Featured #1 What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"? What do Landmarks Teach men that "a Church is"?

Landmark Baptist's Position is that they Believe The Bible Is the Final Authority.

This Position of Landmark Baptist's that they Believe The Bible Is the Final Authority
distinctly separates them, as various groups of believers,
from the vast majority of the world who claim the Name of Jesus Christ.

Landmark Baptists are the people of the Book. The Bible is the final word on every subject on which it speaks. There is no appeal from it. It is the court of last appeal because it is the perfect Book.

"The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

If the Scripture can not be broken, it can not be amended or reversed or changed. It is the final word on all questions of truth or doctrine or duty or life. Jesus said so. It is an unchangeable authority.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18).

This belief that, "The Bible Is the Final Authority", underlies all other Landmark Baptist principles. We base and build all other teachings and obligations on this fundamental and final principle, namely, that the Bible is the final authority on every question. The Bible, the Bible alone, is our only and all sufficient rule of faith and practice.

"It is written," was the answer of the Son of God to the devil in every test. In other words, the Son of God said, the Book is final. No amount of argument or explanation or sophistry can answer or do away with the Book. The Bible is God's final answer on all questions. It needs no supplement.

When the rich fool in hell wanted Lazarus sent to his brothers to warn them not to come to that place of torment, Jesus said No, they have the Book. If they will not hear that, they will not hear at all. No supplement or addition to the Bible. "It is written" is God's final and authoritative answer on all subjects.

So, What is your position on, "What a church is"?

"Whosoever therefore shall break one
of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so,

"he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven:

"but whosoever shall do and teach them,
he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19.)

I understand that Apostate Christianity, ultra-democratic, and communistic propaganda has so warped the minds of the vast, overwhelming, majority of Christians that they imagine belonging to "a church" which they say possesses the imbecilic mark and distinctive characteristic of "Invisibility" and that contrary to all Bible teaching, they suppose that all Christians are transformed and transported into membership of this imaginary "church", when they are saved.

However, they did not and could not come to this place where they are imaging such an absurd thing, if they had held to a position and belief that, "The Bible Is the Final Authority".

(Matthew 7:21-27), Jesus declares that the test of true discipleship is not mere lip-service,
but doing the will of God.

And the will of God is not to be found in the traditions of men, in the supposed light of human reason, in the presumptions of religions hierarchies or popular theologians, "neo-orthodox" or otherwise.

No: the will of God Is to be found in the words of Jesus:
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and does them,
I shall liken him to a wise man . . ." (7:24.)

By doing or not doing Jesus' words is the test and evidence of whether our lives are founded on Him, the Rock of Ages, or on the shifting sands of human religions.

Now, according to the text (Matthew 5:19.), if we break only one of His least commandments, and teach other men to do like-wise, we shall be called least in His kingdom.

What then shall be said of the professed Christian who says, "Lord, Lord," but habitually disobeys the words of Jesus?

He is like a foolish man building on the sand: he is no true disciple at all.

So, what do you teach other men "a church is"?

 

O.K., then, interpret the Bible without changing it.

You try to tell me what the Bible "means", then, without, "adding to" and "taking away" the Words that are in the Bible, and in no way switching out the definitions of Words that are in the Bible, with some other definitions that are supernaturally evil lies of Satan, himself.

Unless, you are going to tell me, "God changed His mind and decided to completely contradict Himself, 100%, and admit that what He had said before were just Him LYING."

You ought to try to talk to someone who's religion they profess that they are worshipping God with, is entirely dependent on surrendering their allegiance and devotion to exclusively extra-Biblical fantasies.

 

AustinC! I'm hearing from AustinC!

I hadn't heard from you in ever, brother.

I thought you'd put me on 'ignore'!

AustinC

The O.P.!

You answered the question.

What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"?

I see and define what you are describing above, as being, "The Kingdom of God".

My posts are presenting, "an organized local assembly (of baptized believers, as used in the Bible)", as generally being what The Bible is referring to, in each and every reference it makes using the word, "church", as being the only type of organized gathering together that can derived from the underlying original Greek word (and by that, I mean the definition that Greek word had at the time of the Bible's writing and, therefore, what God was intending to express, by ἐκκλησία; “gathering of those summoned”.)

And, now, for your very own dining and dancing pleasure, and back by special demand! A Secondary Souce reference, c&ped!

"Until the time of Constantine, therefore, the "kingdom of God" was regarded as the foe and appointed destroyer by force, of the "kingdom of Caesar."

"But, with the conversion of Constantine, it dawned upon Eusebius and some of his contemporaries that the establishment of the Messianic reign, for which they had been waiting, was to be by the Christianization, and so by the absorption into itself, of the existing empire. Jewish as well as Gentile analogies suggested unification of earthly and heavenly rule.

"For the Messianic King was to be a "priest upon his throne," and the Roman emperor was Pontifex Maximus as well as Imperator.

"The notions of universality of the "church" in world-range, and of its identity with the "kingdom" as a visible world-power, were thus twin-born.

"After this time only, the "holy church," of the Apostles' Creed became the "Holy Catholic Church."

"The church had been conceived of as the sphere of the bishop.

"This sphere, which was at first the local body, had gradually grown to comprehend dependent or affiliated bodies, until it had taken in a "diocese."

"Both Jewish and Gentile analogies now suggested the idea of a consolidated church-kingdom, of which the emperor should be the ecclesiastico-political head.


"The Jewish priestly organization had culminated in a high priest, as did the Roman in the Pontifex Maximus.

"The religious and the secular national life of the Romans were identical, as among the Jews; the priestly being, at the same time, a political office, controlled and paid by the state.

"The jus publicum was at the same time jus sacrum. Constantine was, by virtue of his imperial office, Pontifex Maximus of Rome.

"Why not also, by virtue of the same secular headship of a Christian empire, the Pontifex Maximus of an imperial church?

"The idea was distinctly broached in the calling of the first "Ecumenical Council," and the decrees of that body, enforced by the legislation of the empire, for the first time blended "church" and "kingdom" into one.

"After this, only, the phrase "Holy Catholic Church" appeared in the Apostles' Creed, and the "Holy Roman Empire" took historic form.

"In the latter, the strife of pope and emperor issued at last in the establishment of the pope as Universal Sovereign and Pontifex Maximus, the assumed heir, by right of succession both to Peter and Augustus, as the world's ecclesiastic and secular head.

"The notions of universality of the "church" in extent, and of its identity with the "kingdom" as a visible world-power, were thus twin-born.

"The notion of universality and visibility had finally become so closely interwoven, and both so indissolubly associated with the Roman establishment, that the Augsburg Confession - the first Protestant formula - wholly ignored the term catholic in defining the church, returning to the earlier form, "the holy church."

"Luther, in his catechism, satisfied himself with "the holy Christian church."

"It was not without reasonable justification, therefore, that Bossuet charged upon the Reformers the later invention of the notion of an "invisible catholic" church, as a device to preserve the idea of catholicity without its inevitable implication of external reality.

"But we need not continue this preliminary inquiry further.

"It is plain that the demands of current imperial, national and hereditary ecclesiastical theory are of such a character as to make the retention of the notion of a Church universal necessary. (Alan's Note: which is absolutely, 100%, in opposition to God and His Word and what He has revealed in His Instruction, as to How He is to be Worshipped, using His Word and definition: ἐκκλησία; “a gathering of those summoned”, generally speaking

and then as it is meant by Jesus as being His ἐκκλησία; “a gathering of those summoned” that He also built and modified and added to that meaning to be: His baptized believers, The Great Commission and Ordinances, and that He promised to be with that Divinely Originated Organization of His, until He Returns again, etc.

I see the blending of the words "church" and "kingdom"* as obliterating and obscuring Jesus Divine Organization
into a virtual oblivion and incomprehensibleness.

*(which adds the definition of a world-wide "kingdom" into the definition of a local only "church", not only bastardizing and adulterating it's original intent and expression, and therefore effectively removing Jesus'
Divine Plan for His local only church off the radar,

but adding the definition of "kingdom" also gives "church" a new meaning THAT IS DIRECTLY, PERFECTLY, ENTIRELY THE OPPOSITE OF GOD'S ORIGINAL WORD HE GAVE US IN WRITING!

That contradicts God, Who is speaking about a local organized gathering of His people, into being a world-wide disbursal of His people, and makes His original messages into all lies.

Hint: GOD DID NOT MAKE THIS ADDITION AND CHANGE IN MEANING TO THE WORD "CHURCH" AS HE WROTE IT IN THE BIBLE.)

"It is plain that that notion has historically arisen in connection with the development of an actual ecclesiastical world-power.

"It is plain that this has always justified itself exegetically by confining itself solely to Jewish precedent, and to the Septuagint, in its search for a clue to the meaning of the word ecclesia .

"That this precommittal to a theory has exerted a certain strabismus pressure upon the exegetic eye may be independently inferred from the preposterous issue to which it has led.

"For it has compelled the absurd conclusion that the New Testament writers have almost uniformly used the word, (for a local organized gathering) without notice(??????),

in a non-natural and presumably unsuspected sense (as a world-wide, unorganized disbursement(????????).

from: The Church and the Kingdom: A New Testament Study, Part IV

 

That, to me, would loosely define what I see the Bible saying and only what it means when it uses the word, "church".

And, then, thee we have "The Kingdom" of all believers, world-wide.

In Heaven?

You're weaponizing Heaven against me?

You sound like the women in our church! (they don't like that I'm Amillennial).

Anyway, all I'm doing is stating a Bible Truth (THAT IS OF ENORMOUSLY HUGE, ETERNAL PRIMERE, PREEMINANT IMPORTANCE TO THE TRIUNE GODHEAD)

by expressing that Bible Truth, in its Bible:

• connotation
• content
• context
• definition
• effect
• essence
• explanation

• implication
• interpretation
• nuance
• sense
• significance
• spirit
• subject
• substance
• understanding
• value

as opposed to expressing that Bible Truth, in a Bible:

• ignorance
• question
• quiet
• silence

• concealment
• hiding
• vagueness

• complication

• deceit
• deception
• dishonesty
• disinformation
• distortion
• evasion
• fabrication
• falsehood
• fiction
• forgery
• inaccuracy
• misrepresentation
• myth
• perjury
• slander
• tall tale

• aspersion
• backbiting
• calumniation
• calumny
• defamation
• detraction
• fable
• falseness
• falsification

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

61 Synonyms & Antonyms for MEANING | Thesaurus.com

 

What happened to you saying I
"have fallen into a cultists pit"?

Only because you are falsely attributing to me
that I'm a person who would,

"make statements such as it is “evil”
to even think the Bible might mean something
other than what they believe"?

That's pretty weird of you to say of me. Evil.

Who has ever said anything remotely close to that?

Why on earth would you try to suggest
that I ever said anything near to that?

Is that what you mean as being an actual, real,
"barrage of made up assaults on my character"?

Cool.

We just turned around what you said, back to you,
where it can do some good.

Ta-Dah.

You want to know about folks with whom,
"debate is impossible"?

Check this out:

That's a good one.

I'll have to save it, but:

Next thing you know, they will accuse you of making a "barrage of made up assaults on my character"
and turn red in the face and run off!

And, there it is.

But, I still don't get my questions answered?

#1 What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"?
What do Landmarks Teach men that "a Church is"?

Why didn't you just stick with the O.P., man?

 

Yo.

Extra Biblical material is extra Biblical material.

I think that would be kyredneck's religion, wouldn't it?

No.

I think any sound extra Biblical support that will assist and serve someone to obtain an understanding of the Message and Truth that GOD WANTS US TO UNDERSTAND, is grand, and great, and glorious.

I was referring to "exclusively extra-Biblical fantasies",
not "extra Biblical support" or "materials".

I'm not making light of what someone sincerely believes.

It is a fact of God and Biblical Truth of Spiritual Reality
that what they have brought here to talk about
include, "exclusively extra-Biblical fantasies".

Whereas, I try to approach these Bible subjects from the standpoint of The Bible being the Final Authority, as in:

I think that is a reasonable position and I'm sure that most everyone else would agree that they believe in that, too, however, it is easier than pulling teeth, when it comes to strongly suggesting and trying to suggest that people please try to contain themselves and see if they can consider refraining from the insanely popular, latest craze, and, if they didn't mind, for them to:

They can start to get really touchy about all that.

While, at the same time, they have had no difficulty telling me I'm wrong, and a heretic, and part of a cult, not to mention, "Catholic".

What's so bad about me replying?:

And, personally, you don't want to hear it, because we haven't gotten to various things, in an organized, copacetic way,
on some of these recent threads, concepts have been brought up and advanced, essentially demanding, that "Spiritual Baptism" is found located within the contents of the Bible and is not, simply, an "exclusively extra-Biblical fantasy".

What I see as having happened there, is an application of the prohibited anti-hermeneutical principal of: "adding to" and "taking away" the Words that are in the Bible".

It certainly must not be as effortless as it would seem to me to be, for someone who as embraced a concept like, "Spirit Baptism", to just knock it off and literally drop one of those words completely away from the other one and leave them alone.

What makes us think that it any of our business to capriciously toss God's Word, in and around anywhere we like, and then to cleave onto whatever we come up with, as if we were able to have just Spoke it, "ex cathedra"?

Or, are people wanting to expect me to believe something like that it is O.K. for them to try and tell me, "The Word of The Lord came unto me", or something?

How about, "no", He didn't.

The word, "Spirit" is in the Bible.

The word, "baptism", is in the Bible.

But, I have to listen, over and over, ad infinitum, to claims of not only, "Spirit Baptism" being a concept or teaching found in the Bible, but that it is able to "save you",

"give you entrance as membership into an "exclusively extra-Biblical fantasy",

or that The Holy Spirit performs "Spirit Baptism", and that Jesus can't "send" Him, or that Jesus can't pray to the Father, to "send" Him, but that He is part of the Triune Godhead Who has to Act on His Own initiative, even if it contradicts revealed scripture like those, JUST TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING, as "Spirit Baptism", because, "The Holy Spirit Spirit Baptizes with The Holy Spirit",

although, they don't give a clear depiction of what it is that they are saying, "The Holy Spirit Spirit Baptizes with The Holy Spirit", is going to accomplish when He does that,

(does it impart to them "Miraculous Gifts?, "Anoint the Most Holy"?, "Save a Soul"?

and does The Holy Spirit also "Fire Baptize" someone, sometime with "fire"?)

and, then get told that I have to be a "Baptismal Regeneration-ist", because they have the unmovable theory that if I don't agree, "baptized into Christ", means, "lost people are Spirit Baptized into Christ, in their experience of Salvation",

then that the only other remaining possible interpretation available on earth, as to what the Bible is saying to us there by "baptized into Christ" is, "Water Baptism saves you".

And, have the guts to insist that they gave me verses to prove "Spirit Baptism", when I read those verses and there is no word, "SPIRIT" IN THERE.

It has to be added.

Same with the words, "Universal", "Invisible", and "Church (after a "Meaning-Reveral" has been performed on it's original Bible meaning of being a "local assembly", AND FRAUDULENTLY ADDED into pretending it now has a perfectly, exact, completely opposite meaning of being a "world-wide disbursement").

Speaking of an "exclusively extra-Biblical fantasy."

The notion of a "Universal Invisible Church" is not found anywhere, apart from entering within some approximation of The Realm of Insanity.

Add, why oh why, would anyone in their right mind, then, who is seemingly asserting that they are not "entering within some approximation of The Realm of Insanity", get so worked up and hyper, alienating their poor soul from other believers
by harping on this banjo string to High Heaven?

Because, there are souls:

The religion they profess that they are worshipping God with, is founded and characterized by "exclusively extra-Biblical fantasies."

Isn't that Horror?

Doesn't anybody care?

God is watching you.

Does He or His Word mean something to you, to some extent?

Let's see.

Where is the evidence of it?

I'm just curious.

 

1.) I thought that was supposed to be my question...

2.) A "church", as used and defined in the Bible, when it is being used to refer to the Divine Organization which Jesus said He would build into His, "church"

that He Divinely Instituted, as recorded in The New Testament and called, "My church", is every time it is used that way, an:

ἐκκλησία (ekklēsía) -- summoned together assembly, BIBLICALLY SPEAKING, A LOCAL CHURCH ASSEMBLY,

and never means, no not ever, and no matter what anyone ever says, under any circumstances, or imply anything within a millions miles of:

a βασιλεία (basileia) -- kingdom


3.) A Bible "ἐκκλησία (ekklēsía) -- summoned together assembly", BIBLICALLY SPEAKING, A LOCAL CHURCH ASSEMBLY,

is not a "βασιλεία (basileia) -- kingdom",

which would have been a perfectly normal every day Greek word that God is Smart enough to have used, "βασιλεία (basileia) -- kingdom", if that was the idea that He had wanted to express Himself in that way,

and can't be said to have, at a latter time after the times of the Bible, been added as a new, opposite meaning, to the Greek word, "ἐκκλησία (ekklēsía) -- summoned together assembly", BIBLICALLY SPEAKING, A LOCAL CHURCH ASSEMBLY, as if it had been CHANGED BY GOD?,

Who would now be telling us that He had been lying before in The Bible, and has now decided to utterly contradict Himself???????,

or by SOME OTHER AUTHORITY, THAT HAS THE AUTHORITY OF GOD TO EDIT AND RE-AUTHOR THE BIBLE????????????

 

A church, by definition of the word ἐκκλησία, of a local assembly gathered together in a governing body, and then as it is used for Jesus' modification and building on that initial definition, of being an assembly of Christians gathered for Worship is that of a local assembly of professing believers who have been scripturally baptized, and who have entered into a covenant with one another to Worship God and to do God's will.

All of the erroneous theories of the nature of the New Testament church(es), though varied in some ways, have yet some things in common;

1.) They generally depart from the original meaning of the word ekklesia, and either willfully or ignorantly apply a meaning to the word which was not originally applicable (including new meanings added to Greek dictionaries and Lexicons, etc., in recent centuries).

2.) They all originated after the first century of the Christian era, and are therefore not apostolic, but are simply the products of human reasoning.

3.) Because the foregoing is true, they are all departures from the uniform New Testament usage of the word.

The Doctrine of New Testament Church Truth is very important, yet there is so little study of it; people have become unconcerned and even lethargic, and are content to take anyone's word on the subject rather than take the time and trouble to put in some personal study on it. This is a dangerous practice, to say the least.

One erroneous theory of the nature of the New Testament church regards it as the totality of local assemblies within a given area; it is used, now of all the churches in a city, now of all the churches in a province, and again of all the churches in a nation or continent. It is usually referred to as, a provincial church when so used as if there is a religious leader or 'Headquarters', or 'mother church', etc., superior in exercising general supervision over a number of houses of Worship that form a division of the order or congregation, called a province.

However, a New Testament Christian Church is not a confederation of many local congregations, under some one general head, whether that be a person, as bishop, patriarch, or pope; or under some system of government, such as presbytery, synod, conference, or assembly, and it is not an ecclesiastical system, extending over a wide area of country, claiming the right of control over all of similar faith within such territory.

Such, at least, is far from the New Testament idea of a Church.
- E. T. Hiscox, The New Directory for Baptist Churches, p. 35, 36.

There is just one passage in the New Testament that would seem to favor such a usage. That one is Acts 9:31 of which the oldest manuscripts read, "So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, was multiplied."

This is the only usage of the word ekklesia which seems to possibly be applicable to a plurality of churches, a provincial church, or believers in more than one location.

The reading, 'Church,' denotes the original church at Jerusalem, whose members were by persecution widely scattered throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, and held meetings wherever they were, but still belonged to the one original organization.

When Paul wrote to the Galatians nearly twenty years later, these separate meetings had been organized into distinct churches; and so he speaks in (Galatians 1:22),

Twenty years earlier, which is in reference to that same period, of the churches of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria which were in Christ.' - Commentary on Matthew, p. 359.

This one church that existed at that time, the church at Jerusalem, was the church which Saul persecuted and of which he made havoc.

Concerning the effect of this persecution, the records say 'they were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria' - Acts 8:1.

The explanation is given above. Now, if a theory harmonizes all of 231 uses of a word but one, and gives a possible explanation of that one, the theory is demonstrated. Ecclesia - THE CHURCH, p. 34, 36.

The people in the church at Jerusalem were a church, SINGULAR,

and the people, or saints, in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria weren't referred to as churches PLURAL, until twenty years later.

The one SINGULAR Jerusalem church:
"I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it" (Gal. 1:13)

Saul's persecution was directed against
the one SINGULAR Jerusalem church only, although he pursued them beyond the limits of Judea, to Galilee, Samaria, etc., those particular areas didn't have churches established until twenty years later.

Concerning the effect of this persecution, the records say 'they were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria' - Acts 8:1.
Although they again weren't established as churches until twenty years later.

The PLURAL used for the churches, "In Galatians 1:22, where Paul uses the plural: 'I was still unknown by fact to the churches of Judea"...

That the above is the true explanation is borne out by the apostle Paul himself, who says, "I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it" (Gal. 1:13),

of which the record in Acts declares, "And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem" (Acts 8:1);

and again, "Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:13).

Right. In Acts 8:1-3; "the church which was at Jerusalem"
and in Acts 9:1-5; "thy saints at Jerusalem"

Yes, Paul's persecution there was of the church at Jerusalem, only.

He scattered them, so not as if they were convened,
or had to, or needed to be.

Paul's persecution there was of the church at Jerusalem

Paul's persecution there was
of the local societies of saints in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1, 3)

however, The PLURAL used for the churches,
in Galatians 1:22, where Paul uses the plural:
'I was still unknown by fact to the churches of Judea"...
but the reference in Galatians 1:22 did not refer to Paul persecuting them.

Saul's persecution was directed against the Jerusalem church only, although he pursued them beyond the limits of Judea, to Galilee, Samaria, etc.

There is no 'universal' or provincial church there.

 

This Acts 9:31 passage certainly gives no assurance to the advocates of a provincial church,

since i.) It stands completely alone in the Scriptures with no other passage to substantiate it;

ii.) The theory, if it takes this passage as teaching a provincial church, must not only stand alone but must also depend upon a contested reading for substantiation;

iii.) Granting the Acts 9:31 reading, the passage admits a plausible and probable interpretation that applies only to the scattered members of the Jerusalem church;

(iv. This interpretation seems probable since we do not read of the existence of any other churches at this time, nor indeed, until some six years later when we first find reference made to the church at Antioch, (Acts 11:20,22,26).

20; "And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.

22; "Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

26; "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

The provincial idea of the church is the figment of a popish mind and has no place in the thinking of a devout student of the Word, not being in harmony with either the meaning of the word ekklesia, nor with the New Testament usage of that word.

A church, by definition of the word ἐκκλησία, of a local assembly gathered together in a governing body, and then as it is used for Jesus' modification and building on that initial definition, of being an assembly of Christians gathered for Worship is that of a local assembly of professing believers who have been scripturally baptized, and who have entered into a covenant with one another to Worship God and to do God's will.

These statements can't be substantiated.
A description of what a church is can't be derived from such.

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles", in 1 Corinthians 12:28 is the description of the 11 disciples who were the initial members of Jesus' first church, who had been saved and baptized by John the Baptist (to prepare them, to be members of Jesus' first church) whom Jesus commissioned as His Divine Institution when He gathered them together in a corporate capacity,

in Matthew 28:16; "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17; "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

18; "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19; "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20; "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

This statement can't be substantiated.

It appears to be just from thinking
just off the top of this fellow's head,
shooting from the hip, as it were,
and missing everything Biblically speaking.

A description of what a church is can't be derived from such.

This statement can't be substantiated.

A description of what a church is can't be derived from such.

 

BUT, NOW WATCH WHAT HAPPENS:

in 1.) thru 7.), below:

1.) WE HAVE THE STATEMENT that Paul and Matthew 16:18
refers to "the church" inclusively(?) Meaning what?

What is this supposed to be saying "the church is?", inclusively?

This statement can't be substantiated.

Nothing about "the church", inclusively, is taught by Paul or Matthew 16:18.

2.) THEN, THE STATEMENT IS MADE that Paul uses ekklesia collectively(?)

This statement can't be substantiated.

Meaning exactly what? I tell you what. It would mean that Paul didn't know what Greek word he should have been using to describe what he was saying.

BTW, did this Greg Nichols also already make the inference that Jesus didn't know what Greek word he should have been using to describe what He was talking about, in Matthew 16:18;

A church, by definition of the word ἐκκλησία, of a local assembly gathered together in a governing body, and then as it is used for Jesus' modification and building on that initial definition, of being an assembly of Christians gathered for Worship is that of a local assembly of professing believers who have been scripturally baptized, and who have entered into a covenant with one another to Worship God and to do God's will.

3.) WE HAVE THE INTRODUCTION TO A NEW CONCEPT
NEITHER MENTIONED OR TAUGHT
ANYWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:

3a.) "Every local church under apostolic rule"
3b.) "is part of this global church universal."

This statement can't be substantiated.

4.) "Paul views the church universal"...
"as a society composed collectively of all local churches."

This statement can't be substantiated.

5.) "He refers concretely to the extant society of saints on earth."

This statement can't be substantiated.

"this text"(???) 1 Corinthians 12:28;
"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles",

"furnishes vital information"(???)

"about the essential idea of the church"(???)

This statement can't be substantiated.

6.) CONCLUSION: None of the above 1.) thru 5.) can be substantiated
and are, at best, offhand, wild rash guesses, without forethought,

7.) "this text"(???) 1 Corinthians 12:28;
"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles",

"furnishes" NO "vital information"

"about the essential idea of the church"
as made in any and all of Greg Nichols' statements, above.

OTHER THAN THE 11 DISCIPLES WHO
WERE SCRIPTURALLY BAPTIZED BELIEVERS,
BY THE AUTHORITY OF GOD GIVEN TO JOHN THE BAPTIST

AND WERE PLACED BY JESUS CHRIST
INTO WHAT HE CALLED, "MY CHURCH", AS IT'S FIRST MEMBERS.

A church, by definition of the word ἐκκλησία,
of a local assembly gathered together in a governing body,
and then as it is used for Jesus' modification
and building on that initial definition,

of being an assembly of Christians gathered for Worship
is that of a local assembly of professing believers
who have been scripturally baptized,
and who have entered into a covenant with one another
to Worship God and to do God's will.