Featured Is the Church local, universal or both?

What about the one more question that turned into two.

 

Do you mean this post?

I believe, what is commonly called "The Church Age" started at Pentecost.
However, that is now what that reference, "the chief cornerstone" always refers to. It depends on the context.
In Eph.2:20 it refers to the foundation of the local church.

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

But here the context is definitely to the cross--to salvation. Context is key.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

There is no doubt in my mind that in the context of Eph.2:20 the foundation spoken of above is the local church.

 

Substituting the term "assembly" here is not congruent with Jesus' original intention. The recording of this saying by Matthew is reflecting the Jewish term for community, or an organized synagogue. Given that the history of interpretation for this term is overwhelmingly in favor of affirming that Jesus' primary task was to create a new body, baptized by the Spirit, in the New Covenant that it is incorrect to attempt to change the meaning here.

Jesus' intention is that there is a universal, corporate body through which the New Covenant would be inaugurated. That universal, corporate body (the invisible) persists through the rest of the age until the eschaton and the return of Christ.

This isn't about dispensational vs. covenantal. This is really just recognizing the the basic constitution of the established Church through the message and ministry of Christ.

Well it might be good to add vs 19 and 21 to get the context:

So then you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with saints, and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone. The whole building, being put together by Him, grows into a holy sanctuary in the Lord.

Paul's discussion here reflects an ecclesiology in which there is a singular building, whose foundation is in its original leaders, its cornerstone is set in Christ, and continues to be built up. As an entire building is being built, not just a singular room. The Church is that building, its local gathering are its rooms.

Paul's language is extraordinarily specific to indicate this kind of framework. When we work through the Greek, the various meanings, and how it works in relation to the rest of Paul's developed ecclesiology in Ephesians we see that there is a specific divide between the corporate (universal - invisible) Church and the local (visible) churches.

The local churches meet regularly, the corporate Church will meet at the eschaton.

I agree, the local churches are to be the purveyors of discipline. That is one of their functions.

Well I can get into a more developed ecclesiology of how we see both universal Church and local churches within the NT.

I have a sneaking suspicion that your underlying commitments to a specific model might prohibit you from considering my position more fully. I certainly wouldn't want to waste my time or yours constructing a detailed response if we're simply going to rest in our presuppositions. For a long time I believed there was only one expression of church in the NT. Then I did some serious work and developed a more thorough view.

There are questions, however, and particularly about the nature of the corporate body of believers which is overwhelmingly referred to throughout the NT. Words such as the "Bride of Christ" or the "body of Christ."

Let's see how it goes. Thanks for the reply.

 

DHK,

I gave reason why a “theological system” would deny the universal church (the topic) and I backed that up with claims and conclusions while presenting how the Bible does indeed speak of these issues pertaining to the mystery of progressive revelation of one covenant for one people (one church/one body of Christ/in one seed/one sons in Christ) of God. I presented reason to believe that my claims are true and therefore my conclusions follows as true. You turned it into nothing more than a whining personal attack as a defense while completely ignoring all reason given for the claims I presented, except to make it personal. You obviously did not like that I pointed out how a theological system cannot exist with the church being universal and how these connections spoken of in the Bible can be/ and are missed…“you” simply just took it personal because it was your system I spoke of. The ONLY issues and claims you raised and continue to raise was/is about “personal attacks” instead of addressing my claims and the method of argument you resort to and continue to resort to is the classic definition of “Ad Hominem” – a “personal” attack/”taking the attack to the person”. Learn about the meaning of Ad Hominem and the principles which guide it so that in the future you will recognize how “you” made this debate PERSONAL!

Just by answering you I have allowed you to continue to turn this debate into something it should not be focused on. It is giving in to the all too common tactics of those on this board that do not make the distinction between a personal attack and that on the issues and who use this sorry unethical method as smokescreen to avoid the issues at hand when they have nothing else to offer.

I ONLY answer in grace so you so that you might learn about the true meaning of Ad Hominem and the principles which guide it so that in the future you will recognize how “you” made this debate PERSONAL and might go on to recognize how this affects the values and goals of a debate that SHOULD be focused on logical arguments concerning premises, issues and claims designed to draw out the truth in conclusions and NOT whining about personal issues which do nothing more than to create smokescreens and hard feelings!

I’m done…and if you can't understand your faults with the tactics you pull in debates to try to win an "argument" rather than argue logically in a "debate" as per philosophical principles which goal should be to avoid using these unethical fallacies so sorry for you.

 

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Acts 4:10,11

Contextually, would that have been the first stone laid relative to:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; Col.1:18

And contextually:

I will build my church; and the gates of hell (Hades) shall not prevail against it. (her)

Became the head of the corner of the church by death not prevailing over him?

 

I believe you are reading to much into this passage.
There are three assumptions that you seem to have made.
First, that he is referring to an "organized synagogue" or something similar.

Matthew 16:18 καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης

The word here is ekkesia. It simply means assembly. The word for synagogue looks very much like the English word and could have been translated as gathering or assembly in some cases. But it wasn't the word used. If one looks at some other more literal translations like Young's Literal, then one would find that every time ekklesia is translated it is translated as "assembly" and not church. That is the meaning of the word.

I will build my assembly; my congregation.
Some believe that that assembly started right there with the 12.
It makes sense because Christ and the 12 later became the foundation of the local church at Ephesus, which is a model for every Biblical local church. Every one of our churches are built upon Christ and the apostles and prophets.

Second, I don't believe that Jesus had "the baptism of the Spirit in mind." That event didn't happen until Pentecost.
Third, I believe that reading "covenant" into the passage is reading one's theology into it. It is being biased in one's interpretation.

Again, the word ekklesia means "assembly." It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly. The usage of the word does not allow a universal assembly. It is a contradiction of terms.
Assembly; congregation.
Where does it assemble? What is its purpose? Who takes up the offering?
Who are the deacons? Who does the baptizing? Where is there a place where all the believers "universally" can meet? Thus there is no "universal" church. An unassembled assembly is a contradiction in terms. It doesn't make sense.
Why not say: the family of God, the Kingdom, the bride of Christ.
But not the church, for the church is translated from ekklesia, which simply means assembly.

There will only be one time when all believers will be gathered together in one assembly and that will be in eternity. Not until then will there be "a universal church."

I agree that it doesn't have to be. I found one particular post written rather offensively toward one particular group of people. That is my opinion.
Here you have used the term "the church." With "ekklesia" there is "no church" only churches. Call it the family of God, but not "the church." There is no such animal in the NT. I believe this concept has its roots in the RCC.

I agree with that. The letter is written to the Ephesians. The foundation is the prophets (OT authors) and the apostles (NT authors), and Christ, the chief cornerstone. Therefore the local church is built upon the Word of God and Christ. Upon that foundation we are the building blocks. Just as Paul uses the image of a house here, he uses the image of a body in 1Cor.12. Each one has its own particular purpose. We all have a part to do.
However, remember that he was writing to the church at Ephesus. This was the model for Ephesus, and as such is a model for all local churches. The word "church" is used in a generic sense.

I don't see any universal/invisible assembly in Scripture. The entire concept is unscriptural. Ecclesia can only refer to local churches by very definition of the word. Universal churches have no purpose.
Scripture tells us that WE ALL are children of God. I believe "the family of God," is a much better term for the concept you are looking for.

I can agree with that, just not that the corporate or universal church is in existence now.

I better stop here for now.

 

Here is an excelant treatment on the wonderfull truth of the universal church...


"THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT"

The Nature Of The Church (Universal)

INTRODUCTION

1. Understanding the nature of "The Church Jesus Built" begins with the
word church itself...
a. From the Greek word ekklesia, it means "an assembly"
b. Which is used most frequently in the New Testament in two senses:
1) The church universal - that company of souls redeemed by the
blood of Christ
2) The church local - Christians in a geographical area that work
and worship together as a congregation of God's people

2. Our understanding of the nature of the church can also be enhanced
by...
a. Contrasting the church universal with the church local
b. Noting how the New Testament carefully delineates between the two

3. Failure to observe the distinction between the church universal and
church local...
a. Leaves one open to erroneous concepts of the church
b. Leads one to present a confusing picture of the church in their
evangelistic efforts

[In this lesson and the one to follow, I would like to notice ways in
which the church universal is different from the church local. Let's
begin by looking at...]

I. THE CHURCH 'UNIVERSAL'

A. COMPOSED OF ALL CHRISTIANS...
1. This is the church to which Jesus referred in Mt 16:18
2. It is made up of all the saved, both living and dead - cf. He 12:22-24

B. THERE IS ONLY 'ONE' CHURCH...
1. Remember, the universal church is called the body of Christ
- Ep 1:22-23
2. There is only one body (Ep 4:4); therefore, only one church!

C. BEGAN ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST...
1. In Jerusalem, following the death, resurrection and ascension
of Christ - Ac 2:1-47
2. As Peter later referred to this day, it was the beginning - cf.
Ac 11:15

D. ENTER ONLY BE BEING 'ADDED' BY THE LORD...
1. One cannot join the church by their own volition
2. Rather, they are added by the Lord Himself when saved - Ac 2:
41,47

E. THE LORD KEEPS THE BOOKS OF MEMBERSHIP...
1. There is no agency on earth that keeps the registry of true
members
2. Enrollment is in heaven; only the Lord knows those truly His
- He 12:23; 2Ti 2:19

F. CONSISTS OF ALL THE SAVED...
1. The Lord is presenting to Himself a church holy and without
blemish - cf. Ep 5:25-27
2. Those in the church who are sinning and refuse to repent are
cut off, cast out, spewed out - cf. Jn 15:2,6; Ro 11:19-22;
Re 3:16

G. MUST BE IN THIS CHURCH TO BE SAVED...
1. For the Lord is the Savior of the body (which is His church)
- Ep 5:23
2. Since the Lord adds one to His church when they are saved, one
cannot be saved and not be in the church universal!

H. HAS NO 'EARTHLY' ORGANIZATION...
1. The church universal has organization - cf. Ep 2:19-22; 1 Pe 2:5
a. What organization exists is spiritual in nature
b. Christ is the cornerstone, together with His apostles and
prophets as the foundation, and
all Christians are 'living stones'
2. There is no earthly headquarters for the church
a. E.g., no telephone number to call to speak with the head of
the church
b. For He is in heaven!

I. CANNOT BE DIVIDED...
1. For there is no earthly organization to divide!
2. If division appears to exist...
a. Some unscriptural organization of churches must have been
created
b. Such an organization can have division, but the Lord's
church universal cannot!
3. Those who would seek to divide the church through doctrine,
conduct, etc., are simply cut off by the Lord Himself!
-- There is and always will be, 'one body' - Ep 4:4 (we need to
make sure we are remaining faithful to be in it!)

J. DEATH DOESN'T AFFECT MEMBERSHIP...
1. The church universal is made up of the saved, both living and
dead - He 12:22-23
2. When one dies, they are still with Christ! - Php 1:21-23; 1 Th 5:10

CONCLUSION

1. We have seen there are at least ten things true of the church
universal...
a. Composed of all Christians f. Consists of all the saved
b. There is just one g. Must be in this to be saved
c. Began on the Day of Pentecost h. Has no earthly organization
d. Enter only by being added by i. Can't be divided
the Lord j. Death doesn't affect
e. The Lord keeps the books of membership
membership

2. Our next study shall examine what is true of the church local...

In light of what we have seen thus far, we do well to ask ourselves:
Have we been added by the Lord to His church universal...? - cf. Ac 2:36-41,47

 

No one has said in this thread that the univesal church does not exist. The point is, it has no function here on earth, but in eternity. The totality of the church is universal and local. I challange anyone to explain how a universal church can carry out the Great Commission or function as a NT church.

The churches in Paul's letters are obviously local.

 

Stopped in at the First Baptist Church on the Side of the Road this morning and the Ethiopian eunuch was still there. Said he was happy I stopped in, for that made it a bonafide assembly. Now I am here to tell ya'll that, “lively stone,” looked like, “death,” warmed over.

 

So is the term Trinity. Ever heard an Oneness Pentecostal’s argument about Trinity being unbiblical and man made? – It sounds very similar to your arguments you just made above and carries just as much validity – IOWs none.

Been a while Soulman, good to see you. :wavey:

 

Odd, that you think one cannot carry out the GC without the authority of a local church. I witnessed to clerk in a convenience store just last night who said he was an Atheist and was talking about Easter and "the stupid eggs". Turns out he’s “not quite” an Atheist but doesn’t believe he has to go through any man’s religion to talk to God. He had gone to Catholic school and hard feelings about it and just hated churches. I explained to him about the Priesthood of the Believer, then talked about traditions (quoted Col 2:8) but also about his belief the Word that the God was true and about Jesus being the Mediator and why we celebrate “Easter” or better yet the “Resurrection” and it having nothing to do with the men who put the bricks together on a building but Jesus being the Church and us (believers being saved in His Body and rising with Him).

He asked me if I was a preacher and I said, No, not in the sense that I pastor a flock in building made by hands but I freely preach whenever the Spirit moves me and wherever I go.

Now, I would say that young man entered into a church with me of the kind without man-made boundaries and that solely rested on the Word of God right then and there where we were at. Didn’t see him sitting in a pew, nor me behind a podium and/or in front of a cross, hmm…must have been invisible. And, I didn’t witness to him as a member of a local church but as member of the family of God.

As I left him as I mentioned the wisdom of not forsaking to assemble ourselves together in reference to his lack of knowledge but told him most importantly to stay in the Word and all these things, like finding the right church to go to will come to him so that he could grow in the truth and be where God wants him.

Seems to me you place WAY too much authority in the local church and are missing the big picture…

 

Well your first line kinda communicates that it might be difficult to talk with you about this. But let's have some fun...

I disagree that denominations are "unbiblical." They are a useful system to help coordinate and distribute ministry. They aren't inherently unbiblical. You can't say "well they aren't in the Bible...so thus they're unbiblical" because that doesn't work. Just because something used in theology and ministry isn't in the Bible doesn't make it unbiblical.

Oh, thanks for letting me know this.

Actually, my definition comes from extensive study in ecclesiology. But that probably doesn't mean much to you. Anyways, it comes from a complete digest of the NT theology on this issue.

Ekklesia is a nuanced word that has multiple applications and uses within the NT. Just like many other words in the NT, OT and common literature.

As you can see in my previous post where I listed a number of examples, there are unique uses of the term throughout the NT. I'm happy to talk specifics and where we disagree over certain passages. But just making blanket statements like this isn't work for our conversation.

Wow, so you just want to cut out anyone who meets in an organized denomination as being automatically false without any consideration as to the nature of their faith or faithfulness? You can just look at the denominational name on a church marquee and say "Oh, they're pagans" and be done with it?

Frankly, it takes a unique kind of hubris to do this. I'm opposed to that kind of action and reject any attempts to do that.

The last 2000 years of Church history show us that the answers are never properly obtained by this method. They also tell us that faithfulness to Christ is more important than looking at a denomination or even the appearance of a church.

 

I don't consider it huberis for a person to reject denominationalism. It appears that your argument to Soulman is "but we have done it for 2000 years this way, so there must be merit to it!" Maybe yes, maybe no. Why is it so many walk away, revolted by what they see? Maybe you need to probe to find the root causes! Just a suggestion.:smilewinkgrin:

 

RED HERRING !!!

Tsk Tsk....you know better than that Benjamin.

 

You didn't carry out the Great Commission here Benjamin, nor can you, only the Local Church can. You were an Ambassador for Christ here, and that is good and any Saint of God should be one. But that is not the Great Commission and the "Universal Church" is absolutely incapable of doing it.

 

This beggs the question, "What if you dont even have a bible believing local church in your community, even if you do manage to work to get them to Christ....then what do you do?"

Who will be there to instruct them, to mentor them to help them over the rough spots.....or do you send them to apostate churches by default. Thats the problem I am having right now.

There is a growing Latino population who dont even have the means to get to a good church outside the community, so by default they fall back into the RCC church down the road w/i walking distance. Thats the dynamic of my community in a nut shell. Until a strong & committed bible church plants themselves here you got nothing....not local not universal. Devil wins by default.