Comments on: Debate on the Universal Church http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church Challenging False Christianity Wed, 09 May 2012 14:39:03 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Big MIke http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-13111 Big MIke Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:55:47 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-13111 I preface all of my remarks in this post with the fact that I have only read the first one third of the posts in this thread. If something has transpired which changes any of the comments which I am about to make, please correct me. @ Evangelist: Sir, I agree with your statements concerning the local church and the non-existence of the universal church. This has been a Baptist belief for a long time. I also believe the King James Bible is the best translation of the Scriptures in their original languages(not manuscripts). However, as Rosa noted, you seem mad. Is it always wrong to be upset? No. However, the Bible says "Be angry and sin not." You often allow your anger to affect the manner in which you write your posts. Many times you resort to name calling and degradation. This is not remotely close to the proper manner in which to have a debate. Furthermore, I do not believe calling people who happen to find this site "simple minded" provides a strong basis for gaining their trust and persuading them to your beliefs. I post this not simply to criticize your methods. I urge you review the way you do things and ask the Lord if there is a way in which you can communicate your views in a more acceptable manner. Thank you for your time. @John Hardin and Pastor John I assume you are two different people, but Pastor John does not seem to comment as much as John Hardin. Additionally, the two of you seem to be on the same page. Therefore, I will address both of you together. While a bit more democratic than Evangelist, you also break down and begin using degrading terms when you are frustrated and lack anything more intelligent to say. This accomplishes nothing more than further infuriating those who oppose your position. It in fact does not show a clear, logical mind. Many of the Scriptures of which you quote snippets and offer commentary are those which are the distinguishing passages between Universal Church Theorists and Local Church proponents. For instance, Matthew 16:18: You claim that Christ's church, the one He said He would build upon Himself, the Rock, while it meets around the world in small assemblies cannot be divided. This statement comes from a preconception of what the word Εκκλησια, improperly translated church, means. This word was a common Greek word which was used first of any gathering of people, and by the first century was most commonly used as an assembly met for a specific purpose. The LXX (septuagint) uses this Greek word to translate the Hebrew word which dealt with the Jewish assembly. The men to which Jesus spoke were extremely familiar with this word and its meaning. Jesus uses this word without any further explanation. He does not tell them that His assembly will be one that will not be visible, and not be local. He relies on their understanding of the Greek language to appropriate the correct meaning of the word in the context. The only meaning they would have known is that of a visible and therefore local assembly. You said that the church could not be divided. This statement assumes a universal church. However, coming from the definition of Εκκλησια commonly known in the first century, it makes perfect sense. Christ said that He would build His assembly and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Imagine for a moment that you are a gang member and you have a distinguishing graffiti sign that you use to mark your territory and you say that you are going to make your mark and all the other gangs would not be able to defeat you. You then proceed to make your mark on every building in a six-block radius. Each occurrence of your mark is your mark. They do not join together to collectively become your mark, nor does every drop of spray paint which may not quite be formed into your mark become part of your mark, just because it is spray paint and you use spray paint to make your mark. Each occurrence of your mark is your mark. Multiple occurrences do not make it a divided mark. At this point most people realize that every analogy breaks down at some point. The idea is that the church that Christ has been building since the words in Matthew 16:18 were spoken is not something that occurs once. yes, there is one body, the local church which has innumerable manifestations. If a church displays belief and practice of the Biblical principles laid out for a church, then it is the church that Christ is building. some argue that this cannot be true because Christ is the head of the church and Christ cannot have many bodies. My question to them is, Why not? The Bible also says that Christ is the Head of every man. Is man in this context a universal conglomeration of men, or is Christ actually the Head, signifying authority in both passages, of every man? Christ is the final authority over the local church. He is the Head. It is a spiritual headship which need not be limited to the physical connotation used to analogize the relationship. many other things you have said must also be addressed, but I am a student and I have neither the time nor the willpower at this moment to do so. @Everyone else in this discussion While tempers have flared on both sides of this "discussion," please do not discredit anything either side has said based solely upon the attitude of the presenter. Some topics must needs be preached, others taught. It is imperative that we find the balance. I am currently writing a paper on this topic which will be completed and peer reviewed in two weeks. If you would like an electronic copy of it when it is finished, please E-mail me @ BigMike8968@gmail.com. I would be happy to share with you my findings. Search the Scriptures. Study to shew yourselves approved unto God. A Brother in Christ, Big MIke I preface all of my remarks in this post with the fact that I have only read the first one third of the posts in this thread. If something has transpired which changes any of the comments which I am about to make, please correct me.
@ Evangelist: Sir, I agree with your statements concerning the local church and the non-existence of the universal church. This has been a Baptist belief for a long time. I also believe the King James Bible is the best translation of the Scriptures in their original languages(not manuscripts). However, as Rosa noted, you seem mad. Is it always wrong to be upset? No. However, the Bible says “Be angry and sin not.” You often allow your anger to affect the manner in which you write your posts. Many times you resort to name calling and degradation. This is not remotely close to the proper manner in which to have a debate. Furthermore, I do not believe calling people who happen to find this site “simple minded” provides a strong basis for gaining their trust and persuading them to your beliefs. I post this not simply to criticize your methods. I urge you review the way you do things and ask the Lord if there is a way in which you can communicate your views in a more acceptable manner. Thank you for your time.
@John Hardin and Pastor John
I assume you are two different people, but Pastor John does not seem to comment as much as John Hardin. Additionally, the two of you seem to be on the same page. Therefore, I will address both of you together. While a bit more democratic than Evangelist, you also break down and begin using degrading terms when you are frustrated and lack anything more intelligent to say. This accomplishes nothing more than further infuriating those who oppose your position. It in fact does not show a clear, logical mind. Many of the Scriptures of which you quote snippets and offer commentary are those which are the distinguishing passages between Universal Church Theorists and Local Church proponents. For instance, Matthew 16:18:

You claim that Christ’s church, the one He said He would build upon Himself, the Rock, while it meets around the world in small assemblies cannot be divided. This statement comes from a preconception of what the word Εκκλησια, improperly translated church, means. This word was a common Greek word which was used first of any gathering of people, and by the first century was most commonly used as an assembly met for a specific purpose. The LXX (septuagint) uses this Greek word to translate the Hebrew word which dealt with the Jewish assembly. The men to which Jesus spoke were extremely familiar with this word and its meaning. Jesus uses this word without any further explanation. He does not tell them that His assembly will be one that will not be visible, and not be local. He relies on their understanding of the Greek language to appropriate the correct meaning of the word in the context. The only meaning they would have known is that of a visible and therefore local assembly.

You said that the church could not be divided. This statement assumes a universal church. However, coming from the definition of Εκκλησια commonly known in the first century, it makes perfect sense. Christ said that He would build His assembly and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Imagine for a moment that you are a gang member and you have a distinguishing graffiti sign that you use to mark your territory and you say that you are going to make your mark and all the other gangs would not be able to defeat you. You then proceed to make your mark on every building in a six-block radius. Each occurrence of your mark is your mark. They do not join together to collectively become your mark, nor does every drop of spray paint which may not quite be formed into your mark become part of your mark, just because it is spray paint and you use spray paint to make your mark. Each occurrence of your mark is your mark. Multiple occurrences do not make it a divided mark.

At this point most people realize that every analogy breaks down at some point. The idea is that the church that Christ has been building since the words in Matthew 16:18 were spoken is not something that occurs once. yes, there is one body, the local church which has innumerable manifestations. If a church displays belief and practice of the Biblical principles laid out for a church, then it is the church that Christ is building.

some argue that this cannot be true because Christ is the head of the church and Christ cannot have many bodies. My question to them is, Why not? The Bible also says that Christ is the Head of every man. Is man in this context a universal conglomeration of men, or is Christ actually the Head, signifying authority in both passages, of every man? Christ is the final authority over the local church. He is the Head. It is a spiritual headship which need not be limited to the physical connotation used to analogize the relationship.

many other things you have said must also be addressed, but I am a student and I have neither the time nor the willpower at this moment to do so.

@Everyone else in this discussion
While tempers have flared on both sides of this “discussion,” please do not discredit anything either side has said based solely upon the attitude of the presenter. Some topics must needs be preached, others taught. It is imperative that we find the balance. I am currently writing a paper on this topic which will be completed and peer reviewed in two weeks. If you would like an electronic copy of it when it is finished, please E-mail me @ BigMike8968@gmail.com. I would be happy to share with you my findings. Search the Scriptures. Study to shew yourselves approved unto God.

A Brother in Christ,
Big MIke

]]> By: Peter Baugh http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-12115 Peter Baugh Sun, 08 Jan 2012 05:04:33 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-12115 Additionally, I would ask, "If Jihn Gill, Thieleman J van Braght, Benjaman Keach and other Puritan-Era Baptists suffered so much at the hands of the 'evil Protestants' as Baptist Bride historians claim, why would they want to adopt the Protestant doctrine of the Church?" Obviously, they wouldn't. They didn't. Baptists had already believed in the Universal Church for hundreds and hundreds of years. Additionally, I would ask, “If Jihn Gill, Thieleman J van Braght, Benjaman Keach and other Puritan-Era Baptists suffered so much at the hands of the ‘evil Protestants’ as Baptist Bride historians claim, why would they want to adopt the Protestant doctrine of the Church?” Obviously, they wouldn’t. They didn’t. Baptists had already believed in the Universal Church for hundreds and hundreds of years.

]]> By: Peter Baugh http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-12107 Peter Baugh Sun, 08 Jan 2012 02:31:15 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-12107 I know that this comes rather late, but I wanted to address some misconceptions on both side of this issue. First of all, numerous varieties of churches existed prior to the Protestant Reformation. Not only the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Anabaptist churches, but also the Nestorains, the Monophysite Church and others also. Secondly, the old Waldensians rejected infant Baptism, but the later Waldensians accepted it when they joined the Protestant Reformation. Thirdly, even Roman Catholic authorities admit that the Paulician Church did not share in the dualism of the Manichees. Admittedly, a sect of dualistic Bogomils from Bulgaria did introduce such doctrine to the Cathari in Southern Europe, but the majority of these Cathari rejected this doctrine. It became a source of contention and debate, as evidenced by the two surviving copies of "The Secret Book of the Bogomils" that researchers have discovered. More telling than those documents is the ninth century manuscript discovered by Fred C. Conybeare towards the end of the nineteenth century, "The Key of Truth." "The Key of Truth" completely shatters the idea that the Paulicians embraced any sort of Gnostic dualism. Even Fred Conybeare, an Old Catholic, admitted that it reflected the ancient forerunners of modern Baptists. In addition to such manuscript evidence, Wycliff's Bible itself betrays the fact, once scorned by scholars, that the Bogomils/Cathari influenced both Wycliff and the Lollards. For textual proof, see the Wycliff Bible's reading of the Lord's prayer, which incorporates an ancient Bogomil/Cathari reading not found in the Latin Vulgate - a reading for which one Cathari suffered the condemnation of the Inquisition. Modern scholarship has now discovered other such textual evidence, but the point made here is simply that Wycliff would not have followed a textual reading advanced by anyone as radical as most scholars try to depict the Bogomils/Cathari/Paulicians. In other words, the charges of Gnosticism had no foundation outside of a marginalized group rejected by the other Cathari groups. As Conybeare admits, the doctrine of "The Key of Truth" does reflect ancient, primitive Baptistic doctrine. I could speak up about the Baptist Bride ("Local-Church-Only) view advanced in this discussion. I learned this view in two different independent Fundamental baptist institutions of "higher learning," but after prayerfully reading the book of Ephesians, I rejected it. I afterwards did my own research and discovered the folly of the Baptist Bride view from an academic perspective. Whoever invented the story about Martin Luther developing the doctrine of the Universal Church lied. The oldest Waldensian document existing, preserved at Trinity College in Dublin, and dated at approximately 1120 A. D., advocates the doctrine of the Universal Church and condems as heretical any who deny it. This manuscript came from the Waldensian pastor Jean Leger following the Waldensian genocide of 1655. Leger sent it, along with other ancient Waldensian documents, including "The Noble Lesson" to Protestant England for safe-keeping. Additionally, the ninth century Paulician document, "The Key of Truth" asserts the doctrine of the Universal Church over and over again, in clear, unambiguous language, which leaves absolutely no room for doubt. The simple fact is that both the ancent Waldensians and the Paulicians believed in the Universal Church, as their own preserved writings prove beyond any shadow of a doubt. I know that this comes rather late, but I wanted to address some misconceptions on both side of this issue. First of all, numerous varieties of churches existed prior to the Protestant Reformation. Not only the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Anabaptist churches, but also the Nestorains, the Monophysite Church and others also. Secondly, the old Waldensians rejected infant Baptism, but the later Waldensians accepted it when they joined the Protestant Reformation. Thirdly, even Roman Catholic authorities admit that the Paulician Church did not share in the dualism of the Manichees. Admittedly, a sect of dualistic Bogomils from Bulgaria did introduce such doctrine to the Cathari in Southern Europe, but the majority of these Cathari rejected this doctrine. It became a source of contention and debate, as evidenced by the two surviving copies of “The Secret Book of the Bogomils” that researchers have discovered. More telling than those documents is the ninth century manuscript discovered by Fred C. Conybeare towards the end of the nineteenth century, “The Key of Truth.” “The Key of Truth” completely shatters the idea that the Paulicians embraced any sort of Gnostic dualism. Even Fred Conybeare, an Old Catholic, admitted that it reflected the ancient forerunners of modern Baptists. In addition to such manuscript evidence, Wycliff’s Bible itself betrays the fact, once scorned by scholars, that the Bogomils/Cathari influenced both Wycliff and the Lollards. For textual proof, see the Wycliff Bible’s reading of the Lord’s prayer, which incorporates an ancient Bogomil/Cathari reading not found in the Latin Vulgate – a reading for which one Cathari suffered the condemnation of the Inquisition. Modern scholarship has now discovered other such textual evidence, but the point made here is simply that Wycliff would not have followed a textual reading advanced by anyone as radical as most scholars try to depict the Bogomils/Cathari/Paulicians. In other words, the charges of Gnosticism had no foundation outside of a marginalized group rejected by the other Cathari groups. As Conybeare admits, the doctrine of “The Key of Truth” does reflect ancient, primitive Baptistic doctrine.

I could speak up about the Baptist Bride (”Local-Church-Only) view advanced in this discussion. I learned this view in two different independent Fundamental baptist institutions of “higher learning,” but after prayerfully reading the book of Ephesians, I rejected it. I afterwards did my own research and discovered the folly of the Baptist Bride view from an academic perspective. Whoever invented the story about Martin Luther developing the doctrine of the Universal Church lied. The oldest Waldensian document existing, preserved at Trinity College in Dublin, and dated at approximately 1120 A. D., advocates the doctrine of the Universal Church and condems as heretical any who deny it. This manuscript came from the Waldensian pastor Jean Leger following the Waldensian genocide of 1655. Leger sent it, along with other ancient Waldensian documents, including “The Noble Lesson” to Protestant England for safe-keeping. Additionally, the ninth century Paulician document, “The Key of Truth” asserts the doctrine of the Universal Church over and over again, in clear, unambiguous language, which leaves absolutely no room for doubt. The simple fact is that both the ancent Waldensians and the Paulicians believed in the Universal Church, as their own preserved writings prove beyond any shadow of a doubt.

]]> By: LUCY http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-5592 LUCY Wed, 04 May 2011 22:55:02 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-5592 Praise the Lord!! I found this site...Mr. Harding, I stopped writing and lost track of Mr. Kato and you. I am still in Mexico, travel to the States. I have a question, while here in Mx., I was introduced to a study called " THE ALPHA COURSE: this course is given to people of the catholic belief and it is supposed to show them the way to Christ while still in the church. A person by the name of "Gumbel is the person that started this along with other people. I read he is part responsible for the "TORONTO BLESSING" I read about this course and there is nothing positive about it. I would love to hear what you have to say about this and if you are aware of this teaching?....I respect your opinion and would love to have some feed back as some of my "Christian" friends seem to differ from me. (last time I wrote was back in 2007. In the love of Christ, Lucy Praise the Lord!! I found this site…Mr. Harding, I stopped writing and lost track of Mr. Kato and you. I am still in Mexico, travel to the States. I have a question, while here in Mx., I was introduced to a study called ” THE ALPHA COURSE: this course is given to people of the catholic belief and it is supposed to show them the way to Christ while still in the church. A person by the name of “Gumbel is the person that started this along with other people. I read he is part responsible for the “TORONTO BLESSING” I read about this course and there is nothing positive about it. I would love to hear what you have to say about this and if you are aware of this teaching?….I respect your opinion and would love to have some feed back as some of my “Christian” friends seem to differ from me. (last time I wrote was back in 2007. In the love of Christ, Lucy

]]> By: The All Seer http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1695 The All Seer Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:52:49 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1695 Dan Goodwin is a fruitcake to the extreme, and a scammer. He sells guitars on ebay, however, he lies about their condition. His views on religion, god, the world, everything are a twisted fantasy. Dan Goodwin is a fruitcake to the extreme, and a scammer. He sells guitars on ebay, however, he lies about their condition.

His views on religion, god, the world, everything are a twisted fantasy.

]]> By: Pastor John http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1572 Pastor John Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:03:36 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1572 All of those verses speak of a universal church. You don't see it because you are interpreting Scripture according to tradition. Once again you reveal that you are incapable of the most basic Bible exposition. All of those verses speak of a universal church. You don’t see it because you are interpreting Scripture according to tradition. Once again you reveal that you are incapable of the most basic Bible exposition.

]]> By: Evang Dan Goodwin http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1567 Evang Dan Goodwin Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:34:55 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1567 Thanks Pastor John for quoting scripture for us.... no universal church in any of those. Stick to the Bible.,... you will get it right every time. Thanks Pastor John for quoting scripture for us…. no universal church in any of those. Stick to the Bible.,… you will get it right every time.

]]> By: Pastor John http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1557 Pastor John Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:20:39 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1557 Danny boy, I dd not flee. I saw that you would not listen to sound reason and Scripture. That and the fact that I do not have the time to sit in front a computer answering someone according their folly, are the reasons I stopped our dialog. I honestly don't have the time. Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. Btw... Don't flatter yourself Danny boy,

I dd not flee. I saw that you would not listen to sound reason and Scripture. That and the fact that I do not have the time to sit in front a computer answering someone according their folly, are the reasons I stopped our dialog. I honestly don’t have the time.

Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

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

Btw… Don’t flatter yourself

]]> By: John Hardin http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1556 John Hardin Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:03:42 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1556 <blockquote cite="comment-1552"> <strong><a href="#comment-1552" rel="nofollow">Evang Dan Goodwin</a></strong>: Now I gave historical evidence of what out forefathers believed… unless John Hardin has deleted that too.That post caused Pastor John to flea to his invisible home somewhere!! </blockquote> You arrogant twit. I refuted that months ago. <a href="http://gideonsword.net/the-church/baptisthistory" rel="nofollow">Here is the link</a>

Evang Dan Goodwin: Now I gave historical evidence of what out forefathers believed… unless John Hardin has deleted that too.That post caused Pastor John to flea to his invisible home somewhere!!

You arrogant twit. I refuted that months ago. Here is the link

]]> By: John Hardin http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1555 John Hardin Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:59:15 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1555 <blockquote cite="comment-1551"> <strong><a href="#comment-1551" rel="nofollow">Evang Dan Goodwin</a></strong>: You deleted my posts where I proved you wrong.You are dishonest and I proved you wrong so you delete them!~Dont waste my time any more. </blockquote> I asked you nicely to not post whole chapters of your book as comments on this site. It serves to do nothing but ransack the discussion and distract from the real issues. You posted it several times and I deleted it several times. Like I said... this is my platform and if you want to post here you'll do so according to my rules. If you don't like that, you don't have to post here. Fair enough?

Evang Dan Goodwin: You deleted my posts where I proved you wrong.You are dishonest and I proved you wrong so you delete them!~Dont waste my time any more.

I asked you nicely to not post whole chapters of your book as comments on this site. It serves to do nothing but ransack the discussion and distract from the real issues. You posted it several times and I deleted it several times. Like I said… this is my platform and if you want to post here you’ll do so according to my rules. If you don’t like that, you don’t have to post here. Fair enough?

]]> By: Evang Dan Goodwin http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1552 Evang Dan Goodwin Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:57:39 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1552 Let me also ask you this Joe: When someone speaks of THE BIBLE... are they speaking of some mysterious invisible Bible somewhere? No... we are speaking of the one we hold in our hands and there are millions of them. How about THE NATION. Is that some thing hidden away in a vault somewhere??? No... we are speaking "institutionally." The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your invisible universal body cause it is not mentioned in scripture. Show just ONE of the 115 times church is mentioned where it is speaking of a universal church? Now I gave historical evidence of what out forefathers believed... unless John Hardin has deleted that too. That post caused Pastor John to flea to his invisible home somewhere!! I also gave sound biblical evidence for why I believe as I do.... but that great debater and scholar... John nHardin,... because he could not refute the Bible.... deleted it. Let me also ask you this Joe: When someone speaks of THE BIBLE… are they speaking of some mysterious invisible Bible somewhere? No… we are speaking of the one we hold in our hands and there are millions of them.

How about THE NATION. Is that some thing hidden away in a vault somewhere??? No… we are speaking “institutionally.”

The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your invisible universal body cause it is not mentioned in scripture. Show just ONE of the 115 times church is mentioned where it is speaking of a universal church?

Now I gave historical evidence of what out forefathers believed… unless John Hardin has deleted that too. That post caused Pastor John to flea to his invisible home somewhere!!
I also gave sound biblical evidence for why I believe as I do…. but that great debater and scholar… John nHardin,… because he could not refute the Bible…. deleted it.

]]> By: Evang Dan Goodwin http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1551 Evang Dan Goodwin Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:17:53 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1551 Nothing you say is logical o r biblical John Hardin. I see Joe showed up to express his non biblical opinions too. Joe.... when your family was away.... are you still a home? Is the institution we call THE HOME only a home when you are all actually assembled in your house???? In ACTS 12 THE CHURCH assembled to pray for Peter. Was that all the believers all over the world??? NO... of course not. It was the local assmbly that gathered at Rhoda's house. IT IS CALLED THE CHURCH. Go away yourself John Hardin! You deleted my posts where I proved you wrong. You are dishonest and I proved you wrong so you delete them!~ Dont waste my time any more. Nothing you say is logical o r biblical John Hardin. I see Joe showed up to express his non biblical opinions too.
Joe…. when your family was away…. are you still a home? Is the institution we call THE HOME only a home when you are all actually assembled in your house????
In ACTS 12 THE CHURCH assembled to pray for Peter. Was that all the believers all over the world??? NO… of course not. It was the local assmbly that gathered at Rhoda’s house. IT IS CALLED THE CHURCH.

Go away yourself John Hardin! You deleted my posts where I proved you wrong. You are dishonest and I proved you wrong so you delete them!~ Dont waste my time any more.

]]> By: Joe Cassada http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1549 Joe Cassada Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:34:42 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1549 Are we only a church when we visibly assemble? On Monday morning, am I still a part of the visible church even though I can't see my fellow members? Is church membership tangible? If church only ever refers to the local, visible assembly...then how do we define our relationship as being "in the church" when we are not visibly assembled? Are we only a church when we visibly assemble? On Monday morning, am I still a part of the visible church even though I can’t see my fellow members? Is church membership tangible? If church only ever refers to the local, visible assembly…then how do we define our relationship as being “in the church” when we are not visibly assembled?

]]> By: Joe Cassada http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1548 Joe Cassada Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:29:19 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1548 Are the saints in Heaven visible or invisible? If we can't see them, does that mean they are the "spooky" members of the Church? Are the saints in Heaven visible or invisible? If we can’t see them, does that mean they are the “spooky” members of the Church?

]]> By: John Hardin http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1547 John Hardin Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:24:09 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1547 The fact remains Dan, that the Church that Christ will present to himself in the future, is currently called a Church now... and therefore is in existence. What you are claiming (maybe you don't realize it yet) is that the church in Heaven is different than the Church on Earth. You are claiming the Church in heaven is made up of all believers (and rightly so)... but the Church (true church) on Earth is the Baptist Church which of course is made of only a portion of believers mixed in with a bunch of non-believers. The Baptist Church cannot logically be the same church spoken of in Ephesians chapter 5. Surely you can see that. Even by your own statements, it's a completely different entity. <br> So, what I am saying is that the Church being presented to Jesus in Eph. 5 is in existence now, we enjoy fellowship in the Holy Spirit now, we are under one Head which is Jesus Christ, and in the eyes of God we are a called out assembly on our way to the meeting house....... Your church doesn't cease to call itself a church on Monday do you? No, and neither does the universal church... the Apostles called the universal economy a church, and so did Jesus. The fact remains Dan, that the Church that Christ will present to himself in the future, is currently called a Church now… and therefore is in existence. What you are claiming (maybe you don’t realize it yet) is that the church in Heaven is different than the Church on Earth. You are claiming the Church in heaven is made up of all believers (and rightly so)… but the Church (true church) on Earth is the Baptist Church which of course is made of only a portion of believers mixed in with a bunch of non-believers. The Baptist Church cannot logically be the same church spoken of in Ephesians chapter 5. Surely you can see that. Even by your own statements, it’s a completely different entity.

So, what I am saying is that the Church being presented to Jesus in Eph. 5 is in existence now, we enjoy fellowship in the Holy Spirit now, we are under one Head which is Jesus Christ, and in the eyes of God we are a called out assembly on our way to the meeting house……. Your church doesn’t cease to call itself a church on Monday do you? No, and neither does the universal church… the Apostles called the universal economy a church, and so did Jesus.

]]> By: Evangelist http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-3#comment-1541 Evangelist Sat, 06 Mar 2010 05:48:55 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1541 JOHN HARDIN SAID: That’s why he said he “will” present it without blemish. That implies that there is a church before he presents it. Not to mention verse 25 says that Christ “gave himself for the church”. Um… wouldn’t that mean that the church was in existence when Christ died on the cross? I mean, if Christ gave himself, there must have been something to give Himself to, right? EVANG DAN GOODWIN: John... you can not be really serious???? Are you actually questioning whether I think a church exists before the rapture?????? After all these posts and going back and forth.... you have to question that??? Of course there is a church here... has been since Jesus started it. But what Jesus is speakking of in Eph five, in the context of marriage and man and wife, is him receiving HIS bride in heaven at the rapture. We are the espoused bride.... not the bride till the wedding day. At rapture.... all saints (including you if your born again) will be the church... the bride in heaven. Guess what... that wont be invisible either! The church as it exists now.,... still has blemish... and spot... and sin and failures. Yes, he gave himself for the church... as it is now... as well as what it will one day be! He gave himself for you too.... but you are gonna be changed one of these days.... sooner than we thing.... "we shall all be changed... this body will put on incoruption..... JOHN HARDIN SAID:
That’s why he said he “will” present it without blemish. That implies that there is a church before he presents it.

Not to mention verse 25 says that Christ “gave himself for the church”. Um… wouldn’t that mean that the church was in existence when Christ died on the cross? I mean, if Christ gave himself, there must have been something to give Himself to, right?

EVANG DAN GOODWIN:
John… you can not be really serious???? Are you actually questioning whether I think a church exists before the rapture?????? After all these posts and going back and forth…. you have to question that??? Of course there is a church here… has been since Jesus started it. But what Jesus is speakking of in Eph five, in the context of marriage and man and wife, is him receiving HIS bride in heaven at the rapture. We are the espoused bride…. not the bride till the wedding day. At rapture…. all saints (including you if your born again) will be the church… the bride in heaven. Guess what… that wont be invisible either!
The church as it exists now.,… still has blemish… and spot… and sin and failures.
Yes, he gave himself for the church… as it is now… as well as what it will one day be! He gave himself for you too…. but you are gonna be changed one of these days…. sooner than we thing…. “we shall all be changed… this body will put on incoruption…..

]]> By: John Hardin http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-2#comment-1540 John Hardin Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:44:29 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1540 <blockquote cite="comment-1538"> <strong><a href="#comment-1538" rel="nofollow">Evang Dan Goodwin</a></strong>: hahaha… if you want to claim all the unsaved baptized voted in members for your invisible church…haha you can have them.I( dissagree with your take on “might present it…” definitly the future church in heaven.Besides…. there is no church anywhere ever that is without blemish. </blockquote> That's why he said he "will" present it without blemish. That implies that there is a church before he presents it. <br> Not to mention verse 25 says that Christ "gave himself for the church". Um... wouldn't that mean that the church was in existence when Christ died on the cross? I mean, if Christ gave himself, there must have been something to give Himself to, right?

Evang Dan Goodwin: hahaha… if you want to claim all the unsaved baptized voted in members for your invisible church…haha you can have them.I( dissagree with your take on “might present it…” definitly the future church in heaven.Besides…. there is no church anywhere ever that is without blemish.

That’s why he said he “will” present it without blemish. That implies that there is a church before he presents it.

Not to mention verse 25 says that Christ “gave himself for the church”. Um… wouldn’t that mean that the church was in existence when Christ died on the cross? I mean, if Christ gave himself, there must have been something to give Himself to, right?

]]> By: Evang Dan Goodwin http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-2#comment-1539 Evang Dan Goodwin Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:34:58 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1539 Only 2 reasons I come on these forums. 1. To help the simple see the truth and not be deceived by this stuff 2. To sharpen my own understanding I see no reason to continue. Only 2 reasons I come on these forums.
1. To help the simple see the truth and not be deceived by this stuff
2. To sharpen my own understanding

I see no reason to continue.

]]> By: Evang Dan Goodwin http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-2#comment-1538 Evang Dan Goodwin Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:04:07 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1538 JOHN HARDIN SAID: First of all, you even acknowledged that there are unsaved people in our baptist Churches who are on the membership roll, and have even been baptized. If what you say is true, and the Church has no unsaved people in it.. then you MUST be talking about the universal (invisible) Church which are all united in the same Holy Spirit, but are not yet united physically. EVANG DAN GOODWIN: jOHN... hahaha... if you want to claim all the unsaved baptized voted in members for your invisible church...haha you can have them. I( dissagree with your take on "might present it..." definitly the future church in heaven. Besides.... there is no church anywhere ever that is without blemish. JOHN HARDIN SAID:
First of all, you even acknowledged that there are unsaved people in our baptist Churches who are on the membership roll, and have even been baptized. If what you say is true, and the Church has no unsaved people in it.. then you MUST be talking about the universal (invisible) Church which are all united in the same Holy Spirit, but are not yet united physically.

EVANG DAN GOODWIN:
jOHN… hahaha… if you want to claim all the unsaved baptized voted in members for your invisible church…haha you can have them.

I( dissagree with your take on “might present it…” definitly the future church in heaven. Besides…. there is no church anywhere ever that is without blemish.

]]> By: John Hardin http://gideonsword.net/debate/debate-on-the-universal-church/comment-page-2#comment-1537 John Hardin Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:20:06 +0000 http://gideonsword.net/?p=368#comment-1537 <blockquote cite="comment-1536"> <strong><a href="#comment-1536" rel="nofollow">Evang Dan Goodwin</a></strong>: Nowhere in the Bible… including Eph 5 does it say he is coming for the church at the rapture..He is coming for the Saints…. not allsaints are in the church. John , the church has no unsaved people in it.God adds those to the church when they cross the red sea after getting the blood applied. Verse 27 is the church comprised of all the saints at the rapture in heaven… then and only then is it without spot or blemish. </blockquote> First of all, you even acknowledged that there are unsaved people in our baptist Churches who are on the membership roll, and have even been baptized. If what you say is true, and the Church has no unsaved people in it.. then you MUST be talking about the universal (invisible) Church which are all united in the same Holy Spirit, but are not yet united physically. <br> Secondly, look at the passage again... KJV: Ephesians Chapter 5 25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27. 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. <br> It says "that he might present it"... the author is referring to the Church in the present tense, but which will be resurrected in the future tense. verse 27 is talking about the future, but it is directed toward a church that is very real NOW!

Evang Dan Goodwin: Nowhere in the Bible… including Eph 5 does it say he is coming for the church at the rapture..He is coming for the Saints…. not allsaints are in the church.
John , the church has no unsaved people in it.God adds those to the church when they cross the red sea after getting the blood applied. Verse 27 is the church comprised of all the saints at the rapture in heaven… then and only then is it without spot or blemish.

First of all, you even acknowledged that there are unsaved people in our baptist Churches who are on the membership roll, and have even been baptized. If what you say is true, and the Church has no unsaved people in it.. then you MUST be talking about the universal (invisible) Church which are all united in the same Holy Spirit, but are not yet united physically.

Secondly, look at the passage again…

KJV: Ephesians Chapter 5
25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27. 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.

It says “that he might present it”… the author is referring to the Church in the present tense, but which will be resurrected in the future tense. verse 27 is talking about the future, but it is directed toward a church that is very real NOW!

]]>