Baptism is not the entrance into the Church?

**+Donny** · 02-20-2004, 12:21 PM

Here is a quote from Charles Hodge:

Quote:

We of course believe, 1 [sic] That the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are of divine appointment. 2. That they are of perpetual obligation. 3. That they are signs and seals of the covenant, and means of grace. 4. That the observance of them is a high duty and privilege, and consequently the neglect or want of them, a great sin or defect; but to make them essential to the church is to make them essential to salvation, which is contrary to Scripture. If baptism made a man a Christian, if it communicated a new nature which could be received in no other way, then indeed there could be no Christians and no church without baptism. But such is not the Protestant or scriptural doctrine of the sacraments. The Hebrew nation would not cease to be Hebrews, if they ceased to practice circumcision. They did not in fact cease to be the church, though they neglected that rite for the forty years they wandered in the wilderness, until there was not a circumcised man among them, save Caleb and Joshua. Yet far more is said of the duty and necessity of circumcision in the Old Testament than is said of baptism in the New. It is the doctrine of our church that baptism recognizes, but does not constitute membership in the church. Plain and important, therefore, as is the duty of administering and observing these ordinances, they are not to be exalted into a higher place than that assigned them in the word of God. Though the due celebration of the sacraments may very properly be enumerated, in one sense, among the signs of the church, we do not feel authorized or permitted by the authority of Scripture, to make such celebration essential to salvation or to the existence of the church. If any of our brethren should differ from us as to this point, it would not follow that they must reject the definition above given. For as the sacraments are a means and a mode of divine worship, the due celebration of them may be considered as included in that clause of the definition, which declares that a church is a society for the worship of God.

He says here that baptism is merely a sign of entrance into the church, and not the entrance into it. Comments?

Scott · 02-20-2004, 07:27 PM

Baptism and addition to the church must have been seperate, since in Acts 2:42 they are seperate acts.

If addition was inherent in baptism, why would it be mentioned again?

**+Donny** · 02-20-2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Baptism and addition to the church must have been seperate, since in Acts 2:42 they are seperate acts.

Then what does baptism do? The NT seems pretty clear that it unites us with Christ/the Church.

Quote:

If addition was inherent in baptism, why would it be mentioned again?

What?

Scott · 02-20-2004, 07:53 PM

To clarify:

If addition was merely part of baptism, why would it say the believers were baptised AND added?

**+Donny** · 02-20-2004, 10:57 PM

it isn't merely part of baptism. It is an effect of baptism.

bobthecockroach · 02-20-2004, 11:02 PM

Baptism is entrance into the church... baptism of the Spirit, that is. Why does everyone think baptism of water is the important thing? Baptism of water is a picture of baptism of the Spirit.

**+Donny** · 02-20-2004, 11:11 PM

The problem with such a belief is that the Church is then reduced only to the elect, which not only leaves us with the question of how we know who the Church is, but it also is in conflict with basic Covenant Theology.

bobthecockroach · 02-20-2004, 11:16 PM

Um... who else would the Church be BUT the elect? And why is there a problem?

John 13:35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

Was Jesus wrong?

Luke · 02-21-2004, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott

If addition was merely part of baptism, why would it say the believers were baptised AND added?

Why ought it not? I don't think you have a case.

Luke · 02-21-2004, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Um... who else would the Church be BUT the elect? And why is there a problem?

The visible church certainly =/= the elect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

John 13:35 "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

Was Jesus wrong?

I don't see how my above statement challenges Christ's words...

Mike Graham · 02-21-2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Donny

The problem with such a belief is that the Church is then reduced only to the elect, which not only leaves us with the question of how we know who the Church is, but it also is in conflict with basic Covenant Theology.

Only the saved are members of the true Church, as only the saved were truly part of Israel.

Mike Graham · 02-21-2004, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

The visible church certainly =/= the elect.

The way I am reading this thread, the visable church =/= "the Church"

**+Donny** · 02-21-2004, 02:35 PM

True Israel, sure, but Paul said "Not all Israel is Israel". Thus, in one sense, the "true" sense (in regards to election/regeneration), then not all of the visible church is "true". In another sense, however, Israel is Israel (why else would it be called Israel

). In this visible, objective sense, all baptized are members of the Church.

**+Donny** · 02-21-2004, 02:40 PM

Quote:

The way I am reading this thread, the visable church =/= "the Church"

The best way to describe it is either earthly/heavenly church, the heavenly being all the elect worshipping God in heaven, the earthly church being all the baptized, some being sheep and some goats, some excommunicated and some faithful, or the invisible/visible church to us. IOW, the "visible" church is visible to us in that membership is determined by the sacraments and excommunication. The "invisible" church is invisible to us because its membership is determined by regeneration. The problem with this distinction, however, is that you end up getting two churches if you do not define your terms carefully. There is one church, not two. One could say that the "invisible" church is eschatological, as it is all the eternally elect, while the "visible" is the church in history, as it corresponds to the progressive growth and sanctification of the Bride of Christ throughout history.

**+Donny** · 02-21-2004, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Graham

The way I am reading this thread, the visable church =/= "the Church"

I tend not to like the visible/invisible church distinction very much because if you are not careful with your definition, you end up with two churches, which is certainly not true (there are not two Brides). Basically, we have to understand the "visible" church as something we can see. Membership is determined by the sacraments and excommunication. The "invisible" church is just a way to note that some of the members of the church (visible) are regenerated and elect, while some are not. Thus, not all Israel is Israel in the sense that not all Israelites were truly faithful, elect followers of God. This doesn't mean they weren't Israelites at all, for they obviously were.

Two other ways I find that are good to distinguish between the visible/invisible is heavenly/earthly and historical/eschatological. The first basically says that the Church on earth, which is visible to us, contains both unelect and elect, the former being the blemishes on the Bride which must be removed by Christ's sanctifying washing of His Bride. Over history, the Bride is being sanctified. However, in heaven, the Church is perfect, with only the elect praising God.
The historical/eschatological distinction works much the same way. The "visible" church is seen as the historical Church, being sanctified and cleansed throughout history. The eschatogical Church (same church, different time) is the Church after the Second Coming, perfected and cleansed fully, with all the faithful in and all the unfaithful out. Thus, at the end of history, the heavenly nature of the Church is brought down to earth (the image of the New Jerusalem) in that the Church on earth is finally made perfect.