Visible local body or invisible church?

[HumbleMan]

I've seen both referenced, and I would like to know what your opinions are and what scriptures are used to support each position.

To be upfront, I'll start by saying I believe in the invisible body of Christ that is all believers. As such, I don't place as much emphasis on denominations or church membership. I do believe in the old adage "Unity in the essentials".

But I really don't fully understand the concept behind the local body doctrine. I know those that adhere to it aren't exclusionary as far as belief in other's salvation.

Does the breakdown follow the lines of the Calvinism/Arminean camps?

Thanks in advance,

Marc

[mlqurgw]

The word ekklesia, rendered church in our English translations, simply means called out ones. It usually is in reference to a local assembly. An example would be Paul addressing the churches in Galatia. But that by no means limits it use in that way. I believe Paul uses it in reference to the local aasembly and the invisible body as a whole in Ephesians.

[holdon]

I've seen both referenced, and I would like to know what your opinions are and what scriptures are used to support each position.

To be upfront, I'll start by saying I believe in the invisible body of Christ that is all believers. As such, I don't place as much emphasis on denominations or church membership. I do believe in the old adage "Unity in the essentials".It is too bad that the body of Christ is "invisible". What was meant to be the light of the world has become invisible through human divisions. This undermines directly our gospel effort to the world: Jn 17:21 - 23.
If unity is in the essentials, as it should be, then any division based otherwise should not exist. There are 2 dangers:
1. a unity too wide: including non-born again persons (like in State churches), or persons that were supposed to be declared outside the Christian community as a result of disciplinary action
2. a unity too narrow: where true born-again believers not affected by moral or doctrinal leaven are excluded on the basis of non-essentials, like views on baptism, the last days, church order, etc., etc..

The local church should just be a sample of the universal church: it recognizes those members that belong to Christ. Any church that wants to be just that, will be a visible light and beacon of hope for the lost.

But I really don't fully understand the concept behind the local body doctrine. I know those that adhere to it aren't exclusionary as far as belief in other's salvation.

Does the breakdown follow the lines of the Calvinism/Arminean camps?

Thanks in advance,

Marc I don't think it has anything to do with calvinism/arminianism.

[HumbleMan]

OK. I think I understand a little. I was wondering if some people used it in support of secondary seperation.

[mlqurgw]

OK. I think I understand a little. I was wondering if some people used it in support of secondary seperation.One word: Landmarkism.

[arunma]

It is too bad that the body of Christ is "invisible". What was meant to be the light of the world has become invisible through human divisions. This undermines directly our gospel effort to the world: Jn 17:21 - 23.
If unity is in the essentials, as it should be, then any division based otherwise should not exist.

Quite true. Actually, for the first several hundred years there was only one church. This is one of the few issues that make me wonder if the non-Protestant churches (though not so much Roman Catholicism) had it right all along.

[jcright]

I've seen both referenced, and I would like to know what your opinions are and what scriptures are used to support each position.

To be upfront, I'll start by saying I believe in the invisible body of Christ that is all believers. As such, I don't place as much emphasis on denominations or church membership. I do believe in the old adage "Unity in the essentials".

But I really don't fully understand the concept behind the local body doctrine. I know those that adhere to it aren't exclusionary as far as belief in other's salvation.

Does the breakdown follow the lines of the Calvinism/Arminean camps?

Thanks in advance,

Marc

I know its not the point of your thread...but membership as far as denominations go are meaningless. However, I should point out that membership is still important mainly for accountability reasons. It also helps to foster a better "family" feel when everyone knows that there is a commitment.

[eldermike]

Romans chapter 12 supports a visible body made up of many important but individual parts.

[JPPT1974]

When one body part does one thing,
Then everybody is in harmony
As we all have our own parts that
God selects for us!
But when the one body part fails
Then we all fail!