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!

No universal church?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Dale-c, Jan 16, 2008.

  1. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    The collective body of the children of God is properly known as the kingdom.

    Nowhere in the scripture are they described as invisible. In fact, Jesus himself encouraged his followers to be quite visible---"Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

    An invisible body seen only by God is still a useless invisible body, whose only purpose seems to be just to exist. This nice little entity is absolutely worthless--leaving the carrying out of the Great Commission to local congregations. Shoot, the "universal church" as you describe it can't agree where to assemble.

    baptistteacher is right. Those references to church cited by Brother Hank are in an institutional sense, which take concrete expression in a local church--always.


    You want to know what THE church is like? Go find A church.
     
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    While I agree that I don't particularly like the term "Universal" or "Invisible". I also reject the conceptual definition of the Church in Matthew 16 as "institutional".

    Another word found nowhere in the Scripture but in theology books.

    Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​

    Jesus did not say "the institution of my church" but "my church".
    One does not build an "institution" or a concept but a real church, member by member.​

    I don't know about anyone else but I claim membership in this church which my Savior is building and will be building until He returns.​

    Their names being written in heaven:​

    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,
    24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.​

    Just as Paul declared "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" there can be and are lost members on church roles written with pen and ink. If every local church is an expression of this institutional church, do LDS churches qualify as A church? What about Adventists?, what about Neo-evangelical, what about neo-orthodox? what about all the denominational churches?​

    Who determines if A church and its membership qualifies as a bona fide NT Church? How many of them need to be born-again? 2/3? 50 percent, 25 percent?​

    There is no question about those "which are written in heaven".​

    This is the church which Jesus is building and everyone of them is a blood-bought, born again believer, of this there is absolutely no question.
    This is the church He spoke of in Matthew 16 of which I am a member and you are as well brother and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.​

    Having said all that I have no problem with the mulltitude of Scripture in support of the local churches in their proper context as earthly "institutions".

    You and I cannot see just by looking with these fleshy eyes whether someone is a child of God just because they are on the earthly membership role of a local church. Jesus does not this problem with the church He is building.


    HankD​
     
  3. Emily25069

    Emily25069 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    0
    Calling something that Christ set up Himself as "useless" is disrespectful.

    We may not have a role together here on earth (though thats debateable, as I definately feel a connection with other Christians who do not attend my church-I still think of them as brothers and sisters in the Lord), but we are still a part of Christs church. It still exists. The bible says so.

    I honestly just dont understand why some baptist folk have a problem with this belief. And I dont see how it has anything to do with Catholocism.
     
  4. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    You are absolutely correct that the church Jesus mentioned in Matthew 16 is not a church in the institutional sense. It is in fact a specific body, established by Jesus at the beginning of his ministry. At the first, it was a traveling congregation, later to locate in Jerusalem. It was the only one in existence at the time, of course.

    You may rightly claim membership in the kingdom as a subject of the King. But you cannot be a member of something which will not exist until we meet in Glory.
     
  5. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    I am most respectful of the church Christ set up himself, of every local congregation for which he shed his precious blood (Acts 20:28 says he shed his blood for the congregation at Corinth).

    You are confusing the "church" with the kingdom. You should feel a connection with fellow believers, whether they are members of your congregation or not. But neither you nor they are part of Christ's church as you describe, since it doesn't exist. You may have Christian fellowship with any believer, but only church fellowship with the brothers and sisters in your local congregation.

    Yes, you are part of the church. It's the one in Michigan where you serve. I am part of the church. It's the one I serve in Paducah, Kentucky.
     
    #85 Tom Butler, Jan 28, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2008
  6. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    The concept of Christ's universal church got started with Ignatius of Antioch about 100-110 A.D. "Let no one do anything of concern to the church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church." (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2). If Ignatius had been writing in English, he would have said: "[J]ust as where Jesus Christ is, there is the universal church.

    Although there were local churches, there were not denominations as we know them in those days. Ignatius doesn't say so, but he implies that all churches were in communion with one another, thus the universal church.

    So "church" has come to mean both the local assembly as well as the universal church. Southern Baptists recognize this in their statement of faith, The Baptist Faith and Message.
     
  7. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks for the stimulating dialogue brother, you have given me food for thought. Though we differ in our view in this thread we can certainly agree that we shall indeed meet in glory.

    May God continue to bless you Tom.

    HankD
     
  8. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Bro. HankD, I, too, appreciate the tone of your posts. It's not necessary that we agree on this ecclesiological question, for I don't consider it a test of fellowship. I suspect many have adopted the view of the Universal Church as an outgrowth of their eschatology. Dispensationalism demands a Universal Church as separate from Israel. One can't give up the Universal Church without dumping the pre-trib rapture position.

    Some Universal Church folks see the Church and the Kingdom as one and the same. So my argument that they are different carries no weight with them.
     
  9. Emily25069

    Emily25069 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess for semantics sake, yes.. I guess that I do see the kingdom and CHrists church as one and the same.

    And I do believe it exists.

    Definately a point where we just have to agree to disagree.

    I dont understand how the Universal Church can NOT exist. You've been explaining it to me, and I still dont get it.
     
  10. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I agree with Tom. There is no such thing as a universal church, and for all the reasons given throughout this thread inasmuch as I have been following it. I prefer the term "family of God."

    John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

    We are all the children of God. "Sons of God" rightly translated "children of God." Believers belong to the family of God. If they are obedient they will be baptized and join a local church. To some degree it is a matter of semantics, but more accurately it is a matter of being educated in the correct terminology that the Bible uses.

    The word ekklesia means assembly. It is impossible to use that definition in a universal sense. One cannot have a universal assembly except in heaven. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction of terms.
     
  11. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Emily, I don't think there's any debate about the purpose of the local church. Well all agree on its purpose--or purposes. It is to glorify God by carrying out the Great Commission. It's a gathering for worship, for other ministries, for teaching, preaching and fellowship. It's sort of the jumping-off place from which we spread out to witness, evangeliize, missionize. We gather to baptize, to observe the Lord's Supper. In fact, we are commanded to assemble (Heb 10:25).

    The local church has an organizational structure and, hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit, selects individuals for the various offices and responsibilities.

    Now let's ask, what is the purpose for the existence of a Universal Church (UC from now on)? If the answer is any of the things we mentioned above, then it is a colossal failure. If it is composed of all true believers, then most of them are deeply into error at best and heresy at worst because of the teachings of the local church to which they belong. The UC is not just disorganized, it has no organization at all.

    The UC is sorely divided. Proponents like to call the different denominations "branches" of the UC--which, of course, is an admission of that division.

    If the UC is the equivalent of Christ's Bride, then it may be personally chaste, but is otherwise dysfunctional. The problem is that no believer is perfect, therefore no local church is perfect, nor is the UC.

    We have this idealized view of the UC that it simply can't live up to. It is functionally incapable of being what we want it to be. And that will be so until Christ returns for us and takes us to the Marriage Supper. Then the Bride will be ready.
     
  12. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    The universal church has no real function until the end.

    Here is a question to ponder. The universal church by definition has 100% true believers on its roll. What percent of your local church roll are true believers?
     
  13. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    Good post, Tom. I'm still not convinced that there is no place on this earth for a universal church but the reasoning in your post causes me to rethink some of the ideas I have had on this matter. However, I am curious as to what you thought Ignatius meant in what I quoted in Post #86?
     
    #93 Zenas, Jan 29, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 29, 2008
  14. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    This about like arguing whether or not a pastor should be called an undershepherd or not. I seem to recall pages and pages of debate. A couple of guys really duked it out over that one. And to what end? Why take what is simple and make it complicated? The church is manifested in the local body of believers. Now, if you take all of these churches together, collectively, you have a universal church, the kingdom, or whatever else you want to call it. Certainly this church has no real meaning in today's world, as it is factured and divided. But, one day, WoW! Imagine every tribe, tongue, and nation worshipping together in unity. I, for one, can't wait. In the mean time, let's debate away!!
     
  15. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    The answer, whether you're talking local church or "Universal" church is---only God knows. Claiming membership in the Universal church doesn't make it so.
     
    #95 Tom Butler, Jan 29, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 29, 2008
  16. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think the context of Ignatius's writing would help me figure it out. If there were no denominations back then, that the churches, reasonably united in doctrine and purpose, might possibly be legitimately called universal. By that I mean they are widespread, which is not the same as the modern definition.

    At the same time,although what Ignatius wrote should be given much weight, it should not be equated with scripture--that is, being the final word on the subject.

    As to the UC having a place on this earth, as soon as you figure out what it is, I hope you'll post it.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, I am dispensational in my view.

    I see a distinction between Israel and the church.
    I view the kingdom of God/heaven as being both in heaven and on earth and includes all governmental aspects and citizens of all the dispensations.

    Here on earth the kingdom of God/heaven has been infitrated by the "tares" (Matthew 13) and will be uprooted and purged just before His return.

    I find more of an identification of the "universal" Church with the phase "the Body of Christ" or "the Bride of Christ".

    Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.​

    Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

    The spirits of the saints in heaven at this moment (in my view) are included in the "church of the firstborn in heaven" which in my view is synonymous with the "invisible" church (you can't see it or those firstborn ones but God can) of which all are saved and sanctified. The purpose of this "Invisible" church seen only by God is to glorify Him (of course) in heaven. These are they whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of life.

    Hebrews 12:23 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.​

    The concept of the "Universal Church" is much older than Jesuit or Darby dispensationalism as someone has noted, going back to the early church fathers (not that this definitively proves anything however). ​

    I will admit that being a former Roman Catholic might have an influence upon my thinking.​

    HankD​
     
    #97 HankD, Jan 29, 2008
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2008
  18. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    How can one claim to be a member of the universal church, when it will serve no function or become apparant until the end of time? It would be sort of hard to fool God. No so with the local church roll. Claiming membership in the universal church by a lost person is impossible.
     
  19. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    HankD, your views of the Church and Israel are part and parcel of dispensational eschatology. So it's understandable that you strongly hold to that view.

    You must be careful in identifying the Universal Church with the "Body of Christ" or the "Bride of Christ."

    At least one scripture comes to mind immediately in which the body specifically refers to a local congregation.

    1 Cor 12:27 "Now YE (the Corinth congregation) are the body of Christ...."

    Paul describe that church, not a A body of Christ, but THE body of Christ.

    In fact, the entire 12th Chapter deals with life in the body. UCers rely on 12:13 as a proof text for the UC, but I doubt Paul is referring to two kinds of bodies in that chapter. In fact, he says more than once that there is one body. The context is a letter to a local congregation he described as THE body. Paul is referring to one kind of church in Chapter 12--a local church.

    Regarding the bride, most of what we know about the Bride comes from the Revelation--a future marriage to the bridegroom. That, in my view, is after churches have ceased to exist and all saints come together for the Marriage Supper. If this is the Church, it is a great General Assembly, the one and only local congregation, truly one at last. Note that the bride is not yet the wife of the Lamb until the Marriage Supper. A case can be made then that churches are not yet the Bride--that it is a prospective title.

    Now, am I ready to bet the farm on this view. Not at all. My purpose is to show that where it has been assumed that the body and the bride refer to the Universal church, the case can be made that it ain't necessarily so.
     
  20. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    One more interesting thing I'd like to point out.

    In Rev 21:2, John describes the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride, adorned for her husband.

    Later, in 21:9, an angel comes to John and says, come here and I'll show you the bride, the Lamb's wife.

    21:10 "And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and he showed me that great city, the Holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God."

    My point? Only that the Bride, the Lamb's wife, cannot automatically be assumed to be the Universal Church. And if it is, it is in the future, not the present.
     
Loading...