Jesus Christ - Eternally Begotten or Divinely Begotten?

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory
as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.
-----------------------

 Jesus Christ - Eternally Begotten or Divinely Begotten; Eternal Generation or Timely Incarnation

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..."

"Therefore also that holy thing (or person) - shall be called the Son of God..."

"We may plainly perceive here, that the angel does not give the appellation of Son of God to the Divine nature of Christ; but to that holy person or thing, το ἁγιον, which was to be born of the virgin, by the energy of the Holy Spirit. The Divine nature could not be born of the virgin; the human nature was born of her. The Divine nature had no beginning; it was God manifested in the flesh, 1 Timothy 3:16; it was that Word which being in the beginning (from eternity) with God, John 1:2, was afterwards made flesh, (became manifest in human nature), and tabernacled among us, John 1:14. Of this Divine nature the angel does not particularly speak here, but of the tabernacle or shrine which God was now preparing for it, viz. the holy thing that was to be born of the virgin.

Two natures must ever be distinguished in Christ: the human nature, in reference to which he is the Son of God and inferior to him, Mark 13:32; John 5:19; John 14:28, and the Divine nature which was from eternity, and equal to God, John 1:1; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 1:16-18. It is true, that to Jesus the Christ, as he appeared among men, every characteristic of the Divine nature is sometimes attributed, without appearing to make any distinction between the Divine and human natures; but is there any part of the Scriptures in which it is plainly said that the Divine nature of Jesus was the Son of God? Here, I trust, I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous.

This doctrine I reject for the following reasons:-

1st. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.

2dly. If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.

3dly. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his Divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.

4thly. Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.

5thly. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to Time. Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas.

The enemies of Christ‘s Divinity have, in all ages, availed themselves of this incautious method of treating this subject, and on this ground, have ever had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship destroys the deity of Christ; now, if his deity be taken away, the whole Gospel scheme of redemption is ruined. On this ground, the atonement of Christ cannot have been of infinite merit, and consequently could not purchase pardon for the offenses of mankind, nor give any right to, or possession of, an eternal glory. The very use of this phrase is both absurd and dangerous; therefore let all those who value Jesus and their salvation abide by the Scriptures. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship, as it has been lately explained in many a pamphlet, and many a paper in magazines, I must and do consider as an awful heresy, and mere sheer Arianism; which, in many cases, has terminated in Socinianism, and that in Deism. From such heterodoxies, and their abetters, may God save his Church! Amen! --

Adam Clarke; https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/acc/luke-1.html

==========
What do you think of his commentary?

Benjamin Keach on Justification

 

#soundbyte_on_condition

The woefully blind buy the Pearl with their own money!

I was looking for some information from old emails and came upon this mail.

=======

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:45:29 +0800
Subject: Keach, quiche and peach?

Brother Tony and members of Ipoh East Church,
This is one last attempt to show you that you have gravely misunderstood Benjamin Keach, and remain in error.

You quoted Keach thus, and INSIST that Keach teaches that faith is the condition of justification and eternal life.

-----------

Quest. But doth not the gospel require faith as a condition of justification and eternal life?

1. Yea as a condition of connexion by way of order, as one thing dependeth on another (as our author observes) in logic, if a creature be a man, he is a rational creature; or if God be the first cause, he is the Creator of all things. and in this sense (saith he) creation is a condition of salvation, if a man be saved, he must be created; so if a man believe, he shall be saved; believing is a condition of connexion, a state of grace, is thus a condition of a state of glory, by way of connexion in the promise, but one is not the federal condition of another, but both come in as the gift of grace. In this sense the covenant contains all the conditions of order and dependence in the exhibition and performance; the hearing the word is the condition of faith, but hearing is not a federal condition; so the giving the Spirit is the condition of our union with Christ and of faith, and faith the condition of our receiving of pardon, and living a holy life - and holiness the condition of seeing God, and of having eternal life; but these kinds of conditions are federal entitling conditions to the promise, but are contained in the promise, and denote the connexion and dependence of one promise benefit with another.

2. Though faith be required of them that are saved, yea, and repentance, regeneration, holiness, and a new heart also; yet these blessings are all promised in the covenant, as part thereof. but faith itself is no federal condition, but only serves to show what God will do for, and work in such that he as an act of free grace will save.

From hence we may see how woefully blind they are, who assert faith, repentance, and sincere obedience are not only federal conditions of justification, but also are the matter or material cause thereof. And this is to buy the pearl indeed with our own money.

------------

From Keach's words, you INSISTED and RESOLVED as a Reformed Baptist church that believing (faith) is the condition of both justification and eternal life.

First, let me say that I don't claim to understand everything Keach said in the quote above. However, certain things are quite plain and without controversy.

Let me make one final attempt to reason with you concerning what Keach said is the biblical relationship between faith and actual justification and eternal life.

Keach mentioned at least THREE ways in which faith is seen as related to Justification.

1. Faith is understood by some as the "matter or material cause" of Justification. Simply stated, this view elevates faith to the same level as the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Of course, you are wise enough to reject this as an error. Those who see faith in this manner is described by Keach as 'woefully blind' concerning the gospel truth of Justification.

This view may be represented as:
Righteousness of Christ/Faith>> Justification

2. Faith is seen by others as the "federal condition" of Justification. Faith is a necessary condition that the unjustified condemned dead sinner must have in order to be Justified. This view does distinguish faith from the righteousness of Christ, but this view insists that there must be faith first before the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the condemned. From all that you have written, I understand that you hold to this view.

Keach plainly declares,  "faith itself is no federal condition." Those who see faith in this manner is described by Keach as 'woefully blind' concerning the gospel truth of Justification. How woefully blind they are who assert that faith is a federal condition of justification - only the woefully blind believes that the unjustified condemned can meet this federal condition.

This view may be represented as:
Faith >> Righteousness of Christ imputed >> Justification (Faith is the federal condition of Justification).

All your reading of Keach has not led you to the truth. Instead, you have misrepresented Keach in many ways.

3. Faith is seen by Keach as the "condition of connexion by way of order" of Justification. Put simply, faith is a condition, but a condition of connection by way of order to declare and attest the Justification that has taken place by God's free grace. In exactly the same SENSE, faith is the condition of connection by way of order to declare and attest to the eternal life that has been born by God's free grace.

This view may be represented as:

The righteousness of Christ APPLIED >> Justification + Eternal Life >> Faith (the instrument to declare and attest the Justification and Eternal life already bestowed by God's free grace.)

Sungai Dua Church holds to this third view.

God, by His grace, freely justifying the elect when in their state of condemnation and death IS THE CAUSE.

They, the justified ones, receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness by faith IS THE EFFECT.

The CAUSE is distinct and separate and prior to the EFFECT.

Read 1689.11.1 and it is abundantly clear.

Brother, unless and until you get these basic and fundamental points into your head, you will keep going on in your confusion.

1. God imputing the righteousness of Christ to a person under the condemnation of death is Actual Justification. (an elect under the condemnation of death, i.e. unjustified, is dead and cannot possibly believe.)

2. God imputing the faith of a believer to him for righteousness is Declarative Justification. (An elect person who believes Declares and Attests that he is already in the state of grace and salvation - justified, regenerated and adopted. Faith declares and attests to that fact)

If your faith is before justification (Actual), you have made faith a federal condition of justification (Actual), the error of which is roundly condemned and censured by Keach.

A representative of the early Particular Baptist and respected by Calvinistic men of other denominations declared, "... no man is evidentially and declaratively justified until he believes." And this is nothing about Actual Justification by grace.  This is all about Declarative Justification by faith.

Thanks for listening. I have discharged my duty.

sing

"And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not" Acts 28:24

====

The Ipoh East RB Church disbanded not long after it decided to reject me as overseeing pastor.  The candlestick was removed.

Fine, believe what you want but live with the necessary implications!

1Corinthians  15
12 ¶ Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, 
how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
=============

Apostle Paul has a wonderful way of dealing with errors; o.k., let us suppose that the error is true, then see some of its necessary implications.

Often Christians can be sincerely muddled in their beliefs, believing the very opposite of the gospel truth revealed in the Bible. However, they failed to see such a belief's necessary and dangerous implications. They are unable to see that such beliefs actually deny the very gospel that they have embraced.

One example concerns the resurrection of the dead dealt with by Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 15. It is not consistent to claim that you believe the gospel, and yet deny the resurrection of the dead. They are inseparable twins, two sides of the same coin.

Let us suppose that there was no resurrection of the dead, what are some necessary implications then?

- Then not even Christ has been raised,

- Then our preaching is vain,

- Then preachers are false witnesses of God,

- Then believers are still in their sins,

- Then even those who died in Christ have perished,

- Then believers are of all men most pitiable – they are deluded and most mistaken about an empty hope, and

- Then living for Christ is vanity and pitiable. 

Fine, believe what you want but live with the necessary implications!

The same can be used to deal with fables like justification by faith alone, free offer of salvation, gospel regeneration, etc.

----------- 

Joe Holder
Yes. Beliefs, no less than actions, have unavoidable consequences.

Some ideas about the Reformed Baptists

 

Reformed Baptists
Reformed Baptist (n.) - an all-wet Presbyterian with a copier, a bottle of white-out, a pen, and no recollection of Reformation atrocities.

----------

Danny
Some time ago, I was asked what I thought about “Reformed Baptists” and provided this admittedly provocative definition in response. As a result, I was accused of careless rhetoric and making “blanket statements” regarding other Christians. I would not disagree that this is a “blanket statement” in that it broadly applies to those who refer to themselves as “Reformed Baptists.” I would suggest that folks who bluster at this definition train their attention instead upon a more important question - Is this true? Consider the following:

All-wet Presbyterian with a copier - this comes from the indisputable fact that large portions of the Second London Confession (1689) affirmed by the Reformed Baptists are directly copied from the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith, and among the most prevalent edits they made to the document were to state that baptism is by immersion.

A bottle of white-out - per the items they removed from the WCF.

A pen - per the edits and additions they made to the WCF.

And no recollection of Reformation atrocities - in that they proudly bear the “Reformed” moniker when the testimony of history is that the “Reformers” slaughtered and tortured untold numbers of their Baptist forefathers in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church treated the Reformers - a fact conspicuously absent from Foxes Book of Martyrs.

While I am thankful that the Reformed Baptists embrace a great deal more truth than the Arminian Baptists who seem to dominate the Baptist landscape, I nevertheless completely stand by the definition I provided. Rather than find offence in it, I would ask that it be given due consideration in light of the four-point clarification above. If these things are true, “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16)

“Come and see.” (John 1:46)

Reggy
Yeah... reformed Baptists actually means, I don't know my history.

Tyler
Not to mention "Reformed Baptists" as they exist today originated in the 1960s under the Banner of Truth trust.

Jack
A Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron. The Baptist church was never historically a part of Rome and therefore never had to be reformed. Reformers also are baby sprinklers so even in simplest terms, they aren’t Baptists.

Sing
I suggest that the Reformed Baptists came about in the 1960's and drank deeply from the Presby's fountains.

The RBs have twisted and perverted the old-school theology summarized in the 1689 CoF. [Therefore, it is silly to equate those who framed the 1689 CoF as Reformed Baptists.]

I thought the older Primitive Baptists adopted the 1689 CoF at Fulton in 1900. Older and younger Primitive Baptists are now divided, which is unsurprising.

The Framers of the 1689 CoF were far wiser than some folks are willing to acknowledge.

Danny
Sing: May I suggest that the Reformed Baptist breed came about in the 1960s and drank deeply from the Presby's fountains?
Danny: There is a lot of truth in that.

S: They have twisted and perverted the old-school theology summarized in the 1689 CoF.
D: There's a lot to unpack here. Rather than go there, I'll just say there are issues with the WCF, issues with the 1689, and issues with the RBs.

S: I thought the older Primitive Baptists adopted the 1689 CoF at Fulton in 1900.
D: This is only true if by "adopted" you mean "revised with annotations in order to achieve approval from a group of turn of the century Old Baptists." That loose definition of "adoption" would prevent me from using the term to describe what happened in Fulton, KY. Whether intentional or not, I believe that terminology is apt to lead people to a distorted view of history.

S: Older and younger Primitive Baptists are now divided, which is unsurprising.
D: PBs are not devoid of family controversy.

S: The Framers of the 1689 CoF were far wiser than folk are willing to acknowledge.
D: I don't doubt there were wise, brilliant, and godly men involved in the 1689 and the WCF from which it was copied. That said, I believe there are doctrinal errors codified in both of these confessions. Whether that is wisdom or folly on my part, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. I can only say that I would not sign-off on either of them. What's more, I believe that those well-intentioned men who endorsed the 1689 (even my Old Baptists forefathers) made a tactical error in judgment. This is a moderately controversial take on my part. The mere suggestion of breaking with some aspect of "baptist history" by stating there is error in the 1689 is nigh on heresy for some. Without belaboring the point, it requires little more than the recognition that PB heritage and biblical orthodoxy are not the same thing. PBs can be wrong. The bible tells me so (Galatians 1).

Johnny
I agree with this assessment. I have said for a while the modern reformed Baptist movement is nothing more than credo Presbyterianism. They hold the same doctrine soteriologically, christilogically, and ecclesiologically. They do this while rejecting many of the main tenets that historic baptist who penned the 89 rejoiced in.

It is interesting, the choice to copy the Westminster was stimulated by a desire to avoid persecution. What is more interesting to me though is that the ministers of the Westminster assembly copied parts of the 44. So baptist weren’t the only ones who with a copy machine 😉

Jack
Johnny, that’s exactly what RB is. On the plus side, I’ve found that some of their people have come to PB after realizing the extent of their beliefs in election, predestination and the like lead to the Primitive position but on the negative side most of their followers are ruthless towards PBs dismissing us as a Hyper-Calvinistic cult for even suggesting that there are non-evangelized elect.

Johnny
Jack, the only RB people that I have found to be hostile towards PB’s has only been on the internet. Every RB member or elder that I have ever talk with has been highly inquisitive. Most want to have extended meetings with me to discuss historical aspects of our faith. The key I have found is be careful to not use language that is confusing to their understanding of theology nor use language that overly exclusive.

Jack
Johnny, there’s a lot of truth in what you’re saying. The internet can be a ruthless tool where everyone calls everyone a heretic. It’s almost the theological “yo mamma” in some of these circles. But no I agree, I’ve seen many docile, approachable Reformed Baptists. And even some Southern Baptists disenchanted with the mega church seeker friendly environments.

Danny
Johnny - History proves that Baptists and Presbyterians be recycling.

Judge righteous judgment

Such an impressive-looking guava.
Open it up and examine the inside.
Rotten guavas are NOT false guavas;
they are real guavas but rotten. 

John 7:24 KJT
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Judge not according to sound-byte, but rightly divide the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 KJV — Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Corinthians 10:7 KJT
Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trusts to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

Such an impressive-looking guava. Open it up and examine the inside.

There are impressive churchmen - pastors and theologians, etc. - but the Scriptures warn us against them with these fearful words; take heed and be sobered.

Jude - KJT
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ...
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities...
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

They are men who creep into churches; all their evils are described to warn us against them. Besides  all these evils, they teach and promote things contrary to the faith which was once delivered to the saints; they teach a salvation different from the common salvation (Jude 1:3)

What's the distinction between eternal salvation and temporal salvation?

The mind is no light thing to waste,
But the waist is a heavy thing to mind.

#An_Inquiry_On_a_Crucial_Issue
#Eternal_Salvation_n_Temporal_Salvation

Sam
Brother Lau, can you explain what's the distinction between eternal salvation and temporal salvation?

sing
I'm glad you wish to know the distinction. Understanding this distinction will save us from so much confusion and errors.

Basically, eternal salvation is the effect/result of the divine activities alone - like justification, regeneration, adoption, etc. All these divine activities enable the SAVED to respond spiritually... obtaining for themselves temporal salvation, spiritual blessings pertaining to this life only, i.e. temporal in nature.

Make an effort to learn and understand this subject.

Sam 
Ahhm I get it 🙂
I read your blog. I can't understand what I feel right now hehe because I learned a lot from your blog and your post on Facebook. I read them, brother!

Please bear with me hahaha 😆

I'm full of excitement while reading, most especially John 3:16.

I've just read it that is what temporal salvation means? To save ourselves from the consequences of sins something like that etc etc.

sing
Sins have BOTH eternal and temporal consequences.
Christ's redemptive work saves His people from the eternal consequences of sins - the eternal lake of fire. Only those whom God has saved by bestowing eternal salvation are able to act and respond spiritually; their responses and activities secure for them temporal salvation. Believing the truth of the gospel SAVES, it saves very differently from the way Christ saves by His redemptive works.

Believing the gospel truth saves us from lies, falsehood, errors, superstitions, a sense of hopelessness, ignorance, etc... all blessings that are related to our temporal well-being; the gospel truth secures assurance, comfort, joy, hope, peace, etc. for us through our obedience to the Father's will. Phi 2:12, Ti 2:12.

Yes, all our actions in obedience to God's will (who first saved us with eternal salvation when we were dead in trespasses and sins) will save us from the temporal consequences of sins in this life, and secure all those temporal blessings in this life; these are conditioned upon our obedience to the will of the Father.

Eternal salvation is unconditional by the free and gracious activities of the Triune God; temporal salvation is conditional upon the obedience of God's children to their Father's will for them.

With this clear biblical distinction, we will save ourselves from lots of theological confusion and errors.

Sam
Very clear!

"... Ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right."

  

#accuracymatters
#woolliness_is_foolishness

"... ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right."

Job 42 KJT
7 ¶And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.
8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.

Please note a few things:

i. The three great 'theologians' was solemnly charged with misrepresenting the LORD.
- misrepresenting, giving a false or misleading account, of the Lord God is no light matter; it is grievous folly. They vehemently insisted that Job's suffering was the LORD punishing Job for his sins.
- But the LORD's testimony of Job was this: "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" Job 1:8

ii. The LORD equated their carelessness and woolliness as folly; it is serious and grievous enough to kindle the wrath of the LORD against them for such folly.
- Tell us why it is grievously foolish to misrepresent the LORD.

iii. It is sin; it transgresses the law of God; it bears false witness against the LORD; it takes the name of the LORD in vain. 

iv. It's a sin that requires a costly burnt offering.

However, it's delightful to read that the three 'theologians' took heed of the rebuke and repented promptly; 9¶ So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did according as the LORD commanded them: the LORD also accepted Job.

Even more delightful is that Job was willing, in obedience to the LORD, to be their mediator even though they had been so injurious in their accusations against Job; thus the emphasis "the LORD also accepted Job", i.e. in his role as a willing and gracious mediator for the three friends turned false accusers.

2Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

O Lord, help me to rightly divide Thy word of truth, that I may speak of Thee only things that are right and truthful. Amen.

Baptized but not subjected to the authority of Christ

What a farce!

Isn't it a farce* to baptize in the name (authority) of Christ but not bring the baptized under the authority of Christ vested in a local church?

*farce - noun, an empty or patently ridiculous act, proceeding, or situation. (Webster)

Yet there are those who gladly baptize in the name of Christ but reject the need to bring the baptized under Christ's authority vested in His church!

This is Christ's command to His Apostles:
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28.

Teaching the baptized to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded the Apostles takes place in the CONTEXT of the NT local churches established. The issue of membership is always related to baptism; it's presupposed in the command in Mt 28:19-20 itself.

Acts 2 tells us how the Apostles understood and obeyed the command of Christ:.
v5 ¶And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven...
v37 ¶Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?...
v41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

This Apostolic example set the precedent in the NT church; hereafter - those baptized are added to the church or are gathered into churches.

All those baptized by the Apostles on the day of Pentecost were ALSO added to the Jerusalem church - even though the vast majority of them were from cities scattered throughout the vast Roman Empire.

Someone opposed to both baptism/membership and non-resident membership inquired:

Someone questioned: in Acts 2:40 ff, what happened to the 3000 added into the Jerusalem church? Did they report back to the apostles to inform them of their well-being? Just curious.

A reply:
Most of the 3000 added to the Jerusalem church were mainly devout Jewish men (Acts 2:5) from many different places throughout the vast Roman Empire (Acts 2:8-11)

After the Pentecost Feast was over, they returned to their respective homes scattered throughout the Roman Empire. They likely returned to observe those annual feasts for some years ( some up to 70AD) and meet up with the Jerusalem church.

DEVOUT Jews come to Jerusalem THREE TIMES each year to observe the three annual feasts commanded by God. There are three annual feasts that the Lord commanded all of Israel to celebrate in Jerusalem — Passover, Pentecost and Feast of Tabernacles.

Remember that there were TWELVE Apostles in the Jerusalem church; what were they doing? Just like what Apostle Paul was doing among the Gentiles; many of them were visiting the scattered Jewish believers (non-resident members of the church in Jerusalem), and making converts and, establishing churches in those places.

Act 9:31 “Then had the CHURCHES rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.”

- How did those churches throughout all Judea, Galilee and Samaria come about? How did they happen? The Apostles from the Jerusalem church were also busy following up with the scattered Jewish believers and establishing churches in those cities and further away.

Thus, there was communication between the non-resident members and their church in Jerusalem... until they became members of the churches established in their cities through the ministry of the Apostles.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.

p/s

A man once sarcastically said, "The evangelist Philip added the Ethiopian eunuch to the Desert Road Baptist Church," mocking the Apostolic teaching that baptism and membership with a local church belong together.