Actually far from it. The universal church is the one in which the congregation does not get a vote about how to run things. It is a pastor/dictator run church. It is not run man's way in the least. You have no say in the running of the universal church. And it is headed by Jesus Christ himself, who is the head of the body. To say that Christ is the god of this world is both theologically wrong and highly offensive.
-
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 Local Church - Baptist theology's weakest link?
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
Amen!
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
The Church has replaced Israel as the kingdom of God on earth. Which one? The one of which Jesus spoke of in Matthew when He said "my Church", the one against which the gates of hell will not prevail.
Many local churches have been ravaged by the evil one, but not the one which Jesus is building because each and everyone of the members is saved.
HankD
The man gets another 'Amen!'
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
Having a go--with "the BMW".
The BMW is a nice automobile. The BMW I would like is painted blue.
Where is the universal BMW found? (No such thing exists.)
Every BMW made could be called The BMW.
When one speaks of church generically, as Paul is doing in Col. Ch. 1, the term "the church" does not imply something universal--visible or invisible. Every TRUE church qualifies as "the church".
In actually, the term "local church" is a bit misleading--it implies that there is some other kind of church--there is not.
"Tell it to the church"--how does one do that if the church is invisible/universal?
Papal audiences are hard to get.
Selah,
Bro. James
[ November 30, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]
The BMW is a nice automobile. The BMW I would like is painted blue.
Where is the universal BMW found? (No such thing exists.)
Every BMW made could be called The BMW.
When one speaks of church generically, as Paul is doing in Col. Ch. 1, the term "the church" does not imply something universal--visible or invisible. Every TRUE church qualifies as "the church".
In actually, the term "local church" is a bit misleading--it implies that there is some other kind of church--there is not.
"Tell it to the church"--how does one do that if the church is invisible/universal?
Papal audiences are hard to get.
Selah,
Bro. James
[ November 30, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]
So, would you say that Paul was meerly writing about the 'local church' and, if so, which one?
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
Which one?
Any "true church" anywhere. That could be Jerusalem, Antioch, Berea, Corinth,...Rome...somewhere in France, Switzerland, England, Holland...where ever the real gospel has gone, true churches have been formed--for the past near two thousand years.
They all came from the same mold--they have the same Potter--who is the head--the Lord, Jesus Christ. "On this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Every true church is His church.
Not one was started by a man/woman.
Selah,
Bro. James
P.S. It not my intention to offend anyone. I am trying to point to "The Bride, The Lamb's Wife" the only way I know--with scripture. There is a message in the crudeness, rudeness, and sarcasm. Selah.
Any "true church" anywhere. That could be Jerusalem, Antioch, Berea, Corinth,...Rome...somewhere in France, Switzerland, England, Holland...where ever the real gospel has gone, true churches have been formed--for the past near two thousand years.
They all came from the same mold--they have the same Potter--who is the head--the Lord, Jesus Christ. "On this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Every true church is His church.
Not one was started by a man/woman.
Selah,
Bro. James
P.S. It not my intention to offend anyone. I am trying to point to "The Bride, The Lamb's Wife" the only way I know--with scripture. There is a message in the crudeness, rudeness, and sarcasm. Selah.
Then why does Paul just refer to "the church"; not "a church" or "the churches", which would be consistent with your POV?
Yours in Christ
Matt
Yours in Christ
Matt
The problem with the BMW (or family) analogy is that it simply doesn't work. Christ never claims that all BMWs are united into one car, or that all families are united. He does claim that all believers are united into one body.
No, not really. It can be called "a BMW," but only "the BMW" in certain contexts.
The Church--the same reason as:
The BMW, The Ford, The President, The Queen, The Board of Directors, The Borough Assembly--none of these terms refer to a universal anything.
"Universal church" is an unnecessary inference based on a preconceived notion, both of which are false. Therefore, the conclusions are false.
Selah,
Bro. James
The BMW, The Ford, The President, The Queen, The Board of Directors, The Borough Assembly--none of these terms refer to a universal anything.
"Universal church" is an unnecessary inference based on a preconceived notion, both of which are false. Therefore, the conclusions are false.
Selah,
Bro. James
And none of those terms are used by Christ in a universal sense. "Ekklesia" is and therefore we must retain the universal sense of it. You are drawing bad analogies.
R. Charles Blair
New Member
These quick notes are based on the responses of Pastor Larry & Matt Black since my last post.
Why should Christ have only one body? On what basis do you assert this? Since the term, like "building" or "field," is clearly metaphorical, why not multitudes of bodies, each alike, with Christ as Head of each one? No logical reason for an "unassembling assembly." We each have one human body, yet all from Adam alike.
Col. 1:18-29: Why not the church at Colosse? Did Christ not suffer for all the saved who were added by Him to that body?
"Many local churches have been ravaged by the evil one," or the candlestick removed - YET there
are still local churches! The promise of Mt. 16:18 stands! Jesus has preserved His kind of congregations in the earth. Each one belongs to Him; each one is correctly made up of blood-bought born-again baptized believers. Even the first assembly (portable, like the tabernacle in the wilderness) had its Judas, chosen for that place by the very best Pastor any church ever had.
"Why does Paul refer only to 'the church' . . .
Please look at your concordance. I count quickly 20 refs. to "all the churches," "every church," etc. in the epistles (plus several from Acts 13:1 to 20:28 involving his ministry), and most of the references to "the church" are clearly to a specific local congregation ("the church at ...").
What "clear reference" is there to an "invisible" church? I don't see any! (Pardon the pun?) But
more seriously, only Mt. 16:18 and possibly a few in Eph.& Col. could be made to fit, and they will also fit the generic idea readily.
And where does Christ use "ecclesia" in a universal sense? Again, only Mt. 16:18 can be made to fit. The other 21 times Jesus uses the term, it is either "the church at" (Ephesus, Smyrna, etc.), or "the churchES." Somehow our world gets "ecclesiastical lockjaw" on those last two letters. Surely 21 usages should define one and not vice-versa!
The most important part of this whole discussion is the issue of church government. Any approach to a "universal ecclesia," visible or invisible, leads eventually to some form of universal ecclesiastical system of governance, which takes away our liberty in Christ and substitutes some man-made approach (convention, council, curia - there are degrees, some milder than others). But as I tell my brethren in the SBC, "We are all
'landmark' when it comes to church government. None of us want the convention governing our local congregations!"
Also, it misses the strong element of fellowship that is gained when we emphasize (with the long-used "Church Covenant" familiar to most Baptists)
that "we do now, in the presence of God,and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ."
It also encourages us to, "when we remove from this place, "as soon as possible, unite with some other church." Yes, I know covenants are "man-made," but so is the "Baptist Board," and this post, and your post; this covenant does express the deeply-held convictions of generations of historic Baptists. There is what might be called an "invisible bond" uniting the truly saved and properly baptized members of a local congregation to one another; there is a strong family tie to all the genuinely saved, but to say that there is a body which never unites on earth is to assume a logical contradiction and impossibility. There is a "church in prospect," the "ultimate church" if you like; if that is all you mean, then we have only a semantic difference. But beyond that, we have a genuine doctrinal disagreement and I'm glad we have a place where it can be addressed in a good spirit. Thanks for listening!
If you would like more on these views, contact
<benstratton@iolky.com>. Best in Christ - Charles Blair - Rom. 8:28
Why should Christ have only one body? On what basis do you assert this? Since the term, like "building" or "field," is clearly metaphorical, why not multitudes of bodies, each alike, with Christ as Head of each one? No logical reason for an "unassembling assembly." We each have one human body, yet all from Adam alike.
Col. 1:18-29: Why not the church at Colosse? Did Christ not suffer for all the saved who were added by Him to that body?
"Many local churches have been ravaged by the evil one," or the candlestick removed - YET there
are still local churches! The promise of Mt. 16:18 stands! Jesus has preserved His kind of congregations in the earth. Each one belongs to Him; each one is correctly made up of blood-bought born-again baptized believers. Even the first assembly (portable, like the tabernacle in the wilderness) had its Judas, chosen for that place by the very best Pastor any church ever had.
"Why does Paul refer only to 'the church' . . .
Please look at your concordance. I count quickly 20 refs. to "all the churches," "every church," etc. in the epistles (plus several from Acts 13:1 to 20:28 involving his ministry), and most of the references to "the church" are clearly to a specific local congregation ("the church at ...").
What "clear reference" is there to an "invisible" church? I don't see any! (Pardon the pun?) But
more seriously, only Mt. 16:18 and possibly a few in Eph.& Col. could be made to fit, and they will also fit the generic idea readily.
And where does Christ use "ecclesia" in a universal sense? Again, only Mt. 16:18 can be made to fit. The other 21 times Jesus uses the term, it is either "the church at" (Ephesus, Smyrna, etc.), or "the churchES." Somehow our world gets "ecclesiastical lockjaw" on those last two letters. Surely 21 usages should define one and not vice-versa!
The most important part of this whole discussion is the issue of church government. Any approach to a "universal ecclesia," visible or invisible, leads eventually to some form of universal ecclesiastical system of governance, which takes away our liberty in Christ and substitutes some man-made approach (convention, council, curia - there are degrees, some milder than others). But as I tell my brethren in the SBC, "We are all
'landmark' when it comes to church government. None of us want the convention governing our local congregations!"
Also, it misses the strong element of fellowship that is gained when we emphasize (with the long-used "Church Covenant" familiar to most Baptists)
that "we do now, in the presence of God,and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ."
It also encourages us to, "when we remove from this place, "as soon as possible, unite with some other church." Yes, I know covenants are "man-made," but so is the "Baptist Board," and this post, and your post; this covenant does express the deeply-held convictions of generations of historic Baptists. There is what might be called an "invisible bond" uniting the truly saved and properly baptized members of a local congregation to one another; there is a strong family tie to all the genuinely saved, but to say that there is a body which never unites on earth is to assume a logical contradiction and impossibility. There is a "church in prospect," the "ultimate church" if you like; if that is all you mean, then we have only a semantic difference. But beyond that, we have a genuine doctrinal disagreement and I'm glad we have a place where it can be addressed in a good spirit. Thanks for listening!
If you would like more on these views, contact
<benstratton@iolky.com>. Best in Christ - Charles Blair - Rom. 8:28
To: C. Blair
benstratton@iolky.com-- could not be found with my computer using that syntax. I tried several search engines.
Thanks.
It is good to know there are "local" only believers in cyberspace.
Bro. James
benstratton@iolky.com-- could not be found with my computer using that syntax. I tried several search engines.
Thanks.
It is good to know there are "local" only believers in cyberspace.
Bro. James
RCB, thanks for your eloquent post; I guess we shall have to agree to disagree on this one. I simply cannot in all conscience accept that Paul is only referring to the Colossian Church there (again, I ask, why "the church", not "your church" etc); since this was not his 'local church', well at least no more than the others to whom he wrote and which he founded, why would Paul describe himself as suffering to make up that which was lacking in just that one church? I also find the idea of a 'multi-Bodied Christ' stretches the bounds of theological (not to mention soteriological) credulity: as far as I'm concerned, only one body belonging to the one Jesus was broken on the Cross for me.
I'm certainly not arguing against the 'local' meaning of ekklesia, just saying that there is also a universal usage of the word in Scripture, which you yourself have conceded. Rather than view these 'exceptional' meanings in the light of the main meaning as you do, I see them for that they are - exceptions to the local meaning which must stand as such and demonstrate that there is that alternative meaning
Yours in Christ
Matt
I'm certainly not arguing against the 'local' meaning of ekklesia, just saying that there is also a universal usage of the word in Scripture, which you yourself have conceded. Rather than view these 'exceptional' meanings in the light of the main meaning as you do, I see them for that they are - exceptions to the local meaning which must stand as such and demonstrate that there is that alternative meaning
Yours in Christ
Matt
Let me answer with questions:
Yours in Christ
Matt
R. Charles Blair
New Member
Bro. Matt - Just to be clear, I did not and do not concede a universal usage of ecclesia - only a final or
"ultimate" usage and of course the generic "any church" idea. There are churches universally; I suppose you are correct in saying that we will have to "agree to disagree" if you are unwilling to allow a hundred clear passages to interpret a few that might have other meanings.
Would you accept that God has many temples? I Cor. 3 seems to refer both to the entire church at Corinth and to individual believers as "the temple of God," and ch. 6 makes it clear that the
physical body of the believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
Would you accept that God has many fields? I Cor. 3 again - "Ye are God's field." Or what about buildings (same passage)?
I agree fully with your statement that Christ had one body hanging on the cross - His physical body.
And that is the primary reference in Eph. 2:14-16,
not "the universal body" of believers.
Since I suppose he is also reading this, a quick word to Bro. James - that is an e-mail address, not a site. Ben has a web site which he can give you if you contact him.
Selah to all - I'll be away from this post for at least a week, possibly more, preaching and teaching in 3 different places, each one a local, visible body belonging to Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit as the heart and blood stream pumping life through that visible body with an invisible inner bond. Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28
"ultimate" usage and of course the generic "any church" idea. There are churches universally; I suppose you are correct in saying that we will have to "agree to disagree" if you are unwilling to allow a hundred clear passages to interpret a few that might have other meanings.
Would you accept that God has many temples? I Cor. 3 seems to refer both to the entire church at Corinth and to individual believers as "the temple of God," and ch. 6 makes it clear that the
physical body of the believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
Would you accept that God has many fields? I Cor. 3 again - "Ye are God's field." Or what about buildings (same passage)?
I agree fully with your statement that Christ had one body hanging on the cross - His physical body.
And that is the primary reference in Eph. 2:14-16,
not "the universal body" of believers.
Since I suppose he is also reading this, a quick word to Bro. James - that is an e-mail address, not a site. Ben has a web site which he can give you if you contact him.
Selah to all - I'll be away from this post for at least a week, possibly more, preaching and teaching in 3 different places, each one a local, visible body belonging to Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit as the heart and blood stream pumping life through that visible body with an invisible inner bond. Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28