Dual Membership

I hear what your saying Tom. I agree with you that what I am calling the universal church and the kingdom, and the body of Christ are the same thing, specifically the body of all believers from Adam to the return of Christ.

Water baptism, as an outward profession of faith may be a requirement for membership in a local church, but we are baptized into one body, the body of Christ, the universal church. If you change churches you don't get re-baptized, not by water or spirit. Not if they are churches of like faith.

In I Cor 12:13 says that by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body. That has to be spiritual baptism into the universal church, the body of Christ. Paul was not baptized in Corinth, yet he says "we." He cannot be referring to the church in Corinth or any individual local church.

Likewise verses 20-26 show how we all relate to the body of Christ, the universal church. Every part of the body and every ministry of Christ is not present in every local congregation. One congregation may support a missionary to Africa, another might sponsor a children's home. Yet all congregations work together to form the body of Christ. The members of the body Paul talks about may be individual believers, or they may be groups of believers or even entire local congregations, each congregation part of the greater body.

The universal church does assemble. Every time two or three are gathered in Jesus' name. I can gather with a couple other believers at lunch at work and we can pray. And even though we might represent several different local congregations we are still an assembly of the body of Christ, of the universal church.

As far as the purpose of the universal church, it is the same as that of the local church but on a larger scale. A local congregation might take the great commission and send out a missionary here or there, but they cannot preach to the ends of the earth. But the universal church can, because it includes all the efforts all the parts of the body in one. Your local congregation may send out a hundred missionaries, but the universal church can send out millions.

Edify, instruct, support, reprove, the universal church does all these things, through its members, the local congregations.

Verse 27 seems the most clear to me. We are all members of the body of Christ, of the universal church, then in addition to that we are also members in particular of a local congregation.

At least that is what I believe Tom

 

Ecclesia (or ekklesia, Strongs G1577)

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the
council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance,
tumultuously
d) in a Christian sense
1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious
meeting
2. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal
salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites,
hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs,
according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
3. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a
company and are united into one body
4. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
5. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received
into heaven

I guess I am looking at definitions d-4 and d-5.

This word is used in Matt 16:18 when Jesus said:

Was Jesus talking about a specific local congregation or the universal body of believers?

How about Acts 7:38 which uses this word where Peter tells of Moses being in the "church of the wilderness" Was that a local church?

In Acts 9:31 this word is used to refer to Churches, plural, and includes churches in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria.

In Acts 14:23 this word is used to refer to Churches, again plural, and this time includes churches in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. Surely these were not all part of the same local church.

How about Acts 20:28, Paul says:

In this verse ecclesia is the "Church of God" and icludes all those Christ has purchased with his own blood. Certainly this includes more than one local congregation.

How about the multiple times this word is used in Revelation? How about Rev 22:16? Was revelation written only for those specific local churches or can we still use it today. I believe it applies to all believers, to the entire body of Christ.

 

I'm off to Wednesday night service. I'll respond later tonight. Although I see it differently, you have given the best reasoned rationale I've read for your position.

 

Actually there was only one church for them to be added to at that time, and that church consisted of 120 people. After that they most likely did divide up into smaller groups/house churches in order to teach and disciple them. We can take this passage in both senses that they were added to the universal Church AND they were added to this particular body already present and active in fulfilling God's commands.

We have nothing in scripture nor secular history that makes any such accertion - that they left 'that day'. Usaully (historically) merchants were there for a while (anywhere from a week to a month) to sell and trade as well as buy in order to come back with something to aquire more money. It wasn't wise to sell your goods and not buy something to bring home and sell again. That was their jobs and lively hoods. So culturally they typically would not be leaving any time soon, especially since they were all gathered together meant that it was a buying season either just starting or getting started. And they sure would not be leaving as new-born christians to go start new churches.

I will disagree with you here as well. The context of chapters leading to chapter 12 and after speak specifically to that local body of believers. In chapter 11 he is speaking to them as a church regarding their coming together for the Lords Supper. In Chapter 12 Paul is speaking to them about spiritual gifts and also the body regarding how no one is the same nor should be thought to all have the same giftings. He is using the Universal church as his illistration but the context is actaully speaking to them as a local body. I do agree that chapter 12 references the Universal Church but it does so to properly bring into the view the Local Church. This is why Paul continues to bring this truth home both personally (ch 13) and to instruct them in the proper practice corporately as a body using said giftings (ch 14) and continues on regarding their responsibilities and promised future (ch 15-16)


I agree though that it was fun NCT and I enjoyed the give and take as well. May God richly bless the ministry He has called you to and those to whom you have been made an overseer/pastor.

 

Then it would be more accurate simply to call it the kingdom.

What if the Greek "en," translated in the KJV as "by," was translated "in," which is one of the options allowed? And what if Spirit was simply rendered "spirit"? Then water baptism would be obvious in this verse.

But Paul is not addressing the Universal Church. He is writing to a visible, real congregation. The Corinth congregation was an immature group. They put up with sexual sin, they got drunk at the Lord's Supper, the tongues speakers flaunted their gift, etc. This letter is teaching them what a real congregation should be and should be doing.

The "greater body" does nothing. It is the local church which is doing and going, and it does it quite well without the "greater body." How is the "greater body" greater than the local church? It is a useless fantasy.

We have this happening all the time. Our local Baptist association's executive board meets monthly. They conduct business, they pray, they have a devotional, and the plan ministries. Not one of those board members would suggest that they're an assembled church.

The Southern Baptist Convention meets once a year. This is not a church meeting. There's a reason it's called a convention instead of the Southern Baptist Church.

.

How can it be larger? It doesn't do anything. Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Luke and Timothy went out from a local church at Antioch. Three missionary journeys from one local church. Pretty impressive. The Universal church never sent a missionary.

The first missionaries or evangelists, Stephen and Philip, operated out of the Jerusalem church.

Actually, my local church does preach to the ends of the earth. We're Southern Baptists. Local churches join together through the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board, state mission projects, etc. A great number of churches to individual missions all over the world. My church sent me and my pastor to Romania. My home church in Tennessee sends missionaries to South America every year. Some churches here in Paducah regularly send teams to Russia. This is not the Universal Church in Action. These are real, live human beings from real, live local congregations.

If the members and local congregations are doing all that, the Universal Church is unnecessary.

Paul is writing to the congregation at Corinth. It is the "ye" in v. 27. He did not say FBC Corinth was "a" body of Christ. He called it "the" body of Christ. Each local congregation, yours and mine, is the body of Christ, just like FBC Corinth.

In addition to the local congregation, church may be used in two other ways: generic sense and prospective sense. In the same way we talk about the family. We can talk about the breakdown in the family, but only individual families break down. Generic families do not exist. And the prospective sense. When we have the great General Assembly in heaven, then and only then will the Universal Church be a reality.

 

Dual membership is not a good idea. I think all your time, money, and talents should be to the one local church the Lord leads you to.

Sometimes dual membership is an administrative error. I joined our local church in 1977, and never gave the matter another thought. About two years ago, I got a call from a Presbyterian church which I had been a member of before 1977, and they said, and I quote "you are still on our inactive rolls, would you care to be an active member again?" Now folks, this is 28 years later. I have no idea why our church did not inform the last one, but for 28 years, I had dual membership.

 

d-1 and d-2 fit the usage in the Bible. Churches assemble.

If it is in an institutional sense, it always takes expression in a specific congregation. Jesus never spoke of two kinds of churches, visible and invisible. This is the same kind of church he spoke of in Matthew 18 regarding church discipline.

Nope, but it was an assembly. The same word was used in Acts 19:32 regarding the mob at Ephesus. It's not a church, either.

You realize you're making my argument for me?

In the sense that Jesus purchased your church and mine, yes. But Paul is referring specifically to the church at Ephesus in this passage, not in a universal sense or an institutional sense. This was the church over which the Holy Spirit at made overseers. Specific elders, specific church.

There are principles which may apply, but only to other local churches. They can't apply to an invisible entity. Remember, Jesus addressed only local churches in Revelation.

 

Tom, we have both been here before but I will reiterate something...

We are all baptized into one body by the Spirit of God and that body scripture declares is the body of Christ known as the church. The same Church in general form that JEsus speaks of when He states "I will build my Church". Into what local physical body is the Spirit of God baptizing people - or is it - into whom are you baptized by the Spirit?

We are not baptized by the Spirit of God into a local church but into the full body of Christ which is and will be the very bride of Christ. But we (believers) are all apart of that body of Christ which shall be presented blameless and spotless - the Bride, and it is at that point the local church will be no more but full assembly working together as one body with one mind for and toward Christ our God.

Otherwise to which local assembly do you think will be given the honor of being the Bride of Christ. Since the Church in your view is only singular and local it can only be One local Church body that receives this honor and becomes the Bride of Christ. This is one of the problems I see in your view. If it can only be local then the bride can only be one particular church and not even a grouping of churches because then you would have had an invisible body that was made up of more than one local church body.

So yes, in the first part of Revelation Jesus calls out to specific Churches but in the later part of the revelation they are all before Him as one body. We are one spiritually now but we will be one in totality when we all see Him face to face.

 

I agree with Tom on this one, the universal church has no function in our present state, as the local church will have no function when we are all with the Lord.

The original point of the thread was being active in two local churches at once, in fact, two different denominations. This makes no sense to me, as our serving the Lord is better served by being in one local church. I have no problem with cooperative efforts with other churches, but the focus is on the local church.

 

You'll get no argument from me and I agree with you.

However I do beleive that the Church is viewed scripturally as both local and general. Tom on the other hand does not agree that there is anything but the local church thus the fun side-bar (I enjoy our discussions Tom - nothing negitive in what I'm saying regarding you brother ). No real issue for me cause in the here and now, as you stated, the focus is the Local Church.

And then later... well it wont really matter at that point now will it

 

Well thanks for sharing your opinions guys. I don't think we are going to get to "one accord" on this one. That's ok.

We are going to keep our associate member program. It seems to work here and allows our part time or temporary residents to be more active in our fellowship and service. I do understand why some of you don't like it and that's ok too.

I do want to comment on one thing you said Allen, about the 120 and 3000.

I think we have a little different view of the 120 and the 3000.

In Acts 1:15 there are about 120 people that the Bible calls disciples gathered in one place. Going back to verses 13 and 14 it would appear that this group included both men and women and that the remaining 11 disciples, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Mary's other children were all part of this group. But no where does the Bible call this assembly a church and I see nothing in scripture that even implies that this group included all believers.

Now we know that in the days between the crucifixion and the resurrection the disciples had traveled to Galilee. Jesus' command to his disciples to remain in Jerusalem was not given until 40 days after the crucifixion. We know that Jesus appeared to more than just those 120 believers. (I Cor 15:6) While this group of 120 may have included most of the leaders of the early church I don't believe it included all believers at the time and I don't believe they represented only one local congregation. I believe there were representatives there from several groups of believers.

Now on Pentecost 3000 were saved. Acts 2:41 says that there were added that day 3,000 souls, but it never mentions a church or a local congregation. We know from Acts 2:8-11 that the gospel was heard that day in many languages. 15 different languages are specifically mentioned and verse 8 leaves open the possibility that there were even more.

Now Allen, from your quote above you believe that these were merchants who were in Jerusalem for extended business. That may be true but I had not heard that before. I had always believed that these 15 or more different nationalities represented Jews and Gentile seekers from around the world who had come to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. I thought these 3000 were religious pilgrims who had come to Jerusalem seeking God and that God of course had revealed himself to them. I thought most of the 3000 would have left that day for their home countries. Some of course may have stayed behind to learn more. And these men were new believers in Christ but they were also religious men and women who knew the scriptures of the old testament and were familiar with Judaism.

Now there is Acts 2:42-44 which seems to imply that all believers had gathered in one place. But this is after Pentecost and I don't believe it is clear. the "all that believed" in verse 44 is simply one local group of believers in Jerusalem. They were "all that believed" right there, but not "all that believed" in a universal or world wide sense.

I am willing to admit that I may be wrong here and I will pray and study this issue further.

I do worry Allen that your position is akin to "Landmark-ism" which says that only churches who trace their lineage back to those 120 people in Jerusalem are valid churches. I have known Landmark Baptists that believed their church was the only valid assembly in their area and refused to work with or acknowledge churches of like faith within their own communities. This is, I think, a dangerous position that limits what the universal church can accomplish.

When Tom earlier mentioned what his church can participate in and accomplish through the cooperative program and mission board that is exactly what I was talking about with the universal church. Individual churches in the SBC (of which I am a part) participate in the mission board. And then all the churches as a whole send those missionaries out. Many individual churches or parts of the body working as a whole to build the kingdom of God. That to me is the universal church. Not to limit it to SBC or even Baptists alone, but that is I think a good example of how God uses our individual efforts together to accomplish more than we ever could have on our own.

 

Cool :thumbsup:

What is a Church comprised of NTM?
Is it not those who are Born-agian, Spirit baptized believers?

There was no Church (in the NT sense) until that day of Pentacost in Acts 2.
I know some will disagree but they still have to explain aways the Spirit baptism that took place in Acts 2 (and never prior to it) and Jesus own world about the Spirit yet to be poured out upon them not many days hence. That the Spirit can not come until He departs. It is the not only the placing into Christ but also the very empowering of God the Holy Spirit in our lives.

The implication is explict that all the believers were there because they were of one heart and mind and doing exactly what Jesus told them to do. Go and wait till the Spirit be poured out upon you and when He is come you will receive power to be 'my witnesses'. If there were other groups/churches also in the area then they to would have recieved this baptism of the Holy Spirit that they too would be His witnesses. But the fact is scripture states only these 120 were His witnesses and they proved it by obedience of waiting and then going and telling, thus proving they were His church. Peter even states of the Gentiles who reveived the baptism of the Holy Ghost that they received the same baptism we 'did', refering back to the day of Pentacost.

Then you would have to validate that with scripture.
And from what I have read, I have never seen any. Nothing in scripture states that prior to the assembling of the 120 there were 'other' groups/churches and that the leaders of these other churches came together with this one particular church. Sorry but I need to see such.

Actaully it does just not right there in verse 41. The addition was, according to context, unto 'them' - the group that was alreayd together.

We see this even more so later on where 'they' (this consistently refers to all believers with included the 3000) met daily in the Temple. Since the temple was massive it could easily accomidate these numbers and scripture states they were there daily, in one accord as well as in their house. Which is a direct reference to the previous passage stating 'they' continued stedfastly (or with ceasing or daily) in the apostles doctrines/teachings (where did they get these - the Temple) and eating, working together to fulfill Gods plan (fellowship), and in prayers.

First, there were no Gentile seekers in this group. It was all Jews.

And secondly I actually wasn't meaning they were 'all' merchants and the fact they were merchants does not take away from your view either. It gave them a reason to come and the fact the Jerusalem was a great place of commerce at the time only increased such desire to come. However mine is an observation of culture and times playing a part as well (but scripture is not specific to this) so I am not staunch in this view that all or most were merchants but we must admit that many probably were.

Let me add this, there is something significant in the language used which implies they were there for a longer stay than just a tempory day or so because it states these 'devout men' were dwelling or living in Jerusalem.

Where did you get that idea? - just curious.

As I showed previously they were dwelling in Jerusalem. This term can be used either for a prolonged stay or an established settlement.

Agreed. But Judaism is not the same as Christianity. They have similarities but that does not mean they did not need mentoring and discipling.

If you maintain the context you have maintain the premise that this is still that same group. There is no pause in time between verse 41 and verse 42. In verse 41 -'they' believe, and in verse 42 'they' continued. And when you add verse 46 in the equation to elaborate where they did these things - it states 'they' yet again.

The context is clear it is the same group from the start and continueing.

I am wondering however, where this assumption came from?
I have never made any statements about the church having to come from the 120 nor anything even akin to such a statement. The only valid assembly is that which the NT defines. (born-again, spirit baptized, believers). There is no NT church without, at the very least, all three of these. Sure you can have assemblies but an assebly alone does not constitute the church for whom Christ Jesus gave Himself for.

I am SBC and I understand your point. A point which I do not disagree with. I believe there is an invisable Church as well as a local church. However in this present time the Invisable Church does not and can not full all the requirememts a local church body isto and can fulfill. (example: no functional organization, no personal over-sight, no collection of funds unto itself to be distributed in ministry and or need)

 

You know this is thread is exactly why I come to BB. This is a great example of the deep conversations we can have and the help we can give to one another when we discuss things without questioning one another motives, integrity, or salvation. This is the best thread I have participated in for a while. Thanks guys

Yea, I can agree with that. I guess the question we keep running into with dual membership is are we talking about all born again believers (universal) or just a local group of believers, and can a member of the former be a member of more than one of the later.

You know this was an amazing event that I have so many questions about that we will never answer on this side. Why did Jesus have to go for the spirit to come? And why the 10 days? Did it take 5 days for Jesus to get to wherever the spirit was so he could leave? What about omnipresence? The spirit empowered individual believers in the OT, why the difference? A very cool time in history that I wish I understood better.

Yes that is right they would have had to.

Does it say, only? I don't know. I will look for that.

And of course I can't, I don't think you can disprove the idea with scripture but neither is it proven. It is one of those things I believe but I don't know, you know? We do know that Jesus appeared to over 500 people after the crucifixion. If there were only 120 believers at Pentecost then at least 380 people saw Jesus in his risen form but refused to believe on him. That may well be true, but is certainly sad.

I just don't know, to many pronouns to be sure for me. I wish it was more clear.

Now that I don't know about. Acts 2:6-12 lists the members of the group. It says:

Now all these groups could have included Jews who were born and raised in dispersia, but verse 10 specifically separates Jews and proselytes. What were proselytes if not Gentile seekers of God? If proselytes were Jews then why does scripture differentiate them?

I can give you that. I am sure there were some merchants in the group, both local merchants and those from abroad who came to make a buck of the feast.

Sorry I missed that. I can go to Charlotte for business and dwell there for a night. We can go on vacation and dwell at the beach for a week. I don't see the implication you do. If men living there only temporarily were not included then why differentiate between dwelling and living?

I don't know for sure. That is just what I thought when I read it. I don't know that I was ever taught that. It just made sense to me, followers of God from all over the world would have been in Jerusalem for Pentecost. Sure it was not as big a feast as passover, but may have actually brought more gentiles than passover. Men and women, Gentiles and Jews of the dispersia, people who had sought to follow God their entire lives, now born again, armed with the full revelation of Jesus Christ, and filled with the Holy Spirit, going back to their synagogues throughout the world with the gospel. I just thought that was really cool.

No you have not and I apologize. I intended no slander, I just noticed what appeared to be some common ideas. You never said that and I did not mean to accuse you. You are absolutely right.

 

Exactly. When we all gather in the great General Assembly in heaven, the local congregation will cease to exist and we will be assembled as one group, all finally with full knowledge of the truth, and there will be no differences of opinion.

 

My view is that we are baptized IN the spirit, not BY the spirit, and this baptism places us into the kingdom, not the church (since the U-church does not exist). The work of the Holy Spirit is what regenerates us. Jesus said in John 3, we are born of the Spirit.

Regarding the church in heaven, there will be one local congregation in heaven (as I said in response to saturneptune's post). It'll be the General Assembly. It'll be the Bride.

 

Allan, I never take offense at your posts. We can refer to the church in an institutional sense, but it always, without exception, takes expression in a concrete entity. What you call the Church is more accurately the kingdom. The kingdom consists of subjects of the king. We shouldn't confuse the two.

For example, in Ephesians 5:23-25, Paul compares the husband-wife relationship to the church. "The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the church." For this to work, the husband has to be a real, live husband, and the wife has to be a visible, specific wife.

V. 25, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it." The wife I love is not some invisible,generic wife. She's real flesh and blood. I don't love every wife, just mine. The same Christ who shed his blood for the congregation at Corinth (Acts 20:28) gave his life for each specific congregation, yours and mine.

You are right, that eventually it won't matter, because before the Throne, we shall all be one. And there will be no need for the Baptist Board, then, for we'll have no differences to debate.

 

To Allan, NCT, and anybody else,

Rather than copy quotes and response, let me make a couple of observations about points you have raised.

Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry. He empowered it. Remember that those he sent out came back and marveled at their power. Even the demons were subject to them. On the Day of Pentecost, his congregation was already assembled, already had ordinances, already had been doing the work of the kingdom.

They already had the Holy Spirit (John 14 Jesus said "receive ye the Holy Spirit), but not in the same way it came on Pentecost. The HS basically, in a way, replaced Jesus' empowering (although I'm not exactly sure how).

Remember that after Jesus ascended, the disciples were sort of powerless, and did little or nothing. Jesus told them to wait until the Holy Spirit came, so all they did was gather, pray and wait.

The church did not come into being at Pentecost. It was already here.

Even though we don't see the eye-to-eye on the U-Church, I think both of you have sound views on the role of the local church.

 

Folks, I have to take a large part of the responsibility for hijacking this thread. My thanks to Salt City Baptist for starting another thread to get back on track to the OP.