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

[Iconoclast]

Suppose you concede that this text refers to the VISIBLE LOCAL BODY at Corinth. You then have conceded that the metaphorical phrase “the body of Christ” may refer to a local congregational body which is no doubt visible and local and is an assembly of all physical bodies that are members by local congregational standards of membership. Moreover, this is first mention of this body in the book of Corinthians, and therefore you must show clear and conclusive evidence that any other kind of body is ever mentioned in this book.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Has God set apostles in your "church"? in Oregon?
Or are the foundational Apostles set in each local assembly as we have them descibed in scripture?

1 cor is speaking of a local body....

 

[Iconoclast]

you said;

Iconoclast, you are running to every other text in the Bible because you won't deal forthrightly with the evidence placed before you in the OP. If you want to open a thread concerning Hebrews 12;22-27 I would be delighted to debate you in a great more detail than I have on this thread concerning that text and context.

Even when we are physically assembled in a local body on earth...as those in the local assembly in 1 cor....
this is still true of us;
"But ye are come to Mount Sion." By this, then, we understand, First, that in being brought to Christ, the believer comes to the antitypical, the spiritual, Sion.
here again J.OWEN
and here is John Owen;
"Zion Isaiah , First, the place of God's habitation, where He dwells forever: Psalm 9:11; 76:2. Second, it is the seat of the throne, reign and kingdom of Christ: Psalm 2:6; Isaiah 24:23. Third, it is the object of Divine promises innumerable: Psalm 125:1; 128:5 , of Christ Himself: Isaiah 59:20. Fourth, thence did the Gospel proceed and the law of Christ come forth: Isaiah 40:9 , Micah 4:2. Fifth, it was the object of God's especial love, and the place of the birth of His elect: Psalm 87:2 , 5. Sixth, the joy of the whole earth: Psalm 48:2. Seventh, salvation and all blessings came forth out of Zion: Psalm 14:7; 110:2; 128:5. Now these things were not spoken of nor accomplished towards that Mount Zion which was in Jerusalem absolutely, but only as it was typical of believers under the Gospel; so the meaning of the apostle Isaiah , that by the Gospel believers do come to that state wherein they have an interest in and a right to all the blessed and glorious things that are spoken in the Scriptures concerning and to Zion. All the privileges ascribed, all the promises made to it, are theirs. Zion is the place of God's especial gracious residence, of the throne of Christ in His reign, the object of all promises. This is the first privilege of believers under the Gospel. They come to Mount Zion, they are interested in the promises of God recorded in the Scriptures made to Zion; in all the love and care of God expressed towards it, in all the spiritual glories assigned to it. The things spoken of it were never accomplished in the earthly Zion, but only typically; spiritually, and in their reality, they belong to believers under the new testament" (John Owen).

So...of necessity there is a blending of those who have gone before us, and us who are on the way...

Do you believe when our time to leave this physical body comes...we do not join these saints?

 

[Iconoclast]

I repost the original OP because no one has yet attempted to deal with it forthrightly, directly but have run from it as fast as they can attempting to PIT other scriptures against its plain and obvious conclusions.

In order for your invisible universal church theory to be vindicated you must prove that the "body of Christ" is not inseparable from PHYSICAL HUMAN BODIES as its members. You must prove that it is entirely a SPIRITUAL STATE or spiritual union with Christ.

This text completely repudiates that theory altogether.

I do not believe in the UIC theory....

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your problem is that you have bought into Reformed Roman Catholic church salvation,

It is actually you yourself who has bought into that, although without the 'Reformed' label.
Landmarkism is sacramental in its inception and nature, and will always be at variance with Reformed theology because it attempts to mediate salvation through the church instead of through Christ. Insofar as you claim not to do that, you are rending the body of Christ by turning baptism into a sacrament and refusing fellowship to those who lack it

 

[The Biblicist]

It is actually you yourself who has bought into that, although without the 'Reformed' label.
Landmarkism is sacramental in its inception and nature,

That is pure vain imagination on your part. Landmarkism denies the church or baptism has ANYTHING to do with spiritual union in Christ. Landmarks demands blood before the water. However, your Reformed Roman Catholic view makes the church inseparable from spiritual union in Christ and thus one with salvation and thus your view makes the church completely sacramental. Your problem is that you can't distinguish between salvation and service or to say it another way you can't distinguish between initial salvation (regeneration/coversion) and progressive sanctification. The church and its ordinances have to do ONLY with progressive sanctification.

it attempts to mediate salvation through the church instead of through Christ.

That is simply a complete and utter falsehood as the very tenet of Landmarkism is a denial of that very issue. You can't discern the difference between salvation and service and the church has nothing to do with getting anyone into heaven or obtaining spiritual union with Christ. That is the work of regeneration which precedes membership in the Lord's churches.

Insofar as you claim not to do that, you are rending the body of Christ by turning baptism into a sacrament and refusing fellowship to those who lack it

I got news for you, you and your kind of churches are not even in the body of Christ, therefore, there is no danger of rending it. Those saved among you are certainly in the kingdom and family of God but no part of the church of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not believe in the UIC theory....

What you mean is that you don't use the terms "invisible" or "universal" but nevertheless your doctrine demands those descriptions regardless if you choose to use them or not.

 

[The Biblicist]

you said;


Even when we are physically assembled in a local body on earth...as those in the local assembly in 1 cor....
this is still true of us;
"But ye are come to Mount Sion." By this, then, we understand, First, that in being brought to Christ, the believer comes to the antitypical, the spiritual, Sion.

First, I have already demonstrated by sound principles of exegesis that neither the Old Testament Jewish assembly or the New Testament assembly were in heaven AS THE SAME PERFECT TENSE VERB describes how both "HAD COME" in the presence of God, angels and heaven and yet NEITHER were in heaven. The congregation of first born ones only have their NAMES WRITTEN IN HEAVEN and that is not necessary to tell them if THEY WERE ACTUALLY IN HEAVEN.

Second, I can whole heartedly admit we are in spiritual union with Christ but that union exists WITHIN OUR BODY and it is "CHRIST IN US", as one family through new birth but that does not mean it was obtained by baptism in the Spirit as the scriptures clearly deny that in many different ways, but teach that union with Christ is an creative act (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3;10; Tit. 3:5). Common sense should tell you that spiritual union is exactly the opposite of spiritual separation - that is just pure common sense. If spiritual separation from God separates you from the life, light, love and holiness of God then spiritual union makes you a partaker of the LIFE (quickening), light, love and holiness of God, ALL OF WHICH are directly attributed to the new birth in Scripture and NEVER to the baptism in the Spirit. I can show you in scripture, where LIFE is due to quickening as the very word means to make alive. I can show in scripture where "LOVE" is due to the new birth and not baptism. That holiness is due to the new birth and not baptism. That LIGHT is due to the new birth and not baptism and each are defined as a CREATIVE act of God and not baptism.

Your view does not even make common sense with regard to the baptism in the Spirit as your view DEMANDS that each child of God by this specific ACTION is placed "in Christ" and yet the baptism in the Spirit as an ACTION is restricted to a historical point in time as a COMPLETED ACTION and is contextually completely unrelated to the new birth.

Our forerunner is in heaven and we are "seated" (that is a POSITION) judicially by representation in heaven but actually and spiritually we have neither left our bodies and Christ is IN US as that is where spiritual union occurs INSIDE OF US where our spirits actually reside and where the Holy Spirit actually resides in union with our spirits rather than our spirits IN HEAVEN.

 

[Yeshua1]

The true body of Christ are all of those saved by Him, and part of the Church of the firstborn...

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist said: ↑

The true body of Christ are all of those saved by Him, and part of the Church of the firstborn...

I said no such thing

 

[Iconoclast]

What you mean is that you don't use the terms "invisible" or "universal" but nevertheless your doctrine demands those descriptions regardless if you choose to use them or not.

What I mean is this.

I believe in local assemblies.
Those local physical assemblies contain visible saints.
Those local physical assemblies might contain false professors who are in reality no part of the actual CHURCH assembled....in other words the way barnacles attach them self to a boat, but are not really part of the actual boat.....these false brethren although physically there, are not actually there....spiritually .
Only God sees the truth of this, and will manifest it as Mt 7 speaks of.

So among the visible saints.....who are saints by virtue of regeneration / new birth, the work of the Spirit......only those who are In Spiritual Union, known and seen by God in the not seen realm....invisible in the natural...are saints indeed....

 

[Iconoclast]

First, I have already demonstrated by sound principles of exegesis that neither the Old Testament Jewish assembly or the New Testament assembly were in heaven AS THE SAME PERFECT TENSE VERB describes how both "HAD COME" in the presence of God, angels and heaven and yet NEITHER were in heaven. The congregation of first born ones only have their NAMES WRITTEN IN HEAVEN and that is not necessary to tell them if THEY WERE ACTUALLY IN HEAVEN.

Second, I can whole heartedly admit we are in spiritual union with Christ but that union exists WITHIN OUR BODY and it is "CHRIST IN US", as one family through new birth but that does not mean it was obtained by baptism in the Spirit as the scriptures clearly deny that in many different ways, but teach that union with Christ is an creative act (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3;10; Tit. 3:5). Common sense should tell you that spiritual union is exactly the opposite of spiritual separation - that is just pure common sense. If spiritual separation from God separates you from the life, light, love and holiness of God then spiritual union makes you a partaker of the LIFE (quickening), light, love and holiness of God, ALL OF WHICH are directly attributed to the new birth in Scripture and NEVER to the baptism in the Spirit. I can show you in scripture, where LIFE is due to quickening as the very word means to make alive. I can show in scripture where "LOVE" is due to the new birth and not baptism. That holiness is due to the new birth and not baptism. That LIGHT is due to the new birth and not baptism and each are defined as a CREATIVE act of God and not baptism.

Your view does not even make common sense with regard to the baptism in the Spirit as your view DEMANDS that each child of God by this specific ACTION is placed "in Christ" and yet the baptism in the Spirit as an ACTION is restricted to a historical point in time as a COMPLETED ACTION and is contextually completely unrelated to the new birth.

Our forerunner is in heaven and we are "seated" (that is a POSITION) judicially by representation in heaven but actually and spiritually we have neither left our bodies and Christ is IN US as that is where spiritual union occurs INSIDE OF US where our spirits actually reside and where the Holy Spirit actually resides in union with our spirits rather than our spirits IN HEAVEN.

My view seeks to do justice to both truths as it can account for the language of jn7:37-39.....if I understood out correctly you bypass this with other saints, saying in effect they can be one in the eternal body of Christ without Spirit Baptism.....
With your view jn 7 makes no sense because you say....even other saints were Christians.....why is vs 39 even necessary with your view if everyone is the same before or after Jesus glorification????

 

[Yeshua1]

I said no such thing

My mistake, I included that first part in my answer by mistake!

So you would disagree that the saved are all part of the same Body, the true Church of Christ now?

That some of those in the local churches are lost/saved, but that ALL in that Church are the redeemed?

 

[The Biblicist]

What I mean is this.

I believe in local assemblies.
Those local physical assemblies contain visible saints.
Those local physical assemblies might contain false professors who are in reality no part of the actual CHURCH assembled....in other words the way barnacles attach them self to a boat, but are not really part of the actual boat.....these false brethren although physically there, are not actually there....spiritually .
Only God sees the truth of this, and will manifest it as Mt 7 speaks of.

So among the visible saints.....who are saints by virtue of regeneration / new birth, the work of the Spirit......only those who are In Spiritual Union, known and seen by God in the not seen realm....invisible in the natural...are saints indeed....

Why don't you use the Biblical term for that? the Bible describes that as the kingdom of God not the church of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

My view seeks to do justice to both truths as it can account for the language of jn7:37-39.....if I understood out correctly you bypass this with other saints, saying in effect they can be one in the eternal body of Christ without Spirit Baptism.....
With your view jn 7 makes no sense because you say....even other saints were Christians.....why is vs 39 even necessary with your view if everyone is the same before or after Jesus glorification????

You are contradicting yourself. First you say you don't believe in a universal nvisible church, but the church is called the body of Christ and yet you believe in a universal invisible body of Christ as you claim all saints are part of that body = church. That by definition demands both universal and invisible, so make up your mind.

 

[The Biblicist]

My mistake, I included that first part in my answer by mistake!

So you would disagree that the saved are all part of the same Body, the true Church of Christ now?

No!

That some of those in the local churches are lost/saved, but that ALL in that Church are the redeemed?

All,every single member in local churches are saved, redeemed BY PROFESSION and that is the ONLY basis for receiving members. Nowhere, does the Bible command the church to receive only PROVEN regenerated saints as members as no one is capable of proving it. That is why the true churches of Christ base membership on PROFESSION of salvation ONLY.

 

[Iconoclast]

Why don't you use the Biblical term for that? the Bible describes that as the kingdom of God not the church of God.

When kingdom members assemble in the local church...it is the church. They do not cease from being in the kingdom.
When not assembled......I use the term kingdom .
The ot saints......have left their body . ...they are.in the Heavenly zion,they are.part.of that assembly. it will fully assemble on the last day, but I believe they do assemble now also....

 

[Iconoclast]

You are contradicting yourself. First you say you don't believe in a universal nvisible church, but the church is called the body of Christ and yet you believe in a universal invisible body of Christ as you claim all saints are part of that body = church. That by definition demands both universal and invisible, so make up your mind.

I see.it as I see.our citizenship.....we have a dual citizenship .
While in our body here on earth . ...we physically assemble .
Our worship from our local assembly joins in with the Heavenly worship
Departed saints do not join in our worship on earth....yet we join in heavenly worship as our prayer and praise ascend to the Heavenly gathering. That is why Paul in 2 Cor 4-5 describes where we go when we depart this body...
2 Cor 5:1-4....to be clothed upon....was used of a baby bird whose feathers cloth them....

 

[Iconoclast]

I see.it as I see.our citizenship.....we have a dual citizenship .
While in our body here on earth . ...we physically assemble .
Our worship from our local assembly joins in with the Heavenly worship
Departed saints do not join in our worship on earth....yet we join in heavenly worship as our prayer and praise ascend to the Heavenly gathering. That is why Paul in 2 Cor 4-5 describes where we go when we depart this body...
2 Cor 5:1-4....to be clothed upon....was used of a baby bird whose feathers cloth them....

I see others think along these lines...here is B.H.Carrol;
I think this quote by B.H.Carrol bridges the gap a bit-

But while nearly all of the 113 Instances of the use of ecclesia belong to the particular class, there are some instances, as Hebrews 12:23, and Ephesians 5:25-27, where the reference seems to be to the general assembly of Christ. But in every such case the ecclesia is prospective, not actual. That is to say, there is not now,but there will be a general assembly of Christ's people. That general assembly will be composed of all the redeemed of all time.

Here are three indisputable and very significant facts concerning Christ's general assembly:
(1) Many of its members, properly called out, are now in heaven.

(2) Many others of them, also called out, are here on earth.

(3) An indefinite number of them, yet to be called, are neither on earth nor in heaven, because they are yet unborn, and therefore non-existent.
It follows that if one part of the membership is now in heaven, another part on earth, another part not yet born, there is as yet no assembly, except in prospect.
And if a part are as yet non-existent, how can one say the general assembly exists now?

We may, however, properly speak of the general assembly now, because, though part of it is yet non-existent, and though there has not yet been a gathering together of the other two parts, yet, the mind may conceive of that gathering as an accomplished fact.

In God's purposes and plans, the general assembly exists now, and also in our conceptions or anticipations, but certainly not as a fact. The details of God's purpose are now being worked out, and the process will continue until all the elect have been called, justified, glorified and assembled.

 

[Iconoclast]

continued;
Commenting on our lesson, Broadus says:
"In the New Testament the spiritual Israel, never actually assembly, is sometimes conceived of as an ideal congregation or assembly, and this is denoted by the word ecclesia."Here Broadus does not contrast "spiritual Israel" with a particular church of Christ, but with national or carnal Israel.

The object of the gospel, committed to the particular assembly in time, is to call out or summon those who shall compose the general assembly in eternity.
When the calling out is ended, and all the called are glorified, then the present concept of a general assembly will be a fact. Then and only then actually, will all the redeemed be an ecclesia. Moreover, this ecclesia in glory will be the real body, temple, flock of our Lord.

But the only existing representation or type of the ecclesia in glory (i. e. ,the general assembly) is the particular assembly on earth.

And because each and every particular assembly is the representation, or type, of the general assembly, to each and every one of them is applied all the broad figures which pertain to the general assembly. That is, such figures as "the house of God," "the temple of the Lord," "the body," or "flock." The New Testament applies these figures, just as freely and frequently, to the particular assembly as to the general assembly. That is, to any one particular assembly, by itself alone, but never to all the particular assemblies collectively.

If you do not like this, I do not know what I am going to do with you B;
There is no unity, no organization, nor gathering together and, hence, no ecclesia or assembly of particular congregations collectively. So also the term ecclesia cannot be rationally applied to all denominations collectively, nor to all living professors of religion, nor to all living believers collectively.In no sense are any such unassembled aggregates an ecclesia. None of them constitute the flock, temple, body or house of God, either as a type of time or a reality of eternity. These terms belong exclusively either to the particular assembly now or the general assembly hereafter.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hear the Word of God:
In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul says: "In whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:21, 22, Revised Version)

Here are two distinct affirmations: First - Each several building or particular assembly groweth into a holy temple of the Lord That is, by itself it is a temple of the Lord.
Second - What is true of each is true of the church at Ephesus, "In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit."