A question for Southern Baptists

Jesus made this statement about building the church he had already established--an existing assembly of his 12 disciples. Once he had chosen his disciples, he ordained them gave them a mission, with marching orders and sent them out.(Matt 10 several chapters prior to chapter 16) Matthew 16:18 was given to the local church, not some invisible fantasy.

Mt. 28:19, 20, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."[/quote] If I remember right, he spoke these words to the assembled eleven apostles, the material of the first church, established at the beginning of his earthly ministry. That group, and every succeeding congregation, has the same commission.

The "universal church" is nowhere in view in these passages.

 

The so-called universal church has been likened to the Kingdom of God, but not a physical structure on earth. The local church is the hand of God moving in society.

Cheers,

Jim

 

What local church did Jesus plant?

 

In Rev. 2 & 3 some are their actions are used by Satan too.

 

Read the book of Acts. Through his disciples he planted many.

 

Read the question again.

 

You are playing word games. Most of your time spent on this board is a rant against the SBC. Does this extend to the local churches as well?

 

Have you read all of my posts to know what most of my time is spent posting on? I would suggest that you not spend so much time given to exaggeration. I am unable to comprehend how the question I asked has anything to with the SBC. Can you explain how your comment fits into the question I asked?

How does your response answer specifically the question I asked? ""What local church did Jesus plant?"

How is asking you, "What local church did Jesus plant? a play on word games?

Your response makes about as much sense as writing Jesus used a local church planter to plant the church you attend. While that is true it does nothing to address the specific question I asked.

 

So what is the difference that Jesus never planted any churches?

 

I don't know if plant is the right word. He established his church during his earthly ministry. At first is was a traveling group, obviously, later settling in Jerusalem following the resurrection.

By the time of the resurrection, his church was equipped with all it needed to carry out the Great Commission.

Ah, one might say, the Great Commission came at the end of Jesus' ministry. Actually, it came at the beginning. After choosing his twelve disciples, he gave them instructions and sent them out. That commission is found in Matthew 10:5ff. It was limited to the lost sheep of the house of Israel during that time. Prior to his ascension, Jesus expanded that commission to "all the world."

This little traveling band had a Head, just as churches do today. It had ordinances (baptism and the Lord's Supper), it was organized (with a treasurer), it had a mission, it had a message.

It was empowered. Remember the amazement of the disciples that the demons were subject to them? Jesus instructed his disciples to "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils." (Matthew 10)

The U-Church does none of these things, because it doesn't exist. We all know the purpose for the existence of churches. What is the purpose of the U-Church?

 

Were those people who followed Jesus at the time the church? The basic meaning of the word ekklesia is "called out ones" Were the people Jesus called the "called out ones"? If they were then were they not the church at the time as Jesus as the head? From what I can tell they were not a part of any local church but rather more of a nomadic church.

 

Personally, I don't think they were. But if they were, the same logic could be said that they were the local church at Jerusalem. When persecution drove them out, they set out establishing other local churches in specific areas.

 

I would contend that the believers then were the universal church because there was no local church. Where there is no local church what else is there, in regards to a church? Is not the universal church comprised of all "called out ones"? I see the universal church today as all "called out ones" today. Not just a fictitious or futuristic church but today too. I believe that in heaven we will see those who have come to Christ through a radio message coming into their country where it is illegal to be a Christian and others will be missing who we view as Christians and are not.

So I see the universal church as comprised of all believers today where ever they are located. Some will not attend a church for a few years because there isn't one but they are doing God's work there. A number of Christians are in other countries working a regular job and are also there for the purpose of sharing the gospel. Their names are kept private.

 

You are using the wrong premise to base you position. You are trying to say our argument is that there is no universal church. We did not say that. We said the universal church does not spread the Gospel. You said those who are not members of a local church are members of the universal church spreading the Gospel. Using common sense, how many people are not members of any earthly church that are out there spreading the Gospel? If they have not bothered to fellowship with a local congregation, how many do you think wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, it is good to be the member of the Universal Church, think I will go spread the Gospel today."

As far as what church did Jesus establish Himself and not through his disciples, if there was not church during His ministry, why does the book of Matthew talk about church discipline right in the middle of His ministry? Whether or not the disciples were a church in themselves is up to debate, but they sure did a lot more (spread the Gospel, take an offering, give to the needy, take communion, etc) than your universal church does.

You have no real proof one way or the other that the disciples were or were not members of a local church, which really does not change the fact, the local church is used to spread the Gospel. It is like saying the sky is blue, so it must be the universal church.

Would you show us when the Universal Church ever chose church leaders or deacons as shown in Acts, and Paul's letters? Can you give one example of the Universal Church ever helping the widows, orphans, or needy?

 

There is no exaggeration here. You have an agenda against the SBC, and since the SBC is made up of autonomous local churches, the pattern is quite clear.

I agree

See above.

What does that question have to do with proving the function of the Universal Church?

You contradict yourself within these two sentences. In the first you say "my response makes about as much sense as..." then in the second sentence you turn right around and say "while it is true." So which is it? You are right with one point. What church Jesus planted personally, or if his disciples planted them has nothing to do with the local church today as the human agent of spreading the Gospel. The bottom line is you have failed to make your case about there being any function of the Universal Church.

 

Sorry, then I misunderstood.

Are you saying that it is impossible for a Christian who is one with God cannot spread the gospel and start a local church? Go to the mission field where Christ is not named and tell us what local church would you fellowship in the first day you were there? What local fellowship did William Carey fellowship in for the first 11 years before he won the first person to Christ?

You failed to name that church. I would contend they were the called out ones. Called out ones are a church Mt. 18:20, "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." It may not be an image of an American church in the south but it is a church. I attended a chruch for 10 years that was started by a single amnd and his sister. On the first Sunday 1/2 of the chruch were non-Christians. Present were a couple and the pastor and his sister.

Doesn't the Bible say they went to the synagogue? Their first meeting places were called synagogues too.

Your own convention has people who work in countries as missionaries working a regular job there whose names they will not make public. Those I know doing that are the cream of the crop and are certainly godly people. I cannot imagine them not doing that.

The universal church is not invisible to God but there may be believers who are not a part of a local assembly.

 

Maybe that's where the problem lies. The SBC sends out missionaries who are representatives of the SBC church they are a member of. We have one of them in our church. When they go to the country they serve in, they go as members of our church but their salary and benefits of paid thru the SBC because of local churches giving.

They are still members of our church. The SBC is not the universal or local church. They are simply the sending agency.

When we start churches, there is always a local church who is the "parent" of the church. Money may come from various areas, but the members of a new church plant are usually members of that parent church until they are organized into another autonomous local assembly. This may not happen everywhere, but it's the way we have done it.

 

GB,
Look at your last post. In each case, what did the people do who were not members of a local church? They started a local church. I would bet that Carey belonged to a local church at his home, and he established a local church there. He did not leave them in the Twilight Zone. What could possibly be the purpose of not having a local church?

 

When Jesus come back to get His Church, which church will it be?
And.. Will everyone who is apart of that 'church' go, since they of course make up the church??

Which church was it that Jesus purchased with His own blood. This fact alone precludes any existance of a 'church' prior to death and resurrection of CHrist Jesus, because it came about through or about through blood of the New Covenant.

The truth of the matter is that the only way to contextually understand these questions/verses (and some others) is that they are speaking of the Universal Church.

We are believers are all apart of this body 'to be' (Universal) and are presently apart of the 'body that is' (local). The fact that all true believers will be apart of that body makes the fact of that body a present reality even though it has no actual functionality yet, so to speak. It is functioning in a general sense through the local church since all believers are apart of the body of Christ and unless we are to believe that Jesus is more than one person or has a multitude of brides, we must accept the understanding of one body as the Church universalas context dictates. The local church which is a representation or shadow of what is not yet seen with clarity but as through a glass darkly.

 

Why does everyone keep debating the existence of the "universal church." No one said it did not exist, and one day, it will be the only church. The fact is now, in this present day, July 28th, 2009, the local church is the instrument of spreading the Gospel.