Featured Baptist Bride?

I thought my post #28 was pretty good

 

It did not answer my questions, nor did you comment on the example I gave. So, what are the Biblical minimums(with references) required for a group to be a NT church? When is the exact time that God grants CHURCH status to a group. If the local, visible church is the only form of church, then surely you can answer these questions from God's Word.

 

Well, let's look at the first church, the one that Jesus established during his ministry, with the selection of the Twelve.

It had a Head
It had an officer--Judas, the Treasurer
It had ordinances--Baptism (John 4:2) and the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:26.
It had a Commission. Actually, two, one for his disciples at the beginning of his earthly ministry (Matthew 10:5); and the other right before his ascension for the church (his disciples) and its successors. (Matt 28:19-20.)
It evangelized. (Philip, Acts 8) (Matthew10:5)
It assembled. (Numerous references to Jesus instructing the assembled disciples.
It fellowshipped. (Passover, for instance)
It had a teaching component Matthew 5)--mainly by Jesus at first, then after his ascension, by his apostles and those they taught (such as Paul, Appollo, Acquila and Priscilla).
And, of course, it had the right doctrines.

And it had power (Matthew 10, demons subject to the disciples); before Pentecost.

That's a pretty good start.

 

One at a time here:

No, it understands them as BOTH

And when YOU provide a "CLEAR scriptural reference" as you challenge Tom to do (while trying to make him prove a negative btw) as to when the Bible EVER refers to the Church as merely all those who believe, then you have a case for the existence of the U-church.

Well, if it had a beginning, it is temporal by definition.

Although common amongst Baptist Briders this is NOT necessarily true of all Baptist Briders.

This is simply false. The differences are manifold.

TOM:
You do realize he is trying to make you prove a negative correct? He wants (and would only be satisfied with) a verse which says: "The local, visible Church is all that exists, there is no such thing as the Universal Church" Even then, I think he would explain it away.

Michael,
If you accept that the Bible DOES teach such a thing as the local, visible Church, it is then up to YOU, to demonstrate with your "Clear Scriptural References" that the Scriptures also teach that the Church is to be understood Universally too....Stop shifting the burden of proof.

 

You're still describing what you believe the church does. This is the fallacy of the local-only crowd; defining the New Testament church by a false example. Christ is the Head of the Church, not of a small group of men under the Old Law. Yes, Christ & the disciples lived under the Law until the sacrifice was complete & the Spirit had been sent. A casual reading of Hebrews would reveal this fallacy. The New Covenant was not in effect until Christ died; therefore, you are claiming a group to be a NT church which is Biblically impossible. Hebrews 7-11. Also, Christ did not establish evangelists, prophets, pastors, teachers in the church until after He ascended. Eph 4:8-12. Hmmmm, this lines up perfectly with the teaching in Hebrews that there was no NT church until after Christ died.

The New Testament Church, one in which the believers are in a Covenanted relationship with God, is not defined by what we do. That is another fallacy. If we are defined by our actions, then how long must we stop any particular action before God denies our "churchhood"? Our actions are a result of being the Covenanted Church, not the means by which we become the church. This is the same argument I use in favor of eternal security. If our actions can cost us our salvation, then there must be a Biblically defined point at which our salvation is lost. Try thinking about that for a while.

I must assume that you cannot or will not outline the foundational requirements for a church. I'll try one more time. If you cannot substantiate the most basic requirements for a church, then perhaps you should rethink your position.

How may of the actions & offices you listed must be in progress/filled before it is a church? (How many pastors, deacons, SS teachers, laypersons, etc)

When did God empower believers to be evangelists, teachers, pastors, prophets in the church? Eph 4:8-13

How could a New Testament(Covenant) church have existed under the Old Law; "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth"? (Heb 9:17) No death=no NT Church.

How long must a person refrain from assembling before they are Biblicallly no longer a member of the church?

 

Heirosalvation,

I don't think you understand what a negative is. It would be a negative to ask you to disprove the existence of God. It's not a negative ask for the Biblically-defined minimum requirements for a church. As a local-onlyer, these should be at at the foundation of your beliefs. The fact that the local church, as it is defined in our culture, cannot be defined apart from human action reveals a theological break in your thinking. Try applying your positions on salvation to your position on the church. You may be surprised where it leads you. That is what I did over 20yrs ago, & that is why I believe the local church & Universal Body are as harmonious as Christ's humanity & deity. Local churches are the simply members of the True Church meeting together "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ".

 

While Jesus was on earth, he established the first church. After he was gone, the apostles spread out and established churches, incorporating the same elements as Jesus did. At the same time, groups of believers came together and declared themselves an assembly patterned after the one Jesus established. They were all covenant communities.

Now, who decided on membership? Let's look at the event where Paul tried to join the church at Jerusalem and they wouldn't accept him. Acts 9:26-27

Clearly, the members of FBC Jerusalem determined whom they would accept into their fellowship.

Next question, how many elders, etc... At some point it'll need a pastor (elder), deacon, and some lay people (say, two or three). But today, a group may declare itself to be a church, then seek a pastor, elect officers, etc. In other words, a work in progress, but still a church. (Remember Jesus said "I will BUILD my church." He said that to the already established church.)

By the way, does a church quit being a church when the pastor leaves for another place of service?

Next, the question, how could have a New Testament church existed under the old law: Because Jesus said it did. In Matthew 16:18 he said "I will build MY church." Jesus personally would build the church, which he did. Before his death. Before Pentecost. And he gave instructions discipline in the church (Matthew 18.

 

You make so many assumptions against the written Word. According to the clearly written text of Hebrews, the New Testament Church did not exist until after Christ died. According to the clearly written text of Ephesians 4, Christ did not establish the key functions of the church until after His ascension: prophets, pastors, teachers, or evangelists. According to the clearly written text of Acts 1, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was a prerequisite to the Great Commission. No Covenant + no indwelling + no spiritual gifts = no NT church. Christ is still building His church that God adds to as people are saved. Acts 2:47.

Acts 9 doesn't say that Saul sought membership in a religious institution. To join one' self with others is a common saying that means to come into company of another person or persons. You are adding church membership into the text. We should not form our doctrine based on assuming language into the text that isn't there.

"I will build" (οἰκοδομέω, οἰκοδόμος), is in the future tense. The future tense corresponds to the English future, and indicates the contemplated or certain occurrence of an event which has not yet occurred. I don't see how you ignore the word "will" in the text. It is speaking of a future event. Your reference, when read in its entirety & kept in grammatical context, speaks against your position. You still haven't explained how your NT church existed under the Old Covenant apart from the all of the necessary elements of the New Testament. It didn't.


You would do yourself a great favor if you sat down & read Hebrews 7:15-10:20 without the assumptions or denominational bias.

 

There is an exhaustive discussion of the Universal & local Church vs local-only at:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=72977

I fully referenced my beliefs with Scripture. Can you produce that amount of Biblical support for local-onlyism without a single assumption placed upon the text?

 

What Hebrews text are you talking about? I have already demonstrated from the scriptures that it did.

Jesus was the prophet, pastor, teacher and evangelist for the newly-minted church. After he ascended, others filled those roles as new churches were formed. Note that all those roles were connected to the local churches, not to some nebulous invisible entity.

That it did, in John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

This was indwelling, prior to the Great Commission, before Pentecost.

It was also empowered with gifts. The disciples cast out demons, remember? The Head of that church also healed, raised from the dead, calmed the sea.

When one seeks membership in a church, he is expressing the desire to join the disciples who congregate there. That's what Paul did and that's what I meant.

Jesus did exactly what he said he would--build his church. He had already established it. Now he would build it. Today, we might say he grew his church.

I confess that I have biases. That doesn't mean they're wrong. They were not pulled out of thin air.

I am biased toward defining a New Testament church by what it does. Only the local church is equipped to carry out the Great Commission.

To argue for the idea of a Universal church is to argue for an entity which just is. It does nothing. Never meets. Never fellowships. Never evangelizes. Never spends a dime to spread the gospel. Never takes an offering. Never teaches its "members." Never baptizes anybody. It just is.

There was a song a few years ago called "Short People Have No Reason to Live." My next song will be "The Universal Church Has No Reason to Be."

In addition, if it exists, it is filled with people who believe error.

 

I repeat myself here, from previous posts, but it's obviously necessary.

If, as I hold, there is only the local church, and the Universal church is a useless fantasy, what about those verses which seem to speak of the church in a non-local sense? Say, Ephesians 3:10

First, there is the abstract or generic sense, where church is used in the same way as marriage, the jury, the home. One make speak in general terms about the home, but it has meaning only as it applies to a real, live home. There is no Universal Home.

Then there is the prospective sense. That great general assembly in heaven, a gathering of all believers. I think this is the meaning of Hebrews 12:23. It is a group which has not yet assembled--it is future.

And for emphasis, I repeat. Churches assemble.

 

Well, folks, I'm having to rethink some things. In researching the topic of the Bride, I ran across a blogger who made this statement: Nowhere in the New Testament is the church referred to as the Bride of Christ.

Ah hah, gotcha, I though. There's John's vision in Revelation 21 where he sees the Bride, the wife of the Lamb. Wait a minute. That passage doesn't say that The Church is the Bride.

Whoa! The angel said he'd show John the Bride, and he showed him the New Jerusalem.

Earlier in Rev 21:2 John said this

Not the Bride. Prepared, adorned as a bride.

Now I really would like to make the Bride the church (or general assembly in heaven). So is there some way we can make the New Jerusalem a metaphor for the Church in heaven. Anybody wanna try?

Wait a minute. The new Jerusalem is not in heaven. John saw it coming down OUT OF heaven. Did it come to earth? Is that where the Marriage Supper takes place?

Rats. I hope y'all have some answers.

 

Michael,

Oh, that's it....I simply don't know what it means to prove a negative..nvm. If you.......Assume the Bible does speak of the local Church....as Tom does....and apparently you do, He is in no position to argue the non-existence of your ethereal U-church. It is not your asking about Biblically-defined minimum requirements I am talking about, that is a fair enough question. It is by default your task to establish or make an arguement FOR this U-church.

I am not strongly committed to the idea of being a local-onlyer (you are making an assumption) I just dislike watching Tom bend over backwards to humor you, while you refuse to aknowledge any of his arguments.

I really don't know what you are saying with this...marriage can't either, (be defined apart from human action)....so what...can you explain what this means?

I also don't understand what this means...sorry probably my own ignorance.

 

All scripture must harmonise before we have an understanding of the truth. Many are the elect, numbered as the sands of the sea and the stars in the sky. Only a few make up the visible church, the little flock, the remnant, the few. The strait gate could not be all of the elect of God because only a few find it and all of his elect are as the sands of the sea. Scriptures do not contradict each other.

 

If you claim to be worshiping in the church that Christ set up, you should only be worshiping him by the same examples that we find in the scriptures telling us what practices that were used in the worshp service of the church that Christ set up by the information in the letters that were written to the church. I find an example in the scriptures that tell us that they only used the practice of preaching(2 Cor 10:14), and praying(Acts 12:12), and singing (Eph 5;19) in their worship service. Notice, they made melody in their hearts, not with musical instruments. If you can show me a scripture instructing us to use musical insterments in worshiping in the new testement church, then I would consider using insterments in my worship. There are untold hundreds of things that the worldly churches have added to their worship services. The purpose of a preacher of the gospel is to feed the flock by preaching, I fail to see examples of preaching schools, sunday schools, Basket ball gyms, choirs, baseball tgeams, etc.

 

You will probably agree that there are many different doctrines proclaimed in this forum, but the true church that Christ set up preaches only the doctrine of Christ. The true doctrine of Christ comes only by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, Matt 11:25, Matt 16:17, 1 Cor 2:10.

 

Thank you, Forest. I know where you're coming from now.

We're talking about different things. I'm talking about the functions of the local church and you are talking about worship services.

I'm perfectly willing to concede your church's right to conduct its worship services according to the way it sees scripture dictates.

I also now understand that as a Primitive Baptist, it is consistent for you to hold that missions and evangelism are not functions of the church, and that musical instruments are not part of worship.

I do want to quibble about Sunday School, which you also say is not scriptural. In both Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12, Paul mentions the role of teachers in the church. He actually lists teachers as third in importance to the church. Since there are no more apostles, they'd now rank second behind prophets (preachers/pastors).

Since they are appointed to teach, and Jesus himself commissioned his churches to teach his commands, then it means we of the churches must be willing to be taught.

That's all Sunday School is--a time of teaching and being taught.