Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

A clear verse teaching a universal understanding of the word "church".


Recommended Posts

  • Members

There is such a thing as the church in concept.

The common illustration used is: The car has changed the way we live."

Which individual car are we talking about? No individual car, of course.

But is it talking about a universal car then? Well, that is plainly ridiculous.

It is talking about the car as a concept.

So also is the case with your reference - no individual church, nor a universal church, but the church in concept.

And I am absolutely not a brider.

Should we avoid biblical concepts for fear of being pulled into some group or other? In fact, my purpose here is to get people to study rather than accept what they are told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:06 PM, DaveW said:

Brother, your position on the "universal aspect of the church" is not the normal one, as you are well aware.

Indeed.

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:06 PM, DaveW said:

As you well know, most people who use the term "universal church" use it in the Catholic sense, which usage is unbiblical.

Absolutely, the Roman Catholic sense of "universal church" is utterly unbiblical; for that concept attempts to MANufacture on the earth, what the Lord our God has already ordained and designed in the heavenly Jerusalem.  As I understand the teaching of the New Testament, the Biblical concept of the "universal" church is such that we all as New Testament believers are gathered together SPIRITUALLY IN CHRIST, as we are seated together SPIRITUALLY in heavenly places IN CHRIST.  As such, while some of its members may exist throughout this earth, this "church's" existence (gathering) is STRICTLY and SPIRITUALLY in heaven, not on the earth.  It has NO organization structure on the earth at all whatsoever.  That which the Lord our God has ordained as His "organization" on the earth itself is the local New Testament church.

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:06 PM, DaveW said:

Would I be right in assuming that you would not introduce yourself as one who holds to a "universal spiritual church definition" without then explaining further so that you are not lumped in with the false universal church people?

Indeed.

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:06 PM, DaveW said:

As far as the actual word itself goes, it does have an inherent meaning that necessarily includes the gathering together. Which is also inherent in Hebrews 12:22,23, and therfore entirely legitimate in its use of the term. But the term church is not used universally, in this passage - it relates to the gathering, if you follow my distinction.

What we have here is a universal reference to all saints gathered together as a church in one 'place'. The 'place' is even designated and named. 

Yes, the word "church" itself communicates by definition some form of "gathering, assembling;" and I do not deny such in Hebrews 12:22-23.  I simply would recognize that Hebrews 12:22-23 teaches a "universal" membership in the "gathering" of "the general assembly and church of the first born," and thereby implies a spiritual manner of gathering, rather than a physically local manner of gathering.  Thus I am compelled to recognize that the New Testament does teach some form of "all-encompassing" (of New Testament believers) church, "gathered" through a spiritual manner in Christ in the heavenly Jerusalem.

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:06 PM, DaveW said:

Would you apply that universal understanding to any other passage? For instance Acts 2:47?

Or is it only applicable in Hebrews 12:22,23.

If you only applies it to Hebrews 12:23, then we have no issue - it includes all saints GATHERED in one place. It fits the technical understanding of a local church.....

I would see the doctrine of this "church" as being taught in other New Testament passages (such as in 1 Corinthians 12 & in Ephesians 2, etc.); however, I would be compelled to acknowledge that all of those passages also indicate or imply a "gathering" of all New Testament believers SPIRITUALLY in Christ.

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:06 PM, DaveW said:

(Actually, we have no issue anyway - I knew prior to this that you differed from me in this way, and when all is said and done I know it makes no real difference between us.)

Agreed.

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 10:06 PM, DaveW said:

The actual point of my original post was to get people studying the matter and not just accepting what they have been told. Whether they come to my position or not is not important to me, as long as they study it for themselves and come to their own conviction about it.

Well, as you are aware, personal study on such matters is NOT foreign to my habits; and rarely am I viewed as one who just follows the traditional line of doctrine and defense.  I thank you for the public challenge; for I believe that Fundamental Baptists desperately NEED to be more Biblically and personally studious, rather than just follow the doctrinal flow of the movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Markle, I very much appreciate your input, and of course I would expect that you have thoroughly examined the subject - in fact I know that to be the case from some of your comments in previous discussions.

And as always, I have learned from your comments.

I thank you. 

Interestingly, although I greatly wish to include the term "body" as exclusively local (as per 1 cor 12), my study has not brought me to the conviction that it is.

And by the way, I absolutely do not deny that the Bible speak universally of all believers, but when the Bible is clearly speaking of all believers it uses terms like "saints", "household", "citizens".

This is partly where I differ from the classic "local church only" position.

I suspect that our "difference" is one of terminology only and not substance. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, DaveW said:

There is such a thing as the church in concept.

The common illustration used is: The car has changed the way we live."

Which individual car are we talking about? No individual car, of course.

But is it talking about a universal car then? Well, that is plainly ridiculous.

It is talking about the car as a concept.

So also is the case with your reference - no individual church, nor a universal church, but the church in concept.

And I am absolutely not a brider.

Should we avoid biblical concepts for fear of being pulled into some group or other? In fact, my purpose here is to get people to study rather than accept what they are told.

DaveW - The Biblical concept is what you have said on the top. The Church is spoken of as a "Concept" or as a Whole in many places in Scripture. However, God does not work through the "Whole", but through the local church as also clearly demonstrated in Scripture. The Baptist Bride group goes to an extreme which is almost always bad. They take the local church to the point that if you are not a member of a "Biblical Church", you are not part of the "Church". Therefore, you may end up in Heaven, but you won't be raptured.

I would disagree with the "Roman Catholic's" position of a "Universal" church. I don't think we are very far off from each other in our positions. Might just be symantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would say that the word church is a local assembly of Christians, and is a temporary, flexible small organization of some individuals within THE Church who, largely for geographical reasons, meet together for mutual encouragement and growth through the ministry of the Word of God -- at least that is the Bible's position:  Local assemblies are only as valuable as their dedication to carrying out their purpose; it also means that there is no justification for enshrining them with special buildings, special esoteric theologies (many of them which are false) -- all of which things contribute to a studied disinterest in the truth which is a hallmark of MOST denominations. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! :6_smile:

God Bless,

Daniel

Edited by (Omega)
Additional Info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 minutes ago, (Omega) said:

I would say that the word church is a local assembly of Christians, and is a temporary, flexible small organization of some individuals within THE Church who, largely for geographical reasons, meet together for mutual encouragement and growth through the ministry of the Word of God -- at least that is the Bible's position:  Local assemblies are only as valuable as their dedication to carrying out their purpose; it also means that there is no justification for enshrining them with special buildings, special esoteric theologies (many of them which are false) -- all of which things contribute to a studied disinterest in the truth which is a hallmark of MOST denominations. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! :6_smile:

God Bless,

Daniel

This not just a discussion on what people think about church - it is a bible verse examination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 minutes ago, DaveW said:

This not just a discussion on what people think about church - it is a bible verse examination.

Davew,

The topic of this thread is called "A clear verse teaching a universal understanding of the word "church" I gave my explanation of what the bible says in its understanding of the word "church". I don't see how I was off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 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. (1 Timothy 3:14,15)

The absence of definite articles in other bible translation here (for "house", "church", "pillar" and "ground" -- all of which refer to the local church) is of critical importance and has been missed by almost every major translation.  But notice that "the truth", the purpose behind having a local assembly in the first place, is indeed "definite"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That verse is in no way teaching a universal understanding of the word "church",

I don't even know where to start with a rebuttal because it is so obvuously not universal......

As far as the previous post..... a clear VERSE....... is how it is off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
48 minutes ago, DaveW said:

That verse is in no way teaching a universal understanding of the word "church",

I don't even know where to start with a rebuttal because it is so obvuously not universal......

As far as the previous post..... a clear VERSE....... is how it is off topic.

Well hello DaveW,

Many posters on this thread have ALREADY posted clear verses with regards to your topic as some of the Pastor's and others here have already done. I am FREE to make a comment on what a local church is as opposed to THE church, and I don't think you have the right to say otherwise. It almost seems as if most of your posts come off as someone who is indignant when someone disagrees with you. But I can't really tell because I can't hear your voice inflections, but your word choices appear as if you are aggravated. Anyway, I will be praying for you.

God Bless,

Daniel

Edited by (Omega)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The whole point of this thread, as is laid out in the first post, is BIBLICAL support for your position - of which you have provided precisely none.

I am sorry if you find it "indignant" or whatever, but I am not interested in what men say about the subject.

I am not interested in people who simply follow what they have been told.

I am not interested in people quoting other men's teachings.

I am not interested any man's opinion without Biblical support.

You are entitled to your opinion, but IN THIS THREAD your oponion will be rejected out of hand if it is not supported by Scripture.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, DaveW said:

The whole point of this thread, as is laid out in the first post, is BIBLICAL support for your position - of which you have provided precisely none.

I am sorry if you find it "indignant" or whatever, but I am not interested in what men say about the subject.

I am not interested in people who simply follow what they have been told.

I am not interested in people quoting other men's teachings.

I am not interested any man's opinion without Biblical support.

You are entitled to your opinion, but IN THIS THREAD your oponion will be rejected out of hand if it is not supported by Scripture.i DaveW, 

G'day DaveW,

You said:

"I am not interested in people who simply follow what they have been told.

I am not interested in people quoting other men's teachings.

I am not interested any man's opinion without Biblical support.

You are entitled to your opinion, but IN THIS THREAD your opinion will be rejected out of hand if it is not supported by Scripture."

Much of what you said is self-contradictory such as " I am not interested in what men say about the subject" But if that were true, why even respond or even reply to the posters on this thread? Including me? Why not just ignore me as an old man who you deem has learning problems?

And they are not my "opinions", and I have supported what I said using scripture. It's just that you have lack of understanding in the exegesis and hermeneutics of it. And you need to delve deeper in your studies. That, I can't help you. I study scripture every day, using exegesis and let scripture interpret scripture, and for you to say that you are not interested in people quoting other men's teachings (which I have not), or giving personal opinions without scriptural support (which I have not), or "follow" other teachers suggest that you have little to no knowledge about my study habits. IF bible teachers and Pastor's are correct, then they are correct if their teachings can be validated using scriptural support. I will leave you with this. I am 62 years old and not to toot my own horn, but I have been around the block a few times with regards to life's wisdom. I truly care for you and I'm quite sure you love Jesus, but I sincerely believe that you have much spiritual growth ahead of you, as we all do. I will bow out of this thread since it is only leading to a severe misunderstanding of what I've wrote. Take care!

God Bless,

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, (Omega) said:

I would say that the word church is a local assembly of Christians, and is a temporary, flexible small organization of some individuals within THE Church who, largely for geographical reasons, meet together for mutual encouragement and growth through the ministry of the Word of God -- at least that is the Bible's position:  Local assemblies are only as valuable as their dedication to carrying out their purpose; it also means that there is no justification for enshrining them with special buildings, special esoteric theologies (many of them which are false) -- all of which things contribute to a studied disinterest in the truth which is a hallmark of MOST denominations. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! :6_smile:

God Bless,

Daniel

Your first post was entirely unsupported opinion. No Scripture quoted, no verse even referenced. 

This is 100% at odds with the opening post of this thread which SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED verses.

 

9 hours ago, (Omega) said:

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 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. (1 Timothy 3:14,15)

The absence of definite articles in other bible translation here (for "house", "church", "pillar" and "ground" -- all of which refer to the local church) is of critical importance and has been missed by almost every major translation.  But notice that "the truth", the purpose behind having a local assembly in the first place, is indeed "definite"

This post you quoted a verse which so obviously doesn't relate in any way to a universal understanding of church it is almost imposdible to counter it - it simply doesn't relate to a universal church. At all. In any way....

As far as your accusation that if I was not interested etc......

I started the thread. I sa

I stated the purpose of the thread.

I have every right to direct it as I see fit.

Your first post was absolutely, 100% against the point of the thread, in that it was nothing more than unsuported opinion with no reference to the Bible.

 

I cannot believe that you are ragging on me for insisting that people support their opinions with Biblical support.

I will discuss with anyone a legitimate verse, where they have done the study themselves and are able to present a legitimate argument, and not just regurtitate someone else's teaching.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 hours ago, DaveW said:

Your first post was entirely unsupported opinion. No Scripture quoted, no verse even referenced. 

This is 100% at odds with the opening post of this thread which SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED verses.

 

This post you quoted a verse which so obviously doesn't relate in any way to a universal understanding of church it is almost imposdible to counter it - it simply doesn't relate to a universal church. At all. In any way....

As far as your accusation that if I was not interested etc......

I started the thread. I sa

I stated the purpose of the thread.

I have every right to direct it as I see fit.

Your first post was absolutely, 100% against the point of the thread, in that it was nothing more than unsuported opinion with no reference to the Bible.

 

I cannot believe that you are ragging on me for insisting that people support their opinions with Biblical support.

I will discuss with anyone a legitimate verse, where they have done the study themselves and are able to present a legitimate argument, and not just regurtitate someone else's teaching.

 

Per the Moderator's request, I will post one last time and stop "arguing" and get on topic. 
I am on my way to the airport this afternoon. Just so that you can stop accusing me of having no scriptural support, I will break it down for you.
 
To be honest, I'm not sure what the problem is or what the objection is.
 
The word "church" in the Bible is the Greek word ekklesia and it means "assembly"; it's the same word used for the assembly of the citizens in ancient Athens and the assembly of the people in the wilderness under Moses' leadership (Hebrew: qahal often translated as ekklesia in the LXX; compare Acts 7:38 KJV).
 
Beyond all argument, there is a Church which is composed of all believers:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [the little rock] (petr-os), and upon this [mighty] Rock (petr-a, i.e., upon Christ Himself; cf. 1Cor.3:11) I will build My Church (cf. Dan.2:44-45), and the gates (i.e., the fortified defenses) of Hell (i.e., the devil's kingdom) will not [prevail] against it. (Matthew 16:18)
 
Beyond all argument, there are also smaller local assemblies that comprise only part of THE Church:
 
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: (2nd Corinthians 1:1) 
Not even an unbeliever who finds the Bible pointless could read these verses and disagree with these two points.  So I'm not sure I understand your problem or putative point -- or motive in trying to make it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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.



×
×
  • Create New...