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!

Local/Universal Church

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by J.T., Jun 3, 2003.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No actually, you have it wrong. I do believe Christ started the church. But I do not believe the Bible teaches that he did it while he was on earth. That is the problem with your position ... you have not one bit of scriptural evidence that supports it.

    Notice from 1 Cor 12 that the formative act of the body is Spirit baptism. In the gospels, during the ministry of Christ, that is future. In Acts 1, Christ repeats his command that the disciples are to wait at Jerusalem for the promise of the Spirit (i.e., Spirit baptism as we see in Acts 2). Therefore, it is absolutely impossible that the church started before the event that formed it happened. It just cannot be exegetically. Those who make a case otherwise do so on inadequate theological grounds, namely that the church must have existed because their system demands it.

    Additionally, the body of Christ cannot be formed until after the crucifixion and resurrection and ascension of the Lord, else there would be no head.

    True, but irrelevant.

    Not if you believe Acts 1. The John 20 passage does not indicate the baptism of the Spirit at that time.

    It was given to the apostles to plant churches.

    Not sure what you have in mind here. Not a problem though since doctrine for the church could well be given by Christ prior to its formation, just as instructions for an event can be given before the event takes place. So this objection, even if proven, is irrelevant.

    I agree with this. The 3000 were added to the church and it did not begin before Acts. The 3000 souls were added to ... (look at the text) ... the 120 that were gathered in teh upper room in Acts 1 awaiting the promise of the Spirit. If the disciples received that Spirit earlier (as you suggest) then there was no need for Christ to repeat his command to wait for the Spirit and there was no need for them to be gathered in the upper room.

    So in the bottom line, there is still not one exegetical reason for you to believe that teh church started before Acts 2 when Spirit baptism took place.

    Furthermore, all of that is immaterial to the discussion here about the universal/invisible church. You have not answered the texts that teach that Christ only has one body made up of all of his saved in this age. You completely blew right over that in your haste to get to this stuff. I would encourage you to go back and consider those truths.
     
  2. Bible Student

    Bible Student New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    John 20:
    19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
    20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
    21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
    22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: KJV

    quote: My Quote
    -------------------------------------------------
    they received the Holy Soirit before Acts,
    ------------------------------------------------
    Pastor Larry's Quote
    Not if you believe Acts 1. The John 20 passage does not indicate the baptism of the Spirit at that time.

    So then tell me Pastor Larry just what did Jesus mean when "he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:"? What did they receive at this time if it was not the Holy Ghost?

    Richard [​IMG]
     
  3. Bible Student

    Bible Student New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have not over looked the passages in the scriptures quoted above.

    When we read Ephesians,Philippians and Colossians I do take in consideration who these books were written to. The were written to each of the local churches named. Therefore, when taken in context the use of church in each book refers to the local church to whom he is writting. From these books we can understand that each local church today (might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.), and so on.

    On this one you and I are going to have to realize that we will not agree and go on. You think I am wrong and I believe you are wrong so we will find out in Heaven.

    Richard [​IMG]
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The simplest explanation is that Jesus was again promising what would happen when they waited at Jerusalem. It would be inappropriate to connect the giving of the Holy Spirit with the breath of God, inasumuch as the Holy Spirit is not something that is breathed out in air. The Holy Spirit is a person. One might legitimately argue that here was given the indwelling of the Spirit, although I think that would be weak. What is most certain is that after this time, in Acts 1, these disciples are still commanded by Christ to wait at Jerusalem for the promise of the Spirit. Now, if Christ gave them promise of the Spirit in John 20, why did Christ tell them to wait for it longer in Acts 1? That makes no sense. Whatever John 20 is, it is not the promise of the Spirit (unless you, like Barrett, are willing to question the historicity of Acts). The truth is that whatever John 20 was, it was not the "promise of the Spirit" in Acts 1-2. So again, the clear exegesis of Scripture supports what I have said all along.

    As for the context of the epistles, I absolutely agree that they were written to those individuals churches. But that is not the point. It does not answer the issue that Christ only has one body. All believers in this age are in the one body of Christ. Do you deny that?? If you accept that, then what do you call it?? The Bible calls that one body the Church.

    As I said, you are in one church and I am in another. Are we not both part of the "church, which his is body"? I would think so based on what Scripture says. The universal or invisible church is not something I spend a whole lot of time thinkign about. But it is there and we do have a unity with one another in the church. The emphasis of the NT is on the local visible church and that is where every believer without exception is to be faithfully ministering.
     
  5. Bible Student

    Bible Student New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry first thank you for a honest and non-name calling discussiion, I guess I would use this example of my possition:

    Sam Walton is the Head of WalMart and he gives his athority to the managers of each individual stores. He is the owner of each one individually and all collectively. When I talk about WalMart in a general sence we know that I am speaking of something that can be seen, has employees, has items for sale, and so forth. At the same time I can talk about WalMart individually as well. The WalMart in Kansas City Missouri. It to can be seen, has employees, has items for sale, and so forth.

    So, when I talk about WalMart in general am I talking about something that is not seen which exists without substance? No, that is not the nature of our language, neither is that the nature of the language of the greek in which the Bible is written.

    Richard [​IMG]
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I am grateful as well for the good natured discussion. My response is that if you buy stock in Walmart, you are not buying stock in an individual store but in the company itself, which is visibly seen in the individual stores.
     
  7. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I see the problem here. We are lost on the term "invisible". I believe in the universal church, and I believe it is make up of all VISIBLE flesh and blood believers on the planet earth (the real planet earth, not a make believe one).

    When I say I am going to Walmart I mean the store off I35, exit 250. When I say Walmart is trying to undercut K-Mart in sales I mean ALL Walmarts are trying to undercut K-Mart in sales collectivly. When I say Walmart is moving into other countries on mean the company is planting Walmart's there. Walmart is not invisible in any of the three cases, the term is just being used to refer to one store, all stores, or the company structure (made up of flesh and blood CEO and board membors who write memos on real paper from real dead trees) and nothing invisible without substance whatsoever.

    When Jesus says He gave Himself for the Church, I believe he means for all visible flesh and blood, actually existing believers, and not one group of local believers only.

    So I don't know why it is refered to as invisible. I think maybe it is a hold over from the reformers where the term seems to originate. The catholic church says we (our leadership, tradition, buildings, statues, etc) are the only church. Luther fires back that the real Church is not an institution (much less the Catholic Church institution) but people who actually believe and trust in Jesus Christ. In that sense it was invisible because they didn't have some enormous Institution representing them with buildings and colleges and etc.
     
  8. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the Wal~Mart analogy. You can see individuals which make up local stores but you can't see Wal~Mart Stores, Inc. You don't have to be an employee of an individual store in order to be part of Wal~Mart Stores, Inc. You don't have to be a member of a local church to be a part of the universal church.

    It's invisible because we can't see (for sure) who's in it. A local church has many members, some of them aren't saved, but, we can see them visible). If local church means just the saved folks in that locality then we have an invisible church within the visible church because we don't know for sure which is which.

    Besides all of that, I don't understand why there is a concern about calling all of the saved persons in the world "the church". If there wern't a name for them someone would make one up because the concept is there anyway. How are some people taking advantage of that concept and taking away from the importance of the local church? These ideas, to me, do not seem to conflict at all.
     
Loading...