Church distinctions

[Herald]

All Christians are part of the body of Christ. But we can also refer to a local church as the body of Christ. That is what is meant by the invisible Church.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Yesuahi

You posted...

Woyuld you agree that there is the "Universal/Invisible" church, which is the Body/Bride of christ, that includes in it ALL the redeemed, living and dead, while on earth there are local chuch bodies that include both saved/lost?

ALL in the Universal church are saved, just some in the local ones?

Excelantly put! You hit the bulls eye! :thumbs:

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
One of the identifying marks of a New Testament church is that it assembles.

It also makes disciples, baptizes, teaches and preaches the gospel.

The "invisible" church does none of these, thus has no reason to exist.

Therefore, it doesn't.

If it does, it is fractured and filled with heresy.

:thumbsup::godisgood:

Oh,... and PUHLEASE!!! I know, that you know (getting A's in logic), that Butler's conclusions here are COMPLETELY invalid... ROF:laugh:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
One of the identifying marks of a New Testament church is that it assembles.

It also makes disciples, baptizes, teaches and preaches the gospel.

The "invisible" church does none of these, thus has no reason to exist.

Therefore, it doesn't.

If it does, it is fractured and filled with heresy.

You are in great error.

The universal church does ALL of the things that you say it dosnt...only with exceedingly greater numbers.


(((PRAISE GOD))) for His wonderfull, powerfull, planet encompasing UNIVERSAL church !

 

[quantumfaith]

Catholic means universal

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

The parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30) introduces the reality that there is a mixture of believers and unbelievers in local churches (c.f. Jude 4; 1 John 2:19). The terms visible church and invisible church are effective ways of describing this dichotomy. The visible church (that which we can see) can have both wheat and tares; believers and unbelievers. We may never know that a tare is in our midst unless they apostasize. Of course, God knows, and He is not fooled. The invisible church consists of all true believers, and only true believers. These are those who have the Spirit of Christ. We cannot see the Spirit, but we know His work (c.f. 1 John 4:6; Galatians 5:22-23).

The confesions of faith use this language,and I understand how they use them.
i have come to see that there is an issue that comes from this discussion, because of this:

Both Roman and Protestant theology confuse “the Church,” either visible
or invisible, with the “kingdom of God” or the “kingdom of heaven” and
“kingdom of Christ.” A thorough study will reveal that these final three are
ultimately synonymous terms. Romanism errs in viewing the church as a
universal, visible entity, co–extensive with the State and its spiritual
counterpart. If “the church” and “the kingdom” are synonymous and
coextensive, then if one is not in the “true church” he is excluded from the
kingdom and thus unsaved.
Protestantism errs in believing the church to be composed of both saved
and unsaved in its “visible” aspect, thus either identifying it with the parables
of the kingdom (which emphasize the mixed nature of the kingdom into the
good and the bad), or retreating to a “universal, invisible church” synonymous
with a spiritual kingdom composed only of the truly regenerate. The essence
of all such error is found in a radical departure from the New Testament usage
of the term “church” [ekklēsia]. See Question 146.
The New Testament church and the kingdom of God are closely related,
yet distinct. A thorough study will reveal that the kingdom of God is a
comprehensive term for the sovereign rule of God and the realm over which
this rule extends. Scripturally, the kingdom has past (prophetical), present
(historical) and future (eschatological) aspects. Thus, the kingdom of God is
universal and includes all believers. It also includes a realm in which the
power of Divine rule is experienced. These qualities have led some to confuse
the kingdom with the church.
The distinctions between the kingdom of God and the New Testament
church may be seen by contrast. Men “see” and “enter into” the kingdom of
291
God by regeneration. This is quite apart from any direct connection with a
church, but is concerned with the sovereign grace and power of God alone in
its realization (Jn. 3:3, 5). Entrance into a New Testament church is upon the
scriptural prerequisites of conversion, baptism and the vote of the church
(Acts 2:41). The kingdom is universal; the church is necessarily local [i.e., a
body, assembly, congregation. Such language would be utterly foreign in
reference to the kingdom of God]. The kingdom is a monarchy; the church is
a democracy under the headship of Jesus Christ and the rule of his Word.
There is a gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 9:35), but never a gospel of the
church. The kingdom is an indistinct, unobservable entity (Lk. 17:20–21); the
church is observable and quite distinct in all its characteristics (e.g.,
membership, leadership, ordinances, ministry, etc.). See Question 147.

From a Baptist Catechism with Commentary...pg 290,291

I believe any "universal assembly" will be both -universal- and assembled.....ON THE LAST DAY.


The word ...church ...is used very loosely, like the word..."the jury"....which jury? the OJ jury?...
an invisible jury?

 

[12strings]

Name any verse in the Scripture or passage of Scripture which defines or speaks of such a thing as the "INVISIBLE" Church....There is no such passage anywhere in Scripture.

1. See trinity analogies and other arguments.

2. Consider, a man stranded on an island finds a bible, reads it, believes it, becomes a Christian. If there is no universal/invisible church, you have a few questions to answer:
-Eph. 5 says Jesus died for "the Church." Did Jesus die for this man, or must he find a group of other believers before that blood is applied to him as part of "the church."
-Is this man part of "the body of Christ." ...as in "there is one body." Does this passage not apply to him because he is not part of a local church?

 

[Herald]

1. See trinity analogies and other arguments.

2. Consider, a man stranded on an island finds a bible, reads it, believes it, becomes a Christian. If there is no universal/invisible church, you have a few questions to answer:
-Eph. 5 says Jesus died for "the Church." Did Jesus die for this man, or must he find a group of other believers before that blood is applied to him as part of "the church."
-Is this man part of "the body of Christ." ...as in "there is one body." Does this passage not apply to him because he is not part of a local church?

I tip my hat to you, sir.

 

[12strings]

One of the identifying marks of a New Testament church is that it assembles.

It also makes disciples, baptizes, teaches and preaches the gospel.

The "invisible" church does none of these, thus has no reason to exist.

Therefore, it doesn't.

If it does, it is fractured and filled with heresy.

1. There are local churches that are fractured and filled with heresy...and yet may have true believers, and may even be a true church depending on the preaching going on there.

2. My appendix has no reason to exist, but it does...go figure.

 

[12strings]

Like I said, I'm a practical man so with todays technology, I can do all that with TV Cameras, on Scype & streaming video. We can sit in the privacy of our own homes, with PC's & cameras & conduct worship & prayer services, communicate with one another (even use text for hearing impaired), you can conduct classes & business meetings (schools & businesses are now doing that) & you could even evangelize....right from the privacy of your own home. Think of the economies, the convenience & availability (for busy mothers without baby sitters, the elderly who are shut in) why we could even save on gas, wear & tear on cars, and time saving. Then your not limited to churches in your area...you can now select from a menu of churches you really like....churches that agree with you in theology & practice (instead of settling on whats available). So my point is church as a physical presence isnt that necessary any more.

So this is why I ask, "if you had to boil it down to one primary quintessential reason for physical assembly, what would that be?"

Scripture tells us not to forsake the assembly of ourselves together. I don't believe technology has nullified this command. If anything, it is obvious that although we are more connected than ever before, most people are more isolated than ever before.

There is no substitute for real interaction with a real person who is really in the same room with you. It can't be faked. God knows we need spiritual encouragement from others, and so provides us with "the church."

Primary reason to assemble: God Commands it...because he knows we need it.

It's true that I can listen to sermons from the greatest preachers online...but that is no substitute from hearing a sermon from a godly preacher who actually knows me, and can preach with me in mind.

 

[Tom Butler]

If anybody can tell me where the next assembling of the Universal Church will be held, let me know. I'd like to attend. Who's gonna preach?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

1. See trinity analogies and other arguments.

The Trinity is clearly and inarguably taught. The idea of a "Universal Church" is not though. It is a re-defining of the Word "Church".

2. Consider, a man stranded on an island finds a bible, reads it, believes it, becomes a Christian. If there is no universal/invisible church, you have a few questions to answer:
-Eph. 5 says Jesus died for "the Church." Did Jesus die for this man,

Yes, just as he did for Moses, John the Baptist, Rahab...and innumerable other wonderful saints of God....NONE of whom, are the "Church", and are not now, nor will ever be a part of the "Church".

or must he find a group of other believers before that blood is applied to him as part of "the church."

You are assuming that to say Christ died for the "Church" is to say that he died for the Church ONLY it does not say that. If I say to my wife, I love you and would die for you....would you assume that this is not ALSO true of my children? Or, if you assume it IS true that I love and would also die for my children, would you conclude that since I said I love and would die for my wife, that my children must be included in the status of "WIFE"? This logic fails.

-Is this man part of "the body of Christ." ...as in "there is one body."

No, he is not. Because the Church is the body, and being a Saint of God is not to automatically be a part of the Church.

Does this passage not apply to him because he is not part of a local church?

To say the passage "Does not apply" has no meaning....It applies in the sense that it is true whether he is capable of belonging to said body for the moment or not, or ever will be.
But, again, as he is not a member of the "Church" then, by definition, he is also not a part of the "Body of Christ"....Christ died for MORE people throughout history than merely his "Body" and the "Church".

editted to add: A more specific definition from another thread: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1966044&postcount=23

 

[saturneptune]

Name any verse in the Scripture or passage of Scripture which defines or speaks of such a thing as the "INVISIBLE" Church....There is no such passage anywhere in Scripture.

There is a universal church, in eternity, of all believers. You are correct, there is no invisible church. It is really a proposterous way to describe a local or universal church. Denominations with hierarchies like to use the "invisible church" to keep hidden how useless their layers upon layers of bureaucracy are totally worthless in carrying out the Great Commission. A bunch of people sitting in offices and dictating their ignorance to others does not help tell others about Jesus. A cardinal, bishop, presbyter, pope, archbishop, etc, in all their robed glory and wasted resources of the Lord does not knock on doors and tell others the Good News.

We are here to do His work, and His work is telling others, to go, teach, and baptise. The only person I want to see in their robed glory is Jesus Christ.

Good post on your part.

 

[saturneptune]

You are in great error.

The universal church does ALL of the things that you say it dosnt...only with exceedingly greater numbers.


(((PRAISE GOD))) for His wonderfull, powerfull, planet encompasing UNIVERSAL church !

No it does not. The universal church on this earth is nothing but an excuse for laziness, and to waste time during Sunday morning service saying creeds and chants. To even imply that the Lord accomplishes His work outside the structure of the local church is about the most illogiical thing that has been posted. So how does a person who is a Catholic who is really saved working in harmony with a Methodist who is truly saved to add a third element of a Baptist who is truly saved, in three churches, maybe at great distances, accomplish the work of the Lord, when the local church is right there?

If you are so stuck by the importance of a universal church here on earth, then why on earth would you be a Baptist, when the Catholic church and mainline Protestant churches want to cram the universal church down your throat, both visible and invisible, take your choice.

 

[saturneptune]

Yesuahi

You posted...



Excelantly put! You hit the bulls eye! :thumbs:

Yes, he hit the bulls eye and now the bull has a black eye. What on earth does the percentage of saved within an assembly of people have to do with carrying out the work of the Lord? It is a given definition that the universal church has 100% true believer rate. It varies in the local church, depending on the local church. That fact has nothing to do with the fact that the Lord uses the local church to carry out His work. Using an obvious fact that the universal church is 100% saved to give credence to the myth that the universal church as some kind of function here on earth is about as lame as it gets.

 

[12strings]

The Trinity is clearly and inarguably taught. The idea of a "Universal Church" is not though. It is a re-defining of the Word "Church".

Yes, just as he did for Moses, John the Baptist, Rahab...and innumerable other wonderful saints of God....NONE of whom, are the "Church", and are not now, nor will ever be a part of the "Church".

You are assuming that to say Christ died for the "Church" is to say that he died for the Church ONLY it does not say that. If I say to my wife, I love you and would die for you....would you assume that this is not ALSO true of my children? Or, if you assume it IS true that I love and would also die for my children, would you conclude that since I said I love and would die for my wife, that my children must be included in the status of "WIFE"? This logic fails.

No, he is not. Because the Church is the body, and being a Saint of God is not to automatically be a part of the Church.

To say the passage "Does not apply" has no meaning....It applies in the sense that it is true whether he is capable of belonging to said body for the moment or not, or ever will be. But, again, as he is not a member of the "Church" then, by definition, he is also not a part of the "Body of Christ"....Christ died for MORE people throughout history than merely his "Body" and the "Church".

and...

To deny the notion of a "Universal Church" is to insist that the "Church" is distinct from merely "all saved and regenerate Saints in the New Testament era".

The "Church General" (the term I'm using) is what is spoken of when Paul might say "...and so ordain I in all Churches" or similarly, "...if any man seem to be contentious, we have no tradition neither the Churches of God". The "Church General" is what me might mean by the SUM TOTAL of all of the Local Autonomous New Testament Assemblies throughout all of New Testament History...

What the "Church" is NOT, though, is a correct way to describe a random amalgam of all regenerate persons throughout the course of Post-New-covenant history...Those are "Saints" they are "Saved" they are "Elect", they are "Children of God" and they are "Heirs"...and other terms ad nauseum...what they are NOT though, is properly defined as the "CHURCH".

The "Church" is a CORPORATE ASSEMBLY of believers in covenant together to carry on the Great Commission, and the "Church General"...might be the term to describe the sum-total of all of those Assemblies combined.....But, it is NOT merely a description of any and everyone who once yacked the "Sinner's Prayer" and is subsequently "saved". That isn't the "Church".

1. So...your view would say this: Ephesians 5 really means that Christ loved his church and some others, and died for them, and some others, and will present his church blameless and holy before the father, along with some others who will be blameless and holy, based on other scriptures, but this unconnected man cannot claim THIS scripture as a promise for themselves, because that promise of future sanctification applies only to the church?
-also, this man has the "one faith, on lord, one (spirit) baptism...but is NOT included in the "one body."?

2. It seems you DO believe in something larger than the local Church, you simply choose to use a different wort, which without definition could mean the same thing as "universal."

3. You would say there is a CLEAR, inarguable distinction in the NT between the "church" and the "redeemed."? If so, where is that clear? It seems that many of the promises we claim for saved people are given specifically to "the church."

 

[12strings]

If anybody can tell me where the next assembling of the Universal Church will be held, let me know. I'd like to attend. Who's gonna preach?

It has already started, people have been arriving for years, and will keep arriving until the end of the age. There might not be preaching, though, but we know there will be music.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

There is a universal church, in eternity, of all believers. You are correct, there is no invisible church. It is really a proposterous way to describe a local or universal church. Denominations with hierarchies like to use the "invisible church" to keep hidden how useless their layers upon layers of bureaucracy are totally worthless in carrying out the Great Commission. A bunch of people sitting in offices and dictating their ignorance to others does not help tell others about Jesus. A cardinal, bishop, presbyter, pope, archbishop, etc, in all their robed glory and wasted resources of the Lord does not knock on doors and tell others the Good News.
We are here to do His work, and His work is telling others, to go, teach, and baptise. The only person I want to see in their robed glory is Jesus Christ.
Good post on your part.

:laugh::laugh:I literally laughed out loud at these parts. You have a real talent for visual imagery :applause::applause:

"Dictating ignorance"... HA!
"Robed Glory"...Hilarious!

 

[HankD]

Is this church visible or invisible (unseen)?

Hebrews 12

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.

HankD​

 

[Yeshua1]

I tip my hat to you, sir.

What has been amusung to me is the concept that a person could be part of the Universal church, be saved and part of the body of christ and be heaven bound, yet because they do not meet all qualifications to be a member, might not be a member of a local church!