your distaste of "Universal church
I also have a distaste for 'evolution' and the same remedy for them can be applied to both and that is to not 'assume' them.
Upon, the prospect of their existence not being assumed, now go...
They are both non-existent nothing's.
In the case of evolution, there can't be 'proofs' of two different methods of Creation, because, "God Created the heaven and the earth". And, there is no, none, nada.
Same with the Lord's Founding and identification of His Kind of Church.
No second kind of thing called a 'church' can be said to be Biblical and they are not.
Much less some invention of an 'Invisible' thing? that men came up with to 'authenticate' their existence as religious groups apart from the 'universal visible' myth of their mother (false/ counterfeit) so-called 'church'.
There is "one body", as in "one kind of body", a local assembly that Jesus Originated, made up of baptized believers carrying out The Great Commission.
11. The problem of I Corinthians 12:27.
"Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
Does that mean that the Song
"The Church is Still Alive"
has an incorrect title?
This would be the institutional abstract meaning of the word "church", just as it is used in the Bible, in some instances.
IV
Some Controverted Passages
"There is not the slightest difficulty in understanding the meaning of the words church and churches as they occur in most of the New Testament. Assembly, local and visible is unmistakably meant.
"There would likewise be no difficulty in understanding the meaning of church in the remaining instances
were it not that men have a theory to seek to substantiate.
"Such persons usually use a few verses in the writings of Paul to the Ephesians and Colossians.
"Has Paul labored to establish churches - assemblies - and has he often felt "
the care of all the churches," as he expresses it, and has he involved his very life with the welfare of the churches, and then has he all at once originated an entirely new church conception?
"Has he decided that there are really two churches
, one kind local and visible, and the other Universal and Invisible?
"How utterly foolish to assume this! It is wholly unnecessary to assume an entirely new kind of church.
"The only thing necessary is to construe words according to the established law of language.
"The institutional abstract meaning of church in some instances, the generic meaning of the word in other instances, and the concept of the church win prospect, will take care of the problem without the need of a new church entirely different from the kind of church signified by the word ecclesia, and taught most plainly in nearly all of the instances where the term is used".
As you may have seen;
1. The problem of etymology and usage of "ecclesia."
The terms "universal" and "invisible" are opposed to the original meanings of "
ecclesia."
There is the problem of the attempt to unfold a supposed greater truth by the usage of a word in a limited and unprecedented sense.
2. The problem of history.
"...H. Boyce Taylor points out in his book,
Why be A Baptist?, [pages 51-52] "...Hort in his book,
The Christian Ekklesia confesses
the necessity of finding some other than etymological, grammatical or historical grounds by which to prove the idea of a universal church. He admitted that the use of the word
ekklesia was 'always limited by Paul himself to a local organization, which has a corresponding unity of its own:
each is a body of Christ and a sanctuary of God.' Look at this statement.
That, 'The Christian Ekklesia' ever refers to anything but a local church cannot be proved by history: it cannot be proved from the etymology of the word: and it cannot be proved by the grammatical construction of the Scriptures where used. The only ground, Mr. Hort says, on which the use of the word as referring to anything but a local church can be defended at all,
is on theological grounds. That means you cannot prove it from the Greek New Testament at all:
but you perhaps might read it into the New Testament from some book of theology."
See also: Baptists in History
1892
By W. P. Harvey
"In England the state church is deemed to be the one and only church, and other religious groups are not allowed to call themselves churches.
Let's call that, "back in the day, in England", etc., following the context of the adjoining paragraphs, etc.
There was a lot more the Baptist-like believers had to endure besides prohibiting their name, as you know.
From:
History of the Baptist Churches in the North of England, From 1648 to 1845
By David Douglas, 1846
SECOND PERIOD - FROM 1656 TO 1717,
CHAPTER IIa.
"It was worldly views of the spiritual religion of the Son of God, that, in the days of Constantino, led to its
incorporation with the Roman State, and which has retained to the present time, that connexion, in the different kingdoms of Europe, into which the empire of Rome finally split.
"Out of this connexion have proceeded two circumstances which, in their operation, have proved the bane of religion and the great source of calamity to the different nations in Christendom, namely,
persecution by the established, and resistance by the nonconformist party.
"The Jewish and Roman persecutions of the first Christians; the Romish Inquisition; the Star Chamber, and the High Court of Commission in England, evince the tendencies of establishments to persecution in its more horrid forms."
And, it was not the
Lutherans, the
Presbyterians, the
Episcopalians, the
Congregationalists or the
Methodists, who endured the Romish persecutions; because none of these denominations existed earlier than A.D. 1560. From this unassailable fact you will perceive how vain it is for either of the above denominations to plead that they are the first true church.
PRINCIPLES.
"I cannot help requesting attention to an important fact in this inquiry; - that liberal and independent principles, with a devoted opposition to every species of usurpation over the conscience and religion of man, whether arising from Pope or King, generally characterised the Baptists, and for this they suffered."
As it says, "Religious freedom in the true sense vanishes when religion is identified with the state government, and often dissenting groups are persecuted when such is the case. The evils of a state church hookup are without number."
Our church was founded as the result of Baptist's fleeing persecution of the state 'church', in Virginia.
They were called, "The Traveling Church".
As you know Baptists are the foremost proponents of religious liberty and they are interwoven with names like Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, etc., etc.
From: The Travelling Church
By George W. Ranck
1891
The Travelling Church, by George W. Ranck, 1891
20 "The Baptists were the earliest friends of freedom in Virginia, and their brave struggle for liberty of conscience had much to do with the birth and growth of revolutionary sentiment.
"
Washington spoke of them as "Firm friends of civil liberty and the persevering promoters of our glorious revolution." (Sparks'
Washington, p.155 vol. xii).
18 "Before the Revolution only ministers of the State Church (Episcopal) were free to preach in Virginia. Dissenters who did so without first securing license were liable to fine and imprisonment. Craig and his followers were "Separate Baptists," who, according to Foote (
Sketches of Virginia, p. 318, of 1st Series), "did not for various reasons obtain license for their houses of worship as the Regular Baptists generally did."
"In 1776 Virginia legislature, during it's first session under the new Constitution, passed Mr.
Jefferson's bill repealing all penal laws against Dissenters and
exempted them from contributions for the support of the Established Church.
"In 1779-80 the State Church was shorn of most of her remaining means of support and virtually disestablished.
"On the 17th of December, 1784,
Jefferson's immortal bill "For Establishing Religious Freedom..." was adopted, and in 1801 the glebe, or church lands, which had been declared public property, were ordered to be sold."
