The true nature of the true church of Christ

[HankD]

Hank, notice that the readers have already come to all of this "But ye are come" (second perfect Active tense). What is being contrasted is the ekklesia at Mount Sinai versus the ekklesia they are members of on earth but were thinking about forsaking. When Israel assembled at Mount Sinai as an ekklesia they were still on earth but yet had come into the presence of God, angels and heaven. Paul is telling these who were thinking about forsaking their ekklesia on earth that they had not come like the Israelite ekklesia before God, heaven and angels where thunder and lightening and God's wrath were present, but when they assemble as an ekklesia on earth, they have come before God, angels and heaven in view of blessings not a curse.

This ekklesia is still on earth but its members are enrolled in heaven - langauge of accomodation as he is not assuming they are lost - just as the members of the Israelite ekklesia was still on earth but yet before God, heaven and angels.

I have no problem with the language of accommodation and I use it just as you and others use the 21st century language of accommodation to signify the church as an "institution".

I just give it a wider scope of meaning from my own interpretation of Hebrews 12:23 as an heavenly "institution" of "enrollment" including ALL those having been brought to perfection ( e.g. those of Hebrews chapter 11 - the "by faith" chapter as well as the great cloud of witnesses of Chapter 12) and assembled in heaven.

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

I have no problem with the language of accommodation and I use it just as you and others use the 21st century language of accommodation to signify the church as an "institution".

I think you have misunderstood me. The language of "accomodation" was not in regard to the ekklesia but with regard to the redemptive language describing water baptized members of the ekklesia.

With regard to "institution" that describes its nature which involves more than members, but its ordinances, officers, government, discipline, mission and etc., as a particular kind of organization that is unique to the New Testament. Abstract merely provides a teacher with a means to treat its characteristics apart from any concrete application and yet it is descriptive of any concrete case or particular ekklesia. It is like saying I am going to teach on "tlhe church" tonight and its officers, ordinances and membership qualifications. What church? Whatever church matches these characteristics. The abstract has no existence apart from the concrete application as there must be an actual concrete ekklesia in order to speak of it abstractly. It is like saying we are going to discuss "the synogogue" tonight? What synoguoge? No synogogue in particular, but as an abstract institution. It is not an invisible universal synoguogue. It is the same synonogue as the one in Jerusalem or in Cana or in Bethlehem. The institutional abstract is simply non-specific and yet has no nature different than its concrete application.

Therefore, in Matthew 16:18 what ekklesia is being described? None in particular, but all that he goes on to speak of the next 22 times in the concrete. In other words I am gong to build an institutional ekklesia that is unique to me and I am going to describe its uniquness in the next 22 times I use the same word. It is "my" ekklesia as an institution because it has my ordinance, my membership qualifications, my discipline, my doctrine, my officers, my mission, my worship, my etc. In other words, what I am going to build is precisely what I am going to continue to describe by using this same term the next 22 times.

However, your view makes him build one kind in Matthew 16 and yet use the same word but never again mention it but speak of some other kind he never claimed to build at all.

I just give it a wider scope of meaning from my own interpretation of Hebrews 12:23 as an heavenly "institution" of "enrollment" including ALL those having been brought to perfection ( e.g. those of Hebrews chapter 11 - the "by faith" chapter as well as the great cloud of witnesses of Chapter 12) and assembled in heaven.

HankD

You missed the point. The comparison is between having not come before God, angels and heaven as did the EARTHLY EKKLESIA at Mount Sinai and HAVING COME before God, angels and heaven as an EARTHLY EKKLESIA whose members, which the ekklesia consists, being enrolled in heaven but not in heaven. They are still on earth and regularly assemble before God, angels and heaven AS AN EKKLESIA every time they assemble for worship. Both ekklesias are on earth and when assembled both came into the presence of God, angels and heaven without leaving earth and without being unassembled.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have no problem with the language of accommodation and I use it just as you and others use the 21st century language of accommodation to signify the church as an "institution".

I think you have misunderstood me. The language of "accomodation" was not in regard to the ekklesia but with regard to the redemptive language describing water baptized members of the ekklesia.

With regard to "institution" that describes its nature which involves more than members, but its ordinances, officers, government, discipline, mission and etc., as a particular kind of organization that is unique to the New Testament. Abstract merely provides a teacher with a means to treat its characteristics apart from any concrete application and yet it is descriptive of any concrete case or particular ekklesia. It is like saying I am going to teach on "the church" tonight and its officers, ordinances and membership qualifications. What church? Whatever church matches these characteristics. The abstract has no existence apart from the concrete application as there must be an actual concrete ekklesia in order to speak of it abstractly. It is like saying we are going to discuss "the synogogue" tonight? What synoguoge? No synogogue in particular, but as an abstract institution. It is not an invisible universal synoguogue. It is the same synonogue as the one in Jerusalem or in Cana or in Bethlehem. The institutional abstract is simply non-specific and yet has no nature different than its concrete application.

Therefore, in Matthew 16:18 what ekklesia is being described? None in particular, but all that he goes on to speak of the next 22 times in the concrete. In other words I am gong to build an institutional ekklesia that is unique to me and I am going to describe its uniquness in the next 22 times I use the same word. It is "my" ekklesia as an institution because it has my ordinance, my membership qualifications, my discipline, my doctrine, my officers, my mission, my worship, my etc. In other words, what I am going to build is precisely what I am going to continue to describe by using this same term the next 22 times.

However, your view makes him build one kind in Matthew 16 and yet use the same word but never again mention it but speak of some other kind he never claimed to build at all.

I just give it a wider scope of meaning from my own interpretation of Hebrews 12:23 as an heavenly "institution" of "enrollment" including ALL those having been brought to perfection ( e.g. those of Hebrews chapter 11 - the "by faith" chapter as well as the great cloud of witnesses of Chapter 12) and assembled in heaven.

HankD

You missed the point. The comparison is between having not come before God, angels and heaven as did the EARTHLY EKKLESIA at Mount Sinai and HAVING COME before God, angels and heaven as an EARTHLY EKKLESIA whose members, which the ekklesia consists, being enrolled in heaven but not in heaven. They are still on earth and regularly assemble before God, angels and heaven AS AN EKKLESIA every time they assemble for worship. Both ekklesias are on earth and when assembled both came into the presence of God, angels and heaven without leaving earth and without being unassembled. The only difference is that one is under the Old Covenant and the other is under the new covenant but both still on earth, and both when assembled come before God, angels and heaven because both were God's ekklesias or 'the house of God."

 

[HankD]

I think you have misunderstood me. The language of "accomodation" was not in regard to the ekklesia but with regard to the redemptive language describing water baptized members of the ekklesia.

With regard to "institution" that describes its nature which involves more than members, but its ordinances, officers, government, discipline, mission and etc., as a particular kind of organization that is unique to the New Testament. Abstract merely provides a teacher with a means to treat its characteristics apart from any concrete application and yet it is descriptive of any concrete case or particular ekklesia. It is like saying I am going to teach on "the church" tonight and its officers, ordinances and membership qualifications. What church? Whatever church matches these characteristics. The abstract has no existence apart from the concrete application as there must be an actual concrete ekklesia in order to speak of it abstractly. It is like saying we are going to discuss "the synogogue" tonight? What synoguoge? No synogogue in particular, but as an abstract institution. It is not an invisible universal synoguogue. It is the same synonogue as the one in Jerusalem or in Cana or in Bethlehem. The institutional abstract is simply non-specific and yet has no nature different than its concrete application.

Therefore, in Matthew 16:18 what ekklesia is being described? None in particular, but all that he goes on to speak of the next 22 times in the concrete. In other words I am gong to build an institutional ekklesia that is unique to me and I am going to describe its uniquness in the next 22 times I use the same word. It is "my" ekklesia as an institution because it has my ordinance, my membership qualifications, my discipline, my doctrine, my officers, my mission, my worship, my etc. In other words, what I am going to build is precisely what I am going to continue to describe by using this same term the next 22 times.

However, your view makes him build one kind in Matthew 16 and yet use the same word but never again mention it but speak of some other kind he never claimed to build at all.



You missed the point. The comparison is between having not come before God, angels and heaven as did the EARTHLY EKKLESIA at Mount Sinai and HAVING COME before God, angels and heaven as an EARTHLY EKKLESIA whose members, which the ekklesia consists, being enrolled in heaven but not in heaven. They are still on earth and regularly assemble before God, angels and heaven AS AN EKKLESIA every time they assemble for worship. Both ekklesias are on earth and when assembled both came into the presence of God, angels and heaven without leaving earth and without being unassembled. The only difference is that one is under the Old Covenant and the other is under the new covenant but both still on earth, and both when assembled come before God, angels and heaven because both were God's ekklesias or 'the house of God."

Well, B I will disagree. My sense of Hebrews 12:23 has not changed.
But there is and has been to this point my belief in The Church as the collective of all born of the Spirit.
I do agree with much of what you have exposited concerning the local churches, however it is a mixed multitude awaiting the fire baptism of its Lord and Master at the end of the age.

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all,
I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I,
the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose:
he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, B I will disagree. My sense of Hebrews 12:23 has not changed.

Ok Hank, we will have to disagree agreeably then.

 

[HankD]

Ok Hank, we will have to disagree agreeably then.

Agreed.

HankD

 

[Martin Marprelate]

First of all, my apologies for taking a while to come back to you on this thread. I have been taken up with writing an article for my own blog. Secondly, I want to say how much I value your contributions to this forum. It is only on ecclesiology that I take issue with you.

As the name implies it describes an institution in an abstract way. An institution would be something that has a structure like officers, discipline, ordinances, membership requirements, type of government (the Greek ekklesia was democratic form of government). Abstract would be non-specific with regard to name, location or time. For example, the American Public School is a fine institution. I am not speaking of any specific school by name or location or time frame. However, any specific school in any specific location at any specific time is such an institution. Thus, in Matthew 16:18 he claims to build my church (institution) and then describes that institution in concrete terms the next 23 times he uses it.

I'm afraid I'm not persuaded by this argument. The Lord Jesus was perfectly able to speak of building His churches and indeed, when multiple individual ekklesiai are being described in the NT, the plural is generally used (eg. Acts 9:31; 16:5). But in Matthew 16:18, our Lord is describing His one universal Church, which He also does in Ephesians 1:22-23, which needs to be compared with verse 10: 'That...... He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth.' All Christ's people are one (John 17:20-21), and the universal ekklesia expresses that fact. That unity is not organizational, nor is it based on ordinances. It is based on the election of God (2 Timothy 2:19) and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:1).

Ephesians 5:23-24. 'For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Saviour of the body. Therefore just as the church [singular] is subject to Christ, so let the wives [plural] be to their own husbands..........' In verse 23, there is one 'body' which Christ has saved. In verse 24, a singular 'church' is compared with plural wives. It does not seem that this can be the corporate or institution view which you claim.

Ephesians 5:32. 'This is a great mystery, but I am speaking of Christ and the church.' There is only one bride of Christ, not many. Revelation 21:9. '"Come, and I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." And He showed me the great City, the holy Jerusalem....' This cannot be a sort of composite of all the churches, because the purest Gospel churches often have members who are hypocritical, mistaken or deluded in their faith. Also, the Lord has His people isolated in the most unlikely environments. These will be in the city, not outside: 'Outside are dogs, and sorcerers and sexually immoral.....etc.' (Revelation 22:15).

Finally, I do not believe in an invisible church in the way that Presbyterians and Lutherans do; an unregenerate church on earth, and a saved one in heaven Nor do I believe in a visible church with an earthly hierarchy like the Church of Rome. God forbid! Each ekklesia should be as pure as we can make it (1 Corinthians 5:13; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Titus 3:10). But even then, alas, I fear that there will be those who 'have crept in unnoticed' (Jude 4).

 

[The Biblicist]

First of all, my apologies for taking a while to come back to you on this thread. I have been taken up with writing an article for my own blog. Secondly, I want to say how much I value your contributions to this forum.

No problem, and thank you

It is only on ecclesiology that I take issue with you.
I'm afraid I'm not persuaded by this argument. The Lord Jesus was perfectly able to speak of building His churches and indeed, when multiple individual ekklesiai are being described in the NT, the plural is generally used (eg. Acts 9:31; 16:5).

May I suggest that one obvious reason you are not persuaded by this argument is that you have not done a thorough study of the historical use of ekklesia in Classical Greek? The institutional abstract use of ekklesia is common in Classical Greek. If you were alive at the time of Christ the institutional abstract use of ekklesia would be no surprise but a common way to use it. He uses it this way without explanation as though his listeners completely understood what he meant and yet there is no instance in Classical Greek or Koine Greek previous to this verse where ekklesia is ever used to refer to anything other than a local visible assembly.

Moreover, you have Christ speaking of one kind of church in Matthew 16 he claims to build but never again refer to that kind of church again but nevertheless go on to use the same term 22 more times to speak of a kind he never claimed to build. That is oxymoronic don't you think? However, if you were aware of this common ordinary way that ekklesia was used then his next 22 uses are simply concrete cases of that institution. Hence, what he claimed to build is what he continues to speak about.

Notice that in Matthew 18:17 the next two uses of ekklesia by Christ are found exactly as in Matthew 16:18 - (1) Singular; (2) With definite article; (3) No geographical restriction and yet it is obvious it cannot refer to a universal or invisible church of any kind. So your view makes Christ the author of confusion as if your view were correct, his disciples in Matthew 18:17 should be thoroughly confused and asking what kind of ekklesia are you talking about Lord as this is not the one you claimed to build just a little bit ago when you spoke to us.

But in Matthew 16:18, our Lord is describing His one universal Church, which He also does in Ephesians 1:22-23, which needs to be compared with verse 10: 'That...... He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth.' All Christ's people are one (John 17:20-21), and the universal ekklesia expresses that fact. That unity is not organizational, nor is it based on ordinances. It is based on the election of God (2 Timothy 2:19) and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:1).

You are confusing two different contexts altogether. Ephesians 1:4-15 has to do with the elect and their salvation in Christ. Ephesians 1:16-23 has the subject of prayer for those who have been saved and in particular the authority of Jesus Christ in verses 20-23. Your view simply cannot be sustained by the text as it completely repudiates your view. You are teaching pantheism and don't realize it. He is said by Paul to be "head over ALL THINGS to the church." If the metaphor "head" was intended to mean spiritual union in Christ then you have him in spiritual union with creation as much as you do with the church and that is pantheism. Moreover, that is not the meaning of the metaphor "head" in this context. He is using this metaphor for the idea of "final authority" just look at the preceding text:

20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

It is his power and authority that is the subject not spiritual union. The "right hand" of God is not merely the seat of privilege but authority. "Far above all principality....." speaks of his authority. "Put all things under his feet" speaks of him as final authority. "be head over all things" says the very same thing - he is the final authority. "The fullness of him that filleth all in all" refer to the fulness of his authority over everything in creation.

So your interpretation does not make sense with the continued usage of ekklesia by Christ. Your support by use of Ephesians 1 ignores contextual change of subjects and the contextual definition of "head."

Let me stop here and pick up in another post so that we don't get so strung out and too much in one post.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ephesians 5:32. 'This is a great mystery, but I am speaking of Christ and the church.' There is only one bride of Christ, not many.

Again, you fail to grasp the abstract institutional sense because the congregation at Corinth is described under this same metaphor of a future presentation in marriage (2 Cor. 11:2). Moreover, you are ignoring the preceding context of Ephesians 5:21-31. Paul is speaking of the subject of submission (Eph. 5:20) and begins with the husband and wife relationship and then continues to speak of the children and parent relationship and finally the servant and master relationship with regard to position of authority. Again, the term "head" does not convey spiritual union but the position of final authority in keeping with the subject of "submission." Moreover, note the use of the definite singlar "the husband" and "the wife". The singular with the definite article with no one particularly being specified as in the case of Priscilla and Aquilla. Do you think he is speaking of a universal invisible husband and wife? However, that is precisely how you treat "the church" in this same context based on the very same grammatical form. Here is the obvious abstract generic use of terms. "The church" here is same in kind as the church at Corinth which is also will be "presented unto Christ as a chaste virgin" yet in the future. Moreover, the bride in Revelation 19 does not consist of all the saved contrary to your view of the church. There are not only "guests" invited to the wedding (Rev. 19:8-9) as is the case in the Old Testament type of the church bride in Psalm 45 but the vast amount of believers are OUTSIDE the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:24) on the newly created earth and new heaven (21:1-2) which occurs AFTER the great White judgment (Rev. 20).

However, Ephesians 5:22-32 is no different than how Paul speaks of the church at Ephesus in Acts 20:28-30 where there can be no possible doubt that the context denies this application extends any further than the church as an institution with its concrete application with the ekklesia located in Ephesus. Notice, that this church bought by the blood (language of accomodation) has the elders at Ephesus as its overseers. Notice, the very same "flock" in acts 20:28 is the very same "flock" in verse 29 where false teachers can not only be part of but CAN DEPART FROM.

Finally, There is but one bride as there was only one bride for Adam. However, from adam's body came more than his bride but all his children. All of God's children are "in Christ" but that does not make them the bride of Christ any more than all the children that came from Adam's body are the bride of Adam. That one body is the institutional church of Christ which in its concrete form is the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:28) or the church at Corinth (2 Cor. 11:2). In its presented state it is inclusive of the final assembly made up of faithful members from all these churches in glory.

Revelation 21:9. '"Come, and I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." And He showed me the great City, the holy Jerusalem....' This cannot be a sort of composite of all the churches, because the purest Gospel churches often have members who are hypocritical, mistaken or deluded in their faith. Also, the Lord has His people isolated in the most unlikely environments. These will be in the city, not outside: 'Outside are dogs, and sorcerers and sexually immoral.....etc.' (Revelation 22:15).

Also, outside the city on the NEW EARTH is the vast majority of the saved (Rev. 21:24 "the saved nations"). Also, there are guests who are not part of the bride (Rev. 19:8-9; Psa. 45).

Finally, I do not believe in an invisible church in the way that Presbyterians and Lutherans do; an unregenerate church on earth, and a saved one in heaven

I think you need to read the Westminster Confession on the article of the church. They believe in a present on earth REGENERATE church made up of all true believers from all denominations." In reality you embrace the same doctrine as Rome and Reformed Rome (Reformers) and that is church salvation as you believe to be in the "true" church is to be saved and to be outside is to be lost. It makes no difference how you define your "true" church whether like Rome or like Reformed Rome it is church salvation and that is what you are embracing and it is not sustainable by either the historical use of ekklesia or the Biblical use of ekklesia.

Historic Baptists have rejected the complete idea of church salvation but rather demand profession of salvation prior to church membership. The 1645 Baptist Confession repudiated your theory. The minutes of the Baptist Associations up to 1660 repudiated this theory. The 1689 London Confession WHEN COMPARED TO the Westminster's wording repudiates this theory. The Philadephia Baptist Associational records holds to the English Baptist view of the church in their minutes up to 1660 and never embraces this theory until 1800. The New Hampshire Confession completely omits this theory.

 

[The Biblicist]

The axiom for interpreting a particular term, is that it must retain its ordinary common meaning after the manner of its historical use unless the text and context will not allow that meaning.

The historical use and meaning of ekklesia has only one meaning from its first mention in Classical Greek until Jesus spoke it the first time in Matthew 16:18 - a visible assembly gathered to carry out some function. That meaning had been established in its concrete and abstract uses.

Therefore, if the common meaning, whether in its concrete or abstract use can make sense in any given passage then it must be accepted even if a new and contrary meaning could make sense in the very same passage. To do otherwise, is to destroy all means of written communication.

The historic concrete and abstract uses of ekklesia can make sense in every passage it is found. Therefore, a post-new Testament theory should not and cannot be imposed upon the New Testament use of ekklesia without violating this axiom of truth.

 

[The Biblicist]

1 Tim. 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Here is a text that is plucked out of its context and made to serve as a proof text for the so-called universal invisible church theory.

It makes no difference to these expositors that the immediate preceding context is about the qualifications for bishops and deacons in the common ordinary ekklesia of Christ. It makes no difference that it is the jewish Paul writing to the Jewish raised Timothy who was very acquainted with the phrase "the house of God" that the Jewish mind associated with the public house of worship where a public qualified ministry administered public qualified ordinances. It makes no difference that this is the 85 occurrence of the phrase "the house of God" in Scripture out of a possible 87 total occurrences and that every single solitary instances prior to this text all without exception refer to a public house of worship where public qualified ministers administered public qualified ordinances. It makes no difference that this is a prepositional phrase ("en") speaking about the proper behavior in a public house of worship. It makes no difference that his kind of "house of God" is specifically characterized as "the pillar and ground of the truth" in direct contrast to the so-called universal invisible church that is completely filled with confusion, false doctrine, and disunity in every possible conceivable way. It makes no difference that churches in the New Testament were all like faith and order and could be characterized perfectly by the words "the pillar and ground of the truth" and yet that is completely impossible in Post-Apostolic eras. It makes no difference that the term "the church" was perfectly understood according to its normal historical meaning in New Testament times according to its abstract instittutional sense.

No, none of these contextual based characteristics matter as the universal invisible theory is so popular today that it is assumed to be truth regardless of sound principles of exegesis that would prove it to be a complete error and perversion of the true gospel of Christ. The church of Christ is a New Testament "mystery" and its entire "foundation" is New Testament in origin, yet gospel salvation precedes the New Testament. This Reformation theory perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ by making the church inclusive of salvation when the church had no existence and no relationship to salvation for over 4000 years previous to the first coming of Christ. It confuses the Kingdom and family of God with the church of God. It is an invention to escape disciplinary actions by true New Testament congregations in the 2nd through the 4th centuries and disciplinary action by Rome of its Reformed Catholic members and to promote confusion by giving a superficial Biblical basis for more than ONE denomination (the New Testament kind). It is the chief doctrine of the Great Whore and her "harlot" daughters that justifies their existence apart from the New Testament institutional congregation which is "one" body in number and in kind. It is is one in number, the one where the reader's membership resided. It is one in kind, the same kind found in Jerusalem as in Antioch, as in Corinth, etc. It is the same kind that preaches the SAME gospel commissioned by Christ, administers the SAME water baptism as commissioned by Christ and teaches the SAME faith and order as commissioned by Christ.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No problem, and thank you

May I suggest that one obvious reason you are not persuaded by this argument is that you have not done a thorough study of the historical use of ekklesia in Classical Greek? The institutional abstract use of ekklesia is common in Classical Greek. If you were alive at the time of Christ the institutional abstract use of ekklesia would be no surprise but a common way to use it. He uses it this way without explanation as though his listeners completely understood what he meant and yet there is no instance in Classical Greek or Koine Greek previous to this verse where ekklesia is ever used to refer to anything other than a local visible assembly.

Well, the fact of the matter is that I took a degree in Classics (Latin & Greek) and one of my special subjects was Ancient History. It was a very long time ago and 'old men forget' but I don't recall seeing ekklesia all that often, save in connection with Athenian politics, with which I could bore you for hours. According to Liddell & Scott's Lexicon, an ekklesia was 'an assembly of the citizens' or 'a legislative assembly.' If we look at Acts 19:32, 39, 41 which are the only secular examples of the word in the NT, we can see that this definition is about right. I don't recall seeing this 'institutional' use of the word in my studies, but I could be wrong. Can you post a link?

Moreover, you have Christ speaking of one kind of church in Matthew 16 he claims to build but never again refer to that kind of church again but nevertheless go on to use the same term 22 more times to speak of a kind he never claimed to build. That is oxymoronic don't you think? However, if you were aware of this common ordinary way that ekklesia was used then his next 22 uses are simply concrete cases of that institution. Hence, what he claimed to build is what he continues to speak about.

I don't find it oxymoronic at all. The apostles would have been puzzled by our Lord's use of the word at all the first time He used it. They would have understood by the time that Matthew had written his Gospel. The bulk of these other 22 usages are in Revelation (40+ years later), speaking of individual churches, so obviously that is how the word is used. The context determines the meaning.

Notice that in Matthew 18:17 the next two uses of ekklesia by Christ are found exactly as in Matthew 16:18 - (1) Singular; (2) With definite article; (3) No geographical restriction and yet it is obvious it cannot refer to a universal or invisible church of any kind. So your view makes Christ the author of confusion as if your view were correct, his disciples in Matthew 18:17 should be thoroughly confused and asking what kind of ekklesia are you talking about Lord as this is not the one you claimed to build just a little bit ago when you spoke to us.

As I said, the disciples would have been confused anyway at the use of ekklesia which they had not heard before in a religious connotation. In Matt. 18:17, the Lord Jesus is instructing the disciples to take their dispute before the local church. If ekklesia always means a local church, why doesn't He use the plural in Matt. 16 as He does in Revelation 2:7 etc.?

I'll come back on your comments on Eph. 1 as that needs a bit more thought. I just want to take up something you say in your next post.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, the fact of the matter is that I took a degree in Classics (Latin & Greek) and one of my special subjects was Ancient History. It was a very long time ago and 'old men forget' but I don't recall seeing ekklesia all that often, save in connection with Athenian politics, with which I could bore you for hours. According to Liddell & Scott's Lexicon, an ekklesia was 'an assembly of the citizens' or 'a legislative assembly.' If we look at Acts 19:32, 39, 41 which are the only secular examples of the word in the NT, we can see that this definition is about right. I don't recall seeing this 'institutional' use of the word in my studies, but I could be wrong. Can you post a link?

Good, we have some common ground as I have studied the use of ekklesia in Classical Greek literature and I can do better than that, since you are already familiar with Classical Greek writers I can cite a few of the quotations right here for you:

Here is a clear example of the abstract usage by the Aeschines, who was a Greek statesman and one of the ten Attic orators who lived and wrote about 389-314 B.C.:

If any public man, speaking in the senate or in the assembly (τῆς ἐκκλησία) of the people, shall not speak on the subject which is before the house, or shall fail to speak on each proposition separately, or shall speak twice on the same subject in one day, or if he shall speak abusively or slanderously, or shall interrupt the proceedings, or in the midst of the deliberations shall get up and speak on anything that is not in order, or shall shout approval, or shall lay hands on the presiding officer, on adjournment of the assembly or the senate the board of presidents are authorized to report his name to the collectors, with a fine of not more than 50 drachmas for each offence. – Charles Darwin Adams, tran. Aeschines, Against Timarchus (London: Harvard Press, 1919). 1:35


Even though the overal context may have a concrete application to the ekklesia at Athens, Aeschines is speaking of “the assembly” in an abstract sense as a city institution. He is not referring to any specific assembling in the past or one that is presently assembled, or to a specific assembling in the future, but is describing “the assembly” as the city institution. For example, a corresponding example is Paul’s usage of “the ekklesia” in 1 Corinthians 14. Even though the overall context has for its ultimate application to the ekklesia located at Corinth, still Paul uses the institutional sense in such passages as 1 Cor. 14:19:


Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. – 1 Cor. 4:19


Even though he is addressing the ekklesia at Corinth, he is stating a general principle that is applicable to the institutional ekklesia wherever the concrete case exists, and 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 proves this by the use of the plural.


For the law expressly commands that if the Senate confer a crown, the crown shall be proclaimed in the senate-house, and if the people confer it, in the assembly, [τῇἐκκλησίᾳ] “and nowhere else.” - Charles Darwin Adams, trans. Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, London: Harvard University Press, 1919) 3:32


He is not saying this “crown” was conferred at any particular assembling. He is speaking abstractly. He is not speaking of any specific assembly in the past, present or future but is speaking of “the assembly” as a city institution where the conferring of a crown, when, and if it is to be conferred, should be conferred.

They will not be able to deny that the laws forbid the man who is crowned by the people to be proclaimed outside the assembly, [τῆςἐκκλησίας] but they will present for their defense the Dionysiac law, and will use a certain portion of the law, cheating your ears. – Ibid., 3:35


Aeschines is again referring to the assembly as the institution of the city where such crowns are to be conferred.

Aristotle in The Athenian Constitution also speaks of “the assembly” in a context where the institutional character of the Athenian form of government is being described.

They also conduct elections of Generals, and Cavalry Commanders and the other military officers in the Assembly [th ekklesia], in whatever manner seems good to the People; and these elections are held by the first board of Presidents, after the sixth Presidency,2 in whose term of office favorable weather-omens may occur. These matters also require a preliminary resolution of the Council. – Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, part 44, translated by Sir Fredrick Kenyon. – Emphasis mine

Although the concrete application was the Athenian assembly, he spoke abstractly of the assembly as just one of several other aspects of the Athenian government institutions (The Council…The Prytanes…The Council…the Assembly”).



[1] Aristotle uses the definite plural taς ekklhsiaς .Plural and singular nouns can be used abstractly with or without the definite article. Example: “The computer is a machine” “Computers are machines” “a computer is a machine.” All of these are abstract generic uses of a noun.

 

[The Biblicist]

CONTINUED

And a fourth kind of democracy is the one that has been the last in point of time to come into existence in the states. Because the states have become much greater than the original ones and possess large supplies of revenue, while all the citizens have a share in the government because of the superiority1 of the multitude, all actually take part in it and exercise their citizenship because even the poor are enabled to be at leisure by receiving pay. Indeed the multitude in this kind of state has a very great deal of leisure, for they are not hampered at all by the care of their private affairs, but the rich are, so that often they take no part in the assembly [[τῆςἐκκλησίας]
font-family:" nor in judging lawsuits. – Sir Fredrick Kenyon, Aristotle, Politics 4.1293a
Again, Aristotle is speaking about the institutional government in an abstract sense rather than any specific meeting of the assembly.

So, the use of the singular noun ekklesia with the definite article in the abstract institutional sense is common to Classical Greek literature.

However, the definite plural is also used abstractly by classical writers.[1] For example, Aristotle in “the Athenian Constitution” speaks of the assemblies as part of the city government:

All the officials concerned with the regular administration are appointed by lot, except a Treasurer of Military Funds, the Controllers of the Spectacle Fund, and the Superintendent of Wells; these officers are elected by show of hands, and their term of office runs from one Panathenaic Festival to the next.1 All military officers also are elected by show of hands. [2] The Council is elected lot, and has five hundred members, fifty from each tribe. The Presidency is filled by each tribe in turn, in an order settled by lot, each of the first four selected holding the office for thirty-six days and each of the latter six for thirty-five days; for their year is divided into lunar months.2 [3] Those of them serving as Presidents first dine together in the Round-house,3 receiving a sum of money from the state, and then convene meetings of the Council and the People, the Council indeed meeting on every day excepting holidays, but the People four times in each presidency. And the Presidents put up written notice of the business to be dealt with by the Council, and of each day's agenda, and of the place of meeting. [4] They also put up written notice of the meetings of the Assembly one4 sovereign meeting, at which the business is to vote the confirmation of the magistrates in office if they are thought to govern well, and to deal with matters of food supply and the defence of the country; and on this day informations have to be laid by those who wish, and the inventories of estates being confiscated read, and the lists of suits about inheritance and heiresses, so that all may have cognizance of any vacancy in an estate that occurs. - Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, part 44, translated by Sir Fredrick Kenyon. –

The examples above demonstrate the abstract institutional use of ekklesia by Classical Greek writers. Therefore, the abstract institutional sense must be first considered in all passages in the New Testament where the historical meaning of ekklesia is being challenged simply because it is found in the singular with the definite article without any geographic designation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think you need to read the Westminster Confession on the article of the church. They believe in a present on earth REGENERATE church made up of all true believers from all denominations." In reality you embrace the same doctrine as Rome and Reformed Rome (Reformers) and that is church salvation as you believe to be in the "true" church is to be saved and to be outside is to be lost. It makes no difference how you define your "true" church whether like Rome or like Reformed Rome it is church salvation and that is what you are embracing and it is not sustainable by either the historical use of ekklesia or the Biblical use of ekklesia.

Well, friend, I think you ought to read the Westminster Confession and understand it before you make a fool of yourself and accuse a brother of embracing Romanism.

Here is the WCF XXV:2.
The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion: and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
The WCF allows in all professors and their children. It assumes a partly unregenerate church as I stated.

Compare this with the 1689 Confession XXVI:2.
All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the Gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ, according unto it; not destroying their own profession by any Errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation [1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26] are, and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations be constituted.
The 1689 Confession demands not only a more full confession of faith but also the evidence of holy living.

Historic Baptists have rejected the complete idea of church salvation but rather demand profession of salvation prior to church membership.

They have demanded profession of salvation before church membership, but they have not committed to hell all those in other churches.

The 1645 Baptist Confession repudiated your theory. The minutes of the Baptist Associations up to 1660 repudiated this theory. The 1689 London Confession WHEN COMPARED TO the Westminster's wording repudiates this theory. The Philadephia Baptist Associational records holds to the English Baptist view of the church in their minutes up to 1660 and never embraces this theory until 1800. The New Hampshire Confession completely omits this theory.

There is no 1645 Baptist confession that I'm aware of. Where do you think the 1644 or 1646 confessions disagree with me? Please give a citation. Likewise of the Association minutes. I can't go trawling through these without some indication of what you're talking about. Those signatories of the 1644 Confession who survived until 1689 (Kiffin, Knollys and one other, I think) were both happy with the 1689.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't find it oxymoronic at all. The apostles would have been puzzled by our Lord's use of the word at all the first time He used it. They would have understood by the time that Matthew had written his Gospel.

What kind of rationale is this? You are interpreting silence with regard to a completely new meaning as something needing no explanation at the time, no reaction of any sort and yet Matthew is recording the event at that point in time rather than from a post-perspective. Furthermore, you still have the same oxymoronic problem, you have him claiming a completely new kind of ekklesia but never again using the term to mention what he claims to build and yet using it as though it was what he claimed to build. That simply makes no sense at all.

Another huge problem for your interpretation is the fact that Matthew is writing after the fact and yet he provides NO EXPLANATION that the term used in Matthew 16 is to be understood differently than used in Matthew 18 but uses it exactly in the very same grammatical structure.

You are a teacher, go to your classroom or your blog and take an ordinary term that has but one common meaning and use it to mean the very exact opposite without giving any explanation to your students or readers and then use it 22 more consecutive times according to its ordinary meaning and see if that completely confuses your students. You say, the context indicates it is different, without any need of explanation! Well, then ask your students if they understood your new meaning in that context WITHOUT YOUR EXPLANATION. No good teacher ever teaches like that and Jesus was a master teacher. Come on Martin this sophism and you know it.

The bulk of these other 22 usages are in Revelation (40+ years later), speaking of individual churches, so obviously that is how the word is used. The context determines the meaning.

Yes, and no mention of your universal invisible church. Note that not one letter ends with "What the Spirit saith, he saith unto THE CHURCH". Note that the book ends with "churches" (Rev. 22:16).

As I said, the disciples would have been confused anyway at the use of ekklesia which they had not heard before in a religious connotation.

However, they had heard of it being used in a religious connotation before and always as local visible assemblies. Every year when the dispersia Jews came to Jerusalem for the five main feasts they had their own ekklesias. Some estimate there were as many as 300 different ekklesias in Jerusalem during these feasts. What they never had heard about is a universal invisible ekklesia and for Christ to throw such an idea upon them without one word of explanation or without recording one word of confusion is inconceivable. The institutional use is a common use and fits his next 22 uses without confusion and makes perfect sense.

In Matt. 18:17, the Lord Jesus is instructing the disciples to take their dispute before the local church. If ekklesia always means a local church, why doesn't He use the plural in Matt. 16 as He does in Revelation 2:7 etc.?

First, because there were no plural churches when he spoke but only one, the one that was travelling with him as explicitly explained in Acts 1:21-22. Second, because he did not need to as the institutional abstract sense was perfectly understood to include such a was the common abstract generic sense. Paul used such abstract terms constantly as did all Biblical writers (the servant, the flesh, the new man, the husband, the wife, the laborer, etc).

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, friend, I think you ought to read the Westminster Confession and understand it before you make a fool of yourself and accuse a brother of embracing Romanism.

Here is the WCF XXV:2.
The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion: and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
The WCF allows in all professors and their children. It assumes a partly unregenerate church as I stated.

Compare this with the 1689 Confession XXVI:2.
All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the Gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ, according unto it; not destroying their own profession by any Errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation [1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26] are, and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations be constituted.
The 1689 Confession demands not only a more full confession of faith but also the evidence of holy living.

Trust me I have studied it thoroughly more than many have. The problem with your quotations and conclusion is that you are failing to understand that section one is just the beginning of explaining their contrast with the Presbyterian view of the church. The first section simply confirms their glory church view when all the saints are assembled in glory. However, you need to continue reading and take note of the contrasts with sections 2-5 in the Westminster. I have posted these contrasts before. I will look it up and repost it as it took a lot of typing to demonstrate the obvious contrasts which utterly repudiate the universal invisible church theory.

There is no 1645 Baptist confession that I'm aware of.

Sorry, just a typo

Where do you think the 1644 or 1646 confessions disagree with me? Please give a citation. Likewise of the Association minutes. I can't go trawling through these without some indication of what you're talking about. Those signatories of the 1644 Confession who survived until 1689 (Kiffin, Knollys and one other, I think) were both happy with the 1689.

I have also quoted this in the past and it requires a lot of work on my part to gather the materials again and type them fresh. I will find the previous post and just repost it.

 

[The Biblicist]

accuse a brother of embracing Romanism.

I did not mean to accuse you personally of embracing Romanism as "Romanism" embraces a lot of territory. I simply meant that those who embrace this theory are embracing the church salvation doctrine which finds its origin in Romanism ecclesiology. I explained that clearly, as this concept demands that there is no salvation outside the church but only in the church REGARDLESS how one defines that church (Romanism or Reformed Romanism).

It was not intended to be an attack upon your person only on your position. I am sorry if you took it personally as I was attacking the position.

 

[The Biblicist]

Comparing the Confessions

Westminster Confession
I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]



London Baptist Confession

1._____ The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.


The associational minutes of the Baptists who wrote the 1689 confession make it clear that they had always believed in a yet future glory church in heaven or a church that “consists of the whole number of elect” after the coming of Christ composed of all the redeemed. However, they completely repudiated a mixture of this future church of the elect with a present universal visible church consisting of all true believers on earth including infant members. Sections II-V of the Westminster Confession was designed to promote a mixture of the kingdom and family of God with the visible church of God with its “mixed” membership of infants and adults.


It is the second article of the Baptist Confession where the stark contrasts between the Presbyterian Universal Invisible church theory and the Baptist view of the church begins to be clearly seen.


Westminster Confession

2.The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]


London Baptist Confession

2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted. – emphasis mine


Notice that Presbyterians define the “visible church” as “catholic”, or “universal.” They acknowledge that the earliest use of this term meant that all ethnicities “under the gospel” could be church members in contrast to only Jewishness “under the law.” However, they go on to define church to include all presently living in the world that merely “profess” the true religion along with “their children.” They make this view of the church synonymous with “the kingdom” and “the house [of God]” and “family of God.” Moreover, they make all three (kingdom, house, family) inseparable from salvation “out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” They believed the means to obtain salvation was in connection with baptism in the visible church while the sphere of salvation was in the invisible church. They believed these are two aspects of the one true church.


In response, the Baptist Confession repudiated every point in their section II. The Baptist refused to use the term “visible church” or “catholic” or “universal” but replaced all those terms with the term “congregations.” They refused to acknowledge that all who “profess” the gospel are to be called the church, but “may be called visible saints.” Hence, they denied that all present living saints were the church. They defined “saints” as only those who were capable of believing the gospel and who could produce fruits of obedience – thus eliminating infant baptism. They refuse to confuse the future glory church consisting of only the elect in the future with any present universal visible church consisting of all who professed salvation along with their children. They refused to make the church equal to salvation or equal to the kingdom and family of God.


Westminster Confession

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.


IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.


V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.

CONTINUED

 

[The Biblicist]

The London Baptist Confession

3. The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.


Articles III-V in the Westminster is taken by the Baptists and corrected and expanded upon in articles 3-15 in the Baptist Confession. Understand that Articles III-V in the Westminster was designed to defend two doctrinal points: (1) To justify the inclusion of infants for church membership who were to be brought to salvation through the ministration of the ministry, oracles and ordinances. Baptists had historically charged sacramental churches to be mixtures of unregenerate infants with regenerate members, and thus no churches at all. The Presbyterian response was to admit that even the “purest churches” were not without “mixture” of good and evil, but Presbyterians believed this was all in keeping “according to his will” with regard to infant membership because according to them, the purpose of the visible church was for “the perfecting….effectual thereto” salvation of that “mixed” membership through its ministry, oracles and ordinances. (2) To justify the relationship between the visible and invisible universal church as one church “on earth” more or less “visible and invisible” including all professors on earth with their unregenerate children.


The Baptists understood their intent and would have none of it. Sections 3-15 were designed by the Baptist to completely refute this dual kind of Presbyterian church presently existing on earth. The special focus of the Baptists in this section is the Presbyterian claim that there will be - “always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.” This phrase is the focus of the Baptists in sections 4-15. In sections 4-15 Baptists define what kind of “church” will always be on earth to worship God according to his will. However, in section 3 the first response to that phrase by the Baptist was to replace the term “church” with the term “kingdom” to read “ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.” They agreed with the Presbyterian that the purest “churches” contained error, but the “kingdom” of God was made up solely of “such as believe in him, and makes profession of his name.” In section two of the Baptist Confession, Baptists had just restricted church membership to only believers and therefore Baptists were denying that infants could be members of the “churches” because they were not citizens of the kingdom, of which are composed of only “such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.”


In Articles 4-15 Baptist now focus upon the Presbyterian phrase in Section V of the Westminster that said, “Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will. Article 4 in the Baptist Confession denies it is the Church of Rome is that church which “worship God according to His will” whereas in articles 5-15 Baptists define precisely what kind of church it is.



The London Baptist Confession

4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.


Articles 5-15 describes precisely what kind of church on earth that does “worship God according to His will” and it is “churches” of like faith and order with Baptists.


5. In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word. Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.


6. The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.


7. To each of these churches thus gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he hath given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he hath instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.


8. A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.........




It is this kind of church (churches) that the Baptists reinterpreted the Presbyterian words “Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.

Therefore, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith does not contradict the earlier 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Indeed, it was from among these very same Baptists that the very first written defense of Baptist Perpetuity was provided. They consistently maintained the only present existing church consisted of water baptized believers, while not denying a yet future glory church consisting of all the elect in all ages.