Universal Church and Landmarkism

The universal church so called does not assemble until the last day.

Some hold to a "universal church" idea here on earth.
Who are the deacons of this universal church? The elders?


Sometimes the church is spoken of in general terms, like I have heard it taught we might discuss the Jury. just in general terms.
For the most part it is not discussed in such general terms. This confuses the Kingdom of God...with the local church.

 

Linguistically speaking, to win your argument from the Greek for "church" (ekklesia), you have to prove that ekklesia (not baptism or judgment or the like) itself is used in such a symbolic way. You can't prove that one word has a symbolic use just because others do. I know of no case in koine or classical Greek where there is a clear use of ekklesia as a symbolic assembly.

In classical Greek it is invariably an actual physical assembly, as in the legislature of the Greek city states or a Greek poet who gathered the animals to hear his song. In Biblical usage that doesn't involve the church of Jesus, you also have literal, physical assemblies: the Jews in the wilderness (Acts 7:38), the assembly at Ephesus (Acts 19:32, 39, 41). With the possible exception of Deut. 23:2-3 and Lam. 1:10, there is no symbolic usage in the LXX that I can find. It is always a literal assembly.

 

Your "thank you" accomplishes that. :wavey:

 

I tried to send you a message with alot more info...not sure i did it correctly.

Southern....because we are In Christ by Spirit Baptism,our citizenship is in heaven now.....our inheritance is reserved in heaven for us waiting for the last day....

The question is can there be an un-assembled assembly?
We are in the kingdom of God as individuals, and yet their is a corporate expression of that kingdom...the local church.
There were letters written to seven local churches in revelation.and the epistles were to to a generic or universal body.
let me know if the private message came through.

 

The bride of Christ consists of all believers of all time and is also called the church is it not? Therefore, there is a universal church.

 

Yes and no,lol
here is from the baptist catechism with commentary...by WR>Downing

Thus, there is some confusion about the English term “church,” which has
traditionally and variously signified a congregation, a building, a
denomination, an ecclesiastical system, the aggregate of all true believers in
mystical union with Christ or the whole of Christianity throughout history.
Some hold to the concept of a “universal, invisible church” comprised of
all the elect of all ages, or at the least of all living believers world–wide at any
given time. This concept of the church confuses it with the kingdom of God.
287
Such an entity, of course, has never assembled, is not properly an assembly,
does not possess any of the attributes of a church, and thus cannot truly be
termed a “church” [ekklēsia, or gathered assembly]. It is rather a spiritual and
comprehensive concept of the mystical [spiritual] union of all true believers
with the Lord Jesus Christ, and finds no concrete expression ecclesiastically,
except in a local or gathered assembly (1 Cor. 12:27. The def. article “the”
before the word “body” is to be omitted). The idea of a “universal, invisible
church,” however, is wide–spread in Christian thought, and is axiomatic to
both Reformed and Dispensational thinking. The Sixteenth Century
Reformers, reacting against the Romish idea of a “universal visible church,”
establishing their own state churches with a similar pattern, and understanding
that not all who professed Christ were truly converted, developed the idea of
both a “visible” and an “invisible” church. The former was composed of
believers and unbelievers; the latter of only the true believers. Some hold that
this theory derived from Gnostic, Neoplatonic philosophy which saw the
visible world as the imperfect reflection of the perfect invisible world, i.e., the
world of the Platonic “ideas.”
But what of those passages where “the church” is referred to in an abstract
sense (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:32; Eph. 3:10–21; Col. 1:18)? Does this not refer to the
aggregate of all true believers who are in union with Christ as his “mystical
body”? “The One True Church”? We prefer another interpretation, which is
consonant with all the uses of the term “church” in the New Testament: first,
the local or concrete use of “church,” referring to any given assembly of
scripturally baptized believers. Second, the abstract, generic or institutional
use of the term. A common illustration is that of “the jury,” referring not to
any particular jury, but to the institution of this legal entity in the judicial
system. When such usage finds concrete expression, it is a local, visible jury.
This same principle would hold true for those statements which are often used
to refer to the “universal, invisible church.” We prefer to classify these as the
“institutional” use of the word “church,” which finds concrete expression in
the local assembly. Third, the eschatological use of the term “church,”
referring to “the general assembly [panēguris, the festal gathering of a whole
group, nation or country] and church [ekklēsia] of the firstborn” which is in
the process of being assembled in heaven. When all the elect are gathered
together from all ages, they will comprise the church [panēguris] in glory,
fully assembled for the first time (Eph. 5:27; Heb. 12:22–23; Rev. 21:2). This
three–fold usage coherently answers to every use of the term “church” in the
New Testament without violating either grammar or doctrine—or the
meaning and biblical usage of the Old Testament qahal and the New
Testament ekklēsia.
The meaning and history of the church are not self–interpreting. The New
Testament is the standard, and thus the meaning and history of the church are
to be interpreted in the light of the New Testament.
288
Quest.

 

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Church-ekklesia


Christ was not saying He was building a local ekklesia.

 

Thank you.

You should stay on the board though.

 

Correct......and yet a called out assembly......assembles.
You cannot have an assembly that does not assemble

The discussion deals with local assemblies,plural vs. the one full final assembly on the last day.
It has never assembled totally yet,because the last of the elect are not saved yet.
some have left their bodies already/physical death....some have not been born yet

 

Brother, in the OP you said you didn't want to debate. Yet, here you are debating. I realize that in part you are quoting a friend's views for the sake of argument, but it's still arguing. If you want to debate it, then come on in. But please don't profess to be above the fray when you are actually participating in the fray. And you are trying to set presuppositions for this discussion, which doesn't work here, either.

By the way, this idea of all believers "assembled in him" is some sort of ecclesiastical gobble-de-gook. We may say all believers are "in him," but the fact is we are not assembled, literally or figuratively, "in him." You are asking us to accept this proposition before we ever debate the matter. Surely, if I don't accept the pre-supposition, you'll not try to keep me out of the discussion.

I'll have more to say in later posts. It's a good subject, and you've gotten some good stuff from Iconoclast and others.

 

Amy, your comment has drawn several responses, and I'd like to add mine.

Not only is "church" used to describe a specific congregation, which assembles, it is also used in both a generic sense and a prospective sense.

Iconoclast has spoken to the generic sense. We may talk about the jury as generic term, but in actuality, it has no real meaning unless we have a real live jury.

The same with "family." We talk about the breakdown of the family, but in fact, only real families break down. The generic must always take expression with the concrete.

Then, Iconoclast mentioned the prospective sense. That is the sense in which the church is referred to as the bride of Christ. But it comes to fruition only in Heaven, when the actual bride (the saved, assembled church) is united with her husband, the Bridegroom. That, then, is also the only time the "universal" church will really be the church--when it becomes the great general assembly.

By the way, that's when we'll be truly united, for we will all know the truth.

And we will all be Baptists.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

 

Although there is no such animal as the "universal church," let's assume for purposes of discussion that there is.

We've already had questions raised as to where and when it assembles, and who are its pastors and deacons. Let me add another one or two:

Who are the members of this U-church? Well, let's see--Baptists, of course, a bunch of Methodists and Presbyterians, some Pentecostals, a stray Roman Catholic here and there, some Messianic Jews, Lutherans. Let's be generous and include a Mormon whom God saves despite his church's teachings.

I call your attention to the one thing that stands out to me in the list: Every one of them (except Baptists, of course) believe and each error. Some, indeed, teach heresy.

Next, they are hopelessly fractured. They never assemble together; they rarely, if ever, fellowship together, pray together. They can't even agree how to send missionaries. So the U-church doesn't send any missionaries, never gives a dime for the propagation of the gospel, never disciples believers.

Incidentally, all those things the New Testament commands believers to do: assemble, evangelize, give offerings, worship, have fellowship, send missionaries, go as missionaries, plant new churches, help those who are hurting--are done by----------------------------------------------------------

Ready?----------------------------------------

Local congregations.

The U-church, then, even it it were real, is a useless entity. It does not, not cannot, carry out the Great Commission.

There is no rationale for its existence. That's why it doesn't.