That is fine, as it is still all of the saved in history!My point is, of course, that the term "universal church" carries far to much baggage with it (while undermining the primacy of the true, local, New Testament Church belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ).
I refer to that mystical group made up of all the redeemed from all times the way the bible does. "The Family of God." (Bill Gaither got that one right.)
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Early English Translations and word "church"
- Thread starter Hermeneut7
- Start date
I understand, as while the term Holy Catholic Church can refer to the Universal One, it tends to connote the church of Rome instead!My point is, of course, that the term "universal church" carries far to much baggage with it (while undermining the primacy of the true, local, New Testament Church belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ).
I refer to that mystical group made up of all the redeemed from all times the way the bible does. "The Family of God." (Bill Gaither got that one right.)
In his book about Landmarkism and in describing this view, Bob L. Ross asserted: "An important theoretical view, the doctrine of the local church, is regarded as of great significance to the system. This view is pitted against the ever-threatening villain, the 'universal, invisible church,' which is a veritable root of all evil in the eyes of Landmarkers" (Old Landmarkism and the Baptists, p. 11).
In answering the question "Do you believe in the universal, invisible church theory," Bob L. Ross replied:
"This theory teaches that 'all the saved' are referred to in some verses as the 'church,' whereas Landmarkism says that all the saved are in the 'family' of God. To me, this is merely a war of words, for both agree that all the saved are not in the local church" (p. 137).
In answering the question "Do you believe in the universal, invisible church theory," Bob L. Ross replied:
"This theory teaches that 'all the saved' are referred to in some verses as the 'church,' whereas Landmarkism says that all the saved are in the 'family' of God. To me, this is merely a war of words, for both agree that all the saved are not in the local church" (p. 137).
It is simply believing the same thing but using two different terms to describe it.
There is no difference in the two views except the nomenclatures. But Bob, in his usual bombastic manner, asserts it is of "great significance" and an "ever-threatening villain." Which is, or course, simply not so.
The only concern most of us who hold to a "local church only" view (not an entirely accurate term, we believe in the Church Universal, but as a yet future organism) is that confusing the church and the family of God can detract from the primacy of the local New Testament church.
By the way, several of us on the BB hold to this view including myself, Dr. Bob, and others who I will allow to speak for themselves.
Those from a similar academic background as me, including but not exclusive of, alumni of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College (my wife's alma mater) , Maranatha Baptist Bible College (several on the BB), and Central Baptist Theological Seminary, as well as the two schools I taught at, Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College and San Diego Baptist Theological Seminary, were at least exposed to the teaching in college or seminary.
There is no difference in the two views except the nomenclatures. But Bob, in his usual bombastic manner, asserts it is of "great significance" and an "ever-threatening villain." Which is, or course, simply not so.
The only concern most of us who hold to a "local church only" view (not an entirely accurate term, we believe in the Church Universal, but as a yet future organism) is that confusing the church and the family of God can detract from the primacy of the local New Testament church.
By the way, several of us on the BB hold to this view including myself, Dr. Bob, and others who I will allow to speak for themselves.
Those from a similar academic background as me, including but not exclusive of, alumni of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College (my wife's alma mater) , Maranatha Baptist Bible College (several on the BB), and Central Baptist Theological Seminary, as well as the two schools I taught at, Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College and San Diego Baptist Theological Seminary, were at least exposed to the teaching in college or seminary.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.
Colossians 1:18a And he is the head of the body, the church
Col. 1:24c for his body's sake, which is the church
Eph. 4:4a There is one body, and one Spirit
Is there some sense in which Christ is the head of one body of Christ, the church or is Christ somehow the head of many bodies of Christ and the head of many local congregations?
John Thornbury asserted: "We have observed that if the strict local view is true, then each local church is a body of Christ, and collectively all churches are bodies of Christ. But when we come to investigate the usage of soma (body) in the New Testament, we find that it is never used in the plural, distributive, or even the indefinite a single time. Phrases such as 'bodies of Christ,' 'each body of Christ,' 'every body of Christ," or 'a body of Christ' are conspicuous for their absence" (The Doctrine of the Church, p. 29).
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.
Colossians 1:18a And he is the head of the body, the church
Col. 1:24c for his body's sake, which is the church
Eph. 4:4a There is one body, and one Spirit
Is there some sense in which Christ is the head of one body of Christ, the church or is Christ somehow the head of many bodies of Christ and the head of many local congregations?
John Thornbury asserted: "We have observed that if the strict local view is true, then each local church is a body of Christ, and collectively all churches are bodies of Christ. But when we come to investigate the usage of soma (body) in the New Testament, we find that it is never used in the plural, distributive, or even the indefinite a single time. Phrases such as 'bodies of Christ,' 'each body of Christ,' 'every body of Christ," or 'a body of Christ' are conspicuous for their absence" (The Doctrine of the Church, p. 29).
Christ is the head of all churches. Or at least he should be.
In most uses of the word "church" in the New Testament, most of the time it is used in conjunction with a place name. "The church at Corinth." "The church at Ephesus." Etc. All obviously referring to local churchs.
In many other places the word "church" is used in the plural, (Acts 15:41 and 36 other instances). All obviously referring to local churches.
The third usage is that which you have referenced above. The word "church" is used generically. "No church specifically, all churches in general."
This is a fairly common use of language. "I believe the horse is the most beautiful animal in God's creation." When I use the singular "horse" it means "all horses in general, no horse in particular." It does not mean, of course, that I believe in a "universal, invisible horse."
I believe the dog is the most loyal of all of God's creatures. Because I use the word "dog" in the singular does not mean I believe in a "universal invisible dog." It means I am using the term in a general rather than specific way.
As to the the "Bs" - the body, the building, and the bride.
One of the very first things I learned in seminary was to not make a passage "walk on all fours." Read it to understand the author's intent.
Body, building, and bride are all metaphors used to teach church truth.
One of the great methodologies of pedagogy is to use what the people are familiar with to illustrate a new truth.
Everyone one is familiar with a body. We all have one!
Everybody is familiar with a building. We have all been in one.
Everybody is familiar with a bride. We either have one, or we are the son of one.
So God's word uses that which we are familiar with to teach us new truth.
The body is used to illustrate service through our church. Hands to reach out with, feet to carry us to where we ought to be, a mouth to preach the gospel.
The building is used to illustrate the church as being the shelter from the storms of life, and, especially to the Jews, the house of God where we can come and bring our needs to Him and our offerings to Him.
The bride is used to illustrate the faithfulness of the church. The love relationship. This term is contrasted in Revelation with the "harlot" - speaking of a lack of faithfulness.
Don't make the 3 Bs walk on all fours. Understand them as the teaching metaphors they are.
No, the 'third usage' is the Church universal.
I don't think your idea of 'Church' meaning 'no church specifically, all churches in general' works very well in Matthew 16:18. This is the Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail. It is a specific Church-- the assembly of God's elect.
Much less does it work with Acts 8:3. He wasn't persecuting one particular church, but nor was he persecuting all of them in general because he hadn't got to the one at Damascus yet. He was persecuting God's elect, those in union with Christ, which is why our Lord could say to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?" The argument that there was only one church in existence at this time falls to the ground because the plural is used as early as Acts 9:33 listing plural churches in Judea and Galilee. Also there is Galatians 1:23; 3:6. '.....Concerning zeal, persecuting the Church.' Why not, 'persecuting the churches'? Because he was persecuting God's people, the Church universal.
This would seem to prove that the concept of the Universal church is indeed int he scriptures!
the Church is referred to as being the Corporate group.ALL of the local churches assembled as one Body before God.
Except it's not. Nowhere in the bible is the concept of a "universal invisible church" to be found. Catholic dogma dragged into Protestantism.
I have often said of the Reformation, when the reformers came out of Rome they dragged too much of the furniture with them.
The concept is indeed there, as I just think that you are reacting to it becoming too much associated with church of Rome!Except it's not. Nowhere in the bible is the concept of a "universal invisible church" to be found. Catholic dogma dragged into Protestantism.
I have often said of the Reformation, when the reformers came out of Rome they dragged too much of the furniture with them.
Do you have some bible to back up that opinion?
See post 67!
So, your answer is "no?"
So you don't have any scripture to support your opinion, you just copy off of others? Even their obvious errors?
Speaking of the late Dr. Richard Weeks, he taught Baptist Polity and History at Maranatha Baptist Univerity, formerly Maranatha Baptist Bible College. Keeping in mind this exercise should be made with caution, Dr. Weeks said something along the lines of:
TCassidy, am I correct in my recollection of Dr. Weeks' position?
Thanks to the instructions given King James to the translators, the word "church" has taken on multiple meanings. Some of the meanings are accurate. And some are inaccurate. So, stop for a moment and ask yourself what did ekklesia mean to first century, first generation Christians. The New Testament was not written in some kind of "spiritual, theological Greek." Archeological discoveries over the last hundred or so years have shown the New Testament was written in the Greek in common everyday use. So, how was it used back then? We can see its primary use in Acts 19 verses 39 and 41. There ekklesia is translated "assembly". [From his description, I figured the modern parallel is the New England Town meeting.] We now know by the time the New Testament was written, ekklesia had come to be used for a variety of organizations for specific purposes. So, ekklesia was also used the same way we use club, lodge, or society. An example is a funeral ekklesia, organized to pay for the funeral costs of its membership. The key is in common usage ekklesias had a substantive, visable presence.
Like I said above the quote isn't word for word, after all, it's been 35 years. But, it's the meat of his teaching.TCassidy, am I correct in my recollection of Dr. Weeks' position?
Studying under Dr. Weeks and Dr. Hollowood, how could you be anything else?
Last edited:
I believe so. Dr. Weeks emphasized what he called "Cultural Context."
When we read a word in the bible we have to put it in the context of the culture of that time and place. What would your average 1st century Jew, living in the mid-east, understand that word to mean?
This was called the "Hermeneutical Law of Shareability" by Dr. Howard Hendricks (who passed away in 2013) Professor of Bible Exposition and Hermeneutics at Dallas Theological Seminary for over 60 years. Two Jewish men talking and one would use the word εκκλησια, what would the other man understand it to mean?
The word meant, at that time, something, as you said, akin to the New England Town Meeting and was, of course, so used in Acts 19:32-41.
The use of the word to mean "all the redeemed" did not occur until the late 4th century.
Tertillian used the word "universal" in reference to the church but used it in the context of "everywhere I go I find churches." There is a difference between believing in a universal church and believing the church is universal.
In my world travels I have found automobiles to be universal. They are everywhere. But I don't believe in a universal automobile.