Universal church - or whatever you want to call it.

[The Biblicist]

Hello RSR
What you are describing sounds more like ......the Kingdom of God.....containing any saved individuals, rather than any assembly of such persons.
Salvation spreading worldwide on a daily basis is the Kingdom coming to earth, those individuals when they assemble in local churches are then doing what God has designed in obedience to His lawful instructions.

Hello Iconoclast,

Yes, I think that is precisely what RSR is confusing the church with and that is a very common and widespread mistake. The true kingdom of God on earth is invisible because it is God's reign in the heart. It is universal as such citizens are all over the earth at any given time and in heaven. However, the kingdom is a monarch soverign rule while the ekklesia is congregational rule under Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Iconoclast,

Yes, I think that is precisely what RSR is confusing the church with and that is a very common and widespread mistake. The true kingdom of God on earth is invisible because it is God's reign in the heart. It is universal as such citizens are all over the earth at any given time and in heaven. However, the kingdom is a monarch soverign rule while the ekklesia is congregational rule under Christ.

Hello Biblicist,
Good to hear from you. The expression of universal is commonly accepted in the churches because it is repeated so often that like any teaching the implications of diluting it are not readily apparent.
We understand for the most part how people use it this way,however it leads to several abbearations.
Lone ranger types and those who resist God's authority seize upon it. Several post here who seem to resent the local church as it exists with it's faults and under the guise of waiting for the perfect church to appear they wind up working to break down those struggling assemblies that are here.

 

[rsr]

Hello Iconoclast,

Yes, I think that is precisely what RSR is confusing the church with and that is a very common and widespread mistake.

No, I am not confused. I simply refuse to reject a plain reading of scripture.

 

[rsr]

The expression of universal is commonly accepted in the churches because it is repeated so often that like any teaching the implications of diluting it are not readily apparent.

Really? I have attended Baptist churches all my life and cannot recall the issue being addressed at all.

We understand for the most part how people use it this way,however it leads to several abbearations. Lone ranger types and those who resist God's authority seize upon it.

The exact opposite seems to be true. Those who acknowledge no responsibility or connection beyond the local congregation are ripe for the picking.

Several post here who seem to resent the local church as it exists with it's faults and under the guise of waiting for the perfect church to appear they wind up working to break down those struggling assemblies that are here.

I hope that wasn't addressed to me. I have never denigrated the importance or central role of the local church in the life of believers or in the work of the kingdom of God. Yet the local church that you attend is not end end-all, be-all of your Christian life. Seems clear to me from Paul's writings, in particular.

 

[Iconoclast]

Really? I have attended Baptist churches all my life and cannot recall the issue being addressed at all.



The exact opposite seems to be true. Those who acknowledge no responsibility or connection beyond the local congregation are ripe for the picking.



I hope that wasn't addressed to me. I have never denigrated the importance or central role of the local church in the life of believers or in the work of the kingdom of God. Yet the local church that you attend is not end end-all, be-all of your Christian life. Seems clear to me from Paul's writings, in particular.

Hello rsr,
Thanks for your response. I was not speaking about you after my initial comment about your response. We have not interacted much before this so I have no preconceived idea but was speaking and painting with a broad brush so to speak.
I believe strongly in the local church....that is as described in the pastoral epistles,as well as the prophetic scriptures speaking of a restored Zion and Jerusalem.
These are visible assemblies with God ordained office bearers,that administer the word and sacraments (ordinances ) ordained and prescribed by the Lord.

Such things are absent from what is described as the UIC.

I was trying to convey the idea that some use such terminology much the same way as we could speak of the term.....the "jury".......it does not really mean any specific one, but in every case it would be local at some location, but when not assembled you would not say....I can see the universal invisible jury.....see what I mean?

 

[rsr]

I am certainly well acquainted with the argument, but to me it is lacking.

Yes, you may refer to the jury and mean more than one jury, meaning juries in a generic sense. Yet you do not imply any connection between the multiple juries. Each is unique and deals only with one case. That is not the situation of churches. They are part of something greater than themselves and owe a duty to each other, and the members of each other.

Surely you cannot read the catholic and pastoral epistles without realizing that there is something more than a single congregation in mind when the term ekklésia is used.

And as to "visible assemblies with God ordained office bearers, that administer the word and sacraments (ordinances)," Baptists have not been of one mind on such matters. Administration of the ordinances (I wonder why you would even use the word "sacraments") is, of course, something for the local church to authorize within its administration of church polity, but I don't see how it can object to such ordinances being administered by other disciples.

You can either accept the magisterium or you can reject it. It seems you want to have it both ways.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, I am not confused. I simply refuse to reject a plain reading of scripture.

Which scripture reading is that rsr?
Who are the deacons and pastors of the invisible church?
A mark of a biblical church is church discipline. .....who administrate that?

 

[The Biblicist]

I am certainly well acquainted with the argument, but to me it is lacking.

Yes, you may refer to the jury and mean more than one jury, meaning juries in a generic sense. Yet you do not imply any connection between the multiple juries. Each is unique and deals only with one case. That is not the situation of churches. They are part of something greater than themselves and owe a duty to each other, and the members of each other.

You are forgetting one thing! The churches in the New Testament were in connection with each other as they all shared the same common faith and practice. Hence, the contextal "we...us...you....ye...." of the New Testament epistles were all one faith and order. Indeed, the reason we have a New Testament is due to the apostolic work in correcting errors that were departures from the common faith once delivered by apostles to all New Testament congregations. With regard to the Pauline letters they were addressed mostly to churches that he had founded and thus shared in common with each other the same faith and order.

However, your interpretative approach with regard to "the church" is a Post-New Testament approach based upon confused divided denominationalism that reads back into the historical "we...us...you....ye" a disconnected Christianity.

Surely you cannot read the catholic and pastoral epistles without realizing that there is something more than a single congregation in mind when the term ekklésia is used.

Classical, Septuagint Greek and the New Testament period usage of ekklesia establishes its primary meaning as "assembly" or "congregation" as every single solitary use without exception is confined within the limits of a corpreal, physical unity of persons. In addition, this term is found in both its concrete and abstract institutional application in Pre-New Testament usage. Hence, before you can legitimately claim a new meaning for ekklesia you must first exhaust the uses of its primary meaning, even if a new meaning can make sense. The general epistles are historically written after the same manner as the Pauline Prison epistles, as circular church letters (Col. 4:16 ). Consider this, do you actually think these letters were addressed to individual Christians and the mail carrier went city to city and then house to house to communicate their contents???? No, they were sent church to church and therefore they include instructions concerning their Pastors and members applicable to each congregation. The abstract institutional use of ekklesia is commonly used in secular and New Testament Greek, even when addressing a particular concrete congregation. For example, look at 1 Corinthians 14:19 and the following uses of ekklesia in that passage. They are all found in the singular with the definite article and all refer to the public worship assembly in the institutional sense and 1 Cor. 14:33-34 prove that by showing the intent is to the PLURAL "churches." However, even if the plural had not been used in verses 33-34 the abstract institutional sense would have been plain to see in the previous passages, even though the overall context is explicitly addressed to the concrete ekklesia at Corinth.

And as to "visible assemblies with God ordained office bearers, that administer the word and sacraments (ordinances)," Baptists have not been of one mind on such matters. Administration of the ordinances (I wonder why you would even use the word "sacraments") is, of course, something for the local church to authorize within its administration of church polity, but I don't see how it can object to such ordinances being administered by other disciples.

Why appeal to "tradition"? Secular church history is as confused on that subject as any other subject. The reason for such confusion is the failure to apply proper principles of hermeneutics and rely on traditions of the elders. Jesus rejected the "magisterium" when it conflicted with the proper exegesis of the Word of God (Mt. 15).

Moreover, I presented you with a real problem to your doctrine in my first post that you simply ignored. It would be well for you to continue to ignore it if you want to cling to your reformed tradition of the church. Pentecost and the baptism in the Spirit are the absolute ruin of your church concept. You believe in church salvation just like Rome! No? Then answer this, can one be outside your kind of church and still be saved? Answer this, can one be inside your kind of church BEFORE Pentecost without without the baptism in the Spirit? However, this is just the beginning of problems for those who embrace this church salvation doctrine. Can anyone be saved OUTSIDE of Christ? How about Pre-Pentecost people? Can one be saved without regeneration? How about Pre-Pentecost people? Can anyone not be "in Christ" and yet be saved? How about Pre-Pentecost people? Can anyone be unregenerated and yet be saved? How about Pre-Pentecost people? Can anyone be in your kind of church and not be baptized in the Spirit? How about Pre-Pentecost people?

Tell me, what is the mechanism for entrance into your kind of church? Is it regeneration and/or the baptism in the Spirit? Does not your theory fix one or both to Pentecost? Hence, if the baptism in the Spirit is the mechanism for placing a person "in Christ" spiritually as this theory interprets 1 Cor. 12:13 then does not that view deny any Pre-Pentecost entrance into that kind of church?

I am not trying to antagonize you but just trying to get you to think your doctrine through to its logical conclusion - it is a church salvation doctrine that opposes the true gospel of Jesus Christ, the true way of salvation. The true salvation Biblical doctrine has its roots in the Genesis fall and promise (Gen. 3:15) not in the day of Pentecost or the baptism in the Spirit.

More importantly, isn't the Reformed concept of death inseparable from spiritual separation from God?? God is life, God is light and God is holy and spiritual separation from God is separation from spiritual life, spiritual light and spiritual holiness is it not? Can any fallen human being fellowship and/or please God in that spiritual separated state (Rom. 8:7-9)???? What is your solution then to Pre-Pentecost people in that state of spiritual separation BEFORE Pentecost, BEFORE the baptism in the Spirit and yet outside of your kind of church and thus not "in Christ" spiritually???? Think about it.

 

[Jeremy Seth]

What constitutes a "division in the body" in 1 Corinthians 12:25?
If the body is the universal church and this means "all saved believers", is it appropriate to break fellowship over non-soteriological issues?

 

[The Biblicist]

What constitutes a "division in the body" in 1 Corinthians 12:25?
If the body is the universal church and this means "all saved believers", is it appropriate to break fellowship over non-soteriological issues?

You have brought up a very significant point. John MacArthur, John Piper and Alister Begg all claim that the concrete church is nothing but a representative replica of the true universal invisible church and so the goal of the concrete church is to better reflect and represent the true universal church.

They operate this principle just like all believers are to be conformed to the image of Christ. Whatever it takes to be more like Christ as indivduals should be our goal. That is why they have opted to receive unbaptized, sprinkled, poured or immersed persons into their membership BECAUSE that better reflects the state of the "true" universal invisible church.

However, lets follow this logic to its conclusion. This would require dumping church discipline because there is no excommunication of brethren from the "true" church, and yet the Scriptures teaches that a true "brother" can be put out of the concrete church (1 Cor. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6, 14).

Moreover, the "true" church includes all denominations, all doctrines without any membership roll and therefore consistency with this principle means that whoever shows up on Sunday is a member and whatever doctrine they embrace must be embraced by the concrete church because it is embraced by the "true" church!

The doctrine of the universal invisible church is the invention of Augustine followed by Luther and Calvin and confuses the kingdom of God with the church of God and that confusion is the single justification for the multiplication of denominations.

 

[Jeremy Seth]

The doctrine of the universal invisible church is the invention of Augustine followed by Luther and Calvin and confuses the kingdom of God with the church of God and that confusion is the single justification for the multiplication of denominations.

Thank you for your well developed answer.

I don't see the connection of universal church doctrine justifying multiplication of denominations. Wouldn't the universal church be against denominational multiplication, because it breeds disunity?

I am tending to agree with your conclusion that the command for unity among the church is scripturally limited to the local congregation. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 refers to this person to keep away from as a "brother", and we know that status only comes when saved in Christ. Therefore, the kingdom extends past what we are told to be unified with.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you for your well developed answer.

You are very welcome.

I don't see the connection of universal church doctrine justifying multiplication of denominations. Wouldn't the universal church be against denominational multiplication, because it breeds disunity?

The connection is very simple. Suppose you don't like what your church teaches, or what your denomination teaches and so you leave it and worship on a hill, or start your own based on the belief that your previous church or denomination does not properly reflect the "true" church and so you start one that does. The fact that you have defined the "true" church beyond the boundaries of a concrete church provides you the basis to worship as you please on a hill, or institute something entirely different. Bottom line is that belief invalidates membership responsibility, church discipline and permits you to simply leave and institute something that all others holding that same kind of church belief must embrace as part of the "true" church.

I am tending to agree with your conclusion that the command for unity among the church is scripturally limited to the local congregation. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 refers to this person to keep away from as a "brother", and we know that status only comes when saved in Christ. Therefore, the kingdom extends past what we are told to be unified with.

Agreed!

 

[Salty]

Which scripture reading is that rsr?
Who are the deacons and pastors of the invisible church?
A mark of a biblical church is church discipline. .....who administrate that?

Many local churches are without pastors and/or deacons for a period of time. Does that mean that they are no longer a church?

 

[Iconoclast]

Many local churches are without pastors and/or deacons for a period of time. Does that mean that they are no longer a church?

I am not looking to split hairs......If a court is in session,with lawyers, jury, and judge, and the judge has to adjourn to use the bathroom.....is it still functioning as a courtroom without a judge?
In other words...scripture lays out what a church must do;
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

That is why for example a "church" with a woman pastor is no real church of the Living God at all, but is an assembly of rebellious people.

 

[TCassidy]

Many local churches are without pastors and/or deacons for a period of time. Does that mean that they are no longer a church?

So, a church has no pastor, no deacons, no trustees, no staff, no leadership at all? How will they call a pastor if there is nobody to stand up and lead them to invite a candidate, vote on him, and issue a call?

Come on, Salty, get real. Icon has a good point. The Family of God is not a church. A church is an organized assembly of baptized believers.

"Organized" implies officers including pastors (bishops, overseers) and deacons (Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.) The so-called "universal church" has no such officers.

"Assembly" (the Greek word for "church" is εκκλησια meaning "assembly") The so-called "universal church" never assembles, at least not on earth.

"Baptized" - all the saved are not scripturally baptized.

"Believers" - this is the only one that fits.

And that is why the bible never mentions a "universal church." It calls all the redeemed "the family of God" (See Ephesians 3:14-15) or the "Kingdom of God" (references too numerous to mention).

This is not a question of denying the group made up of all the redeemed exists, of course it does. It is just insisting on using biblical language to describe that group.

Calling what God calls "the Family" the "universal church" just diminishes the worth of the local church, and makes a mockery of the very word "church" translated from the Greek word for "assembly."

We are baptists, not catholics. (The word "catholic" in both Latin and Greek means "universal.")

 

[TCassidy]

The expression of universal is commonly accepted in the churches because it is repeated so often that like any teaching the implications of diluting it are not readily apparent.

This unfortunate nomenclature is a hold over from the Protestant Reformation. When Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, and Henry Tudor came out of the Church of Rome they dragged way too much of the furniture with them. This resulted in the perpetuation of some of the doctrinal errors of the Roman Church. The RCC claims to be the "Universal" visible church. To counter that the "universal invisible" church idea was born. That way Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Henry could claim parity with Rome. They are universal? Well, so are we!

This of course resulted in the ridiculous compounding of the nomenclative error found in Scofield, the local church, Israel as a church, the universal church, and the "true" church.

 

[Salty]

So, a church has no pastor, no deacons, no trustees, no staff, no leadership at all? How will they call a pastor if there is nobody to stand up and lead them to invite a candidate, vote on him, and issue a call? ...

Excellent question - and I will give you an excellent example.
About 2 years ago - the pastor of a small nearby church passed away unexpectedly (he was 50 years old) He was the ONLY leadership- no deacons, no trustees.
One man that was a member volunteered to take the lead. He did preach for 4 or 5 Sundays. The church did elect a 3 member pulpit committee. They had one meeting- to somewhat organize. One lady on the committee said she would take the service the following week and preach. (she came from and still has some Pentecostal leanings.). The man who had been preaching - had accepted a new job out of State - No one knew about it until about a week in advance.
The first week he was gone - the Sunday after the pulpit committee met - there was a notice in the bulletin that a guest preacher would be coming the following week. (this was about 15 Oct) - the notice also stated that the church would be voting on him on the 13 of Nov.
Bingo - no leadership - and yes they did call him.....

I do have the facts on good authority - there is more- but this is sufficient- other than to say: I would not call this organization a church - I would call it a social club.

 

[TCassidy]

One man that was a member volunteered to take the lead.

There's your answer. One man stood up and was accepted by the congregation as interim pastor.

You've disproved your own thesis.

 

[Salty]

There's your answer. One man stood up and was accepted by the congregation as interim pastor.

You've disproved your own thesis.

NO - he was NEVER elected - all he did was just preach.
and he made it very clear he was NOT The pastor, interim or otherwise- thus I stand my by statement - the church had no pastor - no officers.
and the committee which was voted on - did NOT preform its duties as one individual made decision without knowledge or approval from the other members.

 

[Internet Theologian]