Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Debelak
P.S. YP, I anticipate that you will say, yes - there is a difference between saying "universal Body" versus "universal church." You made this point in your first post. However, I guess I don't see the distinction. Is it because "church" is something that is "built" and thus to think we must "build" the "universal church" causes us to focus on something God never intended -whereas the "Body" is organic and therefore, if you "grow" the local assembly, the "universal Body" is necessarily increased? If so, I get the distinction. But I just wonder if its a distinction without a difference. Cf. Ephesians 2:19-22 where it seems Paul is discussion the universal entity which is "build" - including "God's household," a "holy temple," and a "dwelling". Though I do note that "to build" in these passages is always passive... (sorry, too many thoughts jammed into a small space - I'll unpack it later...).
|
And I'll hopefully have time to address your other comments later.
The Ephesians 2:21-22 are excellent because they actually draw the distinction between the universal and the local without using either "Body" or "assembly."
I hear you on the "distinction without a difference" analysis but that is
exactly what I'm trying to overcome here.
If there truly is no Biblical foundation for "universal church", and you surely have to agree that at least the fundamental and clearest denotation of the term "ekklesia" *is* the local, I'd challenge you as to why you think the distinction doesn't make any difference. Try this: make a study of WHY we have come to associate the concepts of "universal church" and "Body" with such ease and notice the surprising lack of scriprtual basis for the equation.
What I'm testifying to you is that it makes a
huge difference because to read "church" and EVER think "universal" guts the very meaning of the passage by superimposition of a foreign concept.
God's heart's desire in the \ekklesia\ is on account of His ability to MANIFEST there. He needs this practical gathering to be glorified in the saints and to the universe. The Body, while real and universal, is ONLY ever seen through the practicality in the \ekklesia\.
By "spiritializing" away the term "church" in any place as "universal church" there become passages of Scripture dealing with the practical local assembly which are NEVER made practical. That lack of practicality, in turn, hinders God's ability to be MANIFEST in the assembly.
Pray over Ephesains 2:21-22 regarding what I'm saying and see if you don't see what I'm talking about there and there may be an opening for you to see that same issue is going on in the rest of the book. The local is contrasted with the universal, or more precisely, the assembly is displayed as the practical expression of the Body. But the universal is BODY not CHURCH. If you say universal is CHURCH, then those instances of CHURCH are never local and you have done damage to the verse that just ever just said "assembly" in the first place.
If we stick to Body for universal and assembly for local, we're going to do fine. But the first time you transform "assembly" into "universal church" you have already subconsciously nullified your own ability to understand the real importance of the local manifestation of Christ in the Body as revealed in the scriptures.
The REASON the \ekklesia\ is the house of the Living God is because when we meet together (without all the hindering things,) HE Himself is manifest among us in glory! If you think the house of the Living God is the "universal church" you'll NEVER see that manifest because you're distracted by an unscriptural notion that descended from perhaps the earliest error of the Body.
Confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness, but we speak with regard to Christ and the assembly, my brother...