Ecclesia vs. Hetaeria

I actually can't catch what DHK's 'point', is. I am 'Congregationalist' in that I believe the local assembly is the Church - independent virtually - autonomous, fully, and not just a tone or a finger that 'assembled' --- illogically! But that takes NOTHING AWAY from also recognising and acknowledging the reality and truthfulness of the Spiritual Boby of Christ's Own of All Believers of all times and all places in unison in SAVING Faith.

 

Question to DHK: how many bodies does Christ have?

Re the OP: I would recommend for further reading Richard Ascough's What are they saying about the formation of the Pauline churches?, in which the author puts forward four basic pre-Christian 'models' of meeting which were then adopted and adapted by the early Pauline congregations: synagogue, 'mysteries', schools (eg: the schole of Tyrannus) and social clubs.

 

DHK put together this quotation and his own conclusion, as follows:
[FONT=&quot]Although [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ekklēsia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] soon became a distinctively Christian word, it has its own pre-Christian history; and to those, whether Jews or Greeks, who first heard it applied to the Christian society it would come with suggestions of familiar things. Throughout the Greek world and right down to New Testament times (compare Act_19:39), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ekklēsia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was the designation of the regular assembly of the whole body of citizens in a free city-state, “called out” (Greek [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ek[/FONT][FONT=&quot], “out,” and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]kaleín[/FONT][FONT=&quot], “to call”) by the herald for the discussion and decision of public business. The Septuagint translators, again, had used the word to render the Hebrew [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ḳāhāl[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which in the Old Testament denotes the “congregation” or community of Israel, especially in its religious aspect as the people of God. In this Old Testament sense we find [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ekklēsia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] employed by Stephen in the Book of Acts, where he describes Moses as “he that was in the church (the Revised Version, margin “congregation”) in the wilderness” (Act_7:38). The word Thus came into Christian history with associations alike for the Greek and the Jew. To the Greek it would suggest a self-governing democratic society; to the Jew a theocratic society whose members were the subjects of the Heavenly King. The pre-Christian history of the word had a direct bearing upon its Christian meaning, for the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ekklēsia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the New Testament is a “theocratic democracy” (Lindsay, Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, 4), a society of those who are free, but are always conscious that their freedom springs from obedience to their King.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If, as is probable, the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ekklesia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of Mat_18:17 is the Christian [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ekklesia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of which Christ had already spoken to Peter, the words show that He conceived of the church as a society possessing powers of self-government, in which questions of discipline were to be decided by the collective judgment of the members. (ISBE) [/FONT]
Both Thayer's lexicon and Strong's give similar, though quite condensed definitions.
It is simply a word meaning "assembly."--a local assembly."

GE:
It seems to me you haven't read your own quotation, DHK!

This is a fruitless conversation; a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still, my good old friend now deceased used to say. Tot weersiens, oom Org!

 

Got a link for that quote, GE? Also, my Dutch is not what it used to be; I think I got the first bit - "Goodbye, Uncle - " but can't quite get the last word?

 

If the emboldened part is the part you are referring to, the author is stating that even in Matthew 18:17 the word ekkesia is referring to a local assembly, an assembly where a self-governing body of individuals are able to carry out matters of discipline such as they did in the local church at Corinth (1Corinthians 5:1-5), when the excommunicated a member for incest.

You can't get a universal church out of that. It is impossible. In the entire quote there is no alluison to any such thing as a universal church. The word is used only as an assembly, a local church.

 

Our authority is the Word of God. Who is Clement to correct Paul.
Who is Clement to corrupt the Word of God?

 

I might be able to accept the concept of a Universal Church, if I could figure out the purpose of its existence.

Local congregations have a clear, unequivocal commission. If the Great Commission is meant for the Universal Church, then it is a huge failure, since it actually carries out none of the marching orders given by the Lord Jesus. In terms of obeidence to the Great Commission, the Universal Church is truly universally invisible.

If one seeks to identify the Church Militant, it will look in vain unless it visits a vibrant, missional, evangelistic local congregation.

And I am pretty dense, but I have yet to grasp GE's concept of a spiritual assembly as he defines it.

Maybe further elaboration will help me understand exactly the purpose of the Universal Church's existence, and GE's "spiritual assembly."

 

GE
'Org' was his name, for 'Georg' - but you're dead if you called him the English 'George'! 'Orx' the gutteral Afrikaans 'g'.

 

You are mistaken in that you infer that worship must be confined to the "church." Where does the Bible teach that? It doesn't.

Jesus taught: And when you pray enter into your closet, and when you are in secret your Father to whom you pray to in secret shall reward you openly.
--That is not praying in church. That is private prayer, private devotions, private worship. There is more emphasis in the NT about worship being private than there is on public worship.

Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. As the Temple of the OT was physical, and all sacrifices had to be taken there, the temple of the NT is our own bodies and we must worship with them (1Cor.6:19,20). Jesus set the example in Mark 1:35, when a great while before dawn he went privately up into a mountalin, alone, there to pray--to be alone with His heavenly Father. We need to do the same thing. Most of worship is not corporate but private. And the Bible says nothing about it being connected with other believers, as you wrongly suggest.

Public worship is done properly in a church, the ekklesia, God's appointed institution for this day. Every epistle that Paul wrote he wrote either to a local church or to the pastor of a local church. That signifies what importance God put on the local church.

 

The Corinthian church was an autonomous church with its own pastors and deacons. Unless Clement was a member of that church living there in Corinth he had no business sticking his nose into the business of that church. That would be akin to me giving authoritative directives to your pastor in telling him how to run his church. Churches are independent of each other. Clement should have stuck to his own business no matter what history says. You are reading history through the rose-colored eyes of the RCC.

 

DHK:
"You can't get a universal church out of that. It is impossible. In the entire quote there is no allusion to any such thing as a universal church. The word is used only as an assembly, a local church."

GE:
What is this?:
"a theocratic society whose members were the subjects of the Heavenly King. ... the [FONT=&quot]ekklēsia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the New Testament is a “theocratic democracy” ... a society of those who are free, but are always conscious that their freedom springs from obedience to their King.[/FONT]" May I add, 'heavenly' King. Whether they ever assembled as the particular believers of the city or no, they are citizens of another Kingdom. "My Kingdom is NOT of THIS WORLD".
Again: Both Christian assembly in town and Christian Assembly extra-terrestrial, is the ONE and CHRISTIAN meaning of the word "ekklehsia" / "Elect" / "Assembly". I accept both; you receive - in effect - none. Because by denying the Assemblies of Christ being a spiritual Assembly of all believers, you cannot have it in town.

 

You stll don't get it do you? Let's try it again:
the [FONT=&quot]ekklēsia[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the New Testament is a “theocratic democracy”
The assembly of the New Testament is a "theocratic democracy"--that is the local church, for it head is Jesus Christ. The head of every Bible-believing church is Christ. That is what makes it theocratic. It is local in nature, not universal. There is no such thing as a universal church. It defies the definition of the word "assembly" There is no such thing as a universal assembly. That can't happen until all believers are assembled in heaven. Is there no logic in your in your thinking? Where does such a universal assembly meet or congregate? Please tell me.


[/FONT]

 

Tom Butler:
"Local congregations have a clear, unequivocal commission. If the Great Commission is meant for the Universal Church, then it is a huge failure, since it actually carries out none of the marching orders given by the Lord Jesus. In terms of obeidence to the Great Commission, the Universal Church is truly universally invisible."

GE
Local congregations have a clear, unequivocal commission. Agreed.

TB:
"If the Great Commission is meant for the Universal Church, then it is a huge failure"

GE
Never! Self contradictory! Your - no, the real 'local' assembly of Penetecostal attendants, fully succeeded in their mission. Your problem now is, You say this 'Assembly's' commission is also the commission of the Church of all time - thus implying the reality of the Church of all time - the 'invisible assembly' of all believers - and at the same time denying it. All 'local assemblies' after this the first 'local assembly' that assume the prerogatives of this the first 'local assembly' are fake-Christians, to put it bluntly -- THEY, are the huge failure. It has the potential in fact to make of all subsequent to the Apostolic 'local assembly' local assemblies and consequently of all consequent Christianity or 'spiritual assembly', a huge failure --- JUST for assuming what does not belong to it 'locally'; making of post-apostolic churches dens of thiefs. WHY?: "... since it actually carries out none of the marching orders given by the Lord Jesus. In terms of obedience to the Great Commission, the Universal Church is truly universally... disobedient: IF, it takes for itself the marching orders of the first and local assembly of the saints, the Apostolic, Pentecostal Church.

 

Yes, the Scripture was written by the Apostles (and the prophets of the OT), and Christ has all authority. Thus the authority of the Apostles was recognized everywhere. But the authority of the ECF was not universally recognized, nor should it have been. The autonomy of the local church had been established by the Apostles far before then. Consider what Paul did.

Acts 14:21-23 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

The Apostle Paul went back to all the churches that he had been to. He ordained elders in each one. He continued there, exhorted them (discipling them), and commended them to the Lord. He was doing the work of a missionary. As you already noted: he had started these churches. He had a vital connection to them.

 

DHK:
"Jesus taught: And when you pray enter into your closet, and when you are in secret your Father to whom you pray to in secret shall reward you openly.
--That is not praying in church. That is private prayer, private devotions, private worship."

GE
Thanks for having explained yourself.

 

But please tell me, just as a matter of interest, What for, or how, do you understand the Kingdom of Christ, the Kingdom of heaven -- not as The Assembly of all saints?

 

DHK:
"That can't happen until all believers are assembled in heaven. Is there no logic in your in your thinking?"

GE:
The logic in my thinking is simple: That that happened and is daily happening until all believers are assembled 'in heaven' or rather "With Christ hidden in God" Theos God being their King and His reign the limits of their dominion.

Your reasonings remind me of my struggles with BobRyan over the First Resurrection co-reign of the saints with Christ, or The First Resurrection, where he and his fellow SDAs deny the reality of it in and as the Christian era or dispensation. They too, place it 'in heaven' only after Christ will have come.