forhisglory wrote: I don't think anyone is disputing that the church, in the Christian/biblical sense, is the universal body of believers. In fact, I've said that many times at my own church meetings (did I say it correctly that time). I've made it clear in those meetings that the church is not a building, but rather it's the body of Christ.
I don't think we were discussing whether the Church is the universal body of believers, for that is obvious, but we were discussing whether the church is a denomination, non-denomination, congregation OR a locality of believers. Since the Bible says don't say "I of Cephas", "I of Apollos" or "I of Christ" this gets rid of all denominations, non-denominations and congregationalizing. Since the Bible expresses the church only in terms of locality, then that is exactly what the church is, a locality of believers which have Elders who take care of it whom have been appointed by regional Apostles. There can be many meeting places in a locality instead of initially just one house meeting. The Elders of that locality approve those Elders of those meeting places. I find it amazing how you can't understand the simplicity of God's design. Why does God do it this way? Because God knows our flesh. He knows Apostles ought not to work greater than a region, otherwise they event the term "Achbishops of continents" or "Pope". Therefore, an Apostle is constrained to a region such as all the churches in Dallas. Similarly, an Elder of a locality is also constrained and ought not to exceed his governmental boundary of Houston. They can visit other localities, but their responsibility is that one locality.
Now, does that mean the word can NEVER be used in the sense that Bill used it and for which this whole discussion got started? I don't think so. Bill could just have easily of said, "Hawking attends a church meeting in Cambridge." But everyone in today's time, and since just after the early church was established, understands that "Hawking attends church in Cambridge" means the exact same thing. Is that the sense in which Christ spoke of the church, well no, not exactly. But the word we translate as church is used in Scripture to describe a group meeting, whether religious or not, and it is translated "assembly" (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
Since the Bible never uses it in that sense, then you are changing the meaning against God's Word. Satan uses this to create your denominationations, non-denoms and exalted congregations and create problems in the Church. That's like modalists who say God is a Person who is 3 Persons to confuse terms. Satan is the author of confusion. Assembly is assembly, not the church. Different terms have different meaning, otherwise the Bible could just have said "church" in place of assembly. Once you deem something the church just because you go to it in assembly, whatever that may be, you begin to slide down a slippery slope. Your liberal ecumenicalism expands to the point the Roman Church says Muslims are saved. You begin to accept everything as secondary in many heterodox and unorthordox teachings. Or you think your organization is the right one even though God speaks against particular denominations. The local church is all believers in a locality. Period. It is not a meeting. It is a membership in a local body. You can meet in this body. You can assemble in this body. The whole body in this locality can assemble one time in one place even, but the church itself is not a meeting place. Everyone in the church is saved. Hawkings is not saved. He therefore is not the church and can't go to the church because he is not let in. He can go to a meeting in a place of a denomination, but in no way suggests it is the church or that this denomination is Biblical. I am only here to tell you the truth. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink.
Yes, it's a shame that people think "church" ONLY means a building these days, and yes we need to teach them correctly. However, for all this to have started over Bill's simple statement, that just seems a little misplaced. For to say someone attends church implies that they are attending a meeting or assembly. I've never once attended a building! I've gone to buildings, gone in them, gone out of them, gone around them, gone by them. But I've never once attended one. So I think Bill was perfectly in his rights, using the Bible as the standard, to use the word the way he did. Since you didn't seem to care for my Harper's quote, here's a link from Easten's Bible Dictionary about "church" that I found navigating from your own website:
It was important to correct him also on his misuse of the term church, thus, it was well placed. As long as you keep thinking the church is a denomination which is the way it was used, you violate God's Word. No amount of excuses change this fact. Hawkings went to a denomination which was called the church, but the Bible says that is false. Who are we to believe, the Bible or you? Next time, one might say he went to a meeting of this particular denomination. Lots of denominations have mostly unsaved people in them. To understand how pervasive this problem has become, you could probably quote most dictionaries misusing the term "church". Your dictionary said "
There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning. Nor is this word ever used to denote the inhabitants of a country united in the same profession, as when we say the “Church of England,” the “Church of Scotland,” etc." and I agree.
I rest my case.
I think Bill made a very good point in his last post that I had not really thought about. How exactly is a "non-denomination" considered a denomination and thus a false teaching by default, but your biblocality is not considered a denomination/sect/non-denomination/etc.? That seems to be quite contradictory. I actually feel a bit silly arguing about all of this with a fellow believer, but it just seems that other battles should be far more important than waging war over Bill's very simple statement. Thanks for the dialog.
The Bible says don't say "I of Jesus" which is like saying your particular non-denomination is somehow special just because it is not a denomination. The Bible accounts for this trickery.
Biblocality states the church is a locality of believers. Period. The reason why this problem persists is because people feel silly talking about it, when ultimately it is Satan instilling those feelings in people to allow these false divisions to persist so they are never addressed properly. They make excuses even like saying there is more important battles. But that is like saying, well I need to give the gospel to more people even though you have a weight problem that seems to be getting worse. This is part of spiritual warfare. We are waging war against principalities and powers that try to make you feel silly in rejecting denominations, non-denominations and exalted congregations, none of which abide in Scriptural locality. They all have their particular false teachings. I don't know of even one that does not. They divide the church by false doctrines. Even if a denomination or congregation were to teach almost everything perfectly they would still be false, because they deny the Scriptures according to locality in which Apostles work regionally to appoint Elders of a locality. If they truly believed this, they would seek out as believers an Elder for their locality and the regional Apostle to approve him or her. This is what God wants, so this is why I am telling you about it.
