It’s About Time

Romans 16:25-27 ^“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, ²⁶ but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; ²⁷ to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.”

W.H. Griffith-Thomas, in commenting on Romans 16:25-27, sums up the importance of being established in the faith:

In every age, under all circumstances, the Christian life should be one of spiritual consistency, for if there is firmness in the inner life there will be steadfastness in the outer conduct. A strong Christian is one who is saved, sanctified, and satisfied in Christ. His position as an established believer makes him at once happy, holy, and helpful. Weakness is perilous to the believer’s own soul, and prejudicial to anything he endeavors to do for His Master. Strength, on the other hand, will give the heart and life confidence, comfort, and courage, and prove the means of usefulness on every hand. Let us, therefore, never fail to recall this last word of this important Epistle, the absolute necessity of strength and steadfastness in Christian living.”

(Epistles to the Romans, p. 441)

Good food for thought.

Sarcasm is a crooked expression of self-pity and conceit,”

so writes John Stott in his book, The Preacher’s Portrait, p 90.  This is a wonderful exposition on pastoral theology.  As there are different facets to a preacher’s life and ministry, so Stott paints the portrait of preacher using biblical metaphor related to his life and ministry.

Earlier in his book, the author describes the preacher as a steward – one who is a trustee of his master’s goods and household. A steward’s task is faithful to his entrustment.  Then Stott went on to paint another stroke on the canvas of a preacher’s portrait with the herald metaphor – one who is to declare boldly the Gospel of the King; the message or decree from the Sovereign.  The herald has no right to change the message of the king so the preacher must be faithful to declare loyally the message of God’s word. Then followed by the witness metaphor which brings to mind the witness in the law court. The witness is to be truthful and must have personal experience of that which he is testifying to. In this case, the judge is the world, the one in the dock is Jesus Christ. The prosecution lawyer is none other than Satan himself.  The judge already biased towards Christ will hear of the believer’s witness to the veracity of Christ’s claim to be Lord.  The preacher thus has that task of testifying for the Lord with a personal and real knowledge of Jesus Christ.

The quotation stated at the onset of this blog, was given in the father metaphor.  In this metaphor, the preacher’s relationship is familial in its essence.  The apostle Paul reminded the Corinthians that though they have many instructors they only have one spiritual father. Paul was dealing with issue of choice that the church has – whether they want to have him come as a father with a whip – like the pedagogue carries when caring the master’s ward, or have him come as a father with tenderness. It’s their call, so to speak, 1 Cor 4:14.  Paul also reiterated this paternal relationship with the Thessalonians when describing

The context of the quotation speaks of a preacher’s need to love his congregation as a father towards his children.  Love defines how a preacher ought to treat his congregation – firstly, with understanding.  In that setting, the preacher is to minister with a father understanding of his children.  The author highlights the need for preachers to approach the ministry with understanding – of the people’s needs. the folks often come into the house of God with problems – personal, intellectual, moral, etc.  The best way is for the preacher to know them through interaction.  One means is that of personal visitation where the setting is more conducive for personal conversation.

Secondly, loving with a father’s gentleness.  Regardless of how rough or strict a disciplinarian a father might be, there is always that gentleness towards his children.  Gentleness of a father is expressed through that of realistic expectation. In other words, pastors must manage his expectation rightly as a father ought to do so with his children.  It is foolishness, says Stott, to expect a child to have an adult decorum or level of maturity. Likewise, preachers must exercise awareness in this area. Just as sometimes a child may exhibit maturity beyond his age in perceiving certain concepts, the same child might just drive us up the wall with his childish antics {at this juncture, I am reminded of my relationship with my daughter!}.

A good point raised is that sarcasm is not a weapon that love will use to achieve its objective. In fact, Stott was right to say that sarcasm is actually a “crooked expression of self-pity and conceit.” How true that is!  The key to effective pastoral ministry is to persevere, and not to lose patience or temper but to pray; also to learn not to resort to sarcasm but conduct as “… the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Tim 2:24-25). Not easy but through God’s grace, it shall and must be done.

As mentioned in earlier blog, I have always attended Baptist churches that only have two offices: Pastor and deacon.  It is only when in the States that I got to hear about Baptist churches having pastor, elder and deacon.  Usually the Presbyterians are the ones with three offices in the church.  Having said that I am not against the plurality of elders – that is having more than one pastor in a church.   After all, Paul greeted the pastors and deacons (οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις) in his letter to the Philippians. 

I am of the persuasion that the terms: elder (πρεσβύτερος), pastor (ποιμήν) and overseer (ἐπίσκοπος) are different facet of the same office.  The elder having the dignity of office possesses spiritual maturity and thus fit to provide counsel to his community (church); the pastor being the extension of the imagery of shepherd who feeds and protects his flock, and an overseer who supervises the ministries under his charge. He may delegate but he is still ultimately responsible for the efficient operation of the ministries under his charge.  Paul in his address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 reminded them of their responsibilities as overseers and shepherds within the same context. The apostle Peter in 1 Peter 5:1-4 likewise uses overseeing and shepherding in his counsel to the elders.  If these three terms refer to the same office, then I find it hard-pressed to have three offices.  Of course some would say there are possibly four (deaconess).   

The Presbyterians, however, distinguished between ruling elders and teaching elders – the former group is responsible for the administration and running of the ministries whereas the teaching elders focus on the pedagogical aspect of the church ministries.   It is not uncommon for them to have elders who are elected by the church but not have the ability to teach but they ‘rule’.  The justification for this differentiation is 1 Tim 5:17 “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.”  Thus the two categories of elders found in the Presbyterian Church.  I have a problem with this polity because the main distinction between a deacon and an elder/overseer is the latter’s “apt to teach.”

In my view, if one has spiritual qualification but not apt to teach, he ought only to be a deacon.  That does not mean he is lesser for spiritual qualifications for both offices are similar; it is just that if a man does not have the ability to teach, he cannot be an overseer; he should instead be willing and eager to be a deacon, for that is where he will excel.  

As mentioned earlier, pastor, elder and overseer are different facet of the same office; not three officers.  In other words, there are elders who are good at ruling, but there are those who besides ruling well, also excel in word and doctrine.  Paul commands these particular elders to be doubly honored.  The word honor also refers to financial remuneration.  Thus they should be doubly-paid!  It also reiterates the primary ministry of elder/pastor/overseer is that of word and doctrine.  

I believe in plurality of elders but not elder-rule.  Affirmation of plurality of elders does not negate congregational polity. In fact, plurality of elders means the church is better cared for because the work load is spread out; there ought to be greater synergism, not competition within the leadership.  

Will it be accepted in my local circle of independent Baptist circles? I doubt so because they are so entrenched in traditions that it would take a seismic overhaul to change their mindset – to look at their long-held beliefs under the search light of Scriptures.  

Having grown up in Baptist churches that have two offices – pastor and deacon, it required some thinking on my part into the issue of deaconess.  Holding on to tradition seems to be the easier way out – no need to think about it; just do it.  After all, we’ve always done it this way.  Hanging on to tradition seems more plausible. However, the main question is – how does it square with Scriptures?  

Over time, I thought much about deaconess, as well as elders serving alongside pastors and deacons in the church. The latter is another subject matter for another day perhaps.  It took awhile to work out this question about deaconess to my satisfaction and more importantly, more consistently with Scriptures and practice.  So here’s my take:

I see the ministry of the deaconess essentially as an issue of function rather than an office.  Once you are able to distinguish between the two, you will not be easily confused regarding ministry of women in the local church.  

The function of deacon is that of ministry of humble service (διακονία) to others in the local church.  The term διάκονος did not come to be an office until later in Paul’s ministry (eg, Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3).  I believe Dr Hauser is right when he said that Acts 6 is a prototype of deaconate, not the official setting up of the office of such.  The early church is pretty much simple in its set up.  Only as the church grew that it becomes necessary for it to have more structure in place for effective ministry.  

Though there are 2 main views regarding the deaconate, I am still not persuaded that 1 Tim 3 is referring to deaconess as well as deacon. It would seemed strange that Paul would talk about the criteria for deaconate for the man, and then insert a verse for the woman, before resuming his discussion (see, 1 Tim 3:10-12).  I take it then that Paul was addressing the fact that the deacon’s wife will either enhance or hinder his ministry by her speech and lack of self-control.  I have encountered individuals who would have been excellent candidates for the office of deacon but for the testimony of their wives.  It reflects badly on the man’s ability to lead and teach his wife, and possibly his children.  IMHO, this view will be more consistent with Paul’s listing of qualifications for both Pastor and deacons in 1 Tim 3: The testimony of the wives of these men have an effect on the credibility of their husbands. 

Though Paul uses the term διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς  in Rom 16:1 in reference to Phoebe, it seems like Paul was commending her as a great helper than describing her office.  In the early church, women servants cared for sick believers, the poor, strangers, and those in prison. They instructed the women and children too (cf. Titus 2:3-5).  This term is further clarified by Paul that Phoebe had been a great helper (προστάτις) to him.  I suppose that when these women had faithfully served and later on were widowed and destitute, they were to be cared for by the church (1 Tim. 5:3-16). 

I don’t there is anything wrong is ascribing the title of deaconess to women who serve other women in the local church. I believe the Pastor’s ministry is exceedingly enhanced by these faithful women as his ministry is extended further into the lives of children and women. The word προστάτις is where the English word for prosthetics derived its meaning – an extension of the limbs, artificial thought it might be.   

The distinction between function and office is important in deciding types of ministry that women can participate in the local church. 

Plodding On

Sermon preached @ NTBC on 190807

& Acts 18:1-17

Introduction:

Having ministered in Thessalonica and gotten chased out in matter of weeks; then traversing through Berea where a group of noble believers ascertain the veracity of his message; onwards to Athens, a city of paganism and intellectualism, Paul must be weary by the time he arrived at the cosmopolitan city of Corinth. Hence his remarks in 2 Cor 2:2-3.

How did Paul carry on with weariness or even discouragement?  The Lord appeared to him in vision by night. Three things that kept Paul going:

I.                   The Directive from the Word of God

a.     Exhortation, “fear not”

b.     Instruction, “speak and keep not silence;” “I have many people in this city”

c.      Assurance, “I am with you.”

II.                The Commitment to the will of God

a.     Paul stayed on for 18 months after God’s appearance

b.     Paul endeavored to teach the Word of God

III.             The Confirmation via the Works of God

a.     The Conversion that resulted from his commitment to the directive

                                                             i.      Jews – Religious folks

                                                           ii.      Gentiles – moral and immoral

b.     The providence that assures of God’s working

                                                             i.      Gallio ruled that Christianity is a religio licita (legitimate religion) and thus enjoys state protection

                                                           ii.      Paul didn’t have to make a defense for his case

                                                        iii.      Sosthenes was beaten up by the mob but eventually was converted, cf 1 Cor 1:2.

We can anticipate times of exhaustion followed by discouragement. What will keep us plodding on in the Lord’s work? 

It has been a busy fast week(s).  I don’t even recalled what has transpired except that it was rainy throughout. Now how bad can that be?  Very bad, I suppose, when you can’t remember anything at all.

Has been working on a sermon based on Acts 18:18-28, decided to focus largely on Apollos rather than on Paul’s third missionary journey to Ephesus. Hence the outline:

I.                   A messenger with an incomplete message

a.     He was a learned & cultured man

b.     He was well-versed in OT Scriptures

c.      He knew only the baptism of John

                                                             i.      John’s baptism is preparation of Israel to meet her King

                                                           ii.      Christian baptism is the believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.

d.     He is lacking in Christian truth

                                                             i.      He accepts and anticipates the Messiah’s arrival

                                                           ii.      He acknowledges the promises but ignorant of its fulfillment in Christ

                                                        iii.      He is unaware of the death & resurrection of Christ; the baptism of the Holy Spirit; the Church.

II.                A man with a teachable Heart

a.     He allowed Aquila & Priscilla to expound the Scripture more accurately to him

b.     His willingness implies a teachable and humble heart.

III.             A Servant whose enhanced efficiency benefits others

a.     His giftedness enhanced the ministries of others

b.     His enhanced depth broadens the breadth of his ministry from Ephesus unto Achaia.

c.      His gift of teaching is much appreciated by Paul

                                                             i.      Esteemed as co-laborer

                                                           ii.      Esteemed as a brother in the Lord

                                                        iii.      Esteemed as a value-added servant of Christ

Why would the apostles Peter and John need to come down to Samaria and lay hands on these new believers before the Holy Spirit was given to them? 

Some reasoned that it is because these folks weren’t saved the first time around and so the second stage was the reason conversion experience since Holy Spirit always resides in a person at point of salvation (Eph 1:13-14).  Another view suggest that though the Samaritans are saved when Philip preached unto them, they needed the apostles’ laying of hands because the full manifestation of the Holy Spirit wasn’t manifested earlier. The impartation of spiritual gifts and graces take place at this second stage. Unlike the Charismatics or Pentecostals, this is not perceived as “second blessing” but a reinterpretation from the epistle’s teachings. 

Others suggests that salvation is a two-stage experience. In other words, initiation into Christ is a two-stage experience.  Even in this view there are two different groups with variation to it.  The Roman Catholics and the Pentecostals (Charismatics) belonged here. To the Pentecostals, the initiation in Christ at the 1st stage requires conversion: faith and regeneration; however, the second stage takes place later when the Spirit baptizes the person with miraculous gifts thereby, completing the initiatory rite into Christ. Better known as “second blessing.” This is inward and spiritual in emphasis.

The Roman Catholics however, suggests that stage one of initiation into Christ is via the sacrament of water baptism whereby a priest with authority would baptize the individual; followed by stage 2 whereby the laying of hands confer the gift of Holy Spirit. This is largely outward and ceremonial.  Both still requires 2-stage. This Acts 8 passage provides the proof text for such position.

Another view prsented by the Landmark Baptists (not in name necessarily but in conviction) suggests that the apostles needed to be present because otherwise the Samaritan church would have no authority to exist & call itself a church.  By implication, without proper authority, its future pastors and ministry have no valid reason to do biblical ministry. According to the Landmark theory, successionism requires proper authority conferred by the ’sending’ or ‘mother’ church. Thus apostles had to travel that distance for that purpose.  Thus even today, there are those who would incline themselves to trace their lineage to ensure legality of existence. This is unbiblical let alone untenable.  Of course, we wonder if Philip wasn’t ‘authorized’ in the first place to evangelize the lost. If so, why wouldn’t the Samaritan church be ‘authorized’?

In view of the brief survey of various interpretation of this passage, how then do we have a sound interpretation of Scripture? The principle of hermeneutics suggests that we remember the unity of Scripture and therefore let scripture interprets scripture. That it, using the clear passages of scripture pertaining to salvation to explain unclear or obscure passages rather than the other way around.  This principle is applicable where the context is unclear.

We begin first by asking, what is biblical salvation? What takes place at the point of conversion?  The Epistles states clearly that at salvation the Holy Spirit is given to the person (Eph 1:13-14). The Holy Spirit seals the believer at conversion. The Holy Spirit comes to indwell the believer and secures and preserves his eternal salvation. The sealing of which Paul speaks refers to an official mark of identification placed on a letter, contract, or other document. That document was thereby officially under the authority of the person whose stamp was on the seal. Four primary truths are signified by the seal: 1) security (cf. Dan. 6:17; Matt. 27:62–66); 2) authenticity (cf. 1 Kin. 21:6–16); 3) ownership (cf. Jer. 32:10); and 4) authority (cf. Esth. 8:8–12). The Holy Spirit is given by God as His pledge of the believer’s future inheritance in glory (cf. 2 Cor. 1:21).

This is critical because Holy Spirit testify to the believer’s sonship to God (Rom 8:9, 14). Moreover that this is an instantaneous occurrence means there is no 2-stage events that take place.  Besides Paul also teaches that the Holy Spirit at salvation places the person into Christ (1 Cor 12:13). This is called baptism of the Holy Spirit.  So to say that Acts 8 teaches a 2 stage initiation into Christ is wrong.  Besides the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not something to pray for but to acknowledge as truth because it is promised by Christ. 

Why then is this anomaly? Interpretation of a passage requires one understand the historical context especially of narrative passage.  Remember the longstanding hostility between Jews and Gentiles that has been in existence for centuries.  In reaction to the Jews’ rejection of them, the Samaritans set up a rival religious group akin to Judaism except that they retain the Pentateuch while rejecting the other books of the OT. They changed the Temple location to Gerezim too.  Jesus Christ rebuke the Samaritan woman that she worships what she know not. The hour will come when people will worship God in Spirit and in truth. The hour finally came when Philip preached the Messiah and the Kingdom of God to the Samaritans. They believed but the Holy Spirit didn’t descend as in the usual cases because both Jews and Samaritans needed to know there are no rival Christian churches. a brand new entity has come into existence.  The Holy Spirit given to the Samaritans assures them that they are of the same calibre as the Jews; whereas the Jews need to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit also descended on the Samaritans just as He did on them. So they needed to accept them as brethren. This truth is later elucidated in Ephesians 2:11-22.  I believe Paul’s explanation regarding the Body of Christ is to clearly spell out to both Jews and Gentiles that they are not NT Israel but a new entity call the Church whose existence hinges on their vital living relationship to Christ; and their unity hinges on the relationship between members of the same Body; to the Head. 

So Luke the author of Acts show the reader that in Christ, all is now One – one faith, one Lord, one baptism.  No more rival factions – Jews vs Samaritans. But that in Christ, the Head of the Church – the Body of Christ – all have equal standing as the Church – comprising of Jews & Gentiles.  This truth cannot be clearer than that which Paul explains in Eph 1:18-2:22.

Acts 8: 5-25

The recent MasterCard ad goes something like this: “there are some things that money can’t buy; but for everything else there is Mastercard.”  It appears that even the secular world understands some thing about limitation and reality thereof.  In the book of Acts, a man called Simon, aka Simon Magus, thought he could acquire the Holy Spirit at a price. He was sadly mistaken for in his state, he was unwittingly used of Satan to destroy the Church.

You see, for every spiritual blessing that the Church enjoys, Satan works hard to destroy it. In fact, he is bent on destroying the Church of Jesus Christ that he will do whatever it takes to get the job done. Satan has tried using persecution in his toolbox to annihilate the church of Jesus Christ (Acts 3-4). When that failed, Satan tried corruption to hinder the blessing of God upon the Church. However, Luke the Physician informed us that God dealt with it swiftly in killing two individuals called Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5).  Later on, Satan tried another tool of his called distraction to hamper the work of the Church in Jerusalem. 

Doubtless the ploy worked well for a while. Thankfully the Lord lead the apostle to reprioritize their work, for though the work of ministering and feed ing the pooe widows are part of service to God, the apostles realize that they are to focus on their God-taken task faithfully.  Part of the solution besides realizing the cause of distraction is to get people whom one could delegate in order for greater efficiency to be carried out.

Out of the seven men chosen to serve tables (it does not refer solely to menial task of serving food but also to taking charge of financial matters too), two men were singled out in particular by Luke: Stephen and Philip.  Stephen preached boldly before the Grecian Jews in the Synagogue and being learned in Scriptures, he confounded them with the plain truth. doubtless theological debates led to name calling and insinuation and ultimately false accusation in order to silence the individual.  Stephen boldly stood before the Sanhedrin and aptly refuted their charges against him with regards to Abraham, the Law, the Temple.  Eventually the Jews turned on him and killed against the Roman law.  Yet like the Savior, Stephen prayed for his enemies.

What follows was a three-fold cause and effect of Stephen’s death: 1) his death led to intense persecution of the Church; 2) which in turn, resulted in widespread dispersion; and 3) led to massive evangelism.  Where the wind of persecution blows, the seed is sown and planted where it lands.  The Christians scattered went everywhere evangelizing the good news of Jesus Christ.  One place is the city of Samaria (vss 5-25).  Several things happened:

The task of evangelism was undertaken by believers.  Luke tells us that where the beleivers were scattered, they would eventually set up a good church.  Thus we see a pattern laid out clearly that evangelism is not the proprietary of the leadership for each one must reach one.  Unlike today where most churches expect the Pastor to do the work of the minisstry

The City of Samaria trusted in Jesus Christ through Philip’s ministry.  Perhaps the groundwork has been laid by the Lord Jesus when he went there to seek the salvation of the Samaritan woman. The effect of that encounter was the salvation of the Samaritans due to the testimony of believers there. So when Philip entered the city and began preaching the Messiah and the Kingdom of God, authenticated by miraculous works, the people believed and the net result was that there were great joy in the city (vs. 9)  Yet Luke the author of Acts highlighted one individual, “but Simon,” who also followed likewise yet was clearly not in the same spiritual relationship with God. Such could infiltrate easily into the Church despite the presence of the apostles. 

Simon’s Self-Exposure.  Nobody would perhaps have known that Simon is not a Christian had he remained silent all these while. Yet when he saw the conferring of the spiritual gift and the Holy Spirit by the apostles, he wanted that very power himself. Thus Simon offered money to purchase that capability to Apostle Peter.  This very act earned him a place in Church history not for admirable feat but dubious act of trying to purchase ecclesiastical office by money. A new word was coined “simony” to describe such individuals. 

Simon’s motivation.  What motivates Simon to want that kind of capability? It certainly wasn’t because he cared for the people. He was fascinated by what he saw as the power to confer the gift of the Holy; he wanted that power not to serve the cause of Christ but himself and to exert his influence over others once again.  Remember that Simon was (and still is) a sorcerer. One whom many once gave heed and esteemed as one of the great powers that be. A title given to these spiritualists for their power to perform magic and spectacular feats.  But because of Philip’s entrance into the city with the Gospel causes many to turn from darkness to the light, and Simon’s popularity and even control over the common folks waned drastically. Desperate to recapture such esteem, Simon had no qualm about following a movement to find out more and even give the impression that he and his antics are similar to that of the apostles.  Such deception! 

Simon didn’t realize that the gift of Holy Spirit was not even the jurisdiction of the apostles but the Holy Spirit Himself (1 Cor 12:7ff).  Even the spectacular gifts were sovereignly decided by the Holy Spirit for different individuals according to God’s sovereign plan.  By implication, he wanted the power over God!  Such audacity! 

Peter’s Response to Simon.  Peter’s response revealed several truths about Simon.  First, Simon’s lack of spirituality.  In other words, he is not a believer – an unregenerate!  “Your money will perish with you!” is a strong reprove before his face.  Peter has no right to state the destination unless he has the discernment to ascertain Simon’s spiritual state.  Some might point to verse 9 that Simon also believed and baptized as the other Samaritans did.

Biblical salvation means one must place his faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.  Mere assent to historical facts does not render one a saved person.  James 2:19 says: “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.“  Moreover, baptism does not contain efficacious grace, for it is an outward demonstration of inward transformation (Rom 6:3-6).  Without saving faith, without a regenerated state, Simon’s baptism was a mere immersion in water, period. 

Secondly, Peter also reveals that Simon was still involved in spiritual occultism.  “Gall of bitterness” has a reference in Deut 29:18 to those who were involved in occultism and bitter apostasy.  Thirdly, Simon was said to be still in captivity in sin.  When a person is in Christ, he is free indeed. To be in continual spiritual bondage reveals an unregenerate state.

Yet, Peter did not close the door on Simon but urged him to repent in order that God might forgive him lest he dies without Christ.  “Perhaps” gives the idea that God has not given up on Simon but has left the door of salvation open for him to repent. 

Simon’s reply.  Unfortunately Simon loves power more than spiritual relationship with God.  His request to the apostle shows that he, like many others, fear the consequences of their actions rather than the judgment of God himself.  It is also noteworthy that after this conversation, the Bible no longer mention Simon Magus, except that the early Church Father is said to have mentioned Simon as being a founder of some cultic group. 

No universal chuch! That’s the typical answer most Baptist preachers here would give when asked about it. You see, most of these folks are schooled in strong Landmark theology colleges or taught by missionaries with these tendencies (the locals that is).  Hence, the unwillingness to even ponder the plausibility of such teaching is prevalent. Most aren’t teachable anyway. Several are downright dishonest because while they acknowledge the fact, they aren’t willing to public admit it. Come on, preachers of truth (at least that’s what you are supposed to do), admit it and embrace it. 

The chief fear is that an affirmation of universal invisible church (UIC) doctrine would open the door for ecumenical compromises,etc. In other words, downhill slide from henceforth. A belief in UICwould do that? Man, what then, if we beleive (which we do) that a man who by believing in Christ alone for salvation would be born into the family of God? Wouldn’t that too, open up the door to ecumenical movement? What nonsense!  A belief in John 1:12 would no more emphasise ecumenical movement than a mere acknowledgement of UIC.  Fear, then, is the fuel that drives the engine of denial, and for some, the lying before their own congregation about UIC.

Why don’t these people study the bible for themselves? Well, it’s because they aren’t taught to study the scripture, but to affirm traditionally, via rote memory their invaluable tradition wrongly perceived as truth.  For if they study the scripture via context, they would no doubt have arrived at a rightconclusion.

 The doctrine of the church, where the Body of Christis concerned, unequivocably affirms universal concept.  Where would a believer be – the sphere of existence – when we say he is “in Christ”?  Really, what does it mean? It simply means he is placed into the Body of Christ at spiritual birth.  Again, landmark theology wrongly explains 1 Cor 12:13 to say it is water baptism, and refernce is to local chruch. A good question is to ask, where was Paul’s baptism? In Antioch or in Corinth. if former, then why does he uses the first person plural pronoun “we” in this text? If local church only, then why would he? Small matter? Nay, personal pronouns are important. Just see Ephesians 2 and one can easily see the switch between you and we.  significant.

The body of Christ, cannot exists without its Head (Eph 1:19-21), and it is not talking about an organization, but an organism.  The metaphor speaks of vital living relationship between the Head and every member of the Body; between each member of the body.  It emphasises the equality of existence clearly in Eph 2, whereby the BOCis a new class of people – not Jews nor Gentiles. A new community of beleivers in Christ.  All in Christ have same access by the same Spirit before God.  Because of being rightly related to Christ the Head.

Incidentally, a body cannot exists without the Head. Hence, the church cannot have its functional existence prior to the resurrection. That’s why i reject the notion that the church of CHrist started during John the Baptist or even the Lord’s earthly ministry.  No resurrection, no Body of Christ, no christianity, let alone church.  In fact, the logical sequence follows the resurrection, exaltation and appointment (See Eph 1:19-22).  That’s a sidenote.