The church is built by and belongs to Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:18.
The church has members who are added to it by God, Acts 2:47.
The church brings glory to God, Ephesians 3:21.
The church has been purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ, Acts 20:28.
The church is the pillar and ground of the truth, I Timothy 3:15.
The church is the bride of Christ, Ephesians 5:23-32.
The church assembly should not be forsaken, Hebrews 10:25.
22 comments:
R. L.,
I don't think we can emphasize Acts 2:47 enough. When someone joins our church I always make a point to remind our folks that God is the One who has added this person or family to His church at Lewisville Baptist.
Thanks for the reminders.
BTW, a good book on church attendance is "Church, Why Bother?" by Philip Yancey.
Les
Amen to the Lord adding to the church.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I've only bought one book by Yancey -- on death/grieving. So I'm not very familiar with him.
I've been told that Yancey is a great author, but my experience with his writing is limited.
I constantly remind the members of Ebenezer Baptist Church that God adds to the body. That sure knocks us down a few levels!
We say that "God" adds new members to the Church, but we're talking about God The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit's first work IN us is Salvation. (The drawing to the Father is a work outside of us, not the indwelling of Salvation.) So, to say that the Holy Spirit saves us, but then adds us to the Church later (a second act) is not supported in scripture, not by verse. The adding to the Church takes place at Salvation, it is not a second act of the Spirit in the life of the beliver. The "joining" thing is simply not scriptual, nor is the "placing of membership". We are 'of the body' when we are saved. Nobody "joins our church." They are either members of the body (of God The Spirit), or they are not. Saved believers, members of the body, may desire to participate/associate directly with our local assembly, but they do not join the Body then. Yes, I'm talking about what is often called "the universal Church". If ONE instance of "joining" or "placing membership" (from one church to another) can be shown to have happend in scripture, I'll go along with this 'joining', 'rejoining', 'placing of membership', 'replacing of membership' stuff. It's not there, brothers. 'Associate' would be a better term than "membership" or "joining". There are members of the Church who, for a number of reasons, should not associate/participate directly in the affairs of the local assembly, but they are still members of The Body of Chirst. I have never come across any distinction made in the NT between a saved believer who is not in the Body, and a saved believer who is; only a distinction made between those directly participating/ associating with a local assembly and those who are not. Thoughts?
Dear Bro. or Sis. Anon,
Thanks for again posting your thoughts. You ask for thoughts about your statements concerning "adding to the church".
Here are mine briefly and in a nutshell. I think regardless of what one believes about the Holy Spirit adding persons to a universal church through salvation, that cannot be found in the context of Acts 2:47.
Acts 2:41-47 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
The word "added" (Gk. prostithemi, to join to, gather with any company, the number of one's followers or companions) used in verse 47 is the same used in verse 41. These 3000 received the word and were baptized and were added to "them" (the some 120 mentioned in chapter 1 and following). This adding continued daily as the Lord added to the church (assembly, congregation) those that were being saved. To me the context is clear that the adding was to the visible disciples at Jerusalem, and that "the saved" were not even then limited to the congregation there.
We are misguided when we think that God adds us to congregations. He does no such thing. He adds us to the universal congregation of the saved, but we join local groups. When a group does not recognize other groups of disciples whom the Lord has saved and added, that group is sectarian. As a sect it maintains its own separate identity protected by its own distinct set of doctrines. The Lord does not add the saved to separate, dissociating groups. We join them. We form them. We perpetuate them. But that is not the will of the Lord. To say the least, if the Lord adds his saved to those distinct churches, it is an affront to God for us to reject any group into which he adds the saved.
We are faced with a reality here that we have not dealt with honestly. If God adds us to congregations when he saves us, then he either adds us to (1) congregations that are in fellowship with other congregations, or (2) congregations that reject others. If God adds the saved only to the Central Baptist church and others of its kind which he recognizes as his true church, then he breaks his promise in refusing to give salvation to others who obey the same gospel at the Northside Baptist, Southside Baptist, Eastside Baptist, and Westside Baptist churches and others of their kinds. If God adds the saved to these five kinds of churches, then he either approves of them or has made a grievous mistake in adding the saved to sectarian divisions. If God adds the saved to these five kinds of churches and then those churches reject each other, they have made the grievous mistake of becoming divisive and sectarian.
The Lord adds the saved to his one body, the church, which is not identified by any of the proper names with which we have become familiar. All who are saved are in (and constitute) the church of Christ. Many of those who are saved then become members of a group denominated as a Baptist, Methodist, Church of Chirst, Catholic, church. Such a procedure is not directed by the Scriptures. If this Baptist Church dissociates itself from other groups of the saved, it becomes a sect. We have been misguided woefully in thinking that being in a certain church is equivalent to being in the church of Christ. The Lord adds us to his universal church by his choice and action, but we join a certain church/denomination by our own choice and action.
My challenge: I will join your church if you will show me from the Bible how to do it. I want to do what the Bible teaches; so, if it tells me how to get into the church of which you are a member, I'll join it!
("The saved" in Jerusalem were added to THE Church (body of Christ), and some probably joined the local congregation of THAT Church there in Jerusalem. You cannot show me with Acts 2:41-47 that this is not the case; neither can I use these verses to prove my position.)
Anon,
Wow. You have really misapplied some thoughts to this argument. First, you are not saved into the body of Christ (i.e., "universal church"). When you are saved, you become a "member" of God's family not a "member" of His church(es).
Secondly, and this is an honest question, do you believe in a dualistic teaching of the church (universal church, yet it functions on a local level as well)? This would help me explain my belief on this issue to you too.
Dear friend Anon,
I am under no illusion that I can show you anything about Acts 2:41-47. At this time I happily under the persuasion that Acts 2:41 and 2:47 refer to the same kind of event -- Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls...And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. They, who were receiving His word and being baptized, were added to them, the disciples at Jerusalem. Should I receive new light on the matter, I will be happy to change.
There are some assumptions in your arguments to which I cannot agree. For example, you say, "The Lord does not add the saved to separate, dissociating groups" as if you are assuming that I am arguing that God does add the saved to separate, dissociating groups. Also, you note, "God...either adds us to (1) congregations that are in fellowship with other congregations, or (2) congregations that reject others." Why must it be either/or? Could it not be both? Or something else? But, however one answers the above doesn't really matter anyway, since you presuppose that God does not add anybody to any body. Did the disciples of the New Testament reject some who claimed to be disciples? If so, was that sectarian?
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but your argument almost seems to reject the idea of visible congregations of the Lord's people. Do you assemble with the Lord's people?
Finally, you want to know how in the Bible we find how to "join" an assembly of God's people. I'm thinking perhaps you are the same anonymous who posted about "joining the church" on the Curious take on communion comment thread. (BTW, I have no objection to your remaining anonymous, but if you will adopt a "screen name" it will help me follow your discussion better as you contribute to the thoughts on this blog.)
Anyway, at that time you or that person rejected the example of Paul "joining" the disciples at Jerusalem. Here you reject the example of disciples being added to the church at Jerusalem. So you insulate yourself from some of the very Scriptures that would instruct us on the matter. As I said on the other thread, I have no interest in defending all the nuanced modern practices that have grown up around church membership and "how to" join a church. But New Testament Christians did congregate and when a disciple who was not known in an assembly came amongst them, that assembly had to believe or reject whether that he/she was a disciple of Jesus Christ. Each case will have its own particulars. In the case of Saul/Paul, the church at Jerusalem did not receive Paul as a disciple until Barnabas convinced them otherwise.
To Bro. matt: A group of Christians (members of The Church) who assemble locally operate as a sort of microcosm of The Church--in very general, very simple terms).
We have the Univ. of Texas, and we have the 'UT's AT...': At El Paso, At Tyler, At Longview, At Arlington, etc. (No offense to any of you who may be Aggies!) It is the same university with assemblies AT different locations; which operate, more or less, independetly with regard to local affairs...to some degree. (In the case of The Church, Christ is in "Austin" ministering through the Holy Spirit...not a board of directors made up of men.)
To r.l. vaughn: On Acts 2 - Then they that gladly received his word were baptized (might have been 10,000; we are NOT told): and the same day there were added unto them (of those baptised, to the local group of diciples) about three thousand souls...And the Lord added to the (universal) church (of the saved; THE church, not THAT church) daily such as should be saved. (Interesting that 'saved AND baptized' is not used here in the ending. Only "saved".) r.l. vaughn, you make assumptions plenty (with regard to the numbers) in your interpretation of these verses. ??
(By the way, this statement of yours, " I am under no illusion that I can show you anything about Acts 2:41-47", appears to be brutal, vicious sarcasm. Perhaps you did not mean it that way??)
Your statement, last paragraph, last post (yes, I am the same person; and I am male): "Anyway, at that time you or that person rejected the example of Paul "joining" the disciples at Jerusalem. Here you reject the example of disciples being added to the church at Jerusalem." --Paul was already in the Body, The Church (my position). He was saved (Acts 2:47) on the road to Damascus, or later when the "scales" came off--I will not argue 'when'. He sought to join the local assembly of THE Church that was meeting IN Jerusalem. (Like already being a Longhorn but switching to UT Arlington. There would be formal matters to deal with regarding that change--but FAR less formal than an Aggie changing to the same UT campus. A form of acceptance--proving one had been previously enrolled at UT Austin--being one of them. Might even require a letter of assurance--i.e. Barnabus.)
You see the whole thing with Paul in Jerusalem as a huge, formal matter. I do not. Paul was saved, wanted to be with other believers, other believers weren't sure of him, Barnabus spoke up for Paul, Paul was accepted...into the LOCAL assembly, of THE Church (made up of the saved...Acts 2:47)
Of those baptised in Acts 2, at least some chose to join the local assembly there. Some likely chose to go back home, some place other than Jerusalem...we are not told. To say that those who left were not "in the church" is hard for me to understand...from those with your position. (I know, we are not told how may were baptized. The fact that we do not know how many were baptized is pivotal here. To assume that the same number "added to them"--the local assembly in Jerusalem--HAD to be the same number baptized is dangerous. We have no reason to believe that only 3000 were baptized. We do not know, and therefore cannot say; and cannot form a doctrine here.) Three thousand apparently chose to join directly in the affairs of the local assembly in Jerusalem (perhaps their home town), but that the Lord continued to add to the church daily does not say "to the church AT JERUSALEM", only to THE CHURCH.
It seems that, according to what you believe, if the local assembly in Jerusalem (disciples there) had not been convinced by Barnabus that Paul/Saul was a disciple, then he would not have been in The Church; part of the body; the Bride. This is where I must pull away from those who believe that men decide whether or not another is in the Church, the Body of Christ, the Bride. Men are far more qualified to decide who gets in the door of a church house than who gets in the Body of Christ.
Personal note: I wish to "join" your blog. I feel I'm considered by some, if not all of you, to be divisive, if not a heretic. I know that the Holy Spirit lives in me; you do not know that, not for sure. However, I post on your blog, and you respond. Am I a member? Am I accepted? Would my joining be a formal or informal deal? Haven't I become a member? When did this happen? Does it matter?
No.
How about "Bro. Anon" for a screen name? I thought it better than "The Non-joiner".
Yes, r.l. vaughn, I assemble with the saved ("the Lord's people"), The Church. I would also like you to know that I vehemently reject 'governing boards from on high' dictating to, or having direct influence on, the affairs of a local assembly of the saved.
r.l vaughn "Did the disciples of the New Testament reject some who claimed to be disciples? If so, was that sectarian?"--not if they were NOT saved.
(Ok, I'll rest, put on my body armor, and await the assualt.)
Dear friend Bro. Anon (sounds like a fine screen name to me),
First, I have limited time to access the internet right now (home computer problems), so I want to clear up something first, then I'll try to discuss the topic some more as I am able.
I want to apologize for writing something that sounded like I was being sacrastic toward you. I did not intend it to be.
You wrote, "'The saved' in Jerusalem were added to THE Church (body of Christ), and some probably joined the local congregation of THAT Church there in Jerusalem. You cannot show me with Acts 2:41-47 that this is not the case..." I replied, "I am under no illusion that I can show you anything about Acts 2:41-47." Further I stated that "At this time I happily under the persuasion that Acts 2:41 and 2:47 refer to the same kind of event." I see that as a simple assessment of the situation. You appear to be firm in what you believe about the matter, as well am I. I will not spend a lot of time trying to convince you and hoping to draw you to my side. I will post what I believe so that the readers can contrast the two and leave it at that. We both may be wrong/partly wrong/partly right. God may move us closer together, but I doubt it will be through debating (although I am not opposed to debating). I hope this explains what I meant.
Just want to get this posted in case I don't have time to respond more tonight.
Bro. Anon, you write, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized (might have been 10,000; we are NOT told): and the same day there were added unto them (of those baptised, to the local group of diciples) about three thousand souls..."
In the first part of the sentence you raise an interesting point -- "might have been 10,000; we are NOT told." I don't recall ever hearing anyone else assert this. I suppose it is something that cannot be disproven, though it cannot be proven either. Some who were Jews or Jewish proselytes in Jerusalem for Pentecost became disciples of Christ on the day of Pentecost. I don't doubt many/most of them went back to the places from whence they came. But here is my assessment of the language, for what it's worth. "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." This all occurred on the same day. Why should we insert some number other than what the Holy Spirit gave us? They that gladly received the word = they that were baptized = they that were added to the disciples at Jerusalem (about 3000). I just don't see anything in the language that puts some other unknown number into the equation. Further if we stay with the context from 41 on down through the end of the chapter, we see that the inspired writer is describing the work of the Holy Spirit going on in Jerusalem, not some undisclosed location.
As you continue, you mention later concerning joining that "You [that is, me, the blogger] see the whole thing with Paul in Jerusalem as a huge, formal matter." Here I must say that you are assuming something that is not correct. While you may disagree with my position, and may think it "more formal" than what you believe, I am not talking about some formal meeting in which Paul "joined the church" at Jerusalem "all in favor say 'aye'" kind of thing. I am talking of a principle. These disciples at Jerusalem had every right to reject a professed disciple about whom they were not sure. As I noted in the communion post, I also believe that baptism is an indispensable part of being a New Testament disciple. I cannot find any "baptismless" New Testament church. Your position as stated earlier seems to find 70% unbaptized (using the 3000 vs 10,000 possibility), but perhaps I am misunderstaning you there.
Another assumption is that "according to what you believe, if the local assembly in Jerusalem (disciples there) had not been convinced by Barnabus that Paul/Saul was a disciple, then he would not have been in The Church; part of the body; the Bride." I think here you confuse your use of the word "church" as the universal body of the saved and my use of the word "church" for the local assembly at Jerusalem. You believe the former about Acts 2:47, and I believe the latter. BUT, it does not follow that I believe that rejection of fellowship in a local assembly means loss of/lack of salvation.
Your comparison of fellowshipping with fellow believers in an assembly with "joining my blog" is unusual and somewhat humourous (I assume you meant it to be). I mainly wonder to whom you refer when you write "all of you" -- the three people besides you who have commented on this post or the entire readership of this blog? My readers (most of whom don't comment) are a fairly diverse group, and expect a number of them agree with you rather than me on at least parts of this issue. So, anyway, you can "join in" commenting on this blog anytime. As far as "joining" a group of believers, you will (I think in most cases) have to be accepted as a disciple by the particular group of believers, whether they do it formally or informally.
r.l. vaughn: I accept that you did not intend to be sarcastic.
I assumed that most of your readers agreed with your position on the church and The Church, membership, etc., and that most of them (your readers) would consider me divisive. Thanks for clearing that up.
You wrote: "Some who were Jews or Jewish proselytes in Jerusalem for Pentecost became disciples of Christ on the day of Pentecost. I don't doubt many/most of them went back to the places from whence they came." I would say that these of whom you speak left Jerusalem a member of the Body, The Church; but having not 'joined' or even associated directly in the affairs of the local assembly there (in Jerusalem).
I really don't have a big problem with the difference of opinion we have on The Church, membership, etc., except when either side defends their position to the point of hindering the spread of the Good News. I feel this way about most points of contention within The Church (saved believers). I used to get really upset with folks who belived one could lose one's salvation. Now I try to love them more (which is what they're missing).
You wrote: "Your comparison of fellowshipping with fellow believers in an assembly with "joining my blog" is unusual and somewhat humourous (I assume you meant it to be)." I have a good sense of humor...and find it a priceless comodity when discussing Theology, doctrine, and politics. One of the problems Christians seem to have, in my opinion, is that we take ourselves far too seriously than we should. Our Father is the One on the throne; we're just children.
I'm curious as to how you would answer this: If a person who has just been saved wants to be baptized but does not want to associate himself to any particular group or assembly of belivers AT THAT TIME, and you (a minister, ordained pastor, etc.) baptized him; would he be IN The Church, or not? Can a person be baptized, in your opinion, and not be a member of any particular group/assembly/fellowship but still be in the body of Christ?
I read your blog a lot, but don't post a whole lot. I'm hoping that in the future I'll be able to post using less space, as you get to understand where I'm coming from.
Thanks again.
Bro. Anon,
There's one area on which you really need to correct your theology. First, comparing t.u. (texas university) to the Lord's church(es) is paramount to heresy! I mean in Psalm 75:10 it clearly states that "the horns of the wicked shall be cut off." I just don't know about people who flagrantly use phrases and words such as "t.u." and "longhorns" when discussing the Lord's work!
Aggie '97
As far as being divisive, it may be more about bringing up stuff concerning the Aggies/Longhorns rather than doctrinal questions!!
I don't suppose it will do a lot of good to continue to belabor a point on which we disagree and seem firmly fixed. But I do have another idea that I haven't mentioned yet. I could say that on the day of Pentecost all the apostles were clothed in white robes and girded with black sashes. Though I might not be able to prove it, you could not disprove it. But the "burden of disproof" would not be upon you. The "burden of proof" is on me. I guess that is how I view your discussion of possibly 10,000 gladly receiving the word on the Day of Pentecost and then going off without being baptized or ever associating in the affairs of the local assembly there in Jerusalem.
To your questions: "If a person who has just been saved wants to be baptized but does not want to associate himself to any particular group or assembly of belivers AT THAT TIME, and you (a minister, ordained pastor, etc.) baptized him; would he be IN The Church, or not? Can a person be baptized, in your opinion, and not be a member of any particular group/assembly/fellowship but still be in the body of Christ?"
First, a word of explanation about answering in some different terms than you use. While I have some of my own mental concepts about spiritual Israel/the church general, I try to refrain from terminology that I associate with the popular concept of the universal church.
Now directly to the question: I believe that "one sent" (the ordained minister in your question) is qualified/authorized to baptize new converts professing faith in Christ without reference to a particular church body. Baptism is in reference to Jesus Christ, repentance and faith. IOW, a most common Baptist practice is that a person comes before a congregation professing faith in Christ and asking for baptism and church membership. I don't have any problem with that common practice, but it is not a practice that supersedes Scripture precedent (so to say we must do it that way is wrong). For example, when the eunuch was on his way from Jerusalem back to Ethiopia, Philip was sent to him. When he professed faith in Christ, Philip baptized the eunuch without reference to church membership. So my answer to the first part of your last question is, yes, a person can be baptized and not be a member of any particular group/assembly/fellowship.
But the first part of your question seems to imply more than I can see in the case of the eunuch of Ethiopia. You speak of a person who who has just professed Christ, wants to be baptized, but does not want to associate himself to any particular group or assembly of believers at that time. To me this implies that there is a particular group of believers in view with which the professor does not want to be associated. Perhaps that is not what you intend. But I do see a difference in no assembly of believers in view (the eunuch was traveling through the desert country toward home), and a group of present believers being rejected (e.g., as some professing Christ on Pentecost but not wanting to associate with the believers in Jerusalem).
So while I believe that baptism is not necessarily in reference to any congregation/local assembly, I would not baptize a convert who has intent to willingly and deliberately distance himself from any local assembly. Does this answer get to the point of your question? If not, let me know and I will elaborate further.
I think we can probably agree that while theology and doctrine is serious business, we ourselves need a dose of not taking ourselves too seriously.
I appreciate your reading my blog and commenting. It is good for Christians who disagree to push one another to think about what they profess to believe.
Thanks.
Bro. Matt: Coming from a Bryan/College Station perspective...I can understand your feelings with regard to my earlier post.
That said, I vividly recall when the UT band struck up Amazing Grace during a football game after the loss of your students who were erecting their bonfire. It was the most moving thing I've ever seen at a sporting event of any kind. Big, hot tears fell from my eyes as the band played and everybody at the game rose to their feet.
Grace to you, Brother.
Bro. r.l. vaughn: With regard to your first paragraph (after screne name comment) of your last post, you're "idea" there is a good one; but ONLY if I am making a declarative statement; only if I'm saying there were definitely 10,000 (or even more than the 3000)saved. But I am not saying it that way. I am saying that this is possible, and it's possible without anything else in those verses being disturbed or disputed. If it's possible, that there were more than 3000 saved then, but only 3000 of them were baptized and became a part of the Jerusalem assembly, then these verses cannot be used as "proof text" for your position. In fact, YOU say that only 3000 were baptised. (I canNOT figure out how I want to spell batized/baptised!) You argue that it's logical to think that there were based on following verses. I say that not only can you not prove that, but there is no reason (from Acts 2) to say there were ONLY that many saved. My point is this: If we cannot be absolutely certain that ONLY 3000 were saved (the number that were baptized), then Acts 2 may not be used as "proof text" for your position on the Church/church membership. (We can move on from this if you'd like.)
With regard to what you wrote about baptism not HAVING to deal with church membership--I couldn't have written that better myself. Agreed!
You wrote: "I would not baptize a convert who has intent to willingly and deliberately distance himself from any local assembly." Okay, I understand your thinking here, and may agree. But what if that "local assembly" was Methodist, or "Church of Christ", or some other denomination that believed in the "insecurity of the believer", something your new convert would not accept. I know, there are usually other options when it comes to denominations that aren't too far to either get to or be taken to. However, I was not talking about someone who intended not to distance himself from ANY assembly of belivers. That would be odd, for sure.
I feel like I'm hogging your time. Sorry.
Bro. r.l. vaughn: I wish to correct the wording of my second to last sentence of my last post, which reads: "However, I was not talking about someone who intended not to distance himself from ANY assembly of belivers."
Should read: However, I was not talking about someone who INTENDED to distance himself from ANY assembly of believers."
Bro. Anon,
True, true...that was a very moving and heart=wrenching endeavor. And it was much appreciated! Yet, we still must have some rivalry...right?!? Hahaha...brothers in arms!
Bro. Matt:
Agreed.
I try and take it easy on you fellas. Must be something in the water down there in Bryan/College Station; 'cause y'all just ain't right!
Ding, ding!
Why would anyone have burnt orange for a school color? It's like burnt toast...it's an accident!
[I guess we should probably get back to the main argument and argue this somewhere else, eh?]
Bro. Anon,
You wrote, "I feel like I'm hogging your time." No need to feel sorry about posting your thoughts. You are not hogging my time, and I'm sure some folks are interested in reading what you have to say. The main reason I am not responding much is that I still haven't gotten my home computer fixed, and have to find times of public access to do my posting, e-mails, etc.
Second, a spelling lesson on baptized/baptised: you are within "good English" to spell it either way -- "baptized" is the accepted American English spelling, and "baptised" is the accepted British English spelling.
You state that may idea that the burden of proof is on you is true "ONLY if I am making a declarative statement." Though you are not making a declarative statement, you are in fact declaring that we cannot be sure about this because there might have been more than 3000 saved and that some of them might not have assembled with/fellowshipped with/ participated in the church at Jerusalem. Beyond your assumption that it could have been that way, what parts of the text suggest this to be the case? Also, how do you view the statement in verse 44: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common"?
If I understand your follow-up question, you seem to be asking what if a convert seeking baptism wanted to distance himself from some (certain) assemblies -- e.g. Methodist, or "Church of Christ". Well, in the scenarios I contemplated, I was referring to a "candidate" who had a general idea of being a "lone ranger" Christian and dissociating from assembling with any group of believers (as in a local congregation). If someone professed Christ and I were baptising him, I can't imagine why I would ask whether he was intending to dissociate with Methodists or "Churches of Christ".
I think perhaps this covers most of the questions.
Post a Comment