Christ's Church

[adisciplinedlearner]

I believe the church at Jerusalem was made up of the members of the Lord's one true church and body who lived in Jerusalem. It was known how many of these Christians lived in Jerusalem, because they were the repentant, believing, baptized disciples of Christ in that city, and they fellowshipped with one another. They were Christians or disciples of Christ, not Baptists. They drank wine as a beverage, and most Baptists are opposed to this practice. They were added to the Lord's one true church and body by the Lord Himself, not by any kind of church vote.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

DHK, do you deny that all true Christians are members of Christ and members one of another? That is, do you deny that they are in union with Christ and union with one another? I am trying to follow your position.

 

[Dr. Walter]

From the Day of Pentecost forward, all true Christians in New Testament times were members of Christ and members one of another. This means that they were all members of Christ's one true church and body, which began on the Day of Pentecost.

How did "ALL" the members of this one true church SORROW with "ONE MEMBER" who was sorrowing and how did "ALL" the members of this one true church REJOICE with "ONE" member when that member is honored? How would "ALL THE MEMBERS" of your ONE TRUE CHURCH even know if "ONE" of its members were suffering or rejoicing? How could they rejoice or suffer "WITH" that one member?? Isn't this the language of a support group??? What kind of support can "ALL THE MEMBERS" of your ONE TRUE CHURCH provide for "ONE MEMBER" when that one member is in sorror or in joy so that they SHARE WITH that one member this joy and sorrow in any PRACTICAL sense?

And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. - I Cor. 12:27

What kind of church can church members who cannot resolve a conflict between other church members go and "TELL THE CHURCH" - Mt. 18:15-17?

Are "the elders" in Acts 20:17 the same elders the Holy Spirit placed over "the flock" in Acts 20:28 or are they two different kinds of elders? Is "the flock" in verse 28 the same "the flock" in verse 29 or are these two different "the flock" of God? Is "the church" in verse 17 over which these elders were overseers the same "the church" in verse 28 as were made overseers of it or is there two kinds of churches?

17 ¶ And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost 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.

Can "grevous wolves enter in among" the ONE TRUE CHURCH over which these "elders" were made overseers???? If so, how did they get into this ONE TRUE CHURCH?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

That is an unsubstantiated opinion which cannot be verified in Scripture. It is unbiblical.

GE:
Why do you say that, DHK?

 

[DHK]

GE:
Why do you say that, DHK?

There is no such thing as "one true church," nor can he demonstrate that from Scripture, seeing that word used that translates as "church" is ekklesia, a word that means "assembly." If you read Darby's translation, where it is translated properly you get a better idea of how it should read in the NT. Paul never wrote to universal church. There wasn't any such thing in existence then nor is there now.
Every epistle that Paul wrote he wrote to a local church or a pastor of a local church.
He went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 local churches. These were not denominations but independent autonomous local churches. It wasn't a universal church, but local churches. They were visible. You could see them. They had people. They were assemblies that assembled, and assembled for a purpose.
There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction of terms.

 

[DHK]

DHK, do you deny that all true Christians are members of Christ and members one of another? That is, do you deny that they are in union with Christ and union with one another? I am trying to follow your position.

You use vague terminology. Where do you get it from? Do you make up terms as you go? Terminology without context becomes meaningless.

Am I a member of Christ? I don't know. The question makes no sense.

Am I a member one of another? I don't know. The question makes no sense.

I understand "in other words..." But when you have to redefine your terminology to make sense then something is wrong.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

This is New Testament terminology. Please see I Cor. 10:16-17; Eph. 5:29-32.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is New Testament terminology. Please see I Cor. 10:16-17; Eph. 5:29-32.

This is MISAPPLIED Biblical terminology. I Corinthians 10:16-17 refers to the Lord's Supper where Paul teaches about the Lord's Supper in ABSTRACT generic terms or terms applicable to all baptized believers in local church relationship when observing the Supper (because it cannot be observed by all christians at once) and then makes the concrete application to the church at Corinthin in I Cor. 10:20-21.

Notice the teaching is about SANCTIFICATION not salvation as the context introduces "submission" to authority and continues this primary point all the way into Ephesians 6. Notice also that it begans with a GENERIC man and wife in Ephesians 5:23-25 and then proceeds to PLURAL men and wives in Ephesians 5:28 and finalizes in a LOCALIZED concrete application to a man and wife in Ephesians 5:29-32. Paul is simply instructing the church at Ephesus what the submissive roles of the wife to the husband, and thus men and their wives are, as he does children to parents and servants to masters. The church at Ephesus and all churches have a submissive role to Christ as their head in regard to SANCTIFICATION. The issue here is submission and authority in a practical working relationship between Christ and the New Testament Church in regard to progressive sanctification as with the wife to her husband.

The wife has a physical head SEPARATE from her husbands physical head. The term "head" simply means position of authority not some spiritual union where a head is attached to a headless body. Likewise the New Testament assembly has a SEPARATE METAPHORICAL HEAD OTHER THAN CHRIST:

I Cor. 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Hence, Christ as our "head" simply means final authority in regard to WORKING RELATIONSHIPS with each other (members of one another) under Christ.

This has nothing to do with spiritual union (although that is a Biblical doctrine obtained by regeneration and justification) but with practical daily working relationships between members of the same local church under the final authority of Christ. The church at Corinth was "the body of Christ" just as the church at Ephesus was "the body of Christ" and each one contained their own "members in particular."

 

[DHK]

This is New Testament terminology. Please see I Cor. 10:16-17; Eph. 5:29-32.

Let me use Biblical terminology in the way you do.

Do you believe "There is no God."
The Bible states "There is no God," therefore you must believe, "There is no God," after all it is Biblical terminology.

The reference is in Psalm 14:1.

This is your behavior and the tone of your answers toward me.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

There is no such thing as "one true church," nor can he demonstrate that from Scripture, seeing that word used that translates as "church" is ekklesia, a word that means "assembly." If you read Darby's translation, where it is translated properly you get a better idea of how it should read in the NT. Paul never wrote to universal church. There wasn't any such thing in existence then nor is there now.
Every epistle that Paul wrote he wrote to a local church or a pastor of a local church.
He went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 local churches. These were not denominations but independent autonomous local churches. It wasn't a universal church, but local churches. They were visible. You could see them. They had people. They were assemblies that assembled, and assembled for a purpose.
There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction of terms.

GE:
Although most of what you say is true, it is plainly incorrect "There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly", because there is that Assembly of all redeemed of all time WHICH (Note, I dont say 'who') --- WHICH is "The Body of Christ's Own". Every redeemed remains a member of Christ's Body whether he be dead or alive, or be able to assemble or not be able to assemble. "Ye shall worship God IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH" and wherever that is the case, "THERE I SHALL BE WITH YOU" and _THERE_ is the 'Church' of Christ--- visibly assembling OR NOT.

 

[DHK]

GE:
Although most of what you say is true, it is plainly incorrect "There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly", because there is that Assembly of all redeemed of all time WHICH (Note, I dont say 'who') --- WHICH is "The Body of Christ's Own". Every redeemed remains a member of Christ's Body whether he be dead or alive, or be able to assemble or not be able to assemble. "Ye shall worship God IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH" and wherever that is the case, "THERE I SHALL BE WITH YOU" and _THERE_ is the 'Church' of Christ--- visibly assembling OR NOT.

The only time the Bible speaks of the "church" or assembly gathering together as one assembly is in heaven where it is possible to do so. Otherwise it is impossible for any assembly composed of all believers to assemble anywhere on this earth. Can you tell me where they would do this? Where would well over one billion people, who call themselves Christians gather together in one assembly. Who would be the preacher? Of what denominational favor or doctrine would he be preaching? Who would be the deacons? Tell me where and when would this assembly assemble? There is no such thing, and such an assembly is impossible.
Thus in a universal sense it is unassembled. An unassembled assembly is a contradiction of terms. It does not make sense. If it cannot fit the definition of an "assembly", then it will not fit the definition of "church." That is what it amounts to, for the word ekklesia means "assembly," as it is translated in Darby's translation.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

............. Likewise the New Testament assembly has a SEPARATE METAPHORICAL HEAD OTHER THAN CHRIST:...............

GE:
The alleged "New Testament assembly" that "has a SEPARATE METAPHORICAL HEAD OTHER THAN CHRIST" is NO 'New Testament Assembly’, but is the Roman Catholic Church which in my opinion is antichrist.

Christ is the Head of the Church and the ONLY Head of the Church or it is a FALSE 'Church' NEVER "called of God".

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The only time the Bible speaks of the "church" or assembly gathering together as one assembly is in heaven where it is possible to do so. Otherwise it is impossible for any assembly composed of all believers to assemble anywhere on this earth. Can you tell me where they would do this? Where would well over one billion people, who call themselves Christians gather together in one assembly. Who would be the preacher? Of what denominational favor or doctrine would he be preaching? Who would be the deacons? Tell me where and when would this assembly assemble? There is no such thing, and such an assembly is impossible.
Thus in a universal sense it is unassembled. An unassembled assembly is a contradiction of terms. It does not make sense. If it cannot fit the definition of an "assembly", then it will not fit the definition of "church." That is what it amounts to, for the word ekklesia means "assembly," as it is translated in Darby's translation.

GE:
The present-day LIVING believers maybe scattered one by one in any physical assembling Assemblies whether true Assemblies of Christ's Own or false Assemblies of NOT Christ's Own, are as part and real members of the TRUE 'Ekklesia' or 'Church' as the FUTURE and (metaphorical) 'Heavenly Assembly' could wish to be.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:
The alleged "New Testament assembly" that "has a SEPARATE METAPHORICAL HEAD OTHER THAN CHRIST" is NO 'New Testament Assembly’, but is the Roman Catholic Church which in my opinion is antichrist.

Christ is the Head of the Church and the ONLY Head of the Church or it is a FALSE 'Church' NEVER "called of God".

I Cor. 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Paul is taking various parts from the head such as the "eye" in regard to the "hand" or "the head" to the "feet" and saying that no part of the body can say they have no need of another part of the body of Christ.

The fact that both the "eye" is a member in the "head" of a body and the "head" are mentioned separately demonstrates they represent members in a local church body that serve the rest of the body.

The head says nothing different than the eye in this illustration. Paul is not denying that either are valid members of the church body but denying they have no need of the other members.

My point is that Paul is teaching that every church is a complete body not merely a corpse without a head but a complete body with head in distinction to Christ. Just as the wife is not a headless body and some how the husbands head is transplanted on her but she is a complete body with head. Each church is a complete metaphorical body with head as just as another member. Over this church body is Christ as a metaphorical "head" in the sense of final authority JUST AS over the wife is the husband as a metaphorical "head" in the sense of final authority. The wife is not headless in regard to her own body and neither is a new Testament church headless in regard to its own body.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I Cor. 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Paul is taking various parts from the head such as the "eye" in regard to the "hand" or "the head" to the "feet" and saying that no part of the body can say they have no need of another part of the body of Christ.

The fact that both the "eye" is a member in the "head" of a body and the "head" are mentioned separately demonstrates they represent members in a local church body that serve the rest of the body.

The head says nothing different than the eye in this illustration. Paul is not denying that either are valid members of the church body but denying they have no need of the other members.

My point is that Paul is teaching that every church is a complete body not merely a corpse without a head but a complete body with head in distinction to Christ. Just as the wife is not a headless body and some how the husbands head is transplanted on her but she is a complete body with head. Each church is a complete metaphorical body with head as just as another member. Over this church body is Christ as a metaphorical "head" in the sense of final authority JUST AS over the wife is the husband as a metaphorical "head" in the sense of final authority. The wife is not headless in regard to her own body and neither is a new Testament church headless in regard to its own body.

GE:
Paul speaks of the 'eye' not of the Head, which --- or rather WHO --- is Christ. Without the HEAD, Christ, the Body is dead, and the eye is dead.

ONLY Christ is called "The Head" of the Church, no member, ever. Eph1:22, 4:15; 5:23; Col1:15; 2:10; "Head of corner" of the Spiritual Building which is the Church, Mt21:42; Mk12:10; Lk20:17; Acts 4:11; 1Pt2:7. The Church is not a physical Assembling ONLY; it is a PRESENT, 'heavenly' reality.

 

[DHK]

GE:
Paul speaks of the 'eye' not of the Head, which --- or rather WHO --- is Christ. Without the HEAD, Christ, the Body is dead,and the eye is dead.

1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
1 Corinthians 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1 Corinthians 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

The head of this local assembly at Corinth was Christ, as represented by the pastor. Not everyone could be the pastor. When one member suffered all the members suffered with it. That is not true of all members in the family of God. When a believer in South America suffers I don't know of it, and I don't suffer with that member. But I do suffer with the members of my own local body.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:
The present-day LIVING believers maybe scattered one by one in any physical assembling Assemblies whether true Assemblies of Christ's Own or false Assemblies of NOT Christ's Own, are as part and real members of the TRUE 'Ekklesia' or 'Church' as the FUTURE and (metaphorical) 'Heavenly Assembly' could wish to be.

If what you say is true of the church as the body of Christ then you tell me how "ALL THE MEMBERS" of this body scattered all over the world can rejoice "WITH ONE MEMBER" when it is honored or how can "ALL THE MEMBERS" of this body sorrow "WITH one member" when it sorrows" in any PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THIS TEXT WITHOUT REINTERPRETING THE WORDS "ALL" and "ONE" and "WITH"????

And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

Then tell me why Paul excluded himself in the next verse if this body included ALL CHRISTIANS without exception wherever they were:

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

 

[DHK]

Then tell me why Paul excluded himself in the next verse if this body included ALL CHRISTIANS without exception wherever they were:

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Paul wasn't the pastor of that church. He wasn't in Corinth. Apollos was the pastor. He was writing to the church. This his letter to the church at Corinth. He writes "Ye" as in "you members" of the First Baptist Church in Corinth.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
1 Corinthians 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1 Corinthians 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

The head of this local assembly at Corinth was Christ, as represented by the pastor. Not everyone could be the pastor. When one member suffered all the members suffered with it. That is not true of all members in the family of God. When a believer in South America suffers I don't know of it, and I don't suffer with that member. But I do suffer with the members of my own local body.

GE:
You proclaim the essence of Roman Catholicism. The 'pastor' is NO member's 'head'; he is supposed to be his SERVANT.

THREE TIMES Jesus asks Peter, "Peter, do you love Me? Then TEND my sheep!". But no, the 'pastors' are become the lords-over of the sheep instead. The root of all the evil in the Church of God! Every lost sheep shall be accounted from these 'head-pastors', one day, SOON.

 

[DHK]

GE:
You proclaim the essence of Roman Catholicism. The 'pastor' is NO member's 'head'; he is supposed to be his SERVANT.

THREE TIMES Jesus asks Peter, "Peter, do you love Me? Then TEND my sheep!". But no, the 'pastors' are become the lords-over of the sheep instead. The root of all the evil in the Church of God! Every lost sheep shall be accounted from these 'head-pastors', one day, SOON.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.