Featured The church in the OT

Technically speaking there is no OT "church" though the LXX uses the word ekklesia repeatedly the promise is FUTURE in Matthew 16:18

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.

As of yet it did not exist.

However the promise of both aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant is kept by both the Old and New - to the Jew first and then the Gentile.

Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

 

Some must have the Church being in the OT in order to have their views on say infant baptism stay justified...

 

Presbyterian sprinkling.

 

yes, as they need to have the New Covenant not really be that new in order to have their theology work!

 

I agree.
I'm understanding that in my reading of His word, both from this text and from many others.
This one literally says, " For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." ( Matthew 18:20 )

A "gathering together" of God's children constitutes an assembly.
No pomp, no circumstance, nothing to build a building, take "offerings" or get dressed up for.

God does not dwell in temples made with hands ( Acts of the Apostles 7:48-49, Acts of the Apostles 17:24 ), He dwells in the temples of His children ( 1 Corinthians 3:16 )
It doesn't need to be any more difficult than two or three of God's children getting together to praise Him, learn of Him and take joy in the fact that He has saved them from everlasting punishment.

All of the organization that the Lord instituted through His apostles is needed and necessary, especially where a larger group is gathered.
In a group of two or three, all the offices can be represented, if necessary.
But, if you ask me, it seems like you are trying to over-complicate it.



I think I've made myself clear, sir.


I'm not averse to having a building.
What I'm averse to, is the waste of having one when one is not needed.
I'm also against the doctrine of the Nicolaitans ( Revelation 2:6, Revelation 2:15 ), ...which I take to mean that we should not establish hierarchy over each other as believers ( Matthew 20:24-28 )

Nobody should look to their elders as being any better than they are in God's eyes...only wiser and more spiritual.
Bishops "rule over" ( watch over ) Christ's flock with care...not with authority like in the military, or even in civilian governments.
They do not "lead" them, they care for them as one who watches for their souls ( Hebrews 13:17 ).

With respect, all I seem to be getting from your end is, "this is how believers are supposed to meet, and this is how Christ instituted it and when. "



To me, He did it for specific reasons; Not to give us a "template" to stamp "churches" out with all over the landscape.

Believe it or not, most of the above I agree with because I see it in Scripture, and some I disagree with, because I see someone reasoning their way through it without firm Scriptural support.

For example, "membership rolls".
Here's what I see from Scripture:

I see every name known to those in the church...not written down on a list.
The church is a spiritual family that cares for each other, and each person is known personally by the others.
THAT, is "membership".

It's also not a "Sunday Morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night" obligation where people come and attend a religious ceremony, shake hands with people they don't know and don't see all week, and then sing songs, listen to a sermon, and go home to watch the football game .

It's a brotherhood that are members one of another, and they love each other ( 1 John 4:7-11 ) as family.
Christ is their life, Scripture is their spiritual nourishment and they are stuck with one another for eternity.

When one mourns, they all mourn.
When one rejoices, they all rejoice.
When one needs money, they all chip in.
When one is sick, they pray for them.
When one sins, they all admonish them.

THAT, is a New Testament church.

Here's another that I cannot, for the life of me, see where the author is going...
"13. They were promised a permanent church ( Matt.16:18 )"

A building here on earth, or a permanent brotherhood of believers?

Quoted,
" 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." ( Matthew 16:18 )

Christ is the spiritual Rock ( 1 Corinthians 10:4 ), He's not promising them a building here on earth, if that is what Dr. Stanley Anderson is saying.



With that said, this is my last post in this thread.


I wish you well, and may you always look to Him in your time of need.

 

I don't believe the term ekklesia has anything to do with a building. I gave you a clear exposition of Matthew 18:19-20 in its context with explicit reasons why your theory is wrong. You offered no response to the contextual explicits I furnished.