Universal church - or whatever you want to call it.

[TCassidy]

NO - he was NEVER elected - all he did was just preach.

He took the leadership. Period! The congregation accepted his leadership by not repudiating him and what he did. The same is true of the woman on the "pulpit committee."

Now let's get back to the point. Does the bible ever speak of a "universal" or "invisible" or "mystical" or "true" church?

 

[Iconoclast]

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.")

TC,
I have been working on this question on and off for a few years and I think I made some progress this past few days...
I think we are going astray because we are not following the biblical terminolgy and it's present day fulfillments because it goes against the grain of current evangelical thought.

 

[The Biblicist]

TC,
I have been working on this question on and off for a few years and I think I made some progress this past few days...
I think we are going astray because we are not following the biblical terminolgy and it's present day fulfillments because it goes against the grain of current evangelical thought.

Hey Iconoclast,

Let's not confuse the NATURE of the ekklesia of Christ with its administration. The ekklesia is a properly instituted assembly consisting of two or more scripturally baptized believers.

Even universalists believe the ekklesia had been instituted at least by Pentecost and yet they were without deacons (Acts 6). So an ekklesia can exist apart from administrative personnel. Remember, there were no administrative personnel in the churches established by Paul in Acts 14 until Paul returned and they were ordained (Acts 14:22-23). Hence, here is the existence of churches without an ordained ministry. Most likely, those ordained were those who rose up and took the leadership in this period between the institution of these churches and Paul's return when certain members were ordained to these administrative positions.

Also, the church at Thyatira is claimed by Christ and yet it had a woman leading it. It was wrong and Christ rebuked it and warned that if it were not corrected disciplinary action upon the ekklesia would be taken by Christ.

Christ alone judges at what point when one of his ekklesias cease to be His church, or when he removes it candlestick. That is not our judgement. Our judgement lies in determining what we will RECOGNIZE and won't RECOGNIZE as a true ekklesia of Christ. For example, when the membership of the congregation consists of unregenerate persons baptized as infants, we ought not recognize it as a true church. For example, when a congregation as a majority embraces not merely in theory but in practice damnable doctrines they should no longer be recognized as a true church of Christ.

For example, if I were living at the time the Corinthian ekklesia existed in the errors described in the book of 1 Corinthians, I would not RECOGNIZE it as a true ekklesia of Christ but treat it as a false church. Why? Because I have no inspired insight to realize it was still a true ekklesia of Christ in serious errors. Only because Paul had inspired insight was it possible that we can know it was still a true ekklesia of Christ. In addition apostolic power was threatened if they did not repent (1 Cor. 4; 2 Cor. 12). We have no such inspired insight or apostolic power. We cannot say they not a true church, but we can say that they are in so much error that we will not RECOGNIZE or treat them as a true church.

This is why churches adopt articles of faith, spelling out what they believe are essentials in order to RECOGNIZE those they will fellowship with and treat as orthodox.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Biblicist,
The NT. CHURCH as God's ordained institution in each local expression of it also speaks of being the "restored" Zion and Jerusalem. Formed from the elect remnant from among Israel and believing gentiles worldwide as it's building materials grows together as the habitation of God that will not fully assemble until the last day.
In the OT. God placed His name there.....King David taking the stronghold of Zion. Jerusalem was to be the place of meeting between God and man.
Zion was to produce godly offspring but failed to do so playing the harlot.
King Jesus in the triumphal entry rejects adulterous Jerusalem who was UNWILLING to obey.MT 21 TO MT 23:37.
Jesus as King elevates the Holy Place being on the Heavenly Throne....and now all nations flow into it.....Hebrews12:22-29
Isa49-54 and beyond.....Gal4:23-31
What do you think on this.....I can send more on this when I get to my keyboard later on.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hello Biblicist,
The NT. CHURCH as God's ordained institution in each local expression of it also speaks of being the "restored" Zion and Jerusalem. Formed from the elect remnant from among Israel and believing gentiles worldwide as it's building materials grows together as the habitation of God that will not fully assemble until the last day.
In the OT. God placed His name there.....King David taking the stronghold of Zion. Jerusalem was to be the place of meeting between God and man.
Zion was to produce godly offspring but failed to do so playing the harlot.
King Jesus in the triumphal entry rejects adulterous Jerusalem who was UNWILLING to obey.MT 21 TO MT 23:37.
Jesus as King elevates the Holy Place being on the Heavenly Throne....and now all nations flow into it.....Hebrews12:22-29
Isa49-54 and beyond.....Gal4:23-31
What do you think on this.....I can send more on this when I get to my keyboard later on.

Hi Iconoclast,

I think you are making the very same mistake of confusing the kingdom with the church with regard to Old Testament types. For example, do you agree that the twelve 12 tribes of Israel are a type of the elect of God? In the Old Testament, the "nation" of Israel was the primary visible expression of the PROFESSING kingdom of God on earth. No other nation claimed God nor did God claim any other nation.

However, there is one tribe that is singled out from all the other 12 that alone identified and served in the "house of God." That was the tribe of Levi. Levi took the place of all the "firstborn" in the nation of Israel to do service in the house of God. Levi was not given any of the land as its inheritance but was given the "cities." The New Testament church is identified with "the house of God" (1 Tim. 3:15) and "firstborn ones" (Heb. 12:22) and is therefore given the city - the New Jerusalem.

All the other elect in the final analysis will consist of the "saved nations" (Rev. 21:24) that occupy THE LAND of the New earth while their "kings" are those who served faithfully "in the way of the Lord" both before the cross and after the cross will dwell in the city. The "nations of the Saved" have the right to entrance into the New Jerusalem and partake of the "LEAVES" of the tree of life, whereas the overcomers in the churches have a right to "EAT" (Rev. 2:7) the FRUIT of the tree of life (Rev. 22:2). The "saved nations" dwell in THE LAND outside on the new earth while the New Testament church with the faithful of the Old Testament dwell within the city.

Ok, that is typology. With regard to grammar and word meaning, the Greek term ekklesia is ONLY found in Classical Greek, Septuagint, and apocrypha describing a corporeal, physical unity of people. The translators of the Septuagint NEVER used ekklesia to translate the Hebrew term qahal in any passage where the term qahal could not be restricted by context to a corporeal, physical unity of people. It was NEVER used to describe Israel apart from an actual visible organized assembly.

Now, from a very practical point of view. God said that Abraham would walk "in the way of the Lord" but that is not true of Lot and yet both were saved. That "way of the Lord" is characterized by three aspects of PUBLIC worship. (1) An appointed time for PUBLIC Worship; (2) An appointed place for PUBLIC worship; (3) An appointed WAY/MEANS for PUBLIC worship. During the preMosaic time the "firstborn" of each household was the public administrator for public worship and it occurred around the public sacrifice at the public altar on the Lord's Day. Between Moses and Christ the Levities took the place of the "firstborn" of every household as the public administrators of PUBLIC worship, at the PUBLIC "house of God" on the appointed PUBLIC day of worship. From Christ to the end of this world, it is the church that is the "firstborn ones" or the appointed administrators over PUBLIC worship as the PUBLIC "house of God" on the "Lord's Day."

Just as in the days of Abraham and Lot there are those today who serve in the appointed way of the Lord with regard to PUBLIC service and there are those who do not - all are equally saved, just as the "nations of the saved" live outside the New Jerusalem in the new heaven and earth but the bride lives within the New Jerusalem and yet both are equally saved. Does it pay to serve God according to God's public appointed way of service? Yes, those who are outside his appointed public way of service here and now will be outside there and those who FAITHFULLY serve inside here will be inside there.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hello Biblicist,
The NT. CHURCH as God's ordained institution in each local expression of it also speaks of being the "restored" Zion and Jerusalem. Formed from the elect remnant from among Israel and believing gentiles worldwide as it's building materials grows together as the habitation of God that will not fully assemble until the last day.
In the OT. God placed His name there.....King David taking the stronghold of Zion. Jerusalem was to be the place of meeting between God and man.
Zion was to produce godly offspring but failed to do so playing the harlot.
King Jesus in the triumphal entry rejects adulterous Jerusalem who was UNWILLING to obey.MT 21 TO MT 23:37.
Jesus as King elevates the Holy Place being on the Heavenly Throne....and now all nations flow into it.....Hebrews12:22-29
Isa49-54 and beyond.....Gal4:23-31
What do you think on this.....I can send more on this when I get to my keyboard later on.

The Old Associational English Baptists between 1640-1660, and those who transferred over into the Philadelphia Baptist Association in its earliest days believed that "Zion" consisted of all true New Testament churches existing at any given time on earth. They used the definite singular "the church" to refer to totality of New Testament churches and called themselves "Zion" in contrast to pedobaptist congregations. Indeed, this was a well established view among Baptists in America from the earliest days of the colonies up to the late 1800's.

 

[TCassidy]

TC,
I have been working on this question on and off for a few years and I think I made some progress this past few days...
I think we are going astray because we are not following the biblical terminolgy and it's present day fulfillments because it goes against the grain of current evangelical thought.

I agree. We define a "church" using the Roman Catholic definition instead of the biblical definition.

We define Pastor/Elder/Overseer using the "clergy" model rather than the biblical model.

We define "deacon" as being part of an executive board rather than as a servant of the local assembly. We emphasize dominance over service.

We define "ordained" as being to the "universal church" (catholic) rather than an appointment to a position in the local congregation.

 

[TCassidy]

They used the definite singular "the church" to refer to totality of New Testament churches and called themselves "Zion" in contrast to pedobaptist congregations.

I was once asked if I believed in the "universal church." I answered, "Yes, and no."

When asked to clarify I said that in my travels to every continent except Antarctica I have found local churches. So, I have found that the church is universal, IE everywhere, but there is no "universal church" IE invisible, mystical, (mythical?).

I illustrate this by saying, again, in my travels I have found the automobile to be everywhere, universal, but I don't believe in a "universal, invisible, mystical automobile."

 

[Iconoclast]

Hi Iconoclast,

I think you are making the very same mistake of confusing the kingdom with the church with regard to Old Testament types. For example, do you agree that the twelve 12 tribes of Israel are a type of the elect of God? In the Old Testament, the "nation" of Israel was the primary visible expression of the PROFESSING kingdom of God on earth. No other nation claimed God nor did God claim any other nation.

However, there is one tribe that is singled out from all the other 12 that alone identified and served in the "house of God." That was the tribe of Levi. Levi took the place of all the "firstborn" in the nation of Israel to do service in the house of God. Levi was not given any of the land as its inheritance but was given the "cities." The New Testament church is identified with "the house of God" (1 Tim. 3:15) and "firstborn ones" (Heb. 12:22) and is therefore given the city - the New Jerusalem.

All the other elect in the final analysis will consist of the "saved nations" (Rev. 21:24) that occupy THE LAND of the New earth while their "kings" are those who served faithfully "in the way of the Lord" both before the cross and after the cross will dwell in the city. The "nations of the Saved" have the right to entrance into the New Jerusalem and partake of the "LEAVES" of the tree of life, whereas the overcomers in the churches have a right to "EAT" (Rev. 2:7) the FRUIT of the tree of life (Rev. 22:2). The "saved nations" dwell in THE LAND outside on the new earth while the New Testament church with the faithful of the Old Testament dwell within the city.

Ok, that is typology. With regard to grammar and word meaning, the Greek term ekklesia is ONLY found in Classical Greek, Septuagint, and apocrypha describing a corporeal, physical unity of people. The translators of the Septuagint NEVER used ekklesia to translate the Hebrew term qahal in any passage where the term qahal could not be restricted by context to a corporeal, physical unity of people. It was NEVER used to describe Israel apart from an actual visible organized assembly.

Now, from a very practical point of view. God said that Abraham would walk "in the way of the Lord" but that is not true of Lot and yet both were saved. That "way of the Lord" is characterized by three aspects of PUBLIC worship. (1) An appointed time for PUBLIC Worship; (2) An appointed place for PUBLIC worship; (3) An appointed WAY/MEANS for PUBLIC worship. During the preMosaic time the "firstborn" of each household was the public administrator for public worship and it occurred around the public sacrifice at the public altar on the Lord's Day. Between Moses and Christ the Levities took the place of the "firstborn" of every household as the public administrators of PUBLIC worship, at the PUBLIC "house of God" on the appointed PUBLIC day of worship. From Christ to the end of this world, it is the church that is the "firstborn ones" or the appointed administrators over PUBLIC worship as the PUBLIC "house of God" on the "Lord's Day."

Just as in the days of Abraham and Lot there are those today who serve in the appointed way of the Lord with regard to PUBLIC service and there are those who do not - all are equally saved, just as the "nations of the saved" live outside the New Jerusalem in the new heaven and earth but the bride lives within the New Jerusalem and yet both are equally saved. Does it pay to serve God according to God's public appointed way of service? Yes, those who are outside his appointed public way of service here and now will be outside there and those who FAITHFULLY serve inside here will be inside there.

Thanks for the solid imput as my understanding of these things is a work in progress .all this figures in..... I will offer some material I am considering on it when I get to the computer.

 

[The Biblicist]

I was once asked if I believed in the "universal church." I answered, "Yes, and no."

When asked to clarify I said that in my travels to every continent except Antarctica I have found local churches. So, I have found that the church is universal, IE everywhere, but there is no "universal church" IE invisible, mystical, (mythical?).

I illustrate this by saying, again, in my travels I have found the automobile to be everywhere, universal, but I don't believe in a "universal, invisible, mystical automobile."

That is a pretty good response!

 

[The Biblicist]

I was once asked if I believed in the "universal church." I answered, "Yes, and no."

When asked to clarify I said that in my travels to every continent except Antarctica I have found local churches. So, I have found that the church is universal, IE everywhere, but there is no "universal church" IE invisible, mystical, (mythical?).

I illustrate this by saying, again, in my travels I have found the automobile to be everywhere, universal, but I don't believe in a "universal, invisible, mystical automobile."

Good response!

 

[Iconoclast]

From Kit Culver;

A. New Creation in Christ – the Restoration of Zion
In considering the ultimacy of Jesus’ work it is appropriate once again to return to the promises of the Old Testament and compare them with the New Testament’s presentation of and commentary upon Him and what He has accomplished. Does it affirm the notion that He has permanently restored the whole creation to God and inaugurated the everlasting kingdom as the prophets declared the Messiah would? In answering that question it is arguably best to begin most broadly, and that means starting with the concept of Zion. The reason is that it embraces virtually every theme and component associated with Old Testament kingdom theology as it predicts and portrays the final and full recovery of sacred space.
1. Development and Significance of the Zion Motif
a. Zion as a Physical Concept
Importantly, the Scripture first introduces the concept of Zion in relation to David’s conquest of Jerusalem. Having reconciled and united the twelve tribes of Israel under his kingship, David turned his attention to the Jebusite city of Jerusalem. Since Israel’s initial conquest of Canaan under Joshua – and despite numerous assaults upon the city through the intervening centuries, Jerusalem had remained outside of Israelite control. Now David set his sights upon it, not as another point of conquest in expanding his kingdom, but with the conviction that, in Jerusalem, the law of the central sanctuary would finally be fulfilled (Deuteronomy 12:1-14, 14:22-26, 16:1-11, etc.). Jerusalem would become the “city of David,” but such that David would establish Yahweh’s sanctuary and royal seat there (2 Samuel 5:7-9; cf. 1 Kings 8:1 and 1 Chronicles 29:23).
192
1) From that time forward, Zion was associated with Jerusalem as the capital of the Israelite kingdom (later, the capital of Judah) (Psalm 51:18, 147:12; etc.). In that regard, Zion represented first of all the seat of David’s kingdom. But, more importantly, it represented the city of the Great King; Jerusalem was God’s chosen dwelling place and the seat of His dominion (ref. Psalm 48:1-3, 76:1-2, 135:21; cf. also Matthew 5:34-35). There His glory-presence resided between the wings of the cherubim in the Holy of Holies with the ark serving as the symbolic footstool of His throne (2 Samuel 6:2; 1 Chronicles 28:2; cf. also Psalm 99:1-2, 132:7 and Exodus 25:17-22). Thus men came into Jerusalem to meet with and worship Him, and out from Jerusalem flowed the administration of His rule.
2) Jerusalem’s elevated topography (2 Samuel 19:34; 1 Kings 12:27-28; cf. also Zechariah 14:16-17) together with its status as Yahweh’s sanctuary led to another component of Zion symbolism. As Zion referred to the city of the Great King, so it also denoted Mount Zion – the mountain of His sanctuary (cf. Psalm 48:1-3, 74:2; 2 Kings 19:20-31; Isaiah 10:12, 24:23; also Isaiah 2:1-3; Micah 4:1-2). The concept of the Lord’s dwelling as a holy mount existed long before the conquest of Jerusalem (ref. Exodus 15:17), and so it was natural – as well as geographically appropriate (Psalm 125:1-2) – that Zion should extend to the notion of Mount Zion.
b. Zion as a Relational Concept
The Scripture associates the motif of Zion first and foremost with the city of Jerusalem as the capital of the Israelite kingdom. But Jerusalem was much more than a capital city because the kingdom of Israel was more than just another earthly empire. The Israelite kingdom was a covenant kingdom: Yahweh was the true King in Israel and the citizens of the kingdom were His covenant children.
And so, over time Zion’s initial signification was broadened to embrace another crucial point of symbolism. Jerusalem (Zion) was the seat of the covenant kingdom; it was the place of Yahweh’s residence from which He exercised His reign and communed with His covenant children. Jerusalem epitomized sacred space, and for that reason Zion later came to symbolize the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel (ref. Isaiah 1:21-23), and then, by metaphorical extension, the people of Israel themselves as His covenant children.
It is in this respect that the prophets began to speak of Zion as Yahweh’s covenant wife whose obligation of faithfulness was to bear faithful children for Him (cf. Isaiah 50:1 with 49:14-23, 54:1-17; also Hosea 1:2 and 2:1-16). Thus they referred to the children of Israel collectively as the daughter of Zion (cf. Isaiah 1:1-8, 37:21-22, 52:1-9, 62:1-12; Jeremiah 6:1-2; etc.) and individually as sons of Zion (Lamentations 4:1-2; Joel 2:23; Zechariah 9:13). If Zion served as the central symbol for the covenant kingdom, it preeminently symbolized the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Abraham’s seed that defined that kingdom.
193
c. Zion as a Messianic Concept
Inasmuch as the concept of Zion enfolds all of the Bible’s kingdom themes, it’s not surprising that it is also richly messianic. Zion was the seat of both Yahweh’s dominion and that of His regal son-king. All of the glories of the Israelite kingdom were epitomized in Zion and the Lord’s sanctuary as its central feature. Jerusalem was the city where the Great King was enthroned; it was, in that sense, the “holy ground” that bridged heaven and earth. And as Zion symbolized the kingdom of Israel, so that kingdom was itself a prefiguration of its eschatological counterpart to be inaugurated by Yahweh’s Servant/Messiah. Like its typological predecessor, the messianic kingdom was to have its focal point in Zion.
1) Zion’s connection with Old Testament messianism derives foundationally from their mutual association with David and the Davidic Covenant. David conquered Jerusalem in order to make it the capital of his kingdom and the site of the central sanctuary. By bringing the ark to Jerusalem David symbolically enthroned Yahweh on Mount Zion, subsequently fulfilling that symbolism by securing the fullness of the physical kingdom covenanted to Abraham (2 Samuel 6-8). In its glory as the political and spiritual capital of God’s covenant kingdom, Zion was indeed the city of David. David was responsible for bringing the Israelite expression of the kingdom to its height of power and extension, and it was in connection with his kingship that the Lord promised him a son in whom his dynastic house and kingdom (which were to be, in their fulfillment, synonymous with Yahweh’s house and kingdom) would be established forever.
Thus the Scripture’s intimate association of messianism with David and the Davidic Covenant necessarily drew in the theme of Zion as well. If Zion was the city of David from which he ruled Yahweh’s kingdom, then it followed that the covenanted Son of David would also be enthroned in and reign from Zion (ref. Psalm 2, 110; cf. Micah 4:1-8 with 5:1-4).
2) The Son of David was appointed to establish and rule over Yahweh’s house and kingdom forever, and this implied the establishment of Zion as the everlasting focal point of that kingdom. More specifically, the Scripture indicated that Messiah would establish the kingdom through His personal triumph over God’s enemies. By His victory He would deliver the captive people and restore them to their covenant Lord and Father. Messiah’s work was to be one of comprehensive renewal and recovery, and this promise accordingly had a central thread in Zion’s future glorification. The Son of David would rule over Yahweh’s kingdom from His throne in the midst of glorified Zion. This theme is prominent in Isaiah’s prophecy (cf. in context 28:14-16, 40:1-10, 46:12-13, 51:1-11, 52:1-9, 59:1-60:14, 62:1-12, 66:1-13), but weaves throughout the prophetic literature (cf. Psalm 87, 102:11-22, 110:1-10; Jeremiah 3:6-17, 31:1-40; Joel 2:23-32; Micah 4:1-5:5; Zechariah 9:9-17).

 

[The Biblicist]

From Kit Culver;

I don't think Culver has really grasped the typology. Notice that in every phase of his presentation he returns to one singular repeated characteristic - it is REPRESENTATIVE.

First, it is REPRESENTATIVE of the whole PROFESSING KINGDOM OF GOD on earth -the nation of Israel the kingdom of David. Second, it is REPRESENTATIVE of the city of Jerusalem, and third it is more specifically representative of "the house of God" IN Jerusalem.

In the Old Testament analogy the PROFESSING KINGDOM of Israel represents the whole elect. The city of Jerusalem represents the CAPITAL in the new heaven and earth where both God and the "house of God" are situated or located. Finally it REPRESENTS the hill on which the "house of God" is located or PUBLIC WORSHIP. The HOUSE OF PUBLIC WORSHIP is the most visible expression of God's kingdom and rule on earth because that is the ONLY place ordained by God where the rule of God is visibly manifested in the administration of the ordinances and teaching of God's Word.


The "house of God" REPRESENTS from Genesis to Revelation those three Biblical characteristics (1) appointed time for public worship; (2) appointed place for public worship; (3) Appointed means of public worship all three of which equal "the way of the Lord."

Revelation 21:1-2 explicity states that the previous heaven and earth have passed away. Hence, Revelation 21-22:3 is located in the post New Heaven and earth. Those who dwell in THE LAND or new earth are "saved" and called "nations" or "ethnos" because that is the consistent term for OUTSIDER. Those living in the New Jerusalem are also "saved" but the foundations are described in CHURCH language because the apostles are the "foundation" of the church. The "foundation" conveys permenant dwelling. The gates that give access and exit are described in the language of the 12 tribes of Israel the symbol for all the elect demonstrating access but not dwelling as it is OUTSIDE the "nations" of the saved "dwell." The nations have access to the tree of life but are not permitted to "eat" of that tree, only access to the leaves of that tree.

In the new heaven and earth there are those "saved" whose dwelling is not in the New Jerusalem but OUTSIDE on THE LAND whereas in direct contrast there are those who are "saved" dwelling INSIDE the New Jerusalem or CITY DWELLERS - (Levites who served in God's house or those since Genesis to Revelation who SERVED (not salvation) in "the way of the Lord" as described by the three characteristics of PUBLIC WORSHIP.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think that the idea of an invisible Church comes from Paedobaptists, so that they can stick their children in the visible Church.

Westminster Confession of faith Chap. XXV.
1. The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.
2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Compare this with the Baptist 1689 Confession Chap. XXVI.
1. The Catholic or universal Church which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit, and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof: and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all (Heb. 12:23; Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:10, 22-23; 5:23, 27, 32).
2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the Gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ, according unto it; not destroying their own profession by any Errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are, and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular Congregations to be constituted (1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 11:26; Rom. 1:7; Eph. 1:20-22).

In other words,
1. The invisible Church only exists inasmuch as we cannot tell infallibly who is saved and who isn't.
2. No one who does not give a credible profession of faith in Christ or whose life belies that profession, should be called a visible saint and brought into membership.

 

[Iconoclast]

"The Biblicist,


Hello B thanks again for some good feedback. I believe Chris Culver{kit} is a more gifted and intelligent person than I am, and he offers alot of good material to consider from my point of view.
I float these ideas out there to see how others such as yourself view it....so thanks.
In fairness to him, I am only giving a small part of his work and notes that he freely offered to me. I will post links to the first sermon in the series which i found very helpful, and then the links for sermons 46,and 47, of the 62 message series.
He is looking at God in redemptive history restoring man In Christ to what he speaks of as "Sacred Space"...the place where we are given peace. shalom, and rest, shabbat.....beyond what Adam enjoyed before the fall...... So my comments and link where a small part of the whole series...

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11407161733
[QUOTE]God with Us: An Examination of Sacred Space - Creation to Consummation.

In this series, we seek to examine the Biblical concept of "The Dwelling Place of God." From a salvation historical perspective, the Bible clearly teaches that the goal of redemptive history is the reconciliation and reunification of man with God. This goal extends to the redemption of the cosmos and the ushering in of perfect order and harmony (Shalom) across the entire created order. The accomplishment of this purpose secures the everlasting institution of what was only introduced in preliminary form in the first creation, and then progressively revealed and portrayed throughout the balance of Old Testament history.

But with the coming of Christ, our Immanuel (God with us), God the Father has accomplished His purpose in full, with only the consummation of that work awaiting the return of our Lord. Our question is this: How do we understand the dwelling place of God as expressed in the Scripture from Eden, to the Tabernacle and the Temple; in the concepts of heaven and God's omnipresence; in the coming of Christ and our union with Him; in the New Heavens and the New Earth as signified by the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven? All of this to say, how does the Biblical concept of God's dwelling place ultimately speak to Christ and His coming according to the eternal purpose of God to "sum up everything in Him (Christ)"? Join us as we journey to sacred space - to the dwelling place of God![/QUOTE]
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=113082156190
The Scripture is clear that sacred space is both fulfilled in Christ and has its foundation in Him. But however glorious these realities may be, they fall short of the biblical promise of the restoration of sacred space if they aren't also ultimate and final. For Jesus to be the promised Servant of Yahweh and Branch of David, the work He accomplished must be comprehensive and consummate, for this is the way the prophets spoke of Him. In measuring Jesus of Nazareth against this criterion, arguably the best place to begin is with the biblical concept of Zion. For it embraces virtually every theme and component associated with the Bible's theology of the kingdom as it predicts and portrays the final and full recovery of sacred space. This sermon is the first of two examining that topic, and it focuses on the development and significance of the concept of Zion in the Old Testament salvation history.


and 47;
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=120082226525
This sermon concludes the consideration of the biblical theme of Zion and its fulfillment in Christ and His work of redemption. Specifically, it examines the desolation of Zion in relation to the Israelite kingdom and then its promised restoration, not in the recovery of Jewish exiles from the Babylonian captivity, but in the new creation inaugurated by Christ through His atoning death, resurrection, and ascension to David's throne.

I don't think Culver has really grasped the typology. Notice that in every phase of his presentation he returns to one singular repeated characteristic - it is REPRESENTATIVE.

First, it is REPRESENTATIVE of the whole PROFESSING KINGDOM OF GOD on earth -the nation of Israel the kingdom of David. Second, it is REPRESENTATIVE of the city of Jerusalem, and third it is more specifically representative of "the house of God" IN Jerusalem.

He is seeking to view it {redemptive history as all about Jesus and this work of peace and rest in Him.
A good study such as this has many twists and turns and if you and others have some time to listen it might be a good basis of some solid study on our Lord's person and work.

In the Old Testament analogy the PROFESSING KINGDOM of Israel represents the whole elect. The city of Jerusalem represents the CAPITAL in the new heaven and earth where both God and the "house of God" are situated or located. Finally it REPRESENTS the hill on which the "house of God" is located or PUBLIC WORSHIP. The HOUSE OF PUBLIC WORSHIP is the most visible expression of God's kingdom and rule on earth because that is the ONLY place ordained by God where the rule of God is visibly manifested in the administration of the ordinances and teaching of God's Word.

Yes... God placed His name there.

The "house of God" REPRESENTS from Genesis to Revelation those three Biblical characteristics (1) appointed time for public worship; (2) appointed place for public worship; (3) Appointed means of public worship all three of which equal "the way of the Lord."

yes......

Revelation 21:1-2 explicity states that the previous heaven and earth have passed away. Hence, Revelation 21-22:3 is located in the post New Heaven and earth. Those who dwell in THE LAND or new earth are "saved" and called "nations" or "ethnos" because that is the consistent term for OUTSIDER. Those living in the New Jerusalem are also "saved" but the foundations are described in CHURCH language because the apostles are the "foundation" of the church. The "foundation" conveys permenant dwelling. The gates that give access and exit are described in the language of the 12 tribes of Israel the symbol for all the elect demonstrating access but not dwelling as it is OUTSIDE the "nations" of the saved "dwell." The nations have access to the tree of life but are not permitted to "eat" of that tree, only access to the leaves of that tree.

ThumbsupThumbsup

In the new heaven and earth there are those "saved" whose dwelling is not in the New Jerusalem but OUTSIDE on THE LAND whereas in direct contrast there are those who are "saved" dwelling INSIDE the New Jerusalem or CITY DWELLERS - (Levites who served in God's house or those since Genesis to Revelation who SERVED (not salvation) in "the way of the Lord" as described by the three characteristics of PUBLIC WORSHIP.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Biblicist]

"The Biblicist,


Hello B thanks again for some good feedback. I believe Chris Culver{kit} is a more gifted and intelligent person than I am, and he offers alot of good material to consider from my point of view.
I float these ideas out there to see how others such as yourself view it....so thanks.
In fairness to him, I am only giving a small part of his work and notes that he freely offered to me. I will post links to the first sermon in the series which i found very helpful, and then the links for sermons 46,and 47, of the 62 message series.
He is looking at God in redemptive history restoring man In Christ to what he speaks of as "Sacred Space"...the place where we are given peace. shalom, and rest, shabbat.....beyond what Adam enjoyed before the fall...... So my comments and link where a small part of the whole series...

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11407161733
[QUOTE]God with Us: An Examination of Sacred Space - Creation to Consummation.

In this series, we seek to examine the Biblical concept of "The Dwelling Place of God." From a salvation historical perspective,

Here is precisely where he ventures into complete error. Redemption has always been PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL revelation of Christ in man. It has NEVER included any kind of EXTERNAL dwelling place except for providing PUBLIC WORSHIP where salvation pictures, ordinances are presented BY MEN.

He confuses the initial and internal with the progressive and the external and that is the common mistake for all universal churchites in confusing the internal spiritual kingdom with the external dwelling place of God.

The external dwelling place of God NEVER provides personal salvation but ALWAYS serves to DECLARE salvation through PUBLIC worship and PUBLIC WORSHIP never secures spiritual union with God.

So his whole thesis is corrupted by failure to distinguish between redemptive history as a personal individual internal revelation VERSUS the EXTERNAL PUBLIC S PLACE OF WORSHIP where salvation is only DECLARATIVE in external forms of DIVINE SERVICE.

the Bible clearly teaches that the goal of redemptive history is the reconciliation and reunification of man with God. This goal extends to the redemption of the cosmos and the ushering in of perfect order and harmony (Shalom) across the entire created order.

However, that is NOT THE GOAL of the EXTERNAL PUBLIC HOUSE OF GOD and to infer it is is nothing short of a Reformed version of Roman Catholicism. The PUBLIC HOUSE OF GOD has never been designed to save anyone but designed ALWAYS for the redeemed to DECLARE what saves and thus a means of SANCTIFIED DIVINE SERVICE by the saved.

The accomplishment of this purpose secures the everlasting institution of what was only introduced in preliminary form in the first creation, and then progressively revealed and portrayed throughout the balance of Old Testament history.

This is nothing short of Roman Catholic institutional salvation. The outward forms/types were NEVER introduced for redemptive purpose but for DECLARING the redemptive purpose. It is the difference between INTERNAL versus external and salvation versus service.

But with the coming of Christ, our Immanuel (God with us), God the Father has accomplished His purpose in full, with only the consummation of that work awaiting the return of our Lord. Our question is this: How do we understand the dwelling place of God as expressed in the Scripture from Eden, to the Tabernacle and the Temple; in the concepts of heaven and God's omnipresence; in the coming of Christ and our union with Him; in the New Heavens and the New Earth as signified by the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven? All of this to say, how does the Biblical concept of God's dwelling place ultimately speak to Christ and His coming according to the eternal purpose of God to "sum up everything in Him (Christ)"? Join us as we journey to sacred space - to the dwelling place of God!

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=113082156190
The Scripture is clear that sacred space is both fulfilled in Christ and has its foundation in Him.[/QUOTE]

This man honestly but ignorantly believes there is no "in Christ" redemption before the cross as he directly associates "in Christ" salvation with EXTERNALISMS. It is one thing to say the EXTERNAL dwelling place ("house of God") from Genesis to Matthew DECLARES i(n types and ordinances, message) "in Christ" salvation, JUST AS the New Testament "house of God" DECLARES in types and ordinances (baptism, Lord's Supper; message)but is quite another thing to claim that "the house of God" in both testaments is fulfilled by "in Christ" salvation - that is nothing but pure Roman Catholic church salvationism EVEN IF HE IS COMPLETELY UNAWARE of what he is really saying and does not mean to say that.

But however glorious these realities may be, they fall short of the biblical promise of the restoration of sacred space if they aren't also ultimate and final.

"Sacred Space"?????????? Sacred Space is not salvation in any sense of the word. Sacred space, if he is referring to the purified new heaven and earth is FOR THE SAVED not their salvation. If being in the New Jerusalem is salvation then there should be no "SAVED NATIONS" dwelling OUTSIDE that city and ON THE NEW EARTH but there is (Rev. 21:24) and John has made it clear this is a POST-this world and heaven reality AFTER the new heaven and new earth has been created.

For Jesus to be the promised Servant of Yahweh and Branch of David, the work He accomplished must be comprehensive and consummate, for this is the way the prophets spoke of Him. In measuring Jesus of Nazareth against this criterion, arguably the best place to begin is with the biblical concept of Zion. For it embraces virtually every theme and component associated with the Bible's theology of the kingdom as it predicts and portrays the final and full recovery of sacred space. This sermon is the first of two examining that topic, and it focuses on the development and significance of the concept of Zion in the Old Testament salvation history.

Grant it, that Christ had to fulfill what was DECLARED in type, ordinances and message previous to the cross, but salvation in Christ was ATTAINED before the cross based strictly upon the promise that he would fulfill those declarations. Do you really believe there was salvation prior to the cross OUTSIDE of Christ or there was no salvation - spiritual union with God before the cross? This type of confusion is what happens when salvation is EXTERNALIZED when in reality salvation has NEVER EVER been externalized but has ALWAYS been an INTERNAL reality. The "house of God" before or after the cross has NEVER been fulfilled by Christ with regard to actual internalized salvation because it was NEVER designed by God with that purpose in view - it was always designed, before the cross and after the cross (Heb. 9:1) to be an EXTERNAL DECLARATIVE means.

and 47;
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=120082226525
This sermon concludes the consideration of the biblical theme of Zion and its fulfillment in Christ and His work of redemption. Specifically, it examines the desolation of Zion in relation to the Israelite kingdom and then its promised restoration, not in the recovery of Jewish exiles from the Babylonian captivity, but in the new creation inaugurated by Christ through His atoning death, resurrection, and ascension to David's throne.

ZION has NEVER saved anyone at any time, past, present or future because Zion is not Christ. Zion has ALWAYS decared but never secured salvation.

God has not forsaken his elect, whether it is an individual or a nation. Paul explicitly states that the fall of Israel was not final, but only a temporary stumbling so that salvation can come to the Gentiles. What God "cut off" is national ethnic Israel and it is what he has "cut off" that he will "graft in again." The "remnant" has NEVER been cut off and never will be cut off. When God has finished his work of redemption among the Gentile nations he will CUT THEM OFF from his sphere of redemptive work and return to the very same Israel he has "cut off" and complete their election unto salvation.

He is seeking to view it {redemptive history as all about Jesus and this work of peace and rest in Him.
A good study such as this has many twists and turns and if you and others have some time to listen it might be a good basis of some solid study on our Lord's person and work.


Yes... God placed His name there.



yes......

He is confused and he confuses salvation with the means of declaring salvation. He confuses the internal with the external. He confuses the public house of worship with actual redemption in Christ - this is just reformed Roman Catholicism of church salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think that the idea of an invisible Church comes from Paedobaptists, so that they can stick their children in the visible Church.

Westminster Confession of faith Chap. XXV.
1. The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.
2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Compare this with the Baptist 1689 Confession Chap. XXVI.
1. The Catholic or universal Church which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit, and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof: and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all (Heb. 12:23; Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:10, 22-23; 5:23, 27, 32).
2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the Gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ, according unto it; not destroying their own profession by any Errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are, and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular Congregations to be constituted (1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 11:26; Rom. 1:7; Eph. 1:20-22).

In other words,
1. The invisible Church only exists inasmuch as we cannot tell infallibly who is saved and who isn't.
2. No one who does not give a credible profession of faith in Christ or whose life belies that profession, should be called a visible saint and brought into membership.

With all due respect you need to take a closer look at the precise wording between the London and Westminster Confession here.

1. First in its historical context. Between 1660 and 1688 both Presbyterians and Baptists along with other dissenters from the state church were bitterly persecuted. When William and Mary took the throne in 1688 the Baptists purposely used the Westminster Confession as their pattern for their Baptist Confession in order to show they were not unorthodox in hopes the new government would not continue the pattern of persecution upon those who dissented from the religious view now in power. Formerly the Baptists and Presbyterians bitterly disagreed over the nature of the church in the 1649 London Confession.

2. Note how the Presbyterians define "catholic" in section 1 to mean universal in contrast to the Jewish restriction to Jews only whereas the New Testament church membership included all genders, nations and classes. The Westminster further defined the "universal church" in section 2 as inclusive of all true saved people in all denominations. The Baptist confession rejected that view of the universal invisible church. Instead they said all saved people throughout the world "may be called saints" which should become members of churches but rejected that all saints throughout the world is "the universal invisible church."

3. Furthermore, this contrast is even more clearly seen if you had quoted sections three and four. These baptists in their associational minutes make it clear they repudiated the Reformed view of the universal invisible church, denied any such present existing church. They did believe in an eschatological church physically assembled in heaven consisting of all the saved yet in the future but they explicitly denied the existence of any such church presently.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

With all due respect you need to take a closer look at the precise wording between the London and Westminster Confession here.

Thank you. You are making exactly the point I was trying to make. No doubt I expressed myself very badly. It is the Presbyterians who require an 'invisible' Church. Baptists have no need of it.

Formerly the Baptists and Presbyterians bitterly disagreed over the nature of the church in the 1649 London Confession.

Are you thinking of the 1644 1st Baptist Confession, revised in 1646?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Thank you. You are making exactly the point I was trying to make. No doubt I expressed myself very badly. It is the Presbyterians who require an 'invisible' Church. Baptists have no need of it.

I agree brother. The belief of a universal invisible church was first promulgated by Jovinian in the fourth century. After this, very little is heard of this dogma until the Reformation. When Martin Luther withdrew from the Catholic church and started his own church, he found himself in a dilemma. He had been teaching that there was only one church: now he had started another. So he invented the idea of a universal invisible church. The other Reformers adopted Luther's neo-orthodoxy. Thus it can be seen that in the main this theory is a Protestant Pedobaptist concept of the church which was conceived by the Protestant Reformers to combat the equally erroneous view of a universal visible church.

This doctrine confuses the Church and the kingdom.

The advocates of the invisible church theory contend that the church and the kingdom are one and the same. But such a dogma is not founded upon an honest interpretation of the Scriptures, but upon a figment of their imagination. Such a doctrine exists only in the mind of a heritic.

The church and the kingdom are not one and the same. The kingdom includes all the saved on earth at any given time(Col. 1:13;Jhn. 3:3,5;Mrk. 10:13-15), while the church is composed of baptized believers. One enters the kingdom by the new birth, yet one enters the church by profession of faith and baptism(Acts. 2:41). One's place in the kingdom is eternally secure(Jhn 5:24;II Tim. 4:18), but, he can be excluded from a church(I Cor. 1:2). Lost people cannot enter the kingdom(Jhn 3:3), yet they can enter the church as Judas did. The kingdom is a monarchy over which Christ is the King; the churches are democracies over which Christ is the Head. The dominant use of the word "kingdom" is singular in the New Testament. The dominant use of the word "church" is singular and plural, but, both emphasize many.

This theory also makes two bodies and two baptisms.

Are you thinking of the 1644 1st Baptist Confession, revised in 1646?

"Another concept not found in this document (I.E. THE 1644 London Confession) is the “universal, invisible church”. Why is this not found in this confession? Could it be because the framers of this confession did not believe in it? When one examines the two main editions of this old confession, 1644 and 1646, one is struck with a difference in wording in Article XXXIII on the Church. The first edition reads as follows (spelling as in the original), “That Christ hath here on earth a spirituall Kingdome which is the Church, which he hath purchased and redeemed to himselfe, as a peculiar inheritance: which Church, as it is visible to us, is a company of visible Saints.” Notice the change of wording in the second edition (1646): “Jesus Christ hath here on earth a spiritual kingdom, which is his church, whom he hath purchased and redeemed to himself as a peculiar inheritance; which church is a company of visible saints.” Notice the six missing words. Does not their omission radically change what could be read into this article? Is it not reasonable to assume, however, when either one author or a group puts out a second edition of a work, that it is either because something was lacking from the first edition, or to answer objections made to the first edition or else to clarify things misunderstood? According to historical sources, the changes in the 1646 edition of the confession were brought about because of the objections which pedobaptists made. Most, if not all, infant sprinklers have to hold to a universal, invisible church in which to place those truly converted. For even the most hardened among them would not suggest all who are members of their societies are really saints. Now, many Baptists holding to this Protestant notion of a universal, invisible church make a claim for this confession teaching their views. However, when we view this confession in its historical development, we see it cannot uphold their claim. Also, Benjamin Cox’s Appendix to the 1646 edition no where mentions such notions as we have mentioned here." (Source http://www.asweetsavor.info/erl/london2.php )

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you. You are making exactly the point I was trying to make. No doubt I expressed myself very badly. It is the Presbyterians who require an 'invisible' Church. Baptists have no need of it.

Well, forgive me for misreading you. I guess we were both making the very same point.

Are you thinking of the 1644 1st Baptist Confession, revised in 1646?

Again, my mistake, that is exactly what I was referring to. There was quite a response by the Presbyterians to the 1644 Confession. The framers of the 1646 confession admitted they had not made themselves clear in regard to article 41 and the meaning of a "gifted disciple". Benjamin Cox expanded their definition of a "gifted disciple" as follows:

"XIX. A disciple gifted and enabled by the Spirit of Christ to preach the Gospel, and stirred up to this service by the same Spirit, bringing home to his soul the command of Christ in His word for the doing of this work, is a man authorized and sent by Christ to preach the Gospel, see Luke 19:12, etc., Mark 16:15, and Matt.28:19 compared with Acts 8:4, Phil.1:14,15; John 17;20 . And those gifted disciples which thus preach Jesus Christ who came in the flesh, are to be looked upon as men sent and given of the Lord. 1 John 4:2; Rom.l0:15; Eph.4:11,12,13. And they which are converted from unbelief and false worship, and so brought into church fellowship by such preachers according to the will of Christ, are a seal of their ministry, 1 Cor.9:2. And such preachers of the Gospel may not only lawfully administer baptism unto believers, and guide the action of the church in the use of the Supper, (Matt.28:19; Acts 8:5-12; 1 Cor.l0:16) but may also call upon the churches, and advise them to choose fit men for officers, and may settle such officers so chosen by a church, in the places or offices (of elder or deacon) to which they are chosen by imposition of hands and prayer. Acts 6:3- 6; 14:23; Titus 1:5."

In another article Hansard Knowles further elaborates on this same topic by admitting they made themselves clear in the 1646 statement and did not mean to convey that a common disciple can admnister baptism, but only under the authority of the church:

"We do not affirm, that every common disciple may baptize, there was some mistake in laying down our opinion....UNLESS HE HAVE RECEIVED SUCH GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT, AS FITTETH, OR ENABLING HIM TO PREACH THE GOSPEL, AND THOSE GIFTS BEING FIRST TRIED BY AND KNOWN TO THE CHURCH, SUCH A BROTHER IS CHOSEN AND APPOINTED THEREUNTO BY THE SUFFRAGE OF THE CHURCH." - Hansard Knollys: The Shining of a Flaming Fire in Zion, or, A Clear Answer unto 13 Exceptions against the Grounds of New Baptism; London, 1646, p. 9.