Is there a "universal" church?

[OldRegular]

------------------------------------------------

So what are we saying--the universal church in invisible? The real problem with this is all the saved are not in the Church.

All those redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ are in the [Universal] Church of Jesus Christ.

One is saved without baptism or church membership. This boils to: the church is local-- period. The Lord knows them that are His. See Mt. 7 where He tells some who think they have done mighty things for the Lord--He says,"Depart from me, ye that work iniquity, I have never known you."

Can't argue with the above but what does it have to do with the Universal Church.

Roman Church councils had little if anything to do with New Testament churches and the saints thereof. The fact that these councils were called should indicate that not everyone was in agreement with Roman ecclesiology/dogma.

Another of Leo’s exploits was his intervention in the Council of Chalcedon.

Knotty Questions

A central theological issue in the first few centuries was the person of Christ: In what sense was he God? At the beginning of the fourth century Arius claimed that only the Father was truly God. In response, the Council of Nicea proclaimed the full deity of Christ. But if Jesus was truly God, how could he be truly human as well? Indeed, was he? If he was, how can one person be both God and man? Was he, in fact, one person? These and other such questions were to dominate Greek theological debate for the next three-and-a-half centuries.

The Council of Chalcedon (451) comes in the middle—not at the end—of these debates. It marks a significant point at which four crucial issues concerning the person of Christ are clarified:

1. against Arius, the full deity of Christ is affirmed
2. against Apollinarius, the full humanity of Christ is affirmed
3. against Nestorius, it is affirmed that Christ is one person
4. against Eutyches, it is affirmed that the deity and humanity of Christ remain distinct and are not blurred together.​

Chalcedon was occasioned by the teaching of Eutyches, the last of these four heretics. Eutyches was an elderly monk who was theologically out of his depth rather than willfully heretical. He was condemned at Constantinople (now Istanbul) for denying that Christ is fully like us and for blurring together the two natures of Christ, his humanity and divinity.


Leo’s Tome

Leo wrote a Tome, a theological treatise condemning Eutyches. But the eastern way of settling matters was to convene a general council of bishops. One met in 449, at Ephesus, and took a position different from that of Leo, whose Tome was not read at the council. Eastern leaders of a like mind to Leo were deposed. Leo called this gathering a “robber synod” and tried to have it reversed, without success.

The following year the emperor fell from his horse and died. His successor favored the approach of Leo, and so another council was called, which met at Chalcedon (by Constantinople) in 451. Leo did not attend in person, but he sent delegates. This council reversed the decisions of Ephesus and condemned Eutyches. Leo’s Tome was read and approved, though not without some misgivings. Some bishops wanted to stop there, but the emperor insisted upon a confession of faith to unify the empire. Thus was born the Chalcedonian Definition.

The Definition affirmed that Christ is “truly God,” “perfect in Godhead,” the Son of God who was “begotten of the Father before the ages.” Yet he is also “truly man,” “perfect in manhood” and was born of the Virgin Mary. The deity and humanity are “not parted or divided into two persons,” but Christ is “one person and one being.” Nor are his deity and humanity to be blurred together. “The difference of the [divine and human] natures is in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each are preserved.” Thus Christ is “made known in two natures [which exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.”

From: http://www.christianhistorymagazine.org/index.php/past-pages/28chalcedon/

Nicea(325) was called and chaired by a Roman Emperor. Vatican II revealed another serious schism among the faithful. The gang at Constantine City have been split for 10 centuries. Rome has some serious problems which do not seem to go away. The basic one is authority--she either has the authority in Mt. 16 or has not. If she has, she is supreme, and all others are apostate usurpers. If she does not have the authority, she is the usurper along with her daughters. No authority reformed is still no authority.

It is no wonder, Satan himself is become an angel of light.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

I am not trying to defend Roman Catholicism.

 

[DHK]

Universal church( all believers)
local church( a local body of believers)

Some people bark about a universal church because it doesn't assemble. Well, we will assemble one day. My church is still a church today even though we won't assemble till Sunday. If one prefers to refer the universal church as the body of Christ, fine. Christ said he would build his church and he was referring to the body of Christ and not just a local assembly of believers. The local church is current picture of the universal church.

However, Biblically speaking, church or ekklesia, is assembly.
An assembly can neither be universal (except in heaven), nor unassembled, or invisible as defined by some.

 

[OldRegular]

However, Biblically speaking, church or ekklesia, is assembly.
An assembly can neither be universal (except in heaven), nor unassembled, or invisible as defined by some.

And all them Baptists preachers in the SBC just don't know anything!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

However, Biblically speaking, church or ekklesia, is assembly.
An assembly can neither be universal (except in heaven), nor unassembled, or invisible as defined by some.

It is also a fact that the Bible uses other terms in speaking of the Church: the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem, people of God ....!

The Apostle Peter uses the following language when addressing the redeemed, much of it the same used in describing the people of God in the Old Testament. Since these people are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ they are also in the Church of Jesus Christ as the SBC states,

1 Peter 1, 2
1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1 Peter 2:1-10
1. Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2. As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3. If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5. Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
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.
9. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10. Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

 

[Tom Butler]

When Jesus Christ said I will build my Church [Matthew 16:18] was he speaking of the local church? He certainly does not put unbelievers in His Church: does He?

Yes, he was speaking of the congregation, which started out as a little traveling band, and wound up locating permanently in Jerusalem.

And, no, Jesus does not put unbelievers in his churches. WE put them in there. And although one might be on the roll, in reality he is still an unbeliever, his baptism is in-valid and his membership is false.

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, he was speaking of the congregation, which started out as a little traveling band, and wound up locating permanently in Jerusalem.

I disagree!

 

[Tom Butler]

I disagree!

On what basis do you disagree? What did Christ's church have after Pentecost that it didn't already have before Pentecost?

 

[DHK]

It is also a fact that the Bible uses other terms in speaking of the Church: the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem, people of God ....!

The Apostle Peter uses the following language when addressing the redeemed, much of it the same used in describing the people of God in the Old Testament. Since these people are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ they are also in the Church of Jesus Christ as the SBC states,

Ekklesia means assembly, and that is what a church is.
I agree with you. There are other terms to use. So why insist on using a term that is contradictory to the meaning of ekkesia. That makes no sense and contradicts the Word of God, if not common sense.

All believers could be called: the kingdom, the family of God, the bride of Christ, the people of God, and probably some others. But there is no such thing as a universal church. There is no assembly that can gather universally. All assemblies must be local.

 

[OldRegular]

On what basis do you disagree? What did Christ's church have after Pentecost that it didn't already have before Pentecost?

Three thousand members that it not have before. And these were added by Jesus Christ. Does He add members to the local Church?

 

[Tom Butler]

Three thousand members that it not have before. And these were added by Jesus Christ. Does He add members to the local Church?

Of course. He adds them the same way they were added both before, during and after Pentecost. By water baptism.

Remember, on the day of Pentecost, there was no Universal Church--only a local congregation. All three thousand converts were baptized. THEN, they were added to the FBC Jerusalem. (Acts 2:41)

This is the New Testament pattern--saved, baptized, added to the church.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

The Paulicians, that group of believers that Baptists believe are their spiritual & church forefathers, referred to themselves as the true "universal and apostolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ" several times in their writings. It's amazing how little independent baptists actually know about those they claim to be in their line of baptist churches extending to the First Century. Too many modern baptists form their Church theology based upon an attempt to distance themselves from Satan's perversion of the true Church rather than based solely upon Scripture alone. I do not reject the Biblical truth of the Body & Church of Christ over which Jesus is the High Priest (true Vicar) just because a false church calls itself the Catholic(universal) church. The false premise-based false doctrine of no universal Body & Church is a great accomplishment by Satan.

BTW, calling a church in the First Century the FBC of Jerusalem is ridiculous & completely removed from historical reality. It makes your posts seem that much less credible.

 

[OldRegular]

Of course. He adds them the same way they were added both before, during and after Pentecost. By water baptism.

Remember, on the day of Pentecost, there was no Universal Church--only a local congregation. All three thousand converts were baptized. THEN, they were added to the FBC Jerusalem. (Acts 2:41)

This is the New Testament pattern--saved, baptized, added to the church.

So you are saying all those baptized into the local Church were added by Jesus Christ. What about the little bitty baby? What about the little child who trots down the aisle, is dragged or pushed down the aisle by an anxious mother, none having consciously sinned, none having the foggiest idea as to what is going on; does Jesus Christ add these to the Church?

 

[DHK]

So you are saying all those baptized into the local Church were added by Jesus Christ. What about the little bitty baby? What about the little child who trots down the aisle, is dragged or pushed down the aisle by an anxious mother, none having consciously sinned, none having the foggiest idea as to what is going on; does Jesus Christ add these to the Church?

That is a totally different topic. Whether universal or local, or whatever terminology you want to use, an infant is incapable of putting their faith in Christ. The topic of "infants going to heaven, etc." is a topic for another thread. Salvation is by faith in Christ.
Whether or not you believe in a universal church or not "the little bitty baby" has nothing to do with the topic.

I agree with Tom, however.

The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
What church?
It was the church in Jerusalem. That is where they were located. It was the only one that was around. At the beginning they met in the Temple. But soon had to leave and then met in synagogues, and later could not meet there either, but as Acts 12 demonstrates they met in houses, or wherever they could.

 

[OldRegular]

That is a totally different topic. Whether universal or local, or whatever terminology you want to use, an infant is incapable of putting their faith in Christ. The topic of "infants going to heaven, etc." is a topic for another thread. Salvation is by faith in Christ.
Whether or not you believe in a universal church or not "the little bitty baby" has nothing to do with the topic.

I agree with Tom, however.

The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
What church?
It was the church in Jerusalem. That is where they were located. It was the only one that was around. At the beginning they met in the Temple. But soon had to leave and then met in synagogues, and later could not meet there either, but as Acts 12 demonstrates they met in houses, or wherever they could.

The post you referenced was addressed to Tom's comment about Baptism, not an argument for a Universal Church. I disagree with your assertion and that of Tom that the reference to the three thousand added to the Church was to the local body of believers at Jerusalem. Jesus Christ adds those redeemed to His Church, the totality of all redeemed throughout all time!

 

[michael-acts17:11]

So, which local church was the eunuch added to, & when was he added? Was it when he said "I believe" or when he was baptized? His conversion & baptism completely contradicts the anti-universal/local-only doctrine. He was baptized at the time of his conversion, away from any religious organization by an evangelizing deacon, & was not told to formally join himself to a little local group that could ceremoniously proclaim him a "church member". The Spirit immediately took Phillip away once the eunuch was baptized. Phillip's work was done.

Another thing, where does Scripture ever describe men being added to a local church in the manner in which anti-universals teach. Where is it recorded that a pastor or church body first accepted & voted on a person's viability before God added them to the Church? It simply states that God added them. Anything more is an addition to the clear teaching of Scripture.

 

[OldRegular]

So, which local church was the eunuch added to, & when was he added? Was it when he said "I believe" or when he was baptized? His conversion & baptism completely contradicts the anti-universal/local-only doctrine. He was baptized at the time of his conversion, away from any religious organization by an evangelizing deacon, & was not told to formally join himself to a little local group that could ceremoniously proclaim him a "church member". The Spirit immediately took Phillip away once the eunuch was baptized. Phillip's work was done.

Another thing, where does Scripture ever describe men being added to a local church in the manner in which anti-universals teach. Where is it recorded that a pastor or church body first accepted & voted on a person's viability before God added them to the Church? It simply states that God added them. Anything more is an addition to the clear teaching of Scripture.

Well said!:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[gb93433]

Whether universal or local, or whatever terminology you want to use, an infant is incapable of putting their faith in Christ.

So are you saying that they are unable to hear the voice of God from Him or that God does not speak to them? How would you compare that to someone who has Alzheimers?

 

[gb93433]

His conversion & baptism completely contradicts the anti-universal/local-only doctrine.

You mean to say that you believe that the church is more than just one big gigantic local church?

 

[DHK]

So are you saying that they are unable to hear the voice of God from Him or that God does not speak to them? How would you compare that to someone who has Alzheimers?

I am saying if you bring that topic into this thread you are derailing the thread. Start another thread on the age of accountability, or some other similar topic. That is not the topic here. It is a red herring.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

You mean to say that you believe that the church is more than just one big gigantic local church?

"One big gigantic local church?" I'm not sure where you got that from my statement. My point is that the eunuch's conversion & baptism contradicts modern local-only baptist beliefs. So, which church do you believe God added him to?