Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Genevanpreacher

Concerned over accuracy?

Recommended Posts

 Just for a small, yet wide range of discussions...

It has been stated in another thread (Jim's 'Closed Communion' sermon entry) - 

[Not by Jim btw]

"You are not a member of the body/bride until a local NT church votes you in.  There is no such thing as the universal, invisible church."

For accuracy - you ARE a member of the body OF CHRIST, but not a member of the bride - [bride being the earthly group of independent churches, in different communities, collectively.]

Which does indeed form "a universal", and "invisible church" - as the whole group of churches (real one's mind you.) form the whole body of Christ...don't they?

* Not the catholic style of church either - just thinking we are bound up so much by what they think, and sometimes we are afraid to state the facts based upon that thinking.*

The true universal church is every believer alive (earthly), added with the believers that have gone on before us (heavenly).

The true invisible church is the collective body of real believers, no matter their location (heaven or earth), being believers equally, yet not gathered together at one time - ever - (at least while we are on this earth before the Lord comes back.)

Make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

"You are not a member of the body/bride until a local NT church votes you in.  There is no such thing as the universal, invisible church."

I do not understand this. It is my understanding that one becomes part of the body of Christ when one accepts Christ as Lord and Savior. I know that in our church there is no "vote" to join the visible community, in our case, called Liberty Baptist Church in Las Vegas NV. 

I could be wrong though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four verses only which mention the specific phrase "the body of Christ":

Rom_7:4  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
1Co_10:16  The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1Co_12:27  Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Eph_4:12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

(You will of course need to put these verses into their context - but for the sake of space I have only quoted the actual verses).

Upon which of these verses do you base your premise that:

12 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

For accuracy - you ARE a member of the body OF CHRIST, but not a member of the bride - [bride being the earthly group of independent churches, in different communities, collectively.]

 

And upon which of these verses do you base your premise that:

12 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Which does indeed form "a universal", and "invisible church" - as the whole group of churches (real one's mind you.) form the whole body of Christ...don't they?

 

And upon which of these verses do you base your premise that:

12 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

The true universal church is every believer alive (earthly), added with the believers that have gone on before us (heavenly).

And upon which of these verses do you base your premise that:

12 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

The true invisible church is the collective body of real believers, no matter their location (heaven or earth), being believers equally, yet not gathered together at one time - ever - (at least while we are on this earth before the Lord comes back.)

And upon what verses do you base the idea of:

12 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

The true universal church

I don't see any of your suppositions God's Word.

 

By the way, I don't think you will find a verse that states that a vote is involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DaveW said:

Four verses only which mention the specific phrase "the body of Christ":

Rom_7:4  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
1Co_10:16  The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1Co_12:27  Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Eph_4:12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

(You will of course need to put these verses into their context - but for the sake of space I have only quoted the actual verses).

Upon which of these verses do you base your premise that:

A.

And upon which of these verses do you base your premise that:

B.

And upon which of these verses do you base your premise that:

C.

And upon which of these verses do you base your premise that:

D.

And upon what verses do you base the idea of:

E.

I don't see any of your suppositions God's Word.

By the way, I don't think you will find a verse that states that a vote is involved.

F.

A. Romans 12:4,5 is a good start.

Ephesians 1:22,23 is another.

Only in Revelation 21:3-27 do we see described the Bride quite clearly as believers in eternity. Verse 24 in my bible says that the "saved" are the one's there in the New Jerusalem.

And the bride is never mentioned as a "body" together in this present existence. Just that the Lord Jesus is the bridegroom.

Now there are other mentions of the bride but not as a whole collective.

B. Same as above.

C. Same as above.

D. Ephesians 4:11-16 clearly shows the present gifts of the church 'til we all meet together' and then describes the body 'built' in verse 16.

E. Again - the above references support this - that the true "universal" church is the whole church which becomes the future bride in eternity.

F. I agree. 

 

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if patient studying is available for those interested, a careful reading of 1 Cor. 12:12-31.

I see this as the whole body of saved congregations and not just a church in Corinth.

Verses 12 and 13 and 37 are my supporting verses for that thinking.

You may disagree, and that is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This short study was done by someone else. I studied it, modified it for my own use and believe it is a true representation regarding this subject.
________________________________________________________________

First I would like to point out that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding three different things. Let’s remember that things that are different are not the same. These three things are; The Family of God; The Kingdom of God; and The Church of God. I point this out because they are not the same things. Let me try to explain it this way:

1. The Family of God. This includes all the children of God in Heaven and on earth. Paul speaks of the whole family in Heaven and on earth. Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 

a. This family includes all believers, Gal. 3:26 says: Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. So then, all believers are God’s children, this includes Old Testament believers since they were also saved by Faith in Jesus. Acts 10:43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 

b. This is not the church. The Family of God is bigger than either the Kingdom of God or the Church, because it contains all the saved from Able to the present time, whether they are in Heaven or on earth. We call Him father and He calls us sons and His children, this then is a family. 

2. The Kingdom of God. This includes all the saved on earth at any given time, beginning with John the Baptist. I need to elaborate on this statement because in some places it is used to include all professing Christians, while in other places it is used to include all of the “born again” on earth. This is not to be confused with the Kingdom associated with the Millennium, which is yet future. Again, this is not the church. 

  Luke 13:18 Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it?

 19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

 20 And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God?

 21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. 

3. The Church of God. Church is never used of any institution, except an assembly or congregation of baptized believers in some given locality; such as The Church of God at Corinth. 1Cor. 1:2  Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: 

a. The word “church” is from the Greek word “ecclesia”, which means a called out assembly. The Greek free cities are a case in point. Citizens were called out to conduct city business. 

b. There are some that will teach that the Family of God, the Kingdom of God and the Church are one and the same. This is where they get the idea of a Universal Church. “Universal Invisible Church”; “Universal Visible Church”; “Local Church”. I feel that the three examples I gave above are scriptural. The only other times that the word Church is used in the singular is when the scripture is talking about the church as a generic, or institution. The one, or singular, being put for all. 

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

A body (church) is an organism occupying space and having a definite locality. A heap of legs, hands, feet and other parts are not a body. They must be united in a system, each in its proper place. They must be put in place before you have a body or a church. So, even all the saved are not a church unless they are brought together as a body. So….no universal church, either visible or invisible. Paul put it this way:

1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.

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

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

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

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

c. Jesus only built one kind of church; He called it “My Church”. This makes His church exclusive and one of a kind, not three different kinds. He gave His church specific directions and commands that can only be followed by a local church.

Here is just one example; can a Universal Church conform to this command? 1Co 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

 26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. 

d. Certainly it must be admitted that the so called, “church universal”, composed of all the saved on earth, has schism. They all teach different doctrines. Paul gave this command directly to the church at Corinth: 1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 

All the saved on earth cannot conform to this command, no matter if you call it the visible or invisible church. They are all different, every one of them, with one exception, Baptist. Local Baptist Church is the only institution that can claim to be His church. All others are pretenders and instituted by man. That’s why I said that Jesus only built one kind of church and it was a Baptist Church and local. 

OK, I don’t need to beat this subject to death, what I have written should suffice to show the inconsistency of the premise of the three different kinds of churches that many advocate for. 

I am certainly not the last word on this subject and by no means a Bible scholar. But I think I have shown that local church is the only kind of church there can be. This must be true if for no other reason than to qualify as a true church it must be assembled, it cannot be scattered all over heaven and earth. 

But even more to the point is that The Family of God, The Kingdom of God and The Church are three different things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

This short study was done by someone else. I studied it, modified it for my own use and believe it is a true representation regarding this subject.
________________________________________________________________

First I would like to point out that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding three different things. Let’s remember that things that are different are not the same. These three things are; The Family of God; The Kingdom of God; and The Church of God. I point this out because they are not the same things. Let me try to explain it this way:

1. The Family of God. This includes all the children of God in Heaven and on earth. Paul speaks of the whole family in Heaven and on earth. Eph 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 

a. This family includes all believers, Gal. 3:26 says: Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. So then, all believers are God’s children, this includes Old Testament believers since they were also saved by Faith in Jesus. Acts 10:43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 

b. This is not the church. The Family of God is bigger than either the Kingdom of God or the Church, because it contains all the saved from Able to the present time, whether they are in Heaven or on earth. We call Him father and He calls us sons and His children, this then is a family. 

2. The Kingdom of God. This includes all the saved on earth at any given time, beginning with John the Baptist. I need to elaborate on this statement because in some places it is used to include all professing Christians, while in other places it is used to include all of the “born again” on earth. This is not to be confused with the Kingdom associated with the Millennium, which is yet future. Again, this is not the church. 

  Luke 13:18 Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it?

19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

20 And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God?

21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. 

3. The Church of God. Church is never used of any institution, except an assembly or congregation of baptized believers in some given locality; such as The Church of God at Corinth. 1Cor. 1:2  Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: 

a. The word “church” is from the Greek word “ecclesia”, which means a called out assembly. The Greek free cities are a case in point. Citizens were called out to conduct city business. 

b. There are some that will teach that the Family of God, the Kingdom of God and the Church are one and the same. This is where they get the idea of a Universal Church. “Universal Invisible Church”; “Universal Visible Church”; “Local Church”. I feel that the three examples I gave above are scriptural. The only other times that the word Church is used in the singular is when the scripture is talking about the church as a generic, or institution. The one, or singular, being put for all. 

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

A body (church) is an organism occupying space and having a definite locality. A heap of legs, hands, feet and other parts are not a body. They must be united in a system, each in its proper place. They must be put in place before you have a body or a church. So, even all the saved are not a church unless they are brought together as a body. So….no universal church, either visible or invisible. Paul put it this way:

1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.

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

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

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

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

c. Jesus only built one kind of church; He called it “My Church”. This makes His church exclusive and one of a kind, not three different kinds. He gave His church specific directions and commands that can only be followed by a local church.

Here is just one example; can a Universal Church conform to this command? 1Co 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether onemember suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. 

d. Certainly it must be admitted that the so called, “church universal”, composed of all the saved on earth, has schism. They all teach different doctrines. Paul gave this command directly to the church at Corinth: 1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 

All the saved on earth cannot conform to this command, no matter if you call it the visible or invisible church. They are all different, every one of them, with one exception, Baptist. Local Baptist Church is the only institution that can claim to be His church. All others are pretenders and instituted by man. That’s why I said that Jesus only built one kind of church and it was a Baptist Church and local. 

OK, I don’t need to beat this subject to death, what I have written should suffice to show the inconsistency of the premise of the three different kinds of churches that many advocate for. 

I am certainly not the last word on this subject and by no means a Bible scholar. But I think I have shown that local church is the only kind of church there can be. This must be true if for no other reason than to qualify as a true church it must be assembled, it cannot be scattered all over heaven and earth. 

But even more to the point is that The Family of God, The Kingdom of God and The Church are three different things.

I agree mostly. And highly for Ephesians 5 -

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27   That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

I think this is an obvious reference to the whole body of believers and not just the congregation in Ephesus. Which to me is the whole body - which is to be the future bride of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DaveW said:

So does Ephesians 5 then speak about a "universal wife"?

This is the illustration used in the passage - if there is a universal church then there MUST be a universal wife.......

My wife DOES match most definitions for the word...so yes!

But seriously - it's not that it speaks 'about' a "universal wife"- it is speaking of the mans 'whole' wife - he gives himself for his wife completely, as Christ gave his all for the church as a whole. Just read over those verses slowly and really see all the things the man is to do for his wife and what the Lord did for his 'wife'. It's amazing!

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GP, the part you boldened in red text is why I said in the very first part of this verse explanation: "The only other times that the word Church is used in the singular is when the scripture is talking about the church as a generic, or institution. The one, or singular, being put for all."

In this case the word "church" is obviously meant to signify the institution we call "church". Context and reason demand this interpretation. For we read further down on the text: "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish".

It would be unreasonable and out of context to think that this reference in only meant for one church, it is speaking of the church as an institution. I am not going to argue or address the "church/bride" issue, different subject.

When Jesus said he was gong to build His church, he was not talking abut one single church, nor was He talking about any universal church. There is no possibility of having doctrinal unity in any universal church composed of all believers. 1Cor.1:10 demands doctrinal unity in the local church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

My wife DOES match most definitions for the word...so yes!

But seriously - it's not that it speaks 'about' a "universal wife"- it is speaking of the mans 'whole' wife - he gives himself for his wife completely, as Christ gave his all for the church as a whole. Just read over those verses slowly and really see all the things the man is to do for his wife and what the Lord did for his 'wife'. It's amazing!

A man's whole wife? You mean a man's INDIVIDUAL whole wife?

So it is not talking about a universal wife?

But you still say it is somehow talking about a universal church?

So the illustration and the fact are not talking about the same thing?

He is illustrating something with another thing but they don't match?

You are the one talking about accuracy but you point to a passage to support a universal church then say it has nothing to do with a universal church????? But instead the "whole" church.

The nature of that church, as per the illustration, must mean that (in your definition) the whole wife includes every separate wife as one single whole wife.

You cannot have this both ways - either this is talking of a universal wife or it is talking about each individual wife; either it is talking about a universal church or it is talking about each individual church. 

Now it is plain that there is no such thing as a universal wife, and therefore this passage CANNOT be talking about a universal church. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone arguing the "Universal Church" idea identify themselves as Catholic? You might ask why I ask this question; it is because catholic means "Universal". This is the origin of the phrase we  know as Universal Church. Catholics have always defined themselves as "The Church" and adamantly defended this definition as Universal.

So then, for anyone contending that the words "The Church" actually means that it is universal, they would also have to define themselves as Catholic. Personally I would never contend for this "theory" of any supposed Universal Church. I am a member of the church (institution) that Jesus built, which by the way was Baptist, and in particular a local, called out assembly (Ecclesia) that is Baptist by name as well as doctrine.

There is no way that I would ever consent to be seen as a member of anything known as a Universal Church. (Catholic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the 112 (I can't remember exactly at this moment) translations of the word "ecclesia" about half of them are plural - you cannot by definition have a multiplicity of universal somethings (in this sense), so about half of the instances are not universal by this point alone.

A whole of others are referring to "the church at.... (Corinth for instance), which is clearly not universal. Or the church in or of etc.

Then there are some which people simply misunderstand and make universal when they actually are not.

In fact there are only a very few uses of the word church which are NOT CLEARLY local only, and in those cases they make good sense in a local understanding and so can easily be applied that way.

Some of these mention church not as the subject but incidentally and so make no comment as to its nature.

And some, like Eph 5 only appear to be universal  if you ignore their context.

And of course in every case we must understand who the letter was written to. If it is written to the Church at Corinth, then the obvious understanding  (unless clearly indicated otherwise) is that "the church" is that church written to.

When the overwhelming use of the word is local ONLY and there are a few vague passages, how does it make sense to build a doctrine of universal church on those few vague passages?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off DaveW - there have been NO claims here of a doctrine of "Universal" church - but commenting on the accuracy of the fact that there IS a universal church, i.e. a whole body of believers, coming from at least 2000 years of human lives being born and dying.

And that body of believers makes up the WHOLE church (singular) of which scripture refers to in some of the above references. (Eph. 5:25)

Not in any way like the Catholic type of teaching, but scripturally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

First off DaveW - there have been NO claims here of a doctrine of "Universal" church - but commenting on the accuracy of the fact that there IS a universal church, i.e. a whole body of believers, coming from at least 2000 years of human lives being born and dying.

And that body of believers makes up the WHOLE church (singular) of which scripture refers to in some of the above references. (Eph. 5:25)

Not in any way like the Catholic type of teaching, but scripturally. 

You can't have it both ways GP. In this last reply you clearly argue against any biblical doctrine of a Universal Church, yet go on to say that you believe there is such a thing. If there is such a thing then there is doctrine to prove it. Anything else can only be shown that you believe that there is a Universal Church, even in the absence of biblical doctrine to show such.

Your personal beliefs, in contrast to the clear teaching of God's word speaks volumes in regard to "rightly dividing". When I read what you wrote this morning it immediately reminded me that this sort of teaching lies directly in the camp of Unitarian Universalist teaching. Their stated doctrinal position is this:
Unitarian Universalists believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife. UUs can come from any religious background, and hold beliefs and adhere to morals from a variety of cultures or religions.

Although claiming to be IFB, yours is anything but any IFB teaching I have ever heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Your personal beliefs, in contrast to the clear teaching of God's word speaks volumes in regard to "rightly dividing". When I read what you wrote this morning it immediately reminded me that this sort of teaching lies directly in the camp of Unitarian Universalist teaching. Their stated doctrinal position is this:
Unitarian Universalists believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife. UUs can come from any religious background, and hold beliefs and adhere to morals from a variety of cultures or religions.

Jim is correct.

The Roman Catholic position on the Universal Church, and the Unitaritian Universalist postion on the Universal Church, are both in scriptual error. Maybe a study on the Uniersalists is in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Alan said:

Jim is correct.

The Roman Catholic position on the Universal Church, and the Unitaritian Universalist postion on the Universal Church, are both in scriptual error. Maybe a study on the Uniersalists is in order.

Your suggestion may be beneficial Dave. Why don't you start one in a separate thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

You can't have it both ways GP. In this last reply you clearly argue against any biblical doctrine of a Universal Church, yet go on to say that you believe there is such a thing. If there is such a thing then there is doctrine to prove it. Anything else can only be shown that you believe that there is a Universal Church, even in the absence of biblical doctrine to show such.

Your personal beliefs, in contrast to the clear teaching of God's word speaks volumes in regard to "rightly dividing". When I read what you wrote this morning it immediately reminded me that this sort of teaching lies directly in the camp of Unitarian Universalist teaching. Their stated doctrinal position is this:
Unitarian Universalists believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife. UUs can come from any religious background, and hold beliefs and adhere to morals from a variety of cultures or religions.

Although claiming to be IFB, yours is anything but any IFB teaching I have ever heard.

Well, I guess I am just not your kinda IFB Jim.

Flexibility in terminology, compared to so called 'doctrinal' terminology taught and bound by man, can be an 'Independent's' freedom.

I live in that freedom when I read God's word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I guess you really are not my kind of IFB GP. I take great assurance and am also saddened by that. You have shown more than just flexibility in terminology, but also flexibility in rightly dividing God's Word and bible doctrines that have been the mainstay of Independent Baptists for centuries.

You seem to think  that "Independent" means Independent in that you can choose to search out your own personal truth on critical Bible issues, just like the doctrinal statement of the Unitarian Universalist's that I posted.

Independent Baptists are and always have been, independent from any outside authority like conventions and fellowships, recognizing only the authority of God Himself. It does not mean independent to view scripture in any way you personally choose.

 2Pet 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 
 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Yes, I guess you really are not my kind of IFB GP. I take great assurance and am also saddened by that. You have shown more than just flexibility in terminology, but also flexibility in rightly dividing God's Word and bible doctrines that have been the mainstay of Independent Baptists for centuries.

You seem to think  that "Independent" means Independent in that you can choose to search out your own personal truth on critical Bible issues, just like the doctrinal statement of the Unitarian Universalist's that I posted.

Independent Baptists are and always have been, independent from any outside authority like conventions and fellowships, recognizing only the authority of God Himself. It does not mean independent to view scripture in any way you personally choose.

 2Pet 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 
 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 

Wow Jim. This is way above your normal criticism. 

If you would take a breath and reread what I posted, maybe you will see just how much you are over reacting.

I hope as a brother in the Lord you take the time, for I have said nothing unscriptural. If it is non-IFB then so be it. T'would be a shame for me to lean away from scripture just to show how IFB I am.

By the way - that is a great verse in support of how I perceive doctrine - NOT by the will of man.

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2016 at 10:54 AM, Jim_Alaska said:

a. The word “church” is from the Greek word “ecclesia”, which means a called out assembly. The Greek free cities are a case in point. Citizens were called out to conduct city business

Every born again human belongs to Jesus' assembly. We are all assembled in the body of Anointed. So to use King James language we are all churched into Christ. Those in Heaven are spiritually assembled with Jesus, and those of us on earth are spiritually assembled with Jesus. I am assembled with Jesus through I live here in NC and you are assembled with Jesus where you live. 

The word church is from the Latin/Roman word ecclesia. It comes from the Roman Empire when Constantine ordered all Christians to assemble during daylight in buildings the Emperor provided. This is when the Roman Catholics was formed by the work and orders of Constantine. Some assemblies agreed and joined with Constantine to become "the Church", but other assemblies refused to join and remained church of location/home. 

This system was still in use when King James ordered a translation. The KJV was not an independent translation but it was a product of the State. Independent being, local independent assemblies joining together to fund a translation. So the Greek word ekklēsia became the Latin/Roman word ecclesia and the Latin ecclesia became the English word Church, a state run assembly. Church being owned by an earthly living King. Hidden local assemblies of location/home loved being able to buy a part of the State owned KJV leased out to printing houses who provided the King with a kickback when the translation or parts of the translation was sold. 

This comes down to the play on words started by the Romans. The government stole Jesus' word assembly/church and changed it's meaning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Wow Jim. This is way above your normal criticism. 

If you would take a breath and reread what I posted, maybe you will see just how much you are over reacting.

I hope as a brother in the Lord you take the time, for I have said nothing unscriptural. If it is non-IFB then so be it. T'would be a shame for me to lean away from scripture just to show how IFB I am.

By the way - that is a great verse in support of how I perceive doctrine - NOT by the will of man.

"I have said nothing unscriptural..."

Except that there is a universal church.

The name of the thread is "Concerned over accuracy?" - a name which YOU, GP, designated but which you then ignore.

For the sake of accuracy, the Bible DOES indeed speak of all believers, but it NEVER clearly refers to all believers as "the church".

The Bible refers to all believers as "all saints", "family of God", "fellowcitizens" and the like but NEVER as a church.

This is another clear instance of you simply making things up, another clear instance of you following doctrines which are plainly not IFB.

I think at this point I might leave this thread alone......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DaveW said:

For the sake of accuracy, the Bible DOES indeed speak of all believers, but it NEVER clearly refers to all believers as "the church".

Mat 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.

Does that say churches or church?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

Mat 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.

Does that say churches or church?

MC, I would encourage you to do a study on the word church, the word body, and to find the way God Himself has chosen to refer to His Saints as a group.

Many people use your quoted verse to try to support a universal understanding of church, but the verse does not actually say that at all.

The verse makes perfect sense if you view the word as generic, or even if you view the word as literal,  ie the "church of the disciples" which was actually the only church that Jesus Himself directly built.

That singular, individual church has not been prevailed against by Satan as they spread across the world, forming new churches everywhere they went.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 48 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...