# The Nature of the Church based on Matthew 16- help me to respond



## Pergamum (Dec 23, 2009)

Hello,

How would you respond to a brother that holds to this doctrine below and advocates the same things that this article below advocates?




> The Nature of the Church
> 
> Matthew 16:18
> 
> ...




Can you help me respond?


----------



## jogri17 (Dec 23, 2009)

The answer comes down to this: do you believe a local church's choice can be over turned? I say yes based on the apostle's doiong that at the council of jerusalem. I would say in a post apostalic age it makes sense to have representatives from different churches come together to decide and meet. Whether or not that means you can have two or three layers its up for debate. Personally I think the idea of a classisis (sp?) or presbyteries just makes sense in a global world but I don't think scripture demands that and just having a general assembly is perfectly acceptable (thats for smaller denominations).


----------



## Herald (Dec 23, 2009)

Pergy,

Our confession states:



> The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.



Some texts to consider:



> Hebrews 12:22-24 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the _*general assembly and church *_of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.





> Colossians 1:18 18 He is also _*head of the body, the church*_; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.





> Ephesians 5:23 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as _*Christ also is the head of the church*_, He Himself being the Savior of the body.





> Ephesians 5:27 27 that _*He might present to Himself the church in all her glory*_, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.





> Ephesians 5:32 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to _*Christ and the church*_.



The denial of the universal church, among Baptists, is often found in A.B.A. and Landmark type churches. The problem here is a categorical distinction between the internal work of the Spirit and the authority/autonomy of a local church (assembly). Ultimately, all churches are under the authority and headship of Christ. We'll accept that as a given for the sake of discussion. The universal aspect of the church is the internal work accomplished by the Spirit. This work, as the framers of the confession correctly stated, is invisible; known only to God, because God is the One who has established, called, and confirmed the church and all those that are part of it. All those who have been born from above are part of the body of Christ, *the *church. Here is where the categorical difference comes into play. *The *church as opposed to _*a *_church. 

As confessional Baptists, we believe in _*the *_church, but we also believe the church is administered through local assemblies. The universal church transcends all denominational affiliations, as well as all doctrinal divides that do not subvert the true gospel. Its number is made up of those who have truly been born again. It is the sum total of all Christians on earth, who are made Christians, not by creed or confession, but by the internal work of the Spirit. This view differs from Roman Catholicism in that Roman Catholicism believes _*it *_is the universal church, independent of the work of the Spirit.

Baptists who deny the universal church often do so out of an irrational fear that somehow their local authority will be usurped. Because they fail to make the categorical distinction between the sum total of the elect (invisible saints), and local church administration, is the reason why they deny this clear biblical teaching.


----------



## A.J. (Dec 23, 2009)

John Dagg deals with this objection and discusses Matthew 16 at length in Chapter III: The Church Universal of his Manual of Church Order.


----------

