The Body of Christ

[Dr. Walter]

Since all Christians are in union with Christ and in union with one another, it makes no sense to restrict the body of Christ to a local church made up of Christians and non-Christians. Christ is the Head of all Christians, and all Christians are His body.

Your statement "it makes no sense" followed by human philosophical blathering demonstrate your authority to be yourself instead of God's Word.

 

[Dr. Walter]

A family and a kingdom normally are localized entities, but the New Testament gives these terms newer, larger meanings. It does the same with the word church.

Just more blathering without a shred of evidence

 

[Dr. Walter]

Who says it cannot have a larger meaning? Word meaning is based upon word usage. The word "ekklesia" is used many times in the New Testament to refer to an entity larger than a local one. It may be true that this word had no larger meaning before New Testament times, but it took on a larger meaning during the days of Christ and His apostles. So did the words family and kingdom.

What a jewel!!!!! Here you use your INTERPRETATIONS that support your ecclesiological suppositions as evidence for the correct interpetation!!! You talk about circular reasoning and circular argementation - this takes the cake.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

No, I base my doctrine of the church upon the usage of the word "ekklesia" throughout the New Testament.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

If I impose upon the New Testament the idea that the word "ekklesia" can only refer to a local, visible assembly and can never refer to anything larger, then I will force the New Testament to fit with this idea (no matter what it takes). This will lead me to become a Landmark Baptist or at least a local church-only-ite. It will lead me to become a strong sectarian or schismatic.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, I base my doctrine of the church upon the usage of the word "ekklesia" throughout the New Testament.

No, you are using your intepretation to substantiate what you are trying to demonstrate is a legitimate interpretation. That is circulur reasoning. Where is the OBJECTIVE evidence that the word was used or understood before or during the New Testament era that it ever was used that way?????

Answer - there is no such evidence. Every text you claim to support your theory can be just as easily interpreted to fit the only objective historical use of ekklesia before or during the New Testament writing. At least 97 uses are self-evident and the remaining few are quite easily interpreted to harmonize with the 97 but you insist Christ built TWO differenty kinds of churches by your TWO different defintions.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If I impose upon the New Testament the idea that the word "ekklesia" can only refer to a local, visible assembly and can never refer to anything larger, then I will force the New Testament to fit with this idea (no matter what it takes). This will lead me to become a Landmark Baptist or at least a local church-only-ite. It will lead me to become a strong sectarian or schismatic.

That is the way the marbels role and the cookies crumble. Get used to it.

 

[Tom Butler]

If I impose upon the New Testament the idea that the word "ekklesia" can only refer to a local, visible assembly and can never refer to anything larger, then I will force the New Testament to fit with this idea (no matter what it takes). This will lead me to become a Landmark Baptist or at least a local church-only-ite. It will lead me to become a strong sectarian or schismatic.

Naw, it will lead you to a more biblical viewpoint. Those who take the opposite view are the schismatics..

 

[DHK]

If I impose upon the New Testament the idea that the word "ekklesia" can only refer to a local, visible assembly and can never refer to anything larger, then I will force the New Testament to fit with this idea (no matter what it takes). This will lead me to become a Landmark Baptist or at least a local church-only-ite. It will lead me to become a strong sectarian or schismatic.

What an admission this is. You know and state the Biblical position. The last part, about being schismatic, is a sinful choice--one that you voluntarily make. You can choose to sin or not to sin. A choice to believe correct theology does not lead to sin.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

As an objective observer - cutting out irrelevancies - who must make free conclusion of his own from this discussion and as far as possible must find his decision reconcileable with the Scriptures, I unhesitatingly decide in favour of a disciplinedlearner. In fact, I am going to copy this thread as and for an excellent example of preconcluded and senseless rigidity contra Scriptural discipline and freedom.

GE

 

[Dr. Walter]

As an objective observer - cutting out irrelevancies - who must make free conclusion of his own from this discussion and as far as possible must find his decision reconcileable with the Scriptures, I unhesitatingly decide in favour of a disciplinedlearner. In fact, I am going to copy this thread as and for an excellent example of preconcluded and senseless rigidity contra Scriptural discipline and freedom.

GE

Gerhard, do you believe the pre-cross saints were born again children of God saved under the same gospel we are saved under except they looked forward to the cross by faith and we look back to the cross by faith (Rom. 3:24-26; Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; 26:22-23)? I think you do. Hence, salvation is by the same Savior, same gospel and same salvation before and after the cross. This is salvation (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12).

Now, when Christ built his church, didn't he start building with the "FOUNDATION"? What did he use to build the foundation? Paul says that he used "apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20) but set "first" in the church apostles and secondarily prophets (I Cor. 12:28). He did not set first any Old Testament saint in the church as they had all died before Christ laid the foundation for the church.

Therefore, salvation and the church cannot be one and the same or inseparable from one another because there was no church before Christ laid the foundation but there was salvation "in Christ" (Gal. 3:17) as all of the elect are chosen "in him" before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). There was regeneration or being "created in Christ" (Eph. 2:10) as Nicodemus was rebuked for not understanding the new birth (Jn. 3:9). Hence, the church has nothing to do with being "in Christ" for salvation or regeneration but with service in the New Testament "house of God."

Roman Catholocism and Protestant have made the church inseparable from salvation, the former a universal visible church and the latter a universal invisible church both of which claim that to be saved is to be in this church and to be lost is to be outside this church. Old Testament saints were saved but not in either as the foundation of the church was not laid until after the book of Malichi. Hence, the church has nothing to do with salvation or being "in Christ" redemptively or spiritually as we are "in Christ" redemptively and spiritually by new birth and justification by faith not by church membership. We are "in Christ" metaphorically/representatively through church membership and we are in Christ figuratively through baptism. Think these things through carefully.