Thread: Local church vs invisible church, esp. pertaining to baptists. Impact on missions?

I am running across those who read almost every occurrence of church as a local church.

Is I Tim 3:15 a local church that is the pillar and ground of truth, or the Church as a whole? If so, does anyone try to make Matthew 16 read as local church too?

I have heard people say that the main focus of the NT was local churches not some universal church. But I hear Jesus speaking much about the kingdom of God, which could be seen as the Church entire.

Will this tension betwen Church and church create tensions and will this impact missions? How? In sending? In supporting? In accountability? In strategy?


After glorifying God, is it more accurate to say that we are to plant churches or plant The Church? i.e., church (local) planting or Church (universal) planting, kingdom building?

-----Added 6/18/2009 at 03:26:42 EST-----

Here are two typical statements I just found:

First,

-Missionaries must work under the authority of their local church.
What does that mean?

Second,
Jesus’ commission to the local church is to make disciples of all nations. This commission was given to the local church, and therefore to the particular members of that church.

Is that true?

-----Added 6/18/2009 at 03:28:35 EST-----

Here is another typical sentiment: http://http://www.biblefortoday.org/...s/missions.htm

Good questions. I want to reflect on them a bit.

BTW, I keep forgetting if you have read Bosch's Transforming Mission or not? Also, Global Missiology for the 21st century is a good text.

Oh, and your link doesn't work!

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I am running across those who read almost every occurrence of church as a local church.

I've been looking into a quite related subject as well. As far as confessional Presbyterians (Westminster Standards) are concerned, the "tension" may not as difficult as it is for Baptists. Aside from the fact that the church consists of the whole number of the elect (WCF 25:1), Presbyterians also understand the church as something that may refer to a single local congregation (1 Cor. 16:19) or to more than one congregation within the same town or city (Acts 8:1). Indeed, there is "one general church visible, held forth in the New Testament" according to the Form of Presbyterial Church Government citing 1 Cor. 12:12, 13 and 28. The church thus is both one and the many. This understanding of the church is reflected in the boook, The Divine Right of Church Government, which is a classic defense of Presbyterianism.

An interesting article defending Presbyterian church government (from Dr. Matthew McMahon's website) explains,

1. That there were more particular assemblies, and congregations in the Church of Jerusalem than one.

2. That all those several congregations made but one Church.

3. That all those several congregations were under one presbytery.

4. That the government of the Church of Jerusalem is to be a pattern of government to all succeeding ages.

Question: Were there many congregations, and assemblies in the mother Church of Jerusalem, which in our dialect are called churches: Or did the multitude of believers in Jerusalem make but one congregation, as the Independents suppose?

Answer: These plain texts of Scripture following do clearly prove that the many ten thousands of believers, converted by John the Baptist, by Christ, his apostles, the 70 disciples and the rest of the primitive presbyters, could never meet together in one, ten or scarcely in 100 congregations to partake of all acts of worship to edification, as appears by the multitude of believers mentioned, in Matt. 3:1-2, 5-6; 7:12; Luke 16:16; 17:29; John 7:31, 40, 46-50; Acts 2:37-47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1-3, 7; 21:20. To suppose these multitudes could meet in one congregation to be edified is not agreeable to sense or reason. Because there were above 100 preachers, and ministers besides the apostles, and all these continually taken up in prayer and preaching unto those many ten thousands of believers distributed into several congregations, that possibly they might edify their preachers being all so employed, they could not leave their ministry to serve tables, Acts 6:2. Therefore of necessity so many ministers must have several places to preach in, and those multitudes of believers be distributed into several congregations for them to preach to, and several places to baptize in, otherwise there would have been great confusion. For but one of them could speak at once to edification. These plain testimonies of Scripture above cited may convince the Independents’ error.

Because they clearly take away the foundation of their new churches which are built upon this mistake, that there were no more believers in the Church of Jerusalem than could meet in one congregation.

From Against The Independent's Catechism by John Bernard

In the Presbyterian view, therefore, the local church is a church, and the local churches that make up one regional presbytery are also a church.

Originally Posted by tellville

Good questions. I want to reflect on them a bit.

BTW, I keep forgetting if you have read Bosch's Transforming Mission or not? Also, Global Missiology for the 21st century is a good text.

Oh, and your link doesn't work!

Yes, I have both of them.

-----Added 6/19/2009 at 02:34:37 EST-----

Here's the link again: http://http://www.biblefortoday.org/...s/missions.htm

-----Added 6/19/2009 at 02:35:35 EST-----

If that doesn't work, just google "A Case for Local Church Missions missionary david Bennett" an article full of over-the-top generalizations.

-----Added 6/19/2009 at 02:44:21 EST-----

http://http://www.berean-baptist-uta...age&PAGE_id=14

Here's another article.