#2 What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"? What do Landmarks Teach men that "a Church is"?

[CJP69]

*****
We all need to be cautious about the sin of Nicolaitanism, which the Lord hates.

The Nicolaitans where democrats (small d). They liked to put everything to popular vote as does practically every church congregation in existence, including but not limited to Baptists of every stripe.

 

[CJP69]

*****
I have absolutely no problem with the autonomy of each and every local congregation. That autonomy, however, does not mean there is more than one Body of Christ (the ORGANISM), just that there are many local places of worship (ORGANIZATIONS).

All members of the organizations are not members of the organism.

All member of the organism are not all in the same organization.

The Lord Jesus said, "You must be born again." If a person is not born again, he or she is not a Christian, although they may join every local church organization in town. The wheat and the tares grow together until the Lord's return.

Precisely! This is just exactly what I mean when I say that this doctrine of theirs has no practical effect other than to reinforce the authority of the church's leaders over their congregants.

 

[CJP69]

“There have been individuals and groups of believers
who have taught that the Scriptures give no warrant
for our present-day organized churches.

It is held that believers should get together, observe the Lord’s Supper,
study God’s Word, and cooperate in Christian service
without anything resembling a formal organization.

But that this is an extreme view of the matter is clear.

There are indications that very early in Jerusalem the Church
must have had at least a loose kind of organization
and there is conclusive evidence that soon thereafter local churches
were definitely organized.

That there must have been a simple organization even in the Church in
Jerusalem is evident from a number of things.

The believers adhered to a definite doctrinal standard
(Acts 2:42; cf. Eph. 2);

they met for spiritual fellowship (ibia);

they united in prayer (Acts 2:42; Mt. 18:19, 20);

they practiced baptism (Acts 2:41)

and observed the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42, 46);

they kept account of the membership (Acts 2:14, 41; 4:4);

they met for public worship (Acts 2:46);

and they provided material help for the needy of their number
(Acts 2:44, 45).

The Apostles were the ministers in this Church, but they soon added the seven men of Acts 6:1-7 to take care of the ministration to the poor.

On the day of Pentecost they were assembled in ‘the upper room’
(Acts 1:13; 2:1),

wherever that may have been; but more usually they seem to have met in some home of a Christian (Acts 2:46),

though for some services apparently they still visited the temple
(Acts 2:46; 3:1), as we have just seen.

All these factors indicate the beginnings of organization in the Jerusalem Church.

The Congregational,
Democratic Form of Church Government.

This type of government is clearly seen in Baptist, Congregational, Evangelical Free, Disciples of Christ, and Independent Bible churches.

Followers of this form believe no outside man
or group of men should exercise authority over a local assembly.

Therefore, the government should be
in the hands of the members themselves.

The pastor is considered to be the single elder in the church. He is called and
elected by the church congregation. Deacons are then chosen to assist him in
shepherding the flock.

To quote from Charles Ryrie:

“Arguments in favor of this form of government include the many
passages that speak of the responsibilities of the entire church
(1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:26),

the passages which seem to commit the ordinances of the church
to the entire group, not just leaders
(Mt. 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:2, 20),

the apparent involvement of the whole church in choosing leaders
(Acts 6:3, 5; 15:2, 30; 2 Cor. 8:19),

and the fact that the whole church was involved in exercising discipline
(Mt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:14ff.).

Under the congregational system, the pastor is usually considered to be the
single elder in the church. This is supported by the fact that the seven
churches of Revelation 2 and 3 apparently had a single leader (called the
‘angel’ but referring to a human leader), and by the fact that in 1 Timothy 3
the first part of the passage speaks of the bishop (elder) while the latter part
(vs. 8-13) mentions the deacons.

This would seem to indicate that there was only one elder in each church
although there were several deacons.” (A Survey of Bible Doctrine, p. 147)

Straw-man argument from the word go and the rest is mostly an argument from silence.

I never suggested anything remotely akin to "the Scriptures give no warrant for our present-day organized churches"!

On the contrary, the bible does give warrant for it and does so repeatedly, as your post demonstrates.

What the bible does not give warrant for is the practice of making decisions on the basis of popular vote.

 

[Alan Gross]

We all need to be cautious about the sin of Nicolaitanism, which the Lord hates.

And, it stands for what?

Nicolaitan means "a follower of Nicolas."

It comes from two Greek words, nikos and laos.

Nikos means "conqueror" or "destroyer," and laos means "people."

The original Nicolas was a conqueror or destroyer of the people!

 

[CJP69]

And, it stands for what?

Nicolaitan means "a follower of Nicolas."

It comes from two Greek words, nikos and laos.

Nikos means "conqueror" or "destroyer," and laos means "people."

The original Nicolas was a conqueror or destroyer of the people!

There is a lot of disagreement and conjecture about just what the Nicolaitans taught. They've been accused of everything from polygamy to ritualistic sex practices and a variety of other things.
A teacher that I have grown to trust over the years tells me that they were into democracy and felt the need to put most everything to a popular vote and he at least implied that this was their major peculiarity. I do not have any means of historically establishing that accusation, but am also nowhere near as educated as he was and have no reason to believe that he would make such an obscure accusation up - there would be no motive for him to have done so.

 

[Alan Gross]

Correct. One Body, and the members of that one Body meet together in many different locations, local churches.

There is no such teaching.

What I genuinely do not understand is why anyone would disagree with this!

Because there is no such teaching?

These are all interesting philosophies, as far as some exercises of the mind go, however, there are no Bible references or teachings that indicate that there is "one body of Christ", or "body of believers", in any respect, that could be associated with "all believers" somehow being said to be a part of anything like that.

This is a textbook argument from silence.

And, since there is no such teaching,
I'm supposed to argue something besides, "There is no such teaching"?

How?

By saying, I'm not obligated to argue against something
that doesn't exist to start with?

I might as well launch into a big diatribe
against "The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena",
or "Holy Water", or "The Mystical Body of Christ",
"Slain in the Spirit", or "in the 'Eyes' of God",
or "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit", or "The Millennial Reign",
or "Spirit Baptism", or "Baptized into the Body of Christ", etc., etc.
or some equally fictitious pablum.

(excuse me, anyone that might sincerely believe any or all of those;
my bad, if you think I'm making fun of them;
I'm just saying that it is hard to argue against negative 'realities'.)

You haven't or can't learn what a "church" is, Biblically speaking, yet,
to handle the O.P. with ease, skill, and efficiency, so I know you are not ready
for what The Kingdom of God refers to in the Bible (I already tried that),
or how it is differentiated from a "church", or The Family of God",
so, what is Br. Alan to do?

 

[Alan Gross]

A teacher that I have grown to trust over the years tells me that they were into democracy and felt the need to put most everything to a popular vote and he at least implied that this was their major peculiarity.

Well played.

You can't call it.

But, good shot.

Jocularity advisory.

Well played.

 

[CJP69]

Well played.

You can't call it.

But, good shot.

Jocularity advisory.

Well played.

I've just been spending that last several minutes attempting further to find some evidence that this accusation against the Nicolaitans is valid and can find nothing. I've sent a message to his ministry asking for clarification and in that message stated that it is very possible that I am simply misremembering something. It has been several years ago.

 

[CJP69]

And, since there is no such teaching,
I'm supposed to argue something besides, "There is no such teaching"?

You are doing more than that. You aren't merely acknowledging that there is no such teaching but are adding to that a "therefore, my doctrine is true" or "Therefore, your doctrine is false" whichever it is, both are equally invalid.

There's really excellent reasons why that is a fallacy of logic.

The exact same argument could be used to prohibit the use of the term "Baptist" as a label of a church "because there is no such biblical teaching", or that pews or even chairs are not permitted in church "because there is no such biblical teaching" or that no musical instruments are to be used in worship, "because there is no biblical teaching". (The Church of Christ actually uses that last one!)

If the reasoning were valid, there isn't hardly any anything you couldn't prohibit.

 

[Alan Gross]

What the bible does not give warrant for is the practice of making decisions on the basis of popular vote.

There are not an abundance of writtings which articulate, "each of you members in this self-governing Democracy have one vote, with which we as a church make decisions", because it is self-evident within that form of government.

I did find this, for your dining and dancing pleasure, at:

POLITY
Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life.
Edited by MARK DEVER.

"Abundant authority could be cited in favor of the independence of the primitive churches;

—here that of the infidel Gibbon is given; Gibbon (i. chap. 15), says:

“The societies which were instituted in the cities of the Roman Empire
were united only by the ties of faith and charity.

"Independence and equality formed the basis of their internal constitution.

"Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were governed,
more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles.

Every society formed within itself a separate and independent republic...”

"...and they were each a distinct, independent community on earth,
united by the common principles on which they were founded,
and by their mutual agreement, affection, and respect;

"but not having anyone recognized head on earth,
or acknowledging any sovereignty of one of these societies over others.”

"The infidel, having no ecclesiastical preferences to favor, could speak impartially; and the archbishop, having no doubt as to the “authority” of the church to change apostolic appointments, could speak candidly.

"To these might be added the testimony of Mosheim, Neander, Gieseler, Hinds, and others.

“It is clear as the noonday,” says Mosheim.

"Such was the apostolic organization of the churches as to their officers,
membership, and relation to each other.

"They had, as officers, only elders and deacons, of equal rank, and chosen by the people;

—their members were all required to be converted persons;

—and the churches were all independent of each other.

II. THE OBLIGATION OF THE APOSTOLIC MODEL.

"Should the disciples of our Lord regard this organization
as a model obligatory upon them to adopt,
or has he left the form of church polity discretionary with his people?

"This is a question of great practical importance.

"Ecclesiastical history teaches us, that the first errors that infected the early church, leading it farthest astray, and exerting the widest influence in causing its departure from apostolic simplicity and purity, were not errors in doctrine, but in church government and discipline.

"And it is chiefly errors here, rather than in doctrine, that now separate the followers of our common Lord and Master. If all the true followers of our Lord could see eye to eye, as respects the scriptural idea of the nature and functions of his church, and the principles upon which its first organization proceeded, the chief differences, and most serious errors, that now divide the “body of Christ” into discordant and belligerent sects, would disappear.

"The question, therefore, is one of very great practical importance, and deserving a fuller consideration than may here be given to it. Whilst the importance of the form of church government should not, indeed, be unduly magnified, on the one hand, by being placed among things essential, yet, on the other, it ought not to be unduly under-estimated by being placed among things indifferent, nor that feeling indulged which would regard all questions relating to this subject as trivial and not worth the trouble of an earnest investigation.

"Our Saviour intended that his disciples should form themselves into churches; and when in Matthew xviii. 17, he says, “Tell it unto the church,” he has in view the societies or churches, soon to be formed, and speaks by way of anticipation. Man is a social being. The highest development of his nature as an intelligent being is found in society. In all matters that deeply interest and affect, he naturally seeks the sympathy, communion, and cooperation of kindred spirits. His religious nature is not an exception. “It is natural that those whose hopes and fears, whose joys and sorrows, are similar, should associate together that they may strengthen their faith by fraternal communion.

"Again: it is made the duty of every disciple to extend the spiritual reign of his Maker. Much of this labor can be carried on only by associated effort. For such reasons as these, our Lord has taught us that his disciples in any place should form themselves into fraternal societies.”

"They are intended to subserve the highest and most important ends in the world,—individual edification and growth in grace, and the evangelization of the world. Now, if any and every form of church government is equally adapted to promote these ends, and therefore equally “acceptable to the Master,” then the question proposed is no question at all.

"But this, surely, will not be affirmed, and cannot be maintained. It is certainly not true of any other kind of government. Any and all forms of civil government are not equally adapted to promote the true ends of government. The character, too, of a people is largely moulded, we know, by the character of the political government under which they live. Is there any reason for saying that this is not so as respects church polity? Will not the genius of the government, in the one case as well as in the other, reflect itself in the genius of the people?

"Will not a church polity that deals larger in rites and ceremonies, for instance, tend to impress a formal and ceremonial religious character upon its members? Will not a polity that exalts prominently the authority of its rulers, and the acquiescence of its members, tend to destroy the exercise of the right of private judgment and the sense of individual responsibility, and to impress a religion that consists in mere submission to church authority, and is satisfied with a blind following of the leadership of others?

"The external encloses the internal, and has an important influence upon it. “The outward form and constitution of a church; the laws or customs which regulate its worship and discipline; the functions assigned to its officers,—the ritual observed in its devotions; and its whole action as a visible Christian body,—react with great force upon its inner life, upon the doctrines which it most prominently teaches, the manner in which those doctrines are received and held by its individual members, and the whole of their religious character and state.

'The importance, therefore, of the external action in any Christian church, though it must be confined to its own proper sphere, can hardly, within that sphere, be exaggerated or too highly placed. Hence in every church, a due attention to its outward organization—its regulations, ceremonial, government, and polity in general— is intimately connected with its most vital interests, and can never with safety be omitted, or regarded as a matter of slight and trivial concern” (Jacob’s Ecc. Pol, pp. 18, 19).

"The correctness of these views will hardly be denied by anyone. But if admitted, they settle the question, whether our Saviour has left the form of church organization discretionary with his people.

"If any and all forms are not equally adapted to subserve the high ends for which churches are divinely instituted, then there is a form better adapted than others; and if there be one better adapted than another, the Saviour would surely not leave it to fallible human wisdom to find it out. When we consider the vastly important ends for which churches are instituted, and that these ends are vitally affected,—for good or evil, for progress or hindrance,—by the form of organization, we cannot believe that the Saviour left the apostles to their unassisted wisdom in the organization which they instituted.

"The antecedent improbability of such a thing is too great to allow us to believe this. He must, in some way, have given them divine guidance in this matter,—a matter so extremely important, as we have seen, and so entirely new to them and to all their previous training. Whether in the forty days that he was “seen of them,” and spake “of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God,” he then gave them personal directions, we cannot, of course, say. But we know that they received extraordinary endowments for their great mission. To found churches was a part, and a very important part, of their mission.

"We must believe, in view of the important bearing of the form of their organization upon the successful or unsuccessful accomplishment of the high ends of their institution, that they were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this matter, as well as in the enunciation of the doctrinal principles of Christianity: so that the polity instituted by them must be regarded as the expression of divine wisdom on this subject.

"The real question, then, seems to be this—Are we under obligation to adopt that polity which divine wisdom has pointed out to be the best adapted to promote the ends of church organization, or may we feel at liberty to change it or to substitute some other, according to our views of fitness and expediency?

"Such a question does not admit of debate."

 

[Alan Gross]

The Holy Spirit is the baptizer (he who immerses)

I have never seen either of these two things in the Book;

1.) "The Holy Spirit is the baptizer",

2.) "(he who immerses)".

The Holy Spirit is the baptizer (he who immerses)
each member into the body of Christ at the moment they believe.

I have never seen this type of thing in the Book, either;

3.) (he who immerses) "each member into the body of Christ
at the moment they believe."

That makes 3 things right off the bat you mentioned,
as if they are in the Bible(?), I guess,

that I, for one, can not account for, in my understanding
of what I have read in there(?).

U?

Are they supposed to be taught from, or in, a verse, or something like that?

But not only is he the baptizer in this sense but he is also the means by whom the Father in heaven baptizes those on earth. The Father has baptized the whole world and everyone in it with his Holy Ghost ,when he poured him out from heaven in such abundance that all who will believe him may receive him.

Ahhh...

4.) "But not only is he the baptizer in this sense
but he is also the means by whom
the Father in heaven baptizes those on earth."

& 5.) "The Father has baptized the whole world
and everyone in it with his Holy Ghost,

"when he poured him out from heaven in such abundance
that all who will believe him may receive him." (???)

He did this in two stages according to the history we have in the Acts. He baptized all of Israel in plain view on Pentecost after Jesus had risen from the dead and ascended back to heaven.

"He did this in two stages according to the history we have in the Acts."

[ Are these going to be # 6.) & # 7.), maybe?]

Yep.

6.) "He baptized all of Israel in plain view on Pentecost
after Jesus had risen from the dead and ascended back to heaven."

Later he baptized the world.

7.) "Later he baptized the world."

Do you have some link to "a modern version of the bible"
that I am not aware of, where you are coming up with all this stuff?

1.) thru 7.), above?

Man, this subject is so wonderful and there is so much more to say about it but I fear you will just blaspheme the truth and it will be worse for you than good.

Man.

5b "according to his mercy he saved us,
by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life.

I have underlined the operative phrase. Just WOW.

Yeah. Praise the Lord God Almighty.

Salvation,

"he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;"

Titus 3:7 "That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life."

"by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost"...

He has made it possible for all of us to drink if we will.

[ # 8.) ?] "He has made it possible for all of us to drink if we will."

"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." John 5:40.

"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that sheweth mercy." Romans 9:16.

"But as many as received him,
to them gave he power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his name:

"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12, 13.


"according to his mercy he saved us..." Titus 3:5b.

 

[CJP69]

There are not an abundance of writtings which articulate, "each of you members in this self-governing Democracy have one vote, with which we as a church make decisions", because it is self-evident within that form of government.

I did find this, for your dining and dancing pleasure, at:

POLITY
Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life.
Edited by MARK DEVER.

[snip]

"Such a question does not admit of debate."

I can't tell whether this intentionally ignores the point or just is responding to a misunderstanding of the point.

Once again, no one here has suggested that particular congregations can't or even shouldn't be independent. Neither has anyone here suggested that they shouldn't govern themselves. The point has to do with how that self-governance should operate and there isn't any way possible for you (or anyone you want to copy/past from) can make a biblical case that any church should operate under the authority of a popular vote or even a committee.

The bible indicates that there are to be elders and deacons and it tells us specifically what their qualifications are and makes it clear that these people are in positions of leadership - period. Nowhere do we read that an elders are voted on or that an elder himself is to put some major decision to a popular vote of those he's leading. In such a case, the roles of leader and follower would be reversed and it would be the elder who was following the flock rather than the flock following the elder.

The clearest biblical example we have of how leaders are to be selected is the replacement of Judas with Matthias where there were willing and qualified candidates found and narrowed down to a select few and then the final decision was removed entirely from the hand of men by the casting of lots. Indeed, major decision making via the casting of lots has quite a terrific biblical history.

In short, God never established governance by committee, but governance by individuals.

Proverbs 18:18 Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart.

 

[Alan Gross]

While, tragically, defined in response to the O.P.,
"What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"?
or "What do Landmarks Teach men that "a Church is"?,
tersely, as nothing more than:

Churchianity

and then, in addition, the general overall reaction
to the initial explanations of "What a "church" is", being:

I cannot read Alan anymore, too radical.

Jesus Built His kind of local "church" assembly, as His Divine Institution,
and Jesus' kind of local "church" assembly, as His Divine Institution,
is the only Divinly Authorized Institution on Earth,
which He Originated, Designed, and Instructed to Worship and Serve God.

"...upon this rock, I will build my church;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Re: Matthew 16:15-18.

The kind of "church" that Jesus was speaking about, in Matthew 16,
and that He said He would be "Edifying", "Modifying", and "Divinely Equipping"
to Serve and Worship God, as His, "church",
WHEN HE SAID THAT HE WAS BUILDING UPON HIMSELF,

and that Divine Institution which Jesus said He would continue to Build
and Structure from the Greek word, "ekklesia", He used,
has always maintained Jesus' intended meaning, as
"a local organized assembly summoned out to govern and rule".

Once Jesus Divinly Originated and Founded His local "church" assemblies,
like the kind of "churches" and church "bodies"
that we see all throughout The New Testament,

as well as the same kind of "churches" and church "bodies"
that Jesus also Promised to Sustain and Maintain, with Continual Perpetuity,
throughout all of the present The New Testament Age of Churches,
to be GOD'S DIVINE WITNESSES on EARTH, may be properly defined as:

"a congregation of Christ's baptized disciples,
acknowledging Him as their Head,
relying on His atoning sacrifice for justification before God,
depending on the Holy Spirit for sanctification,
united in the belief of the Gospel,
agreeing to maintain its ordinances and obey its precepts,
meeting together for worship,
and serving God for the advancement of The Cause of Christ
and The Kingdom of God in the world."

"The laws for the government of a church are given by Christ Himself in Matthew 18, and the word "church," which occurs more than one hundred times in the New Testament, means in practically all instances a local assembly of baptized believers, as outlined in the definition just set down.

"There are Baptist churches scattered throughout the world with a total of some ten million of communicants, but each one of these churches is an independent unit, governed by its membership as a pure democracy and maintaining the New Testament pattern in all their forms of worship.

"For instance, there was a church at Ephesus, a church at Corinth, there were the churches of Asia, and so on, but each one of these churches was independent in itself, answerable to no superior body because there was not and has not been such body, conducting its own affairs independently of all other ecclesiasticisms on earth.

"That is the Baptist view and polity today."

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/cranfill.the.church.re-thinking.doctrine.html

So, we have the answer to the O.P., as being:

"The Lord's Church that He built that Jesus spoke of as being, "My church" is the only Divinely organized society among men. It was instituted for a purpose by Christ, who gave to it laws, and an economy of methods and order by which to accomplish its sacred mission, and who still retains headship and kingship over it.

"A Biblical Church is a 'Society of Jesus' in a truer and better sense than Loyala knew when founding the order of Jesuits. New Directory for Baptist Churches, pp. 44, 45."

"The assumption that the church is a mere human institution is the basis of this acceptance of any and every religious society as a New Testament church.

"But the Scriptures do not so teach. It becomes clear that the church Jesus Built is not a human, but a Divine Institution when we consider that:

1.) New Testament churches have a Divine Founder. All of the founders of this world's religions were nothing but mortal men; but this is not true of the church's Founder, of which we rea recorded in the Word of God; the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ was manifested on numerous occasions and in numerous ways, as:

i.) By His miraculous birth, which proved that He was not an ordinary man,
(Isaiah 7:14; Jer. 31:22; Luke 1:26-35; Galatians 4:4; Heb. 2:9,14; 10:5).

ii.) By His extraordinary life, which was devoid of any sin,
(John 8:46; Heb. 4:15).

iii.) By the miracles which He performed,
(John 3:2; Acts 2:22).

iv.) By the resurrection from the grave,
(Acts 2:24; 29-31; Rom. 1:4).

v.) By the spoken attestation of God the Father,
(Matthew 3:17; John 12:28; Luke 9:35).

vi.) By the coming of the Holy Spirit,
(John 14:16; 16:13; Acts 2:1-4; 11: 15-17).

vii.) By the witness of men,
(Matthew 27:22-24; Luke 23:13-15; 46-47; Acts 17:2-3).

"The existence of the churches of The Lord Jesus Christ are the result of the Sovereign Will of the Divine Christ, and as such, it makes the kinds of churches Jusus Built to each be Divine Institutions.

"When He called out the apostles and disciples and constituted them into a body which He designated "my church," he gave the church the character of a divine institution that cannot be invalidated by the reasoning of carnal minds.

"Nor is this all; the fact that the churches were purchased with Christ's own blood, (Acts 20:28), gives it a Divine character also; it manifests God's great love for it.

"2.) Not only is Christ the Divine Founder of the churches, but He is also the Divine Foundation upon which the churches are built,
(1 Corinthians 3:11; Eph. 2:20; Matthew 16:18; Isa. 28:16).

"Here is a double guarantee of its endurance; not only is the Founder of the churches All-wise and All-powerful, but the Foundation is also stable and steadfast like a vast and immutable "rock".

3.) The Lord's Churches also have a Divine Builder, for the Lord says,

"Upon this Rock" (Himself), "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18).

"This is also intimated in Ephesians 2:20,

"Being built," R.V., not "building yourselves."

"This is another reason why each church is to take care that she be always in complete subjection unto her Lord, for He is the builder, and

"Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it"
(Ps. 127:1).

4.) The churches of The Lord Jesus Christ, as we see described in The New Testament also a Divine Teacher, Guide and Comforter; in a word, it has a Divine Superintendent in the Almighty Person of God the Holy Spirit.

"This is declared in John 14:16-18: "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."

"And again, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you" (John 16:13-14).

"The Holy Spirit, as coming down to fill the place of the ascended Redeemer, has rightly been called 'The Vicar of Jesus Christ.' To Him, the entire Administration of the churches has been committed until the Lord shall return in glory. His oversight extends to the slightest detail in the ordering of God's house, holding all in subjection to the Will of the Head, and directing all in harmony with the Divine Plan."

"Since the Holy Spirit does have this great work within the Lord's churches, it may also be properly said that the Lord's churches are spiritual bodies; it is:

i.) Holy Spirit indwelled, (John 14:16; 20:22).

This is not to be confused
with the indwelling of individual believers, (Rom. 8:9).

ii.) Holy Spirit empowered, (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8).

iii.) Holy Spirit guided, (John 16:13).

iv.) Holy Spirit comforted and encouraged, (Rom. 8:11, 14-17).

con't: 5.) thru 7.)

 

[Alan Gross]

5.) The Lord's churches that He built have divine material for their membership; this material is the host of sinners, saved by Grace, born again by the Spirit of God, which comprise each congregation.

The Divine Word on this is,
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God . . ." (1 John 3:2).

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not." (1 John 3:1).

"And we know that we are of God,
and the whole world lieth in the evil one." (1 John 5:19, R.V.)

"When, therefore, we speak of "the material of the church",

we refer to "the membership", not to the physical building;

"This "material", then, is Divine because it has been
(virtually all, as the design and full intent) Regenerated,

and born again into The Kingdom and Family of God.

"Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners,
but fellow citizens with the saints,"
(born again into The Kingdom of God and Family of God),

"and of the household of God",
(members of one of the Lord's churches, like this one at Ephesus,
as a "household of God", being those who have been scripturally baptized
into "an organized assembly of baptized believers", etc.,
organized and that exists for the purpose of Glorifying God...")
(Eph. 2:19).

"This passage with its context declares
that man is dead and infinitely separated from God until salvation;

"When saved, an individual becomes a, "fellow citizen with the saints,"
(born again into The Kingdom of God, i.e., = all saved souls on Earth,
and Family of God, i.e., = all saved souls, of all time, in Heaven and on Earth).

"Their salvation, however,
does not make them a member of a church of any kind, at all;
they must be scripturally baptized into a church of The Lord Jesus Christ.


6.) The churches of The Lord Jesus Christ also have a Divine Mission and commission, which is briefly comprehended in this:

"Unto him (God) be glory in the church (like this one at Ephesus
and all other churches of like faith and order) by Christ Jesus
throughout all ages, world without end" (Eph. 3:21).

"The churches of The Lord Jesus Christ, as described in The Bible,

are always, "organized assemblies of baptized believers, etc.",

that exist for the purpose of Glorifying God..."

"The mission of the churches of The Lord Jesus Christ breaks down into several parts which we may briefly consider at this time.

"The Lord's kind of churches are to make known
"the Manifold Wisdom of God", (Eph. 3:10).

"This Divine Mission OF The Lord's kind of churches consists of:

"i.) Being witnesses unto the whole world, (Acts 1:8),
by preaching the gospel, (Mark 16:15).

"ii.) Making disciples of all nations by so preaching and witnessing,
(Matthew 28:19, R.V.)

"iii.) Scriptuarally Baptizing each new convert into the fellowship
and faith in a New Testament church.

"iv.) Teaching the converts to observe in a practical way,
all the things commanded by the Lord, (Matthew 28:20).

"v.) Edifying, exhorting, and comforting, and thereby strengthening
and perpetuating the Lord's churches as God's witness in the world,
(1 Corinthians 14:3,12).

7.) Also, ALL the churches like the kind in The New Testament that Jesus built and Promised to Sustain and Maintain, throughout all of The New Testament Age of Churches, to be GOD'S DIVINE WITNESSES of EARTH, have a Divine Message which is their duty to proclaim, and without which it cannot long remain a scriptural church.

"That message is the Bible, the Word of God,
the Divine revelation of God's Will for man.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

"that the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

"I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ,
who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing
and his kingdom;

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;
"reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine"
(2 Timothy 3:16-17; 4:1-2).

"This passage states:

i.) The Word is given "by inspiration."

ii.) It is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction.

iii.) It is given that Christians may be thoroughly furnished
unto all good works.

iv.) Paul charged Timothy to "preach the word."

v.) The Word is to be put to all of its uses;
not one is to be ignored, (v. 2).
...

THEREFORE:

With a Divine Founder,
a Divine Foundation,
a Divine Builder,
a Divine Superintendent,
composed of Divine material,
with a Divine Mission
and a Divine Message,

by the Almighty Power, of All of The Attributes of God the Father,
under The Lordship of Christ's Headship,
and with the God the Holy Spirit's Superintendency,
and by their obedience to the regulations of the Eternal Word of God,

there is every reason to believe The churches of The Lord Jesus Christ
that He Divinely Originated and Commissioned,
during JESUS' FIRST ADVENT and MINISTRY on EARTH,

as those organized local church assemblies, being Divine Institutions
Jesus Built and Promised to be with, until He Comes Again,
at JESUS' SECOND ADVENT and RETURN to EARTH,

will continue to be on Earth, worshipping God, doing God's Will,
and to be Supernaturally and Spiritually Victorious,
as we may observe them to have been doing,
throughout The History of Christianity, since Jesus first Founded His
Divine "Organization and Living Organism", that Jesus called,
"My church".

Adapted from:
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/huckabee.origin.nature.of.church.html

 

[Alan Gross]

The church is all who believe and receive Christ, John 1:11-13.

My idea would be that if you are going to teach
that "The church" is something, per the O.P.,
I would think that you might want the verses you quote
to include something within a million miles of the word "church" in them.

Make sense?

11 "He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God."
...

Correct. One Body, and the members of that one Body meet together in many different locations, local churches.

I have absolutely no problem with the autonomy of each and every local congregation. That autonomy, however, does not mean there is more than one Body of Christ (the ORGANISM), just that there are many local places of worship (ORGANIZATIONS).

All members of the organizations are not members of the organism.

All member of the organism are not all in the same organization.

They fellowship in local churches. The organization.

Period.

"The organizational aspect of the church has been denied by some in their zeal to establish the fact of the universal invisible church.

"It is often said that the church is not an organization, but an organism. However, the very word "organism" implies organization.

"There is no living organism so small or so simple but that it has organization about it; indeed, organization is an absolute necessity to life.

"We recognize that the church is an organism, that is, it is a living thing, but we must also recognize that it is an organization as well.

"This pitting of organism and organization against one another results from the desire of some to rid themselves of the local church and its attendant obligations and restraints, but this cannot be done.

"Those who so vehemently disclaim the church to be an organization would do well to consider that the supposed universal, invisible church is propagated and extended only on earth, and only in direct proportion to the number and faithfulness of earthly organizations.

"It is the local church that the Lord has commissioned to be His witnesses, to preach His word, to administer His ordinances, to teach His people, to guard the faith, to discipline its unruly members, and without the local church, Christianity would fail.

"The theoretical universal church can do none of these things."

(Of course.

Which may, 'of course' again, actually be the entire "purpose"
and "point" of all its 'spectacular' and 'magnificent', "nothingness"(?).

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/huckabee.origin.nature.of.church.html

Adapted from:
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/huckabee.origin.nature.of.church.html

 

[37818]

i.) Holy Spirit indwelled, (John 14:16; 20:22).

John 7:39, ". . . for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. . . .) That did not happen until His ascension, Acts of the Apostles 1:9.

 

[37818]

"Upon this Rock"

". . . flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. . . ."

 

[MrW]

My understanding is Nicolaitanism is putting clergy above laity.

 

[37818]

My understanding is Nicolaitanism is putting clergy above laity.

1917 Scofield Bible note:

Revelation 2:6
Nicolaitanes

From nikao, "to conquer," and laos, "the people," or "laity." There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood Matthew 23:8 into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" Revelation 2:6 had become in Pergamos a "doctrine Revelati

Nicolaitanes Revelation 2:15.

 

[Alan Gross]

I can't come up with a reason
why you've quoted my post and then offer this as a reply(?)

U?

"Upon this Rock"

". . . flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. . . ."