Authority

[Bible-belted]

FYI:

Baptists do hold to the idea of the church as the universal body of Christ. It also holds that each individual congregation is also the body of Christ, in the sense of not lacking anything to finction as the Body just because it does not comprise every person of the universal body. This is drawn from Pauyl's exposition of hte church as the body of Christ. It is applied by baptists both to the church universal and the local congregation.

And Ronnie, having read your inflammatory and ill-informed remarks, it is clear once aain that whater you are, it is not "trying to understand". Put that axe down. Its dull and the grinding wheel for you doesn't work here.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
DHK, when Jesus said, "... I will build my church.", exactly which singular local called out body of believers was He referring to?

Notice, Jesus said "church", not "churches".

You have three choices then:

1 Your little local church that you belong to is that singular church that Jesus was talking about.

2 Your little local church that you belong to is not that singular church that Jesus was talking about.

3 You are wrong in your undrstanding of the meaning of the word "church".

Which is it?

Ron

None of the above. You forgot to include that in your choices.

Man has sinned. (Which man? Who was it? More than one?)
Sin is wickedness. (What sin? Can you name it? How evil was it? How many were there?)
Flour is used in baking. (Which kind? How much?)

In all of the above examples you have singular generic nouns used to represent a greater whole. Man for example refers to all men, though the singular "man" is used. "Sin," a singular noun is used to represent all sin, and/or all sins. "Flour," (not as good as an example) is used to represent all flours, though it also is used in the singular.
Jesus said I will build my church. The word church always, means "assembly" or "congregation," and thus can never mean invisible or universal. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly, which is precisely what a universal church--an assembly that is never assembled. Thus the "church" or "assembly" that Jesus was referring to was a generic singular noun representative of every Biblical assembly that has Christ as its head, and the Bible as its foundation. A church is always an assembly of called-out baptized believers who have voluntarily come together for the purpose of carrying out the commands and ordinances of Christ. It is local, not universal. However, when we get to Heaven we will be universally assembled together.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
The word church always, means "assembly" or "congregation," and thus can never mean invisible or universal. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly, which is precisely what a universal church--an assembly that is never assembled.

So who is right?

DHK says, church can never mean universal... Adam says that the church is universal... Curtis says that all Baptists believe that the church is universal.

It seems that Baptists, let alone all sola scripturaists can't even agree on the meaning of the word "church".

Pretty basic concept, I would think.

Ron

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
The word church always, means "assembly" or "congregation," and thus can never mean invisible or universal. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly, which is precisely what a universal church--an assembly that is never assembled.

So who is right?

DHK says, church can never mean universal... Adam says that the church is universal... Curtis says that all Baptists believe that the church is universal.

It seems that Baptists, let alone all sola scripturaists can't even agree on the meaning of the word "church".

Pretty basic concept, I would think.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Like I said, it's both. I said that in my post quite clearly. But you'd have to read (and that without prejudice) to see that.

Pretty simple concept.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
The word church always, means "assembly" or "congregation," and thus can never mean invisible or universal. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly, which is precisely what a universal church--an assembly that is never assembled.

Originally posted by trying2understand:
So who is right?

DHK says, church can never mean universal... Adam says that the church is universal... Curtis says that all Baptists believe that the church is universal.

It seems that Baptists, let alone all sola scripturaists can't even agree on the meaning of the word "church".

Originally posted by Latreia:
Like I said, it's both. I said that in my post quite clearly. But you'd have to read (and that without prejudice) to see that.

Pretty simple concept.

Latreia, you say it's both.

DHK says it's not.

Like I said, "Baptists, let alone sola scripturaists, can't even agree on the meaning of the word 'church'."

And yes, it is a pretty basic concept.

So what's your point?

Ron

 

[DHK]

Ron,
Take a Greek lexicon and look the word up for yourself.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by DHK:
[QB]Ron,
Take a Greek lexicon and look the word up for yourself.
DHK

Huh?

How does that resolve the confusion between Baptists?

Ron

[ December 11, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Bro. Curtis]

There is no confusion, and your attempts to create it, or display it, are laughable, and yet at the same time, pathetic.

[ December 11, 2002, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
There is no confusion, and your attempts to create it, or display it, are laughable, and yet at the same time, pathetic.

Previously posted by Bro. Curtis:
The church means the body of believers here on earth.I know of no Baptists that profess what you wrote here.

Posted by DHK:
The word church always, means "assembly" or "congregation," and thus can never mean invisible or universal. It is impossible to have an unassembled assembly, which is precisely what a universal church--an assembly that is never assembled.

So what am I so assume from all this? That you and DHK are in agreement on what is the "church"?

You say all believers on earth.

DHK says that is "impossible".

So what exactly do Baptists believe to be the church?

BTW, since there exists no confusion , no doubt your definition of "church" will reconcile these conflicting beliefs.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:

Just curious, Curtis, why did you bother to pipe in to the discussion to tell me that no Baptist believed that the church does not also mean "all believers on earth"?

I mean, now that I have been shown to be correct by DHK, you feign sleep. What's with that?

The fact that Baptists can't even all agree on the meaning of "church" is a sad commentary on sola scriptura.

Ron

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Because no matter what we say, you will use it against us, twist it around, and attempt to cause some sort of division. That's what you do. And I have grown weary of it, Ron.

But that's our fault for giving you bandwidth, isn't it ? That's what we get for inviting you into our message board, insults, insinuation, and ridicule.

Again, I say...

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
[QB]Because no matter what we say, you will use it against us, twist it around, and attempt to cause some sort of division. That's what you do. And I have grown weary of it, Ron.

What exactly have I twisted here?

Your complaint is a bit nonspecific don't you think?

If I am merely "twisting" it should not be difficult for you to disarm my arguements by pointing out the specifics and countering with the "straight" truth.

I notice that you are not doing that.

But that's our fault for giving you bandwidth, isn't it ? That's what we get for inviting you into our message board, insults, insinuation, and ridicule.

Again, I say...

I thought that the members of this board were interested in discussion to promote truth.

If anything that I have posted here is less than that, by all means, point it out.

If you believe me to be wrong, you should feel challenged, not sleepy. Or should I say weary.

Perhaps you find it troubling to belong to a denomination that does not even come to agreement on the meaning of the word church. I don't know, but don't blame it on me.

Ron

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It is impossible to promote truth with catholics. We have tried, and failed.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
It is impossible to promote truth with catholics. We have tried, and failed.

Well, when the best response you can muster to a challenge is to go to sleep, what can you expect?

You know excessive tiredness is a sign of depression. You may want to check into it.

Just teasing, Curtis. But seriously, wouldn't you think that Baptists should have the same thing in mind when they talk about the basics, like the word "church"?

Ron

 

[Bro. Curtis]

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Seriously, Ron. I'm tired of arguing. Your point here has been dealt with, by several of us. Take your supposed contradiction, and have fun with it. I don't want you to twist any more of my words around, so I'm not going to give you an answer, that has already been explained to you.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Seriously, Ron. I'm tired of arguing. Your point here has been dealt with, by several of us. Take your supposed contradiction, and have fun with it. I don't want you to twist any more of my words around, so I'm not going to give you an answer, that has already been explained to you.

This is exactly why I call him "Ron". Tp use the full name is too ironic since Ron is certainly not trying to understand anyting, but rather attack everything that is not RC. And to call him simply trying at once is too optimistic, since it impies effort on his part and also too mean as it implies that he simply gets on poepole's nerves.

So, Ron it is.

Seriously though, there is no contradiction. look up a lexicon and the definition is there. Do you have one Ron? There are several websites that have one on-line.

The irnoic thing of course is that the one gloss for ekklessia is th one that RCs desperately need: an identifiable hierarchy of some kind. Ekklessia never means that. If the inspired writers wanted to imply that they could have used sunagoge. But they don't. Becuase the underlying Aramaic (if we assume one for Matthew) would be the word for "community", not the one for assembly as per the cultus.

Think about it Ron. Your definition isn't evn a lexical possibility, and you're trying to get on us about ours when they are lexical possibilities. Doesn't that tell you something? it should.

 

[DHK]

Are you afraid to do your own research Ron? The answers you might find to the definition of ekklesia in a Greek lexicon will once and for all put to death the definition of a Catholic organization or denomination. We all agree that ekklesia does not mean the "Catholic Church" You cannot prove that from the Bible or from a Greek study of the word. Demonstrate it if you can. Now the onus is on you.
DHK

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Latreia:
Seriously though, there is no contradiction. look up a lexicon and the definition is there. Do you have one Ron? There are several websites that have one on-line.

DHK says that there is no universal church because it is not possible for all such members to assemble.

Curtis and Adam say that there is a univeral church made up of all believers on earth.

You do not see a contradiction there?

Take up your arguement with which ever one you disagree with.

My point is that Baptists do not agree on what constitutes the church. As I have said that seems to be pretty basic doctrine.

Ron