Featured Universal church - or whatever you want to call it.

And I believe it (the assembly) to be different because it takes place following the gates of Hades, not prevailing, I believe that not prevailing begin with the Father raising the Son from the dead, thou will not leave my soul in Hades, and takes place at the second coming for the balance of the church. O death where thy sting, O Hades where thy victory. < Is that not inclusive of not prevailing against the church? Also Isa 66:7,8 First the man child then the church (Zion) birthed as the nation. Also Psalms 139:15,16 Christ from the lowest parts of the earth then at his coming the assembled body.

 

Yes, Strong is not a good source for actual usage.

Yes, the future tense can convey personal determination as in "I will build" rather than someone else building it or rather than some yet future event. Also the term can be rendered "build up" as in 1 Pet. 2:5 and thus "I will build up" my ekklesia which has already been constituted upon a foundation.

I think the abstract institutional sense is employed here or else we have him continuing to use the very same word for something entirely different in nature than what he claims to build without any contextual information that a brand new opposite meaning is intended. No good teacher would use commonly known terms in that manner.

 

1. I think that Matthew 16:18 is the first appearance of ekklesia in the Bible. The first use tends to have implications for the usage elsewhere.
2. Why do you think that our Lord used the singular 'Church' instead of the plural 'churches' which was obviously open to Him to use?

 

Oh right, thanks for that. I had been taught it was a continuing action.. but I can see that the Strongs definition doesn't really support that.

 

Yes ..... 'the horse'...

It is generic for all horses. The animal of the horse. Same with 'the church'. It's of the church local assembly but not referring to one in particular.

And yeah.. I call every believer part of the Kingdom and Family but not 'the church'

 

Yes, the first use for a common word would require clear explanation if you are going to use it to mean the very opposite what it was commonly understood to mean. No such explanation is given. In Classical Greek it was commonly used in the abstract institutional sense. Hence, Christ was merely using it according to common usage and the absolute proof is the way he continued to use it in the concrete sense.

 

The Jews speaking to John the Baptist; And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. John 1:21
Speaking of Jesus; For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Acts 3:22,23

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. John 12:49

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (Hades) shall not prevail against it. Matt 16:15-18

Why do you all, ya'll here, think it is Jesus the Son of God, who will build the church of God rather than God the Father who will build the church of God?

Consider also. Who is the only person born of woman who resided in Hades, by passing through the gates of death and has departed Hades, thus the gates of Hades did not prevail against? Is this not the very same person who is called the stone rejected by men, being crucified unto death,the gates of Hades, on a stake and established as the head of the corner by being raised from the dead?

Is that stone not the very first living stone laid in Zion? Who was laid? How? By whom?

Was the resurrected Son of the living God the head of the body, the church, the beginning, the head of the corner?

The preeminence? Even of the church of God?

 

I am finding this thread very interesting as I have not come across the position adopted by Biblicist and others before.
So help my ignorance here, Mr Biblicist. What exaxtly do you mean by ekklesia being used in an 'abstract, institutional sense'?
Also, when you say that He 'continued to use it in the concrete sense,' I take it that you are aware that the Lord Jesus only used the word again in the Gospels in Matthew 18:17? That is hardly 'concrete proof.'

 

I asked questions in honesty as to the building of the church, yet it's time to close the thread. Oh well. Must to have gotten to far off the OP.

 

I notice that the thread is not closed yet. Is it possible that it may stay open a little longer, please, so that Percho and I may receive answers to our questions?

 

Well, I can answer a bit.

The last few posts have been about Jesus using 'the church' singular. 'I will build my church'

I've already gone on about this thru this thread and another.. but this sense is of the 'church as an institution'

Not buildings.. but the visible assembly of a group of saved, baptised believers.

Jesus referring to churches plural.. like the likes of Revelation that's visible, local assemblies. Matthew 18.. it is still visible and local.. but is not specific to one in particular.

eg. 'The horse is a magnificent animal'.. that isn't referring to Ed on that farm down the road..

But it's still the visible.. singular horse. Figurative for all horses.

So 'the church'.. it's in the sense of all churches.. signified in the singular to represent them all.

Same sense as 'the wife is to be a partner to the husband' it's not that family next door.. but is figurative for all.

I dunno if this answer any questions.. I am sure I am well and truly beating a dead horse now

 

Thanks for this. As I said, I have never come across Landmarkism (is that what it is?) before and I'm trying to get my head around it. I have always been taught a 'Universal' Church and have never been called upon to defend the idea.

But you agree that when we say, "The horse is a magnificent animal," the local expression of a horse may be a broken-down old nag in the field down the road. But it's still a horse; the basic horsey features are still there. If they're not, then you may come to the conclusion that the creature is really a donkey.

So it is when we say that the Church is the bride of Christ. It may not always seem that way:

'Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed;
With schisms rent asunder,
With heresies distressed.....'

Nevertheless, the Church is the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-32), and it is at the end of time that we see her as she really is (Revelation 19:7-8). The Bride is composed in the last day of the saved of every age (Ephesians 5:27; Hebrews 12:22-24; Revelation 21:9-14; cf. also Matthew 8:11-12; John 10:14-17; Hebrews 11:39-40). Now it may be, as the 1689 Confession says, that an individual congregation may decline so as no more to be a true church, but rather a 'synagogue of Satan,' but that does not deny that there is a universal church which is the bride of Christ any more than the donkey in the field denies the existence of, or the magnificence of, the horse.

'Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace for evermore;
Till with the vision glorious
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest.'

 

It ain't a harem! Terrible English.