Featured Does "The Church" exist?

There is no such thing as a universal church. Such a monster cannot be found in the Bible. The word is ekklesia. It means "assembly." It is impossible to have an unassebled assembly. It is a contradiction of terms.

 

Sorry, but you are wrong! The bride of Christ does not consist of all the redeemed from Genesis to Revelation or all the redeemed from the cross to the second coming. That is factually not true. Revelation 21:24 demonstrates there are multitudes of "saved" people living on the new earth OUTSIDE the New Jerusalem where the Bride dwells. Revelation 19:8-9 demonstrates clearly there are other saved persons invited to the wedding that are not part of the bride of Christ. Angels are not invited guests as they need no invitation as they are already permenanent residences of the New Jerusalem. The Bridal Psalm demonstrartes these guests are spiritual vigins (saved) outside and apart from what symbolizes the bride.

So the "family" is not equal to the church in this age. Neither is the kingdom equal to the church in this age. BTW the family and kingdom are not synonyms either.

 

DHK...

You posted...

Yes there is. It is all of the redeemed. Here on earth or in heaven

Well, I disagree with your view of Gods people. I believe that Gods redeemed are the most beautiful people on earth.

Yes..it is.

You are correct. It does.

We are all assembled.

Those you have passed on are assembled in heaven.

Those you have not passed on yet are assembled here on earth.

God recieves continual praise from from both of those assembled groups.

Hope that helps.

 

If it is universal, it can't be an assembly. That is a contradiction. An assembly must be local by definition. Where do all the believers of the world assemble?

And where do they assemble? Some day there will be a one-world church. The head will be anti-Christ. As for now, there are only churches. That is what God ordained. Ekkesia means assembly. An assembly cannot be universal.

Where? At what time? At what place? Who are the deacons? Who preaches? Who takes up the offering? What is the purpose of it?

Now you are dealing with the paranormal, the Spiritualists, witches, those whom the Bible condemned and stoned to death.
--We are commanded not to communicate with the dead.

You don't get the meaning of ekklesia do you? It is an assembly or a congregation. It must be local; it has no other meaning. There is no such thing as a universal assembly except when we all get to heaven. Then we can be assembled together in heaven, but not until then.
How are you now assembled with the believers in Africa, South America, India, etc. all at one time in one place--a universal assembly. It cannot happen, does not happen. You are in denial.

God receives praise from those in local churches, that instrument which he has ordained to carry out his work.
1. Every epistle of Paul was written to a local church or a pastor of a local church.
2. Paul went on three missionary journeys, in which he started over 100 local churches.
3. Paul never started any such monster as a universal church, something totally foreign to the NT. It does not exist; cannot exist.

 

............

 

Look at what you stated above! At the very minimum you have TWO different assemblies not ONE and the Bible says there is but "ONE BODY." Now it is either one IN NUMBER or one IN KIND. You are forced to embrace at the very minimum TWO not "one." Furthermore, your TWO are not ONE in kind but completely different in kind as well as the place of assemblage.

Second, Those on earth are not ASSEMBLED together and to say they are is to jump out of reality to a dream world. That is why I said at "minimum" you have at least two but in reality you have hundreds of thousands.

I don't doubt your sincerity or love for God's word or His people. However, you simply do not understand the Biblical teaching on this subject. The family of God is not synonymous with the church of God. The kingdom of God is not synonomous with the church of God. Neither are the kingdom and family of God snyonymous with each other.

The Largest entity among these three is the kingdom of God. God's kingdom ruleth over all and includes his whole creation as far as territory he reigns over. In regard to the people of God it is used to refer to the true seed of the kingdom while living on earth at any given time (Mt. 13) and it is also applied to the PROFESSED rule of God both in the Old and New Testament wherein both the true seed and tares are included. For example, the nation of Israel included both the professed and actual people of God.

The family of God is the next largest in size. It includes all the elect on earth and in heaven but it does not include those yet to be born into the family of God (Eph. 3:15).

The church of God is the localized visible assembly of baptized believers as a representative body of God's kingdom and family upon earth. It is given the keys of the kingdom thus distinguished from the kingdom itself.

 

Biblicist...

Well, I've kinda seen it already, since I posted it. :wavey:

Very good. Yes, you are correct.

Yes! you are doing very well so far.

Thats why I never said they were assembled physically together. But they all assembled none the less.

"Hundreds of thousands" would work wondeefully as that would describe wonderfully all of the individual church gatherings that occur every week at any number if individual places, and different times, and for different reasons.

Actually, I do...but I am completly at ease with your disagreeing.

Actually, those are indeed basically synomomous.

Basically, they are.

I'm basically fine with that.

No problem with that, as long as by "elect" you mean the "whosoeverwills" who freely choose Christ.

I dont deny that, but your view is insufficient. The "Church" also includes all who are in heaven now, and also those who are born again, but not gathering regularly with a local church.
__________________

 

Ephesians 4:3-6 is an abstract teaching about the PRACTICAL WORKING unity between the members in a localized congregation. Practical spiritual unity is described in verses 2-3 whereas doctrinal unity is expressed in verses 4-6. Indeed the whole passage relates to bring every member into the unity of "the faith" so that they are PRACTICALLY here and now doctrinally stablized so they are no longer tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.

The reason "one body" begins the list in Ephesians 4:4 is that unity in one congregational body is the epitomy of practical unity. There is no greater practical and pragmatic demonstration of unity then to be able to exist in one congregational body in agreement with the same doctrine working together under the authority of Christ.

Your concept of "the body" of Christ is the extreme opposite in regard to any kind of practical pragmatic unity. Your concept is the greatest schismatic divisive example possible.


Also, your usage of the terms "body of Christ" contradicts the very meaning and usage of a metaphor. Every metaphor in Scripture used for the church is by nature localized and visible including the metaphor "body of Christ."

You are confusing spiritual union by regeneration with metaphorical congregational membership. The metaphor "head" is NEVER used to describe spiritual union but is the consistent metaphor used by New Testament writers to describe "authority." This is apparent in Epheisans 1:20-23:

20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.


The subject here is the authority of Jesus Christ as the underscored and bold statements above demonstrate. However, let's take your idea of spiritual union and attempt to apply it here. Note he is the "head over ALL THINGS." If the metaphor "head" had to do with SPIRITUAL UNION with the church here then you end up teaching pantheism as that would make Christ in SPIRITUAL UNION WITH ALL THINGS and thus pantheism.

However, if the term "head" is used as it normally is used as a metaphor by Paul (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-25) then it simply means "authority" and the teaching here is that Jesus Christ has been set at the ultimate position of authority (right hand) and thus has authority "over all principalities....power....put all things under his feet....head over ALL THINGS" including the church and for the utlimate good of the church. It is his authority that fills the fullness of all things as nothing escapes it anywhere in God's creation.

 

DHK...

Regarding the truth of the Universal church, you posted...

Completly false. (see Hebrews 12: 18-24)

Down here, anywhere we want to. (Where 2 or 3 are gatherd in my name. I am in the midst) And for those in heaven, the options are limitless.

Any time

Anywhere.

Where do you get the idea that there has to be deacons to gather in Christs name.?

What makes you think you have to have all of that to gather in Christs name. 2 or 3 can do that and Christ is present.

 

DHK, you and the Biblicist are doing a good job defending our position. Let me throw in one point here. That is, that the local church is the only entity that qualifies as the Body of Christ. Paul reinforces that in I Corinthians 12:27

Who is YE? The congregation at Corinth--THE body of Christ.

 

Ann, of course, you are correct.

I'm going to quote Thomas Paul Simmons from his 1935 book A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine which speaks to your point:

In I Cor 12:27 Paul describes the local congregation at Corinth as THE body of Christ.

 

I agree with you on that.

 

Well, two are now wrong instead of one.

 

The bride is composed of all believers--disobedient or otherwise.
Even if the believer is not baptized he will be a part of the bride, and likewise if he is not a member of a local church he will be a part of the bride. The bride has nothing to do with the local church. The local church is a body of Christ as is every Biblical local church. See 1Cor.12 for a good description of one.
All believers belong to the family of God and are scattered all over. The bride will be assembled in the same way when Christ comes for his bride, and the wedding feast takes place in heaven. Christ is coming for his own (but it is not called "the church.")

 

If I may now interject: I think what Tom said above is correct and yes the body and church are the same, I think your confusion (stemming from the verses you posted initially) lies in that most of them state that Christ did indeed die/give himself for his Church/his Body, nourish it..etc. I think (correct me if I am wrong) you are bringing in the assumption that they are essentially saying.... that he did these things ONLY for the church, but did he not die for the old Testament saints as well? Did He not die for, nourish, love etc... Abraham, Moses, the Prophets? Yes he did. I think you are reading these with too much exclusivity in mind rather than inclusivity. This, I think is where most of the confusion comes in. People hear local Church only, and they then assume: But wait, doesn't that mean that Local-Onlyists must somehow hold that Christ died ONLY for those local Assemblies?

An example: I have 4 daughters: If I said: "I love and gave myself up for my wife, I nourish and provide for her" I presumably also love my daughters in this manner as well, only the topic (at the time) was my wife. I am not excluding my daughters. Hope this clears up the local-Church only position a little.

 

I believe you are totally wrong here. For example, Revelation 21 occurs AFTER the Great White Judgment in the NEW heaven and earth and there are "SAVED" nations living OUTSIDE the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:24). The fruit of the tree of life is for the overcomer in the church (Rev. 2:7) while the "leaves" on the tree are designated for the "nations" living outside the New Jerusalem on the new earth (Rev. 22:2).

The fact that it is their "kings" which bring their glory "INTO" the New Jerusalem while they are said to "walk in the light" of it proves they do not dwell inside.

The metaphor of marriage is used to describe the present relationship or spiritual union between Christ and the individual believer that is already bringing forth fruits (Rom. 7:4-6) here and now. However, the metaphor of the ESPOUSED bride is used for the future presentation of the local congregation to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2).

The "righteousness" of the saints who make up the metaphorical bride is not "imputed" righteousness in Revelation 19:6-7 but is explicitly attributed to the personal obedience of the Bride as "she hath made HERSELF READY" rather than to the imputed righteousness of Christ.

The bridal Psalm speaks of other "virgins" that make up the guests just as Revelation 19:8-9 does and angels are never invited guests as they are already residents of heaven. The Bride is NEVER invited to her own wedding!

There are scores of other passages of scripture that I could referrence to prove that all saints do not make up the escahatalogical bride of Revelation.