Allan said:
"I spoke to the biblical distinction of location of which stands consistant with the etymoligical meaning discussed. Since the very word is USED in the this manner (as evidenced by many Greek scholars- a few of whom I already referenced) the only conclusion arrived at is some seemingly ignore the clear meaning of a passage for a conceptual idea. While this is said of both sides, the Greek only agrees with one. It seems the problem in our discussion is your tendency to willingly overlooking the clear etymological usage when applied to people in a spiritual sense. This isn't choosing to look at it in a different way nor in a convient way, but is demanded by context in the both the Greek and properly translated English. "
My response:
There is no such thing as clear etymological usage of ekklesia applied to people in a spiritual sense. I have already quoted B. H. Carroll, and can others as well. I have also provided links within this thread to George W. McDaniel book on NT Churches. In which he provides a listing (at the back of the book) of the instances of ekklesia to be found throughout the NT. He then applies the sense of the word, by it's usage, as local, institutional, or in glory. Have you bothered to look at these? It is a very good exercise to see if you agree, and why or why not with his determinations, better yet read the whole book. The point is, What your Greek scholars actually say about the Greek (not their interpretation on various scriptures) in no way changes the usage or application of it. I have already given you the right understanding of it -- based on consistent usage.
Which brings up a point, I absolutely agree that it is possible for anyone to try to make something fit a given belief to fit an outcome -- and I am guilty of this to a large, and may I add very biblical degree.
For instance, once I understand that the bible very clearly teaches that Jesus substitutionary death on the cross for me, is the only means of my salvation, one can (and many do) attempt to throw obscure passages at me, or use circular reasoning, etc., to get me off track on this. I cannot be swayed. The obscure passage here or there must give way to the clear teachings.
We do not have a total lock in understanding of all passages or how they apply. We know and have reason to trust that God is perfectly consistent, not arbitrary, and wants us to understand. Again, I use baptism as a parallel example. Once I understand the clear teachings that baptism is via immersion of a born-again believer, the matter is settled. Many a pedo-baptist will attempt to convince that infant sprinkling is also ok -- it is still baptism they say. I say nay, I must interpret whatever passages they throw at me in light of the clear and incontrovertible truth of believer's immersion. (By the way they all can be!) To accept anything else is to do grave harm to God's truth -- it is not mine -- and the mission of His Church.
The same is true with ekklesia. The overwhelming and clear evidence is that it is a word used to reference a local entity. Chair does not mean table, or vice-versa, even tho there may be similarities, and even if tables have been used like chairs for millenia. Likewise, ekklesia does not now, nor ever has meant, anything other than a local, visible group. This one word does not mean two very different things -- this is called confusion -- of which God is not the author (1 Cor. 14:33). This allows for divided loyalties, and misrepresentation of a very serious and holy thing -- the very body of Christ. We are all obligated to represent God on this earth HIS way, not "whatsoever is right in our own eyes."
We should have no real or full expectation of God's blessings on OUR endeavors if we are not careful to represent Him to the world in ONLY His way. As I have previously referenced, we learn from the precise way in which he designed and built His Tabernacle, and then His Temple, that it is a very BIG DEAL to God, just how we represent Him to the world. The same care must be given to His ekklesia, which He said He would build -- and then did so.
The church you argue for is totally inconsistent with the clear teachings of what Christ's ekklesia is, and how it functions. I may not be able to argue all points to your satisfaction -- tho I will do my best. The reason I debate is for the truth and God's glory. I argue from the clear and the consistent, not from the obscure and "maybe."
Allan said:
"If you don't understand this aspect of the argument the in truth, there is no need to continue. I have already given three reknown Greek scholars (even from differing theological perspectives) who all agree, as do all others I can currenty get my hands on, that 'ekklasia' when being used to describe a group physically called out and gathered together as a single entity, it should be understood in that manner. And when it is spoken of spiritually as a group called out and gathered together as a single entity spiritually, then THAt IS how it is meant to be understood. 1 Cor 12 is a perfect example to this as the Greek leaves NO doubt as to the spiritual nature of the meaning - of which maintians it etymological usage."
My response:
You have not provided any experts to confirm what you say here about it being applied to a spiritual entity the same as to a local visible one -- that is your interpretation, and stretch, of what they say. Also, see above.
Allan said:
"Do you understand Greek? Seriously, I'm not trying to be demeaning here.
A word is defined by it's usage. I have shown 1 such verse that is irrefutable in the Greek referencing all believers are baptized into one body, NOT local but spiritual, of which the local church reflects in a physical nature.
So yes, when it speaks to a local church it is to be understood as local church and this most common usage as it addresses specific bodies in matter of spiritual life and ministry but it was not ONLY for that local body but to be destributed to others because they were all ONE and all in need of the same instructions. One Spirit, One faith, One baptism, One body."
My response:
See above. Also, I have already pointed out that you and I did not get baptized together, period. We did not share the ONE same baptism, period. We did however, possibly, experience the same TYPE of baptism -- that of immersion of a believer. Likewise, there is ONE TYPE of body, for we are clearly not all in the same ekklesia. Ekklesia equals body, body equals ekklesia.
Allan said:
"Your biggest problem here is that you can not, no matter had how bad you like to, to seperate each church spiritually from another. It is not only improbable but impossible. Are we (born again believers) not of Christ; and if we are of Christ, are we not of one faith; and if of one faith; are we not of one Spirit; and if of one Spirit are we not also of one body; and if of one body is it not Christ?"
My response:
See above. Also, you way misunderstand the purpose and history of the church letter by your prior response to my reference to it. This letter in fact verifies that each body or church is separate and independent -- it is a very stronghold of baptist belief. It does in fact vouch for the veracity of the Baptism. In practice, it is voted on by the whole congregation, for this very reason -- even tho many could care less and most merely go thru the motions. The letter verifies that you had a legitimate baptism, and/or that you have not been disciplined out (a member in good standing, or bad) -- of THAT body -- which would nullify your baptism -- to ANY OTHER BODY of like faith & order.
You have never addressed what I have repeatedly hammered home to you:
There is an entity that fulfills what your heart and mind are trying to make ekklesia fill -- it is synonymously called, The Kingdom of God; The Kingdom of Heaven; The Kingdom of Christ. Try studying out THIS entity, and maybe you will see in it, that which you are trying to squeeze into the definition of ekklesia. Christ's ekklesia does not need to, nor indeed can it, encompass all the aspects of this other entity. God has instituted them both -- separately -- for separate purposes -- let us not confuse them -- to God's glory!
Mr. Carrol is partially correct and I do not dispute what he has given.