Universal church

Well that clears up our misunderstanding: apples and oranges so to speak. What you're talking about sounds more to me like what is known as "generous orthodoxy" (not to be confused with McLaren's book of that title), which is a movement that wants to focus on likes and downplay differences--a very ecumenical mindset to say the least.

I'm talking about the universal nature of the church, which some fundamentalists want to deny by claiming that every reference to the church in the NT is only to a particular local body and nothing more. I believe someone posted earlier today who believes like this regarding Paul's mention to the church at Corinth that "you are the body of Christ." I would add that he also mentioned to the church at Philippi that there is one body.

In an attempt to make things clear let me share with you Millard Erickson's comments on this matter because I think he gives a good Baptist perspective on the issue. He concludes that the church is "the whole body of those who through Christ's death have been savingly reconciled to God and have received new life. It includes all such persons, whether in heaven or on earth. While it is universal in nature, it finds expression in local groupings of believers which display the same qualities as does the body of Christ as a whole" ("Christian Theology" first ed. 1034). This is what most theologians mean when speaking of the universal church. I've found that most Baptists believe in the universal nature of the church but substitute different phrases for the word "church" when talking about it (cf. my posts above), hence I think a lot of them are merely playing word games.

Lastly, regarding Augustine I haven't read the secondary source that you used in your post, but I've studied Augustine quite a bit. The comments from Augustine that you quoted have to do with his eschatology, he was a "postmillennialist" (kind of, it would take a while to explain how this nametag doesn't really fit him since his views on eschatology are far different than modern postmillennialists today). I don't recall that council having much, if anything, to do with universal vs. local church.

My support of the universal church does not mean that I believe that other denominations' baptism records or church membership substitute for a true relationship with Christ. I don't believe in the universal church at the local church's expense. Those who do, do so to their loss for reasons that you and others have pointed out on this thread. However, like I said before I think it's a little too reactionary to avoid the pitfalls of minimizing the local church by denying belief in the universal church, and I think it results in Scripture twisting and silly arguments.


Well, look at me the former fundamentalist still posting here

BJ

 

Bro. Brandon,

Not to be cheeky, but what do you mean by 'former fundamentalist'? Surely you have not forsaken the fundamentals of the faith!

I know many folks who are not exactly IFB'ers but they are fundamentalists nonetheless.

 

lol...Mexdeaf. No, I haven't forsaken the fundamentals of the faith, but I don't identify with fundamentalists today . I prefer the label evangelical although that's soon becoming too broad to be worth anything. I'm still a Baptist even though I like the Evangelical Free Church and many non-denominational churches. However, I grew up at a BBF church and have two degrees from their main school in Springfield, MO. The BBF is far from monolithic, but there are many preferences among most of their churches that I think have unfortunately found their way into doctrine (Bible versions, dress, music, etc.) and even some doctrine that I'm not 100% with them on (eschatology, ecclesiology, etc.). That's why I don't really fit in there. I'd have to look up the articles of faith and see if I still agree with them as broad as they are because I do believe the authority to baptize comes from Christ Himself (same authority to preach the gospel) and that the Lord's Supper is open to all believers present (hopefully all present will be warned of the seriousness of partaking in the Lord's Supper unworthily-member and non-member alike)--so perhaps those views don't square with BBF teaching.

Well I hope that clears things up
BJ

 

Brother Jones,

Well stated.

First you are absolutely correct that my quote came from Augustine’s views of Eschatology none-the-less in his statement he clearly emphasizes his belief that the hierarchy of a movement controls the body. (I am not trying to nit-pick here)

In an earlier post you mentioned that you felt that our response is just “so many words” and now I understand why you said that. In truth we are very close if not identical except for terminology. Example, you wrote, “While it is universal in nature”, I take it that ‘spiritual’ could be substituted for ‘universal’ based on your previous inclusion “of the whole body of those who through Christ's death have been savingly reconciled to God and have received new life. It includes all such persons, whether in heaven or on earth”. If so that is essentially or exactly the same as my belief of the ‘body of Christ’ I simply maintain that the body is not the church (called out assembly) until the rapture then it will be the universal called out assembly, but until then it is the body of Christ.

As a scriptural example of this we find Peter speaking for the twelve in John 6:69 “and ‘we’ believe and are sure that though art that Christ” but Jesus responds (my paraphrase) Peter, you are wrong one of you is the devil. In my opinion Jesus clearly sets forth the difference between the spiritual membership and baptized membership in that what we perceive is not always reality.

I will have to read up on (generous orthodoxy) for it sounds that therein may lay our perceived differences. I believe my stand takes into consideration the potential or probable eventualities of the one world church or even the paranoia that many will be sucked into the idea of a universal brotherhood and the idea that there are no important differences.

I already see in our Baptist churches and I use ours as an example, 'our preacher has presented the gospel of Christ very eloquently and clearly from the pulpit on numerous times and yet recently I visited with a family in our church who constantly referred to the day they were baptized as the turning point in their lives', this idea that one way is as good as another.

I sense I am rambling and so close. I look forward to continuing this discussion you sound well educated and I can always learn.

thjplgvp:type:

 

Great thread everyone! Wonderful to read you all addressing this topic! Wonderful stuff all round!

Thanks and God Bless. :Fish:

 

th:

I've enjoyed this conversation too. I think we graduated from the same bible college and I take it with your location being "heartland" you may be in Oklahoma City, no? If so, let me know I have a couple old acquaintances at Heartland BBC.

Now to your post I think you said some good things too. However, I do have a couple points of response.

First, I thiink the body is the universal church, but I guess that's the whole disagreement here huh? I would say that too much has been made of the etymology or diachronic use of "ekklesia" being a called-out assembly. By New Testament times it just meant "assembly." I've always given more weight to synchronic uses of a word and in the NT, extrabiblical literature of the time period, and the LXX ekklesia simply means "assembly." For instance, Luke properly uses this word in Acts to describe the mob that gathered in Ephesus that was angry at Paul--no one called them to be sure. Thus, I think it's okay that the body is also the universal church (cf. Heb 12:23..the congregation ("ekklesia") of the firstborn in heaven).

[Not to be condescending but, FYI, a diachronic study of word analyzes its origin and how it was used in a language's history whereas a synchronic study analyzes how a particular author uses a word in its context during his/her own time and culture. For example how different the word "gay" has become in America from the short time of the Flinstones theme song to today's political discourse concerning marriage. A better indicator of what the author means is to analyze things syncrhonically.]

Second, I agree that Jesus, in John 6:69, was saying that things aren't always as they seem. I can't agree that we can read into his comments anything that says that he was differentiating between "spiritual membership and baptized membership." Where'd that come from? The emphasis in Jesus' sentence is that despite the fact that He picked the 12, one is still a devil: baptism doesn't come into the discussion (and I don't think Judas had any spiritual membership to boot). I know that Jesus corrected Peter here, but I think He corrected him by reminding the twelve that they weren't extra special followers (we believe unlike others who have left), but rather He chose them--even the devil.

Lastly, I guess what I'm trying to say is that believers in Christ corporately makeup the universal church and they don't "become" the church at the rapture because they already are the church by being believers. Christ died for the church, even those who were never baptized (i.e., the thief on the cross). Does this mean that local churches should not require baptism for membership or ignore doctrinal commitments or close their doors and tell their members to turn it to TBN every Sunday? me genoito "may it never be." It does mean that there is such a thing as the universal church and there's no reason to explain it away.

Sorry for the delay, but work's been crazy this week and I really should be studying German in my spare time anyways .

BJ

ps...I didn't post in the KWFC thread, but I always laughed about it being my "constant Christian companion" while living in Smith Hall because it would come through my computer and keyboard speakers even when they were turned off...I couldn't avoid it.

 

I'm not trying to explain away the universal church. What I am trying to get is an explanation as to the purpose for its existence. If a local assembly should be a microcosm of the universal church, then there should be some similarities, of which I find none.

My local congregation does not forsake the assembling of itself regularly. The universal church never assembles, and in fact cannot.

My congregation gathers to lift up Jesus, worship God in spirit and in truth and corporately glorifiy Him in songs, hymns, spiritual songs, praying and preaching and searching the word of God. The universal church--not.

My congregation contributes to the cause of worldwide missions, and missions close to home. The universal church--not a dime.

Members of my congregation have personally participated in missions, witness and soul-winning. The universal church--uh-uh.

When members of our congregation hurt, we hurt with them. When they rejoice, we rejoice with them. The universal church--nowhere around.

This week, my local congregation had vacation bible school. They are teaching children about God and how to come into a right relationship with Him. They are teaching the children to commit Bible verses to memory, to hide His word in their hearts. The universal church--nope.

The universal church never sent anybody to visit the sick. My congregation does.

Members of my congregation lead souls to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The universal church never won anybody.

My local church is unified. The universal church is divided.

Again, I ask, for what purpose does the universal church exist?

 

Brandon and Tom,

Truly this is what I had hoped for when I joined the BB honest questions and answers on both sides without attack. I love it.

Brandon obviously I do not have the back ground in languages that you do therefore I am not going to try to use word studies etc but if I understand you correctly you are saying that general usage of the Greek word ekklesia carries a more general sense of ‘assembly of any type’ and for ‘any reason”. To this I would say our studies indicate the same thing for I too believe ekklesia was a common word clearly understood by all during the first century. But is this not the exact sense of the word that we are seeking for? Are we not suggesting that the word was in fact used to call out local assemblies or local ekklesias as opposed to a universal assembly or ekklesia?

I believe that Tom asks some practical questions concerning local verses universal.

Let us go back to your question concerning John 6 and I apologize for leaving you hanging and wondering what I was talking about in my other post.

I do not know where you stand as to the beginning of the church? But in short I believe that Jesus was the first pastor of the first church and that he trained the apostles as the leaders in that church. I believe that at Pentecost the church was empowered and not chartered. When Jesus spoke of the church in Matthew 16 and 18 he was speaking of that which was in fact in existence at the time. When speaking of church discipline to what general assembly at the time were brothers to bring those who had harmed them and have them removed from membership? It had to be the local ekklesia. In john 6 Peter uses the word ‘we’ representative of the leadership of the church that was already in place. In order to be consistent would we not then say that these disciples (Jesus baptized none but his disciples) had been saved and baptized members of that first church?

Honestly I do not have an answer for the word church when it is used in the context of the body or universal other than it does not fit the concept of local ekklesia which I see as clearly supported by scripture. But I am not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend those passages don’t exist that would truly be foolishness on my part. But I have learned and you have also that the scriptures are not in error but our understanding. To that end I offer a theory for study, I have not studied this out and I am a little fearful in presenting it but the answer to our dilemma may be found in looking at those passages that seem present a universal church from a heavenly perspective especially the passages in Ephesians which talks of the heavenly rewards. From a heavenly vantage point the individual churches which are the spiritual body of Christ would indeed make up a visible ekklesia.

I am indeed from Oklahoma (born and raised in Illinois) and I am familiar with Heartland and have had occasion to know both Dr Davidson and Dr Hardy. But we are nearly 100 miles away from OKC so I don’t get that way more than 4 or 5 times a year. I teach in a bible institute and our church has arranged for a few of my classes as well as our pastor’s to be transferable to Heartland.

Tom thank you for your input very valid questions of which I am in agreement with all.

Forgive my lengthy reply :type:

thjplgvp

 

Tom, I've heard this silliness before from a pulpit: the do-nothing universal invisible church that has invisible members and if you're their pastor yet get an invisible paycheck, right? yuk, yuk, yuk. Oh and the universal church doesn't have food drives and has invisible hymnals, and doesn't even know what the gospel is because it's invisible yuk, yuk, yuk.

I would encourage you to read the rest of this thread to see how there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings about what the universal church is and what it isn't. Let me use an analogy. No one went to a universal school for their education, but everyone went to a local school. But look at how we use the word school in talking about our personal history or even political discussions. "I'm going back to school." That rarely means that you're actually going back to a school you've been to before but rather a new one to you. Or "the school is failing America and we need to have a better model." Well, not every school is failing America, but perhaps the majority are. You see education is universal in nature (or at least national in nature in this country). Now I can insert my pulpit jokes here: the national/universal school doesn't have one teacher, doesn't have one student, never taught algebra to my kid. My school has books and fancy projectors but the universal school has none. My school had field day yesterday but the universal school? uh uh. yuk, yuk, yuk. Does this mean that it's improper to speak of school/education in a sense beyond the physical and local schools in ever neighborhood? I say no and the same would apply to the church. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. The NT uses "church" in a universal sense and there's nothing to be scared of to say that it does. What's the purpose of it? To bring glory to God.

I'm sure your local church is great, but Christ died for more than it alone and it falls short of being the pillar and ground of the truth. The assembly (ekklesia) in heaven will include more people than your church's members [thegl may have a point here but I still think that the NT refers to the church on earth in a universal sense as well] and your church alone does not make up the body of Christ. However, there are many similarities between your church and the universal one: you both have believers who are committed to Christ, you both have believers who are to make disciples through local churches, you both have members who are to be conformed to the image of the Son, you both have members who praise and worship God through singing and preaching, etc., etc. The universal church has done nothing? I'd like to say that God, through the sum total of believers today and throughout history (aka the universal church), has contributed much to this world and to heaven. There are true believers outside of your church membership role and even, dare I say it, among non-Baptist churches.

Okay, I've said my peace and I'm starting to sense that we're getting no where so back to my German and others can debate here. I tried to do this before but it didn't work.

BJ

 

Brandon,

Agreed, were still brothers, thanks for discussing even if neither changed their mind I trust iron sharpened iron. God Bless

thjplgvp:thumbs:

 

Brandon, my questions about the usefulness of the universal church were made in a serious vein. I'm not above making a point with humor and sarcasm, but not this time.

Actually, your answer in some ways make my point for me. You refer to local schools in the context of a "universal school." Except that the term universal is not the word you want. It's "generic." What we describe generically takes concrete expression in a specific school. When we talk about the family, we understand that we are talking about it a general sense, but that it takes meaning only with a specific family. The generic term is meaningless and useless in terms of fulfilling the role meant for it. The generic family cannot nurture, and the generic school cannot educate a single child. Only specific families and schools can do those jobs.

Another common mistake is to confuse the kingdom and the church. My Church of Christ friends insist that they are one and the same, incorrectly in my view. Most references to the universal church actually should be a reference to the kingdom.

Your reference to the assembly in heaven is the other use of the general term asssembly or church. It is the one and only time since the 120 huddled together prior to Pentecost, that we will all be together in one place again. If I don't meet you personally before then, I'll see you there.

 

th...agreed, see you around

Tom...sounds like you're of the word game camp and my thoughts on that are above.

BJ

 

Gents,

In another post I found myself referring to the historical lineage of believers as the church, imagine that, and I found myself trying to describe not a local body as such but a group of bodies that make up and operate within a defined system. For lack of a better word we use the word church to identify that system but interestingly it is not a local body but includes local bodies, it is not the authority but has an authority (presumed or real) Acts 15, it is not the focus of history but has a history as seen in her multitude of councils through the years, it exists not visibly but as a by-product of local churches who have brought themselves under leadership/advice of a group of godly men such as the early apostles.

Quite honestly Brandon I find myself defending your view and still holding to my well studied view. Obviously this is going to take considerable study to reconcile these two views for very obviously they both exist.

I can also see very clearly why our Baptist forefathers decried the universal aspect for it is clear that the original system has been hijacked by a wicked system that truly will be a part if not the whole of the false religious system during the end times. By declaring our autonomy we insure we are a part of no system or hierarchy. Therefore I would be left at this point to say that the system exists but we are careful (as Baptists) to make sure we are not identified with it. Unfortunately the by-product of this mind set is that we now have so much individuality we have lost our corporate distinctiveness and have in fact become or are becoming like the system we despised.

I got get some fellowship, I'm off to eat and play. Enjoy and please respond as the little guy with the German helmet said on Laugh In "Very interllesting" :smilewinkgrin:

 

Bro. Brandon, I didn't realize I was playing word games and still don't know how I'm doing that. I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify what you're talking about.

If it's about my comment that people tend to confuse the kingdom and the church, it was certainly not an attempt to play word games on my part. The comment grows out of a desire for precision when speaking and writing about the current subject.

So what say you? I assert that when people talk about the universal church, they are really talking about the kingdom, which is made up of all the subjects of the King. If you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons. If you agree, same thing.

 

May I suggest an excellent article debunking the Universal Church Theory

http://www.emmanuel-newington.org/seminary/resources/Body_of_Christ.pdf

 

Dallas,

Thanks for the article I will read it later this week but it is a busy time and I don't know exactly when. I have it saved in favorites.

 

th....that's quite a dillemma you have .

Tom, like I said before the word games I speak of I mentioned in previous posts. I think most Baptists believe in the universal church, but that phrase has such a bad rap or baggage attached to it in Baptist circles that they refuse to use it and replace it with "generic church," or "body of Christ," or "spritual group of Baptized....(insert rest of phrase here); I suppose we could add kingdom to the list but that's a whole other thread sorting out the kingdom of God and its relationship to the church (covenant theology vs. dispensationalism vs. post- or amillennialism). That's what I mean by word games: one doesn't believe in the "universal church" but only nominally, they prefer a different label for the same substantive thing that they believe in.

off to bed and have a great Sunday guys (and ladies),
BJ

 

Brandon, upon reflection you may be right that I have been playing word games and didn't realize it. So let me be clear. I am not trying to use another name for the universal church. I do not believe there is any such thing. When I make a statement that people confuse the church and the kingdom, I am not making a distinction between two existing entities. Only one exists. I am trying to say the attributes attributed to the "universal" church actually describe the kingdom.

My use of the term "generic" is not an attempt to dress up a controversial topic to make it acceptable. It is to be precise in explaining those passages which refer to "the church," where reference to a local, visible congregation is not clear.

I know you regard this view as silly, and playing word games, because you said it was. It would advance the conversation, however, if you'd actually speak to the arguments rather than dismissing them.

 

Tom, I don't really want to advance it any further. We're set in our ways and I'm fine with that.

thanks,
BJ

 

Brandon, it's fine with me, too. Thanks for the opportunity to test my views against a well-articulated differing opinion.

Tom