Universal Church and Landmarkism

Actually, it can't even though a lot of people, including you, continue to wrongly call it that. The local church is not a small version of the universal church. The local church is THE church.

Paul is writing to specific, real, live husbands, and telling them to love their specific, real, live wives. In the same way, Christ gave himself for a real live church (at Ephesus). We also know this from Acts 20:28, where Paul told the Ephesian elders that the were to guard that flock, which Jesus had purchased with his own blood.

 

Ah, now we're making progress! Let me ask you, can it be said that the Lord's relationship with the Church is NOT "family"?

Doesn't the Bible define the Church as "the body of Christ"? (Col 1:18, 24)

 

What do you know of my upbringing? Let me answer my own question... Absolutely NOTHING. You don't know that I was raised in a home that was quasi-religious, but we knew nothing of the true gospel of Christ. I can honestly say that none of the ministers I knew in my early years had a clue about any of this theology. I later was married in a church where the pastor was Methodist and his wife was Buddhist. They didn't have a clue either... I then dropped out of church altogether -- and at first became an agnostic, and later an atheist.

It was by GOD'S GRACE that I am now born again, and that apart from the actions of ANY local "ekklesia." I had promised to never darken the door of a "church" again when I walked away from religion earlier, and had God not sought me, and eventually won me, I would still be lost.

I learned my theology by studying the Word. I was named associate and later senior pastor of the church we finally united with 2 years after my salvation. I promise they didn't have a clue about any of this stuff either, but looking back, they were very Arminian. How do I know that? Everyone was constantly rededicating their life to God. Several were baptized multiple times. They were always afraid that they would loose their salvation. What they held did not match what I saw in the Word, nor my own testimony of salvation and/or God's calling me into ministry.

Fully 10 years after my involvement in ministry, I left that church and headed to seminary, and it was there that I found men of God who taught the Scriptures (not John Calvin!). After 12 years of education in multiple degrees at Southern Seminary (of all places...) I never had to read any Calvin for any class. I read Calvin on my own because I believe in reading source material. I also read Luther, Arminius, Augustine, Thomas, etc., etc., etc.

And, so we are! Now, the next thing that we need to hash out is WHO'S congregation. Yours or Christ's? I suspect, that along with your radical separatism, and your Arminian-semi--Pelagian leanings, that your fully human-centered point of view has also colored your concept of "church" to the point where you actually think that you (or your pastor) IS the shepherd instead of the under-shepherd who serves Christ.

So, you're telling me that Revelation is a bunch of hooey? We assemble every time God's people get together! We assemble at your place (assuming that your place is indeed a biblical church) and my place. We assemble all over the world, wherever God's people come together for worship and ministry. And, we'll finally assemble forever in God's eternity.

Of course it can be translated "local assembly" but it also means universal assembly! Why is that so difficult to grasp... Oh, wait, I know. I explained it above. Again, if at any time the word ekklesia ONLY means local church, then we have no Bible for us, as the Word was written only to THAT PARTICULAR GATHERING. Of course, it was not... We preach it just as well today, because we realize that the Word -- written to the "ekklesia" at Rome, Ephesus, Phillipi, etc., is also for the ekklesia meeting in 2011 in whichever community we meet.

 

The Lord's relationship with each local church is as Father and family, and the Lord's relationship with each believer is as Father and family. But family in this case is a metaphor. I think it is a mistake to stretch a metaphor too far.

Yep, the Colossian local church. Paul was writing to a local church. It was not a general letter such as Peter or John's epistles. In fact, in v. 24, Paul specifically says his sufferings were "for you," thus making the "body" in that verse the Colossian local church.

 

So, do we set Colossians aside as "not for us"? Or is it still God's Word for EVERY local church in EVERY age?

 

So where in the Bible is "the body of Christ" used metaphysically if not in Colossians?

 

Of course the book is for us and for every local church. Why wouldn't it be? Like I said, you don't seem to understand inspiration. Or maybe we should go back one step and say you don't understand the doctrine of revelation. Special revelation means that all of God's truths are for me, no matter who they are originally addressed to.

I suggest James Orr for you, Revelation and Inspiration--a great book! Maybe it will help you get rid of your fixation on ecclesiology as the basis for illumination.

 

Well it is used metaphysically in Col., as well as 1 Cor. and Eph., of course, two more churches that needed that truth.

 

Folks, I'm leaving the discussion at this time. It's almost lunch time in Japan. But please note that simply because I don't believe in a nebulous "universal church," that doesn't mean I have no spiritual connection to believers in other churches, as some seem to be suggesting. You don't need that doctrine to love other believers!

Consider the passage my grandfather preached his final message on: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd" (John 10:16). This and many other passages teach love and respect for all other true believers in Jesus Christ. I don't need a "universal church" to know that I should love my Christian neighbor.

I currently teach NT Greek to Mr. K., a believer from a Methodist church here in town who wants to be a preacher. He's my brother in Christ and I love him--even without believing in a nebulous "universal church."

 

So how do we know which times are literal and which times are metaphorical? Is it that everytime the Bible refers to the Body of Christ as being "the Church", we simply account that as a physical body, since we've already decided that the Church is only a physical entity?

 

Sorry, but you are incorrect. There is many local churches(plural) and the true church(singular).

Those passages speaking about church(singular) not one specific local church. I'm not sure why you guys make such a big deal about this. Paul isn't saying how Christ loved a local church in Ephesus, but the church as a whole.

 

Tom Butler...

And so does the univeral church.

The church universal does that, but in a much grander scale than any local church.

The universal church all of that, globally. No mere local church could do those things globally.

It does all of those things.

Wow. I can only imagine how God must feel :tear: hearing you speak that way concerning His magnificant global church presence here on earth.

Whew.

 

Folks, I'm confused. We had the terms metaphorical and metaphysical used regarding the term church.

I think I know what metaphorical means, but I confess I don't know how metaphysical applies to the church.

 

Again, do you just think Paul was only talking about that church, or do you include yourself in there too?

And the "true church" is all churches.

I'm still not sure why you guys make such a bid deal out of this. Yes, we have local churches, and we have the true church(all Christians). If you say you would rather call it something else, ok. Show us in the Bible how it refers to all Christians. I have portions of Scripture that show the term church being used to refer to more than just a local assembly.
Here are some more examples.
Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I Corinthians 12:28, "And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues" - this would be true for both the local church and the true(universal) church.

I Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Ephesians 1:12-23 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all

 

AIC, Just two questions to ask in response to your post #112:

Exactly what does the universal church do regarding evangelism, missions, worship, fellowship?

Exactly where does it do it? I can find a bunch of local congregations in my area, but I search in vain for the U-Church.

I said that the U-church is not only useless, but fractured and riddled with error.

You reacted in horror:

I don't say such things lightly or flippantly. Let me explain why I said it:

First, we will agree that there are saved people even in churches which teach error. I wouldn't box God in as being unable to save people in churches which teach a false gospel.

The problem is that those believers still believe error, and even heresy. They carry that error right into the "universal" church. And they stay in those churches which teach error and heresy.

Would you join with our Church of Christ friends to jointly have revival services, even if you believe some of them are saved? They won't join with us because they believe none of us is saved. But saved Campbellites are in the universal church. Can you say fractured. Can you say riddled with error?

 

Well, the universal church is made up of all the local churches, so the exact same thing.

It's made up of all the local churches.

 

jbh quoted these scriptures:

I Corinthians 12:28, "And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues" - this would be true for both the local church and the true(universal) church.

Tom's response: On more than one occasion, Paul has referred to a local congregation as the church, or the body.

Acts 20:28, Paul speaks to the elders from the church at Ephesus. He calls them overseers (bishops) and shepherds (pastors) over the church of God (at Ephesus).

And right before I Cor 12:28, there is v. 27 "Now YE you folks at Corinth) are the body of Christ...."

jbh quotes:
I Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Tom replies: This is the same Paul who has already described both the local congregation at Ephesus and at Corinth as the church

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Tom answers: This is from the same Paul who has already described local congregations as the church, and the body. And remember, Paul is writing to another local congregation at Colosse.

 

Metaphysical can, in the way I am using it, mean "spiritual", although there are things metaphysical that aren't necessarily spiritual. The basic definition is "beyong physics" - metaphysics is the study of entities, realms, or realities beyond the physical world.

 

I am sorry if I offended you. I did make some assumptions, assumptions that I believe are correct, so if I am wrong (after explaining myself once again), then please tell me. By experience, most pastors that I have met that are associated with SBC, most evangelical churches, and to plainly put it most Baptists including a good majority of IFB churches, believe in the universal church. You have already stated you believe in the universal church. As you say you have gone through seminary. You have a lot of good education, and I do not discredit any of that. I respect you for that.

But this one fact remains. When discussing this one doctrine--ekklesia can only be translated local church, and thus there is no universal church--most Baptist pastors recoil (as you have done) at this very thought. They have never heard of it. It is strange. They may have spent years in the ministry and then all of a sudden, out of the blue they are presented with this view that vehemently denies the universal church and has strong Scriptural support for it. It is only natural for you to dig in your heals and rely on what you have been taught and what you have been teaching all these years. This "Landmarkist" doctrine, as some people call it, is completely foreign to you, and you reject it completely--even if you have not completely studied it out. And that is where I think the problem lies. You are allowing you bias of previous years of study to get in your way of objectively looking at this subject with any credibility.

I admit, it is not a popular doctrine. But on the other hand, I believe it is Biblically sound. And I also believe that if you stick to the Scriptures you will have a very difficult time defeating these men's arguments as they present from the Scripture. They have a solid case.

The term is often used in its generic sense, where one assembly is representative of many. The seven messages of Christ to the seven pastors of the seven churches in Rev.2,3 are applicable to us all. But they were 3 distinct churches that existed in history. They were assemblies located at the cities described. Many of our churches have some of the same problems that those churches do. Thus the warning: "Let him who has ears, hear."
Christ is the head of every Bible-believing church, as Christ dwells within every believer. How is this human-centered. This is as Christ-centered as one can be. Both the local church and the individual is centered around Christ and His Word. This is what the Bible teaches. With a universal so-called church, there is no accountability to anyone, much less Christ. It is a mystical, nebulous, existential organism that exists somewhere out there in the metaphysical realm that is completely undefinable. Universal Church = Unassembled assembly--a total contradiction of terms.

The only time that there will be an assembly of all believers is after the rapture occurs in heaven--when all believers will be together. There is no such assembly today. What you seem to be suggesting is "the communion of saints," that heretical doctrine of the RCC that allows them to pray to the dead saints in heaven. I am sorry but we don't believe in that. A church is an assembly, an organized local assembly that has assembled for the purpose of carrying out the two ordinances that Christ gave us (baptism and the Lord's Supper), and to obey the Great Commission. It is composed of regenerated baptized believers who have voluntarily assembled themselves together for this purpose. That is what a local church is. The word "church" is ekklesia. It is a word that translates "assembly" all the time. It has no other meaning. It is a physical entity.

Give documentation. Where in first century did the word ekklesia ever refer to a universal church? Please prove your point. Give evidence for what you are asserting here.

Why?? Because it is a statement you affirm, but cannot demonstrate to be prove. Why assert a false statement? If it is true then give the evidence.

And as you just pointed out ekklesia always referred to those specific churches, always local churches. They always referred to those particular local churches that you mentioned, plus others, but never a universal one.

Every one of Paul's epistles was written to a local church or a pastor of a local church.
Paul went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 local churches, never a universal church, never a denomination.
There is no such thing as denomination mentioned in the Bible.
There is no such thing as universal church mentioned in the Bible.

 

Okay, I understand what you're saying. The local church is just a mini-version of the U-church. And whatever the local church does to carry out the Great Commission, the U-church gets credit as well.

Would you agree that there are some local congregations who preach a false gospel, baptismal regeneration and works salvation? Can they qualify as true New Testament Churches?

What about the members of those false churches whom God has graciously saved despite their error? Are they in the U-Church? How so if their local congregation can't qualify as a mini-UChurch?

I understand that the U-churchers here can't understand why folks like DHK, John of Japan and I can't see things as clearly as you do. That's okay, we wonder the same thing about you.

The local church view which we advocate makes so much more sense and is less complicated. We don't have to jump through ecclesiological hoops to make things fit.