Universal Church

But does not Hebrews 12 speak of something yet future?

Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable multitudes of angels,
Heb 12:23 to the general meeting, and the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better than that of Abel.

Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never been in Heaven. I have never assembled with the spirits of just men made perfect, I have never been in the company of angels, and have never been in the heavenly Jerusalem.

That meeting where all the saints (the meaning of "universal) are gathered is yet future, is it not?

I believe the bible does teach there is an entity consisting of all the redeemed (at lest NC believers, and possibly including OC believers) but it is never called "the church." It is called the "Family of God" as in Ephesians 3:14 and 15, and "The Kingdom of God" or "The Kingdom of Heaven" in too many places to list. But it is never called "the invisible church" or "the universal church" or any other such nomenclature.

Not the point. You said,

(By the way, you just indicated the "universal church" is yet future as we are not yet in "no need of wages in heaven as we will have rested from all our labors" - that is yet future for both of us. ) Which caused me to ask if I could stop tithing, at least to the universal church by saying,

You said I could choose. So, if I choose to tithe to the universal church, how do I go about doing that?

The point being, of course, that it is impossible because the so-called "universal church" does not, at least not yet, exist. My tithes and offerings go to the only church we can find in the bible. The local, New Testament, body of born-again baptized believers belonging to Christ, assembled to keep the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

I have no trouble at all answering all my "church" questions.

The corner of Kansas and 6th street.

The corner of Kansas and 6th.

Dr. Steve Parker and a long list of godly deacons. I am meeting with three of them today at 4:30 at the pistol range for some pistol practice.

IBC, corner of Texas and 6th.

 

No, I was asking questions regarding our relationship to the "universal church."

Which characteristics don't apply? Born again? Baptized? (most probably not, so how can they be called "perfect"?) Believers? Belonging to Christ? Assembled to keep the Great Commandment? The Great Commission (hard to do in heaven).

Thayer says:
ekklēsia

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly.

And the affinity of the two Greek words is shown in Hebrews 10:25,
Not forsaking the assembling (Greek: επισυναγωγην - episunagōgēn) of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

 

Let me quibble here. Local churches are not part of the universal church because local churches most likely (or perhaps inevitably) have members who are not regenerated and thus are not part of the universal church.

 

I don't think so. The word, of course, has its roots in the Greek City-State system of government, but Christ, to my way of thinking, made it clear in the first use of the word in the New Testament (I am not a great fan of the rule of first mention but it can give us some direction in how to understand the term) in Matthew 16:18 that on "this rock (the rock of Peters confession of Jesus as the Christ) I will build my church." Not just any assembly. Not the assembly of the Greek City-State system, but His church, belonging to Him as its Chief Shepherd. So I see a radical distinction between an assembly and His assembly.

 

They are correct.

Antioch. Maybe Damascus. What difference does it make?

Why?

Because you were wrong. Christ is the baptizer.

 

Yes. Not a generic assembly, but His assembly. And that's where the argument about generic usage breaks down. One may say that "The horse is the most magnificent animal in the world" and use the term horse generically. If you say "My horse is the most magnificent animal in the world" then you are no longer generic: You mean a specific horse. Christ could have said "my churches," but he didn't. "My church" was not the original assembly in Jerusalem or some other church that was persecuted out of earthly existence or scattered to the winds or became apostate. "My church" is the one against which the gates of hell will not prevail, and it is not confined to a single assembly or a single locale.

It is not organized; it is the ideal — with Christ as only head and all his followers prophets and priests — of which the individual churches are approximations.

Now, I don't like to fuss to much about this bit of theology, but I think it is wrong to insist that those who accept the church universal are just hanging on to a corruption passed on by the magisterial reformers. The early Particulars took care to distinguish their own views from those of the Presbyterians and Congregationalists while trying to stay true to what they understand the Bible to say. They had already thrown out paedobaptism and sacraments and insisted that their churches be composed of only who professed (and showed signs of) regeneration. It makes no sense that they would keep the church universal as a concept when they had already jettisoned so many corruptions.

 

No, of course not. That is why Christ had to ascend and the Holy Spirit had to fall on the church at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. As long as He was here on earth in His physical body He could only Shepherd one church, but after the Ascension He, via the Holy Spirit, could Shepherd all of His churches. Until Pentecost there was only one hence the singular. After Pentecost we see the plural "churches" used 37 times starting in Acts 9.

I don't have quite so much confidence in their omniscience as you seem to have. They were just a bunch of guys doing the best they could with what they had. And what they had was a thousand years of Romish history, dogma, and domination.