Total sequitur actually as you need to ask yourself what the term would have meant to eg: the Apostles when Jesus said to them in Matt 16:18, "I will build my ekklesia" (notice Jesus uses it in the singular; He doesn't say ekklesiai); the term would immediately have connected them to the Israelite qahal. Only later, as the Church moves into the Greek-speaking world, does it have the assembly connotations of its Greek meaning.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Sola scriptura or prima scriptura
- Thread starter Anastasia
- Start date
- Status
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)
--Purgatory is one of those damnable heresies brought in by the false of teachers of the RCC. They will bring upon themselves swift destruction if not here then in eternity.
Notice for all the false doctrine I listed there was none that could be defended by Scripture. Why? It is false. It cannot be defended. It is man-made. Some of it, like purgatory, is related to the occult. Catholics pray to and for those in purgatory. If that isn't necromancy it is close to it and punishable by death in the OT. It also involved the selling of indulgences.
Tell me how different this is then some of the eastern religions in China and Japan who believe in ancestor worship. They put out each night "gifts" such as fruit and other things to appease the spirits of their ancestors. In this way the spirits will be made happy and both bless and protect them that are in the house.
That is no different then offering indulgences for one's ancestors in purgatory that they may have a better life in the future. It is the same concept as the pagan eastern religions.
My facts say that they didn't officially accept it as dogma until 1950. Maybe their spirit ancestors had to be consulted first and didn't give the green light until then.
But if you deny the ascension of Christ or his resurrection then you simply deny the facts of the Bible and should not be posting on this board. This is a board for believers not unbelievers. Those who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ are not Christians at all. Why would you be here?
It is not my problem that you are deficient in your understanding of the Bible. The Bible does not, has not, and never has taught baptismal regeneration. Those who think it does, have not heeded the words of Peter:
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: (Matthew 3:11)
In both verses the bolded word is the Greek preposition "eis."
John is speaking in Matthew. Why did John baptize? Did they gain repentance when he baptized? No. He baptized on the basis of, or because they had repented.
The word eis is used the same way in Acts 2:38. "Be baptized...for (on the basis of, or because of) the remission of sins--or your sins having been remitted. That is the meaning of the verse.
Now go and study 1Pet. 3:20,21 and you will come to the same conclusion. Read the entire context and remember that Noah was saved because he was in an ark. It was the ark that saved him. That is a clue.
Water is symbolic of something.
Some say baptism like the RCC. That is symbolic.
Some say amniotic fluid. That is symbolic.
Some say the Word of God. That is symbolic.
It is symbolic of something. If you don't want it to be symbolic of anything then the most literal interpretation would be for it to refer to the amniotic fluid of the womb, which I don't think Nicodemus would have been thinking about. Water has to mean something. It just doesn't refer to two atoms of hydrogen to every one atom of oxygen floating somewhere around Nicodemus.
No, It is comparing Scripture with Scripture as well as using the historical context in which these words are used. It is something called hermeneutics, a science you seem completely unaware of.
Adjust your thinking. There is no reason why all 115 times that the word ekklesia is used that it cannot refer to a local assembly. If you read either Darby or Young's literal translation, you will find that they correctly translate the word as "assembly" each and every time. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. It is a contradiction in terms.
So, Peter didn't call purgatory a 'damnable heresy' then. Thanks for the retraction.
Here you are pushing at an open door: as a non-Catholic I have no truck with indulgences either.
Official promulgation of the Assumption as dogma does not equate to belief or practice.My facts say that they didn't officially accept it as dogma until 1950. Maybe their spirit ancestors had to be consulted first and didn't give the green light until then.
I personally do not deny any of those, but they are no more provable than the Assumption for all that.
It's not my problem either: the Bible is crystal clear on that fact and it's sad that you seek to deny the plain truth of Scripture in this way
Be careful therefore that you do not wrest and twist the Sciptures from their plain meaning!
Indeed!
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: (Matthew 3:11)
In both verses the bolded word is the Greek preposition "eis."
John is speaking in Matthew. Why did John baptize? Did they gain repentance when he baptized? No. He baptized on the basis of, or because they had repented.
The word eis is used the same way in Acts 2:38. "Be baptized...for (on the basis of, or because of) the remission of sins--or your sins having been remitted. That is the meaning of the verse. [/quote] eis can indeed mean 'for' ; it can also mean 'into', 'unto', 'to' and 'towards', neither of which senses connote a connection to a past action. Your graps of the meaning of the word is incorrect.
The context in this case does not detract from the statement: "It is baptism which now saves you". It's there in black and white. I accept it's a massive elephant in your drawing room and you're trying to come up with all sorts of clever devices to avoid dealing with it, but the elephant's still there and it's trumpeting at you!!
<Shrug> Water is water. Water here means water. Plain text again.
Er...no. What you are doing is not hermeneutics, with which I am well acquainted thank you very much. What you are doing is eisegesis: you are presuming to know what Nicodemus is thinking there.
Dr. Walter
New Member
You may charge Darby with misunderstandard but you cannot charge the Jews with a deficiency in understanding the Hebrew term Qahal. The Jewish translators of the Septuigent restricted their use of ekklesia to translate qahal only to contexts where qahal did not take on any wider meaning than a local visible congregation. Wherever, qahal took on a broader meaning than a local visible congregation they translated it by other Greek words.
I have personally examined every single case in the Septuigent three separate times in my ministry and there is no question this is true and cannot be overturned by any objective examination.
The Septuigent had more impact on the first century Jew than the Hebrew text.
Furthermore, the next two times Jesus uses the term ekklesia it is also found in the singular with the definite article, without any geograpraphical location assigned and in connection with the keys of the kingdom (Mt. 18:17-18) just as it is in Matthew 16:18-19 and yet it is clear by the overall context (Mt. 18:15-20) that Jesus is speaking of the ekklesia as an institution that is a local visible body of baptized beleivers unto which they are to address their greviances unto as the final court of appeals.
In addition, Jesus only uses this term 20 more times and all are found in the book of Revelation. No one can deny he uses it to address seven local visible congregations in modern day Turkey. At the end of each letter he uses it in the plural "churches." His very last use is the plural "churches" (Rev. 22:16). Should not this very last use be "the church" if your theory had any validity?
Here is my question to you. Why would Jesus use it the very first time in Matthew 16:18 to identify what he would build as "my church" and then the next 22 times use it to identify something quite different? Why would he claim to build one thing but go on using the very same term to talk about something he never claimed to build?
If I used a term 23 times and the first time I used it, it was unclear to some what I meant by it, but then I went on 22 more times and in every single context it was clear how I used and understood that term, then wouldn't common sense hermeneutics demand that what I meant the first time is exactly how I went on to use it every single time thereafter???
Furthermore, he claims it is "my" ekklesia in Matthew 16:18 and does not he treat the plural use in Revelation 1-3 exactly as each one is His and accountable to him???
Why would Paul speak about some other kind of ekklesia than what Christ claimined to build when he too uses both the singular and plural for local visible congregations which he calls "churches OF CHRIST"???
Would not the most common sense interpretation be that the singular with the definite article when used in a context without any geographical location refers to it in the institutional sense?
Isn't the institutional sense how we commonly use it when we teach and preach about it abstractly? For example, when you say, "I will be preaching a series of sermons on 'The Church" regarding its officers, government, ordinances and membership." Why wouldn't Christ, Paul and others use it the same way when it comes to abstract teaching?
Finally, it is certain that the local visible ekklesia institution, its ordinances, membership qualifications, officers were instituted by Christ during his earthly ministry. Why confuse this with the Kingdom or Family of God which obviously precede the institutional ekklesia? In regard to the institutional ekklessia the gifted offices of apostle and prophets were indeed set first in the ekklesia (1 Cor. 12:28 with Mark 3:12-15; Lk. 6:12-17; etc.).
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a brief comment on what you've put as I have clients due in shortly. Concerning the difference in meaning of the use of ekklesia in Matthew's Gospel by Jesus -v- His use of it in Rev., I think that's easily explained by my earlier comment about Hebrew/ Aramaic -v- Greek-speaking worlds. Matthew is primarily addressed to the Jews, whereas the Seven Churches of Revelation are very firmly in the Hellenic world. Therefore Matthew's meaning - qahal - is going to be different from Revalation[/i's - assembly.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Concerning the doctrine of "sola scriptura" does not Peter plainly tell his readers that formerly they had only his ORAL TRADITION concerning his eye witness account of the transformation (2 Pet. 1:16-18) but that "prophecy of scripture" is "MORE SURE" than his own oral testimony previously given them (2 Pet. 1:19).
The term translated "more sure" conveys the idea of STABILITY or STEADFASTNESS.
Does not history prove that scripturer is "more sure" in that very sense? Jesus and the apostles had the ORAL TRADITIONS of the Jewish elders that were handed down to Israel at least from the days of Nehemiah. However, those oral traditions had been so corrupted Jesus rebuked them on several occassions (Mt. 5:21-47; 15) and NEVER ONCE quoted a Jewish rabbi as his source of authority as did the Pharisees of his day. Paul was well versed in the tradtions but NEVER ONCE quoted a Jewish rabbi as his source of authority as did his Jewish enemies. However, the scriptures which were older than the oral traditions were the consistent reference of Christ and the apostles when it came to source materials for doctrine and practice. Oral traditions are less stable and steadfast as the scriptures.
Moreover, does not Peter say the scriptures are "MORE SURE" than his own oral tradition while he is still living???? Does not this demonstrate that oral traditions are superseded by scriptures in regard to steadfastness or stability for doctrine and practice?
Does not Peter advance reasons why scriptures are more dependendable than oral traditions in the remaining of the chapter. Oral traditions with time become less dependable and more corrupted while scripture provides light that only grows greater in its application (v. 19). This is proven to be true with the Oral Traditions that came down along with the Old Testament Scriptures.
Oral traditions with time get mixed with personal opinions of men but scripture contains no personal opinions of the writers but are the express will of God (vv. 20-21). This is proven to be true with Oral traditions that came down with the Old Testament scriptures.
Finally, Paul when specifically addressing what is "profitable" for "the man of God" to be "throughly" or thoroughy equipped for "ALL" good works does not include oral traditions but only claims that "all scriptures" are profitable for those applications (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Oral traditions has its use and validity but it is only TEMPORARY whereas scriptures are "MORE SURE" or more reliable, steadfast, enduring, stable and therefore supersede oral traditions as the only final authority for faith and practice.
The term translated "more sure" conveys the idea of STABILITY or STEADFASTNESS.
Does not history prove that scripturer is "more sure" in that very sense? Jesus and the apostles had the ORAL TRADITIONS of the Jewish elders that were handed down to Israel at least from the days of Nehemiah. However, those oral traditions had been so corrupted Jesus rebuked them on several occassions (Mt. 5:21-47; 15) and NEVER ONCE quoted a Jewish rabbi as his source of authority as did the Pharisees of his day. Paul was well versed in the tradtions but NEVER ONCE quoted a Jewish rabbi as his source of authority as did his Jewish enemies. However, the scriptures which were older than the oral traditions were the consistent reference of Christ and the apostles when it came to source materials for doctrine and practice. Oral traditions are less stable and steadfast as the scriptures.
Moreover, does not Peter say the scriptures are "MORE SURE" than his own oral tradition while he is still living???? Does not this demonstrate that oral traditions are superseded by scriptures in regard to steadfastness or stability for doctrine and practice?
Does not Peter advance reasons why scriptures are more dependendable than oral traditions in the remaining of the chapter. Oral traditions with time become less dependable and more corrupted while scripture provides light that only grows greater in its application (v. 19). This is proven to be true with the Oral Traditions that came down along with the Old Testament Scriptures.
Oral traditions with time get mixed with personal opinions of men but scripture contains no personal opinions of the writers but are the express will of God (vv. 20-21). This is proven to be true with Oral traditions that came down with the Old Testament scriptures.
Finally, Paul when specifically addressing what is "profitable" for "the man of God" to be "throughly" or thoroughy equipped for "ALL" good works does not include oral traditions but only claims that "all scriptures" are profitable for those applications (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Oral traditions has its use and validity but it is only TEMPORARY whereas scriptures are "MORE SURE" or more reliable, steadfast, enduring, stable and therefore supersede oral traditions as the only final authority for faith and practice.
Dr. Walter
New Member
However, is not Matthew, just like John relating what Christ actually said? The Jews did not read or speak Hebrew in the first century but spoke Aramaic and their customary translation used was the Septuigent.
However, putting all that aside, you still have the same contextual problems with your interpretation of "church" in the mouth of Christ. Why would he use it the very first time to mean one thing but continue using the same term the next 22 times for clearly another thing and yet regard the first as "my" church and the latter as unquestionably "churches OF CHRIST"???? Regardless, if you go to Matthew or Revelation the same contextual problems exist for your interpetation whether Aramaic or Greek. In Matthew you have three uses and all three are consistent according to my view but totally inconsistent with yours. In Revelation all uses are totally inconsistent with your view. Doctrine cannot be determined by spiritualization but consistent usage.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Hebrew language has nothing to do with this conversation (neither the Aramaic). Matthew was written in Greek, and he wrote in Greek, despite RCC protests. Furthermore it was inscripturated and canonized in Greek. There is not a single Aramaic MSS that has ever been found to support any RCC contention that it was originally written in Aramaic. It wasn't' it was written in Greek. That being said, the word that one must be concerned with is ekklesia, the word that Jesus used--the word that is found in all the MSS, and especially the word that is inspired of God in the Scriptures. That is the word that the Lord chose to inspire. Ekklesia is the only word that we need to be concerned with; qahal is not even in the running. It is not inspired and not in the canon of the NT.
Your "shrug" is you saying that you are dumbfounded by Scripture; you don't know what it is; you "shrug" it off as meaningless for you really don't care what it means, thus--the "water is water" flippant answer that you give. You actually disdain any intellectual answer given to the verse. Your disrespect for Scripture at this point is quite astounding.
Again, you're performing eisegesis. No disrespect was offered by me. I simply believe that it says what it says and means what it says. Why don't you?
Er...I've explained all that above. I'm not going to repeat myself!
Dr. Walter
New Member
Well, let me see if I understood what you tried to explain. It appears that you believe for some reason, that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew or Aramaic rather than in Greek and that you believe Christ spoke in Aramaic rather than Greek and thefore the term "ekklesia" supposedly represents the Hebrew word "qahal".
Do I understand you correctly?
However, that explanation does not solve your problem. Discount the fact that you have nothing to base your claims upon - no Aramaic or Hebrew copies of the gospel of Matthew.
You still have the Greek "ekklesia" used 20 times by Christ in the book of Revelation and not one solitary single time does it support your view.
You still have "qahal" translated by "ekklesia" in all of the copies of Matthew's gospel which does not overthrow the Jewish distinctions they made between "qahal" and "ekklesia" illustrated in the Septuigent NOR does it overturn the problem you have in the three uses of "qahal" by Matthew as you have him building one kind of "qahal" in Matthew 16:18-19 but talking about another kind in Matthew 18:15-17.
So I fail to understand how your explanation explains anything?
Gup20
Active Member
A total non sequitor as there was no NT church in the Old Testament.
Plus the fact the nation of Israel could assemble and was called to assemble many times. Hence the word means assembly as it always had. Thanks for proving my point.
I beg to differ... Salvation by grace through faith was established 430 years prior to the law of Moses (Gal 3:17, 4:21-31) -- Abraham is called the "father of them who believe" (Rom 4:11) and the "father of those with faith" (Gal 3:7). He was the first to believe in Jesus Christ (Gal 3:8,16, John 8:56) and be counted righteous because of it. (Galatians 3-4, Romans 4, Genesis 15, Hebrews 11).
Dr. Walter
New Member
I agree with you about "salvation by grace" but we are talking about "the church" of Matthew 16:18 which had no Old Testament existence.
1. Apostles were set first in the church (1 Cor. 12:28)
2. Apostles formed the metaphorical "foundation" of the church (Eph. 2:20)
3. The ordinances, government, officers, membership are New Testament in design.
You may have types (Old Testament house of God, passover, circumcision, preists, etc., in the Old Testament) but such types have been fulfilled in Christ's life and death. However, the church, ordinances, ministry, government are not continuations of the old but are "NEW" and distinctly different.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gup20
Active Member
I see your point, Dr. Walter, about the NT church not having it's structure defined until after Jesus, however, "the church" is made up of the individual believers who form the "body of Christ". That body was born in Abraham, grew up with the law and the prophets, and reached maturity in Christ.
Then you misunderstand: I fully accept that Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek; what I am saying is however two further things:
1. That Jesus and the apostles would have conversed in Aramaic, not Greek, as the former was their first language and that therefore Jesus Himself would not have used the word ekklesia as recorded in Matt 16:18 but rather would have used the Aramaic term adta (derived directly from qahal).
2. The addressees of Matthew were Jews who also knew at least some Greek (indeed most would have been Hellenized Jews) so the word ekklesia for them would have, like its use in the LXX, been equivalent to qahal, not the later (Gentile) Greek meaning of 'assembly'.
- Status