Universal Invisible or Local and Visible? About the Church.

[AverageJoe]

My father believed in the "universal, invisible church," but, he was raised Lutheran and Catholic. Even when he became a Baptist he held to this belief, though he couldn't always adequately defend the position. Being raised Methodist and Baptist myself, I never quite accepted that position since the church is a local, called-out assembly.
What do you believe, and why? Use scripture to back up your positions if possible. This should be an interesting thread.

 

[abcaines]

One need not look any further than the titles or the greetings of most of the books of the NT to see expressions of local bodies of believers. Who were the seven churches called by their locations in the opening chapters of Revelations?

Since it's inception in Acts, the Church has been expressed both locally, and universally. Frankly, Roman's, mostly after chapter 9, makes an excellent case for the concept of a universal church that predates the NT.

So, yes. There is BOTH.

Having a universal only church is comparable to having a spirit but no body or faith without works.

 

[Ransom]

"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" (Eph. 5:23).

"He is the head of the body, the church" (Col. 1:18).

"Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church" (Col. 1:24).

Paul isn't speaking of a particular local assembly. If the local-church-only people were correct, these passages would make no sense.

Like many words, "church" has more than one definition:

• a local group of believers (the way it is most commonly used)
• the building they meet in (not used in the Bible)
• All Christians in general, from any time or place

The last is the "universal church," and that is the sense that Paul is using the word "church" in the verses above. When the local-church-onlyists (Landmarkers, Baptist Briders, whatever else they call themselves) say there is no such thing as a "universal church," they are dishonestly limiting the definition of "church" in a biased way that favours their own assertions.

 

[Ransom]

Having a universal only church is comparable to having a spirit but no body or faith without works.

Yep - or having one head sitting atop thousands of bodies, or one bridgegroom with many, many brides.

The latter does egregious violence to the picture of Christ as the radically faithful Bridegroom. Instead of having one bride that he loves and nurtures, he's got a mistress in every town.

 

[Ekklesian]

The points I was going to make have been made. I will add that Christ has one body, and one bride.

 

[Ekklesian]

Well, looks like those points were made, too. They just didn't show till the page refreshed.

It's pretty much a cut-and-dried position.

 

[abcaines]

The last is the "universal church," and that is the sense that Paul is using the word "church" in the verses above. When the local-church-onlyists (Landmarkers, Baptist Briders, whatever else they call themselves) say there is no such thing as a "universal church," they are dishonestly limiting the definition of "church" in a biased way that favours their own assertions.

The same can be said of anyone who takes a one sided approach to any such doctrine.