Featured 1 Cor. 6:15 defines the nature of the TRUE body of Christ

Are you a sinless Christian? Do you think you must sinless TO BE a Christian or to represent Christ by the name "Christian"? The saint can represent Christ in their imperfect state as regeneration is the only requirement to be a child of God.

To be a true metaphorical (representative) body of Christ does not require sinless perfection. The congregational body of baptized believers can represent Christ in their imperfect state as long as their profession of Christ manifested in baptism conforms to the gospel and their faith and order conforms to the New Testament. Paul says that such members are designed for the ultimate edification of the rest of the members (1 Cor. 11:18). Of course MANIFEST lost professors are to be removed by church discipline, but their presence does not invalidate the representative capacity of any congregation befor or after that exclusion.

For example, Acts 20:28 in its context demands it refers to the congregation located at Ephesus. It is these elders (v. 17) that the Holy Ghost made overseers over this flock. It is this same flock that can be infiltrated by false teachers from without and within and lead members of this flock out of it (vv. 29-30). Yet, Paul uses the terms of redemption to describe it BECAUSE he describes them according to their profession manifest in baptism.

 

Again, brethren, please provide any text in that chapter that mentions the church?

 

Hank, the OP says nothing about any challenge concerning Romans 11. You have agreed with Aaron that Romans 11 speaks of the church, I am demanding proof. Where does it even mention the church, the body of Christ, the house of God, etc.??? That is not unfair to make you back up your assertions.

 

Did you miss my post that directly answered this supposition? The only other option to a "TRUE" body of Christ is a "FALSE" body of Christ. Your argument demands that you repudiate the metaphorical use of "members" with regard to the local congregational body of baptized believers. The very term "members" in 1 Cor. 6:15 is a metaphorical expression that has no value apart from a metaphorical body "of Christ." as 1 Corinthians 12:13 proves. According to your theory, if one metaphorical "member" in your own congregation is a Judas then your congregation is a FALSE metaphorical "body" presumably "of Christ."

Again, salvation has to do with the state of the spirit, whereas metaphorical membership in a metaphorical body of Christ has to do with proper representation by profession in baptism and in doctrine as that is what is conveyed by a metaphor. However, salvation is not a metaphor but an actual spiritual condition. N.T. congregations have no ability to discern a spiritual state, but only the proper representative conditions for metaphorical membership in the metaphorical body of Christ - a proper profession of faith properly manifested in both mouth and baptism.

 

Post #20 "agreed"

Thank you, as that is pretty obvious.

The OP is not about 1 Cor. 12:13 but about 1 Cor. 6:15. Please deal with that text first, as 1 Cor. 12:12-27 is only mentioned to support the idea of "members OF CHRIST" refers to the metaphorical body of Christ as 1 Cor. 12:12 and 27 explicitly identify "members" with that body.

 

Hank, first I don't think I ever referenced 1 Cor. 12:28 but rather 1 Cor. 12:27 and the plural "ye" as contrasted to "we" and the direct use of "members" as evidence for the phrase "members of Christ" in 1 Cor. 6:15.

I believe that 1 Cor. 12:12-26, 28 are abstract references whereas verse 27 is the concrete application.

 

I mistakenly used 1 Cor. 12:13 in the quote you copied from me. I meant 1 Cor. 12:12 and 27 as they are the texts I used in the OP

 

I don't see how I am dodging your questions at all, as I pointedly answered them. Salvation deals with the state of your soul, whereas metaphorical membership in a metaphorical body of Christ deals with your profession as manifested in baptism and your walk in life. The nature of a metaphor is REPRESENTATION whereas the nature of salvation is LITERAL and SPIRITUAL. You are confusing the two. Moreover, your view would demand that no local church body ever use the word "member" in any biblical sense with regard to their church if ever a lost person was ever to be found among you.

In essence, you are confusing the STATE of the heart with REPRESENTATION by profession and actions. The first only the Lord knows and if that was the condition for membership in the congregational body there would be no congregational bodies at all.

However, more importantly, you are attempting to change the subject from the OP which is that 1 Cor. 6:15 is concrete and absolute proof that your view is wrong. You are attempting to ignore any direct dealing with that text by changing the text and subject and then use circular reasoning to defend your position. I say "circular" reasoning because you are making the assumption that 1 Cor. 6:15 is teaching your position and then using that assumption to prove it by another text.

I challenge you to deal with the evidence presented in the OP rather than trying to change the topic and text.

 

Will you please read again the very statement you are quoting about my OP. Does it not say "physical human bodies"???? How is your response proof that 1 Cor. 6:15 does not include "physical human bodies"????? That is the challenge my friend, not what you have invented!

Instead, what you are trying to do is escape facing that text and its context and simply denying what that text says by PITTING another text against it and PITTING your personal interpretation against it. The challenge was to disprove that "physical human bodies" are not included by that text. You are attempting to change the subject which violates the rules that govern this forum.

 

Hank, the challenge in the OP had to do with the text being used.If you wanted to defend the universal invisible church based on some other basis then you could open a thread and do that. However, I chose the grounds for the challenge. I have opened up numerous threads to defend my view on a variety of different subjects but they are no part of this topic in this OP.

You have to admit that your arguments are not about the text of this OP or the explicit challenge I gave concerning physical human bodies being part "of Christ" as "members." My OP showed the foolishness of trying to interpret this text literally as literal physical bodies part of the literal physical Christ. The only possible option left is a figurative interpretation. The consistent use of "members" in the book of 1 Corinthians that are "of Christ" is the the "body of Christ" (not his literal body but a metaphorical non-literal body).

I understand your hesitancy for taking this challenge as the text if interpreted by sound hermeneutics demands the "body of Christ" in the book of First Corinthians must be something visible and local as that is the only possible kind that actual physical bodies can be part.