Historic Basis of the "Church"

[Dorcas]

I found this article to be 100 % accurate.

http://www.spindleworks.com/library/..._thechurch.htm

Now it is remarkable that already in the confessions of Strasbourg and Basel (the Tetrapolitan Confession of 1530, the First Confession of Basel of 1534, and the First Helvetic Confession of 1536), we find a stress on the church as communion or community, or fellowship of believers. The concept of the gathering comes to the fore, and the church is described as being gathered by the triune God and as coming together in the unity of true faith. This element of gathering is of utmost importance in the doctrine of the church in Reformed confessions. The First Confession of Basel (1534) states in Article 5: "We believe one holy, Christian Church, the fellowship of the saints, the spiritual assembly of believers which is holy and the one bride of Christ . . . ." And we read in the First Helvetic Confession (1536) about the holy, universal church as "the fellowship and congregation of all saints which is Christ's bride and spouse" (Art. 14; the Latin text speaks of a "sancta sanctorum omnium collectio"). This First Helvetic Confession characterizes the church as not only seen and known by God but "also gathered and built up by visible signs, rites and ordinances, which Christ Himself has instituted and appointed by the Word of God as a universal, public and orderly discipline" ("non solum cernitur cognosciturque, sed . . . constituitur"). In the present tense constituitur we see the church as an earthly, empirical assembly that is not finished yet, but is in the process of being gathered and built. At the same time the church itself is God's instrument in this ongoing process; there is a constitutum and there is a constituendum. The church's ministers are in these German, Swiss Reformed confessions time and again called God's co-workers (cooperarii), [5] and this striking epithet underscores the dynamic nature of the ongoing work of the gathering of the church. In the period of Calvin and Bullinger, we find a similar stress on the church as a company of the faithful. The Geneva Confession of 1536 even stresses that this description is valid for each and every local congregation: "While there is one only Church of Jesus Christ, we always acknowledge that necessity requires companies of the faithful to be distributed in different places. Of these assemblies each one is called Church" (Art. 18).
The Second Helvetic Confession-that beautiful confession of Bullinger-puts the question, "What is the church?" and answers as follows: "The Church is an assembly of the faithful called or gathered out of the world; a communion, I say, of all saints . . ." (The Latin text says: "Ecclesiam, id est, a mundo evocatum vel collectum coetum fideli um."). The headings in Bullinger's confession are evidence of the Scriptural character of his doctrine of the church. The church is called the assembly of citizens of one commonwealth, the temple of the living God, and thereare special paragraphs about the church as bride and virgin, as a flock of sheep, and as the body of Christ.


Professor Murray alerts us to the danger of what I call a polarization of the so-called "invisible" and the so-called "visible" church. Some, who are disobedient to the obligation to foster unity and fellowship in the church of God, escape to the idea of the "church invisible." Also within this International Conference, there could be the danger that we meet one another in a faraway place, yet pass one another by in our own country, and in the meantime soothe our consciences with a distinction between visible and invisible church. In the contacts between the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Canadian Reformed Churches, the deputies of the latter have warned against a polarization of the visible and invisible church. It results in a low esteem for what is called the visible church, a weakening of church-consciousness, a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the calling to separate from the false church, and the rise of the theologoumenon of the pluriformity of the church, which is taught neither by the Scriptures nor by the Reformed confessions. This theologoumenon of the pluriformity of the church has proved to be an undermining factor in the fight against the sins of the church and for its reformation.

I am posting this response in a separate thread since the above quotation appears in a limited-response thread for which I do not qualify (although it appears that not one person has yet followed the requested rules)

I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I find it exceedingly relevant that all of the confessions and "churches" that these men defended were in fact agents of the state. By socio-political necessity, these German, Swiss, and Reformed (Dutch or otherwise) "reformers" that you so admire had to defend their own church-state as the true Church of God. So there you end up with one foot in Scripture and another in Switzerland. Because every citizen was required to be a "member" based on geography more than belief, of course these historic men will always defend the visible over the invisible. And those who have carried on the traditions of these "churches" have been defending it ever since. The Reformation may have reformed (some) doctrine, but it did not reform ecclesiology.

Sometime in the last couple of weeks, someone defending the invisible nature of the ekklesia was accused of American individualism. That is a badge that I would wear proudly, because God's people are defined by what they believe, individually, not what list they are on. And this was the first country in the history of the world where that was truly allowed.

[Highlyfavored]

I am posting this response in a separate thread since the above quotation appears in a limited-response thread for which I do not qualify (although it appears that not one person has yet followed the requested rules)

I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I find it exceedingly relevant that all of the confessions and "churches" that these men defended were in fact agents of the state. By socio-political necessity, these German, Swiss, and Reformed (Dutch or otherwise) "reformers" that you so admire had to defend their own church-state as the true Church of God. So there you end up with one foot in Scripture and another in Switzerland. Because every citizen was required to be a "member" based on geography more than belief, of course these historic men will always defend the visible over the invisible. And those who have carried on the traditions of these "churches" have been defending it ever since. The Reformation may have reformed (some) doctrine, but it did not reform ecclesiology.

Dorcas, this is a great point and I would like to see Wildboar's and Lionovjudah's answers to your assertions, which I would agree with.

Bob: I do not know if you are trying to pigeon hole me or chuck into becoming an adherent of landmarkism or the rcc asserions of the one true church/denomination. This I cannot nor will not do. Nor will I make the mistake of defining ellesia so narrow, noone can walk on the road other than 5 people at a time.

It looks to me that what you are an adherent to are the traditions and aspirations of institutions that set themselves up in such high ivory towers that it would be sacrilege for you or any other adherents to dare question them as to wether or not they deserve such an iconic existance. Just as Dorcas has stated above about the reformed church's little spiritual turf war, it seems that you and WB will fight to your last dying breath to defend something that you're not willing to be "pigeon holed" into, yet embrace with all your might. I'm curious why you're so afraid to be defined? If what you defend is true, step up to the plate.

Sometime in the last couple of weeks, someone defending the invisible nature of the ekklesia was accused of American individualism. That is a badge that I would wear proudly, because God's people are defined by what they believe, individually, not what list they are on. And this was the first country in the history of the world where that was truly allowed.

Blessed are the one eyed's in the valley of the blind.

[Dorcas]

Based on the additional posts by LinofJudah and Robert, I just want to clarify that I am only using visible / invisible in the sense that the author uses it -- the traditional sense that there are two "churches" --one visible on earth (which by necessity must include some reprobates if equalled to an institution) and one "invisible" universal church.

I believe that the ekklesia of the Scriptures consists of only the Elect, and thus only the "invisible" / "universal" Church that is traditionally talked about is a valid assembly. However, this is only one nature of the ekklesia. The visible nature seen in the physical congregation of believers also exists through all time, but applies to the same group. There is only ONE Church, the fellowship of the Elect.

I know that the above has been discussed a lot -- but I hope that someone answers my main question. Most of the historic Reformers wanted to take the very true, Scriptural characteristics of the ekklesia and apply them to some visible institution (s). I have explained why I believe the two-fold thinking was necessary for them to defend their state-churches. However, people today still use the same arguments where they ought not apply.

[lionovjudah]

It looks to me that what you are an adherent to are the traditions and aspirations of institutions that set themselves up in such high ivory towers that it would be sacrilege for you or any other adherents to dare question them as to wether or not they deserve such an iconic existance. Just as Dorcas has stated above about the reformed church's little spiritual turf war, it seems that you and WB will fight to your last dying breath to defend something that you're not willing to be "pigeon holed" into, yet embrace with all your might. I'm curious why you're so afraid to be defined? If what you defend is true, step up to the plate.Blessed are the one eyed's in the valley of the blind.

Dorcass made an invalid point Gregg. This is noway about state churches. Anyway, it is not my fault you suffer from "tradition phobia"

In all you siad, the only thing you correctly asserted is I will not be pigein holed into making a dogmatic statement that there is one true church/denomination.

I have said over and over. Scripture speaks of a universla and local assembly. The onous is on you to figure out how that disappeared from existance.

[lionovjudah]

Sometime in the last couple of weeks, someone defending the invisible nature of the ekklesia was accused of American individualism. That is a badge that I would wear proudly, because God's people are defined by what they believe, individually, not what list they are on. And this was the first country in the history of the world where that was truly allowed.

This is only part of the truth Dorcas. Again you define ekklesia in too narrow of any meaning that was intended. The only possible way I could be wrong is if after the first century, local assemblies of believers were done away with and God changed. The only historical evidence we have is scripture. Which from the beginning had the people of God gather together.

[Whammer]

This is only part of the truth Dorcas. Again you define ekklesia in too narrow of any meaning that was intended. The only possible way I could be wrong is if after the first century, local assemblies of believers were done away with and God changed. The only historical evidence we have is scripture. Which from the beginning had the people of God gather together.

Joe, when you read John 4:1-26.....how does Jesus' replies and assertions here, sit with your "church" concept, which you claim is biblical?
How many different physical locations will you attempt to put "genuine sheep" in before you will say they are actually worshipping?
Have you ever just been reading scripture prayerfully and found yourself praising Jesus. Have you ever been involved in a phone conversation with another.....and found yourselves praising Jesus and His wisdom and power? Do you think, that like the samaritan woman in these verses, you have missed the whole point of "worshipping in spirit and truth"?
One last question with an assertion..........it doesnt seem like you are ever really edified here at this forum, why do you continue to post and read here?

[Dorcas]

This is only part of the truth Dorcas. Again you define ekklesia in too narrow of any meaning that was intended. The only possible way I could be wrong is if after the first century, local assemblies of believers were done away with and God changed. The only historical evidence we have is scripture. Which from the beginning had the people of God gather together.

I'm sure my definition above is too narrow, because I define ekklesia on the basis of the Gospel. Where the Elect fellowship, there is the ekklesia. Of course they gather, as they have always gathered, in different times, places and ways. If the definition is too narrow, its because its too narrow to include reprobates.

Traditions are not born in a vacuum. How and when an institution was born very much informs the "why" of its traditions. My point, which you found invalid, is intended to explain why your historic protestant churches want to make it about a meeting of people who are on a certain list with a certain label, rather than about believing in and celebrating the Gospel -- Why they take the right doctrines, and apply them to the wrong people. If it is really invalid, then do you or do you not believe that your "church" contains some reprobate? Are you or are you not still baptizing in babies who may or may not ever believe?

I suspect that your (and others') hesitation to allow anything outside an official meeting under an official institutional label "count" may have more to do with sacramentalism (which is definitely a left-over of the state-churches) than anything else. Is the reason that y'all cannot accept that the fellowship of a few Elect in celebration of the Gospel "counts" as the ekklesia because they might not be performing your sacred rites to exact specification?

[lionovjudah]

I'm sure my definition above is too narrow, because I define ekklesia on the basis of the Gospel. Where the Elect fellowship, there is the ekklesia. Of course they gather, as they have always gathered, in different times, places and ways. If the definition is too narrow, its because its too narrow to include reprobates.

My issue is not where, but when. And once a year is not enough.

Traditions are not born in a vacuum. How and when an institution was born very much informs the "why" of its traditions. My point, which you found invalid, is intended to explain why your historic protestant churches want to make it about a meeting of people who are on a certain list with a certain label, rather than about believing in and celebrating the Gospel -- Why they take the right doctrines, and apply them to the wrong people. If it is really invalid, then do you or do you not believe that your "church" contains some reprobate? Are you or are you not still baptizing in babies who may or may not ever believe?

Believing and celebrating the Gospel includes the ordinances the Lord commanded. Together with a community of the faithful. I agree 100% that man made beliefs such as official church membership have been taken to the extreme, but there are many examples in the Book where there must have been a knowledge of the people who attended a local assmebly. Names and numbers are mentioned so someone must have been writing them down. This is also not about credo/padeo baptism, or the thought that there are elect or non elect in an assembly. IT always has been like this and always will until the Lord comes again in Glory. Again read Revelation.

I suspect that your (and others') hesitation to allow anything outside an official meeting under an official institutional label "count" may have more to do with sacramentalism (which is definitely a left-over of the state-churches) than anything else. Is the reason that y'all cannot accept that the fellowship of a few Elect in celebration of the Gospel "counts" as the ekklesia because they might not be performing your sacred rites to exact specification?

That terrible word sacramentalism is contstantly used as the ploy of instilling fear of "returning back to Rome". When in fact we are only returning back to the reformation and NT understanding. I honestly do not know what sacred rites you speak of.

[lionovjudah]

Joe, when you read John 4:1-26.....how does Jesus' replies and assertions here, sit with your "church" concept, which you claim is biblical?
How many different physical locations will you attempt to put "genuine sheep" in before you will say they are actually worshipping?
Have you ever just been reading scripture prayerfully and found yourself praising Jesus. Have you ever been involved in a phone conversation with another.....and found yourselves praising Jesus and His wisdom and power? Do you think, that like the samaritan woman in these verses, you have missed the whole point of "worshipping in spirit and truth"?
One last question with an assertion..........it doesnt seem like you are ever really edified here at this forum, why do you continue to post and read here?

I would say you have a faulty understanding of biblical worship in the context of the covenant community then whammer. The people of God are located throughout the world. Millions of them. A number no man can number. So I have a very hard time thinking that the world is like that in 1 Kings where the believers appeared to be extinct

[Highlyfavored]

Dorcass made an invalid point Gregg. This is noway about state churches. Anyway, it is not my fault you suffer from "tradition phobia"

Joe, I have no phobias, however I do have an aversion to tradition only for the sake of tradition. I also choose to embrace the gospel without the dross. It is modern day christendom that seeks to amalgam itself with what is impure, to mix itself with what is not the ekklesia.

I have said over and over. Scripture speaks of a universla and local assembly. The onous is on you to figure out how that disappeared from existance.

I think it's apparent Joe, that both John and Paul speak of an apostate group that has become fused with the visible body.

I do not seek to be an isolationist, but I will not subject myself and my family to the Godless so-called bodies of believers out there just to be part of something - part of a group that doesn't prize the gospel above all things, but does it's own traditions and then calls that the gospel.

[Robert R. Higby]

The Belgic Confession actually got most of this right, at least in principle.

Article 27: The Holy Catholic Church

• We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church-- a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
• This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects.
• And this holy church is preserved by God against the rage of the whole world, even though for a time it may appear very small in the eyes of men-- as though it were snuffed out.
• For example, during the very dangerous time of Ahab the Lord preserved for himself seven thousand men who did not bend their knees to Baal (1 Kings 19:18).
• And so this holy church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or certain persons. But it is spread and dispersed throughout the entire world, though still joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.

Article 28: The Obligations of Church Members

• We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition.
• But all people are obliged to join and unite with it, keeping the unity of the church by submitting to its instruction and discipline, by bending their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and by serving to build up one another, according to the gifts God has given them as members of each other in the same body.
• And to preserve this unity more effectively, it is the duty of all believers, according to God's Word, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the church, in order to join this assembly wherever God has established it, even if civil authorities and royal decrees forbid and death and physical punishment result.
• And so, all who withdraw from the church or do not join it act contrary to God's ordinance.

Article 29: The Marks of the True Church

• We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."
• We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."
• The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.
• As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.
• Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.
• As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.
• These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

Rightly understood, I agree with all of what is stated in all 3 points above, except that I do not believe 'church' and 'sacraments' are translations of EKKLESIA and Lord's Supper that respect scripture. We have often talked about that.

For those of the current Federal Vision deviation (in my estimation 'apostasy') who now want to include the 'company of hypocrites' in the EKKLESIA, it is just and right to ask, if such persons claim to subscribe to the Belgic Confession, them to NAME the true church and distinguish it from the false (unless this part of the confession is now discarded also)--which the confession calls an easy task.

[Robert R. Higby]

Dorcas:I'm sure my definition above is too narrow, because I define ekklesia on the basis of the Gospel. Where the Elect fellowship, there is the ekklesia. Of course they gather, as they have always gathered, in different times, places and ways. If the definition is too narrow, its because its too narrow to include reprobates.

Amen!

For some of us, there are certain aspects of the true gospel that can't be ignored when evaluating where to fellowship. For example, those whom the Lord has made rich with knowledge of the plan of salvation cannot in conscience participate--in any significant measure--in a church group condemning Definite Atonement and boldly proclaiming the opposite. That is just one of many examples I could give.

God requires no one to fellowship with and submit to church authority that actively condemns one's own biblical convictions and constantly makes one sense exclusion. That is where we can all safely draw the line and KNOW that the Lord stands with us. Even if we believe that some of the EKKLESIA might be present in certain churches that we cannot in conscience fellowship with, we have no obligation to listening to the preaching of doctrines of devils week after week.

[Whammer]

I would say you have a faulty understanding of biblical worship in the context of the covenant community then whammer. The people of God are located throughout the world. Millions of them. A number no man can number. So I have a very hard time thinking that the world is like that in 1 Kings where the believers appeared to be extinct

I am wondering, once again, if you can actually just answer my questions????

[MCoving]

Dorcas:I'm sure my definition above is too narrow, because I define ekklesia on the basis of the Gospel. Where the Elect fellowship, there is the ekklesia. Of course they gather, as they have always gathered, in different times, places and ways. If the definition is too narrow, its because its too narrow to include reprobates.

Amen!

For some of us, there are certain aspects of the true gospel that can't be ignored when evaluating where to fellowship. For example, those whom the Lord has made rich with knowledge of the plan of salvation cannot in conscience participate--in any significant measure--in a church group condemning Definite Atonement and boldly proclaiming the opposite. That is just one of many examples I could give.

God requires no one to fellowship with and submit to church authority that actively condemns one's own biblical convictions and constantly makes one sense exclusion. That is where we can all safely draw the line and KNOW that the Lord stands with us. Even if we believe that some of the EKKLESIA might be present in certain churches that we cannot in conscience fellowship with, we have no obligation to listening to the preaching of doctrines of devils week after week.

I think that is very well said, and I think that is what it comes down to for people who decide not to fellowship in a church. There are essential gospel Truths that a church should be teaching, and if not then there are false preachers in that church.

I like how you said this: "God requires no one to fellowship with and submit to church authority that actively condemns one's own biblical convictions and constantly makes one sense exclusion. That is where we can all safely draw the line and KNOW that the Lord stands with us." It gives me reassurance that my choices to not fellowship with some churches is correct. But I pretty much knew that because I wasn't going to sit for an hour and listen to someone preach something false. It just irritated me. The essential ones for me that I'm convicted of is the complete Soveriegnty of God in all things, and that people who believe salvation is conditioned on the sinner are not converted at the moment, and not our brothers. Seems in most churches here doesn't matter what one believes as long as they believe Christ died for their sins, and they will follow. As I said... Oregon is a very liberal country, there's really no absolute Truths these days.

Anyways i just wanted to say that Bob you said that very well and it was most encouraging for me to read that. Thanks!!!

Mary

[lionovjudah]

Joe, when you read John 4:1-26.....how does Jesus' replies and assertions here, sit with your "church" concept, which you claim is biblical?
How many different physical locations will you attempt to put "genuine sheep" in before you will say they are actually worshipping?
Have you ever just been reading scripture prayerfully and found yourself praising Jesus. Have you ever been involved in a phone conversation with another.....and found yourselves praising Jesus and His wisdom and power? Do you think, that like the samaritan woman in these verses, you have missed the whole point of "worshipping in spirit and truth"?
One last question with an assertion..........it doesnt seem like you are ever really edified here at this forum, why do you continue to post and read here?

Hey Wham:

In all seriousness I honestly have not have a dogmatic understanging of the "Spirit and truth" words spoken by Christ. Prematurely I will say it must have something to do with true Godly worship will be empowered by the Spirit of Truth and not have to take place in the Jewish temple nor for the Jews only.

[Whammer]

Hey Wham:

In all seriousness I honestly have not have a dogmatic understanging of the "Spirit and truth" words spoken by Christ. Prematurely I will say it must have something to do with true Godly worship will be empowered by the Spirit of Truth and not have to take place in the Jewish temple nor for the Jews only.

Okay, I may have guessed this, but what about the other questions? I think ..maybe...you know what I am driving at here....maybe
Maybe too you could tell me, in Bob's last posts, what you disagree with there?
I'm off to work, so I wont get back to respond till later......if the discussion progesses any further that is........

[wildboar]

Sometime in the last couple of weeks, someone defending the invisible nature of the ekklesia was accused of American individualism. That is a badge that I would wear proudly, because God's people are defined by what they believe, individually, not what list they are on. And this was the first country in the history of the world where that was truly allowed.

Biblically the ekklesia is built on the confession that Jesus is the Christ. It's not built upon individualistic notions but common confession. Unless you are willing to pursue the American spirit in the way that Thomas Jefferson did by removing much of the Scriptures from his Bible you still have to reckon with those passages in Scripture which speak of tradition in a very positive way--as something to hold fast to. I have not seen anyone do this here? Are these passages part of some older dispensation? If so how is this determined? If not, why ignore them?

There have been problems in the relationship between church and state. Each has at various times tried to usurp the authority of the other. However, utter separation is not the ideal. The fact that something can be corrupted does not automatically make it something that should be done away with completely.

The invisible and visible church are not two completely different bodies. They are closely related to one another. There is no ordinary means of salvation outside of the visible church. So generally (with some exceptions) a person who is not a member of the visible church is not a member of the invisible church. However every member of the visible church is not a member of the invisible church. But, they should be judged to be so until they show otherwise. From a 1 John 2:19 perspective you could say that those who apostacize were never really part of the church to begin with. However, other passages speak of it from a different perspective (Heb. 6).

So from a certain perspective we can say that only the elect are members of the church but from another perspective we can say that there is chaff in the church. Otherwise it would be unnecessary for judgment to begin at the house of God (1 Pet. 4:17) or the various parables that speak of the kingdom of God which contains hypocrites in it.

[MCoving]

Biblically the ekklesia is built on the confession that Jesus is the Christ. It's not built upon individualistic notions but common confession. Unless you are willing to pursue the American spirit in the way that Thomas Jefferson did by removing much of the Scriptures from his Bible you still have to reckon with those passages in Scripture which speak of tradition in a very positive way--as something to hold fast to. I have not seen anyone do this here? Are these passages part of some older dispensation? If so how is this determined? If not, why ignore them?

If its built on common confessions for you, would you confess to something that is not True??? People here on the forum are not individuals in wanting to isolate themselves from believers, or have no felllowship. They do.. and I bet most people have gone to churches in their area. But for me I Wouldn't want to confess something that is not true.. I woulnd't want to be a member of a church where I didn't believe in their doctrinal statement. I may visit a church, and in the church find likeminded brothers and sisters who we can confess to the same Truths.. but as a whole if the church and the pastor for sure is confessing unbiblical ideas why should I put myself under their false authority?? and false ideas? And confess to something I dont believe is true???

Do you really think Jesus would want us to just role over and play dead and confess to unbiblical ideas? Or stand up for His Word and Who He is?? Do you think that to Jesus sacraments and just getting by in a church is more important that WHO HE IS AND WHAT HE DID???

Mary

ps: Also just because someone confesses to Jesus being the Christ.. it doesn't mean they are believers in the Truth. There's alot of people these days who go to church and confess that.. but that doesn't mean a thing anymore.. its just words. Its the meaning behind those words.. who they believe Jesus is and what He fully did for them! That they had no say in it...and God is sovereign

[Highlyfavored]

Biblically the ekklesia is built on the confession that Jesus is the Christ.It's not built upon individualistic notions but common confession.

Biblically, the ekklesia is built on God's election.

Unless you are willing to pursue the American spirit in the way that Thomas Jefferson did by removing much of the Scriptures from his Bible...

I see no subtraction from scripture - though you seem to be adding a bit.

...you still have to reckon with those passages in Scripture which speak of tradition in a very positive way--as something to hold fast to. I have not seen anyone do this here? Are these passages part of some older dispensation? If so how is this determined? If not, why ignore them?

We've talked about the sip and the dip here. It seems you want to add power to them and that you embrace these and other traditions as things that need to be added to Christ.

There have been problems in the relationship between church and state. Each has at various times tried to usurp the authority of the other. However, utter separation is not the ideal. The fact that something can be corrupted does not automatically make it something that should be done away with completely.

It does when it already has been corrupted.

The invisible and visible church are not two completely different bodies.

This is a completely false statement. If this were true, everyone would be elect.

They are closely related to one another. There is no ordinary means of salvation outside of the visible church.

This is romanism. Are you catholic WB?
Joe, do you agree with this statement made by WB?

So generally (with some exceptions) a person who is not a member of the visible church is not a member of the invisible church. However every member of the visible church is not a member of the invisible church. But, they should be judged to be so until they show otherwise. From a 1 John 2:19 perspective you could say that those who apostacize were never really part of the church to begin with. However, other passages speak of it from a different perspective (Heb. 6).

So from a certain perspective we can say that only the elect are members of the church but from another perspective we can say that there is chaff in the church. Otherwise it would be unnecessary for judgment to begin at the house of God (1 Pet. 4:17) or the various parables that speak of the kingdom of God which contains hypocrites in it.

This certainly ties it all up in a nice little parcel for you, the problem is that you're wrong.

[lionovjudah]

The Belgic Confession actually got most of this right, at least in principle.

Article 27: The Holy Catholic Church

• We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church-- a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
• This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects.
• And this holy church is preserved by God against the rage of the whole world, even though for a time it may appear very small in the eyes of men-- as though it were snuffed out.
• For example, during the very dangerous time of Ahab the Lord preserved for himself seven thousand men who did not bend their knees to Baal (1 Kings 19:18).
• And so this holy church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or certain persons. But it is spread and dispersed throughout the entire world, though still joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.

Article 28: The Obligations of Church Members

• We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition.
• But all people are obliged to join and unite with it, keeping the unity of the church by submitting to its instruction and discipline, by bending their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and by serving to build up one another, according to the gifts God has given them as members of each other in the same body.
• And to preserve this unity more effectively, it is the duty of all believers, according to God's Word, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the church, in order to join this assembly wherever God has established it, even if civil authorities and royal decrees forbid and death and physical punishment result.
• And so, all who withdraw from the church or do not join it act contrary to God's ordinance.

Article 29: The Marks of the True Church

• We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."
• We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."
• The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.
• As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.
• Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.
• As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.
• These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

Rightly understood, I agree with all of what is stated in all 3 points above, except that I do not believe 'church' and 'sacraments' are translations of EKKLESIA and Lord's Supper that respect scripture. We have often talked about that.

For those of the current Federal Vision deviation (in my estimation 'apostasy') who now want to include the 'company of hypocrites' in the EKKLESIA, it is just and right to ask, if such persons claim to subscribe to the Belgic Confession, them to NAME the true church and distinguish it from the false (unless this part of the confession is now discarded also)--which the confession calls an easy task.

I agree too Bob, except you cannot have an elect gathering without the sacraments/ordinaces observed rightly and correct discipline. A gathering of elect without them is not a true ekklesia either.

I agree the reprobate have no part in the church of Christ. But they are there none the less in the assembly.
1. The church was purchased by His blood... Acts 20:28
2. The church was sanctified by His death...Eph. 5:25-27
3. The church was redeemed when He gave Himself for us...Tit. 2:14

The reprobate have no redeeming lot in any of this. But the visible gathering contains both. Exactly as Revelation states.