I’m curious just what it is about the Adventists that leads you to think they may be the true church you are looking for. Also, do you believe that if the Adventist Church is the true church then other churches are necessarily false ones?

I’m trying to figure out whether you intended this comment to be placed here on this post or not, and if so, to whom you are addressing it. I don’t mind answering; I’m just not sure of the correct context from which to answer you.

Thanks,

David

As I see it, David’s post on ecclesiology is an attempt to help us picture how the whole body of Christ is a witness to the world. He is not advocating giving up Baptist distinctives (such as believers Baptism, a regenerate church membership, or a congregational polity) to achieve a superficial unity. He is talking about recognizing other born again believers for who they are: fellow heirs in the Kingdom of God. The unique aspects of foreign missionary service has caused David to consider, more deeply than most of us, how Southern Baptists should relate to other Christians in advancing Christ’s Kingdom. This is a complex issue, and David has blogged about it more in the link he gave above: http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/historical-documents-baptist_29.html

Should a missionary resign the IMB just because he thinks outside the box or is exploring what he believes is a more complete ecclesiology? Should a missionary resign if he disagrees with some IMB policy, though he is willing to follow it as long as he is employed by the IMB? Should a missionary be allowed to have an opinion of how the Kingdom can best be advanced which is different than the majority view of the presently elected/appointed IMB BOT? C.B., I think you would answer “no”, “no”, “yes” to these questions. So while I can understand your concern about Baptist ecclesiology, I don’t understand the degree of your concern about David’s positions, except that you seem to be reading him quite differently than I do or else are projecting something onto what he has said which, if you read him closely, you will find isn’t actually there.

The Church in the New Testament

Unlike my dispensationalist brothers and sisters,[6] I believe that the church of the New Testament is essentially the same as the church in the Old, with some changes, of course. It is the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). It bears the same exalted titles given to Israel in the Old Testament (I Pet. 2:9f; cf. Ex. 19:6). The people of God are all one olive tree, a tree from which some branches (unbelieving Jews) have been broken off so that others (believing Gentiles) might be grafted in (Rom. 11:17-32). Promises given to Old Testament Israel are regularly applied to the church in the New Testament. Joel prophesied that God’s Spirit would one day be poured out on all people (2:28-32), a prophecy fulfilled by the new presence of the Spirit upon the Christians on Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21). Amos prophesied that God would rebuild the tabernacle of David (9:11f), and the Lord fulfills that prophecy by bringing Gentiles into the New Testament Church (Acts 15:16-18).

Of course there are also changes, because major events have taken place: the incarnation, earthly life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, God’s eternal son. The Aaronic priesthood, the “one priesthood” of the Old Testament, gives way to the new priesthood of Jesus himself, a priesthood disconnected from the Old Covenant in the way that the story of Melchizedek in Gen. 14 is disconnected from its historical context (Heb. 4:14-5:9, chapters 7-10). The earthly tabernacle and temple, the “central altar,” give way to the reality of which they are but shadowy images, the heavenly temple to which Christ brought his once for all sacrifice (Heb. 9:11-28). Similarly the feasts, the sacrifices, the distinctive garb, the dietary laws.

But what of unity? Did Jesus come to establish one church, as in the Old Testament, or many denominations? Does the Old Testament emphasis on church unity fall away with the coming of Christ? Certainly if that is the case, it is very difficult to imagine why it should be so. Jesus’ one sacrifice obviously eliminates the need for animal sacrifices, a central altar, a continuing human priesthood.[7] But why should it eliminate the need for unity among God’s people, that beautiful unity about which the Psalmist spoke so eloquently (Psm. 133)?

The need is still there. The New Testament is concerned about it as much as is the Old. Please consider the following:
1. As in the Old Testament, the New Testament believer worships at a central altar. For Christ himself fulfills the central altar of the Old Testament, and there is only one Christ (Acts 4:12, I Cor. 1:13, 8:6, Eph. 4:4-6). Same for the priesthood, the temple, the sacrifices. The church has a single location in one sense, though it is scattered throughout the earth; for it is seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Eph. 1:3, 20, 2:6, 3:10, 6:12).[8]

2. Jesus does come to build one church. “Church” is regularly used in the singular to refer to the whole New Testament people of God (Matt. 16:18; cf. Acts 2:47, 5:11, 12:5, I Cor. 10:32, 15:9, Gal. 1:13, Eph. 1:22, etc.).

3. The New Testament church is a unity of a higher order than that of Old Testament Israel. For in the new order, the great schism between Jew and Gentile is broken down. Jesus died not only for the Jewish nation but (as God had spoken– ironically through the wicked priest-prophet Caiaphas) “also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one” (John 11:51f). At Pentecost, Jews from many nations are united in Christ’s body; they participate with “one heart and mind,” (Acts 4:32). Later, Samaritans (Acts and Gentiles (Acts 10) are added, and the great wall comes down (Eph. 2:11-22, Gal. 2:11-5:26).

4. Other ways in which Scripture teaches church unity: (a) The New Testament images of the church: a temple, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the flock of the good shepherd, the branches of the vine, the people or family of God– all stress unity: unity in the above senses, but doubtless in many other ways as well. (b) There is one Spirit in which we have been baptized, who gives gifts to the church (I Cor. 12). (c) It is God’s love in Christ which binds us together (John 13:34f, I Cor. 13, I John 4:7ff). (d) There is one gospel (Acts 4:12), (e) one revelation (I Cor. 2:6ff), (f) one baptism (Eph. 4:5), (g) one Lord’s Supper (I Cor.10:17).

5. The New Testament uses “church” to designate not only the universal body of Christ (above), but also the Christians in a region (Acts 15:3), those in a city (Acts 11:22, 14:23, 18:22, Rom. 16:1, etc.), those worshiping together in a household fellowship (Rom. 16:5, I Cor. 16:19, Col. 4:15, Philemon 2), indicating unity among the Christians at various geographical levels.

6. The Lord gives his church a church government. There are first the apostles and prophets (Matt. 16:18, John 20:21, 23, Eph. 2:19-22, 4:11), but also evangelists, pastors and teachers (same verse). Elsewhere there are references in other terms to church leaders: elders (=bishops) and deacons (I Tim. 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9; cf. Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15:2ff, 22f, 20:17, 21:18, I Tim. 5:17). Obedience to such leaders is not an optional matter; it is God’s command (I Cor. 16:16, I Thess. 5:12f, Heb. 13:7, 17). We do not, therefore, have the option of choosing when we will or will not submit to the government of the church. This is Christ’s church, Christ’s church government. If we do not like it, we dare not set up our own government to rival his. Thus, Christ’s intention was to unite all his people under his officers. One Lord, one church, one church government.

7. Do denominations play any role in New Testament church government? Well, look up “denomination” in a concordance! You won’t find it there! More seriously, whether by “denomination” or by some other name, the New Testament says nothing at all about what we would today call denominations. Denominations, in the sense of groups of Christians who differ from other Christians by some distinctives of doctrine, practice, ethnicity, or historical background, play no role in New Testament church government[9].That is especially remarkable when we consider that there were many diversities in the early church that might have led its leaders to consider a “friendly” denominational division: great differences of ethnicity, languages, etc. But the New Testament seems to make a particular point of stressing that such differences are not to be the basis of divisions in the church (Acts 10, 11, Gal. 2, 3:28, Col. 3:11).

8. To carry the point even further: the New Testament rebukes the mentalities and practices which were later to produce denominational division in the church. These mentalities and practices are (a) autonomy: picking and choosing which leaders in the church will have one’s respect (I Cor. 1:10-17, 3:1-23); (b) factionalism: forming partisan groups in the church to advance the program (or supposed program) of one’s favorite leaders (same passages); (c) lust for power: seeking to be boss (Matt. 20:20-28, Acts 8:9-24, 20:30, Phil. 2:1-11, I Pet. 5:1-3, III John 9); (d) unwillingness to seek reconciliation (Matt. 5:23-26,[10]18:15-20, Rom. 12:18, Eph. 4:3, Phil. 2:1ff, 4:2, I Thess. 5:13, Heb. 12:14, James 3:17), (e) failure to maintain church
discipline: (Matt. 18:15ff, I Cor. 5); (f) inattention to doctrinal and practical purity: (I Tim. 4, 6:11-21, II Tim. 1:13f, 2:14-4:5, Titus, etc.); (g) failure to help fellow believers in need: (Matt. 25:31-46, III John.[11]

9. When Scripture speaks of the church as the body of Christ, it contrasts the harmonious working together of the parts of the body with “schism” or “division.” See I Cor. 12:25, in the context of I Cor. 12, Romans 12. The figure of the church as a temple points in the same direction (Eph. 2:21), as does that of the family (Eph.
4:6).

Love Wayne

I am not challenging David’s faith or calling as a missionary. I believe him to be a missionary. I believe him to be a brother. This difference here is not going to change that.

I have challenged him on a theological issue that is at the heart of being Southern Baptist; ecclesiology. Our ecclesiology is the very heart of our identity. I am no Landmarker, believing apostolic succession. (Baptist ecclesiology pre-dates such erroronous ideas by many, many years.) I also do not confuse the identity and accountability of the church universal with the church local.

If you have read what I have said you have seen I have no disrespect for David.

BTW, It would be a rare thing for an IMB missionary not to know where he is going to lay his head tonight. It is not a rare thing for many of them to not know if they will still have a head come morning. They are in the hands of God, but so are you.

Steven Sensenig, it is our military who may not know where they will lay their head tonight.

I read your posts. Please never forget hard men keep watch this night that you may sleep in peace. And if necessary they will kill other men to assure you of that peace. And may God grant them perfect accuracy that they may make “One shot, one kill” “first time, every time” until the enemy is dead or surrenders. Then maybe they can lay their heads down and rest when they come home. That is, if the nightmares of war will let them.

cb

You make my point. I believe David Rogers and Kevin Peacock and most others in this comment thread would agree with me in saying; “Baptist ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology.”

If they don’t; Well…there is the core of our problem.

cb