Please, do expand on your statement in bold above.
Ecclesiology II - Gentlemen, please continue
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by J.D., Jun 3, 2011.
Page 3 of 5
-
-
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:
-
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. -
-
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. -
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.
Your objections in Mat.16 and Eph.5 were dealt with.
--The letter was addressed to the church at Ephesus, not to others. He was addressing them.
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.
-
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? -
-
-
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. -
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. -
Paul certainly went through a lot of suffering for something that had no purpose. Would you do the same--suffer without purpose?? -
Is this not the Church? -
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. -
-
-
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. -
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). -
How many famous Baptists held to your OP premise about salvation and the local church?
-
Do you believe it is a sin to not belong to a church?
Page 3 of 5