Featured Universal church - or whatever you want to call it.

Agreed!

Respectfully disagree! I think an honest contextual evaluation of all the passages that refer to Paul persecuting "the church" refer to the singular church at Jerusalem, The consequence was scattering members of this church and Paul following after them.

Respectfully disagree! The term ekklesia is not found in the text but the word for "kingdom" is found and so you are confusing the church with the kingdom;

Respectfullly disagree! The connotative meaning in from the earliest Classical Greek literature until Matthew 16:18 had but one connotative meaning and that is a "called out assembly." It's etymological meaning finds nowhere in history previous to Matthew 16:18 where there ever was a point in time it was ever used as the connotative meaning. When Jesus used this term, its restrictive use by the Septuagint translators to contexts where qahal never went beyond the idea of a corporeal, physical unity of people showed what the connotative meaning was at the time it was first used in Matthew 16:18 and no reputable teacher would ever use a commonly understood word with that kind of history behind it to mean the complete opposite (universal and/or invisible) without a clear explanation of which there is none in that text and context. Furthermore, Christ goes on to use the same term 22 more additional times (2 in Matthew 18; 20 in Revelation) and it never once departs from the common meaning. What sense does it make to use a term and claim to build something that term has never ever been used before to mean, and then go on 22 more times and never use it again for what you claim to build? That is pure nonsense. Finally, a basic rule in interpreting words is that as long as the common historical meaning makes sense seek no other sense, even if a new sense could make sense. If the term ekklesia is understood in the abstract institutional sense it makes perfect sense according to the common meaning, and with all 22 following uses by Christ. Finally, the very same definite singular use is found two more times in Matthew 18:17 in the very same kind of of a context where no geographical location is assigned to it, and in direct connection with the keys of the kingdom (Mt. 18:17-18) as in Matthew 16:18-19 and no one can dispute that the common meaning of the word is the meaning. Furthermore, all 20 final uses in the book of Revelation are either explicilty applied to a specific geographically located ekklesia or to plural 'churches."

I again respectfully disagree. First, the text in its immediate context is not being recognized (Ephes. 1:20-23) where the subject is AUTHORITY not salvation. The fullness of Christ's authority in heaven and on earth is the subject. The subject is not salvation. Christ is said to be "head" over "all things" as much as he is "head" over the church - meaning final authority. The term "head" is consistently used as a metaphor of "authority" by Paul and always in contexts of sanctification and never in contexts of salvation. for example, Christ is "the head of every man" and The Father is "the head" of Christ, and the husband is the head of the wife, etc. Nowhere is this a metaphor for spiritual union. Indeed, if that was forced upon this context of authority in Ephesians 1:22-23 it would teach PANTHEISM as Paul uses the very same words to express his relationship to "ALL THINGS" as he does to the church. He is simply using the words "the church" in its abstract institutional sense as it was used this way in many Classical Greek sources. In every context where it is used there is no headless corps where another head is attached. The husband is "the head" of his wife whose own body is complete with a head. Christ is "the head" of every man whose body is complete with a physical head. The body in 1 Cor. 12:12-27 is a complete metaphorical body with a head other than Christ (see verse 21 "head"). Again, the abstract institutional sense, or the abstract generic sense fits easily for all the other passages you have listed. Again, the general rule of interpretation is if the common sense can make sense seek no other sense, and the common sense of ekklesia used abstractly in all of these cases can make sense.

This statement is literally full of problems. First, what is a New Testament congregation? Is your definition so wide that it fits any kind of "Christian" assembly? Paedobaptist assemblies? Can you find any such thing in the New Testament that is recognized as an ekklesia of Christ that is composed of unbaptized believers? Can you find anything in the New Testament called a ekklesia of Christ that is composed of infants, children or adult unregenerate members?

Agreed! But this fact poses another problem for you. The historical context for the pronouns "we...us...you...ye." in the New Testament epistles of Paul are Christians who are members of churches that are LIKE FAITH AND ORDER with both Paul and each other. However, post-New Testament exegetes read back into that historical context Christians divided into conflicting denominations that are not like faith and order with each other.

Almost correct but no prize. There is no church found in the New Testament that consists of repentant believers who have never been IMMERSED IN WATER! All N.T. congregations are composed of WATER IMMERSED repentant believers and there is no other kind to be found. However, even that is not the minimum definition of a New Testament congregation. You cannot find any church in the New Testament that was in its constitution founded by someone who was not LIKE FAITH AND ORDER with the apostles.

Agreed!

Why would Christ, Peter or Paul or any other apostle strive for the unity of your "albeit imperfect" thus inferior church, only to teach and advocate for a church that is NOTHING BUT HOPELESSLY DIVIDED AND CONFUSED OVER DOCTRINE and scattered all over creation with no hope of any kind of physical or doctrinal unity in this age???? Why could the "albeit imperfect" church obtain such goals of unity when the more perfect cannot? Makes no sense! The so-called universal church is nothing more than the Great Whore of Revelation and the so-called universal and/or invisible church doctrine is her chief doctrine and justification for her existence.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

What was Paul's local church? If the Lord, had put me the church of God, at Corinth and I moved to Antioch, should I ask for my letter to be moved? What church were the 3000 added to on Pentecost and did they remain in that church or begin there own from whence they had come, to Jerusalem?

 

Do you know of any church in existence, whether in the past or the present that was constituted without deacons? Does such constitution without deacons mean it that it is a non-functional church only in embryo stage? Can a church be fully functionally without deacons?

In your opinion are deacons required to be a church or only required as necessity demands?

If a church can be fully constituted without deacons, then what other evidence do you offer to substantiate the idea that the church prior to Pentecost was not fully functional?

 

I will respectfully disagree with you, though I can't prove the point. We don't know how many churches there were in Judea at this early stage, but it seems unlikely that Paul would have trekked off to Damascus if he had not exhausted his persecution of the Christians in Judea.

I don't think so. 'But you have come.......to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect' (Hebrews 12:22-23). In other words, those who are Christ's by faith are already 'seated in the heavenly places' (Ephesians 2:6) in that great assembly of Rev. 7.

There's a lot of stuff in your reply here, so forgive me if I cut to the chase and ask why our Lord didn't simply say, ".....I will build my churches'? But there are several other verses that speak of a Universal Church. As well as Heb. 12:22, there are:
1 Corinthians 12:28
Ephesians 4:11-15 [speaks of the 'body of Christ]
Ephesians 5:23-29
Colossians 1:18, 24

I don't follow you here. How is ekklesia is being used 'abstractly'? 'Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. And God has appointed these to the church......' (1 Cor. 12:27-28). Every church is the body of Christ, and the members are arms, legs etc. (v.14ff). We can agree on that, I think. The apostles, prophets etc. are Christ's gift to real live churches, but Paul uses the singular. I really don't know what your problem is.

I am firmly a Baptist. I could not become a member of a paedobaptist church. But I do not believe that I can disfellowship my paedobaptist brethren. 'Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand' (Romans 14:4). I will make judgements; not on baptism, but on the Gospel. As for ekklesiai that have unregenerate members, I think we agreed that all churches are liable to have them (Jude 4). I am far more worried about Baptist churches that admit and baptize 'carnal Christians' than I am about a church that baptizes babies, so long as it does not believe in 'baptismal regeneration' has a proper discipline.

'Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and "Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity"' (2 Tim. 2:19). The universal church consists of those who are Christ's, and He knows who they are better than we do.

 

By your response, am I wrong in supposing you are a confirmed hyperdispensationalist? IOW you don't believe the New Testament church was fully functionally while the Jewish Temple was still functioning - thus 70 A.D. would be the end of the Old Covenant age and the beginning of the New Covenant age, and thus when churches became fully functional???

By your response, am I wrong in supposing you deny the individual indwelling of the Holy Spirit prior to Pentecost?

 

So, you are assuming that the church members at Jerusalem were not "scattered" any further than the boundaries of Judea? Do you have any evidence to support the existence of any other church prior to Acts 8:1???.

This church is only "registered in heaven" but still on earth. There is a contrast between the organized visible localized Jewish ekklesia assembled at the foot of Mount Sinai and this church of "first born ones (literally a plural). The Jewish ekklesia was still on earth but heaven was in attendance at Mount Sinai. Likewise, the church at Corinth, Ephesus, Philadelphia, etc. is called the church and temple "OF GOD" because the God of heaven is actually present when it assemblies. Angels are present when it assembles, and thus heaven is present when it assembles (1 Cor. 11:10; Eph. 3:10) as it is the human instrument for teaching principalities the wisdom of God. The book of Hebrews is encouraging these Jewish Christians from contemplating forsaking the New Covenant. Forsaking the assembling "as the manner of some" is the visible manifest act of forsaking the New Covenant (Heb. 10:25). They should not forsake the Christian assembly because it is superior to the Jewish assembly is his point in Hebrews 12:18-27. This assembly is a visible local assembly on earth which has elders (Heb. 13:7, 17). He is simply speaking of the common ekklesia in the abstract institutional sense. I don't think you understand what that means.

The abstract institutional use of the definite noun "the church of me" (lit.) is inclusive of plural churches.

Many of the passages you refer to are found in what are commonly acknowledged to be Paul's prison epistles which by their very design are written with the intention to be circulated among the churches (e.g. Col. 4:16). By the very nature of such letters one should expect to find the use of generic nouns (e.g. "the husband" "the wife" "the laborer" "the flesh" "the body" (human), "the children" "the old man" "the new man"). It would be quite natural to find teaching about "the church" as well. The generic use of a noun is used as a teaching expression where the teacher does not want to make a specific concrete application but wants what he says to be applicable to each and every husband, wife, laborer, or church that reads the letter. It is a common use of language both then and now.

You are confusing salvation (brethren) with what constitutes a New Testament church (service). The New Testament knows nothing about an ekklesia composed of unbaptized or unregenerate persons and a paedobaptist is both unbaptized and unregenerate as membership in such churches begins in infancy. This is the precise problem with all types of universal church theories they confuse salvation with service or confuse the institutional church with salvation.

 

Good!

So you think the temple and its sacrifices were effective prior to the cross? May I ask, effective in doing what?

He also came "upon" individuals after Pentecost (Acts 8:14). I am sure you are aware that the "Spirit of Christ" indwelt Old Testament prophets (1 Pet. 1:10) as well as ordinary non-prophet individuals like Joshua and Caleb prior to Pentecost. Do you make a distinction between the indivdual physical body of the believer being "the temple of the Holy Ghost" (1 Cor. 6:19) and the corporate institutional church body being "the temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 3:16). Is not the context of 1 Cor. 3:5-16 the explanation for how the institutional church body at Corinth was built? Paul said "ye" not "we" in 1 Cor. 3:16. If you attempt to make the individual indwelling contemporary with the corporate indwelling then that is church salvation in the clearest terms possible and also forces you to recognize the existence of "the church which is at Corinth" prior to the administration of water baptism. You don't believe water baptism is essential to place you spiritually "in Christ" do you? Therefore, according to your theory, if it is consistent, must claim the existence of the church at Corinth before water baptism was administered to anyone.

 

In other words, all churches organized and constituted without deacons are really not fully organized and constituted without deacons? And your scripture for that is?

Furthermore, there were "seven" deacons placed in the church at Jerusalem in Acts 6 and plural "deacons" in the church at philippi (Philip. 1:1). They also had plural elders. Is a church fully functional without at least seven deacons and 12 elders? If not, why not, since your basis for claiming a church cannot be "fullly" functional without deacons, speaks of plural deacons and plural elders as well?

I think you are confusing necessity caused by growth with constitutional completeness. A church does not need a plurality of elders or a plurality of deacons to be a fully constituted church as that is really somewhat unnecessary and foolish until administrative conditions merit it.

 

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41

Acts 2:5,8-11 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Were any of the three thousand from those above? Did they stay in Jerusalem after Pentecost was past or did they go to their homes from whence they had come to Jerusalem? Did they remain of the church at Jerusalem or did they start churches where they were from? Let say one was from Crete and he returned home yet did not start a church. Was he still of, the added to the church? What church, if so?

 

If the scripture explicitly spelled these things out you would not be asking these questions, right? Hence, we have entered the area of speculation. If we are going to speculate, then let's base our speculations within the boundaries of clear and explicit Biblical teaching or else we are speculating they were disobedient to clear explicit Biblical teaching and for that to be true there would be need of clear evidence suggesting that, and no such evidence is provided that they were disobedient to God's Word.

Therefore, let us examine how they were received by the church at Jerusalem:

1. The gospel was preached by Peter.
2. Those who gladly received (through repentance and faith) the word preached by Peter baptized.
3. They were "added" to the them (v. 41b) and "them" is identified as "the church" -v. 46
4. They continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine and those things that characterize congregational teaching and fellowship - v. 42

Now, this fourfold pattern is precisely what is found in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20

1. Go preaching the gospel - Mt. 28:19 with Mark 16:15
2. Baptized "them" who receive it (repentance and faith)
3. Teaching them to observe all things commanded

The third part of the commission is IMPOSSIBLE without assembling together with them over an extended period of time which Christ did with those he commissioned (Acts 1:21-22). In order to obey the third aspect of the commission what is described in Acts 2:41b-42 is necessary. Hence, the third aspect of the commission requires either the direct addition of new baptized believers into an already existent congregational body of baptized believers as in Acts 2:1, 41-42,46 OR it requires the constitution of those baptized believers into a congregational body under the teaching ministry of an elder as was the case in the missionary journey's of Paul (Acts 14:22-23).

Therefore, we don't have to speculate that they stayed sufficiently long in the congregation at Jerusalem for those things to be accomplished that are described in Acts 2:41-41 in obedience to the Great Commission.

Neither do we have to speculate about how the church at Jerusalem and at Antioch did missionary work. All those that went preaching the gospel out of the church at Jerusalem are males, as the masculine gender is consistently used in Acts 8, an example is provided in the case of Philip, and in Acts 11:1820 the masculine gender is continued to be used and then the male gender specific Greek term aner is used in verse 20 for all those preachers passing to Antioch. INDEED PENTECOST WAS ONE OF THREE FEASTS THAT WAS MALE GENDER SPECIFIC attendance at Jerusalem.

We have the specific case of the church sending two apostles to Samaria in Acts 8:14 and sending Barnabas "as far as" Antioch in Acts 11. You have the example of Saul and Barnabas sent out by the Holy Spirit through the church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4) and then reporting back to the church after each missionary tour.

So we don't have to speculate that the churches followed the pattern set forth in the Great Commission. Therefore, if we are going to speculate about when and how those 3,000 returned to their own country. I would speculate they were first taught how to observe all things, trained and sent back by the church at Jerusalem in keeping with the Great Commission pattern. Most likely this is how the several congregations in Rome were constituted without either Peter or Paul directly, but both indirectly contributed to the training of those who constituted those churches.

 

'The church'

The general sense of the word.. but not of mystical, universal body, but of the 'unit' eg.. 'the horse', 'the car', 'the post office'.. it isn't one in particular being talked about.. but represents the local NT church. Jesus saying 'I will build my church'.. He is referring to this generic sense.

The specific sense of the word.. church at Colosse, at Corinth..at Antioch etc.. this is the subject in the letters of the NT about a church in particular.

Eg. The Revelation of Jesus Christ to the churches which are in Asia.

There is an entity of believer .. it's true.. that is part of the Kingdom and Family of God. Not the body of Christ.. not yet.

The body of Christ will be one body, assembled in heaven in the 'yet future'. It isn't one body yet. It doesn't meet, it has no ordinances, no deacons, no elders, no Lords Supper etc..

And as others have posted.. if you make the body of Christ the enity in which someone is placed in Christ.. then you are associating it with eternal salvation. And this also associates it with baptism. Baptism is not part of eternal salvation.

 

The generic use of "the church" is used as you suggest in many places. However, Matthew 16:18 is not one of those places. The generic sense demands that what is true of that generic noun is equally true of each in that kind. The gates of hades has prevailed against many concrete cases. But "the church" in Matthew 16:18 the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. "the church of me" in Matthew 16:18 is being used in the abstract institutional sense and not the generic sense. As an institution the gates of hades shall never prevail against it because there will be churches in all generations until Christ returns even though individual concrete churches may cease to exist.

This is the concrete use of nouns.

I will have to disagree with you here. Paul said to the church at Corinth "ye ARE [Gr. este - second person plural present tense]the body of Christ" not "shall be" the body of Christ. He did not say "we" but "ye." The present tense linking verbs are ALWAYS used to describe the present state of the body of Christ as the church (Eph. 1:23 Gr. estin third person singular present tense]

In fact, it repudiates the most basic principles of salvation altogether, as the essence of salvation is God's solution to the problem of sin which is death and death is first and foremost spiritual separation from God, who is life, light and holiness. Thus to be separated spiritually from God is to be without spiritual life, without light and without righteousness (Rom. 3:9-10; Eph. 4:18-19). This problem is not a Post-Pentcost in origin but originates in the Garden of Eden. The solution therefore cannot be Pentecost in origin or else all living between Genesis and Acts are in a state of spiritual separation from God, that is without life, without light and without righteousness. Only Spiritual union with God is the only possible solution to spiritual separation from God. This is the most basic level of salvation, as salvation is God's solution to spiritual separation from God due to sin.

I agree with your post more than I have with many - good job!

 

Yeah.. I made a little mistake with the Family of God and Kingdom of God and body of Christ..

I was trying to say.. that all believers as an entity.. will be one body of Christ in heaven. Not that there is no local body of Christ now.

We are saying the same thing

 

This is also no violation of 'there is one body...' in Ephesians.

There is one body at Ephesus.

There is one body at Corinth.

There is one body at Antioch.

No violation.

Same with 'we were all baptised into one body, whether slaves or free....' etc..

They were baptised into the local unit.. whether someone was baptised in reference to the church or Corinth.. or someone was baptised in reference to the church at Colosse etc..

Each person was baptised in reference to one local body. Paul included in this.

It's the royal 'we'. Not meaning that he was a member of their church, but we as in Paul was baptised and so were they in reference to one body. Those being addressed I think it was the church at Corinth.. and Paul I think got baptised in reference to Antioch.

And as the biblicist has typed.. 'ye are the body of Christ'.. this is not addressed to every believer, scattered everywhere.. but to the body AT Corinth. That's local and visible!