Featured The Essential truth of Landmarkism preserves the gospel

Jon, Paul does use the plural "churches" at times but in Acts 20:17 he ues the singular "church" not churches. Most Bible scholars freely admit that there were plural elders in each singular church. One reason is that there was no New Testament Scriptures and revelatory gifts were used by God to provide revelation until the Biblical canon was completed. Notice that Acts 14:23 says plural "elders" were ordained in every singular church. The leadership was given such revelatory gifts through the laying on of apostolic hands and two or three were esential for confirmation of prophecy by another. That is one Biblical reason for plurality of elders in a singular congregation as in Acts 13;1. Another reason was when a congregation reached a size that one man could not efficiently pastor a church as in the case of the congregation at Jerusalem. Adrian Rogers had a membership role that some estimate to be about 28,0000 in Bellvue Baptist Church in Memphis and he had many other elders (Pastor of this and that) serving under him as seemingly did James in Acts 15.

Notice the distinction between "publickly" and "house to house." It would seem to me that when they met as a congregation at some public place (Arena, feild, etc.) that was the congregation he addressed. However, after the Sunday service he visited the members "house to house."

I don't think you can fairly use your line of reasoning in the way you do in this particular debate as the evidence would not seem to favor your assumptions.

 

The above post was directed to another forum member who decided that he would not address these issues. This post brings us back to the original OP and the problems with a universal invisible church theory. If Jon, and others would address these issues I would appreciate it because I think the whole foundation for assuming a universal invisible church is at least in part inseparable from these issues. If you don't understand what these issues have to do with that kind of church theory then I would be more than happy to explain.

 

Jon, that is not what the doctrine of the universal invisible church teaches. They teach that it is the baptism in the Spirit that removes a person from his "in Adam" to his "in Christ" position. However, the baptism in the Spirit, at least according to how they define it, had no existence prior to Pentecost.

Moreover, Paul explicitly states that we are "CREATED in Christ" and the creative act he is speaking of in context is NEW CREATION or quickening by the Spirit of God. In other words, ALL who are "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" BECAUSE they are "BORN of the Spirit" if they are not then they are "none of his" - Rom. 8:8-9.

Furthermore, the church cannot precede its own "foundation" (Eph. 2:20) which is composed entirely of New Testament materials (FIRST set in the church are apostles).

So, there is no baptism in the Spirit prior to Pentecost, so no means of placing anyone into the invisible church body AND there is no church body in the Old Testament because the FIRST set in the church were apostles. In essence that repudiates the whole theory.

First, there are two different kinds of temples of the Holy Spirit or temples indwelt by the Spirit. (1) the physical human body of the believer (1 Cor. 6:19). (2) The corporate assembly of baptized believers in a given locality (1 Cor. 3:5-16). Note the context of 1 Cor. 3:5-16 is how the congregation at Corinth came into existence. Note the pronoun "ye" rather than "we" in verse 16 as Paul was not part of this temple. Note the plural pronoun "ye" with the singular "temple" as paul was not talking about all their plural individual physical bodies.

On the day of Pentecost what was indwelt was not individuals but the new institutional house of God made without hands or the ekklesia just as the tabernacle had been immersed in the Spirit in Exodus 40:35. just as the temple had been immersed in the Spirit in 2 Chron. 7:1-3 so the new public "house" of worship must be immersed in the Spirit in Acts 2;1-3 or else the Jews would not forsake the temple.

First, what is the context about? David has sin? What does sin do to the personal expereince of a child of God? It separates from experiencing God's blessings and presence. There is a difference between removing the Person of the Spirit from your body and removing the "joy" or the experiential presence of the Spirit.

Amen! The new birth which IS spiritual union with God was the experience of OT saints. Spiritual DEATH is spiritual SEPARATION from God is it not? What then is the opposite of "death" and "separation" if not "life" and "union". Spiritual life IS spiritual union and spiritual life IS NEW BIRTH/quickening.

Jon, everyone on this forum who embraces the universal invisible church theory (except perhaps you) not only believes and defends that idea, but every theology book that promotes the universal invisible church theory teaches that idea.

I hope you continue to see it that way.

that was merely the filling of the Spirit, the indwelling presence of the Spirit occurred when they beleived in the gospel as they possessed "eternal life" at the moment of faith.

You passed over the bulk of my previous post.Please consider the other points as they are equally fatal to that theory. The Universal church theory is nothing more or less than a retweaked Roman Catholic church salvation doctrine. To be saved is to be in this church and to be outside of it is to be lost. I believe in "gospel" salvation not church or baptismal salvation, both of which are part and parcel of the UIC theory.

 

Happy Thanksgiving to one and to all. I will be taking a break from the forum until Friday, so if I don't answer that is the reason why.

 

I am tired of dealing with someone who merely asserts their theory, NEVER provides evidence and NEVER responds with evidence to disprove the evidence placed before them. You my friend are being placed on "ignore." I am not placing you on "ignore" for your spelling. Even if English is not your first langauge you obviously have sufficient command of English to respond with evidence if you wanted to.

If anyone else wants to make the same arguments that Yeshua is asserting but with evidence, I am more than willing to take the time and respond.

 

Yes, and the singular "temple of God" is composed of "YE" not "we" as Paul is no part of that temple. The Context is referring to the church located at Corinth RESTRICTED to the members at Corinth - 1 Cor. 3:5-10 - READ IT