Is there a "universal" church?

[USN2Pulpit]

I claim that Paul is not making a statement to all elders because he isn't. He's speaking to the elders from FBC Ephesus.

These are elders from a local congregation.

Now, Paul's admonitions could certainly be applied to elders in other local congregations. But the key is that the elders to whom Paul's advice and urging is directed, even in a broader sense, are still local church elders.

There is no U-Church in view here.

I don't understand...are you saying these instructions don't neccesarily apply to us? You only said that Paul's admonition "could" be applied.

I normally don't chime in on stuff like this, but if it applies to us as well, doesn't that mean their is a church universal? Otherwise, this admonition is none of our business.

To make it clear, I don't believe this is the case. If there is no universal church, upon what basis may I call any of you my brother and sister in Christ?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Perhaps they have a better understanding of the Church now than in 1925.

That is actually a possibility....I do not think that is the case myself, of course, but you bring up a good point, even if you do sound like you are reaching a little to me :smilewinkgrin: Some things, especially about future prophecy, may indeed be better understood through the passage of time. I do not think this is the case with this doctrine, in fact, I would argue quite the opposite. I can only imagine the early Church having the correct understanding and falsehoods creeping in later. So, as an example, many who argue against pre-tribulational rapturism point to the notion that the first (commonly-known) proponent who at least argued it in its present form, did not do so until the...17th century I think? But although signifigant, it does not make for a slam-dunk argument against the idea. It was understood in less articulated forms before then.

In this case, however....are we engaged in "special pleading" a little..? Maybe?...

 

[HankD]

I don't like the phrase - "universal church".​

"The Church" as a singular entity is not a collection of local churches (each of which is a "mixed multitude") but a collection of people who have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life.​

Hebrews 12
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.​

One day they will all meet together - in the air...

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

I don't like the phrase - "universal church".​

"The Church" as a singular entity is not a collection of local churches (each of which is a "mixed multitude") but a collection of people who have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life.​

Hebrews 12
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.​

One day they will all meet together - in the air...

HankD

The Church, the total number of those redeemed by Jesus Christ, is a single entity, the Bride of Jesus Christ. That Church is very well and beautifully described by the passage you present from the letter to the Hebrews. B.H. Carroll in his Interpretation of the English Bible calls this total number of the Redeemed in Heaven the Glory Church.

 

[humblethinker]

Church History

I'm not making an argument as much as I am seeking understanding. It seems to me that the idea of a 'Universal Church' existing is the same idea of all believers in Jesus of Nazereth throughout all ages. What's harmful with that?

I may be missing the reason why people react so strongly to the idea of a 'universal church'. I'd like to ask those who dispute the idea of a universal church, what is lost if there is a 'universal church'?

 

[OldRegular]

I'm not making an argument as much as I am seeking understanding. It seems to me that the idea of a 'Universal Church' existing is the same idea of all believers in Jesus of Nazereth throughout all ages. What's harmful with that?

I may be missing the reason why people react so strongly to the idea of a 'universal church'. I'd like to ask those who dispute the idea of a universal church, what is lost if there is a 'universal church'?

I believe this is in part a rejection of the RCC concept of the Universal Church. Roman Catholics teach that they are that church.

There is obviously a body of those redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ and they are the "called out ones" so what is improper in calling that body the Universal Church?

 

[USN2Pulpit]

I'm not making an argument as much as I am seeking understanding. It seems to me that the idea of a 'Universal Church' existing is the same idea of all believers in Jesus of Nazereth throughout all ages. What's harmful with that?

I may be missing the reason why people react so strongly to the idea of a 'universal church'. I'd like to ask those who dispute the idea of a universal church, what is lost if there is a 'universal church'?

Well, I won't pretend to know the whole answer to your question, but this issue is one of the "linchpin issues" in the debate about open, close, or closed communion.

If there is no universal church, then communion must remain closed to those outside the membership of the local church. If however there is a universal church, how could we bar a born-again believer of like faith from participating - even if they're a guest in our midst?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I'm not making an argument as much as I am seeking understanding. It seems to me that the idea of a 'Universal Church' existing is the same idea of all believers in Jesus of Nazereth throughout all ages. What's harmful with that?

What is HARMFUL?? Well, in the first place, it is not as though whether it is "harmful" or not, is (strictly speaking) the question....We should not engage in any form of an "argument from consequences". Theoretically, it is immaterial whether there are KNOWN problems associated with this viewpoint or not... The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not it is strictly the Scriptural view. In other words, there may be negative results to this POV, that we are not yet even aware of.

That being said...When one justifies, or attempts to justify many of the Baptist distictives of separate existence or a separate distictive ecclesiological faith...many of our "justifications" so to speak, break down if we are mistaken in this view. I do not think this has necessarily occured yet, but I do not doubt it will end up an issue for our continued existence as a separate entity in the future for those who accept the notion of a "U-church" in the future. We will have far less, or, very little ground to stand upon when we attempt to distinguish between the office, purpose, and ordinance of the "church" once the line has been blurred.

The "Church" is the 1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. . If this is understood in a less than "institutional" sense...Let us say that if the "Church" the "pillar and ground" of the truth means then, something like...."all random Jesus lovers and Jesus accepters everywhere, including all charismatics and saved Roman Catholics, throughout all time an eternity." Then the "Church" as the Universalists would have it will have a very hard time "making disciples" and "teaching them to observe ALL things, whatsoever I have commanded you".
Moreover, I am actually of the opinion that most or all "para-church" organizations, while many of them DO, in fact, perform many wonderful and necessary functions, the time, effort and resources spent on those tasks is capable of being accomplished and more efficiently by the local body, and it would be more efficient for Christ's cause if we dedicated them thus. Think Federal Government vs. the efficiency of Private enterprise. In other words..."Promise keepers" for whatever good they accomplish, are a sum total net loss of possible accomplishment available for the fulfillment of the "Great-Commission" if the total time, effort, and resources were spent on the local body, which, for those who believe in that ONLY, is where God himself will place the maximal concentration of his grace.

Consider this: "Promise keepers" "TBN network" all of it.....these "para-church organizations" have legitimately "accomplished" some wonderful things for Christ. But also consider:

Facing the Giants, Fireproof, Courageous (and from before it was "pop") Flywheel. How many countless Millions....literally, Millions....have been given the gospel of our Lord Jesus through the work of ONE, yes, ONE local Church body. One that knows and understands and feels the signifigance of the Great Commission. The one local "pillar and ground of the truth".

If you dislike fallacious Theology in local churches...blame the acceptance of the Universal Church idea for much of it. If you are annoyed at the thought that almost EVERY "so-called" Theologian who has graduated from an allegedly "Baptist" seminary in these recent days is utterly inundated with the writings of John Calvin, and has no idea whatsoever what a Baptist actually is....(they don't). Consider the thought that to the "local church onlyist" he is little more than the bastard rebellious step-child of Romanism, and is therefore of little consequence to those who believe that the "Pillar and Ground" of the truth, has always existed throughout all ages, and at all times, even "from world without end". God never cared about the musings of Romish Papists, he also never cared about the musings of their "Reformation" step-children either. God established the local, Bible-Believing Baptist Church. And he made an INSTITUTION of it.

I may be missing the reason why people react so strongly to the idea of a 'universal church'. I'd like to ask those who dispute the idea of a universal church, what is lost if there is a 'universal church'?

Maybe, I waxed a little long and somewhat "preachy", but...then again...maybe I might be somewhat forgiven next time I react with such umbrage the next time anyone tries to shove the frikkin Puritans's "Historic Faith" down my throat....This is literally, in all ways merely a "Church" system FOUNDED by a murderous and evil king....Hell-bent on using what he fallaciously called the "Church" to justify the divorcing of one of his numerous wives, some of whom he murdered. Whatever they knew or didn't know, whatever they got right or not....I used to think that at a "BAPTIST" website we would not quote them and worship their musings as the very Oracles of God. That I would not hear Episcopalian Theology (because that is all it is) shoved down my throat. Well, I could care less what the "Puritans" think, I could care less what Rome thinks...I could also care less what her rebellious bastards think. If any Mod objects to the use of this term...consider, that it is being used by Biblical definition and contextually in it's literal sense as an argument against the "Protestantization" of traditional Baptist thought. I stop here before I "wax eloquent" :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Bro. James]

The concept of universal church invites the concept of universal vicar, which is what pervades most of Christendom. The Church which Jesus is building has no earthly vicar. Study the word: vicarious, also reverend.

The concept of a universal assembly, visible or invisible does not describe a New Testament Assembly practice, polity or autonomy. The universal assembly never assembles, has communion, nor can it discipline its members, regardless of what any magisterium may dogmatize.

To be sure there will be an assemby of the saints in glory; but until then The Church is still local and visible, without vicars, popes and potentates.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The concept of universal church invites the concept of universal vicar, which is what pervades most of Christendom. The Church which Jesus is building has no earthly vicar. Study the word: vicarious, also reverend.

The concept of a universal assembly, visible or invisible does not describe a New Testament Assembly practice, polity or autonomy. The universal assembly never assembles, has communion, nor can it discipline its members, regardless of what any magisterium may dogmatize.

To be sure there will be an assemby of the saints in glory; but until then The Church is still local and visible, without vicars, popes and potentates.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Yeah...or like that :laugh::laugh: Concisely put.

 

[DHK]

What is HARMFUL?? Well, in the first place, it is not as though whether it is "harmful" or not, is (strictly speaking) the question....We should not engage in any form of an "argument from consequences". Theoretically, it is immaterial whether there are KNOWN problems associated with this viewpoint or not... The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not it is strictly the Scriptural view. In other words, there may be negative results to this POV, that we are not yet even aware of.

There are no negative results from proper ecclesiology. There are no negative results from studying your Bible and taking a Biblical stand. But there are negative results to sarcastic and sometime rude language that needs to be edited out as you used below. There are also harmful results when people close their minds and refuse to learn.

That being said...When one justifies, or attempts to justify many of the Baptist distictives of separate existence or a separate distictive ecclesiological faith...many of our "justifications" so to speak, break down if we are mistaken in this view.

The view point or Biblical stand that there is no such thing as a universal church is one of doctrine. It may not be widely accepted, but perhaps that is due to a lack of education in the area of ecclesiology. However, it will never become one of our Baptist distinctives. You need not to fear about that. That being said, I have seen it some church's statements of faith.

I do not think this has necessarily occured yet, but I do not doubt it will end up an issue for our continued existence as a separate entity in the future for those who accept the notion of a "U-church" in the future.

This statement only shows your lack of knowledge in how long it has already been an issue. Dr. Myron Cedarholm preached on this subject on a regular basis back in the 70's.

We will have far less, or, very little ground to stand upon when we attempt to distinguish between the office, purpose, and ordinance of the "church" once the line has been blurred.

There already is a distinct line.

The "Church" is the 1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. . If this is understood in a less than "institutional" sense...Let us say that if the "Church" the "pillar and ground" of the truth means then, something like...."all random Jesus lovers and Jesus accepters everywhere, including all charismatics and saved Roman Catholics, throughout all time an eternity." Then the "Church" as the Universalists would have it will have a very hard time "making disciples" and "teaching them to observe ALL things, whatsoever I have commanded you".

But that is Scripturally wrong, and can easily been proven wrong. Never has the RCC been the pillar of the truth, nor the ground of the truth--never!

Moreover, I am actually of the opinion that most or all "para-church" organizations, while many of them DO, in fact, perform many wonderful and necessary functions, the time, effort and resources spent on those tasks is capable of being accomplished and more efficiently by the local body, and it would be more efficient for Christ's cause if we dedicated them thus. Think Federal Government vs. the efficiency of Private enterprise. In other words..."Promise keepers" for whatever good they accomplish, are a sum total net loss of possible accomplishment available for the fulfillment of the "Great-Commission" if the total time, effort, and resources were spent on the local body, which, for those who believe in that ONLY, is where God himself will place the maximal concentration of his grace.

And many of them are infiltrated with homosexuals, liberalism, people that deny the very fundamentals of the Word of God. Does that sound like upholding the word of truth to you??

Consider this: "Promise keepers" "TBN network" all of it.....these "para-church organizations" have legitimately "accomplished" some wonderful things for Christ. But also consider:

Like promoting Benny Hinn's heresies
1. who believes there are 9 persons in the trinity.
2. who prophesied a resurrection that never took place.
3. who lives in such opulence that it would make Bill Gates blush.
4. who according to a CBC documentary, who followed him around for three hears interviewing and re-interviewing those that he had "healed" (with a team of doctors and journalists), concluded that he had never healed a single person.
5. who believes that we are "little gods running around on this earth."

Need I list more. This is what TBN is promoting.

Facing the Giants

, Fireproof, Courageous (and from before it was "pop") Flywheel. How many countless Millions....literally, Millions....have been given the gospel of our Lord Jesus through the work of ONE, yes, ONE local Church body. One that knows and understands and feels the signifigance of the Great Commission. The one local "pillar and ground of the truth".

If I want books and other materials I can go to CBD (Christian Book Distributors), and get them at far less cost then what TBN offers them, and not contribute to a station that promotes heresy on a regular basis.

If you dislike fallacious Theology in local churches...blame the acceptance of the Universal Church idea for much of it.

I do blame the acceptance of the Universal Church theory for some fallacious theology.

If you are annoyed at the thought that almost EVERY "so-called" Theologian who has graduated from an allegedly "Baptist" seminary in these recent days is utterly inundated with the writings of John Calvin, and has no idea whatsoever what a Baptist actually is....(they don't). Consider the thought that to the "local church onlyist" he is little more than the [offensive language edited] rebellious step-child of Romanism, and is therefore of little consequence to those who believe that the "Pillar and Ground" of the truth, has always existed throughout all ages, and at all times, even "from world without end".

The local church has existed since the time of Pentecost or before. Consider:
1. Every epistle of Paul was written to a local church or a pastor of a local church.
2. There are seven local churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation. They are historical, actual churches that existed in the time of the Apostles. Jesus wrote to the pastors of each one.
3. The local church is an institution ordained by God, just like God ordained marriage and government. It is the institution that God is using today to do his work.
4. The Greek word translated "church" is ekklesia. It has one meaning: "assembly." It is impossible to have an "unassembled assembly" or a universal church. You "universal church" is a contradiction of terms. It makes no sense. A universal assembly of believers cannot assemble and will never assemble until we all assemble in heaven. It does not exist. It has no purpose.

God never cared about the musings of Romish Papists, he also never cared about the musings of their "Reformation" step-children either.

That sums it up pretty good. His interests always lied in the Bible believing local church which he ordained.

God established the local, Bible-Believing Baptist Church. And he made an INSTITUTION of it.

Every local church is an institution of sorts. Just like the family. It is an institution that God has ordained and always be the institution that God has ordained. What God ordained in that respect was "the union of Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."

Maybe, I waxed a little long and somewhat "preachy", but...then again...maybe I might be somewhat forgiven next time I react with such umbrage the next time anyone tries to shove the [offensive language edited] Puritans's "Historic Faith" down my throat....

You must be a hyper-Calvinist. Do you believe God has predetermined before the foundation of the earth for you to believe this doctrine and that you have no choice in this matter? I won't complain about that. That is the only way that I can see "someone shoving it down your throat--if it is God that is doing the shoving. Otherwise, no one here is forcing you to believe what is posted. It is a debate forum. You are not forced to believe what is posted. But you can learn.

 

[DHK]

This is literally, in all ways merely a "Church" system FOUNDED by a murderous and evil king

Are you saying that Jesus was a murderous and evil king? I would watch your language if I were you. Jesus said "I will build my assembly" (YLT).

....Hell-bent on using what he fallaciously called the "Church" to justify the divorcing of one of his numerous wives, some of whom he murdered. Whatever they knew or didn't know, whatever they got right or not....I used to think that at a "BAPTIST" website we would not quote them and worship their musings as the very Oracles of God.

Whoa! Baptists teachings have existed since the time of Christ. What makes you attribute them to Henry VIII. Provide evidence please.

That I would not hear Episcopalian Theology (because that is all it is) shoved down my throat.

Only God can do the shoving. No one hear can. You really must be convicted of something.

Well, I could care less what the "Puritans" think, I could care less what Rome thinks...I could also care less what her rebellious [I do care what you post, and you are not posting like a Christian. You post has been edited again]. think. If any Mod objects to the use of this term...consider, that it is being used by Biblical definition and contextually in it's literal sense as an argument against the "Protestantization" of traditional Baptist thought. I stop here before I "wax eloquent" :smilewinkgrin:

The context of that word being used in Hebrews 12 was in chastisement. So since you have invited me to do so I will go up to your post and do as you ask--chastise you for your choice of language. In the meantime I have given you enough to think about.

 

[Alive in Christ]

OF COURCE there is a universal church.

The members of the universal church consist of...

All of the saved people here on earth, and all of the saved in heaven.
Collectivly, they are the (universal church.)



They are identified in Hebrews 12 and it Revelation 7

Praise God!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Are you saying that Jesus was a murderous and evil king? I would watch your language if I were you. Jesus said "I will build my assembly" (YLT).

Whoa! Baptists teachings have existed since the time of Christ. What makes you attribute them to Henry VIII. Provide evidence please.

UHHHHHH.....Der.....no, the "context" was "Episcopalianism" Henry V you know, history or something, and a guy named Henry V...he be-headed wives....divorced another....blah blah....did you read my POST???? Obviously not...try again. I was lambasting the notion of accepting the ideology of a "Church" system which is based on this....here is my advice, begin from the OP....and read through all of the posts to understand my position.

But there are negative results to sarcastic and sometime rude language that needs to be edited out as you used below. There are also harmful results when people close their minds and refuse to learn.

Please explain where this was.... I am truly baffled, about what was "offensive" to a Baptist.

I agree....about the since the "time of Christ" idea....I have already expressed this in the thread...I have already argued that the "Chuch" was an institution established during Christ's Earthly ministry, and that even his baptism was necessary only to "fulfill all righteousness". You are mistakenly attacking the ecclesiology of someone who already agrees with yours....as I have actually bothered to read your posts long enough to know that your ecclesiology is roughly the same as mine, and we have little or no disagreement on the topic. You apparently have been too lazy to read mine.

This statement only shows your lack of knowledge in how long it has already been an issue. Dr. Myron Cedarholm preached on this subject on a regular basis back in the 70's.

I have no "lack of knowledge" about this....it has been around LONG before the 70's where have YOU been????

There already is a distinct line.

Yet another area, wherein we are in complete agreement, and you somehow think I am on the opposing ecclesiological side of the issue. You and I are possibly so used to being in the minority....that you automatically ASSUME any post is against your POV....not so. Never was....you have failed to read me.

And many of them are infiltrated with homosexuals, liberalism, people that deny the very fundamentals of the Word of God. Does that sound like upholding the word of truth to you??

Yet, again, no, and, as this entire post of mine has been AGAINST!! the entire U-Church idea....I have no idea why you are in opposition to me...at least the U-churchist's are a non-condemning lot.

Like promoting Benny Hinn's heresies
1. who believes there are 9 persons in the trinity.
2. who prophesied a resurrection that never took place.
3. who lives in such opulence that it would make Bill Gates blush.
4. who according to a CBC documentary, who followed him around for three hears interviewing and re-interviewing those that he had "healed" (with a team of doctors and journalists), concluded that he had never healed a single person.
5. who believes that we are "little gods running around on this earth."

Need I list more. This is what TBN is promoting.

No, you needn't "list MORE" as I am aware of their heresies....had you bothered to....what's the word....READ....my position... you would not bother to ask this. You have not.

1. Every epistle of Paul was written to a local church or a pastor of a local church.
2. There are seven local churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation. They are historical, actual churches that existed in the time of the Apostles. Jesus wrote to the pastors of each one.
3. The local church is an institution ordained by God, just like God ordained marriage and government. It is the institution that God is using today to do his work.
4. The Greek word translated "church" is ekklesia. It has one meaning: "assembly." It is impossible to have an "unassembled assembly" or a universal church. You "universal church" is a contradiction of terms. It makes no sense. A universal assembly of believers cannot assemble and will never assemble until we all assemble in heaven. It does not exist. It has no purpose.

I can post a link onto "sermonaudio.com" wherein I am on record....and already am on this thread....as affirming every statement you made here...I am failing to comprehend (still) the source of our disagreement.

You must be a hyper-Calvinist.

laughable....and precisely the opposite...the only times I have been "legitimately" warned by a mod on this board....it was in a rant AGAINST Calvinism....(I BTW never rant against "hyper-cals" as they are the only logically consistent kind.)

Do you believe God has predetermined before the foundation of the earth for you to believe this doctrine and that you have no choice in this matter? I won't complain about that. That is the only way that I can see "someone shoving it down your throat--if it is God that is doing the shoving. Otherwise, no one here is forcing you to believe what is posted. It is a debate forum. You are not forced to believe what is posted. But you can learn

.

Whatever you are Yakking about here... is utterly unintelligible to me...I am no form of "hyper-Cal" or anything you have somehow supposed me to be....the post was in response to H. Thinker, he, at least, has actually bothered to read what I have said, and knows full well that I am nothing of the sort.....moreover, even the post you are disparaging is self-explanatory, and in absolutely no way implies what you somehow fallaciously think it implies...It is the most clear-cut explanation of the theology of ecclesiology that I happen to know you are also personally party to....and you have, and had, no reason, whatsoever, to "reprimand" me on this...NONE, I used only words contained in the King James Bible, and only in the context of an ecclesiological sense of being "illegitimately" the "progeny" (so to speak) of an ecclesiological system which is anathema to the Scriptures.


You, DHK....have actually somehow, misconstrued my PATENT, and inarguable dissatisfaction with the notion of an ecclesiology traced to Henry V, with a patent endorsement with it.....You are wrong... you are beyond dead wrong...I was clear, I was concise in my purposes, and I have enough command of the English language to phrase my statements well enough to NOT be mis-construed by ANY but the purposelly un-willing....

Please Just read the thread again...for crying out loud...

OH, BTW...I do not believe in a "Universal Church" that was the point of everything....every single thing I have posted on this thread....it is also the onus of everything I have said on the particular post you are quoting and lambasting....let it be known....that moderators may apparently randomly "warn" and assign their little "points" at will, whether they have or have NOT, in fact, bothered to READ the post they are falsely accusing one with.....You have simply not read it. Not a bit, you are the only one Mr. "MOD" who is even possibly confused as to what I posted...

DHK is apparently the mod here, for all who know not otherwise....who despises the King James Bible, and all who utilize it's terminology in even the most literal and applicable sense....quote no Bible to him...."Baptists" are presumably not authorized to use it. He is a despiser of directly relevant and pointed usage of the Scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not making an argument as much as I am seeking understanding. It seems to me that the idea of a 'Universal Church' existing is the same idea of all believers in Jesus of Nazereth throughout all ages. What's harmful with that?

I may be missing the reason why people react so strongly to the idea of a 'universal church'. I'd like to ask those who dispute the idea of a universal church, what is lost if there is a 'universal church'?

Honestly believ that the biggest reason many reject the concept is that it smacks to them of being the catholic Church, that they would be afraid would be stating thatthe RCC was right all along!

My take is that the Bible makes it so cleare that God has ONLY 1 Body/Bride/Church of Christ, and ALL ever been saved under new Coveant are part of it, in spiritual union with each other and Christ...

Those still alive now are also part of locla assembles/churches/grouops...

ALL in Universal church saved, seal of the Holy Spirit the sign

SOME in local churches saved, water baptism the sign of being in it!

 

[DHK]

UHHHHHH.....Der.....no, the "context" was "Episcopalianism" Henry V you know, history or something, and a guy named Henry V...he be-headed wives....divorced another....blah blah....did you read my POST???? Obviously not...try again. I was lambasting the notion of accepting the ideology of a "Church" system which is based on this....here is my advice, begin from the OP....and read through all of the posts to understand my position.

Indeed your first post is much more clearer. Your capitalization of the word "church" when referring to the local church makes it a bit harder to follow. This post (IMO) was a bit confusing as to what side you were on, as you were sarcastic in many places.

Please explain where this was.... I am truly baffled, about what was "offensive" to a Baptist.

It was a matter of discernment. Your sarcasm masked which side you were on.

I agree....about the since the "time of Christ" idea....I have already expressed this in the thread...I have already argued that the "Chuch" was an institution established during Christ's Earthly ministry, and that even his baptism was necessary only to "fulfill all righteousness". You are mistakenly attacking the ecclesiology of someone who already agrees with yours....as I have actually bothered to read your posts long enough to know that your ecclesiology is roughly the same as mine, and we have little or no disagreement on the topic. You apparently have been too lazy to read mine.

You are right in that I didn't want to go to the beginning of the thread and read what everyone posted. Perhaps I should have done that. If I had I would have had a better idea where you stood.

I have no "lack of knowledge" about this....it has been around LONG before the 70's where have YOU been????

Then where did I get the idea that you were saying it is recent, and if it gains any more popularity it might become a baptist distinctive. That is what I got from you. It seemed to be a put down of the doctrine.

Yet another area, wherein we are in complete agreement, and you somehow think I am on the opposing ecclesiological side of the issue. You and I are possibly so used to being in the minority....that you automatically ASSUME any post is against your POV....not so. Never was....you have failed to read me.

Yes I did.

Yet, again, no, and, as this entire post of mine has been AGAINST!! the entire U-Church idea....I have no idea why you are in opposition to me...at least the U-churchist's are a non-condemning lot.

As I mentioned, sometimes the over-use of sarcasm tends to mask one's true meaning.

You, DHK....have actually somehow, misconstrued my PATENT, and inarguable dissatisfaction with the notion of an ecclesiology traced to Henry V, with a patent endorsement with it.....You are wrong... you are beyond dead wrong...I was clear, I was concise in my purposes, and I have enough command of the English language to phrase my statements well enough to NOT be mis-construed by ANY but the purposelly un-willing....

Please Just read the thread again...for crying out loud...

I have no clue how Henry VIII and his fondness of many wives would fit into this discussion anyway. To me you were simply confusing the issue.

OH, BTW...I do not believe in a "Universal Church" that was the point of everything....every single thing I have posted on this thread....it is also the onus of everything I have said on the particular post you are quoting and lambasting....let it be known....that moderators may apparently randomly "warn" and assign their little "points" at will, whether they have or have NOT, in fact, bothered to READ the post they are falsely accusing one with.....You have simply not read it. Not a bit, you are the only one Mr. "MOD" who is even possibly confused as to what I posted...

DHK is apparently the mod here, for all who know not otherwise....who despises the King James Bible, and all who utilize it's terminology in even the most literal and applicable sense....quote no Bible to him...."Baptists" are presumably not authorized to use it. He is a despiser of directly relevant and pointed usage of the Scriptures.

I would never give a warning or infraction for a person's doctrinal position. That wasn't the point. If you deliberately offend by the way you express yourself, even if the word is in the Bible, then it is against the rules. It is not posting in grace. It is being deliberately offensive. I had to edit the post three different times. That ought not to have been.

 

[Tom Butler]

I don't understand...are you saying these instructions don't neccesarily apply to us? You only said that Paul's admonition "could" be applied.

I normally don't chime in on stuff like this, but if it applies to us as well, doesn't that mean their is a church universal? Otherwise, this admonition is none of our business.

To make it clear, I don't believe this is the case. If there is no universal church, upon what basis may I call any of you my brother and sister in Christ?

Sorry I wasn't clear. The instructions were given by Paul to the elders of a local church. They are certainly applicable to elders of all local churches.

Let's review Paul's instructions.

Be on guard for yourselves (elders) and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (bishops), to shepherd (pastor) the church of God which He]purchased with His own blood.
29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 andfrom among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them

The elders (pastors, bishops) were to watch over their church. To feed that church. To guard the church against the wolves. I take that to mean to guard against those who would bring in false teaching, or undermine the congregation in some way. That threat will come from outside, but also will come from within the congregation.

Any local church pastor would do well to heed Paul's warnings.

No universal church is in view here. Even if there were, Paul's warnings would be useless for such an entity. There are no elders, bishops or pastors in the "universal church" to receive such warnings.

 

[ktn4eg]

This from one of my posts about the "rock" in Mt. 16:18----

I remember someone saying that he finally figured out why it's sometimes referred to as the invisible church:

Because you won't SEE it in the Bible. :laugh:

 

[humblethinker]

What is HARMFUL?? Well, in the first place, it is not as though whether it is "harmful" or not, is (strictly speaking) the question....We should not engage in any form of an "argument from consequences". Theoretically, it is immaterial whether there are KNOWN problems associated with this viewpoint or not... The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not it is strictly the Scriptural view. In other words, there may be negative results to this POV, that we are not yet even aware of.

That being said...When one justifies, or attempts to justify many of the Baptist distictives of separate existence or a separate distictive ecclesiological faith...many of our "justifications" so to speak, break down if we are mistaken in this view. I do not think this has necessarily occured yet, but I do not doubt it will end up an issue for our continued existence as a separate entity in the future for those who accept the notion of a "U-church" in the future. We will have far less, or, very little ground to stand upon when we attempt to distinguish between the office, purpose, and ordinance of the "church" once the line has been blurred.

The "Church" is the 1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. . If this is understood in a less than "institutional" sense...Let us say that if the "Church" the "pillar and ground" of the truth means then, something like...."all random Jesus lovers and Jesus accepters everywhere, including all charismatics and saved Roman Catholics, throughout all time an eternity." Then the "Church" as the Universalists would have it will have a very hard time "making disciples" and "teaching them to observe ALL things, whatsoever I have commanded you".
Moreover, I am actually of the opinion that most or all "para-church" organizations, while many of them DO, in fact, perform many wonderful and necessary functions, the time, effort and resources spent on those tasks is capable of being accomplished and more efficiently by the local body, and it would be more efficient for Christ's cause if we dedicated them thus. Think Federal Government vs. the efficiency of Private enterprise. In other words..."Promise keepers" for whatever good they accomplish, are a sum total net loss of possible accomplishment available for the fulfillment of the "Great-Commission" if the total time, effort, and resources were spent on the local body, which, for those who believe in that ONLY, is where God himself will place the maximal concentration of his grace.

Consider this: "Promise keepers" "TBN network" all of it.....these "para-church organizations" have legitimately "accomplished" some wonderful things for Christ. But also consider:

Facing the Giants, Fireproof, Courageous (and from before it was "pop") Flywheel. How many countless Millions....literally, Millions....have been given the gospel of our Lord Jesus through the work of ONE, yes, ONE local Church body. One that knows and understands and feels the signifigance of the Great Commission. The one local "pillar and ground of the truth".

If you dislike fallacious Theology in local churches...blame the acceptance of the Universal Church idea for much of it. If you are annoyed at the thought that almost EVERY "so-called" Theologian who has graduated from an allegedly "Baptist" seminary in these recent days is utterly inundated with the writings of John Calvin, and has no idea whatsoever what a Baptist actually is....(they don't). Consider the thought that to the "local church onlyist" he is little more than the bastard rebellious step-child of Romanism, and is therefore of little consequence to those who believe that the "Pillar and Ground" of the truth, has always existed throughout all ages, and at all times, even "from world without end". God never cared about the musings of Romish Papists, he also never cared about the musings of their "Reformation" step-children either. God established the local, Bible-Believing Baptist Church. And he made an INSTITUTION of it.



Maybe, I waxed a little long and somewhat "preachy", but...then again...maybe I might be somewhat forgiven next time I react with such umbrage the next time anyone tries to shove the frikkin Puritans's "Historic Faith" down my throat....This is literally, in all ways merely a "Church" system FOUNDED by a murderous and evil king....Hell-bent on using what he fallaciously called the "Church" to justify the divorcing of one of his numerous wives, some of whom he murdered. Whatever they knew or didn't know, whatever they got right or not....I used to think that at a "BAPTIST" website we would not quote them and worship their musings as the very Oracles of God. That I would not hear Episcopalian Theology (because that is all it is) shoved down my throat. Well, I could care less what the "Puritans" think, I could care less what Rome thinks...I could also care less what her rebellious bastards think. If any Mod objects to the use of this term...consider, that it is being used by Biblical definition and contextually in it's literal sense as an argument against the "Protestantization" of traditional Baptist thought. I stop here before I "wax eloquent" :smilewinkgrin:

I don't see any problem with holding the idea of local church as I think you believe it and also referring to church as a Universal Church. In no way do I think the Roman Catholics or anyone else gains any leverage by me doing so. What else would you call all believers gathered as the Bride if you meant to refer to the segment of those same believers that are alive today?

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry I wasn't clear. The instructions were given by Paul to the elders of a local church. They are certainly applicable to elders of all local churches.

Let's review Paul's instructions. The elders (pastors, bishops) were to watch over their church. To feed that church. To guard the church against the wolves. I take that to mean to guard against those who would bring in false teaching, or undermine the congregation in some way. That threat will come from outside, but also will come from within the congregation.

Any local church pastor would do well to heed Paul's warnings.

No universal church is in view here. Even if there were, Paul's warnings would be useless for such an entity. There are no elders, bishops or pastors in the "universal church" to receive such warnings.

Universal church just the chrsitians saved by grace of God, spiritually united with jesus, and who also are suppossed to become members of the local church...