Featured Matthew 28:19-20 demands Landmarkism ecclesiology

FOR CLARIFICATION,

For those who have newly entered into this debate, I do not want you to be confused about my position. I distinguish between salvation and service. I deny the word ekklesia is used in the NT outside of three specific uses (1) concrete local assembly; (2) abstract generic sense of same as in kind; (3) Abstract institutional sense. Thus I deny the doctrine of church and baptismal salvation in all of its forms, whether it is by membership in a local visible congregation or invisible universal congregation or whether it is by baptism in water or in Spirit. I distinguish between "church" and "salvation" and thus between service and salvation. I restrict the church, its ordinances, ministry and membership to the realm of service AFTER being scripturally immersed in water by an authorized administrator (NT. church).

I view salvation to be solely "in Christ" from Genesis to Revelation. I view the gospel to be the gospel of Christ from Genesis (Acts 10:43) to Revelation.

I believe the universal problem is SPIRITUAL DEATH which is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION from God and the ONLY solution to spiritual SEPARATION is spiritual UNION by new birth.

I believe that all "in Adam" are "in the flesh" with regard to their SPIRITUAL STATE OF SEPARATION FROM GOD because they have all been "BORN of the flesh."

I believe that all "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" with regard to their SPIRITUAL STATE OF UNION WITH GOD because they all have been "BORN of the Spirit" - Eph. 2:1-10

I believe that spiritual union with God is impossible without indwelling of the Spirit BECAUSE the human spirit dwells INSIDE the human body and for SPIRITUAL union to exist the Holy Spirit must indwell the human body where the human spirit resides or that person is spiritually SEPARATED from God which is SPIRITUAL DEATH and anyone at any period of history without the indwelling Spirit "are none of his" (Rom. 8:8-9). This demands that baptism in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost was never a promise of INDIVIDUAL indwelling but rather the indwelling of an new INSTITUTION called the church as the "temple of God" (1 Cor. 3:16 "ye" not "we") that occurred ONCE FOR ALL to the Jewish assembly and then to the Gentiles in order that the alll Jewish assembly would receive them as equal members.

Therefore, no kind of baptism and no kind of church membership obtains spiritual union "in Christ" but only the NEW BIRTH obtains that for all the elect in all ages.

I view all the elect in the family of God (Eph. 3:15) and the church is to be composed of those professing family members who have been scripturally baptized and serving Christ in that capacity where they are located. I view the church distinct from the family and kingdom of God. The family includes all the elect presently saved on earth and in heaven. The true kingdom or rule of God on earth includes all the elect on earth at any given instance. The PROFESSED kingdom on earth includes all who make the PROFESSION of God as their king regardless if their profession is true or false.

I have posted this so that we do not speak past each other and you understand how I define terms and how I look at service versus salvation and how I look at the church.

 

That is not possible! First, apostles are mentioned first in the order. If what you are suggesting was true prophets would be mentioned first as Old Testament prophets preceded NT aposltes. Second, Paul repeats this same duo IN THE SAME ORDER again in two other places (Eph. 4:11 and 1 Cor. 12:28) and in 1 Cor. 12:28 he explicitly states "FIRST" apostles and then "SECONDARILY" prophets.

You are close. The Apostles and prophets provided the NT scriptures.

However, the "foundation" does not include OT saints at all. Not only so,but the UIC theory incorporates saints "in Christ" or what they interpet to be "the body of Christ" by the baptism in the Spirit and that is time fixed on Pentecost, again excluding all OT saints.

 

You don't understand! That passage is not your most critical problem. 1 Cor. 12:28 gives a numerical order and "prophets" are placed second with regard to who is "SET IN" the church first. That passage alone repudiates Old Testament prophets or saints were "first" set in the church prior to apostles. So Old Testament saints were not in the church and thus the phrase "apostles and prophets" must refer to NT apostles and prophets and their contribution to NT revelation or the NT scriptures.

Add to this problem, that EVERY SINGLE LISTING where you find apostles and prophets the order remains the same - that is overall context.

Finally, the immediate context of Ephesians 2 is against your view. In verse 14 the "middle wall of partition" refers to the OLD TESTAMENT house of worship for BELIEVING GENTILES who were segregated from Jewish BELIEVERS with regard to PUBLIC WORSHP (not salvation). It is this OLD TESTAMENT way of public worship that is being contrasted with the NEW TESTAMENT house of God where Gentiles and Jews are on a EQUAL level in service and not merely salvation. Verse 21-22 use the indefinite article that applies this NT house to the congregation at Ephesus, and thus is true for each New Testament congregation whether it is found at Ephesus or Corinth or at etc.

You simply have no contextual ground to stand on whatsoever, immediate or overall context. Of course your welcome to your own opinion but not to your own facts and all the facts contradict your opinion.

You see Ephesians 2:10 introduces the transition from the doctrine of salvation to the doctrine of SERVICE "unto good works" and Ephesians 2;14-3:5 is the mystery of the NT institutional house of God that not merely includes Gentiles on an equal basis of salvation as did the OT house of God, but removes the MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION making them EQUAL in public worship and divine service. This is the immediate context and it is saying nothing about a so-call universal invisible church body at all.

It is this very problem of EQUAL MEMBERSHIP in the congregational body that was an obstacle to the all Jewish congregation at Jerusalem and other places as seen in Acts 2-10 insomuch God had to reveal to Peter THREE TIMES that Gentiles are now accepted equal in public worship. Yet they still had a problem with it insomuch that God had to call Paul to be an apostle to the Gentiles and constitute gentile congregations because the other apostles determined they would minister to the circumcision (Gal. 2:9). Now, this is the overall context that Ephesians 2:14-3:5 addresses as the "mystery" revealed to Paul that no "middle wall of partition" exists in the Lord's congregational body and all MEMBERS are not merely equal in salvation but equal in PUBLIC WORSHIP in the public "HOUSE" of God.

 

Your missing the point and the preceding context. Judaism and the Old Testament house of God recognized Gentile believers as professing public"fellow citzens" but their "middle wall of partition" did not recognize them as equal in the public "household of God." Paul is demonstrating they are EQUAL in both. Anyone with an unbiased mind reading Acts 2-11 realizes this was an issue with regard to MEMBERSHIP in the congregational body at Jerusalem as Peter was called in on the red carpet in Acts 11:1-17 FOR BAPTIZING THEM.

However, regardless of this passage, 1 Cor. 12:28 denies OT saints had been "SET IN" the church first and that is the end of your theory that the church includes all the elect. And if that is not sufficient then how in the world are you going to place them "in Christ" without the Universal Invisible Church view of the baptism in the Spirit - which is fixed on Pentecost - thus denying OT saints were part of such idea????? Do you have another salvation OUTSIDE of Christ?

 

Ok! That is fair enough.

 

There is a transition from salvation to the inclusion of works of SERVICE in Ephesians 2:10. This inclusion of works in connection with salvation with regard to the OT public house of worship in verse 14 forms the basis for discussing the relationship of salvation with service in the NT public house of worship.

However, again, your kind of church consisting of all the elect has far more greater problems than this text as I have laid out in Post#61. 1 Cor. 12;28 simply repudiates your whole view of the church consisting of all the elect.

I would ask you to carefully consider the arguments listed in post#61.

 

Your questions are answered completely in the the OP and the posts that further explain each point of the OP(posts#1,2,3,23). I would like to point out that NONE of my objectors have dared addressed the OP and its explanation not even once.

The Great Commission "ye" is the authorized administrator of baptism. The afore mentioned posts contextually define and identify this plural "ye" as the congregational body that habitually assembled with Christ from the baptism of John unto his ascension (Acts 1:21-22) which conducted the congregational business meeting in selecting and installing another congregational officer and which then were all assembled "in one accord in one place" on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1) unto which 3000 were added to them in precisely the same manner as instructed in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20 with Acts 2:40-41) which the Holy Spirit through Luke identifies as the church of Christ (Acts 2:46).

One final point. Jesus Christ is the builder and head of his church. He used the Greek term ekklesia 23 times. Everyone argues what he meant the first time he used it in Matthew 16:18. It was a commonly understood term in his day. It had a continuous history of only one meaning for the past 500 years in Classical and koine Greek. In the Septuagint and apocrypha as one universal invisible church scholar reluctantly admits:

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

It is used two ways in its entire history including during the NT period which account for its normal ordinary meaning (1) Concrete use - a local visible body of people; (2) Abstract institutional and generic use.

No one denies that the next 22 times Jesus uses the term ekklesia it must be understood in its concrete historical sense. Jon, why would Christ claim to build one thing in Mt. 16:18 and go one and use the exact same term but never mention what he claimed to build again in every following use of the term? That makes no sense and yet that is precisely what advocates of the Universal invisible church theory demand. They believe he promised to build a universal and invisible church in Matthew 16:18 but then never uses the term again to describe it but speaks of an ekklesia that he no where ever claimed to be its builder.

Does it not make more sense that the church he claimed to build in Matthew 16:18 is the same kind of church he continues to speak about in every succeding instance he uses the term? In Matthew 16:18 the only reason some imagine some other kind of church is only because there is no geographical location given to specify this ekklesia he claims he will build and it is found in the singualr with the definite article and yet all these same geographical and grammatical characteristic are found in his second and third use of ekklesia in Matthew 18:17 and no one denies it is a local visible kind of ekklesia. Furthermore, the common ordinary meaning in all three first uses by Christ in the gospel of Matthew fit the historical abstract institutional use of this term. Abstract means that a concrete reality is being spoken of conceptionally. Just as a preacher gets up in the pulpit and tells his audiance "I am going to preach on the church and its officers." He does not say he is speaking on some specific geographical located church but on "the church" meaning on the church as a Biblical institution. An "institution" is an entity that has organizational features, such as membership requirements, a mission statement, officers, disciplinary procedures, ordinances, by laws (scripture), etc.

Finally, the terms "universal" or "inivisble" are never found in scripture and the scriptures never use any metaphor that conveys universal or invisible characteristics - never, not once.

However, the Kingdom and family of God do include all the elect and are described in language that conveys universality and invisibility. What has happened is that the Roman Catholic Church and Reformers have confused the church with the kingdom and family of God because they believe in church salvation. In my next post, I will show the Biblical distinctions between the church, family and kingdom of God.

 

Some Apparent Differences


Eph. 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

1 Cor. 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

1 Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,




1. The difference of terminology and meaning:

a. "Family" - Greek "patria" - those fathered – lineage

b. "Kingdom" - Greek "basilea" - the rule and realm and Person of a king

c. "Church" - Greek "ekklesia" - congregation, assembly


2. The different applications

a. The Bible speaks of the “gospel of the kingdom” but never uses such language for the

family or church.


b. The Bible speaks of the “keys of the kingdom” but never uses such language for the church

or family of God.


c. The term “member” is never used in scripture to describe those in God’s kingdom or family

but only those in churches.


d. The church is called a “body” and “building” but the kingdom and family are never thus

called.


e. Jesus says “tell it to the church” but never says tell it to the kingdom or family.


f. The terms “kingdom” and “family” are only found in the singular but the term “church” is

found in the plural (36 times) and in the singular (79 times).


g. A “brother” can be placed outside the church membership by other brethren exercising

church discipline, but no human disciplinary action can remove any “brother” outside the

kingdom and family of God. – 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6,14.


h. The professing kingdom contains “tares” (Mt. 13:41) and the church contains persons like

Judas, but the family of God only contains true born again believers.


i. The Kingdom and family contain persons without water baptism (all pre-New Testament

believers and unbaptized believers in this age), but church membership is for only water

baptized professed believers – Acts 2:41-42


j. We read of ‘elders” and “apostles” in the church but no such officers are ever used to

describe those in the kingdom and family.


k. Geographical names are given to the church – “the church of God at Corinth” but no such

geographical language is ever used for the kingdom and family of God.


l. The church is described as being “built” and “fitly framed” but the kingdom is announced as

“near at hand.” Neither the kingdom or family are said to be “built” or “fitly framed.”


3. The Difference in Nature

a. The church conveys an autonomous democratic body

b. The kingdom conveys a sovereign rule by a king

c. The family conveys a paternal relationship between a father and his children


4. The difference in relationship to God

a. "Family" - relationship is defined as "children"

b. "Kingdom" relationship is defined as "citizens"

c. "Church" - relationship is defined as "members"


5. The difference in size

a. "Family" includes all saints in heaven and presently on earth - Eph. 3:15

b. "Kingdom" –Is God’s rule over the entire universe but in regard to his spiritual kingdom

on earth it includes only “the seed” presently on earth at any given time - Mt. 13

c. "Church" – includes baptized believers gathered out of God's kingdom and family on earth

who actually assemble together - Acts 2:41


6. The difference in entrance

a. "Family" is by birth "born" a child of God - I Jn. 3:18

b. “Kingdom" is by translation/birth - Col. 1:13/Jn. 3:3-6

c. "Church" is by water baptism - Acts 2:41



7. The difference in origin


a. “Kingdom” began with creation of this universe (Psa. 103:19) while the spiritual kingdom

on earth began with the first person saved from the fall (Adam) in Genesis thus born into

the kingdom of his dear son (Col. 1:13; Gen. 3:15; Acts 10:43). The professing kingdom

consists of the professed saved (true seed and tares) – Mt. 13


b. “Family” began with new birth of first child of God – Gen. 3:15 (new birth prior to

Pentecost – Jn. 3:3-11; Ezek. 44:7)


c. “Church” began with Christ’s First Advent and with the materials prepared by John the

Baptist – Acts 1:21-22; Lk. 1:17; – and first gifted officers set in the church – 1 Cor. 12:28.

First members and Foundation of church are found in the New Testament, not the Old

Testament (Eph. 2:20.


8. The difference in internal relationships


a. "Family" persons can exist outside of the church - 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6; Acts10:43


b. "Kingdom" persons can exist outside of the church - Acts 10:43; 2 Thes. 3:6


c. "Church" persons can be removed from the church but not from the family or kingdom by

discipline - 1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6



9. The difference in location


a. "Family" persons are located in heaven and on earth - Eph.3:15


b. "Kingdom" persons are located throughout the world - Mt. 13:38 - "the field is the world"


c. "Church" located in one geographical spot - 1 Cor. 1:2 "The church of God WHICH IS AT

Corinth"

10. The difference in what unites


a. “Family” unity is by common birth, common Spirit, and common Father. – Rom. 8:9; Jn.

3:3-6


b. “Kingdom” unity is by common rule and professed allegiance to the same King. – Mt. 13


c. “Church” unity is by common doctrine, profession and baptism. – Acts 2:41-42



11. The difference in relationship to the gospel and salvation


a. "Family" All who are genuinely saved by the same gospel, same way, same savior in

connection with new birth


b. "Kingdom" All the saved and professed saved by the same gospel, way, Savior – Mt. 13:38


c. "Church" All who publicly profess to be already in God’s family and Kingdom BEFORE

they can be received into church membership by water baptism - Acts 2:41-42



12. There is a contrasting kingdom, family and church


a. Kingdom of darkness – Col. 1:13 – “the world” system – Jn. 17:9


b. Family of Satan – Jn. 8:44; Gen. 3:15 “seed” “tares” etc.


c. Church of Satan – Rev. 17:5; 18:4 – “synagogue of Satan” – Rev. 2:9; “corrupted” virgins

(2 Cor. 11:3-4)



13. There is a difference in the New Creation


a. "Family" many “saved” will live outside the New Jerusalem on new earth - Rev. 21:24 and

be guests at wedding - Rev. 19:8-9 and have the “leaves” of the tree of life – Rev. 22:2


b. "Kingdom" many “saved” will live outside of New Jerusalem on new earth - Rev. 21:24

and be guest at wedding - Rev. 19:8-9 and will have the “leaves” of the tree of life – Rev.

22:2


c. "Church" is the bride dressed in white (Rev. 19:6-7) and will eat of the tree of life (Rev.

2:7) and live inside the city (Rev. 22:1-3)

 

What is interesting is that when universal advocates are confronted with enormous problems with their theory they break in all directions with no consistent presentation of their doctrine. However, all theology books that actually present and defend that theory are consistent in their defense and can be consistent because they are not being confronted with enormous problems with their defintions.

When I presented some of the enormous problems to this theory on this forum I have seen people flying in all kinds of new directions in order to avoid the problems and none of them are consistent with those theology books from which their view actually originates and is made popular over TV and Radio. Like the doctrine itself, its defenders are in total confusion and inconsistent with each other and themselves and in particular with scriptures.

 

However, that is my point - it is the family of God and a family is formed by BIRTH not by any kind of baptism or any kind of church membership.