1 Cor. 6:15 defines the nature of the TRUE body of Christ

[Yeshua1]

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood.
29 For I know this: that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.


1. Those appointed as overseers of the flock in verse 28 are the Ephesian elders - as "you" has for its contextual antecedent with elders in verse 17. So your universal invisible church is pastored by Christ or by these ephesian elders?????? How do we contact these elders the Holy Spirit made overseers of this kind of church?

;2. The "flock" in verse 28 is the same "flock" in verse 29-30 which wolves can "ENTER IN". Can wolves "enter in" your universal invisible church? If so, how?

3. Is it wrong for these elders to return to Ephesus and tell the congregation of Ephesus that Christ "purchased with his own blood" that congregation? If so, why?

4. Members of this flock can depart from it "not sparing the flock.......draw away." How can members of your universal invisible flock be drawn away from it?

The Universal body ofChrist, of all the redeemed, are members of locak churches...

All in the Univeral Church are saved, not all in the locla ones are...

You scriptures addrss the local church as to how it functions under leadership, but you fail to see its not either /or here, but both churches in view!

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist,

As your positions are exposed you amp up this kind of language.
Suggesting to Martin this;

We do not agree with part of your view, or how you exegete many portions of scripture. As we respond and show how many do not agree you dismiss them all.

It is obvious we don't agree and it is just as obvious that you and Martin can't prove my expositions are wrong as you jump and run, pit and run. My frustration is due to these kind of responses.

T

he actual Church are those Christ died for.No more, no less.
Impostors are not who Jesus died for. False brethren while a plague to any church sometimes go undetected in this life....Yes we understand that they assemble with and mimic the actual church....but they are not "of us";
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Context! I John is not written about the church but about how one can know they are a true child of God. You are READING INTO the text "church" when it is not found. He is not speaking about church membership but about FAMILY membership as the NEW BIRTH is the continued theme of this book.

You make these unfounded assertions, jerk texts out of context and then proclaim you have defended your point when you have not.

Actually.... I can. It seems that way to you because of your narrow definitions. I will show you here-
.
The church belongs to God. He calls believers to service as the saints are set apart by Him.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

CONTEXT!!!! He is not speaking of the church in verse 19 but of the PHYSICAL BODY of the individual believer. He is addressing them according to their profession. Paul is not omniscient, but simply addressing them in terms that fit their profession, baptism, and membership.

The true Church does this......carnal false professors do not, but you subscribe to the carnal Christian heresy so it fits into your scheme.

The great whore in rev 18, most likely is apostate Jerusalem in the first century, contrasted with the faithful bride.

CONTEXT!!! That is simply an impossible interpretation and if you want to challenge me to prove that, then open a thread on it and I will gladly demonstrate it.

The church is born of God and is family.

The issue is solved if you abandon the carnal Christian heresy.

More nonsensical assertions that have no basis in Scripture and are easily overturned. The foundation is New Testament in nature, the first materials are apostles "FIRST apostles" the second materials are prophets "SECONDARILY prophets" thus contradicting your whole ecclesiology which should have Adam and Eve first, and the prophet Abel second.

Another false declaration. Every TRUE Church member is born of God. No new birth, no heaven.Those regenerated are in a local assembly on earth, or in heaven.

Says who? The church is not the family or kingdom of God as both preceded the church. We have proven that by proper exegesis of the texts above. Water baptism and a profession make you a member of the Lord's "churches" (plural) as God has even set in those lost members for the edification of the church (1 Cor. 11;18-19; Jn. 17).

You do not "define the Church" scripture does. Your explanation does not match

It most certainly does match and the only reason it does not match in your estimation is due to improper exegesis and understanding and using the historical meaning of the term. It is used in an institutional sense in classical Greek and only by ignoring that usage can you substantiate your invisible church theory.

We do this...not being able to see the heart, and yet God does see it.
Paul would not qualify his statement here in 1 cor 5 if he held your view;
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Your view is wrong,that is why it is not popular.

He is actually repudiating your view. That man turned out to be a brother (2 Cor. 2:6) and Paul was merely admitting his inability to discern hearts and commanding them to treat them as professed brethren until it could be proven they were not. When he speaks of "without" he means those outside the congregational membership at Corinth. He is not talking about a universal invisible church membership. The preceding context proves this as they are commanded to "purge OUT" that leaven from the "whole lump" which when does producing a "new" lump which THEY ARE! This command to "purge OUT" is the metaphorical equivalent to the literal command in verse 5.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Universal body ofChrist, of all the redeemed, are members of locak churches...

All in the Univeral Church are saved, not all in the locla ones are...

You scriptures addrss the local church as to how it functions under leadership, but you fail to see its not either /or here, but both churches in view!

Just more unfounded assertions. prove it by sound exegesis! Explain how these elders have been made overseers of "the church" in this text that is described as purchased by the blood? If he had said that these elders had been made overseers of their church that would be one thing. But he says they had been made overseers of the church purchased by Christ's blood.

Your dualistic interpretation requires two altogether DIFFERENT KINDS of churches, two DIFFERENT KINDS bodies of Christ two DIFFERENT KINDS of baptism. It is impossible to claim they are ONE in the sense that one is the visible expression of the other as they CONTRADICT each other in all points.

For example, one is local and visible while the other is universal and invisible. One demands salvation before membership while the other salvation is membership. One requires water baptism before membership while the other requires nothing but salvation for membership. One removes erring brethren from its membership while the other cannot do so.

For example, one is baptism in the water of previously saved, while the other is salvation by immersion in the Spirit One begins with John the Baptist while the other begins on Pentecost thus demanding all previous to Pentecost are lost outside of Christ still in spiritual separation/death from God.

For example, one body consists of physical human bodies - 1 Cor. 6:15 while the other consists of spirits. There is no visible unity or expression but complete contradictions to each other.

The modern reformed attempt to conform the visible to the invisible by denying water baptism for membership in the visible overthrows not only all historic Christianity in its unified practice of water baptism as prerequisite for church membership but overthrows the clear precepts and examples of scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just more unfounded assertions. prove it by sound exegesis! Explain how these elders have been made overseers of "the church" in this text that is described as purchased by the blood? If he had said that these elders had been made overseers of their church that would be one thing. But he says they had been made overseers of the church purchased by Christ's blood.

Your dualistic interpretation requires two altogether DIFFERENT KINDS of churches, two DIFFERENT KINDS bodies of Christ two DIFFERENT KINDS of baptism. It is impossible to claim they are ONE in the sense that one is the visible expression of the other as they CONTRADICT each other in all points.

For example, one is local and visible while the other is universal and invisible. One demands salvation before membership while the other salvation is membership. One requires water baptism before membership while the other requires nothing but salvation for membership. One removes erring brethren from its membership while the other cannot do so.

For example, one is baptism in the water of previously saved, while the other is salvation by immersion in the Spirit One begins with John the Baptist while the other begins on Pentecost thus demanding all previous to Pentecost are lost outside of Christ still in spiritual separation/death from God.

For example, one body consists of physical human bodies - 1 Cor. 6:15 while the other consists of spirits. There is no visible unity or expression but complete contradictions to each other.

The modern reformed attempt to conform the visible to the invisible by denying water baptism for membership in the visible overthrows not only all historic Christianity in its unified practice of water baptism as prerequisite for church membership but overthrows the clear precepts and examples of scripture.

Hebrews refers us to the Church of the Firstborn in Heaen, and there is in h Bible BOTH te scriptures referrng to te local churcheson how to be govern and what to teach and hold with, but alo do teach the invisiblechurch! Just curious as to wy yo keep denying this, s it does not affect theology tat much!

 

[The Biblicist]

Hebrews refers us to the Church of the Firstborn in Heaen, and there is in h Bible BOTH te scriptures referrng to te local churcheson how to be govern and what to teach and hold with, but alo do teach the invisiblechurch!

I have proven that theory by a careful exegesis of the text and the two perfect tense verbs translated "have come." The Jewish ekklesia at the foot of Mount Sinai came into the presence of God, angels and heaven without leaving earth and the very same verb with the very same tense is used of the church with regard to Mount Sion. Their names are the only thing "in heaven" while they are assembling on earth and all heaven is in attendance. Forsaking of that assembly was in all practical terms forsaking of the New Covenant (Heb. 10:25-30). Attending the assembly was a visible embracing of the covenant and all of its promises. If the church was actually in heaven he would not have to say their "names were written in heaven" because they would be in heaven.

Again, you never respond to any exposition of a text I have given, you simply ignore it, assert things you cannot prove and then jump from text to text. How about some direct confrontation of contextual evidences that I have presented or am I going to have to follow you down your rabbit trails jumping from text to text while you keep on making mere assertions without any proper exegetical evidence to support your assertions?????

 

[The Biblicist]

But there are some of you that believe not." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who believed not and who should betray Him. -Jn. 6:64

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? - Jn. 6:70

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy name. Those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. -Jn. 17:12

He knew "from the beginning" he was an unbeliever (Jn. 6:64) but not only had him baptized and received among his congregation (Acts 1:21-22) but installed him into a church office (1 Cor. 12:28) on purpose in order "that scripture might be fulfilled."

Did the omniscient Christ purposely set him in the congregational body as it pleased him to accomplish his purpose or did he not (1 Cor. 12:18) as he explicitly says he chose and set him in his congregation for a precise purpose (Jn. 17)??

For there must be also heresies among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest among you. - 1 Cor. 11:19

Note the word "must be' not "might be". Notice the stated purpose for such heresies among you?

God sets every member in the local visible congregational body, both lost and saved to accomplish his purposes. They are members according to the requirements for membership and they have been set in that membership by God for his express purposes.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have proven that theory by a careful exegesis of the text and the two perfect tense verbs translated "have come." The Jewish ekklesia at the foot of Mount Sinai came into the presence of God, angels and heaven without leaving earth and the very same verb with the very same tense is used of the church with regard to Mount Sion. Their names are the only thing "in heaven" while they are assembling on earth and all heaven is in attendance. Forsaking of that assembly was in all practical terms forsaking of the New Covenant (Heb. 10:25-30). Attending the assembly was a visible embracing of the covenant and all of its promises. If the church was actually in heaven he would not have to say their "names were written in heaven" because they would be in heaven.

Again, you never respond to any exposition of a text I have given, you simply ignore it, assert things you cannot prove and then jump from text to text. How about some direct confrontation of contextual evidences that I have presented or am I going to have to follow you down your rabbit trails jumping from text to text while you keep on making mere assertions without any proper exegetical evidence to support your assertions?????

There is a Body/bride of Christin heaen right now correct? And that wouldbe His curch tere correct?
I actuall agree ith wh yo ste regadingloak churches, but not that threisno such thing as also a Univeral Church...

is the body/bride of esus not also is curch, or does he have church her, and thoe 2 just in heaven?
Nope, as Palaul staed that he wants to present a chaste/purebride to Christ, is body/Church, istat not referring to all saved, not just local bodies??

 

[The Biblicist]

There is a Body/bride of Christin heaen right now correct? And that wouldbe His curch tere correct?
I actuall agree ith wh yo ste regadingloak churches, but not that threisno such thing as also a Univeral Church...

is the body/bride of esus not also is curch, or does he have church her, and thoe 2 just in heaven?
Nope, as Palaul staed that he wants to present a chaste/purebride to Christ, is body/Church, istat not referring to all saved, not just local bodies??

I make spelling mistakes also, but you have so many it is hard to read. No,there is no bride, church, body in heaven right now. If you think there is find a text to show so! Hebrews 12:22-25 does not prove it so any more than it proves Israel was in heaven in verses 17-120. The only thing in heaven is their names not their persons.

2 Corinthians 11;2 is addressing a local visible congregation. What is true of this local visible congregation is true of the church as an institution. In the future it is the institutional church which is the bride of Christ (Rev. 19:6-7) while other saints are guests who are invited to the wedding (Rev. 19:8-9) and many who will live OUTSIDE the New Jerusalem upon the New earth ("saved nations" - Rev. 21:24).

Take note of what I am going to say next because it is the root problem from which the error of the universal invisible church originates. Your view totally disregards, ignores, denies the institutional use of ekklesia and that is a primary use in Classical Greek literature. If you admitted to the institutional sense (abstract sense) you would have no texts to argue for such a contradiction of terms.

The abstract institutional sense of ekklesia is used for example in 1 Cor. 14:29 where Paul says that "in the church" he would rather speak five words that can be understood. No particular church is identified, he does not say what church he would speak five words in, but it is the kind of church he an speak "in" that hears what he says. That is the institutional abstract use of ekklesia. It is found in a context where the ekklesia at Corinth is being instructed and rebuked concerning their congregational service. Verse 29 refers to all such congregations as verses 33-34 proves ("churches").

1 Cor. 6:15 and 1 Cor. 12:12; 27 prove the only body of Christ is this institutional body that exists on earth and always in a concrete form with regards to its actual existence.

 

[rsr]

The problem, as I see it, is that you want to ignore the plain reading of Scripture to reinforce your own doctrine. There are a few places in Scripture that equate the Church with the Kingdom, the Body of Christ, etc. You don't like it, so you explain away the plain teaching of Scripture.

The signers of the Second London Confession were very careful in their definition of the Church Universal.

"The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

Thus they said that one cannot know, for certain, the members of the Church Universal; only God knows, which seems to be a commonsense declaration. A good number of Baptist pastors signed both the first and second confessions, which would seem to indicate they saw the second as a fuller, not contradictory, statement of their faith.

Now, I know that you believe that the Baptists began to slip into apostasy between the first and second London confessions. So be it.

I would recommend a reading of John Dagg on this topic. For him, the Church Universal is not invisible (except as it applies to the departed).

"Theological writers have maintained the existence of what they call the Visible Church Catholic, consisting of all who profess the true religion. They regard this as distinct from the body of true saints, which they designate the Invisible Church. The propriety of this designation we have denied, on the ground that true religion is visible in its effects. But the question as to the propriety of the names used to designate these bodies, is altogether different from the question whether these bodies actually exist. We have maintained the existence of what theological writers have called the Invisible Church, consisting of all who are spiritually united to Christ. Is there another body consisting of all who profess the true religion?

The possibility of uniting all who profess the true religion in one mental conception, and of designating them by a collective name, cannot be disputed."

"Saul persecuted the church, and this he could not have done if the church had been invisible. We fully admit the visibility of the church, but we distinguish between visibility and organization."

I can think of nothing to add to Dagg's observations on Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So Chastening is for "faithful" Christians (Heb. 12:5-10)?

Yes. Read the text you quote again, especially verse 8. Who is it that doesn't receive chastening? Faithful Christians? I don't think so!

So the Corinthians were written unto because they were "faithful" in all things (not perfect but faithful)?

Yes. 1 Corinthians 1:2-8; 11:2. The Corinthians had a number of problems, and were in danger of being deceived by false teachers (2 Corinthians 11:13 etc.), but they obeyed Paul in expelling the immoral member (2 Corinthians 2:6 etc.), and Paul is in no doubt that when he comes to them, they will support him in driving the false teachers out (2 Corinthians 11:12).

So we are exhorted to be what we cannot help being - faithful??? So those in Revelation 18:4 are faithful?

If they are God's people, they will be faithful and come out.
I have said this several times on this board, but repeat it for your benefit. Christ's sheep are a rare and special breed. They are distinguished by their ears and their feet. Now go to John 10:27 and find out what is distinctive about their ears and feet.

So there is no such thing as an unfaithful Christian? And what version do you get this from the NWT???

1 Timothy 2:11-13. 'This is a faithful saying:
For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure, we shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him, He will deny us.
If we are faithless, He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself.' Some people misunderstand verse 13 and think that even if people are faithless, Christ remains faithful to them, but that is exactly wrong. The poetic parallelism forbids that interpretation. To be faithless is to deny Christ, and Christ will be faithful (consistent) in denying those who are faithless. See Matthew 10:32-33. Unfaithful 'Christians,' unless they are brought to repentance, are not Christians at all.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes. Read the text you quote again, especially verse 8. Who is it that doesn't receive chastening? Faithful Christians? I don't think so!

Yes. 1 Corinthians 1:2-8; 11:2. The Corinthians had a number of problems, and were in danger of being deceived by false teachers (2 Corinthians 11:13 etc.), but they obeyed Paul in expelling the immoral member (2 Corinthians 2:6 etc.), and Paul is in no doubt that when he comes to them, they will support him in driving the false teachers out (2 Corinthians 11:12).

Both of your response are proven false above because the "brother" that was excluded was not excluded for faithfulness and he was a "brother" (2 Cor. 2:6). Those whom he rebuked were brethren and they were not rebuked for faithfulness.

If they are God's people, they will be faithful and come out.

This is also false as there is "a sin unto death" when God takes the life of a saint and it is not due to faithfulness.

I have said this several times on this board, but repeat it for your benefit. Christ's sheep are a rare and special breed. They are distinguished by their ears and their feet. Now go to John 10:27 and find out what is distinctive about their ears and feet.

Context! He is contrasting them to those that believe not (v. 26) and no one denies they are sheep by nature and will remain so, but to assume that sheep do not go astray (unfaithful) is pressing this text way too far.

1 Timothy 2:11-13. 'This is a faithful saying:
For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure, we shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him, He will deny us.
If we are faithless, He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself.' Unfaithful 'Christians,' unless they are brought to repentance, are not Christians at all.

Wrong! look at the consistent pronoun "we".

1. WE died with him
2. WE shall live with him
3. IF "we" endure "we" shall
4. IF "we" are faithless, He remains faithful (not we remain faithful).

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Read the text you quote again, especially verse 8. Who is it that doesn't receive chastening? Faithful Christians? I don't think so!

Yes. 1 Corinthians 1:2-8; 11:2. The Corinthians had a number of problems, and were in danger of being deceived by false teachers (2 Corinthians 11:13 etc.), but they obeyed Paul in expelling the immoral member (2 Corinthians 2:6 etc.), and Paul is in no doubt that when he comes to them, they will support him in driving the false teachers out (2 Corinthians 11:12).
If they are God's people, they will be faithful and come out.
I have said this several times on this board, but repeat it for your benefit. Christ's sheep are a rare and special breed. They are distinguished by their ears and their feet. Now go to John 10:27 and find out what is distinctive about their ears and feet.

1 Timothy 2:11-13. 'This is a faithful saying:
For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure, we shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him, He will deny us.
If we are faithless, He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself.' Some people misunderstand verse 13 and think that even if people are faithless, Christ remains faithful to them, but that is exactly wrong. The poetic parallelism forbids that interpretation. To be faithless is to deny Christ, and Christ will be faithful (consistent) in denying those who are faithless. See Matthew 10:32-33. Unfaithful 'Christians,' unless they are brought to repentance, are not Christians at all.

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem, as I see it, is that you want to ignore the plain reading of Scripture to reinforce your own doctrine. There are a few places in Scripture that equate the Church with the Kingdom, the Body of Christ, etc. You don't like it, so you explain away the plain teaching of Scripture.

The signers of the Second London Confession were very careful in their definition of the Church Universal.

"The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

Thus they said that one cannot know, for certain, the members of the Church Universal; only God knows, which seems to be a commonsense declaration. A good number of Baptist pastors signed both the first and second confessions, which would seem to indicate they saw the second as a fuller, not contradictory, statement of their faith.

Now, I know that you believe that the Baptists began to slip into apostasy between the first and second London confessions. So be it.

I would recommend a reading of John Dagg on this topic. For him, the Church Universal is not invisible (except as it applies to the departed).

"Theological writers have maintained the existence of what they call the Visible Church Catholic, consisting of all who profess the true religion. They regard this as distinct from the body of true saints, which they designate the Invisible Church. The propriety of this designation we have denied, on the ground that true religion is visible in its effects. But the question as to the propriety of the names used to designate these bodies, is altogether different from the question whether these bodies actually exist. We have maintained the existence of what theological writers have called the Invisible Church, consisting of all who are spiritually united to Christ. Is there another body consisting of all who profess the true religion?

The possibility of uniting all who profess the true religion in one mental conception, and of designating them by a collective name, cannot be disputed."

"Saul persecuted the church, and this he could not have done if the church had been invisible. We fully admit the visibility of the church, but we distinguish between visibility and organization."

I can think of nothing to add to Dagg's observations on Scripture.

any that deny the Universale Church seemto tink that would implie that is the Catholic chuch or something...

Just too many references in the Bible to it existing...

 

[The Biblicist]

Hebrews refers us to the Church of the Firstborn in Heaen, and there is in h Bible BOTH te scriptures referrng to te local churcheson how to be govern and what to teach and hold with, but alo do teach the invisiblechurch! Just curious as to wy yo keep denying this, s it does not affect theology tat much!

I deny it, because Hebrews does not teach that and neither does any other scripture in the bible. I have given you the exegetical evidence it does not teach a universal invisible church both in 1 Cor. 6:15 and in Hebrews 12 and all you do is ignore the evidence and keep repeating assertions that the evidence proves wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Read the text you quote again, especially verse 8. Who is it that doesn't receive chastening? Faithful Christians? I don't think so!

Yes. 1 Corinthians 1:2-8; 11:2. The Corinthians had a number of problems, and were in danger of being deceived by false teachers (2 Corinthians 11:13 etc.), but they obeyed Paul in expelling the immoral member (2 Corinthians 2:6 etc.), and Paul is in no doubt that when he comes to them, they will support him in driving the false teachers out (2 Corinthians 11:12).
If they are God's people, they will be faithful and come out.
I have said this several times on this board, but repeat it for your benefit. Christ's sheep are a rare and special breed. They are distinguished by their ears and their feet. Now go to John 10:27 and find out what is distinctive about their ears and feet.

1 Timothy 2:11-13. 'This is a faithful saying:
For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure, we shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him, He will deny us.
If we are faithless, He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself.' Some people misunderstand verse 13 and think that even if people are faithless, Christ remains faithful to them, but that is exactly wrong. The poetic parallelism forbids that interpretation. To be faithless is to deny Christ, and Christ will be faithful (consistent) in denying those who are faithless. See Matthew 10:32-33. Unfaithful 'Christians,' unless they are brought to repentance, are not Christians at all.

There cannot be any faithless saints, as te Holy Spirit Himself grants to us a measure of faith in order to even believe upon Jesus

 

[Yeshua1]

I deny it, because Hebrews does not teach that and neither does any other scripture in the bible. I have given you the exegetical evidence it does not teach a universal invisible church both in 1 Cor. 6:15 and in Hebrews 12 and all you do is ignore the evidence and keep repeating assertions that the evidence proves wrong.

Do you beleive then thatonly true NT curces hve savedin tem? hat Anglicans/Presby/Pentacostal et all are lost, as the d not memberin a real church?


And so whtwould YOU call a gathring of all saved by grace of God then?

 

[The Biblicist]

any that deny the Universale Church seemto tink that would implie that is the Catholic chuch or something...

The universal invisible church doctrine repudiates the fundementals of Biblical salvation and I have addressed this clearly in another post but nobody responds! I wonder why???? So I will post it here again:



1 ¶ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Paul explicitly states we are "in Christ" by a creative act. In context that creative act is quickening. Quickening IS being brought into spiritual union with Christ - it means "made alive." This is easy to see if you simply follow Paul's argument in reverse from verse 10.

1. "For" we are his workmanship is stated in contrast to verses 8-9 "and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast "For".

2. "For" by grace are ye saved through faith" is explanatory of verses 5-7. Note the same language ("by grace are ye saved") is first stated in verse 5 as explanatory of being "quickened" that is the means of bringing us into spiritual union "with Christ" (v. 8).

3. Verses 4-5 are contrasted to verses 2-3. Verses 2-3 explain the pre-quickened condition of the Ephesians that is first introduced by the words "who were dead in tresspasses and sins" in verse 1, whereas verses 4-5 continue the quickened description began in verse 1.

4. The term "quickened" means MADE ALIVE and is placed in direct contrast with being SPIRITUALLY DEAD meaning SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED FROM GOD who is life, light, love, and holiness.

CONCLUSION: Ephesians 2:1-10 is a contrast between the previous state of SPIRITUAL SEPARATION and the QUICKENED STATE or state of SPIRITUAL UNION WITH CHRIST. Ephesians 2:5,8,10 define the act of quckening (restoration to spiritual union with Christ) as God's gracious creative act while denying it originates or is a product of works. There is no BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT even mentioned here, as no baptism LITERALLY places anyone into spiritual union with Christ as that is the creative act of God called QUICKENING. Quickening IS spiritual union with Christ. Whereas, the baptism in the Spirit is time fixed as an ACTION and cannot place anyone into spiritual union with Christ at any time. The fact that it is quickening and not baptism completely repudiates the whole universal invisible church theory as it destroys the very means such a theory claims to bring that idea into existence.

and again:

The universal problem (spiritual death/separation) originates with the fall - "in Adam"
The universal solution must also originate at the same time (Gen.3:15) or else all existing in spiritual death/separation are without the LIFE, LIGHT, LOVE and HOLINESS of God in life and in death and thus remain "in Adam" OUTSIDE of Christ, thus outside of God's eternal plan of redemption (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:28-32).

The baptism in the Spirit originates with Pentecost not with the fall. The baptism in the Spirit is one of many facets of establishing the new covenant VISIBLE administration with a VISIBLE ministry and VISIBLE ordinances as God's modus operandi for confirming a VISIBLE public house of worship that worships "in one accord in one place"

and again,

Spiritual union has nothing to do with the church or the baptism in the Spirit as both of those are TIME FIXED (time located and restricted) but the people of God span from Genesis Revelation.


The baptism in the Spirit has no existence prior to Pentecost as every single text previous to Pentecost on this subject uses the future tense. The church is the body of Christ and it has no existence prior to its own foundation which consists of New Testament materials (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).


So according to your doctrine of the church everyone prior to the "foundation" of the church, prior to Pentecost are OUTSIDE OF CHRIST as you have no mechanism to place them "in Christ" as there was no baptism in the Spirit (as you define it) prior to Pentecost. They have no body of Christ to be placed into as there is no church prior to its own "foundation."


Yet Abraham was "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) justified by faith and manifesting all the fruits of the Spirit and chosen "in him" before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) and he is the gold standard for all who are "in Christ" (Rom. 4:11,16; Gal. 3:6-17) as there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF CHRIST for anyone at anytime anywhere. But you doctrine demands by its very TIME FIXED RESTRICTIONS that all prior to Pentecost are OUTSIDE OF CHRIST as your doctrine has no CHURCH BODY OF CHRIST, no BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT for them. So according to your doctrine you deny spiritual union with God and other saints to over 4000 years of the people of God and we have only lived 2000 since Pentecost.


So you are teaching a false doctrine, which doctrine had no existence prior to Pentecost or prior to the "foundation" of the church, but spiritual union between all who are in the family of God did exist. Spiritual union is simply the reverse of spiritual separation. Spiritual separation placed all mankind in the family of Satan (Jn. 8:44-45) while spiritual union reverses that and places one in the family of God and its is called regeneration not baptism and regeneration did exist prior to both Pentecost and the "foundation" of the church (Jn. 3:3-6; Ezek. 44:7-9; Deut. 5:29; 29:4; etc.).

Just too many references in the Bible to it existing...

Oh sure! Just make a generalization. Let's be specific and handle each one in its own context one at a time! Go ahead be my guest but please don't make wild assertions with first demonstrating it by good exposition backed up with good exegetical evidence.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you beleive then thatonly true NT curces hve savedin tem? hat Anglicans/Presby/Pentacostal et all are lost, as the d not memberin a real church?


And so whtwould YOU call a gathring of all saved by grace of God then?

You are brought to this conclusion because it is YOU that confuse the church with the family of God. You can't distinguish between salvation (family of God) and service (church) so if I exclude all the rest of the FAMILY from the CHURCH you assume I must believe they are lost because YOU make them synonyms when they are DIFFERENT.

However, when the FAMILY seen as all of the saved in heaven and earth, and when the church is seen only as that portion of the saved on earth who obey the Great Commission then no confusion exists and none of the rest of the FAMILY are denied salvation simply because they don't obey the Great Commission. BTW you can't obey the Great Commission outside of congregation of water immersed believers that deny the ordinances are sacraments and denies infant membership - period!

Martin holds to the ridiculous and unbiblical theory that a group of paedobaptism sprinkled group of people can be recognized as a true NT. Church when such an idea cannot be found in either precepts or examples in Scripture and when precepts condemn such an idea.

 

[Yeshua1]

The universal invisible church doctrine repudiates the fundementals of Biblical salvation and I have addressed this clearly in another post but nobody responds! I wonder why???? So I will post it here again:



1 ¶ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Paul explicitly states we are "in Christ" by a creative act. In context that creative act is quickening. Quickening IS being brought into spiritual union with Christ - it means "made alive." This is easy to see if you simply follow Paul's argument in reverse from verse 10.

1. "For" we are his workmanship is stated in contrast to verses 8-9 "and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast "For".

2. "For" by grace are ye saved through faith" is explanatory of verses 5-7. Note the same language ("by grace are ye saved") is first stated in verse 5 as explanatory of being "quickened" that is the means of bringing us into spiritual union "with Christ" (v. 8).

3. Verses 4-5 are contrasted to verses 2-3. Verses 2-3 explain the pre-quickened condition of the Ephesians that is first introduced by the words "who were dead in tresspasses and sins" in verse 1, whereas verses 4-5 continue the quickened description began in verse 1.

4. The term "quickened" means MADE ALIVE and is placed in direct contrast with being SPIRITUALLY DEAD meaning SPIRITUALLY SEPARATED FROM GOD who is life, light, love, and holiness.

CONCLUSION: Ephesians 2:1-10 is a contrast between the previous state of SPIRITUAL SEPARATION and the QUICKENED STATE or state of SPIRITUAL UNION WITH CHRIST. Ephesians 2:5,8,10 define the act of quckening (restoration to spiritual union with Christ) as God's gracious creative act while denying it originates or is a product of works. There is no BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT even mentioned here, as no baptism LITERALLY places anyone into spiritual union with Christ as that is the creative act of God called QUICKENING. Quickening IS spiritual union with Christ. Whereas, the baptism in the Spirit is time fixed as an ACTION and cannot place anyone into spiritual union with Christ at any time. The fact that it is quickening and not baptism completely repudiates the whole universal invisible church theory as it destroys the very means such a theory claims to bring that idea into existence.

and again:

The universal problem (spiritual death/separation) originates with the fall - "in Adam"
The universal solution must also originate at the same time (Gen.3:15) or else all existing in spiritual death/separation are without the LIFE, LIGHT, LOVE and HOLINESS of God in life and in death and thus remain "in Adam" OUTSIDE of Christ, thus outside of God's eternal plan of redemption (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:28-32).

The baptism in the Spirit originates with Pentecost not with the fall. The baptism in the Spirit is one of many facets of establishing the new covenant VISIBLE administration with a VISIBLE ministry and VISIBLE ordinances as God's modus operandi for confirming a VISIBLE public house of worship that worships "in one accord in one place"

and again,

Spiritual union has nothing to do with the church or the baptism in the Spirit as both of those are TIME FIXED (time located and restricted) but the people of God span from Genesis Revelation.


The baptism in the Spirit has no existence prior to Pentecost as every single text previous to Pentecost on this subject uses the future tense. The church is the body of Christ and it has no existence prior to its own foundation which consists of New Testament materials (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).


So according to your doctrine of the church everyone prior to the "foundation" of the church, prior to Pentecost are OUTSIDE OF CHRIST as you have no mechanism to place them "in Christ" as there was no baptism in the Spirit (as you define it) prior to Pentecost. They have no body of Christ to be placed into as there is no church prior to its own "foundation."


Yet Abraham was "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) justified by faith and manifesting all the fruits of the Spirit and chosen "in him" before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) and he is the gold standard for all who are "in Christ" (Rom. 4:11,16; Gal. 3:6-17) as there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF CHRIST for anyone at anytime anywhere. But you doctrine demands by its very TIME FIXED RESTRICTIONS that all prior to Pentecost are OUTSIDE OF CHRIST as your doctrine has no CHURCH BODY OF CHRIST, no BAPTISM IN THE SPIRIT for them. So according to your doctrine you deny spiritual union with God and other saints to over 4000 years of the people of God and we have only lived 2000 since Pentecost.


So you are teaching a false doctrine, which doctrine had no existence prior to Pentecost or prior to the "foundation" of the church, but spiritual union between all who are in the family of God did exist. Spiritual union is simply the reverse of spiritual separation. Spiritual separation placed all mankind in the family of Satan (Jn. 8:44-45) while spiritual union reverses that and places one in the family of God and its is called regeneration not baptism and regeneration did exist prior to both Pentecost and the "foundation" of the church (Jn. 3:3-6; Ezek. 44:7-9; Deut. 5:29; 29:4; etc.).



Oh sure! Just make a generalization. Let's be specific and handle each one in its own context one at a time! Go ahead be my guest but please don't make wild assertions with first demonstrating it by good exposition backed up with good exegetical evidence.

Those saved by Godunder Old Covenant were saved on same basis we NT saints, by Crossof Christ on their behalf, but the did not experiencetefulness o the Spiri as e now hve Him, as that is themrk of NT chritian, t now been sealed ad all indwelt by Spirt!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are brought to this conclusion because it is YOU that confuse the church with the family of God. You can't distinguish between salvation (family of God) and service (church) so if I exclude all the rest of the FAMILY from the CHURCH you assume I must believe they are lost because YOU make them synonyms when they are DIFFERENT.

However, when the FAMILY seen as all of the saved in heaven and earth, and when the church is seen only as that portion of the saved on earth who obey the Great Commission then no confusion exists and none of the rest of the FAMILY are denied salvation simply because they don't obey the Great Commission. BTW you can't obey the Great Commission outside of congregation of water immersed believers that deny the ordinances are sacraments and denies infant membership - period!

Martin holds to the ridiculous and unbiblical theory that a group of paedobaptism sprinkled group of people can be recognized as a true NT. Church when such an idea cannot be found in either precepts or examples in Scripture and when precepts condemn such an idea.

Church/Body/Bride are all used to describ those who are no in Chrit!