The body of Christ

[MikeWatson1]

Okay.. so this forum is mainly about independent fundamental baptists teaching...

Now..

Why then are so many in here talking about church with a big 'C'?

Surely.. if you are independent baptist.. church is going to be a local body and a local body only?

I thought that is what seperated independent baptists from every other group that calls themselves baptist..

But it appears I was wrong.   I am starting to understand, 'independent baptist' could just as well mean someone who is in the baptist union..eg UK baptist union.. NZ baptist union.. or any other kind of baptist.

So.. church with a big 'C'.. are you talking about 'every believer living and dead' ?

If so... biblically speaking.. isn't that entity.. the Family of God?

I was taught.. and have found it to be true with scripture.. that the body of Christ.. is a SMALL c .. church.  A local New Testament assembly.

I have also found it to be true with scripture.. that the big C church does not exist at all.  Nadda.  Nothing.  Zero. It's not in there.  At least in the sense of a church on earth.  There will be one church in heaven eventually with all believers.  

But on earth.. now.. there is no big C.. church.  It's not there in scripture.

 

What is?  

Local body at Antioch.. Phillipi.. Corinth.. Thessalonica.. Ephesus.. etc etc..

Church in scripture is either of one local body in particular.. or is singular standing for the instiution of all of the Lord's churches.

Any agreement on this? I thought this is what independent baptists believed.

[beameup]

1 Corinthians 12 discusses the "body" of Christ.  It definitely refers to an earthly "body" of believers beginning in vs. 28.  However, with the "discrediting" of the work of the Holy Spirit due to the wacko "speaking in tongues" emphasized by the charismatics, it seems that Baptists simply avoid discussing the power of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, not to mention the work of the Holy Spirit amongst believers in a local "body".

[MikeWatson1]

Yes, 1 Corinthians 12 is really clear example of local and visible, body of Christ.  

Course, when I have bought this up in other forums, people will bring up 'there is one body..' from Ephesians.  

The best reply to that I think is that yes.. there is one body.. 

One body at Ephesus.. one body at Corinth.. one body at Antioch.. one body at Thessalonica etc..

Also at the moment I am looking at how scripture defines what speaking in tongues really were.  Seems to me what pentecostals and charismatics are doing now is what Paul was telling the church of Corinth NOT to do!

[John81]

How do you deal with the critics who say there is one body of Christ, not many bodies of Christ?

[MikeWatson1]

That is a hard one when people say there is one body not many. I look at it as there is one body at such and such a place. There is also the way of looking at it as body being figurative. So its not the literal 'christs body' but body as in assembly, congregation. So then you can have many bodies, many assemblies, congregations.

Edited September 27, 2015 by 360watt

[beameup]

I just left a IFB church where the "pastor" is like a dictator.  There are no deacons, no elders, etc.  He feels that the Holy Spirit "inspires" him during the week, and on Sunday he "delivers" what the Holy Spirit has revealed to him and delivers it to the "congregation".  There really is no place for the Holy Spirit to properly function in such a place. 

[TheSword]

Why then are so many in here talking about church with a big 'C'?

Surely.. if you are independent baptist.. church is going to be a local body and a local body only?

I thought that is what seperated independent baptists from every other group that calls themselves baptist..

But it appears I was wrong.   I am starting to understand, 'independent baptist' could just as well mean someone who is in the baptist union..eg UK baptist union.. NZ baptist union.. or any other kind of Baptist.

Not necessarily. An Independent Baptist church is merely one who does not submit itself to a larger denominational body like the Southern Baptist Convention or American Baptist Association and refuse any authority over the local congregation other than Jesus Christ. However, a great many will still associate with other like-minded churches for various joint efforts or merely as an acknowledgment of the professed truth that binds them such as with the Baptist Bible Fellowship International. In most cases "independent" merely means that the local congregation is completely autonomous and needs no higher structure.

So.. church with a big 'C'.. are you talking about 'every believer living and dead' ?

If so... biblically speaking.. isn't that entity.. the Family of God?

I was taught.. and have found it to be true with scripture.. that the body of Christ.. is a SMALL c .. church.  A local New Testament assembly.

I have also found it to be true with scripture.. that the big C church does not exist at all.  Nadda.  Nothing.  Zero. It's not in there.  At least in the sense of a church on earth.  There will be one church in heaven eventually with all believers.  

But on earth.. now.. there is no big C.. church.  It's not there in scripture.

 

What is?  

Local body at Antioch.. Phillipi.. Corinth.. Thessalonica.. Ephesus.. etc etc..

Church in scripture is either of one local body in particular.. or is singular standing for the instiution of all of the Lord's churches.

Any agreement on this? I thought this is what independent baptists believed.

The existence of a local church as the body of Christ does not negate the existence of a universal body of Christ. That is to say, universal as in comprising all true believers of all ages and not anyone who calls themselves a Christian (i.e. ecumenism, unitarianism, or universalism).

When you examine the biblical evidence, there is indeed overwhelming evidence to support the autonomy and importance of the local church, just as you stated. However, you also cannot escape the concept of a universal body of believers, particularly in the Second Coming in which the entire body of believers from all ages returns to reign with Christ (which you alluded to). You also have to contend with passages such as Jesus' declaration of the truth on which He will build His church (Matt 16:18). If there only the local church is the body of Christ, then only the Church which was in Jerusalem is the valid body of Christ. Additionally, there is Paul's statements in Gal 1:13 and Phil 3:5 in which he says he persecuted the church of God (not churches), and we know he travelled outside of Jerusalem to do this. All 9 references to the church in Ephesians, Col 1:18, and Heb 12:23 all indicate that an individual local church is not what is in mind in these passages.

All of that is to say I believe there is ample biblical evidence to support both the church as a local body of believers and the Church as the sum total of believers.

[Ukulelemike]

I just left a IFB church where the "pastor" is like a dictator.  There are no deacons, no elders, etc.  He feels that the Holy Spirit "inspires" him during the week, and on Sunday he "delivers" what the Holy Spirit has revealed to him and delivers it to the "congregation".  There really is no place for the Holy Spirit to properly function in such a place. 

How big of a church was it? Are the pastor's teachings wrong? Maybe you are wrong somewhere?

Why then are so many in here talking about church with a big 'C'?

Surely.. if you are independent baptist.. church is going to be a local body and a local body only?

I thought that is what seperated independent baptists from every other group that calls themselves baptist..

But it appears I was wrong.   I am starting to understand, 'independent baptist' could just as well mean someone who is in the baptist union..eg UK baptist union.. NZ baptist union.. or any other kind of baptist.

So.. church with a big 'C'.. are you talking about 'every believer living and dead' ?

If so... biblically speaking.. isn't that entity.. the Family of God?

I was taught.. and have found it to be true with scripture.. that the body of Christ.. is a SMALL c .. church.  A local New Testament assembly.

I have also found it to be true with scripture.. that the big C church does not exist at all.  Nadda.  Nothing.  Zero. It's not in there.  At least in the sense of a church on earth.  There will be one church in heaven eventually with all believers.  

But on earth.. now.. there is no big C.. church.  It's not there in scripture.

When Jesus told Peter and the other disciples, "Upon this rock I will build my church", what church was He speaking of? Just the church at Jerusalem? Does that mean, then, that it is the ONLY local church built upon that rock? If not, why didn't He say 'churches', rather than "church"? If he DID only mean the church at Jerusalem, what are the other churches founded upon?

Edited September 28, 2015 by Ukulelemike

[MikeWatson1]

Right..so here we have the word 'church' being used in the institutional sense.  

You would have all heard about 'the dog'.  This is singular standing for plural.  The animal of the 'dog'.. is actually all dogs.

You would have all heard about 'the bar'. This is singular standing for plural. The bar as a place of public meeting for games, drink etc..  that is representing all bars.

Same goes with the 'horse'

So with the 'body of Christ'.. it is like 'the body of Christ is the source for all christian teaching and fellowship'.  It's about a local and visible body. Singular standing for plural.

Jesus built His already established assembly with His disciples.. to further christian congregations.  I will build my church.. is like saying.. I will be establishing my congregations.

The majority of references to church.. are actually 'churches' in the plural.  The times it is of the singular 'church'.. it is singular standing for plural.. like 'the bar'.. 'the horse'

 

And before you say.. ITS NOT BUILDINGS!

 

You are right!  A local assembly of baptised believers in scripture sometimes never had a roof over their heads.. and were mobile, moved around.

 

I do now get it though.. that independent baptist.. doesn't necessarily mean wot I think it is.  There is an independent baptist church in my city that believes in a universal church of every believer like some you you guys are saying.

I guess it doesn't matter a massive amount.. because I still believe in a universal entity of every believer.. it is just called the Family of God.. and not the body of Christ. And yes I believe there will be one day one church in heaven of all believers.  

The difference being that entity of all believers as one church in heaven hasn't been formed yet. At the moment .. there are believers in heaven and some still on earth.. and the New Jerusalem isn't instituted yet.

The significant thing with this though.. is when you see scripture about being baptised into the body of Christ. (or in reference to).  I would see that as full immersion baptism.. nothing to do with eternal salvation.. but you guys may see it as actually salvation being given.

What I believe is when someone is saved they join the Family of God.  Later they are baptised.. (or sometimes straight away).. and they are then prepared to join a body of Christ.. a local body of saved, baptised believers covenanted together to carry out the great commission and commandment.

Body as in 'assembly'.. 'congregation'

Ecclessia.

Church at Corinth.. church at Ephesus.. church at Antioch etc.. ..   no big C church.  Local and visible.

 

 

 

 

[MikeWatson1]

I just left a IFB church where the "pastor" is like a dictator.  There are no deacons, no elders, etc.  He feels that the Holy Spirit "inspires" him during the week, and on Sunday he "delivers" what the Holy Spirit has revealed to him and delivers it to the "congregation".  There really is no place for the Holy Spirit to properly function in such a place. 

Well my own church doesn't have officially instituted elders and deacons.. But we do have the pastor delivering sermons on sunday, inspired by the Holy Spirit through His Word.  Sometimes it depends on the pastors own experience with deacons etc..  and maybe also the size of a church.  My church has a membership of about 10 people.  Therefore, the need for officially instituted offices of deacons and elders is less.

My pastor also had experience with deacons who pretty much riled against him, even though all he was doing was trying to preach the Word.

Unofficially.. there are elders in my church.  More experienced christians.. that get given more responsibility.  Even in our small number of people. We also have those guys sometimes deliver a sermon like a deacon would.

I  don't know the IFB church you left, but you gotta put it into more context right?

Edited September 28, 2015 by 360watt

[Christian Markle]

I used to use the Family of God vs Body of Christ distinction too, until I actually began studying the various passages where the Body of Christ was used as a description for the church. Categories sound really good until we actually start studying the text. Here are a few challenging passages for the distinction being used:

1 Corinthians 12:13 For 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.

Ephesians 4:4  There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5  One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6  One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

There are more, but these are challenging enough.

This all being said, I am still a local church guy, just don't think the neat distinction between "family of God" and "Body of Christ" holds water scripturaly. We need to do more work on what "body of Christ" means in each context before we can settle with this distinction.

 

Edited September 29, 2015 by Christian Markle

[MikeWatson1]

Corinthians- Paul was baptised in reference to one church.. so were the Corinthians.  Paul may be wasn't a member of the Corinth body, I have been told it was Antioch.. but there is always the affect of a speaker referring to 'we' when they are really meaning the particular congregation they are talking to.

Ephesians- There is one body...    do you know 'there is' is an insert? It isn't in the original texts.  But aside from that.. yes.. there is one body in the context of Ephesus. There is also one body in the context of Corinth.. one body in the context of Phillipi etc..

Or the other way to look at Ephesians is.. the unit of the body.. so.. there is one body.. is like saying.. there is one kind of the Lord's churches.  

The body of Christ is the church.. that means it is either local and visible or universal, mystical. It cannot be both.. it is defined one way.

Body of Christ can be referred to in the sense of a particular local body... or in in the institutional sense.. like 'the body of Christ is the main source of teaching for christian learning'.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2015 by 360watt

[Christian Markle]

Corinthians- Paul was baptised in reference to one church.. so were the Corinthians.  Paul may be wasn't a member of the Corinth body, I have been told it was Antioch.. but there is always the affect of a speaker referring to 'we' when they are really meaning the particular congregation they are talking to.

So how many bodies do we have in your theory? I count two (Paul's church, possibly Antioch, and the Corinthian Church). And how many Spirits are there according to this verse? Are you really certain this is the best answer to the particular verse. Is not Paul making an emphasis on the idea of "one." Glossing over this emphasis to cling to an opinion / position without a better explanation may not be wise.

Ephesians- There is one body...    do you know 'there is' is an insert? It isn't in the original texts.  But aside from that.. yes.. there is one body in the context of Ephesus. There is also one body in the context of Corinth.. one body in the context of Phillipi etc..

With the italicized "there is" removed we have the following: "One body, and one Spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all..." The "there is" helps in reading, but changes little in meaning.

Again how many bodies are there then? 1 for Ephesus, 1 for Corinth, 1 for Phillipi...by my count that is 3 bodies, but that is not really what Paul said, is it? Can we do this with the rest of the list in this passage? How many God's are there -- well there is one for Ephesus, one for Corinth, and one for Phillipi -- three Gods??? then or three Lords???, or three faiths???, or three baptisms???... This is not really safe ground doctrinaly. There must be a better explanation of the first in the list that does not totally dismantle our theology, and more importantly the clear intent of the text for the rest of the list, right? 

Or the other way to look at Ephesians is.. the unit of the body.. so.. there is one body.. is like saying.. there is one kind of the Lord's churches.  

You are closer, I think, with this statement.

The body of Christ is the church.. that means it is either local and visible or universal, mystical. It cannot be both.. it is defined one way.

Maybe, maybe not... but this has to be demonstrated from Scripture not just asserted. You have not adequately helped us understand the two passages I have cited because they seem to be saying something quite different than what you are saying. 

Body of Christ can be referred to in the sense of a particular local body... or in in the institutional sense.. like 'the body of Christ is the main source of teaching for christian learning'.

This may also be a good theory -- one I like, by the way, but without demonstration from the Text it remains an idea we both like. we may even agree on it. But two men of God agreeing on a position does not make it true, right? More work must be done.

[TheSword]

Right..so here we have the word 'church' being used in the institutional sense.  

You would have all heard about 'the dog'.  This is singular standing for plural.  The animal of the 'dog'.. is actually all dogs.

You would have all heard about 'the bar'. This is singular standing for plural. The bar as a place of public meeting for games, drink etc..  that is representing all bars.

Same goes with the 'horse'

So with the 'body of Christ'.. it is like 'the body of Christ is the source for all christian teaching and fellowship'.  It's about a local and visible body. Singular standing for plural.

Jesus built His already established assembly with His disciples.. to further christian congregations.  I will build my church.. is like saying.. I will be establishing my congregations.

The majority of references to church.. are actually 'churches' in the plural.  The times it is of the singular 'church'.. it is singular standing for plural.. like 'the bar'.. 'the horse'

You're reading your understanding into the text (an error known as eisegesis). There is no linguistic or textual evidence to assert that the singular usages of "church" are meant to taken as plural. The Greek language does not typically work this way and you will find multiple examples each of "the church at", "the churches at", and "the church" which nullifies your claim. You have to show from the context of the passage why each of those occurrences should be understood to be plural

Additionally, you're also reading a modern usage of western English into the way 1st century Greek was used (an error known as an anachronism). I know of no instance in biblical Greek (or classical and ancient for that matter) where the singular stands for the plural the way you're asserting. If you find one, please show me because I don't want to be wrong. 

EDIT: You might be able to make a case for Matt 6:19-20 where Jesus uses moth and rust in a general sense that could refer to a plural; however, it lacks the definite article that is present in every instance of "the church..." that we're talking about, which makes a numerical designator irrelevant and even nonsensical.

I guess it doesn't matter a massive amount.. because I still believe in a universal entity of every believer.. it is just called the Family of God.. and not the body of Christ. And yes I believe there will be one day one church in heaven of all believers.  

The difference being that entity of all believers as one church in heaven hasn't been formed yet. At the moment .. there are believers in heaven and some still on earth.. and the New Jerusalem isn't instituted yet.

The significant thing with this though.. is when you see scripture about being baptised into the body of Christ. (or in reference to).  I would see that as full immersion baptism.. nothing to do with eternal salvation.. but you guys may see it as actually salvation being given.

What I believe is when someone is saved they join the Family of God.  Later they are baptised.. (or sometimes straight away).. and they are then prepared to join a body of Christ.. a local body of saved, baptised believers covenanted together to carry out the great commission and commandment.

Body as in 'assembly'.. 'congregation'

Ecclessia.

On what Scriptural basis do you come up with and apply the term "Family of God" in contrast to the church? Additionally, why is there never a reference to the body of Christ at a particular location, but always used in a universal sense? Can there be multiple bodies of Christ or does He have but one body?

Edited September 29, 2015 by TheSword
spelling

[MikeWatson1]

Body, not in the literal sense.. but body as in assembly, congregation.. so there can be multiple.

In Ephesians, there is one New Testament congregation/assembly of Jesus at Ephesus and the context of the chapter is about unity.  So.. one faith, one baptism, one God.. this isn't about numbers but unity.

I need to go and find S.E Anderson's book 'Real Churches or a Fog' .. so I can show the scriptural backing more in depth.  He explains it better than I can.

The issue of mulitple bodies though I think is not an issue, if you think of body not in terms of Christ's literal body.. but body as in assembly, congregation.