Was The Church You Attend Built by Jesus?

[jbh28]

If there is only one church, then what are all these verses speaking of?

Acts 9:31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Acts 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

Acts 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Rom 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

Rom 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

1 Cor 7:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

1 Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

1 Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1 Cor 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

There are many more verses besides these, but if this doesn't convince you that a church is a local called out assembly, it will not matter.

Those passages are speaking about different local churches. This isn't an either or situation. It's a both situation. We have "the church" that Jesus is building(universal church) and local churches(ones like you and I attended on Sunday).

 

[jbh28]

Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

It would be pretty difficult for a universal church to obey this command, don't you think?

Not at all. Members of the universal church assemble with each other all the time. There were plenty of them in my local church this past Sunday.

 

[jbh28]

As many bodies as there are believers. He dwells in you and he dwells in me, and in Amy, and Tom, etc. We can accept that concept, and yet you have a difficulty accepting the concept that Christ can be the head of every Bible-believing church. Why would that be?

An assembly assembles. Ekklesia (the Greek word translated church) simply means assembly. There is no such thing as a universal assembly.

And all this time I thought we were going to assemble in heaven....

 

[Darrenss1]

As many bodies as there are believers.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Is the underlined singular or plural?

Darren

 

[DHK]

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Is the underlined singular or plural?

Darren

Take it in its context. Continue to read:

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; (Colossians 1:23-25)

If you (the Colossians) continue in the faith.
Whereof I Paul am made a minister (of the gospel which they--the Colossians heard)
Who (Paul) now rejoice in my sufferings for you (Colossians)
...of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake which is the church (at Colosse). Whereof I am made a minister.

Thus we clearly see that Christ is the head of the body, that assembly that meets in Colosse. He was writing to them, and they would never have taken it any other way. There are applications that we can apply to us. But it is very clear that the letter is written to the assembly (ekklesia) at Colosse. Ekklesia can only be translated assembly or congregation. It does not have any "universal" type translation. It only has a physical translation of assembly. You cannot make red out of blue. You cannot change the meaning of words arbitrarily because you disagree with what the Bible says.

 

[DHK]

And all this time I thought we were going to assemble in heaven....

And we will. That is the one time all believers will be assembled together.

 

[DHK]

And you just assumed that? I don't have any problems, Christ is the head of THE church, agreed.

Which one? Mine our yours? There is no ONE church. There are many local churches. The word is ekklesia. It has one meaning, and that is assembly. An assembly, by very definition must be local.

I disagree with your greek translation, it does not ONLY mean assembly.

Darren

You can disagree all you want, but you would be wrong. On what basis would you disagree. You must disagree on the basis of the Koine Greek ekklesia, that word which is translated "church" in the NT. The meaning both in the NT and in classical Greek is "assembly." It has no other. What evidence can you bring to the table that it isn't? Disagreement for the sake of disagreement isn't any evidence at all.

 

[J.D.]

Unfortunately, you are very wrong, and it is provable with grammar.

If you look at Acts 9:31 you will see an interesting usage of "Church:"

So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.
​

Here you have a grammatical situation where one single church (the word is singular) is referred to being in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria all at the same time. Now, if Paul had intended to address three separate churches, the word for church would have been plural. In fact, we see this plural use in Acts 15:41--And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. Here are two separate churches referred to with the plural.

It is obvious that Paul is referring to one church that is in three separate and disparate locations.

If you look at Acts 20:28 (where Paul is speaking to the Elders of the church in Ephesus) you will see another interesting use:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood
​

This passage is particularly interesting and makes several important points.

1. Why is the Ephesian church called "the church of God?" I mean, are we to assume that the church in Antioch, for example, is illegitimate?

2. We see that God obtained the church with His own blood. Are we to assume that He only purchased the church at Ephesus and the church in Jerusalem is somehow unredeemed?

Of course the meaning of εκκλησια is more related to the context of a particular passage. There are cases where εκκλησια means an individual (or local) church. There are cases where εκκλησια means all the churches (or universal church).

There are both local churches and a universal church. After all, there is a reason that local churches are referred to as "The church at __________ ."

What is more, in dealing with application of the Epistles to us today, we seek to read and apply 1 Corinthians, for example, to us today. But, since Paul addresses the letter to "the church of God that is in Corinth" we show that we believe that Paul's letter is not only for the local Corinthian church, but the church universal--of all places and times.

If you are to be consistent--since you deny the universal church--you should reject any and all portions of scripture that are addressed to any local church, since that particular local church is an entity to itself. Of course, you don't do that. So, what you deny with your words you affirm with your actions.

The Archangel

I'd like to see a reply to this one. None yet.

 

[J.D.]

The one to whom Jesus spoke in Matthew 16:18 and in Matthew 18 is the one he established during his earthly ministry. The material of that first church was the Twelve. It was a traveling church at first, eventually settling in Jerusalem. It was in existence before the day of Pentecost, and in fact had assembled ten days previously.

The reason they assembled in that upper room was that Jesus himself had told the Eleven not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for the Holy Spirit which Jesus had promised. During that time, this group, which included his mother Mary, other women, and Jesus' brothers, prayed a lot, heard Peter preach, held a business meeting.

Sounds churchy to me.

Does that church still exist?

 

[Darrenss1]

You cannot change the meaning of words arbitrarily because you disagree with what the Bible says.

No where have I disagreed with THE bible, such a strawman. You have your own interpretation, which you are entitled to, opinions vary.

Darren

 

[Tom Butler]

Not at all. Members of the universal church assemble with each other all the time. There were plenty of them in my local church this past Sunday.

And there were a few believers who were in false churches, hearing a false gospel, and actually agreeing with much of the heresy they heard.

Unless one holds that God can't save such people in spite of their wrong beliefs.

 

[Tom Butler]

I've always been curious about the term "universal INVISIBLE church." Where did that come from? I can understand the term VISIBLE church.

I know this sounds snotty, but if it's invisible, how do we know it's there? And if we can't see it, how can we fellowship with it? How do I know some members of the UI-church were at my congregation Sunday, if I can't see them. I can't shake their hands, welcome them and invite them back.

Oh, I get it. Once they're inside the church building, they become visible. It's a miracle, I tell you.

I'm sorry folks, once in a while I am struck with irresistible wave of sarcasm, and am powerless to quash it. Only by letting it out can I bring it under control.

 

[DHK]

Unfortunately, you are very wrong, and it is provable with grammar.

If you look at Acts 9:31 you will see an interesting usage of "Church:"

So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.
​

Here you have a grammatical situation where one single church (the word is singular) is referred to being in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria all at the same time.

It is not a grammatical problem. It is a historical one. You need to get your timeline straight. Up until Acts 8 there was only one church, and that was the church at Jerusalem. The believers from that church were persecuted intensely by people like Saul:

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. (Acts 8:3-4)
--Therefore the believers from the First Baptist Church at Jerusalem were scattered throughout the land of Palestine preaching the gospel. "The Church" that you refer to is the church at Jerusalem. It was the only one in existence, and if you remember it started out with over 3,000 members in one day.

In chapter 9 in the first 22 verses it speaks of Paul's conversion.

Now we come to chapter 9 and verse 31
Now the KJV accurately translates the verse:
Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. (Acts 9:31)
--Where is your confusion?
The churches (plural) not singular had rest. I believe the KJV translated it this way for a reason.
Here is what Robertson says on this word:

Act 9:31
So the church (He[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT] men oun ekkle[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]sia). The singular ekkle[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]sia is undoubtedly the true reading here (all the great documents have it so). By this time there were churches scattered over Judea, Galilee, and Samaria (Gal_1:22), but Luke either regards the disciples in Palestine as still members of the one great church in Jerusalem (instance already the work of Philip in Samaria and soon of Peter in Joppa and Caesarea) or he employs the term ekkle[FONT=&quot]̄[/FONT]sia in a geographical or collective sense covering all of Palestine. The strictly local sense we have seen already in Act_8:1, Act_8:3 (and Mat_18:17) and the general spiritual sense in Mat_16:18. But in Act_8:3 it is plain that the term is applied to the organization of Jerusalem Christians even when scattered in their homes. The use of men oun (so) is Luke’s common way of gathering up the connection. The obvious meaning is that the persecution ceased because the persecutor had been converted. The wolf no longer ravined the sheep. It is true also that the effort of Caligula a.d. 39 to set up his image in the temple in Jerusalem for the Jews to worship greatly excited the Jews and gave them troubles of their own (Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 8, 2-9).

Even Robertson agrees that it refers back to the one church at Jerusalem. It stresses the peace that they had in opposition to the persecution that they had in chapter 8.

Now, if Paul had intended to address three separate churches, the word for church would have been plural. In fact, we see this plural use in Acts 15:41--And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. Here are two separate churches referred to with the plural.

And apparently the KJV translators thought that the passage meant that. The word ekklesia can be used in a generic sense where one singular noun can represent many.
"Man has sinned." Which man: Tom? Dick? Greg? Which one.
The answer is all of them. The singular noun "man" represents all men. It is used in the singular to represent collectively all.
There are times when the word "church" is used generically, in the same way--a singular noun representing all churches.

It is obvious that Paul is referring to one church that is in three separate and disparate locations.

No, not so. I have given you two other options.

If you look at Acts 20:28 (where Paul is speaking to the Elders of the church in Ephesus) you will see another interesting use:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood
​

This passage is particularly interesting and makes several important points.

1. Why is the Ephesian church called "the church of God?" I mean, are we to assume that the church in Antioch, for example, is illegitimate?

--non sequitor

2. We see that God obtained the church with His own blood. Are we to assume that He only purchased the church at Ephesus and the church in Jerusalem is somehow unredeemed?

again, non sequitor.

Of course the meaning of εκκλησια is more related to the context of a particular passage. There are cases where εκκλησια means an individual (or local) church. There are cases where εκκλησια means all the churches (or universal church).

Your conclusion is illogical, as your above conclusions are not based on logic. When your premise is false your conclusions will be false.

First, in Acts 20:28, Paul was writing to the elders at Ephesus.
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. (Acts 20:17)
--Whatever he is teaching, his audience is the pastors of the church at Ephesus. That is who he is teaching. That is the context. Now what is he telling them.

Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. (Acts 20:28) Darby
--He gives them instructions that they were to take heed first to themselves and then to all the flock.
--The Holy Spirit had set them as overseers over the assembly in Ephesus.
--They were the shepherds there, and had to feed the flock.
--It was God who gave them that flock, and God who purchased it with his own blood.

The Lord has done that with every Bible believing church on this earth. The definition of a local church is an assembly of baptized believers that have voluntarily assembled themselves together... By its very nature Christ has died for all believers whether or not you are Calvinist you would believe this statement.

There are both local churches and a universal church. After all, there is a reason that local churches are referred to as "The church at __________ ."

Give me one instance of a universal assembly. You can't do it, for such a name is a contradiction.
"...the assembly of God which he hath purchased with the blood of his own" (Darby)
--There was only one assembly and it was local. It was at Ephesus in Acts 20:28. There are many assemblies where Christ is the head and the Bible is the final authority. 1Cor.3:11 states that Christ is the foundation. He needs to be in every church.

What is more, in dealing with application of the Epistles to us today, we seek to read and apply 1 Corinthians, for example, to us today. But, since Paul addresses the letter to "the church of God that is in Corinth" we show that we believe that Paul's letter is not only for the local Corinthian church, but the church universal--of all places and times.

"To the assembly universal" It doesn't make sense does it?
No one in the first century would have ever believed in such a monstrosity. The language contradicts itself.
The assembly of God at Corinth. There is nothing unusual about that name. Why do you try to read more into a name than is necessary. Paul's letter was written to the Corinthians. It is also applicable to us today. Using your logic we need to throw out Philemon, a very personal letter from Paul to Philemon about a runaway slave who had stolen something from Philemon. What business do we have reading the personal mail of someone else, not even directed to a pastor or a church. This was a very personal letter. According to you it should be disqualified from the canon of Scripture.

If you are to be consistent--since you deny the universal church--you should reject any and all portions of scripture that are addressed to any local church, since that particular local church is an entity to itself. Of course, you don't do that. So, what you deny with your words you affirm with your actions.

The Archangel

You don't have a logical leg to stand on.
That is like saying you must reject the entire OT because it is addressed to Israel and not to us. Will you do that? Throw away your OT??

There is no universal church because ekklesia means assembly. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. Where do you get that from? It is not in First century literature of any kind.

 

[Tom Butler]

Re post #33, well done, DHK.

If we follow Archangel's logic, then we must remove the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts from the Bible, since they were both written to an individual, Theophilus, and meant only for him. Come to think of it, why were they included in the canon in the first place? Add I and II Timothy to the list, and Titus.

One other point, Paul, writing to the congregation at Corinth described it as THE body of Christ (I Cor 12:27). Surely that doesn't mean that ONLY the Corinthian congregation is the body.

And, of course, in Acts 20:28 Paul described the Ephesian congregation as THE flock. Does that limit "flock" only to Ephesus? Naaah.

Thanks for letting me add a couple of points to your excellent post.

 

[Robert Snow]

Now thats funny. I do tend to agree with you Robert, I am under the impression that the church in the NT is both local and "universal".

I don't know why this concept is so difficult for some to accept. Some years ago I attended an American Baptist Association church. There was hardly a message given where the belief in a universal church was not attacked.

 

[freeatlast]

Jesus said, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

Was Jesus speaking of the church you attend, or only a specific local assembly?

If it was about a local assembly, how do you know if Jesus' promise of life extends to your church?

I do not believe that He was speaking of a local assembly, but the true church as a whole. Many local assemblies has some members in it that are of the true church and many who are not.

 

[Bro. James]

All we like sheep have gone astray...

The universality of the assembly is a leaven which has permeated Christendom ever since the beginnings of the holy see(universal visible)--probably to some of the "Holy Fathers".(second, third century; obvious by 325 a.d.)

Luther, etal, tried to reform the holy see from within-- without their permission. Martin was defrocked, going our on his own with many of the trappings of the holy see. He did reform universal-visible to universal-invisible.

Error reformed is still reformed error.

What is this: a local, visible assembly? She is the same one from Mt. 16:18,28:20; Eph. 3:21 etal. She was indwelled, yea, immersed by The Spirit, The Holy, on the Day of Pentecost, having been called out starting on the shores of Galilee. She can be found in assembly in the uttermost parts of the earth--just like Jesus said. He also promised to never leave Her nor forsake Her. He is faithful, even when we are not. She is His bride to be--and the marriage supper is the next major event.

Is this universal? Only in the sense that it affects the whole creation.

If our assembly was started by a man/woman other than the Lord Jesus, we have an authority problem: we have none.

Have we checked the oil level in our lamps?

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[HankD]

We are assembled in heaven.​

Hebrews 12
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.​

While we are still here on earth.
Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:​

I don't like the phrase "universal" or "invisible" either because it is romish.​

BTW, there is no such phrase as the "local church" in the Scripture either (though, the bulk of Scripture indicates that meaning).​

However IMO,there are enough places where ekklesia is used in the collective singular to warrant the use of "the church" when speaking of the church as the body of all born again believers.​

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:​

So I see both aspects, with the "local" church having the preeminence in the Scripture.

Also, if no one has mentioned it, the koine word ekklesia is a word which had a broader scope from than it's narrow NT theological designation, namely "church".​

It was a compound word ek (prep. "from" or "out") combined with kalein (vb. to call) and does not seem to have the force of a call to a specific designated place as does the NT word sunagoge (used in James 2:2) - a gathering together into one place (prep. sun, together with).​

The force of the preposition ek- rather than sun- to give force to the place from whence we are called out - the world.


HankD

 

[Tom Butler]

I do not believe that He was speaking of a local assembly, but the true church as a whole. Many local assemblies has some members in it that are of the true church and many who are not.

The reason I hold that Jesus was speaking of a local assembly is that he was speaking TO a local assembly--his gathered twelve disciples.

I suppose one could by some stretch say that this band of believers was the true church as a whole, since it was the only one there was at the time. But once the second Baptist church was established, that argument goes out the window.

Remember, this is the same Jesus who gave instructions for church discipline in Matthew 18. How does a universal church exercise such discipline? And, if this is meant for the universal church, then I suggest that it is in deliberate disobedience to a specific command of the Lord.

Maybe the reason the universal church does not follow the instructions of Matthew 18 is that it doesn't know how. After all, how do you kick somebody out of the universal church?

 

[DHK]

Also, if no one has mentioned it, the koine word ekklesia is a word which had a broader scope from than it's narrow NT theological designation, namely "church".​

It was a compound word ek (prep. "from" or "out") combined with kalein (vb. to call) and does not seem to have the force of a call to a specific designated place as does the NT word sunagoge (used in James 2:2) - a gathering together into one place (prep. sun, together with).​

The force of the preposition ek- rather than sun- to give force to the place from whence we are called out - the world.


HankD

Every church or assembly is a church that is called out of God, called to reach their own community for God, called out of this world and into a life of holiness. It is the purpose of the local church to help or teach every believer how to accomplish that.

Your argument here is one of the weakest. To use etymology to define a word is a weak argument. Let's use some examples:
1. Sunday--a day to worship the Sun.
2. Thursday--a day to worship god of Thor.
3. Saturday--a day to worship Saturn.
4. Easter--a day to worship the pagan god of Astarte.

And on and on we can go. To define the word by the etymology gets us in all kinds of trouble. There are times when it can be useful, but other times when it only gives historical information. The definition of the word during the first century was "assembly," and that definition still holds up today.

The fact that our English language has added half a dozen other definitions is irrelevant. For example, the church is not the building, a definition most people give to it. "I am going to the church." Never, is the word used in that sense in the Bible. We must use the word as it used in the Word of God.