-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Universal church - or whatever you want to call it.
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
Hey Iconoclast,
Have I ever presented a "system" to defend my position? No! I simply set forth scriptures and defend those scriptures from a grammatical historical exegetical basis - period! If that method of interpretation produces a system then that is the system to embrace. Any "system" that does not agree with scriptures is the wrong system.
I do not disagree with Pastor's Culver's view of redemptive history. I disagree with his failure to distinguish between things that need to be distinguished. He blurs lines that the Bible distinguishes one from the other.
He attempts to make a MEETING PLACE or "the house of God" a redemptive concept that is fulfilled "in Christ" spiritually or will be fulfilled in redeemed space in the new heaven and earth at the expense of the continuing reality. Please do not respond that I am misrepresenting him concerning this point because he spelled it out in black and white.
Let me provide an analogy that will characterize how he has blurred the "house of God" motiff. For example, take the passover and Lord's Supper in relationship to the cross. Both point to the cross and both are types which find their fulfillment "in Christ." Both are declarative of redemption. The Lord's supper even has a yet future fulfillment in the new world to come. So we can write volumes concerning the redemptive value of both ordinances and how they are fulfilled "in Christ." However, it would be a grave error if we confused the PRACTICE of the ordinance with REDEMPTION or the SYMBOL with REALITY. Rome and all saramentalists make that mistake. They blur lines that must be distinguished or else false doctrine is the result.
Likewise with Pastor Culver's exposition on "the house of God" motiff and his "redeemed space" theory. His theory is all well and good until he blurs lines that cannot be blurred without producing false doctrine. The "house of God" motiff as a REALITY and as a PRACTICE cannot be confused with REDEMPTION even though it provides all kinds of redemptive associations. When you confuse the ACTUAL meeting place with the SPIRITUAL meeting within man or within heaven then you have created the foundation for Roman Catholicism. When you spiritualize it in so much that you remove it as a continuing reality in time and space then you have crossed lines that cannot be crossed without producing false doctrine. When one truth is emphasized to the point of denying another truth then false doctrine is the result.
So let him glean all the REDEMPTIVE types, associations and declarations that there is to glean from THE ACTUAL MEETING PLACE between God and man called "the house of God" or the PLACE OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, but when you arrrve at a position or system that fails to distinguish the REALITY from the PICTURE or the ACTUAL MEETING PLACE from the REDEMPTIVE application then you have either unwittingly, ignornatly or knowingly crossed over lines that cannot be crossed over without producing false doctrine and serious false doctrine.
So let him glean of the spiritual applications from THE REALITY of "the house of God" as the Biblical motiff for PUBLIC WORSHIP in keeping with a divine pattern, consisting of a qualified public ministry, qualified public ordinances in a qualified public assembly but WITHOUT DENYING THE CONTINUING EXISTENCE OF THE REALITY and without SPIRITUALIZING that reality into oblivion.
Last edited:
The house of God concept has its origin in Genesis and represents the way of the Lord inclusive of public worship as an external meeting place between God and man. From Genesis to Moses it is tied with the "firstborn" of the house who acts as the administrator or "priest" in PUBLIC WORSHIP that is characterized by an appointed time (Gen. 4:1) an appointed place and an appointed manner of worship. Indeed, these are essential to any consistent form of PUBLIC WORSHIP. Bethel is a PLACE where God MET with Jacob and the result was worship that continued at this PLACE for generations before God established Mount Zion in Jerusalem as that appointed PLACE on an appointed day in an appointed way for PUBLIC WORSHIP where God met man.
At the time of Moses there is a transition and development of this "house of God" motiff where the tribe of Levi replaces the "firstborn" in each family as the "preist" or family administrator for PUBLIC worship. Levi is taken by God for the service in the house of God as the place of public worship (Deut. 12). From Moses to Christ "the house of God" motiff represents the appointed place for public worship, at an appointed time in an appointed manner all according to a divine "pattern." This pattern also includes a qualified PUBLIC ministry with qualified PUBLIC ordinances. Hence, in the Jewish mind from Moses to Christ the very mention of the words "the house of God" it is this qualifying pattern with these qualified characteristics that immediatley came to mind.
From Christ to the present, it is the ekklesia, such as the kind located at Corinth or Ephesus, etc. that is identified as "the house of God" and thus the place of public worship where a qualified ministry (1 Tim. 3:1-13) with a qualified ordinances on an appointed day (1 Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7; etc.) is connected with "the house of God" motiff (1 Tim. 3:15).
So, yes, I believe Adam and Eve were the first to be introduced to this concept and who introduced it to Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 and that is why they are meeting together, at an appointed place, at an appointed time to publicly worship God through an appointed manner.
The Biblicist
As I said earlier I offered what i did because i see it as helpful and biblically accurate. You do not agree...okay.
i also explained why i believe this is so...which You do not agree on....let's see why.
Logic does not have anything to do with it. You say"
That is a complete failure on your part to rightly divide the word of truth. It is an OT teaching that leads to a full fulfillment in the Lord Jesus Christ building His eternal Church.
It is from Gen 28....not gen 4 as you try and redefine it to fit a system which you deny you follow but to no avail.
yes men had met for prayer in gen 4 and worship was involved but the bible first speaks of the House of God right here in Gen 28.
So your statement that the House of God is a NT motif if false as you seek to look to a physical place to be established when God has established a different place of meeting.
Because of this your whole view of Zion and Jerusalem is different and I do not believe is biblical or accurate. You do...and I will not lose any sleep over it as you are entitled to give account of yourself to God.
Now here you say freely that they knew from the OT that the house of God was a familiar concept. It speaks of a place where God places His name or authority;
11 Then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the Lord:
21 If the place which the Lord thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.
He does not confuse public worship with personal salvation....quote where he does what you suggest on all these accusations against his teaching.....not what you think his "logic would dictate"...but quote him in his own words if you wish to post such charges.
He is all about God placing His name at the place of meeting and follows it up with it's culminating in salvation In Jesus Christ.
As I said earlier I offered what i did because i see it as helpful and biblically accurate. You do not agree...okay.
i also explained why i believe this is so...which You do not agree on....let's see why.
Looks like you surely did to me.
That is your mistaken take on this whole teaching. You do not get to redefine what the bible has defined.
Logic does not have anything to do with it. You say"
That is a complete failure on your part to rightly divide the word of truth. It is an OT teaching that leads to a full fulfillment in the Lord Jesus Christ building His eternal Church.
It is from Gen 28....not gen 4 as you try and redefine it to fit a system which you deny you follow but to no avail.
yes men had met for prayer in gen 4 and worship was involved but the bible first speaks of the House of God right here in Gen 28.
So your statement that the House of God is a NT motif if false as you seek to look to a physical place to be established when God has established a different place of meeting.
Because of this your whole view of Zion and Jerusalem is different and I do not believe is biblical or accurate. You do...and I will not lose any sleep over it as you are entitled to give account of yourself to God.
Now here you say freely that they knew from the OT that the house of God was a familiar concept. It speaks of a place where God places His name or authority;
11 Then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the Lord:
21 If the place which the Lord thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.
He does not confuse public worship with personal salvation....quote where he does what you suggest on all these accusations against his teaching.....not what you think his "logic would dictate"...but quote him in his own words if you wish to post such charges.
He is all about God placing His name at the place of meeting and follows it up with it's culminating in salvation In Jesus Christ.
Could it be said that Christ is the firstborn after the order of Melchisedec?
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 5:5,6
The Biblicist
No he is not confusing it at all. he comments on the place as it is typological in pointing toward God's full restoration of man in what he refers to as sacred space..
And because God dwells in heaven, it is the place from which He exercises the various aspects of His rule over His creation. Thus heaven is portrayed in the imagery of a temple and throne room (Psalm 11:1-4, 103:19; Isaiah 6:1-4, 66:1; Ezekiel 1:26-28, 10:1-5; Daniel 7:1-10; Revelation 21:22-22:1-2; etc.).
d. In keeping with heaven’s status as God’s habitation, the Bible uses the language of obscurity and inaccessibility to describe it. It is a realm obscured from human sight and removed from human access. Significantly, God must grant men both the sight of it and entrance into it (cf. God’s presence at Sinai and the Holy of Holies with Acts 7:54-56; Hebrews 11:8-16; Revelation 4:1, 15:5, 19:11, 21:25ff).
2. Heaven is God’s dwelling place, but specifically it is the realm in which God is present in relation to His creation. Most importantly, it speaks not just to where God is, but how He is with respect to His creation. With this understanding, two things should be obvious: The first is that heaven is a biblical concept having greater scope and significance than many Christians imagine. At the same time, God’s habitation must be conceived more broadly than the place we call “heaven.” Otherwise, what are we to make of Moses’ declaration in Psalm 90:1 or the insistence of the writer to the Hebrews (12:22-24)?
5
II. Sacred Space in the First Creation
The reality of sacred space is an eternal conception in the sense that it speaks to God’s intention regarding His relationship with His creation, and particularly His image-bearers. All that has been “playing out” on the stage of history since the creation of the universe constitutes the outworking of God’s eternal counsel (Ephesians 1:3-12), and sacred space – with all that encompasses and implies – is at the heart of that determination
He never said it was.
Individual Christians are brought into the body; living stones
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Now both of us and in fact all believers have to put these pieces together in some way. You have your way of viewing it that you believe is biblical but i see what you are saying as twisting what he actually taught because you do not see it fit.
Only the mediator had the access on MT. Sinai.......we all have access now in and through our mediator.
The meeting place now is Not a physical place as you suggest...a building, or a set physical place....It is Spirit indwelt believers assembling to commune with God in the heavenly Zion and Jerusalem....God's dwelling place with us.
We are enrolled in heaven,.and we also meet and commune with God ....IN Heaven by the Spirit.
We have direct access now....it is not that we just go to a location...we commune with God, our prayers ascend to the very throne
8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
This is where you error....it is not merely the meeting place....that has totally changed In Christ our Head. We are united In Him, not to an external meeting place
No he is not confusing it at all. he comments on the place as it is typological in pointing toward God's full restoration of man in what he refers to as sacred space..
And because God dwells in heaven, it is the place from which He exercises the various aspects of His rule over His creation. Thus heaven is portrayed in the imagery of a temple and throne room (Psalm 11:1-4, 103:19; Isaiah 6:1-4, 66:1; Ezekiel 1:26-28, 10:1-5; Daniel 7:1-10; Revelation 21:22-22:1-2; etc.).
d. In keeping with heaven’s status as God’s habitation, the Bible uses the language of obscurity and inaccessibility to describe it. It is a realm obscured from human sight and removed from human access. Significantly, God must grant men both the sight of it and entrance into it (cf. God’s presence at Sinai and the Holy of Holies with Acts 7:54-56; Hebrews 11:8-16; Revelation 4:1, 15:5, 19:11, 21:25ff).
2. Heaven is God’s dwelling place, but specifically it is the realm in which God is present in relation to His creation. Most importantly, it speaks not just to where God is, but how He is with respect to His creation. With this understanding, two things should be obvious: The first is that heaven is a biblical concept having greater scope and significance than many Christians imagine. At the same time, God’s habitation must be conceived more broadly than the place we call “heaven.” Otherwise, what are we to make of Moses’ declaration in Psalm 90:1 or the insistence of the writer to the Hebrews (12:22-24)?
5
II. Sacred Space in the First Creation
The reality of sacred space is an eternal conception in the sense that it speaks to God’s intention regarding His relationship with His creation, and particularly His image-bearers. All that has been “playing out” on the stage of history since the creation of the universe constitutes the outworking of God’s eternal counsel (Ephesians 1:3-12), and sacred space – with all that encompasses and implies – is at the heart of that determination
.
He never said it was.
The meeting place of God is within us. We are the temple of God now. When we meet corporately we are the body of Christ,it is both individual, personal and corporate. It is not as you suggest several times....the physical place where we assemble and earlier as you suggested, some go into the city and some do not,etc
Individual Christians are brought into the body; living stones
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Now both of us and in fact all believers have to put these pieces together in some way. You have your way of viewing it that you believe is biblical but i see what you are saying as twisting what he actually taught because you do not see it fit.
Only the mediator had the access on MT. Sinai.......we all have access now in and through our mediator.
The meeting place now is Not a physical place as you suggest...a building, or a set physical place....It is Spirit indwelt believers assembling to commune with God in the heavenly Zion and Jerusalem....God's dwelling place with us.
We are enrolled in heaven,.and we also meet and commune with God ....IN Heaven by the Spirit.
We have direct access now....it is not that we just go to a location...we commune with God, our prayers ascend to the very throne
8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
No one said any of these things that you allege....where did Pastor Culver say these three things, quote it.....
.
This is where you error....it is not merely the meeting place....that has totally changed In Christ our Head. We are united In Him, not to an external meeting place
He never said it did.
This is a false statement and you have not shown otherwise.
The Old Testament "house of God" consisted of physical materials in a georaphical place wherein a qualified people served God.
The New Testament "house of God consists of a physical assembly of baptized believers who do in fact gather together in a geographical place: For example:
"For first of all, when ye come together in the church" (1 Cor. 11:19) "When ye come together therefore into one place," (1 Cor. 11:20).
So, the New Testament ekklesia is geographically assembled or else the texts above mean nothing! So a geographical location and ekklesia are not antonyms. The New Testament does not know of any kind of ekklesia that cannot be geographically located, as even the abstract use of ekklesia cannot be divorced from a geographical location.
Yes, the individual believer is a temple of the Spirit, as is the assembly of baptized believers as the figure of a temple is used for the individual believer at Corinth (1 Cor. 6:19) and for the assembly of baptized believers SEPARATE FROM ALL OTHER BELIEVERS IN THE WORLD at Corinth (1 Cor. 3:16).
To define the ekklesia as all believers, baptized or not baptized, gathered or not gathered, on earth or in heaven as the corporate dwelling place of the Spirit of God is a false doctrine that has not Biblical basis and confuses the ekklesia of Christ with the kingdom and/or family of God.
If ekklesia or "the house of God" motiff is isolated and interpreted as something foreign to geographical location then that is not the ekklesia of the New Testament - period!
The New Testament "house of God consists of a physical assembly of baptized believers who do in fact gather together in a geographical place: For example:
"For first of all, when ye come together in the church" (1 Cor. 11:19) "When ye come together therefore into one place," (1 Cor. 11:20).
So, the New Testament ekklesia is geographically assembled or else the texts above mean nothing! So a geographical location and ekklesia are not antonyms. The New Testament does not know of any kind of ekklesia that cannot be geographically located, as even the abstract use of ekklesia cannot be divorced from a geographical location.
Yes, the individual believer is a temple of the Spirit, as is the assembly of baptized believers as the figure of a temple is used for the individual believer at Corinth (1 Cor. 6:19) and for the assembly of baptized believers SEPARATE FROM ALL OTHER BELIEVERS IN THE WORLD at Corinth (1 Cor. 3:16).
To define the ekklesia as all believers, baptized or not baptized, gathered or not gathered, on earth or in heaven as the corporate dwelling place of the Spirit of God is a false doctrine that has not Biblical basis and confuses the ekklesia of Christ with the kingdom and/or family of God.
If ekklesia or "the house of God" motiff is isolated and interpreted as something foreign to geographical location then that is not the ekklesia of the New Testament - period!
Last edited:
As I said, I have no problem with the typological redemptive implications. I have no problem with the eventual fulfillment of God dwelling with man. However, the "house of God" motif is MORE THAN THAT. It has a present tense continuation of what constitutes acceptable PUBLIC WORSHIP with regard to localization of a qualified assembled people as a present REALITY. To LIMIT the "house of God" motif simply to that particular redemptive aspect is a HALF TRUTH.
The church LOCATED "at Corinth" is a reality that is not inclusive of all the elect. It is a reality that cannot be divorced from geographical location with regard to ACTUAL ASSEMBLY of qualified saints - baptized beleivers. It is an ACTUAL reality of what constitutes acceptable worship by properly defining qualified members, qualified ordinances and a qualified ministry - that reality is PRESENT and ACTUAL and cannot be spiritualized into some kind of universal invisible non-tangible entity.
The problem here is the LIMITATION you place on the "house of God" motif. You can only see it from the redemptive typology. You can only see it in Genesis 28 instead of Genesis 4 because of the limitations you place on it. A term does not have to found in a particular text in order to find what that term means. You know this! Take for example the word "trinity"! It cannot be found anywhere in Scripture but what it represents is found everywhere in Scriptures.
Genesis 28 provides the terminology but the meaning is found both prior to and after that point where the term is not found.
Since you LIMIT it to redemptive applications only, you fail to see OTHER applications that deal with non-redemptive truths. For example, even after Genesis 28 these non-redemptive truths are equally applied to that motif. Both are included and one does not exclude the other.
In the Jewish mind, the non-redemptive application had to do with ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC worship and what constitutes that. In both testaments it had to do with actual assemblage, actual ordinances, actual ministry all of which are carefully qualified according to a divine pattern that was joined to redemptive truths. However, one does not cancel out the other.
When you divorce CONGREGATIONAL LOCALITY from PUBLIC WORSHIP you are opposing one aspect of this motif. If you divorce ekklesia from LOCALIZED worship as a qualified assembly you are divorcing one realistic present aspect of this motif. When you divorce a qualified ministry and qualified ordinances form this motif you are repudiating one realistic aspect from this motif.
Now you have every right to believe whatever you like, but if you divorce these present realities from that motif you are simply wrong.
Salvation is inseparable from SPIRITUAL UNION WITH GOD. The "house of God" motif includes that truth but it includes MORE. When this motif is introduced in Genesis 28 the fact of SPIRITUAL UNION with God had already been established between God and his people as a reality within them. Sure that reality would be further developed until it ultimately was realized PHYSICALLY in the new heaven and earth. We all can rejoice in that aspect of "the house of God" typology.
However, the "house of God" typology in the Old Testament crossed over redemptive lines into the area of progressive sanctification in characterizing TRUE PUBLIC WORSHIP and what it require to be acceptable unto God. The "house of God" was the PUBLIC meeting place with God according to God's criteria rather than man's criteria. That criteria is initially revealed in Genesis 4 but it is more fully developed in Deuteronomy 12 under Moses. Under Christ is further developed in the ekklesia which is called "the house of God" (1 Tim. 3:15) IN THE CONTEXT OF A QUALIFIED MINISTRY (1 Tim. 3:1-13).
The New Testament is a SPIRITUAL "house of God" and "spiritual" does not mean invisible or universal but it deals with the SPIRITUAL THINGS of God in a PUBLIC setting. The members are characterized as "LIVING STONES" that are actually physically assembled together as a PUBLIC PHYSICAL ASSEMBLY of baptized believers such as the ekklesia AT CORINTH or AT Sardis, etc. It has PUBLIC ordinances which are impossible to observe apart from ACTUAL PHYSICAL ASSEMBLYING together in ONE PLACE. All of these things have their embryo in Genesis 4 and there will be such an assembly in the new heaven and earth.
So both REDEMPTIVE and SANCTIFICATIONAL elements are distinct from each other but inseparable aspects of the "house of God" motif
However, the "house of God" typology in the Old Testament crossed over redemptive lines into the area of progressive sanctification in characterizing TRUE PUBLIC WORSHIP and what it require to be acceptable unto God. The "house of God" was the PUBLIC meeting place with God according to God's criteria rather than man's criteria. That criteria is initially revealed in Genesis 4 but it is more fully developed in Deuteronomy 12 under Moses. Under Christ is further developed in the ekklesia which is called "the house of God" (1 Tim. 3:15) IN THE CONTEXT OF A QUALIFIED MINISTRY (1 Tim. 3:1-13).
The New Testament is a SPIRITUAL "house of God" and "spiritual" does not mean invisible or universal but it deals with the SPIRITUAL THINGS of God in a PUBLIC setting. The members are characterized as "LIVING STONES" that are actually physically assembled together as a PUBLIC PHYSICAL ASSEMBLY of baptized believers such as the ekklesia AT CORINTH or AT Sardis, etc. It has PUBLIC ordinances which are impossible to observe apart from ACTUAL PHYSICAL ASSEMBLYING together in ONE PLACE. All of these things have their embryo in Genesis 4 and there will be such an assembly in the new heaven and earth.
So both REDEMPTIVE and SANCTIFICATIONAL elements are distinct from each other but inseparable aspects of the "house of God" motif
I agree with much that you offer.Some we will differ on.
As the resident Brit on this forum (are there any others?), my church is affiliated to the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. The FIEC was formed in the 1920s when the Baptist Union (which Spurgeon left in the 1880s) became impossibly liberal (it still is). It is not a specifically baptistic organization, but in practice only baptistic churches join it. I commend its Statement of faith which can be seen here:
https://fiec.org.uk/about-us/beliefs All Pastors and other officers of member churches have to sign up to this statement annually. Ithink it is a good summary of Christian belief. I especially like its mention of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures.
In recent years it has been found necessary to add statements about Gospel Unity, Women's Ministry and same-sex Marriage, all of which can be found on the link.
https://fiec.org.uk/about-us/beliefs All Pastors and other officers of member churches have to sign up to this statement annually. Ithink it is a good summary of Christian belief. I especially like its mention of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures.
In recent years it has been found necessary to add statements about Gospel Unity, Women's Ministry and same-sex Marriage, all of which can be found on the link.
Well, it goes to show that even Brit's can be wrong (lol). On a serious note, think about this. What is the most basic level of salvation? Is it not spiritual union restored between fallen man and God? Is not the fall first and foremost spiritual separation from God? For example, how did Adam die "in the day" he ate of the fruit? His physical death did not occur until he was 930 years old (Gen. 5). He died spiritually, meaning SPIRITUAL SEPARATION occurred the moment he sinned. What is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION? Is it not being separated from God who is life, light and holiness? Isn't that precisely how Paul describes the unregenerate state in Ephesians 4:18-19?
Therefore, what is the most basic level of salvation? Isn't it the very opposite of spiritual SEPARATION which is spiritual UNION with God, meaning restoration of life, light and holiness? Spiritual restoration with God is spiritual union with God through Christ as Christ is the only mediator between God and man before, on, or after Pentecost (Acts 10:43; heb. 4:2). All humans regardless when they have lived, before, on, or after Pentecost are either "in Adam" or "in Christ" they are either unregenerate or regenerate, they are either saved or lost, there is no third option.
However, the universal invisible church theory is defined as being "in Christ" spiritually and the mechanism used to make this transition from "in Adam" to "in Christ" is the baptism in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Think about that! Such a doctrine denies spiritual union with God through Christ for anyone previous to Pentecost. If you do not have spiritual union restored with God through Christ then what is your status? You are existing in a spiritual state of separation from God, thus separated from life, separated from light and separated from holiness. No human being in that state can please God as Paul explicitly points out in Romans 8:8-9.
So the so-called universal invisible church theory at worst repudiates the Biblical doctrine of salvation at its most basic level. At best it demands another way of salvation prior to Pentecost and thus another solution to spiritual separation when the only solution is the reversal of spiritual separation from God or spiritual union with God.
Moreover, man's spirit resides inside of his body, for spiritual union between man and God to occur, it must occur INSIDE of man and that is called the indwelling of the Spirit. That is precisely why Paul says that if any man have not the Spirit indwelling in him, then HE IS NONE OF HIS.
Finally, the church is a New Testament institution. It's "foundation" is laid in the New Testament, (Eph. 2:20) composed of apostles and new testament prophets ("first apostles, secondarily prophets" - 1 Cor. 12:28). The baptism in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost is New Testament in time.
What has happened, is the universal invisible church advocates have confused the kingdom and family of God, which are both Old Testament in origin, with the church which is New Testament in origin. Thus they have in fact simply adopted the Roman Catholic Church salvation concept by merging the kingdom and family of God with the church of God. The bottom line is that their doctrine of the church is a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ which perverts the only way of salvation for all who are "in Adam" by mixing the church with salvation, and thus that doctrine is in fact "another gospel" previous to Pentecost than after Pentecost. The Bible repudiates another gospel prior to Pentecost (Mt. 7:13-14; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 26:22-23; Heb. 3:2; etc.).
Quite impossible! Brits are like Mary Poppins, 'Practically perfect in every way.'
Seriously, I'm not quite sure where you're disagreeing with me.
So did the 3,000 actually organize into a local church - did they elect a pastor, deacons, if so - who? How about a treasurer - collect funds.
How much organization did they have?
and most important of all - who was delegated to go to KFC for the first Baptist dinner on the grounds?
love that responseQuite impossible! Brits are like Mary Poppins, 'Practically perfect in every way.'
Just read your articles of faith about the church and you will see where I am disagreeing with you. The articles of faith you provided as a link teaches the universal invisible church theory.[/QUOTE]
From the FIEC Statement of faith
7. The Church
The universal Church is the body of which Christ is the head and to which all who are saved belong. It is made visible in local churches, which are congregations of believers who are committed to each other for the worship of God, the preaching of the Word, the administering of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; for pastoral care and discipline, and for evangelism. The unity of the body of Christ is expressed within and between churches by mutual love, care and encouragement. True fellowship between churches exists only where they are faithful to the gospel.
The Presbyterians and Episcopalians believe in a visible church in which there are huge numbers of infant-baptized unbelievers, and therefore they have to believe in a parallel invisible church in which only the saved inhabit. Baptists believe in a visible church in which only professing Christians are admitted. Therefore the body of Christ is made visible in local churches. This is something that paedobaptists can't say.
When we speak of a Universal Church, we are speaking, as the Statement of Faith declares, of the whole body of believers in space and time- the great crowd, if you will, of Revelation 7:9-10. The Statement says nothing about an 'invisible' church.
If it includes all the saved then it cannot be made visible in local churches because local churches do not include all the saved.
Neither the term "church" (ekklesia) or the metaphor "body" ever refers to all the saved at any time. That is the family of God and his spiritual kingdom but not the church.
If I may take the second part of your post first, I believe that an ekklesia is nothing else but an assembly or gathering of Christians.
Ekklesia has a secular meaning, that of ‘assembly’, which is found three times in Acts 19 to describe the Town Council in Ephesus (vs 32 & 41) and the Court of Law in that city (v 39).
When used in its Christian connotation, it has two meanings. Firstly, it designates a single congregation. Paul writes to ‘The church of God which is in Corinth’ but also to ‘The churches of Galatia’. Nowhere are the congregations of one area put together and called a ‘church’. Paul writes, ‘I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea…’ (Gal 1:22 ). The church in Corinth may well have been split into ‘House Groups’ for much of the time since it did not have its own building, but it was able to meet together as a body on regular occasions (cf. 1 Cor 14:23 ), and so Paul refers to it as a single ekklesia.
But secondly, ekklesia is also used to describe the whole people of God, the entire body of Christ. Paul writes that, ‘I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it’ (Gal 1:13 ), but when he met the Lord on the Damascus road, he was asked, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ This usage may be said to represent that great assembly of all Christians which is described in Rev 7:9ff. There are several instances of this use:
Matthew 16:18
Ephesians 1:22-23
Ephesians 3:21
Ephesians 5:23
Philippians 3:6
Hebrews 12:23
Now to take your first point, the whole people of God are formed into churches. The Lone Ranger Christian is unknown to the Bible. A church is not a building, it is the people of God. A proper church has in its membership only those who have repented of their sins and trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. To be sure, there will be those unsaved people 'who have crept in unnoticed' (Jude 4), but a true church will also have discipline and will expel those whose unregenerate nature becomes obvious and who refuse to repent (1 Corinthians 5:13; 1 Timothy 1:20; Titus 3:10). Nor is a true local church under the administration of Presbyteries, Bishops, Archbishops, Popes etc., but has as its head the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the local church may reasonably be said to be the visible (albeit imperfect) expression of the universal church.
Some of the above is taken from my blog article:
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/what-is-a-church/
- Status