-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The Church Universal
- Thread starter DaPastor
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
Let me be the first to respond. I believe that the concept of universal church is a compound issue. 1. It is a remnant of Roman Catholicism. 2. It is the misunderstanding and confusion of other terms, as the family of God, kingdom of heaven, kingdom of God, etc.
I personally feel there is theological danger in the not too distant future for those who do not comprehend the difference.
I personally feel there is theological danger in the not too distant future for those who do not comprehend the difference.
The Bible presents 5 types of kingdoms.
1. Providential kingdom (God's universal sovereign rule over all). Psalm 103:19
2. Theocratic Kingdom (God's rule over the nation of Israel in the OT). 2 Sam. 7:5-16; 1 Chron. 17:3-15
3. Spiritual Kingdom (God's rule over all who are born again from Genesis to Revelation). John 3:3-8
4. Mystery Kingdom (professing Christendom). Parables set forth by Christ from Matthew 13 onward
5. The Future earthly Millennial Kingdom. Ezekiel 39; Zech. 14; Luke 1:33; Matt. 25:31-46; Reve. 20:1-6
Some theologians would classify all of these into what is called "macro" and "micro" kingdoms. The Macro kingdom is the universal kingdom and the micros are the smaller kingdoms underneath that one macro kingdom. But the key is that the CHURCH is never defined in the Bible as the sole focus of God's kingdom. God's kingdom is larger than that and the idea of a Universal Church is the outworking of the non-literal hermeneutic that applies the kingdom texts to the church. The body of Christ is larger than the local church and it is only one portion of the kingdom, not the totality of the kingdom.
The idea of the ONE CHURCH was due to the Roman Catholics thinking there was no future kingdom to come or any other kingdom but the spiritual kingdom that they controlled. It was due to the faulty ideology of amillennialism which was built off a non-literal hermeneutic. It is the same hermeneutic that undermines a future for national ethnic Israel, undermines the doctrine of marriage, and undermined the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. For the life of me I can't figure out how anyone could oppose the ONE CHURCH idea and yet still affirm ammillennial theology as if this is all there is to God's kingdom, as if Christ is truly King over all political sectors now. Lord over all? Yes! Functioning as King over all now? No!
So, if we properly define the kingdom then we can see that the local churches fit into three of the three kingdom ideas above (#1,3, and 4).
Furthermore, we can also see God's kingdom work is not tied solely to the local church(es) but to the Lordship of Christ as he rules over his kingdom today and will also rule over the future kingdom to come in the future when he does what Zechariah says (chp. 14), when his feet stands upon the land of Israel and he sits down to rule over all the earth as King (see Matt. 25; also Rev. 20).
This, then means that someone can be born again, in the kingdom, and yet still not tied to a local manifestation of the kingdom of God in a local church. Why because salvation is not connected tothe local church but to the head of the body. Christ is head of his body and the body extends beyond the local churches. If the churches are NOT the KINGDOM in totality, which it is not unless we embrace amillennial versions of theology that claim the CHURCH and the KINGDOM are the same this then leaves room for people to be in the kingdom yet not in a local church.
That is why the Roman Catholic church says all who are outside their Church or Churches are lost because they have made a terrible error by reading the idea of the CHURCH is the KINGDOM into Scripture. Their non-literal hermeneutic has led them to a severe error by making the two the same.
But we clearly see people being born again into the spiritual kingdom and yet unrelated to local churches. Paul for one was saved and baptized with no connection to a local church. Was his baptism spurious? Was he in error by being baptized outside the ministry of a local church? Hardly. At the moment he trusted Christ as his Lord he was baptized into the one body of Christ apart from any local church. Rome, however, says salvation comes only through the acts of the priests and through their sacerdotal services. Why? Because they see the KINGDOM as the CHURCH. The churches and the body of Christ though are not the same in Scripture.
Now of course because Paul was truly born again he sought to be in a local church (Acts 9) so he could partner with that form of God's kingdom work. But the CHURCH or Churches in total are not the same as God's spiritual kingdom. One can be in the spiritual kingdom (born again kingdom) and yet unrelated to a local manifestation of the churches which are only a part of the total providential kingdom.
This does not in any way mean the local church is not ALSO a part of God's kingdom. Local churches are a part of the kingdom of God. But it is ONLY a part of it, not the full version of it, unlike what Rome teaches us with their amillennial theology that equates the kingdom of God to the ONE CHURCH ideology.
This is one reason why at the turn of the 18th century, and the rise of the 19th century into the early 20th century as the rise to the premillennial doctrine developed and a return to literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutics developed people began to discover that God's kingdom was larger and bigger than just as expressed in local churches or as expressed in the ammillennial (no future earthly kingdom to come as we are now in the kingdom) kingdom ideology as so popularized by the Roman Catholic Church.
When one is saved they are at that moment placed in the body of Christ. They can be in the body of Christ with no connection to any local church, which is a smaller or more localized expression of God's kingdom rule. But Rome, due to their non-literal hermeneutic, equated the KINGDOM to the ONE CHURCH idea and then that led to their idea that since the church exists here and now this is all there is to God's kingdom and thus if one is outside of that, i.e. outside the church, then one is not right with the Lord or even not saved.
The literalists though insist that the Kingdom of God is multifacted. Literalists affirm that God is not through Israel, as that nation is also a part of the kingdfom rule of God, and that they still have a plan in God's kingdom program because they were unconditionally elected and God's election cannot be undone, that the KINGDOM IS NOT THE CHURCH or ALL OF THE CHURCHES, and that one can be saved apart from the church or churches. They also insist that people are born again and placed into a spiritual kingdom that differs from the local church (John 3:3-8). Thus, for the literalists who see the body of Christ as larger than the church we see salvation and placement in the body of Christ as being in the Spiritual kingdom and we do not equate the church as one and same as the spiritual kingdom.
Again, that is not to undermine the local church. God uses it and it is our goal to build those. But evangelism and conversion makes one a part of the body of Christ, sanctification and growth leads to more discipleship and a desire to be in fellowship with other believers, and then multiple disciples in one area will then seek to plant an organization known as local churches (Titus 1:1-5) to make their power stronger for the work of the great commission (Matt. 28:18-20). But that local church is not, unless we adopt Rome's definition of the kingdom, the only place where the Spirit dwells and where Christ rules. His rule extends to that but beyond that and broader than that, unlike Rome's position where one can only be saved through the CHURCH and only if one stays connected to the CHURCH.
Dr. Allen
1. Providential kingdom (God's universal sovereign rule over all). Psalm 103:19
2. Theocratic Kingdom (God's rule over the nation of Israel in the OT). 2 Sam. 7:5-16; 1 Chron. 17:3-15
3. Spiritual Kingdom (God's rule over all who are born again from Genesis to Revelation). John 3:3-8
4. Mystery Kingdom (professing Christendom). Parables set forth by Christ from Matthew 13 onward
5. The Future earthly Millennial Kingdom. Ezekiel 39; Zech. 14; Luke 1:33; Matt. 25:31-46; Reve. 20:1-6
Some theologians would classify all of these into what is called "macro" and "micro" kingdoms. The Macro kingdom is the universal kingdom and the micros are the smaller kingdoms underneath that one macro kingdom. But the key is that the CHURCH is never defined in the Bible as the sole focus of God's kingdom. God's kingdom is larger than that and the idea of a Universal Church is the outworking of the non-literal hermeneutic that applies the kingdom texts to the church. The body of Christ is larger than the local church and it is only one portion of the kingdom, not the totality of the kingdom.
The idea of the ONE CHURCH was due to the Roman Catholics thinking there was no future kingdom to come or any other kingdom but the spiritual kingdom that they controlled. It was due to the faulty ideology of amillennialism which was built off a non-literal hermeneutic. It is the same hermeneutic that undermines a future for national ethnic Israel, undermines the doctrine of marriage, and undermined the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. For the life of me I can't figure out how anyone could oppose the ONE CHURCH idea and yet still affirm ammillennial theology as if this is all there is to God's kingdom, as if Christ is truly King over all political sectors now. Lord over all? Yes! Functioning as King over all now? No!
So, if we properly define the kingdom then we can see that the local churches fit into three of the three kingdom ideas above (#1,3, and 4).
Furthermore, we can also see God's kingdom work is not tied solely to the local church(es) but to the Lordship of Christ as he rules over his kingdom today and will also rule over the future kingdom to come in the future when he does what Zechariah says (chp. 14), when his feet stands upon the land of Israel and he sits down to rule over all the earth as King (see Matt. 25; also Rev. 20).
This, then means that someone can be born again, in the kingdom, and yet still not tied to a local manifestation of the kingdom of God in a local church. Why because salvation is not connected tothe local church but to the head of the body. Christ is head of his body and the body extends beyond the local churches. If the churches are NOT the KINGDOM in totality, which it is not unless we embrace amillennial versions of theology that claim the CHURCH and the KINGDOM are the same this then leaves room for people to be in the kingdom yet not in a local church.
That is why the Roman Catholic church says all who are outside their Church or Churches are lost because they have made a terrible error by reading the idea of the CHURCH is the KINGDOM into Scripture. Their non-literal hermeneutic has led them to a severe error by making the two the same.
But we clearly see people being born again into the spiritual kingdom and yet unrelated to local churches. Paul for one was saved and baptized with no connection to a local church. Was his baptism spurious? Was he in error by being baptized outside the ministry of a local church? Hardly. At the moment he trusted Christ as his Lord he was baptized into the one body of Christ apart from any local church. Rome, however, says salvation comes only through the acts of the priests and through their sacerdotal services. Why? Because they see the KINGDOM as the CHURCH. The churches and the body of Christ though are not the same in Scripture.
Now of course because Paul was truly born again he sought to be in a local church (Acts 9) so he could partner with that form of God's kingdom work. But the CHURCH or Churches in total are not the same as God's spiritual kingdom. One can be in the spiritual kingdom (born again kingdom) and yet unrelated to a local manifestation of the churches which are only a part of the total providential kingdom.
This does not in any way mean the local church is not ALSO a part of God's kingdom. Local churches are a part of the kingdom of God. But it is ONLY a part of it, not the full version of it, unlike what Rome teaches us with their amillennial theology that equates the kingdom of God to the ONE CHURCH ideology.
This is one reason why at the turn of the 18th century, and the rise of the 19th century into the early 20th century as the rise to the premillennial doctrine developed and a return to literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutics developed people began to discover that God's kingdom was larger and bigger than just as expressed in local churches or as expressed in the ammillennial (no future earthly kingdom to come as we are now in the kingdom) kingdom ideology as so popularized by the Roman Catholic Church.
When one is saved they are at that moment placed in the body of Christ. They can be in the body of Christ with no connection to any local church, which is a smaller or more localized expression of God's kingdom rule. But Rome, due to their non-literal hermeneutic, equated the KINGDOM to the ONE CHURCH idea and then that led to their idea that since the church exists here and now this is all there is to God's kingdom and thus if one is outside of that, i.e. outside the church, then one is not right with the Lord or even not saved.
The literalists though insist that the Kingdom of God is multifacted. Literalists affirm that God is not through Israel, as that nation is also a part of the kingdfom rule of God, and that they still have a plan in God's kingdom program because they were unconditionally elected and God's election cannot be undone, that the KINGDOM IS NOT THE CHURCH or ALL OF THE CHURCHES, and that one can be saved apart from the church or churches. They also insist that people are born again and placed into a spiritual kingdom that differs from the local church (John 3:3-8). Thus, for the literalists who see the body of Christ as larger than the church we see salvation and placement in the body of Christ as being in the Spiritual kingdom and we do not equate the church as one and same as the spiritual kingdom.
Again, that is not to undermine the local church. God uses it and it is our goal to build those. But evangelism and conversion makes one a part of the body of Christ, sanctification and growth leads to more discipleship and a desire to be in fellowship with other believers, and then multiple disciples in one area will then seek to plant an organization known as local churches (Titus 1:1-5) to make their power stronger for the work of the great commission (Matt. 28:18-20). But that local church is not, unless we adopt Rome's definition of the kingdom, the only place where the Spirit dwells and where Christ rules. His rule extends to that but beyond that and broader than that, unlike Rome's position where one can only be saved through the CHURCH and only if one stays connected to the CHURCH.
Dr. Allen
A
Anonymous
Guest
Dr. Allen,
Please reconsider the topic of the "body of Christ" as being a church, each church being a body of Christ, rather than one larger universal or even international body. The body function as related in the Pauline epistles is impossible to perform in any venue but that of local congregations of believers. I would suggest that the larger aggregation of believers is based on filial relations as brethren in "the family of God". There are unique ministries and functions committed to churches that not plausible to any other type of organization. There is no other organism attributed to the earthly ministry of Christ, that did not pre-exist His incarnation, other than churches. It is this creation of His, that He said that, He will build. It is the organism that Paul declares that Christ gave Himself for.
All other organization or accumulation of believers must therefore fall into some other descriptive term.
Does this fit into your earlier delineation of kingdoms?
Please reconsider the topic of the "body of Christ" as being a church, each church being a body of Christ, rather than one larger universal or even international body. The body function as related in the Pauline epistles is impossible to perform in any venue but that of local congregations of believers. I would suggest that the larger aggregation of believers is based on filial relations as brethren in "the family of God". There are unique ministries and functions committed to churches that not plausible to any other type of organization. There is no other organism attributed to the earthly ministry of Christ, that did not pre-exist His incarnation, other than churches. It is this creation of His, that He said that, He will build. It is the organism that Paul declares that Christ gave Himself for.
All other organization or accumulation of believers must therefore fall into some other descriptive term.
Does this fit into your earlier delineation of kingdoms?
Pastor John, yes in a way.
It boils down to does the local visible organized church or all of the local visible organized churches in total consume or make up the kingdom of God? Rome says yes. Their amillennial theology demands that they see the Kingdom and their ONE CHURCH as the same.
But, if we believe one can be saved and immediately placed under the headship of Christ Jesus without being in an organized local church then we must believe the kingdom of God is broader than the local visible organized manifestation. If not we have to take Rome's view that one cannot be saved apart from the local manifestation of the church where grace is extended through that body (the logic of their sacerdotal system).
The Spiritual kingdom is indeed broader than the local churches. The body of Christ, all of the believers who are in Christ, is a part of this spiritual kingdom but even that is still only a portion of it. The spiritual kingdom is composed of all who are born again from Genesis to Revelation.
Knowing your theology you too would then believe that the spiritual kingdom is larger than the church because you would affirm that the church did not begin until sometime in the NT, maybe Acts 2 or somewhere in the gospels. But people were certainly being saved before the church era as you would confess.
Thus, unless we embrace the idea that the local visible organized churches are the sole place where God's kingdom rests we are pressed to accept a larger view of it.
Rome's one CHURCH and THE CHURCH IS THE KINGDOM doctrine (by way not yelling there but can't get the bold to work) is also why they think and have used in the past the sword to advance their cause through the crusades. They were only acting in accordance to their conviction that since they are the Kingdom of God and since the CHURCH is the KINGDOM that they then have the right to use the sword in that kingdom. They will likely try it again the future given the right circumstances.
In simplistic terms one only needs to ask and answer this question. When Paul was born again was he at that very moment placed under the headship of Christ? Was he at that very moment before he joined any visible local organized church body a part of Christ's one family? If we say yes but then admit he was not yet a part of a local manifestation of the local/visible organized church body of his area then we have to accept the idea that he was in the body of Christ, under Christ's spiritual kingdom rule, and yet he was still outside of a local organized church body even though he still needed to at some point find a local body to join in for the kingdom work if possible, to which he later did.
But if we claim he was not under Christ's headship until he later joined a local body then we have a born again saint who is not a part of the family of Christ and is not truly baptized by the Spirit. The key to it is 1 Cor. 12:12. "For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jew or Greeks, salve or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."
At what point is the Spirit given to someone? Rome says it is when they are baptized, effusion for them, in their church or when they partake of the body of Christ in the sacrament.
On the other side, yet still of the same line of thought, would be those who think ONLY those baptized in local churches are truly a part of God's family. Some of the Cambellites fell into this error. They believe unless one is baptized properly in their local body that person is not a part of the true born again set of saints. It is the Roman error all over again just now it is in smaller independent protestant versions. Even some of the Landmarkist Baptists, (God bless their souls for they had so much right and we are ever so grateful for their truths in so many areas) fell into this error of believing that only the Baptists were truly the only converted saints. Many of those in that group who took it too far would not even allow someone who had not been immersed to teach or preach in their assemblies and would not let them even partake of the Lord's table as they thought the person could not be born again.
But the issue is always back to one question. Can a person come under Christ's headship and receive the Spirit of Christ without any association or connection to any local, visible, organized church body? I answer yes to that and if we say yes then we have to by the laws of logic then admit God's spiritual kingdom, the kingdom composed of those born again, is broader and deeper than just with the local visible organized church bodies.
For sure with Paul and even with the people in Acts 10 we have people who are given the Spirit and thus in the body of Christ but yet not in the local smaller versions of that body which manifests itself in local organized churches. As Romans 8:9 says, "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."
Thus, at th very moment one believes in Christ that person is under the headship of Christ and is in the spiritual kingdom of God. This sphere is not one and same with the local versions of that one body which is composed of smaller members. It is not either a SINGLE ROMAN CHURCH OR UNIVERSAL CHURCH at least in the way Rome defines it.
It could be broken down this way.
ONE BODY with MILLIONS OF MEMBERS. (all under the headship of Christ)
LOCAL ONE BODIES with MULTIPLE MEMBERS IN THOSE SMALLER ONE GEOGRAPHICAL BODIES. (all under the local elders who rule in those regions)
But unless we are willing to say someone is not truly born again or truly in the Spirit and under Christ's headship UNTIL he or she is connected to a local body we are stuck with the idea of a larger body of Christ that is distinct and broader than just the local churches, even all of the local churches in totality because salvation is wrought by the Spirit upon even those who have no connection to a visible local assembly.
Now, of someone wants to say, that where a person is saved that no matter what they are saved in a geographical region and thus are a part of that geographical body then so be it. That is fine. For example, if Bob is saved in Atlanta GA then even if he is not associated with any visible congregation as of yet he is to be still considered as a believer from the Atlanta GA portion of Christ's body then that would not be in violation of any Scripture. But we cannot equate the kingdom to just local organized churches.
The key I am stressing is that we cannot make the local assemblies the place where the full kingdom of God is consumed into. The kingdom of God, even the spiritual kingdom of God (the sphere of regeneration by the Spirit) extends beyond the visible established or organized assemblies. Someone can be saved and born again and yet not a part of the local visible assembly or an organized assembly.
It boils down to does the local visible organized church or all of the local visible organized churches in total consume or make up the kingdom of God? Rome says yes. Their amillennial theology demands that they see the Kingdom and their ONE CHURCH as the same.
But, if we believe one can be saved and immediately placed under the headship of Christ Jesus without being in an organized local church then we must believe the kingdom of God is broader than the local visible organized manifestation. If not we have to take Rome's view that one cannot be saved apart from the local manifestation of the church where grace is extended through that body (the logic of their sacerdotal system).
The Spiritual kingdom is indeed broader than the local churches. The body of Christ, all of the believers who are in Christ, is a part of this spiritual kingdom but even that is still only a portion of it. The spiritual kingdom is composed of all who are born again from Genesis to Revelation.
Knowing your theology you too would then believe that the spiritual kingdom is larger than the church because you would affirm that the church did not begin until sometime in the NT, maybe Acts 2 or somewhere in the gospels. But people were certainly being saved before the church era as you would confess.
Thus, unless we embrace the idea that the local visible organized churches are the sole place where God's kingdom rests we are pressed to accept a larger view of it.
Rome's one CHURCH and THE CHURCH IS THE KINGDOM doctrine (by way not yelling there but can't get the bold to work) is also why they think and have used in the past the sword to advance their cause through the crusades. They were only acting in accordance to their conviction that since they are the Kingdom of God and since the CHURCH is the KINGDOM that they then have the right to use the sword in that kingdom. They will likely try it again the future given the right circumstances.
In simplistic terms one only needs to ask and answer this question. When Paul was born again was he at that very moment placed under the headship of Christ? Was he at that very moment before he joined any visible local organized church body a part of Christ's one family? If we say yes but then admit he was not yet a part of a local manifestation of the local/visible organized church body of his area then we have to accept the idea that he was in the body of Christ, under Christ's spiritual kingdom rule, and yet he was still outside of a local organized church body even though he still needed to at some point find a local body to join in for the kingdom work if possible, to which he later did.
But if we claim he was not under Christ's headship until he later joined a local body then we have a born again saint who is not a part of the family of Christ and is not truly baptized by the Spirit. The key to it is 1 Cor. 12:12. "For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jew or Greeks, salve or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."
At what point is the Spirit given to someone? Rome says it is when they are baptized, effusion for them, in their church or when they partake of the body of Christ in the sacrament.
On the other side, yet still of the same line of thought, would be those who think ONLY those baptized in local churches are truly a part of God's family. Some of the Cambellites fell into this error. They believe unless one is baptized properly in their local body that person is not a part of the true born again set of saints. It is the Roman error all over again just now it is in smaller independent protestant versions. Even some of the Landmarkist Baptists, (God bless their souls for they had so much right and we are ever so grateful for their truths in so many areas) fell into this error of believing that only the Baptists were truly the only converted saints. Many of those in that group who took it too far would not even allow someone who had not been immersed to teach or preach in their assemblies and would not let them even partake of the Lord's table as they thought the person could not be born again.
But the issue is always back to one question. Can a person come under Christ's headship and receive the Spirit of Christ without any association or connection to any local, visible, organized church body? I answer yes to that and if we say yes then we have to by the laws of logic then admit God's spiritual kingdom, the kingdom composed of those born again, is broader and deeper than just with the local visible organized church bodies.
For sure with Paul and even with the people in Acts 10 we have people who are given the Spirit and thus in the body of Christ but yet not in the local smaller versions of that body which manifests itself in local organized churches. As Romans 8:9 says, "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."
Thus, at th very moment one believes in Christ that person is under the headship of Christ and is in the spiritual kingdom of God. This sphere is not one and same with the local versions of that one body which is composed of smaller members. It is not either a SINGLE ROMAN CHURCH OR UNIVERSAL CHURCH at least in the way Rome defines it.
It could be broken down this way.
ONE BODY with MILLIONS OF MEMBERS. (all under the headship of Christ)
LOCAL ONE BODIES with MULTIPLE MEMBERS IN THOSE SMALLER ONE GEOGRAPHICAL BODIES. (all under the local elders who rule in those regions)
But unless we are willing to say someone is not truly born again or truly in the Spirit and under Christ's headship UNTIL he or she is connected to a local body we are stuck with the idea of a larger body of Christ that is distinct and broader than just the local churches, even all of the local churches in totality because salvation is wrought by the Spirit upon even those who have no connection to a visible local assembly.
Now, of someone wants to say, that where a person is saved that no matter what they are saved in a geographical region and thus are a part of that geographical body then so be it. That is fine. For example, if Bob is saved in Atlanta GA then even if he is not associated with any visible congregation as of yet he is to be still considered as a believer from the Atlanta GA portion of Christ's body then that would not be in violation of any Scripture. But we cannot equate the kingdom to just local organized churches.
The key I am stressing is that we cannot make the local assemblies the place where the full kingdom of God is consumed into. The kingdom of God, even the spiritual kingdom of God (the sphere of regeneration by the Spirit) extends beyond the visible established or organized assemblies. Someone can be saved and born again and yet not a part of the local visible assembly or an organized assembly.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Here's my understanding, after sorting through a variety of teachings I have received and comparing it to the Word.
1. Salvation is not a result of any church relationship, rather, church is for people that have become believers already, for growth, fellowship, security and teaching.
2. Churches are part of the greater kingdom of God, not the repository of the same. Churches are designed to be a physical manifestation of the larger family of God, where believers are in a loving community for mutual benefit.
3. All believers in heaven and earth constitute the family of God.
4. Any where on earth where God is acknowledge as sovereign in the lives of believers is the kingdom of God and said believers are subjects.
Granted there are distinctive divisions of influence as you have listed, but I find the above is quite functional in a practical way and not adverse to the Word. What think ye?
1. Salvation is not a result of any church relationship, rather, church is for people that have become believers already, for growth, fellowship, security and teaching.
2. Churches are part of the greater kingdom of God, not the repository of the same. Churches are designed to be a physical manifestation of the larger family of God, where believers are in a loving community for mutual benefit.
3. All believers in heaven and earth constitute the family of God.
4. Any where on earth where God is acknowledge as sovereign in the lives of believers is the kingdom of God and said believers are subjects.
Granted there are distinctive divisions of influence as you have listed, but I find the above is quite functional in a practical way and not adverse to the Word. What think ye?
Scarecrow
Member
"church is for people that have become believers already, for growth, fellowship, security and teaching."
A good friend of mine that always seems to find an unusual way of phrasing things would add that the "church" is a "dating service" to introduce unbelievers to Jesus. Some plant...some water...some reap...
A good friend of mine that always seems to find an unusual way of phrasing things would add that the "church" is a "dating service" to introduce unbelievers to Jesus. Some plant...some water...some reap...
DaPastor said:
Constantine's 'Catholic'/'Universal' church idea was to create a church that included all the religions into one. Thereby making it 'universal'. That's why we now have christmas, easter, sunday sabbath, etc being proclaimed as 'Christian'.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Actually, I would say that is the responsibility of each individual christian, not the group. Why would an unbeliever want to hang out with a bunch of weirdo christians?
Church (a group of believers holding to the doctrine of Christ IIJohn9-11) is for nurturing, family like, believers.
Scarecrow
Member
"Actually, I would say that is the responsibility of each individual christian, not the group. Why would an unbeliever want to hang out with a bunch of weirdo christians?"
I think both can be effective. I have seen people accept Christ at a church service, and I have seen people accept Christ with the assistance of an individual outside of a church...
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
I think both can be effective. I have seen people accept Christ at a church service, and I have seen people accept Christ with the assistance of an individual outside of a church...
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
Psator John says:
Pastor John, yes, I think that too is how Scripture sees it. Point #1: A person can believe and be a part of God's family before connected to a local church. Point #2: Yep, local churches are organized manifestations of those who profess Christ. Point #3: Yes, there is one FAMILY (probably not good to say church as we both see the word church used for local assemblies), of God. In that family, I think you and I too would see a distiction between the bride of Christ and other family members who are redeemed yet not part of the bride of Christ (OT saints). But in any case I too see only one family of God and it is composed of those who are born again from Genesis to Revelation. Point # 4: Yep, any one anywhere that comes underneath God/Christ's rule is a subject to his lordship and kingdom.
I think all four of those points line up with Scripture as it seems to me.
I think there are two errors we always have to work to guard against.
(1) There are those who slip into an ideology that says salvation and the work and blessing of the Spirit can only be for those who are associated with the one organized universal church (such as with Rome).
(2) Then on the other end are those who claim that salvation and and the blessings of the Spirit can only be for those who are associated with the individual local organized church bodies (Cambellites, etc).
Neither are what I see in Scripture and pragmatically those in both of those groups often wind up living a very pride-filled life as if they think they are the only one(s) that really have God's blessing in their life. In other words, if you are not in Rome or a part of the Cambellite ideology then you surely can't be right with God.
Is the local organized churches important in God's kingdom work? Oh absolutely! They are a vital part of the means unto the end of making disciples. We all ought to in the fight to produce godly, properly ordered, local assemblies so that each local assembly can grow up disciples and go reach out to make more.
But some go too far and become so focused on that one portion of God's kingdom work that they cannot see anything else but that. God's kingdom is multi-facted and larger than just the local churches though it most certainly does include it.
Pastor John, yes, I think that too is how Scripture sees it. Point #1: A person can believe and be a part of God's family before connected to a local church. Point #2: Yep, local churches are organized manifestations of those who profess Christ. Point #3: Yes, there is one FAMILY (probably not good to say church as we both see the word church used for local assemblies), of God. In that family, I think you and I too would see a distiction between the bride of Christ and other family members who are redeemed yet not part of the bride of Christ (OT saints). But in any case I too see only one family of God and it is composed of those who are born again from Genesis to Revelation. Point # 4: Yep, any one anywhere that comes underneath God/Christ's rule is a subject to his lordship and kingdom.
I think all four of those points line up with Scripture as it seems to me.
I think there are two errors we always have to work to guard against.
(1) There are those who slip into an ideology that says salvation and the work and blessing of the Spirit can only be for those who are associated with the one organized universal church (such as with Rome).
(2) Then on the other end are those who claim that salvation and and the blessings of the Spirit can only be for those who are associated with the individual local organized church bodies (Cambellites, etc).
Neither are what I see in Scripture and pragmatically those in both of those groups often wind up living a very pride-filled life as if they think they are the only one(s) that really have God's blessing in their life. In other words, if you are not in Rome or a part of the Cambellite ideology then you surely can't be right with God.
Is the local organized churches important in God's kingdom work? Oh absolutely! They are a vital part of the means unto the end of making disciples. We all ought to in the fight to produce godly, properly ordered, local assemblies so that each local assembly can grow up disciples and go reach out to make more.
But some go too far and become so focused on that one portion of God's kingdom work that they cannot see anything else but that. God's kingdom is multi-facted and larger than just the local churches though it most certainly does include it.
Here's another error we need to guard against:
I can see that false idea taking hold of some, especially since we seem to be ostracized and sometimes persecuted by mainstream Christianity. So let's not let that happen!
- If you don't believe in Biblical Marriage, you can't be saved.
I can see that false idea taking hold of some, especially since we seem to be ostracized and sometimes persecuted by mainstream Christianity. So let's not let that happen!
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
My position is that the CHURCH is the Kingdom of God made visible. Those believers working outside of the CHURCH are resisting the very heart of Jesus. They are not cooperating with His vision of building His Church (Matthew 16:18), nor are they cooperating with the structure of His Church (Acts-Epistles).
Brother Allen, this is theory and speculation.
The obvious use of the term "non-literal hermeneutic" as a pejorative is interesting. The fact of the matter is many who claim a literal hermeneutic actually just choose different passages as those that are to be interpreted as non-literal. In fact, many of these same people hold to the literal method of interpretation so strong they will violate genre, context, and/or the very clarity of Scripture itself; arbitrarily cutting and pasting passages together in their attempt to remold Scriptural truth to their image.
Come on, Brother Allen, you know that this is a logical fallacy. I'm surprised! Do I really need to spell this one out.
This statement suggests that you may not have a good hold on ammillenialism, but I am not going to debate this at this time.
I am not certain that the Kingdom has been properly defined at this point. Those delineations may or may not be true.
I am not convince that the passages used are to be understood in the way you suggest.
Ammillennialism does not teach that the Kingdom is the Church, but that the Church is the visible expression of the Kingdom of God. Since the church is God's plan, and since Jesus made it clear that His vision was to build His church, then it is obvious that to the extent that believers are connected to the Church that He is building (which is clearly expressed in Acts-Epistles), to that extent are they doing the will of the Father. There are no Scriptures in the Bible that suggest, encourage, or teach, that believers are to be working outside of the Church structure that Jesus is building. Certainly there are believers that do that, but using the body of Christ example, I would suggest that they may be like a disconnected body parts, not functioning as part of the body of Christ.
.
Now, here is where the confusion comes. The Roman Catholic understanding of Ammillennialism definately equates the merges the idea of CHURCH and KINGDOM into one idea, but that is not what Evangelical Ammillennialism teaches.
Yes, people do get born again apart from local churches. However, if they truly embrace the truth of Christ, they must get connected to the local church. Paul is a perfect example. Did he immediately get connected to the local church - absolutely. Those outside of it are out of order. Actually, concerning Paul's baptism, this is an argument from silence. We are not supplied with all the information. However, I would suggest that the one who baptized Paul was deeply connected to the local church.
Yes, believers can be in the spiritual kingdom, but the heart of God as expressed through Christ is not merely to have people born again, but planted in the House of God.
Local churches are the Kingdom of God expressed during this time. Sure, the Kingdom of God is more than the local church, but it isn't a mere option for believers. Moreover, lumping all amillennialism together creates confusion.
Literal, historical, and grammatical hermeneutics are great as long as they are not used improperly to promote things that the Scriptures do not really teach. I have found over the years that it is one thing to say I believe in sound hermeneutics, it is quite another to be objective enough to really put those hermeneutics into practice.
When one is saved they have entered into the kingdom. However, it may be questioned whether one is in the Church (we can have a thread on this later). However, no matter how one understand this, the fact remains that a healthy believer will not reject the vision of Christ by not cooperating with His program.
Literalists do not necessarily insist that God is not being through with the nation of Israel. Some literalists insist on that. The surpise to me is how a literalist would ever say encourage people to work outside of the church that Christ is building. My goodness, all the literal passages that suggest otherwise!
Although His rule extends beyond the local church, His rulership points back to the local church. When all the passages about the Church are brought together as a whole doctrine, one is forced to conclude that this is a Lordship issue, not a "what can I get away with and still claim that I am a believer issue." Even Apostle Paul felt that the believers in Crete needed to be placed into local churches to be considered "set in order."
I think one can push the envelope of Scriptural definitions to justify para-church organizations, but IMHO, it is a stretch and goes against the very tenor of Scriptural truth.
First, did not Paul spend three years being taught by Christ? Did not Christ spend three years training and preparing the apostles to go plant churches? Does that not show us that sometimes pre-order work must be done to train up a new set of leaders to go plant rightly ordered churches?
Second, let us grant you your position for just a moment and work with it as it stands. Did not Paul almost get rejected and was he not almost refused and rejected so that he could not join a church? What would he have done had that happened? Oh, too hypothetical? Well let's move to today to many of the fine men and women here connected with BF. Sure, there are those who have been given the boot and ousted not because of their views per se but because they were rebels and rude and obnoxious to legitimate authority. I do not support rudeness or disrespect to authority. But, in those cases, and there are numerous cases of those who have been respectful, and have still been booted and still refused from membership and they have no home to fellowship in as of yet. What are we to do until the time comes where the Spirit works in such a way to raise up leaders for them? Does not the teaching of Christ emphasize that he desires mercy over sacrifice? Is that not what he said? Did not James tells us that "mercy triumphs over justice"? Is it not loving and righteous to serve and lead until local leaders can be in place to serve and lead? I find it hard you would say anything different knowing that you too have served here as well.
But that really gets me to the deeper question, and maybe even to at least in part a motive to the reason behind this thread's question. But since my discernment skills are often wrong so instead of trying to discern your motives I'll just ask and let you explain yourself.
So third, if as you claim above those working in para-church organizations, as you so term it (which I think is not an accurate description because people in the kingdom are under Christ's headship with gifted leaders in it at work and are at work to mature people for the goal of local churches), are in your words, "resisting the very heart of Jesus," then why did you serve and work in BF? If you truly think that then do you not then at the very root of your theology oppose the very essence and ministry of BF?
But let me suppose for just a moment and grant that people (and you in this case) grow and change in their theology. So maybe you have a different doctrine now than you did in the past when you served in BF. Very well. No problem we all grow and change and hopefully we believe that our changes are for the good. Granting you that much I still then have a question for today application.
If you truly with conviction believe that BF is a para-church organization, and that those in such groups are "resisting the very heart of Jesus," and furthermore that those in this group of BF, because it is not in your opinion a true visible form of the church, are in a ministry that is a "stretch and goes against the very tenor of Scriptural truth," then my question to you sir is what is your motive here? If that is your theology, which I hope it really is not, then what is your goal here?
Is it to help encourage others, to love on others who need fellowship, prayer, support, teaching, counsel, or a combination thereof or is it with an anti-BF spirit that opposes the very purpose of these forums and ministries where we are hoping to offer spiritual aid to those who have been hurt, ousted, and damaged because they have no solid, mature, and loving leaders to help them?
Which side of that do you come down on since as you claim any "para-church" ministry is running against Jesus? Would that not tell us what you truly believe about BF as a whole and the intent behind BF? And if so would that not tell us something about the spirit behind your post or posts? Would it not mean you are opposed to the work and ministry of BF? And if it is a logical conclusion then again one would need to ask why are you here if that is your goal (one with a spirit of opposition) when our goal is to offer love and encouragement until the day comes that people can be restored and back in and under local, godly, Bible believing fellowships all across this country?
Again, I've turned off any attempt here to discern the spirit and motive but I have examined your own words here and I find those words in and of themselves to be reason to ask the question of motives. I'm not sure how one's conscience can believe that any para-church organization is "running against Jesus" and yet join in on the forums with those that one opposes and there not be a tension in conscience somewhere. And to that I'm open to letting you have the floor to explain how that can fit.
And by all means my friend, please if you do not want to say that publicly then do not feel you have to answer that publicly. If you think BF is in sin by its ministry then follow Matthew 18 and speak to the staff privately about what you believe to be the sin of BF and handle it through the biblical process that I know you affirm and believe.
Dr. Allen
Concerning the disciples, they were being specifically ministered to by the head of the church. I would take this as being under the direct authority of the head of the church. So, I guess I would not think this would establish your case. Concerning Paul, the exception does not prove the rule. This situation is probably one of the most unique stories in all the Bible. Furthermore, Paul is very, very pro church. One could argue that what Paul learned from Christ during this unique experience is how he could cooperate with the building program of Christ (Matthew 16:18) - which is building the local church! I must add this: although some doctrines are established based upon one or two passages, generally speaking, doctrines should not be established this way from my perspective. In no way do these examples demonstrate that para-church organizations should be established. I might even go so far as suggest that this is the real replacement theology.
There are many assumptions here. I would just say that BF does not qualify as a church, and unless a family is actually practicing plural marriage, there is no reason that one cannot go to another local church. However, it should be noted that in many larger communities, there is even away around that.
Creating a problem that may not truly exist, and then claiming the solution is to show mercy to those with that problem doesn't justify the position. Sure, it is important to love others, show mercy, etc... Wouldn't it be better to encourage believers to get planted in a local church - in order that they may be intimately ministered to? Of course, unless you are talking about the small amount of people that may actually be practicing plural marriage. Many of the people on this board who actually practice plural marriage still manage to go to church on a regular basis.
Since Christ works through delegated leadership, the Spirit of God, working in conjunction with the Father's Will, and Christ's vision, will always be moving people towards the local church, indeed. God cannot contradict Himself.
My original intention was to help establish local churches that embrace plural marriage. My theology opposes the methodology of BF, not the heart. It is quite clear that BF is primarily an organization that bases its unity upon a singular doctrine - plural marriage. Other than that, almost every person on the board, as well as all forum participants, hold a host of doctrinal viewpoints. So, the essence of BF is a social forum with the common thread of plural marriage. I embrace plural marriage. The ministry of BF is to help others who are considering or who have fallen into plural marriage. I am doing this all the time. So, what is it that I oppose? I oppose the para-church concept of ministry organization.
Actually, it is a view that I have always held, but decided not to push it.
Good question. Yes, it is my theology. It is centered clearly on Scripture. One would be very hard pressed to prove otherwise - at least from the Scriptures. So, my motive is to bring edification, exhortation and comfort as I speak the truth in love as I understand it.
Again, the only reason I am here is to bring edification, exhortation and comfort as I speak the truth in love as I understand it.
I am not questioning the motives of BF. Yes, I do believe what the Scriptures clearly say about the local church. Moreover, if I wanted to undermine the ministry of BF, there are easier ways to do this then write a bunch of posts. I write what I believe Scripture teaches - just as you do. Some of the things you have taught, IMHO, actually undermines the ministry of BF, but I am not here to debate your articles. I am merely sharing what I believe Scripture teaches - just like everyone else on this board.
It is quite simple. I do not believe BF is my church. Moreover, I have not found anywhere on this board that there is a requirement that one believe everything that is taught here in order to post. Nor have I found a membership roster. This is merely a open forum centered on, for the most part, issues dealing with plural marriage. As far as I know, there isn't a requirement to agree with everything BF does in order to sign up on the forum. Furthermore, you decided to pursue my convictions about "church" because of a few things I said. So, in essence, the tension is not mine. People still need to be encouraged to follow Christ where ever they may be.
Interesting idea. However, the Biblical structure to administer Matthew 18 fully and completely isn't here. 1. All those on the board already embrace the structure of BF. 2. Who would one appeal to? Besides, sin would probably be too strong of a word from my understanding of Scripture.
Yeah,........it may be about time to reset the controls to limit posts to less than phone book lengths. lol 
For a good explanation of the essence of my position from the perspective of an Independent Baptist, please read:
http://www.thomaswilliamson.net/uct_new.htm
I should mention what I am not saying as well.
I am not saying that believers who are not a part of a local church are unsaved.
I am not saying that the leaders of BF are not believers.
But just like baptism, although a believer is saved before they are baptized, if these believers desire to cooperate with the express vision of Christ, these unbaptized believers will be led to get baptized. In like manner, although a believer is saved apart from being connected to a local church, if these believers desire to cooperate with the express vision of Christ, these unchurched believers will be led to get intimately united to a local church.
http://www.thomaswilliamson.net/uct_new.htm
I should mention what I am not saying as well.
I am not saying that believers who are not a part of a local church are unsaved.
I am not saying that the leaders of BF are not believers.
But just like baptism, although a believer is saved before they are baptized, if these believers desire to cooperate with the express vision of Christ, these unbaptized believers will be led to get baptized. In like manner, although a believer is saved apart from being connected to a local church, if these believers desire to cooperate with the express vision of Christ, these unchurched believers will be led to get intimately united to a local church.
Tlaloc
Member
Hmm, as another Independent Baptist myself I wonder what you see in this guy. In his first Chapter he argues that Ecclisiasia in scripture means neither the etymological nor the contemporary understanding of the word but the word at that time actually meant some intermediate thing that is almost the same but happens to support his cause. But when he says what he thinks what that intermediary thing is it is the same thing we all think ecclisiacia means, to be called out, but then he denies any spiritual significance of that calling out. Fair enough that the word had a broad meaning of calling anyone out for any purpose, but it certainly refers to those called out of the world when used in Scripture. Those called out for Christ. Those who assemble themselves for Christ.
Lines like
Seem to fly in the face of
Especially since 'the general assembly' is rooted in paneguris, which seems to mean pretty much 'universal companionship' or EVERYONE in any 'church of the firstborn'.
Also, saying this body of believers never meets is very shortsighted, this very body will meet in New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Heaven.
The writer of this article seems to have a poor handle on what constitutes proof or evidence as well. In his own words the Universal Church advocates say 'church' means either universal or local depending on context, he then says that most of the time it is local and only sometimes universal (in their view, of course), he then says that the since it is universal less often the burden of proof is on them that that is ever the proper context. The validity of a rendering has nothing to do with how often it is rendered this or that, if its valid but never used it is still valid, and if it is invalid and used 90% of the time it's invalid.
Section 2a is almost worse scholarship. He is set out to prove that Church never means all churches as a whole, but if he followed through on that he'd say that only Peters church could withstand the Gates of Hell (since that is what was promised) while he obviously takes it to mean this statement applies to all churches as a universal whole, though he doesn't say it.
For this interpetation to work Christ must have meant that ALL CHURCHES as a whole, which is what the concept of Universal Church means, so he is admitting his opponents point while denying his opponents terminology; which is really what he will end up doing if he is the sort of Independent Baptist I think he is. And wait, he is EXACTLY the kind of IB I think he is.
Oh boy... This kind of guy, no wonder his scholarship is so atrocious. To him a True Evangelical Church is B A P T I S T, and Baptist only, the rest don't cut it and we Baptists are so high and mighty we are the only true church and the rest of you are below us and any concept of a 'universal church' that includes all you SINNERS is out of the question. My Church has had it out with this type of Baptist just this fall actually... Mark me this is not the kind of guy to take theology from... The rest of Chapter 2 is not so great, it seems to rely on the premise of Chapter 1 to say 'yeah it says the church is universal, but its an isolated instance so it cant actually be taken that way'
Chapter 3 is full of things I saw coming as soon as I saw him reference "Baptist Church Perpetuity" by W.A. Jarrel," Its a list of his fears that may or may not be legitimate if he's wrong.
A. If the universal Church exists no one will think they need to join a local church. Anyone know a local church that teaches local church membership is not important?
The idea of the universal church robs local churches since people will give to non-(local) church causes Thats pretty much a quote... Oh the terror, how will churches continue to exist?
Also, since baptism is not required for membership in the mythical Universal Church, but is required to join any true, New Testament local church, we will magnify the importance of the ordinance of baptism, and find more applicants for that ordinance, when we teach that the local church is the "true church" and the only church that Christ is now building. Yeah, because baptism is a lost practice in any church nowdays...
B.Universal Church people are all basically Universalist in soteriology, because the words sound the same and the World council of Churches believes in the Universal Church, also universal churchers are Marxists Ok, not exactly what he said, but probably pretty close to what he thinks. I havn't debated with this guy himself, but his peers within the Western Canadian Baptist Fellowship tend to end up here.
C.
D.
Sigh... He's isolationist, which bugs me but isn't that bad, and he's ceasationist, which is a terrible thing to me.
The worst thing is that I think I tend to agree with a lot of what you're saying DaPastor, and I don't really understand why you'd cite an isolationist and quite 'out there' Independent Baptist as explaining what you believe. I thought you where doing a very good job of it, but this totally throws off what I thought you where trying to say. It seems to me the only thing you have in common with this guy is the belief in no Universal Church, but you do a better job of proving it than he did. You're position is way more solid than this, or at least I thought it was. Is that site really a good explanation of the essence of your position?
Lines like
Seem to fly in the face of
Especially since 'the general assembly' is rooted in paneguris, which seems to mean pretty much 'universal companionship' or EVERYONE in any 'church of the firstborn'.
Also, saying this body of believers never meets is very shortsighted, this very body will meet in New Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Heaven.
The writer of this article seems to have a poor handle on what constitutes proof or evidence as well. In his own words the Universal Church advocates say 'church' means either universal or local depending on context, he then says that most of the time it is local and only sometimes universal (in their view, of course), he then says that the since it is universal less often the burden of proof is on them that that is ever the proper context. The validity of a rendering has nothing to do with how often it is rendered this or that, if its valid but never used it is still valid, and if it is invalid and used 90% of the time it's invalid.
Section 2a is almost worse scholarship. He is set out to prove that Church never means all churches as a whole, but if he followed through on that he'd say that only Peters church could withstand the Gates of Hell (since that is what was promised) while he obviously takes it to mean this statement applies to all churches as a universal whole, though he doesn't say it.
For this interpetation to work Christ must have meant that ALL CHURCHES as a whole, which is what the concept of Universal Church means, so he is admitting his opponents point while denying his opponents terminology; which is really what he will end up doing if he is the sort of Independent Baptist I think he is. And wait, he is EXACTLY the kind of IB I think he is.
Oh boy... This kind of guy, no wonder his scholarship is so atrocious. To him a True Evangelical Church is B A P T I S T, and Baptist only, the rest don't cut it and we Baptists are so high and mighty we are the only true church and the rest of you are below us and any concept of a 'universal church' that includes all you SINNERS is out of the question. My Church has had it out with this type of Baptist just this fall actually... Mark me this is not the kind of guy to take theology from... The rest of Chapter 2 is not so great, it seems to rely on the premise of Chapter 1 to say 'yeah it says the church is universal, but its an isolated instance so it cant actually be taken that way'
Chapter 3 is full of things I saw coming as soon as I saw him reference "Baptist Church Perpetuity" by W.A. Jarrel," Its a list of his fears that may or may not be legitimate if he's wrong.
A. If the universal Church exists no one will think they need to join a local church. Anyone know a local church that teaches local church membership is not important?
The idea of the universal church robs local churches since people will give to non-(local) church causes Thats pretty much a quote... Oh the terror, how will churches continue to exist?
Also, since baptism is not required for membership in the mythical Universal Church, but is required to join any true, New Testament local church, we will magnify the importance of the ordinance of baptism, and find more applicants for that ordinance, when we teach that the local church is the "true church" and the only church that Christ is now building. Yeah, because baptism is a lost practice in any church nowdays...
B.Universal Church people are all basically Universalist in soteriology, because the words sound the same and the World council of Churches believes in the Universal Church, also universal churchers are Marxists Ok, not exactly what he said, but probably pretty close to what he thinks. I havn't debated with this guy himself, but his peers within the Western Canadian Baptist Fellowship tend to end up here.
C.
Or, more to the point
Or, like us, they could just talk to the members of other organizations and explain our objections reasonably, and perhaps even contribute to those that we DO agree with. I'm IB, my church is Independent and still quite sociable, but we certainly don't hop on any questionable religions bandwagons (even other IB bandwagons, like his).
D.
Or worse
They have a centralized church Government, how terrible, they are obviously now no longer Baptists of the one true faith but are Catholics again since they don't have a congressional governemnt.
Sigh... He's isolationist, which bugs me but isn't that bad, and he's ceasationist, which is a terrible thing to me.
The worst thing is that I think I tend to agree with a lot of what you're saying DaPastor, and I don't really understand why you'd cite an isolationist and quite 'out there' Independent Baptist as explaining what you believe. I thought you where doing a very good job of it, but this totally throws off what I thought you where trying to say. It seems to me the only thing you have in common with this guy is the belief in no Universal Church, but you do a better job of proving it than he did. You're position is way more solid than this, or at least I thought it was. Is that site really a good explanation of the essence of your position?
Tlaloc
Member
I belive I came off wrong here, so I should re-state my meaning now that I'm a little more rested.
My own belief:
Church is any assembly any time for a specific purpose. Classifying it as a local assembly is fine with me.
All those in Christ will assemble in the Kingdom of God to worship him after Judgment.
The Universal Church is everyone who will assemble that glorious day, the local church is just what it sounds like.
I disagree with those who say there is no universal church, but its not a big deal to me on the whole.
I strongly disagree with those who say there is no universal church because they believe Baptists are the 'only true evangelical church' and I also see that belief in the article DaPastor Posted. That's what got me so riled up.
I do not believe anyone here is an exclusivist like that, and I believe DaPastor has made much better points than the reference he cited. I am baffled as to why he cited that particular reference, and I'd like to ask why. But I do apologize for my hostility where it wound up misdirected, it was aimed at that link, not anyone here.
My own belief:
Church is any assembly any time for a specific purpose. Classifying it as a local assembly is fine with me.
All those in Christ will assemble in the Kingdom of God to worship him after Judgment.
The Universal Church is everyone who will assemble that glorious day, the local church is just what it sounds like.
I disagree with those who say there is no universal church, but its not a big deal to me on the whole.
I strongly disagree with those who say there is no universal church because they believe Baptists are the 'only true evangelical church' and I also see that belief in the article DaPastor Posted. That's what got me so riled up.
I do not believe anyone here is an exclusivist like that, and I believe DaPastor has made much better points than the reference he cited. I am baffled as to why he cited that particular reference, and I'd like to ask why. But I do apologize for my hostility where it wound up misdirected, it was aimed at that link, not anyone here.