Universal Church and Landmarkism

Thanks, JD. I was afraid that some were using metaphysical when they meant metaphorical. Appreciate your clearing that up.

 

Very well. And to answer the question about the false teaching, I wouldn't say they are in the church if they are not believers.

 

What about the passage in Matthew where Jesus say he will "build his church."

 

For purposes of discussion, we're assuming that even false churches may have saved believers. Given your position that the local church is a mini-UChurch, I'm just wondering about those believers who are not members of a true NT congregation. Are they in the UChurch, anyway?

I can imagine some of you are saying, this is silly, nit-picking stuff. Actually, I agree. The point I'm making is that some propositions may fall apart upon closer examination.

Such as brother jbh's.

Of course, if there is no possibility that false churches may have saved people in them, then never mind.

 

I was just about to introduce that question myself. I'd like to know the answer too.

 

Actually, "beyond physics" is not the definition, but the etymology. A better definition is:

So the local church is a physcial concept to the extent that it is a literal assembly. However, the relationship between Christ and the local church is metaphysical.

 

I've already answered that and I believe DHK has also. The Matt. usage is generic.

 

DHK, I am intimately familiar with Landmarkist teachings. It is a false doctrine that reads into the text of Scripture what some men wish to see in order to preserve their little carved-out kingdoms.

In fact, just about the only people in all of Christendom that subscribe to that doctrine are those fiercely independent fundamentalists who need it in order to survive.

The doctrine did not even exist as a doctrine until 1851. It caught on largely because it was pressed by several influential pastors and seminary leaders.

It is now used as a club by the independent fundamentalists to enforce the idea -- the same idea as Roman Catholicism, by the way -- that ONLY those churches that are "successive" with a lineage back to John the Baptist are the "true, authentic church or Christ." Though it has its roots in the SBC who those same independents now hate and disavow. Funny how bad doctrine always finds a home eventually and refuses to go away. Today, everyone who (as the doctrine states) is not in that line of succession is not a true church and there is no "universal church" in any sense. That is patently false for any number of reasons.

So, we have a smallish group of churches that hold to a doctrine that makes THEM the only true church, a doctrine that mirrors Roman Catholicism that they hate, and a doctrine that stems from the SBC whom they also hate. But the doctrine is "useful" to them because it helps them to "sell" their little kingdoms to the people they coerce into being a part of their local only bodies. Weird, huh...

 

I thought I posted this earlier today, but I can't find it. So here it is again. To those who believe rejection of a universal church means lack of love for other Christians, that's a misunderstanding. We have many other passages that teach that without a universal church being needed. My grandfather's last sermon was on the other sheep in other folds that Christ told the disciples about.

Here in Asahikawa, I teach NT Greek to a Methodist man in our town who wants to be a preacher. He's my brother in Christ and I love him, but I don't need a universal church for that.

 

My guess is that it is about as extensive as your knowledge of Calvin's beliefs, and his role in civil government.

There seems to be a running theme in all of your posts, and that is, tearing down IFB's and defending the Roman Catholic Church. If I had to choose between the two to worship in, the choice would be quite simple. Of course, that takes common sense.

There is no direct evidence of a succession of churches traced to modern day Baptist churches. However, who do you suggest preserved the New Testement Church? The Roman Catholics? The Eastern Orthodox? Who preserved them until the Reformation? What is your conclusion? For some reason, you hate IFBs, but defend concepts like the universal church having a functional role on this earth, Calvin's beliefs like sprinkling and his treatment of those who did not agree with him, so on and so forth. What is your problem with the local church.?

Independents that I know are very kind, loving people. There are some in the SBC that believe Landmarkism, but in a general way, that someone preserved the NT church. It is not a person by person succession like the Catholics. By the way, in this paragraph you slam the Catholics, so can't you figure out how you feel about them? I really do not think it is the Indys that have the mean streak. Maybe you should look elsewhere, maybe closer to home.

Weird is your conclusions, like you liked the Roman Catholic Church before you did not. Independents do not hate the SBC, that is one of your fantasies. I belong to a SBC local church, and see none of what you are talking about. You rant and rave against Landmarkism, but do not have a clue as to who preserved the NT church.

 

One more for you who believe in a universal church. (And I'm not berating you or attacking you. Some of my best friends believe in a universal church. :smilewinkgrin

Several on the thread have mentioned the seven churches of Revelation. It seems to me that this was a perfect time for John to mention a universal church: "Oh, and by the way, you local churches, you need to realize you're all one body. How come you don't hang out more together?"

Instead, we have very specific encouragement, rebukes and warnings to seven very specific local churches. Not only that, every single church is told what the Spirit is saying to the "churches," plural. So, why no universal church in Rev. ch. 1-3?

 

I bow to your superior knowledge but I respectfully disagree anyway. :smilewinkgrin:

You know the "sitting" part sounds a lot like Psalm 1 - clearly metaphorical.

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.​

There are a couple of other candidates.

HankD

 

Does Christ have many bodies, or just one? Many brides, or just one?

 

That is not the question. I do not believe, contrary to the opposite view's comments, anyone has said the universal church does not exist. It has no function here on earth. The spreading of the Gospel, missions, and reaching the lost is carried out by the local church. The universal church does not administer baptism or the Lord's Supper. It does not help the poor. It does not call pastors or elect deacons. There is no function of the universal church, it is only an entity that will have a function when we all are in the presence of the Lord.

 

Deleted by JD - not related to the OP

 

The heavenly component is the dwelling place of the commander-in-chief.

Ephesians 1

19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which He wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.​

HankD

 

If you are a dispensationalist, then you won't accept this answer.

Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry. It came into existence when Jesus chose his disciples. They were the material of the first church.

The Lord said in Matt. 16:18 that "Upon this rock I will build my church."

He was speaking to his church at the time. And so he did.

By the time Jesus said goodbye at his ascension, this band had everything it needed to identifyit as a church. It had a Head, it had marching orders (given before the Great Commission), it had baptism and the Lord's Supper, it had a teaching ministry (Jesus as the teacher), it did missions and evangelism. And it had power. Remember the disciples returning from a trip, expressing awe that even the demons were subject to them.

And it had the good news, that Jesus had died for sinners, and risen from the dead.

The 120 people in that upper room also had a business meeting.

When Jesus said he would build his church, he was referring to the one right there in front of him.

 

All right then. Just to make it clear, I am not a Landmarkist. I don't believe that most on this board who are advocating this doctrine are Landmarkist. The doctrine has been associated with that particular group of people, as per the OP. There are plenty of doctrines that the Landmark Baptists believe that I would never believe. Some of them are Baptist Briders. Some of them believe they can trace their spiritual heritage back to John the Baptist with John being the first Baptist. I don't believe in such things. So don't count me in among "their carved out little kingdoms." We are discussing a Biblical doctrine where you have presented no evidence to prove that the other side of the coin (the existence of a universal church) is viable. That is the question. This doctrine, though popularized by Landmarkists, is not exclusively held by them.

It is not needed to survive. It has nothing to do with survival.
It has nothing to do with any of their other doctrines of successionism if that is what you are thinking of. Your statement here is off the wall. Aspersions will get you no where. We are not talking of survival. There is no such thing as a universal church in the Bible, and you offer no evidence that there is except for a denial. Your position is very weak isn't it?

You still offer no evidence.
Even then some of the most radical liberals lived before 1851. I am here to discuss Biblical doctrine; something you have a problem with.

You are completely wrong. We teach doctrine. Perhaps the method of teaching is shoving it down peoples throats in your church--doing it by force. But that is not the methods we adopt. Don't talk about things you know nothing about.

I have already denied that doctrine, and it appears that you didn't even read the OP carefully. This doctrine has only to do with the universal church. Go back and read the OP. Why the assumptions and now the false accusations? Is it because you don't have a Bible to debate Scripture?

And for what many reasons are you making false statements??
You have brought in many red herrings that have nothing to do with the OP. Why? Successionism (something I don't believe) has nothing to do with the doctrine of the local church or the existence of the universal church. Why do you make the wild and illogical leap that because I don't believe in a universal church I must therefore be a successionist?

How little you know. Your own ignorance on this subject betrays you. You have offered only opinion and not a shred of evidence or Scripture. Your attitude comes across as hateful. The last paragraph has so many false statements and illogical contradictions that it is not even worth replying to. When you are ready to discuss the doctrine on a Scriptural basis then get back to me. But I fear that you are unable to do that.