The "CHURCH"

per the Bible....
Church of Chrsit IS Body of Christ is bride of Christ
It started at pentacost "officially"at the Coming of the Holy Spiritin His role of baptising all saved spiritually in Body, the Church

So to God, Church "just" rfers to the entire Body of believers that HS has spiritually baptized into Jesus Chrsit Body...

Chrsitians who assembly in either Denominational buildings or independent local assemblies comprise it

Church is to God the individual Christians whom he has saved regardless where they attend or membership in!

 

God knows ONLY His Church as members of the Body of Chrsit, spiritually baptized into it by HS, regardless what label on building meeting in, how water baptised etc!

 

No passage of Scripture, especially a true prophecy of Jesus Christ, is irrelevant...

I am citing the ESV. The KJV is a mistranslation. Look it up in the Greek. The term is not plural in the form used by the KJV. This is one of the well-known errors in the KJV. Multiple commentators say exactly the same.

Are you so sure that you can make your statement universal in scope?

You said above that the only church at that time was in Jerusalem... Perhaps you are in error... Saul was obviously going abroad of Jerusalem to persecute "the church" elsewhere. That Saul went against "the church" in locations apart from Jerusalem only gives credence to the interpretation that "the church" is larger than any individual congregation.

Certainly... Now, let me ask you a question in return. Do YOU and YOUR CONGREGATION hold to the teachings found in the Epistle to the Ephesians? If so, WHY? It was only for the church at Ephesus, right?

I'm thinking that there is a flaw in your doctrine that is born out by your actions and the actions of every congregation since the writing of the NT who hold that the Scriptures are valid for "the church" in all ages and places.

See above... And, again, you don't hold those verses true for you and your congregation? You have some big issues then, don't you...

My point exactly...

Of course it is applicable. It is another prophecy that points to the fact that we are already but not yet fulfilled as the kingdom, bride, and yes, "church" of the Lord Jesus Christ. Same response for all your "not applicable" responses below...

I believe He does... And, I (and obviously you) believe that means ALL of us who exist in every place and every age.


You have worked hard to deny the very plain reading of Scripture in order to support a concept that you, and a small minority of others, hold almost exclusively in opposition to the mainstream of orthodox Christian belief down through the ages, starting with the Apostles.

So, will you close this thread now that I have made an argument against you like all the other times? :1_grouphug:

 

So the gates of Hell did prevail against it? Aren't you the one that said that the church that Jesus was referring to was that local assembly in Jerusalem, the "First Baptist Church of Jerusalem"? Or, if it was a "traveling church", why hasn't that pattern been repeated throughout church history. After all, Jesus himself established it.

 

How do we become part of the "Church of God?"

being water immersed believers in jesus membering in a local Church building, or at our new Birth, when Baptised into Church Body by HS?

 

I would suggest at the point of our justification by God.

 

Okay, let's go back to verse 22 and see what it says:
22 But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 to the church of the first-born.....

So where is this church of the first-born? In the heavenly Jerusalem.

Now, let's skip down to verse 24:
24 And to Jesus......Where is Jesus? In the heavenly Jerusalem, with an uncountable number of angels.

Not on earth.

 

Let's look at it this way. When Saul of Tarsus triggered the wide-spread persecution, the believers in Jerusalem scattered into Judea and Samaria (the apostles stayed). But Acts tells us that they witnessed wherever they went.

Acts 9:4

It is reasonable to assume that those new converts formed new companies of believers. We can see in hindsight that the persecution actually resulted in the spread of the gospel outside of Israel.

We're dealing in definitions here. If one defines the gates of hell prevailing as a local church going out of existence or shutting down, you come to a different conclusion from one who sees other churches formed from the original.

Let's take today. If one church merges with another, did the gates of hell prevail? Both churches have lost their identity and basically gone out of existence.

My church relocated 25 years ago; left the neighborhood where it was first established. Did the gates of hell prevail?

One might just as easily argue that the demise of some congregations is actually part of God's larger purpose.

It could very well be what Jesus, in Revelation 2:5 called "removing the candlestick." Jesus said he would do the removing.

 

Which proves my point. The "church" that Jesus promised to build (in the future at the time he said it) and against which the gates of hell would not prevail is what we call today the universal church, existing both in visible and invisible states.

Local churches perish every day.

There's no way around it brother, so just take a deep breath, relax, and accept the truth, and start enjoying your new-found relationship with the Church, the Body of Christ.

 

If you will recall, when Saul became Paul on the Damascus Road, he was taken to the place in Damascus where believers congregated. The "church" was already there. Same with Antioch, Rome (remember, Paul wrote to a church that he did not establish, nor had Peter been there as yet), and other areas.

In fact, it seems that the church was established almost everywhere in the Middle East without the direct response of the original 12 apostles, they mainly stayed back in Jerusalem until well after the advent of the church elsewhere.

Suggesting that Saul triggered the expansion of the church is to take credence from the true establisher of the church -- God.

 

You have some nice opinions. You say "per Bible." But you don't back up your opinions with Scripture. So they remain just that--opinions. What both Tom and I have done is shown from the Scriptures our position. But you simply give your opinion, unsubstantiated.

 

I suppose not.

To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward. Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two. At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar. (1 Chronicles 26:16-18)

As you say, no Scripture is irrelevant. But what does it have to do with the local church, specifically? Perhaps as much as the above passage does?

hmmm. I have more than one translation that made the same "mistake," then? How is that? I also just checked the Greek myself. The word is plural. You are wrong, mistaken.

Absolutely sure. I have dealt with the spiritual gifts extensively not only here on this board but in studies elsewhere. There gifts have ceased. I would challenge anyone to show me where the Biblical gift of tongues, interpretation of tongues, healing, miracles, prophecy, exist today. You cannot show me any genuine examples because they have ceased. They were supernatural gifts given for a temporary period of time for a special reason. They were signs. Now when a sign is no longer needed the sign is removed.

There was no "church" elsewhere. There was one church, the church at Jerusalem. From that Baptist church, the believers were scattered because of persecution, but the apostles stayed in Jerusalem. There is no "Church," only churches. They are assemblies. That is what the word means.

Yes, why not? There is no flaw here. As the Bible was written to those local churches, the truths therein are applicable to all Biblically based local churches today. Do you not find it odd that all of Paul's epistles were written either to local churches or pastors of local churches; that Paul went on three different missionary journeys and in those journeys established over 100 local churches--no denominations, no Church, but only independent local churches.

The flaw is to thing that a word meaning assembly can also be universal. That is a contradiction in terms. One cannot have a universal assembly or an unassembled assembly. There is no "Church," only churches or assemblies.

What is true for the local church in Ephesus is true for our church as well. Have you never studied or had a course in hermeneutics? There is one interpretation but many applications.

What is your point, exactly??
I don't know about your church, but in our church Christ is preeminent just as he was in the church/assembly at Ephesus. One interpretation; many applications.

A response is not applicable when it does not speak of the local church, just like this one:

To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward. Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two. At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar. (1 Chronicles 26:16-18)
--When you give me those kind of Scriptures, they are not applicable. They have nothing to do with the local church.

I never denied that the Lord knows them that are his whether they obedient or disobedient.

I am not the one who denies the plain meaning of the words of Scripture. You cannot reconcile the simple meaning of a word (ekklesia) with the rest of Scripture. You have a problem there, that you have never tackled honestly.

That is a false accusation.

 

I'm not quite sure of the point you're making. We do know that Philip preached in Judea and later in Samaria. Acts 8 records a number of baptisms in Samaria.

I didn't say Saul triggered the expansion. I said that the members of FBC Jerusalem fled, and preached the gospel wherever they went. God used that preaching to expand the kingdom.

 

DHK, you actually posted...(bolding mine)

In the words of the rather quick tempered tennis great from back in the 80's..

:laugh:

You are actually calling the Jerusalem church a (((Baptist Church)))?????

 

I'll let DHK's words condemn him. No further input from me on this issue.

 

What else would it be, but the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem?
I couldn't imagine that it would be anything else but.
It certainly wasn't Presbyterian or Catholic.

 

You do know that there are NO earth labels on true Church of God, right?


JUST will be called and known the Church of the Firstnborn, comprised of ALL those saved by grace of God?

baptist/Catholic/Methodist are ALL JUST man made labels used to idenify each group that makes up the real Church Body, right?

 

And, you sir, have added to the Scriptures something of your own belief. :BangHead:

 

The foolishness of this position is beyond understanding. Denominational worship has clouded the minds of many to the truth of Scripture. Your own words condemn your understanding of Scripture. It's like listening to someone claiming that the first church was of RC origin. How can such a ridiculous, baseless, & unprovable position be reasoned with? I'll bow out of this one too.