Ecclesiology II - Gentlemen, please continue

Therefore there can be no rapture of "the" church?

 

That's correct.

The scriptures do speak of the rapture of saints, believers, but never mentions a rapture of The Church.

 

Is it not more Biblical to say that Christ is coming for his bride?
We have for more references for Christ coming for his bride, and we being the bride of Christ, then we do for the rapture of "the church".

 

Look Ruiz, you are throwing stones and on the border of assassination of character, and all to make a point that doesn't exist.

My point was that Darby, in his NT translation consistently translates ekklesia as assembly.
Young does the same thing.

Then you attacked Darby's theology for no apparent reason.
Let me give you an example of your reasoning.

The KJV translators translated ekklesia as church.
They are Anglicans. They believed in transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration. Many of them may not have been saved. To use the Bible that was translated from these unsaved men believing in these wicked doctrines would be very unwise, don't you think??
--This is the logic you are using on me.

Here is another example.
Every modern translation that we have apart from the KJV and NKJV has as its basis the Westcott and Hort. But don't you know that Hort was actively involved in astrology, and other paranormal activity; that both Hort and Westcott denied the deity of Christ. Why would you use Bibles that have been translated from a Critical Text which has its origins in Westcott and Hort.
Yet this is your reasoning when I mentioned that Darby has a good literal translation of the NT. You resort to a character assassination instead. Is this right?

 

I agree that Christ is the head of every local church, but He is also THE HEAD of THE CHURCH, which consists of EVERY BELIEVER, irregrdless their denomination. There are ORBs who are hypocrits, CoG, UB, FBC/SBC, CoC, etc. All of these local churches have hypocrits, but THE CHURCH does not have even one in her. So, I guess "family of God", or "bride" would maybe serve a little better, the bible calls the THE CHURCH the body of believers, which Christ is THE HEAD of.

I agree with this, But when we are saved, we are placed "into" Christ. We have "put on" Christ. We are placed in the body which Jesus is the head of.

I sure don't have a problem with the scriptures. I love'em all!! Again, the church at Ephesus "could" have hypocrites in them, but THE CHURCH does not have even one.

No, no, no, no, Brother!! I didn't mean it to come across like this!! The universal church, is spiritual in nature. I mean that someone who has been saved in Ethiopa, is my Brother or Sister in Christ, because we have the same Spiritual Father, God. We are joint-heirs with Jesus, and heirs of God by the blood of Christ. Those who have been truly saved are in THE CHURCH, which encompasses the whole earth. You can be part of the local church and die lost/ But, if you're part of THE CHURCH, you are IN CHRIST, and will go to heaven, guaranteed!!

FBC of Jerussalem? This was/is a pretty old church, and I have a feeling that they are just regular people, so they should be called Jerusalem Old Regular Baptist Church!! :thumbs: LOL

All these sayings , with the exception of "universal church" come from the bible. It states that Jesus is the head of THE CHURCH, that we are the BRIDE of the Lamb, etc. I guess we will just stay in disagreement. Have a good week/weekend, Brother!!

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

And Darby was a radical who had radical views on the church. His views influenced him.

As well, to beat the horse that the KJV mistranslated something was dealt with previously. Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Geneva, predecessors in translation, also translated ekklesia as "church." Thus, you can't blame the KJV people for translating it church, they were only following the acceptable thought about this word. I noted as well that Luther used Kirche and the Scottish Kirch. Since then, the vast majority of translators translated it "Church."

Thus, to lay all the blame on the KJV people, is rather ridiculous. I think I not only put this myth to rest, it is completely dead.

If you so wittingly were going to blame the Episcopal's for their mistranslating, why do you have to defend Darby in his errors? His view of the church was radical, new.

 

You are totally ignoring the context I brought out, totally ignored Ephesians 2. Yes, Ephesus was a local church. However, that is not the point Paul is making in the letter itself. In Ephesians 2 he notes that the church was made up of both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles were separated from Christ (v. 12), "alienated from the commonwealth of Israel" and strangers from the covenant promise. Paul is using the Gentiles to contrast with the Jews. Christ is said to have made both the Jews and Gentiles one (v. 14). Now, we are not longer strangers, aliens, or outside the commonwealth (the same word used for commonwealth is what the ESV translates citizens). It notes that the Gentiles are "fellow citizens".

Thus, in this context, it is rather clear the following:

1. God is referring to both the Jew from the Old Testament until the New.
2. God is referring to the Gentile from since time Jesus began.
3. That both are now the body of Christ.
4. That both were built on the apostles (New Testament) and Prophets (Old Testament).
5. Christ was the chief cornerstone of both.

Thus, Paul is referring here to Old Testament Saints and New Testament Saints are united in one body. Body is referred to throughout like in Ephesians 1:22, where he gives authority of all things to the body the fulnesss of him who fills all in all.

Jews and Gentiles are mentioned as the same body in Ephesians 3. etc.

This is the Church. Not just a local church, but a bigger entity.

 

BTW, my point is not character assasination. My point is that Darby is outside the realm of historic Christianity. That is not character assasination, that is a matter of theology. He was horrible.

Now, you did the exact same thing when you stated that Episcopals believe in Baptismal Regeneration. The difference, I am showing how one man's poor theology on the church resulted in a poor translation of the word. Throughout all of history, he changed it's translation because of his poor theology.

You tried to show the same thing, but I showed how this was the acceptable translation before the KJV.

Yet, do I think Darby is dangerous. Yes! Would I trust him in ecclesiology? Absolutely not!

 

I agree it is important to note. Both the prophets and the apostles are in one body. This one body is the Church according to Ephesians 5. Thus, the Old Testament prophets were members of the church (and, it seems by the grammar, still members).

He is going far beyond Ephesus by calling the body "one" (Eph 4:4). Those appointed were appointed for the building up of the body (Eph 4:12). Christ died for the "whole body", not just the local body in Ephesus (Eph 4:16). I showed that the church was his body (Ephesians 5:23).

The body is used throughout his other works too. Colossians 2:19 once again re-emphasizes the "whole body" under Christ. This was after Paul noted that the Body was the Church (Col 1:24).

In other words, there is an emphasis that the body is made up of people from everwhere. It is called the Church. Yes, there are local implications and application.

When we get to Ephesians 4 where it says that God gave some to be apostles and some prophets, in context he mentioned the prophets being the Old Testament prophets. The ones we are united with in one body. That is, of course, the Church.

We are fit together, by the Spirit. We are united with people in the Old Testament, how, by the Spirit. That is the context. We are not merely fit together with people in our church, but brought together with those of the past by the Spirit of God. The entire context is being brought in with the Old Testament Church.

 

BTW, my definition of the church being all God's people from all time, is supported by Ephesians 2. My main point is that we and the Jews are in the same body... which is the Church. The prophets are in the same church, where Christ the cornerstone, thus since we are the same body, and this body is the church, the church is Universal to include both the Old Testament Prophets and New Testament Apostles. Both are the foundation of my Church, and we were brought in by the Spirit with them.

 

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;(In each location) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(her)

 

It is not a matter of trusting a man's theology. That has nothing to do with it. I don't trust the theology of the KJV translators. They are Anglicans!! But I do trust their translation. I believe it is the most accurate translation that we have.

It is not a matter of the theology of Darby. That is irrelevant.
He made a good translation of the NT. That is all.

 

Well, you can say that, but I do not think he is but a person who translated with a radical agenda (and not just in ekklesiology). Other translators did so with an agenda, and some without (I don't think the KJV had an agenda for the most part). I think he had one. As outlined, Ephesians 2 clearly states the following

1. We are knitted together with the Old Testament believers.
2. This is into one body.
3. The Body is referred to as the church.

This is clear as reading the text shows that the body includes the Old Testament Saints.

 

I can nit pick away at the biases of the KJV translators also. I have already done that to some degree. The fact is that in this one point he consistently translated ekklesia as "assembly." The same can be said with Young's translation, and there may be others. Their theology does not enter into a literal translation of ekklesia. Whereas ironically, in the case of the translators of the KJV translators they had a particular bias as Anglicans that pretty much forced them to translate it "church," a looser translation that gave the word many more meanings and led to much more confusion in the area of church doctrine.

 

Darby is certainly not the only one:

Darby:
The assemblies of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla, with the assembly in their house, salute you much in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 16:19)

World English Bible:
The assemblies of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you much in the Lord, together with the assembly that is in their house. (1 Corinthians 16:19)

Young’s Literal Translation:
Salute you do the assemblies of Asia; salute you much in the Lord do Aquilas and Priscilla, with the assembly in their house; (1 Corinthians 16:19)

 

He translated ekklesia with a bias. The KJV is a good translation, they used acceptable practices that had been developed at the time. Yes, I disagree with some of their decisions, but overall it is a good translation. Darby is radically different. Spurgeon said this of Darby, "a faulty and pitiable translation of the sacred book."

You may like what he did, but overall, it is a poor translation and should be rejected.

I have addressed Young. His translation is good for those who understand Greek. Yet, like in Genesis 1:1, he chose to be consistent in all the words he used rather than being accurate. His translation philosophy has a strength, but the weaknesses is that it translates all words consistently and thus many verses incorrectly.

 

In all of this banter, you simply excuse yourself from the real issue at hand. The proper translation of ekklesia is "assembly" whether or not your opinion of other translations is good or bad.

 

DHK

I do invite you to respond to my exegesis of Ephesians 2. Is not the "body" in ephesians 2 both Old TEstament believers and Christians today? Isn't the entire context of the entire section (11-21) all about reconciling two different groups (which you agree) and thus knitting them together is about knitting the two different historic groups (the prophets and apostles) together? that is what we call the Universal Church.

No, ekklesia is not always a physical assembly. Never has been, never will be. Theological definitions must be defined by the text, not by a lexicon.

 

I answered most of that here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1690152&postcount=54

Did you bother to read it?

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: (Ephesians 2:11-12)

Look also at the next chapter as Paul continues:
For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, (Ephesians 3:1-3)

In the past the Gentiles and the Jews were separate. Now when they are in Christ they are not separated; they are one in Christ. There is no more Jew and Gentile. They are both Christians. This would be a difficult truth for the Jew to accept. Thus Paul goes on in the following verses and shows how all of them make up one local church. See my above URL

In the first few verses of chapter 3, he calls this period of time a dispensation. It is a dispensation where Jew and Gentile are one. The very fact that they could be one was a mystery before time. Now it has been revealed how it can be so. He has just described that in the previous chapter. There is no universal church. He is speaking of the assembly at Ephesus, where Christ is the head and each member makes up the building, each one contributing with his specific gifts. Read what I previously wrote. There is no such thing as a universal assembly. It can't exist.

 

I read it, but you obviously misinterpret the "knit together" and draw an out of context application to this. The entire point through the entire series is being brought into citizenship with Israel. The Greek is much more poinant in that it repeats the same words from the beginning of the section towards the end (including citizenship). The context is not only clear, your stretch to make "knit" together a part of the local church is impossible to be found in the context. Impossible.