# 12 Hard Nuts For Universal Church Proponents



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2010)

More anti-universal church stuff coming your way. How would you respond to this tract?



> "12 Hard Nuts For Universal Church Proponents"
> by Pastor Curtis Pugh
> 
> 
> ...




---------- Post added at 01:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 AM ----------

I would love to answer point by point these sorts of assertions.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 10, 2010)

7-10 are easily enough countered by pointing out that the church began long before Pentecost.


----------



## Rich Koster (Feb 10, 2010)

I've talked with crackheads that made more sense....


----------



## TimV (Feb 10, 2010)

Truly! There's only so much time you can devoted to maniacs. 

Did anyone else notice the similarities of number one to the Federal Vision? It's so much easier to just say all baptized babies are elect. Not that the dufus who wrote the OP article has ever thought it through that far.


----------



## buggy (Feb 10, 2010)

I'm surprised that there are even Calvinists who adhere to Landmarkism. I thought this belief is only restricted to some fundamental Baptists. Is this the "Trail of Blood" belief?


----------



## TimV (Feb 10, 2010)

buggy, many Landmark Baptists hold to the 5 points, but they aren't considered Calvinists my many of us. And yes, Landmark Baptists are associated with the fairy tale "The Trail of Blood".


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Feb 10, 2010)

Rich Koster said:


> I've talked with crackheads that made more sense....


 
Alot of those in Jersey.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2010)

Many, many calvy baptists have Landmarker traits.


Many, many churches and folks that support me have Landmarker tendencies.

Therefore, I am trying not to call them Crackheads, but I am trying to reason with them in such a why that we know the glorious truths of the eternal and universal Church (with a really big C) of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Iam trying to formulate a kind response to them. 

I have already won a few Landmarkers over to my view, but this strain of wrong teaching continues to be a gnat in my face and a constant sore to me as my own ecclesiology often gets questioned by them.


----------



## southern (Feb 10, 2010)

Pergamum,

I would like to comment on the first two. 

The first states:



> 1. A universal invisible church defies the Greek definition. By definition of the Greek word used, a church (ecclesia) must be an organized gathering (assembly) of persons with a common interest and common officers. This is the N.T. usage as well as the Septuagint and secular uses. There can be no such thing as an assembly that does not assemble.



I believe that the Greek word holds to its essence an "assembly". My Landmark brethren have often used this argument against the 'Universal Church' of the Westminster and 1689 LBC. The argument is that since 'all of the elect' have never assembled then they cannot be an 'ecclesia' (assembly). However, this is to misunderstand the nature of the 'Universal Church' that is being argued for.

Jesus said all the Father gives to Him will 'come to Him'. This verse teaches that all believers have indeed assembled. They have assembled 'in Christ'. So it is simply untrue to say that they have never assembled. Now they will be quick to point out that this is not a 'literal' and 'physical' assembly. That is correct as stated. However, this is one of the reasons that we make a distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church. It is not a different meaning, only a different application, hence the distinction. 



> 2. The invisible church definition is based on unsound exegesis. To make up a second definition for the word church (or any other word) to fit preconceived doctrinal notions is not sound Bible exegesis. Such a practice allows any doctrine to be taught simply by saying that a word means one thing in one place and quite another in a different place. If “ecclesia” means a gathered, organized assembly of persons called out from daily duties, to assume that Christ or Paul used it differently is unsafe, unless Christ or Paul explained such a different usage – which neither did. Personal bias is no justification for saying that there is a second definition for the word “ecclesia.”



No one is arguing that the word has changed. We are only applying the meaning in a different sense. This is very common in scripture!

We know that 'Baptism' has a literal meaning. However, it is applied to the sufferings of Christ as well as to judgment (ie baptism of fire). This is not making a difference in the meaning but only its application. We could point to many other words that meaning is changed from literal to spiritual in the scripture (kingdom, family, brother, etc.). Again, this doesn't mean were inventing a 'second definition' but a different application of that meaning. 

If you would like me to respond to the rest, I would rather do so by PM. I come out of a similiar institution and my Bible College was of this persuasion. I have many books and articles to recommend.


----------



## Iconoclast (Feb 11, 2010)

Southern,
You said this;


> Jesus said all the Father gives to Him will 'come to Him'. This verse teaches that all believers have indeed assembled. They have assembled 'in Christ'. So it is simply untrue to say that they have never assembled. Now they will be quick to point out that this is not a 'literal' and 'physical' assembly.


 I do not see that this verse teaches this at all. This assembly will happen on the last day, visibly.
Your interpretation sounds allegorical. Nothing in Jn.6 suggests otherwise.
In the original post point number one does not mention "all the elect" he said;


> There can be no such thing as an assembly that does not assemble.


That is what is at issue. A church is a called out * assembly*
This tract with it's 12 points can be found wanting, but i do not see this as the way to go to prove the point.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 11, 2010)

Bobby, yes, gimme all your thoughts, whether publickly or by PM!


----------



## py3ak (Feb 11, 2010)

Why isn't Hebrews 12:22-24 sufficient to crush this view once and for all?


----------



## southern (Feb 11, 2010)

Iconoclast stated:


> I do not see that this verse teaches this at all. This assembly will happen on the last day, visibly.
> Your interpretation sounds allegorical. Nothing in Jn.6 suggests otherwise.
> In the original post point number one does not mention "all the elect" he said;



and 



> That is what is at issue. A church is a called out assembly
> This tract with it's 12 points can be found wanting, but i do not see this as the way to go to prove the point.



I think all Christians (including yourself) would agree that we are all in Christ by faith. When Jesus says in Jn. 6:44 that no man can 'come to me' unless drawn by the Father, I tend to take this as not referring _exclusively_ to the last day but something that is a present reality. If you agree with this, this is all I am referring to. You are in essence agreeing that we have all come (assembled) at the same place in some shape form or fashion. This was simply meant to argue against the idea that all the saved have never assembled.

If you mean that the actual word 'ecclesia' wasn't used in Jn. 6 you are correct. I think Ephesians 5 where Christ died for the 'church' would be an example that includes all the elect. However, the _idea _of the universal church, I would argue, is much wider (ie body of Christ, etc.). Also as with John 6, the use of Ecclesia in Ephesians 5 cannot be viewed as simply something that will exist in the last day, In my humble opinion. Notice the use of _present_ tense verbs used in reference to that church (ie 'is' subject). However, the _idea _of the universal church, I would argue, is much wider (ie body of Christ, etc.).


----------



## Rich Koster (Feb 11, 2010)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> > I've talked with crackheads that made more sense....
> ...


 
Unfortunately yes. The Crips & Bloods have a thriving underground economy based out of the low income housing areas in our town. A woman who used to be part of our former congregation has just about fried her brain on this stuff. If you ever talked with someone who has used it long term, you would totally understand what I mean. The thought process is fragmented and logic is a foreigner.


----------



## southern (Feb 11, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Why isn't Hebrews 12:22-24 sufficient to crush this view once and for all?



Those such as A.W. Pink and John Gill do in fact believe this is speaking of all the elect. 

However, some Landmarkers believe this verse is only speaking _prospectively_ (see B.H. Carroll for a representative of this view). In other words, this _will _be true one day and they_ will _literally assemble one day. However the Hebrew writer mentions that "ye are come" (vs. 22, perfect tense I believe). 

Others such as Calvin have seen this as referring to the OT saints in heaven. 

However, I like John Owens explanation that these are the whole church of elect believers then in the world, which would be called the 'church militant' (see his exposition of Hebrews).


----------

