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

We do indeed stand in agreement, but the critical point is that it is legitimate use of the term "church" precisely because they are all gathered together, thereby not doing violence to the underlying meaning of the word Church.

It is not relating to the "universal scope" of who is gathered, but the fact that they are gathered as a Church.

 

The underlying truth of this matter is that many, many people, including godly men, use the term "Church" carelessly, thereby opening up abuse of the term by false teachers to go unchallenged.

There needs to be a clear understanding of where you (generically) stand, so that you can defend against those who will use Acts 2:41, 47 and other passages against you, applying a universal meaning to such verses thereby opening a way to defend baptismal regeneration, for instance. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This has been an interesting discussion. I believe we are all very similar in our positions.

1. We all seem to believe that the word Church is a "Called Out Assembly"
2. We all seem to believe that the Church spoken of in the New Testament is a local body of believers
3. We all seem to believe that one day the Lord will return and we will be a "Called Out Assembly" in Heaven.

Where the conversation breaks down is with the introduction of the word "Universal", which I believe we all reject the definition used by the cults and catholic church.

I have always enjoyed these discussions on this site. Don't take it personally, just hold on to your beliefs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 hours ago, DaveW said:

We do indeed stand in agreement, but the critical point is that it is legitimate use of the term "church" precisely because they are all gathered together, thereby not doing violence to the underlying meaning of the word Church.

It is not relating to the "universal scope" of who is gathered, but the fact that they are gathered as a Church.

Brother Dave, 

I can wholeheartedly agree with that.
 

11 hours ago, DaveW said:

The underlying truth of this matter is that many, many people, including godly men, use the term "Church" carelessly, thereby opening up abuse of the term by false teachers to go unchallenged.

There needs to be a clear understanding of where you (generically) stand, so that you can defend against those who will use Acts 2:41, 47 and other passages against you, applying a universal meaning to such verses thereby opening a way to defend baptismal regeneration, for instance. 

Agreed.  And as far as defending my doctrinal position against false teachers, I believe that I am able to do that fairly well with depth and precision (not that I cannot encounter a new detail, but that I can examine the case with understanding even when that happens).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Pastorj said:

This has been an interesting discussion. I believe we are all very similar in our positions.

1. We all seem to believe that the word Church is a "Called Out Assembly"
2. We all seem to believe that the Church spoken of in the New Testament is a local body of believers
3. We all seem to believe that one day the Lord will return and we will be a "Called Out Assembly" in Heaven.

Where the conversation breaks down is with the introduction of the word "Universal", which I believe we all reject the definition used by the cults and catholic church.

I have always enjoyed these discussions on this site. Don't take it personally, just hold on to your beliefs.

Brother "PastorJ,

My position on the matter is not precisely that which you present in your point #3.  Therein you appear to speak concerning the "the church in prospect," that is -- complete in the FUTURE with all New Testament saints throughout the entire New Testament church age after the event of the rapture.  Having been raised on the doctrine of "local church only-ism," and having stood for it and defended it for some time throughout my past, I am familiar with the position that Hebrews 12:22-23 teaches the "universal" church "in prospect."  In fact, such was JUST what I was taught and believed concerning that passage for some time.  However, I no longer hold to that "future" viewpoint concerning Hebrews 12:22-23.  The challenge to and change in my thinking happened as follows:  

A few years ago, I engaged on this very forum against various positions of preterism and replacement theology.  Indeed, some of the present members will likely remember my engagements from the time.  During those engagements, I was challenge by one of my "opponents" to produce a New Testament passage which revealed that Old Testament believers and New Testament church age believers were to be viewed as two separate groups Biblically.  My answer to that challenge was presented from Hebrews 12:22-24, from which I sought to demonstrate the distinction between the two groups listed by the two phrases (1) "to the general assembly and church of the firstborn" (as speaking concerning New Testament church age believers) and (2) "to the spirits of just men made perfect" (as speaking concerning Old Testament believers).  My "opponents" responded with the argument that these two phrases were speaking concerning the SAME grouping of individuals and that the entire passage was speaking concerning a FUTURE event.  In response to their "future event" argument, I demonstrated that precise grammatical detail the verb for the single sentence of Hebrews 12:22-24, as found in verse 22, is the PRESENT TENSE verb "are come" (NOT "shall come," or "will come," or "are to come").  Yet it was also in the moment wherein I realized that Hebrews 12:22-23 did NOT grammatical speak about a "universal" church "IN PROSPECT" (in the future), but that it spoke about some form of church IN THE PRESENT that included and encompassed ALL New Testament believers both in heaven and on earth.  At that moment, my thinking on the matter was challenged; and I was compelled to adjust my doctrinal positioning on the matter.  Furthermore, I was compelled to begin studying the details of the matter as precisely revealed in God's Holy Word.

You see, I believe as a Baptist that the truth and teaching of God's Holy Word is the ONLY and FINAL authority for ALL of what we should believe and practice.  Yet I myself would expand that idea in at least one manner -- that the truth and teaching of God's Holy Word is the only and final and PRECISE authority for all of what we should believe and practice.  As many on this very forum will attest, I continually push for the matter of grammatical, contextual, and doctrinal PRECISION in our Bible study.  Even so, when I encounter a precise grammatical challenge, as I did in my study of Hebrews 12:22-24, I am compelled to adjust my doctrinal thinking accordingly.

I pray that this testimony (of sorts) will be good to the use of edifying unto some fellow believer and fellow student of God's Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That helps, but you are still agreeing with the 3 points listed. You are just adding a 4th point that the "Church" in a universal standpoint is present on earth today. I would agree with that, but that is where there are others who disagree. I was focusing on the areas of agreement.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
31 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

That helps, but you are still agreeing with the 3 points listed. You are just adding a 4th point that the "Church" in a universal standpoint is present on earth today. I would agree with that, but that is where there are others who disagree. I was focusing on the areas of agreement.

Thanks

No. NO. NO!

Yes, I may be accepting your point #3 and then adding my own point #4.  However, my point #4 would not be "that the 'church' in a universal standpoint is present ON EARTH today."  Rather, my point #4 would be that the 'church' in a universal standpoint is present IN THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM today.  Precisely, that is what Hebrews 12:22-23 states.  I would strongly contend that THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a 'church' in a universal standpoint ON THE EARTH today, and that ANY attempt to create one is MAN-MADE and FALSE.

And yes, it is with this point #4 wherein the disagreement exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would agree that there is a "Heavenly Church", but I would also hold that God's "Church" isn't just people who belong to IFB churches. Those that are saved, but do not belong to a local church are still part of the Church.

Thanks for your clarification. It would still be point 4 where the disagreement comes :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

I would agree that there is a "Heavenly Church", but I would also hold that God's "Church" isn't just people who belong to IFB churches. Those that are saved, but do not belong to a local church are still part of the Church.

Indeed, Hebrews 12:23 defines the membership of "the general assembly and church of the firstborn" as follows: "Which are written in heaven" (not, which are on the membership role of an independent Baptist church).  Thus the membership role of "the general assembly and church of the firstborn" are ALL New Testament believers who are in Christ (the Firstborn) through faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

I would agree. So then why wouldn't Christians who are on earth be part of this same "Heavenly Church"?

To clarify - I did NOT say that New Testament believers who are upon the earth are not A PART of "the general assembly and church of the firstborn."  Rather, I said that "the general assembly and church of the firstborn" itself is NOT on the earth, but is in the heavenly Jerusalem.  Although it encompasses ALL New Testament believers, including those who are yet on the earth, it is still a "gathering" (assembly and church); and that "gathering" (assembly and church) does NOT exist on the earth.  Rather, that "gathering" (assembly and church) exists very precisely in "the heavenly Jerusalem."  Now, it might be asked how it is possible for New Testament believers who are yet on the earth to be viewed as being in a "gathering" (assembly and church) that exists in heaven.  The answer is -- through a spiritual means, as per Ephesians 2:6, wherein God's Word teaches us that All New Testament believers (including those still on the earth) have been raised up together with Christ, such that God the Father has "made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."  From this viewpoint of God the Father, through a spiritual means in Christ Jesus, we are ALREADY GATHERED IN HEAVEN (thus "the general assembly and church of the firstborn).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ok, then you and I are in agreement and I just misunderstood you.

To the next part of this then, which I believe is critical to the Local Church folks. Does God work through this heavenly church today or do you believe that God specifically works through local assemblies?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
31 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

Ok, then you and I are in agreement and I just misunderstood you.

To the next part of this then, which I believe is critical to the Local Church folks. Does God work through this heavenly church today or do you believe that God specifically works through local assemblies?

Overall, the New Testament places a GREAT amount of emphasis that the Lord our God works through local assemblies upon this earth.  For that reason, I hold VERY, VERY strongly to a local church ministry practice (which is why I have strong convictions against denominationalism and official conventions, associations, etc.).  Overall, I see that the "universal" aspect of the church is presented in the New Testament in order to emphasize our INCLUSION as New Testament believers in Christ and our CONNECTION as New Testament believers with one another.  At this point, I am not certain of any passage that really reveals that our Lord specifically works on the earth through the "structure" of "the general assembly and church of the firstborn."  

On the other hand, if you might be able to provide such a passage, I would certainly be willing to examine and consider the precise teaching thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am in agreement with your position. I misunderstood your earlier posts. I am very much a local church guy, but I too believe that all believers belong to a "Universal" church, but that the New Testament is clear that God is using the local called out assemblies.
Thanks for the clarifications

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Members

Bro. Markle, I have to question your defining of Hebrews 12:23, in light of Hebrews 12:22-24 (and the whole chapter as its context). I question it not because I necessarily disagree with you, but rather because I feel that some things may have been taken by assumption. Is there anything in the aforementioned passage that affirms that the church of the firstborn is indeed in the heavenly Jerusalem? It seems rather to only indicate that they are written in Heaven, that is, recorded, but not necessarily present. In the passage, it mentions eight things that the church that he was writing to (Hebrews 13:22-25 indicates that he was writing to a local church) have come unto. 1 - mount Sion. 2 - the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.3 - an innumerable company of angels. 4 - The general assembly and church of the firstborn (these appear to be one because of the absence of a comma) which are written in heaven. 5 - God the Judge of all. 6 - the spirits of just men made perfect. 7 - Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. 8 - the blood of sprinkling. Now I can see where one might say that these are all in the same place, but does the passage actually say that they indeed are? If they were, why would the church of the firstborn need to be written in Heaven if they already are in Heaven. A lot of this question would be clearly satisfied if we knew for sure to whom the book of Hebrews was written. If it was indeed written to the church in Jerusalem, would that not be the church of the firstborn (i.e. the first church that was started by Christ?). It seems that there is a lot more to this passage then what meets the eye.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 hours ago, Musician4God1611 said:

Bro. Markle, I have to question your defining of Hebrews 12:23, in light of Hebrews 12:22-24 (and the whole chapter as its context). I question it not because I necessarily disagree with you, but rather because I feel that some things may have been taken by assumption. Is there anything in the aforementioned passage that affirms that the church of the firstborn is indeed in the heavenly Jerusalem? It seems rather to only indicate that they are written in Heaven, that is, recorded, but not necessarily present. In the passage, it mentions eight things that the church that he was writing to (Hebrews 13:22-25 indicates that he was writing to a local church) have come unto. 1 - mount Sion. 2 - the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.3 - an innumerable company of angels. 4 - The general assembly and church of the firstborn (these appear to be one because of the absence of a comma) which are written in heaven. 5 - God the Judge of all. 6 - the spirits of just men made perfect. 7 - Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. 8 - the blood of sprinkling. Now I can see where one might say that these are all in the same place, but does the passage actually say that they indeed are? If they were, why would the church of the firstborn need to be written in Heaven if they already are in Heaven. A lot of this question would be clearly satisfied if we knew for sure to whom the book of Hebrews was written. If it was indeed written to the church in Jerusalem, would that not be the church of the firstborn (i.e. the first church that was started by Christ?). It seems that there is a lot more to this passage then what meets the eye.....

Brother Middlebrooks,

An answer is forthcoming as soon as I am granted adequate time to prepare and present it.  Is that acceptable?

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...