A False Teaching on Christ’s Satisfaction Exposed

[SovereignGrace]

In this post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2243420&postcount=46
You said:

Yes, and you took and put a bad spin on what I said and made it look like I stated Christ was also a goat herder. That could not be further from the truth, monsieur. I am getting a 'whiff' of something that is rather foul. I do not like the smell of it, mon ami.

I had already defined a local church as one that is made up of baptized believers, not just those who gather under the roof of a building. Only those who are saved and baptized are members.

The local church is chocked full of people who have been baptized, but not saved, monsieur. If it were not so, there would not be all this unsound doctrine floating around. Having women pastors, speaking in tongues as evidence of Holy Spirit baptism, drunk and slain in the Spirit advocating, &c. These peoples have been dunked, but if they are saved or not, it is not up to I to judge. But they are advocating some really bad doctrines. Jim Bakker's son, who was also baptized, gave support of gay marriage during a sermon when he sated he was pro-gay marriage.

If he is not saved he, by default, is not a member. Thus all the members are believers (or sheep).

He is a member of the local church, but a false convert.

The Shepherd leads the sheep.

Yes. He is not a goat herder.

I don't believe in a universal church.

Poor you.

The word ekklesia prevents that definition.

The universal church is assembled as the body of Christ, He being their Head.

But your quote says "you have goats in the vast majority of them."
If there are goats in the churches of which Christ is the Shepherd, then he is a Shepherd of goats.

They are members of the local church, their names are written on those church books. But if they are 'weeds sown in the midst of wheat', they are not His.

That is what I get from your statement.

You need to quit misrepresenting what I type, mon ami.

My theology prevents that type of doctrine.

So you say.

He is a Shepherd of sheep; a bridegroom coming for his bride.

Never stated otherwise.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think what he meant Brother DHK is that many churches have false professors who may even be members on the books of these various local church assemblies and made a formal confession of faith and come forth and were baptized. We cannot tell who is a true believer and who is not, this will be revealed by Christ.

ALL who belong as members of His church are saved, the church universal, but not all as members in local churches are saved!

 

[DHK]

No, Pastor, God’s love is not a ‘mess’ nor does it contain ‘errors.’

I will answer this using my own church as an example.
Our church is not a mess. It does not contain error. I am sure you would not find error in its quite detailed statement of faith other than a bias you may form from Calvinism.

Our Lord is calling a Bride for His Son.

His love is specific and particular.

He knows exactly who to call and how to win their affection.

Similar to your human experience, God's love is specific and particular.

Like you, the Lord doesn't marry on a whim.

Like you, the Lord is quite picky in choosing a bride.

And he is not finished yet. The bride consists of "whosoever will may come."
The bride consists of those who believe.
It is unimaginable to me that a Calvinist believes in a watered down weakened God who has lost some of his sovereignty. He is not sovereign enough, they think; not strong enough, to allow man to have his own free will. They are afraid that within the bounds of His great omnipotence and omniscience, that if some individual will make a choice that he has not foreknown, that he will cease to be God and all the world will be thrown into chaos. What a weakened view of God you have!! Thus you do away with the free will of man because your view of the sovereignty of God is not as great as the non-Cal's view.

However, His reasons for choosing the Bride of Christ, the Church, (comprised of all the Elect from the beginning of time), are different than your reasons for choosing your bride.

The "Church" is not the same as the bride. Ekklesia means assembly. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly; no such thing as a "Universal Church." The Bible teaches no such monster. This is man's invention. The "church" is always a local church in the Bible, just as it never refers to the building, it never refers to "universal." Use biblical terminology.

Your bride was delightful to your eyes and a joy to your soul.

She delighted in your company, as you did hers.

Christ’s Bride, on the other hand, was not so delightful at first.

In fact, she hated the Bridegroom and wanted nothing to do with Him.

She was quite ugly in appearance, for her soul was ravaged by the black plague of sin.

Yet Christ died for her while she was yet His enemy, unwilling to seek a physician for her sin sickness.

Unlike a human suitor who attempts to woo his sweetheart with flowers, candy and sweet talk, our Lord uses a different tact.

He sends His Spirit to that specific Elect sinner whom the Father has given Him.

The Spirit then performs a divine work of grace on that sinner’s heart and soul, engulfing him in a love indescribable; unlike any love that sinner has ever known.

A person never becomes a part of the bride until that person is first saved.
At that time the person is saved, sanctified, sins forgiven, made righteous in the sight of God, holy, justified, and much, much more. Are you sure we are talking about the same thing?

As a result of God’s sovereign outpouring of gracious love, the once hateful, unwilling sinner is now more than willing to love Christ, to obey Christ, to serve Christ, to marry Christ, and even, if called to do so, to die for Christ.

Despite the insistence of Pastor DHK, God’s love is not a ‘mess’ nor does it contain ‘errors.’

I never called God's love a mess. I said in the view of the Calvinist, who puts more emphasis on a warped sense of the sovereignty of God and his judgment and wrath, God's love and grace becomes diluted and perhaps even left out.
The non-Cal emphasizes the love of God to the sinner and does not emphasize the sovereignty of God. He will put his faith in God after he realizes he is a sinner in need of a Savior, and that God has made him an object of His love--so much so, that he died for him.
But according to your view, he didn't, if he is not one of the elect. Perhaps while telling him about salvation you should be honest and put that caveat in there that if you are not one of God's elect this message is not for you because no matter what you do you cannot believe what I tell you anyway.

 

[DHK]

Yes, and you took and put a bad spin on what I said and made it look like I stated Christ was also a goat herder. That could not be further from the truth, monsieur. I am getting a 'whiff' of something that is rather foul. I do not like the smell of it, mon ami.

Here is a definition of a local church:
It is an assembly of baptized believers who have voluntarily organized themselves together for the purpose of carrying out the Great Commission and observing the two ordinances of Christ (baptism of believers by immersion, and the Lord's Table).
--By that definition all who are members of the local church are sheep. They are saved and baptized.

The local church is chocked full of people who have been baptized, but not saved, monsieur. If it were not so, there would not be all this unsound doctrine floating around. Having women pastors, speaking in tongues as evidence of Holy Spirit baptism, drunk and slain in the Spirit advocating, &c. These peoples have been dunked, but if they are saved or not, it is not up to I to judge. But they are advocating some really bad doctrines. Jim Bakker's son, who was also baptized, gave support of gay marriage during a sermon when he sated he was pro-gay marriage.

Then they are not biblical local churches. Not every "church" that calls themselves a "church" falls under the category of "church." Not every "pastor" who calls themselves a pastor really is a pastor.
There are many pretenders. There are many false teachers, false prophets that would arise, that not only Jesus warned us of, but every other NT book of the Bible.

He is a member of the local church, but a false convert.

By definition an unsaved person cannot be a member of a biblical local church.

Yes. He is not a goat herder.

According to what you have written above Christ shepherds goats because they are in every church. I don't agree. I don't believe that fits the definition of a biblical local church. Thus he shepherds only sheep.

Poor you.

I doubt if you can prove me wrong on this doctrine.
There is no such thing as a Universal Church. The word ekklesia means "assembly" and cannot be used in the sense of "universal." How can one have an unassembled assembly?

The universal church is assembled as the body of Christ, He being their Head.

A nice philosophy, but it is not taught in scriptures.

They are members of the local church, their names are written on those church books. But if they are 'weeds sown in the midst of wheat', they are not His.

An unsaved person is not a member of a biblical local church.
Christ is the head of every biblical local church; he is not a goat herder by your implication.

You need to quit misrepresenting what I type, mon ami.

I am not. Christ is the head of every local church. You are the one that claims that there are goats in the local church. What does that make Christ?

 

[Protestant]

I will answer this using my own church as an example. .....Ekklesia means assembly. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly; no such thing as a "Universal Church." The Bible teaches no such monster. This is man's invention. The "church" is always a local church in the Bible, just as it never refers to the building, it never refers to "universal." Use biblical terminology

Pastor DHK entertains a number of ‘unique’ doctrines not held by Baptists.

This is one of them.

According to the authoritative 2000 Baptist Confession of Faith, DHK is in direct conflict with its basic belief regarding the biblical definition of ‘The Church.’

THE 2000 BAPTIST FAITH & MESSAGE
VI. The Church
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp

Let us now examine a few Scriptures which employ the noun ‘ekklesia.’

I will ask the reader to determine for himself if Scripture is speaking of a local assembly or a universal Church comprised of ‘all of the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue and people and nation.’

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18)

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Eph. 1:22-23)

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)

According to DHK's definition his local assembly is the pillar and ground of truth.

However, there are many on this board who would take exception, even those who pastor other Baptist churches.

The "Church" is not the same as the bride.

Eph. 5:22ff. explicitly teaches the marriage between husband and wife is the type of its anti-type, the marriage of Christ and His Church, which Paul acknowledges, This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

2 Cor. 11:2: For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Paul is speaking to a local congregation here. But does He omit all other Christians as also constituting Christ’s Bride?

Of course not.

Conclusion: DHK is unswerving in his heterodox definition of ‘Church’ because it serves as a lynchpin upon which his other 'questionable' doctrines depend.

DHK continues to march to the beat of a ‘different’ drum, no matter how out of step with common sense.

 

[DHK]

Pastor DHK entertains a number of ‘unique’ doctrines not held by Baptists.

This is one of them.

According to the authoritative 2000 Baptist Confession of Faith, DHK is in direct conflict with its basic belief regarding the biblical definition of ‘The Church.’

I am not a Southern Baptist or part of their denomination. Neither am I a Calvinist. Why would you expect me to agree with their statement of faith?
You will find a number of Baptists on this board that agree with my stance on the local church. Don't be so baffled and amazed (or appear to be). It is not an uncommon position.

Let us now examine a few Scriptures which employ the noun ‘ekklesia.’

You don't have to ask. The word means assembly or congregation. It doesn't have any other meaning. Look in Darby's translation which is one of a couple of translations which consistently translates the word assembly. If the KJV did the same there would be a lot less confusion in the area of ecclesiology.

I will ask the reader to determine for himself if Scripture is speaking of a local assembly or a universal Church comprised of ‘all of the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue and people and nation.’

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18)

Mat 16:18 And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.
--There is no such thing as a universal assembly. It is ludicrous.
Jesus and his disciples were assembled together. Peter was a small stone, but it was Christ that was the Rock.
By the time we reach the first chapter of Acts the few disciples had grown to 120 (Acts 1:15).
Added to the 120 on the very next day were 3,000. Thus the First Baptist Church at Jerusalem had over 3,000 members in it and many more were added to it daily (Acts 2:47)
--This is speaking of one church, the local church in Jerusalem--an assembly that assembled together DAILY, and were discipled by the Apostles themselves. In no way was it "universal."

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Eph. 1:22-23)

Eph 1:22-23
(22) and has put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the assembly,
(23) which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all:
--He is speaking to the assembly at Ephesus. Christ is the head over each and every biblical local/church/assembly. There is nothing universal here.
It is impossible to have a "universal assembly". How does an assembly meet in a universal place? Where do all the members meet? You have a place big enough? It makes no sense; no purpose; no function; no reality.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)

Keep in mind this is a pastoral epistle.
Here is the proper translation again:

1Ti 3:15 but if I delay, in order that thou mayest know how one ought to conduct oneself in God's house, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth.
Timothy was the pastor of the church (assembly) in Ephesus. Paul is writing how he ought to conduct himself in the assembly, when it is gathered together. Each and every local church is the pillar and ground of the truth. There was a huge temple in Ephesus: Artemis or Diana.
Easton's Bible Dictionary describes the Temple:

Her most noted temple was that at Ephesus. It was built outside the city walls, and was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. "First and last it was the work of 220 years; built of shining marble; 342 feet long by 164 feet broad; supported by a forest of columns, each 56 feet high; a sacred museum of masterpieces of sculpture and painting.

--Paul's reference may well have been to the column's at this well known temple.
What function does a column have? It has a foundation, and it is a support.
In the church the pillar stands firmly on the truth (the Word) and supports or upholds the truth (The Word). That is Paul's meaning. There is no Universal Church here. Paul is instructing Timothy about the purpose of his own church.

According to DHK's definition his local assembly is the pillar and ground of truth.

That is because it is.

However, there are many on this board who would take exception, even those who pastor other Baptist churches.

Don't be so shocked. There are many that do agree with me.

Eph. 5:22ff. explicitly teaches the marriage between husband and wife is the type of its anti-type, the marriage of Christ and His Church, which Paul acknowledges, This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Eph 5:21 submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord,
Eph 5:23 for a husband is head of the wife, as also the Christ is head of the assembly. *He* is Saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 But even as the assembly is subjected to the Christ, so also wives to their own husbands in everything.
Eph 5:32 This mystery is great, but *I* speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly.
As the husband is the head of the wife so is Christ the head of the church (assembly). He was speaking to the church at Ephesus. As this truth was directed to the members at the assembly at Ephesus so it is applicable to every biblical local church. It is used in a generic sense.

2 Cor. 11:2: For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Paul is speaking to a local congregation here. But does He omit all other Christians as also constituting Christ’s Bride?

Of course not.

Conclusion: DHK is unswerving in his heterodox definition of ‘Church’ because it serves as a lynchpin upon which his other 'questionable' doctrines depend.

DHK continues to march to the beat of a ‘different’ drum, no matter how out of step with common sense.

What is your definition of a local church (the only kind of church in the NT)?
Whether the congregation was 3,000 or more and met in the Temple, or much less and met in a house:

Acts 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in the prison; but unceasing prayer was made by the assembly to God concerning him.

It was still a church/assembly. It is not the building that makes the church. It is the believers that "assemble" together, and the fictitious universal "church" cannot do that.

 

[Rippon]

Mat 16:18 And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.

Was Christ speaking of a particular congregation or assembly? Of couse not --the Church Universal.

As this truth was directed to the members at the assembly at Ephesus so it is applicable to every biblical local church. It is used in a generic sense.

Well, you have negated your oft-repeated argument then. You now say it was used in a generic sense --that means in general --not a specific gathering of a local assembly. Thank you for acknowledging the truth.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Here is a definition of a local church:
It is an assembly of baptized believers who have voluntarily organized themselves together for the purpose of carrying out the Great Commission and observing the two ordinances of Christ (baptism of believers by immersion, and the Lord's Table).
--By that definition all who are members of the local church are sheep. They are saved and baptized.

I am not disagreeing with you about what constitutes a local church. But for you to say that everyone who comes and makes a confession of their faith in Christ is actually saved is rather odd. By your definition, the Lakewood church and all of its 43,500 members are saved because they have been baptized and make up an assembly.

Then they are not biblical local churches. Not every "church" that calls themselves a "church" falls under the category of "church." Not every "pastor" who calls themselves a pastor really is a pastor.
There are many pretenders. There are many false teachers, false prophets that would arise, that not only Jesus warned us of, but every other NT book of the Bible.

All I am saying is that the local churches have false converts in them. Christ is not their Head. He is the Head of the believers that comprise that local church, and the universal church. But Satan has weeds sown in with the wheat, monsieur.

By definition an unsaved person cannot be a member of a biblical local church.

If their name is on their books they are. They are false converts, but still 'members' of that church.

According to what you have written above Christ shepherds goats because they are in every church. I don't agree. I don't believe that fits the definition of a biblical local church. Thus he shepherds only sheep.

Let them wheat and weeds grow together until the harvest.[Matt. 13:30]

I doubt if you can prove me wrong on this doctrine.

Not going to even bother to.

There is no such thing as a Universal Church. The word ekklesia means "assembly" and cannot be used in the sense of "universal." How can one have an unassembled assembly?

As Rippon already stated When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.[Matt. 16:13-18]

A nice philosophy, but it is not taught in scriptures.

So you say.

An unsaved person is not a member of a biblical local church.

Again, if their name is on their books then yes they are. They are weeds sown in with the wheat.

Christ is the head of every biblical local church; he is not a goat herder by your implication.

Please learn better reading comprehension skills. I never said once that Christ was a goat herder. Satan works to destroy Christ's works. He does this by placing weeds in with the wheat. Just because a weed is in His garden(church), does not mean He planted the weed, monsieur. As Jesus stated He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Satan plants the weeds, but God will pull them up. Another place you can read These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead.[Jude 12] As Jude had written a few sentences ago For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about[ long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.[Jude 4] That sounds like Christian carnality being pushed in the pulpits of some churches nowadays. Satan has used his minions to try to destroy churches, even back in Jude's time.

I am not. Christ is the head of every local church. You are the one that claims that there are goats in the local church. What does that make Christ?

Again mon ami, you need to learn better comprehension skills.

 

[SovereignGrace]

DHK, let me clarify my stance. I will break it down to its simplest terms.


Christ is the Head of every believer from Adam unto the last one saved. Most of these believers have been part of a church. Some died before they could take membership, however. I have heard of people being saved having terminal cancer and died as they were taking them to the water to be baptized. Now, if Christ is the Head of only those who have been baptized and have membership in a local church, what about those who died before they could be baptized and added to a local church?

There is a church universal that is also referred to as the body of Christ. Every believer from Adam unto the last one saved is part of His body.

The church(assembly of all saved of all time) is His body, monsieur.

 

[DHK]

Was Christ speaking of a particular congregation or assembly? Of couse not --the Church Universal.

Go back into the time of Christ. What would they think?

Mat 16:18 And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter, and on this rock I will build this universal assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.
--It doesn't make sense does it? There is no such thing as a universal assembly. An assembly cannot be universal. An assembly congregates in one place at one time for a reason and is organized. The disciples would have no idea what Christ would have been talking about. Jesus was not teaching mysticism. Many pastors today do. Perhaps this is where it arose from--a mystical universal church which cannot exist until the rapture takes place. Then and only then can all believer assemble together in heaven.

Well, you have negated your oft-repeated argument then. You now say it was used in a generic sense --that means in general --not a specific gathering of a local assembly. Thank you for acknowledging the truth.

He was writing to Ephesus and not one else.
The Bible has one interpretation but many applications.
We use generic terms all the time. Marriage involves one man and one man.
Which man? Tom, Dick or Harry? The statement doesn't specify. We know that it is generic by context. It is a singular noun representing all men in all generations. It is used in a generic sense.
Ephesus was one church. Christ was the head of that church, as he was the head of every biblical church.
The same teaching is given in 1Cor.11:1-4. As the man is the head of the woman so Christ is the head of the church. Which church? The church at Corinth. That truth applies to all biblical local churches.

Let me give you a conversation between a Christian and Muslim for an example (all made up of course).

Muslim: I go to my mosque every day.
Christian: Are you part of the Universal Mosque?
Muslim: What do you mean "Universal Mosque? Our religion is Islam, and one day our religion, Islam, will be universal. In fact it is universal right now.
But I am going to my mosque, here in my city.
Christian: But isn't your mosque universal?
Muslim: (baffled) How can a mosque be universal? Are you stupid? Have you seen our mosque? Have you seen our worshipers? What do you mean "universal". Our religion "Islam" is universal, not our mosque.

Do you see the idiocy of your definition making "church" or assembly as "universal"? It is impossible. Just as a mosque cannot be universal neither can an assembly or "church" be. Christianity may be universal; so can the family of God, the bride of Christ, the kingdom, etc., but not the "church" or assembly, which always must be local.

 

[DHK]

No, Pastor, God’s love is not a ‘mess’ nor does it contain ‘errors.’

Our Lord is calling a Bride for His Son.

I have no argument there. The bride includes all believers.

His love is specific and particular.

He knows exactly who to call and how to win their affection.

He is omniscience. His omniscience does not diminish his love. His love is to all men. He does not have "two kinds of love." He is divine.

Similar to your human experience, God's love is specific and particular.

Like you, the Lord doesn't marry on a whim.

Like you, the Lord is quite picky in choosing a bride.

However, His reasons for choosing the Bride of Christ, the Church, (comprised of all the Elect from the beginning of time), are different than your reasons for choosing your bride.

Your bride was delightful to your eyes and a joy to your soul.

She delighted in your company, as you did hers.

Christ’s Bride, on the other hand, was not so delightful at first.

In fact, she hated the Bridegroom and wanted nothing to do with Him.

She was quite ugly in appearance, for her soul was ravaged by the black plague of sin.

Yet Christ died for her while she was yet His enemy, unwilling to seek a physician for her sin sickness.

The analogy is not perfect since Christ is God and I am not.
Christ loved all and I cannot. There are too many differences between mankind and God to count. He died for all. His love was for all. That some refused Christ is not the fault of Christ. Don't pin man's sin on God. It doesn't diminish the love God had for them at all.

Unlike a human suitor who attempts to woo his sweetheart with flowers, candy and sweet talk, our Lord uses a different tact.

He sends His Spirit to that specific Elect sinner whom the Father has given Him.

The Spirit then performs a divine work of grace on that sinner’s heart and soul, engulfing him in a love indescribable; unlike any love that sinner has ever known.

As a result of God’s sovereign outpouring of gracious love, the once hateful, unwilling sinner is now more than willing to love Christ, to obey Christ, to serve Christ, to marry Christ, and even, if called to do so, to die for Christ.

Despite the insistence of Pastor DHK, God’s love is not a ‘mess’ nor does it contain ‘errors.’

No, God's love is not a mess. Your word's attributed to me are out of context. The Calvinists view of love are a mess, for they stress sovereignty over love and mercy. Don't attribute "love is a mess" to me. I did not say that about God's love. This is a false representation about my view of God's love.

God loves all men equally. He is not prejudiced. The fact that some refuse His love is not the fault of God. They of their own will refused God's immutable love for them.
In God's creation, God pronounced all was very good. But not all behaved "very good." Again, was that God's fault? Will you attribute sin to God?

 

[DHK]

I am not disagreeing with you about what constitutes a local church. But for you to say that everyone who comes and makes a confession of their faith in Christ is actually saved is rather odd. By your definition, the Lakewood church and all of its 43,500 members are saved because they have been baptized and make up an assembly.

You should know better than to call "Lakewood" a biblical local church."
It is not. Its pastor is a false teacher disseminating false teaching. That is no better than calling a gathering of J.W.'s a church. It is not. It does not fall within the parameters of the definition of a local church.

All I am saying is that the local churches have false converts in them. Christ is not their Head. He is the Head of the believers that comprise that local church, and the universal church. But Satan has weeds sown in with the wheat, monsieur.

I believe a truly biblical church will.
Look at what John said:

1Jn 2:19 They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have surely remained with us, but that they might be made manifest that none are of us.
--The false "believers" left the church. They could not sit under solid biblical teaching. They "were not of us." If they were "of us," they would have remained faithful. Eventually their true colors will be made known. An unbeliever can only pretend for so long.

If their name is on their books they are. They are false converts, but still 'members' of that church.

If the pastor and leaders have done their due diligence he should not be there at all. If, somehow he sneaks in, he will not remain.

Let them wheat and weeds grow together until the harvest.[Matt. 13:30]
I do not believe that is speaking of the local church.

As Rippon already stated When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.[Matt. 16:13-18]

There is no such thing as a universal assembly and that term would not have made sense to early believers.
See my answer to Rippon on the same question. I believe it will satisfy you.

Again, if their name is on their books then yes they are. They are weeds sown in with the wheat.

We are speaking of the local church here. A biblical local church can only be composed of baptized regenerate members.
By default one who is not baptized and regenerated is not a member.

Please learn better reading comprehension skills. I never said once that Christ was a goat herder. Satan works to destroy Christ's works. He does this by placing weeds in with the wheat.

Jesus was not speaking of local churches. In reality the age of the church did not begin until Pentecost.

Just because a weed is in His garden(church), does not mean He planted the weed, monsieur. As Jesus stated He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Satan plants the weeds, but God will pull them up. Another place you can read These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead.[Jude 12] As Jude had written a few sentences ago For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about[ long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.[Jude 4] That sounds like Christian carnality being pushed in the pulpits of some churches nowadays. Satan has used his minions to try to destroy churches, even back in Jude's time.

Jude is condemning false teachers. That has nothing to do with false believers or those that may be unsaved in the congregation. Obviously if there is a false teacher, then the so-called church he is pastoring is not a church at all, but a "synagogue of satan," a tool of the devil." You wouldn't call the church led by Jim Jones a biblical local church, would you? How about those that followed David Koresh in Waco? Were they a local church? No! They were followers of false teachers, just like the organization at "Lakewood" are.

Again mon ami, you need to learn better comprehension skills.

Let's just say Christ is the head of every biblical local church, which by definition cannot have any "goats" as members.

 

[Protestant]

Ekklesia means assembly. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly; no such thing as a "Universal Church." The Bible teaches no such monster.

It never ceases to amaze me how our Lord has anticipated the innumerable heterodox teachings throughout the ages thereby enabling Christians to refute such teachings by the written Word alone.

To the general assembly and church [ekklesia] of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect (Hebrews 12:23)

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the author of Hebrews distinguishes ‘assembly’ from ‘church’.

This is due to the fact that the Holy Spirit wishes to make the point that those Christians spiritually assembled/gathered together are also those who were ‘called out’ of the world and into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, the firstborn of all creation.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (1 Peter 2:9)

The whole world lies in darkness, under the dominion of the rulers of the darkness of this world. (1 John 5:19; Eph. 6:12)

We Christians are called and chosen and faithful. (Rev. 17:14)

We Christians are the called according to His purpose [that we should be His people and He should be our God]. (Romans 8:28)

There is no question to the unbiased mind that ‘ekklesia’ refers to both local as well as the universal Church of Christians called and chosen by God to be His people.

Further Proof

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Col. 1:18)

Christ is the one head of His one body, the universal church of Christians.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling (Eph. 4:4)

A local assembly is not the one body referenced in Eph. 4:4 and Col. 1:18.

Christians gathered in local assemblies are members of Christ’s body, not the body itself.

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. (1 Cor. 12:12)

Conclusion: Pastor DHK must reinforce his anti-Calvinist bias by disallowing the true definition of ‘ekklesia’ which teaches that all Christians have been effectually and irresistibly called out of the darkness of the world into the light and fellowship of Jesus Christ.

And those who have been effectually and irresistibly called by God were chosen by God before the foundation of the world, before they were born, before they existed, before they were capable of answering the call.

 

[Revmitchell]

Having been called out, which is not in dispute, does nothing to speak to the method or the mechanics in which we were called out.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The "Church" is not the same as the bride.

PLEASE tell me this is a misquote.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”[Rev. 21:1-4]

The bride, New Jerusalem, is composed of all believers from all time, the church, the body of Christ.

 

[DHK]

PLEASE tell me this is a misquote.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”[Rev. 21:1-4]

The bride, New Jerusalem, is composed of all believers from all time, the church, the body of Christ.

The church is an assembly and always refers to an assembly. It is local, not universal. The one and only time it can be universal (so-called) is when all believers are gathered in heaven as one great assembly. That is referred to in Hebrews 12.

Heb 12:23 the universal gathering; and to the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven; and to God, judge of all; and to the spirits of just men made perfect;
--This is a heavenly scene where all believers will be gathered together after the resurrection takes place as one great assembly.
Until then we assemble on earth in assemblies we commonly call "church."

When Christ comes all believers will be raptured. I believe that all believers will make up his bride. If I didn't, I would belong to those who call themselves "Baptist-briders," and I am not. I am not so extreme and arrogant to believe that only Baptists living for the Lord will be raptured, but there are some that think so.

As for this age, God's blessing is on the local church. That is a divine institution which he has ordained for this day and age.

 

[Rebel]

The church is an assembly and always refers to an assembly. It is local, not universal. The one and only time it can be universal (so-called) is when all believers are gathered in heaven as one great assembly. That is referred to in Hebrews 12.

Heb 12:23 the universal gathering; and to the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven; and to God, judge of all; and to the spirits of just men made perfect;
--This is a heavenly scene where all believers will be gathered together after the resurrection takes place as one great assembly.
Until then we assemble on earth in assemblies we commonly call "church."

When Christ comes all believers will be raptured. I believe that all believers will make up his bride. If I didn't, I would belong to those who call themselves "Baptist-briders," and I am not. I am not so extreme and arrogant to believe that only Baptists living for the Lord will be raptured, but there are some that think so.

As for this age, God's blessing is on the local church. That is a divine institution which he has ordained for this day and age.

I believe there is a universal body or bride of Christ, but I am in substantial agreement with you about the local church.

 

[DHK]

It never ceases to amaze me how our Lord has anticipated the innumerable heterodox teachings throughout the ages thereby enabling Christians to refute such teachings by the written Word alone.

To the general assembly and church [ekklesia] of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect (Hebrews 12:23)

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the author of Hebrews distinguishes ‘assembly’ from ‘church’.

Does it?
Here is a more accurate translation:
Heb 12:23 the universal gathering; and to the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven; and to God, judge of all; and to the spirits of just men made perfect;
--It is a universal gathering. This universal gathering is no doubt all inclusive including the angels and all in heaven.
--Then there is an assembly. This is an assembly of the firstborn. The word here is used in the sense of "preeminent." That is, those who Christ died for and redeemed. They are part of the universal gathering, but still an assembly of all believers. They are assembled together before God, the judge of all.

This is due to the fact that the Holy Spirit wishes to make the point that those Christians spiritually assembled/gathered together are also those who were ‘called out’ of the world and into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, the firstborn of all creation.

Every Christian is called out. Every believer stands apart out of that universal assembly apart from the angels and other spirit beings that may be there.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light (1 Peter 2:9)

Who was Peter addressing?
1Pe 1:1 Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ, to the sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
--Jewish believers who had been scattered because of persecution. His theme is all about suffering, especially during times of persecution.

The whole world lies in darkness, under the dominion of the rulers of the darkness of this world. (1 John 5:19; Eph. 6:12)

A good verse to point out that Christ does not now rule this world.
He will not be the Lord of this world until he sets up his kingdom.
Right now Satan rules it.

We Christians are called and chosen and faithful. (Rev. 17:14)

What are you talking about?
This is the battle of Armageddon where Christ comes to save the Jews, and puts down the enemies of the Jews. There are no Christians here.

We Christians are the called according to His purpose [that we should be His people and He should be our God]. (Romans 8:28)

So, do that! Live your life as God would have you to live it. Did I say anything different?

There is no question to the unbiased mind that ‘ekklesia’ refers to both local as well as the universal Church of Christians called and chosen by God to be His people.

You have offered not one verse of scripture that demonstrates ekklesia should be translated as universal church--none.

Further Proof

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Col. 1:18)

Col 1:18 And *he* is the head of the body, the assembly; who is the beginning, firstborn from among the dead, that *he* might have the first place in all things:
--Obviously written to the assembly at Colosse. Christ was the head of that assembly. Let me ask you: Is Christ the head of your church?
Or perhaps it is the pope or some other figurehead?

Christ is the one head of His one body, the universal church of Christians.

Christ is the head of each and every local church. If he is not the head of your local church, then you don't have a biblical local church, and you should leave it immediately. There is no such thing as a universal church/assembly.
There is no such thing as an "unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction in terms.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling (Eph. 4:4)

This truth that he wrote to the church at Ephesus should be applicable to us all. They are called "timeless truths."

A local assembly is not the one body referenced in Eph. 4:4 and Col. 1:18.

Can you give me one good reason why they cannot be referred to as local assemblies since that is who Paul was writing to? Put yourself in their places. What would the Ephesians of that time think? How would they take the words of Paul. The concept of a "universal church" was unknown in the first century.

Christians gathered in local assemblies are members of Christ’s body, not the body itself.

A local church is a body of Christ. Study 1Cor. 12. Each member had spiritual gifts that they were responsible for and they were to be responsible for their gifts and not coveting the gifts of others. In this way the church/assembly would work in harmony. The chapter in no way could be applied to a so-called universal church.

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. (1 Cor. 12:12)

This is speaking only of a local church. Read further.
Co 12:26 And if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it ; and if one member be glorified, all the members rejoice with it .
--Someone is our church just had a heart operation and is still suffering the effects of it; another has cancer. You don't know that. You don't "suffer with them." You can't. This applies only to a local church. All the universal church does not know about the needs and suffering of each other--impossible. The entire chapter refers and is applicable to local churches only. Study it carefully.

Conclusion: Pastor DHK must reinforce his anti-Calvinist bias by disallowing the true definition of ‘ekklesia’ which teaches that all Christians have been effectually and irresistibly called out of the darkness of the world into the light and fellowship of Jesus Christ.

Who has the bias here?
ekklesia means assembly or congregation. It has no other meaning in the Greek. If you force another meaning into it you have not rightly divided the Word but rather butchered it. You are doing what a cult would do. There is no universal church, and it can't be inferred or drawn out from ekklesia, which only has the meaning of "assembly, congregation."

And those who have been effectually and irresistibly called by God were chosen by God before the foundation of the world, before they were born, before they existed, before they were capable of answering the call.

Pure Calvinism.

 

[Protestant]

Having been called out, which is not in dispute, does nothing to speak to the method or the mechanics in which we were called out.

Pastor DHK does dispute the universally acknowledged definition of 'ekklesia' = 'the called out ones.'

A Google search will give an abundance of authorities who are in agreement.

These same authorities also acknowledge the universal application, as well as the local application of 'ekklesia.'

Rev. 7 is a perfect example of the universal definition in no uncertain terms.

DHK views the authoritative 2000 Baptist Confession as no authority.

In other words, DHK is his own authority, all other Church leaders who do not hold to his heterodoxy are believing a lie.

Do you also hold to his heterodoxy?

DHK claims there are many board members who do.

I have yet to see them come to his defense.

 

[DHK]

Pastor DHK does dispute the universally acknowledged definition of 'ekklesia' = 'the called out ones.'

You are the confused one here.
Let's examine the word: ekklesia. It comes from two words: ek and kalew.
ek is a preposition meaning "out" or out of.
kalew is the verb "to call"; hence to call out.
This is the derivative of the word ekklesia, not the meaning.
The meaning is "assembly," or "congregation," which comes from the derivation ekklesia. to call out. That is what an assembly basically is. But the meaning is "assembly." The meaning and derivation are not the same.

Take "Sunday." You give the definition or meaning.
The derivation is Sun + Day = "the day we worship the sun"
Do you worship the sun on Sunday, Protestant?
Do you adhere to the derivation of the word, or the meaning of the word?
Its meaning is: "first day of the week," for Christians day of worship or day Christ arose," for others "last day of weekend." But its primary meaning is "the first day of the week."
I do hope you are not worshiping the Sun!!
You gave the derivation not the meaning. The two are different.

A Google search will give an abundance of authorities who are in agreement.

I don't disagree. All will also agree on the derivation of "sun."

These same authorities also acknowledge the universal application, as well as the local application of 'ekklesia.'

The only universal application of ekklesia is a local one, as lexicons can tell you. It means "assembly."

Rev. 7 is a perfect example of the universal definition in no uncertain terms.

Rev.7 is a non sequitor. It is a passage taken out of context speaking of the end times.

DHK views the authoritative 2000 Baptist Confession as no authority.

I didn't say that. It is not MY authority. My authority is the Word of God.

In other words, DHK is his own authority, all other Church leaders who do not hold to his heterodoxy are believing a lie.

You imply that all Baptists are Calvinists and also should hold to an ecclesiology just like yours. Are you the Baptist Pope? Only the Baptist Pope would force all Baptists to a homogenous view of the Bible and take away soul liberty (a Baptist distinctive that our fore-fathers paid for in blood).

Do you also hold to his heterodoxy?

DHK claims there are many board members who do.

I have yet to see them come to his defense.

The arrogant claim of Protestant, inferring that he is the Protestant Pope leaving no room for soul liberty of any other Baptist. Sad!