Ecclesia vs. Hetaeria

[DHK]

Which assembly is Paul talking about here. Just Ephasus? Doesn't apply to other assemblies.

Yes he was only writing to the assembly (church) at Ephesus. But as in all his letters we make applications to our own lives and situations. This is why context becomes so important when interpreting a passage of Scripture.

He must have just meant Jerusalem nothing to do with the rest of christianity.

Again, look at the context. Was he speaking about Jerusalem? No. He was speaking to his apostles, and specifically to Peter. The first actual assembly he had was right there--12 apostles. Later, at his ascension, it had grown to 120 in the upper room on the day of Pentecost. On that day, the Day of Pentecost it says that there were "3,000 that were added unto the church." It was the local church at Jerusalem that was being spoken of. Near the end of the chapter it says that the Lord added daily to the church (the one at Jerusalem) such as should be saved. Later other local churches were started and also grew quite quickly as Christianity spread.

These were HIS churches. Christ was the foundation. He was the foundation of each and every one. He had built many churches. The word "church" is used in a generic sense in Mat.16:18 just as it used in Mat.18:17 where Jesus says "take it to the church." At that time there was no actual church in existence either except for the apostles.

Multiple uses for the same word? NO Really?

Not one of your definitions point to a universal church. There is no such thing, and a "congregation" cannot be universal. The logic of it is impossible. It is torturing the English language and defies and sense of logic.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not one of your definitions point to a universal church. There is no such thing, and a "congregation" cannot be universal. The logic of it is impossible. It is torturing the English language and defies and sense of logic

technically greek not english which has multiple uses for the word ekklesia.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

technically greek not english which has multiple uses for the word ekklesia.

...but you didn't know Thinkingstuff, all the Apostles spoke English and all the NT was written in old English and the KJV was the very first Bible...:tonofbricks:

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

...but you didn't know Thinkingstuff, all the Apostles spoke English and all the NT was written in old English and the KJV was the very first Bible...

In XC
-

Your not helping his or your cause (for that matter) any.
The fact is that the word "church" every time, all 119 of them, is translated from the same word. That word is ekklesia. The only definition that ekklesia has is assembly or congregation. No logically, nor gramatically, nor theologically can an assembly be universal--not in the Greek nor in the English.
So what is your point?

 

[Tom Butler]

The word "church" is used in a generic sense in Mat.16:18 just as it used in Mat.18:17 where Jesus says "take it to the church." At that time there was no actual church in existence either except for the apostles.

Of all that DHK and I have written on this subject, we are agreed on everything except the time of the origin of the church. He holds that it began on the day of Pentecost, I hold that Jesus established it during his earthly ministry.

Since I hold that the church was in existence when Jesus finished picking the twelve, the "my church" he will build in Matt 16:18 was the one he was speaking to at the time.

In Matt 18:17, Jesus said, "tell it to the church." He continued, "if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee a heathen man and a publican."

In order to "tell it to the church," there must be a congregation to tell it to. In order for the offender to "neglect to hear the church," there must be a congregation which he refuses to heed. Then he said, "let him be UNTO THEE a heathen man and publican. Who is THEE? The disciples, who are the church referred to in the same verse.

I think DHK sees this in a generic or institutional sense, as Jesus teaching a principle that will guide every church that is established. And to the extent that it is a general principle, I understand where he's coming from. But in this instance, I believe that UNTO THEE demands that we see it as a flesh and blood assembly.

Whether you agree with DHK, or me on the time of origin, this passage cannot refer to the Universal Church, since it handles no problems of any kind, listens to no one, disciplines no one, and can't assemble anyway.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes he was only writing to the assembly (church) at Ephesus. But as in all his letters we make applications to our own lives and situations. This is why context becomes so important when interpreting a passage of Scripture.

Again, look at the context. Was he speaking about Jerusalem? No. He was speaking to his apostles, and specifically to Peter. The first actual assembly he had was right there--12 apostles. Later, at his ascension, it had grown to 120 in the upper room on the day of Pentecost. On that day, the Day of Pentecost it says that there were "3,000 that were added unto the church." It was the local church at Jerusalem that was being spoken of. Near the end of the chapter it says that the Lord added daily to the church (the one at Jerusalem) such as should be saved. Later other local churches were started and also grew quite quickly as Christianity spread.

These were HIS churches. Christ was the foundation. He was the foundation of each and every one. He had built many churches. The word "church" is used in a generic sense in Mat.16:18 just as it used in Mat.18:17 where Jesus says "take it to the church." At that time there was no actual church in existence either except for the apostles.

Not one of your definitions point to a universal church. There is no such thing, and a "congregation" cannot be universal. The logic of it is impossible. It is torturing the English language and defies and sense of logic.

Lets take your logic to its conclusion;

Jesus spoke to Peter referrencing the apostles (the 12, 70, or couple hundred that followed him?) as the assembly that he would build his church on (assembly singular).

Pentecost occured and the assembly at Jerusalem grew ( I'm agreeing with Butler about the start of the church).

Saul of Tarsis and others persecute the church causing a dispertion of the assembly.

The aposltes no longer assemble together therefore they are no longer an assembly.

The church of Christ has ended. End of story.

Or,

The apostles are still the church of Christ when dispursed united by the Holy Spirit. They started other assemblies that are united to their apostolic succession which in turn is united to Christ.

 

[Tom Butler]

Lets take your logic to its conclusion;

Jesus spoke to Peter referrencing the apostles (the 12, 70, or couple hundred that followed him?) as the assembly that he would build his church on (assembly singular).

Pentecost occured and the assembly at Jerusalem grew ( I'm agreeing with Butler about the start of the church).

Saul of Tarsis and others persecute the church causing a dispertion of the assembly.

The aposltes no longer assemble together therefore they are no longer an assembly.

The church of Christ has ended. End of story.

Or,

The apostles are still the church of Christ when dispursed united by the Holy Spirit. They started other assemblies that are united to their apostolic succession which in turn is united to Christ.

I'm not quite sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. Dense, I guess. At any rate, just to make sure facts are correct, when persecution broke out against the church in Jereusalem, a lot of the members scattered. But Acts 8:1 says the apostles remained there.

So the congregation Jerusalem remained intact. Those who scattered preached and witnessed wherever they went (8:4) We know that congregatons already existed in Antioch and Damascus. Who knows, they may have been started by those fleeing Christians.

 

[DHK]

Lets take your logic to its conclusion;

Jesus spoke to Peter referrencing the apostles (the 12, 70, or couple hundred that followed him?) as the assembly that he would build his church on (assembly singular).

Pentecost occured and the assembly at Jerusalem grew ( I'm agreeing with Butler about the start of the church).

Saul of Tarsis and others persecute the church causing a dispertion of the assembly.

The aposltes no longer assemble together therefore they are no longer an assembly.

The church of Christ has ended. End of story.

Let's look at Scripture and see if that is the end of the story.

Acts 8:3-4 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
--These were not the apostles; but ordinary believers such as you and I.

But what about the Apostles?
Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
--The apostles were the ones that stayed in Jerusalem. You find them in Jerusalem in chapter six when "deacons" were chosen, here in chapter eight when persecution broke out, and then again in chapter fifteen when a decisoin concerning the Judaizers had to be made. As a whole the apostles stayed in Jerusalem, at least during the beginning of their various ministries.
Find out what happened to each one of them at the end of their lives and you find out a different story.
Remember these facts:
1. Every epistle that Paul wrote he wrote either to a local church or to a pastor of a local church.
2. Christ writes 7 letters to 7 pastors of 7 different local churches in chapters two and three of the Book of Revelation. Their names are given, and their specific weaknesses and strengths are given.
3. Acts records 3 missionary journeys of Paul.
Each missionary journey starts at the local church of Antioch and ends at the same church.
On those three journeys Paul established about 100 autonomous local churches, each one with its own pastor.

Thus it is not the end of the story. The churches carried on independently of each other. As the first century came to a close there were hundreds of churches already established, and believers had the entire canon of Scripture in their hands. Churches grew and multiplies. In general Christianity spread like wildfire, and the persecution by both Jews and the Roman government could not put the fires of the love for Christ out. It was spread through the instrument of local churches, organizations that Paul had instructed Timothy and Titus to organize in an orderly fashion with a specific "church" government.

Or,

The apostles are still the church of Christ when dispursed united by the Holy Spirit. They started other assemblies that are united to their apostolic succession which in turn is united to Christ.

There is no "Church of Christ" or universal church.
It never worked that way.
James remained the pastor of the church in Jerusalem.
Paul became a missionary and started many churches.
Thomas went to India to plant churches there, and there died as a martyr.
Peter worked among the Jews and was crucified in Rome (tradition says).
Matthew went as a missionary to Ethiopia and there was slain by the sword.
Mark died at Alexandria after being cruelly dragged through the streets
Luke was hung upon a tree in the land of Greece.
Barnabas was skinned alive.
Andrew was bound to a cross and preached his persecutors until he expired.
Jude was shot to death with arrows.
Matthias was first stoned and then beheaded.
And Paul was eventually beheaded after two trials.

They were all missionaries, church planters, pastors, etc.
They all died for their faith.
But it was never, never the end of the story, and it never has been.
God has carried the story through His divinely ordained instrument--the local church.

 

[Tom Butler]

Lets take your logic to its conclusion;

Jesus spoke to Peter referrencing the apostles (the 12, 70, or couple hundred that followed him?) as the assembly that he would build his church on (assembly singular).

Pentecost occured and the assembly at Jerusalem grew ( I'm agreeing with Butler about the start of the church).

Saul of Tarsis and others persecute the church causing a dispertion of the assembly.

The aposltes no longer assemble together therefore they are no longer an assembly.

The church of Christ has ended. End of story.

Or,

The apostles are still the church of Christ when dispursed united by the Holy Spirit. They started other assemblies that are united to their apostolic succession which in turn is united to Christ.

It appears that you are challenging DHK's position, but I'm not quite sure how.

At any rate, just to make sure facts are correct, when persecution broke out against the church in Jereusalem, a lot of the members scattered. But Acts 8:1 says the apostles remained there.

So the congregation Jerusalem remained intact. Those who scattered preached and witnessed wherever they went (8:4) We know that congregatons already existed in Antioch and Damascus. Who knows, they may have been started by those fleeing Christians.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It appears that you are challenging DHK's position, but I'm not quite sure how.

At any rate, just to make sure facts are correct, when persecution broke out against the church in Jereusalem, a lot of the members scattered. But Acts 8:1 says the apostles remained there.

So the congregation Jerusalem remained intact. Those who scattered preached and witnessed wherever they went (8:4) We know that congregatons already existed in Antioch and Damascus. Who knows, they may have been started by those fleeing Christians.

a good point that the apostles stayed during the persecution, however, they at some point scattered and were not assembled. Therefore at some point their assembly ended and the referrence (according to DHK) that Jesus made to Peter about being the rock of their assembly which Jesus would build came to an end and is no more. Thats the idea of the argument.

 

[DHK]

a good point that the apostles stayed during the persecution, however, they at some point scattered and were not assembled. Therefore at some point their assembly ended and the referrence (according to DHK) that Jesus made to Peter about being the rock of their assembly which Jesus would build came to an end and is no more. Thats the idea of the argument.

"And upon this rock (petra), not (petros, which was Peter's name), will I build my church.
Petra means massive rock. Jesus was the chief corner stone, the rock upon which all local churches are built upon.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Consistently, throughout Scripture, both God (in the OT) and Jesus in the NT are referred to as the rock. He is the "rock of our salvation." There is none other.
Peter is not that rock. At the very least he could have been referring to Peter's testimony:

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, [n]Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.[/n]
--But he was not referring to Peter.
The word for Peter was petros, meaning "little stone," It was a play on words.
Don't be brain-washed by RCC theology that Peter was the foundation of the church. He wasn't. The apostles as a whole make up the foundation of all churches, as they are the writers of the NT. So do the prophets as they are the writers of the OT.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Don't be brain-washed by RCC theology that Peter was the foundation of the church. He wasn't. The apostles as a whole make up the foundation of all churches, as they are the writers of the NT. So do the prophets as they are the writers of the OT.

I have to agree with DHK here, as per my signature below...

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"And upon this rock (petra), not (petros, which was Peter's name), will I build my church.
Petra means massive rock. Jesus was the chief corner stone, the rock upon which all local churches are built upon.

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Consistently, throughout Scripture, both God (in the OT) and Jesus in the NT are referred to as the rock. He is the "rock of our salvation." There is none other.
Peter is not that rock. At the very least he could have been referring to Peter's testimony:

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, [n]Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.[/n]
--But he was not referring to Peter.
The word for Peter was petros, meaning "little stone," It was a play on words.
Don't be brain-washed by RCC theology that Peter was the foundation of the church. He wasn't. The apostles as a whole make up the foundation of all churches, as they are the writers of the NT. So do the prophets as they are the writers of the OT.

I'm not arguing for the Pope but am pointing this out Jesus said upon this petra I will build my ekklesia (singular). His church which you point out is his assembly of the apostles. The apostles eventually dispursed which would bring and end to Christ assembly of apostles because they could not physically meet. Each church the apostles started would then be the assembly of the apostle that started it rather than Christ because that assembly came to an end. So the Church of Christ is at an end and now we have churches founded by whomever. I'm following your train of thought which I disagree with.

 

[DHK]

I'm not arguing for the Pope but am pointing this out Jesus said upon this petra I will build my ekklesia (singular). His church which you point out is his assembly of the apostles. The apostles eventually dispursed which would bring and end to Christ assembly of apostles because they could not physically meet. Each church the apostles started would then be the assembly of the apostle that started it rather than Christ because that assembly came to an end. So the Church of Christ is at an end and now we have churches founded by whomever. I'm following your train of thought which I disagree with.

Timothy is the pastor of the church at Ephesus. Paul writing to him uses figurative language in describing a local church:

Ephesians 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Remember that Christ is the "petra" the chief cornerstone. That is what he says to Timothy. He is the chief cornerstone of the church at Ephesus. "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

The foundation is always Christ:
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Upon that foundation were the apostles and prophets (the writers of Scripture)
vs.20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets...."

Upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets the very building blocks of the church, the houselhold of God were built:
--"fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;"
That is the actual believers of the church of Ephesus, those to whom Paul was writing to.

Thus the Biblical pattern is the same for every local church that follows the Bible.
First Christ.
Second, the apostles and the prophets.
Third, the believers.

The apostles don't have to be alive. We have their writings in the inspired Word of God, which is preserved for us in the Bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Timothy is the pastor of the church at Ephesus. Paul writing to him uses figurative language in describing a local church:

Ephesians 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Remember that Christ is the "petra" the chief cornerstone. That is what he says to Timothy. He is the chief cornerstone of the church at Ephesus. "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

The foundation is always Christ:
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Upon that foundation were the apostles and prophets (the writers of Scripture)
vs.20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets...."

Upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets the very building blocks of the church, the houselhold of God were built:
--"fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;"
That is the actual believers of the church of Ephesus, those to whom Paul was writing to.

Thus the Biblical pattern is the same for every local church that follows the Bible.
First Christ.
Second, the apostles and the prophets.
Third, the believers.

The apostles don't have to be alive. We have their writings in the inspired Word of God, which is preserved for us in the Bible.

See I'm reading the same verse and coming to a different conclusion. If Christ said that belief in him as the son of the living God is the cornerstone which he would build his Ekklesia (your thoughts: apostolic assembly only present with him in Judea) then the apostles found another assembly in Ephesus where he is also the cornerstone then the assembly grew to include Ephesus united in Christ. Ie the body of Christ which includes all those Ekklesia (called out).

 

[DHK]

See I'm reading the same verse and coming to a different conclusion. If Christ said that belief in him as the son of the living God is the cornerstone which he would build his Ekklesia (your thoughts: apostolic assembly only present with him in Judea) then the apostles found another assembly in Ephesus where he is also the cornerstone then the assembly grew to include Ephesus united in Christ. Ie the body of Christ which includes all those Ekklesia (called out).

A congregation or assembly cannot grow so big as to include everyone from Jerusalem to Ephesus. That would indeed be very mammoth in size and could not rightly be called an assembly. History records no such event happening. I say that because ekklesia is an assembly, a congregation. It is always visible; always meets in one place. It is not some nebulous universal church that cannot be seen or touched. This is your definition and it is wrong. You won't find it in the dictionaries.
Paul wrote to churches and established churches. Not once did he ever write to "The Church". Not even once. Do you know why? It doesn't exist. There are churches in the NT, but not "the church," or the universal church. I laid it out for you fairly simply in a way that you can understand. Why don't you accept it?

 

[Tom Butler]

Is there such an entity which goes by another name besides Universal Church? I believe the answer is yes. It is comprised of all believers everywhere on the earth. If there is one common factor, it is that these true believers seek to serve the King of Kings. That's why it's more properly called


The Kingdom.

The kingdom does not have to meet, choose pastors, hold revivals, send missionaries, feed the hungry, visit the sick, any of that. It is simply enough to be a subject of the King.

However, if one really desires to be obedient to the King, he will attach himself to a local congregation, where the real work is done.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Is there such an entity which goes by another name besides Universal Church? I believe the answer is yes. It is comprised of all believers everywhere on the earth. If there is one common factor, it is that these true believers seek to serve the King of Kings. That's why it's more properly called


The Kingdom.

The kingdom does not have to meet, choose pastors, hold revivals, send missionaries, feed the hungry, visit the sick, any of that. It is simply enough to be a subject of the King.

However, if one really desires to be obedient to the King, he will attach himself to a local congregation, where the real work is done.

Ok I can buy that.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Is there such an entity which goes by another name besides Universal Church? I believe the answer is yes. It is comprised of all believers everywhere on the earth. If there is one common factor, it is that these true believers seek to serve the King of Kings. That's why it's more properly called


The Kingdom.

The kingdom does not have to meet, choose pastors, hold revivals, send missionaries, feed the hungry, visit the sick, any of that. It is simply enough to be a subject of the King.

However, if one really desires to be obedient to the King, he will attach himself to a local congregation, where the real work is done.

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that Ephasus and all the churches are united in Christ that there are those called out those called out universally but meet locally but are all a part of the entire body of christ. There you have it.

 

[Tom Butler]

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that Ephasus and all the churches are united in Christ that there are those called out those called out universally but meet locally but are all a part of the entire body of christ. There you have it.

You are in a large company of believers who agree to disagree with me, and that's just fine.

Your view is fairly typical--hold to the existence of a Universal Church, but recognize the value of the local congregation. I suspect that my view is probably a minority opinion in my own congregation.

I am sure you have a sincere commitment to your congregation.