Universal Church

[TCassidy]

Hebrews 12:23 I disagree with your view that the church of the firstborn awaits the consummation of the age.

But does not Hebrews 12 speak of something yet future?

Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable multitudes of angels,
Heb 12:23 to the general meeting, and the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better than that of Abel.

Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never been in Heaven. I have never assembled with the spirits of just men made perfect, I have never been in the company of angels, and have never been in the heavenly Jerusalem.

That meeting where all the saints (the meaning of "universal) are gathered is yet future, is it not?

while i see the importance of the doctrine of the local church I am still convinced that the ekklesia exists simultaneously on earth as well as in heaven and consists of all NC born again believers including those who have gone on before us here on earth.

I believe the bible does teach there is an entity consisting of all the redeemed (at lest NC believers, and possibly including OC believers) but it is never called "the church." It is called the "Family of God" as in Ephesians 3:14 and 15, and "The Kingdom of God" or "The Kingdom of Heaven" in too many places to list. But it is never called "the invisible church" or "the universal church" or any other such nomenclature.

Tithe to the universal church? Personally I do not see "tithing" required of NC believers. however neither is it disallowed.

Not the point. You said,

There is no need of wages in heaven as we will have rested from all our labors.

(By the way, you just indicated the "universal church" is yet future as we are not yet in "no need of wages in heaven as we will have rested from all our labors" - that is yet future for both of us. ) Which caused me to ask if I could stop tithing, at least to the universal church by saying,

So, until then, I can rob God?

You said I could choose. So, if I choose to tithe to the universal church, how do I go about doing that?

The point being, of course, that it is impossible because the so-called "universal church" does not, at least not yet, exist. My tithes and offerings go to the only church we can find in the bible. The local, New Testament, body of born-again baptized believers belonging to Christ, assembled to keep the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

I have no trouble at all answering all my "church" questions.

Where does that "church" meet (assemble)?

The corner of Kansas and 6th street.

Where do I give my tithes and offerings to the assembly?

The corner of Kansas and 6th.

Who are the pastor and deacons of the assembly?

Dr. Steve Parker and a long list of godly deacons. I am meeting with three of them today at 4:30 at the pistol range for some pistol practice.

Where does the assembly bank my tithes and offerings?

IBC, corner of Texas and 6th.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I am in agreement with Tom and others that the "Church" is a local-only phenomenon and that the "Universal" Church is a figment of the imagination.....
I struggle with this, because as one attached to the S.B.C....some powers that be decided (hardly with the consent of my affiliated and actual church which is 120 years old) to insert into the B.F.M. a nod to the Universal Church doctrine in I believe the 1960's...

I, therefore, cannot claim to truly affirm the B.F.M. 2,000.
Our Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth never agreed to this.

It was unfair to insert that nod to the unassembled assembly. That's hardly a Baptist distinctive by any measure.

How is this unspecified and un-identifiable abstract phenomenon the "pillar and ground of truth"?

1.) Did God gift one-ness Pentecostal Theologians to his "Church"?
2.) Did God gift Arminian Theologians and pastors to his "Churches" even if they are adherents of Calvinist doctrine?
3.) Conversely, are Arminian-leaning Churches to simply accept Calvinist/ D.O.G. pastors as teachers within their local body because God gifted them to the Church?
4.) N.T. Wright is a brilliant Theologian by any measure, should he be hired by a Baptist Church because God gifted such brilliant teachers to "THE CHURCH"?
5.) Folks, Louis de Molina was gifted and brilliant, so was John Calvin, so was Jacobus Arminius....So was Clark Pinnock...(*gasp*)... and John R.W. Stott (Annihilationism). Were they all teachers that God gifted to "The Church" [pillar and ground of truth mind you] for our edification?

A Reductio ad absurdum argument demonstrates how un-wieldy and impossible to consistently maintain the "Universal Church" dogma is.
I would argue as well that Baptists didn't traditionally adhere to it. I don't know who forced it upon unsuspecting, unassuming and ill-protected country Churches like mine 50+ years ago...but I still affirm the same message J.M. Frost affirmed.......and was affirmed by my S.B.C - affiliated Assembly (actual Church).....
And it says zilch, zero, nada about this unassembled assembly. It spoke of the "Gospel Church" which was composed of Baptized believers in voluntary association and fellowship in the furtherance of the propagation of the gospel and discipleship of believers....like Christ commanded.
It meets
It teaches
It disciples
It gives
It fellowships
It baptizes
It ordains.....

Like Churches do

The unassembled-assembly does NONE of those things.

 

[HankD]

But does not Hebrews 12 speak of something yet future?

Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable multitudes of angels,
Heb 12:23 to the general meeting, and the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better than that of Abel.

Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never been in Heaven. I have never assembled with the spirits of just men made perfect, I have never been in the company of angels, and have never been in the heavenly Jerusalem.

That meeting where all the saints (the meaning of "universal) are gathered is yet future, is it not?

I believe the bible does teach there is an entity consisting of all the redeemed (at lest NC believers, and possibly including OC believers) but it is never called "the church." It is called the "Family of God" as in Ephesians 3:14 and 15, and "The Kingdom of God" or "The Kingdom of Heaven" in too many places to list. But it is never called "the invisible church" or "the universal church" or any other such nomenclature.
Not the point. You said,
Which caused me to ask if I could stop tithing, at least to the universal church by saying, You said I could choose. So, if I choose to tithe to the universal church, how do I go about doing that?

The point being, of course, that it is impossible because the so-called "universal church" does not, at least not yet, exist. My tithes and offerings go to the only church we can find in the bible. The local, New Testament, body of born-again baptized believers belonging to Christ, assembled to keep the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

I have no trouble at all answering all my "church" questions.

The corner of Kansas and 6th street.
The corner of Kansas and 6th.
Dr. Steve Parker and a long list of godly deacons. I am meeting with three of the today at 4:30 at the pistol range for some pistol practice.
IBC, corner of Texas and 6th.

All well and good Tom but you are defining the characteristics of the local churches on earth and in particular yours in the Great State of Texas .

in my view these characteristics do not apply to those NC believers in the church of the Firstborn in heaven.

perhaps this is why Jesus chose the word ekklesia rather than sunagoge (assembly) in Matthew 16:18 although here on earth we do indeed "assemble" out from our homes having been "called out".

 

[TCassidy]

All well and good Tom but you are defining the characteristics of the local churches on earth and in particular yours in the Great State of Texas .

No, I was asking questions regarding our relationship to the "universal church."

in my view these characteristics do not apply to those NC believers in the church of the Firstborn in heaven.

Which characteristics don't apply? Born again? Baptized? (most probably not, so how can they be called "perfect"?) Believers? Belonging to Christ? Assembled to keep the Great Commandment? The Great Commission (hard to do in heaven).

perhaps this is why Jesus chose the word ekklesia rather than sunagoge (assembly) in Matthew 16:18 although here on earth we do indeed "assemble" out from our homes having been "called out".

Thayer says:
ekklēsia

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly.

And the affinity of the two Greek words is shown in Hebrews 10:25,
Not forsaking the assembling (Greek: επισυναγωγην - episunagōgēn) of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I am meeting with three of them today at 4:30 at the pistol range for some pistol practice.

Well, that's just game, set, match....

If you'd use that argument in the Cal/Arm forum I'd become an instant convert.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Tom...Question:
My understanding of the USE of the term Ekklesia is that it is based upon the "calling-out" of Greek voters in relation to the conduct of civil polity.

In other words, the term itself is steeped in conducting, well, politics frankly......
read "business meetings".
An "ekklesia" as I understand it, was hardly a gentleman's club, but was connotatively used (most often at least) to refer to the gathering or assembly of voting persons in conducting civil policy.

Which would, I.M.O. imply even more strongly the quite local and indeed, quite appropriately, more "business-focused" use of the term.

Am I correct in that?

 

[atpollard]

Tom...Question:

I think Mr Cassidy may be out shooting some deacons (although I may have misread his post).

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I think Mr Cassidy may be out shooting some deacons (although I may have misread his post).

I laughed out loud!!!!!!

I sound like a guffawing idiot!
Thanks for that laugh, it doeth good like a medicine.
You are welcome to join our local Ekklesia any time!

 

[David Kent]

IFB's i have been in touch with have said there is only the local church, and you are baptised into the local church. This led to a discussion as to which local church Paul was baptised into. It seems that some teach that if you move to another church, you have to be baptised into that. When I said "We are baptised into Christ" I wasn't too popular.

 

[Reformed]

I have allowed some posts to go by without commenting just to make sure I understood the opposition to the Universal Church. Obviously, I disagree with that position and I disagree with it on scriptural grounds. The phrase 'universal church' is not a difficult concept to grasp. A good definition of the universal church is, "All Christian believers in all times and places, as well as the Christian church, spread throughout the whole world"*. Another way of describing it is that the universal church is the totality of the body of Christ through the ages. Ephesians 1:4a states, "just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world". This means that there are future members of Christ's church who are yet to be included as members through conversion at a later date.

The universal church does not assemble in toto until the eschaton, although local churches (which are part of the universal church), do assemble for worship each Lord's day. The universal church is nothing less than the body of Christ. The lines are pretty much established in this debate.

Matthew 16:18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Jesus is not telling Peter that He will build a local church. He is telling Peter that He will build the church, a living, organic organism that will include every member of the body of Christ.

Ephesians 1:22-23 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

Here the apostle attaches the church to the body of Christ, which is what the church is. Some in this thread want to replace the term 'universal church' with the word 'generic'. This is not a generic term, it is a direct reference to the body of Christ outside of the local church, although including the local church. The Greek word for church in the New Testament is ekklesia. It is a mixture of two words; ek = out of or from and kaleo = call(ed). The ekklesia (church) is a called out group of people. Not only are they called out, they are called out from one thing to another. They are called out of this world and into the body of Christ.




*Westminster Dictionary of Theology Terms, Donald K. McKim, 1996, Westminster John Knox Press

 

[Reformed]

IFB's i have been in touch with have said there is only the local church, and you are baptised into the local church. This led to a discussion as to which local church Paul was baptised into. It seems that some teach that if you move to another church, you have to be baptised into that. When I said "We are baptised into Christ" I wasn't too popular.

And this is where unchecked aberrant ecclesiology will lead some people.

 

[rsr]

The universal church does not assemble in toto until the eschaton, although local churches (which are part of the universal church), do assemble for worship each Lord's day.

Let me quibble here. Local churches are not part of the universal church because local churches most likely (or perhaps inevitably) have members who are not regenerated and thus are not part of the universal church.

 

[Reformed]

Let me quibble here. Local churches are not part of the universal church because local churches most likely (or perhaps inevitably) have members who are not regenerated and thus are not part of the universal church.

OK. Good quibble and bits (get the pun?). As Baptists, we presume upon regenerate church membership, although we lack perfect knowledge and have no other recourse than to accept one's credible profession. So, to be technical, those members of current local churches that are truly Christians are part of the universal church.

 

[TCassidy]

Am I correct in that?

I don't think so. The word, of course, has its roots in the Greek City-State system of government, but Christ, to my way of thinking, made it clear in the first use of the word in the New Testament (I am not a great fan of the rule of first mention but it can give us some direction in how to understand the term) in Matthew 16:18 that on "this rock (the rock of Peters confession of Jesus as the Christ) I will build my church." Not just any assembly. Not the assembly of the Greek City-State system, but His church, belonging to Him as its Chief Shepherd. So I see a radical distinction between an assembly and His assembly.

 

[TCassidy]

IFB's i have been in touch with have said there is only the local church, and you are baptised into the local church.

They are correct.

This led to a discussion as to which local church Paul was baptised into.

Antioch. Maybe Damascus. What difference does it make?

It seems that some teach that if you move to another church, you have to be baptised into that.

Why?

When I said "We are baptised into Christ" I wasn't too popular.

Because you were wrong. Christ is the baptizer.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Reformed

The universal church does not assemble in toto until the eschaton,

On the last day there will be a universal assembly...because it will assemble.
That is the main contention reformed.
The term is not really used....like we might say....the jury will decide..
What jury? What case are they working on?

Reformed...let me try it this way.
One of the marks of a NT. Church is biblical church discipline....so who would do that in a Universal Church here and now?
Why would you speak of believers worldwide as the universal church....rather than members of the Kingdom of God?
I know you would say they were members of the Kingdom because they are.

 

[Reformed]

One of the marks of a NT. Church is biblical church discipline....so who would do that in a Universal Church here and now?
Why would you speak of believers worldwide as the universal church....rather than members of the Kingdom of God?

The universal church is used to describe the body of Christ throughout all ages, and to include those elect who are yet to enter the fold. It is not the same as a functioning local assembly, nor is it meant to be. I think the hang up is on the English word church and the connotations that word has. As I tried to point out, eklessia is a called out group of individuals that make up the body of Christ which is the church. This is not just my view. I did not make it up. I really do not want to cut-and-paste or retype everything I have posted previously. Either we are advancing the discussion or we are stuck in holding pattern.

 

[rsr]

... Christ, to my way of thinking, made it clear in the first use of the word in the New Testament ... in Matthew 16:18 that on "this rock (the rock of Peters confession of Jesus as the Christ) I will build my church." Not just any assembly. Not the assembly of the Greek City-State system, but His church, belonging to Him as its Chief Shepherd.

Yes. Not a generic assembly, but His assembly. And that's where the argument about generic usage breaks down. One may say that "The horse is the most magnificent animal in the world" and use the term horse generically. If you say "My horse is the most magnificent animal in the world" then you are no longer generic: You mean a specific horse. Christ could have said "my churches," but he didn't. "My church" was not the original assembly in Jerusalem or some other church that was persecuted out of earthly existence or scattered to the winds or became apostate. "My church" is the one against which the gates of hell will not prevail, and it is not confined to a single assembly or a single locale.

It is not organized; it is the ideal — with Christ as only head and all his followers prophets and priests — of which the individual churches are approximations.

Now, I don't like to fuss to much about this bit of theology, but I think it is wrong to insist that those who accept the church universal are just hanging on to a corruption passed on by the magisterial reformers. The early Particulars took care to distinguish their own views from those of the Presbyterians and Congregationalists while trying to stay true to what they understand the Bible to say. They had already thrown out paedobaptism and sacraments and insisted that their churches be composed of only who professed (and showed signs of) regeneration. It makes no sense that they would keep the church universal as a concept when they had already jettisoned so many corruptions.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Reformed,

The universal church is used to describe the body of Christ throughout all ages, and to include those elect who are yet to enter the fold. It is not the same as a functioning local assembly, nor is it meant to be.

I think the hang up is on the English word church and the connotations that word has. As I tried to point out, eklessia is a called out group of individuals that make up the body of Christ which is the church. This is not just my view. I did not make it up. I really do not want to cut-and-paste or retype everything I have posted previously. Either we are advancing the discussion or we are stuck in holding pattern.[/QUOTE]

I understand the language and intent of the bolded portion.The part in red is the pebble in the shoe....When you clarify what you are discussing like that....the disagreement is not that substantial....you are using it in a less specific manner....to say that the kingdom members are part of the one body with Jesus Christ as head

 

[TCassidy]

"My church" is the one against which the gates of hell will not prevail, and it is not confined to a single assembly or a single locale.

No, of course not. That is why Christ had to ascend and the Holy Spirit had to fall on the church at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. As long as He was here on earth in His physical body He could only Shepherd one church, but after the Ascension He, via the Holy Spirit, could Shepherd all of His churches. Until Pentecost there was only one hence the singular. After Pentecost we see the plural "churches" used 37 times starting in Acts 9.

It makes no sense that they would keep the church universal as a concept when they had already jettisoned so many corruptions.

I don't have quite so much confidence in their omniscience as you seem to have. They were just a bunch of guys doing the best they could with what they had. And what they had was a thousand years of Romish history, dogma, and domination.