Featured Independent baptists and the doctrine of a universal body of Christ

I believe the church is local and visible. And I believe all the redeemed are "in Christ" "one with Christ" and "seated with Him in the heavenlies." In my understanding that is the "universal body of Christ" we are all united with.

I believe each local congregation is a local body of believers belonging to Christ and thus a "body of Christ." Just like there is more than one student body and more than one body politic.

However, I also believe the issue is mostly semantics. When somebody talks about "The Church" meaning "all the redeemed" My mind translates that into "The Family of God." Or if it is referring to the departed souls in heaven the "The Kingdom of God."

I don't think the issue, being mere semantics, is worth fighting over or separating over. "Let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

 

Who has tried to dispute it? We are all one with Christ. We are all "in Him." We are all "seated with Him in the heavenlies."

 

I agree. That is why I consider it more a matter of semantics than of doctrine. I believe the Universal Church is a yet future assembly in heaven.

Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

 

The concept of a universal church among Baptists has not been confined to the Reformed tradition. It is explicitly stated in the Second London Confession, of course, but you will also find it spelled out in the General Baptists' Orthodox Creed of 1679 and the Helwys (General Baptist) confession of 1611 And, if you look closely, you can find it in the Generals' Midland Confession (1655).

None of these considered the existence of the Church as impinging upon the independence of the churches.

Helwys: That though in respect of Christ, the Church be one, yet it consists of diverse particular congregations, even so many as there shall be in the World, every of which congregation, though they be but two or three, have Christ given them, with all the means of their salvation, are the body of Christ and a whole Church.

Second London: That being thus joined, every Church has power given them from Christ for their better well-being, to choose to themselves fitting persons into the office of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, being qualified according to the Word, as those which Christ has appointed in His Testament, for the feeding, governing, serving, and building up of His Church, and that none other have to power to impose them, either these or any other.

 

I agree with the Second London Confession. They even use the same proof text.

 

Independent Baptist simply means we have no ruling authority over the local church.
I am pastor of a church that is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
As such we are an independent Baptist church!

 

In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul talks about a man who was living in such sin that it became necessary to expel him from the local church at Corinth.

Paul then tells the church to "keep the feast" in verse 5 speaking of the Lord's Supper.

He then says, in verse 11, "with such an one no not to eat" in the context of the Lord's Supper. In other words he is to be barred from partaking of the Lord's Supper.

How can the church know who should not be allowed to participate if they don't know the person?

The whole point of the Lord's Supper is the unity of the local congregation. But when an unknown person comes in the unity is placed in jeopardy and the congregation may be forced into unity with a wicked person.

Of course our church does not practice closed communion, but close communion, sometimes called "denominational communion." We allow born again members of other churches of like faith and practice to participate.

But, as I believe in "charity in all things" I won't make an issue of it.

 

The question of can ekklesia include a universal "church" as well as a local one or canit only mean a local "church" has been debated since the 1850s. The most notable sector holding to a "local" only interpertaion is the Landmark movement. The "local only" interpertation also took root among Northern Baptists. James M. Pendleton one of the antebellum "Great Triumvirate" of the Lnad mark movement opposed secession and moved north in 1862. He helped found Crozer Seminary.

 

Yes, it is called the "Prophetic Perfect" tense. It reads like the present but is, in fact, a prophecy of a yet future event. We see it all the time in the Old Testament.

Isaiah 5:13 "Therefore My people are gone into captivity, for want of knowledge; and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude are parched with thirst".

Isaiah 10:28-32 "He is come to Aiath, he is passed through Migron; at Michmas he layeth up his baggage; They are gone over the pass; they have taken up their lodging at Geba; Ramah trembleth; Gibeath-shaul is fled. Cry thou with a shrill voice, O daughter of Gallim! Hearken, O Laish! O thou poor Anathoth! Madmenah is in mad flight; the inhabitants of Gebim flee to cover. This very day shall he halt at Nob, shaking his hand at the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem."

Jeremiah 23:2 "Therefore thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, against the shepherds that feed My people: Ye have scattered My flock, and driven them away, and have not taken care of them; behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord."

Amos 5:2 "The virgin of Israel is fallen, she shall no more rise; she is cast down upon her land, there is none to raise her up."

 

Yep. At that time there was only one church, the one at Jerusalem.

And at that time there were many churches.

Pretty telling.