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

[Alan Gross]

There is much confusion in the thinking of people who call themselves Baptists, as well as God's people generally, world-wide, as to what Paul was talking about in the epistles, when he spoke of the church as the body of Christ.

There are numbers of reasons, which to me are unanswerable, for maintaining that in these epistles as well as elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul was talking about a local church, for example, the church at Ephesus, or the church at Corinth, not unlike Landmark Baptist churches today, if not some others.

First, the word ekklesia, which is translated church, as B. H. Carroll said has as its "essential ideas, organization and assembly." The only church that has both organization and assembly is a local church. Prof. Royal of Wake Forest College, when asked as to the meaning of ekklesia, said: "I do not know of any passage in classical Greek, where ekklesia is used of unassembled or unassembling persons."

Second, the Lord Jesus used the word ekklesia twenty-three times, three times in Matthew and twenty times in Revelation. In every instance Jesus used the word ekklesia to refer to a local church. Whenever He spoke of a larger group than the members of the local church, He always said churches.

Third, Joseph Cross (Episcopal) in his book, "Coals From the Altar" says: "We hear much of the invisible church as contra-distinguished from the church visible. Of an invisible church in this world I know nothing: the Word of God says nothing: nor can anything of the kind exist, except in the brain of a heretic. The church is a body: but what sort of a body is that which can neither be seen nor identified? A body is an organism, occupying space and having a definite locality. A mere aggregation is not a body: there must be organization as well.

A heap of heads, hands, feet and other members would not make a body: they must be united in a system, each in its proper place and pervaded by a common life. So a collection of stones, bricks, and timber would not be a house: the material must be built up together, in artistic order, adapted to utility. So a mass of roots, trunks and branches would not be a vine or a tree: the several parts must be developed according to the laws of nature from the same seed and nourished by the same sap."

So with the temple of Solomon. It was no temple until the stones were quarried from Lebanon, prepared, gathered into Jerusalem and put each in its own place in the building. Whether the church is referred to as a temple or a house or a body, in every instance these two essential ideas are there, namely, assembly and organization. It is not a body unless the members are assembled and organized. It is not a house unless the materials are assembled and organized. It is not a temple unless the stones and other material are assembled and organized. Peter had exactly the same idea in 1 Peter 2:5: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

Fourth, Hort in his book, "The Christian Ekklesia" confesses the necessity of finding some other than etymological, grammatical or historical grounds by which to prove the idea of a universal church. He admitted that the use of the word ekklesia was "always limited by Paul himself to a local organization, which has a corresponding unity of its own: each is a body of Christ and a sanctuary of God."

Look at his statement.

That "The Christian Ekklesia" ever refers to anything but a local church

1.) cannot be proved by history:

2.) it cannot be proved from the etymology of the word:

3.) and it cannot be proved by the grammatical construction of the Scriptures where used.

The only ground, Mr. Hort says, on which the use of the word
as referring to any thing but a local church can be defended at all, is on theological grounds.

That means you can not prove it from the Greek New Testament at all:
but you perhaps might read it into the New Testament from some book of theology.


Let us sum up a little.

The word church was used by the Master twenty three times and always meant a local church.

Mr. Hort of the Westcott-Hort New Testament admits that Paul never used it of anything but a local church.

Scholars testify that ekklesia was never used in classic Greek except of an assembled or assembling body.

The two essential ideas in the word ekklesia are assembly and organization.

Every illustration of a church in the New Testament such as temple or house or body, only makes nonsense if it is not assembled and organized.

The etymology of the word ekklesia makes it of necessity a local church.

The grammatical construction of the passages where used cannot be twisted to mean anything but a local church.

Both Hort and Harnack testify that historically the word ekklesia was never used of anything but a local church, until long after the close of the New Testament.

So Landmark Baptists are on safe ground, when they say that a "church", which is a "body" of Christ, is always a local church.

 

[AustinC]

There is much confusion in the thinking of people who call themselves Baptists, as well as God's people generally, world-wide, as to what Paul was talking about in the epistles, when he spoke of the church as the body of Christ.

There are numbers of reasons, which to me are unanswerable, for maintaining that in these epistles as well as elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul was talking about a local church, for example, the church at Ephesus, or the church at Corinth, not unlike Landmark Baptist churches today, if not some others.

First, the word ekklesia, which is translated church, as B. H. Carroll said has as its "essential ideas, organization and assembly." The only church that has both organization and assembly is a local church. Prof. Royal of Wake Forest College, when asked as to the meaning of ekklesia, said: "I do not know of any passage in classical Greek, where ekklesia is used of unassembled or unassembling persons."

Second, the Lord Jesus used the word ekklesia twenty-three times, three times in Matthew and twenty times in Revelation. In every instance Jesus used the word ekklesia to refer to a local church. Whenever He spoke of a larger group than the members of the local church, He always said churches.

Third, Joseph Cross (Episcopal) in his book, "Coals From the Altar" says: "We hear much of the invisible church as contra-distinguished from the church visible. Of an invisible church in this world I know nothing: the Word of God says nothing: nor can anything of the kind exist, except in the brain of a heretic. The church is a body: but what sort of a body is that which can neither be seen nor identified? A body is an organism, occupying space and having a definite locality. A mere aggregation is not a body: there must be organization as well.

A heap of heads, hands, feet and other members would not make a body: they must be united in a system, each in its proper place and pervaded by a common life. So a collection of stones, bricks, and timber would not be a house: the material must be built up together, in artistic order, adapted to utility. So a mass of roots, trunks and branches would not be a vine or a tree: the several parts must be developed according to the laws of nature from the same seed and nourished by the same sap."

So with the temple of Solomon. It was no temple until the stones were quarried from Lebanon, prepared, gathered into Jerusalem and put each in its own place in the building. Whether the church is referred to as a temple or a house or a body, in every instance these two essential ideas are there, namely, assembly and organization. It is not a body unless the members are assembled and organized. It is not a house unless the materials are assembled and organized. It is not a temple unless the stones and other material are assembled and organized. Peter had exactly the same idea in 1 Peter 2:5: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

Fourth, Hort in his book, "The Christian Ekklesia" confesses the necessity of finding some other than etymological, grammatical or historical grounds by which to prove the idea of a universal church. He admitted that the use of the word ekklesia was "always limited by Paul himself to a local organization, which has a corresponding unity of its own: each is a body of Christ and a sanctuary of God."

Look at his statement.

That "The Christian Ekklesia" ever refers to anything but a local church

1.) cannot be proved by history:

2.) it cannot be proved from the etymology of the word:

3.) and it cannot be proved by the grammatical construction of the Scriptures where used.

The only ground, Mr. Hort says, on which the use of the word
as referring to any thing but a local church can be defended at all, is on theological grounds.

That means you can not prove it from the Greek New Testament at all:
but you perhaps might read it into the New Testament from some book of theology.


Let us sum up a little.

The word church was used by the Master twenty three times and always meant a local church.

Mr. Hort of the Westcott-Hort New Testament admits that Paul never used it of anything but a local church.

Scholars testify that ekklesia was never used in classic Greek except of an assembled or assembling body.

The two essential ideas in the word ekklesia are assembly and organization.

Every illustration of a church in the New Testament such as temple or house or body, only makes nonsense if it is not assembled and organized.

The etymology of the word ekklesia makes it of necessity a local church.

The grammatical construction of the passages where used cannot be twisted to mean anything but a local church.

Both Hort and Harnack testify that historically the word ekklesia was never used of anything but a local church, until long after the close of the New Testament.

So Landmark Baptists are on safe ground, when they say that a "church", which is a "body" of Christ, is always a local church.

You said that Landmarkers stand on God's word. Why then do you quote outside the Bible via commentaries?

Also, why not just have one topic about your Landmark opinions rather than multiple threads?

 

[Alan Gross]

1 Peter 2:5: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

"We hear much of the invisible church as contra-distinguished from the church visible. Of an invisible church in this world I know nothing: the Word of God says nothing: nor can anything of the kind exist, except in the brain of a heretic.

You said that Landmarkers stand on God's word.

What's wrong with that?

I'd like to see a whole horde of people stand on the word of God, especially, as opposed to standing on the reasoning of their flesh, using a mind that was effected by The Curse of Adam's Fall.

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

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.

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.

Why then do you quote outside the Bible via commentaries?

So, that you can learn enough to know what a Bible verse says, when anybody posts one, since the Bible assumes that its readers coming to it have some very rudimentary understanding of words and how to read sentences in our own language, INSTEAD OF CHECKING OUT OF REALITY and Adopting a Standard Operating Procedure and giving up trying to grasp a verse's meaning AND JUST GOING BACK AND CHANGING THE DEFINITIONS of the ORIGINAL GREEK or HEBREW WORDS, SO THAT WE CAN NOW MAKE SENSE OF THAT VERSE, TO SUIT WHAT WE FEEL LIKE THAT PASSAGE, AFTER ALL, MUST BE SAYING.

How else do we come up with the extraordinarily gifted Wizards of Smart, who say,

1.) "let's look at the Greek word, "ekklesia", meaning a summoned together assembly, and applied in the Bible to be a local church assembly, that the Lord Jesus used twenty-three times and in every instance Jesus used ekklesia, He used it to refer to a local church."

2.) "And then, we'll look at the remaining passages in the New Testament that contain the word "ekklesia", and say "church" to see if we can discern right quick if we decide that it makes sense to our obvious infallible observation and perfect understanding abilities,"

3.) "Otherwise, we know that the original meaning of the Greek word, "ekklesia", meaning a summoned together assembly, and applied in the Bible to be a local church assembly, that the Lord Jesus used,"

3a.) WILL NEED US TO CHANGE IT,

3b.) BY GOING BACK INTO THE GREEK DICTIONARIES and LEXICONS (which individuals have done, since the times of the Bible, and its meaning then) AND ALTERING and ADDING A BRAND NEW EXTRA-BIBLICAL MEANING, to: "ekklesia", meaning a summoned together assembly, LIKE:
βασιλεία (basileia), which means a "kingdom" that we will make it in our case, to mean "a kingdom dispersed world-wide".

3c.) "God won't mind, "a kingdom dispersed world-wide" is just the TOTAL, COMPLETE, UTTER OPPOSITE MEANING, of an "ekklesia", meaning a summoned together assembly."

3d.) "What could go wrong, we just contradicted God 100%, made Jesus and the Bible constricted what they had previously said, and neutered and annulled any particular use Jesus was saying about it and that God through the remainder of The New Testament may have had for using "ekklesia", meaning a summoned together assembly."

You tell me.

Did I call them, "extraordinarily gifted Wizards of Smart"?

I meant, "uneducated flesh-filled fools that are entirely disobediant and in opposition to God, His Word, and His "churches".

Those specific details like those below, that might prevent someone from taking that path, arm-in-arm with Satan, aren't gone into and covered in the Bible, because that is not the Bible's intention i.e.,

First, the word ekklesia, which is translated church, as B. H. Carroll said has as its "essential ideas, organization and assembly." The only church that has both organization and assembly is a local church.

Second, the Lord Jesus used the word ekklesia twenty-three times, three times in Matthew and twenty times in Revelation. In every instance Jesus used the word ekklesia to refer to a local church.

Third, Joseph Cross (Episcopal) in his book, "Coals From the Altar" says: "We hear much of the invisible church as contra-distinguished from the church visible. Of an invisible church in this world I know nothing: the Word of God says nothing: nor can anything of the kind exist, except in the brain of a heretic.

Fourth, Hort in his book, "The Christian Ekklesia" confesses the necessity of finding some other than etymological, grammatical or historical grounds by which to prove the idea of a universal church.

and then, when I do post a verse from the Bible like this one I did in that post, you might have a beginning clue as to what God teaches by it, when you don't know at all what it is saying, otherwise;

1 Peter 2:5: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

Also, why not just have one topic about your Landmark opinions rather than multiple threads?

If you must know, the content of each thread is too important to just leave buried somewhere in the middle of one topic.

It needs to be out there.

The 1.) thru 3d.) above are just an unmitigated tragic disaster.

You are free to post all the Bible topics you want, along with everyone else and if I were thinking there was some congestion I was causing, with so many other posts coming along, that would be another day.

It is Baptist material, on a Baptist Board, and if you see any more God-Honoring information* posted to the internet in the last six months, let me know.

*like your coverage and threatment of the book of Ephesians .

your Landmark opinions

Why do you have posts about your Extra-Biblical opinions? instead of Bible topics?

 

[37818]

What's wrong with that?

The multiple long posts of the very same subject at the same time?

Suggests, not being 2 Corinthians 1:11, ". . . from the simplicity that is in Christ. . . ."

 

[Alan Gross]

The multiple long posts of the very same subject at the same time?

Suggests, not being 2 Corinthians 1:11, ". . . from the simplicity that is in Christ. . . ."

Are you backslidden this morning, 37, or something?

Worship God, for crying out loud.

You got Landmark Baptist teaching.

Baptist teaching.

And Christian teaching.

All for no extra price.

When all I'm getting is cursory animadverts, I figure no one has an answer for the O.P. question that they want to share.

I didn't know that.

I thought someone besides the Lord might care.

Brother, was I wrong.

How about just, A Silent But Effective Testimony, then?

 

[AustinC]

What's wrong with that?

I'd like to see a whole horde of people stand on the word of God, especially, as opposed to standing on the reasoning of their flesh, using a mind that was effected by The Curse of Adam's Fall.

Alan, you often quote from Gill, as though Gill were the word of God. You seem to be claiming that no one else is interpreting the Bible accurately, except yourself, and Gill.

So, that you can learn enough to know what a Bible verse says, when anybody posts one, since the Bible assumes that its readers coming to it have some very rudimentary understanding of words and how to read sentences in our own language, INSTEAD OF CHECKING OUT OF REALITY and Adopting a Standard Operating Procedure and giving up trying to grasp a verse's meaning AND JUST GOING BACK AND CHANGING THE DEFINITIONS of the ORIGINAL GREEK or HEBREW WORDS, SO THAT WE CAN NOW MAKE SENSE OF THAT VERSE, TO SUIT WHAT WE FEEL LIKE THAT PASSAGE, AFTER ALL, MUST BE SAYING.

How else do we come up with the extraordinarily gifted Wizards of Smart, who say,

1.) "let's look at the Greek word, "ekklesia", meaning a summoned together assembly, and applied in the Bible to be a local church assembly, that the Lord Jesus used twenty-three times and in every instance Jesus used ekklesia, He used it to refer to a local church."

2.) "And then, we'll look at the remaining passages in the New Testament that contain the word "ekklesia", and say "church" to see if we can discern right quick if we decide that it makes sense to our obvious infallible observation and perfect understanding abilities,"

3.) "Otherwise, we know that the original meaning of the Greek word, "ekklesia", meaning a summoned together assembly, and applied in the Bible to be a local church assembly, that the Lord Jesus used,"

3a.) WILL NEED US TO CHANGE IT,

3b.) BY GOING BACK INTO THE GREEK DICTIONARIES and LEXICONS (which individuals have done, since the times of the Bible, and its meaning then) AND ALTERING and ADDING A BRAND NEW EXTRA-BIBLICAL MEANING, to: "ekklesia", meaning a summoned together assembly, LIKE:
βασιλεία (basileia), which means a "kingdom" that we will make it in our case, to mean "a kingdom dispersed world-wide".

3c.) "God won't mind, "a kingdom dispersed world-wide" is just the TOTAL, COMPLETE, UTTER OPPOSITE MEANING, of an "ekklesia", meaning a summoned together assembly."

3d.) "What could go wrong, we just contradicted God 100%, made Jesus and the Bible constricted what they had previously said, and neutered and annulled any particular use Jesus was saying about it and that God through the remainder of The New Testament may have had for using "ekklesia", meaning a summoned together assembly."

Alan, here you come off as arrogant and condescending. You should acknowledge that everyone who is posting is studying the Bible and is posting from what they understand the Bible to be saying.

You tell me.

Did I call them, "extraordinarily gifted Wizards of Smart"?

I meant, "uneducated flesh-filled fools that are entirely disobediant and in opposition to God, His Word, and His "churches".

Above is an example where you do not stick to God's word, but you add your own commentary against those with whom you disagree.

Those specific details like those below, that might prevent someone from taking that path, arm-in-arm with Satan, aren't gone into and covered in the Bible, because that is not the Bible's intention i.e.,

Alan, you are accusing the brothers of walking arm-in-arm with Satan.

and then, when I do post a verse from the Bible like this one I did in that post, you might have a beginning clue as to what God teaches by it, when you don't know at all what it is saying, otherwise;

1 Peter 2:5: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

Peter is addressing his audience and the household of the elect, telling us that we, the priesthood of believers, are the church.

If you must know, the content of each thread is too important to just leave buried somewhere in the middle of one topic.

The problem is that you are not succinct in your posting. Nor are you making a clear differentiation of the various threads. You may think you are posting coherently, but you are the only person who is following your logic. Everyone else is wondering what your point actually is.

It needs to be out there.

What is "it?"

The 1.) thru 3d.) above are just an unmitigated tragic disaster.

You are free to post all the Bible topics you want, along with everyone else and if I were thinking there was some congestion I was causing, with so many other posts coming along, that would be another day.

I have no idea what you are specifically pointing at.

It is Baptist material, on a Baptist Board, and if you see any more God-Honoring information* posted to the internet in the last six months, let me know.

But, you said you rest in scripture as the authority. Yet, you quote extensively from extra-biblical sources and then seem to demand adherence to that extra-biblical source.

*like your coverage and threatment of the book of Ephesians .

????

Why do you have posts about your Extra-Biblical opinions? instead of Bible topics?

Because the topic dictates where you draw your resources. Not all topics are based solely in a Bible passage. Therefore the discussion receives opinion from outside of scripture.

Alan, perhaps it's just not your nature to be succinct. I imagine you think your posts are clear, but I for one can state that you are very hard to follow and even harder to actually figure out what you specifically believe in a given topic. Hopefully you can understand that we are looking for clarity and specificity so we can follow you. At present, I for one, cannot figure out what your point is in this thread.

If I were the only one, then you could question my comprehension. But, I am clearly not the only one, so that means you need to look at your posting style and try to at least have a topic sentence for each paragraph so we can follow your points.

Thank you.

 

[MrW]

The multiple long posts of the very same subject at the same time?

Suggests, not being 2 Corinthians 1:11, ". . . from the simplicity that is in Christ. . . ."

I had to put him on Ignore for a while. Long and rambling—he’s not making sense right now.

 

[Alan Gross]

I imagine you think your posts are clear, but I for one can state that you are very hard to follow and even harder to actually figure out what you specifically believe in a given topic.

Hopefully you can understand that we are looking for clarity and specificity so we can follow you. At present, I for one, cannot figure out what your point is in this thread.

If I were the only one, then you could question my comprehension. But, I am clearly not the only one, so that means you need to look at your posting style and try to at least have a topic sentence for each paragraph so we can follow your points.

Since, you and no one else have made an attempt to stick with the O.P., in any regard, or even acknowledge its existence, and to answer the allegedly indiscernible and apparently incomprehensible question,

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

then, maybe you all can tell me,

"What do you tell God a Church is"?

Now, go.
...

You should acknowledge that everyone who is posting is studying the Bible and is posting from what they understand the Bible to be saying.

That is what I did when I asked,

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

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

What's wrong with that?

I'd like to see a whole horde of people stand on the word of God, especially, as opposed to standing on the reasoning of their flesh, using a mind that was effected by The Curse of Adam's Fall.

...

Alan, you often quote from Gill, as though Gill were the word of God.

"as though", according to who, what, when, where, how, that an example of "you often quote from Gill, as though Gill were the word of God."

Are you talking to me?

I'm just asking, because you said, "Alan."

Copy and paste me a quote.

You seem to be claiming that no one else is interpreting the Bible accurately, except yourself, and Gill.

"seem to be claiming", according to who, what, when, where, how, that an example of "no one else is interpreting the Bible accurately, except yourself, and Gill."

If you are not interested in interpreting the Bible accurately, you can try all these swipes at the air to distract from a religious belief, such as the "Universal Invisible Church" and even say that the Bible contains more information about it, than a book full of empty pages, however, "this argument may seem plausible but it is not very respectful of divine revelation.

"Christ said: "If a man love me, he will keep my words."1

This peculiar expression does not leave room for sentimentality to decide the issue.

1: John 14:23 [p. 130]

"We cannot suppose that our Lord, or his apostles under his guidance, selected loosely the terms which were to be of so large significance in directing the development of the new movement. . . . If we can be certain what words he used, and the precise idea he intended to convey by them, it will be presumptuous and hazardous to substitute new names or intrude new meanings into the old.1

1 Thomas, op. cit., p. 290.

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/Maslin.Critique.Universal.Church.Theory.pdf

That "The Christian Ekklesia" ever refers to anything but a local church

1.) cannot be proved by history:

2.) it cannot be proved from the etymology of the word:

3.) and it cannot be proved by the grammatical construction of the Scriptures where used.

...

Those specific details like those below, that might prevent someone from taking that path, arm-in-arm with Satan, aren't gone into and covered in the Bible, because that is not the Bible's intention i.e.,

First, the word ekklesia, which is translated church, as B. H. Carroll said has as its "essential ideas, organization and assembly." The only church that has both organization and assembly is a local church.

Second, the Lord Jesus used the word ekklesia twenty-three times, three times in Matthew and twenty times in Revelation. In every instance Jesus used the word ekklesia to refer to a local church.

Third, Joseph Cross (Episcopal) in his book, "Coals From the Altar" says: "We hear much of the invisible church as contra-distinguished from the church visible. Of an invisible church in this world I know nothing: the Word of God says nothing: nor can anything of the kind exist, except in the brain of a heretic.

Fourth, Hort in his book, "The Christian Ekklesia" confesses the necessity of finding some other than etymological, grammatical or historical grounds by which to prove the idea of a universal church.

Alan, you are accusing the brothers of walking arm-in-arm with Satan.

Well, let's think about this, now since you have pressed the point:
...

Alan, here you come off as arrogant and condescending.

Did I call them, "extraordinarily gifted Wizards of Smart"?

I meant, "uneducated flesh-filled fools that are entirely disobedient and in opposition to God, His Word, and His "churches".

So, that you can learn enough to know what a Bible verse says, when anybody posts one, since the Bible assumes that its readers coming to it have some very rudimentary understanding of words and how to read sentences in our own language, INSTEAD OF CHECKING OUT OF REALITY and Adopting a Standard Operating Procedure and giving up trying to grasp a verse's meaning AND JUST GOING BACK AND CHANGING THE DEFINITIONS of the ORIGINAL GREEK or HEBREW WORDS, SO THAT WE CAN NOW MAKE SENSE OF THAT VERSE, TO SUIT WHAT WE FEEL LIKE THAT PASSAGE, AFTER ALL, MUST BE SAYING.

...

 

[Alan Gross]

when I do post a verse from the Bible like this one I did in that post, you might have a beginning clue as to what God teaches by it, when you don't know at all what it is saying, otherwise;

1 Peter 2:5: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

Peter is addressing his audience

In that, ye say well, for that he was.

So far, so good.

Bible interpretation par excellence.

and the household of the elect,

You want, "the household" to be "the elect"?

No way.

And, you are saying that Peter was addressing "the elect" as being the "household" as his audience?

NOT IN A MILLION YEARS.

telling us that we, the priesthood of believers

You are now saying that Peter was addressing "us" as his audience? and was telling "us" something, as being the "the priesthood of believers"? "to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ"?

Naw, that's what I mean by you guys not being able to comprehend what is being said, because you are imbibed with and have forfeited that ability, as illustrated by your next comment:

are the church.

Negative, on saying that the, "elect", "household", or "priesthood of believers" ("an holy priesthood") "are the church".

So, although God tricked you into answering the question from the O.P., "What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"?, what He got you to disclose as your answer is not what He wanted to hear you say, as being the reason He wrote those words.

Nevertheless, it is "an answer".

I can't tell you what to believe.

"Too many people have bent over backwards to introduce mysticism into the practical teachings of Jesus and the Apostles where the Scriptures context does not allow it."

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/Maslin.Critique.Universal.Church.Theory.pdf

With all respect for the scholarship of the men who have held otherwise, in fidelity to an Omniscient Savior the "universal invisible church theory must be set aside as a human theory. All such theories must be regarded only as the cobwebs which truth brushes away in order to prepare the churches He intended, as each being a suitable habitation for God through the Spirit. "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."

The problem is that you are not succinct in your posting.

"You can't handle the truth."

Google Image Result for https://media1.giphy.com/media/l46CwsAIlmnXlRC9O/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952n4eyk0oze6mbo1mjri20f0rir53h6p3qrzqcz7pf&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

If I succinctly say, "1 + 1 does not equal 1",
they say, "Spirit Baptism" + "water baptism" equals "one baptism".

If I succinctly say, "verse 5 in Acts 19 goes with verse 4",
they say, "verse 5 goes with verse 6 and therefore God sent a dud, when He sent John the Baptist to baptize".

If I succinctly say, "ekklesia" means "ekklesia",
they say, "ekklesia" means "basileia".

I can't spoon fed 'em?
and now you're saying I can't force feed 'em?

Apparently, God would agree with you.

Nor are you making a clear differentiation of the various threads.

There had been a clear distinction made between the anti-Landmark crowd, calling me a "cultist", "heretic", "wrong", "a Roman Catholic", etc.

I distinctly made three postings which each clearly engendered a response to the same question, "What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"?

What happened to all of the anti-Landmark crowd on that?

I thought could tell it like it is and put me right in my place.

First, they are care free to dismiss me out of hand.

Now, they are no where to be found regarding the most fundamental of Christian beliefs.

Doesn't it make you wonder what business they even think it is of theirs to be reading the epistles to the churches in the Bible, if they don't know what a church is, to begin with?

Well, doesn't it?

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

Not, "bring your crayons to a coloring book".

You may think you are posting coherently, but you are the only person who is following your logic.

I used logic.

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

Everyone gets an "F", in Spiritual Bible comprehension, as a result.

Everyone else is wondering what your point actually is.

O.K., then, how about if I try this:

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

What is "it?"

Ichabod.

Thank you.

Praise the Lord.

 

[37818]

@Alan Gross,
When Jesus' disciple Peter answered His question, ". . . 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 shall not prevail against it."
Re: Matthew 16:15-18.
Also John 6:44, ". . . No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. . . ."

 

[37818]

@MrW,
I just gave a long explanation of How Jesus is building His church by means of that rock, being by way of His Father.

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

 

[AustinC]

In that, ye say well, for that he was.

So far, so good.

Bible interpretation par excellence.



You want, "the household" to be "the elect"?

No way.

And, you are saying that Peter was addressing "the elect" as being the "household" as his audience?

NOT IN A MILLION YEARS.



You are now saying that Peter was addressing "us" as his audience? and was telling "us" something, as being the "the priesthood of believers"? "to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ"?

Naw, that's what I mean by you guys not being able to comprehend what is being said, because you are imbibed with and have forfeited that ability, as illustrated by your next comment:




Negative, on saying that the, "elect", "household", or "priesthood of believers" ("an holy priesthood") "are the church".

So, although God tricked you into answering the question from the O.P., "What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"?, what He got you to disclose as your answer is not what He wanted to hear you say, as being the reason He wrote those words.

Nevertheless, it is "an answer".

I can't tell you what to believe.

"Too many people have bent over backwards to introduce mysticism into the practical teachings of Jesus and the Apostles where the Scriptures context does not allow it."

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/Maslin.Critique.Universal.Church.Theory.pdf

With all respect for the scholarship of the men who have held otherwise, in fidelity to an Omniscient Savior the "universal invisible church theory must be set aside as a human theory. All such theories must be regarded only as the cobwebs which truth brushes away in order to prepare the churches He intended, as each being a suitable habitation for God through the Spirit. "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."



"You can't handle the truth."

Google Image Result for https://media1.giphy.com/media/l46CwsAIlmnXlRC9O/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952n4eyk0oze6mbo1mjri20f0rir53h6p3qrzqcz7pf&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

If I succinctly say, "1 + 1 does not equal 1",
they say, "Spirit Baptism" + "water baptism" equals "one baptism".

If I succinctly say, "verse 5 in Acts 19 goes with verse 4",
they say, "verse 5 goes with verse 6 and therefore God sent a dud, when He sent John the Baptist to baptize".

If I succinctly say, "ekklesia" means "ekklesia",
they say, "ekklesia" means "basileia".

I can't spoon fed 'em?
and now you're saying I can't force feed 'em?

Apparently, God would agree with you.



There had been a clear distinction made between the anti-Landmark crowd, calling me a "cultist", "heretic", "wrong", "a Roman Catholic", etc.

I distinctly made three postings which each clearly engendered a response to the same question, "What do you Teach other men that "a Church is"?

What happened to all of the anti-Landmark crowd on that?

I thought could tell it like it is and put me right in my place.

First, they are care free to dismiss me out of hand.

Now, they are no where to be found regarding the most fundamental of Christian beliefs.

Doesn't it make you wonder what business they even think it is of theirs to be reading the epistles to the churches in the Bible, if they don't know what a church is, to begin with?

Well, doesn't it?

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

Not, "bring your crayons to a coloring book".



I used logic.

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

Everyone gets an "F", in Spiritual Bible comprehension, as a result.



O.K., then, how about if I try this:

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



Ichabod.



Praise the Lord.

You wrote:
Negative, on saying that the, "elect", "household", or "priesthood of believers" ("an holy priesthood") "are the church".

What does the text tell us?

So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
~ 1 Peter 2:1-10

Alan, this passage is referencing the church. For you to deny it is for you to deny scripture itself.

 

[Alan Gross]

'Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste' (Isaiah 28:16). This prophetic Scripture clearly declared God's purpose to lay in Zion a foundation, a stone foundation, one that was to be tried, that was assured, a foundation on which faith should rest, without haste or shame.

This "foundation" is Jesus and of course, is said regarding "salvation of the soul, in Jesus, the Savior", Who is "a foundation on which faith should rest".

So, the things regarding the "salvation" of those spoken of in I Peter 2, below, I put in red, also.

So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

So, in all the words above that are in red, they all have to do with salvation and specifically where those who are saved are referred to, in I Peter 2.

However, you go on to say that from your understanding of things, and in answer to my question about what you say "a church" is, you are defining "the church", as something that contains and is composed of "all saved people", i.e.,

the church

That is where we come to a fork in the road and do not and may never agree.

I know you are saying, "church" = "all saved people".

That's it.

I don't know of any way that people can be brought off of holding that position, so that is where we will remain, with your conclusion;

Alan, this passage is referencing the church. For you to deny it is for you to deny scripture itself.

So, it's over. Just like that.

I can state my position, below, but rest assured, you are not ever expected to come to any new understanding of what the scriptures have buried on in there, even if that is the case.

So, you can plan on just ignoring all of it; in fact, I think I'll just place my own words of explanation right into the text, as a shortcut, which will be sure to arouse a backlash. A backlash to what? People already don't believe it says anything like that and I already know they don't and probably won't ever, so it's all an exercise in futility anyway.

I get it.

Just like here in I Corinthians, Paul is talking to the saved "brethren";

I Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

These saved brethren were there in Corinth and were meeting together, with Paul speaking to them, as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."

The Bible calls that group of saints, a "church".

I Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,

And, it is that kind of distinction and definition I would give to every instance in the New Testament, where the word "church" is used to refer to Jesus' "church" that He built, and I believe that is the only definition God ever intended to have us understand that He is saying when He uses the word "church" and in the occurrences where Jesus' "church" is called a "body".

Then, we start seeing things like;

I Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye ( = as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together ( = as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Then, Matthew 16:17b-18; "...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 (Jesus, as its "foundation") I will build my church ( = as always, in every instance of it being, "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."); and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ( = as this promise having been given to Jesus' churches, being in every instance of them, "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.")

I Corinthians 12:28a; And God hath set some in the church ( = Jesus' church that He was building, as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."), first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers,

3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder ( = of Jesus' churches that Paul was now continuing to build, as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."), I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

3:11 For other foundation ( = Jesus, on Whom, as their "foundation" these individual church bodies were to always be built, as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

I would have the reader note the scriptural foundation upon which I rest my "faith, for salvation", as in the verses way above, in red, AND my conclusion that the foundation rock of Matthew 16:18 is Jesus, on Whom, as their "foundation", HE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE these individual church bodies BUILT.

low AND behold, con't:

 

[Alan Gross]

The first argument is from prophecy we already saw, at the top: 'Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation ( = Jesus, on Whom, as their "foundation", HE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE these individual church bodies BUILT, as "organized local assemblies of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") he that believeth shall not make haste' (Isaiah 28:16).

In fulfillment of this prophecy, I cite your first testimony of Peter, to whom the language of our passage was spoken: 'To whom coming, as unto a living stone (Jesus), disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious. Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house ( = an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."), a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices ( = when they carry out The Great Commission and get folks saved, make disciples, etc., and all their other work, as a specific individual organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."), acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone (Jesus), elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him (Jesus) shall not be confounded' (1 Peter 2:4-6).

And, believe it or not, we have "Book on it", when it says, "as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices", = being when they carry out The Great Commission and get folks saved, make disciples, etc., and all their other work, as a specific individual organized local assembly of baptized believers.

"That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Romans 15:16.

This speaks about them operating together as an organized "church" assembly; "lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices"

and by "a holy priesthood" here isn't just saying that they were believers that could pray, which had been stated already and said a little differently, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, (believers that could pray)

Note: "a holy nation" (which IS speaking of THE SAINTS IN THIS CHURCH ASSEMBLY, ALSO having been born into THE KINGDOM of God, as A NATION of ALL SAVED SOULS on EARTH, under KING JESUS,

which is were the word "church" has gotten tangled into and nefariously and very, very, very unfortunantly been attempted to be blended into allegedly being: WHAT THE KINGDOM of GOD ACTUALLY ALREADY IS), a people for his own possession".

So with the temple of Solomon. It was no temple until the stones were quarried from Lebanon, prepared, gathered into Jerusalem, and put each into their own place in the building.

Whether the church is referred to as a temple or a house or a body, in every instance these two essential ideas are there, namely, assembly and organization.

It is not a body unless the members are assembled and organized.

It is not a house unless the materials are assembled and organized.

It is not a temple unless the stones and other material are assembled and organized.

The "spiritual house" of which Peter here speaks is unquestionably their church ( as one of Jesus' organized local assemblies of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.").

The foundation upon which that church as a building of God's children ( as "lively" saved "stones") serving Him, ( as an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") must rest, is unquestionably our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Peter claims this as a fulfillment of the prophecy which has been cited, as well as Psalm 118:22: 'The stone (Jesus) which the builders refused is become the head-stone (Jesus, the head-stone) of the corner ( of the building He was to build, as an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."). This is the Lord's doing. It is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made. We will rejoice and be glad in it.'

Our Lord's own words in another connection (Matthew 21:42) claim the same fulfillment: 'The stone (Jesus) which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner.' ( = of the building He was to build, as an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.")

With any other construction, it would be impossible to understand Paul's statement (1 Corinthians 3:11, 16, 17): 'For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, ( the building built with "lively stones", or saved saints, as an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.' ( the building built with "lively stones", or saved saints, as an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.")

Here again, the church ( as an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.")is compared to a building. The foundation of that building is distinctly said to be Christ.

It is also worthy of note that any other foundation for the church than Christ Himself would be wholly out of harmony with the Old Testament concept, as given by Moses, Samuel, David, and Isaiah, and Paul's New Testament comment in the following passages, which the reader will please examine: Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 31; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2, 32; Psalms 18:2, 31; 61:2; 89:26; 92:15; 95:1; and Isaiah 17:10; 1 Corinthians 10:4.

An example of a "church", like we are saying and a "body", being of this same description, is in Romans 12:4 For as we have many ("local church") members in one body, ( as an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") and all ( of our "local church") members have not the same office:

5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, ( as one organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") and everyone (of us members that make up this one local body of believers ) members (are accountable, etc.) one of another (united here together locally).

take three, con't:

 

[AustinC]

'Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste' (Isaiah 28:16). This prophetic Scripture clearly declared God's purpose to lay in Zion a foundation, a stone foundation, one that was to be tried, that was assured, a foundation on which faith should rest, without haste or shame.

This "foundation" is Jesus and of course, is said regarding "salvation of the soul, in Jesus, the Savior", Who is "a foundation on which faith should rest".

So, the things regarding the "salvation" of those spoken of in I Peter 2, below, I put in red, also.







So, in all the words above that are in red, they all have to do with salvation and specifically where those who are saved are referred to, in I Peter 2.

However, you go on to say that from your understanding of things, and in answer to my question about what you say "a church" is, you are defining "the church", as something that contains and is composed of "all saved people", i.e.,



That is where we come to a fork in the road and do not and may never agree.

I know you are saying, "church" = "all saved people".

That's it.

I don't know of any way that people can be brought off of holding that position, so that is where we will remain, with your conclusion;



So, it's over. Just like that.

I can state my position, below, but rest assured, you are not ever expected to come to any new understanding of what the scriptures have buried on in there, even if that is the case.

So, you can plan on just ignoring all of it; in fact, I think I'll just place my own words of explanation right into the text, as a shortcut, which will be sure to arouse a backlash. A backlash to what? People already don't believe it says anything like that and I already know they don't and probably won't ever, so it's all an exercise in futility anyway.

I get it.

Just like here in I Corinthians, Paul is talking to the saved "brethren";

I Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

These saved brethren were there in Corinth and were meeting together, with Paul speaking to them, as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."

The Bible calls that group of saints, a "church".

I Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,

And, it is that kind of distinction and definition I would give to every instance in the New Testament, where the word "church" is used to refer to Jesus' "church" that He built, and I believe that is the only definition God ever intended to have us understand that He is saying when He uses the word "church" and in the occurrences where Jesus' "church" is called a "body".

Then, we start seeing things like;

I Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye ( = as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together ( = as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Then, Matthew 16:17b-18; "...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 (Jesus, as its "foundation") I will build my church ( = as always, in every instance of it being, "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."); and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ( = as this promise having been given to Jesus' churches, being in every instance of them, "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.")

I Corinthians 12:28a; And God hath set some in the church ( = Jesus' church that He was building, as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."), first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers,

3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder ( = of Jesus' churches that Paul was now continuing to build, as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc."), I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

3:11 For other foundation ( = Jesus, on Whom, as their "foundation" these individual church bodies were to always be built, as "an organized local assembly of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

I would have the reader note the scriptural foundation upon which I rest my "faith, for salvation", as in the verses way above, in red, AND my conclusion that the foundation rock of Matthew 16:18 is Jesus, on Whom, as their "foundation", HE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE these individual church bodies BUILT.

low AND behold, con't:

Alan, in 1 Peter 2, the foundation is Christ Jesus. The church is what is built on that foundation. From every nation, tribe, and tongue.

Those bricks are individuals and communities of believers from around the world and from many, many, denominations. Each one goes to Mount Zion. They meet at their little embassy and they hear, from a spokesman, the words of their King. Each embassy joins the festal singing of the angels and first fruits in heaven when they come together. In each enclave the whole is the church united as one. This is the teaching of scripture. If you disagree with this, then you are effectively cutting yourself off from the body. You are not disagreeing with me as much as disagreeing with God's word.

 

[Alan Gross]

That is certainly not an exhaustive list of all the occurrences of a "church" or a "body" and various other words (Temple) when they refer to an organized local assembly of baptized believers, etc., but these are enough to give you the gist of what I mean that the Bible expresses when it uses the words "church" or a "body" and various other words (Temple).

The original Greek meaning for the word "church" is that of an "organized summoned together assembly" and that is what Jesus "built" upon, to Divinely Originate His specific kind of "organized summoned together assembly", as His Institution to conduct His business during the Church* Age that we are presently in.

* always spoken of Biblically of one, or more, or all "churches" in the sense of them being an Institution, and them all being "organized local assemblies of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.")

Multiple millions of saved souls are not baptized into such an Institution that Jesus built, as an "organized local assemblies of baptized believers, convened together to uphold and contend for the faith, protect and execute the Ordinances, and to carry out the Great Commission, etc.") but certainly the word "church" never is used to indicate "all saved people", in the Bible.

(Any effort by men to later alter that Greek word's meaning, was not of any necessity, apart from 'Theological grounds' to accommodate the invention of false religious notions AND WAS NOT and COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHANGED by GOD, sometime after the Bible was completed, etc.,

and to suggest that it suddenly needs to "ALSO MEAN THE OPPOSITE" of an "organized summoned together assembly", by ADDING an unneeded and unprecedented, "entirely contradictory meaning" of an "unorganized globally scattered worldwide dispersal".

That is not something God did, in my book.

He didn't need to and that is not how He works.

He said what He meant and didn't come back later in time
and say, "you know before I was just lying".

And, that supernaturally drastic, and evil 180 degree,
total about-face change to "include" a perfectly exact
polar opposite meaning of the words "church",
that contridicts God and the Bible
(and, I suppose their need to also bastardize the meaning of "body"),
is specifically, precisely, where our difference lies).

 

[Alan Gross]

Well, trust me, I've been called worse than a Prophet,
but that is not what I was doing here.

I had just added Divine Prerogative,
as an axiom into the equation, about your receptor's abilities,
from Jesus' words in Matthew 11:25;

"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee,
O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid..."

Alan, this passage is referencing the church. For you to deny it is for you to deny scripture itself.

I know you are saying, "church" = "all saved people".

That's it.

I don't know of any way that people can be brought off of holding that position, so that is where we will remain, with your conclusion;

The church is what is built on that foundation. From every nation, tribe, and tongue.

Those bricks are individuals and communities of believers from around the world and from many, many, denominations.

In each enclave the whole is the church united as one. This is the teaching of scripture.

If you disagree with this, then you are effectively cutting yourself off from the body.

Speaking of:

supernaturally drastic

You are not disagreeing with me as much as disagreeing with God's word.

Nice try.

"He that hath an ear, let him hear
what the Spirit saith unto the churches"; (plural, btw).
Revelation 2:29.

 

[Alan Gross]

from your understanding of things, and in answer to my question about what you say "a church" is, you are defining "the church", as something that contains and is composed of "all saved people",

I've read and studied about this for decades, under some of the authors of the dozens of books I have on the subject, along with innumerable articles, theses, etc., on a daily based.

People and brains from all over are able to go around and around about whether the Greek word, "ekklesia", which underlies our English word, "church", as used as in The New Testament, that Jesus used to say that He was going to build from the original idea of that word, to Create His Divine Institution, He called, "My church",

was intended by Jesus to mean and to be generally defined as a "an organized people summoned out to assemble together", or that it can additionally mean to sometimes indicate, "an unorganized people scattered worldwide in a global dispersement", but the crux of the whole matter still boils down to
One Incontrovertible Truth.

And having already said, about those who adopted both of those meaning, to be applicable to the Greek word, "ekklesia", translated, "church";

I don't know of any way that people can be brought off of holding that position, so that is where we will remain

The One Incontrovertible Truth is to remember that the idea and position of adopting an additional definition to "ekklesia", or "church", was developed and added to the original definition long after the Bible was written, and that the adding of this new meaning is based on the theory that,

"A word used in the Bible can have Two Different Meanings that are the utter and Complete Opposite of each other",

and that, at the same time, includes the irrationality inherit of that alteration to a definition of a Bible word, which involves the inability to differentiate between which of those two conflicting and opposite meanings is supposed to be applied, at any time, when and where that word, "church", is used in the Bible,

while still anticipating to have absolute certainty, which of those two completely different and contradictory meanings indicates what God intended to express, by using the word, "church", in any given context and in every particular verse.

That is one choice.

There are only two choices.

Choice #1: While, that is the position of those who have adopted both of those meaning, to be applicable to the Greek word, "ekklesia", translated, "church"; to say that it may be generally defined as, "an organized people summoned out to assemble together", as "a local church body", in the Bible,

or that it might additionally mean to sometimes indicate, "an unorganized people scattered worldwide in a global dispersement", as being a "universal world wide church including all saved people".


Choice #2: Our position is that the Greek w: ord, "ekklesia", translated, "church", does not and never did have two different meanings that is presumed to give one word two totally opposite definitions to one another, at the same time,

we believe that the Greek word, "ekklesia", translated, "church", has always retained its original meaning and say that it may be generally defined as, "an organized people summoned out to assemble together", or as "a local church body", as used in the Bible, where it always is referring to, "a local church body", organized and serving the Lord,

or when, "the church", is said it always means that particular "local church body", as in "the church at Ephesus", organized and serving the Lord,

or for example when "the church of the Living God", is said to be "the pillar and ground of the truth", it is referring to that particular, "local church body", as an Institution and is including all other existing, "local church bodies", organized and serving the Lord, which are also similar Institutions.

"The church", then, is sometimes used as speaking of as many, or all, of the "local church bodies", in the sense of each of them still being one of the "local church bodies", as Institutions associated with Jesus, when saying. "the church", i.e., "all of the local churches", as individually established, and built to the pattern of the original Institution.

Whenever they are observed in their real life presence, however, all of "the church", are always one or more individual "local church bodies", seen organized and serving the Lord, with any and all of them also being, "pillar(s) and ground(s) of the truth", etc., at their respective locations.

I can state my position, below, but rest assured, you are not ever expected to come to any new understanding of what the scriptures have buried on in there, even if that is the case.

So, it's over. Just like that.

it's all an exercise in futility anyway.

You are not disagreeing with me as much as disagreeing with God's word.

Called it!

 

[MrW]

@MrW,
I just gave a long explanation of How Jesus is building His church by means of that rock, being by way of His Father.

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

Your link takes me to post #10, this thread; a short post.

 

[MrW]

The church is all who believe and receive Christ, John 1:11-13. The organism.

They fellowship in local churches. The organization.

Period.