Yes, correct. Jesus spoke those words to his church. The Twelve were the material of the first church, the one he established during his earthly ministry. It was the only church in existence at that point.
By the way, what Jesus said is a very nice metaphor. Gates are for defensive purposes. Therefore, Jesus meant for his church to be on offense against the forces of Satan, which he described as "the gates of hell." And so it was. The disciples were amazed when they came back from a mission trip where they had cast out demons.
"Even the demons were subject to us, because of your name," they said.(Luke 10:17).
Ecclesiology
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Ruiz, May 29, 2011.
Page 3 of 5
-
-
Let's walk through this:
Acts 20:17
Paul recounted his work, and gave them some farewell encouragement.
"Over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers." Overseers of what? The church at Ephesus.
"Feed the church of God." Which one? The one of which they were elders--the one at Ephesus.
"Which he has purchased with his own blood." Purchased which one? The one at Ephesus.
So, if Jesus purchased the church at Ephesus with his own blood, we may also conclude that he purchased with his own blood the church I serve, East Baptist Church of Paducah, Kentucky.
And yours. -
salavtion is still not found in "Church" but in person of jesus Christ? -
Ekklesia always means assembly, and there is no such thing as an invisible assembly. Look at Scripture where the word is properly translated, though in a secular way:
But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. (Acts 19:39)
And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly. (Acts 19:41)
--The same word "ekklesia" which is used over 100 times and translated as "church," is here properly translated "assembly." That is what the word means. They assembled in the theater. It would be impossible for these people of Ephesus to have a universal assembly. It doesn't even make sense. There is no such thing.
Where is there a universal assembly? What place to all believers gather? Who are the deacons? Who preaches the sermon? Who takes up the offering? Have you ever attended a service of all the believers in this universal assembly? You, see, it doesn't make sense. The word ekklesia can only make sense in a local setting. It always refers to a local church. -
DHK said: ↑Where is the ekklesia defined as "invisible" in the Bible?
Ekklesia always means assembly, and there is no such thing as an invisible assembly. Look at Scripture where the word is properly translated, though in a secular way:
But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. (Acts 19:39)
And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly. (Acts 19:41)
--The same word "ekklesia" which is used over 100 times and translated as "church," is here properly translated "assembly." That is what the word means. They assembled in the theater. It would be impossible for these people of Ephesus to have a universal assembly. It doesn't even make sense. There is no such thing.
Where is there a universal assembly? What place to all believers gather? Who are the deacons? Who preaches the sermon? Who takes up the offering? Have you ever attended a service of all the believers in this universal assembly? You, see, it doesn't make sense. The word ekklesia can only make sense in a local setting. It always refers to a local church.Click to expand...
I think I have clearly shown that ekklesia does not always mean assembly. Yet to make my case more cogent, here are some points.
1. ekklesia in general means called out ones in the Greek. While assembly is what is used at times, the broader context is also applicable. There is no one word in English that can capture the greek work. Your focus on this one aspect of the translation is not tenible. As I noted before, hagios and pneuma have a strict single word definition, but that does not begin to convey the intricacies of the "Holy Spirit." Ekklesia is a theological term that cannot merely be translated by one word. If, for instance, I said the Spirit was not a person, but merely breath or wind, I would technically grasp part of the definition of pneuma, but fail miserably in grasping the theological definition.
2. Ekklesia, as well, does connotate an assembly but it does not connotate a congregation, which is actually how you are trying to use the word (qahal in Hebrew has the same emphasis). Thus, in technical terms if you were to limit it to assembly, as you insist, it can only include those who have assembled. Some in our modern era have used this radical interpretation to show that it doesn't matter if we are a congregation, it only matters who assembles.
3. Colossians 1:18 (along with the other verses mentioned) show that the church God is the head of is singular. Mentioned in this thread was the use of "Family" in the corporate singular usage. Yet, the context seems to support the instance of a church, not churches. Take the verse where apostles, prophets, etc were appointed to the church. Paul moved from individuals (noted by the plural) to emphasizing the singularity of the church with two words in the Greek. In other words, the text is clear on the singularity of the church. The weight rests on those who would say the Bible differs.
4. In Colossions 1, the church is not used as a local assembly, but used as those redeemed of God. Thus, the use would be congregational not as an assembly. As a result, the word church could not be used as assembly in every instance.
I have to get back to work, but these are some thoughts to contemplate till later. -
Tom Butler said: ↑Yes, correct. Jesus spoke those words to his church. The Twelve were the material of the first church, the one he established during his earthly ministry. It was the only church in existence at that point.
By the way, what Jesus said is a very nice metaphor. Gates are for defensive purposes. Therefore, Jesus meant for his church to be on offense against the forces of Satan, which he described as "the gates of hell." And so it was. The disciples were amazed when they came back from a mission trip where they had cast out demons.
"Even the demons were subject to us, because of your name," they said.(Luke 10:17).Click to expand...
My feeling is that ekklesia in this passage is of far greater scope than the primitive apostolic church, though I would cede the possibility you present.
My view:It's all His "church" until the end of the age.
Still, like others, I balk at terms such as "universal" or "invisible" when applied to the church although I understand what folks mean when they use them:
i.e. The collective of all those regenerated children of God in heaven and/or on earth. In God's view we/they are all "assembled" before Him.
Neither do I feel that these terms are necessarily disqualified as being valid modifiers of ekklesia.
We use the terms of The Trinity, Triune, etc., but these are not found in Scipture (1 John 5:7 excepted).
The closest IMO to a collective term applied to the church in the NT epistles is the passage in:
Hebrews 12
22 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,
23 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.
But, I certainly don't use this as a test of fellowship.
HankD -
JesusFan said: ↑Christ came and died on the Cross for sinners, not the Church...
the Church is JUST the total Body of Christ saved since the Cross event...
Church not roman/baptist/methodist etc
Total number of the saved Invisible Church spread out through different churches!Click to expand...
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
I think this is pretty self explanatory(sp?). -
convicted1 said: ↑Gal. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
I think this is pretty self explanatory(sp?).Click to expand...
it is ALL those who are part of the Body of Christ.... -
DHK said: ↑Where is the ekklesia defined as "invisible" in the Bible?
Ekklesia always means assembly, and there is no such thing as an invisible assembly. Look at Scripture where the word is properly translated, though in a secular way:
But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. (Acts 19:39)
And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly. (Acts 19:41)
--The same word "ekklesia" which is used over 100 times and translated as "church," is here properly translated "assembly." That is what the word means. They assembled in the theater. It would be impossible for these people of Ephesus to have a universal assembly. It doesn't even make sense. There is no such thing.
Where is there a universal assembly? What place to all believers gather? Who are the deacons? Who preaches the sermon? Who takes up the offering? Have you ever attended a service of all the believers in this universal assembly? You, see, it doesn't make sense. The word ekklesia can only make sense in a local setting. It always refers to a local church.Click to expand...
I tend to see "Church" in the Bible as refering to"
local assembly of true believers in Christ, though there are some there in the midst not saved... Local Body of Christ
the total number of Christians that are all in Universal Body of Christ, ever since pentacost foward, when Church "officially" started by God...
So local Bodies
ALL local bodies together here on earth and all those who have gone before to heaven equals the "Invisible/Visible Universal Church!" -
Ruiz said: ↑I think I have clearly shown that ekklesia does not always mean assembly. Yet to make my case more cogent, here are some points.
1. ekklesia in general means called out ones in the Greek. While assembly is what is used at times, the broader context is also applicable. There is no one word in English that can capture the greek work. Your focus on this one aspect of the translation is not tenible. As I noted before, hagios and pneuma have a strict single word definition, but that does not begin to convey the intricacies of the "Holy Spirit." Ekklesia is a theological term that cannot merely be translated by one word. If, for instance, I said the Spirit was not a person, but merely breath or wind, I would technically grasp part of the definition of pneuma, but fail miserably in grasping the theological definition.Click to expand...
However, the meaning of the word is assembly or congregation. Read Darby's translation where it is literally translated.
If you go by etymology than "Sunday" would be the day we worship the Sun; Thursday would be the day we worship the god Thor, Saturday would be the day we worship Saturn, etc. Do you worship these gods on these days, according to their etymology, or do the names of these days have a different meaning to you?
The etymology simply gives a history of the word, not the meaning.
2. Ekklesia, as well, does connotate an assembly but it does not connotate a congregation, which is actually how you are trying to use the word (qahal in Hebrew has the same emphasis). Thus, in technical terms if you were to limit it to assembly, as you insist, it can only include those who have assembled. Some in our modern era have used this radical interpretation to show that it doesn't matter if we are a congregation, it only matters who assembles.Click to expand...
3. Colossians 1:18 (along with the other verses mentioned) show that the church God is the head of is singular. Mentioned in this thread was the use of "Family" in the corporate singular usage. Yet, the context seems to support the instance of a church, not churches. Take the verse where apostles, prophets, etc were appointed to the church. Paul moved from individuals (noted by the plural) to emphasizing the singularity of the church with two words in the Greek. In other words, the text is clear on the singularity of the church. The weight rests on those who would say the Bible differs.Click to expand...
"Man has sinned."
Which man? You? Me? Fred? Tom? Which one? The answer is all men? The singular use of "man" represents all men.
"The family is under attack today." Which family?
--One family represents all families.
So, often in the Bible the word "church" is representative of all churches.
4. In Colossions 1, the church is not used as a local assembly, but used as those redeemed of God. Thus, the use would be congregational not as an assembly. As a result, the word church could not be used as assembly in every instance.Click to expand...
I have to get back to work, but these are some thoughts to contemplate till later.Click to expand... -
Ruiz said: ↑I think I have clearly shown that ekklesia does not always mean assembly. Yet to make my case more cogent, here are some points.
1. ekklesia in general means called out ones in the Greek. While assembly is what is used at times, the broader context is also applicable. There is no one word in English that can capture the greek work. Your focus on this one aspect of the translation is not tenible. As I noted before, hagios and pneuma have a strict single word definition, but that does not begin to convey the intricacies of the "Holy Spirit." Ekklesia is a theological term that cannot merely be translated by one word. If, for instance, I said the Spirit was not a person, but merely breath or wind, I would technically grasp part of the definition of pneuma, but fail miserably in grasping the theological definition.
2. Ekklesia, as well, does connotate an assembly but it does not connotate a congregation, which is actually how you are trying to use the word (qahal in Hebrew has the same emphasis). Thus, in technical terms if you were to limit it to assembly, as you insist, it can only include those who have assembled. Some in our modern era have used this radical interpretation to show that it doesn't matter if we are a congregation, it only matters who assembles.
3. Colossians 1:18 (along with the other verses mentioned) show that the church God is the head of is singular. Mentioned in this thread was the use of "Family" in the corporate singular usage. Yet, the context seems to support the instance of a church, not churches. Take the verse where apostles, prophets, etc were appointed to the church. Paul moved from individuals (noted by the plural) to emphasizing the singularity of the church with two words in the Greek. In other words, the text is clear on the singularity of the church. The weight rests on those who would say the Bible differs.
4. In Colossions 1, the church is not used as a local assembly, but used as those redeemed of God. Thus, the use would be congregational not as an assembly. As a result, the word church could not be used as assembly in every instance.
I have to get back to work, but these are some thoughts to contemplate till later.Click to expand...
Also, I regretably have to disagree with translators that would insist upon translating ecclesia as "assembly" in every instance vs "church". That would convey an errant ecclesiology, making the church gathering no different than a gathered rable. -
Ruiz said: ↑I think I have clearly shown that ekklesia does not always mean assembly. Yet to make my case more cogent, here are some points.Click to expand...
I see you are making a distinction. It is difficult for us to know if they are of love or infatuated. No doubt when we are in the Body of Christ. -
DHK said: ↑You are wrong in your definition here. You are trying to define a word by its etymology. The etymology is not the definition. ekklesia is indeed made out of two words: ek = out of, and kalew = to call = to call out of. That is the etymological meaning of the word. Apply that to a local assembly and it is a local body of believers called out by God to carry out the Great Commission and also carry out the ordinances (baptism and the Lords' Supper) as the Lord commanded us.Click to expand...
Thus, I am not making the error you purport. Rather, I was showing how a simple definition like you are using is just as bad as a purely etymological definition.
In the case of ekklesiology, we know that the church is made up of people who were called out, thus there is some validity, but I am not basing my entire argument upon etymological definition of the word. If I were, I would not have used the Holy Spirit as an example of what not to do.
Assembly and congregation are synonyms. They mean the same thing. That is the meaning of the word ekkesia. A congregation "congregates" or gathers together in an assembly. There is no difference. The word means assembly and has no other meaning both in koine Greek or in Classical Greek. Can you demonstrate to me that it does have any other meaning by the use of reputable Greek Lexicons.Click to expand...
Secondly, as I have noted with lexicons, and no Greek Scholar would dispute what I am about to say, that lexicons often give a gloss of the word but cannot always encompass the word. I noted this in my definition of Holy Spirit. Hagios Pnuema technically is Sanctified Wind/Air. However, that word used in a theological context means the third person of the Trinity. Lexicons are limited. The prime example is found in B.B. Warfield's work on Inspiration and Revelation. He noted the theological definition of inspiration was truly God-breathed, which has richness in itself that cannot merely be defined by any lexicon. Another term, Ego Eimi, which translated literally and by all lexicons is "I I am." However, when Christ uses this theologically rich term in a theologically rich context then the word (used many times in the New Testament in it's general way) becomes a statement of divinity. ekklesia does the exact same thing.
It has already been pointed out that the usage of these nouns are used in the generic sense: a singular noun standing or representing many such units.
"Man has sinned."
Which man? You? Me? Fred? Tom? Which one? The answer is all men? The singular use of "man" represents all men.
"The family is under attack today." Which family?
--One family represents all families.
So, often in the Bible the word "church" is representative of all churches.Click to expand... -
ituttut said: ↑You present an interesting theological study, with two quotes that are identifying the belief of the local church, or that of a Messianic church. There are saved, and unsaved in these churches, assemblies, buildings, or what ever we wish to call them.
I see you are making a distinction. It is difficult for us to know if they are of love or infatuated. No doubt when we are in the Body of Christ.Click to expand... -
JesusFan said: ↑Christ came and died on the Cross for sinners, not the Church...
the Church is JUST the total Body of Christ saved since the Cross event...
Church not roman/baptist/methodist etc
Total number of the saved Invisible Church spread out through different churches!Click to expand...
Someone already responded with a great verse citation. However, I would add that an understanding of Matthew 16:18-20 also denotes that Christ's purpose was to save us to build up the church. -
HankD said: ↑Admitedly the terms "universal" and/or "invisible" are not applied in scripture to the church but what exactly then was Jesus promising to build?
Matthew 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.
An entity real enough for the gates of hell not to be able to prevail against it (not them).
HankDClick to expand...
Thanks -
J.D. said: ↑I'm interested in learning more about the comparison between "assembly" and "congregation". I've tended to use them interchangeably, but always had a gnawing suspicion that I didn't have the whole picture yet.
Also, I regretably have to disagree with translators that would insist upon translating ecclesia as "assembly" in every instance vs "church". That would convey an errant ecclesiology, making the church gathering no different than a gathered rable.Click to expand...
The assembly in the New Testament (ekklesia divorced of theological meaning) is merely people who gather. The New Testament Church must be more than people who gather. Thus, congregation is used to denote more of a covenant relationship, a membership of sorts. I am a member of a church. The church does not disband when we go home after the services. Rather, we are united together even throughout our week.
Thus, the major emphasis of congregation is unity in Christ and covenenting together. -
Ruiz said: ↑Actually, I am not trying to define it by it's etymology, but I am including the etymology as a part of my definition. My purpose in using the etymology is to show that the word itself has a broader meaning than merely an assembly. In fact, I combat the idea of pure single word etymological definitions when I show that the Holy Spirit is not merely the fullness of the substance of the two words. Rather, it is a theological term needing to be defined theologically. Thus, I use the etymology as a broadening, but I do not limit the definition to that term. It is a theological term, thus theologically defined.Click to expand...
The etymology of the word supports the literal meaning of the word.
The supposed meaning that you have given to the word "universal" flies in the face of all logic and the actual meaning. This you have not addressed. It is impossible to have "an unassembled assembly." It is a contradiction of terms which you seem to ignore. You want to insert a modern concept of ekklesia, one not formerly believed, and force this preconceived idea into the Bible where it is both theologically wrong, and wrong in its every day usage; its literal meaning. You cannot force a meaning into this word, ekklesia, that it doesn't have. It means assembly--something local. Why are you trying to make it mean the opposite of what it is--something universal? That is not doing justice to the Scripture. It is wrongly dividing the word of truth.
Thus, I am not making the error you purport. Rather, I was showing how a simple definition like you are using is just as bad as a purely etymological definition.Click to expand...
The same is true with the word "baptism." This is not a translation, but a transliteration, and the reason, again, was for political correctness. If it was translated correctly it would have been translated "immerse," for that is what the word means. But baptism can mean a number of things, as can the word "church." The words "assembly" and "Immerse" have very narrow definitions.
In the case of ekklesiology, we know that the church is made up of people who were called out, thus there is some validity, but I am not basing my entire argument upon etymological definition of the word. If I were, I would not have used the Holy Spirit as an example of what not to do.Click to expand...
No they are not. Congregation implies a covenental relationship whereas an assembly does not. The theological term of ekklesia is not merely an assembly, a gathering of people, because it would exclude people assembled who were not covenented.Click to expand...
Look at a dictionary:
Definition of CONGREGATION
1 a : an assembly of persons : gathering; especially : an assembly of persons met for worship and religious instructionClick to expand...
It is an assembly of persons. They meet for worship. The preacher looks over the congregation in front him, or the assembly gathered in front of him and begins to preach. It is an assembly. That is how the word is defined in the Bible.
Secondly, as I have noted with lexicons, and no Greek Scholar would dispute what I am about to say, that lexicons often give a gloss of the word but cannot always encompass the word. I noted this in my definition of Holy Spirit. Hagios Pnuema technically is Sanctified Wind/Air. However, that word used in a theological context means the third person of the Trinity. Lexicons are limited. The prime example is found in B.B. Warfield's work on Inspiration and Revelation. He noted the theological definition of inspiration was truly God-breathed, which has richness in itself that cannot merely be defined by any lexicon. Another term, Ego Eimi, which translated literally and by all lexicons is "I I am." However, when Christ uses this theologically rich term in a theologically rich context then the word (used many times in the New Testament in it's general way) becomes a statement of divinity. ekklesia does the exact same thing.Click to expand...
Theologically, look at the evidence:
Every epistle that Paul wrote he wrote either to local churches or pastors of local churches.
Every church mentioned in the Book of Revelation was a local church, and a letter was addressed to the pastor of that church by name.
Paul went on three different missionary journeys, and in that time he established over 100 independent local churches--local assemblies.
The word ekklesia is never used in the Bible where it cannot mean local assembly. The only way it can be used in any other way is if someone has a preconceived theology and forces that preconceived theology into the Bible. But that is not proper hermeneutics. It is eisigeses.
You have failed to demonstrate that is mentions all churches from exegesis. This is merely a theory you put forth, but you offered no evidence to back up your viewpoint.Click to expand...
As well, saying that the universal church is made up of local churches does not go against the the Universal Church doctrine.Click to expand...
Second, one has to demonstrate the existence of a universal church.
Third, one has to demonstrate that all local churches make up the universal church.
You have provided no evidence of any of those things. The word ekklesia has always meant assembly. Find me literature where it has meant anything else but assembly.
Rather, to say that the Universal Church (singular) is made up of all Christians from all time, goes against your theology.Click to expand...
Thus, you have to do more than show that it includes all local churches, you have to show that it does not include all Christians from all time.Click to expand... -
JesusFan said: ↑wasn't though the Lord referring to those individuals that would become saved in His name, who would comprise the "Invisible" Body of Christ, Church?Click to expand...
salvation is still not found in "Church" but in person of jesus Christ?Click to expand...
Page 3 of 5