The Body of Christ

They are "sheep" BEFORE they are brought into that fold but your interpretation demands they are not sheep until they are brought into this fold. Take the language as it is given - don't do mental gynastics here because this is not a context of God's purpose of salvation. They are called "sheep" before they are brought into the fold. Likewise, people are saved BEFORE they can be brought into the church at Jerusalem (Acts 2;41). "I HAVE sheep"

 

Many sheep, many shepherds, many assemblies, One Great Shepherd who is the head of all shepherds, each one being the head of their respective assembly.

 

Like I said, you act like a parrot, you just repeat the same error without any contextual support.

One church at Jerusalem with one Cheif Shepherd at Jerusalem. One church at Antioch with one Cheif Shepherd at Antioch. One "flock" at Ephesus (Acts 20:29) and one Cheif Shepherd at Ephesus.

When Paul wrote "one body" to the Church at Ephesus, those reading this epistle at Ephesus or at Corinth or any individual church that later would read this letter would understand there is one body in NUMBER and that is the ONE the reader was a member of and one body in KIND and that is the kind that all other readers outside of Ephesus were members of - "the churches of God"

 

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

They ordained shepherds in every fold in the towns and cities in which they had been. There are many shepherds and many folds. The many shepherds are all subject to the one Great Shepherd.

 

You have already admitted that the nature of the Shepherd is different then the nature of the fold and so they are not ONE in the same sense. The shepherd is omniscient and omnipresent but the fold is not omniscient or omnipresent so you cannot say they are ONE in the same sense. You admit to those differences and we believe their are many other differences as well that provide a basis to say that Christ is again talking about his fold in the institutional sense and His relationship to it in that same sense.

Absolute evidence for this interpretation is Acts 20:29 where even you cannot deny that "the flock" in this verse applies to the particular ONE in number as well as ONE in kind of church at Ephesus.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Can "grevious wolves ENTER" in among a fold that is defined necessarily as ONLY THE SAVED??? It does not say saved person enter the flock but "grevious wolves enter" it.

This is the same "the flock" of verse 28 where those in Acts 11:17 are made the overseers by the Holy Spirit over this "the flock."

Your interpetation cannot possible meet all the contextual characteristics of Acts 20:17-31 but our position perfectly matches it in every concievable way.

 

Your adding your own words to Scripture in order to support your own brand of heresy. Paul addresses "THE flock" not PART of the flock or not the MANIFESTATION of PART of the flock in Ephesus. All your heresies are due to ADDING and REDEFINING the scriptures to suit your heresies.

"the flock" in verse 28 is the same "the flock" in verse 29 and it is the KIND of flock that "grevious wolves enter" and that is the death knell of your doctrine - end of story.

 

Then they were "the body of Christ" in that locale as well as "the body" is simply another metaphor as "the flock" for "the church." So every New Testament Church is metaphorical "body" "flock" in their locale. FIND ME ANY PLURAL USE OF "FLOCK" FOR THE CHURCHES?????? So much for your argument against the term "body" being used in the plural. If "the flock" can be used for a local church then "the body" which is simply another metaphor for the church can be equally used for the local church. So much for your doctrine.

 

Wrong! They were "the body" and "The flock" and "the church" in that locale, as well as "a" church and "a" body and "a" flock in that locale as all these metaphors are LOCAL by nature and NEVER universal by nature as that is a complete abuse of the metaphor as the characteristics of UNIVERSAL or INVISIBLE are cannot be found in a literal "flock" or literal "body" and therefore such metaphors cannot represent such!!!

 

The word church (ekklesia) always means assembly and can never have a larger, universal meaning.

 

The word does not and did not have any larger meaning than the simple meaning of "assembly." That is a fact that many want to ignore.