How Do baptists See/Define the Church of God?

You have touched on a controversial verse to be sure, even among those who believe in the U-church, they are unsure of the meaning.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many. (1 Corinthians 12:13-14)
--First I don't believe it refers to the Holy Spirit, as the context (vs.14ff), shows otherwise.
--That leaves two other possibilities, of which Tom gave you one--water baptism.
--There is yet one more. The Greek word translated "by" is en, which normally is translated "in." Thus, "in one spirit" we are all baptized. The spirit here could simply refer to a spirit of unity. Whether Jew or Gentile, we have come together in one spirit, a spirit of unity. I believe that this is a perfectly acceptable interpretation of this verse. I don't think that the word "spirit" should be forced to mean "Holy Spirit" when that doesn't have to be the case. If there is another sense that makes better sense then it ought to be translated or rather interpreted that way.

This is an illogical conclusion that you keep harping on and for no reason. No one here believes that Christ has more than one bride. There is only one bride, the bride of Christ. Let us bury this and do away with your false accusation.
In an eastern family many families live under the same roof. A man and wife may have three sons. If each son gets married they will bring their wives home and will live under the same roof. A daughter will live with another family. If the son has a child that grows old enough to get married and have children he also will live under the same roof. This is the extended family system. Now the father has but one wife. In your logic the father has 1 + 3 +1 = 5 wives. He has had five brides; five wives. This is the type of logic you are using.

There are many bodies. Each one is a local church. And Christ is the head of each one. There are many families. And the husband is the head of each one. The same principle applies.
Christ dwells in you; Christ dwells in me, and almost everyone else on BB. Why then is it so difficult to comprehend that Christ should be the head of every church.
Christ has only one bride. Put it to rest.
There is only baptism. Baptism by immersion.

This is your false theology which you accuse us of. No one said that. Give us a direct quote or stop saying it.

Utter foolishness on your part. If you don't know what we believe then you shouldn't be posting.

There is only one kind of a church--local. The word translated church is ekklesia or assembly. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. Your U-church defies the very definition of the word.

 

This is my view, as well, and you did a much more thorough job than I in explaining it.

The Holy Spirit never baptized anybody.

 

I'm sure somebody is going to bring up Matthew 3:11 where John the Baptist says:

Aha, there it is. Holy Spirit baptism.

Yes, but it says Jesus does the baptizing in/with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does do the baptizing.

And in Acts 2,when the tongues of fire settled on those in the upper room, what was the result? The were FILLED with the Spirit.

The Spirit dd not baptize them, neither there nor in I Cor12:13.

 

We are all of one family; part of the same bride; part of the same kingdom. But don't change the meaning of church/assembly when it need not be changed.

 

For many of us we see the church, the body of Christ, as the Israel of God. Hence, the Holy Spirit resides in us as twice born believers. In Acts, the time of the church, the physical body of believers, the Holy Spirit convinces the soul of His presence. This is how we know we are truly twice-born. It is a one time experience which endures through eternity.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Nobody is changing the definition of the term. You have accused us of that, but you have been corrected. If what you are saying is true, then on Monday's there are no local churches. There is no such thing as a local church on Monday. you can't have an assembled assembly. so you are not a member of any local church on Monday.

The word translated church is ekklesia or assembly. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. Your [local]church defies the very definition of the word on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

You see the problem with what you are saying? You are still a member of your local church even on Monday when you are not assembled. Same way you are a member of the universal church, though we have not all assembled together yet. Your argument is that there cannot be an universal church since we are not presently all assembled together. That's not valid. We are members of the universal church which will be assembled together in the last day(something you agreed with). Today, we all are members of our local churches. That's what we have today in 2011. Nobody attends the universal church. It's being prepared. Members are being added every day. It will meet in the last day when we are all together. Saying there is no universal church because today it's not meeting is the same as saying there are no local churches on Thursday because they are not meeting. Obviously that's not true. We have local churches today. That's how Christ is building his Church is through the local church today.

Correct, though I think you left of the "not" after does.

The local church is a visible picture of the universal church.
Christ is the head of the local church. Christ is the head of His Church. We can't go to the universal church today. It's not ready yet. We are members upon salvation, but we are to be members of our own local churches today.

Concluding thoughts
Where the mix up is coming up is that this is really all about terms and not doctrine per se. When JesusFan said "Multiple bodies= multiple brides." that's not a true picture of what DHK is saying. We have one body of Christ. That's the believers. We have multiple bodies of Christ here on earth. Each represent the true body of Christ. We cannot all meet together as one church or one body. So we have local churches today. We should all be members of local churches. That's how Christ set it up.

so please remember this for everyone. It's pretty much all about the use of a term. When we say universal church, we are not denying the local church. When those that don't like the term "universal church" they are not saying there are multiple brides of Christ. We all believe(from what I have read) that there will be an assembly of all believers in the last day. I call that the universal church or universal assembly if you like. Some might say that since we can't go to it yet, it doesn't exists. I understand, but we are still members of this future assembly of all believers. Let's not get angry of terms.

 

I have already addressed this argument before, many times.

If your logic is true, then all banks, schools, colleges, businesses, etc. would cease to exist during weekends and outside of business hours. Correct?
Think it through.

 

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Aha, there it is. Holy Spirit baptism.

Yes, but it says Jesus does the baptizing in/with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does do the baptizing.

jbh28 replied:

Correct, though I think you left of the "not" after does.

Tom says:
You are right and thank you. The Holy Spirit does not baptize.

Thus, I see we agree, then, that I Cor 12:13 is rendered incorrectly. It is not "For by
one Spirit we are all baptized into the body." It is "in one spirit (lower case s) we are...."

That being the case, we also agree that the baptism in v13 is water baptism.

Am I right?

 

The KJV says (v13) says we have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Not the same as drinking of one Spirit.

And I suggest that it should be a little-s spirit, not Spirit.

Are you appealing to a verse different from v. 13? The KJV doesn't render it as you do.

 

Um no, I'm not arguing that. You need to read more carefully what I'm saying. I'm actually saying the exact opposite of that.

 

No, Paul is speaking of spirit baptism. The ESV renders it as "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. so yes "in" would be correct.

All believers are baptized in the Spirit at regeneration. I see nothing about water baptism here in this passage.

And why would you use a lower case 's'?

 

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Hebrews 10:25)
--We assemble in our assemblies (churches) as our manner (custom) is.
In the early church it was every day, and after that less frequently.

The same directive could be given to a school
Students do not forsake the assembling yourselves together as the manner of your school requires, but exhort each other to do so, and so much the more as the Day of Christ approaches.

Schools are no different than churches in that respect. They assemble. They go home. They still exist when they are not assembled together. Your argument totally falls apart. There is no such thing as a universal school. All students do not belong to one universal school or even a U-school body. No metaphysical entity exists: neither in schools or in churches. They are both local--always.

 

Translator's preference. The original 1611 KJV looked like this:

(KJV-1611) For by one spirit are we all baptized into one bodie, whether wee bee Iewes or Gentiles, whether wee bee bond or free: and haue beene all made to drinke into one spirit.

No Capitals!

 

Of course. Never disagreed. Obviously you haven't read what I've posted very well. Why don't you go back and try it again.

Sorry, but you didn't address my point. Nice try, but no. You realize the logical fallacy. Because School isn't universal, therefore church cannot be. That's not logical.

Go back and see what I've said and not use straw man arguments.

 

As long as you call red, "blue" no matter how much you "correct" me I will still maintain that you are changing the definition of the word. Red means red, and blue means blue. And neither can you change the meaning of "assembly" to mean "universal."

And neither are there any schools or businesses on weekends or after business hours. Why don't you think this through or accept the same argument. These institutions are also assemblies.

But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. (Acts 19:39) [ekklesia]
--These "lawful assemblies" do not meet 24/7 either.

This is really getting boring and repetitive.
Your accusation defies the definition of every school, business, etc., on earth. Why go on like this. There is no unassembled assembly whether in a church or a school or a business. They all meet in a local place, at specific times with specific members or workers. None of them are universal. See Acts 19:39-41

Yes, there is no problem. They same holds true for my daughter's school and my son's work. What is your point? No institution meets together 24/7 but they still remain a valid institution.

The U-church does not exist and will never exist.

What I said or meant to say, is that the only time that all believers will be gathered together in one place is in heaven. I don't have to use the word "universal" to describe it in heaven. It is simply "the assembly" in heaven. The word "universal" is redundant. Either way, it is not a process. It is future. It will be completed at the rapture.

Correct.

There is no such thing as a U-church and never will be. Even in heaven all believers will be assembled in heaven. It will simply be "a heavenly assembly." The word "universal" is redundant, not necessary.

The only churches/assemblies that exist today are on this earth and are local in nature. All assemblies are local. Those that are in heaven are spirits. Spirits do not constitute assemblies. Please do not bring RCC theology into here. When the rapture takes place and we have our glorified bodies then we can speak of an assembly in heaven, and not until then.

There is persecution today but we are not in the Great Tribulation. Every episode of trouble does not contribute to the Great Tribulation. I can find other examples if you wish. The smaller is not a part of the greater. They are different entities. There are local churches here on earth. There is no such thing as a U-church. It doesn't exist. There are local churches in the same way as there are local schools. Both are not open to the public 24/7.

Christ is not building a "Church" anywhere but in local churches. You have no Scriptural support for this. The only thing comes close to what you are saying is when Jesus says: "I go to prepare a place for you..." But he wasn't speaking about churches, but rather to his disciples, and about individuals. He was giving comfort.

The local church is a picture of the body of Christ. 1Cor.11 gives us that picture. It is not universal. It has a head. The head is Christ. Each member has its purpose and all have to work in unity. Christ is the head of every church that follows him. At salvation we become children of God. But God requires us to become members of local churches.

 

You already admitted that there will be a universal assembly of all believers in the last day.

Different word. Not logical.

So your church isn't a church on monday. Or the universal church is a church just not assembled yet. You can't have it both ways. You can't say your local church is a church even though right now they are not assembled, and then say that the universal church isn't a church because it's not assembled yet.

It's obvious that you have failed to understand my point.

yep, never said otherwise.

oh, so you were wrong when you stated that all believers will assemble together in the last day. sorry, I didn't know you changed your mind. So can I say then that you don't believe there will ever be a universal assembly of all believers?

Oh, so there will be a univeral(meaning all believers) assembly in heaven. Again, you are arguing a term and not my belief.

so why are you getting so upset over this? When we say universal church we are meaning universal(all believers) church(assembly) to refer to the assembly of all believers.

Not necessary doesn't equal not existent. There will be a universal church and you just gave a nice definition of it as an assembly of all believers in heaven. Universal will mean all believers, not just Baptist, not just Presbyterians, but all believers.

I've stated already that here on earth we have a local assembly. Please don't accuse me of RCC doctrine. That's low of you. I've not brought any RCC theology into this discussion. Please keep this at a high level. You are a mod remember. I expect high quality post from you.

Exactly. But YOU, not me, arguing that the universal church cannot exist today because they are not currently assembled. You said there are not an unassembled assemblies. I'm just showing you how your argument doesn't hold water.

Actually, I'm referring to Matthew 16:18 where he says he is build a church. so you are wrong when you say that Christ is not building a church. The "Church" as spoken of here is the assembly of all believers. you want to call it a heavenly assembly. Ok, I call it the universal(all believers) church(assembly) and am perfectly fine to do so.

YES!!!!!!!!!! thank you!!!!!!

oh, so some believers are not included? sorry, but all believers are of the body of Christ...aka...universal. If you are saying that universal means all including unbelievers, you are arguing a major straw man.

YES!

AMEN!!!!!

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I have seen the point you were trying to make but IMO opinion it is weak and frivolous. Most people would understand the simple statement: "There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly."
For you I will amplify:
There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly where it is impossible for it to meet on any given day, month, year, throughout all of mankind's history. It has never assembled, does not assemble and will never assemble on this earth. Therefore to call it an assembly goes against the very definition of the word "assembly" (church).
Does that clarify it?

 

Most of my argument has been to put down your arguments against my term. They are not weak nor frivolous. I've simply pointed out your argument against my term "church" in inconsistent with your use of it.

And I understand it.

I understand what you are saying. We have made a bigger deal over a term. You said you believe there will be an assembly in heaven of all believers. That's exactly what I mean when I say universal church. The word church means assembly and we will be assembled on day.

Your statement, "There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly" is what I've addressed. I say we will be assembled just like my church will be assembled this Sunday. I'm a member of my church today. I'm a member of what I call the universal church(heavenly assembly as your prefer).

See, even you call it an heavenly assembly. So you are calling it an assembly. Church and assembly mean the same. So there shouldn't be any argument over the term. We both use it. I call it universal church and you call it heavenly assembly. Church and assembly mean the same. We both realize that we will meet one day together. When I say universal, I mean all genuine believers. You say heavenly because it will be in heaven.

btw, I did like what you said about the local church is a picture of the body of Christ.

 

It is not inconsistent.
Where does this universal assembly assemble; who is its pastor; who takes up the offering; who are the deacons; how often does it meet, etc. It is ludicrous to say that you have an assembly that never meets or assembles.

That has nothing to do with today. Deal with present realities not with eschatology. If you believe in a universal church that infers that there must be one now, at present, not in the future. You never said I believe there will be a universal church; your belief is the present tense not the future. Again we are not speaking of eschatology. We are dealing with the here and now; the present.

It is a lame argument. Not only we will assembly but we have assembled every Sunday since the church's inception in 1969. You cannot say that about any U-church. It does not assemble on a regular basis. You are looking toward a future event; speaking of eschatology. Deal with the present.

The key here is some day. You believe in a universal church right now. That doesn't exist. There is no U-church that exists now. It does not assemble and cannot.

Will be; is not.

I only hope you agree.
Every local church is a body of Christ with Christ as the head.