Featured A False Teaching on Christ’s Satisfaction Exposed

Yes, and you took and put a bad spin on what I said and made it look like I stated Christ was also a goat herder. That could not be further from the truth, monsieur. I am getting a 'whiff' of something that is rather foul. I do not like the smell of it, mon ami.

The local church is chocked full of people who have been baptized, but not saved, monsieur. If it were not so, there would not be all this unsound doctrine floating around. Having women pastors, speaking in tongues as evidence of Holy Spirit baptism, drunk and slain in the Spirit advocating, &c. These peoples have been dunked, but if they are saved or not, it is not up to I to judge. But they are advocating some really bad doctrines. Jim Bakker's son, who was also baptized, gave support of gay marriage during a sermon when he sated he was pro-gay marriage.

He is a member of the local church, but a false convert.

Yes. He is not a goat herder.

Poor you.

The universal church is assembled as the body of Christ, He being their Head.

They are members of the local church, their names are written on those church books. But if they are 'weeds sown in the midst of wheat', they are not His.

You need to quit misrepresenting what I type, mon ami.

So you say.

Never stated otherwise.

 

ALL who belong as members of His church are saved, the church universal, but not all as members in local churches are saved!

 

I will answer this using my own church as an example.
Our church is not a mess. It does not contain error. I am sure you would not find error in its quite detailed statement of faith other than a bias you may form from Calvinism.

And he is not finished yet. The bride consists of "whosoever will may come."
The bride consists of those who believe.
It is unimaginable to me that a Calvinist believes in a watered down weakened God who has lost some of his sovereignty. He is not sovereign enough, they think; not strong enough, to allow man to have his own free will. They are afraid that within the bounds of His great omnipotence and omniscience, that if some individual will make a choice that he has not foreknown, that he will cease to be God and all the world will be thrown into chaos. What a weakened view of God you have!! Thus you do away with the free will of man because your view of the sovereignty of God is not as great as the non-Cal's view.

The "Church" is not the same as the bride. Ekklesia means assembly. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly; no such thing as a "Universal Church." The Bible teaches no such monster. This is man's invention. The "church" is always a local church in the Bible, just as it never refers to the building, it never refers to "universal." Use biblical terminology.

A person never becomes a part of the bride until that person is first saved.
At that time the person is saved, sanctified, sins forgiven, made righteous in the sight of God, holy, justified, and much, much more. Are you sure we are talking about the same thing?

I never called God's love a mess. I said in the view of the Calvinist, who puts more emphasis on a warped sense of the sovereignty of God and his judgment and wrath, God's love and grace becomes diluted and perhaps even left out.
The non-Cal emphasizes the love of God to the sinner and does not emphasize the sovereignty of God. He will put his faith in God after he realizes he is a sinner in need of a Savior, and that God has made him an object of His love--so much so, that he died for him.
But according to your view, he didn't, if he is not one of the elect. Perhaps while telling him about salvation you should be honest and put that caveat in there that if you are not one of God's elect this message is not for you because no matter what you do you cannot believe what I tell you anyway.

 

Here is a definition of a local church:
It is an assembly of baptized believers who have voluntarily organized themselves together for the purpose of carrying out the Great Commission and observing the two ordinances of Christ (baptism of believers by immersion, and the Lord's Table).
--By that definition all who are members of the local church are sheep. They are saved and baptized.

Then they are not biblical local churches. Not every "church" that calls themselves a "church" falls under the category of "church." Not every "pastor" who calls themselves a pastor really is a pastor.
There are many pretenders. There are many false teachers, false prophets that would arise, that not only Jesus warned us of, but every other NT book of the Bible.

By definition an unsaved person cannot be a member of a biblical local church.

According to what you have written above Christ shepherds goats because they are in every church. I don't agree. I don't believe that fits the definition of a biblical local church. Thus he shepherds only sheep.

I doubt if you can prove me wrong on this doctrine.
There is no such thing as a Universal Church. The word ekklesia means "assembly" and cannot be used in the sense of "universal." How can one have an unassembled assembly?

A nice philosophy, but it is not taught in scriptures.

An unsaved person is not a member of a biblical local church.
Christ is the head of every biblical local church; he is not a goat herder by your implication.

I am not. Christ is the head of every local church. You are the one that claims that there are goats in the local church. What does that make Christ?

 

I am not a Southern Baptist or part of their denomination. Neither am I a Calvinist. Why would you expect me to agree with their statement of faith?
You will find a number of Baptists on this board that agree with my stance on the local church. Don't be so baffled and amazed (or appear to be). It is not an uncommon position.

You don't have to ask. The word means assembly or congregation. It doesn't have any other meaning. Look in Darby's translation which is one of a couple of translations which consistently translates the word assembly. If the KJV did the same there would be a lot less confusion in the area of ecclesiology.

Mat 16:18 And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.
--There is no such thing as a universal assembly. It is ludicrous.
Jesus and his disciples were assembled together. Peter was a small stone, but it was Christ that was the Rock.
By the time we reach the first chapter of Acts the few disciples had grown to 120 (Acts 1:15).
Added to the 120 on the very next day were 3,000. Thus the First Baptist Church at Jerusalem had over 3,000 members in it and many more were added to it daily (Acts 2:47)
--This is speaking of one church, the local church in Jerusalem--an assembly that assembled together DAILY, and were discipled by the Apostles themselves. In no way was it "universal."

Eph 1:22-23
(22) and has put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the assembly,
(23) which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all:
--He is speaking to the assembly at Ephesus. Christ is the head over each and every biblical local/church/assembly. There is nothing universal here.
It is impossible to have a "universal assembly". How does an assembly meet in a universal place? Where do all the members meet? You have a place big enough? It makes no sense; no purpose; no function; no reality.

Keep in mind this is a pastoral epistle.
Here is the proper translation again:

1Ti 3:15 but if I delay, in order that thou mayest know how one ought to conduct oneself in God's house, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth.
Timothy was the pastor of the church (assembly) in Ephesus. Paul is writing how he ought to conduct himself in the assembly, when it is gathered together. Each and every local church is the pillar and ground of the truth. There was a huge temple in Ephesus: Artemis or Diana.
Easton's Bible Dictionary describes the Temple:

--Paul's reference may well have been to the column's at this well known temple.
What function does a column have? It has a foundation, and it is a support.
In the church the pillar stands firmly on the truth (the Word) and supports or upholds the truth (The Word). That is Paul's meaning. There is no Universal Church here. Paul is instructing Timothy about the purpose of his own church.

That is because it is.

Don't be so shocked. There are many that do agree with me.

Eph 5:21 submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord,
Eph 5:23 for a husband is head of the wife, as also the Christ is head of the assembly. *He* is Saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 But even as the assembly is subjected to the Christ, so also wives to their own husbands in everything.
Eph 5:32 This mystery is great, but *I* speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly.
As the husband is the head of the wife so is Christ the head of the church (assembly). He was speaking to the church at Ephesus. As this truth was directed to the members at the assembly at Ephesus so it is applicable to every biblical local church. It is used in a generic sense.

What is your definition of a local church (the only kind of church in the NT)?
Whether the congregation was 3,000 or more and met in the Temple, or much less and met in a house:

Acts 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in the prison; but unceasing prayer was made by the assembly to God concerning him.

It was still a church/assembly. It is not the building that makes the church. It is the believers that "assemble" together, and the fictitious universal "church" cannot do that.

 

Was Christ speaking of a particular congregation or assembly? Of couse not --the Church Universal.

Well, you have negated your oft-repeated argument then. You now say it was used in a generic sense --that means in general --not a specific gathering of a local assembly. Thank you for acknowledging the truth.

 

I am not disagreeing with you about what constitutes a local church. But for you to say that everyone who comes and makes a confession of their faith in Christ is actually saved is rather odd. By your definition, the Lakewood church and all of its 43,500 members are saved because they have been baptized and make up an assembly.

All I am saying is that the local churches have false converts in them. Christ is not their Head. He is the Head of the believers that comprise that local church, and the universal church. But Satan has weeds sown in with the wheat, monsieur.

If their name is on their books they are. They are false converts, but still 'members' of that church.

Let them wheat and weeds grow together until the harvest.[Matt. 13:30]

Not going to even bother to.

As Rippon already stated When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.[Matt. 16:13-18]

So you say.

Again, if their name is on their books then yes they are. They are weeds sown in with the wheat.

Please learn better reading comprehension skills. I never said once that Christ was a goat herder. Satan works to destroy Christ's works. He does this by placing weeds in with the wheat. Just because a weed is in His garden(church), does not mean He planted the weed, monsieur. As Jesus stated He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Satan plants the weeds, but God will pull them up. Another place you can read These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead.[Jude 12] As Jude had written a few sentences ago For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about[ long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.[Jude 4] That sounds like Christian carnality being pushed in the pulpits of some churches nowadays. Satan has used his minions to try to destroy churches, even back in Jude's time.

Again mon ami, you need to learn better comprehension skills.

 

DHK, let me clarify my stance. I will break it down to its simplest terms.


Christ is the Head of every believer from Adam unto the last one saved. Most of these believers have been part of a church. Some died before they could take membership, however. I have heard of people being saved having terminal cancer and died as they were taking them to the water to be baptized. Now, if Christ is the Head of only those who have been baptized and have membership in a local church, what about those who died before they could be baptized and added to a local church?

There is a church universal that is also referred to as the body of Christ. Every believer from Adam unto the last one saved is part of His body.

The church(assembly of all saved of all time) is His body, monsieur.

 

Go back into the time of Christ. What would they think?

Mat 16:18 And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter, and on this rock I will build this universal assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.
--It doesn't make sense does it? There is no such thing as a universal assembly. An assembly cannot be universal. An assembly congregates in one place at one time for a reason and is organized. The disciples would have no idea what Christ would have been talking about. Jesus was not teaching mysticism. Many pastors today do. Perhaps this is where it arose from--a mystical universal church which cannot exist until the rapture takes place. Then and only then can all believer assemble together in heaven.

He was writing to Ephesus and not one else.
The Bible has one interpretation but many applications.
We use generic terms all the time. Marriage involves one man and one man.
Which man? Tom, Dick or Harry? The statement doesn't specify. We know that it is generic by context. It is a singular noun representing all men in all generations. It is used in a generic sense.
Ephesus was one church. Christ was the head of that church, as he was the head of every biblical church.
The same teaching is given in 1Cor.11:1-4. As the man is the head of the woman so Christ is the head of the church. Which church? The church at Corinth. That truth applies to all biblical local churches.

Let me give you a conversation between a Christian and Muslim for an example (all made up of course).

Muslim: I go to my mosque every day.
Christian: Are you part of the Universal Mosque?
Muslim: What do you mean "Universal Mosque? Our religion is Islam, and one day our religion, Islam, will be universal. In fact it is universal right now.
But I am going to my mosque, here in my city.
Christian: But isn't your mosque universal?
Muslim: (baffled) How can a mosque be universal? Are you stupid? Have you seen our mosque? Have you seen our worshipers? What do you mean "universal". Our religion "Islam" is universal, not our mosque.

Do you see the idiocy of your definition making "church" or assembly as "universal"? It is impossible. Just as a mosque cannot be universal neither can an assembly or "church" be. Christianity may be universal; so can the family of God, the bride of Christ, the kingdom, etc., but not the "church" or assembly, which always must be local.

 

I have no argument there. The bride includes all believers.

He is omniscience. His omniscience does not diminish his love. His love is to all men. He does not have "two kinds of love." He is divine.

The analogy is not perfect since Christ is God and I am not.
Christ loved all and I cannot. There are too many differences between mankind and God to count. He died for all. His love was for all. That some refused Christ is not the fault of Christ. Don't pin man's sin on God. It doesn't diminish the love God had for them at all.

No, God's love is not a mess. Your word's attributed to me are out of context. The Calvinists view of love are a mess, for they stress sovereignty over love and mercy. Don't attribute "love is a mess" to me. I did not say that about God's love. This is a false representation about my view of God's love.

God loves all men equally. He is not prejudiced. The fact that some refuse His love is not the fault of God. They of their own will refused God's immutable love for them.
In God's creation, God pronounced all was very good. But not all behaved "very good." Again, was that God's fault? Will you attribute sin to God?

 

You should know better than to call "Lakewood" a biblical local church."
It is not. Its pastor is a false teacher disseminating false teaching. That is no better than calling a gathering of J.W.'s a church. It is not. It does not fall within the parameters of the definition of a local church.

I believe a truly biblical church will.
Look at what John said:

1Jn 2:19 They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have surely remained with us, but that they might be made manifest that none are of us.
--The false "believers" left the church. They could not sit under solid biblical teaching. They "were not of us." If they were "of us," they would have remained faithful. Eventually their true colors will be made known. An unbeliever can only pretend for so long.

If the pastor and leaders have done their due diligence he should not be there at all. If, somehow he sneaks in, he will not remain.

 

Having been called out, which is not in dispute, does nothing to speak to the method or the mechanics in which we were called out.

 

PLEASE tell me this is a misquote.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”[Rev. 21:1-4]

The bride, New Jerusalem, is composed of all believers from all time, the church, the body of Christ.

 

The church is an assembly and always refers to an assembly. It is local, not universal. The one and only time it can be universal (so-called) is when all believers are gathered in heaven as one great assembly. That is referred to in Hebrews 12.

Heb 12:23 the universal gathering; and to the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven; and to God, judge of all; and to the spirits of just men made perfect;
--This is a heavenly scene where all believers will be gathered together after the resurrection takes place as one great assembly.
Until then we assemble on earth in assemblies we commonly call "church."

When Christ comes all believers will be raptured. I believe that all believers will make up his bride. If I didn't, I would belong to those who call themselves "Baptist-briders," and I am not. I am not so extreme and arrogant to believe that only Baptists living for the Lord will be raptured, but there are some that think so.

As for this age, God's blessing is on the local church. That is a divine institution which he has ordained for this day and age.

 

I believe there is a universal body or bride of Christ, but I am in substantial agreement with you about the local church.

 

Does it?
Here is a more accurate translation:
Heb 12:23 the universal gathering; and to the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven; and to God, judge of all; and to the spirits of just men made perfect;
--It is a universal gathering. This universal gathering is no doubt all inclusive including the angels and all in heaven.
--Then there is an assembly. This is an assembly of the firstborn. The word here is used in the sense of "preeminent." That is, those who Christ died for and redeemed. They are part of the universal gathering, but still an assembly of all believers. They are assembled together before God, the judge of all.

Every Christian is called out. Every believer stands apart out of that universal assembly apart from the angels and other spirit beings that may be there.

Who was Peter addressing?
1Pe 1:1 Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ, to the sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
--Jewish believers who had been scattered because of persecution. His theme is all about suffering, especially during times of persecution.

A good verse to point out that Christ does not now rule this world.
He will not be the Lord of this world until he sets up his kingdom.
Right now Satan rules it.

What are you talking about?
This is the battle of Armageddon where Christ comes to save the Jews, and puts down the enemies of the Jews. There are no Christians here.

So, do that! Live your life as God would have you to live it. Did I say anything different?

You have offered not one verse of scripture that demonstrates ekklesia should be translated as universal church--none.

Col 1:18 And *he* is the head of the body, the assembly; who is the beginning, firstborn from among the dead, that *he* might have the first place in all things:
--Obviously written to the assembly at Colosse. Christ was the head of that assembly. Let me ask you: Is Christ the head of your church?
Or perhaps it is the pope or some other figurehead?

Christ is the head of each and every local church. If he is not the head of your local church, then you don't have a biblical local church, and you should leave it immediately. There is no such thing as a universal church/assembly.
There is no such thing as an "unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction in terms.

This truth that he wrote to the church at Ephesus should be applicable to us all. They are called "timeless truths."

Can you give me one good reason why they cannot be referred to as local assemblies since that is who Paul was writing to? Put yourself in their places. What would the Ephesians of that time think? How would they take the words of Paul. The concept of a "universal church" was unknown in the first century.

A local church is a body of Christ. Study 1Cor. 12. Each member had spiritual gifts that they were responsible for and they were to be responsible for their gifts and not coveting the gifts of others. In this way the church/assembly would work in harmony. The chapter in no way could be applied to a so-called universal church.

This is speaking only of a local church. Read further.
Co 12:26 And if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it ; and if one member be glorified, all the members rejoice with it .
--Someone is our church just had a heart operation and is still suffering the effects of it; another has cancer. You don't know that. You don't "suffer with them." You can't. This applies only to a local church. All the universal church does not know about the needs and suffering of each other--impossible. The entire chapter refers and is applicable to local churches only. Study it carefully.

Who has the bias here?
ekklesia means assembly or congregation. It has no other meaning in the Greek. If you force another meaning into it you have not rightly divided the Word but rather butchered it. You are doing what a cult would do. There is no universal church, and it can't be inferred or drawn out from ekklesia, which only has the meaning of "assembly, congregation."

Pure Calvinism.

 

You are the confused one here.
Let's examine the word: ekklesia. It comes from two words: ek and kalew.
ek is a preposition meaning "out" or out of.
kalew is the verb "to call"; hence to call out.
This is the derivative of the word ekklesia, not the meaning.
The meaning is "assembly," or "congregation," which comes from the derivation ekklesia. to call out. That is what an assembly basically is. But the meaning is "assembly." The meaning and derivation are not the same.

Take "Sunday." You give the definition or meaning.
The derivation is Sun + Day = "the day we worship the sun"
Do you worship the sun on Sunday, Protestant?
Do you adhere to the derivation of the word, or the meaning of the word?
Its meaning is: "first day of the week," for Christians day of worship or day Christ arose," for others "last day of weekend." But its primary meaning is "the first day of the week."
I do hope you are not worshiping the Sun!!
You gave the derivation not the meaning. The two are different.

I don't disagree. All will also agree on the derivation of "sun."

The only universal application of ekklesia is a local one, as lexicons can tell you. It means "assembly."

Rev.7 is a non sequitor. It is a passage taken out of context speaking of the end times.

I didn't say that. It is not MY authority. My authority is the Word of God.

You imply that all Baptists are Calvinists and also should hold to an ecclesiology just like yours. Are you the Baptist Pope? Only the Baptist Pope would force all Baptists to a homogenous view of the Bible and take away soul liberty (a Baptist distinctive that our fore-fathers paid for in blood).

The arrogant claim of Protestant, inferring that he is the Protestant Pope leaving no room for soul liberty of any other Baptist. Sad!