1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

No universal church?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Dale-c, Jan 16, 2008.

  1. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Brother Mike,
    I do not see.

    How can I see something that is invisible?

    Still there remains a very real truth that the universal body cannot separate itself from an unruly sinful member, thus, the whole becomes leavened.

    I have no problem with your believing as you do. you believe I am incorrect and I believe the same of your view, it is not personal on either part.

    I just cannot see how the invisible church can maintain a discipline within its body, in fact, there is no scriptural way for this to be possible. INMHO, this one doctrine of a universal body has been a contributor to many other far worse errors being brought into the body, and thus accepted by some, or many, after all, we are all part of an invisible universal body that none can Biblical hold accountable.

    Please, do not take my belief on the church personal. I cannot see the family of God and the church of God, which Christ called out and organized during his earthly ministry, as one and the same.

    I simply stated that when someone shows me how to universally and invisiably restore a backsliding universal invisible member, then I will find I am in error on the church.

    bro. Dallas:wavey:
     
  2. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    1
    What is the difference in what you just said than claiming there is one universal church that is made up of a large group of individual local churches?

    Is this just a matter that you and others do not like the term "universal"?

    My question was specifically in regards to someone, I believe Pastorgreg, claiming that Matthew 16 was a reference to a local church. And if that is true, then I would like to know what local church Jesus was referencing? I find nothing in Matthew 16 that would address it to any specific local church.
     
  3. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    BroDallas,


    OK. Would you please identify for us exactly which one organised local body is the only place where Christ works and the only place where there are christians?

    Is it your local organised body that meets in your building?

    Yes or No please

    Mike
     
  4. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    BroDallas,

    INVISIBLE?????

    Brother, christians are not invisible. You can see them just like you can see everyone else.

    You could travel the world over...N America, S America, Europe, the Far East, Russia, Australia, etc etc etc....and you will find born again christians there. You can see them, touch them, hug them, pray with them. They will take you to their meeting places where they worship God and learn of Him.

    We are not talking about false organisations like the Church of Rome or the Eastern Orthodox, false cults, etc. We are talking about christians.

    None of this is invisible. Its the living, breathing, active Body of Christ on this earth. Its Gods CHURCH, made up of all manner of tribes and tongues, all worshipping the same God and living in the goodness of the same Lord Jesus Christ.

    Mike
     
  5. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are now putting words in my mouth. I have never said that anyone outside of that one true body is 'unsaved'. In fact, if you will read my posts on the BB you will find that I am constantly defending against the erroneous belief that anyone of us can righteously judge the heart (and thereby the position) of any other.

    I have stated, the church Christ called together during his earthly ministry has not always been named 'baptist' but has always had baptistic faith practice and order. It then follows that I believe this body and this body alone possesses scriptural NT authority to perpetuate the gospel, to maintain the church ordinances and to organize NT churches. No where in this do I or have I said that those engaging in other organizations are unregenerated.

    bro. Dallas:wavey:
     
  6. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    broDallas,

    Ok. Now 1st let me say that I understand what you are talking about here, and I agree with your premise. I have seen the timelines, literature, charts, and read the information that shows that there has always...from the 1st century all the way until today...been "new testament" assemblies that, although they went by many different names, were very similar to what we now know as "evangelical" or "baptist" fellowships. That information is of course very troublesome for Catholics and others, and they try unsuccesfully to discredit it.

    I'm right there with you on that.

    But now let me ask you 2 questions, if you dont mind.

    You say...

    You say that in the past they might not have been called "baptist". But right now they are called baptist.

    So, my 1st question is...

    Do you believe that today only the baptist churches world wide have the "authority" to "perpetuate the gospel, to maintain the church ordinances and to organize NT churches".?

    Along with that, you said...

    I dont either. But my 2nd question is this. Since you acknowledge that Baptist churches...world wide are made up of christians, and that there are "regenerated" people in other groups that are also located all across the world, just what is your objection to saying that all of these millions of born again people, all across the world, constitute the "universal church"?

    After all, all of these millions of christians all across the world are all brothers and sisters in the body of Christ.

    In light of all of this, why the objection?

    Mike
     
  7. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Bro Mike,
    I believe these to be the family of God, the entire household of faith. I also believe this number is made up of countless who have experienced the grace of Christ, but have made no public profession, nevertheless, they are regenerated, justified and eternally secure, even as their brothers and sisters who have publicly professed faith and entered into the local visible church.

    As I said, the church requires discipline, the universal, invisible member cannot be disciplined, he/she is not subject to the church; This person does belong to the family of God that shall be gathered in eternity, together with all the elect of all ages, but not of the church.

    bro. Dallas:wavey:
     
  8. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    BroDallas,

    Why are you assuming they cant be "disciplined"???

    The vast majority of these people have been drawn, by God, into fellowships where they meet and worship collectively. Those fellowships have pastors, deacons, etc just like your church and mine have.

    I just dont understand what your objection is? All of these born again people, in local fellowshipps, with pastors etc, are scattered all across this globe, and they are the "universal" church.

    How about the "worldwide" church? Can you give an "Amen" to that?

    God bless,

    Mike
     
  9. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I took it that he was referring to people such as those I mentioned in one of my messages to this thread (Message 15) - those who say that membership of the universal church is sufficient, and that there is no need to join a local church.

    As I see it, both are important.
     
  10. D28guy

    D28guy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    1
    David Lamb,

    Well, regarding those who might, for whatever reason, balk at plugging in with a local fellowship...they are indeed part of Gods church, assuming they have entered into a relationship with Christ.

    But they are missing so many blessings by not joining a community. I dont know why they would balk at that, but some do. My experience has been that many times they have had a bad experience with one, and usually its our old nemesis....heavy handed legalism. They joyfully join up with a church, and then discover that the leadership goes beyond their bounds, and decide that THEY, the leadership, are to be God in the peoples lives....rather that letting GOD be God in their lives.

    At least thats probably the most common thing I have seen. Its a very sad thing to see happen.

    Mike
     
  11. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, Mike. Not only do they miss out on blessings, they also miss out on their responsibilities.
     
  12. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Brother Mike,
    Brother David is correct in summarizing my thoughts.

    I believe part of a local body's responsibilities is that of maintaining discipline. I am not speaking of the leadership lording over the body or particular members. But I do see where as a member I am to be held accountable for my actions, thus discipline unfortunately is sometimes needful. Where I am a member of a universal invisible body and have a view that to be all sufficient, I cannot be held accountable by any in my life, lifestyle, doctrine, etc.

    Now, Having said that, I hope you don't think me to just be argumentative. I can see the family of God consisting of those outside the church, I believe God knows this number, for whatever reason they have opted out of obediently following Christ in baptism, they have, this does not make their membership in the family of God, the household of faith to be void, but in my understanding of the church, they are not members. I do not doubt their being gathered in heaven to worship around the throne.

    This is something I have tried to 'unlearn' but seem to be unable to do so. I don't mean to discount the testimony of others by it, just to state it is what I believe.

    Either Christ founded a particular body of believers and this is the church with all that is needful having been set in it already, or He has a body that is ever changing, always trying to keep pace with the world, in order to maintain 'relevance'. A relevance that marks it approved by the world.

    I prefer to think Christ did call out a particular body; that He did establish a particular pattern of worship; that His leadership in that worship, faith, practice and order, with scriptural support, is sufficient for His body.

    For someone to claim membership in a 'super' body of believers is simply a denial of the responsibility to obediently submit to scriptural baptism and engage in a covenanted relationship in a visible local body.

    Now, honestly, how can my local church be held responsible for me when their doctrine, their practice, and their discipline is not measured by scripture, but measured by my personal membership in a body which they cannot see or maintain.

    There are just too many problems. This invisible body certainly cannot meet in one accord, not now, they cannot therefore fellowship in the Lord's Supper, they cannot thus maintain a Scriptural faith and order, they cannot maintain even their own property, any of these things may be taken from them in a legal court.

    I do not worry about these things happening, but have preached in at least one church that did suffer this. In alaska, a body of landmark baptists in sentiment came together. They failed to 'organize' in such a way that made themselves a particular body of believers with a particular faith, practice and order, including a method of receiving new members. After a while they began to be visited by more and more people of the community. The majority of these people were pentecostal. They soon outnumbered the original founders. The doctrine of the church soon came under question; the courts were involved. The body having no established means of receiving new members, nor any semblance of a recognized statement of faith, or covenant, issued from the founders, the court ruled the majority made up the true body of the church. Thus, the original 'church' baptistic in its nature was forced to accept a pentecostal nature, or to re-establish itself.

    Forgive me and pray for me where you believe me to be in error, nevertheless, I cannot see the truth of a universal, invisible body, not where the church is exhorted to guard the truth.

    bro. Dallas:wavey:
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From what I have seen those who are against the "universal" or world wide church are only playing semantical games with the word. Having been part of the Independent Baptist movement in the 70's and 80's this doesn't surprise me that it comes from them. When I was young I was berrated with why pretaped background music was satanic, any woman who wore pants was a Jezabel, and any rebellious spirit of a teenager was a conspiracy.

    Christ said he would build His church. That was an all inclusive term. We do not need to run from the term to stay off Catholisism or the anti-Christ. That is just silly.
     
  14. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Bro.
    You should perhaps re-read your signature?:tonofbricks:

    Is Scripture inerrant?

    bro. Dallas:wavey:
     
  15. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    I've been computerless for a week, so I'm late in replying.

    Nothing in those scriptures you cited presents any difficulties for the Local Churchers. The kingdom is the kingdom. Every member of a true New Testament church is in the kingdom. The reverse is not necessarily true.
     
  16. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that every member of a New Testament church is saved? I would have to disagree.
     
  17. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    You are right and I should have been more precise. Every true believer who is a member of a NT church is in the kingdom. In fact, every true believer is a subject of the King. But a true believer may or may not be a member of a true NT church.
     
  18. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When the term "invisible" is applied to the Universal Church, the meaning is that it is the collective body of the children of God that God alone can see. He knows the wheat from the tares. We may or may not have that ability.

    The collective body of all the local churches in the world is a mixed multitude just as the Nation of Israel was under Moses.
    This collection is probably better refered to as "Christendom".

    Here are some passages that support the concept of the "Universal" Church (the collective body of born-again believers). I don't like the term "universal" but I'm not sure what would be better. But I define it as "The Church" as opposed to "the churches".
    IMO, Both are correct in their proper context.

    Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Church - singular; "it" - singular.​

    1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:​

    1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.​


    Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,​

    Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.​


    HankD​
     
  19. baptistteacher

    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    6
    Institutional not Universal

    I see it as the Institutional use of the word church. We have the Institution of the church, and the Institution of the family, etc. Not a universal church, or family, etc.
     
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you want to make a point I suggest you do so. If you want to play games with leading questions then do not bother to engage me. That is a tactic salesmen use when they want to convince someone to buy what the saleman knows they really do not want or need. It lacks integrity.
     
Loading...