"I will build my church"

Purely opinion.

Purely opinion, and a false one at that. Our "only" defense? I may be Catholic, but I'm not stupid. </font>[/QUOTE]Is it purely opinion? I have just proved my point. When you have no defence, nothing to offer, nothing to contribute--you ridicule. That is exactly what you just did GraceSaves. You proved my point exactly.

The Topic is I will build my Church

Your answer: "I may be Catholic but I'm not stupid."
That's really classic. Adds a lot to the discussion doesn't it?
DHK

 

DHK,

Is there a reason you are making a public spectacle? That serves no purpose except to shift negative attention to others. Also, what or who did I ridicule? You have "proven" that the Catholic Church makes non-sense out of sense? What? You haven't proven that, and that cannot be obejctively proven. Therefore, it is purely opinion.

The last line was a joke, by the way. And it made fun of me, not anyone else.

Now, can we stop with the pointing fingers game? I believe it was Jesus Christ who said to take the log out of our own eyes before we worry about another. Your posts DHK are hardly loving and caring; their really very harsh.

But, this makes me tired and sad. This board, except for a few exceptional posters, seems to not have much Christian love. Intellectual pride is reigning, and all that does it kill whatever grace God is giving us.

And, before someone jumps on me (which would just be ironic after reading this post), I'm fully guilty of the behavior I describe. It's why I'm so tired of it. I can't imagine the number of non-Christians who have left this board in disgust, because here's so little Christ here sometimes. All the answers in the world about God are useless if He's not shining through all our human egos.

 

I agree. And that is why Anglicanism has the 'three-legged stool' of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. </font>[/QUOTE]I have read some commentaries written by Anglicans and have never heard that before from them.

But Jesus dealt with that that three legged stool you are talking about when he dealt with the Pharisees.

Certainly some of the new discoveries ofg manuscripts and extrabiblical manuscripts help us to interpret better. But if we went along the lines of tradition one would soon discpover the various schools of interpretation such as allegorical, etc.

Reason is the very thing that almost lead the the murder of Keil and Delitzsch. They barely escaped with their lives from Germany because they believed and taught creation by God. Perhaps you might know that it was the Christians who initially supported Hitler on an economic platform. Look at how realism and rationalism has played a significant part in the life of the believer today.

I believe there is only a one legegd stool. The interpretation of scripture is right or its wrong. The corerct interpretation is solely based not on what we think but what actually was. We must seek to understand the historical background and social context and any other context that comes into play to correctly interpret. We must understand the context based on the time the scripture was written and not on how we would think it might be based on the American culture today. It is not what does it mean to me, but what does it mean period. If you read the Early Church Fathers you will notice disagreements amongh them.

 

Read carefully the last few posts of mine. For your sake I will say it again:
The topic is:
I will build my Church
NOT
DHK'S personal interpretations

You, as well as the others that I have recently addressed seem obssessed with the latter instead of the former. Why don't you address the issues at hand instead of attitudes, opinions, what you believe to be "opinions," etc. You avoid the very crux of this thread. Why?
Are you afraid of your position, that it may on a Biblical basis be defeated?
DHK

 

There is always the possibility that I have not read all of the thread and do not wish to post on the topic. I only posted because you made an opinion statement, supported or not, that remains opinion. "Non-sense" is subjective, especially when dealing with theology. What makes no sense to one man may make perfect sense to another.

I would appreciate if you would not make assumptions as to what I'm afraid of, as if to belittle me. This is exactly what you said there is too much of. I'm going to go pray right now.

 

It is my opinion, based on the last two pages of posts, that the Catholics on this board would rather attack with ridicule than with Scripture. How many times in these last posts have I asked for the topic to be addressed? How many times has the topic been addressed?
The answer speaks for itself.
DHK

 

Thank you for your input, DHK. I am done.

 

Following are some definitions that I found in an online Greek lexicon (it said that it was a KVJ lexicon)

- a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place

- an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

- the assembly of the Israelites

- any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

- an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

- a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

- those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

- the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

- the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven


Now, DHK, you will notice that the lexicon gives many more meanings to the word "ekklesia" than the one and only thing that you claim it to mean.

Notice especially the last two, which are in direct contradiction to what you claim.

As with Scripture, you pick and choose what words mean and try to incorrectly assert that it can only mean what you say.

So yes, it is your interpretation </font>[/QUOTE]I have consistently said that the word means "assembly." There is only one out of those nine meanings that you gave that can be construed as a worldwide church--the second last one. And that definition is: a) a more recent definition, and b) one of the last defintions given, thus not a primary definition. It is obscure. Every other definition speaks of an assembly. The word means assembly. It is not a matter of interpretation. When 8 out of 9 definitions say that the word means assembly, don't you think you have a bit of consensus on what the word means. Use a little common sense here. The obscure definition is not the one to be used as the primary definition of the word.
DHK

 

I would agree that the local church is in fact a church, i.e. called out believers, or an assembly, if you will. However, I very much affirm that church refers to all believers in Christ, not just the local, physically assembled believers in Christ.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Obscure, why because it is last on the list?

In terms of historic Christianity, Church has meant all members of the Body of Christ, both in this world and the next.

It is only in recent times that church came to also mean your little local called out assembly to the exclusion of all other Christians. </font>[/QUOTE]You are not being honest with yourself. 8 out of 9 definitions of the word ekklesia define it as an assembly that must be assembled in one place. Only one definition, the definition that is second from the last (#8) is the one that you choose. We all know that definitions are listed in order of importance, with primary meanings listed first, and the more obscure and archaic meanings listed last. You choose the more obscure meaning of the word and insist on using it as the primary meaning. The other 8 definitions define it as assembly. What kind of sense is this?
DHK