What! No Church?

Hang on Tom, the members of the BODY of Christ or the Universal Church are added by the LORD on the basis that the LORD Himself approved of them and they will be ALSO members of local "visible" churches as well. That's how I see it. I find it strange the way you describe the Universal Church because the members are visible and participating in ministry, services, serving God..etc throughout the world. Your strict interpretation of the local church perhaps has confused the subject. I think you are saying that the Universal Church negates the local church, I really don't see why that is the case.

I have no idea as to the protest with one "local" church being simply one part of the greater world wide Body of Christ. So then you guys return with every church is a "BODY of Christ" but NOT part of THE BODY of Christ. Churches are made up of individual christians anyway and those individuals are part of the "BODY of CHRIST".

Darren

 

Thank you, well said... :thumbs:

Darren

 

You are correct OR, but you will never get DHK or Tom Butler to see it. Many years ago we joined an American Baptist Church in Pasadena Texas. In visiting, we noticed a lot of references to the "local" church as apposed to the "universal" church. I inquired about this to the pastor and was told this is not a big deal. After joining we found it was not only a big deal, it was just about the only deal. They ranted on and on about how there was no universal church and that the only church was the local assemblies. Eventually I confronted the pastor and attempted to show him in Scripture that there are references to both. He would hear none of it and told me we would be better off in another church. We followed his advice and left. I feel the reason he was not totally honest with us at the beginning was that he thought he could persuade us that they were right.

I don't know why these types of churches get so wrapped up in something that is so insignificant. They are good people, just wrong about this simple thing.

 

Darren, I am perfectly happy to be numbered among believers around the world. I am perfectly happy to be part of the kingdom as a subject of the King. I am just not willing to call the kingdom by another name, such as church. At least our Church of Christ friends are consistent, since they hold that the church and the kingdom are the same. If you will, please tell me the differences between the two. How are the church and the kingdom different?

The New Testament is filled with instructions on what the local assembly is commissioned to do and with examples of what it did. It is the one entity to which Jesus gave his Great Commission. He gave it to assembled believers, and by extension each succeeding assembly of believers.

His instruction on church discipline in Matthew 18 can only be applied to a local congregation.

Paul admonished the congregation at Corinth to guard the ordinances (I Cor 11:2). Nowhere do we find such instructions for the Universal Church. Paul gave instructions to that immature and volatile assembly on how to properly observe the Lord's Supper, and raked them over the coals because they had not been doing it right. Nowhere do I find such instructions for a Universal Church.

Paul wrote to Timothy, giving instructions on "how to behave in the House of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim 3:15) Timothy was pastor of the local church at Ephesus. I find no such instructions on how to behave in the Universal Church.

Paul and Silas were sent out on a missionary journey by the church at Antioch. The were accountable to that congregation, since they reported back to it when they returned. I find no instance in the New Testament where the Universal Church ever sent out missionaries.

I do not hold that the Universal Church negates the local church. For me to hold that position, the Universal Church would have to exist. I would hold that the U-Church exists if I could find a purpose for its existence, besides just existing.



So far, I have cited three scripture passages which clearly identify a local congregation as THE church (Acts 20:28), THE body (I Cor 12:27), and THE House of God (I Tim 3:15). So far, I don't recall anyone dealing with those passages, except to suggest that I believe that Jesus was a polygamist (with many brides). Maybe I missed the responses.

Here is another passage in I Cor 12: V 25 "....that there be no schism in the body...." THE body. Is there anyone here who will try to make this body the Universal Church? I hope not, because to do so will admit that the U-Church is filled witih schisms and splits.

Want one more? V 26 "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." Does this described the U-Church, or a local congregation?

One cannot cherry-pick Chapter 12 and find the U-Church here and the L-church there.

 

Ann, I am a Southern Baptist through and through. The church I serve is thoroughly Southern Baptist, and is affiliated with the local Baptist Association, the Kentucky Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention. That should answer the question about how I feel cooperation with other churches in missions and evangelism. And like you, I have been greatly blessed when we do so.

 

My pastor, who is the sole elder in our congregation, feeds his church regularly (in the same way the Ephesian elders did). But that is not his only responsibility. If he did it the way you describe it, he would be disobedient to God. I don't find his cooperative mission spirit at odds with my view of the local church.

 

Clear to you?? But they were not clear to the Ephesians that read them in an entirely different way, as applying them to their own local church. Historical context does trump over one's own preconceived ideas.

 

Personally, I am not trying to deny or in any way diminish the importance of what is called "the local church" because it does prima facie differentiate between the "true" church and the mixed multitude churches of professing christendom.

The "true" church within the local church being comprised of the "wheat" but not the tares sown by the enemy.

Then, the collective of all the "true" churches (as defined above) is, in my mind, what is commonly called the "Universal" or "invisible" Church.
Of course these terms as well as the "local" church are not terms found in the Scipture.

This does not mean that they do not exist conceptually, I believe both concepts exist (local, universal).

But in deference to the brethren, I don't like to use the phrase "universal" but use a substitute phrase or statement to avoid a conflict, although they don't seem to mind when one uses the term "the church" without the offending adjectives because it can be seen as conceptual.

Anyway, I think we using sapphire knives to split the proverbial gnat's eyelash.

HankD

 

To laugh at history is no laughing matter. If you don't know the historical context how will you ever understand?
For example, when Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," do you really think that he was speaking of our stainless steel sewing needless? I know you do, because you have no concern for historical context.

 

Here is the point you fail to see OR. The Ephesians (and all early believers) did not have to contend with our Anglican KJV translators, nor anyone that spoke English for that fact. The English language was non-existent at that time. The universal language was Greek. They all spoke it, were fluent in it, and even the NT was written in it.
Thus when the word ekklesia was either read or heard, the word assembly came to mind, not the word "church." There was no such nebulous word in existence, not even a word close in meaning. Ekklesia simply meant assembly. It wasn't even a singularly religious word, as used here:

Acts 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
Acts 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

This word, ekklesia, is the same word that is translated church every other time in the NT. They correctly translated it "assembly" here. They didn't have much choice did they? It was an assembly; not a church. The word means assembly. It may refer to what we call a church--an assembly of believers, as in a local church, or an assembly in a court-room. It is also translated congregation.
But one cannot put an unwarranted adjective "universal" in front of it, and justify it by adding to the Word of God. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. It just doesn't make sense.

That type of doctrine would have been unknown in the time of the Apostles. Paul wrote a personal letter to the church at Ephesus. He was writing to them, those particular believers at that particular assembly. Of course the only way that they would understand that passage was to be referring to them in a personal way. The letter was written to them; their assembly. It was personal; not universal.

 

Greetings DHK and all,

I don't believe a strong argument can be made on the Koine semantics for "ekklesia".

There are other words translated "assembly" in the NT which have even a closer meaning (IMO) than the word "ekklesia" to the concept you refer.

In and of itself has the idea of calling out (ek-klesia) to muster:

Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly (panaguris) and church (ekklesia) of the firstborn, which are written in heaven (the "muster" part), and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.​

Although I had a PhD. professor loudly tell me that "ekklesia" had NO REFERENCE TO A CALLING OUT!. Clearly however, he had over the years proved himself very biased in this matter (and others) which clouded his usually brilliant judgment.​

Here is another which uses the root of our word "synogogue":​

John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled (sunago) for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.​

Here is one place where the word "ekklesia" is used of the OT congregation in the Sinai desert:​

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church (ekklesia) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:​

Also, the word "ekklesia" and "sunagoge" are used extensively and interchangeable in the OT Septuagint (LXX) and indeed has an "ecclesiastic" flavor to them:​

Deuteronomy 31:30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation (LXX - ekklesia) of Israel the words of this song, until they were ended.​

Exodus 16:9 And Moses spake unto Aaron, Say unto all the congregation (LXX - sunagoge) of the children of Israel, Come near before the LORD: for he hath heard your murmurings.​

Generally the English word "congregation" is either represented by "ekklesia" or "sunagoge" in the LXX.​

The LXX translators generally translated the Hebrew word EDAH (Strong's 5712) as "sunagoge" and KAHAL (Strong's 6951) as "ekklesia".​

I believe one of the real significances of the gravitation over the centuries towards "ekklesia" as the Christian assembly (as opposed to "sunagoga) is to differentiate it from the congregation of Judaism.

Thus when we say "church" as opposed ot "synagogue" we know immediately what is meant.

If I were to make any kind of consession, I would say that there is/was only one "local church", the one in Jerusalem and all others are an extension of it with a present mixture of tares among the wheat.
These will be removed at His return:​

Matthew 13
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.​

The word "church" however is not mentioned but only alluded to in the passage above.​

My contention (without being contentious) which I believe is being missed by the "local church" proponents is that the "mixed mulititude" churches sometimes/oftimes need to be made distinct from the born-again assembly in an adjectival way. The Scripture does so as in the general epistles of 1 Peter and Hebrews in an allegorical way:​

1 Peter 2:9
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:​

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.​

So therefore should we as well. ​

Perhaps the phrase which is often used "the children of God" is a good compromise.​

HankD​