A denial of the universal church is absurd.

[FSSL]

Yep... I was thoroughly trained in the Spiritual Kinship Theory position while at college. BTW: Maranatha no longer teaches that myth.

However, there are a few remaining IFBrs that still deny the existence of the universal church.

This comes from a Landmark/Spiritual Kinship theory. Note what Armitage (p 121) says:

An invisible Church is a purely indefinite and mythical idea. How can we ‘hear’ the voice of an impalpable body of men? The New Testament never speaks of all Christians in all localities, as if they belonged to one outward and visible Church, which forms one corporate body. This is a pure myth existing only in the imagination.

Apparently Armitage forgot about: Matthew 16:18 "Peter, upon this rock I will build my church"

Why would people deny the universal church? Their complaint is many, but here is a couple that will suffice for discussion:

1) The local church will suffer in ministry. If our people are engaged with other believers, outside of a local church context, the local church will suffer.
2) The universal church is invisible... therefore, it is a myth.

 

[rsc2a]

*bump*

 

[ALAYMAN]

In Visiting a Universal Invisible Church by Albert Garner, the author, from pages 118, 119, in the section "The Defense of the Faith", offers the following reductio-ad-absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd”) message as a Sunday morning church calendar for an imaginary Universal, invisible holy catholic church:

The Calendar:

“On a certain Lord's Day all the members of "the church shall have a universal, invisible assembly, at which time there shall be a sermon delivered by an invisible minister of the invisible church, after which it is hoped there may be an invisible profession of faith.



“This may then be followed by an invisible attempt by the invisible professor to join this invisible church; if received into the invisible fellowship by an invisible vote, he shall be privileged to watch the invisible administration of baptism by the invisible minister, in an invisible baptistry of invisible water.



“Upon the completion of the invisible ordinance of baptism in the universal invisible holy catholic church, there shall be the observance of the Lord's Supper, Invisible hands shall prepare the bread and the wine to be sure that it is invisible, too. There shall then follow the breaking of the invisible bread after prayer by the invisible minister. Whereupon each of the invisible participants shall take a bit of the invisible bread and perform the memorial of invisibly eating it; this shall be ceremoniously and piously followed by the invisible minister's blessing the invisible wine that is to be served to the universal, invisible holy catholic assembly.



“Little care may need be taken by those who serve these invisible elements to the invisible members of the invisible church because they will not be able to see the invisible wine even if it is spilt. The invisible cups may be placed in the invisible holes of the invisible racks on the invisible pews of this invisible holy catholic church, there to await the mystical, invisible washing which they may invisibly need.



“Since this is to be a universal, invisible holy catholic church worship assembly, it will not be necessary for the participants to leave after the service is over (for there shall be nowhere to go, since it is a universal meeting), he may then proceed with any daily chore, for the invisible, universal, mystical holy catholic assembly hour of worship shall then be over.”

27 things the universal church does not have:
1. It has no address, location, or building.



2. It has no body (form) or tangible framework.



3. It has no meetings, assemblies or meeting places.



4. It has no discipline.



5. It has no baptism.



6. It has no Lord's Supper.



7. It has no deacons.



8. It has no pastors.



9. It has no choirs.



10. It has no treasurer, collections, budgets.

11. It has no missionary collections or fellowship funds.



12. It has no moderator, chairman, or president



13. It has no clerk, records, or membership roll.



14. It has no prayer meetings.



15. It has no business meetings.



16. It has no evangelistic meetings.



17. It has no ordinations of pastors or deacons.



18. It has no messengers or delegates.



19. It has no identity.



20. It has no commission.



21. It has no responsibility.



22. It has no organization.



23. It has no association of sister churches.



24. It has no missionaries.



25. It has no constitution.



26. It has no by-laws or rules of order.



27. It has no name.

8)

 

[FSSL]

It has members.
It is named in Scripture... "upon this rock I will build my church..."
It is indestructible. "...gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."
It is given authority. "...whatever you bind on earth..."

This denial of the universal church is just a new false teaching promoted by baptist-briders and many have drank the Kool-aid without interacting with Scripture.

 

[rsc2a]

It has members.
It is named in Scripture... "upon this rock..."
It is indestructible. "...gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."
It is given authority. "...whatever you bind on earth..."

This denial of the universal church is just a new false teaching promoted by baptist-briders and many have drank the Kool-aid without interacting with Scripture.

There was so much wrong with those 27 points that I thought "why bother".

 

[FSSL]

There was so much wrong with those 27 points that I thought "why bother".

Yes. It was an article the makes you go, "huh?! really?!"

There is so much to unpack out of Matthew 16:18 regarding the church!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Well, there ya go.  The equivalent of "you're a heretic you nincompoop" and "nuh-uh" leave me disinterested and doubtful that any productive, substantive, and civil discussion is going to take place here.

 

[FSSL]

Well, there ya go.  The equivalent of "you're a heretic you nincompoop" and "nuh-uh" leave me disinterested and doubtful that any productive, substantive, and civil discussion is going to take place here.

The ball is in your "court." Tell us which local church Matthew 16:18 references. You can do better than copy and paste a non-sequitor.

 

[Ransom]

27 things the universal church does not have:

Many of them aren't applicable (the author commits the logical fallacy of composition), and the rest lack a single word: "yet."

Just because the Church Invisible isn't gathered together now doesn't mean it won't be (e.g. Rev. 5:9-10 suggests this). The local church doesn't cease to exist even when all its members are around the city doing their regular business on weekdays, and neither does the universal church fail to exist merely because its members are not gathered together in the present.

No Christian believes that his assembly contains every authentic Christian in the world. We meet other Christians regularly, and we know there is something that unites us that goes beyond the member roll of our own local church. We are members of one Body, which is the church (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18,24), with Christ at its head. This is not speaking exclusively of some local gathering - that would make the relationship of Christ and the Church into some sort of monster, possessing many bodies and only one head.

 

[ALAYMAN]

27 things the universal church does not have:

Many of them aren't applicable (the author commits the logical fallacy of composition), and the rest lack a single word: "yet."

Just because the Church Invisible isn't gathered together now doesn't mean it won't be (e.g. Rev. 5:9-10 suggests this). The local church doesn't cease to exist even when all its members are around the city doing their regular business on weekdays, and neither does the universal church fail to exist merely because its members are not gathered together in the present.

No Christian believes that his assembly contains every authentic Christian in the world. We meet other Christians regularly, and we know there is something that unites us that goes beyond the member roll of our own local church. We are members of one Body, which is the church (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18,24), with Christ at its head. This is not speaking exclusively of some local gathering - that would make the relationship of Christ and the Church into some sort of monster, possessing many bodies and only one head.

The "church" in prospective is how most folk that lean landmarkish see the use of the term church in those passages like Matt 16:18.  "Church" as spoken in the abstract must find its ground in the concrete.

 

[Ransom]

"Church" as spoken in the abstract must find its ground in the concrete.

The "concrete" is that two Christians recognize that something unites them, and that something transcends the boundaries of their respective local assemblies. The body of Christ, the universal church, is bigger than Upper Roadkill Landmark Baptist Church.

 

[ALAYMAN]

"Church" as spoken in the abstract must find its ground in the concrete.

The "concrete" is that two Christians recognize that something unites them, and that something transcends the boundaries of their respective local assemblies. The body of Christ, the universal church, is bigger than Upper Roadkill Landmark Baptist Church.

I agree with you that they are indeed united, and they recognize that, but I understand that bond to be the mutual communion of being in Christ, having the Holy Spirit who guides us into the unity of the faith.  I just think that to substitute the word "church" as that thing that unites them is an abuse of the term.  We see the overwhelming  concrete and tangible usage being to the earthy business of the ekklesia (prayer, Scripture reading, singing, care for the saints, etc)

 

[FSSL]

I agree with you that they are indeed united, and they recognize that, but I understand that bond to be the mutual communion of being in Christ, having the Holy Spirit who guides us into the unity of the faith.  I just think that to substitute the word "church" as that thing that unites them is an abuse of the term.  We see the overwhelming  concrete and tangible usage being to the earthy business of the ekklesia (prayer, Scripture reading, singing, care for the saints, etc)

This is the part of the argument that I don't understand.

At MBBC, where I was taught the Spiritual Kinship theory and read Edward Hiscox's Baptist Polity, the argument that 99% of the usages of the word "church" means that there is no universal church, is absurd.

The promise is that the church (all believers) will not fail. The no-universal church movement leads to isolationism. We find local churches competing against one another instead of recognizing that we are the "church." Of course, tangible ministry is within the local assembly. However, when believers want to gather outside their own local assembly, we recognize that we are The Church.

It is a silly thing to argue against the idea that there is "no universal church."

 

[lnf]

Alayman, I could certainly be misreading the situation, but I wonder if you have less of a problem with the concept of the universal church than you have with the name "Universal Church"...  And that may be just where I should leave this, but you said something on the "Do You Still Attend Church" thread that I thought was very apropos to this subject:

Tom Brennan:...been through that in a marriage too? (Not trying to whack you; just trying to point out the similarities, and thus potential causes/remedies.)

Alayman:  This rhetorical question is loaded with tons of wisdom.  The things that are involved with the committed loving horizontal relationship known as marriage have countless parallels to the vertical relationship of Christ and His church, demonstrated to be true in Ephesians 5:25-33.


I consider the relationship between marriage and of Christ and His church to be the same sort of relationship that exists between Christ and His (local) church and Christ and His (universal) church. 

Horizontal/vertical perfectly describes the first.  So what would describe the second?  Might I suggest vertical/3D?  ...or perhaps it's even more multi-dimensional... 

 

[ALAYMAN]

I agree with you that they are indeed united, and they recognize that, but I understand that bond to be the mutual communion of being in Christ, having the Holy Spirit who guides us into the unity of the faith.  I just think that to substitute the word "church" as that thing that unites them is an abuse of the term.  We see the overwhelming  concrete and tangible usage being to the earthy business of the ekklesia (prayer, Scripture reading, singing, care for the saints, etc)

This is the part of the argument that I don't understand.

At MBBC, where I was taught the Spiritual Kinship theory and read Edward Hiscox's Baptist Polity, the argument that 99% of the usages of the word "church" means that there is no universal church, is absurd.

The promise is that the church (all believers) will not fail. The no-universal church movement leads to isolationism. We find local churches competing against one another instead of recognizing that we are the "church." Of course, tangible ministry is within the local assembly. However, when believers want to gather outside their own local assembly, we recognize that we are The Church.

It is a silly thing to argue against the idea that there is "no universal church."

More ad hominem.  And when you misrepresent your opponent it weakens your integrity.

Alayman, I could certainly be misreading the situation, but I wonder if you have less of a problem with the concept of the universal church than you have with the name "Universal Church"...

I believe that the Bible uses the term church as it relates to His local gathering of folk, but that gathering of all saints that will be together in heaven someday together may rightly be referred to as his universal church.  Of course the Bible never uses the word "universal", but I don't quite understand how the concept is even arrived at exegetically. 

I consider the relationship between marriage and of Christ and His church to be the same sort of relationship that exists between Christ and His (local) church and Christ and His (universal) church. 

Horizontal/vertical perfectly describes the first.  So what would describe the second?  Might I suggest vertical/3D?  ...or perhaps it's even more multi-dimensional... 

Too many multi-syllabic words for me!  lol

 

[Bob H]

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."


I don't think he was referring only to the church of the Thessalonians. But that's just me

 

[ALAYMAN]

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."


I don't think he was referring only to the church of the Thessalonians. But that's just me

But what is there about this verse that would cause you to conclude Paul's words should be limited in application to only that one church?

 

[Ransom]

But what is there about this verse that would cause you to conclude Paul's words should be limited in application to only that one church?

So Paul's letter to the church in Thessalonika was, um, universal in scope?

 

[ALAYMAN]

But what is there about this verse that would cause you to conclude Paul's words should be limited in application to only that one church?

So Paul's letter to the church in Thessalonika was, um, universal in scope?

Walk and to please God,  your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication,  God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness, and to work with your own hands, that ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, .....

wherefore comfort one another with these words.

What's not universal about any of these teachings?

 

[christundivided]

But what is there about this verse that would cause you to conclude Paul's words should be limited in application to only that one church?

So Paul's letter to the church in Thessalonika was, um, universal in scope?

Walk and to please God,  your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication,  God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness, and to work with your own hands, that ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, .....

wherefore comfort one another with these words.

What's not universal about any of these teachings?

So you believe in a universal application but you destroy it by denying a practical application in this present age. Isn't this position self defeating?

I have mentioned this before, but  I don't understand how you can practically believe that all the members of the "body" given for edification of the "church" can practically apply to any local assembly.

I would like to remind you that are very found of certain writers. You have gleamed instruction, comfort, and direction from their writings/teachings. These same individual aren't part of your local assembly.

It is impossible to apply

Rom 12:4  For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,
Rom 12:5  so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Without a proper view of the universal church. Impossible. You can't deny the gifts of God given to the body of Christ is present in every believer. Your small local assembly does not a "full body" make...

I understand the desire for some to believer their local church is the end all of all things necessary for the those in Christ, yet that really isn't the case.