Universal Church and Landmarkism

I'm not of the Landmark persuasion, but I lean towards the view that the church, the body of Christ, will first meet in Heaven, and therefore there is not on earth a "universal" or "invisible" church. (I like neither term.)

B. H. Carroll, a Southern Baptist theologian of past years, wrote a short book that takes my view (or I take his :smilewinkgrin entitled Ecclesia--the Church. It can be found at: http://www.theologue.org/Ecclesia/Ecclesia-BHCarroll.html. I'm currently recording a lecture series in Japanese on ecclesiology, so it's fresh in my mind.

 

John, I have some Landmark tendencies, but I don't buy the whole package. So I don't check the Landmark list to see what I think about this or that ecclesiology.

I notice that you didn't filter your view of the universal church through the Landmark stuff. I suspect you came to your view through a study of scripture, not J. R. Graves. I came to the same view before I ever heard of J.R. Graves.

For those of you who don't have a clue, put J. R. Graves in your search engine. He was the premier Landmarker of the 19th century.

 

I was going to say exactly this...

Plus, the phrase, "already, but not yet..." is an apt descriptor. Just as in salvation, we are not completed or fulfilled until the Last Day, when we enter into God's glory. We exist "already" but also "not yet" until that glorification of both individual and church.

To suggest that there is no universal church made up of all the believers in Christ is to radically alter the Scriptures and the intent of God to build up His kingdom. Did not Jesus proclaim the advent of the kingdom, even though we do not see it in its fulfilled state?

 

But, we DO assemble!

1Cor 12:13-14 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many.

This passage is to "universal" in scope to mean just one local congregation and if one does argue that it is indeed for one congregation, then its application (and indeed, the entirety of Scripture!) is intended JUST for the audience that heard it first. We (none of us) don't believe that. We hold that the Scriptures were written for the "church" in every age and every place!

 

Help me here. When and where was your last meeting? When and where is your next worship service? These questions have been raised before, but if anybody has answered them, I missed it.

A few verses later in chapter 12, Paul calls the Corinthian congregation THE body of Christ. So, I think it's fair to call the church you serve THE body of Christ. And the same with mine--THE body of Christ.

And I'm sure that your church and mine are welcoming to Jews, Greeks, anyone, who desire to trust Christ and confess him as Savior and Lord, and are led by the Spirit to follow Christ in water baptism.

 

Tom, I expect that we'll not ever settle this here, but I see the very separatist nature of our churches as anathema to God instead of what God asks us to do.

We cannot fulfill Christ's call to unity, nor His prayer for unity if we are all separated by a concept of "stand alone" local congregation. I also find the entire concept of separation to be one of necessity during some points in the history of the Church (universal) where one group has placed their foot on the neck of others -- not a typical need that we ought to promulgate at all other times and places. Christianity is a COMMUNITY affair, not an individualistic seeking of God that is withheld from all others for any number of reasons.

And further, I've seen that radical separation and insistence that the LOCAL church IS the only expression of church as one that ultimately leads to heretical practice -- not saying that EVERY local church that remains separated is heretical, by no means... But, that they can get there, and some have, and that "separation" is indeed sin against God who told us to be one as He is One.

We ought not even be divided into denominations (and anti-denominations that are, for all practical purposes denominations anyway). We should be ONE church in multiple locations with leadership structure in each location.

Where do WE meet? Wherever we are, your place, my place, their place... Jesus said, "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Mat 18:20) Who are the leaders? Whomever is the "under-shepherd" in that local congregation, who works as the called out one (or ones) representing and ministering to God's people in the name of the Shepherd, Jesus Christ. When will we meet again? The next time we meet -- everywhere and every place!

Would you "divide" Christ into one box or another, or the same for the Spirit which is the same Holy Spirit for all of God's people?

 

Good post, I agree. (except your use of Mat 18 as a proof text but we can discuss that some other time).

I was into separation big-time but when I was studying through the Gospel of John, the "high priestly prayer" of the Lord in Ch 17 was a real splash in the face. It dawned on me that the Lord did not pray for separation, but for unity ("that they may be one"). The thing is, not how do we define unity, but are we trying to achieve it, and how do we achieve it?

I don't know all the answers, but I do know that forming little islands of fellowship won't get the job done.

 

Because people dedicated to separation have a definition of unity that fits their design. But if a separatist can at least admit that it's the Lord's will that all his disciples be united, then we can proceed to the questions, "are we trying to achieve unity", and "how do we achieve unity".

 

...continuing

For example, I've been in many churches, both as a member and a visitor, which touts itself as "separatist", even having a written policy on the issue (my main concern here is ecclesiastical separation).

Well, that fine, that's a good thing to have.

But where is there policy on unity? Do they have one? Is it taught to the people? How is it practiced?

It seems to me that if the Lord prayed in his most crucial hour for the unity of His followers, it should be a main concern of the Church.

I know that the growth of liberalism necessitated the growth of separatism, but isn't it time to bring some balance back into the Church?

 

If there is no universal church am I to assume that when a member of a local church dies, he is no longer part of the church?

 

The debate over whether or not there is a universal church seems semantical and unnecessary. Jesus said He would build His church. There is no doubt that there is a local church as ordained by God. But can it be said there is a larger church also that encompasses all believers? Why not? There is just no good argument against that idea. It seems to me that some are overreacting to some false teachings. You have to deal in semantics to make a case against it.

 

Did you write that memo to the Apostle Paul?

Paul established approximately 100 "local congregations" on 3 different missionary journeys. There is no such thing as a denomination, convention, association, or anything that is remotely similar in the Bible. Consider also that all of Paul's epistles were written to a "local congregation," or a pastor thereof. Was he wrong?

Did Paul write in vain?

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)

True, But the definition of Christianity and "the local church" are not the same thing. Biblical Christianity is composed of believers having a personal relationship with Christ and following in His steps doing whatever he commands. Part of that is being part of a local assembly.

So, Paul's practice was heretical?? That is what he practiced. It was separation, and it was radical in the eyes of the unbelievers around him of that day. They dragged him out of the city and stoned him. But in our society, "don't make any waves," (we want to avoid the persecution.) Furthermore the "practice" of redefining "church" as "universal" is unbiblical. "Church" means "assembly." It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction of terms.

And that is how Paul instructed the saints at the local church at Ephesus.

How do you have one assembly in multiple locations? Do you know how absurd that sounds? The meaning of church is either assembly or congregation. Read through Darby's translation of the NT. He will consistently translate "church" as assembly. He avoided the political correctness forced upon the KJV translators by the Anglican translators of that day. He translated ekklesia accurately--assembly. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly or an assembly that is scattered in different places. It isn't an assembly then is it? You cannot have one assembly in different places. Please look up the definition of assembly.

But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. (Acts 19:39)
And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly. (Acts 19:41)
--The same word is used here in these two verses--ekklesia. It means assembly, and in every other place it is translated church. Why not here? Because the context is obvious. But the meaning is obvious. Ekklesia means assembly. It is a gathering of people.

--The context of that verse is church discipline. It is not the definition of a church.

An assembly is gathered together on one place at one time. You apparently don't know that simple definition. And to further define what a church is, we also have the pastoral epistles to help us.

--Who is dividing Christ? To use your logic: Christ dwells in me; Christ dwells in you; Christ dwells in Tom, and in Amy. Therefore is Christ divided? Is there more than one Christ? This is your logic when it comes to the local church.

 

Mandy, What can be said is that there is the local church, established by Jesus during his earthly ministry, taught by him, given the Great Commission, and empowered by him while he was here, then by the Holy Spirit. There is no other entity like it. It is uniquely suited, empowered and qualified to carry out the Great Commission. The so-called Universal Church is not qualified to carry out the Great Commission, teach, preach the gospel, evangelize or missionize. (I know, missionize is not a word!). And even if it existed and was qualified, it has failed miserably in carrying out the Great Commission.

What you want to call the universal church is actually the kingdom. It is composed of servants of the king. The work of the local church is to grow the kingdom. But they are not the same thing.

 

Has anyone mentioned this passage?

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.

HankD​

 

The difference is semantical at best. God Bless

 

The question to ask is, where is this general assembly and church of the firstborn? It's certainly not assembled here on earth. I think the answer is found in v 22. It's in the heavenly Jerusalem, where all the spirits of men are made perfect.

 

From the OP...

It never ceases to amaze me regarding the vitriolic distain that always shows up in the responses that follow any mention of the beautiful, and exeedingly scriptural truth of what is refered to sometimes as the "universal church".

A little later tonight I'll probably start reading through this thread, and I might comment.

Maybe this time it will be different, Hope so.

 

This is an impossible scenario considering what Ive seen in this very board. How do you blend a Calvinist to a Non-Calvinist when there is too much theology separating us. DoG alone separates. Free Will Separates. Your asking a person to concede his or her Belief system.....Tell me Calvinists, are you willing to concede Gods Sovereignty. Predestination, DoG, say that Christs dieing on the cross was not actual atonement, but only something that makes atonement possible.... Not I & I stand on that as Gospel truth.

 

Correct. I didn't study anything by Graves, I didn't read any Landmarker stuff. I studied the church in Scripture on and off over the years and one day said to myself, "Hmm. I don't think that universal church concept is Scriptural." When you study every single passage on the church, when you learn how the Greek word is used in the Septuagint and elsewhere, a "univerasal" assembly on earth doesn't make sense.