Universal Church and Landmarkism

[Tom Butler]

Metaphysical can, in the way I am using it, mean "spiritual", although there are things metaphysical that aren't necessarily spiritual. The basic definition is "beyong physics" - metaphysics is the study of entities, realms, or realities beyond the physical world.

Thanks, JD. I was afraid that some were using metaphysical when they meant metaphorical. Appreciate your clearing that up.

 

[jbh28]

Okay, I understand what you're saying. The local church is just a mini-version of the U-church. And whatever the local church does to carry out the Great Commission, the U-church gets credit as well.

Would you agree that there are some local congregations who preach a false gospel, baptismal regeneration and works salvation? Can they qualify as true New Testament Churches?

What about the members of those false churches whom God has graciously saved despite their error? Are they in the U-Church? How so if their local congregation can't qualify as a mini-UChurch?

I understand that the U-churchers here can't understand why folks like DHK, John of Japan and I can't see things as clearly as you do. That's okay, we wonder the same thing about you.

The local church view which we advocate makes so much more sense and is less complicated. We don't have to jump through ecclesiological hoops to make things fit.

Very well. And to answer the question about the false teaching, I wouldn't say they are in the church if they are not believers.

 

[jbh28]

jbh quoted these scriptures:

I Corinthians 12:28, "And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues" - this would be true for both the local church and the true(universal) church.

Tom's response: On more than one occasion, Paul has referred to a local congregation as the church, or the body.

Acts 20:28, Paul speaks to the elders from the church at Ephesus. He calls them overseers (bishops) and shepherds (pastors) over the church of God (at Ephesus).

And right before I Cor 12:28, there is v. 27 "Now YE you folks at Corinth) are the body of Christ...."

jbh quotes:
I Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Tom replies: This is the same Paul who has already described both the local congregation at Ephesus and at Corinth as the church

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Tom answers: This is from the same Paul who has already described local congregations as the church, and the body. And remember, Paul is writing to another local congregation at Colosse.

What about the passage in Matthew where Jesus say he will "build his church."

 

[Tom Butler]

Very well. And to answer the question about the false teaching, I wouldn't say they are in the church if they are not believers.

For purposes of discussion, we're assuming that even false churches may have saved believers. Given your position that the local church is a mini-UChurch, I'm just wondering about those believers who are not members of a true NT congregation. Are they in the UChurch, anyway?

I can imagine some of you are saying, this is silly, nit-picking stuff. Actually, I agree. The point I'm making is that some propositions may fall apart upon closer examination.

Such as brother jbh's.

Of course, if there is no possibility that false churches may have saved people in them, then never mind.

 

[J.D.]

What about the passage in Matthew where Jesus say he will "build his church."

I was just about to introduce that question myself. I'd like to know the answer too.

 

[John of Japan]

Metaphysical can, in the way I am using it, mean "spiritual", although there are things metaphysical that aren't necessarily spiritual. The basic definition is "beyong physics" - metaphysics is the study of entities, realms, or realities beyond the physical world.

Actually, "beyond physics" is not the definition, but the etymology. A better definition is:

metaphysical (mèt´e-fîz´î-kel) adjective
1. Of or relating to metaphysics.
2. Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
3. Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.
4. a. Immaterial; incorporeal. See synonyms at immaterial. b. Supernatural.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

So the local church is a physcial concept to the extent that it is a literal assembly. However, the relationship between Christ and the local church is metaphysical.

 

[John of Japan]

I was just about to introduce that question myself. I'd like to know the answer too.

I've already answered that and I believe DHK has also. The Matt. usage is generic.

 

[glfredrick]

DHK, I am intimately familiar with Landmarkist teachings. It is a false doctrine that reads into the text of Scripture what some men wish to see in order to preserve their little carved-out kingdoms.

In fact, just about the only people in all of Christendom that subscribe to that doctrine are those fiercely independent fundamentalists who need it in order to survive.

The doctrine did not even exist as a doctrine until 1851. It caught on largely because it was pressed by several influential pastors and seminary leaders.

It is now used as a club by the independent fundamentalists to enforce the idea -- the same idea as Roman Catholicism, by the way -- that ONLY those churches that are "successive" with a lineage back to John the Baptist are the "true, authentic church or Christ." Though it has its roots in the SBC who those same independents now hate and disavow. Funny how bad doctrine always finds a home eventually and refuses to go away. Today, everyone who (as the doctrine states) is not in that line of succession is not a true church and there is no "universal church" in any sense. That is patently false for any number of reasons.

So, we have a smallish group of churches that hold to a doctrine that makes THEM the only true church, a doctrine that mirrors Roman Catholicism that they hate, and a doctrine that stems from the SBC whom they also hate. But the doctrine is "useful" to them because it helps them to "sell" their little kingdoms to the people they coerce into being a part of their local only bodies. Weird, huh...

 

[John of Japan]

I thought I posted this earlier today, but I can't find it. So here it is again. To those who believe rejection of a universal church means lack of love for other Christians, that's a misunderstanding. We have many other passages that teach that without a universal church being needed. My grandfather's last sermon was on the other sheep in other folds that Christ told the disciples about.

Here in Asahikawa, I teach NT Greek to a Methodist man in our town who wants to be a preacher. He's my brother in Christ and I love him, but I don't need a universal church for that.

 

[saturneptune]

DHK, I am intimately familiar with Landmarkist teachings. It is a false doctrine that reads into the text of Scripture what some men wish to see in order to preserve their little carved-out kingdoms.

My guess is that it is about as extensive as your knowledge of Calvin's beliefs, and his role in civil government.

In fact, just about the only people in all of Christendom that subscribe to that doctrine are those fiercely independent fundamentalists who need it in order to survive.

There seems to be a running theme in all of your posts, and that is, tearing down IFB's and defending the Roman Catholic Church. If I had to choose between the two to worship in, the choice would be quite simple. Of course, that takes common sense.

The doctrine did not even exist as a doctrine until 1851. It caught on largely because it was pressed by several influential pastors and seminary leaders....

There is no direct evidence of a succession of churches traced to modern day Baptist churches. However, who do you suggest preserved the New Testement Church? The Roman Catholics? The Eastern Orthodox? Who preserved them until the Reformation? What is your conclusion? For some reason, you hate IFBs, but defend concepts like the universal church having a functional role on this earth, Calvin's beliefs like sprinkling and his treatment of those who did not agree with him, so on and so forth. What is your problem with the local church.?

It is now used as a club by the independent fundamentalists to enforce the idea -- the same idea as Roman Catholicism, by the way -- that ONLY those churches that are "successive" with a lineage back to John the Baptist are the "true, authentic church or Christ." Though it has its roots in the SBC who those same independents now hate and disavow. Funny how bad doctrine always finds a home eventually and refuses to go away. Today, everyone who (as the doctrine states) is not in that line of succession is not a true church and there is no "universal church" in any sense. That is patently false for any number of reasons....

Independents that I know are very kind, loving people. There are some in the SBC that believe Landmarkism, but in a general way, that someone preserved the NT church. It is not a person by person succession like the Catholics. By the way, in this paragraph you slam the Catholics, so can't you figure out how you feel about them? I really do not think it is the Indys that have the mean streak. Maybe you should look elsewhere, maybe closer to home.

So, we have a smallish group of churches that hold to a doctrine that makes THEM the only true church, a doctrine that mirrors Roman Catholicism that they hate, and a doctrine that stems from the SBC whom they also hate. But the doctrine is "useful" to them because it helps them to "sell" their little kingdoms to the people they coerce into being a part of their local only bodies. Weird, huh...

Weird is your conclusions, like you liked the Roman Catholic Church before you did not. Independents do not hate the SBC, that is one of your fantasies. I belong to a SBC local church, and see none of what you are talking about. You rant and rave against Landmarkism, but do not have a clue as to who preserved the NT church.

 

[John of Japan]

One more for you who believe in a universal church. (And I'm not berating you or attacking you. Some of my best friends believe in a universal church. :smilewinkgrin

Several on the thread have mentioned the seven churches of Revelation. It seems to me that this was a perfect time for John to mention a universal church: "Oh, and by the way, you local churches, you need to realize you're all one body. How come you don't hang out more together?"

Instead, we have very specific encouragement, rebukes and warnings to seven very specific local churches. Not only that, every single church is told what the Spirit is saying to the "churches," plural. So, why no universal church in Rev. ch. 1-3?

 

[HankD]

Nice try but no cigar. :smilewinkgrin: Since he says he will not "sit with the wicked," I believe he is talking about an actual assembly of wicked people, not a metaphorical one.

Bad guys have assemblies. We have a yakuza (Japanese mafia) connected ex-con in our church. The yakuza have assemblies all the time: strategy meetings, drinking parties, negotiations with other gangs.

I bow to your superior knowledge but I respectfully disagree anyway. :smilewinkgrin:

You know the "sitting" part sounds a lot like Psalm 1 - clearly metaphorical.

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.​

There are a couple of other candidates.

HankD

 

[Aaron]

Does Christ have many bodies, or just one? Many brides, or just one?

 

[saturneptune]

Does Christ have many bodies, or just one? Many brides, or just one?

That is not the question. I do not believe, contrary to the opposite view's comments, anyone has said the universal church does not exist. It has no function here on earth. The spreading of the Gospel, missions, and reaching the lost is carried out by the local church. The universal church does not administer baptism or the Lord's Supper. It does not help the poor. It does not call pastors or elect deacons. There is no function of the universal church, it is only an entity that will have a function when we all are in the presence of the Lord.

 

[J.D.]

Deleted by JD - not related to the OP

 

[HankD]

That is not the question. I do not believe, contrary to the opposite view's comments, anyone has said the universal church does not exist. It has no function here on earth. The spreading of the Gospel, missions, and reaching the lost is carried out by the local church. The universal church does not administer baptism or the Lord's Supper. It does not help the poor. It does not call pastors or elect deacons. There is no function of the universal church, it is only an entity that will have a function when we all are in the presence of the Lord.

The heavenly component is the dwelling place of the commander-in-chief.

Ephesians 1

19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which He wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.​

HankD

 

[Tom Butler]

What about the passage in Matthew where Jesus say he will "build his church."

If you are a dispensationalist, then you won't accept this answer.

Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry. It came into existence when Jesus chose his disciples. They were the material of the first church.

The Lord said in Matt. 16:18 that "Upon this rock I will build my church."

He was speaking to his church at the time. And so he did.

By the time Jesus said goodbye at his ascension, this band had everything it needed to identifyit as a church. It had a Head, it had marching orders (given before the Great Commission), it had baptism and the Lord's Supper, it had a teaching ministry (Jesus as the teacher), it did missions and evangelism. And it had power. Remember the disciples returning from a trip, expressing awe that even the demons were subject to them.

And it had the good news, that Jesus had died for sinners, and risen from the dead.

The 120 people in that upper room also had a business meeting.

When Jesus said he would build his church, he was referring to the one right there in front of him.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I am intimately familiar with Landmarkist teachings. It is a false doctrine that reads into the text of Scripture what some men wish to see in order to preserve their little carved-out kingdoms.

All right then. Just to make it clear, I am not a Landmarkist. I don't believe that most on this board who are advocating this doctrine are Landmarkist. The doctrine has been associated with that particular group of people, as per the OP. There are plenty of doctrines that the Landmark Baptists believe that I would never believe. Some of them are Baptist Briders. Some of them believe they can trace their spiritual heritage back to John the Baptist with John being the first Baptist. I don't believe in such things. So don't count me in among "their carved out little kingdoms." We are discussing a Biblical doctrine where you have presented no evidence to prove that the other side of the coin (the existence of a universal church) is viable. That is the question. This doctrine, though popularized by Landmarkists, is not exclusively held by them.

In fact, just about the only people in all of Christendom that subscribe to that doctrine are those fiercely independent fundamentalists who need it in order to survive.

It is not needed to survive. It has nothing to do with survival.
It has nothing to do with any of their other doctrines of successionism if that is what you are thinking of. Your statement here is off the wall. Aspersions will get you no where. We are not talking of survival. There is no such thing as a universal church in the Bible, and you offer no evidence that there is except for a denial. Your position is very weak isn't it?

The doctrine did not even exist as a doctrine until 1851. It caught on largely because it was pressed by several influential pastors and seminary leaders.

You still offer no evidence.
Even then some of the most radical liberals lived before 1851. I am here to discuss Biblical doctrine; something you have a problem with.

It is now used as a club by the independent fundamentalists to enforce the idea

You are completely wrong. We teach doctrine. Perhaps the method of teaching is shoving it down peoples throats in your church--doing it by force. But that is not the methods we adopt. Don't talk about things you know nothing about.

-- the same idea as Roman Catholicism, by the way -- that ONLY those churches that are "successive" with a lineage back to John the Baptist are the "true, authentic church or Christ."

I have already denied that doctrine, and it appears that you didn't even read the OP carefully. This doctrine has only to do with the universal church. Go back and read the OP. Why the assumptions and now the false accusations? Is it because you don't have a Bible to debate Scripture?

Though it has its roots in the SBC who those same independents now hate and disavow. Funny how bad doctrine always finds a home eventually and refuses to go away. Today, everyone who (as the doctrine states) is not in that line of succession is not a true church and there is no "universal church" in any sense. That is patently false for any number of reasons.

And for what many reasons are you making false statements??
You have brought in many red herrings that have nothing to do with the OP. Why? Successionism (something I don't believe) has nothing to do with the doctrine of the local church or the existence of the universal church. Why do you make the wild and illogical leap that because I don't believe in a universal church I must therefore be a successionist?

So, we have a smallish group of churches that hold to a doctrine that makes THEM the only true church, a doctrine that mirrors Roman Catholicism that they hate, and a doctrine that stems from the SBC whom they also hate. But the doctrine is "useful" to them because it helps them to "sell" their little kingdoms to the people they coerce into being a part of their local only bodies. Weird, huh...

How little you know. Your own ignorance on this subject betrays you. You have offered only opinion and not a shred of evidence or Scripture. Your attitude comes across as hateful. The last paragraph has so many false statements and illogical contradictions that it is not even worth replying to. When you are ready to discuss the doctrine on a Scriptural basis then get back to me. But I fear that you are unable to do that.