questions about the church

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Deacon:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,"Eph 5:25.

Which local assembly did Christ love?

Let's look at the wording and figure it out. Which church didn't Christ love? Christ loves the church generically. No church in particular, all churches in general.

Look at the similar thought in Ephesians 5:23 "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body."

Notice that "husband" "wife" and "church" are all singular. We often use words in the singular to indicate a generic use, "all churches in general, no church in particular." Nobody would suggest from the above verse that, because of the singular "husband" and "wife" that there is a universal, invisible husband or a universal, invisible wife, would they?

I believe the horse is the most beautiful animal in God's creation. But, just because I use the singular "horse" in a generic way does not mean I believe in a universal, invisible horse.

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
I believe the horse is the most beautiful animal in God's creation. But, just because I use the singular "horse" in a generic way does not mean I believe in a universal, invisible horse.

Yet you by your statement you imply that the "generic" horse species is beautiful, this would include horses both dead and alive; those of the present and those of the past, one group.

The church Christ loves would be the general assembly of believers/churches of all ages.

Is this merely semantics?

Rob

 

[OleSchoolBaptist]

Originally posted by bigczardaddy:
1. Is the church universal or local?

The church is local as Thomas says.

1. The Family of God = All believers from Adam to the last person saved. Eph. 3:15. Gal. 3:26 mentions we are all children of God. O.T. saints are included as per Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:16

2. The Kingdom of God = All believers on Earth at any given time. John 3:3-5; Matt. 16:19; 11:11; Luke 16:16; etc.

3. The Church = All believers in a doctrinally correct body of believers (this does not mean Baptist, many churches were and are very Baptistic that they would qualify.). 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.

For instance, right now on this board there are lets say 10,000 registered users. But at any given time there are lets say 2,000 users. The 10,000 are the family but the 2,000 are the kingdom. However lets say only 500 are viewing this particular thread, they would represent the church in this illustration.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Deacon:
Yet you by your statement you imply that the "generic" horse species is beautiful, this would include horses both dead and alive; those of the present and those of the past, one group.

So, are you saying that when Ephesians 5:23 says "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body" it means that "every husband everywhere both living and dead" is to be the head of "every wife everywhere, both living and dead?" If so your logic seems a bit flawed (not to mention your understanding of the word "generic").

The church Christ loves would be the general assembly of believers/churches of all ages.

The church Christ loves would be the local assembly faithful to Him. Each and every such assembly.

Is this merely semantics?

Rob

If you consider the improper use of the word "church" to be "merely semantics" then, yes, it is semantics. If, however, you aspire to a more precise use of biblical nomenclature, then, no, it is not merely semantics.

 

[Deacon]

I see your point pastor, but IMHO it is a weak argument.

As you stated "Christ loves the church generically. No church in particular, all churches in general." This fits rather well with the concept of a Universal Church.

The resistance of the concept of a Universal Church may stem from it's supposed connection with the Catholic church. They do not have to be related.

Although limited in use to Ephesians 5 and Matthew 16, the word "church" as an 'assembly of all believers' does have a biblical foundation.

Rob

 

[bigczardaddy]

i ask again

2---If it is invisible, how may we know it exists?
2---If visible, what are its distinguishing characteristics that we may recognize it?

 

[tinytim]

If the church is just local then Paul must have been a member of the Corinthian church:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."
(1Co 12:13)

Isn't the body we are baptized into the same as the church body?

If you answer no, then what body are we baptized into, and why is paul comparing the church in this chapter with the body of Christ.

If you answer yes, then how do you account for the fact that Paul used the word "we" in this verse. He is including himself in the same body as the Corinthians were in.

The word "church" can mean both.

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by bigczardaddy:
1. Is the church universal or local?

I believe His Word informs The Body of Christ ekklesia, is spiritual. We are of the heavenlies.

If one belongs to a Christian “ekklesia”, down here, it is as TCassidy says a church, an assembly, and this assembly are those of “called out ones”. It is not a denomination as such, or a building. I believe my wife and I form down here ekklesia, and not suggesting we don’t go to a building where other “called out ones” meet. In fact we being one with Christ are “seen” as being in the Body of Christ at this present time, spiritually, with Him far above all heavens, with those assembled there (spiritually) – Ephesians 4:10.

There is more than one church involved so “universality” is out of the question. The prophesied Church of the kingdom promised to His people, and the hidden Body of Christ's Church offered to all today(but not “universally” accepted by all), cannot be the same Church, for we are called to the Father differently than they. Christian faith, ituttut

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by bigczardaddy:
i ask again

2---If it is invisible, how may we know it exists?

Faith. He exists so we exist.

2---If visible, what are its distinguishing characteristics that we may recognize it?

Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and we are saved into the Body of Christ. Through His Faith we believe by the Grace of God we are members of “His Assembly”. Today any that deny Jesus is the Christ, the only begotten Son of God is recognized as lost, meaning we believers are recognized by that one thing we believe. Not by what other things we may say to show we are members of some denomination.

I believe other than "our faith" we cannot prove our salvation to anyone. There are many "good" people in this world with "love for their fellow man", and do "gobs" of Good Works, and people will think them saved. But if they do not believe on the "Name of the Lord Jesus Christ" for their salvation, then they are depending on their good works, believing God will accept them, and their good works.

Those of the gospel of the "kingdom at hand", those that had to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins", could show they possessed the Holy Ghost for they had the "signs" to follow them of healing powers, tongues, etc.

Today, by the grace of God through the faith of His Son Jesus Christ we are saved. Christian faith, ituttut

 

[Deacon]

I hope I'm not displaying my ignorance to broadly on this issue.

Prior to becoming involved with the BaptistBoard I never interacted with anyone who disagreed with the idea of a universal church.

What drives the disagreement?
It this a Covenental/dispensational issue?

Rob

 

[exscentric]

"What drives the disagreement?
It this a Covenental/dispensational issue?"

Neither, I don't think. Have never seen it linked to any system in particular.

Most that I know off are in the baptist ranks. Missionary Baptist, and some Ind. Baptists. There may be others outside the Baptist ranks.


I suspect it is a reaction to Romanism and their holding onto tradition etc.

The universal church exists whether they recognize it or not - all those past saints are there, like it or not. The local church is quite evident.

Most hold to baptism by "their own pastors only," also. This has always interested me. Why would they care who baptized who since there is only the local church that is autonomous and holding to no one. To put that much emphasis on their pastoral line is to indicate more than just local church.

 

[tinytim]

I believe it is the desire to not be associated with the RCC in any way that drives the notion.
Mostly IFBs believe this.
Then again it may be the desire to be independent.

 

[bigczardaddy]

3. Was the church Paul persecuted the invisible church?
---If so, how and where did he find it?

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Deacon:
I hope I'm not displaying my ignorance to broadly on this issue.

Prior to becoming involved with the BaptistBoard I never interacted with anyone who disagreed with the idea of a universal church.

What drives the disagreement?
It this a Covenental/dispensational issue?

Rob

Deacon, I believe it to be both. Within both are those that know peace will only come with the second physical appearance on earth of Jesus Christ. All man is capable of doing is to present the Word to man of “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we will be saved”. We cannot make anything happen. The nature of man just will not allow a “Christian” Universal church.

In coming from my (can’t speak for others) dispensationalist point of view we can only have a “universal” church spiritually in the Body of Christ as we are united in Him, becoming one in Him. This is all-inclusive, yet while all encompassing we still have our personalities, thus we are in different parts of the Body of Christ Church. Even though we are different in His Body we are in harmony for we are unified in our separate functions.

On earth I can see how two (others may see more) “universal” churches can come into existence, which to me is not desirable. But then I see another already exists down here that is divided. But God being a God of Division places together those of His that are separated – down here.

Of the two undesirables, one “universal” church could be formed on earth to house “all comers”, regardless of who their God may be, and regardless of one’s life style. We see this kind of thought process today. Many that will be in this “universal” church may pray to the same God as we Christians believe in, but those are dead prayers for they do not come “through our Lord Jesus Christ”. This church could be those that go into tribulation, after our Rapture.

The other undesirable, to me, is a “universal” Christian church such as the “The World Council of Churches”, but to me this seems impossible, unless all denominations today return to the “mother church”, to be in harmony with her. I don’t really believe all the other churches will swing to the Baptist beliefs. So something has got to give, and it will not be Catholicism.

Of interest here is the possibility of all “returning to the Catholic “faith”. I really had no idea of what people were talking about (those outside of the Baptist churches) years ago when they mentioned “good Friday” until I was in my mid-teens in the 1940’s. The Baptist society in those days just did not believe in “fish” day/s. Now the Baptist talk about “good Friday” of which I don’t believe they understand, or where it came from. If we don’t watch it, Lent will be next. We (just about the whole world) have adopted their (Catholic) two “holy days” over the years, and it would not surprise me to see all “Christian” churches fall in line to observe Lent.

The third “universal” church I believe exists today, but it is divided. I believe it is we that “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for our salvation, which really means we will never have a true “unified Christian church” down here, for we are scattered around in the different denomination’s, and as Paul says to the Hebrew, some don’t attend a church. It is just that we have all “worked out our own salvation” after becoming One with Him.

Christians are one with Christ, but not each other, so I see adverse effects in the ecumenical movement as I have no desire to attend a “universal” church that will be preaching another gospel. Christian faith, ituttut

 

[bapmom]

yes, what we are objecting to is the term "universal" as it is sometimes applied today as referring to all religions having some sort of good in them, and the idea that there are many paths to God.

Independent Baptists believe very much in the universal church in the sense that all who are saved, past and present and future, are a part of Christ's church.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by bapmom:
Independent Baptists believe very much in the universal church in the sense that all who are saved, past and present and future, are a part of Christ's church.

I disagree. The bible nowhere calls all the saved a "universal church." The church is a local assembly of baptized believers. When the bible refers to all the saved, collectively, it calls that group either the Kingdom of God or the Family of God, but never "the church."

 

[4study]

I'm convinced the church is local and visible.

If the church is universal and all believers members of it, then God is building a very disjointed and disorderly body.

 

[Bro Tony]

For which local church alone did Jesus die for? For which local church alone is Jesus returning for? The term church does deal in the NT as in the local fellowship and also the entire church which is the Body of Christ here on earth. I am a member of the local body of believers only because I am a member of the Body of Christ, The Church through the shed blood of Jesus. I personally am looking forward to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb and setting there with The Church sharing that time with our Savior.

Bro Tony

 

[4study]

Yes, the church is a local, visible fellowship. The disagreement is with the idea of all believers being members of one universal body. As I understand, the church is in a covenant relationship with God. In order to be part of that fellowship, an indiviudal must adhere to the covenant and its ordinances. This is accomplished by faithfulness. If the church is universal, every offspring of God enjoys this covenant relation. The covenant, however, is more restrictive than that. It is God's "pecurliar" people, separated by faithfulness and not mere filial connections. The only way this is properly displayed is via a local, visible, self-governing assembly.

 

[bapmom]

Hey! Im not disagreeing with the idea of a local body of believers being the church!

ok, I guess maybe the proper clarification would be that once we are in Heaven we will all be one church.

I really don't see the big deal in this issue, either.