Do you believe the Church started at Pentecost?

To Jedi Knight:

Cool moniker by the way, and avatar. I have given some thought to what you say about the Holy Spirit indwelling OT saints, as well. I have never fully cranked thru it all tho. Would you mind sharing how you came about believing this? What key scriptures, thoughts, consistency of doctrine, etc., led you to this position?

 

Whoa..Whoa...Whoa!!!!
First, how in the world did you come to the assumption that the comments negitive aspect is dealing or speaking about you?

So again, that comment has NOTHING to do with you or anyone else on this thread that are speaking with.

 

I said,

"Plainly put, Christ's ekklesia which He said He would build, did not get changed from exactly what that word meant to those who first heard Him say it in Matthew 16."

Allan said, "What..? Huh.."

Words paint pictures in our minds, words mean things. Matthew 16, verse 18, is the first scriptural reference, the very first notion or inkling we have, that Jesus will build an institution/organization for Himself, called by His name, called His body, that would also be His "ekklesia."

Here is B. H Carroll:[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1]

What, then, etymologically, is the meaning of this word?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1] Its primary meaning is: - An organized assembly, whose members have been properly called out from private homes or business to attend to public affairs. This definition necessarily implies prescribed conditions of membership.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1](1) This meaning, substantially, applies alike to the ecclesia of a self governing Greek state (Acts 19:39),[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1](2) the Old Testament ecclesia or convocation of National Israel (Acts 7:38), and[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1](3) to the New Testament ecclesia.[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1]Locality inheres in Ecclesia. There can be no assembly now or hereafter without a place to meet.[/SIZE][/FONT]

The Disciples knew of no entity, that Jesus would call an "ekklesia" that was other than this. They did not immediately, or at any time, conceive of Christ's ekklesia as being all these different ekklesias in the world combined into one, or any 'invisible', 'spiritual' 'out there somewhere' entity either. Jesus specifically used a specific Greek word, with a specific meaning, to convey a precise idea. that is what the disciples thought of and understood, when Jesus made this statement.

 

First, I'm not going to turn this thread into a 'what is considered Lordship and what is not. If you would like to start another thread on that topic, that is fine. However it is fairly well noted on here that I am not a Lordship advocate.

With that said, there was also no offence taken at all by me nor was it stated as one who has taken offence. I was merely addressing the fact they were not similar except by assumption.

If there is a reason 'you' feel it is simlar please tell me how you see them as similar (which is another word for meaning almost the same).

What is the gospel of the NT.
Does it not state - we are to believe the death, burial, and resurrection, as says the scripture?
Thus in order to believe the above you must have a basic understanding of why He had to die and why or better how He could raise Himself from the dead?

 

I think a table should actually and rightly be called a chair. I am tired of people trying to make this word mean what it has always meant -- how bigoted. I will argue for this based on how many people I see sitting on them. Benches and chairs are used for footstools in many of these situations, I will therefore call them footstools. It is evident in many situations that tables are the preferred sitting furniture. Tables are at the preferred height for many sitting/lounging situations. It is easier for older or infirm people to not have to go all the way down to a footstool (chair) to sit -- and much easier to get back up again! Tables have much wider areas to comfortably plop down. Many people can gather together in tight, friendly ways on broad tables. It is easier for lovers to cuddle on tables. It is very clear that tables are actually chairs. If everyone else starts to see this and agrees with me (how could they not?), soon Etymologists will have to assign a sub-definition to chairs, stating that tables are also chairs.

The only problem is, when I go to visit the preacher, and he says, "Please, rest yourself on my chair." What do I do?

[FONT=&quot]How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. ~ Abraham Lincoln[/FONT]

 

Mr. Carrol is partially correct and I do not dispute what he has given.
However what he 'fails' to illistrate is that the etymology of word which speaks specifically to establishing the meaning or defintion of the word ( that being called out from one place into another as a new single entity) does not invalidate the church being a unversal entity/body - spiritually. Thus while he shows the illistrations of commonly understood physical manifestion across the board he forgets to note how that defintion functions properly and spiritually without violating any aspect of the words etymology. IOW - He doesn't note that the change in reality (from physical to spiritual) does not change the meaning and thus does not change etymology of the word only the location.

The 'idea' of "ekklesia" is of being called out of one place and into another as a single entity. We see this NOT ONLY in the physical realm, of which is the logical conclusion of the church instititution/congregation and is that to which Mr. Carrol is speaking in your quote. However are believers only called from the homes to a local place where we are gathered to together into a new group/congregation? No.

This is not what scripture says but it ALSO speaks to the spiritual realm in the SAME manner.
We are called 'from' darkness into light, from the power of Satan to God..ect..(along with a few others which speak to the same thing), We are called 'into' Christ Jesus where we all become one new entity/body.

So biblically the calling of believers is not just from our homes to another location but that there is a spiritual aspect of the 'ekklasia' being called from one place into another and that we are all called into this one place, gathered together with and in Him spiritually. Not seperately making us in many Christs but into one Christ making one body.

 

It is apparent you aren't listening nor does it SEEM that you understand what etymology entials.
In either case - what you seem to be missing and is the only distinction that is made is not in the defintion but in the realm where our calling our from and into, takes places - the spiritual realm. Thus the defintion remains in exact form to it's etymoloical view but relation to a different realm other than physical.

 

Can anyone here say "gobbledygook?"

Allan, you can not seriously use a 'spiritualizing' interpretation technique of this Greek word with so much clear strong scriptural evidence as to it's use and meaning -- and still expect to be taken seriously!

How many instances of 'Jesus amidst the 7 churches', and 'the churches in Asia', and 'the church which is at', etc., before you merely accept that Christ's ekklesia is the same as any Greek ekklesia before it -- hence the reason to intentionally choose it to describe His ekklesia. It is spiritual, yes, in that it is made up of born-again souls gathered together for the purposes of worship, and accomplishing the affairs of the kingdom of God, but it is only found in/at a physical location -- period -- just as the word means.

BTW, I notice your attempt to change the phrase, 'called out to', or 'called unto', which is accurate, to the modified 'called into', as a very weak attempt to bolster your already weak position. No offense to you Allan, just debating the matters at hand.

 

So now we have to entertain rhetoric and ad-homs. Come on, do you wish do debate of sling mud?

I spoke to the biblical distinction of location of which stands consistant with the etymoligical meaning discussed. Since the very word is USED in the this manner (as evidenced by many Greek scholars- a few of whom I already referenced) the only conclusion arrived at is some seemingly ignore the clear meaning of a passage for a conceptual idea. While this is said of both sides, the Greek only agrees with one. It seems the problem in our discussion is your tendency to willingly overlooking the clear etymological usage when applied to people in a spiritual sense. This isn't choosing to look at it in a different way nor in a convient way, but is demanded by context in the both the Greek and properly translated English.

If you don't understand this aspect of the argument the in truth, there is no need to continue. I have already given three reknown Greek scholars (even from differing theological perspectives) who all agree, as do all others I can currenty get my hands on, that 'ekklasia' when being used to describe a group physically called out and gathered together as a single entity, it should be understood in that manner. And when it is spoken of spiritually as a group called out and gathered together as a single entity spiritually, then THAt IS how it is meant to be understood. 1 Cor 12 is a perfect example to this as the Greek leaves NO doubt as to the spiritual nature of the meaning - of which maintians it etymological usage.

Do you understand Greek? Seriously, I'm not trying to be demeaning here.
A word is defined by it's usage. I have shown 1 such verse that is irrefutable in the Greek referencing all believers are baptized into one body, NOT local but spiritual, of which the local church reflects in a physical nature.
So yes, when it speaks to a local church it is to be understood as local church and this most common usage as it addresses specific bodies in matter of spiritual life and ministry but it was not ONLY for that local body but to be destributed to others because they were all ONE and all in need of the same instructions. One Spirit, One faith, One baptism, One body.

Your biggest problem here is that you can not, no matter had how bad you like to, to seperate each church spiritually from another. It is not only improbable but impossible. Are we (born again believers) not of Christ; and if we are of Christ, are we not of one faith; and if of one faith; are we not of one Spirit; and if of one Spirit are we not also of one body; and if of one body is it not Christ?

*sigh.. you aren't understanding the argument at all, nor are you actaully listening. Is there a distinction between the spiritual body and physical one, yes. Are there different functions that each will due/partake in at different times? Yes.

Do we find any kind of examples of something being one but seperate and having different functions at differing times but still being and holding to the same nature and being. Yes. God Son in the flesh and God the Holy Spirit as..well...spirit

If you 'were' debating matter at hand I would not have to keep repeating myself. No, I don't think you understood the arguement at all. We ARE called out from..AND...called into - this is the meaning of ekklasia. They are the same in meaning, not similar, same.

 

Allan, are you causing trouble again? You know good and well that the true church did not start until 1845 when the SBC was founded.

 

Ya know.. I was actually going to reply with that, but figured it would misunderstood

I don't go looking for trouble.. it just seems to find me

 

Allan said:

"I spoke to the biblical distinction of location of which stands consistant with the etymoligical meaning discussed. Since the very word is USED in the this manner (as evidenced by many Greek scholars- a few of whom I already referenced) the only conclusion arrived at is some seemingly ignore the clear meaning of a passage for a conceptual idea. While this is said of both sides, the Greek only agrees with one. It seems the problem in our discussion is your tendency to willingly overlooking the clear etymological usage when applied to people in a spiritual sense. This isn't choosing to look at it in a different way nor in a convient way, but is demanded by context in the both the Greek and properly translated English. "

My response:

There is no such thing as clear etymological usage of ekklesia applied to people in a spiritual sense. I have already quoted B. H. Carroll, and can others as well. I have also provided links within this thread to George W. McDaniel book on NT Churches. In which he provides a listing (at the back of the book) of the instances of ekklesia to be found throughout the NT. He then applies the sense of the word, by it's usage, as local, institutional, or in glory. Have you bothered to look at these? It is a very good exercise to see if you agree, and why or why not with his determinations, better yet read the whole book. The point is, What your Greek scholars actually say about the Greek (not their interpretation on various scriptures) in no way changes the usage or application of it. I have already given you the right understanding of it -- based on consistent usage.

Which brings up a point, I absolutely agree that it is possible for anyone to try to make something fit a given belief to fit an outcome -- and I am guilty of this to a large, and may I add very biblical degree.

For instance, once I understand that the bible very clearly teaches that Jesus substitutionary death on the cross for me, is the only means of my salvation, one can (and many do) attempt to throw obscure passages at me, or use circular reasoning, etc., to get me off track on this. I cannot be swayed. The obscure passage here or there must give way to the clear teachings.

We do not have a total lock in understanding of all passages or how they apply. We know and have reason to trust that God is perfectly consistent, not arbitrary, and wants us to understand. Again, I use baptism as a parallel example. Once I understand the clear teachings that baptism is via immersion of a born-again believer, the matter is settled. Many a pedo-baptist will attempt to convince that infant sprinkling is also ok -- it is still baptism they say. I say nay, I must interpret whatever passages they throw at me in light of the clear and incontrovertible truth of believer's immersion. (By the way they all can be!) To accept anything else is to do grave harm to God's truth -- it is not mine -- and the mission of His Church.

The same is true with ekklesia. The overwhelming and clear evidence is that it is a word used to reference a local entity. Chair does not mean table, or vice-versa, even tho there may be similarities, and even if tables have been used like chairs for millenia. Likewise, ekklesia does not now, nor ever has meant, anything other than a local, visible group. This one word does not mean two very different things -- this is called confusion -- of which God is not the author (1 Cor. 14:33). This allows for divided loyalties, and misrepresentation of a very serious and holy thing -- the very body of Christ. We are all obligated to represent God on this earth HIS way, not "whatsoever is right in our own eyes."

We should have no real or full expectation of God's blessings on OUR endeavors if we are not careful to represent Him to the world in ONLY His way. As I have previously referenced, we learn from the precise way in which he designed and built His Tabernacle, and then His Temple, that it is a very BIG DEAL to God, just how we represent Him to the world. The same care must be given to His ekklesia, which He said He would build -- and then did so.

The church you argue for is totally inconsistent with the clear teachings of what Christ's ekklesia is, and how it functions. I may not be able to argue all points to your satisfaction -- tho I will do my best. The reason I debate is for the truth and God's glory. I argue from the clear and the consistent, not from the obscure and "maybe."

Allan said:

"If you don't understand this aspect of the argument the in truth, there is no need to continue. I have already given three reknown Greek scholars (even from differing theological perspectives) who all agree, as do all others I can currenty get my hands on, that 'ekklasia' when being used to describe a group physically called out and gathered together as a single entity, it should be understood in that manner. And when it is spoken of spiritually as a group called out and gathered together as a single entity spiritually, then THAt IS how it is meant to be understood. 1 Cor 12 is a perfect example to this as the Greek leaves NO doubt as to the spiritual nature of the meaning - of which maintians it etymological usage."

My response:

You have not provided any experts to confirm what you say here about it being applied to a spiritual entity the same as to a local visible one -- that is your interpretation, and stretch, of what they say. Also, see above.

Allan said:

"Do you understand Greek? Seriously, I'm not trying to be demeaning here.
A word is defined by it's usage. I have shown 1 such verse that is irrefutable in the Greek referencing all believers are baptized into one body, NOT local but spiritual, of which the local church reflects in a physical nature.
So yes, when it speaks to a local church it is to be understood as local church and this most common usage as it addresses specific bodies in matter of spiritual life and ministry but it was not ONLY for that local body but to be destributed to others because they were all ONE and all in need of the same instructions. One Spirit, One faith, One baptism, One body."

My response:

See above. Also, I have already pointed out that you and I did not get baptized together, period. We did not share the ONE same baptism, period. We did however, possibly, experience the same TYPE of baptism -- that of immersion of a believer. Likewise, there is ONE TYPE of body, for we are clearly not all in the same ekklesia. Ekklesia equals body, body equals ekklesia.

Allan said:

"Your biggest problem here is that you can not, no matter had how bad you like to, to seperate each church spiritually from another. It is not only improbable but impossible. Are we (born again believers) not of Christ; and if we are of Christ, are we not of one faith; and if of one faith; are we not of one Spirit; and if of one Spirit are we not also of one body; and if of one body is it not Christ?"

My response:

See above. Also, you way misunderstand the purpose and history of the church letter by your prior response to my reference to it. This letter in fact verifies that each body or church is separate and independent -- it is a very stronghold of baptist belief. It does in fact vouch for the veracity of the Baptism. In practice, it is voted on by the whole congregation, for this very reason -- even tho many could care less and most merely go thru the motions. The letter verifies that you had a legitimate baptism, and/or that you have not been disciplined out (a member in good standing, or bad) -- of THAT body -- which would nullify your baptism -- to ANY OTHER BODY of like faith & order.

You have never addressed what I have repeatedly hammered home to you:

There is an entity that fulfills what your heart and mind are trying to make ekklesia fill -- it is synonymously called, The Kingdom of God; The Kingdom of Heaven; The Kingdom of Christ. Try studying out THIS entity, and maybe you will see in it, that which you are trying to squeeze into the definition of ekklesia. Christ's ekklesia does not need to, nor indeed can it, encompass all the aspects of this other entity. God has instituted them both -- separately -- for separate purposes -- let us not confuse them -- to God's glory!

 

Just a light hearted comment brother. You are one of the more gracious ones on this board.

 

God is working His purpose out as year succeeds to year
God is working His purpose out and the time is drawing near
Yet nearer and nearer draws the time, the time that shall surely be
When the earth shall be filled with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea

Hey saturnneptune, I really like your signature poem.

 

Then you haven't been keeping up.

As far as I can find - you only quoted Carrol.

I couldn't find any links to McDaniel

Both Carrol and McDaniel agree there is single body of believers in glory. I'll come back to this as it is an important point they neglect to expound.

What those Greek scholars state actaully contradicts, withou question, you proposed view, as I have shown and even you own sources have shown (in a sense that the ekklasia is in glory- though future). And it is those same scholars who translate the original languages into English. I think they just might know a thing or two about a thing or two.

I'll address a few their misconceptions here:

1. Can you or I or they, point to one group of churches and say "There is The One True Church!" - The 'church' Jesus built or is building.

..b. Scripture states there is one body, Eph 4:4, not many bodies. As a point of interest I can't find where this phrasing anywhere in scripture of His 'body' being many.

2. In the local church one can choose if they wish to be apart of the church... Yet in the other God places them the church IOW - One cannot "join" the church by their own volition. Instead they are "added" by the Lord Himself when saved - Ac 2:41,47

... In your view it must be assumed that all members of that body are saved because they are joined to it and therefore Christ. And if they are apart of that body then Christ MUST be their savior since He is the saviour of THAT body (Eph 1:22-23). Therefore ALL members of that that body must be saved as He is the saviour of the body. Yet we know this is not true with respect to the local body.

There are SO many such things that put hole upon hole in your view that I it would be time exhausting to put them up.

You did no such thing nor any 'valid' evidence for your view. You actaully do more harm to the reading of certain passages in place of it's designed meaning.

Uh.. No. If a passage, in context, contradicts your 'clear' teaching, even one, you need to re-think you 'clear' teachings and re-examine that passage. We are not told to put away, set aside, or dismiss passages for the sake of maintaining a theological view.

The evidence is clear in context. Yet when context contradicts that teaching you can not maintian such a teaching. When context establishes a local body being refered to, then it is a local body. But if context dictates it is a spiritual body, then, regardless of our opinions, it is what it is.

Again, you are without a doubt - wrong.
Historically, via church history, it was known as both.
In the Greek it is shown as both.
In the English it is shown as BOTH.



I'll get to the rest later on.. Thanks for the interaction

 

Here are the links to both B. H. Carroll's, Ecclesia - The Church:

http://www.theologue.org/Ecclesia/Ecclesia-BHCarroll.html

And George W. McDaniel's, The Churches of the New Testament:

http://www.archive.org/stream/churchesofnewtes00mcda/churchesofnewtes00mcda_djvu.txt

Here is something that is somehow being missed by you, which point I made much earlier in the thread, Body = Church (ecclesia) and Church (ecclesia) = Body. They are one and the same institution, per Eph. 1:22,23:

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

Any and all of the qualities, limitations, etc., that apply to the one must therefore apply or adhere to the other. Where there is plurality of churches - there is plurality of bodies. When Christ stands amidst the 7 churches in Rev., He is standing amidst 7 bodies, all properly relating back to Him as the head. Each is the body, each has Christ as it's head, and is separate and independent from the others. Hence, the Baptist doctrine of independent, autonomous churches. Where there are plural ekklesias, we cannot then make ekklesia (singular) all of a sudden mean all those 7 ekklesias combined as one. This is hermeneutically incorrect.

Why do you refuse to respond to or realize that 'The Kingdom of Heaven' is the institution that you are trying to make the Church into? Do you not recognize this entity?

 

Allan, let me jump in here while awaiting comments from others.

1. I believe Baptists are the closest in basic doctrines to the church Jesus established during his ministry. (I know you disagree about the origin.) While not perfect, I do believe that Baptists most nearly qualify as the True Church--as are, of course, those congregations who may not bear the name Baptist, but are of like faith and order.

To be sure, not all those who call themselves Baptist can qualify. For instance, I have a problem with the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists.

1 a. But there are many bodies, and they are called local churches. Paul described the congregation at Corinth as THE body of Christ (12:27) He also described the congregation at Ephesus as THE church of God. It is that congregation over which the Holy Spirit had made the elders overseers. (Acts 20:28)

It was this same Paul who rote to the congregation at Rome "The churches of Christ salute you." Or, to put it another way, "The bodies of Christ salute you." (Romans 16:16)

2. I agree with the premise, but disagree with the conclusion. The Lord, who does build his church, is the one who adds to his church. In the case you cited, the church to which the Lord added daily was the congregation at Jerusalem. But churches are also the guardians of their own doors. For instance, Paul went up to Jerusalem to join the church, but they wouldn't accept him until Barnabas vouched for him.

In reading Acts 9, I think we can also make the case that Ananias, a member of the congregation at Damascus, took Saul to the disciples there, and vouched for him.

It also seems clear to me that Saul was baptized into the church at Damascus; and those whom the Lord added at Jerusalem were added through water baptism.

 

Let's look at this from a different view. Which of the two views are taught primarily in church history. Especially with early church fathers closest to the apostles themselves and being taught by those who taught them.
Note first the Apostles Creed:

Remember that catholic' means universal.


According to church historian Philip Schaff in his notable work "History of the Christian Church". We note that from the beginning the 'ekklasia' was seen as both physical AND spiritual.

Second Period - Ante-Nicene Christianity (150-325 a.d.)

Then the Nicene Creed:

Thus here we see from the apostles for at least 250 years (up to 375'ish ad.), thus far.. believed in both aspects of the local AND universal ekklasia.

If you wish me to go further I can but I figured this was enough to at least establish, historically, of the church, this veiw of it being only the local body did NOT exist.

 

Here is another excellent resource for further study, citing sources, pertaining to the problems of a dual meaning/universal invisible church interpretation of ekklesia. It is well worth the read for anyone seriously interested in putting these pieces together more concretely, and not too long of a read.

It is written by Thomas Williamson of Chicago Illinois, and many other good articles of note and interest to this board can be found there.

http://www.thomaswilliamson.net/uct_new.htm

 

Maybe, I am asking too much here, but I really thought this was a "Baptist ONLY" debate forum.

Allan, are you a Baptist, I seriously wonder, are you?