Ecclesiology II - Gentlemen, please continue

The head of every local church is Christ. The entire chapter of 1Cor.11 spells that out very clearly. What Thayer attempts to do is to go through every reference of the Bible and give a definition according to each verse. Thus the definition is predicated on his own theology. You won't see this on-line. I have his book. It is very extensive and thorough, far more thorough then the condensed version that is on-line. The truth is that his theology has gotten in the way of the definition of the word.

This has nothing to do with the universal church. We were all baptized into the family of God. We are all brothers and sisters, in Christ, when we were saved. We are all "in Christ," and have put on Christ. It speaks to our salvation, not to a church.

He is speaking directly to the Corinthian church. They were baptized into one body; the body of believers known as the church in Corinth. Just like today, upon our baptism we are made members of the church. However, there are some that have another acceptable interpretation: The Greek word is "en" For in one spirit (showing unity) are we all baptized into one body. Either way it is written by Paul to the assembly at Corinth. There is no universal church here. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly.

I don't have a problem with Scriptures, do you? Remember the context. Paul is writing to the assembly that assembled in Ephesus. They were one body. There was one Spirit, the Holy Spirit. He was the one who called them into their calling. They had one faith and one baptism (water), One God, etc. Nothing difficult here.

Into what church: Ephesus or Corinth. Each church is local. Church = assembly.

And the universal church, by the same logic, includes the RCC, the Anglican, the Lutheran, etc., most of whom are not saved.
The fact is that by definition a local church is a voluntary ASSEMBLY of baptized regenerated members who have come together to obey the Great Commission and carry out the two ordinances (baptism and the Lord's Supper) as the Lord commanded us.
Now pay attention. If one of those "members" is not regenerated, and is a pretender, than by default he is not a member of the assembly, the local church. For it can only be composed of baptized regenerated members. The Lord knows those that are his. What kind of discipline does a so-called universal church have, and who does the discipline, and where?

Read the context. The Lord added to the First Baptist Church at Jerusalem.

The only kind of church that God knows of is a local church/assembly. That is what the word means. local and universal are opposites of each other. God is not a God of confusion. Man has made this confusion with the help of the devil. Assembly means exactly what it says: assembly, congregation. By very definition it cannot be universal so that it cannot be assembled.

Christ is the head of that body of believers in Corinth which assemble together, as he is the head of every bible-believing body which also assemble together in similar manner.

Then you have been deceived all these years. For you, however, part of your problem may be in semantics. Instead of using "universal church," or even "body of Christ," why not use a more Scriptural term such as "family of God," or Kingdom, or "bride," etc. These terms reflect all believers. We are, as believers, part of one family no matter where we are, and are sisters and brothers in Christ, bound together by one faith based on the Word of God--our salvation in Christ our Lord. There is no need to argue about the "universal church" (an unscriptural term) when the "family of God," is Scriptural and can be used instead.

 

Most words do; but ekklesia does not. It means assembly.

No, the etymology of the word is not the definition. If it were then you should worship the sun on Sunday. That is the etymology. Sun-day = day of the Sun. Ek + kalew = to call out. The etymology gives the history of the word, not the meaning. The meaning is assembly. The etymology means "to call out." That is two different things.

An abbreviated definition. It includes more. But for now it will do.

Who says? Not God. Not the Bible.

Not my church, yes a member of another church; but NO, not a member of a Universal church because no such animal exists. It is a myth. It cannot be demonstrated in Scripture.

There is no such things. Can you tell me who the deacons are, where they meet, etc. "Universal Assembly" An assembly that cannot assemble. This is a ridiculous concept.

If they will meet at Christ's second coming then it doesn't exist now. Please concede that point.

If pastors and deacons are assigned to local churches then local churches exist not a universal church. You need to concede that point as well.

That doesn't make sense. That is like saying all my children must be part of my family and my family must be part of all the families in my city. They aren't. I am responsible for my family and not the families of the entire city. My family is entirely independent of them all. We don't have a universal family in our city. We are not bound by similar family rules, morals, and so on. In no way are we universal. A family is local. There is no such thing as a universal family except to say that one family is representative of all families in this way. "The family" is essential to the welfare of the city. Not which family, but family used in a singular sense to represent all the families of the city, just as church was in the NT.

It is highly unlikely for anyone to be a member of an assembly that cannot be assembled, and,
for anyone to be a member of something that is totally unscriptural.

The English word "church" has about five meanings. You want to impose one of those meanings on the Greek word "ekklesia" translated "church" but ekklesia has only one meaning, not five. Therein is your mistake.

You cannot theologically define ekklesia as universal and in all this discussion have failed to do so.

A moot point.

There is a Greek word for church building. It is not found in the NT. The only word for church (means assembly) is ekklesia. It never means building or anything universal. It simply means congregation or assembly. the word used for building is not found in the NT. Many of the modern definitions of our word "church" are done away with by a matter of elimination. For example you don't find the word for "denomination" in the NT either. The word ekklesia doesn't have that meaning either, and neither does any other Greek word in the NT.

 

Most of what you said is once again presupposing the definition must alway be assembly. BTW, I looked up in a Greek Dictionary and they had a number of definitions in which they divided it into regular use and Christian use. This dictionary.

You presuppose your definition first. Later in your message you said that my definition of church is not Biblical and the Bible doesn't say this is the definition. Yet, throughout my posts I have been consistent in saying that the definition of the word must be from the text of Scripture. How can you criticize me for not getting my definition from the Bible when you admit that your definition is not from the Bible. This seems contradictory.

I answered the question about Pastors and Deacons. Again, they were only given to the local church thus it is not applicable for the Universal. You seem to point that the Universal and the local are philosophically contradictory. No, they are not exactly alike thus they can both co-exist.

Finally, I never defined ekklesia as a Universal, but have shown a number of times how it is a Universal used in the text. You force one definition upon ekklesia and you ride that horse. Yet, would you agree with me that theological terms must be defined theologically? Take, for instance, create in Genesis 1 or pneuma with the Holy Spirit. Taking just the gloss definition, a definition from a lexicon, is not sufficient. Yet, these have a greater meaning. Of are you advocating that we should always use the lexicon gloss in every theological situation?

Thus, please answer me, is it ever appropriate to jettison the gloss when a term is used theologically or should we always use the gloss term?

BTW, i am not using Universal Church in a future assembly only, but in the traditional sense. Thus, I concede no point.

 

I haven't seen you get a definition of universal church from any text of Scripture.

You have then answered according to a pre-conceived theology, a theology that does not fit the Bible. You will not look at the Bible objectively because you will not first excuse your "universal church" theology from your thinking. You have rose-colored glasses. Both cannot exist. It is impossible. I have showed you this: grammatically, etymologically, by example, through Scripture, theologically, in every possible way that I can, and you still reject it.
The answer: "It must be so because my tradition says it is so." That is what you believe.

But it isn't so. It is never used as universal in the text. You cannot show me that.

Yes I do, but one's theology cannot be forced into the passage. Do you agree that evolution should be forced into Genesis chapter one, because a person believes that way?

"Gloss" is not the right word, it is confusing. That is perhaps why I didn't understand one of your previous points. Most words have different meanings: major and minor meanings. I gave you a good example with the word logos. It is used 330 times in the Bible, but only 5 times is it used in reference to Christ, and out of 330 times 218 it is translated "word" There are over 30 other translations for logos. The context often gives the meaning.
There is no word "pneuma" in the OT. That word is a Greek word found only in the NT. Perhaps the word that you are looking for is the Hebrew word "ruach." This word, even more than the NT word pneuma, lends itself to wind, breath, and of course spirit.

Do you mean should we always use the major meanings and never use the minor meanings of a word, but just "gloss" over them? The answer is no. I gave you a good example in the word logos, which is used 330 times in the Bible and has over 30 different translations, some of which are only used once.

The traditional sense of "universal church" is not found in ancient literature. There is no traditional sense except in English. The traditional and acceptable meaning of the Greek word is assembly. That is the only meaning this word has.
Again look at the statistics.
It is found 115 times.
112 times it is translated church.
3 times it is translated assembly.
Both Darby and Young translate it consistently as assembly.
The word "church" always meant assembly in the NT. It had no other meaning. The meaning that you are assigning it is novel. It is a novel concept which has come into theology rather recently.

 

lDHK To answer your questions to me

Yes, I know Theos means God in the Greek. We also know the Scribes studded God, and did not know Him, nor did the Greeks, as we can see on Mars' Hill. Always learning and studying what man says. The Jews seek a sign, and the Greeks wisdom.

Today is systematic rational study of religion; schools of religious beliefs, and teachings such as "Jewish theology, "Catholic theology", Baptist theology, and on. One can say I studied theology at "Oxford", and one I at "Baylor", or one" Dallas Theological, and another at "Notre Dame". And I do agree, that these all are good to try and win the hearts and minds, and to do battle against each other as we try to understand God. Wherever we study, we are fortunate indeed if we can find one good book (outside of the Bible) that will boost our knowledge as we study. Since we are on the subject, perhaps some here may have read "The Missing Link in Systematic c Theology", by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum. But still with this knowledge we are lacking, but it helps. The answers are in One Book.

But do any meant to enlighten really show, explain or send us away into the desert, as He did with Abram/Abraham, and Saul/Paul? Today He left His word for us to study to find out about the Body of Christ. He parked Paul in jail, and had John tarry in order to finish the Word of God for us to study. To be approved we are to study what?

You mention the Good News Gospel. How many here really know when the Good News Gospel began? A church before existed, but did it show signs of life before the blood was spilled, body dead, and then arose alive on the third day? Was the Church then complete at Pentecost, and was the gospel complete? If we can only allow ourselves we can prove it was not. But we have to believe EVERY WORD WE READ IN THE BIBLE, and try to ELIMINATE every contradiction. The Body of Christ will be complete, and we know His Body must be triune. How will He accomplish this? In His Body will be Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The Great Commission would have taken care of this problem, but the people God chose to preach that gospel refused. Their Father being SHEM, refused to believe God, and the Great commission that Jesus gave to His People was not carried out. God knew this from before the beginning. It did not catch Him by surprise. God has a purpose. There is a reason for DAMACUS ROAD. One chosen from heaven, and that one is Saul/Paul, a Benjaminite. So it still is His People that He gave a Dispensational Gospel to, and He told Paul, I choose you to go to the heathen, the gentile, they being Ham and Japheth. Give to them The Good News Gospel of the Body of Christ. Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. NOW you will be e justified through faith. You are mine, but some of mine are Justified by faith.

Have I declared Ya or Nay thus far? You are skimming. I have not said one way or the other concerning a Universal assembly on the earth. I put to RUIZ, IF I agree … Would you…
I do say here though that there was a universal church gospel preached. When and where was it preached? Is this what Jew's today teach their own people, or even we Gentiles today? It is even whant many Baptist, and other denominations claim. What do they hold dear as their Gospel? Is it not what is found in Martthew, Mark, and Luke? I'm told this is what the Catholic church says, what they believe, and what they do to finish out their salvation. They must do the Jewish act of baptizing with water, by the hands of man to receive remission of their sins. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll try to answer your questions. First HIS BODY IS THE CHURCH. People gather at different places. I someplace, you some place, and others somewhere else. To bad, not many follow the Masterbuilder's suggestion, who tells not to get heavily into wood, brick, or gaudy trappings.

Preachers, Pastors, Priests, Cardinals, Elders, Deacons, Teachers, Laymen are all capable of preaching a sermon. But no woman should Head a Service.

Any body can take up an offering in the meeting place, which is usually a Deacon, or one similar, for they are usually there most of the time. But anyone can do this, but an appointed deacon/s should have something to do, for they volunteered to do so.

We know the Lord's Supper is not to be at the one gathering place. It is after supper that we are told to break the bread, and drink the wine. Not a command, but a request he asks of us. He (the church) is in us, and this Temple that we are, do eat His Body, and Drink His blood.

There is a place for us to do ceertain things. How about a home, homes, riverside, tents; and some to buildings, larger buildings, and giant buildings. Some of these meeting places, their members read a little closer what is found in I Corinthians 3. Verse 12 is so important, but it is ignored by almost all. So very much of those offefferings the Deacons take up will go up in smoke. What a waste. We need to remember We Are God's Building. His Church is very personal.

 

No, I mentioned that the word "gospel" means "good news." That is the literal meaning of the word "gospel," good news.

The church age started on the Day of Pentecost, and the gospel message was complete once Christ rose again from the dead. Peter preached it in power on the Day of Pentecost.

If we read Acts 2 we can prove that it was.

Every local church is a body of believers. That is the one important thing to learn.

Do we have the gospel today? Yes. Therefore the Great Commission was carried out, wasn't it.

That is not exactly what the Scripture says. You are adding to the Word of God because of a particular pre-conceived theology that you hold to, that no one else on the board that I know of holds to.

Yes we are justified by faith, just like Abraham was.

You are wrong. The Jews, many denominations, most Catholics, do not believe and do not preach the gospel. In fact most of them do not even know what the gospel is.

No, the local church is a body of believers. There is no "Church," only "churches." The word ekklesia means assembly.

The place doesn't matter. It could be a house, a community center, a field, etc. In the early days some met in cemeteries, because of persecution. The church is the people, not the building.

Neither priests or cardinals who no doubt are not saved, being part of the RCC. In fact the only person capable of holding a service and preaching the gospel is one who has been saved, baptized, and called of God to do so.

If the church is in you, are the deacons that take up the offering in you as well?? You are the one that just gave the illustration.

It is a red herring. It speaks of the judgment seat of Christ, not a church, an assembly.

The assembly, that is those baptized believers who have gathered together for the purpose of carrying out the Great Commission are a local assembly or church. You are not a building. Deacons do not live in you. And if you go to a church where the deacons smoke and have a bad testimony find another church.

 

I had an reply mostly done when I lost everything . Here is my second attempt at what I wrote.

First, let me explain "gloss." A gloss is not a definition, but a one word equivilent to another word. Strongs Concordance uses mostly a "gloss." However, none of these should be confused with a definition of a word. While a gloss may be somewhat accurate, there are always nuances in words that cannot be conveyed in another language. A common one is the word parakleet, sometimes translated "helper" or "counselor". These are decent words for a gloss, but they are not the definition of parakleet. A gloss is just a word that sometimes represents another word in another language. I consulted a couple of Greek Dictionaries and the dictionaries had up to 7 definitions for ekklesia.

On the other hand, a definition is more technical and usually is not confined to one word as one word is probably not sufficient.

Let me re-address Young's. As I noted in a previous post, Young's was bent on trying to provide a consistent one word gloss for each Greek and Hebrew word in the Bible. This becomes a problem, as I noted in Genesis 1:1. This is not helpful and most scholars see this as problematic as is the case in Genesis 1:1 where to be consistent the person loses the idea of creating and leans towards forming or organizing as Young does. In my initial post that I lost, I believe I cited F.F. Bruce's criticism of Young's Bible as saying that unless you know Greek and Hebrew, Youngs is not a helpful translation.

Your statement on logos is important for a couple of reasons. If there is one use of the word logos different than the common use, especially when using it theologically as John 1 does, then you have to take it in accordance to that new interpretation. The same exists for ekklesia. If it is used one way different, we need to confront that one way.

Is the Universal Church taught in Scripture? Yes. These situations cannot possibly be a local church or all local churches combined.

Matthew 16 18-20: Christ said that "He will build his Church and the gates of hell will not overcome IT." Simply speaking, there is an emphasis on this as a singular. He didn't promise to build every local church, as many local churches have died. He is saying He will build his church.

Ephesians: 5: Christ commanded us to love our wife as Christ loves the Church and gave himself up for her. The church here could not be a compound singular as "wife" is not a compound singular (as you tried to state about other instances in the Bible). There is no polygamy in the Bible and thus Jesus is only married to one Church. His love is singular, as a man's love for his wife should be singular. As well, Ephesians shows throughout the text to use the word "church" in a singular manner, not specifcially referring to an individual church but to God's Church.

Colosians 1:24- Christ is said to only have one body, and that is the church (singular). There is a relationship to his body and the church. Thus, in a sense the body of Christ is both referred to as local and Universal. All God's people are the body. Yet, he uses it in I Corinthians as referring specifically to the local body.

Now some of your arguments are not arguments agains the doctrine of the Universal Church. I will ouline a couple of them below.

1. You ask "Where are the Pastors, Deacons, etc, of the local church?" This is not based upon our view of the Universal Church thus is a strawman argument. We do not believe there are Pastors of the Universal Church.

2. You keep wondering where we meet. Again, this goes against your insistence of your definition and applying it to our viewpoint. This, as well, is a strawman.

3. You admittingly take an external definition of church and apply it to the Bible (a theological term at that) and my point is to take how the Bible uses the word and come up with a definition. You then accuse us of implanting our definition of the Universal Church on the Bible. Well, we are not, but if we were then that is exactly what you are doing as well.

Finally, you keep stating that that we are wrong and seemed to make strong statements on how we are not reading the Bible. Let me set the record straight. My view is held by the vast majority of theologians and Christians throughout all of Church history. Some of the greatest theologians in all circles, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, etc, have held to this viewpoint. Virtually all creeds before the 1800's that were written about the church contained strong statements about the Universal Church. From as early as the 3rd Century, there is strong literature supporting my viewpoint. When theologians were willing to die over doctrine, they stood firm on this doctrine.

At worst, we are wrong. Yet, accusing us of radically altering the Bible is wrong. Rather, it should be said that we may be wrong but there is a decent amount of support for our view, though we are wrong.

Your view, on the other hand, is rather new and was brought about during a period of radical Americanization of theology. If anyone could be bold, it is my side as we have history on our side and you have an external defintion (or gloss) you implant into the Bible, while ignoring the context of the Bible.

 

How about by the Holy Spirit we are all baptized into one body, the called out ones,the church, the assembly awaiting the salvation from the gates of hell (Hades) that shall not prevail against her. O, death where is thy sting? O, Hades where is thy victory? For the church (called out ones) Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. But, ye came to Mount Zion, and to a city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem,
Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
This takes place at Christ coming and the resurrection.

First the preeminent Christ then us.

Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;

 

Then what are they?
Here is what Strong's says:

Note:
1. It gives the etymology of the word first. That is not the definition.
2. It gives the description of the word next; how it is used. That is still not the definition.
3. It gives the meaning of the world last: assembly (or how it is translated "church" which is what assembly means in the KJV). This is the meaning of the word "ekklesia," "assembly."

--Usually, but not always.

1. This has nothing to do with the OT. You are mixing Hebrew and Greek. Stick to the NT.
2. The consistency of Young with the translation of ekklesia into assembly is perfectly acceptable, as that is what the meaning of the word is.

Why are you so against a literal meaning of the word (which is the correct meaning), when the KJV consistently translates the word with the word "church" a much looser meaning. One gives a literal meaning; the other a generic meaning in English which in the English language has a multitude of definitions and makes the whole of Ecclesiology confusing. If it had been translated properly, as Young did in the first place, then many people today would not be as confused in their Ecclesiology, would they?

That is true.

That is not true, as even a Greek-English Concordance will prove you wrong. Out of 115 times where ekklesia is used the word is translated "church" 112 times. The other 3 are translated properly "assembly," for they are used in a political sense in Acts 19. The word "church" always means assembly. They could have translated the word assembly but they chose church instead? Why would that be? Why the obvious bias? They were Anglicans and had to bow to political pressure, ecumenical pressure, to accommodate many religions, religions that believed church was as much as a building as an assembly of believers. The word "church" had and has a half dozen meanings, at least, and ekklesia doesn't.

No. God is not a God of confusion but of order.

Every local church is built on the foundation of Christ, and as long as that statement is true the gates of hell shall not overcome it. The fact is that some churches veer from the truth, and find themselves in the traps of Satan. What is even more true is that this so-called non-existent, imaginary universal church has in it many of Satan's emissaries form apostate denominations and doesn't know which direction it is going. It doesn't know what doctrine it believes for it believes all doctrine--both ungodly and otherwise. It has no faith (i.e. body of faith) for all believers have a different faith. It is entirely confused and dis-united. It is a mythical organization that belongs in the metaphysical realm of the new age church of Oprah.

Are you suggesting that every believer's family is polygamous? That is just what you implied isn't it? It is a simile here. As Christ loves the church (singular), so a man should love his wife (singular). The man and wife are only one but represent all. Christ is one, and the church is one but represent Christ's love for all local churches. The illustration for God's love for the local church fits beautifully for the man's love for his wife. That is the only way that it can be taken.

It was Christ's love for the Ephesian Church which should by typical of every bible-believing local church. This is what is exemplified.

The Colossian Church.

Keep it in context--the Colossian Church.

There is no universal church here. Paul is writing only to the Colossians. And as he writes to the Colossians he writes to every local church the same thing, the same encouragement and promises. The word church is used in a generic way that is applicable to all local churches. There is no universal church in play here. There is no such thing.

It is obvious isn't it. An unassembled assembly cannot be organized with pastors and deacons, and therefore cannot exist.

It is not a strawman at all. The word means "assembly." If it cannot assemble, it cannot gather or meet. It defies the definition of the word.

No, I take the one definition of the word, and show how it is applied in every sense in the Bible. You try to force your man-made definitions into those verses without considering the overall context.

 

The vast majority are often wrong.
The vast majority are not born again Christians.

I am doubtful about the ECF, but then I don't hang my hat on their writings either.

I don't find any support for your view in the Bible though it may be promoted. Why promote error which has no Biblical support?

If you read Baptist history you will find that it is not novel at all. If you continue to read RCC historians yes, you will find a universal church theory. It all depends on who you read.

 

I've been lurking on this thread because DHK and Ruiz are going a good job of articulating their opposing positions.

Since I agree with DHK, obviously I think he has the better of the argument.

DHK mentioned that the U-church has no pastor, and Ruiz agreed. The U-church not only does not assemble, nor have a pastor, it also has no deacons or other officers, sends no missionaries, does no personal witnessing, takes no offerings, observes neither baptism nor the Lord's Supper, does not pray together, hears no sermons, has no teachers.

It cannot carry out the Great Commission that was given to the first church and its successors, because it is unequipped to do so. It is totally useless, fractured, filled with error.

So how can one liken the local church with the U-church? They are not the same. In fact, one fails to meet any qualification for being called a church.

DHK and I see the founding of the church differently. I hold that Jesus himself established the first church during his earthly ministry; DHK holds to the Pentecost Day forming. This is not a test of fellowship for me. And I won't derail this thread by debating the question here.

DHK, I thought I was pretty well schooled on the local church-UChurch issue. I am a kindergartener compared to you. I have enjoyed "sitting at your feet" and learning from you.

In the meantime, I'll drop in and lob a grenade here and there when it's appropriate.

 

You miss the point. Good News is progressive. It keeps getting better, and as Jesus said there is something New coming. I believe He knew what He was talking about, but He couldn't let the cat out of the bag. Not until after Damascus Road.

With that understanding then you are saying you are a proselyte? Salvation is of the Jew, and they are justified by God, and Gentile is also justified by God, just the way He says they are.


Is it possible you could be wrong about the Age of the church? I see you go right along with the Mother church. You may very well be aware that there was the church in the days of Moses, according to one filled with the Holy Ghost. The Hebrew word "kahal", or congregation, was incorporated into the Septuagint as "ekklesia". What does all this mean? Church looking forward, Church born, then Church crucified, arose from the dead, emerged from the Tomb being seen of men, and the Son of man again went to heaven as the Son of God. Mission accomplished as you say for that is what He said. I came for my Sheep, and not for the Dogs He said. If you see what Scripture tells us then one is a proselyte to the Jewish faith of Repent, and be Water Baptized for the Remission of Sin. That is a true Gospel for some, but not me. Is God going to make the Jews jealous because they rejected HIM? Jesus Christ Loves me, even a Dog. Is this True Love or What? We must continue on to Damascus Road to find the Body of Christ.

Please prove with your interpretation. It of necessity will contradict Acts 10.

Are you saying there is a universal gospel, and everyone in your local church is saved, as well as all other members of some other local church? Don't you say there is no church, but churches. If so, are all the people in all those churches saved, even the RCC?

Yes it goes on as some wish to be in the Kingdom that was at Hand, and still will come. But in the mean time Jesus Christ is taking to Himself a Body of believers in Him, and are justified through faith. Scripture tells tells us this is not known until after Damascus Road.

Perhaps not. But are you not saying your theology rejects the Body of Christ? I cannot bring myself to believe no one on the Board rejects the existence of the Body of Christ.

Did Abraham have to do a work with his hands, just like Noah, and all others until after Damascus Road?

I am not chosen to judge other men, or another church/churches. Not if they believe on our Lord Jesus Christ. But if we contend the Catholic is lost, they [being of the Gospel of Peter, do we not also condemn Peter?

Semantics at best. Not until after Damascus Road in Antioch did the Body of Christ become known. Christian Jews, and Christian Gentiles, as the case may be.

Amen! So we agree. The church is in the person, not some building.

[/QUOTE]You lambast the RCC yet look to believe the same as they. Are you saying Water baptism must be performed, but only if done in a certain way, just the right words, and as long as the one doing the baptizing is called Baptist? I do hope you don't really mean you believe, that one is lost until they have been water baptized?

Yes, I'll take credit for that. And I said anyone can take up the offering for anyone in the Body of Christ has the Church. You don't have to be a Deacon, as we should allow for any contingency.

Yes something like that; smoked herring at our rewards ceremony. We may even be red faced.

. Why do you attribute to me such as I am a building, and a Deacon lives in me? You are interpreting my words, just as you try to interpret the Bible. I said the Church is the Body of Christ, and not some building. And it is not a sin if someone is not a Deacon to take money from individuals and give it to a Local church. You are playing games with the word church. You say assemble, so is your church called the Baptist Assembly? You say the church does not exist, but only churches. If your church is not a church, then how can you in your local church be included in the "churches"? You say Catholics are not saved, but Catholics have "churches"?

 

Your argument for the local church would be valid:

1. If I downplayed the local church
2. If our definition of Universal was the same as the local church.

The initial post I made was all about the local church and her importance. An argument for the Universal Church does not say a person does not need the local, need local Pastors, and that local churches are not needed for evangelism. Rather, I was criticized on this list because I was making too much of the local church.

Thus, your arguments for the importance of the local church I give a hearty amen, and even say what other Universal Church members have said, that it is essential for people to be in a local church, and if you are not you are on very unstable ground spiritually. Or, as one Universal Church member said, "You cannot have God as your father who does not have the Church as their mother." In other words, we need to be a part of the local church.

Rather, my arguments for the Universal Church is bent on what I define as the Universal Church.

 

Strongs is a Concordance, which gives a basic gloss of the definition. When, however, doing research on a word, Strongs is good for a basic understanding, but not good for a more true understanding. It is like using a synonym finder to define your word instead of an unabridged dictionary. Yes, you can get an understanding in a synonym finder, but the dictionary is much more in-depth and specific.

I am all for the literal meaning of the word. In fact, I think it is so easy to find that the Bible should be used to define the meaning of the Word. I am against presupposing the meaning upon the text of Scripture (deductive reasoning) rather than discovering the meaning by how Scripture uses it (inductive). Why are you against inductive reasoning?

Let me get this straight, I have never said the word ekklesia is never properly translated assembly. NEVER! I have said that when we use the word ekklesia in theological settings, we should define it by the context. Thus, if you give me 100 instances where it should be translated assembly, it would not change my mind any because there are clear instances in Scripture (Matthew 16, Ephesians 5, etc) that "assembly" is not what is meant.

How is this an argument against what I wroge????

Two quick points here:
1. You admist that Ephesians 5 makes the church one. Can you show me in context Paul is directly referring to the local Church? Rather, it is referring to the oneness here. That oneness has traditionally been the Universal Church. Thus, you admit there is reason to hold to a oneness in this text (BTW, I do not doubt God loves the local churches, but the point in this text is the Universal, the oneness of all saved people of all time, everyone he died for).

2. I am not saying Christ is polygamous, but that is a necessary translation if you believe "Church" in this context is actually churches. The context points to oneness.

Again, you take your definition and rather than pull from the definition of the text you put your definition into the text.

Let me note a couple of other positions where you make fallacies.

You say the vast majority of theologians in history are not Christians? So, you are saying that we should doubt the majority of Christian theologians before the 1800's where your theology begins to take root?

You said you are doubtful about the ECF, what is that? I merely mentioned that the vast majority from all denominations agrees with me. Could you explain what you mean by ECF?

You mentioned Baptist History. First, the London Baptist Confession and Philadelphia Baptist Confession both include the Universal Church. I am not reading merely "Catholic" historians, in fact I can say I have only read one in my life. Spurgeon agreed with me, Bunyan agreed with me, the Charleston Baptist Association agreed with me, the Philadelphia Baptist Association agreed with me. The London signatures agreed with me. Of our 400 years of strong history since the Reformation, our greatest documents and theologians in Baptist history agree with me.

So, please, trace your early adherents in Baptist history. Please, give me specific names and people.

 

In addition to the end of my last message, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 includes the following:

This is the definition of the Universal Church. The largest Baptist denomination has as their doctrinal statement what has been traditionally held by the vast majority of Baptists until fairly recent history.

 

Quote:
Baptist Faith and Message: The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

So we agree on the existence and necessity for the local congregation.
And if I agreed on the existence of the U-Church, then the BF&M definition is just fine.

So the question is, if the local church and all its functions satisfies the requirements for worship, fellowship, evangelism and missions, training, etc., what exactly is the function of the U=Church?

Surely, it has a purpose beyond just existing.

 

The definition is what it is, it is all Christians for all time. The local church is limited in that not all who belong are Christians (though we hope so) and not everyone who ever believed are Christians. The Universal Church is the fullness of Christ's Bride. All who believe and the recipients of God's unique love.

 

Also, I did some more research I looked into the Waldensians because most who deny the Universal Church (or most of whom I have talked to) believe the Waldensians were early Baptists. They, too, believed in a Universal Church. I doubt anyone would claim the Waldensians were "Roman Catholic."

 

I believe that the so-called universal invisible church or universal body of Christ is a perversion of what the Bible identifies as the kingdom and family of God not the church of God.

How does one enter into the UIC? The non-dispensational advocate of the UIC says it is entered at the point of regeneration and thus would include all saints from Genesis to the last saved person.

The dispensationalists says that it is entered by the baptism in the Spirit and thus would have it originate on the day of Pentecost. They would define the baptism in the Spirit inseparable from indwelling of the Spirit and therefore would argue that no one was indwelt by the Spirit of God prior to Pentecost.

Both of these positions have serious problems. The non-dispensational UIC position has the problem with reconciling how that the apostles and New Testament prophets were "first" set in the church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20) rather than pre-apostle saints and prophets.

The dispensational UIC position has the same problem as the apostles were chosen and set in the church prior to Pentecost rather than on Pentecost or afterwards (Mk. 3; Mt. 6). In addition to this problem, Paul demands that indwelling by the Spirit is inseparable from being a child of God (Rom. 8:8-9) and those without the Spirit of God are "none of his."

This confusion between ecclesiology and soteriology is the foundation of church salvation.

1. Roman Catholics deny salvation outside their universal invisible church membership with only carefully defined exceptions to this rule.

2. Reformed Roman Catholics (Protestants) deny salvation outside their universal invisible church membership with only carefully defined exceptions (dispensational UIC).

3. Restoration demoninations (Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day Adventists, Churches of Christ, etc.) deny salvation outside of their local visible assemblies apart from carefully defined exceptions.

4. Landmark Baptists deny the church has anything to do with salvation but wholly with service and that one must first be "in Christ" by regeneration/justification before they can be a proper candidate to be "in Christ" figuratively through baptism or metaphorically through membership in the body of Christ.

Moreover, the UIC doctrine is the basis for justifying multiple denominations and expanding division within the kingdom of God. It provides the psuedo-biblical foundation for expression of division and confusion among Christendom. In contrast, the great commission is the authorization by Christ of a restricted process for reproducing disciples of like faith and order. For example, Matthew 28:18 provides authority to administer baptism (v. 19) but limits that authority t the pronoun "ye" in contrast to those identified as the "nations" and "them." This authorized "ye" is contextually defined to be those already discipled in the same gospel, same baptism and same doctrine and practice ("I have commanded you"). Jesis never authorized anyone to go make another kind of disciple but the kind being given the commission. Jesus never authorized anyone to go preach another kind of gospel than what he preached (Jn. 3:16) as later he would lead Paul to say such were "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9). Jesus never authorized anyone to administer another kind of baptism than what he submitted unto and authorized to be administered through his disciples (Mt. 3; Lk. 7:29-30; Jn. 4:1-2) as he identifies those who reject his baptism as rejecting the counsel of God against themselves and there is but "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5; Lk. 7:29-30). He never authorized anyone to go teach another faith and practice than what he "commanded" as those who would teach another faith and practice are defined as departing from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17) and separation was employed by the apostles toward those who did depart from the faith "once delievered" (Jude 3; 2 Thes. 3:6) even though they were acknowledged to be "brethren" (2 Thes. 3:6).

Hence, the great commission is a carefully designed method for reproducing disciples that are like faith and order with the doctrine of Christ. Indeed, the very word "disciple" denies that one is given permission to be inovative and create his own gospel, baptism and doctrine but rather is a follower of and discipled in the faith of His master.

 

Are you saying that those who believe in the Universal Church are authors of another Gospel? Are you calling such heretics?

Secondly, besides some of your mischaracterizations of Covenant Theology, I did want to show that the "household of God" is referred to by Paul was built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets where Christ is the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-22). The Church in this context is also called the "commonwealth of Israel." Thus, Paul relates this family of God to being built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets where Christ is the chief cornerstone. If you interpret that last part of this section like most, this is the Church, Universal Church.