Featured Is the Church local, universal or both?

I wonder what ecclesiologies might disqualify an assembly of Christ confessing, God honoring, Spirit filled (not charismatic) Christians?

 

other then baptist, what would you consider to be 'true NT churches?"

Are ANY Denominations fitting that description?

 

Hmmm.......well, using that as a standard, there are many Baptist churches that I would consider as not qualifying.

 

Would mode of baptism disqualify?
Would type of government?
Would being in a Denomination?

Aren't those areas where we can agree to disagree, and still be considered as being christian groups?
As long as hold to essentials of the faith?

 

Any congregation may determine for itself how is wishes to govern or be governed, so I'd grant a lot of flexibility.

I do think the Biblical example is that a congregation should have pastors (elders, bishops) and deacons. I think the congregation should govern itself. I do not find a hierarchical church government in the scriptures.
.

 

I notice that we've strayed from the OP a bit, and I think I'm probably to blame.
So, I think I'll start a new thread asking for views on what the identifying marks are of a true New Testament church. And, What are some disqualifying marks?

Save your answers for the new thread, so we won't derail this one further.

 

The definition of a NT church is certainly going to get a lot more diverse opinion than the difference between a local and universal church. For example, we are in complete agreement about the local vs universal. However, a NT church, some will think is bounded by closed communion, autonomy, even maybe landmarkism, depending on how one looks at the subject. There will even be a great difference of opinion over whether we are (Baptists) are a denomination or not, or if we fit into the Protestant catagory.

I am kind of in the middle on this one. I do believe the Bible supports a local autonomous church more than a hierarchy. Also, I am not so sure a hierarcy would disqualify a church as a NT church. In addition, I think there is evidence of elder form of government in some churches in Scripture. Again, I do not think that disqualifies a congregational form of government (which mine is) as being a NT church.

As far as Baptists being Protestant, we have had threads on this before, but there is a difference between the Baptist model (local, visible) and Protestant (invisible, universal). Both differ from the RCC (visible, universal). Finally, on the question of denomination, there are arguments on both sides, but I tend to believe a denominaiton does not have to be bound by a hierarcy, but can be bound by distinctives, common beliefs and an associational relationship.

Oh, LOL, in your last paragraph, what is this "we disrailed the thread" stuff??

 

It's got to be both local and universal, but we should think of it as a local church, since the Bible mostly refers to churches as being local.

Exceptions can be found:

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her

I Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

I like Saturneptune's and preachinjesus' take on this issue. The church is both local and universal but there isn't any action the universal church can take in this age.

 

Its Universal, as in the sum of all sinners saved by the Cross of christ since pentacost, god knows ONLY one true church, the Body and Bride of christ

local in its application, how it functions in this age!

 

Thats where I stand...If I had to rely on a local assembly, then Id be suffering. We dont all live down south.

 

Be careful, here. A husband loves one wife, a real, live individual wife. Husbands love their individual wives, not a universal wife. Christ loves an individual church, just as husbands love their individual wives.

 

Verse says Christ loves "the church", not an individual church. Christ did not die for only the church at Ephesus.

 

But he actually did die for the members of the congregation at Ephesus--a local church.

Acts 20:28 specifically says so:

In the same way that He did for FBC Ephesus, Jesus shed his blood for your congregation, my congregation and all New Testament churches.

Paul's discussion of what Jesus did for FBC Ephesus, he did not mean the U-church in Ephesians 5:25, and the local church in Acts 20:28. He's talking about the same body, and FBC Ephesus is definitely not a U-church.

Of course, Jesus couldn't die for the U-church, because it does not exist.

 

There is certainly nothing wrong with associations of local churches or hierarchies helping others or local churches. However, the univeral church as defined here, all true believers in all denominations from all ages, never helped anyone.

I am somewhat puzzled by the comment about living in the South. I live in Western Kentucky, where the local church is the major way in which the Gospel is spread and the poor are helped. My point is, I grew up in Mississippi, and Kentucky is nothing like the South, so I really fail to see the connection of the local church and the South.

 

OK well I see everything past Philadelphia as south. I guess I meant Bible Belt. Is Kentucky considered Bible Belt?

 

I guess you could say we are on the northern edge of it.

 

OK then when Catholics, PCUSA, United Methodists, JW's & Atheist dominate & less than 2% go to church then you will understand my neighborhood. If I want to fit in, then I revert to RC & become a bogus believer & Gag cough gag....a flaming liberal democrat (progressive) & start liken Cuomo & Bloomburg. I can also wear Obama pins & run down the street singin "OBAMA OBAMA"..... IE my worst nightmare. (I kid you not, I deal with all this insanity up here)