Abstract Use of Singular Nouns is Not Hard to Understand, even "The Church" in Ephesians.

[Alan Gross]

[QUOTE="37818, post: 2873406, member: 14338"
]Matthew 16:18, ". . . upon this rock I will build my church;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. . . ."[/QUOTE]

I believe that we would still be on safe ground,
by adopting and using,
"learn how to read a sentence in our own language",
as being a sound hermeneutical principle.

I really do.

But. That's just me.

The Church in Ephesians
By Rosco Brong

Abstract Use of Singular Nouns is Not Hard to Understand.

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus
throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." Ephesians 3:21.

Of the 115 times that the Greek word "ekklesia" (usually translated "church" in KJ) appears in the New Testament, according to the Englishman's Greek Concordance, 79 occurrences are in the singular and 36 in the plural.

Most of the singulars are so obviously referred by the context to a particular assembly or congregation at a definite place that the most rabid advocates of a "universal" or "invisible" church cannot deny the simple fact that in these places the word "church" does mean "assembly" or "congregation."

But the word occurs nine times in Paul's letter to the Ephesians, each time in the singular, with the definite article, and without mention of a meeting place. And it is universally assumed by Protestant commentators with an ax to grind (and, sad to say, by ignorant or mistaught Baptists with their nose (noses) on the Protestant grindstone) that these references are to a "universal" or "invisible" church, as distinguished from "local" churches.

WET WATER -- COLD ICE
Actually, to speak of a "local" church is like speaking of wet water, hot fire, or cold ice. There is no other kind, in a Biblical sense. The use of the word "church" to mean a meeting house, a denomination, or a universal hierarchy or religious monstrosity. visible or invisible, is completely unscriptural.

In the Bible the word "church" (Greek "ekklesia") means assembly, only and always. It never refers to an unknown, unassembling, confused and scattered multitude. Such a "church" exists only in the imagination of heretics desperately trying to justify their schisms.

ABSTRACT -- TEN TO NONE
Every day we all use singular nouns in an abstract, generic, or distributive sense. We are not so silly as to dream up a vision of a universal, invisible automobile just because we hear or read of the changes the automobile has made in American life.

But instead of wasting space with more extra-scriptural examples, let us note some other singular nouns so used in Ephesians. This is only a partial list, and there is no Biblical evidence at all for a universal church: therefore in Ephesians the evidence is easily 10 or 15 to nothing that the word "church" is used abstractly and retains its usual meaning of "assembly" ("local," of course -- there is no other kind).

OUR FLESH
"We all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh ..." (Ephesians 2:3.) The reference is not to universal, invisible flesh, whatever that might be, but to flesh in the abstract, or specifically to the flesh of each one of us.

If it be objected that this is a peculiarity of the English word "flesh," which could not be used in the plural, the answer is that this is not true of the Greek word "sarx," which is used in the plural five times in one verse (Revelation 19:18.)

HIS WORKMANSHIP
"We are his workmanship." (Ephesians 2:10.) The plural form for the singular word here translated "workmanship" appears in Romans 1:20, where it is rendered "the things that are made."

No one will argue that "we" are one universal invisible thing that is made, one universal workmanship of God. Indisputably "workmanship" here is used abstractly, and the meaning is simply that each one of us is a product of God's making.

MIND OR UNDERSTANDING
"The eyes of your understanding."
"Having the understanding darkened."
(Ephesians 1:18; 4:18.)

Both of these references are to a plurality of persons, but in either case the thought is not that they have a universal understanding, but that the statement made applies to the understanding of each of them. In Ephesians 2:3 the plural of the same Greek word is used, but is translated in KJ by the abstract English singular "mind."

A kindred Greek word (singular) also is translated "mind" with a plural possessive in Ephesians 4:17, 23: "their mind" and "your mind." Misty minded mystics may mouth about a "universal mind," but clearer heads will recognize easily the familiar abstract or distributive meaning and apply it at once to each individual in the class covered.

con't

 

[Alan Gross]

SINGULAR HEART
"Blindness of their heart."
"Melody in your heart."
"Singleness of your heart."
(Ephesians 4:18; 5:19; 6:5.)

In each of these three quotations we find a plural possessive with a singular "heart." Shall we therefore imagine one monstrous universal heart having invisible connections with all the people included in the plural pronoun?

Sane readers, again, will have no difficulty in understanding this language as conveying essentially the same meaning, in application, as when the plural forms are used in Ephesians 3:17 and 6:22.

THROUGH FAITH
"By grace ye have been saved through faith." (Ephesians 2:8.) It seems to be "universally" agreed that the reference here is to the personal faith of each individual believer. Yet, while the subject is plural, the word for faith is singular, and with the definite article - meaning simply the faith in each case.

CIRCUMCISION
"Ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands." (Ephesians 2:11.)

Here two abstract terms, Uncircumcision and handmade Circumcision, are used in the singular with plural concrete meanings, and by metonymy the act or condition of circumcision or its absence means the people so affected. Certainly no one will contend that only one act of circumcision is here in view, even though the word is grammatically singular.

THE OLD MAN
"That ye put off the old man." (Ephesians 4:22.) Plural subject: did they all have just one old man? What a monster, then, was he! And if Paul's Ephesian readers put him off once for all (as the aorist infinitive suggests), why should we be bothered about him now?

Coming back to good sense, we all know that "the old man" is no universal monster: each of us has his own "old man" and each of us must put his own away. But in this quotation the noun is singular abstract: it is in the application that we come concretely to each individual.

THE NEW MAN
"And that ye put on the new man." (Ephesians 4:24.) Every true Christian is separately and personally a new creation (II Corinthians 5:17); nevertheless we have again a plural subject with an abstract singular to be referred concretely to each person in the group. We could call this a distributive use of the noun, as if the word "each" were included in the subject.

ONE NEW MAN
"To make in himself of twain one new man." (Ephesians 2:15.) More literally: "That he might create the two in himself into one new man."

Examination of context shows that plural Gentiles and Israelites are spoken of as two things or races made one; then they are figured as two men created into one.

Are we, then, to imagine a monstrous, universal, invisible Gentile-Israelite having his limbs, cells, and corpuscles scattered all over the world? No one, perhaps, is quite so silly - until he begins to talk about "the church."

THE INNER MAN
"That he would grant you (plural) ... to be strengthened . . . in the inner man." (Ephesians 3:16.) Only one inner man for you all? Or can we not see here again the singular abstract which must be pluralized in its concrete application?

HUSBAND AND WIFE
"The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." (Ephesians 5:23.) It would be exactly as sensible and intelligent to argue from this text for the real existence of a universal invisible husband and a universal invisible wife as of a universal invisible church. One is just as scriptural as the others.

If any critic is foolish enough to object that Christ cannot be the head of more than one church in the true sense of assembly wherever a true church exists, let him note I Corinthians 11:3: "The head of every man is Christ."

The Christ of the Bible can as easily be the head of every (true) church as He can be the head of every man, and so He is.


NO ECUMENICAL MONSTER
But Christ is not the head of modern denominations - Catholic, Protestant, or so-called Baptist.

He is not the head of any universal so-called church which can exist only in heretical imaginations. (Blasphemy.)

And He will not be the head of the ecumenical monster that Satan is rapidly forming.

Our Lord's church in Ephesians is exactly the same kind of church that it is everywhere else in the New Testament: an organized assembly of baptized believers built together on Him as their foundation and acknowledging Him as their head, furnishing in themselves a holy temple for a habitation of God in Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22.)

 

[37818]

The Church in Ephesians

But Ephesians 3:21, ". . . Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. . . ." The . . . one body . . . made up of all whom Christ has saved.

 

[Alan Gross]

But Ephesians 3:21, ". . . Unto him be glory in the church

I believe that we have seen that the nouns "church" and "body",
as they were written in the Bible began to be entirely altered and corrupted,

when the Roman Catholics evolved out of followers of the New Testament
who worshipped and served God in Biblically defined "churches",

and starting "Playing Religion", by "Playing God", and stole the word "church",
to change its meaning completely and add it to the title of their False,
Man-made Religion, to be "the Universal Visible Church".

So, that the main issue is not so much that of being the origin of when men
starting "Playing Religion", by "Playing God", and stole the word "church",
to change its meaning completely,

and for that to be said to be the origin of todays religions who have also adopted
that new extra-Biblical meaning of "church" to be their own,

as it is that the real issue with todays religions who have
also adopted the Roman Catholic's new meaning
of "church" to be their own are, themselves, Roman Catholic.

So, it is not as if individuals today's religious people have to be accused of Playing Religion,
by Playing God, by changing words in the Bible into the words of man,
into now having the opposite meaning,

because they have already been changed,
when The Roman Catholic Church was known to have first been Playing Religion,
by Playing God in their alteration and corruption of Bible words.

Within the Realm of Spiritual Reality, it is actually that the religions of today
who profess a "Universal Church" of any kind
are simply consenting members of The Roman Catholic man-made, false "Church",
who have been PLAYED by Roman Catholicism.

So, while:

I believe that we would still be on safe ground,
by adopting and using,
"learn how to read a sentence in our own language",
as being a sound hermeneutical principle.

One would have to embrace a Biblical definition of a noun, initially,
in order for:

Abstract Use of Singular Nouns is Not Hard to Understand.

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus
throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." Ephesians 3:21.

Roman Catholics, who define the word "church" or "body",
as being the opposite of that which is defined in the Bible,

one body . . . made up of all whom Christ has saved.

and all those who follow their lead in that belief
are die-hard, devote, proponents of Roman Catholicism,
and they are those who not only WILL NOT but CAN NOT Conceive OR Discern
the religious practice to which God refers in Ephesians 3:21;

But Ephesians 3:21, ". . . Unto him be glory in the church

and they, therefore, DO NOT participate in it,
any more than any other Roman Catholics, and NEVER WILL.

 

[Alan Gross]

The . . . one body . . . made up of all whom Christ has saved.

Instead of Satan, Rome, The Pope, Roman Catholicism, etc.,
you would have to bow to The Lordship of Christ, to gain an understanding
of what those words meant in the Bible, before Satan changed them later.

But that is not something you are going to do,
since you would have to have the brains to know that needs to be done, first,
and you haven't done it after the dozens of times we have been through this.

So, therefore, all bets are off.

 

[37818]

. . . and all those who follow their lead in that belief
are die-hard, devote, proponents of Roman Catholicism . . . .

That is not true.

 

[Alan Gross]

That is not true.

Then why do they believe the Pope and not God?

"No man can be more liberal than the Bible and be true to Christ." [1]

This is the historic Baptist position! This is also the view of modern, Bible-believing Baptists who want to be true to Christ in spite of the present situation.

The Present Situation

Some liberal "Baptists" are striding toward unification with Roman Catholicism. Many others remain firm in their conviction that continued separation from both the "Mother of Harlots" and her Protestant daughters is the only right course of action. The following quotation is furnished merely as an illustration of the unionizing tendencies now prevalent among some Baptist groups. Clearly, certain liberal elements within the once conservative Southern Baptist Convention of the United States are thus actively engaged.

"Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic scholars have declared that they basically agreed on doctrinal issues. Sponsored by the Catholic Bishop's Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs and the Southern Baptist Department of Interfaith Witness, the dialogue group recently released a report in the "Theological Educator." Quoting Eph. 4:5, the group concluded "We not only confessed but experienced 'One Lord, one faith, and one baptism" [2]

As a further example of the present move among some Baptists toward union with Roman Catholicism, and a more current one, consider the following news item.

"COLUMBIA, S.C. - The agreement between evangelicals and Roman Catholics to end their 'loveless conflict' is being welcomed in some parts of the Bible Belt.

"The agreement signed a week ago by evangelical leaders, including Pat Robertson, and by Catholic bishops continues progress that began seven years ago when Pope John II visited South Carolina and suggested closer ties, religious leaders said.

"'Indeed, is it not the duty of every follower of Christ to work for the unity of all Christians?' the pope told 26 American leaders of several denominations at the time.

"Parishioners at West Columbia's First Baptist Church said they were glad to hear of the recent agreement, especially the part calling for an end to trying to convert each other..." [3]

Anyone who understands the Bible message of salvation by grace alone and who is aware of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church will agree that the two are poles apart. Although Catholicism mouths the words of the Bible, she teaches salvation by works. Of course, most Protestants teach works for salvation and liberal "Baptists" do the same. Some "Baptists" are just as guilty of desiring a union of all "Christian denominations" as is the Catholic hierarchy. This is evidenced by the following statements made by "parishioners" of the First Baptist Church of Columbia, South Carolina.

"Baptists and Catholics each believe theirs is the only religion to follow, parishioner Dale Finley said.

"'I think for peace, they should work together and quit trying to shove (beliefs) down their throats,' she said.

"Helen Ford, another member of the large brick church with a wooden cross of flowers on its lawn the day after Easter, said she welcomed the cooperative effort.

"'I'm not so narrow that I cannot accept the fact that there are other very good Christian people in other denominations,' she said. 'I think we're all working toward the same goal; we're just taking different routes to get there.'" [4]

These last statements quoted are indicative of the sad doctrinal decline among some who call themselves Baptists. They do not know the truth, or have heard and rejected it.

Jesus said "the truth shall make you free." There is no salvation apart from the truth. Genuinely converted individuals are characterized by a knowledge of the truth. Regenerate persons do not have a perfect knowledge of truth, but a genuine knowledge, nevertheless. Truth, similarly, sets the churches of God apart from those which are false. The Lord's churches are the "pillar and ground of the truth." Doubtless, therefore, the devil is attempting to do away with true New Testament churches. If true Baptists are New Testament churches, the way to do away with them is to destroy their distinctive principles. This is the "modus operandi" presently used by the enemy of truth, the one whom Jesus said was "a liar and the father of it" (John 8:44).

Satan is often subtle in bringing about misrepresentations of the truth. He instigates mockery of the Bible and Bible-believers. He promotes man-glorifying freewill-ism, the Holy-Spirit-glorifying charismatic movement, doctrine-denying interdenominationalism, and the "universal invisible church" theory which denigrates the Church Jesus built. He attempts to accomplish his goal under the guise of brotherly love, unity and scholarship. After all, he argues, if all Christians are in one great "universal invisible church" and thus all part of one "mystical body" why should they not get together down here? Thus, he persuades the unthinking, and he coincidentally makes Bible-believing Baptists look like unloving, bigoted fanatics because they will not join with "evangelical Christians."

Satan has actively promoted these hurtful doctrines in leading colleges, seminaries and publishing houses in our own day. Because of this activity, he is enjoying some success as most Protestant organizations are now conducting "ecumenical dialogue" with the Harlot. Cooperation, pulpit affiliation, reception of immersions, union meetings, etc. between even some so-called "Baptists" and the Protestant daughters of the Harlot are now common. Charismatic Protestants are now one in spirit with Charismatic Catholics. Doctrinal purity has thus been sacrificed on the altar of Christian union.

If Baptist churches could be obliterated, the process of ecumenical union (not unity) would be made easier. Few oppose the merger of all churches into the Romish system other than healthy Baptists. "Evangelicals" in North America are having their distinctiveness eroded away by New Evangelicalism, liberalism and the Charismatic movement. Most "evangelical Christians" do not even realize what is happening! The end-time one-world church is just around the corner!

Many "Baptists" are fed Protestant fodder which is prepared in apostate seminaries and effectively disseminated through unscriptural denominational machinery, literature and programs. In spite of this, God still has a remnant who will not surrender Bible principles. These very principles are what make them Baptists. These historic principles keep this remnant of New Testament Baptist churches from organizing under some earthly headquarters, fellowship, convention or association.

After all, in spite of what you may have been led to believe, it is no sin to be a Baptist in a Baptist church practicing Biblical Baptist principles!

Three Witnesses for the Baptist by Curtis Pugh

 

[37818]

Then why do they believe the Pope and not God?

About what?
If one believes God, one believes Jesus is building His church, per Matthew 16:18, not on Peter.

 

[Silverhair]

About what?
If one believes God, one believes Jesus is building His church, per Matthew 16:18, not on Peter.

@37818 you have to realize that @Alan Gross does not accept the bible as written. He wants to alter it to fit his theology.

Sticking with Ephesians we see that the Church is the body of Christ. Alan's comments would lead one to think Christ has numerous bodies.

Eph 1:22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

Eph 1:23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.


Eph_2:16 and might reconcile them both [Jews & Gentiles] in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

Eph_3:6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

Eph_4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;

Eph_4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

Eph_5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

Eph 5:29 Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church

Eph_5:30 because we are members of His body.

We are not all members of the same congregation or even the same denomination but all true believers are members of the body of Christ. We are the universal church.

 

[Alan Gross]

His church

Jesus' church in the Bible is
ἐκκλησία (ekklésia) -- an assembly, a (religious) congregation.

About what?

The Pope's and all other Universal "churches"
are a βασιλεία (basileia), a kingdom.

They are virtual absolute complete opposites and the meaning of βασιλεία (basileia), a kingdom IS NEVER AND CAN NEVER BE ASSOCIATED WITH The Bible WORD ἐκκλησία (ekklésia) -- an assembly, a (religious) congregation.

ONLY WHEN THE DEVIL CAME ALONG LATER
AND CHANGED IT WAS THAT ATTEMPTED,
in the minds of some who bought what Satan was selling.

GOD HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

ἐκκλησία (ekklésia) -- an assembly, a (religious) congregation
Stands on its own perfectly well in every occurrence of it, just as God intended.

 

[Logos1560]

De Hamel suggested that “a Roman Catholic Bible might opt for vocabulary like ’church‘, ’priest’, ’chalice’, and ’charity’” while “a Protestant Bible might translate those same words from the Greek as ’congregation’, ’elder’, ’cup’ and ’love’” (The Book, p.245). David Lawton asserted: “The official Catholic translation, naturally, is ’Church’” (Faith, p. 72).

In his introduction to his modern-spelling edition of Tyndale’s N. T., David Daniell noted that “what [Sir Thomas] More found heretical in the word ’congregation’ was the implication that there is not one hierarchical body, The Church, of which all churches are members, but rather, self-governing communities of Christians, led by the Spirit, with allegiance only to God through their experience of Christ: precisely the New Testament sense” (p. xxi).

The English word church comes from the Old English cirice or circe, which may come from the Latin curia or the Greek adjective kuriakos. This Greek adjective which comes from the Greek noun kurios (lord, ruler, or master) and which means "of or belonging to the lord" or "imperial" is only used twice in the Greek New Testament. It was used at 1 Corinthians 11:20 (Lord's Supper) and at Revelation 1:10 (Lord's Day). The English word church was derived from the secular Greek usage of this Greek adjective in referring to the imperial palace (the lord's house). The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology noted that the English word church developed from the Old English cirice that meant a "public place of worship" (p. 171). In his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster gave the following as the first definition for the word church: "A house consecrated to the worship of God, among Christians; the Lord's house. This seems to be the original meaning of the word." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church also pointed out that the English word church applied originally to a church building (p. 344). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that the term congregation "described a gathering or assembly" while the term church "suggested a structure or organization" (IV, p. 190).

William Tyndale, in effect the primary translator of the KJV, used the English word “church” for buildings or temples as seen in Acts 14:13 [“the church porch”] and Acts 19:37 [“robbers of churches”]. Likewise, Miles Coverdale used the English word “church” or “churches” for buildings intended for worship. For example, the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible has “churches” at Hosea 8:14 where the KJV has “temples.” It also has “churches” (Lev. 26:31, Amos 7:9) where the KJV has “sanctuaries.” In a sermon in the official Church of England Homilies, it is stated: “We have in the first part of this Homily declared by God’s Word, that the temple or church is the house of the Lord” (Griffiths, Certain Sermons, pp. 170-171). It also stated: “The material church or temple is a place appointed for the people of God to resort together unto” (p. 164).

Mark Cambron wrote that “the word ‘church’ cannot be found in the New Testament. The word ‘church’ is a rendition, and not a translation. This same word ‘church’ is a rendition of the word ecclesia, which means a called-out company, or assembly” (Bible Doctrines, p. 213). KJV-only author James Melton wrote: “The word literally means ‘called out assembly’” (Bible Believer’s Handbook, p. 9). Noel Smith asserted that “the Greek ekklesia means “assembly“ and that “we didn’t get ‘church’ from the New Testament” (Jews, Gentiles, pp. 86, 88). J. L. Dagg (1794-1884) stated: "The Greek word [ecclesia] denotes an assembly; and, in this particular, differs from the English word church, which is often used to signify the house in which men assemble for religious worship" (Manual of Church Order, p. 75). Ben Bogard pointed out that a correct translation of the Greek word ecclesia "would be 'assembly' or 'congregation'" (Baptist Way-Book, p. 43). James Woolsey maintained that “the Greek word ecclesia signifies an assembly or congregation” (Doctrine, p.93). Willard Ramsey observed: "In Christ's day the Greek term ecclesia was commonly used as we use the term assembly today" (Nature of the N. T. Church, p. 4). Bob L. Ross asserted: “All Greek authorities tell us that ‘ekklesia’ means assembly or congregation” (Campbellism, p. 126). Concerning Acts 19:32, the Complete Biblical Library maintained that “by New Testament times, ekklesia had lost the idea of being ’called out” and that “it was used in everyday Greek to mean any assembly of citizens, whether officially called, or whether it was an unruly, confused mob come together such as this one in the amphitheater” (p. 469).