 "he that soweth the good seed is the son of man": which is a name and title of the Messiah, by which he is called both in the Old and New Testament; who, though the seed of the woman, yet was the son of man, as of Abraham, and David; and which denotes the truth, and yet the infirmity of his human nature: he is the sower that went about preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, in the Jewish world, or throughout Judea and Galilee, in his own person: and who also, by the ministry of his apostles, sowed the seed of the word in the several parts of the world, which was made effectual for the beginning of a good work of grace on the souls of many; for by "his field" is meant "the world", as appears from Mat_13:38 and means either the whole world, in which both good and bad men live and dwell; and is the field Christ is the proprietor of, both by creation, as God, and by gift, as mediator: or the church, the visible Gospel church state throughout the world; which is as a field well tilled and manured; and is Christ's by gift, purchase, and grace: and by the good seed sown in it, are meant "the children of the kingdom"; as is said, Mat_13:38 such as have a good work begun in them, and bring forth good fruit in their lives and conversations.

Pretty much how I understand it. The VC is PART of the Kingdom on earth, yet not equal to it. They qre related as MAyflower posted the quote, but not equal to it. The relation is ONLY from a Sovereign standpoint. ANd it is the proclamation of the Word that brings people in, not water.(To the VC) only His blood brings one into the KOG/KOH

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Nicolas,

You're confusing the idea the the visible Church is part of the Kingdom of Heaven with the idea that they are co-extensive.

You are still confused on the visible/invisible distinction.

Nobody is saying, as the Romanist does, that baptism confers the benefits of union with Christ and eternal salvation that can be lost or that the boundaries of the Kingdom on earth begin and end with the rule of a particular visible Church. Union with Christ is apprehended by faith alone by the elect alone. We do believe that the graces signified in baptism are enjoyed by the elect.

But there is yet a visible administration of the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth in the visible Church and it goes beyond simply the fact that the elect just happen to be in the Church.

Are ministers of the Gospel, Christ's ministers, or are they just ministers for the Church? What is the difference in your mind as the Church is Christ's or maybe the Church isn't Christ's in your estimation? Does the Commission of Christ simply apply to the Apostles or did it apply to the Church and, if to the Church, have they not been Commissioned by the King and are an extension of His rule? Hence, the Kingdom does have a visible presence on the Earth, which includes ministers who are, in some cases, not part of the elect themselves.

Further, who is to be called to obedience to the Kingdom of Heaven? By your reasoning, it seems that nobody in the visible Church should be praying "...thy Kingdom come, thy will be done..." for those outside of this invisible ideal are not a part of this Kingdom.

Lastly, how is there any visible authority left for a minister once his Commission from the King has been denied and once we cast doubt on who the members of the Kingdom are? In other words, do people in the visible Church have any responsibility to submit to their Elders if they are not members of the Kingdom? Why do members of the Church have to submit to the Elders of a Church and this is not the case of men outside the Church? What rule do they have that is distinct from the idea, at large, that all men have to bow the knee to Christ?

Frankly, Nicolas, you need to learn how to understand things with greater depth and greater nuance. Whether you agree with Biblical (read Reformed) definitions or not, it is incredibly ignorant to call the Reformed understanding of the Church Triumphalism. Yes, we provide leeway for discussion in this forum without infraction on the basis of Confessional arguments. Because the LBCF clashes drastically with the 3FU and Westminster sparks fly but that is appropriate for the Confessions. What is not appropriate is someone standing as an independent here, who does not understand the position, and then shoots off and calls it Triumphalism when it is noted that Christ still has visible ambassadors in this world and has a reign and rule here that requires that those in His Church recognize that rule and submit to it. It is the height of folly to suppose that a minister can encourage the elect in his congregation to heed all these things and ask the reprobate to disregard.

 

[MW]

1. Kingdom and Church. They are slightly different concepts from an exegetical standpoint, and have overlapping reference points. "Kingdom" is used to refer to God's rule in terms of the here and hereafter, and has different aspects relative to providence (the kingdom of power), salvation (the kingdom of grace), and the eschaton (the kingdom of glory). "Church" is used to specifiy the community of God's people, and is defined in terms either of its relationship to the world (visible) or its relationship to God (invisible). The "kingdom" overlaps the "church" at the point where God's rule becomes visible on earth in the community of His people, Matthew 16:18, 19. It is on this basis that reformed theology has traditionally maintained the valuable truth that the catholic visible church is the kingdom of Christ on earth. Failure to acknowledge this truth leaves the kingdom of Christ without any gate through which to enter into it.

2. Church and Baptism. The significance of baptism and its relation to the church is clearly taught in Matthew 3:13-15, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."

(1.) By means of baptism Christ identified with His people, and by means of it His people are identified with Him. This is further shown from the foot washing of John 13, especially verse 8, "If I wash thee not thou hast no part with me." It is also taught in the various New Testament epistles where the visible church is repeatedly exhorted to be and act according to what baptism represents.

(2.) Baptism is necessary to "fulfil all righteousness," not by any inherent power in it to effect salvation, but by the divine command which mandates baptism as an outward sign of the righteousness of God in Christ. Hence the apostles, in preaching the gospel to every creature, were to require baptism in order to be saved, Mark 16:16; and this is precisely what the apostles did, e.g., Acts 2:38.

Hence, apart from baptism, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. God may choose to suspend His own means and save a person apart from baptism, but the church has no way of knowing where or when this takes place; therefore the ministry operates on the basis that those who are baptised are received as members of the visible church, and leaves the question of invisible church membership to the Searcher of hearts and the One who knows who are His.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Nicolas,

You're confusing the idea the the visible Church is part of the Kingdom of Heaven with the idea that they are co-extensive.

You are still confused on the visible/invisible distinction.

Nobody is saying, as the Romanist does, that baptism confers the benefits of union with Christ and eternal salvation that can be lost or that the boundaries of the Kingdom on earth begin and end with the rule of a particular visible Church. Union with Christ is apprehended by faith alone by the elect alone. We do believe that the graces signified in baptism are enjoyed by the elect.

But there is yet a visible administration of the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth in the visible Church and it goes beyond simply the fact that the elect just happen to be in the Church.

Are ministers of the Gospel, Christ's ministers, or are they just ministers for the Church? What is the difference in your mind as the Church is Christ's or maybe the Church isn't Christ's in your estimation? Does the Commission of Christ simply apply to the Apostles or did it apply to the Church and, if to the Church, have they not been Commissioned by the King and are an extension of His rule? Hence, the Kingdom does have a visible presence on the Earth, which includes ministers who are, in some cases, not part of the elect themselves.

Further, who is to be called to obedience to the Kingdom of Heaven? By your reasoning, it seems that nobody in the visible Church should be praying "...thy Kingdom come, thy will be done..." for those outside of this invisible ideal are not a part of this Kingdom.

Lastly, how is there any visible authority left for a minister once his Commission from the King has been denied and once we cast doubt on who the members of the Kingdom are? In other words, do people in the visible Church have any responsibility to submit to their Elders if they are not members of the Kingdom? Why do members of the Church have to submit to the Elders of a Church and this is not the case of men outside the Church? What rule do they have that is distinct from the idea, at large, that all men have to bow the knee to Christ?

Frankly, Nicolas, you need to learn how to understand things with greater depth and greater nuance. Whether you agree with Biblical (read Reformed) definitions or not, it is incredibly ignorant to call the Reformed understanding of the Church Triumphalism. Yes, we provide leeway for discussion in this forum without infraction on the basis of Confessional arguments. Because the LBCF clashes drastically with the 3FU and Westminster sparks fly but that is appropriate for the Confessions. What is not appropriate is someone standing as an independent here, who does not understand the position, and then shoots off and calls it Triumphalism when it is noted that Christ still has visible ambassadors in this world and has a reign and rule here that requires that those in His Church recognize that rule and submit to it. It is the height of folly to suppose that a minister can encourage the elect in his congregation to heed all these things and ask the reprobate to disregard.

Rich:

Mayflower posted something I give a cursory Amen to. If I have to change my subscription policy, I will certainly do that. Here "tis.

The kingdom is NOT the church. The apostles went about preaching the kingdom of God (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 28:23); it is impossible to substitute "church" for "kingdom" in such passages. However, there is an inseparable relationship. The church is the fellowship of men who have accepted His offer of the kingdom, submitted to its rule, and entered into its blessings. The kingdom was offered to Israel (Matt. 10:5-6), who because of their previous convenantal relationship to God were "sons of the kingdom" (Matt. 8:12), its natural heirs. However, the offer of the kingdom in Christ was made on an individual basis in terms of personal acceptance (Mark 3:31-35; Matt. 10:35-35) rather than in terms of the family or nation. Because Israel rejected the kingdom, it was taken away and given to a different people (Matt. 21:43), the church.

Thus we may say that the kingdom of God creates the church. The redemptive rule of God brings into being a new people who receive the blessings of the divine reign. Furthermore it was the activity of the divine rule which brought judgment upon Israel. Individually the kingdom means either salvation or judgment (Matt. 3:11); historically the activity of the kingdom of God effected the creation of the church and the destruction of Israel (Matt. 23:37-38). This is probably the meaning of Mark 9:1. Within the lifetime of the disciples the kingdom of God would be seen manifesting its power in bringing a historical judgment upon Jerusalem and in creating the new people, the church. Paul announced the rejection of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles (I Thess. 2:16; Acts 28:26-28). However, the rejection of Israel is not permanent. After God has visited the Gentiles, He will regraft Israel into the people of God, and "so all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:24-26), receive the kingdom of God, and enter into its blessings (see Matt. 23:39; Acts 3:19-20).

The kingdom also works through the church. The disciples preached the kingdom of God and performed signs of the kingdom (Matt. 10:7-8; Luke 10:9, 17). The powers of the kingdom were operative in and through them. Jesus said that He would give to the church the keys of the kingdom of heaven with power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18-19). The meaning of the keys is illustrated in Luke 11:52. The scribes had taken away the key of knowledge, i.e., the correct interpretation of the OT. The key of understanding the divine purpose had been entrusted to Israel; but the scribes had so misinterpreted the oracles of God delivered to them (Rom. 3:2) that when Messiah came with a new revelation of God's kingdom, they neither entered themselves nor allowed others to enter. These keys, along with the kingdom blessings, are to be given to the new people who, as they preach the good news of the kingdom, will be the means of binding or loosing men from their sins. In fact, the disciples had already used these keys and exercised this authority, bringing men the gift of peace or pronouncing the divine judgment (Matt. 10:13-15).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Nicolas,

You're confusing the idea the the visible Church is part of the Kingdom of Heaven with the idea that they are co-extensive.

The kingdom is NOT the church.

Case closed.