questions about the church

More bad news. Perhaps the NAS isn't so bad after all.

The Nestle-Aland Greek NT has the singular tense.
One of those nasty textual varients I guess.

Rob

 

Since you have made your arrogance and childishness public I will deal with this in a public way. You have shown yourself, not only here, but elsewhere with others, as one who speaks with the supposed authority of a scholar but the immaturity of a grammar school kid in need of visiting the principal. When you can deal with other adults in a kind way then maybe we can have a civil and reasonable discourse. Until then you need not respond to anything I share expecting me to respond in kind. I have neither the time nor inclination to raise another child to respect others, unless of course they are in my own home. Good day.

Bro Tony

 

Well, I mostly agree and I already said that I didn't like the word "universal" because as a contemporary word associated with the universe or the Milky Way galaxy it does not fit the picture and particularly the picture of the "Church" (singular) which Jesus said He would build calling it "My Church" (and not "my churches").

On the other hand Jesus walks among the "churches" as Lord in the Revelation and claims ownership (seven times) of certain of those within them who have ears to hear.

OK and I partially agree.

But "universal" is not a NT word, (but then again neither is "Trinity"), so, what exactly do you mean by "composition" as applied to "universal"?

The closest verse to what "universal" is in a Scriptural sense IMO is this one:

Revelation 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Now certain may say that the Church is not mentioned here and I agree or this has a dispensational flavor to it, etc.

My point is to define the term "universal" in a Scriptural way and this to me is what it means that the Gospel is to be preached "universal"ly, to all the nations bar none.

I don't follow this logic brother, if I did then I might agree.

This is taken from the Revelation of Jesus Christ chapter 21. What does it mean? Well, for one thing God does as He pleases.

If He wants there to be a New Jerusalem (which the angel apparently identified as the Lamb's bride in Rev 21:10) along with the redeemed nations bringing honor, glory, etc to it, then that is what shall happen and He is able to figure it out, though you and I may have difficulties with it in our personal theologies (I include myself in that of course and I am not Landmark or Baptist Brider).

HankD

 

Amen Christian faith, ituttut

 

I disagree. The bible nowhere calls all the saved a "universal church." The church is a local assembly of baptized believers. When the bible refers to all the saved, collectively, it calls that group either the Kingdom of God or the Family of God, but never "the church." </font>[/QUOTE]”Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God’, I Corinthians 10:32. The Jew has their religion, the Gentiles have their philosophy, and we have Christ Jesus.

 

Were we brought in by covenant, or Grace?

How many ordinances are commanded that we must keep, in order to continue to be saved? Christian faith, ituttut

 

HankD,

As I understand, when people call the church “universal”, they are saying it is composed of all the “saved ones”, regardless of creed. So the term is an adjective describing who is in the New Testament church. I disagree with this idea. The church relationship is something special and unique. If it was universal, it would be neither special nor unique since all of God’s offspring would be accredited with the same honor.

I suppose it is a personal decision to decide that this subject is beyond our understanding. I, for one, believe we indeed can understand it. The universal church idea certainly makes it confusing but to me it makes sense if the church relationship represents “the relationship of relationships” with God.

 

ituttut,

The confusion with our understanding each other here is with the term “saved”. Most use this term to denote “one who has been born again”. I assume you mean the same. So when we apply the word to the universal church idea, it means the church is composed of “all who have been born again”. I do not agree with this definition of the New Testament church. The commandments and ordinances I speak of regard a relationship that I believe is not enjoyed by birth (i.e. one is not “born” into the church). So the covenant relationship of the church in my mind has nothing to do with being born again.

 

Exactly ituttut. Although you will find those who refuse to acknowledge that the church is spoken of in the NT as being not only the local fellowship but also as the Body of Christ as a whole using words like "generic" rather than seeing this as specific instructions from the Apostle of three very real (not generic) groups. That there will be those who dont see and agree is the reality of our existence and why the church is so segmented. It will be wonderful when the Lord returns and sets all things in order in our thinking and in our understanding.

Bro Tony

 

OK, I didn't want to belabor the point but now I feel that I should respond.

I couldn't follow your logic because you have/had used several terms not found in scripture.

I already mentioned "universal" and gave you my definition and now you gave me yours and it is evident that we disagree.

Personally I add that the "universal" Church is composed of all born again believers, past present and future regardless of any restrictions concerning earthly mattters such as race, etc.

In Matthew 13 the Kingdom of Heaven contains tares (children of the devil sown by the devil, according to Jesus). I personally can only relate this to the local church and not to the "universal" Church of Matthew 16 which Jesus builds and accordingly has no unsaved but born of the Spirit members only having been baptised by Him "in the Spirit".

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Of course a dispensational case (or cases) can be made to bring a different slant as to the meaning of Spirit baptism and the preposition "with" which is en in koine.

This IMO is the "universal" Church - the collective Body of Spirit born members who have been baptised IN the Spirit by Jesus Christ into the Church of Matthew 16.

Now I know that the word "Church" is not used (as far as I know) in the context of "being in heaven" apart from synonym "types" used in the Revelation (wife of the Lamb, bride).

Then there is the matter of "relationships", another word not found in Scripture but I will assume that you mean the sonship of the children of God with their Father in heaven.

I am not sure what "relationship of relationships" means, I assume it means the superlative relationship with God, that of being his son and He being one's Father.

All born again believers have this relationship with God and therefore my defintion stands - The "Universal" Church (singular) of which Jesus claims ownership and promises to build is comprised of all the born again believers who are or ever will be.

There is little agreement among Baptists concerning this doctrine, but this is my choice and I believe it is scriptural.

You are welcome to yours and I don't say that you are any more or less spiritual than I.

As to not understanding certain things at this point in time even the Scriptures teaches us that we don't know the whole of it yet.

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.


HankD

 

HankD,

If the church is the wife of Christ (Eph. 5), and the Holy City is the Lamb’s Bride, then isn’t it logical to conclude that a universal church would all be part of the one Holy City of God? Who are the nations then (Rev. 21:23)? I know you’ve already answered this, but I think it’s worth the time to ponder.

 

The confusion with our understanding each other here is with the term “saved”. Most use this term to denote “one who has been born again”. I assume you mean the same. So when we apply the word to the universal church idea, it means the church is composed of “all who have been born again”. I do not agree with this definition of the New Testament church. The commandments and ordinances I speak of regard a relationship that I believe is not enjoyed by birth (i.e. one is not “born” into the church). So the covenant relationship of the church in my mind has nothing to do with being born again. </font>[/QUOTE]Then can we agree, that we are not of the covenant people, but saved by the grace of God through faith, without works of the law of commandments contained in ordinances. We are not of those of the "covenant church", but of the Body of Christ Church which came after. Christian faith, ituttut

 

Yes, the word "church" used in the generic sense, but notice there is no "universal" attached to the word nor does the context indicate it is anything other than a generic usage. </font>[/QUOTE]We may agree (to a certain extent) TCassidy. I believe you now see correctly, arriving at the wrong conclusion. The generic relates to the descriptive of all members of a genus, viz. "The generic name". The name is the “Church of God” of which individuals belong. It is Catholic, it is Universal, being in Him, but we are not Israel that inherits the world. We are parts of His Body as He works His will. He is not divided, but we are. The church is those in Him, whether in a “local assembly of baptized believers; in a local assembly of believers, or a believer.” Christian faith, Christian faith, ituttut

 

ituttut,

Uh, no, I do not agree with that. I believe the church, like Isreal, IS the covenant people. Being born again is something else.

 

Uh, no, I do not agree with that. I believe the church, like Isreal, IS the covenant people. Being born again is something else. </font>[/QUOTE]So some in the church will go marching into the kingdom of God after the tribulation, and the Christian is taken at the rapture?