Featured Early English Translations and word "church"

It is simply believing the same thing but using two different terms to describe it.

There is no difference in the two views except the nomenclatures. But Bob, in his usual bombastic manner, asserts it is of "great significance" and an "ever-threatening villain." Which is, or course, simply not so.

The only concern most of us who hold to a "local church only" view (not an entirely accurate term, we believe in the Church Universal, but as a yet future organism) is that confusing the church and the family of God can detract from the primacy of the local New Testament church.

By the way, several of us on the BB hold to this view including myself, Dr. Bob, and others who I will allow to speak for themselves.

Those from a similar academic background as me, including but not exclusive of, alumni of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College (my wife's alma mater) , Maranatha Baptist Bible College (several on the BB), and Central Baptist Theological Seminary, as well as the two schools I taught at, Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College and San Diego Baptist Theological Seminary, were at least exposed to the teaching in college or seminary.

 

Christ is the head of all churches. Or at least he should be.

In most uses of the word "church" in the New Testament, most of the time it is used in conjunction with a place name. "The church at Corinth." "The church at Ephesus." Etc. All obviously referring to local churchs.

In many other places the word "church" is used in the plural, (Acts 15:41 and 36 other instances). All obviously referring to local churches.

The third usage is that which you have referenced above. The word "church" is used generically. "No church specifically, all churches in general."

This is a fairly common use of language. "I believe the horse is the most beautiful animal in God's creation." When I use the singular "horse" it means "all horses in general, no horse in particular." It does not mean, of course, that I believe in a "universal, invisible horse."

I believe the dog is the most loyal of all of God's creatures. Because I use the word "dog" in the singular does not mean I believe in a "universal invisible dog." It means I am using the term in a general rather than specific way.

As to the the "Bs" - the body, the building, and the bride.

One of the very first things I learned in seminary was to not make a passage "walk on all fours." Read it to understand the author's intent.

Body, building, and bride are all metaphors used to teach church truth.

One of the great methodologies of pedagogy is to use what the people are familiar with to illustrate a new truth.

Everyone one is familiar with a body. We all have one!

Everybody is familiar with a building. We have all been in one.

Everybody is familiar with a bride. We either have one, or we are the son of one.

So God's word uses that which we are familiar with to teach us new truth.

The body is used to illustrate service through our church. Hands to reach out with, feet to carry us to where we ought to be, a mouth to preach the gospel.

The building is used to illustrate the church as being the shelter from the storms of life, and, especially to the Jews, the house of God where we can come and bring our needs to Him and our offerings to Him.

The bride is used to illustrate the faithfulness of the church. The love relationship. This term is contrasted in Revelation with the "harlot" - speaking of a lack of faithfulness.

Don't make the 3 Bs walk on all fours. Understand them as the teaching metaphors they are.

 

Put me on the list.

 

Studying under Dr. Weeks and Dr. Hollowood, how could you be anything else?

 

Except it's not. Nowhere in the bible is the concept of a "universal invisible church" to be found. Catholic dogma dragged into Protestantism.

I have often said of the Reformation, when the reformers came out of Rome they dragged too much of the furniture with them.

 

Do you have some bible to back up that opinion?

 

So, your answer is "no?"

 

So you don't have any scripture to support your opinion, you just copy off of others? Even their obvious errors?

 

Speaking of the late Dr. Richard Weeks, he taught Baptist Polity and History at Maranatha Baptist Univerity, formerly Maranatha Baptist Bible College. Keeping in mind this exercise should be made with caution, Dr. Weeks said something along the lines of:

Thanks to the instructions given King James to the translators, the word "church" has taken on multiple meanings. Some of the meanings are accurate. And some are inaccurate. So, stop for a moment and ask yourself what did ekklesia mean to first century, first generation Christians. The New Testament was not written in some kind of "spiritual, theological Greek." Archeological discoveries over the last hundred or so years have shown the New Testament was written in the Greek in common everyday use. So, how was it used back then? We can see its primary use in Acts 19 verses 39 and 41. There ekklesia is translated "assembly". [From his description, I figured the modern parallel is the New England Town meeting.] We now know by the time the New Testament was written, ekklesia had come to be used for a variety of organizations for specific purposes. So, ekklesia was also used the same way we use club, lodge, or society. An example is a funeral ekklesia, organized to pay for the funeral costs of its membership. The key is in common usage ekklesias had a substantive, visable presence.​

Like I said above the quote isn't word for word, after all, it's been 35 years. But, it's the meat of his teaching.
TCassidy, am I correct in my recollection of Dr. Weeks' position?

 

I believe so. Dr. Weeks emphasized what he called "Cultural Context."

When we read a word in the bible we have to put it in the context of the culture of that time and place. What would your average 1st century Jew, living in the mid-east, understand that word to mean?

This was called the "Hermeneutical Law of Shareability" by Dr. Howard Hendricks (who passed away in 2013) Professor of Bible Exposition and Hermeneutics at Dallas Theological Seminary for over 60 years. Two Jewish men talking and one would use the word εκκλησια, what would the other man understand it to mean?

The word meant, at that time, something, as you said, akin to the New England Town Meeting and was, of course, so used in Acts 19:32-41.

The use of the word to mean "all the redeemed" did not occur until the late 4th century.

Tertillian used the word "universal" in reference to the church but used it in the context of "everywhere I go I find churches." There is a difference between believing in a universal church and believing the church is universal.

In my world travels I have found automobiles to be universal. They are everywhere. But I don't believe in a universal automobile.