Universal church or Local church only?

I always thought that all local churches believes that they belong to the universal church. But I recently i encounter a view of the church that is new to me. It is like this:

the word "church" always referred to local church/es in the Epistles because this writings are addressed to a local church in Ephesians, Collosians, Laodiceans etc..

Every local church is a body of Christ, I am somewhat skeptic of this, because the word "bodies of Christ" never occurred in Scripture and Christ has only one bride, it will be "polygamy" to think otherwise.

I think the implication of this view is to view unity and commands to the church as being relevant to the local church only.

What do you think?

Are there other strong points that this view is false?

I read through sentences where the word "church" appeared. And most, I think, it may just really refers to that local church although there are few exceptions. With all the divisions in church history, do you think this view may be probably right?

But I don't think so personally, because of the negative effect of this to "seekers" that have just bee offended by divisions of groups in Christianity who don't go along with each other.

The objection I think stems from the pyramid model that the RCC have started and other groups who think they are the true only the "True Church".
But I believe the Biblical view is very far from that model.

here are some links to this view: http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_256.html

http://www.bbcn.org/filerequest/2135

Hey Joliboy,

It seems to me that the moment a certain expression of the church begins to name itself according to some man's imagination, they are already setting themselves apart from others as having something others don't and by the very nature of things are acting divisively, intentionally or not. (As if any local body of believers could have any more of Christ than is already given)

The body of Christ are all true spiritual members of Christ, whether in a local church or not. (Of course, being part of a local gathering of believers is encouraged)
The universal church, as I understand it, includes all Christian churches everywhere, so that local churches all form part of the universal church. You cannot have one without the other?

Blessings,

Joliboy: The word "church" in the New Testament simply means the assembly. Jesus spoke of the church as His body. In this sense it is the universal assembly of born again believers. Paul greets Priscilla and Aquilla in Acts and says to greet the church that is in their house. This is a local assembly of believers.

The church is the universal body of Christ, but it meets in local bodies all over the world. Both are the church. One a subset of the other. I don't think it is any more complicated than that.

There is no concept of Universal CHurch at all in Bible. It is a term coined by those who do not want to submit to a local church leadership and coined a term universal church so that they will not miss on all the verses applicable only to body of believers.

Every believer is imbalance. No one man can do the work of Jesus. We can either be an evangelist or a preacher or a prophet or any gifted member. All these gifts are for edification of a local church. If a person is not part of local Church but claims to be part of an imaginary universal church then he is deceived. Truth is not in him. All these individual gifts will make sense only when they work together as a local body. No one can serve God independent of other believers.

Let us not debate with human logic on whether Universal Church exists or not, which Bible clearly does not mentions. But Bible clearly speaks of Local Body of believers. All the Epistles are written to local Church. In Revelation, Jesus writes letters addressing only Local Church. He is not even concerned about any Christian who lives in say Smyrna but not part of the Church of Smyrna. Such man is not even considered by Jesus in Revelation. So think about it these days, people who exist in different cities as Christians but not part of any local body in their city. These so called Christians who are unwilling to submit to any local Body Of Christ. Let us weep for them. Instead of discussing on any imaginary Universal Body.

I know, the phrase "universal church" does not appear on Scripture, how about the body of Christ? the bride of Christ?

take for example:
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Ephesians 5:6

Is Paul, specifically just speaking here on the Ephesian church? or all churches? he uses singular form, meaning universal-as one.

Is every local church, body of Christ?

I think like the Trinity, local churches are distinct and yet part of one body.

How about Jesus prayer on unity is it only in the context of a local church?

should we not have fellowship with other Christians in other local churches?

Are prophets, teachers and apostles must only operate for the maturity of a local church?

Sree wrote :
/// There is no concept of Universal CHurch at all in Bible. It is a term coined by those who do not want to submit to a local church leadership and coined a term universal church so that they will not miss on all the verses applicable only to body of believers.///

Could you please provide your research for making that accusation ?

A.W. Tozer used the phrase "Universal Church"

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=5087

add :

Spurgeon also used the term :

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=58970&forum=35

Brother, you need to revisit that statement. You have now reduced the new creature in Christ, the Born again man who is born of the Spirit and who walks in the Kingdom of God and belongs to the Body of Christ to a mere member of a local religious gathering. We all are brothers and sisters, not because we belong to a local church but because we belong to Jesus. Whatever you may think of attendance of churches as opposed to any other kind of gatherings, that has no bearing on the whether a man is saved or not...........bro Frank

Now does he really belong to the Body Of Christ? Even though he is not part of a local Church? Absolutely not. Calling him a body of Christ means he is an organ in Christ. How can an organ exist alone? Can an eye or ear or even heart exist alone? Not At ALL. Then how is there a concept of a believer being part of a body remain alone?

I believe people who are not part of local Church are those who do NOT LOVE JESUS at all. How can someone love the Head Jesus but not his Body the Church? Can a man say to a women that he loves her head but not her body? If there is true love for head, there will also be a true love for body and a need to join with the body.

If a local body to you is only a local religious gathering, then it only says how much you have degraded to respect Church to which the apostles wrote epistles. Jesus wrote letters addressing Churches in Revelation.

I did not have even 1% understanding of Church as I have now when I was born again. I have never attended a Church before I was born again because I came from a different faith. But from the time I accepted Jesus as a savior, I also had a great longing in my heart to fellowship with fellow believers in Jesus. To submit to the head and also to the elders appointed by the head. No one told me the need to be in a fellowship, it was automatically birthed inside me by Holy Spirit.

There is no concept of such lonely Christian at all in New Testament time. All the believers were immediately united with a local body of believers. But in modern times, believers think so highly of themselves that they do not find any need to fellowship or even submit to a local body of believers. Such loners started getting approval (or acceptance) in Christendom these days. It is because of the approval, they spread more. Just like how Homosexuality and Divorce get approval in society. Such lonely believers also got approval in Christendom these days.

Could you please provide your research for making that accusation ?

See by universal Church, if a person denotes a global representation of all local churches then it is different. But most of them here use universal Church to denote an invisible Church in which all born again believers are part of, irrespective of whether they are part of a local Church or not. This term and understanding never existed during New Testament time. I totally believe this understanding in unbiblical and totally not part of God's purpose for a believer or his Church.

Is Paul, specifically just speaking here on the Ephesian church? or all churches? he uses singular form, meaning universal-as one.

Is every local church, body of Christ?

Each Church is an individual body of Christ. Whether they agree it or not. There are bodies that are totally week due to loose connection of members. They are giants but with poor joints. This how I see mega Churches. Since they do not encourage fellowship of believers, there is no connection between members here.

If each Church is individually not a body then why is Jesus writing letters to each Church separately? He could have written one letter to the universal Church and asked the apostle to read it for all the individual members. Why take time and effort to write to each of them?

How this individual bodies are presented to Jesus as a single bride, is not something that we have to be concerned. If the Bible is silent on one subject then let us also learn to be silent, rather than using our imaginations here.

How about Jesus prayer on unity is it only in the context of a local church?

Jesus prayed that believers should be perfected in unity (John 17:23). Not to be perfected alone. Only those who are proud and think they are already perfect, will seek to be alone without fellowshiping with other saints. A true believer who is seeking perfection, will always seek to be perfected in unity with other believers.

should we not have fellowship with other Christians in other local churches?

As long as the two bodies are still connected to same head, Jesus Christ then they can easily fellowship and connect.

Are prophets, teachers and apostles must only operate for the maturity of a local church?

Yes they are. There is no Prophet or teacher or apostle outside the concept of Church. They are all gifted accordingly for the edification of Church. Even Evangelists are for Church only. They are all part of a Church and work towards Church.

Ephesians 4:11 - And it was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for works of ministry, to build up the body of Christ,...

Every work that we do should end up building the Body of Christ.

Based on Ephesians 4:11 that I quoted, there is no travelling evangelist concept at all. No one can keep travelling here and there spreading the Gospel, without being part of a Church. Biblical way of Evangelism should be done from a Church to build up a Church. Those who accept Christ should also be added to the Church.

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,
to the general assembly and CHURCH of the firstborn who are registered in heaven......." Hebrews 12:22-23

Registered in heaven, NOT on the local church membership role!

Sounds like the universal church to me!

RE : /// I believe people who are not part of local Church are those who do NOT LOVE JESUS at all. How can someone love the Head Jesus but not his Body the Church? Can a man say to a women that he loves her head but not her body? If there is true love for head, there will also be a true love for body and a need to join with the body.///

Many are displaced from any local assembly right now because many have been hurt and have been manipulated and spirtually abused by various local assemblies also many are of the feeling that many of the local assemblies seem to more resemble a harlot than a bride.

When we lived in Colorado we where unable to find an adequate fellowship.

clarity

"Each church is individual Body of Christ."

I don't think that this concept is found in the Bible brother, there is only one body of Christ in the earth.

"If each Church is individually not a body then why is Jesus writing letters to each Church separately? He could have written one letter to the universal Church and asked the apostle to read it for all the individual members. Why take time and effort to write to each of them?"

I agree brother, because every local church is distinct. Every situation on the church is different. But does not invalidate that all Christians comprises the body of Christ, the bride of Christ.

What about Philip baptizing the Ethiopian Enuch and just left immediately, he was teleported?

And I think Paul was a traveling apostle, though he spent more time on a church than the others.
-----------

According to your view, What is then the minimum requirement for a church to be a church?

---

Jesus put a balance here:
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:6

That is why others are "hanging" and don't go to a "church" near them.

I agree brother, because every local church is distinct. Every situation on the church is different. But does not invalidate that all Christians comprises the body of Christ, the bride of Christ.

If Jesus is writing a separate letter just because the situations are different makes no sense. He could have still written a single letter addressing all the different situation, right? For example I can write a single letter to a family addressing all the members of it, even though their situations are different.

I can prove this from scripture itself. Let us see how Jesus was dwelling among Churches.

Rev 12-13:- Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash.

What are these 7 distinct lampstands?

Verse 20-
As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

So each Church was represented by an individual lampstand here. A lampstand has 7 branches, so if all the Churches are part of one body, then each Church should represent different branch of a single lampstand, instead they are all individual lampstands! How can Jesus make it so clear to us that each Church is individual body by itself? In OT it was Israel represented by a single lampstand but now each Church it self represented by a single lampstand.

And I think Paul was a traveling apostle, though he spent more time on a church than the others.

Based on the passage I have quoted, Apostles are also given to equip Church. That is exactly what Paul was doing. He was travelling place to place to plant Churches. If you ask Paul where his converts are, he will take you to each Church in the areas where he traveled. He was also not doing it alone, he always had coworkers.

New Testament pattern of doing God's work is not doing it alone. Our Lord Jesus sent Apostles in twos (Luke 10:1). So they always worked with other believers for God's kingdom.

Philp sharing the Gospel to Enuch is similar to how we are expected to share the Gospel in our workplace, first by our life then by our words. I cannot expect my coworkers in Christ from my Church to come with me there to share the Gospel. As I travel if I happen to find someone with need, I can always share the Gospel. But I cannot keep doing it alone as my service to Kingdom of God. Philip Soon planted a Church in Samaria. That was his main ministry.

According to your view, What is then the minimum requirement for a church to be a church?

2 or more gathering together in Jesus name is good enough. 2 families are more than sufficient to form a Church. If there is a unity of Spirit. If they submit to one another. If they all together connected by one Head, Jesus Christ. Then it is a Church. The Church that I am part of, we have only 4 committed families. That is good enough. We are open to others joining us. we invite other families as well. Many of them choose to be visitors! But if they are unwilling to be part of this body of believers, we cannot help. It is God who builds his Church, he will add those for whom He has the burden.
It was Noah's responsibility to construct the Ark, it was God who decided who should be in. The Ark is a perfect symbol of Church in NT time. Outside the Ark there is only death!

That is why others are "hanging" and don't go to a "church" near them.

If they really have a burden to see the Church of Jesus to be built in their locality, assuming all the Churches near them have backslidden. Then God will definitely unite them with other believers who have similar burden. The point is they do not have this burden.

Most of those who are boasting to be part of NO CHURCH, have a deep arrogance inside them. If they are honest they will accept this. Their spiritual pride makes it impossible for them to work with other believers. It would have been humbling for Apostle Paul to work with younger believers like Timothy and Silas. But he still did it, because that was God's will for Paul. Not to be a loner like these super spiritual Christians of these days!

While being part of the local church is the ideal, when the church is in a bad state of apostasy God sometimes orchestrates unique ways to care for His children. Years ago I with a few others were denied church privileges in an assembly we were part of because we would not help to cover up some corruption in leadership. After taking a stand in this way God revealed Himself to me in a glorious way which I had never deemed possible before. After that, even though I am part of a fellowship, I realized that nothing can separate me from being a part of the true body of Christ except me being too overcome by the fear of man to stand up for truth. Right now there is a moving of God which I am aware of in an almost "dead" denomination. God leads people to salvation in the most intriguing ways and they frequently remain in the same church until they are forced out, but in the meantime lead others to the Lord within the religious culture. A few days ago I was privileged to sit around a table, "breaking pizza" with three young folk of this people group sharing the closest spiritual fellowship with them I have ever known among believers. I was old enough to be their father or grandfather but it made no difference. Their spiritual encouragement comes from private Bible studies done in their own language with those who are born again.
Whether my spiritual gifts are recognized within my local fellowship or not makes little difference - God brings people into the lives of of my wife and me through which I can exercise them anyway. Even the gift of prophesy has been exercised when the church failed to recognize the gift - as God directed certain people to pray against specific things which endangered the fellowship. The gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church but the strategies of the battle are up to our Commander and His methods are wonderfully varied. I desire to be close enough to Him to be able to receive the exact instructions for the occasion. Let us not attempt to put God into a box!

That is an accusation that is sad and can only have one source brother, you need to repent of that.

First Apolos, you have not quoted me fully. See in what context I said about Church and love for Jesus. If you think I am wrong then give me a logical answer to this question. If you cannot give then it is you who needs to repent (with all respect)!

How can someone love Jesus and not his body? How can a man say to a women that he loves her head but not her body? How can there not be a desire in someone who loves Jesus to not fellowship with his body (Church). If a person is truly in love with Jesus then he will not stop until he gets in contact with a true Body of Jesus. He will not boast about how super spiritual he is without a Church, nor defend it in Internet forum like this!

Everything I have posted here is scripture both from Ephesians and Revelation. If you have anything against the point I am inferring, you have to first quote your understanding of those scripture. If you have no scripture to offer then your understanding is not right at all or subjective.

If Matt 18:20 is so generic and can be applicable to any 2 people gathering together then why was Jesus standing out side and knocking the doors of Leodicia Church when the people there where assuming that they are gathering in Jesus name? (Rev 3:20).

Compare scripture with scripture to avoid all such deceptions. The epistles and the letters of Jesus in revelation are all written for Churches. If you are unwilling to be part of a Church then tear those pages and live with rest of your Bible!

By being part of a Church, I do not mean sitting in a dead denomination. It is to be committed to a set of believers. Every part in our body is committed to work together, they just do not work with anyone randomly. They both give and receive from other parts. A Christian is supposed to be committed to other Christians in his locality. Just saying "hello how are you", or chatting in an internet forum are not commitment. It is mockery of God intended fellowship of saints.

If you have traveled land and seas, which I have, and met saints from multiple different backgrounds, which I have, you too would be thrilled to recognize your brother or your sister and you would embrace them with all of the love and more so than even your own natural family members. Satan hates the family of God because we are one in Him and He in us and so shall it ever be for all eternity...........bro Frank

I have traveled countries as well. Even in the place I live in USA (which is not my home country), I still keep looking for fellowship. Even though I am committed to my Church. I also meet with believers in near by Churches in my locality. I attend bible studies conducted by others. I too can acknowledge the ready connection that we can have with a fellow believers, even though we do not attend the same Church. If we are all connected to Jesus then that is good enough to fellowship.

But do these mean that we can stop valuing being committed to a local Church? No not at all. It is not how you feel in these fellowship that is important. It is whether are you contributing to a local Church as an integral body part, that is more important.

In a body, the parts are all committed to working with one another. They are dependent on one another. Do you have such a relationship with those believers whom you randomly meet in travel? Absolutely NO. It is this lack of committed fellowship that distinguishes these travel fellowship from a Church.

It is pride that is making a person not wanting a committed fellowship. It is easy to flirt with many women and attain sexual satisfaction, but it is different thing to live committed to a women! Anyone who is married here acknowledges it. So just because a man can have different ways to flirt with other women, can we say that marriage is no longer needed? Only a fool will discredit marriage. Marriage is more than just sex. Same way a Church we are committed to is lot more than just a casual fellowship.

A local Church is the only place where one can receive a word that is from God's burden for us. We can receive God's word even through SI or other internet forums, even YouTube. But a word out of God's burden for the believers in that locality, can come only from a local Church. It is like a person can eat in any restaurant and satisfy his hunger, but there is a difference between the restaurant food and a home cooked food. A home cooked food is configured to your need by a loving wife! Same way the word received in a local Church is. How can someone even miss these things and also justify and boast about it, is beyond my understanding! I can say with 100% assurance that a person who is only listening to internet messages and keep ignoring local Church, will be a weak Christian spiritually, like how a person who only eats in restaurants will be weak in health.

Whether my spiritual gifts are recognized within my local fellowship or not makes little difference - God brings people into the lives of of my wife and me through which I can exercise them anyway. Even the gift of prophesy has been exercised when the church failed to recognize the gift - as God directed certain people to pray against specific things which endangered the fellowship.

I think this is a very good point. In today's institutional Churches we have this problem where the Pastor is only assumed to posses all gifts. The individual gifts of believers are not recognized.

Even in home fellowship, this is possible. The man who has most sermons on this website, was asked to remain quiet in a Church. He sat quietly for 3 years without exercising his preaching gift, which today the entire world recognizes! But God later called him to plant a Church and now he has planted Churches all over the world. He still recalls that those 3 years were very useful to him and God humbled him to use him mightily later. I have had such experience as well. I always rejoice with this word. If the gift given to me is from God, then it is a light that he has put inside me. He will not hide the lamp any longer. But as a lamp it is my responsibility to give light where ever he has placed me without asking any questions. God has always moved me and placed me in different places to use my gift. I am no longer anxious about my gift being unrecognized. I do not serve men but God!

This is what I believe. If God has given us a gift, and we truly long to use this gift to equip his Church (Eph 4:12) and benefit his Church rather than establishing a ministry for ourself, then God will definitely place us in a fellowship to use our gift for his glory. The man who has most sermons on this website is a living example for this work of God.

Sree

Why not just refer to him as "Zac Poonen" instead of continually referring to him as "The man who has most sermons on this website"

You really turned me off on any interest in listening to Zac Poonen.

You are constantly critizizing and condeming others.

My intention is not to condemn anyone. No one needs to be condemned either. If an unbeliever should feel condemned because a Christian preaches that Jesus is only way to salvation? If so then let the Christians get condemned because I want to proclaim the importance of Body of Christ. I am here to proclaim God's plan for his body, not what men find comfort in their understanding of Body of believers!

Sometime certain truths have to be said in a strong way to open the eyes of those that have been blinded by Satan. Martin Luther for example took salvation by faith to certain extreme to bring the balance. God's plan for his Church is totally blinded to many western Christians today. Especially people like us who think we know the complete Gospel. It is knowledge of truth that makes us arrogant to submit to fellow believers and stay in a committed fellowship with them.

Even in the world, it is the good looking actors and models who find it difficult to end up in a committed marriage relationship. Same way it is these believers who have too much of Bible knowledge, find it difficult to humble themselves and submit to a church.

Regarding not telling a name, I do not believe I am worthy enough to associate myself with his name. It is just a respect I personally have for him!

RE : ///Sometime certain truths have to be said in a strong way to open the eyes of those that have been blinded by Satan...///

That is not what I am referring to !

RE : /// Regarding not telling a name, I do not believe I am worthy enough to associate myself with his name. It is just a respect I personally have for him!///

That is making an Idol of another man.

You made the assertion that if you are not part of a local body then you do not love Jesus and not born again. You are wrong brother. The local gathering is not Jesus. Jesus is Jesus and if we have committed our lives to Jesus in the process of being born again we are His children whether one attends a local gathering or not. To suggest otherwise is 100% wrong. If you want to have discussion about valuing being connected to a local church then that is one thing and we would agree. The second you equate it to salvation, being saved or not saved, loving Jesus or not loving Jesus then you have moved into gross error..........bro Frank

Instead of posting your personal understanding, why not answer the simple question I have posted about loving head but not loving his body. I am not doubting anyone's salvation here. Salvation belongs to God. But I am only doubting their love for Jesus. What is the use of a salvation when a person completely misses God's plan for him on this earth? If just some how going to heaven, even if a person lives and dies in his personal pride and does not commit himself to a local fellowship, then it is a cheap salvation. I do not believe Jesus came to give us any cheap salvation. If going to heaven is your only understanding of salvation, then anyone can live anyway and in their death bed they can repent. But their life will be totally unusable to God on this earth.

Salvation is to be saved from sin and confirmed to the image of Jesus, on this earth. If Jesus himself was committed to his fellowship with 12 believers during his stay on earth, it is just arrogance and spiritual pride to say that one does not need such fellowship.

Sree,

You agrguing against a position that no one is taking here! It's called a 'straw man' argument. The only thing being discussed was the difference between the 'Universal Church' and the 'local Church'. You asserted there is no such thing as 'the Universal Church', which is clearly wrong.
Anyway, somehow you got from that to lecturing folk about not loving God's people and not wanting to be a part of a local body.

I think you need to slow down and take a break, because your rapid fire posting is not helping your position and just sowing confusion because you are not realising what statements you are making that are extreme.

You remind me a bit of how I was as a much younger man In early married life aand full of advice for everyone. As has been said previously, we learn many things as we mature and realise we did not know as much as we thought we did.

As much as I like the ministry of Zac Poonen, he does have a tendancy to over emphasise points at times, but it mostly does not take away from the message he is giving. Maybe you have been influenced by this aspect of his character without realising it. You wouldn't be the first, or last to do that. But it comew across in a wholly different way to brother Zac.

Again you guys are only posting your understanding here. No Scripture nor any wise answers to the questions I am posting.

If you truly do not have a wise answer then at least consider the opinion of others. Instead of holding on to unscriptural views.

The concept of universal Church as a shelter to all pride people who do not want to be part of a local Church, is unscriptural. Rev 1:12-13 and 20 are very clear, each Church is individually a Golden LampStand and Jesus is dwelling among them.

If you think I am wrong then let the moderators get involved, not any self proclaimed moderator (with all respect)!

The concept of Universal Church and right understanding of the need for Church are very much inline with current discussions. I do not believe I have deviated from the discussion.

I have no self benefit agenda here. I only have a burden for those super spirituals, who think they need no fellowship.

If Jesus himself needed a committed fellowship of believers, then are we not arrogant to keep saying we will remain unchurched without a committed fellowship? At least think in this line, even though you have no answers for this.

It is not about winning a discussion. I am long dead to expecting others agreeing with my opinions. May be the poster here who keeps jumping in agreement with anyone who disagrees with me, is the one who is taking it personal!

Often our words will not show our spirit in an online discussion. I can type at lighting fast speed because that is my profession. That does not mean I want to enforce my view upon others. In fact I agreed with certain posts that spoke about Church not identifying our gifts. I seriously consider every post here and value them.

I have nothing against anyone in particular. Sometimes I use exaggerated illustrations like comparing sexual relationship to spiritual fellowship, just to get a point across. It does not mean I am angry with anyone.

I do not believe everyone here are intelligent enough to have a logical discussion. So it is really hard to understand many logical connections I make here. So that does not mean they are meaningless. A 1st grade student might think Trigonometry is not mathematics at all, as it is too much for his intellectual ability. But that does not mean trigonometry is meaningless!

Multiple straw men aside including your thoughts on a universal church, you stated that if one was not attending a local body, that one was not saved and did not love Jesus.

I never said that. I never talk about Salvation of another person. I have never done that any time in my life. Salvation always belongs to God. In fact it is you who kept asking about salvation and connecting all my post to salvation. That is not my intention at all. Please do not misquote me. Even if you disagree with me, about my understanding of importance of Local Fellowship, it is fine, but you should not misquote me this way.

I only said I doubt their love for Jesus. I said that in the context of a question I asked. Even after asking repeatedly you took no effort of answering my question. If I have to have a logical discussion with a person, I would expect him to address the logical questions I ask. If they are interested only in speculations rather than giving a logical answer then it clearly shows their intellectual inability. That is what I meant by saying I cannot have a logical discussion with everyone.

DO you ever read what I have posted? Even I agreed that I doubt their love in my previous post. There is nothing you are archiving by posting it again! I clearly doubt your ability to understand others! I am sorry. I

Where did I ever say they are unsaved? You have clearly misquoted me. At least acknowledge that even though you are unwilling to accept any scripture on the need for church.

In case you are still incapable of understanding my question, I am referring to this -

"that one was not saved"

Where did you find me saying this?

You used bold caps to state, with certainty that those who are not part of a local church DO NOT LOVE JESUS AT ALL. Sree, can you even begin to understand what it means ...

So now you are saying that it was your interpretation of what I said. But you earlier said.

You STATED that if one was not attending a local body, that one was NOT SAVED and did not love Jesus.

Only one of the 2 can be true. Either I stated that about salvation, or it was your interpretation (or imagination). Both cannot be true. So either way, your accusation of me was a LIE. It was a FALSE accusation. If I were you, I would apologize publicly for false accusation, instead justifying continuously.

It is work of Devil to falsely accuse a brother in Christ.

If you do not love Jesus then you are not a Christian. To be a Christian is to love Jesus. I hope that was simple enough for you brother.

Again this is not as simple as you think! It is your understanding which is subjective. The scripture clearly disagrees with you (as in most case)!

For example Ephesians Church lost their love for Jesus (Rev 2:4). Does that mean the entire Church is unsaved or lost their salvation? I can post more. I do not believe you will answer this as well, just like how you FAILED to even attempt answering any question of mine. All you have been doing in this forum is falsely accusing me of pride, false claim on salvation. All this because I disagree with your stand on Church? Even though all that I posted here are pure scripture that no one can deny.

Frank, I proved you wrong again using scripture. Instead of proving or disproving it, you are again coming up with your classical response of stating your subjective view. Your classical response is, you are always right because you believe so! Even if there are 100s of scriptures against your belief!

You post no scriptural proof what so ever. On top of it, you keep accusing me of pride, false accusation on what I never said, still without slightest hint of repentance! I am only amazed!

All this you do because I believe in something that is against your comfort zone of rejecting fellowship of believers! Wow!

Sree,

here are some verses in which the word "church" (singular) may not refer to a "local church":

1 Corinthians 10:32 (KJV)
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Acts 8:3 (KJV)
As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

1 Corinthians 15:9 (KJV)
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)

For 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.

any others?
-----------

"
If Jesus is writing a separate letter just because the situations are different makes no sense. He could have still written a single letter addressing all the different situation, right? For example I can write a single letter to a family addressing all the members of it, even though their situations are different.

I can prove this from scripture itself. Let us see how Jesus was dwelling among Churches.

Rev 12-13:- Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash.

What are these 7 distinct lampstands?

Verse 20-
As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

So each Church was represented by an individual lampstand here. A lampstand has 7 branches, so if all the Churches are part of one body, then each Church should represent different branch of a single lampstand, instead they are all individual lampstands! How can Jesus make it so clear to us that each Church is individual body by itself? In OT it was Israel represented by a single lampstand but now each Church it self represented by a single lampstand.
"

brother, I do not invalidate the distinction of the local church. I think like the Trinity, the Father, Holy Spirit and our Lord Jesus are distinctly God, yet One God.

----------------

in 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul talks about "one body" is he just talking about a local church? If that so, this ideal of diversity of gifts and function may not be applicable to other churches. I think the diversity of giftings and callings make sense when we have a view of the universal church, the body of Christ.

and in Ephesians 4:

4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

brother, I do not invalidate the distinction of the local church. I think like the Trinity, the Father, Holy Spirit and our Lord Jesus are distinctly God, yet One God.

I am not against the concept of Universal Church in the sense in which you are using. The word Universal Church is a man made word and can mean anything. Its validity is based on what meaning you assign to it.

The original question that you have asked in your first post is very valid question. The comparison of trinity to how God might see all individual churches as a single bride for Christ, is also a very valid one. You might even be right. Just like how our human mind cannot give a satisfactory explanation of trinity, we also cannot give an explanation on how all these individual churches will be seen as a single bride of Christ. Any explanation that we give should be out of human wisdom.

The concept that all believers are by default part of an universal Church, irrespective of whether they are an integral part of a local body of believers, is something that baffles me. There is nothing in the scripture to support it. I am totally against this understanding of universal Church. This I believe was invented by arrogant believers who are unwilling to submit to an authority of local Church, to comfort themselves. Sadly I am being persecuted here for stating this truth!

in 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul talks about "one body" is he just talking about a local church? If that so, this ideal of diversity of gifts and function may not be applicable to other churches. I think the diversity of giftings and callings make sense when we have a view of the universal church, the body of Christ.

Why do you think the idea of diversity of gifts will not be applicable to other churches? Every Church will be equipped with all the gifts listed in Ephesians 4:11 &12. I have seen these gifts in action, in the context of a local Church. Each Church is individually a body of Christ. There is no denying this fact.

When Jesus was alive on this earth, all the gifts were manifested in him. But now it is the local Church that will be the representation of Jesus. It will also have all these gifts. But the problem is we have quenched the spirit so much in the form of institutional Church. Hence we do not see this operational. The Churches in India that I was part of, still preserve the original God's plan for a local Church. There I see all these gifts manifested in the local body of believers. How can I deny what I have seen?

How can a local Church exist without a prophet bringing a prophetic word? How will people be added to it, if there is no evangelist who brings people into the Church?

If we humbly submit to God's plan for a local Church, then God will do his part of equipping it. The problem is with us and our arrogance.

Quote Sree "I am not against the concept of Universal Church in the sense in which you are using. The word Universal Church is a man made word and can mean anything. Its validity is based on what meaning you assign to it."

On page one you said, Quote: "There is no concept at all of the universal church in the bible".

Don't you see the contradiction in your posts? So have you changed your position? So now you are saying that "it depends on what is meant by that term. However you are assuming you know what everyone means by that term, when you clearly don't know.

If I support the biblical understanding of the 'universal church, which is that every person who is born of God is part of the 'ekklesia' (called out ones) of Christ, it does not mean I do not hold a high view also of the local 'ekklesia' (church), as this is clearly part of God's plan for His people.

Here is a scripture to think about:
" To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God," Eph. 3:10

Is Paul suggesting that it is only the Ephesian church that should reveal the manifold wisdom of God? Or is he using 'church' singular to mean the whole body of Christ (i.e a universal church)?

What about Eph. 5:25 ...."Christ also loved the church (singular) and gave Himself for her,"
Clearly not talking to the Ephesian church only, but He gave Himself for the one church, one body, one bride, not multiples. There are different expressions of this one church in various places and are therefore referred to 'the church or churches in ***", but ultimately there is one true church of God, which comprises of every blood bought son of God that has ever lived.

"Why do you think the idea of diversity of gifts will not be applicable to other churches? Every Church will be equipped with all the gifts listed in Ephesians 4:11 &12. I have seen these gifts in action, in the context of a local Church."

because if a local church has only few members, like 3 of four how will the ideal giftings and callings in the church as one body be a fulfillment of theirs?

"Each Church is individually a body of Christ. There is no denying this fact."

with this brother, I don't agree, church is used with plural "churches" in the Bible but the body of Christ is not, and Christ has only one Bride.

and when Paul said "we are baptize into one body", when did that begin? the moment a person have been converted or when he joins a local church?

The concept that all believers are by default part of an universal Church, irrespective of whether they are an integral part of a local body of believers, is something that baffles me. There is nothing in the scripture to support it. I am totally against this understanding of universal Church. This I believe was invented by arrogant believers who are unwilling to submit to an authority of local Church, to comfort themselves. Sadly I am being persecuted here for stating this truth!

The church definitely does not operate, as a whole, in the way that I believe God desires for the church to operate, at least not here in the USA. We are splintered into many and various denominations and we stay separated within the walls of our buildings, often right across the street from one another, as if we are separate and individual "bodies" of Christ.

But that is not God's plan. The Biblical model of the church is most often revealed as a church in a city, with the word "church" simply meaning the assembly. So, there was an assembly in a city, "the church at Corinth", etc. Within that citywide assembly were, very likely, smaller meetings or assemblies going on in various location. For example, "Greet Aquilla and Priscilla and the church that is in their house."

Among these citywide churches were to be found apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers who were ministering to the assembly and various gifts of the Spirit in operation as these people both met in private and ministered in the streets.

Fellowship and community life was the lifeblood of these assemblies. They met in one another's homes, broke bread, and shared all things in common. This is the model that we find demonstrated in the New Testament, and I believe the model that we should see in operation today. I honestly believe as persecution increases we will find this model evidenced more and more, even here. There will be no more room for factiousness.

But we are not there yet, and many people have been hurt by the disfunction that is often found in the church. It has led them to become disenchanted with the local bodies and draw back from fellowship. (I would even say that most of what we call church fellowship is not true relationship, but casual acquaintance from occasional service attendance rather than true relationship birthed out of personal intimacy with one another.) Or there are those whose concept of church is simply attending a meeting and who genuinely do not understand what the body of Christ is and should be. Then there are also people who are truly arrogant or prideful and who think that they do not need others, although I think this is the smallest of the three groups I described.

The problem is that our viewpoints are often born out of our reaction to problems we see in the church. Because we see a problem with people disconnecting from the local assembly, yet claiming to be part of the church, the body of Christ, we conclude that these people are really not part of the body.

I believe there are some very serious disfunctions in the body of Christ, especially in America. I believe that I am seeing the Holy Spirit working in many local bodies, especially where I am, to change the hearts of men and women and I am seeing these disfunctions changing where I am at. I believe Christ will have a glorious bride, a body without schism, when He returns. I believe the disfunction is going to disappear.

My personal responsibility in this is to make sure I am a vital (life-giving) and integral part of a local body who is working to form meaningful and intimate relationships with my brothers and sisters in Christ and seeking to sow into their lives from the gifting and anointing that God has given me so that together we might grow in the knowledge and grace of God. I need to model what I see as the Biblical pattern and allow the Holy Spirit to work in and through me. He will grow His church. He will purify His church. I must simply be obedient.

I think I can say unequivocally that there is a world-wide body of Christ that will one day attend the marriage supper of the Lamb and forever be united with Him as His bride. There are regional (citywide) bodies (assemblies). And there are local gatherings of that body where the intimate relationships and the work of the ministry take place.

IMO. Blessings

Great Post Travis.

But we are not there yet, and many people have been hurt by the disfunction that is often found in the church. It has led them to become disenchanted with the local bodies and draw back from fellowship. (I would even say that most of what we call church fellowship is not true relationship, but casual acquaintance from occasional service attendance rather than true relationship birthed out of personal intimacy with one another.) Or there are those whose concept of church is simply attending a meeting and who genuinely do not understand what the body of Christ is and should be. Then there are also people who are truly arrogant or prideful and who think that they do not need others, although I think this is the smallest of the three groups I described.

The ministry of Holy Spirit and the representation of Church are two things that has been misrepresented today in Christendom by counterfeits. But people instead of seeking the right representation, they run away from these 2. You have brotheren assemblies that do not believe in the complete ministry of Holy Spirit. The same way we are believers who run away from Churches. But this was not God's plan at all.

Because the real Church and Ministry of Holy Spirit are very valuable, today we see so many counterfeits for them.

I have had my own share of bad experience in the Churches. There are times I had to endure false accusation. I was still humble because I knew Jesus is still head of the Church I was part of, and he will bring Justice. He did bring justice at his own time! If not for God's grace, I could have easily become arrogant and prideful.

My personal responsibility in this is to make sure I am a vital (life-giving) and integral part of a local body who is working to form meaningful and intimate relationships with my brothers and sisters in Christ and seeking to sow into their lives from the gifting and anointing that God has given me so that together we might grow in the knowledge and grace of God. I need to model what I see as the Biblical pattern and allow the Holy Spirit to work in and through me. He will grow His church. He will purify His church. I must simply be obedient.

Perfectly said.

because if a local church has only few members, like 3 of four how will the ideal giftings and callings in the church as one body be a fulfillment of theirs?

Very good question. I am not sure whether I have a complete answer, but will give my understanding on this.

Just like Jesus when he was on earth, was also once a helpless baby. A Church when during its initial phase will also start small. But as Jesus grew in Wisdom and Stature (Luke 2:52), the Church will also grow. God will bring people of similar burden into the Church. But during the initial phase there will be only few gifts prominent, like Prophesy which are needed for the growth of a Church. New Covenant Prophesy is to hear a word from God directly and bring it to Church based on God's burden for the Church. That is how it becomes a prophetic word.

with this brother, I don't agree, church is used with plural "churches" in the Bible but the body of Christ is not, and Christ has only one Bride.

You are entitled to your view and belief. I have always seen each Church as an individual body of Christ. I cannot see it otherwise. I believe that is the vision Holy Spirit has given me. My scriptural reason to disagree with you is based on Rev 1:13 in which each local Church was individually represented as a Golden Lapstand. If all local Churches are together connected as a single Body of Christ (at least in heaven), then there is no need for 7 different lampstands. They could have all been represented as a single lampstand with different branches, where each branch represented a Church.

In English certain words have same singular and plural form. So even body of Christ can be like that.

and when Paul said "we are baptize into one body", when did that begin? the moment a person have been converted or when he joins a local church?

Good question again. In New Covenant times, there was no concept of conversion and then adding into Church, as 2 different acts. It was evangelists in the Church who reached out for souls and added them into Church as they converted. We can see that in the day of Pentecost when 3000 people believed, baptized and added into their assembly (Acts 2:41) on a single day.

The modern day concept of converts roaming freely without any Church did not exist in new covenant time or even in God's plan.

If we use our human wisdom, we may think that all the 11 apostles, instead of staying together on the day of Pentecost, they could have gone separately and spoken to people so that they could have saved many. But they all stood together with Peter being their spokesman. Together they reached 3000 people on a single day! Hence if we put away all our human wisdom and make our self available for God to use in his own pattern then we can easily reach the entire earth. But even now there are many bight human wisdom that thinks that they will do it alone! When will we learn?

"It was evangelists in the Church who reached out for souls and added them into Church as they converted."

"The modern day concept of converts roaming freely without any Church did not exist in new covenant time or even in God's plan."

I'm sorry brother, I don't think it took God by surprise that many will be converted by watching gospel preaching in the internet. God knows that someday this technology will be available.

Of which also, I myself was converted by this means. The preacher is from Canada / America of which is not my locality.

Quote: "It was evangelists in the Church who reached out for souls and added them into Church as they converted."

It is the Lord Himself Who converts souls and adds them to His Body, the church (the ekkleisia)
Human leadership may test the validity of the new converts faith and confession, but only the Lord can add souls to His Body.

" I will build My church...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

"The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved..."

I have brother in my Church who has planted many Churches in South India. He is an apostle to many Churches. I asked him about the concept of Universal Church. He gave the exact answers that I have posted here. I even asked about the view of those posters here who said, "I fellowship with Christians whenever I can, I do not need a local Church". He compared this exactly to a man who flirts with multiple women and ignores a committed relationship with one women. We all know what is God's will for a man with respect to sexual satisfaction! How is it when comes to fellowship, do we keep ignoring the need for commitment? May be it is to emphasis the need for a commitment in Church, the Holy Spirit compares a marriage relationship to Church (Ephesians 5:25)?

He also agreed the possibility of universal Church in heaven when all local Churches will be seen as a single bride of Christ. But he quoted 1 John 3:3, saying we do not know what we will be in heaven, but what we know now is there is a local representation of Jesus called local Church. Are we willing to labor for it?

He then quoted Matt 18:18, "What is Bound on earth will be bound in heaven". If a believer is unwilling to bind on earth how will he be bound in a universal Church in heaven? It is totally a different situation if a believer never gets an opportunity to seek a Church. But what about those who live for many year on this earth as a Christian but totally ignore to bind on this earth with a local Church? How will they be bound in heaven?

I always thought my understanding of Local Church is totally influenced by Holy Spirit's personal revelation to me. Now it was confirmed when another Godly mature brother also has the same understanding.

He is more than twice my age and in his 70s. So definitely he cannot be ignored as an immature brother citing his age!

joliboy11 ,

When I was in Colorado I visited a Fundamental Baptist Church a little bit,

here is some things I observed, some eye openers :

The preacher said that he only preached the word of God.
I thought when he said that, he meant : that he would preach the Bible, with very little of his own interpretation.
But I found his sermons to be mostly his interpretation with very little Scripture.
It seemed like he viewed his interpretation of things as being the word of God.

The Pastor really pursed after myself and my wife eager to get a young couple to join there fellowship.

In that pursuit we where able to have a fairly lengthy discussion. He was very amazed at our understanding of things.
It actually seemed to turn him off of pursuing us.
His observation was that only those whom where pursuing the ministry generally understood much about the things that we discussed. :
which to me was a belittling but an accurate account of the flock that sit under him.

There where many things at the time that I agree'd with him on.
but there was something that I could not exactly put my finger on at the time : In which was a serious difference of understanding that I believe now encompassed the above issues.

He revealed what that was while in the discussion. :

I mentioned something about a George Barna Statistic and he replied back (Oh you have to watch out about George Barna he is against the institutional Church) (Or Church as an institution)

That was it, : His view of the Church being an institution was Why he felt that his preaching was the word of God .
His view of the Church being an institution was why the Sheep under him was starved.
and his view of the Church being an institution was why that was the last time that I spoke with him.

clarity

Brother what do you do with believers like Fatima in Saudi Arabia whom I posted about earlier. She came to faith in Jesus Christ. She lived in Saudi Arabia that is hostile to the gospel. I might add more so than India. She had no access to a local fellowship. Indeed secret churches meet few and far between in nations like Saudi Arabia.

In the Church I was part of in India there are sisters who are Hindu Converts who come to our Church occasionally. They cannot come regularly because their husbands are still Hindus and do not allow them to attend Church. We advice these sisters to obey their husbands. They only get to attend Church when their husband is out of town. We tell them that it is more important for these sisters to win their husband by conduct rather than rebelling for attending a Church. We tell them that if their desire to be part of a local body of Christ is real then God will help them to get approval from their husbands to come to Church. There are cases in which the husbands are won by conduct and they start coming as family! So God honors true desire. So I am clearly not against people who cannot be part of a local fellowship due to various reasons that are of higher priority than to be part of local body of Christ.

Now for those who live in west with no persecution and keep neglecting the local Body of Jesus, these have to judge themselves. If they do not bind on the earth they will not be bound in heaven. You can blame Jesus for telling so, or find an alternate meaning for that verse that comforts your belief. The choice is yours.

Just because there are cases who never get a chance to be part of a local Church, does not mean we can reject its importance and God's plan for local Church. It is like saying because there are orphans, we should reject the authority of parents! Yes there are orphans who never see their parents, so does that mean all Children can live like Orphans? No, Children have to obey their parents because it is good in God's sight.

Normally when a person asks such questions about those who never get an opportunity, we know clearly that this person is not interested at all. He just wants a case of excuse.

Sree ,

RE : ../// I even asked about the view of those posters here who said, "I fellowship with Christians whenever I can, I do not need a local Church"...///

Where did anyone say that they did not need a local Church because they fellowship with Christians whenever they can ?

Where did anyone say that they did not need a local Church because they fellowship with Christians whenever they can ?

If you read the thread you will come to know. One clue, the person made a false accusation on me and went to create a thread on how to peacefully disagree! :) Hope he preaches to himself, I find no repentance in him.

Re /// If you read the thread you will come to know....///

I searched through Franks post, before I asked you where anyone said that, and also again just now.
I did not find 'where' he made the statement that you are accusing him of or anything like it ?

could you please copy and paste the statement or statements that you are speaking of ?

EDIT ADD : Surely that is not how you interputed this quote ? :

If you have traveled land and seas, which I have, and met saints from multiple different backgrounds, which I have, you too would be thrilled to recognize your brother or your sister and you would embrace them with all of the love and more so than even your own natural family members. Satan hates the family of God because we are one in Him and He in us and so shall it ever be for all eternity...........bro Frank

And Surely not this quote either ?

Of course the one qualification of entering the Kingdom of heaven, being a living stone, being part of the Body of Christ is to be born again. This is what a man or woman must do, he must be born again. Fellowship comes in many shapes and sizes and gatherings are different depending where you are in the world and what condition you find yourself in, but what remains the same is the brotherhood of the saints no matter where you live or how you gather. I could travel to the ends of the earth and there find two brothers and a sister and they would be my family and what a wonderful and beautiful thing it is to be part of that family and to recognize a brother or a sister who comes from a radically different culture from you and who worships or gathers in a radically different fashion that you are used to. It is not how they gather that makes them saints, it is the Spirit of the Lord God in them that joins us together as one and it is beautiful.

Is the above what you have understood as Saying : "I fellowship with Christians whenever I can, I do not need a local Church" ?

edit : changed 'that' to 'where'