United Church Of God

[DaveW]

Good. I'm not the only one. The Church, the Body, the Bride of Christ. I have an appt. with my pastor. He'll straighten all this out for me. :-)

What was the result of your appointment by the way?

(You should always listen to your Pastor by the way, rather than some unknown person on the internet - He cares for you more than anyone who is not directly involved with you and your life, and God has placed him and you there for a purpose. But you should always check to see if he is following God's Word.)

[Ukulelemike]

I'm curious: into what body was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized? Since there was no Ethiopian church at the time. What church was Phillip baptizing for?

 

It is both, local and 'universal'. I know people hate the idea of a 'universal' church or body, but the context is there nonetheless. Despite your friend's argument on it, the Bible is clear: we means we, whether it fits your theology or not. Its like those who argue that world means elect OF the world. No, it means world. One body made up of many bodies. Even if that one body is not yet fully realized, it is still there.

[DaveW]

Just to clear it up - it is not a friend of mine who wrote it. A friend of mine gave it to me.

[Ukulelemike]

Just to clear it up - it is not a friend of mine who wrote it. A friend of mine gave it to me.

Gotcha-understood

[Left the Bldg]

What was the result of your appointment by the way?

(You should always listen to your Pastor by the way, rather than some unknown person on the internet - He cares for you more than anyone who is not directly involved with you and your life, and God has placed him and you there for a purpose. But you should always check to see if he is following God's Word.)

My appt. is on Jan 7th.  I will let you know.  

[Left the Bldg]

Dave W.

 

I skimmed over the paper above.  Sorry.  It was very long.

 

Much of what I did read sounds like two articles I found which would agree with the paper you provided and your perspective on the "church" or "body."  However, both articles indicate they have a problem with the early translators.  This is a red flag to me.  If we are depending on the KJV to be the preserved English translated Bible, why are there people questioning the translation? 

 

First article:

 

www.pbministries.org/.../ch01_body_of_christ.htm  

 

RED FLAG

 

"We believe this is much better and a more accurate translation of the Greek than the Authorized Version, (A. V.), rendering. But we have one fault to find with the R. V. rendering too.

 

Second article:

 

Written by an IFB pastor and missionary.  Cooper P. Abrams, III.  You can look him up if you want info on him.

 

http://www.bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html

 

RED FLAG

 

The purpose of this paper is to show that the early translators of the English Bible mistranslated the word "ekklesia" 

• [Please note that the use of the word "church" does not mean that the Bible has an error.

In one sentence he says there is a mistranslation and in another sentence says that does not mean the Bible has an error.  That logically does not makes sense.  If there is mistranslation, isn't that an error?  Mistranslation can lead to false doctrine.

 

This is why I try to stay away from articles.  I admit, it is hard because we want quick answers and sometimes are insecure to let the Holy Spirit direct us into all truth.

 

I am still studying the scriptures as to what "the body of Christ," "church," and even the "bride of Christ" mean.  I don't want to use articles.  I want to use prayer, the Bible and Holy Spirit before I answer any further on this subject.  If I am wrong in what I currently believe, only the Holy Spirit and scripture can direct me to the truth.  I can and will go to my pastor for correction or confirmation but first I have to be accountable for myself to read and study scripture and submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

 

To be concluded....:-) 

[DaveW]

I'm curious: into what body was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized? Since there was no Ethiopian church at the time. What church was Phillip baptizing for?

It is both, local and 'universal'. I know people hate the idea of a 'universal' church or body, but the context is there nonetheless. Despite your friend's argument on it, the Bible is clear: we means we, whether it fits your theology or not. Its like those who argue that world means elect OF the world. No, it means world. One body made up of many bodies. Even if that one body is not yet fully realized, it is still there.

I would still like to see BIBLICAL references to universal body or universal church that are clear AND in proper context.
Actually I wouldn't ( ) but I would surprised if anyone can show better than speculation about them.

[No Nicolaitans]

I would still like to see BIBLICAL references to universal body or universal church that are clear AND in proper context.
Actually I wouldn't ( ) but I would surprised if anyone can show better than speculation about them.

 

Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

Hebrews 12:22-24

22   But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

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

24   And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

[DaveW]

Hebrews: where is this church spoken of?


 22  But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

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

So then let me ask in light of that - is this church a local assembly?
Yes it is - all assembled in one place - it is just huge - the biggest Mega church ever.

Matthew :
It is the generic usage not particular usage.
Similar to "The car has had a huge impact on our society".
A particular car? No. A universal car? No.
The car generically.

While you are free to disagree with those, there is certainly AT BEST doubtful meaning to the Matthew passage, not clear teaching.
The generic usage fits with the overwhelming majority of usage, therefore it is the most likely understanding.

[Left the Bldg]

I am still studying but need to start asking different questions.

 

Since some people within the local, visible church are not true believers and some true believers may not yet be associated with a local church, isn't it possible for people to be part of the body of Christ (as believers in Christ) even if they are not part of the organized, earthly church?  Likewise, a person can be part of a local, organized church and still not be a part of Christ.

[DaveW]

Anyone saved is part of the wider group of believers, regardless of whether they are a member of a church, occasionally attend a church, or never set foot in a church.

We know also that as we can not see men's hearts it is possible for an unsaved man to be a member of a church, no matter how diligent the pastor.
BUT God knows the truth....

I say again - the body of Christ never refers to all believers. When viewed in context that becomes clear.

[Left the Bldg]

So you are saying that a saved person who does not attend a local church are not part of the body of Christ?

[John81]

More than enough has been posted which makes it clear all believers are a part of the body of Christ. Scripture clearly states that each believer is a part of the body.

[Left the Bldg]

More than enough has been posted which makes it clear all believers are a part of the body of Christ. Scripture clearly states that each believer is a part of the body.

Dave wants scripture for proof of that.  :-)

[Left the Bldg]

How about 1 Cor 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?