1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ecclesiology II - Gentlemen, please continue

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by J.D., Jun 3, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please, do expand on your statement in bold above.
     
  2. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, they deny salvation outside their universal visible church:

    Westminster Confession of Faith 25:2

    "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal. . .out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

    Hence Ruiz's OP:

    Ruiz explains further:

    Does anyone here agree with the Presbyterians and Ruiz on this issue of salvation and the visible church?
     
  3. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    He needs to get his terminology right.
    First, discount the idea of a universal church because such an animal does not exist. The word for church is assembly and it is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. It is just that simple.

    Second, salvation is not found in a church, not any church. Salvation is found in Christ. He is the author and finisher of my faith.
    Salvation is not found in baptism. Salvation is found in Christ.
    Baptism, as well as church membership, are both steps of obedience after one becomes saved. They are not requirements for salvation. We do not believe in a works based salvation.

    My own testimony:
    I was saved via the evangelistic efforts of an interdenominational organization working on the campus of universities. They never put any emphasis on baptism or church membership. The consequence of that was that I was not baptized or a member of a local until two years after I was saved. Was I still saved? Yes, even though I was not a member of a "visible" local church.

    Was I a member of the universal church? NO. There is no such thing.
    Was I a member of the family of God? Yes.
    Was I part of the bride of Christ? Yes.

    There is other terminology to use other than the Universal Church which does not exist. I became a part of the family of God, born of the Spirit, washed in His blood, joint heirs with Jesus, as I traveled this sod; I am so glad that I'm part of the family of God.
     
  4. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I should have ended the sentence after "believed."
     
  5. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you want me to explain, I posted several posts on this issue.

    BTW, because it is Presbyterian does not mean it is wrong. This is the view of many Baptists as well and goes beyond Presbyterians to include Luther, Augustine, and Cyprian. Why you ignore these men, I do not know.
     
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Which dictionaries? Do you mean a lexicon? I have plenty of lexicons: both for Classical and Koine Greek. But if you mean a dictionary for the English language you fail, for we are not discussing an English Bible. We are discussing the Greek NT from which the English Bible was translated. Otherwise when you use the word "temple" you might as well as "Hindu temple" because it is an English meaning. The Greek meaning of the word "temple" defines the word, along with the context. The Greek meaning of the word "ekklesia" by a process of elimination rules out all the other English definitions of "church" except for assembly, congregation. That is also the same definition that the lexicons give it.
    The meaning of the word is known. It can be defined in its known sense in every way (all 115 times) without changing its meaning to mean something else (something totally opposite than what it means). So why change the meaning? It is not inductive reasoning at all. It is consistency. Let me give you a good example.

    The word "pascha" means "passover." It is found 29 times in the NT. 28 times it is translated correctly as "passover." But again, the Anglican translators bowing to political correctness of the time, took this one word and deliberately mis-translated it as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. There was no Easter in the time of Christ. It should have been translated "passover" just as it was the other 28 times. This is another example of inconsistency. Why change the meaning of the word? There is no excuse.

    Likewise, when the word means assembly, why change the meaning of the word? The word "church" could mean any of half a dozen things. They avoided "assembly," and used the more confusing word "church" instead. God is not a God of confusion; but of order.
    That is according to your own pre-conceived theology. You simply look at Scripture through rose-colored eyes and cannot see why it must be translated "assembly" which requires it to mean local assembly, the only kind of assembly there is. If it is always properly translated assembly as you just stated, then it always refers to a local church, something which can be assembled, and this argument is over. You have just contradicted yourself in the above paragraph. If the context defines the word as assembly then it is local, that is what an assembly is. You cannot have an assembly that is not local; an assembly that cannot meet. Please understand that. Assemblies assemble.

    Your objections in Mat.16 and Eph.5 were dealt with.
    If you infer that a local church has unregenerate members (which it doesn't), how much more does a so-called universal church have members of all different denominations have those that are not saved, let alone members that have unifying doctrine. It doesn't. It is totally ecumenical with diverse faiths, something that would split people not unify them. Such a monstrosity cannot exist.
    Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: (Ephesians 1:1)
    --The letter was addressed to the church at Ephesus, not to others. He was addressing them.
    There is no such thing as a universal church. He is addressing the church at Ephesus. He is addressing the love that Christ had for them, and the love that they ought to have for each other. In fact after rebuking them about several matters, he begins this paragraph with this statement:

    Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (Ephesians 5:21)
    --Then two verses later he says:

    For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (Ephesians 5:23)
    --Christ is the head of the church at Ephesus. He is the saviour of that local body of believers at Ephesus. And he was wasn't he? They were all brought to Christ by them putting their faith in Him. This is true for every bible-believing church. Christ is the head of all of our churches; those whose head is the church, and have the Bible as their foundation.

    As there is one wife and one husband; there is one church and one Christ.
    In this world there is a one wife/one husband unit; so there is a one church/one Christ unit. Christ is the head of every church as the husband is the head of every family. That is the analogy that is given. The analogy that you gave is: the husband has many wives as Christ has many churches; thus polygamy. That is not true is it? It is not ownership; it is headship.
    It is not unity it is relationship in marriage, especially headship that is being spoken of here.
    And your conclusion (as has been shown) is absolutely wrong.
    This is what you wanted me to do. Get the definition from the text rather than simply the dictionary, and this I have done. So now you have a dictionary definition and a theological definition.
    ECF are the early church fathers such as Polycarp, Eusebius, Ireneus, etc.
    Yes, I am aware that you will find many adherents to the Universal Church theory, but there are many that are not.
    I will try and do that if I have the time.
     
  7. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    I will ask again,

    What is the function and purpose of the Universal Church?

    We have a clearly outlined Commission for the local church. We have clearly delineated activities of the local church.

    Does the Universal church have any reason for existence beyond just, uh, being?
     
  8. J.D.

    J.D. Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    11
    That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (Jesus, as recorded in John 17)
     
  9. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    It is a prayer, but not for a church, not even a "universal" one.
     
  10. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if something doesn't have a states purpose it is not a respectable entity? I think it does have a purpose, but that is found in Genesis 15.

    I read one theologian who lamented that people rush to "what we should do" instead of rushing towards nature and attributes first then based upon that going towards what we do. He said this is distinctly a 20th Century American way of looking at theology.
     
  11. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is not much here to respond to because you keep insisting on using a preconcieved definition to define a word.

    Yet, I did want to respond to Ephesians 5.

    Church in ephesians 5 is sometimes used as a local church, but if you look at a previous post in Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul expounds on who he means as a part of the church. He talks about both Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were all the people in the past. They were brought together into one entity where the foundation is the apostles and prophets, where Jesus is the Chief cornerstone.

    This is the Universal Church. Thus, in Ephesians 5, we have a connections between this chapter and that Chapter. One Chapter defines what we are talking about, the other applies what we are talking about. Chapter 3 continues this thread showing how we are in the same body... the same body that had the apostles and prophets as the foundation and Christ the Cornerstone. In Chapter 4, he gives the offices of apostles and prophets to this same entity, the one described in Chapter 2 and three. He uses "body" quite often, saying we are in one body in Chapter 2, 3, and 4.

    This is the body of Christ, the Universal Church made up of Jews in the Old Testament, Jews who believed in the New, and now Gentiles. They are laid on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as the Cornerstone. Thus, by Ephesians 5, Paul links the church as his body. The same body mentioned in the previous chapters. The same body that includes both Jews and Gentiles... both laid on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. All who believed, not just in a local church.
     
  12. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.) Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true; As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. (2 Corinthians 6:1-11)

    Paul certainly went through a lot of suffering for something that had no purpose. Would you do the same--suffer without purpose??
     
  13. J.D.

    J.D. Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    11
    I left off this prior portion of the prayer: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;"

    Is this not the Church?
     
  14. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Ask yourself this:
    1. Paul was writing to the Ephesians. In the context of this letter would the Ephesian believers ever have conceived of a universal church? They were the only church around for miles. Miletus was not too far off. The churches in the province of Galatia were a long ways inland. Most of the other churches were reached by sea. Ephesus was rather isolated as far as the churches that Paul had been to. Thus when Paul mentions "church" who do you think that the believers at Ephesus would be thinking of? Themselves of course. Most had probably lived there all of their lives. They had no where to go. Christianity appeals mostly to the poor who rarely travel. A church is an assembly, and they would be thinking of their assembly whenever Paul mentioned this word "assembly" as it was in their language. You can't read into this passage another meaning that would be strange to the thinking of the Ephesian believers.

    2. In this epistle Paul details how their assembly/church, like mine was formed or built. Remember that Timothy is the pastor here. And according to Acts 20:17 it was a large church with many pastors, Timothy being the senior pastor:

    And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. (Acts 20:17)
    --An elder is a pastor, and the church had many of them.

    Here he compares the church/assembly to a household:

    Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22)

    1. The foundation are the apostles and the prophets.
    The prophets are the authors of the OT, and the apostles are the authors of the NT. The Bible is our foundation. However he emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone of this foundation. That is important to note.

    For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:11)
    --Jesus Christ is revealed to us in the Word of God. If the church is not built on Christ it will fail. Paul is describing this in detail to Timothy and the believers at Ephesus.

    Now the foundation is the authors of the Bible. Christ is the chief cornerstone. And the members of the church are those who are fitly framed together as they work in unity together each one using their spiritual gifts. They grow together. They fit together perfectly just as the parts of a temple do. Now look carefully at the next verse:
    "In whom YOU also are fit together...through the Spirit."
    --There is no other way that the Ephesian believers would take that except that it would apply to them. They would not apply that to other churches, to any so-called universal church, a concept they had never heard of. It was applicable only to them. They were far removed from other churches in the area. They weren't the last church to be established by Paul. In fact the church was probably established on his second missionary journey between 49-52 A.D., while the epistle was written 60-62 A.D.

    Paul describes to them how they are established as a local church, and need to grow as a local church, as well as growing individually. He also tackles the problem of unity among Jewish and Gentile believers stating that they are now one in Christ. That is a wonderful truth that they could apply in their church, and now in all churches.

    Spiritual truths are timeless. As they were applicable in the Ephesian church they are applicable in our churches. We need to take the wonderful truths taught to the Ephesians and apply them to our own churches today.
     
  15. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    It is for all believers: the family of God; the bride of Christ, but not for the church or assembly. There is no "Church," only "churches."
     
  16. J.D.

    J.D. Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    11
    Okay, I know this has been hashed out before and I don't feel like getting starting in that circle again, but I will depart from this with the observation that it has been well-proven both in this thread and in any number of other ones that the Bible uses the term "Church" (singular) in certain places to speak of believers in a universal body.
     
  17. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    It is a matter of using proper terminology.
    If the Greek word for church means assembly, how can an assembly be universal? It can't. One cannot have an assembly that cannot assemble. It is a contradiction of terms. This universal church idea is traditional, not Biblical. When tradition trumps the Bible, you know which one to throw away.
     
  18. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wanted to post other famous Baptists who held to a Universal Church. I will respond to other posts later.

    1. B.H. Carrol
    2. Samuel Jones
    3. The authors and adherents to the CONFESSION OF FAITH AND ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION OF FRENCH-SPEAKING BAPTIST CHURCHES
    4. Abstract Principles
    5. John L. Dagg
    6. W.B. Johnson, which many said of him that there was none who influenced more the nature of the SBC than this man.
    7. John Smyth who in his book, "Principles of Inference Concerning the Visible Church" recognized a Universal Church. BTW, I doubt anyone would say Smyth was this psuedo-Catholic.

    I am sure I will find more later and will respond to more later. I just have to write about 3 pages before bed to be prepared for this weekend.

    I also found a couple of heretical groups that held to local only. There does not seem to be many in history. Of course the 1800's Graves, but most of his theology was distinctly from his era.

    I found something out about Darby, you know the guy the other side keeps quoting. Here is the quote concerning his belief on the church, "The entire doctrine of the church was communicated by the apostle Paul-it is found nowhere else, even in the New Testament." (Historical Theology: An Introduction by Gregg Allison. Copyright 2011.. for the record Allison is a Prof at SBTS). This is rather radical don't you think? I guess when you translate the ekklesia always as "assembly" and never theologically, this actually may make sense (mixed with dispensationalism).
     
    #58 Ruiz, Jun 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2011
  19. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How many famous Baptists held to your OP premise about salvation and the local church?

     
    #59 Jerome, Jun 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2011
  20. Ruiz

    Ruiz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know Jerome. Would make a good topic of discussion given the historic precedent of all the others throughout history.

    Do you believe it is a sin to not belong to a church?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...