The inconsistency of Universal Church advocates

Universal invisible church advocates (UIC) argue that "one body" and "one baptism" in Ephesians 4 refers to the one TRUE body consisting of all the elect and the baptism in the Spirit that puts all the elect in that one true body. However, they are forced to recognize there are local church bodies and water baptism throughout the New Testament. Therefore, to escape "one body" and "one baptism" being restricted and defined as "one body" in the sense of a single institution built by Christ but manifested in concrete forms they claim the local body is simply a VISIBLE EXPRESSION of the "one" true body. To escape "one baptism" being restricted to water baptism they argue that water baptism is simply a VISIBLE FORM of the one true baptism in the Spirit. That is their argument.

However, if that argument has any merit, should not the VISIBLE FORMS conform to what they claim they are designed to VISIBLY MANIFEST?????

For example, their "one body" has no membership requirements other than salvation period. They are consistent with their argument when it comes to "open" communion as one merely shows up and they can observe Communion. However, they are not consistent with this argument when it comes to church membership as they require water baptism in addition to a profession of faith and merely showing up. Moreover, they can't really argue the Scriptures demand it as essential for church membership because they argue that Paedobaptist congregations are true churches of Christ WITHOUT SCRIPTURAL baptism. If a group of professing Christians can be regarded as a TRUE church of Christ, which according to them is designed to be a VISIBLE EXPRESSION OF THE TRUE BODY OF CHRIST, and membership in the TRUE body does not demand any kind of water baptism whatsoever, then, they should not demand water baptism for membership any more than they would demand membership to partake the Lord's Supper as neither is required for membership in the TRUE church.


For example, simply being a Christian, according to their theory is wholly sufficient to be a member of their so-called TRUE church. Therefore, if the local church is supposed to be merely a VISIBLE FORM of what the TRUE church is, then why not be consistent with their doctrine and accept as members any professing Christian that shows up.

For example, the so-called TRUE church does not practice "church exclusion" so why should the VISIBLE FORM of the so-called TRUE church practice exlusion?

Now, in order to get around these logical inconsistences, they are forced to demand that the VISIBLE FORM requires a HIGHER STANDARD of membership than the so-called TRUE body of Christ for membership.

Moreover, even Paedobaptists do not allow simply professed Christians into their membership. They demand water baptism prior to membership as they recognize that is clearly the teaching of the NT according to both precept and example. They realize you cannot constitute a church or become members of a NT church without water baptism. Yet in fact, they do not have SCRIPTURAL baptism and therefore should not be recongized as believers in church constitution or members of a NT church. Another inconsistency and that is what FALSE doctrines always conclude in.