Landmark Baptist

I have likely grabbed your attention by my bold declaration in the title.

But, let us explore some literary devices. The New Testament does use a form of the word assembly that refers to no specific church, but it nowhere indicates that all of the saved are members of it. It is the same kind of expression that we use when we refer to the city or the country. I can say that I am going to the city, but I do not have in view some universal, invisible city in view. Rather, I am referring to the closest city to home, in my case, Los Angeles. Some of you might refer to Little Rock or Dallas as the city. While a citizen who lives in Dallas lives in the city, he by no means is a member of some larger institution that all cities belong to. No, the citizen of Dallas is a resident of Dallas, and has no specific relationship to a citizen of Los Angeles or Tokyo, though they both live in the city.

There is a New Testament metaphor that explains the relationship between all saved in the world - family. This relates to all those who are related by birth or adoption. It is a crucial distinction as I am not responsible directly for what happens in other assemblies. However, I am still part of their family and owe them the highest respect. I feel led to share my Christian experience with all who are in the family, but I am part of the body only with those in my local assembly.

Just asking---

The New Testament does use a form of the word assembly that refers to no specific church,

---to which specific passages are you referring?

Thanks

Are you talking about "the church" in such places as Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22,23 and Ephesians 5:23-33 referring to each and every church alike? I am not sure what you mean by "There is no institutional church," as we all agree that it is not universal.

J. L. Looney III,

I am indeed referring to passages like Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22,23 and Ephesians 5:23-33.

younglandmarker,

I have often heard the phrase "Institutional Church" in Landmark Baptist churches to refer to something very similar to a Universal Church concept.

Okay, so do you mean by "institutional church" that all local churches make up one big church? Just curious, what do you see in the glory ages?

I do not believe that all local churches make up one big church - that was my point in the statement that there is no Institutional Church.

So what do you see as the glorious church? We know it will not be all the saved.

I posted a really cool answer to your question... it went away. I must have not submitted it. Give me over the weekend to repost.

Studymore,

I knew what you meant by "institutional church" or least I thought I knew what you meant. Same as the word "school", or the word "flag" is this correct?

If so, then I will discuss along this line.

I have been taught this all my life. This very well may be correct as far as those passages given. But, I question whether even these passages,

Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22,23 and Ephesians 5:23-33.

refer to the idea of "institutional church."

I would argue that even these passages do not refer to "institutional church", but rather to just the local assembly.

I'm still not sure I follow the distinction you make between institutional church and the local assembly. I always thought they were one and the same.

Let's look at Ephesians 5:23,24:

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."

This is the way I have always been taught it, and I believe the way the Bible teaches. In verse 23, was Paul speaking of a universal visible (one big) husband that is the head of a universal visible (one big) wife? No. He is talking to all the husbands and all the wives individually, as is evident in verse 24, as he repeats what is said in verse 23 conversely. The truths in this passage apply to each and every husband alike in relation to his wife per verse 33. "Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." I believe this is the mystery of verse 32: 1. the nature of the relationship between Christ and his churches as is expressed figuratively in this passage as husband and wife--each church in this age being espoused to Christ to be presented to Him as a chaste virgin (2 Corinthians 11:2; v. 27) and how there is not but one Christ who is all these things to multitudes of churches in contrast to many particular husbands to their wives (v. 33).

If you don't think church is ever used in the institutional sense, but is only used in the singular to refer to the church at Colossae, Ephesus, etc. depending upon to whom Paul addressed the particular letter, consider Christ and the promise He made in Matthew 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." He was not referring to Jerusalem, or Corinth, or Ephesus, or Colossae, or Philidelphia, etc. All those churches have ceased to exist. Yet, Jesus' promise stands true just as He said. Why? Because he was referring not to a single congregation, nor to one big super-church, but to his churches as an institution. In other words, there will never be a time when there is not "a" church of the Lord Jesus Christ still preaching the gospel and standing for the truth of God's Word.

Btw, Chad, what is your particular take on sucession?

Nope,

Still singular in Matthew 16:18.

Is not Christ the Head of each singular and specific New Testament church? Is He not building each singular and specific New Testament church, even today?

younglandmarker says:

He was not referring to Jerusalem, or Corinth, or Ephesus, or Colossae, or Philidelphia, etc.

I think that is just exactly to what Christ was/is referring.

If this is not the case, then possibly universal church can relate to intitutional church.

younglandmarker,

What hard concrete evidence do we have that the word "church" ever refers to anything but a specific local assembly of anything or anyone?

It would probably help to start a new discussion on succession in the controversy forum. There is a distinction between church succession and Baptist succession. I believe that scriptural baptism must be offered by a scripturally baptized person. There is a line of baptisms that goes back to the baptism of John through the disciples.

However, there was not a church vote cast in every church organization that extended an arm to every church that has been organized.

Breaking down the complexities of these distinctions is challenging to say the least.

Each local assembly when placed upon the Rock will be build up, amplified. Through the church as a missionary medium, He will draw all men unto Him. The references to the church in Matthew apply to local congregations.

The gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. The gates of hell basically refers to death. The Lord will not allow His church to die because He gives it life. The church is an organization, but it is also an organism. A church that dies has departed from Christ. So long as the church is attentive to Christ, it can not die. Once again, this is referring to the local church.

Christ's promise to the missionary function of the church was given in the Great Commission. There will never be a time when there is not a gospel witness. Further, Ephesians 3:21 implies to me that the Lord will always have a local church in which the saved can bring their glory to worship Him.

These are not institutional promises, but promises to the local church.

Just for the record I do not believe in a universal church that all the "born again" are in....I'm a family of God guy. but on this subject I've got a question

what about like the institution of marriage?

There is only one institution of marriage. This does not mean that they are all one (except in likeness) or that there is only one specific marriage (ie. me and my wife)?

Would "Body" in Ephesians 4:4 fall in this category of using "institution"?

Chad,

Once again, Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall never prevail against His church meant that the institution would never die out--that Satan would not be able to destroy all of His CHURCHES. The church at Jerusalem does not exist today. Not even Philidelphia (the one Christ had no rebuke for in Revelation 3) exists today. Satan had millions of the Lord's people put to death, but he could not stamp out the church (every one of the Lord's churches) no more than he could stamp out God's Word even though he had the Bibles burnt. I believe in local church only, brother.

Take a look again at Ephesians 5 and consider this: "the husband: wife" (verse 23) = "husbands: wives" (verse 25) ="every one of you in particular (each husband): his wife" (verse 33). Church in the singular is in the institutional sense and refers to each and every local church alike. Now I believe in heaven that according to that same passage, that all of those who have been a faithful part of a true, New Testament (Baptist) church will be gathered together in a local assembly and become the Bride of Christ. (verse 32) According to verse 27, the same church that is now will be the glorious church. The church has never been universal (made up of all the saved) and will never be but will always be local--whether in each locality or all faithful members of all churches gathered into a local Bride in heaven.