Featured The Church Universal

Most of you are arguing the the different sides of the same coin.
The church proper is universal to the extent that universal is defined as the collective body of believers.

The church operational is through the local church.

The church can be viewed as a franchise with branches located all over the world, which are autonomously operated by an owner operator, with only one corporate office in heaven.

The issue becomes contentious because parties arguing for both side have different views on how the church functions. To the Catholic and their ilk, universal means that the corporate office is the Vatican, and the churches are subject to papal authority which is derived from apostolic succession, and a subordinate ecclesiastical hierarchy of authority overseeing divisions of dioceses.

The Baptists (most) view-the correct view-universal as the church is one collective body in Christ that operates autonomously with earthly authority entrusted to the local church under one pastor, collectively cooperating with each other as a brand franchise, but answer only to one corporate executive from above.

The term "universal" simply has a bad connotation because of it's association with the heresy of corporate salvation for all regardless of whether they are saved or not. The term universal in itself is not a bad term depending on how it is defined and applied. But the term "catholic" can not be separated from it's intended definition as defined by the RCC in the 4 century.

What the RCC and its proponents attempt to do is bootstrap "catholic" to "universal" to attempt to cause opponents to agree on its harmony, and from there move from catholic to Catholic to cause the opponent to choose Catholic by default.

However, though the term "universal" when defined properly is not itself so egregious, because of the confusion over it's usage and application it is probably unwise to refer to it over the Biblical term of ekklesia.

 

This is not a very good proof at all, and I don't think it has been addressed yet. It is actually a good proof for the one who does not believe in the universal church but only the local church.

Paul addresses "the churches of Galatia." This is later in life when every assembly (ekklesia) was independent of each other, and there were many of them. Here he states there were many local churches throughout the region of Galatia, many assemblies.

In verse 13 he refers to his past when he persecuted "the church" the assembly "of Judea" or particularly the one that was at Jerusalem. It was the only church or assembly that existed at that time. He is not referring to a universal church, but the FBC at Jerusalem, a local assembly, that grew very fast. From 120 gathered in chapter one to 3,120 on the Day of Pentecost, and more added to it each day. This is the church that he persecuted it. Not until chapter eight do we have the gospel going any further than Jerusalem, when because of persecution, the believers at Jerusalem were scattered preaching the Word. Shortly after that, in chapter nine, Saul was saved.

 

The OP has to do with the "universal church" not with Calvinism, which doesn't have to brought into every thread.
Besides that you are setting yourself up for a fall by using Calvin. He was a former Catholic and no doubt brought that baggage with him when he came out of the RCC. He won't be any good to you as a former Catholic. His theology is tainted by his background in this area.
Next, when discussing this subject the Bible is our authority. Let's stick with that.

 

I think most of us can agree on the purpose and function of the local church.

Just exactly what is the function of the U-church?

 

Your first statement is positive, which is what I was hoping for on the rest of the post. You will just not stop will you? Have you ever overlooked anything in your life?

Why is it that every person you talk to is a battle? You have even managed to get into an argument with DHK, and that is hard to do.

 

It is not necessary. He stands for Scripture and Baptist distinctives. You do not.

 

I am more pro sovereignty than you, rosary breath. I lived a conservative Presbyterian Church much of my life. You are no more Baptistic than a hat rack.

 

As many disagreements as I have, and as stubborn as I am to give an inch to someone on certain issues, THAT made me spit my coffee out:laugh:

 

I am honored to have brought laughter to someone's day. I do not know why, phrases like that just pop into my mind for a given situation.

 

Ah yes, I'm reminded of why I don't interact with you much.

 

I stand for the Church Universal, made up of both thsoe who died and still alive in Christ, but that here on earth, that Church Body is split up into local assemblies!

 

Are you able to give an answer to Tom's question apart from your allegiance to a man's system?