Who's authorized to baptize whom?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The church is local. It cannot be otherwise.

So in other words, Paul meant to say, "the bodies of Christ" not the body of Christ.

1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.

While Paul writes to local assemblies, nowhere does he imply that he is saying the local assembly comprises the body as a whole. Rather that each assembly is part of the whole.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

So in other words, Paul meant to say, "the bodies of Christ" not the body of Christ.



While Paul writes to local assemblies, nowhere does he imply that he is saying the local assembly comprises the body as a whole. Rather that each assembly is part of the whole.

Not bodies, plural. Never said that.

Nowhere does Paul say that the local assembly is a part of the whole. Rather, individual members of a local assembly were part of the whole Body.
Jesus sent seven messages to the seven churches. He didn't send seven messages to 'the church'. The church is by definition a local assembly. If a local assembly is not the Body of Christ, then nobody is a member of the Body of Christ, because nobody is a member of anything BUT a local assembly.

Are there many churches? Yes, there are. Nowhere does the Bible speak of any universal 'church'. That is a catholic construct.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If a local assembly is not the Body of Christ, then nobody is a member of the Body of Christ, because nobody is a member of anything BUT a local assembly.

this seems to deny that someone can be the Body of Christ, yet not be a member of any local church.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

this seems to deny that someone can be the Body of Christ, yet not be a member of any local church.

A member of the Body is a member of the church, because the church is the Body. And the church is a local assembly of two or more people.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A member of the Body is a member of the church, because the church is the Body. And the church is a local assembly of two or more people.

ah--as opposed to "a church," i gather. I usually capitalize that Church, to differentiate them. At least if i am understanding you correctly.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ah--as opposed to "a church," i gather. I usually capitalize that Church, to differentiate them. At least if i am understanding you correctly.

'Humanity', ie human nature, can only exist as specific individual humans. There is no 'humanity' outside of the individual persons who are classed as 'humans'. Likewise, 'the church' does not exist except as individual assemblies of two or three (or more) believers. There is no 'church' except the local church, just as there is no 'humanity' except individual human beings. The idea of an invisible, abstract 'universal church' is not only unbiblical, it is illogical and irrational as well. You can not be a part of a called out assemblage of persons unless you are actually a part of an actual called out assemblage of persons.

You can not 'gather together' unless you and someone else actually gather together. The Bible doesn't recognise teleconferencing as a viable substitute for gathering together, although individual members of a local assembly may be 'gathered together in spirit' with the gathered assembly when it gathers together if they themselves are temporarily absent physically.

The very meaning of the word ekklesia requires a local assembly of called out individuals. When a grand jury is convened real people actually and really meet together and actually really do stuff together. Two guys on separate continents do not constitute the jury.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The idea of an invisible, abstract 'universal church' is not only unbiblical, it is illogical and irrational as well. You can not be a part of a called out assemblage of persons unless you are actually a part of an actual called out assemblage of persons.

although i might agree at the skype example, i essentially do not agree, but would like to shepherd my witnesses for this tonight, and pick it up in the morning. I'd be interested to read any support you have for this snippet.

[mfblume]

It's the word's definition.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

So in other words, Paul meant to say, "the bodies of Christ" not the body of Christ.

^

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's the word's definition.

The definition must fit the context of the passage.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Was Christ just speaking of the church which would first be established in Jerusalem? So is I am in the Jerusalem church I am not part of the church in Corinth? There for I better not take the letters to Corinth as letters written to me as they are a separate body and hence forth not to me.

Common guys we know that does not work. While the body is composed of individual bodies, we are all part of the greater Body of Christ.

Christ did not tell Peter whatsoever he binds in Jerusalem. He said the earth.