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

No, it is not, It is a contextual fact. The term "church" nor any of its metaphors are found in this context you are indeed reading into the text (eisegesis). I do not deny these were baptized church members.My point is that it is not the church that is the subject of this letter. The subject of this letter is how one can know they are a born again child of God and have eternal life.

You say you know the context but then make a silly statement like this! This is full of references to the new birth and birth is about FAMILY and "children." The church is about membership and service.

They were of the family BY PROFESSION and then went out by turning anti-Christ as the preceding verses are about antichrists. No doubt they had been baptized members of a church as well but what they left was their profession of Christ and their departure from any church merely made that manifest they had turned anti-christ. Again, the church membership and the church is not the subject matter of this context or epistle but whether or not one is a true born again child of God.

get some sleep brother as that is what I am going to do as soon as I finish responding to your post.

Paul is not denying he was a true brother, he simply stating that anyone calling themselves a brother and does these things are to be put out of the congregation.

You speak double talk! You claim all the elect is the church - that is a universal invisible church as all the elect cannot be presently seen (invisible) and are not assembled together but scattered in heaven and earth (universal). You use the term "body" in a double sense in the very same way. You claim the church is partly in heaven and partly on earth and demand it is a synonym with the "family" of God. How much more proof do you need? You double talk!

 

How foolish! Of course your kind of church is divided. Presbyterians are divided from Baptists, Baptists are divided under a denominatinal name. Of course your kind of church is divided and it would be foolish to deny the obvious. Why else do you think that so many that hold your false theory of the church are crying out for unity and yet it never has been unified and never will be unified but with each passing day grows more increasingly divided simply because you have confused the kingdom of God with the church of God and your "true" church is pure imagination.

The only possible kind of congregational body of Christ that can achieve such unity here and now is the TRUE kind of congregational body which is local and visible. For example:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.- Acts 2:1

And all who believed were together and had all things in common,.....And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, - Acts 2:44,46

We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you toward each other aboundeth, - 2 Thes. 1:3

 

The TRUE congregational body of Christ is IMPERFECT and unglorified. It is a visible local congregational institution that consists of highly imperfect members some of which are no doubt lost. However, membership in the TRUE church requires only the right PROFESSION of faith and water baptism.

Scriptures deal with it according to its profession, design and mission, not according to its reality because its present reality is known only to God. Only in glorification are its blemishes and false professing members removed. Judas was a member of the TRUE congregational body on earth as much as Peter was a member because membership in the TRUE congregational body on earth does not require sinless perfection but simply the RIGHT PROFESSION and PROPER baptism. The Ordinances were designed to be filters to remove the WRONG TYPE OF MEMBERS (proving they were indeed members).

PROOF: Jesus purposely chose what he knew was a lost man, and whom he knew made a false profession and had him baptized and ordained to the congregational office of Apostle in order to fulfill a certain purpose within the congregational body. -Jn. 6:64, 70; 17:12

PROOF: Paul explicitly said "there MUST BE" heresies among you (the congregational body) in order to fulfill a definite divine purpose within the body. - 1 Cor. 11:19

The FALSE idea of a universal invisible church consisting of only the elect has been forced upon the scriptures to deny that the only kind of congregation seen in scripture is somehow a FALSE shadow of the TRUE congregation when in reality such an idea is a perversion of not only the TRUE congregations of Christ but a perversion of Biblical salvation itself when applied to the congregation of Christ and a confusion with the FAMILY of God.

Again, the self-evident falsivity of your kind of universal invisible church is that it repudiates the very fundamentals of Biblical salvation:

1. Spiritual separation = spiritual death = separation from God, His life, light, holiness and love = in Adam

2. Spiritual union = spiritual life, light, holiness and love of God = in Christ

There can be no salvation for anyone at anytime, anywhere OUTSIDE of Christ. There can be no spiritual union without spiritual indwelling as the human spirit resides within the human body and if the Spirit does not indwell the human body the spirit in that body is in a state of SPIRITUAL SEPARATION = Spiritual death = separation from life, light, holiness and love of God and all who are in such a separated state "are none of his" - Rom.8:7-9.

All the elect in all ages are "created in Christ Jesus" not baptized into him, but spiritual DEATH is by an act of creation transformed into spiritual LIFE = quickening.

There can be no church existing previous to its own "foundation' which consists FIRST of apostles (Not Adam, Eve, Abraham, etc.) and SECOND prophets (not Abel, Moses, Elijah etc.) - Eph. 2:20; 1Cor. 12;28

Your invisible universal monstrosity cannot exist by your own definitions as you have no mechanism to place anyone in its membership since your concept of the baptism in the Spirit did not exist previous to Pentecost. Thus by your own definitions you damn all to eternal hell previous to Pentecost because they are left OUTSIDE of Christ both in their lives and in their death thus spiritual separated from God in a state of spiritual death. All humans are either "in Adam" and OUTSIDE of Christ or they are "In Christ" as there is no middle ground or neutral spiritual state, they are either "in the flesh" BY BIRTH or "in the Spirit" BY BIRTH regardless when they have lived.

You cannot pick and choose what aspect of redemption can be applied before versus after the cross. If any aspect of redemption is applied before the cross ALL is applied before the cross or else NONE is applied. Abraham is absolute proof that ALL is applied before the cross right from the fall as Abraham is set forth as the standard FOR ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH prior to him, during his day and after his day including all the promised seed (Rom. 4:11-12,16;Gal.3:6-8) and he was "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17). God's redemptive work is the same in all ages as he works directly on the basis of "the blood of the everlasting covenant" in every generation and exists outside of time in an eternal present, thus the cross is an eternal reality and is already as good as God's purpose and promises in the everlasting covenant. It is regeneration and not baptism that places His elect "in Christ" and that is emphatically taught in Ephesians 2;1-10 and demanded by the very nature of the problem of sin - spiritual separation - and is its ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION for any human being living at any time and anywhere after the fall of man.

Your universal invisible church system of doctrine has perverted the whole Biblical soteriology and ecclesiology as well as Biblical eschatology. In fact, your "true" church theory is nothing but the doctrinal defense of the Great Whore of Revelation which is Satan's counterfeit all inclusive church theory as opposed to the true congregational institution of Christ which is characterized by unity around like faith and order. It is a doctrine that attempts to join together in one impossible body all divisions and all its divisive doctrines within Christendom. Instead of congregations of like faith and order, what is created is a bizarre conglomeration that must by its very nature must relinquish like faith and order to be inclusive and vainly attempt to obtain unity between its divisive confused membership. Of course any error must have half truths and the half truths of your "true" church error is that what you call the church is a mixture of the family and kingdom of God. This universal church doctrine is simply Satan's promotion of the Great Whore of Revelation which demands an unobtainable unity at the expense of truth.

 

The Pauline metaphorical body of Christ is a visible assembly of physical human bodies joined by profession of faith in water baptism (1 Cor. 6:15). It is this same kind of metaphorical body that is symbolized in the unleavened bread of the Lord's Supper ("ye are" 1 Cor. 5:7-8) and it is the same kind described in 1 Cor. 12:12-27 as this is the only possible kind wherein "all" members can rejoice or sorrow with "one member" (1 Cor. 12:26). There is no other kind of metaphorical body of Christ as this is the TRUE congregational body of Christ which contains true and false professors (Jn. 6:64; 70; 17:12; 1 Cor. 12:19) and each one is set in that kind of body as God pleases (1 Cor. 12:18). It is described in scriptures in its imperfect unglorified state according to its design, and profession.

The so-called universal invisible body of Christ is an invention of Satan that confuses the church with aspects of the Family and kingdom of God. it is nothing more or less than the Satanic Roman Catholic doctrine of church salvation that has been tweaked by Reformed Catholics. It perverts the fundamentals of salvation and cannot be defended according to sound principles of heremeneutics.

 

(Lol) You are on the ignore list. I just checked to see if you are a nicer fella and you were a bit nicer and your post was relevant and so I thought it deserved a response.

 

That certainly applies to the church but not to your kingdom/family confusion that some call the church. The true congregations of Christ (or the institutional church) are united by one faith and order and institutionally indwelt by the Spirit of truth thus making that institutiton the "pillar and ground of truth" while that description is impossible for your multi-denominational divided family.

The true congregational body of Christ is an entity where "ALL" the members can and are charged to rejoice or sorrow with "ONE" member in the body and that is only possible in Biblical body of Christ as directly applied to the congregation at Corinth (1 Cor. 12:26-27) and as I have documented in the case of other particular congregations in the New Testament in a recent post to you (Acts 2:1; 44-46; 2 Thes. 1:3). The true body of Christ is composed of visible physical bodies (1 Cor. 6:15) and it is this kind of body symoblized in the unleaven bread used in the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 5:6-8 "ye are").

Your type is an amalgamation of the kingdom and family which preceded the ekklesia of Christ and is inclusive of all the elect from Adam to the last one born on earth to those in heaven. In contrast, the ekklesia of Christ cannot precede its own "foundation" which is composed strictly of NT materials, FIRST apostles (not Adam, Noah, etc.) and SECOND prophets (not Abel, etc.) - Eph. 2;20 with 1 Cor. 12:28.

Your type perverts the fundamentals of Biblical salvation as Biblical salvation precedes the origin of either the baptism in the Spirit or the ekklesia of Christ and deals with the universal problem of spiritual death which is spiritual SEPARATION from God, thus separation from life, light, holiness and love. The only possible solution for spiritual separation is spiritual union which is union with life, light, holiness and love, thus with God.

However, your perversion depends on the baptism in the Spirit for such spiritual union thus leaving all before Pentecost in spiritural separation from God, therefore left in spiritual death in both their life and death thus without life, light, holiness or love, without God.

You no or any of your doctrinal compadres can respond to these because the scriptures clearly and specifically declare that we are "in Christ" not by baptism of any kind but by the creative work of God called quickening - Eph. 2:1-10.

Spiritual unity does not procure doctrinal unity or unity in truth, but the true congregation of Christ is united in doctrinal unity, Great Commission like faith and order with Christ (same gospel, same baptism, same faith and order) and therefore it can be called "the pillar and ground of the truth" and it is THOSE KIND OF CONGREGATIONS found in the scriptures.

One does not have to know all truth in order to become a Christian, BUT one must know the essential truths of the gospel in order to be recognized as a Christian. A congregation does not have to know all truth to be a true congregation of Christ BUT such a congregation must know the essentials Great Commission truths of salvation and service to be recognized as a true congregation of Christ.

 

You need to read better. I never attacked any person in my post and never claimed they were "tools of the devil." That is your mistaken notion not mine. I attacked a false doctrine and that is all I attacked. The great majority of threads on this forum are an attack on one false doctrine or another. It is possible to attack the error without getting personal and there were absolutely no personal attacks in my post.

I not only attacked the doctrine but presented a list of reasons to back up my charges. I notice that your side never addresses the evidences, but just reasserts their position.

You need to apologize for that false accusation, or at least withdraw that accusation because it is false. I understand when you embrace a position and that position is attacked it may feel like your person is being attacked, but there is a great difference in an abstract attack upon a doctrine and a personal attack on those who hold that doctrine.

 

First, I never said anyone on this forum is a "Reformed Catholic." What I said was that it was tweaked by Reformed Catholics, speaking about the Reformation period.

Second you are mistaken concerning your claim that ekklesia (Greek form while you used the Latin form ecclesia) was not restricted to the local church. It is restricted to the local church. The reason you don't believe so is either you don't know the full history and meaning of the term or do and are intentionally refusing to apply it accordingly.

Dr. Early Radmacher, the president emeritus of the Conservative Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon in his book "The Nature of the Church" after studying every use in the Classical and Koine Greek period (including the Septuagint and apocrypha) made this admission in the conclusion of his study as a universal invisible church advocate:

One thing must be stressed and that is it always describes a corporeal, physical unity of people – The Nature of the Church, (Western Baptist Press; Portland, OR), 1972, p. 122 – Emphasis mine

However, after I did my own study in Classical Greek usage I found another indisputable usage of ekklesia that is used over and over again and that is the abstract institutional application. For example this usage can be found in such Classical Greek writers as Aeschines, Against Timarchus, and Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, and Aristotle in the Athenian Constitution.

One of the most basic rules of interpretation is that only if the common meaning of a term cannot make sense in a given passage must another meaning be sought. Even if another new meaning can make sense it is to be rejected as long as the common meaning can make sense. In all of the 18 disputed passages where ekklesia is found with the definite article without any geographical application the abstract institutional meaning makes perfect sense. Those who formulated this doctrine and those who are defending this doctrine ignore this historical usage of ekklesia and must do so, in order to justify their departure from its common meaning. However, it is more than just a linguistic problem, it is an ecclesiastical problem that stands behind both the formation of the universal visible and universal invisible church theories. Augustine formulated his theory based on the misinterpretation of Matthew 13:38 because the Donatists were refusing to recognize them as true churches and was disfellowshipping them. Calvin and Luther were faced with Papal Bulls, as all know they had no intent on leaving the Roman Catholic Church but were forced out and this doctrine was essential to justify their existence outside what they had admitted to be the apostolic church of Christ. It is still necessary for Reformed Christianity to justify its divisive existences from Rome and each other.

Apart from the disputed 18 cases there are other clear examples of the abstract institutional use of ekklesia in the New Testament. One such case is found in 1 Cor. 14:19. Paul says that in "the church" he would rather speak 5 words in an understandable tongue. He does not say what specific church he would rather speak 5 words in, but is using ekklesia in its abstract institutional sense. Meaning, he is referring to the church institution which always has its reality in concrete assemblies. He is addressing the ekklesia at Corinth in the context but his instructions is designed to be institutionally applied as verses 33-34 prove when he goes ahead and uses the plural "churches". However, even if he had not used the plural in verses 33-34 the abstract use is obvious in verse 19.

 

BTW your camp on this forum spends a lot of time attacking the term "Landmarkers" attempting to make anyone who identifies with it precisely like what you are falsely accusing me. You don't see me defending my position by appealing to Landmarkism or to Landmarkers do you? No! I appeal directly to the word of God in a contextual exegetical based fashion. However, instead of attempting to directly deal with my Biblical based reasons, your camp builds a straw man and attacks the name. Why? Is it because you can't deal with the expository and exegetical based defense that I present? It seems that way to me as nearly all on this forum that respond to my posts don't deal with the evidence presented but make attacks on "Landmarkism" when in fact I have never ever appealed to that name for anything I have defended on this forum. By attacking the name instead of the evidences you are making my position look awful good to those reading without a bias.

I am not a blind adherent to Landmarkism. I have done my own research historically, linguistically and Biblically and can account for myself without any appeal to J.R. Graves or any other Landmarker. My views come from a very thorough and painstakenly detailed research over 45 years. I do not run and hide behind a theological name tag. My views come from my own personal study and they are not borrowed from anyone.

 

Yes, when anyone who calls themselves a "Baptist" believes unbaptized people should be recognized as a New Testament congregation they are not Baptists in the historical sense. Yes, "Reformed Catholics" is used by me in the context of ecclesiology and only ecclesiology and it is undeniable that, that the universal invisible church theory, at least it formulation as a system originates from Roman Catholics in secular church history.

However, you were not quoting these statements when you made that accusation were you? No! The quotation you used had no personal attacks in it. So at least make your attacks based on the right posts.

You really have a problem with reading! I never said no such thing. What I said was that, like you, instead of responding to the evidences that I placed in detail in the post you quoted, instead you made this assault on "Landmarkers." Others do the very same thing. They can't respond to the evidences directly so they ridicule the title. AND YOU ARE STILL DOING THE SAME THING - DEAL WITH THE EVIDENCES INSTEAD OF TRYING SIDE TRACK THIS THREAD INTO A PERSONAL THING.

Absurd! You most certainly do have a "camp' and you have asserted it and defended it and it is the "universal invisible church" camp.




Y

Prove it instead of just making these empty assertions. Deal with the issues, the evidences and don't say I have not placed them before your eyes.

 

Again, here is a summary of the arguments I have placed before those on this forum. How about directly dealing with these arguments instead of attacking the one presenting the arguments. The fact is, that those accusations "not real Baptists" and "Reformed Catholics" were in response to those who could not defend their position from a Biblical point of view but merely reasserted their opinions without any exegetical or expository bases.

For example, I challenge anyone on this forum to produce precept or example of any unbaptized congregations in the New Testament.

I challenge anyone to claim that baptism is not the second most important doctrine next to salvation in the Great Commission and in the practice of New Testament congregations when receiving members.

I challenge anyone to disprove this statement "where there is no scriptural baptism there is no scriptural congregation of Christ" IF the Bible is our final authority.

 

The universal invisible church theory is a serious error as it undermines Biblical soteriology. Here is the issue which none on this forum have yet dared to address in its totality as the following issues are logically inseparable from one another.

1. The universal problem is spiritual separation from God which is spiritual death because it is separation from God who is life, light, holiness and love and this problem begins in Genesis not in Acts.

2. The only possible solution to that kind of problem is its reverse - spiritual union or else that person is still separated from God, thus separated from life, light, holiness and love.

3. All mankind are either "in Adam" or "in Christ" there is no third option - Rom. 5

4. There is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at anytime or anywhere - Acts 4:12; Jn. 14:6

5. The universal church solution is to this problem is baptism in the Spirit but that is 4000 years too late and the church cannot precede its own "foundation" which consists FIRST of apostles and then SECOND of prophets - Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28.

6. Without spiritual union there is only spiritual death and that leaves all living before Pentecost in the state of spiritual death in their lifetime and in death.

7. You cannot claim PART of the cross benefits are applicable prior to the cross if your primary argument against the most important part is that the cross had not yet occurred.

8. You cannot have spiritual union without indwelling as the human spirit resides INSIDE the body and for SPIRITUAL union to exist it must be indwelling or there is no spiritual union.