A question for Southern Baptists

The fact is that on July 28, 2009 in certain parts of the world there is no local church. Yet there are those who do know Christ as missionaries there. Some of those missionaries might be the only Christian in that area. I can think of some independent churches which do not recognize a membership. They are very active in planting churches.

 

Because Tom Butler said it does not currently exist, not only here but in various other threads as well.

Me and Tom have been down this road a time or two, but one specifically in which we (and Brother Bob - I think) were contending for differing times as to when the church began. Brother bob was in the OT, Tom was for Gospels, I was for Pentacost. We give each other grace concerning the matter since we both agree that in the end both our views converge into the same thing.

 

Allan, you have correctly described my view, and I thank you. What some may read in the scriptures as "the church," meaning a universal church, I see more as a generic term, much as we would talk about the family.

But the concrete expression of the generic term is a visible, assembling congregation. The same for the family--it takes expression in a real family, not some universal family.

Just in case saturneptune may have misread my position, I make it clear--the U-church does not exist, and has no purpose for existing.

 

Well, we do differ on that. I believe it exists, and will one day be the only church that matters. It will split most local church rolls down the middle. I just do not believe at this point in time it serves any purpose, as you say, the Lords work is carried out by the local church.

 

So you use church in that context in a prospective sense. That in heaven, there will be one great general assembly, with all then knowing the truth.

We're agreed on that.

 

Saturn....

You...have...got...to...be...kidding.

When I was 1st born again...born of the Spirit...back in the early 80's, it was after several people in non-church settings witnessed to me. Over a back fence, at my place of employment, at a hospital, etc..and it would be several months before God would lead me to my 1st christain fellowship (church).

But during those months before finding my first church, I witnessed to my mother and father, my sister, my best friend from childhood and people where I worked.

I was a part of NO "local church" yet.

Yet I was sharing the gospel as best as I could.

My goodness you seem to have the "local church" up in some sort of "high and lifted up" status where it shouldnt be.

The local church is their for benefit and edification of the believers who gather there. I thank God for my local fellowship.

But to say that the local church is the only instrument through which the GOSPEL to be spread????

C'mon.

God used a MULE (to put it nicely:smilewinkgrin to prophesy to one of His servants one time.

He spoke to Paul, and many others, personally in a vision. He got His point across just fine one time using a dove, and Christ spoke REALLY well one time writing in sand with his finger.


:godisgood:

 

Alive in Christ,

Saturneptune is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. Here's my take on your post above.

It is obvious that individuals may and should do the work of the kingdom. Para-church ministries are all over the place, many doing God's work. Ideally, they should be accountable to a congregation, but many are sincerely seeking to do kingdom work.

This is the line that got my attention:

Let me take you to Acts 20:28, where Paul has been speaking with the elders of the Ephesus congregation. He has just told them to guard the flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers. He told them to feed the church of God (at Ephesus)--and here's the key part-- "which he hath purchased with his own blood." Paul, in his letter to the Ephesian church, again notes that Jesus gave himself for it. (5:25)

Therefore, I would advocate elevating the church that Jesus died for, being careful not to make it less than it should be. I conclude that if Jesus purchased the congregation at Ephesus, he also purchased the congregation which you serve, the one which I serve, etc. So yes, I have a great desire that the local church be high and lifted up.

Paul also wrote to the congregation at Corinth, which he described as "the body of Christ, and members particular." (I Cor 12:27)

Paul's letter to the congregation at Ephesus (3:2) "To him(God) be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus...." One way God is glorified is in the church.

When Paul wrote to Timothy, he explained one reason for his letter: (I Tim 3:15) "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Timothy is a local church pastor; the context is the local church; the instruction from Paul is how to behave in it; and the local church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

I stand with Paul in his esteem for the local church. It is the unique organism he established during his earthly ministry to propagate the gospel.

 

Terrific! We ought to implant that in the thinking of every seminary student. Thanks!

 

You two posting this close together can be confusing. For a second I thought you were tooting your own horn.:laugh:

 

I've always pictured the local church as being the visible manifestation of the universal church. Yes, there are some independently operating Christians but I would imagine that they are the exception to the norm. Basically said, if you want to see the universal church in visible form or in action, look to the local church.

 

Words mean things. The universal church takes no action. It has no form. You cannot have an invisible church that is visible. If the local church is visible and active, there is no reason for the existence of a universal church.

Now, if we want to say that there is the idea of a church in an institutional sense--such as we speak of the family--then it is proper to say the local church is the concrete expression of the church as an institution. Just as a real family is the concrete expression of the family as an institution.

But the institutional church is a non-existent church, just as the institutional family is non-existent. Only real churches are real and only real families are real.