And that dictionary exposes your unbiblical notion, not mine

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

And that dictionary exposes your unbiblical notion, not mine

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

House Church (again!) (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Clarifications (RTC)
Re:

The NT Model is not Normative, Not Meant to be. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Not normative? On what basis? (RTC)
Re:

And Normative on What Basis? (Christopher Yip)
Re:

On basis that such was NT practices everywhere in first 300 years (RTC)
Re:

Is that therefore biblical? (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Yes it is (RTC)
Re:

Holds no water (passerby)
Re:

You use wrong cup (RTC)
Re:

pick up the same dictionary and please enlighten us what it says about Church(n/t)
Re:

Church is building for Christian worship (RTC)
Re:

Hee...Hee...Can't you even see the obvious contradictions to your arguments???(n/t)
Re:

Hi Anon,
Re:

biblical?
Re:

Let's see if you pass the biblical test (RTC)
Re:

Easton Bible Dictionary says...
Date: 2001, May 26
From: RTC

++Ahh, finally some intelligent response. Let’s see what we have here from Easton’s dictionary: Church - Derived probably from the Greek kuriakon (i.e., "the Lord's house"), which was used by ancient authors for the place of worship. In the New Testament it is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which is synonymous with the Hebrew kahal of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found. There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning. Nor is this word ever used to denote the inhabitants of a country united in the same profession, as when we say the "Church of England," the "Church of Scotland," etc. ++Note that two different Greek words with different meanings are translated as church in our Bibles. And also note the post-apostolic meaning of the word church. So far this is supporting what I have said. We find the word ecclesia used in the following senses in the New Testament: It is translated "assembly" in the ordinary classical sense (Acts_19:32,39,41). It denotes the whole body of the redeemed, all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic church (Eph_5:23,25,27,29; Heb_12:23). A few Christians associated together in observing the ordinances of the gospel are an ecclesia (Rom_16:5; Col_4:15). All the Christians in a particular city, whether they assembled together in one place or in several places for religious worship, were an ecclesia. Thus all the disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one church (Acts_13:1); so also we read of the "church of God at Corinth" (1_Cor_1:2), "the church at Jerusalem" (Acts_8:1), "the church of Ephesus" (Rev_2:1), etc. The whole body of professing Christians throughout the world (1_Cor_15:9; Gal_1:13; Matt_16:18) are the church of Christ. ++Yes, I agree. Anything here that negates what I have been saying all along? The church visible "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children." It is called "visible" because its members are known and its assemblies are public. Here there is a mixture of "wheat and chaff," of saints and sinners. ++This sounds Augustinian. But I would say that the church only have saints. Note that Paul never talked about the church as sinners (only when talking about their pre-conversion state), he always referred to them as saints. "God has commanded his people to organize themselves into distinct visible ecclesiastical communities, with constitutions, laws, and officers, badges, ordinances, and discipline, for the great purpose of giving visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects. Each one of these distinct organized communities which is faithful to the great King is an integral part of the visible church, and all together constitute the catholic or universal visible church." ++Actually I would very much like to see where the above commands are in the Scriptures. Can you tell me? A credible profession of the true religion constitutes a person a member of this church. This is "the kingdom of heaven," whose character and progress are set forth in the parables recorded in Matt_13. The children of all who thus profess the true religion are members of the visible church along with their parents. Children are included in every covenant God ever made with man. They go along with their parents (Gen_9:9-17; Gen_12:1-3; Gen_17:7; Ex_20:5; Deut_29:10-13). Peter, on the day of Pentecost, at the beginning of the New Testament dispensation, announces the same great principle. "The promise [just as to Abraham and his seed the promises were made] is unto you, and to your children" (Acts_2:38,39). The children of believing parents are "holy", i.e., are "saints", a title which designates the members of the Christian church (1_Cor_7:14). (See BAPTISM.) ++This smacks of infant baptism doctrine, which has no basis. Are children by default part of the body of Christ? What’s your answer? The church invisible "consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof." This is a pure society, the church in which Christ dwells. It is the body of Christ. it is called "invisible" because the greater part of those who constitute it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because its members still on earth cannot certainly be distinguished. The qualifications of membership in it are internal and are hidden. It is unseen except by Him who "searches the heart." "The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2_Tim_2:19). The church to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises appertaining to Christ's kingdom belong, is a spiritual body consisting of all true believers, i.e., the church invisible. ++OK so far I don’t see anything that negates what I have been saying. Its unity. God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged (Isaiah_49:13-23; Isaiah_60:1-14). When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into "their own olive tree" (Rom_11:18-24; comp. Eph_2:11-22). The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were "added" to the "church" already existing (Acts_2:47). Its universality. It is the "catholic" church; not confined to any particular country or outward organization, but comprehending all believers throughout the whole world. ++I’m sure some folks here will be a little uncomfortable with this part. Was there ever a church (the NT understanding of it) in the OT that the apostles were building or enlarging upon? I don’t think so. Its perpetuity. It will continue through all ages to the end of the world. It can never be destroyed. It is an "everlasting kindgdom." ++Amen! RTC IS THIS BIBLICAL ENOUGH FOR YOU? I AM USING A BIBLE DICTIONARY NOT A SECULAR ONE FOR DEFINITIONS, UNLIKE YOU! ++Secular definitions were used because that’s exactly how you have defined church, in a secular sense! I’m just showing you how secular and unbiblical your definition of church is by using a secular dictionary. And judging from what the Easton’s Dictionary has said, it seems that it has exposed you as being unbiblical in saying that a church is a building. As a whole, the dictionary supports what I am saying rather than you. Better "luck" next time.