Is the Church local, universal or both?

I think your house would be a good start until you can purchase us a crystal sanctuary with golden pews with the finest of carpet.

 

ANY time/place that your church or mine has a meeting, that would be the meeting place where the universal Church has gathered, and that would be JUT the saved in both our local churches!

 

I'm gonna need a new house, which will cost quite a bit of money to hold everybody. Plus money for the crystal and gold.

I hope you'll be the first to give an offering toward it all.

Oh, I forgot. The U-church doesn't take up offerings. I suppose it might, if anybody knew where to send the money.

But wait. If we come to my new house to meet, that'll make it a local, visible church. So you can make that big gift after all.

Just let me know if you want to give cash, check, or credit card.

 

This seems to be a hot-button issue for a couple of posters. Can you tell us why this is a crucial piece of doctrine for you?

 

It is hard to get into a debate that I have not studied out in scriptures! But I have gleamed quite a bit from reading this thread. That said....
All I know at this point is that I am a child of God, born from above. My name is on a church roll here on earth...but my name written in His book is what is the most important!

Will we have separate local churches in heaven? Are will we be one body...the bride of Christ?

 

just curious as to where jesus or any of the Apostles said that Body/Bride are NOT the church?

 

Tom Butler, you posted...

Be patient. You will see it in due time. ;)

 

I don't find in the Bible that God gives instruction to his people in metaphysical and mystical language that his people cannot understand. He does not tell us to "forsake not the assembly of yourselves together" in the heavenlies seated with Christ. What mystical garb is that?

The Lord gives us practical advice to carry out on this earth. The Great Commission is to be carried out on this world. It is not the angels or Christ himself that needs to be saved. It is the untold millions that are still untold. We need to go and tell them of the Savior that saves. We are not "seated in the heavenlies" that we cannot do our work, the work that the Lord has commanded the local church to carry on in this wicked world, in which we are commanded to be lights.

The U-church has no light. It doesn't exist. Some day it will in heaven. Be patient until that day comes. Until then carry out your God-given duties here on earth through the God-ordained institution of the local church. Don't be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good.

 

Jesus' teachings rarely can be considered separately from other truths.

Get one thing wrong and you'll likely get other things wrong, as well.

Jesus gave his marching orders to his assembled disciples.

He did it in Matthew 10, when he sent the twelve out. He spoke directly to the twelve, which constituted the first church.

He did it Matthew 28, when he gave his Commission to the assembled disciples. This commission was to expand the gospel outside of Israel to the rest of the world..

He did it in Acts 1, following his resurrection. He gave his final marching orders before returning to the Father. He gave them to the assembly of believers.

Jesus gave them the responsibility not only to go, but also to preach, teach, baptize. We know his hearers understood that this was a church mandate, since they immediately began to assemble daily, study the Word, eat and fellowship together, and organize mission trips outside Jerusalem Doesn't need elders either.

It was FBC Jerusalem where the first deacons were elected. (The U-church has none. It doesn't need them, since it doesn't do anything that requires deacons.

Some are obviously confused about the church and the kingdom. They are not the same. The kingdom is made up of subjects of the King. The way I see it, one role of the churches is to build the kingdom.

One's view of the church will likely affect his views about baptism and the Lord's Supper; it will affect your view of church government; it will affect how you relate to other denominations.

Look at other denominations whom we believe hold to error. Without exception, One error leads to another, then another.

That's why it's important to get this right.

 

Christ Himself wrote

Rev 1:20    The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Not limited to seven churches but indicating Christ acknowledged the local church not a universal church. He did not write to the church in Asia!

 

To put a functioning universal church in practical terms here on earth, a saved Methodist in Atlanta would have to somehow function as a church with a saved Baptist in Paducah which would have to function with a saved Presbyterian in Houston, and on and on, to function as a church. That would be a cute trick.

A strong belief in a local church does not imply that there are not lost people on church rolls. Every local church has them. In the final analysis, a lost person on a church roll is not part of the local or universal church, so the matter is a moot point.

With the Lord, many times up is down, down is up, first is last, as He sees fit. And yes, as much as it gets under some Baptist pastor's 2000 pot luck layers of skin, there will be saved Catholics and lost Bapstists. Isn't that a hoot.

 

Tom covers it in part here:

:thumbsup:

In short...a mistaken view of the Church can easily, and I believe it has opened the door to error creeping in to the local Church:
consider:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
If the "Church" is the "pillar and ground" of the truth, than an incorrect view of what the Church is gives us a false notion on where that pillar and ground is/can be found.

Ecumenicalism is IMO a dangerous game. And in a way, it has been Ecumenicalism itself which has in large part been responsible for the notion of a "Universal Church" being commonly believed in many Baptist Churches.

Not long ago, this was not so, but rather a majority of Baptist Churches affirmed no such thing as a Universal Church. Compare the 1925 BFM and it's statement about the "Gospel Church" to the 1963 and 2000 one.

(1925) XII. The Gospel Church A church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the ordinances of Christ, governed by his laws, and exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by his word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Its Scriptural officers are bishops, or elders, and deacons.
(Nothing here, about a Universal Church)
1963 VI. The Church A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel, observing the two ordinances of Christ, committed to His teachings, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.
This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In such a congregation, members are equally responsible. Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages.
2000 VI. The Church A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.


It is common among many here to say that "The Church" has believed ________ throughout it's history etc...

If, by that, they mean Bible-believing Scriptural local Baptist Churches, than that statement is meaningful....If, however, they mean any given denomination be it RCC, Presbyterian, Luteran etc...or simply a majority amalgam of those who call or consider themselves Christians, than that statement is NOT MEANINGFUL. But, how then are people to distinguish what the "Pillar and Ground" of the "Truth" is?? Where is it? Of WHOM is it composed? The Scriptures speak of error "creeping INTO" the Church. A local body is prepared to deal with error "creeping into" it. A Universal Church can do absolutely nothing about it.

 

:thumbsup::wavey:agreed, except I would submit it matters somewhat whether the Church was formed at Pentecost or not. I maintain, as you do, that it was formed during Christ's earthly ministry. (Hence, why, IMO he had to be Baptized) Otherwise, I have no idea why Christ found Baptism needful.
Pentecost was the empowering of the Church...and as converts were baptized, Christ added to them. You cannot add to something which does not already exist.

 

I appreciate that position. It is one of the best explanations for why the church was formed before Pentecost.

 

That's a good point.

 

For those that believe in the Universal Church here is an interesting read:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/pope-names-group-advise-him-vatican-changes-102239619.html


Accordingly, "the universal church" has been "plagued with mishaps and scandals."
Are they one and the same? Isn't there only one universal church? :smilewinkgrin:

 

It seems that those who use the term "universal church" are saying the same thing as those who call it the kingdom or body of Christ. So, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

From a Baptist Cathechism with Commentary,pg288
COMMENTARY
The church is a New Testament institution. It was a “mystery” hidden in
the redemptive purpose of God until the gospel economy and the inclusion of
the Gentiles (Eph. 2:11–22; 3:1–10). The churches of the New Testament
were gospel churches, i.e., they were gathered, bound and characterized by
the gospel, and so composed of baptized believers (Matt. 28:18–20).
Although some churches had excesses, inconsistencies or deviations from the
truth, if these did not become permanent disfigurements or departures, these
churches remained New Testament churches in doctrine and practice. The
governing principle must be: to the extent that a church holds to the truth of
the New Testament—to that extent it is a New Testament church. Conversely,
to the extent that a church departs from the truth of the New Testament—to
that extent it ceases to be a New Testament church. In other words, every
New Testament church has an immediate relation to the New Testament as to
doctrine and practice.
There are several views concerning the identity and nature of the church.
Roman Catholicism teaches that the church is comprised of her faithful
adherents world–wide from the beginning to the end of time. This “universal,
visible church” finds concrete expression through its ecclesiastical hierarchy
of popes, cardinals, bishops and priests. Its sacerdotalism [priestly function] is
expressed through the seven sacraments—Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist,
Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Order and Matrimony.
Many others hold that the church must be seen in a denominational or
national sense. These usually have the dichotomy of a “visible” and
“invisible” church by necessity. These and others usually hold that the church
existed in the Old Testament. This they term “the Jewish Church.” The only
relevant reference is Acts 7:38, which refers to Israel as an assembly
[congregation] gathered in the wilderness sojourn. The idea of an “Old
Testament Church” is essential for those who would pattern the New
Testament church after the Old Testament, and see the New Testament
Church as a continuation of the “Old Testament Church.” This would be
foundational to the argument that the Abrahamic Covenant is identical to the
Covenant of Grace, that baptism has replaced circumcision, and the Lord’s
Supper has replaced the Passover.
289
Others hold that the church was formed on the Day of Pentecost, and term
it “The Birthday of the Church.” A close study of the New Testament reveals
that the church as an institution, which had its concrete expression in the
Jerusalem assembly, existed as a distinct entity before Pentecost (Acts 1)
during the earthly ministry of our Lord. Our Lord and his disciples possessed
all the essentials of a church prior to Pentecost: they had the Gospel (Mk.
16:15; Matt. 28:18–20). They had been converted (Jn. 6:67–69). They were
baptized (Matt. 3:6; Acts 1:22). [It has been objected on the ground of Acts
19:1–7 that John’s baptism was not Christian baptism. It should be noted that
John baptized only repentant (and in this context of his mission, converted)
individuals. His baptism was the only baptism that the Lord or his disciples
ever received. With reference to Acts 19:1–7 it should be remembered that
every recorded message of John emphasized the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
(See Matt. 3:1–3. 7–12; Mk. 1:1–8; Lk. 3:2–18; Jn. 1:32–33). Further John‘s
ministry was the marked entrance into the New Testament or gospel
dispensation (Acts 1:21–22). If these men at Ephesus had been under John’s
ministry long enough to have heard his message and become his converts,
they would have been taught concerning the Holy Spirit. It is a valid
conclusion that John did not baptize them]. They were functional (Acts 1:12–
26).
Further, they had the Lord Jesus Christ for their Head (Matt. 23:8). They
had church discipline (Matt. 18:15–17). They were ordained (Matt. 10:1–5;
Jn. 15:16). They had their commission (Matt. 28:18–20; Mk. 16:15). They
were organized sufficient for their needs. Christ was their Head and Teacher.
They had a treasurer (Jn. 12:4–6; 13:27–29). They were missionary in
commission and character (Matt. 10:1–5; 28:18–20; Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:46–
47). They had a teaching ministry (Matt. 28:18–20; Jn. 21:15–17). They had
Divine authority (Matt. 28:18–20; Jn. 20:21–22). They possessed the
essentials of church life (Matt. 28:19–20). They had qualified pastors (Jn.
15:16; Jn. 21:15–17). They observed the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26–28).
They possessed the Holy Spirit (Jn. 20:22). They held prayer meetings (Acts
1:12–14). They had a definite church membership (Acts 1:15) [The wording
implies a definite membership roll, an organized church membership]. They
held a business meeting (Acts 1:15–26), which was the will of God, as
subsequent statements reveal, i.e., the Spirit ordained that Matthias was
numbered with the original Twelve (Acts 2:14; 6:2).
What, then, was the significance of Pentecost? At Pentecost, the Holy
Spirit visibly and audibly credentialed the already–existent church as the
God–ordained institution for this gospel economy (Acts 2:1–21) just as the
Tabernacle (Ex. 40) and Solomon’s Temple (2 Kgs. 8) had been credentialed
for their respective eras by the Shekinah or visible presence and power of
God. With this credentialing and empowerment, the church as an institution
was equipped and ready to evangelize the world (Acts 1:4–5, 8; 4:8, 31; 7:55;
9:17; 10:44–45; 11:24; 13:2–4). See Question 84 for a thorough discussion of
both the baptism of the Spirit and Pentecost.

 

Thank you Brother Icon, for that quotation from the Baptist Catechism.

I also find it interesting that Paul, following his conversion,(abd baptism by FBC Damascus) subsequently made his way to Jerusalem to join himself to the congregation there. He sought out a visible, organized, assembling entity. I suggest that it was because there was no other kind.

I also find it interesting that the congregation initially refused Paul membership, which tells that the congregation is the guardian of its own doors and has the authority to determine whom it will allow to join their fellowship. .It took an endorsement from Barnabas to convince FBC Jerusalem to accept Paul.

And this is interesting. The next time we hear from Paul, he's joined FBC Antioch It was to that congregation that Paul related his call to the mission field. It is noteworthy that he sought the approval of FBC Antioch before heading out with Barnabas.

And it is revealing that Paul established churches wherever he went. Local, visible, assembling entities.

 

Yes... a good source Icon. :thumbsup: As far as I can tell, I agree with it completely. It's very well written too.