Is the Church local, universal or both?

[Soulman]

Both concepts are taught in Scripture, local and universal. I am a strong believer in the local church in carrying out God's work on this earth. The universal church is an abstract concept on this earth before eternity. The universal church (all believers) never helped the sick, poor, or needy. The universal never sponsered a missionary in foreign lands. It never went on visitation. It never took up an offering. It never conducted a worship service. It never administered the Lords Supper or Baptism. It never chose deacons, elders or called a pastor. It never offered praise and honor to the Lord. In other words, the universal church here on earth is a useless entity. In eternity is another matter.

Catholics worry about a universal visible church, and we see the results of that. Protestants refashioned the model to use a universal, invisible church, more science fiction. We are Baptists. Our churches are local, visible churchs, designed to carry out the work of the Lord. The churches in the NT are clearly local churches. All having a hierarchy does is waste money, and put levels of government between a lost and dying world and the local NT church. Presbyters, bishops, cardinals and other hierarchy officials of various stripes in essence take of space and waste our food supply while accomplishing nothing for the Lord.

Even when Catholics refer to their "one true church" they in reality do not believe in a universal church as Scripture speaks of. The universal church is all believers from start to end. Catholics conceive the universal church as a roll call of their members, with others headed for the Lake of Fire. Protestants hold to a "universal, invisible" church, or as they put it, the holy catholic church, communion of saints, etc. Again, they fail to give any function of the true universal church outside their own denominational lines.

Revelation speaks of and gives a vivid picture of the universal church, as we all stand before the Lord. The bride and all redeemed come out of the universal church. This is future tense. How does a universal church, here and now, on this earth, (you know, blue sky, green trees, people walking around) carrying out the last chapter of Matthew?

I do agree the point made by several that the church was added to daily, and not voted on. That is another thread about church government. Surfice to say, it says daily, not after some period of indoctrination, communicants class, examination, or other such nonsense probation period.

We are here to tell others about Jesus. We are not here to create levels of government, wear stupid looking costumes and wave pots with smoke coming out. We are not here to waste the Lord's money, as it is all His. We are not here to make power grabs within a local church, or argue over the thickness of the toilet paper.

Until you die, the local church is God's instrument for us to accomplish His work.

I believe your explanation of the local church to be correct, I don't see in the scriptures a universal church spanning the dispensations. I believe it would accurately be called the Kingdom of God which would encompass all believers past and present, OT & NT. But the church is local and visible. It is NT. It's age will end with the rapture of the saints.

 

[Soulman]

THE Church undeniably is universal, (catholic), one, or whatever way you want to say it.

Anyone can throw a belief out there. Please back it up with the bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Lord does see ALL local churches. That is how He set the church up. He sees people that are members of these local churches. If you aren't a member of a local church it doesn't mean you are automatically part of a universal or invisible church. They are N.T. saints and part of God's kingdom. Universal or invisible are man made terms and are unbiblical.

God sees ALL the saved that atten din the local churches as being thsoe whoa re his own!

there is but ONE Body/Bride/Church of christ that God recognises, and those are the ones saved and redeemed!

they attend various local churches, but not all there in those assemblies are his own, but ALL in the ONE true church are!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

there is but ONE Body

Yes

Bride

Yes

Church of christ that God recognises

Yes

and those are the ones saved and redeemed!

That is the part that is NOT Scriptural. This is repeatedly asserted, on this thread as a self-evident fait accompli but the "Church" is never defined as "All of the Redeemed"...It's just not there.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes

Yes

Yes

That is the part that is NOT Scriptural. This is repeatedly asserted, on this thread as a self-evident fait accompli but the "Church" is never defined as "All of the Redeemed"...It's just not there.

Are there ASNY in the true Church of Christ who are not redeemed?

 

[preachinjesus]

In the Greek "Ekklesia" meaning assembly is used. Wouldn't all believers outside of this definition be called something other than the invisible church? I do not see it referenced in the bible. Perhaps Kingdom of God?

Don't take the Greek too literally here. The NT writers reflect different nuance in the application of the word ekklesia throughout the NT.

For instance: (emphases mine)

Mt 16:18 - "...you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church..."

Mt 18:17 - "If he pays no attention to them, tell the church..."

Acts 5:11 - "Then great fear came on the whole church and on all who heard these things."

Acts 7:38 - "He is the one who as in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai...[/i]"

Acts 8:1 - "...On that day a severe persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the land of Judea and Samaria."

Rom 16:1 - "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchreae.

Rom 16:4 - "...Not only do I thank them, but so do all the Gentile churches."

Rom 16:5 - "Greet also the church that meets in their home..."

Rom 16:16 - "...All the churches of Christ send you greetings."


I can go on and on, suffice to say there is a diversity of uses of the term ἐκκλησίας in the NT.

If we were to sit down and study the specific biblical theology of ecclesiology, we would soon discover that:
- There is a universal Church which is the entire body of believers which has existed for all the time of this world. This universal Church will only meet at the eschaton, the marriage supper of the lamb (Rev. 19:9.) This church is invisible.

- There is are local churches which are an assembly of believers (and non-believers) that meet in a various area to minister to those within and without that local church. This body meets (at whatever schedule they deem fit) for worship, edification, instruction, discipline, fellowship, and serving others. These churches are visible.

- There are unique denominations which organize for differing reasons and utilize differing polity. They are made up of multiple assemblies. Some churches align with them, others do not. They are diverse, they are numerous, they are simply an organizational structure. They do not function as the church or a church. No one denomination is solely authentic over all the others.

So the term ἐκκλησίας is a pretty diverse term. It refers to both universal, invisible Church and local, visible churches. It is used diversely in the NT to refer to specific assemblies and also the entire Christian Church in the world.

So, let me know what you think. :type:

 

[Yeshua1]

Don't take the Greek too literally here. The NT writers reflect different nuance in the application of the word ekklesia throughout the NT.

For instance: (emphases mine)

Mt 16:18 - "...you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church..."

Mt 18:17 - "If he pays no attention to them, tell the church..."

Acts 5:11 - "Then great fear came on the whole church and on all who heard these things."

Acts 7:38 - "He is the one who as in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai...[/i]"

Acts 8:1 - "...On that day a severe persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the land of Judea and Samaria."

Rom 16:1 - "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchreae.

Rom 16:4 - "...Not only do I thank them, but so do all the Gentile churches."

Rom 16:5 - "Greet also the church that meets in their home..."

Rom 16:16 - "...All the churches of Christ send you greetings."


I can go on and on, suffice to say there is a diversity of uses of the term ἐκκλησίας in the NT.

If we were to sit down and study the specific biblical theology of ecclesiology, we would soon discover that:
- There is a universal Church which is the entire body of believers which has existed for all the time of this world. This universal Church will only meet at the eschaton, the marriage supper of the lamb (Rev. 19:9.) This church is invisible.

- There is are local churches which are an assembly of believers (and non-believers) that meet in a various area to minister to those within and without that local church. This body meets (at whatever schedule they deem fit) for worship, edification, instruction, discipline, fellowship, and serving others. These churches are visible.

- There are unique denominations which organize for differing reasons and utilize differing polity. They are made up of multiple assemblies. Some churches align with them, others do not. They are diverse, they are numerous, they are simply an organizational structure. They do not function as the church or a church. No one denomination is solely authentic over all the others.

So the term ἐκκλησίας is a pretty diverse term. It refers to both universal, invisible Church and local, visible churches. It is used diversely in the NT to refer to specific assemblies and also the entire Christian Church in the world.

So, let me know what you think. :type:

yes, you have shown in perfect fashion that contex determines just how to view the way the lord intended for it to be seen as meaning, and that itdoes refer to BOTH the One true church, and the local churches!

 

[DHK]

Don't take the Greek too literally here. The NT writers reflect different nuance in the application of the word ekklesia throughout the NT.

For instance: (emphases mine)

Mt 16:18 - "...you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church..."

I will build my "assembly." An assembly is not universal.
First, in context he could be referring to he and his disciples from which they would continue his work of building God-ordained churches.
Second, the word ekklesia or assembly could simply be used in a generic sense to mean, every church would have Christ as the foundation or the chief cornerstone of that foundation and the apostles as smaller stones making up the rest of the foundation, as found in Eph.2:20

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

Mt 18:17 - "If he pays no attention to them, tell the church..."

This has only local church application; it can have no other but local church discipline--the assembly of believers.

Acts 5:11 - "Then great fear came on the whole church and on all who heard these things."

The only church or assembly in existence at that point in history was the "First Baptist Church at Jerusalem." There was no other assembly.

Acts 7:38 - "He is the one who as in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai...[/i]"

The word doesn't always means church; it always means congregation or assembly. It also is correctly translated "assembly" in Acts 19 when they gathered in the theater, and the mayor dismissed them.

Acts 8:1 - "...On that day a severe persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the land of Judea and Samaria."

What is the problem here? It was the only church at that time--The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem. It was the church, the assembly in Jerusalem, just like it says it was.

Rom 16:1 - "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchreae.

And so she was from the assembly in Cenchrea.

Rom 16:4 - "...Not only do I thank them, but so do all the Gentile churches."

Properly translated.

Rom 16:5 - "Greet also the church that meets in their home..."

Rom 16:16 - "...All the churches of Christ send you greetings."

No one should question the accuracy of these local churches or assemblies.

I can go on and on, suffice to say there is a diversity of uses of the term ἐκκλησίας in the NT.

If we were to sit down and study the specific biblical theology of ecclesiology, we would soon discover that:
- There is a universal Church which is the entire body of believers which has existed for all the time of this world. This universal Church will only meet at the eschaton, the marriage supper of the lamb (Rev. 19:9.) This church is invisible.

- There is are local churches which are an assembly of believers (and non-believers) that meet in a various area to minister to those within and without that local church. This body meets (at whatever schedule they deem fit) for worship, edification, instruction, discipline, fellowship, and serving others. These churches are visible.

- There are unique denominations which organize for differing reasons and utilize differing polity. They are made up of multiple assemblies. Some churches align with them, others do not. They are diverse, they are numerous, they are simply an organizational structure. They do not function as the church or a church. No one denomination is solely authentic over all the others.

So the term ἐκκλησίας is a pretty diverse term. It refers to both universal, invisible Church and local, visible churches. It is used diversely in the NT to refer to specific assemblies and also the entire Christian Church in the world.

So, let me know what you think. :type:

Your post never proved this to be universal and invisible, and the Scriptures provided certainly didn't.
How did you get "universal and invisible" out of these Scriptures? I don't see it.

 

[percho]

If you travel all over the world and always attend church you therefore must be attending the local church, universally.

That is kinda universal.

 

[percho]

I will build my "assembly." An assembly is not universal.
First, in context he could be referring to he and his disciples from which they would continue his work of building God-ordained churches.
Second, the word ekklesia or assembly could simply be used in a generic sense to mean, every church would have Christ as the foundation or the chief cornerstone of that foundation and the apostles as smaller stones making up the rest of the foundation, as found in Eph.2:20

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

This has only local church application; it can have no other but local church discipline--the assembly of believers.

The only church or assembly in existence at that point in history was the "First Baptist Church at Jerusalem." There was no other assembly.

The word doesn't always means church; it always means congregation or assembly. It also is correctly translated "assembly" in Acts 19 when they gathered in the theater, and the mayor dismissed them.

What is the problem here? It was the only church at that time--The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem. It was the church, the assembly in Jerusalem, just like it says it was.

And so she was from the assembly in Cenchrea.

Properly translated.


Your post never proved this to be universal and invisible, and the Scriptures provided certainly didn't.
How did you get "universal and invisible" out of these Scriptures? I don't see it.

Were the 3000 that were added on the day of Pentecost, assuming they were added to the church, added to the church that was at Jerusalem which was the only one or were they added to the local church from whence they had come?

One more question. When did Jesus become the chief cornerstone of the church? When did the building begin?

 

[DHK]

Were the 3000 that were added on the day of Pentecost, assuming they were added to the church, added to the church that was at Jerusalem which was the only one or were they added to the local church from whence they had come?

One more question. When did Jesus become the chief cornerstone of the church? When did the building begin?

They were added to the church at Jerusalem.
It doesn't say what happened after that. They were baptized into that church.

 

[Benjamin]

I can go on and on, suffice to say there is a diversity of uses of the term ἐκκλησίας in the NT.

If we were to sit down and study the specific biblical theology of ecclesiology, we would soon discover that:
- There is a universal Church which is the entire body of believers which has existed for all the time of this world. This universal Church will only meet at the eschaton, the marriage supper of the lamb (Rev. 19:9.) This church is invisible.

- There is are local churches which are an assembly of believers (and non-believers) that meet in a various area to minister to those within and without that local church. This body meets (at whatever schedule they deem fit) for worship, edification, instruction, discipline, fellowship, and serving others. These churches are visible.

- There are unique denominations which organize for differing reasons and utilize differing polity. They are made up of multiple assemblies. Some churches align with them, others do not. They are diverse, they are numerous, they are simply an organizational structure. They do not function as the church or a church. No one denomination is solely authentic over all the others.

So the term ἐκκλησίας is a pretty diverse term. It refers to both universal, invisible Church and local, visible churches. It is used diversely in the NT to refer to specific assemblies and also the entire Christian Church in the world.

So, let me know what you think. :type:

Good job, I could go on and on forever also on the complete functional meaning of the church.

I say you’re correct, but I also understand you’ll meet great opposition and why, because foremost what should be a clear concept to them, a universal church, throws a huge monkey wrench into dual covenant theology and the adherents to those doctrines which have been trained to “rightly divide” the covenant are willing to die on that hill rather than surrender their escapist fly away doctrines.

Dispensationalists will always be able to argue in the sense that they have two of these kind of apples and two of those kind of apples while refusing to do the math. Yet, the pie clearly requires 4 to complete the recipe some attempt to keep this separation and will not complete the ingredients while oven continues to heat.

Further, to aid those in their defense of that escapist doctrine the Bible never comes straight out and directly into the readers face to settle this issue that no distinction of the Church exists. It explains it in a certain way as Paul tells us that the way we are to speak of it is by the mystery by which it has been reveled:

1Co 2:4-10
(4) And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
(5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
(6) Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
(7) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
(8) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
(9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
(10) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

How convenient for the dispensationalists to insist on these things pertaining to the mystery revealed that they must be taken literally rather than spiritually.

For me, it is agonizing to see my beloved get caught up in the doctrines of falling away which we have been warned about.

Mar 13:5-10
(5) And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:
(6) For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
(7) And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
(8) For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
(9) But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
(10) And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

The escapist doctrines in particular being warned of while telling of those who will make promises of comfort which strengthen the hand of the anti-Christ in the end times.

Eze 13:15-18
(15) Thus will I accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that have daubed it with untempered morter, and will say unto you, The wall is no more, neither they that daubed it;
(16) To wit, the prophets of Israel which prophesy concerning Jerusalem, and which see visions of peace for her, and there is no peace, saith the Lord GOD.
(17) Likewise, thou son of man, set thy face against the daughters of thy people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy thou against them,
(18) And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you?
(19) And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
(20) Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.



Woe to those who have been seduced, impregnated and feed the youngers these escapist doctrines relating to two covenantal primoses and a division of the Body of Christ.

Mar 13:17-18
(17) But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
(18) And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.

I pray that they are not deceived into flying away to the anti-Christ, who comes first and that they are not “ill prepared” (for that which the Bible diligently instructs us to be prepared for but which is discounted by the sheer nature of those claiming escapist doctrines who divide away these warnings to only apply to the “Jews” .)

Mar 13:21-23
(21) And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
(22) For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
(23) But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

Be careful with those dual covenant escapist doctrines, (Col 2:8).

To miss understanding the clear development of our one Gospel/Covenant given to the one people of God through one Body is to do so in grave error. Abraham is still and has always been the "root" of True Israel, (those of faith in the one universal church) and Christ the sole seed which brings them in one body – today, yesterday and forever.

1Co 10:1-4
(1) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
(2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
(3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
(4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I pray God gives guidance. That is all… :type:

 

[DHK]

Good job, I could go on and on forever also on the complete functional meaning of the church.

foremost what should be a clear concept to them, a universal church, throws a huge monkey wrench into dual covenant theology and the adherents to those doctrines which have been trained to “rightly divide” the covenant are willing to die on that hill rather than surrender their escapist fly away doctrines.

Dispensationalists will always be able to argue in the sense that they have two of these kind of apples and two of those kind of apples while refusing to do the math. Yet, the pie clearly requires 4 to complete the recipe some attempt to keep this separation and will not complete the ingredients while oven continues to heat.

You are entitled to your opinion Benjamin, but when you stoop so low as to refer to your "dispensational brethren" as false Christs, unsaved, and spiritually blind is not a very good way of debating. In fact it only shows that you have nothing of substance to say but to denigrate others.

 

[Benjamin]

You are entitled to your opinion Benjamin, but when you stoop so low as to refer to your "dispensational brethren" as false Christs, unsaved, and spiritually blind is not a very good way of debating. In fact it only shows that you have nothing of substance to say but to denigrate others.

When you stoop to put words on my mouth it only shows that you have nothing of substance to say but to attempt to create Ad Hominem fallacies to denigrate others.

 

[DHK]

When you stoop to put words on my mouth it only shows that you have nothing of substance to say but to attempt to create Ad Hominem fallacies to denigrate others.

1Co 2:4-10
Mar 13:5-10
Eze 13:15-18
Mar 13:21-23

You were talking about dispensationalists. You "prayed" at the end that "they would see the light."
The first reference refers to false teachers.
The second reference refers to false Christs.
The third reference refers to judgment.
The fourth reference refers to false prophets.

Each one of these references you have posted for the good of dispensationalists. Is that what we are in your eyes, Benjamin?
Why else would you be posting such passages of Scripture?

 

[Benjamin]

Was Paul accusing or teaching when he said:

1Co 2:4-10
(4) And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
(5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
(6) Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
(7) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
(8) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
(9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
(10) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.


While neglecting all other issues you would simply resort to childish tactics to suggest I was roundabout accusing which is merely desperate and unconscionable classic case of Ad Hominem debate fallacy and your method of defense for your position as I see it. If you believe this method to accuse me of accusing is ethical you are simply ignorant of ethical debate principles.

So go about your fallacious agenda to "prove" these twisted ideas of developing a defense of your doctrines in such a manner because as I see it done in ignorance and bull-headedness while I will merey consider the source and will not consider worth my time explain your errors and poor debate ethics further.

 

[DHK]

Was Paul accusing or teaching when he said:

1Co 2:4-10
(4) And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
(5) That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
(6) Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
(7) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
(8) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
(9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
(10) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.


While neglecting all other issues you would simply resort to childish tactics to suggest I was roundabout accusing which is merely desperate and unconscionable classic case of Ad Hominem debate fallacy and your method of defense for your position as I see it. If you believe this method to accuse me of accusing is ethical you are simply ignorant of ethical debate principles.

So go about your fallacious agenda to "prove" these twisted ideas of developing a defense of your doctrines in such a manner as I see it done in ignorance while I will merey consider the source.

You were comparing:
dispensationalist vs. covenant.
local church cs. universal church.

Then you quote 1Cor.2, where Paul contrasts:
Himself to false teachers.
His Spirit filled preaching to their carnal oratory.
the Spiritual to the Carnal.

What conclusion should one draw?

 

[Revmitchell]

Think that you "nailed it" here, as many who see, rightfully, that the Church of rome is NOT what it claims to be, in rejecting their claims to being the true Universal church, reject that label for any other church!

I do not care about everyone else labels. However, I never used it.

 

[Benjamin]

What conclusion should one draw?

You'll have to decide for yourself whether Paul in 1Cor 2 (or these other verses) was/were accusing or teaching and take it upon yourself according. I'll not be swayed into this fallacious Ad Hominem deterrence which in ignorance you believe helps your argument in a debate and is in any way an ethical way to do so.

I meant them as warnings in the same fashion which Bible presents them to those that will hear and wish to eat the meat thereof, nothing more nothing less.

Get it through your head that I'm not interested in the defending myself against your attempts at the fallacious Ad Hominem deterrences you wish to focus on as your method of argument rather than that of the issues up for debate. To do so is to lower myself to your level of ethics involving a poor understanding of where debating principles should lead and be focused on and why these principles pertaining to drawing conclusions exist in the frst place.

 

[DHK]

You'll have to decide for yourself whether Paul in 1Cor 2 (or these other verses) was/were accusing or teaching and take it upon yourself according. I'll not be swayed into this fallacious Ad Hominem deterrence which in ignorance you believe helps your argument in a debate and is in any way an ethical way to do so.

I meant them as warnings in the same fashion which Bible presents them to those that will hear and wish to eat the meat thereof, nothing more nothing less.

Get it through your head that I'm not interested in the defending myself against your attempts at the fallacious Ad Hominem deterrences you wish to focus on as your method of argument rather than that of the issues up for debate. To do so is to lower myself to your level of ethics involving a poor understanding of where debating principles should lead and be focused on and why these principles pertaining to drawing conclusions exist in the frst place.

You decide where the ad hominen lies:
The OP or title of the thread concerns local church, universal church or both.

Here is what you posted:

I say you’re correct, but I also understand you’ll meet great opposition and why, because foremost what should be a clear concept to them, a universal church, throws a huge monkey wrench into dual covenant theology and the adherents to those doctrines which have been trained to “rightly divide” the covenant are willing to die on that hill rather than surrender their escapist fly away doctrines.

Dispensationalists will always be able to argue in the sense that they have two of these kind of apples and two of those kind of apples while refusing to do the math. Yet, the pie clearly requires 4 to complete the recipe some attempt to keep this separation and will not complete the ingredients while oven continues to heat.

This is not an answer to the OP, the subject at hand. Why throw dispensationalism or covenant theology in here? Why the slam on dispensationailst? What has that got to do with the local church? If you want to discuss the merits of either system of theology go start another thread. The title of this thread is "the local church, universal church or both."

The ad hominem is all yours. Why the fruitless attack against dispensationalism when that is not even the subject of this thread?