Ecclesia vs. Hetaeria

I was driving to work and saw that one Church has two services one conteporary & trad

I was driving to work and saw that one Church has two services one conteporary & the other one traditional worship?

Why is this?

 

Basically it’s a marketing tool to draw in the younger crowd...the X-Gen, a contemporary service that’s more “modern”, in that the there’s usually a “praise and worship” band. The songs are from contemporary Christian artists. The dress is casual.

But not offend the older generation, they keep a Traditional service that’s more like, I guess ‘old time’ worship…piano, old traditional hymns, the congregation is dressed up more.

This of course is my experience when I visited a United Methodist Church that had both, Traditional and Contemporary services.

In XC
-

 

The Church Militant: “But ye are come to mount Sion, and unto the city of the Living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels: To the General Assembly and Elect-Church of the first born ones”— ‘panehgyrei kai ekklehsiai prohtotokohn’, literally, “all ransomed and elected first born ones”, “in heaven”, Hb12:22-23, where no human can start or end such ‘Church-Assembly’; without doubt, a spiritual ‘Church’, a spiritual ‘Assembly’ and a spiritual, ‘Elect’ of living humans, who “are come” here on earth to that spiritual, albeit “heavenly” place of worship.

 

Evangelical churches on the whole are united by the preaching of the gospel, and by the very fact that the Bible is their sole authority of faith and practice.

Those churches that deviate from that--they preach another gospel, (gospel of works, a social gospel, etc.), and have another authority (tradition, Book of Mormon, etc.), can rightly be defined as either a cult or another religion. They do not base their faith on the Bible alone. How can it therefore be called "Bible-believing," if their beliefs do not come just from the Bible?

 

In the earthly 'assembly' only, heretics are found, 2Pt2:1, Gl5:20, 1Cor11:19. Titus 3:10. The basic word, hairesis, means to choose, even to elect, Mt12:18. Cf eklegomai.

Ekklehsia appears +- 227 times, always translated either 'assembly', or, 'church'. Does this word come from 'ekkleioh'-exclude, or from 'ekkladzoh', to break off. No difs, I think. From ekkleioh/aoh: break off, shut out, exclude - no difs.
But no, ekklehsia comes from'ekkaleoh' - to call, to summon together.
May be connected with the above? I think maybe.
Fact is, the OT Church was a figure of the NT Church; so figurative meaning dominates. Therefore the true Church rather will be figurative, or, 'spiritual', rather than physical congregating.
Not excluding physical assembly; but this cannot be the true and Church of only the true believers. The Church or Assembly of the true believers is the INVISIBLE CHURCH MILITANT.

 

Hebrews 12:22-23 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

The comparison by the author of the Book of Hebrews is between Israel and the New Testament believers once they reach heaven. When we reach heaven, we, as Israel reached Mount Zion, will be assembled their as one nation or assembly. That is the only place where all believers can be assembled together--in heaven! Read the context.

 

The writer addresses the living who are already come to that spiritual city - now, on earth, in spirit and faith. The context is on earth. "In heaven" like you speak of it will never be. If not now already your habitation is the heavenly, you will not on the new earth receive your home. No earthling is ever to lift both feet from this earth for good, ever! speaking physically. Where is heaven, if not in your heart? It's non-existent.

 

And where did you get your information from. It is wrong.
It is the NT that we are concerned with. The NT uses the word ekkesia 118 times. 115 times it is translated "church" and only 3 times is it translated "assembly," all three times found in Acts 19. The word means "assembly," "congregation." That is the only meaning that it has. Even your derivation is wrong.
It comes from two words: ek and kalew.
ek is a preposition meaning "out of."
kalew is a verb meaning "to call.
ekklesia is an assembly that is called out for the glory of Jesus Christ. It is an assembly of baptized believers ready to obey Christ in the Great Commission, and to carry out the two ordinances given to the church--baptism and the Lord's Supper. This cannot be done by any so-called invisible or universal assembly--a monster that doesn't exist; something that exists only in the imaginations of others--a contradiction of terminology.

The NT church never replaced OT Israel. That is the deadly theology, if not heretical theology of Replacement theology. Israel still exists. Christianity did not replace Israel. Israel still exists. If you carry out that ridiculous theology to its rightful end, then someday Islam will replace Christianity. That is their goal, and it seems as if they are achieving it. Is that what you believe?

The Temple in the OT is no more. The Temple of the NT is the believer.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

The ekkesia of the NT is always used in a local sense. It is the only translation it can have.

 

It sounds like you deny the resurrection.

 

'ekkaleoh / ekklaoh' more precisely means "Calling Out" - meaning, to Elect or Select. The Church is the Elect, who have found communion in the spirit of holiness and belonging to Christ. That defines the Church of the Body of Christ's Own without reserve. Any earthly 'church-assembly' consists maily of the unreserved - tares, to be cast into hell fire in the last day when Christ shall come again.

 

And the bigger the assemblies the larger the gap between Called-Out and Unreserved.

 

GE your arguments don't make sense.
ekklesia means no more than an assembly. The etymology of a word is not the definition of the wordl. If it did you would be worshipping the sun on Sunday, and Thor on Thurday, for that is what those words mean. They are the days to worship the sun and god of Thor. But that is not the way that we define them today. For most of us they are defined as "the first day of the week," and perphaps the last day before the day that starts the week-end. Most of us don't think of the worship of the sun and the worship of Thor on Sunday and Thursday, yet that is their etymology of the words. The etymology does not define the words.
Look up your name and fine out what it means.
It means "spear-strong". (weddingvendors.com)
Is that what people call you? By the derivative of your name? Or does your name mean something else to most people? They etymology of the word is not the definition.

The definition of the word ekklesia is assembly. The only kind of assembly is local. You are at a dead end. Your arguments are fruitless. They are illogical.

 

Now listen to your own logic, DHK,
Your arguments don't make sense, DHK.
Ekklesia means no more than an assembly. The etymology of a word is not the definition of the word. The etymology of the word Assembly is not its meaning or full meaning, because 'Assembly', means both literally 'assembly' and, spiritually, 'assembly' - the way most of us would think of the Congregation or Communion of the saints who in faith gather together in the One Body of Christ's Own of all and in all places and times of sinners redeemed by grace through faith: The etymology of the word 'assembly' does not define that; its true and practical, actual, meaning, explains that. The etymological definition of the word ekklesia is assembly. In the realm of Faith wherein believers use and know and understand the word - its actual and true and full meaning - is both local and universal, both 'literal' and 'spiritual'.
You are at a dead end, DHK. Your arguments are fruitless. They are illogical.

 

Give your source, not your opinion.
The etymology of a word is not the definition of the word. The etymology of the word Assembly is not its meaning or full meaning, because 'Assembly', means both literally 'assembly' and, spiritually, 'assembly' - the way most of us would think of the Congregation or Communion of the saints who in faith gather together in the One Body of Christ's Own of all and in all places and times of sinners redeemed by grace through faith: [/quote]
A nice Catholic definition. And no, most of us don't think that way.
"The Communion of saints," an expression used over and over by the RCC. It has nothing to do with the ekklesia, the church. There is no such thing as a spiritual ekklesia. You are dreaming up definitions to fit your own theology. You are wrong. How does that fit "ekklesia" here:

Acts 19:39 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly (ekklesia) .

41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly (ekklesia) .

An assembly by its very definition is local. Were these also spiritual assemblies? Hardly! The same word is used for church as it is here for these assemblies that met in a theatre, that were summarily dismissed by the mayor of the town.

You are wrong. There is nothing even remotely logical about an unassembled assembly. It is a contradition in terms. It is impossible. One cannot assemble something that is universal in scope and impossible to assemble. How is it possible to assemble all believers. It isn't. You defy the very definition of the word. You don't make sense. The word doesn't have a spiritual meaning as you claim. You read into Scripture things that are not there. You offer opinions that are not substantiated.

I offer fact; you offer unsubstantiated opinion.
The word ekklesia simply means assembly. Check any Greek lexicon.

[/FONT]
Both Thayer's lexicon and Strong's give similar, though quite condensed definitions.
It is simply a word meaning "assembly."--a local assembly.


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

Some good thoughts.
On the day of Pentecost ALL Christians were "summoned" so to speak, at the church which was in Jersualem. That was the only time it was possible. That is when the church age began. From there many local churches were started, never again to be all assembled together in one place. It was an impossiblility as it still is to this day. How can one "summon" all believers today. You have no knowledge of all the believers in Asia or in Africa, and what they are doing or even their specific needs at any given time or moment. Nor do you have any way to communicate with them. You don't even know who they are. How can you summon them together into one assembly, and where would such an assembly meet?

After 200 years the kuryakon came into existence, yes, but the word ekklesia never went out of existence.
Kuryakon refers to the building of the church, which is not used in the NT.
Ekklesia always refers to the assembly of believers. That is the church. A body of believers, not the building. The early churches never had buildings. They met in homes, cemetaries (the catacombs), open fields, in earlier times--the synagogues, or wherever they could. There were no buildings set apart just for the worship of God. That was unknown in the time of early Christianity.

Your are looking at documents written at a much later date and then reading their extra-Biblical writings back into the Bible. No church in the Bible had any jurisdiction over any other church. There was no such thing as a denomination, and that concept cannot be found in the Bible. The word "bishop" simply means "overseer" and every pastor is a bishop in that sense today. There is no such thing as "Paul towing the party line." Where do you get that from? Only the RCC teaches that type of stuff.
Where do you have proof where one bishop would chastise another, and where do you have biblical proof that it is a proper or Biblical practice?

 

DHK, I am coming late to this thread, or I would have chimed to support your view. It is correct, and biblical.

I think the only thing we would see differently is the beginning of the church, which I hold Jesus established during his earthly ministry.

My view is that once Jesus had selected the twelve, the church was in existence.

But otherwise, you are right on the money regarding the local church. Paul described the congregation at Corinth as "the"body of Christ. (I Cor 12:27) He also counseled the elders from the congregation at Ephesus to feed the flock of God over which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers, which Jesus purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

And in his teaching on resolving church conflicts in Matthew 18, Jesus told his disciples if a brother rejects our attempts to deal with his sin, "tell it to the church." I don't think he was saying, tell it to the Universal Church.

 

DHK
"There is nothing even remotely logical about an unassembled assembly."

GE
Logic is most doubtful definer of the meaning of words - far worse than etymology. Because your chemical processes in your head dictates to you what 'logic' is, and mine detects to me, what 'logic' is. Etymology over against it, is impartial determinator of the outcome of the question what the meaning of a word best would be during the whole period of its use in any tongue or culture.

Now if etymology tells us when the meaning of the word assembly is BOTH spiritual and local, it is Roman Catholic, then I am in that, Roman Catholic, and not Baptist - were it true your view is truly representative of the 'Baptist-view' of what 'assembly' means.

Now I am positively sure, your view is contrary 'official' or majority or 'traditional' Baptist-understanding or 'logic' of the meaning of the word 'assembly'.

For your view, DHK,
"There is nothing even remotely logical about an unassembled assembly" is making no sense and is contradicting itself. What you actually wanted to say, is there is no 'spiritual assembly'. And that plainly is untrue, incorrect, and in fact against Jesus Christ who said God shall NOT be worshipped "here", or, "there", i.e., in 'local' assembly per se, but would be worshipped in "spirit and in truth", which is the universal invisible, Church Militant in spirit assembled in Christ through faith.

 

Thinkingstuff:
"Ekklesia always refers to the assembly of believers. That is the church. A body of believers, not the building."

GE
As I understand DHK, this is not what he argues for; it is what he contends against. DHK said many time in this discussion, assembly is people physically gathered together - building or no building; that's 'not his point'.