I believe it has. The visible Institutional Churches do not agree with the invisible body of Christ idea.
No, I am talking about a local Church! (the one that votes - not the one that needs heat and AC)
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I believe it has. The visible Institutional Churches do not agree with the invisible body of Christ idea.
If 2 or 3 meet at Micky D's for prayer and fellowship in Jesus' name, they hold a church (meeting) but Micky D's is still Micky D's.No, I am talking about a local Church! (the one that votes - not the one that needs heat and AC)
If 2 or 3 meet at Micky D's for prayer and fellowship in Jesus' name, they hold a church (meeting) but Micky D's is still Micky D's.
CERTAINLY.Your links talk about the Early churches - being baptist.
If that were true - then we should have taken the name "Churches of Christ" !
One needs to know the original meaning of Ekkesia. This Greek word was in use at least some two or three centuries BC. It was the name given to the Greek City-States' governing body. The HS merely added to that word's already understood meaning & applied it to the organization(s) which were built on The Rock---Jesus Christ. Moreover, the OT Jews had no separate individual meeting places, so they met in & around each city's synagogue (or the Temple in Jerusalem's case). And, we also must keep in mind that the ruling Jews refused to accept Jesus's mission here on earth....They tried to kill Him for saying about "This Temple." As a general rule, these newly born-again folks became targets of the Jews, shall we say, "Ethnic Cleansing" program, viz, Stephen in Acts, When Paul was still known as Saul, his original MO wasn't an evangelism series of meetings in Damascus. NO, he intended to persecute these trouble-makers. Consequently, most of these newly born again believers had all their properties confiscated and thus forcing them to help each other, NOT because they loved this so-called method of communism, but rather that was the only option for them. A cursorary reading of the remainder of the NT does not endorse this way of living; in fact, of all places one can imagine, the primarily Gentile church at Corinth seemed to take the lead in financially helping the poor saints in Jerusalem. IMHO, we do an injustice to apply certain situations that occurred some 20 centuries later.CERTAINLY.
There is no need to specifically prohibit it, because a biblical church is a congregation, people, not a physical being. By demonstrating what a church is, the Bible prohibits us from calling something else a church.The question is Where does Scripture prohibit calling the building a church!
HInt - IT DOESN'T
It has certainly not been unusual for churches of the Baptist faith to simply call themselves "churches of Christ." For example, the London Baptist Confession of 1644 and 1646 had:Your links talk about the Early churches - being baptist.
If that were true - then we should have taken the name "Churches of Christ" !
So did the 1656 Somerset Confession:A Confession of Faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists...
The Orthodox Creed of 1679:A Confession of Faith of Several Churches of Christ in the County of Somerset, and of some Churches in the Counties neer adjacent.
The 1651 Faith and Practice of Thirty Congregations, Gathered According to the Primitive Pattern used "churches of God" and "church of God."General councils, or Assemblies, consisting of Bishops, Elders, and Brethren, of the several Churches of Christ...
the church of Christ meeting at Old Ford, in the parish of Bow, in the County of Middlesex, on the 21st day of June, 1785.
1883 Nov 26th From the Church of Christ meeting at Northchurch Baptist Chapel to the Church of Christ meeting at Upper Holloway Chapel.
I believe our people basically (and incorrectly), perhaps among other reasons, gave up the name to distinguish themselves from the churches following Alexander Campbell, who used the name and argued that it was the only scriptural name. My grandfather's uncle, during his tenure as church clerk of the church where I grew up (but some 60 years before I was born) consistently started his minutes with "The Baptist Church of Christ meeting at Smyrna..."to the church of Christ meeting at Horsley Down
1) It's the body of believers under one roof.1) Is the church a building or is the church a body of believers??
2) If the church is a body of believers, then the building can be used for a variety of things, to include things with leading the lost to Christ.
3) If the building is the church, do the lost really belong there?
1) It's the body of believers under one roof.
2) I've never really considered that approach before...
But now that you mention it, many groups ( especially today ) do use their buildings for far more than just professing believers meeting together to exercise their spiritual gifts, edify one another, be instructed in righteousness, serve one another in love, etc.
They have "bingo nights", "singles groups", "AWANA" / "King's Kids", "movie nights", "12 Step" programs, and many other activities.
But looking through the New Testament, I can see no warrant for doing it any other way than Paul did...
Which was to preach in public places and then bring those who did believe together for further instruction, etc., separated from the world and its ways.
3) Even if it is not the building, I don't see how unbelievers who do not love the Lord belong there ( 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 ).
It seems sometimes I can neither type nor edit correctly! The sentence above should be: "There is no need to specifically prohibit it, because a biblical church is a congregation, people, not a physical building."There is no need to specifically prohibit it, because a biblical church is a congregation, people, not a physical being.
Nowhere...The question is Where does Scripture prohibit calling the building a church!
This is from a closed thread - but interesting subject:
1) Is the church a building or is the church a body of believers??
2) If the church is a body of believers, then the building can be used for a variety of things, to include things with leading the lost to Christ.
3) If the building is the church, do the lost really belong there?
Yes!... It was a heavenly gathering!... Brother Glen
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Btw... You new people are a little picky aren't you!![]()
I am NOT a new BB! Some years ago I posted on BB with the ID of ktn4eg. In the interim two things occurred: (1) I moved to Antioch (TN); & (2) I had a multitude of serious medical issues since my AT&T retirement in Aug 2018. Since I'm 75 YO, Single, never married "Eunuch for the Kingdom's Sake,"(Mt 19), until quite recently I had to undergo some operations + move to first a 24/7 critical medical facility, then to an assisted living facility for several months, and then back to a newer residence that is somewhat closer to hospitals, etc. As a result, I now have recovered to the extent that my POA & my Primary Care Physician both indicated that returning to posting on BB would probably be OK since I'm still a shut-in & don't as a rule mingle with other people on a fairly regular basis, to return to posting on BB. So, dear brother, I am NOT a brand new comer to BB. I've keep these personal matters off of BB, etc., because I've already been victimized by internet phishers who've hacked into what few internet sites I had in years gone by. These "less-than-honorable" folks have already tried to empty out what little finances I have & wish to empty ALL remaining ones. That's just a way of life nowadays I guess. BOTTOM LINE: I realize that you probably weren't aware of these situations & please forgive me for not wanting to publicize them for all to see. As I said, apparently this is simply a fact of life in this depraved world we now must reside. I missed posting on BB because for the most part I've met some truly wonderful brothers & sisters, of which I consider you do be. Having thus posted this, I welcome the diversity of viewpoints that BB has provided this non-seminarian non pastoral individual. One is never too old to learn different approaches to various issues & that's why I enjoy the fellowship I've always found on BB. Sure, we can possibly have some divergent viewpoints on non-salvational issues. That's one of the reasons why Our Father Who Art in Heaven gave us His Word. We are like sheep with The Great Shepherd over us. Even Jesus Himself tolerated some issues when it involved things not pertaining to one's eternal salvation. BB seems to be continuing that MO, & I'm glad for it. Even the infant NT assembly had some divergent viewpoints on secondary issues/matters, but so long as their analysis is kept in a brotherly love state of mind, I don't see why "Can't We all just get along" cannot be applied here on BB. Maybe that's at least one of the reasons why He has the Millenium....It probably will take that long to "straighten us out" on some things!!Yes!... It was a heavenly gathering!... Brother Glen
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Btw... You new people are a little picky aren't you!![]()
I am NOT a new BB! Some years ago I posted on BB with the ID of ktn4eg. In the interim two things occurred: (1) I moved to Antioch (TN); & (2) I had a multitude of serious medical issues since my AT&T retirement in Aug 2018. Since I'm 75 YO, Single, never married "Eunuch for the Kingdom's Sake,"(Mt 19), until quite recently I had to undergo some operations + move to first a 24/7 critical medical facility, then to an assisted living facility for several months, and then back to a newer residence that is somewhat closer to hospitals, etc. As a result, I now have recovered to the extent that my POA & my Primary Care Physician both indicated that returning to posting on BB would probably be OK since I'm still a shut-in & don't as a rule mingle with other people on a fairly regular basis, to return to posting on BB. So, dear brother, I am NOT a brand new comer to BB. I've keep these personal matters off of BB, etc., because I've already been victimized by internet phishers who've hacked into what few internet sites I had in years gone by. These "less-than-honorable" folks have already tried to empty out what little finances I have & wish to empty ALL remaining ones. That's just a way of life nowadays I guess. BOTTOM LINE: I realize that you probably weren't aware of these situations & please forgive me for not wanting to publicize them for all to see. As I said, apparently this is simply a fact of life in this depraved world we now must reside. I missed posting on BB because for the most part I've met some truly wonderful brothers & sisters, of which I consider you do be. Having thus posted this, I welcome the diversity of viewpoints that BB has provided this non-seminarian non pastoral individual. One is never too old to learn different approaches to various issues & that's why I enjoy the fellowship I've always found on BB. Sure, we can possibly have some divergent viewpoints on non-salvational issues. That's one of the reasons why Our Father Who Art in Heaven gave us His Word. We are like sheep with The Great Shepherd over us. Even Jesus Himself tolerated some issues when it involved things not pertaining to one's eternal salvation. BB seems to be continuing that MO, & I'm glad for it. Even the infant NT assembly had some divergent viewpoints on secondary issues/matters, but so long as their analysis is kept in a brotherly love state of mind, I don't see why "Can't We all just get along" cannot be applied here on BB. Maybe that's at least one of the reasons why He has the Millenium....It probably will take that long to "straighten us out" on some things!!