Featured Is there a "universal" church?

I don't understand...are you saying these instructions don't neccesarily apply to us? You only said that Paul's admonition "could" be applied.

I normally don't chime in on stuff like this, but if it applies to us as well, doesn't that mean their is a church universal? Otherwise, this admonition is none of our business.

To make it clear, I don't believe this is the case. If there is no universal church, upon what basis may I call any of you my brother and sister in Christ?

 

That is actually a possibility....I do not think that is the case myself, of course, but you bring up a good point, even if you do sound like you are reaching a little to me :smilewinkgrin: Some things, especially about future prophecy, may indeed be better understood through the passage of time. I do not think this is the case with this doctrine, in fact, I would argue quite the opposite. I can only imagine the early Church having the correct understanding and falsehoods creeping in later. So, as an example, many who argue against pre-tribulational rapturism point to the notion that the first (commonly-known) proponent who at least argued it in its present form, did not do so until the...17th century I think? But although signifigant, it does not make for a slam-dunk argument against the idea. It was understood in less articulated forms before then.

In this case, however....are we engaged in "special pleading" a little..? Maybe?...

 

I don't like the phrase - "universal church".​

"The Church" as a singular entity is not a collection of local churches (each of which is a "mixed multitude") but a collection of people who have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life.​

Hebrews 12
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.​

One day they will all meet together - in the air...

HankD

 

The Church, the total number of those redeemed by Jesus Christ, is a single entity, the Bride of Jesus Christ. That Church is very well and beautifully described by the passage you present from the letter to the Hebrews. B.H. Carroll in his Interpretation of the English Bible calls this total number of the Redeemed in Heaven the Glory Church.

 

Church History

I'm not making an argument as much as I am seeking understanding. It seems to me that the idea of a 'Universal Church' existing is the same idea of all believers in Jesus of Nazereth throughout all ages. What's harmful with that?

I may be missing the reason why people react so strongly to the idea of a 'universal church'. I'd like to ask those who dispute the idea of a universal church, what is lost if there is a 'universal church'?

 

I believe this is in part a rejection of the RCC concept of the Universal Church. Roman Catholics teach that they are that church.

There is obviously a body of those redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ and they are the "called out ones" so what is improper in calling that body the Universal Church?

 

Well, I won't pretend to know the whole answer to your question, but this issue is one of the "linchpin issues" in the debate about open, close, or closed communion.

If there is no universal church, then communion must remain closed to those outside the membership of the local church. If however there is a universal church, how could we bar a born-again believer of like faith from participating - even if they're a guest in our midst?

 

The concept of universal church invites the concept of universal vicar, which is what pervades most of Christendom. The Church which Jesus is building has no earthly vicar. Study the word: vicarious, also reverend.

The concept of a universal assembly, visible or invisible does not describe a New Testament Assembly practice, polity or autonomy. The universal assembly never assembles, has communion, nor can it discipline its members, regardless of what any magisterium may dogmatize.

To be sure there will be an assemby of the saints in glory; but until then The Church is still local and visible, without vicars, popes and potentates.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Yeah...or like that :laugh::laugh: Concisely put.

 

Are you saying that Jesus was a murderous and evil king? I would watch your language if I were you. Jesus said "I will build my assembly" (YLT).

Whoa! Baptists teachings have existed since the time of Christ. What makes you attribute them to Henry VIII. Provide evidence please.

Only God can do the shoving. No one hear can. You really must be convicted of something.

The context of that word being used in Hebrews 12 was in chastisement. So since you have invited me to do so I will go up to your post and do as you ask--chastise you for your choice of language. In the meantime I have given you enough to think about.

 

OF COURCE there is a universal church.

The members of the universal church consist of...

All of the saved people here on earth, and all of the saved in heaven.
Collectivly, they are the (universal church.)



They are identified in Hebrews 12 and it Revelation 7

Praise God!

 

UHHHHHH.....Der.....no, the "context" was "Episcopalianism" Henry V you know, history or something, and a guy named Henry V...he be-headed wives....divorced another....blah blah....did you read my POST???? Obviously not...try again. I was lambasting the notion of accepting the ideology of a "Church" system which is based on this....here is my advice, begin from the OP....and read through all of the posts to understand my position.

Please explain where this was.... I am truly baffled, about what was "offensive" to a Baptist.

I agree....about the since the "time of Christ" idea....I have already expressed this in the thread...I have already argued that the "Chuch" was an institution established during Christ's Earthly ministry, and that even his baptism was necessary only to "fulfill all righteousness". You are mistakenly attacking the ecclesiology of someone who already agrees with yours....as I have actually bothered to read your posts long enough to know that your ecclesiology is roughly the same as mine, and we have little or no disagreement on the topic. You apparently have been too lazy to read mine.

I have no "lack of knowledge" about this....it has been around LONG before the 70's where have YOU been????

Yet another area, wherein we are in complete agreement, and you somehow think I am on the opposing ecclesiological side of the issue. You and I are possibly so used to being in the minority....that you automatically ASSUME any post is against your POV....not so. Never was....you have failed to read me.

Yet, again, no, and, as this entire post of mine has been AGAINST!! the entire U-Church idea....I have no idea why you are in opposition to me...at least the U-churchist's are a non-condemning lot.

No, you needn't "list MORE" as I am aware of their heresies....had you bothered to....what's the word....READ....my position... you would not bother to ask this. You have not.

I can post a link onto "sermonaudio.com" wherein I am on record....and already am on this thread....as affirming every statement you made here...I am failing to comprehend (still) the source of our disagreement.

laughable....and precisely the opposite...the only times I have been "legitimately" warned by a mod on this board....it was in a rant AGAINST Calvinism....(I BTW never rant against "hyper-cals" as they are the only logically consistent kind.)

.

Whatever you are Yakking about here... is utterly unintelligible to me...I am no form of "hyper-Cal" or anything you have somehow supposed me to be....the post was in response to H. Thinker, he, at least, has actually bothered to read what I have said, and knows full well that I am nothing of the sort.....moreover, even the post you are disparaging is self-explanatory, and in absolutely no way implies what you somehow fallaciously think it implies...It is the most clear-cut explanation of the theology of ecclesiology that I happen to know you are also personally party to....and you have, and had, no reason, whatsoever, to "reprimand" me on this...NONE, I used only words contained in the King James Bible, and only in the context of an ecclesiological sense of being "illegitimately" the "progeny" (so to speak) of an ecclesiological system which is anathema to the Scriptures.


You, DHK....have actually somehow, misconstrued my PATENT, and inarguable dissatisfaction with the notion of an ecclesiology traced to Henry V, with a patent endorsement with it.....You are wrong... you are beyond dead wrong...I was clear, I was concise in my purposes, and I have enough command of the English language to phrase my statements well enough to NOT be mis-construed by ANY but the purposelly un-willing....

Please Just read the thread again...for crying out loud...

OH, BTW...I do not believe in a "Universal Church" that was the point of everything....every single thing I have posted on this thread....it is also the onus of everything I have said on the particular post you are quoting and lambasting....let it be known....that moderators may apparently randomly "warn" and assign their little "points" at will, whether they have or have NOT, in fact, bothered to READ the post they are falsely accusing one with.....You have simply not read it. Not a bit, you are the only one Mr. "MOD" who is even possibly confused as to what I posted...

DHK is apparently the mod here, for all who know not otherwise....who despises the King James Bible, and all who utilize it's terminology in even the most literal and applicable sense....quote no Bible to him...."Baptists" are presumably not authorized to use it. He is a despiser of directly relevant and pointed usage of the Scriptures.

 

Honestly believ that the biggest reason many reject the concept is that it smacks to them of being the catholic Church, that they would be afraid would be stating thatthe RCC was right all along!

My take is that the Bible makes it so cleare that God has ONLY 1 Body/Bride/Church of Christ, and ALL ever been saved under new Coveant are part of it, in spiritual union with each other and Christ...

Those still alive now are also part of locla assembles/churches/grouops...

ALL in Universal church saved, seal of the Holy Spirit the sign

SOME in local churches saved, water baptism the sign of being in it!

 

Indeed your first post is much more clearer. Your capitalization of the word "church" when referring to the local church makes it a bit harder to follow. This post (IMO) was a bit confusing as to what side you were on, as you were sarcastic in many places.

It was a matter of discernment. Your sarcasm masked which side you were on.

You are right in that I didn't want to go to the beginning of the thread and read what everyone posted. Perhaps I should have done that. If I had I would have had a better idea where you stood.

Then where did I get the idea that you were saying it is recent, and if it gains any more popularity it might become a baptist distinctive. That is what I got from you. It seemed to be a put down of the doctrine.

Yes I did.

As I mentioned, sometimes the over-use of sarcasm tends to mask one's true meaning.

I have no clue how Henry VIII and his fondness of many wives would fit into this discussion anyway. To me you were simply confusing the issue.

I would never give a warning or infraction for a person's doctrinal position. That wasn't the point. If you deliberately offend by the way you express yourself, even if the word is in the Bible, then it is against the rules. It is not posting in grace. It is being deliberately offensive. I had to edit the post three different times. That ought not to have been.

 

Sorry I wasn't clear. The instructions were given by Paul to the elders of a local church. They are certainly applicable to elders of all local churches.

Let's review Paul's instructions.

The elders (pastors, bishops) were to watch over their church. To feed that church. To guard the church against the wolves. I take that to mean to guard against those who would bring in false teaching, or undermine the congregation in some way. That threat will come from outside, but also will come from within the congregation.

Any local church pastor would do well to heed Paul's warnings.

No universal church is in view here. Even if there were, Paul's warnings would be useless for such an entity. There are no elders, bishops or pastors in the "universal church" to receive such warnings.

 

This from one of my posts about the "rock" in Mt. 16:18----

I remember someone saying that he finally figured out why it's sometimes referred to as the invisible church:

Because you won't SEE it in the Bible. :laugh:

 

Universal church just the chrsitians saved by grace of God, spiritually united with jesus, and who also are suppossed to become members of the local church...