Search This Blog

Saturday, May 8, 2021

THE BRIDE YOU CAN KISS – Part 5

Previous articles can be read here:

THE BRIDE YOU CAN KISS – Part 1

THE BRIDE YOU CAN KISS – Part 2

THE BRIDE YOU CAN KISS – Part 3

THE BRIDE YOU CAN KISS – Part 4

Eκκλησία (ekklēsia) is the Greek word translated ‘Church’ in the New Testament. In the New Testament it was a gathering of citizens called out of sin and darkness; and called out from their private, individual lives into gatherings found in a home and eventually into some public place, an assembly. Since it was an outward, visible assembly it could only be local.  

I have argued that the New Testament primarily refers to the Church as local and visible.  I showed that it is described in Revelation 1:12ff as autonomous under the Lordship of Christ. In Part 1 I described a conversation:

“So my brother, you have been attending this Church, for some time.  Have you considered membership,” I ask.  “No, I actually find it unnecessary,” he responds.  Continuing, he states, “When I became a Christian I became part of the universal Body of Christ.  Joining a Church is redundant and unnecessary; besides institutional churches are just man-made organizations.” 

This Doctrine of the Local, Visible Church demands certain implications.  From the conversation above, the first is obvious.

Implication #1. It is foreign to the New Testament and inconsistent to profess faith in Christ and not become a member of a local Church.  It is illogical to claim membership solely in what is scattered and unseen wherein Christ has determined that the local Church makes visible what is indistinguishable.

To those who remain within the numinous unobserved domain of Christendom and not join the local church, the question is laid before you, “Which pastor is charged with the watch-keep over your soul; and which pastor do you grant your respect and obedience (Hebrews 13:17)?”  We could add, “To which body of believers will you show your mutual love and care for?”  Or do you find it more pleasing to float between these embassies of heaven and pick and choose what you want, discarding what you don’t want.

And if one is unconvinced of the Biblical necessity to become a member of a local Church, then to which Church will you seek to affirm your profession of faith and in obedience to our Lord baptize you?   And to which local Church will you partake of the Lord’s Table, confessing your oneness with that Body and yet refuse to commit to it through membership? 

Implication #2.  As we have affirmed the Truth that local, visible Bodies of Christ, called the Church are ordained and sovereignly ruled by our risen Saviour.  And as one readily sees that Pastors, elders and deacons are delegated responsibility to care and watch over these individual outposts of Heaven, we then must readily assume, not only that each Church is independent and self-governing under Christ, but that each assembly will differ in emphasis and matters of conscience.

Certainly cardinal matters of doctrine and faith will be the same no matter the locale of the Church, if it’s a true Church.  In lower tier areas will differ.  This brings me to the specifics of this implication, which is: it ought to be a very serious contravention of a major doctrine that would cause a Church member to break fellowship with their local Church.  To break fellowship over superficial or disputable matters fails to comprehend the uniqueness and the value of the local Church.  When Paul calls Christians to remain loyal, welcoming and in fellowship with other believers who differ on disputable matters, certainly the same must be true of the Church body (Romans 14).

In years past Ruth’s statement to her mother-in-law was often quoted at weddings. “But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.”” (Ruth 1:16–17, ESV).  Would it be that Christians would express the same loyalty to one another in the Church? 

These two implications can be summarized in two words: loyal partnership. 

“An examination of the 118 uses of the word ekklesia in the New Testament scriptures shows they refer directly to a local, visible assembly, ie., a group of people coming together to carry out the Lord's work in a specific location in Ephesus, Colossi, Philippi, or meeting in a house such as Philemon. Only Matthew 16:18 refers to the generic or institutional sense of the church all others refer to or were written to a local assembly.”[1]

There’s a somewhat super spirituality and feigned piety to those who show contempt toward the local church in favour of the “true, invisible, universal” Church. God created the world including mankind to show forth His unseen glory and make it visible, to be seen and rejoiced in.  The invisible God would, in the progress of time, become visible in the Person of Jesus Christ.  In the Person of Christ, God dwelt in all fullness, bodily.  God ordained that the universal, invisible Church become visible that in Ephesus, Colossi, and your community and mine, a visible Church might show forth His glory through the Lordship of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

It is a Bride, you can kiss.  It is real, tangible and observable. The Groom’s goal is to “present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”[2]



[1] https://www.facebook.com/notes/baptist-history-preservation/five-reasons-the-church-is-local-and-visible-and-cannot-be-universal-nor-invisib/1880821965309747/

[2] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Eph 5:27). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

No comments: