Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What constitutes matters of Brotherhood and Fellowship?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 31 of 163 (557557)
04-26-2010 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
04-08-2010 10:21 AM


FELLOWSHIP
Hi EMA,
EMA writes:
I am not yet stating a position here, just yet, I am simply asking the Christians here, their perspective, of course from a Biblical perspective.
Sorry to wade in so late but there are only so many hours in the day. I have tried to read up on a regular basis.
I fellowship with anyone who is trying to do right and help their fellow mankind. This includes most religions, atheist and agnostics.
I have Christian fellowship with born again children of God.
There is only one group of people in the world SINNERS.
This group of people is divided into two types of SINNERS.
BORN AGAIN SINNERS AND LOST SINNERS.
Born again sinners have eternal life.
Lost sinners face eternal separation from God.
Therefore the whole issue revolves around what it takes to be born again.
Jesus explained what it is to be born again.
John writes:
3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jesus told Nicodemus he "MUST" be born again, that means it is not optional.
In jump in a lot of people and say the water birth is baptism without considering what Jesus explained it to be in verse 6.
Jesus said that which is born of the flesh is flesh. Unless humans have changed from that day to this we still have a human that is encased in water until it breaks just prior to the fleshly birth. This was Jesus explanation of the water birth.
He then tell us that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. So our spirit "MUST" be born of the Spirit of God.
John writes:
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
God so Loved
God Gave
God did not condemn the world as it was already condemned.
God says all those who have not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God is condemned already.
There is nothing else that condemns a person as we are all sinners.
The only thing that removes that condemnation is "BELIEF (TRUST) IN THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON'S SACRIFICE OFFERED BY GOD.
Anyone who adds anything to God's requirements for entry into heaven is anti-christ. Regardless of what they claim.
Now doctrine and teachings are a whole different kettle of fish, which have nothing to do with entrance into heaven.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-08-2010 10:21 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 10:18 AM ICANT has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 32 of 163 (557560)
04-26-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dawn Bertot
04-20-2010 1:10 AM


Do you mean by 'today' a time removed from the first century or am i missing a point here?
No. I simply mean that I may change my mind. I am not too sure. I could be mistaken but I give my answer how I presently feel.
You make a clear distinction between the local and universal church and say one should be out of the local but not the universal church. Am I correct in your implication?
What I mean is that it is not possible for man to man out of the universal church. That is not something in man's hands which man is able to do.
In Matthew Jesus mentions the church twice. The first time He speaks of the universal church (Matt. 16:18). The second time He speaks of the local church (Matt. 18:17). Practically, a troublesome brother may be charged not to gather with the local church. But there is no way a troublesome brother can be put out of the universal church.
The church that Jesus said we should take out problem to in Matthew 18:17 is the practical church life on earth, the local church. You and I as Christians cannot take our problem to the universal church which covers all time and all places (Matt. 16:18)
Now we see that some Christian brothers were put out of the local church (wrongly) by an ambitious self assuming leader:
"Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not receive us ... neither does he himself receive the brothers, and those intending to do so he forbids and casts out of the church." (3 John 9,10)
The only point I make here is that 3 John 9,10 shows that a Christian brother can be cast out of the local church. However, Diotrephes had no authority or ability to cause them to be no longer members of the universal church. Do you see?
So my point was that conceivably the local elders may put a extremely erring saint out of the local church. And by local church I mean "one city - one church". That is the normal practice of establishing local churches should be a city wide congregation or a locality wide assembly.
By OUT do you mean breaking fellowship with such a person or do you mean that person may be out of the graces of God for persisting in this error or any error concerning the scriptures.
I don't think breaking fellowship with a Christian completely makes it unable to receive grace from God. And there are less severe steps that a congregation could take before breaking fellowship.
But if asking such a one not to attend the church meetings and advizing the believers not to contact such a brother is the step taken, I do not believe that this means they are totally unable to receive grace from God.
I do not think man has authority to take away another man's salvation, regardless of how much in error the erring one may be.
In short should a brother that insists and persists in teaching that is contrary to the Apostles teaching be excommunicated from the fellowship?
Where I meet we do not use the term excommunication. But there have been instances where a teacher was "quarintined". That means the believers were advized that this was a contentious teacher whose errors were contagious and that the saints should avoid contacting such a one.
If you ask me then I prefer the phrase quarintine to excommunicate. We are assuming here that the one quarintined is a genuine Christian.
An outsider who comes teaching heresy is not put out of the church in the same way. He or she was never really in the church if he or she had not received Christ.
What doctrinal teachings and principles besides Moral principles, would constitue such actions.
I'll come back to this another time.
or should we leave this to the local officials in the person of the Elders to decide these matters?
My intentions here are not to be nit picky, but define perhaps when and how disfellowship becomes imparativ
I cannot write more now. I'll try to comment latter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-20-2010 1:10 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 1:52 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 1:12 PM jaywill has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 33 of 163 (557562)
04-26-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dawn Bertot
04-26-2010 12:25 PM


EMA writes:
Look at the first three words Peg in this passage. "Everything is permissible", unless it directly violates scripture, as we know. We do have certain freedoms that the old Law did not allow Peg. Now read the whole passage and apply it to Christmas and birthdays
Your principles are admirable but misguided and unscriptural
but Paul was speaking to jews who were once living by the mosaic law....laws that forbade the eating of certain meats, working on certain days etc. He is not talking about taking part in pagan practices.
I dont know why you think the principles are unscriptural. We know that scriptually the christians did not take part in birthday celebrations...you can read it here
The World Book Encyclopedia: The early Christians did not celebrate His [Christ’s] birth because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom.Volume 3, page 416.
Can you explain to me why you believe it is scriptural for a christian to participate in a pagan custom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-26-2010 12:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-27-2010 10:54 AM Peg has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 34 of 163 (557628)
04-27-2010 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
04-26-2010 7:27 PM


The World Book Encyclopedia: The early Christians did not celebrate His [Christ’s] birth because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom.Volume 3, page 416.
Can you explain to me why you believe it is scriptural for a christian to participate in a pagan custom?
From the scriptures, brother or sister (whichever you are), not from the encycplopedia, which may echo you belief
It is unscriptural if you are using unscriptural practices to particiapate in anything, Pagan or otherwise Celebrating ones birthday is not unscriptural or pagan, even if people once used the same symbols and items. I am not using the items for the sick teisted purpose they did. Simply provide the verse which says that it is
Please explain to me what constitues a valid birthday celebration and an invalid, unscriptural one. If it is unscriptural, 9from the NT), your task should be relatively simple, correct?
but Paul was speaking to jews who were once living by the mosaic law....laws that forbade the eating of certain meats, working on certain days etc. He is not talking about taking part in pagan practices.
Wrong again. Paul was speaking to Gentile and Jewish Christians, which were no longer under the law
and this is the very point he is trying to demonstrate. we now have have certain liberties that we did not once have, BUT DONT ABUSE THEM
He most certainly was refering to partaking part in pagan practices, by indicating that the meat that was (ONCE)offered to Pagan Gods, was ok to consume, if you were not using ot for that purpose. They thought they were participating by eating and Paul was saying , no your not
Can you explain to me why you believe it is scriptural for a christian to participate in a pagan custom?
Peg try and understand Pauls import. Its not a Pagan practice, if you are not doing it for that reason. What is your intent, Paul says. I could only participate in a Pagan practice today, if that was my direct intent or I broke a moral law of the NT in doing anything Pagan or otherwise.
Otherwise its a harmless action, BUT DONT ABUSE IT.
People shaved their heads for worship to Pagan Gods, Paul shaved and sanctified himself for a different God and different reasons. Are Pauls actions pagan, because he shaved his head here or there, for ritual reasons
Acts 18:18
Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchrea because of a vow he had taken.
personally I woudnt shave my head for any reason, because Im ugly enough with hair, Id hate to see what Id look like without it.
The people of that day (early christians) thought that even eating the meat was a participation in those customs and actions. Paul says no no, what is the intent behind your actions?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 04-26-2010 7:27 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Natural_Design, posted 04-27-2010 4:46 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 2:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Natural_Design
Junior Member (Idle past 5081 days)
Posts: 12
From: Flint, Michigan, USA
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 35 of 163 (557693)
04-27-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
04-27-2010 10:54 AM


Hi I am new to this forum and this is my first post. I have been sent to give perspective from a Muslims point of view. All I can tell you is that I have had some very strange encounters in the past couple years with a power that is indeed higher than us. Being Muslim - I choose to call this Ultimate Power '' Allah ''. I'm not willing to go into any details yet because I don't want people to call me crazy or run them off scared.
I would just like to clarify a few things. First - Jesus is the Son of Allah. It seems as if Allah doesn't want people thinking Jesus is his son though. I read in the Holy Quran that Allah simply said '' Be '' and Mary was impregnated with Jesus.
It is true that we don't really know the true Birth date of Jesus. I don't know why Dec 25th was chosen but I suppose there is a reason for it.
I also have my own belief that the Universe was created at once. There was no 6 day period of creation as stated in both the Bible and Holy Quran. No, Allah created everything at once. Every thought he put into it, every detail, every function of the Universe was projected from his Mind into Reality all at once. It was meant for us. Just look at it like this - The Universe is like a black picture on a huge white wall. Allah thought of Man before he thought of the Universe and this is obvious seeing as how it was obviously meant to support our existence on this Earth. Everything is perfect. There are no flaws. The Universe is a mystery to man and filled with secrets but to Allah there are no secrets. He is All-Knowing.
Another thing I would like to say is I always see people all over the net have this argument over '' God created us in his image '' -- This is somewhat true but Allah definitely did not create us (Man) out of the image that he see's in a Mirror. We were created out of the image he had of us in his Mind. I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you for reading and I'll be around these forums more often now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-27-2010 10:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 2:03 AM Natural_Design has not replied
 Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 9:46 AM Natural_Design has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 36 of 163 (557796)
04-28-2010 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by jaywill
04-26-2010 5:55 PM


jaywill writes:
In Matthew Jesus mentions the church twice. The first time He speaks of the universal church (Matt. 16:18). The second time He speaks of the local church (Matt. 18:17).
im finding it hard to understand how you come to that conclusion considering the same word 'ekklesian' is used in both verses. This greek word means 'assembly' not universal or local.
I really cant see anywhere in the NT writings where a distinction is made between the congregations. They are 'one flock, one shephard' according to Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jaywill, posted 04-26-2010 5:55 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 2:33 AM Peg has replied
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 04-28-2010 2:55 AM Peg has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 37 of 163 (557798)
04-28-2010 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Natural_Design
04-27-2010 4:46 PM


Welcome to the Forum.
I love the Lord Jesus the Son of God.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Natural_Design, posted 04-27-2010 4:46 PM Natural_Design has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 38 of 163 (557800)
04-28-2010 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
04-27-2010 10:54 AM


EMA writes:
Please explain to me what constitues a valid birthday celebration and an invalid, unscriptural one. If it is unscriptural, 9from the NT), your task should be relatively simple, correct?
Birthday ceremonies are a product of false religion. False religion is strongly influenced by Satan...any form of religion that is not influenced by God is influenced by Satan and therefore birthdays are a product of Satanic influence. Im sorry if that sounds harsh, but its true. Do you think God would approve of anything originating with him?
Paul spoke very bluntly about the celebrations of the nations when he said at
1Corintians 10:20No; but I say that the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want YOU to become sharers with the demons
Paul didnt believe that the things the nations did (including their birthday celebrations) was something that came from God, so he strongly denounced getting involved with such things. Even if you dont beleive you are participating in a pagan ceremony, the fact is that birthdays were originally a pagan ceremony and therefore were influenced by the demons and their false worship.
EMA writes:
Wrong again. Paul was speaking to Gentile and Jewish Christians, which were no longer under the law
and this is the very point he is trying to demonstrate. we now have have certain liberties that we did not once have, BUT DONT ABUSE THEM
he was speaking to both, my apologies. But still, the point is that he was speaking about the mosaic law and its regulations...not the false worship of the nations. He wasnt telling christians that they could start involving themselves in practices that God condemned.
His words in 1Cor above should echo that sentiment.
EMA writes:
The people of that day (early christians) thought that even eating the meat was a participation in those customs and actions. Paul says no no, what is the intent behind your actions?
i see what you are saying here, but i think you are confusing the two issues.
On one hand the christians were worried about eating meat that had earlier been used in some pagan ceremony....on the other, you are talking about pagan ceremonies
you seem to be saying that its ok to participate in pagan ceremonies if you are not participating for the pupose of worship. To me that is not what Paul is talking about.
The NT is very clear when it says that christians are to avoide false religious practices. But what Paul is talking about are things to do with the mosaic law, the eating of certain meat....hes not talking about participating in cremonies. Nowhere does he say that is acceptable for christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-27-2010 10:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-29-2010 10:57 AM Peg has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 39 of 163 (557803)
04-28-2010 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
04-28-2010 1:52 AM


im finding it hard to understand how you come to that conclusion considering the same word 'ekklesian' is used in both verses. This greek word means 'assembly' not universal or local.
The word does indeed translate o assembly. But when we study all that this special assembly is we see that it has many deeper layers than simply a gathering.
The book which most discribes these deeper layers of what the church is is the book of Ephesians.
Yes, the church is a called out assembly. But is it merely a called out assembly of Christians living worldly lives and backslidden ? To be a mere gathering is the most superfiscial aspect of the church. It is indeed necessary to gather together. But this is only the initial step.
The church in Ephesians is also the household of God, the kingdom with citizens, the Body of Christ, the One New Man, the Masterpiece or POEMA of God, the habitation of God in spirit, the corporate Bride and Wife of Christ, and a corporate warrior with armor of God for fighting spiritual warefare.
So, the assembly is only the initial and most elementary aspect of what the church is.
Now in Matthew 16 the church is the one church which Jesus says He will build. So it is universal and covers all time and includes all saints (believers in Christ).
But in Matthew 18 the church is a practical assembly to which two or three Christians may bring their problem for fellowship, prayer, and solution.
Two or three brothers in Christ cannot take their problem to the universal church. They can take it to the practical local church. They can take it to the representative responsible elders of a local church. And this way the church in Matthew 18 must be practical.
So Matthew 16 speaks of the church to which all Christians in all time from every area of the world belong. And Matthew 18 speaks of the practical local assembly that some Christians may present their problems to.
I really cant see anywhere in the NT writings where a distinction is made between the congregations. They are 'one flock, one shephard' according to Jesus.
The distinction between "churches" in the New Testament is geographical. What distinquishes one church from another church is locality.
" What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thytaria and to Sardus and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." (Rev. 1:11)
Each of these churches was designated by a locality. The name of the locality was effectively the name also of the church there. There were not churches according to streets, or doctrines, or particular servants, or countries, or races, or ethnic identities, or spiritual gifts, etc.
The church was designated by the geographic locality. And this is the patter we see throughout the New Testament. Where the city is mentioned the church is always mentioned in the singular.
The jurisdition of a church was not larger or smaller than a locality.
There are four places which mention a church in someone's house. But these four passages also speak of city wide local churches. It is only the case that churches usually started in the homes of someone.
When a locality larger than a city is mentioned the church is refered to in the plural. So you have plural churches is Asia, plural churches in Judea, plural churches of the Gentiles (nations).
One city has one church. They may meet from house to house in many house meetings as we see in Jerusalem in the book of Acts. But the Bible always says the church in Jerusalem and not the churches (plural) in the city of Jerusalem.
The practice today of having many kinds of "churches" in one city is abnormal. But some Christians are coming out of these divisions to meet as the city wide local church according to the pattern revealed in the New Testament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 1:52 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 2:49 AM jaywill has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 40 of 163 (557805)
04-28-2010 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jaywill
04-28-2010 2:33 AM


jaywill writes:
The distinction between "churches" in the New Testament is geographical. What distinquishes one church from another church is locality.
" What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thytaria and to Sardus and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." (Rev. 1:11)
i just want to clarify what you mean when you say 'church'
are you talking about the building or the people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 2:33 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 7:10 AM Peg has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 41 of 163 (557806)
04-28-2010 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Peg
04-28-2010 1:52 AM


Re:Assembly
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
im finding it hard to understand how you come to that conclusion considering the same word 'ekklesian' is used in both verses. This greek word means 'assembly' not universal or local.
I agree it is hard to understand.
We are born into God's family at the new birth.
We are added to the Church.
ekklsia is the Greek word from a compound of ek
and kale.
ek mean out of and kale means to call.
Thus the meaning of ekklsia is given as, Primary meaning: 1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly.
This can only refer to a local meeting.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 1:52 AM Peg has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 42 of 163 (557829)
04-28-2010 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Peg
04-28-2010 2:49 AM


i just want to clarify what you mean when you say 'church'
are you talking about the building or the people?
Do you actually mean that you read through my post about the church in Ephesians and you could not discern that I was not talking about a physical building ?
People, of course.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 2:49 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 7:49 AM jaywill has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 43 of 163 (557834)
04-28-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by jaywill
04-28-2010 7:10 AM


jaywill writes:
Do you actually mean that you read through my post about the church in Ephesians and you could not discern that I was not talking about a physical building ?
People, of course.
i think its the fact that you continually use the word 'church' which to me sounds like you are speaking about the building. And your comment "The distinction between "churches" in the New Testament is geographical. What distinquishes one church from another church is locality." sounds like you are speaking about the buildings.
this is why i like the use of the term 'congregation' in the new world translation....it conveys the idea of a congregated group of people as opposed to a building where they might meet.
I dont take the view that there is a universal and local 'congregation'. There is only one congregation and it is a worldwide brotherhood. Paul wrote: Just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although being many, are one body"1Corinthians 12:12,13
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 7:10 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-28-2010 10:21 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 45 by jaywill, posted 04-28-2010 12:43 PM Peg has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 44 of 163 (557860)
04-28-2010 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Peg
04-28-2010 7:49 AM


I dont take the view that there is a universal and local 'congregation'. There is only one congregation and it is a worldwide brotherhood. Paul wrote: Just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although being many, are one body"1 Corinthians 12:12, 13
To Peg Jaywill and ICANT I will try and get back in here as quickly as I can, I am very busy today and tommorrow, I will try and keep up by reading where we are at. see you in a few

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 7:49 AM Peg has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 45 of 163 (557890)
04-28-2010 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Peg
04-28-2010 7:49 AM


I dont take the view that there is a universal and local 'congregation'. There is only one congregation and it is a worldwide brotherhood. Paul wrote: Just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although being many, are one body"1 Corinthians 12:12, 13
Hold on. Just hold on.
In the verse you quote Paul is talking about the Body of Christ. Nowhere does Paul refer to plural BODIES of Christ. True.
However, the New Testament does repeatedly use the plural term CHURCHES. So we have to deal with the FACT that there can be many churches. This is what the Bible says.
Once again - One Body , but multiple churchES is what we read.
So the issue is WHAT distinguishes one church from another church ? The answer is locality.
Now on the other hand there are not multiple universal churches. There is only "MY CHURCH" which the Lord said He would build (Matthew 16:18). Across all localities and in every age there is one universal church. His church, it is.
Martin Luther is a member, as is Calvin, as is Paul, as is Barnabus, as is Wesley, as is Sojourner Truth, as is Billy Graham, as it every other man, women, or child who has ever been born again.
This is like there being one moon in the sky. But if you go to London you have the moon over London. If you go to Dallas Texas you see the moon over Dallas Texas. If you go to Lagos Nigeria you see the moon over Lagos Nigeria. These are not different moons. This is the one moon seen in many different localities.
So the one universal church across all ages and over all the world is expressed in various localities just as the one moon is seen over various localities.
Churches according to other boundaries other than locality are deformed entitities. At best they are improper assemblies. But the constituients may still be Christians regardless. They are divided improperly according to the New Testament standard of one church for one locality. But they are still members of the universal church and of the whole Body of Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 7:49 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Peg, posted 04-28-2010 7:13 PM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024