Is this really church?

[MaxKennedy]

John. The prOBlem is that a the vast majority doesn't understand church as something besides the Sunday come, listen, leave, check the box, and move on kind of thing. Some of those who do however, go the opposite and start declaring everything holy, from the liturgy to the preacher's hand movements. Either approach is wrong, but that is what I see among many people.

Edited August 26, 2010 by MaxKennedy

[MaxKennedy]

I'm not trying to challenge you, I'd just like clarification. Do you believe that there is such a thing as the body of Christ, and it consists of all believers, and it is also referred to as "the church" according to Col. 1:18, 24?

If so, what is it about the teaching of the universal church that you do not like?

Is it just the term "universal church"?

Is it because Catholics abuse the doctrine to get a stranglehold?

I understand where you came from and agree with you on the idea that the universal church does not have authority over you, I just would like further clarification on what you believe about the universal church.

Hi - I think some people are against the Roman Catholic church, which we are all in agreement we should be against, and are in danger of swallowing the opposite error, which is from the devil. If you think about it, these two are contrasted in Revelation - there is the great whore, babylon - and there is the bride of Christ, New Jerusalem.

One of the great errors of the roman catholic church is the doctrine of the "nicolatians", or victory over the laity. They were run by priests. The opposite error is the doctrine of the laceodean church, Laodicea, whose name means "justice of the people". Most of the lukewarm churches we see today are protestant churches who got the victory over the nicolatians, and now they are in the opposite error - the people are in control, its like a democracy of the people, or "justice of the people".

Following what a bunch of people voted on is no more clean then following a pope. This is why I OBject to the term "local bodies" which is not in the bible, and flows pretty easily from the errors mentioned above. Jesus Christ is the Lord and Head of every believer.

[MaxKennedy]

Every believer on the planet is part of the church....the body of Christ. But in order to have "church" you must have an assembly of believers. At the present time, the church cannot physically assemble on this earth. We will when Jesus comes back but not until then. Right now, the only way to have "church" is the local church. It is impossible to do it any other way. The Catholic "church" cannot be a church and it's not even Christian anyway. And a person can be a member of a sound local church and still not be a member of the church. Because you have to be born again to be a member of the church

What this man seems to be saying is that what most people call "church", is to meet three times a week, sing a couple of songs and a special or two, listen to a sermon, shake hands and go home. He's saying that a true church is an assembly of true Spirit filled believers with unity and genuine love for one another, having compassion for the lost, praying together, denying themselves and seeing to the needs of others and going out and spreading the gospel, like they did in Acts 2:41-47

I agree with you. I'm just OBjecting to the term "local bodies" not local congregrations, which would be what people who are not members of "the" church but are part of "a" church would prOBably like to call it if they thought about it. It implies salvation without ever really belonging to "the" church, as well as the other things I mentioned. As far as being important, I think this is the heart of the doctrine of the lacedeon church - they replaced the pope with themeselves, and Jesus Christ still isn't their head. Edited August 26, 2010 by MaxKennedy

[Annie]

I just finished reading a phenomenal book on this topic: The Courage to Be Protestant by David Wells. Don't let the title fool you; it's not about "protestantism" in the way people normally think of it (as opposed to Catholic). Wells totally NAILS everything that is wrong with today's market-driven mega churches and postmodernist "emerging churches." IMO, it (along with all of David Wells' other books) is a must-read for every pastor, and every serious Christian, for that matter.

[amblivion]

1 Corinthians 12:12-23

12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14For the body is not one member, but many.

15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.

25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.



I used to believe in the "universal" church but have had some doubts about it. The reason being because it doesn't logically follow. These vereses in all actuality support eccumenculism if they are written about a "universal" church. As Baptists we usually seperate ourselves from other denominations. According to these verses we shouldn't be telling our eye or hand that we have no need of them. I believe by cutting these churches off in fellowship we are doing exactly that. This has created some serious doubts in my mind about a "universal" church. Are we not also doing the opposite of what verse 25 teaches? It says there should be NO SCHISM in the body. We are creating schisms in the body by not fellowshiping with our other body parts i.e. Lords Supper.


Anyways to answer the argument about body. It is just a play on words you are using. Body can mean a collective group. The freemasons have local chapters and are called local bodies. It would be called the local body of freemasons. They are still part of the whole fraternity of freemasons though. In like sense the local body of believers is a collective group of believers in Christ.

[MaxKennedy]

Anyways to answer the argument about body. It is just a play on words you are using. Body can mean a collective group. The freemasons have local chapters and are called local bodies. It would be called the local body of freemasons. They are still part of the whole fraternity of freemasons though. In like sense the local body of believers is a collective group of believers in Christ.

I am not using a play on words. A Christian has direct access to God annd doesn't need to go through a local church or a pope. False doctrine has serious consequences to those fooled by it. There is only one body of Christ. The members of that body aren't churches, the members of that body are you, me, or any true believer.

Also, the freemasons are occultists. Using them as an example isn't so great when we're talking about the witchcraft of the whore. Edited August 27, 2010 by MaxKennedy

[amblivion]

I am not using a play on words. A Christian has direct access to God annd doesn't need to go through a local church or a pope. False doctrine has serious consequences to those fooled by it. There is only one body of Christ. The members of that body aren't churches, the members of that body are you, me, or any true believer.

Also, the freemasons are occultists. Using them as an example isn't so great when we're talking about the witchcraft of the whore.

Of course a Christian has direct access to God. I don't go through my local church to get to God. I don't see how calling a local church a local body makes me go through my local church to get to God. Anyways I was using the freemasons as an example to show how body can be used as that definition. Edited August 27, 2010 by amblivion

[MaxKennedy]

Of course a Christian has direct access to God. I don't go through my local church to get to God. I don't see how calling a local church a local body makes me go through my local church to get to God. Anyways I was using the freemasons as an example to show how body can be used as that definition.

Sure - and if you tell a Roman Catholic that they shouldn't use father for their priests, and holy father for their pope, they'll reply the same way. But its not biblical, thats the point. Jesus Christ has only one body and one pure bride.

[JerryNumbers]

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.

[trc123]

1 Corinthians 12:12-23

12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14For the body is not one member, but many.

15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.

25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.



I used to believe in the "universal" church but have had some doubts about it. The reason being because it doesn't logically follow. These vereses in all actuality support eccumenculism if they are written about a "universal" church. As Baptists we usually seperate ourselves from other denominations. According to these verses we shouldn't be telling our eye or hand that we have no need of them. I believe by cutting these churches off in fellowship we are doing exactly that. This has created some serious doubts in my mind about a "universal" church. Are we not also doing the opposite of what verse 25 teaches? It says there should be NO SCHISM in the body. We are creating schisms in the body by not fellowshiping with our other body parts i.e. Lords Supper.


Anyways to answer the argument about body. It is just a play on words you are using. Body can mean a collective group. The freemasons have local chapters and are called local bodies. It would be called the local body of freemasons. They are still part of the whole fraternity of freemasons though. In like sense the local body of believers is a collective group of believers in Christ.

For the life of me I can't figure out why some Christians and Pastors can't admit there are too types of Churches. There is the local assembly or local Church that Christ has established here on earth and there is a greater assembly or Church that then makes up the body of Christ. When seen this way and Scripture is interpreted in context they both make sense and there is no contradiction.

[Brother Rick]

For the life of me I can't figure out why some Christians and Pastors can't admit there are too types of Churches. There is the local assembly or local Church that Christ has established here on earth and there is a greater assembly or Church that then makes up the body of Christ. When seen this way and Scripture is interpreted in context they both make sense and there is no contradiction.

- You can call the local and greater assembly what you want, but there are two. Not to be confused with "too", brother. Edited August 27, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[Wilchbla]

For the life of me I can't figure out why some Christians and Pastors can't admit there are too types of Churches. There is the local assembly or local Church that Christ has established here on earth and there is a greater assembly or Church that then makes up the body of Christ. When seen this way and Scripture is interpreted in context they both make sense and there is no contradiction.

This is because everytime they hear "universal" or "invisible" church they think "Catholic" church so they automatically reject it without even given it a consideration. Also, in the case with many Baptists, it goes against their claim that the Baptist church (most notably theirs)is the one, true church. Edited August 27, 2010 by Wilchbla

[trc123]

This is because everytime they hear "universal" or "invisible" church they think "Catholic" church so they automatically reject it without even given it a consideration. Also, in the case with many Baptists, it goes against their claim that the Baptist church (most notably theirs)is the one, true church.

We were taught that there was only one true church in Bible college and that it is your local IFB church. They really pushed it hard in college. When I got into the ministry as an Associate and Youth Pastor I was a part of the inner workings of the church. Budget, strategic planning, missions drives, building programs, etc. As the Scriptures certainly do teach a local church assembly and then the body of Christ (made up of all true believers) I quickly came to the conclusion that the reason for going against Scripture teaching and being so demanding that there is only the local church is for monetary/giving purposes.

Let's face it, if a church and its leadership expect to be able to make budgets, payroll, missions and strategic plans they have to teach that there is only their local church (not a mystical body of believers) that is sanctioned by the Lord for the members to give their tithes and offerings through. I personally believe members should give their tithes and offerings through their local church and I don't see that admitting there is another body of Christ detracts from this. But, there are plenty of Pastors out there that see it as a threat to admit it because they fear members will give to other ministries and televangelists, etc. To me, that shouldn't be a fear. If you are serving the members and their families and teaching truth, they will take care of things, no worries.

[anime4christ]

In the Bible, there was one church per city consisting of up to tens of thousands of people and they gathered in small groups for fellowship. The reason for that is because all the brothers and sisters in Christ that are within walking/riding distance are your brothers and sisters and you are to serve and fellowship with them. This cuts off many questions about local church membership, tithing, serving in other congregations, etc. The modern church has complicated this issue with today's concept of "church membership" which in my opinion was prOBably started by pride. Now, I don't mean that church membership is bad or unbiblical. Biblically, if you are a Christian, you are a member of your local church, and this membership is not a mere piece of paper stating it. Today's concept of being a member of a congregation at one address and not a member of the one next door to it is unbiblical however (taking into account that the congregation next door has biblical teaching, of course).

[John81]

Church membership became important because, as we see occuring even in the New Testament, many false churches came about.

Today we have everything from very biblical churches to churches which barely acknowledge the Bible. We have watered down churches, worldly churches, false churches, lukewarm churches, cold churches and on fire for the Lord churches.

All may profess to be Christians but all are not biblical Christians. Even among those who may be biblically in Christ there are some who adhere to the Bible, some who accept traditions, some who accept a variety of unbiblical aspects (women pastors, homosexual preists, baptism required for salvation, etc.), some that are mostly biblically sound, etc. All of these can't fellowship together because some of what they accept is so against the Word of God that a Christian truly following Christ can't yoke with them.

There is a need today, and has been for centuries, to have distinctions between what is called churches. We know a traditional IFB church is very different from a Catholic church, for instance, just as there is a difference between the various denominations which are differen from Mormons (yes, Mormons are pretty much accepted as Christian today).

We live in a fallen world where nothing is as it should be. Even the Body of Christ is effected by the fall and this is reflected in the abundance of churches often seen in even small towns. It's not uncommon to see even a small town with a half dozen different churches.

All true Believers are members of the Body of Christ, but because of differences among the variety of churches it can be important to have church membership. However, nOBody is forced to be a member of any church and whether one is a member of a local church or chooses to faithfully attend and support their local church without becoming a member, they are members of the Body of Christ.