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!

What is a "true church"?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by IfbReformer, Jul 31, 2003.

  1. PastorGreg

    PastorGreg Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My answer does deal with your questions, Larry. The "husband and wife" illustration is not grammatically unrelated - it is identical grammar. Do you or anyone else have one example of the usage of "ecclesia" in a universal sense from Greek literature? The word simply was not used that way. it is you who are arguing from your belief back to the point. I am simply saying, let the word mean what it has always meant. the word means "assembly" or "congregation." You have to read the universal application (which began with the Catholic church - universal visible and was carried over by the reformers who beleived they must be part of the true church, even though excommunicated, therefore it must be universal and invisible) into it. The only universal one will be when all believers are together in heaven.
    Christ founded both A church (the church at Jerusalem) and THE local church of which Jerusalem was the prototype.

    The church of which I am a member is a body with Christ as its head, as, I trust, is yours. There are thousands of bodies of Christ. Each New Testament local church is one.

    Now please deal honestly with my previous post and answer its points as I have done with yours.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lots of places have "identical grammar" but are unrelated because they are apples and oranges.

    Matt 16:18; Eph 5:25; Col 1:20.

    It certainly was. Your argument is based on your conclusion. Your inability to answer my questions shows that your thinking is faulty.

    But we are members of neither. If this is hte church that Christ died for, then we are hopeless.

    There is only one body of Christ. Scripture never talks of "bodies of Christ." You talk about it only becuase your theology demands you do. The text talks of the body of Christ. He only has one.

    I already have. Your position does not allow you to accept these answers from Scripture. But I would rather you deal with the text which my questions address.
     
  3. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  4. R. Charles Blair

    R. Charles Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, folks, let me try it one more time! This thread goes back to July 31, and many of the early posts are still there; I've tried to "plug in" twice recently, and don't see my notes or some others I have seen briefly on the board. Is there any "rhyme or reason" as to what gets left up and what doesn't?

    "Ecclesia" demands the ability to assemble, as in the governing body of a Greek city-state (compare the three usages in Acts 19). It is clear that not all saved people can assemble NOW. There will be an "ultimate" church in glory; He's going to "wash us and iron us," free from spot or wrinkle. But in the meantime, that dirty, wrinkled bunch down on the corner can give glory to the Father through the Son by the power of the Spirit - Eph. 3:21 refers to ANY church where the gospel is preached and the two ordinances are observed correctly (believer's immersion first, restricted communion following). What restrictions? "Ye cannot partake of the cup of demons and the cup of the Lord" - no lost person; strict church discipline - "with such a one no not to eat" - no divisions = "Where there are divisions ye cannot eat the Lord's supper." (All refs are in 1st Corinthians, where they were abusing the table in several ways.)

    Hope this one gets posted long enough for someone to comment!
    R. Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28
     
  5. R. Charles Blair

    R. Charles Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, my friend Major B says it's there, and it is now! But neither of my earlier posts NOR his were on this thread a bit earlier. I'm not even sure I want to understand computerese! Too much like mind-bending! Eating a bit of crow - RCB
     
  6. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    My last post got passed up so I wish to ask it again. But not the plot has thickened :D Bartimaeus said,
    But this is not what Dr. Bob said, who was also denying the universal church. He called all believers the . . . well I will qoute the whole thing . . .
    So Dr. Bob labels all believers the "Body of Christ" and Bartimaeus believes there is no "Body of Christ" but actually bodies of Christ. I was hoping that you two could sort this one out between yourselves to enhance my understanding.

    Now a question for Dr. Bob is the question I posed on my last post. If you believe that there is such a title for all believers as the Body of Christ, exactly what harm has been done if a few passages are understood as refering to this Body of Christ as the Church, even if most other passages involved using the word Church refered to specific local gathering of Christians. To qoute your original remark,

    Misled into what?

    Thanks
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I see the confusion as a result of mis-identifying the Body of Christ (all believers of this age) and the "Church" universal.

    As a pastor I hear folks say they don't need to be a part of a local church, don't need to be baptized in a local church, don't need to give to a local church, don't need to serve in a local church, don't need the fellowship of a local church. Why would they believe that?

    They've mistakenly been taught that since they are "saved", then they are part of the "church". No need to mess with a local body; they're part of the REAL church.

    And they float in and float out, never growing, never rooted because they don't even see the need. All the blessing and promises to the "church" are theirs, they think, because they are saved.

    Even the terms "body" or "bride" are at best generic to those who are saved. But I try to clearly distinguish between a New Testament local ecclesia and any other term for "All" believers.
     
  8. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, that is fair. I personally have never met anyone who justified there lack of attendance from Church as being part of the universal Church, but I won't question your experience.

    Though as I said before, the fact that you would label it The Body of Christ is good enough for me, I happen to think there is a positive sense to seeing ourselves as one. As I feel Christians have more responsibility to other believers, I feel that way even when I am travleing or fellowshipping with others from other Churches. I feel Paul felt that when when he encouraged Christians to help the believers in Jerusalem. I would send money to or help in any other way Christians who I knew were in need, being part of my church or not.

    As for the Ephesians passage, I do believe it says Christ gave him self for the church (all of us). However that is just semantics since you would say he gave himself for all churches and it means the exact same thing.

    Please don't back away from discussing with Bartimeus your disagreement on whether there is indeed one Body of Chirst!
     
  9. R. Charles Blair

    R. Charles Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Christ died for the church," Pastor Larry said?
    I don't find that in my Strong's, unless you are citing Eph. 5:25 - "gave Himself over,"= 1:22 - He committed or delivered; lexicons do not show "died" for "paradidomi" - but even if we assume that meaning, what does it prove? It shows that He made a purchase. A "purchase" may be of one thing including many - "I bought a loaf of bread" (many slices, all bread).

    Compare Heb. 2:9 (whatever it means!) - surely we would not equate "every man" with "the church"?
    He died for "the weak brother" (I Cor. 8:11) - is that "the church"? He "gave Himself for me" (same word as Eph. 5:25) - does "me" = "the church"? Patently not. He died for the ultimate church of Heb. 12:23, but He did more than that; He died for Old Testament saints, and for the
    "general assembly" - surely broader than "church."

    Whatever you think about "Baptist bride," there are clearly guests at the wedding feast. Even in Mt. 25:1-13, the "five wise" were NOT the "bride" but the bridesmaids, guests at the feast. John (the Baptist!) said, in effect, that he was "the best man" for the wedding (Jn. 3:29). Remember he was not himself baptized (Mt. 3:14; if he "had need to be," he had not been!) He seems to exclude himself from the bride. Is it so difficult to see baptism as our "engagement ring," "espoused as a chaste virgin to Christ" (II Cor. 11:1-4)? Paul was concerned that the church at Corinth could lose something - surely not their salvation? What about bride status by disobedience, unfaithfulness after espousal? Not all Baptists will be in the bride! Certainly not the lost ones, but if some who had an "engagement ring" could be excluded, how much more those who deliberately refused proper baptism?

    It will be at least Thursday night before I can read any replies -on the road till then. Best - Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would encourage you to look them up. I have neither the time nor the interest to prove that an irrelevant passage is irrelevant. There was not relevancy shown. Do the work and you will find these places.

    Notice how you cite that Jesus spoke in teh common language of the day (which I agree with) and then quote Webster's 1828 as proof. Come on now ... What does the meaning of a word in 1828 show us about the meaning of a completely different word in a another language in AD30??? Absolutely nothing. You guys have to learn that you cannot define theological terms by modern dictionaries. Use theological dictionaries.

    I just did ... the NT is Greek literature. If you get out BAGD and look up ecclesia, he gives the info you need.

    I choose not to accept them because they do not address the issues at hand. It should be clear for all to see.

    THe NT does not ever use the word "prototype" in reference to the church. It talks about the church. You introduced "prototype" in order to support your position because the text does not teach your position. You are forced to add something to Scripture to make it stand.

    I agree that the boyd and the church are the same thing. I do not see how you can agree. How many bodies do you think Christ has?? That is a simple question that you have not yet answered, that I remember. I have not simply given you my opinions. I have told you why SCripture supports what I teach. I will briefly summarize them again (and add a couple) to save you the trouble of looking back at previous posts.

    1 Cor 13:12 says "we all were baptized into one body" and the addressees include not only the local church at Corinth but also "all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." SEcondly, Paul was not a member of the local church at Corinth but still says that he is a part of the "one body" into which "we all were baptized" (cf. Rom 12:5).

    In Eph 3:21, we see the doxology "to him be glory in teh church foever and ever." Yet there will be no local church life in any meaningful sense in heaven.

    You cannot consistently define "church" in the local church only view. There is the high probability that your "local church" has unsaved people, an impossibility in the NT definition of the church which is his body.

    Eph 5:25-26 make it clear that Christ gave himself up for the church. You still have not told which church this is. In your theology, it would seem that the text must say that Christ gave himself up for the churches, which are his bodies. That is not what the NT teaches in any place.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which is why your definition is faulty. The church is made up of the people. The church constantly exists, even when the assembled dissemble to go home after the service.

    You cannot know the spiritual condition of all who are in a local congregation. There are some who have crept in unawares, meaning that people did not konw they were wolves. They were members of the local church, but they were not a part of the boyd of christ.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But someone's bad teaching does not negate the truth of the precious doctrine. You and I do not stop teaching the truth of the doctrines of grace just because some idiots misapply them. Why should we stop teaching the whole doctrine of the church just because some people are disobedient?

    Why does everyone assume that the doctrine of the local church and the doctrine of the invisible church contradict?? I find them in perfect harmony.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eph 5:25 is the passage and "gave himself up for" is a reference to the atoning work of Christ. Paul says he did it for teh church, not the churches. I do not think the point of paradidomi here is "purchasing." There is a clear Greek word for that. This is not it.

    No we wouldn't.

    He is a part of the church.

    You are a part of the church, if you are a believer.

    I agree that the general assembly is broader than the church. It includes the OT saints who are not in the church. It does not include less than the church, but more.

    I agree with all of this.

    It is difficult for me because I am opposed to speaking in terms that Scripture does not. In Scripture, baptism is the sign of something already done, not the sign of something that will be done in the future. An engagement ring is the latter.

    You will search the text in vain for this idea.

    Because some are not saved, yet another proof of the fallacy of hte local church only church.

    This is simply not in the text.

    Your scriptural support has no bearing. It does not refute anything I have said. The text does not support this "baptist bride" teaching. All believers of this age (from Pentecost to the Ratpure) are a part of teh church which is his body.
     
Loading...