Is the Church local, universal or both?

[preachinjesus]

I wonder what ecclesiologies might disqualify an assembly of Christ confessing, God honoring, Spirit filled (not charismatic) Christians?

 

[Yeshua1]

Not every organization claiming to be a church can quality, even though some of its members may, in fact, be saved.

There are many religious groups which hold to disqualifying gross error regarding soteriology, ecclesiology and a myriad of other things. Those groups may have saved people as members, but they are not part of a true New Testament Church.

other then baptist, what would you consider to be 'true NT churches?"

Are ANY Denominations fitting that description?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Not every organization claiming to be a church can quality, even though some of its members may, in fact, be saved.

There are many religious groups which hold to disqualifying gross error regarding soteriology, ecclesiology and a myriad of other things. Those groups may have saved people as members, but they are not part of a true New Testament Church.

Hmmm.......well, using that as a standard, there are many Baptist churches that I would consider as not qualifying.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hmmm.......well, using that as a standard, there are many Baptist churches that I would consider as not qualifying.

Would mode of baptism disqualify?
Would type of government?
Would being in a Denomination?

Aren't those areas where we can agree to disagree, and still be considered as being christian groups?
As long as hold to essentials of the faith?

 

[Tom Butler]

I wonder what ecclesiologies might disqualify an assembly of Christ confessing, God honoring, Spirit filled (not charismatic) Christians?

Any congregation may determine for itself how is wishes to govern or be governed, so I'd grant a lot of flexibility.

I do think the Biblical example is that a congregation should have pastors (elders, bishops) and deacons. I think the congregation should govern itself. I do not find a hierarchical church government in the scriptures.
.

 

[Tom Butler]

I notice that we've strayed from the OP a bit, and I think I'm probably to blame.
So, I think I'll start a new thread asking for views on what the identifying marks are of a true New Testament church. And, What are some disqualifying marks?

Save your answers for the new thread, so we won't derail this one further.

 

[Soulman]

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.

We as soul winners are responsible for our converts! Don't be so quick to pass them off to the first church you can find. We are their spiritual parents responsible for teaching the ropes to these babes in Christ. If there is not a good church available, start a bible study group and disciple these people. The problem with many Baptists is that we leave our babes abandoned on a doorstep and many get devoured by wolves. Shame on us!

 

[Soulman]

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 come 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:

Look at what a denomination is. Christ started the church. It was independent and based soley on the Word of God. After many N.T. churches were established men got involved and made changes to the doctrines of salvation, baptism etc. The RCC was born. In short order those who disagreed became protestants. Out of these protestants sprang denominations with the same type of hiarchy as the RCC. They were no longer independent of each other and therefore unbiblical. (Religious). Baptists by that name existed before the RCC. We claim through different names to be the unbroken chain of N.T. churches from the time of Christ till present. Therefore, We were Never Catholic, Never protestant aand NEVER a denomination. We are Baptists which are independent of each other and therefore Not part of a denomination.

 

[saturneptune]

I notice that we've strayed from the OP a bit, and I think I'm probably to blame.
So, I think I'll start a new thread asking for views on what the identifying marks are of a true New Testament church. And, What are some disqualifying marks?

Save your answers for the new thread, so we won't derail this one further.

The definition of a NT church is certainly going to get a lot more diverse opinion than the difference between a local and universal church. For example, we are in complete agreement about the local vs universal. However, a NT church, some will think is bounded by closed communion, autonomy, even maybe landmarkism, depending on how one looks at the subject. There will even be a great difference of opinion over whether we are (Baptists) are a denomination or not, or if we fit into the Protestant catagory.

I am kind of in the middle on this one. I do believe the Bible supports a local autonomous church more than a hierarchy. Also, I am not so sure a hierarcy would disqualify a church as a NT church. In addition, I think there is evidence of elder form of government in some churches in Scripture. Again, I do not think that disqualifies a congregational form of government (which mine is) as being a NT church.

As far as Baptists being Protestant, we have had threads on this before, but there is a difference between the Baptist model (local, visible) and Protestant (invisible, universal). Both differ from the RCC (visible, universal). Finally, on the question of denomination, there are arguments on both sides, but I tend to believe a denominaiton does not have to be bound by a hierarcy, but can be bound by distinctives, common beliefs and an associational relationship.

Oh, LOL, in your last paragraph, what is this "we disrailed the thread" stuff??

 

[Soulman]

so if a person has decided not to participate in a local church for various reasons, would they be saved, and what Church would they be part of if indeed saved?

A person can be saved outside the church period. It happens all the time as people are led to Christ and not discipled. They are part of the family or kingdom of God.

 

[InTheLight]

It's got to be both local and universal, but we should think of it as a local church, since the Bible mostly refers to churches as being local.

Exceptions can be found:

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her

I Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

I like Saturneptune's and preachinjesus' take on this issue. The church is both local and universal but there isn't any action the universal church can take in this age.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's got to be both local and universal, but we should think of it as a local church, since the Bible mostly refers to churches as being local.

Exceptions can be found:

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her

I Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

I like Saturneptune's and preachinjesus' take on this issue. The church is both local and universal but there isn't any action the universal church can take in this age.

Its Universal, as in the sum of all sinners saved by the Cross of christ since pentacost, god knows ONLY one true church, the Body and Bride of christ

local in its application, how it functions in this age!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Its Universal, as in the sum of all sinners saved by the Cross of christ since pentacost, god knows ONLY one true church, the Body and Bride of christ

local in its application, how it functions in this age!

Thats where I stand...If I had to rely on a local assembly, then Id be suffering. We dont all live down south.

 

[Tom Butler]

It's got to be both local and universal, but we should think of it as a local church, since the Bible mostly refers to churches as being local.

Exceptions can be found:

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her

I Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

I like Saturneptune's and preachinjesus' take on this issue. The church is both local and universal but there isn't any action the universal church can take in this age.

Be careful, here. A husband loves one wife, a real, live individual wife. Husbands love their individual wives, not a universal wife. Christ loves an individual church, just as husbands love their individual wives.

 

[InTheLight]

Be careful, here. A husband loves one wife, a real, live individual wife. Husbands love their individual wives, not a universal wife. Christ loves an individual church, just as husbands love their individual wives.

Verse says Christ loves "the church", not an individual church. Christ did not die for only the church at Ephesus.

 

[Tom Butler]

Verse says Christ loves "the church", not an individual church. Christ did not die for only the church at Ephesus.

But he actually did die for the members of the congregation at Ephesus--a local church.

Acts 20:28 specifically says so:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you (the elders at FBC Ephesus) overseers., to feed the church of God (at Ephesus, over which the elders were overseers), which he hath purchased with his own blood. (His bllood bought FBC Ephesus)

In the same way that He did for FBC Ephesus, Jesus shed his blood for your congregation, my congregation and all New Testament churches.

Paul's discussion of what Jesus did for FBC Ephesus, he did not mean the U-church in Ephesians 5:25, and the local church in Acts 20:28. He's talking about the same body, and FBC Ephesus is definitely not a U-church.

Of course, Jesus couldn't die for the U-church, because it does not exist.

 

[saturneptune]

Thats where I stand...If I had to rely on a local assembly, then Id be suffering. We dont all live down south.

There is certainly nothing wrong with associations of local churches or hierarchies helping others or local churches. However, the univeral church as defined here, all true believers in all denominations from all ages, never helped anyone.

I am somewhat puzzled by the comment about living in the South. I live in Western Kentucky, where the local church is the major way in which the Gospel is spread and the poor are helped. My point is, I grew up in Mississippi, and Kentucky is nothing like the South, so I really fail to see the connection of the local church and the South.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There is certainly nothing wrong with associations of local churches or hierarchies helping others or local churches. However, the univeral church as defined here, all true believers in all denominations from all ages, never helped anyone.

I am somewhat puzzled by the comment about living in the South. I live in Western Kentucky, where the local church is the major way in which the Gospel is spread and the poor are helped. My point is, I grew up in Mississippi, and Kentucky is nothing like the South, so I really fail to see the connection of the local church and the South.

OK well I see everything past Philadelphia as south. I guess I meant Bible Belt. Is Kentucky considered Bible Belt?

 

[saturneptune]

OK well I see everything past Philadelphia as south. I guess I meant Bible Belt. Is Kentucky considered Bible Belt?

I guess you could say we are on the northern edge of it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I guess you could say we are on the northern edge of it.

OK then when Catholics, PCUSA, United Methodists, JW's & Atheist dominate & less than 2% go to church then you will understand my neighborhood. If I want to fit in, then I revert to RC & become a bogus believer & Gag cough gag....a flaming liberal democrat (progressive) & start liken Cuomo & Bloomburg. I can also wear Obama pins & run down the street singin "OBAMA OBAMA"..... IE my worst nightmare. (I kid you not, I deal with all this insanity up here)