Universal church

[DHK]

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;


Did Christ die for the local church, or His sheep?

Is the Bible the final authority in all matters of faith and practice for you?
Is the Bible the final authority in all matters of faith and practice for your church?
Is the Bible the final authority in all matters of faith and practice (generally speaking) for all Baptists)?

You could answer yes to all three, hopefully. Yet not one statement does not contradict another. It all depends on the context in which it is used. Christ did die for the local church.
Christ died for you. Christ died for me. Christ died for his bride. Christ died for all mankind. What is the context in which each statement is being used?

 

[DHK]

Here is an interesting link:
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/fascinating-maps-show-origin-words-135610187.html

 

[Rippon]

Christ died for you.

If "you" is a believer.

Christ died for me.

Only if you are a believer.

Christ died for his bride.

And His Bride is in a special class. The Bride is not composed of a mixture of believers and non-believers --i.e. the elect and the non-elect.

Christ died for His Bride and no one else. He laid down His life for His sheep alone --not for the goats which stand for unbelievers. What is the point for the Scripture to say He died for the Bride if instead He purposed to die for each and every individual ever in existence? Why does the Scripture say He loved the church and gave Himself up for her --if it really means everybody? It would be pointless --a needless thing to say. But there is a reason that Paul, in Ephesians 5:25 and Acts 20:28 says what he says. The reason? Because Christ bought the church of God alone with His blood --not for every one --not even for one believing congregation. Christ died for His possession --all His children scattered around the world --from every tribe, language, people and nation. Those elect ones alone were the intended recipients of salvation by virtue of the blood of the Lamb of God.

He did not die for those He does not know.

He did not die for those who he does not pray for.

The blood of the covenant was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins --not for humanity en masse.

 

[DHK]

If "you" is a believer.

Only if you are a believer.

And His Bride is in a special class. The Bride is not composed of a mixture of believers and non-believers --i.e. the elect and the non-elect.

Christ died for His Bride and no one else. He laid down His life for His sheep alone --not for the goats which stand for unbelievers. What is the point for the Scripture to say He died for the Bride if instead He purposed to die for each and every individual ever in existence? Why does the Scripture say He loved the church and gave Himself up for her --if it really means everybody? It would be pointless --a needless thing to say. But there is a reason that Paul, in Ephesians 5:25 and Acts 20:28 says what he says. The reason? Because Christ bought the church of God alone with His blood --not for every one --not even for one believing congregation. Christ died for His possession --all His children scattered around the world --from every tribe, language, people and nation. Those elect ones alone were the intended recipients of salvation by virtue of the blood of the Lamb of God.

He did not die for those He does not know.

He did not die for those who he does not pray for.

The blood of the covenant was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins --not for humanity en masse.

[FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 2:4 Who (God) will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]John 20:31 But these are written, that ye (the world) might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.[/FONT]

Your interpretation doesn't square with scripture. It only answers to your Reformation doctrine which springs from the Reformation but not known before that time, except perhaps by Augustine whom Calvin studied and got his ideas from.

Christ died for all men. That is and of itself is a true statement as the Scripture teaches.
I prefer to believe in an all-mighty, all-powerful God; not a half-weakened God whose blood is not sufficient enough to cover the sins of all mankind, as the Calvinist teaches. It seems your teaching makes Christ out to be weaker than he really He is. Why shed blood if you don't have to? How much more will you minimize the sacrifice on the cross of Calvary? The next step is "it is not necessary at all??"

Your brand of Calvinism is not much different than what Carey was up against in 1786:

At a ministers' meeting in 1786, Carey raised the question of whether it was the duty of all Christians to spread the Gospel throughout the world. John Collett Ryland is said to have retorted: "Young man, sit down; when God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid and mine."

I realize you will deny the quote was ever made but nevertheless it points to the environment of the time, the attitude of the people, that anti-missionary, and deep, hyper-Calvinistic thinking that permeated the hearts of the churches.
After all, why evangelize at all if God is doing all the electing, right?

His blood is sufficient for all; efficacious only to them that believe.
That is what the Scripture teaches.
And that is why Christ told us to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

 

[convicted1]

Is the Bible the final authority in all matters of faith and practice for you?
Is the Bible the final authority in all matters of faith and practice for your church?
Is the Bible the final authority in all matters of faith and practice (generally speaking) for all Baptists)?

You could answer yes to all three, hopefully. Yet not one statement does not contradict another. It all depends on the context in which it is used. Christ did die for the local church.
Christ died for you. Christ died for me. Christ died for his bride. Christ died for all mankind. What is the context in which each statement is being used?

Church isn't the only biblical word used to describe us..

--We're the Lamb's bride
--We're the body of Christ
--We're a royal priesthood
--We're a holy nation
--We're a chosen generation
--We're a peculiar people

All of these include the believers past, present, and future.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not agree with a Universal Church. But I will admit I am confused about the passage where Jesus told Peter, "On this rock will I build my church". Obviously he didn't build a local assembly.

Jesus used the term "ekklesia" translated "church" 23 times. In Matthew 16:18 we have his first use. In all 22 following uses it is by context ALWAYS descriptive of a local visible congregation.

In the first use, he uses it in the institutional sense but still descriptive of a local visible congregation. He uses it in a building context.

1. There is a builder - "I will"
2. There is something to build upon - "upon this rock" (fem. petra)
3. There is something to build - "my church"
4. There is something to build it out of - "Thou art Peter (lit. masc. petros - a rock).

Jesus calls Peter by his given name in verse 17 "Simon bar Jona" but then changes to the name specifically given him by Christ in John 1:43 "Peter" (Petros) meaning a "stone". Peter understands this characterization of his name in this building context, so in 1 Peter 2;5 Peter describes every member of a local congregation as "lively stones built up into a spiritual house" but recognizes on Jesus as "the rock" (Petra) - I Pet. 2:8.

As an "institution" the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. However, in regard to specific concrete examples ("the church which is at...") they are prevailed against in every generation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



bἐκκλησία "ekklēsia"


I. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
A. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

B. the assembly of the Israelites

C. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

D. in a Christian sense

i an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

ii. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

iii. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

iv. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

v. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven


I got the above from eliyah.com, seeing that I am far from a Greek scholar. It appears there is more than one usage for the greek word "ekklesia". Personally, I think it's usage can be used universally as well as locally....

The term "ekklesia" is never used of anything other than a local congregation prior to the New Testament. All these other meanings are Post-New Tesament additions. In the Greek Septuigent the term ekklesia is never used to translate the hebrew term "quahal" whenever by context it is used for anything broader than a local visible congregation - never once - check it out.

The secular usage during the writing of the New Testament is found once in the book of Acts and there it refers only to a local visible congregation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;


Did Christ die for the local church, or His sheep?

Is Christ talking about a universal invisible "wife"???? In answer to your question the answer is "yes" and "yes". Christ died both for the church and for all the elect and they are not the same.

In Leviticus there is redemption money used for all the elect. Also in the Old Testsament there is the cultural tradition of a husband providing a payment for a wife. Remember, Jacob working for his wife seven years.

This purchase for a wife is the backdrop of Acts 20:28, however, the "flock" of verse 28 is the same "flock" of verse 29 which cannot be anything but the local congregation at Ephesus as verses - 29-30 are descriptive only of a local visible congregation. Moreover, it is the elders at Ephesus that the Holy Spirit made overseers of the flock in verse 28 who also are being warned about false teachers IN that flock and leading other OUT of that flock. Does your universal invisible church lose members by false teachers?????

 

[The Biblicist]

Church isn't the only biblical word used to describe us..

--We're the Lamb's bride
--We're the body of Christ
--We're a royal priesthood
--We're a holy nation
--We're a chosen generation
--We're a peculiar people

All of these include the believers past, present, and future.

What is true of the church as a microcosm of the family of God is true of the family of God. The congregation of Christ has been given "the keys of the kingdom" but is not the kingdom, but rather the representative administrative authority Christ has established in the kingdom.

You cannot be a member of a New Testament congregation apart from profession of salvation in Christ. Paul addresses the church according to its profession and describes it according to its profession.

 

[The Biblicist]

What is true of the church as a microcosm of the family of God is true of the family of God. The congregation of Christ has been given "the keys of the kingdom" but is not the kingdom, but rather the representative administrative authority Christ has established in the kingdom.

You cannot be a member of a New Testament congregation apart from profession of salvation in Christ. Paul addresses the church according to its profession and describes it according to its profession.

GreekTim said the best proof of the Universal church is found in the book of Galatians where Paul switches from the plural "churches of Galatia" and speak about the singular "the church" which he persecuted.

However, this is a failure of recognition of context. The church singular that Paul persecuted was the only existent church at that time which was located in Jersualem (Acts 8:1). Due to his persecution other churches came into existence (Gal. 1:22) in Judea and Samaria (Acts 9:31). Please notice that Paul uses the plural "churches" in Galatians 1:22 to describe the same event Luke describes using the plural in the Received text in Acts 9:31 thus proving the plural reading of the TR is correct.

Therefore, Galatians is not proof for a universal invisible church, but when properly interpreted according to its context is proof of the only kind of church Jesus built, the same kind he goes on to speak of the next 22 times Jesus uses the term "ekklesia" - a local visible kind.

 

[DHK]

Church isn't the only biblical word used to describe us..

--We're the Lamb's bride
--We're the body of Christ
--We're a royal priesthood
--We're a holy nation
--We're a chosen generation
--We're a peculiar people

All of these include the believers past, present, and future.

I agree. Therefore we should be more accurate in our use of terminology.
The local church is a body of Christ as defined in 1Cor.12. Every local church has many members. Each member has different gifts. Working all together in unity they bring "the body" that is the local church into harmony. Paul was writing to the church at Corinth not the "Universal Church" when he was giving that instruction.

However we all are members of the "Bride."
We are all priests before God--an important Baptist distinctive--the priesthood of the believer.
We are all part of a chosen nation. God is calling out a nation for himself in this dispensation.
Indeed, we are a peculiar people!
We are also part of the family of God.
We are part of the kingdom.
And no doubt others can add to that.
But an "assembly" can not be universally assembled until Christ comes and we all assemble in heaven.

 

[The Biblicist]

I

And His Bride is in a special class. The Bride is not composed of a mixture of believers and non-believers --i.e. the elect and the non-elect.

1. Neither is the bride composed of Old Testament saints (Rev. 19:6-9) which are guests at the metaphorical wedding.

The "bride" is a metaphor of a special class of people who have been faithful and pure in regard to "the faith once delivered".

This metaphor is PRESENTLY applied to the local visible congregation (2 Cor. 11:2) and in context it is applied in anticipation of the future metaphorical marriage based upon PRESENT faithfulness to Christ in doctrine and practice, as Paul warns that this "espoused" bride may become POLLUTED by false doctrine (2 Cor. 11:3-4 - a metaphorical polluted woman is a harlot) that would hinder it being presented to Christ as such a metaphorical "bride". The metaphorical wedding dress of the future bride is made up of its plural "righteousnesses" instead of the singular righteouosness of Christ as it is specifically stated to be that of the saints - representative of the purity and faithfulness of the bride in regard to "the faith once delivered" while on earth.

The redemptive price of a bride is described in Acts 20:28 of the "flock" at Ephesus over whom the elders at Ephesus are made the overseers of this singular "flock" and this singular "flock" is the very same "flock" in verse 29 which can lose members (vv. 29-30) and include within it false teachers who leave it with members from it.

2. Neither are all the saved in the New Jerusalem and Bride of Christ in Revelation 21-22 as AFTER the great white judgement throne (REv. 20) and AFTER the creation of a new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:1-2) there are "SAVED nations" living upon the NEW CREATED EARTH outside the New Jerusalem who have "KINGS" reigning over them who bring their glory into the city where the bride dwells, and in whose honor the city is name, just as in contrast the city in Revelation 17:18 is named in honor of the Great Whore.


3. Neither are all the elect found in the metaphorical "Great Whore" part of the bride (Rev. 18:4)

4. Neither are the "guests" at the marriage supper part of the Bride. The "guests" at the metaphorical wedding (Rev. 19:8-9) cannot be the bride as she is never a guest in this cultural metaphor. It cannot be angels as heaven is the eternal home of angels. The guests are the rest of God's family and the "bride" is therefore distinct from the rest of God's family, and distinct from angels due to her FAITHFULNESS and DOCTRINAL PURITY/UNITY with "the faith once delivered" as she is "the pillar and ground of the truth" reproduced through the Great Commission threefold discipling process of Matthew 28:19-20 - by the SAME gospel, and SAME baptism and SAME doctrine and practice "once delivered to the saints". It is comprised of those churches who "overcome" in regard to "thy works" - Rev. 2-3.


For a fuller defense of my position read my book "The Bride of Christ" found at the following address:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7a...e Bride of Christ" by Mark W. Fenison&f=false

 

[The Biblicist]

Furthermore, there is no "unity" in the so-called universal invisible church as it is the most division concept ever conceived by Satan.

In addition, it is the repudiation of the Biblical doctrine of quickening which IS SPIRITUAL UNION for all children of God without which one cannot be a child of God. The baptism in the Spirit is TIME LOCATED AND TIME FIXED (Acts 1:4-5; 2:1 - Jerusalem and Pentecost) and cannot possibly be the mechanism for spiritual union with God without damning all saints prior to Pentecost to hell. Hence, both the concepts of a universal church or universal invisible church as spiritual union with Christ is a rejection of the true gospel of Jesus Christ which promises spiritual life which ONLY comes by spiritual union to all saints in all ages both BEFORE this TIME FIXED and TIME LOCATED baptism in the Spirit.

 

[Salty]

Furthermore, there is no "unity" in the so-called universal invisible church as it is the most division concept ever conceived by Satan. .

Do NOT agree!

I am a member of the local city association of churches. Our # 1 goal is to present Christ to our city. We do disagree on some doctrine - but when it comes to sharing Christ - those minor doctrines (ie immersion vs sprinkling) are set aside.

 

[The Biblicist]

We do disagree on some doctrine -.

You are selectively picking, but the concept of the universal invisible Church is inclusive of members from ALL DENOMINATIONS (Roman Catholic, churches of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, etc.) rather than just the few you have selectively picked. You cannot possibly deny that God has saved among all these denominations.

So be honest! Are there only minor doctrinal disagreements between you and an elect in the Roman Catholic Church? NO! Are there only minor doctrinal disagreements between you and an elect found in the SDA? NO!

You are intentionally distorting your own false concept of a church in order to defend it. However, if we take your concept AS IT IS IN TRUTH which involves nearly ALL DENOMINATIONS with extreme doctrinal differences, then you defense falls apart.

Remember the "church of the living God" is called "the pillar and ground of the truth" which is an IMPOSSIBLE epitaph to apply to your kind of church composed of members from all denominations extremely divided by diverse extreme doctrines. Your argument and defense is based upon deceit and dishonesty as you fully well know that the concept of the Universal Invisible Church defended by all Systematic Theologies distinctly admits that its members can be found in nearly all denominations (sacramental churches, Pentecostal churches, baptistic churches, pedobaptistic churches and even cultic churches). BE HONEST with the historical and theological definitions of this false concept. I guess that is oxymoronic to ask to be honest with a dishonest concept???

 

[The Biblicist]

You are selectively picking, but the concept of the universal invisible Church is inclusive of member from ALL DENOMINATIONS (Roman Catholic, churches of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, etc.). You cannot possibly deny that God has saved among all these denominations.

So be honest! Are there only minor doctrinal disagreements between you and an elect in the Roman Catholic Church? NO! Are there only minor doctrinal disagreements between you and an elect found in the SDA? NO!

You are intentionally distorting your own false concept of a church in order to defend it. However, if we take your concept AS IT IS IN TRUTH which involves nearly ALL DENOMINATIONS with extreme doctrinal differences, then you defense falls apart.

Remember the "church of the living God" is called "the pillar and ground of the truth" which is an IMPOSSIBLE epitaph to apply to your kind of church composed of members from all denominations extremely divided by diverse extreme doctrines. Your argument and defense is based upon deceit and dishonesty as you fully well know that the concept of the Universal Invisible Church defended by all Systematic Theologies distinctly admits that its members can be found in nearly all denominations (sacramental churches, Pentecostal churches, baptistic churches, pedobaptistic churches and even cultic churches). BE HONEST with the historical and theological definitions of this false concept. I guess that is oxymoronic to ask to be honest with a dishonest concept???

I am not arguing that one must know all truth to become a Christian. However, they MUST know all truths essential to be recognized as saved. I am not arguing that any church must know and embrace all truth to be a church, but I am arguing they MUST know all truths essential to be recognized as a church of Christ.

There are no two people that believe identical on everything, however, for a marriage to work, two people must be united on essentials. Likewise, that is precisely why churches have articles of faith that define the essentials for unity to exist as a congregational body. In the New Testament those essentials for unity as a congregational body of Jesus Christ is called "the faith once delivered."

The reason for "denominations" is due to variant articles of faith held by each denomination that make it impossible for them to assemble in common unity. Their own articles of faith define real unity that must exist for them to habitually assemble together in practical unity. The churches in the New Testament had one common basis for practical unity - "the faith once delivered." Notice it was "ONCE" deliever than being repeatedly delivered again and again because the institutional church Jesus built was promised to continue "always even unto the end of the world" reproducing after its OWN KIND through the Great Commission process of going with the SAME gospel, administering the SAME baptism and teaching them the SAME faith and practice.

 

[Salty]

Those not save are not part of the (if you wish to call it ) universal church. IMHO the vast majority of RC's are not saved, thus not part of the UC.

If you read my post - I spoke about "Our # 1 goal is to present Christ to our city. "

To clarify - to present Christ as Lord and Savior, so they will repent of their sins.

 

[TCassidy]

"On this rock will I build my church". Obviously he didn't build a local assembly.

If the church you attend was/is not built by Christ on His sacrifice, run, don't walk, RUN to the nearest exit.

 

[preachinjesus]

The term "ekklesia" is never used of anything other than a local congregation prior to the New Testament.

This is entirely not true. I mean, if you're just gonna make stuff up then fine, let us know. But this is entirely not true.

All these other meanings are Post-New Tesament additions. In the Greek Septuigent the term ekklesia is never used to translate the hebrew term "quahal" whenever by context it is used for anything broader than a local visible congregation - never once - check it out.

The problem is that the earliest Christians were just as informed by literature of their era as they were from the Septuagint. If we look closely at Graeco-Roman literature we see a variety of usages from prior to and within the context of the earliest Christian communities. As it is used ἐκκλησία usually denotes an assembly or group of some kind, however, it is also used in a global, or macro perspective as well. It is not as fixed as you're suggesting.

The secular usage during the writing of the New Testament is found once in the book of Acts and there it refers only to a local visible congregation.

No, Acts 19:39 disproves your point.

 

[TCassidy]

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;


Did Christ die for the local church, or His sheep?

Why do you equate "gave" with "died?" Could that verse be understood in the context of "ever living to make intercession" for His saints? He "gave" Himself to the church as "Head" and "Advocate?"