What! No Church?

Let's try Ephesians 2:3 "Among whom we (plural) also we all had our (plural) conversation (singular) in times past in the lusts (plural) of our (plural) flesh (singlular).

We did not have a universal conversation (behavior), each of us had an individual behavior. We did not have universal flesh, each of us had lusts of our individual flesh.

Conversation and flesh are abstract (and singular). In the small number of times the word "church" (singular) is used in the New Testament that does not refer to a specific congregation, it is used in an abstract, generic or institutional sense. Or prospective sense.

1:15 "....I heard of your (plural) faith (singular). Not universal faith, but the faith of each individual. A real person.

When the church is likened the body of Christ, it is in an abstract sense. The real body of Christ sits at the right hand of the Father. When the church is likened to a bride, it is in the abstract sense. Real brides are married to real husbands.

Never in scripture is a bride referred to as a body. A bride is not referred to as a house. A body is not referred to as a house. They are terms designed to convey an idea.

When Paul wrote that he intended to tell his readers how to behave in the house of God, he mean how individuals behave in a real house of God--a real congregation.

The Universal Church is just that--an idea. It is not real.

 

........For they are not all Israel [catholic, intangible, spiritual], that are of Israel [specific, tangible, physical]: Ro 9:6

By way of anagogy, could not this also read, “For they are not all 'the Church', that are of 'the Church'?”

I think so.

 

Sorry, I don't know what an anagogy is.

I suppose you could read Ro 9:6 that way. But what would that do to the contention by the U-Churchers that the Church is made up of believers, and there are no unbelievers in the U-Church? You might apply it to the local church, where we all recognize that some people who are on the church rolls are not actually believers.

 

Sorry, I don't know what's all included in your perception of 'U-Churchers'.

The 'U-Church' to me means 'born from abovers', not exclusively 'believers', especially not believers of any particular 'denomination'.

 

Maybe I should let you and others who hold to the idea of the Universal Church define it. That way we'll be talking about the same thing.

Regarding your definition, are you saying that the Universal Church may contained the unsaved? I can't believe you are, so would you clarify, please.

Also, are you distinguishing between those born from above and the saved? I'm sure I am misunderstanding. I define a believer as one who has been born again, saved, regardless of denominational affiliation.

I'm sure I've misread your post, so I'll rely on you to set me straight on your definitions.

 

The so-called universal church is usually a reference to the entire body of born again believers of all time without regard to local church or denomination. It is the kingdom of God, the Israel of God.

This is the usual understanding of the universal church.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I agree Jim. It's a phrase of convenience sake to replace the allegorical/metaphorical designations.

I think we are using an electron microscope to split the gnat's eyelash.

HankD

 

Jim1999 and HankD,

That's my general understanding, as well. But kyredneck's definition didn't seem to fit that. I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I don't want to argue against something he's not arguing for.

I noticed, Jim, that you equated the Universal Church with the Kingdom. Some folks want to distinguish between the two. I think a lot of people use the term Church when they really are referring to the Kingdom.

Of course, as anyone who reads my posts can see, I believe there is a Kingdom, but not a Universal Church. So there's no way I'll confuse the two. Heh heh.

 

But aren't we having fun?

I'll have to say that this thread has been one of the most civil discussions I've seen in a while. Everybody is making their points with a good spirit.

 

Yes, Tom, some would have us believe the church is a parenthetical age between the Israel of old and some future re-establishment of that Israel. In my sense, the church is the Israel of God. The physical church is just our expression of that kingdom on earth. In that the church per se, is just that expression of the kingdom, it may consist of both believers and unbelievers, whereas the true Israel of God, or Kingdom, consists of believers only.

This, I believe, is wherein the confusion lies.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I think we also get caught up in some semantic subtleties, as well.

I frankly had not thought about the physical (by that I mean local) church's being an expression of the kingdom, but that makes sense. My church's work (and yours) is to advance the kingdom. They are the entities specifically commissioned and empowered by the Lord Jesus for that work.

 

Hi Jim and Tom,

This is getting a little off the track (but maybe not) and perhaps we should for the [insert large adjectival cardinal number]th time have a debate concerning dispensationalism and [insert eschatalogical view of your choice]ism.

It's no secret that I am dispensational (howbeit qualified).

I am not exactly a Scofield or Darby dispensationlist but one who holds to a collective view of several early Church fathers as to "Jacob's trouble - or "The tribulation", the Chiliad or millenium, the lake of fire, etc...

I have quoted these fathers in times past to rebut the idea that "dispensationalism" is a modern invention. Perhaps not identified as a codified view but the elements present from the earliest times of the Church.

Having said that, I do make a distinction between "Redeemed Israel - saved Israel before Christ" and the "Universal Church - The collective of born again saved Jews and gentiles after Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit".

As does the Scripture (however in an allegorical/metaphorical way) concerning what is called by theologians "the eternal state" and given the name "New Jerusalem" and/or "the Bride of Christ, though I am not Baptist Brider or Landmark, by the Scripture:

Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.​

...

12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.​

Here in this passage even in the eternal state, God makes a distinction between Israel and the Church (at least metaphorically).

In my view "The Kingdom" can be any manifestation of the rule and economy of God on earth. Whether the family of the line of Seth, Israel as a theocratic nation or the "visible" church including those mixed multitude often (well actually usually) found withing its gates (wheat, tares, etc).

This is the view of Matthew 13 concerning the time period in which Christ goes back to heaven after His death and resurrection and His subsequent return for His own - the wheat - after purging the tares).

So, I have said all this because I don't want folks to get the idea that I agree with my learned brother Jim's non-dispensational view and have overthrown my qualified dispensational view.

As to "the Israel of God" in Galatians, yes, I must admit that this appears to confound the distinction between Israel and the Church.

I believe Paul here is simply following through with the metaphors of the Book of Galatians concerning the spiritual "circumcision" of the heart as opposed to the corresponding natural symbol of the fleshy circumcision of the citizens of the earthly Nation of Israel, that those of the earthly Nation of Israel who were circumcised in heart (being of the household of faith) were collectively the true "Israel of God" (as are those who are born-again via grace and faith in so-called Christedom collectively comprise the Church of Matthew 16:18).


HankD

 

OK, I can go with that analogy.

HankD

 

If by 'the unsaved' you mean the unregenerate; Absolutely not!

Yes:

Before Peter and his entourage arrived at his door and preached the gospel, was Cornelius any less devout? What was the cause, the source, of his devoutness? Was it hearing and belief of the gospel? I think not.

What was the cause, the source, of these Gentiles 'doing by nature the things of the law'? Was it by the hearing of the law that put the law into their hearts? I think not.

Was hearing and belief of the gospel the cause, the source, of these worthy sons of peace? I think not.

Before Paul had gotten the Church at Corinth established, were these any less the Lord's people? I think not.

Before Paul had ever preached the gospel at Antioch and the Gentiles heard and believed, were they any less ordained to eternal life? I think not.

Is it the gospel that abolishes death? Does the gospel impart life and immortality, or does the gospel shed light upon life and immortality? The gospel sheds light on life and immortality.

There is only one that abolished death.

There is only one life giver.

There is only one mediator.

There is only one voice.

Amen!

Hank! I see this passage confirming the unity of the Israel of God down through the ages, not making a distinction! As does this passage:

Could being 'ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ' imply that the local church could be viewed as an embassy of the kingdom? There to serve the aliens in a strange land?

 

OK, I understand that point of view.

HankD

 

I tend to agree with you and Jim. I was saved in a very dispensations church and have been taught that in every church I have attended. Recently however, I have began to doubt the veracity of this position and find myself leaning toward the partial preterist position. I am currently reading "The Last Days According to Jesus" by R.C. Sproul, and find his viewpoint somewhat refreshing.

 

The distinction between Israel and the Church is part and parcel of dispensationalism of any strip. If you ever change your view about this, you will have to give up dispensationalism as an eschatology. Without it, dispiness falls apart.

I don't think this passage demands the distinction. All I see here are gates with the names of the twelve tribes, and walls with the names of the twelve apostles. No more, no less.

I find a propensity among U-Churchers to find it in all kinds of verses, many allegorical, many symbolic, many metaphorical.

What I argue for is a real live assembly of real live people congregating. This type of entity does not require allegory or metaphor.

I mean this jokingly, but dispies can find both types and the U-church under every rock.