Let's get this clear from the beginning.
I am not a Landmarkist, never have been, never have been in a church building designated as one, and never even heard of them until long after I firmly held to this belief that we are now discussing. With that in mind you don't have to white-wash me or brand me with some other group. OK?
Secondly, you can disagree all you want. You can also call blue, red. But blue will be blue now matter how much you jump up and down and call it red. It won't change it into red just because you say so. Wrong opinions are still wrong, even if they are held sincerely wrong.
Here is the same verse translated more accurately by Darby:
And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)
Nowhere in the Bible do we see universal in the context of assembly (i.e. church). Why would you want to add to the Bible "universal" in front of the word "assembly"? That is adding to the Word of God, is it not?
An assembly that cannot be assembled is a contradiction of terms. But you cannot get past this concept. It is not in the Bible.
Ekklesia means assembly. It has no nebulous non-functional meaning as universal church. It just isn't there, and no one on this forum has been able to demonstrate from the Scripture that it exists.
Unfortunately, you are very wrong, and it is provable with grammar.
If you look at Acts 9:31 you will see an interesting usage of "Church:"
So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.
Here you have a grammatical situation where one single church (the word is singular) is referred to being in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria all at the same time. Now, if Paul had intended to address three separate churches, the word for church would have been plural. In fact, we see this plural use in Acts 15:41--And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. Here are two separate churches referred to with the plural.
It is obvious that Paul is referring to one church that is in three separate and disparate locations.
If you look at Acts 20:28 (where Paul is speaking to the Elders of the church in Ephesus) you will see another interesting use:
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood
This passage is particularly interesting and makes several important points.
1. Why is the Ephesian church called "the church of God?" I mean, are we to assume that the church in Antioch, for example, is illegitimate?
2. We see that God obtained the church with His own blood. Are we to assume that He only purchased the church at Ephesus and the church in Jerusalem is somehow unredeemed?
Of course the meaning of εκκλησια is more related to the context of a particular passage. There are cases where εκκλησια means an individual (or local) church. There are cases where εκκλησια means all the churches (or universal church).
There are both local churches and a universal church. After all, there is a reason that local churches are referred to as "The church at __________ ."
What is more, in dealing with application of the Epistles to us today, we seek to read and apply 1 Corinthians, for example, to us today. But, since Paul addresses the letter to "the church of God that is in Corinth" we show that we believe that Paul's letter is not only for the local Corinthian church, but the church universal--of all places and times.
If you are to be consistent--since you deny the universal church--you should reject any and all portions of scripture that are addressed to any local church, since that particular local church is an entity to itself. Of course, you don't do that. So, what you deny with your words you affirm with your actions.
The Archangel