Soul liberty - Just a nice theory?

Ah, the Christian charity is overwhelming.

Tell me, if you will, which Church is the Bride of Christ referred to in Eph. 5? Which one did He wash? Do you ignore the fact that at times the writers of the NT refer to a church in a city, when you know as well as I do that there were many small assemblies throughout that city?

So in Matthew 16 Christ really meant to say "my local churches" instead of "my church"?

Ah, the Christian meekness is refreshing.

Really? Paul sure did hold other churches responsible in his epistles.

Ah, and the gentleness is soothing.

I don't think Grant would argue that the RCC is a state run religion. I definitely don't see it. He was saying that the states were responsible for their actions, not the Church. If you want to play like that, I have heard of IFB pastors involved in adultery and pornography. It must be a result of the IFB system.

And the kindness is unbelievable!

Neal

 

The ekklesia and the Bride of Christ are not the same. The Bride of Christ is composed of all believers of all of ages, which I would prefer to call the family of God, a more Biblical term, since we are all children of God, once we are born into His family. Ekklesia, though translated church, simply means "assembly," or "congregation," nothing more, and nothing less.
There was at Jerusalem an assembly of believers that numbered at least 3,000 with more being added to that assembly each day. The fact that it broke up to have "Bible studies" in various houses does not take away from the fact that it was still an assembly or congregation. Stick with the meaning of the word and you will become less confused.
I suggest that you visit the General Discussions forum and read the thread on "local/Universal church." You will find, much to your surprise, that what I am explaining to you here, there are many more that believe the same thing. A church is nothing more than an assembly. There is no such thing as a universal church or an unassembled assembly. It is an impossiblity.

The church referred to in Ephesians 5 was the church at Ephesus, just as it was in Acts 20:28 when Paul addressed the Ephesian elders: "the church of God, which He has purchased with his own blood." He is speaking to the Ephesian pastors, and has in mind the Ephesian church. Read the context. What do verse 29-31 say:

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

If this is speaking of the universal church, why wasn't Paul warning all the churches for three years? Why isn't he hear warning us? The verse has no application and makes no sense at all if the text is supposed to relate to a universal church. The context (verse 28 included) is speaking of the Ephesian church. He warned the Ephesian church for three years. That was a specific church at a specific time in history. There is one interpretation of Scripture. Scripture interprets itself. But there are many applications. How does this apply to us?

As Christ gave Himself for the church at Ephesus, so He gave Himself for every Bible-believing church in the New Testament, and throughout every age including today. Christ is the head of every church that believes the Bible. 1Cor.12 gives that example of a local church being a functional body with Christ at the head, and we all are members of it. There he was writing to the Church at Corinth. But as he wrote to the church at Corinth, it applies to every local church.

[QUOTESo in Matthew 16 Christ really meant to say "my local churches" instead of "my church"?[/QUOTE]
It is a better interpretation isn't it? The word is assembly. He said "my assembly." 'My congregation." When you think of it that way it begins to make more sense. What was assembled at that time? He and his disciples, which became the prototype of the church or assembly that was first formed at Jerusalem.

Can you show me just one Scripture where one church is accountable to another church in the Scriptures. There aren't any. Each one was accountable to God alone. Paul as a missionary would advise them. He was an Apostle as well.

If what you say is true, then there would have been no Spanish Inquistion. There would have been no bloodshed by Catholic monarchs. The various popes could have quite easily put an end to it. But rather than ending it, they encouraged it.
DHK

 

So all references to "the Church" are just to local assemblies? Hmmm....interesting. Even though church appears to refer to all believers at times?

So they just had a great big meeting on Sunday at First Baptist Jerusalem? Even when they were persecuted, thousands convened in one place? And to show you I am not making this up, Zodhiates disagrees with your narrow interpretation (taken from AMG Complete WordStudy Bible and Reference CD):

and

So just like you I have people to back up my view of there being local churches and a universal church. I guess that is the joy of soul liberty!

Already have!

So then the local church exists only three or four hours a week, right? Only when they are assembled, correct?

So then Paul's comments don't have any application now, right? He was writing to a specific church in mind. Also, couldn't ekklesia have taken on a two-fold meaning, depending on context? When you say church today, what do people think of? The building, the local body, or the universal body? And talk of taking away application. We could never use any of Paul's guidance because it was all specific to local congregations. What goes for "the church" only goes for that congregation, not everyone.

Where do you get that from? Paul is only talking to the Ephesians, remember? Now you are conjecturing. Why should I accept you interpretation now?

Again, why? You have just pointed out that it is to one specific body. Why does it apply to all? On what basis can you claim that it applies to all? Does a small congregation of 20 have all of the parts it needs to do everything it should?

So then the gates of hell can prevail against Christ's church?

Hmm...that was not what I was addressing. I believe you said:

I was just pointing out that Paul held others accountable. You seem to cut out this possibility with your above statement. Congregation to pastor, he to God. Nowhere for Paul!

Just like some local pastors could put an end to their fornication or extortion, right? Or some members and pastors of Baptist churches that encouraged membership in the KKK. So does that cancel out your proposed system?

DHK, what you introduce is pure subjectivity and existentialism. Who has the truth? Not all of the churches. How do you know which one is right? If you say the Bible, there are many fine folks who use that very same argument and Bible verses to back up their position yet come to a different conclusion. So who is right?

Neal

 

Neal, you just nailed the Baptist distinctiveness known as Soul Liberty right on the head.

The answer to your question is: that depends. The ones who have it right are the ones who got together and voted that it is right.

 

What other kind of assembly is there, but local? At the end of chapter 19 in the Book of Acts a crowd gathered in the theater in Ephesus. The mayor dismissed the assembly (ekklesia), warning the people that if they had anything against Paul they could use the courts. An assembly gathers in one place such as in a theater (Acts 19) or in a church building, or in a house, etc. Ekklesia simply means assembly, although it is translated church.

Where does church (ekklesia) referr to all believers? The only place that I know of is in Hebrews 12:
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

This is the only time that the word assembly or church refers to all believers or a universal assembly or church, and that is when we will be all gathered together in Heaven. But, brother, we are not there yet.

Yes that is the benefit of soul liberty. There will of course be those that disagree with both of us. And they have the perfect right to. I realize that there is more than one view of on this subject. I am just convinced that the view that I hold harmoizes with all the Scripture better than the othere views that I have heard so far.

At first they met in the temple, then in the open. It then says that they went from house to house. Eventually, when persecution did come in Acts 8, they met whereever they could. In Rome it was in the catacombs.

Well, what do you think? Suppose the name of our church is "Faith Baptist Assembly?" It is a registered church or assembly in the eyes of the government. It has to be in order to give out tax receipts for charitable donations. The government recognizes it as a business. We are charged business rates for utilities such as telephone, electricity, etc. Even in advertising we are charged a business rate. Now it would be nice to be charged rent for the telephone line only for those few hours that we are in the building, but it doesn't work that way does it? It doesn't work that way with any kind of business, corporation, etc. For example, one of my children works for Ford Motor Co. He is not just an employee of Ford for the eight hours each day that he works there. He is employed by them even when he is not there. He is one of their employees whether working or not, whether assembled with them or not. Is it not the same for the local church. If one is sick and at home, is he not still part of the assembly? Of course he is.
The assembly always exists, because they have voluntarily come together as an organization (or better yet as an organism) with a purpose to function together as an assembly. They may not always be assembled. But they are one in purpose, one in doctrine, etc. It is much like a business, isn't it?

"When we say church today what do people think of?" This is my point exactly. The word church was a bad translation, if not a mistranslation. It should have been translated "assembly." The word church has many meanings, as you have already pointed out. But ekklesia does not. It simply means assembly.

The Bible is timeless Book. It has applications for every age, including ours. In 1Cor.10, Paul recounts much of Israel's history, as they came out of Israel, and were miraculously sustained in the wilderness. But in verse 11 Paul writes:

11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
--These things that are written in the Old Testament still apply to us today. They are written for our admonition.
That which is written in the New Testament obviously applies to us today as well. It is our handbook, a guidebook for life.
So I don't quite follow your logic. A local church is a local church. Paul wrote epistles or letters to local churches. He went on three different missionary journeys and established over 100 local churches, but never one denomination. Each church was independent of each other. However we learn from each epistle that he wrote. We learn from each church that he planted. We learn from history, especially the history of the Book of Acts. We learn from doctrine, especially the doctrine of the epistles.

This is not conjecture at all. It is as much conjecture as Paul teaching Pastor Timothy (2Tim.2:15) to "Study to show yourself approved unto God...rightly dividing the word of truth." Where do you get that from? Is Paul only addressing Timothy?? Yes and no. Yes, in that the epistle is addressed to Timothy alone. No, in that this command to study the Scriptures is applicable to every one of us, and that is not just conjecture. It is our personal responsibility, just as it was Timothy's. There is an application of Scripture here.
There is that same type of application of Scripture in Acts 20.

Why? One interpretation; many applications.
Hermeneutics is properly or rightly dividing the Word of Truth. It is coming to the correct interpretation. Remember the Book is timeless, and applies to us all in every age.

The gates of Hell do prevail every time a pastor falls into immorality or disgraces himself. The gates of Hell will not prevail as long as God's people remain strong. If the assembly becomes infiltrated with unbelievers, for example, how can one say that the gates of Hell have not prevailed? I believe the statement made by Jesus was somewhat hypothetical. Somewhat like the statement: "Whosoever is born of God overcomes the world." (1John 5:4). Does this statement hold true for just any born again Christian?

The atrocities committed by the Catholic Church throughout the centuries are too innumerable to count. In the name of Catholicism they are still being perpetuated and covered up. If that were not true, we would not have an entire thread exposing the horrible sexual crimes of the Catholic Church that continues to this present day.

Have there been sins of fornication and adultery in Baptist churches. Yes. The difference is this. In every case that I have been acquainted with, the pastor guilty of the crime, has been charged, sent to jail, and when released, never allowed to pastor again. In any case, no matter what the outcome with the law, if any pastor brings a reproach upon himself, if he is not blameless as the Bible requires him to be--he disqualifies himself of being a pastor. We uphold Biblical standards. We don't uphold or harbor criminals. (That seems to be the Catholic Church's job)!

Of course the Bible is right. Study Acts 17:11. Why did Paul commend the Bereans as noble? Because they searched the Scriptures and came to their conclusions, their interpretation of the Bible on their own. Paul didn't force them to believe his message. They accepted what he had to say only after they had a chance to study and interpret the Scriptures on their own. That is the essence of soul liberty. That is our obligation.
Christ commanded us to: Search the Scriptures!
Paul commanded us to: Study to show yourselves approved unto God.

"How do you know who has the truth?"
I have been studying the Bible for many years. I bleieve I have the truth. I therefore look for a church that preaches these truths that I believe in. Why would I go to a church that I know I would disagree with?
DHK

 

But didn't you say earlier:

Why is it alright to say that the church exists, according to your definition of it, outside of the few hours they are assembled? If it is okay here on earth to consider yourself part of a church during the rest of the week, when not assembled, why is it not okay to consider ourselves part of the universal church that will one day be assembled? Honestly, it doesn't matter what the government says you are. By you definition, a church that exists when not assembled is an impossibility. Or is it?

So why is it wrong to say that Ephesians 5 applies to the universal church? You have already shown that a church does not necessarily have to be assembled to still be called a church and you have said that one day we will be a church in heaven. So what is wrong with using Eph. 5 for the universal church.

Exactly. Which is why it is okay to use Eph. 5 and Matt. 16 in reference to the universal church.

Which is why this is a reference to the universal church. Ultimately the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Ultimately, yes.

This is all fine and good, but there are many others who have probably studied the Bible longer than you and deeper and come to different conclusions, feeling that the Holy Spirit has led them to it. Who is right? Truth is not subjective, unless you are a postmodernist. Surely you are not saying that two people who both have deeply studied the Scriptures with sincerity and feel that the Holy Spirit led them to two opposing conclusions on a topic are both right, are you?

Neal

 

DHK

I am confused as to when Soul liberty began according to your beliefs.

Did Soul Liberty start while Jesus was on earth with the apostles? Could Christians reject Jesus' own words in the name of Soul Liberty.

Did Soul Liberty start after Jesus acension into Heaven when the Apostles and elders they apointed guided the church. Did Christians have the Soul liberty to reject the teachings of the Apostles.

Did Soul Liberty only begin after the Cannon of Scripture was determined by the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. Do Christians have the Soul Liberty to throw out or add books to the Bible. Why not?

Exactly when did Soul Liberty to reject Church authority begin?

God Bless

 

And according to Soul Liberty you must call these people 'brothers'.

 

Baptists consider other people brothers in the faith as long as they believed in the true gospel. That's why we believed that there are true Christians in other group. However we just don't keep silent, we admonish those who don't hold to the clear teaching of the Bible. If they insist on their error, then that's the time that we separate from them. We don't use force to convert them from the error of their way but pray for them and leave the judgment to God. That's in essence Soul Liberty.

On the other hand, among true baptist brethren there are some minor disagreement on things that are not clearly taught in the Bible. In this case we give room for others to believe according as what their conviction is. In this case we exercise also Soul Liberty. We do not separate from them but as much as possible maintain the unity of the faith.

 

Your argument makes no sense. A church is an assembly. It assembles here on earth. There is on such thing as a universal assembly. That's like saying there could be a universal assembly of all mechanics all over the over the world in one place at one time formed into one organization with one leader for one purpose. No, there are various assemblies of mechanics in various auto-repair shops that exist all over the world. They may gather for a meeting before they work. They are in close proximity to one another when they work. They are all part of the same company as they work. They are still employed by the same company when they go home at night, and on their days off. But their will never be a universal assembly of all mechanics. Never! It is impossible to have a universal assembly of all mechanics throughout the whole world. The "mechanics" of such an operation would be impossible to pull off.

And so it is with the "universal church" concept, which involves a much greater number of people than mechanics. Where does this supposed universal church meet. Who is the pastor, the deacons, the treasurer, the secretary. How often does it meet? It is an assembly after all isn't it? The concept is impossible to even think of. There is no such thing. It doesn't exist. It is a contradiction in terms. If you fail to see both the logic and the definition in these terms, I don't know how I can help you any further.

It is obvious is it not? An assembly cannot by the very definition of its term be universal. I have just explained that. Demonstrate to me that you have the ability to gather together all believers all over this world at one place in one time, appoint a pastor and deacons, make it function as one body with one purpose, and I will believe you. The church or assembly is God's appointed institution for this day and age--today--not in Heaven. The word is used in Hebrews 12 to demonstrate that there will be an "assembly" in Heaven. Study out the doctrine of "ecclesiology." It does not apply to eternity future.

Not when there is no such animal as a universal church. You can't define it. You can't demonstrate that one even exists. Why do you assume that it does?

There is no reference to the universal church. You haven't yet demonstrated that there is; you have only claimed that there is. Offer some Biblical evidence. An assembly is an assembly. I have never seen a universal assembly yet. There are many churches that have gone apostate. True or false? Have the gates of Hell prevailed against them?

Ultimatel No! There are many defeated Christians in this world. Many that are backslidden. Many that cannot overcome their own problems, much less the world.

Nope, one is wrong. Are you suggesting that a J.W. who has sincerely studied his Bible all of his life could be right just because he has sincerity?
I don't claim infallibility, and never did. Nobody knows everything, and never will. That is our duty, to study to show ourselves approved unto God. Are you suggesting that there may be some differing points of view within the evangelical camp on: salvation, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the Resurrection? Are you suggesting that I could be wrong on these doctrines? Are you suggesting that the J.W. who has sincerely studied his Bible all of his life and is convinced that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel could be right? Are you suggesting that the same J.W. who believes that there is no such thing as the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ could be right? He is sincere in his beliefs you know.
DHK

 

Soul liberty has always existed in the Bible, even from earliest of times.
Elijah took the nation of Israel up to the top of Mount Carmel. There in front of them and King Ahab he challenged the prophets of Baal to see who's God was the real God. They were to sacrifice a bullock to their god, and whosever God would answer by fire that God would be the true God. The prophets of Baal went first. They offered their bullock upon their altar and then began to cry to their god to answer. For hours did they pray and cry. They were desperate and began to cut themselves upon their wrists, shedding their own blood hoping that that would please Baal so that Baal would answer them. Elijah mocked them. He said that maybe their god had gone on a journey, or could not hear them. Finally when the time of the setting of the sun came, Elijah put an end to it, and said it is my turn.
He rapaired the altar of the Lord. He sacrificed a bullock. He dug a trench around the altar. He ordered that water, barrels of water, be poured upon the bullock which was supposed to be consumed with fire. Then he offered a simple prayer to Jehovah asking that God would answer his prayer and send fire from heaven to consume this sacrifice and show to this people that Jehovah is God.
The nation of Israel feared when they saw the fire come down from heaven and lick up all the water, and utterly consume the sacrifice. Then Elijah challenged the nation of Israel:
If Baal be god then serve him; but if Jehovah be God, then serve Him. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.
On that day the Israelits had to make a choice who they would serve. They could serve Baal or they could serve Jehovah. Elijah wasn't going to force them. They had the soul liberty to believe and to serve as they felt was right.

Joshua near the end on his life in Joshua 24:15 said to the Israelites:

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Joshua had made the choice to serve God. The choice is always there. You can believe what you want.
Now he put that choice before the Israelites. What was it going to be: the idolatrous gods that their ancestors worshipped, or Jehovah. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. You have the choice. That is soul liberty. Israel always had the choice. They always had soul liberty. Many times they made the wrong choice. But no one forced them to believe.
DHK

 

DHK,

Amazing how that model works with the Catholic Church. If only you let yourself see.

God bless,

Grant

 

Alright. For the sake of discussion here, I will make it clear I am not speaking of the Catholic Church. But I am sure that you are well aware of those cults that "brainwash" their adherents, some even to the extent that they have to be deprogrammed when they come out of that cult. Then, there are still others that are so restricted in their beleif system that if the belief is not from the founder of their religion then it is not from "God." In those religions it cannot be rightly said that there is soul liberty.
I know that the Catholic Church doesn't brainwash to the extent that one has to be deprogrammed, but what about the second example I gave? How does the Catholic Church differ from that scenario. Doesn't everything ultimately have to come from only one source. Thus there remains no choice.
DHK

 

What of those Baptists who teach that homosexuality is acceptable before the Lord. I don't see Baptists on this board seperating themselves from them. It is the distinctiveness of Soul Liberty that these people claim when questioned.

There will always be disagreement over small matters. It is a sign of the Spirit that we do not allow small matters to cause us or others to stumble and cause division.

Having said that, there is a big difference between disagreement over small matters and accepting false teachers.

 

I don't quite understand your point here Tuor. This board is a discussion board, not only for all kinds of Baptists, but as you can see, for all kinds of Christians. It even used to tolerte atheists posting here. It is simply a discussion board. Joshua Villnes believes that homosexuality is acceptable; I do not. I live way up here in Edmonton; he lives somewhere down in Georgia. We are more than 3,000 miles separated from each other. We have nothing in common. I don't go to his church, and he does not attend mine. He don't hold joint evangelical campaigns. We don't work with one another in any way. We are separated from each other.
In what way do we cooperate with each other? I fail to see your point.
DHK

 

DHK:

Once you make the commitment to accept Christ, you are bound by certain rules, that if you change, you are no longer considered a Christian. You must believe in Christ's atoning sacrifice. You must believe that Jesus is God. Etc. You are FREE to reject these, but so am I. However, if you do reject them, you will no longer be Baptist. And if I reject them, I will no longer be Catholic.

As a human, I am free to believe whatever I want, but if I don't believe certain things, I will no longer be Catholic.

God bless,

Grant

 

Okay. Thank-you for ignoring what I quoted you as saying. Go back and look again. You are saying a church exists here on earth even when it is not assembled. At the same time you said that an unassembled assembly is impossible. So which is it?

Does a church have to have a pastor, deacons, treasurer, and secretary to be a church? I think not. Have you ever thought that it will one day assemble in heaven, before God Almighty? That is what I consider to be the universal church. I think there will be enough room in heaven. I believe you admit this:

I just see that like I am a member of a church here on earth, even when it is not assembled, that all believers are a member of this universal church, which has not assembled yet but will one day.

Why? You seem to say otherwise in the previous quote I have of you.

In heaven one day, as you yourself admit. You don't have to have a pastor and deacons to be a church. Remember, it is simply an assembly, nothing more, nothing less. If you insist you have to have a pastor and deacons then you have a problem with your interpretation of Matt. 16.

Now don't be silly. I am the one who holds to the fact that there is one truth and one truth only. I am asking how you know for certain that your position is right when many other opposing positions based on the Bible are arrived upon.

Nope! You?

I don't explicitly know what you believe on each. But assuming you are right on them, I suggest that you could be wrong on other doctrines, just like me.

I haven't studied much of JWs, but I know that some SDAs believe this. And no, I am talking about you IFB buddies who study just as hard and arrive at different conclusions. You both claim truth based on the Bible. Who is right?

That is nice. But his beliefs contradict other Biblical evidence. So they can't be right. I am talking about folks whose conclusions do not contradict clear Biblical evidence. If you will, the gray areas. Who is right? There are not many truths, you know.

Neal

[ June 09, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

But here is the difference. There are many nominal Catholics, as you would say there are Baptists. They are Catholics in name only. If you ask them they will outrightly reject many of the Catholic doctrines, but adamantly insist that they are Catholic. They wouldn't want it any other way.
So what is the definition of a Catholic? As far as I know, a Catholic is one who is baptized as a Catholic, and possibly confirmed as a Catholic. The main requirement is baptism. Baptism is the door to the church. Even the Catholic church admits to baptismal regeneration--that baptism plays a vital part in salvation. Thus as the baptized infant grows older and rejects many of the Catholic doctrines, by virtue of his Catholic baptism he remains a Catholic, unless he outright rejects Catholicism (as I did).

On the other hand a Baptist, particularly an IFB, believes that a church is composed only of beievers in Christ who have subsequently been baptized. If one is not saved he is not a member, even if he claimed to be one before. You must be saved and baptized to be a member. If your not saved you are not a member just by default. It is that simple. Thus the church remains pure. Since our church is independent of all others, not part of a denomination, and also small, it is not difficult to ascertain who is saved and who is not. This is true of any IFB church. It can hardly work in the Catholic Church. There is no accountability. People can do what they want. They can go to church and get lost in the crowd so to speak, praticularly the not so faithful Catholics.

I realize that there are many kinds of Baptists, and you can say some of the same kind of things about some of the other Baptists, particularly some of the "denominational" Baptists. I was comparing the Catholic Church in general to my church in specific, because we specifically follow as closely to the Bible as possibly.
DHK

 

I gave you plenty of illustrations how it is possible. Any employee of any company still remains an employee even when the company is shut down. Any member of a church still remains a member of the assembly even when the assembly is not assembled. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?

What kind of world do you live in? Every church that I have been either has a pastor or is looking for one. Only small churches don't have deacons. All of the larger ones have some sort of deacons or servants to help the pastor in his duties.
You must not think very much of the New Testament. Every epistle that was written was written to either a New Testament church or a pastor of a New Testament church. There are seven churches in the Book of Revelation all having their own pastors. Paul went on 3 missionary journeys and started over 100 churches. We are commanded to assemble ourselves together (with the local church). And yet the Bible doesn't say one thing about a so-called universal church. Why do you ignore clear New Testament teaching?

That is all fine and dandy. But that is not the universal church. Call it the Bride of Christ, the family of God, but not the universal church. There is no universal church. We live now in the church age. Today God's method of reaching out to others is through the churches--local churches.

I never said otherwise in a previous quote. I only made it clear to you how you can be a member of a church (assembly) without being in the church (assembly) building) 100% of the time. The building belongs to the people. The people make up the assembly or the church. There is no contradiction.

[QUOTEIn heaven one day, as you yourself admit. You don't have to have a pastor and deacons to be a church. Remember, it is simply an assembly, nothing more, nothing less. If you insist you have to have a pastor and deacons then you have a problem with your interpretation of Matt. 16.[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with Mat.16. But you are dodging the question. There is no universal church, and that is why you cannot point to one or produce one. It is an impossiblity. We live in the church age--an age where God is using local churches.

What makes you think I am being silly? You are the one that came up with the rather silly idea that soul liberty would lead to existentialism. There are some things that we will never understand. How can a finite mind understand an infinite God.

Deu.29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Isa.55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Psalm 139:1 O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

Rom.11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

These verses alone ought to be sufficient enough to demonstrate that we will never know all that there is about God and the Bible. Thus we have the constant admonition to keep on studying.

As is shown with the above verses, we may never know who is right on some things until we get to heaven.
DHK