Well, it’s like this… a long time ago a friend of mine told me that we wouldn’t remember anything from this life in heaven. I laughed at him and told him that when we get to heaven and I walk by him, I’d put one hand to the side of my face and hide my eyes from him, pretending he wasn’t there.

We can start practicing that now, eh?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Neverthless, I must say that it is quite an assertion to claim that the NT knows of no “Connection” between the churches other than apostolic authority.

I can see an argument that says the apostles’ office was unique and no one else ever received all of the authority/privilege they had.

I can see an arguement that says, since there are no more apostles living that we don’t have episcopacy.

However, for the life of me, I can’t see any basis for an argument that claims NT authority for the absence of any connection between congregations. The NT wouldn’t even be the NT if it weren’t for the connection of sharing the writings — and that’s just one of a number of connections.

Back to my original point, if there is NO connection then there is NOTHING to worry about in regards to separation — or even non-cooperation as you call it. If you determine that someone is a false teacher, of course you can warn your people away. But other than teaching and warning your congregation about other religions, the other guys are nothing to you, and you are nothing to them.

Very lonely. Very non-NT it seems.

Oh well, I’ll still treat you like we’re connected, even if you think we aren’t.

Peace

Well, we really don’t have time to go into it here, but the NT is pretty clear that the term ‘church’ almost always refers to a local body. It occasionally has a more universal and eschatological reference that is synonymous with the term ‘body’, but the NT knows of no connection between the individual churches except apostolic authority. That authority has not been passed down to anyone. We have no apostles today.

Anyway, I really don’t want to get sidetracked on that topic. I think you already know all these things, but if you don’t, read some Baptist works on ecclesiology and you will get more than enough information!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

If the many churches make up the one bride and the one body then how are they not connected?

one bride, one body, many churches!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I don’t have time to get into a long discussion on the matter, but . . .

Yes, I know that I am espousing an ecclesiology that is rejected by most baptists. And, I have no problem with it being identified with Augustine and the reformed — even though it is an ecclesiology accepted by almost all branches of Christianity other than the anabaptists and baptists.

As to the rest, does Christ have many bodies and brides or one?

Hi Keith,

Well, Kent is himself a little more … what shall we say? More snarky than usual these days?? See his blog.

In any case, with respect to ‘separation’, I agree that it isn’t actually being used with respect to its strict dictionary definition. I would prefer words like non-cooperation or something perhaps less unwieldy, but common usage has given us the term separation and I guess we are stuck with it.

And regarding your ecclesiological statements, you do know that you are espousing a Reformed/Augustinian form of ecclesiology that most Baptists reject, don’t you? 1 Cor 12 cannot be said to refer to the interdependence of churches but of individuals in a local church. There are four imperatives in Jn 17, all directed towards the Father. And so on…

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

There is no verse in scripture for the Trinity, for using a pulpit, for new members class prior to immersion in a heated tank, for translating the scriptures, etc. But, I assume you believe in the Trinity and do some of these other things.

True churches are independent the same way that my pinky is independent of my left leg. They are distinct entities (members) for sure, but they are nevertheless connected parts of one body (see Romans and I Corinthians as a start).

Additionally, this is not merely true in the indicative sense, it is also true in the imperative sense (see John 17). We are commanded to work to maintain this unity — to keep members from lopping themselves off.

Of course all of that is largely peripheral to my original point. That point was — you cannot separate from something to which you are not attached. So, if independency is what you claim it to be — there is no such thing as separation. Getting along or not getting along already exist as words and concepts (so do fellowship/lack of fellowship, conversation/cold shoulder, etc.). Separation is a word that implies the severing of a connection. Which, is impossible if there is no connection.

What you said was totally non-contributive, except as an insult.

Is there a verse in Scripture for formal association between churches? No. They are independent. How they get along or don’t get along is what we’re talking about.