What! No Church?

[Darrenss1]

Because the concept is a fantasy. And even it if existed, the Universal Church is dysfunctional, divided and is useless in carrying out the Great Commission. This entity has no purpose for existence, and the best any proponent has come up with that its purpose for existence is to exist.

Hang on Tom, the members of the BODY of Christ or the Universal Church are added by the LORD on the basis that the LORD Himself approved of them and they will be ALSO members of local "visible" churches as well. That's how I see it. I find it strange the way you describe the Universal Church because the members are visible and participating in ministry, services, serving God..etc throughout the world. Your strict interpretation of the local church perhaps has confused the subject. I think you are saying that the Universal Church negates the local church, I really don't see why that is the case.

I have no idea as to the protest with one "local" church being simply one part of the greater world wide Body of Christ. So then you guys return with every church is a "BODY of Christ" but NOT part of THE BODY of Christ. Churches are made up of individual christians anyway and those individuals are part of the "BODY of CHRIST".

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

Christ is the Spirit baptizer:

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

Personally, I don't like the phrase titles "Universal" or "Invisible" Church in that they are not found in the Scripture as applied to THE Church. Of course the phrase "local church" is not found in the Scripture either.​

I like the scriptural title for what is presently called the "Universal" or "Invisible" Church:​

Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,​

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.​

Ephesians 2 which is concerned with the melding of the Jew and Gentile (and not just the Jew and the Ephesians) into one body or temple of God:

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.​

Also Peter in his general epistle concerning the Stone (Rock) which is the cornerstone of "a spiritual house" :​

1 Peter 2
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:​

I believe the underlying problem comes from too strict and limiting a definition of "church" (ekklesia) and our disregard for it's synonyms and OT derivative allegories (oops, I mean types).​

There has to be (at very least) a verbal way to differentiate between a "local" church with a potential admixture of wheat and tares and the unblemished assembly of born-agains built upon the Rock against whom the gates of hell will not prevail (I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish) as Peter does in verse 9 above.​

The Church of the Firstborn works for me.​

HankD​

Thank you, well said... :thumbs:

Darren

 

[Robert Snow]

Ann

I believe that at this time there are many local Churches. I also believe that there is a body of all true believers at any time on earth which constitute The Church. Certainly this Body of all believers is not a visible Body. There are occasions in Scripture when the word applies to the local Body, there are also occasions when the word applies to the universal Body.

Many people are afraid of this concept of the universal Church because they think it smacks of Roman Catholicism. But to me that is a poor excuse for refusing to acknowledge that all true believers constitute one Body which is The Church of Jesus Christ, His Bride, Chaste and without Blemish, as the Apostle Paul states.

You are correct OR, but you will never get DHK or Tom Butler to see it. Many years ago we joined an American Baptist Church in Pasadena Texas. In visiting, we noticed a lot of references to the "local" church as apposed to the "universal" church. I inquired about this to the pastor and was told this is not a big deal. After joining we found it was not only a big deal, it was just about the only deal. They ranted on and on about how there was no universal church and that the only church was the local assemblies. Eventually I confronted the pastor and attempted to show him in Scripture that there are references to both. He would hear none of it and told me we would be better off in another church. We followed his advice and left. I feel the reason he was not totally honest with us at the beginning was that he thought he could persuade us that they were right.

I don't know why these types of churches get so wrapped up in something that is so insignificant. They are good people, just wrong about this simple thing.

 

[annsni]

Can someone tell me the benefits of membership in a Universal, Invisible Church?

It can't be worship, Bible study, fellowship or communion, since it doesn't assemble.
It can't be evangelism since it has no preachers or missionaries.
It can't be helping the poor and downtrodden, since it has never given a dime for that purpose.

So what are the benefits? What function does it serve? What, if anything, does it do better than any local church?

Does your church work completely independent of other churches? Do you never work with other churches on anything? Do you never share ministry with other churches?

I've been involved through our church with other churches and it's a wonderful blessing to get together with other believers. Our pastors are doing continuing study along with some of our deacons. They have invited a few local pastors of like-minded churches to join us because we honestly have the numbers and they don't. Their congregations are small (under 50 people while we are over 800) and they are the only pastor at their church (we have 9 pastors and 2 pastoral interns), so to meet with other pastors and learn alongside them is an opportunity they would not have in their own church. We do not see them as "them" and "us" or another "body of Christ" since last I checked, there was ONE body - but we see them as fellow laborers and brothers in Christ.

 

[annsni]

Acts 20:28 Paul urges the elders at Ephesus to feed the church of God. Which one? The one Jesus purchased with his own blood. The one over which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers. Which one is that? The church at Ephesus.

And I Cor 12:27 Paul describes the congregation at Ephesus this way: "YE are THE body of Christ...."

Anyone who has a problem with individual churches being described as THE church or THE body, take it up with Paul.

So make sure you keep your church independent and not helping any other church. Heck, make sure you don't support a missionary church either since we're not told to do that - but only feed our own church.

 

[annsni]

Matthew Henry believed in the "universal" church:

The Ephesians, upon their conversion, having such an access to God, as well as the Jews, and by the same Spirit, the apostle tells them, Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners, v. 19. This he mentions by way of opposition to what he had observed of them in their heathenism: they were now no longer aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and no longer what the Jews were wont to account all the nations of the earth besides themselves (namely, strangers to God), but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, that is, members of the church of Christ, and having a right to all the privileges of it. Observe here, The church is compared to a city, and every converted sinner is free of it. It is also compared to a house, and every converted sinner is one of the domestics, one of the family, a servant and a child in God’s house. In v. 20 the church is compared to a building. The apostles and prophets are the foundation of that building. They may be so called in a secondary sense, Christ himself being the primary foundation; but we are rather to understand it of the doctrine delivered by the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New. It follows, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. In him both Jews and Gentiles meet, and constitute one church; and Christ supports the building by his strength: In whom all the building, fitly framed together, etc., v. 21. All believers, of whom it consists, being united to Christ by faith, and among themselves by Christian charity, grow unto a holy temple, become a sacred society, in which there is much communion between God and his people, as in the temple, they worshipping and serving him, he manifesting himself unto them, they offering up spiritual sacrifices to God and he dispensing his blessings and favours to them. Thus the building, for the nature of it, is a temple, a holy temple; for the church is the place which God hath chosen to put his name there, and it becomes such a temple by grace and strength derived from himself— in the Lord. The universal church being built upon Christ as the foundation-stone, and united in Christ as the corner-stone, comes at length to be glorified in him as the top-stone: In whom you also are built together, etc., v. 22. Observe, Not only the universal church is called the temple of God, but particular churches; and even every true believer is a living temple, is a habitation of God through the Spirit. God dwells in all believers now, they having become the temple of God through the operations of the blessed Spirit, and his dwelling with them now is an earnest of their dwelling together with him to eternity.

(from his commentary on Ephesians chapter 2)

 

[annsni]

Spurgeon believed in the "universal" church:

The temple is the church of God; and here let me begin by just observing, that when I use the term "church of God," I use it in a very different sense from that in which it is sometimes understood. It is usual with many Church of England people, to use the term "church" as specially applying to the bishops, archdeacons, rectors, curates, and so forth: these are said to be the church and the young man who becomes a pastor of any congregation is said to "enter the church." Now I believe that such a use of the term is not scriptural. I would never for one moment grant to any man that the ministers of the gospel constitute the church. If you speak of the army, the whole of the soldiers constitute it; the officers may sometimes be spoken of first and foremost, but still the private soldier is as much a part of the army as the highest officer. And it is so in the church of God, all Christians constitute the church. Any company of Christian men, gathered together in holy bonds of communion for the purpose of receiving God's ordinances, and preaching what they regard to be God's truths, is a church; and the whole of these churches gathered into one, in fact all the true believers in Christ scattered throughout the world, constitute the One true Universal Apostolic Church, built upon a rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Do not imagine, therefore, when I speak at any time of the church, that I mean the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and some twenty other dignitaries, and the whole host of ministers. No, nor when I speak of the church do I mean the deacons, the elders, and pastors of the Baptist denomination, or any other - I mean all them that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and in truth, for these make up the one universal church which hath communion in itself with itself, not always in the outward sign, but always in the inward grace; the church which was elect of God before the foundation of the world, which was redeemed by Christ with his own precious blood, which has been called by his Spirit, which is preserved by his grace, and which at last shall be gathered in to make the church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven.

from http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0191.htm

 

[Tom Butler]

Hang on Tom, the members of the BODY of Christ or the Universal Church are added by the LORD on the basis that the LORD Himself approved of them and they will be ALSO members of local "visible" churches as well. That's how I see it. I find it strange the way you describe the Universal Church because the members are visible and participating in ministry, services, serving God..etc throughout the world. Your strict interpretation of the local church perhaps has confused the subject. I think you are saying that the Universal Church negates the local church, I really don't see why that is the case.

I have no idea as to the protest with one "local" church being simply one part of the greater world wide Body of Christ. So then you guys return with every church is a "BODY of Christ" but NOT part of THE BODY of Christ. Churches are made up of individual christians anyway and those individuals are part of the "BODY of CHRIST".

Darren

Darren, I am perfectly happy to be numbered among believers around the world. I am perfectly happy to be part of the kingdom as a subject of the King. I am just not willing to call the kingdom by another name, such as church. At least our Church of Christ friends are consistent, since they hold that the church and the kingdom are the same. If you will, please tell me the differences between the two. How are the church and the kingdom different?

The New Testament is filled with instructions on what the local assembly is commissioned to do and with examples of what it did. It is the one entity to which Jesus gave his Great Commission. He gave it to assembled believers, and by extension each succeeding assembly of believers.

His instruction on church discipline in Matthew 18 can only be applied to a local congregation.

Paul admonished the congregation at Corinth to guard the ordinances (I Cor 11:2). Nowhere do we find such instructions for the Universal Church. Paul gave instructions to that immature and volatile assembly on how to properly observe the Lord's Supper, and raked them over the coals because they had not been doing it right. Nowhere do I find such instructions for a Universal Church.

Paul wrote to Timothy, giving instructions on "how to behave in the House of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim 3:15) Timothy was pastor of the local church at Ephesus. I find no such instructions on how to behave in the Universal Church.

Paul and Silas were sent out on a missionary journey by the church at Antioch. The were accountable to that congregation, since they reported back to it when they returned. I find no instance in the New Testament where the Universal Church ever sent out missionaries.

I do not hold that the Universal Church negates the local church. For me to hold that position, the Universal Church would have to exist. I would hold that the U-Church exists if I could find a purpose for its existence, besides just existing.



So far, I have cited three scripture passages which clearly identify a local congregation as THE church (Acts 20:28), THE body (I Cor 12:27), and THE House of God (I Tim 3:15). So far, I don't recall anyone dealing with those passages, except to suggest that I believe that Jesus was a polygamist (with many brides). Maybe I missed the responses.

Here is another passage in I Cor 12: V 25 "....that there be no schism in the body...." THE body. Is there anyone here who will try to make this body the Universal Church? I hope not, because to do so will admit that the U-Church is filled witih schisms and splits.

Want one more? V 26 "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." Does this described the U-Church, or a local congregation?

One cannot cherry-pick Chapter 12 and find the U-Church here and the L-church there.

 

[Tom Butler]

Does your church work completely independent of other churches? Do you never work with other churches on anything? Do you never share ministry with other churches?

I've been involved through our church with other churches and it's a wonderful blessing to get together with other believers. Our pastors are doing continuing study along with some of our deacons. They have invited a few local pastors of like-minded churches to join us because we honestly have the numbers and they don't. Their congregations are small (under 50 people while we are over 800) and they are the only pastor at their church (we have 9 pastors and 2 pastoral interns), so to meet with other pastors and learn alongside them is an opportunity they would not have in their own church. We do not see them as "them" and "us" or another "body of Christ" since last I checked, there was ONE body - but we see them as fellow laborers and brothers in Christ.

Ann, I am a Southern Baptist through and through. The church I serve is thoroughly Southern Baptist, and is affiliated with the local Baptist Association, the Kentucky Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention. That should answer the question about how I feel cooperation with other churches in missions and evangelism. And like you, I have been greatly blessed when we do so.

 

[Tom Butler]

So make sure you keep your church independent and not helping any other church. Heck, make sure you don't support a missionary church either since we're not told to do that - but only feed our own church.

My pastor, who is the sole elder in our congregation, feeds his church regularly (in the same way the Ephesian elders did). But that is not his only responsibility. If he did it the way you describe it, he would be disobedient to God. I don't find his cooperative mission spirit at odds with my view of the local church.

 

[OldRegular]

HankD

Excellent post above [#78]. The passages from Hebrews, Colossians, Ephesians, and Peter are particularly pertinent. It is obvious to me that when Scripture is talking of a building as in Peter and Ephesians that the intent is to describe/include the total number of the redeemed who constitute the Universal Church. I am particular partial to the passage from Ephesians and the passage, Hebrews 12:22-24 is one of the most glorious in Scripture particularly in contrast to the verses immediately preceding.


Hebrews 12:18-24
18. For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19. And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
20. [For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
21. And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:]


22. But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23. To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

To me verses 22-24 are a prelude to the glorious picture of the Triune God presented in Revelations 4, 5! Indeed: Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.[1 Corinthians 2:9]

 

[OldRegular]

Ann

Great posts from Matthew Henry and Charles Spurgeon.

 

[OldRegular]

You are correct OR, but you will never get DHK or Tom Butler to see it. Many years ago we joined an American Baptist Church in Pasadena Texas. In visiting, we noticed a lot of references to the "local" church as apposed to the "universal" church. I inquired about this to the pastor and was told this is not a big deal. After joining we found it was not only a big deal, it was just about the only deal. They ranted on and on about how there was no universal church and that the only church was the local assemblies. Eventually I confronted the pastor and attempted to show him in Scripture that there are references to both. He would hear none of it and told me we would be better off in another church. We followed his advice and left. I feel the reason he was not totally honest with us at the beginning was that he thought he could persuade us that they were right.

I don't know why these types of churches get so wrapped up in something that is so insignificant. They are good people, just wrong about this simple thing.

I certainly believe as a Baptist that the local church should be essentially independent. But I also know some people who are adamant that there is no Universal Church. I don't know why, but it is clear to me that the last verses in Ephesians 2 is not speaking of the local body but the total number of the redeemed.

 

[DHK]

I certainly believe as a Baptist that the local church should be essentially independent. But I also know some people who are adamant that there is no Universal Church. I don't know why, but it is clear to me that the last verses in Ephesians 2 is not speaking of the local body but the total number of the redeemed.

Clear to you?? But they were not clear to the Ephesians that read them in an entirely different way, as applying them to their own local church. Historical context does trump over one's own preconceived ideas.

 

[HankD]

Personally, I am not trying to deny or in any way diminish the importance of what is called "the local church" because it does prima facie differentiate between the "true" church and the mixed multitude churches of professing christendom.

The "true" church within the local church being comprised of the "wheat" but not the tares sown by the enemy.

Then, the collective of all the "true" churches (as defined above) is, in my mind, what is commonly called the "Universal" or "invisible" Church.
Of course these terms as well as the "local" church are not terms found in the Scipture.

This does not mean that they do not exist conceptually, I believe both concepts exist (local, universal).

But in deference to the brethren, I don't like to use the phrase "universal" but use a substitute phrase or statement to avoid a conflict, although they don't seem to mind when one uses the term "the church" without the offending adjectives because it can be seen as conceptual.

Anyway, I think we using sapphire knives to split the proverbial gnat's eyelash.

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

Clear to you?? But they were not clear to the Ephesians that read them in an entirely different way, as applying them to their own local church. Historical context does trump over one's own preconceived ideas.

So time travel is now a reality and you have spoken to the Christians in Ephesus. Good for you DHK!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Can I take the next trip with you. It will have to be a freeby!

 

[DHK]

So time travel is now a reality and you have spoken to the Christians in Ephesus. Good for you DHK!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Can I take the next trip with you. It will have to be a freeby!

To laugh at history is no laughing matter. If you don't know the historical context how will you ever understand?
For example, when Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," do you really think that he was speaking of our stainless steel sewing needless? I know you do, because you have no concern for historical context.

 

[OldRegular]

To laugh at history is no laughing matter. If you don't know the historical context how will you ever understand?
For example, when Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," do you really think that he was speaking of our stainless steel sewing needless? I know you do, because you have no concern for historical context.

Obviously he was talking about stainless steel sewing needless [SP]. The Hittites had developed stainless steel hundreds of years earlier.

DHK

Why not quit the ridiculous comments and get back to the OP which is related to the fact that you do not believe in "the Church"?

By the way I was not laughing at history. I was poking fun at your assertion you knew what the Christians at Ephesus thought. Notice again your asinine assertion that you know what I think in the above:

Remark??? by DHK:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
I know you do, because you have no concern for historical context.

 

[DHK]

Why not quit the ridiculous comments and get back to the OP which is related to the fact that you do not believe in "the Church"?

Here is the point you fail to see OR. The Ephesians (and all early believers) did not have to contend with our Anglican KJV translators, nor anyone that spoke English for that fact. The English language was non-existent at that time. The universal language was Greek. They all spoke it, were fluent in it, and even the NT was written in it.
Thus when the word ekklesia was either read or heard, the word assembly came to mind, not the word "church." There was no such nebulous word in existence, not even a word close in meaning. Ekklesia simply meant assembly. It wasn't even a singularly religious word, as used here:

Acts 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
Acts 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

This word, ekklesia, is the same word that is translated church every other time in the NT. They correctly translated it "assembly" here. They didn't have much choice did they? It was an assembly; not a church. The word means assembly. It may refer to what we call a church--an assembly of believers, as in a local church, or an assembly in a court-room. It is also translated congregation.
But one cannot put an unwarranted adjective "universal" in front of it, and justify it by adding to the Word of God. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. It just doesn't make sense.

That type of doctrine would have been unknown in the time of the Apostles. Paul wrote a personal letter to the church at Ephesus. He was writing to them, those particular believers at that particular assembly. Of course the only way that they would understand that passage was to be referring to them in a personal way. The letter was written to them; their assembly. It was personal; not universal.

 

[HankD]

Here is the point you fail to see OR. The Ephesians (and all early believers) did not have to contend with our Anglican KJV translators, nor anyone that spoke English for that fact. The English language was non-existent at that time. The universal language was Greek. They all spoke it, were fluent in it, and even the NT was written in it.
Thus when the word ekklesia was either read or heard, the word assembly came to mind, not the word "church." There was no such nebulous word in existence, not even a word close in meaning. Ekklesia simply meant assembly. It wasn't even a singularly religious word, as used here:

Acts 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
Acts 19:41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

This word, ekklesia, is the same word that is translated church every other time in the NT. They correctly translated it "assembly" here. They didn't have much choice did they? It was an assembly; not a church. The word means assembly. It may refer to what we call a church--an assembly of believers, as in a local church, or an assembly in a court-room. It is also translated congregation.
But one cannot put an unwarranted adjective "universal" in front of it, and justify it by adding to the Word of God. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. It just doesn't make sense.

That type of doctrine would have been unknown in the time of the Apostles. Paul wrote a personal letter to the church at Ephesus. He was writing to them, those particular believers at that particular assembly. Of course the only way that they would understand that passage was to be referring to them in a personal way. The letter was written to them; their assembly. It was personal; not universal.

Greetings DHK and all,

I don't believe a strong argument can be made on the Koine semantics for "ekklesia".

There are other words translated "assembly" in the NT which have even a closer meaning (IMO) than the word "ekklesia" to the concept you refer.

In and of itself has the idea of calling out (ek-klesia) to muster:

Hebrews 12:23 To the general assembly (panaguris) and church (ekklesia) of the firstborn, which are written in heaven (the "muster" part), and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.​

Although I had a PhD. professor loudly tell me that "ekklesia" had NO REFERENCE TO A CALLING OUT!. Clearly however, he had over the years proved himself very biased in this matter (and others) which clouded his usually brilliant judgment.​

Here is another which uses the root of our word "synogogue":​

John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled (sunago) for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.​

Here is one place where the word "ekklesia" is used of the OT congregation in the Sinai desert:​

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church (ekklesia) in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:​

Also, the word "ekklesia" and "sunagoge" are used extensively and interchangeable in the OT Septuagint (LXX) and indeed has an "ecclesiastic" flavor to them:​

Deuteronomy 31:30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation (LXX - ekklesia) of Israel the words of this song, until they were ended.​

Exodus 16:9 And Moses spake unto Aaron, Say unto all the congregation (LXX - sunagoge) of the children of Israel, Come near before the LORD: for he hath heard your murmurings.​

Generally the English word "congregation" is either represented by "ekklesia" or "sunagoge" in the LXX.​

The LXX translators generally translated the Hebrew word EDAH (Strong's 5712) as "sunagoge" and KAHAL (Strong's 6951) as "ekklesia".​

I believe one of the real significances of the gravitation over the centuries towards "ekklesia" as the Christian assembly (as opposed to "sunagoga) is to differentiate it from the congregation of Judaism.

Thus when we say "church" as opposed ot "synagogue" we know immediately what is meant.

If I were to make any kind of consession, I would say that there is/was only one "local church", the one in Jerusalem and all others are an extension of it with a present mixture of tares among the wheat.
These will be removed at His return:​

Matthew 13
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.​

The word "church" however is not mentioned but only alluded to in the passage above.​

My contention (without being contentious) which I believe is being missed by the "local church" proponents is that the "mixed mulititude" churches sometimes/oftimes need to be made distinct from the born-again assembly in an adjectival way. The Scripture does so as in the general epistles of 1 Peter and Hebrews in an allegorical way:​

1 Peter 2:9
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:​

Hebrews 12
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.​

So therefore should we as well.​

Perhaps the phrase which is often used "the children of God" is a good compromise.​

HankD​