Universal Church and Landmarkism

Perhaps I should have said metaphorical. At any rate, going by the meaning of ekklesia, it isn't a physical church until it's assembled. And I don't buy the argument that the universal church is already assembled in Christ. That's a metaphorical use too.

 

A nice, agreeable person on the Baptist Board!:wavey:

 

Ditto to DHKs good answer to this.

You're putting words into my mouth. I nowhere said, nor do I agree with the idea that "the use of ekklesia in the NT is ONLY for the LOCAL CHURCHES ADDRESSED BY THAT WRITING" (your caps).

I venture to say that you need to study the doctrine of inspiration more. I recommend:

The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, B. B. Warfield
Divine Inspiration of the Bible, Louis Gaussen
The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, Rene Pache
Our God-Breathed Book the Bible, J. R. Rice

 

I'm glad to see we all agree about the local church--the fact of its existence and its role related to worship, fellowship, evangelism and carrying out the Great Commission.

Now, will a U-churcher tell me what the role of the U-church is. If it is to carry out the Great Commission, how does it do that? How does it worship; how does it fellowship; and how does it evangelize?

 

I am well aware of the doctrine of inspiration...

My point -- that you seem to dismiss -- is that the entire Bible is pointed toward God's people building God's "church." That cannot be true IF that church is but one local individual congregation. Therefore, I suggest that while the usage of the term "ekklesia" is technically correct as pointing to one body of called out ones, it also has a larger usage pointing to Christ's "church" of all those local congregations for all the time that He allows us before the end of the age. To say anything else is ludicrous and extremest in a separatist view -- far apart from Scripture. Setting one word in Scripture against the whole of Scripture is as grave an error as is neglecting the same word!

 

That is only an opinion without any Biblical basis. It is born out of prejudice, that is the way that you have been taught and raised your entire life. Now that you are introduced to a new concept in Scripture (even though it may be Biblical) your upbringing tells you to reject it.

If you are objective you will examine the evidence.

http://www.bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

Darby's translation rightly translates ekklesia as assembly. If other translations had done the same thing there would not be so much confusion in the doctrine of ecclesiology today. The word simply means "assembly," or "congregation."

One cannot have an assembly that cannot assemble, or a congregation that cannot congregate, a meeting that cannot meet, singers that cannot sing, a preachers that cannot preach, deacons that cannot deak, a treasurer without a treasure, a baptizer without a baptism, and on and on. There is no such thing as a universal church or a universal assembly. It doesn't function, cannot function, for an assembly that is universal can only be universal once all believers have died and gone to heaven. There we will all be assembled together but not on earth. The only way believers are assembled on earth is in local assemblies. To derive any other meaning out of this word, "ekklesia" is to so allegorize or spiritualize the word that one may as well allegorize the rest of Scripture and make concessions to the RCC that indeed eating the blood and body of Christ could mean transubstantiation.

There is no reason in any one of the times that ekklesia is used in the Bible that it cannot be translated as a local assembly. Where good sense makes common sense, why make it into nonsense? There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. This is the "nonsense" that "universal church" proponents advocate.

 

Call it what you want but the convention is a good example of it. It is the collective body of regenerate believers who fulfill God's will through the local assembly.

 

But still Christ using the term in a "general" sense is no different than the U-church if you will.

 

A convention is not a church.
If you want a name try one of these:
bride of Christ, family of God, God's children, etc.
There are names that collectively reflect the corporate body of all believers, but "church" is not one of them. "Church" simply means assembly. An assembly can't assemble all over the world, that is universally. It is impossible. The best concept, that I like, is family of God. I come from a large family--7 children. My brothers and sisters are scattered all over. We don't live under one roof. We rarely assemble together. But we still are one family. We were born by the same parents.

Every child of God is born into the same family. They are born into the family of God no matter what continent they live on. Distance doesn't make a difference. But that is not the case in a local church or an assembly. Assemblies are localized, and cannot be universal.

 

Church can be used to refer to all believers as well as a local church. The local church is a local version of the universal church.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
(Ephesians 5:25-27 ESV)


This is not one particular local church mentioned here in Ephesians 5.

 

1. First look at the context. Paul was writing to the church at Ephesus. How would the Ephesians take the verse: "so that he might present the assembly to himself." Assembly means something that is local. It cannot mean anything else. How would the Ephesians understand this verse, knowing that Paul was writing to them?

2. Second, consider that many singular nouns are used in a collective sense, or generically. For example: "Man is a sinner." Which man? Tom? Dick? Sam? No, all of them. the word "man" a singular noun is used to represent each and every man. The same is true of the word "church" or "assembly." It is used to represent all churches. The local church is a God-ordained institution through which God is doing His work today. It is important to him. He would that every believer be a member of a Bible-believing local assembly

 

Mandy, as a Southern Baptist, you of all people should know that the Southern Baptist Convention specifically rejects the word church to describe the denomination. It is not the collective body of regenerate believers. It is simply a meeting of representatives of local churches, who have decided to cooperate in missions, evangelism and other ventures.

These representatives, we call them messengers, are members of local churches, and act solely as members of a local church. By no stretch of the imagination could they be considered part of the universal church when they convene either at the Association level, the state level, or the SBC level.

You might want to reconsider that last part of your statement, because it kills your argument. You said "they are regenerate believers who fulfill God's will through the local assembly."

Exactly.

 

I see no problems with describing the entire body of believers under what ever name one would like.

No it doesn't. The local assembly does not negate the body of all believers as a whole.

 

jbh28...

You posted to DHK...

Of course that is a very reasonable...and accurate....response.

But it wont do any good. Believe me, I have tried. Regarding the truth of the universal church (Gods world wide presence) there is, unfortunetly, a very severe case of "brainlock" going on. A complete *blockage* of some sort, that renders these brothers unable to comprehend it.

It is a very sad thing to have to deal with.

God bless.

 

Ekklesia is sometimes used to describe a general assembly of people, not a "church" as we know it. You can't define the word by saying what it ought to mean, but you must define it by how it is used in the available literature - in this case, the Bible. I'm sure you agree with that.

BTW metaphore is symbolic language so you're still missing the point. You equate the "physical" church as a real church. You're denial of a metaphysical reality has a name - materialism. Having said all that, I will admit that I should have used the word "spiritual" instead of matphysical to keep the conversation out of the realm of philosophy and closer to biblical terms. But the truth remains that there is an assembly in heaven (though not complete, just like the "physical" church is not complete yet) made up of the souls of the redeemed since creation, whose purpose is to praise, honor, and glorify God through Christ and enjoy His grace throught the ages to come.

 

Nice try but no cigar. :smilewinkgrin: Since he says he will not "sit with the wicked," I believe he is talking about an actual assembly of wicked people, not a metaphorical one.

Bad guys have assemblies. We have a yakuza (Japanese mafia) connected ex-con in our church. The yakuza have assemblies all the time: strategy meetings, drinking parties, negotiations with other gangs.

 

I agree completely, and that is what I've been doing. Ekklesia is used in the LXX often for the general assembly of Jews. It is used in Acts for the men of Ephesus gathered together. The most common usage in classical Greek is for the legislature of a city state. And all of these, including a general assembly of people, are actual physical gatherings.

Absolutely not. I am not a materialist in any way, shape or form--practical or philosophical. Simply denying that the Bible teaches a "universal church" is not denying a metaphysical reality, it is simply denying mistaken exegesis.

The metaphysical term that the NT uses to describe all believers is not "church," it is "family." Again, all believers may be considered to be part of the body of Christ, to use another metaphysical term. Both of these terms have clear metaphorical usages in Greek. Ekklesia does not.

I agree that all believers of all ages will someday gather in Heaven to praise and glorify God. They have not ever gathered on earth. Therefore, there is no "universal ekklesia."

 

The word I used was "generic," not "general." A generic usage of the term still refers to physical assemblies.

 

It would help promote clarity by calling it what it is. What you're referring to is not the church. It's the kingdom. They are not the same.

You're right, it doesn't. Just call the body of believers the kingdom and you'll be clearly understood. In the meantime, the concept of the so-called U-church is a nice fantasy about an entity which has no reason to exist.

Local churches exist to do stuff. Carrying out the Great Commission, do evangelism and missions, fellowship and worship. The U-church does none of these. It is not only useless, it is also fractured and riddled with error.

 

Nope. By making illumination depend on ecclesiology, you show a grave misunderstanding of inspiration.

Fine. Prove it from Scripture. Give me Scripture that clearly speaks of a universal church. I believe that God is building the body of Christ--but that's a metaphorical usage of a different word, thus producing a different theological concept.

I'm a linguist. I go by the meaning of words. I can't find a metaphorical meaning of ekklesia in any Greek document, therefore I reject the "universal church." I dare you to find a single non-NT usage of ekklesia as anything other than an actual, physical assembly. You can't do it. And NT words must be taken in their normal 1st century usage, not some special theological usage that 1st century readers of the Greek NT didn't know about.

Yeah, that's right. If you can't prove your point, just call your opponent's position ludicrous and extremist and separatist and "far apart from Scripture." How intellectually stimulating. Boy I am sure enjoying the interaction.