-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Church Universal
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
DHK, I have no idea how to parse quotes into sections, so I'll respond the best I can.
Don't ignore the time statement regarding the commission. Jesus told them to stay in Jerusalem until AFTER the promise of the Holy Spirit was come. They did not have the authority to carry out the commission until after the indwelling. All gospel records must be read together to have a proper understanding of the commission.
Local church-onlyers focus on the church building as a holy place where we go to meet with, hear from, serve God. These are false doctrines which stand in opposition to clear Biblical teaching. The numerous passages given reveal a Church which cannot be confined to scheduled religious meetings in a man-made building.
"At this point they were still meeting in the Temple for corporate worship. They met in homes for discipleship and for fellowship" is a complete fabrication. There is not one shred of evidence to support this position.
"A small group of believers is not a local church. You certainly need to study this subject". I have asked local onlyer's on BB the Biblical requirements for a group to be considered a church in the eyes of God, but have never gotten a Biblical answer. Mostly just a lot of descriptions of what the church does.
If you did not understand that I was referring to the New Covenant, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
If your Bible version has "churches" in Acts 9:31, then it is wrong. The Greek has ekklesia in the singular, not the plural. Study it a little deeper. Also, Christ is NEVER called the head of the churches or bodies. That is an eisegetical fallacy.
Saying that the Gentiles are heirs of the bodies of Christ is yet more ridiculous eisegesis. Quit changing words into their plural forms just to make the Word conform to your theology. We are all heirs of His body, not heirs of earthly churches. That is ridiculous.
The ONE body into which all believers are baptized is the Body of Christ, not thousands of little earthly groups. 1 Cor 12:13 defines the body as ONE, not many little groups. I am truly sorry that you are still blind to the mystery of the Church which has been revealed.
Don't ignore the time statement regarding the commission. Jesus told them to stay in Jerusalem until AFTER the promise of the Holy Spirit was come. They did not have the authority to carry out the commission until after the indwelling. All gospel records must be read together to have a proper understanding of the commission.
Local church-onlyers focus on the church building as a holy place where we go to meet with, hear from, serve God. These are false doctrines which stand in opposition to clear Biblical teaching. The numerous passages given reveal a Church which cannot be confined to scheduled religious meetings in a man-made building.
"At this point they were still meeting in the Temple for corporate worship. They met in homes for discipleship and for fellowship" is a complete fabrication. There is not one shred of evidence to support this position.
"A small group of believers is not a local church. You certainly need to study this subject". I have asked local onlyer's on BB the Biblical requirements for a group to be considered a church in the eyes of God, but have never gotten a Biblical answer. Mostly just a lot of descriptions of what the church does.
If you did not understand that I was referring to the New Covenant, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
If your Bible version has "churches" in Acts 9:31, then it is wrong. The Greek has ekklesia in the singular, not the plural. Study it a little deeper. Also, Christ is NEVER called the head of the churches or bodies. That is an eisegetical fallacy.
Saying that the Gentiles are heirs of the bodies of Christ is yet more ridiculous eisegesis. Quit changing words into their plural forms just to make the Word conform to your theology. We are all heirs of His body, not heirs of earthly churches. That is ridiculous.
The ONE body into which all believers are baptized is the Body of Christ, not thousands of little earthly groups. 1 Cor 12:13 defines the body as ONE, not many little groups. I am truly sorry that you are still blind to the mystery of the Church which has been revealed.
saturneptune
New Member
Don't feel alone. I have never figured out how to do it except for the quote icons.
Agreed completely
Everyone who disagrees with you is not a local church only person. Also, those who feel strongly about the local church do not think the building is holy in any manner. That is just not the case, and would ask that you cite a post where that was said.
Again, agreed.
I do not know what definition you got of a local church from others, but what is your definition if you do not like theirs. I do not just mean a local church, but a NT church. You said the answers you got were descriptions of what a church does. That is certainly part of it, and functions like spreading the Gospel, baptism, the Lord's Supper, worship, singing hymns, listening to sermons, helping the sick and poor, and others are certainly a part of it, and all are Biblical. Again, please state your Biblical definition.
First, all the gospels give the Great Commission including the Book of Acts.
Second, if we were to go by your hermeneutic, then we would have to conclude that nothing, in any of the gospels, is applicable to us for it is all written before the Day of Pentecost. Is that what you believe? Throw away all the gospels. They don't apply to us because the events in them were all before Pentecost????
Third, the command in Acts is worded this way:
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
--They were to go into all the world after Pentecost. They were to start in their own city Jerusalem, then spread out in their own province Judea, and then neighboring provinces, and then the world. They were all witnesses for Christ, as we all are commanded to be.
It is clear you don't know what a local church is. I don't know of anyone on this board who believes that. You have misrepresented many people here.
As has been explained here many times, the word ekklesia, means assembly, not building, but assembly. It is the congregation of the people, the assembly of the people. It has nothing to do with a building. There is no building mentioned in the Bible, and no one here has mentioned ekklesia in reference to one; so why the misrepresentation?
What has God given to the assembly?
Speaking of the local church Paul said:
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
--You find evangelists, pastors and teachers in the local church, not the U-church. There is no such thing as a U-church. It doesn't gather and has no pastors or teachers. One goes to a local church, where the believers are gathered or assembled to be taught the Word of God.
Paul continues: Read verses 12-14 to find out why we need to attend the local church.
Acts 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
--Here the church, the local church, gathered at the house of the mother of John Mark.
Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
Romans 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house.
--It seems likely that the church in Rome met in the house of Aquila and Priscilla.
Romans 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
--Paul wrote this from Corinth. He had visited many churches on his missionary journeys. He sends greetings from churches, not the U-church. The churches were assemblies, or the believers that made up those assemblies. The place where they met is irrelevant.
Some of them eventually met in the catacombs.
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
--Was it a house, or a barn like structure? We are not told. But it did have a third story from which Eutychus fell. It was here that they "came together," or assembled.
A church is organized.
Have you considered that all of the epistles Paul wrote were either to local churches or pastors of local churches. God's blessing is on His institution--the local church, today. We dare not speak against it.
--A local church is a voluntary assembly of baptized (immersed) believers (regenerated), who have come together for the purpose of carrying out the two ordinances of Christ (baptism of believers by immersion, and the Lord's Supper), and obeying the Great Commission.
That is a local church. It doesn't matter where they meet. A church, ekklesia, is an assembly. It has purpose and organization. It is not just two or three gathered together. But there are very small churches.
Our church started in a home. After some time we grew and started to meet in a Community Hall. In time we were able to purchase a building. The believers make the church, the assembly, not the building.
The same is true in the secular world. A local business burned down. What did they do? They relocated; found another place. The business is not tied to a certain building. Neither is a church. The church is the people. It is an assembly.
Study the Bible. The covenants were given to Israel. The only covenant in the NT is the relationship one has with the Lord Jesus Christ. I am not a covenant theologian.
My Bible is the KJV, and it is not wrong. The difference is no doubt between the Critical text and the Received Text. The KJV makes much more sense here as there were churches throughout these areas not one church in many areas. That doesn't make sense.
Acts 9:31 The assemblies then throughout the whole of Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified and walking in the fear of the Lord, and were increased through the comfort of the Holy Spirit. (Darby)
--Translated correctly one can see how an unassembled assembly cannot be throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee. It has to make sense.
No it isn't.
"Christ in "me" the hope of glory."
"Christ in "you" the hope of glory."
Which one is correct? Can Christ be on only one person, or in only one church if that is who he is writing to?
"But you are the temple of God" Who is? You or me? Maybe it is webdog. Maybe Luke, or some other. Who is the temple of God? Does the Bible have to list every believer that ever lived and will ever live to make the application that all believers are the temple of God? But you say that is "eisigesis." Why?
Christ is the head of the church--the local church.
As he is the head of one Biblically based local church, so is he the head of every Biblically based local church; just as he indwells every believer. Is that a difficult concept to understand.
We also are based on the Bible. Does that mean that we can be the only church that is based on the Bible? Or that there is only one Bible and we have it?
I don't know what you are speaking about.
In Ephesians the mystery of Christ was that Gentiles and Jews could come together as one (in Christ). Once they became believers there was no more differentiation. The wall between them was broken down. This was the mystery that Paul was speaking about.
Paul was writing to the church at Ephesus. Put things into their historical context and find out what he was speaking about.
1Cor.12:13 refers to the body of believers at Corinth. The Corinthian believers were baptized into that body, and no other. Read and study carefully that chapter and see the picture that Paul gives of a body and applies to the body of believers at Corinth. It can only apply to a local church, and nothing else. There is no way that any of those verses can apply to a so-called "U-church."
Read further down in the chapter:
1 Corinthians 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
--This is only true in a local church. A member of our church is taking chemo for his cancer. He is suffering. We all suffer with him. But you don't. You didn't even know. Your invisible U-church has no idea of the sufferings of our local church. This verse can only apply to the local church, as do all the verses in chapter 12.
Local assemblies don't make an "assembly" which cannot assemble.
Local grocery stores don't make one large one.
The bridegroom comes for his bride. Yes that is true. And his bride is composed of all believers. That is also true. I don't believe anyone here has ever denied that.
But the bride of Christ is not the same as "body of Christ."
Each local church is a body--a body of saints, a body of believers, a body in Christ, of Christ. Christ is the head of each body of believers that we call the local church--the assembly, the ekklesia.
Alive in Christ
New Member
ooops. that didnt work
I think I see what some are contending - That there is a difference between "the body of Christ" and the "Bride of Christ."
The local assemblies (body of Christ) are to reflect through the individual believers and assemblies the character and nature of Christ (for He is to be "in the midst of them"). Each believer has a specific "gift, talent, duty station..." in which the local church is "fit together." We all know Scriptures that show that as factual.
The gathering of assemblies constitute the Bride of Christ without spot or wrinkle and what an individual believer's responsibility and authority in that is yet to be completely discovered. We all know Scriptures that show that as factual.
On the BB, I suppose we should be a bit careful not to blend the thinking of the "body of Christ" into that of "the Bride of Christ" by referring to a "universal church" being existent in this age. Such a universal grouping has no part of this age of Grace but will be the only church of all eternity.
The local assemblies (body of Christ) are to reflect through the individual believers and assemblies the character and nature of Christ (for He is to be "in the midst of them"). Each believer has a specific "gift, talent, duty station..." in which the local church is "fit together." We all know Scriptures that show that as factual.
The gathering of assemblies constitute the Bride of Christ without spot or wrinkle and what an individual believer's responsibility and authority in that is yet to be completely discovered. We all know Scriptures that show that as factual.
On the BB, I suppose we should be a bit careful not to blend the thinking of the "body of Christ" into that of "the Bride of Christ" by referring to a "universal church" being existent in this age. Such a universal grouping has no part of this age of Grace but will be the only church of all eternity.
Tom Butler
New Member
If one assumes the existence of a U-church, then it follows that local congregations are simply "branches."
However, if one holds at there is no such animal, then there are no branches. There are only independent, autonomous congregations, each one which may be described as the body of Christ. We see that in I Corinthians 12, where Paul described FBC Corinth as THE body of Christ.
And the Bride will one day assemble, but can't today.
How can you interpret Ephesians 5 strictly as referring to a local assembly?
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. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Is Paul referring to ONLY the church at Ephesus?
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
So did Jesus die for the church at Ephesus? Or for all?
29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.
Does the Lord only love the church at Ephesus?
Fred's Wife
Member
In addition to Ephesians 5, what about Ephesians 4:4-6? Is Paul speaking of only the "one body" being the church at Ephesus?
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Also, what is the "one baptism"?
Yes he is. That is the church he is writing to, isn't he?
When he wrote the letter to the believers at Ephesus, what would those believers think? There was no such thing as a U-assembly (ekklesia). He was writing to them. Use the words and the epistle in its historical context. Christ was the head of their church. He was the Savior of them, that body of believers.
If my wife is in trouble (she has a disability and depends upon me), I become her savior (physically). For every other couple in the same position, every husband that takes care of his wife likewise becomes the wife's savior. Who else should the wife look to for help?
The word "ekklesia" or assembly, is used in a generic sense, as is husband and wife. Which church, husband and wife. Each one. It is not just Adam and Eve, or Tom and Sue, etc. It is every church and Christ, for Christ is the head of every church. He is the Savior of every body of believers as he is the Savior of every person. Both roles are played. He is the bridegroom, and a bridegroom plays more than one role, especially after he marries and has children.
Yes he did die for the church at Ephesus, for the letter was written to the church at Ephesus--to those believers.
He also died for you and for me. His atonement was unlimited.
He does love the church at Ephesus. The letter was written to the believers at Ephesus. What is wrong with what he said, in such loving terms to those at Ephesus. Keep history in context.
I often say to my congregation:
There is no one in this world that God loves any more than you!
Am I wrong to say that?
Why do you question Paul's terminology then?
Another, more recent thread, is on this same topic. But it wouldn't hurt to repeat some truths.
Yes, the above is quite true.
I do indeed concur Herald.
You've got that right.
- Status