Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Arguments Against Absolute Truth of Scripture

tulsa 2011

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
354
"Hermeneutics," Arguments Against Absolute Truth of Scripture, and Two Plus Two Is Five

Here are the starting assumptions of the system of Bible interpretation and foundational doctrines created by John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer:

John Darby said that the "Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no place on the earth... [Though] making a most constructive parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's earthly plans, but is merely an
interruption of them to give a fuller character and meaning to
them..."

John. N. Darby, 'The Character of Office in The Present Dispensation'
Collected Writings., Eccl. I, Vol. I, p. 94.

"Them" are all physical Israel. The church, for Darby, exists to "give
fuller character and meaning to all physical Israel."

"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323.......For dispensationalists Israel must always mean Old Covenant Israel, and none other. Chafer was an early American dispensationalist who followed C.I. Scofield and Chafer founded Dallas Theological Seminary.

Charles C. Ryrie (born 1925) says:
"basic promise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed
in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction
throughout eternity." Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today,1966, pp.44-45.

J. Dwight Pentecost in his book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.

C. I. Scofield claimed that "Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfilment of prophecy... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is always Zion... Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always literal." C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago, Moody Bible Institute), pp. 45-46.

"From the time of Christ’s rejection by Israel until the time when God deals specifically with Israel again in the seventieth week it is not possible to refer to a remnant of the nation Israel." Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology, 1965, by J. Dwight Pentecost

Here are several scriptures which are relevant to the starting positions of John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer:

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10: 16

"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Romans 12: 4-5

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;" Ephesians 4: 4

"Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Hebrews 10: 9

" For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." Romans 10: 12

"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?..........That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith..........Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ............For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ........And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." .Galatians 3: 3, 14, 16, 26-27, 29

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" II Timothy 3: 26

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." II Peter 1: 21

"But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." Isaiah 28: 13

"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:" Matthew 13: 34

"I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." Hosea 12: 10

In order for the system created by John Darby, C.I Scofield, Lewis S. Chafer and others to stand and be accepted by many who claim to be Christians, a method of interpretation of scripture had to have been established different from that system of interpretation used by Christians before the later 19th century and early 20th century.
 
Abraham, is not the patriarch of the Jews. He is closer to the patriarch of all nations, but in particular the Jews and the Palestinians.
Technically Isaac is the patriarch of the Jews. Ishmael (who is also Abraham's son) is the patriarch of the Palestinians (who are mostly Muslim).

The idea that Israel was at least chosen by God in the past comes from several passages.
Deut 7:6-8; Deut 14:2; Deut 26:17-19; 2 Sam 7:23-24; 1 Kings 8:53; 1 Chron 17:20-21; Psal 135:4; Isa 41:8; etc...

This idea is coarried on through New testament passages like Rom 11:1-2; Heb 8:8-13;
 
The system of interpretation of the Bible used before the doctrines of John Darby and C.I Scofield got going in the late 19th and early 20th century would have seen the obvious contradictions between the starting assumptions of this theology seen above as stated by its promoters and relevant scriptures.

Look at John 3: 1-6, where a Pharisee, Nicodemus, comes to Christ by night, and talked to Christ about how he did the miracles he did.Christ answered in verse 3, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3: 6

There are implications from these statements of Christ to a Pharisee.

We find out more about what bring born again of the Holy Spirit is,from Paul, with Christ being formed in someone still in the flesh, for example in Romans 12: 2 - "be ye transformed," or as the Greek says be metamorphousthe, or go through a metamorphosis, so that you become a new creature (II Corinthians 5: 17).

Paul says in II Corinthians 13: 5, "Know ye not your own selves, how Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?""To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." Colossians 1: 27 "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:" Ephesians 2: 6

The method of interpretation used by the followers of Darby and Scofield does not allow them to see the implication of John 3: 1-6 - that Old Covenant Israel had to become born again in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit to enter into the kingdom of God, to be saved. Those not born again were cut off as Romans 11: 17-20 says.

Those of Old Covenant Israel who were born again in Christ were the remnant of Israel of Romans 11: 1-5 Romans 11: 1-5 cannot be, by a sound method of interpretation, pulled out of Romans 11: 1-5 and compartmentalized, so that verses 1-2 are then used to support the doctrine that the Old Covenant was not done away with as Hebrews 10: 9 says, or somehow the Old Covenant was done away with but not done away with, a double minded doctrine.. The remnant in Romans 11: 1-5 which accepted Christ and were born again in him, were formerly of Old Covenant Israel. But being born again in Christ raises them up out of the Old Covenant into the New Covenant. They became part of that spiritual house of I Peter 2; 5, 9. To argue against this remnant being formerly of Old Covenant Israel, including Paul, and changed in Christ to become part of the spiritual house of I Peter 2: 5 is to argue against scripture by use of the dialectic, something i want to get into later here.

The certain implication of Galatians 3 is that there is no longer an Old Covenant Israel based upon a physical bloodline from Abraham to the multitude of Old Covenant Israel. Abraham, under the New Covenant, became the one seed from Abraham and Christ is also a spiritual seed, and all in Christ are the spiritual seeds from Abraham.
 
"Hermeneutics," .

I have seen way to much of ther body of Christ taking the Hermeneutics approach to study scripture. Every single one of them have no real spiritual understanding of His written word. Oh they believe they have all the right answers and will argue their point until they get so mad they quit.

It is truly sad seeing how God said His truths are hidden from the world. This means you have to gain spiritual understanding of His word and you can not do this with out true spiritual guidence from the Holy Spirit. I was praying about this and then I saw it. LOL
Her"men"eutics It's simply another of mans ways to try and gain Knowledge and wisdom with out God.
I know many of you may think I am wrong or out in left field and that is ok too. I like it where God has me. ; )
Blessings and Love in Christ
Jim
 
Look at these scriptures:

Jesus Christ was Israel. See: Exodus 4: 22-13, Hosea 11: 1, and Matthew 2: 15 To Galatians 3: 16, 26-29

“And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
23.And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." Exodus 4: 22-23

“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” Hosea 11: 1

“And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” Matthew 2: 15..

Using the method of interpretation from Isaiah 28: 9-10 - interpreting scripture by relevant scripture - if Jesus Christ was Israel, then this was fulfilled in the remaking of Israel. The implication is that since Christ was Israel and this was fulfilled in the New Covenant as the remaking of Old Covenant Israel, then those belonging to Christ, who have Christ in them, are Israel but not Old Covenant Israel.

Jeremiah 18:4 says "And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hands of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it."

But the method of interpretation of C.I. Scofield stated above, says we must not "spiritualize" prophecy and all prophecy is literal. Therefore, Jeremiah 18: 4 must be just talking about some potter that Jeremiah observed making pots, and has nothing to do with the remaking of Old Covenant Israel.

Here is another scripture; "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." Matthew 3: 10

Again, using the interpretation method of Scofield, this is just about some guy cutting down literal trees, and has nothing to do with what Christ said in Matthew 23: 38, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Daniel 9: 27 says "And he shall confirm the covenant with many.....and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate..."

Here is still another metaphoric scripture on the remaking of Old Covenant Israel: "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." Luke 13: 6-9

According to the "Hermeneutic" - from the pagan god Hermes - of Darby, Scofield and Chafer, Luke 13: 6-9 is about a literal vineyard and the dresser of the vineyard saying to the owner to allow him to dig about the fig tree and fertilize it.

Seeing Luke 13: 6-9 as a statement in metaphoric language about the remaking of Old Covenant Israel would be, according to Scofield, "spiritualizing" the text. But what the text is saying is that Christ, as the dresser of the vineyard, Old Covenant Israel, asks the Father to let him give new life to that fig tree - Old Covenant Israel - and then if Israel did not then bear fruit - spiritual fruit - he will cut it down. As things unfolded, a remnant of Old Covenant Israel accepted the new life offered to Israel, while the multitude of Old Covenant Israel rejected Christ and were cut off (Romans 11: 17-20). The remnant of Old Covenant Israel who accepted the new spiritual life offered by Christ became the firstfruits of that spiritual house of I Peter 2: 5, and the multitude of Old Covenant Israel in the language of Luke 13: 6-9 was cut down, so that after the Cross there is no more Old Covenant Israel as a chosen people. I Peter 2: 9 says the Christians are now "...a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and holy nation, a peculiar people..."

The Greek for I Peter 2; 9 says you are "...genos eklekton, bazileton iepateuma. ethnos agion laos eisperipoinsin..." Genos means generation or offspring, and eklekton means chosen or elect. Christians born again in Christ who have the Holy Spirit are an elect generation or elect offspring of Christ Jesus. Ethnos agion means holy people. Opposing what Haggai 2: 9 says about the glory of this latter house being greater than of the former house, followers of Darby, Scofield and Chafer do not like the idea of Christians being the chosen or elect offspring of Christ or a holy people.

These followers of John Darby et al want Old Covenant Israel to remain the chosen people of God, not the "Church."

Lewis S. Chafer, who wrote more systematic statements on the doctrines of John Darby and C.I. Scofield, admits that they changed the Bible. At first, they were not in a position to change verse wordings of scripture, but merely changed the way Christians interpret the Bible.

Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has
"...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.." Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447

Darby, Scofield and Chafer changed the doctrines so that what they said contradicts the teaching that the Old Covenant was taken away so that Christ could establish the New Covenant. They changed the New Testament doctrine that God was one people, not two. They set up a system of Bible interpretation not only saying that scripture should be interpreted literally, but also they tended to diminish what Isaiah 28: 9-10 says about taking precepts from different scriptures and putting them together, line upon line. This is interpreting scripture by scripture.
 
As time went by and in history we come to the fifties and sixties, it was revealed at about that time that a paradigm change had happened in what scholars and some philosophers call epistemology.

Epistemology is the study of how people create knowledge or understanding. When applied to scripture it would mean something like our systems of Bible interpretation. Using a scholarly word, maybe you could say that the "hermeneutics" of John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer is a form of religious epistemology.

Hegel, a German philosopher, wrote about what came to be called the Hegelian dialectic. The dialectic refers to two opposites, or two opposite positions of an issue. Hegel wrote about a process in which two opposing positions on an issue, the thesis and the antithesis, result in a synthesis or compromise.

Then Karl Marx co-opted Hegel's dialectic and made it into what Marxism calls "dialectical materialism." Marx and his followers made the Hegelian dialectic into a procedure for change in the Marxist takeover of societies and cultures. Transformational Marxism is not Bolshevism; it begins by use of a non-violent takeover of the major institutions of society, the media, education, government and yes, the churches. In Transformational Marxism, the family and a spiritually powerful form of Christianity are both under attack. Any set of doctrines which diminish the spiritual power of Christians to influence society would help Tranformational Marxism take over the institutions of American society, including the church - without most in the church being aware of it. And the dialectic is a major way of taking over society; its the way arguments are formed to promote the beginnings of a totalitarian society.

Theodore W. Adorno in his 1950 book, The Authoritiarian Personality, said that the family and Christianity are the causes of fascism, and both must be done away with. Adorno was a member of the German Frankfurt School, run out of Nazi Germany to the U.S. where Arorno and a few other Frankfurters were given high level positions in the major universities of the U. S. from which they launched the American Transformational Marxism movement beginning in the fifties. That movement included the Marxist version of the Hegelian dialectic as a method for attitude, belief and behavior change.

In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." (Karl Marx)

Benjamin Bloom, who wrote the two volume book on the Taxonomy
of Educational Goal Objectives, by which all teachers must be
certified, said "“We recognize the point of view that
truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and
fast truths which exist for all time and places.” (Benjamin Bloom, et
al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1, Cognitive Domain)

"Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the
heavenly family, the former must be destroyed (annihilated), in theory
and in practice." Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4

“The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs by
accepting belongingness to the group.” Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne
Human Relations in Curriculum Change

“You are a slow learner, Winston."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four." "Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.” From George Orwell's novel 1984.

Marxist and fascist theory do not focus on math. George Orwell in his novel 1984 was using two plus two being five or any number other than four as a metaphor for what he write about in his Essays as the denial of objective reality.. As early as the forties Orwell wrote about the denial of objective reality in totalitarian movements and societies. The older paradigm assumed that there is an objective reality which can be discovered by keen observation and by experimentation. Christians with the Holy Spirit can be shown objective reality as truth from God. Totalitarian societies cannot easily be created with the people fully believe in an objective reality as truth. Truth must be diminished and eventually done away with. Orwell had been in the Marxist Militia in the Spanish Civil War and observed Nazi German fascist propaganda.

Just as followers of Darby and Scofield reject the implication in John 3; 1-6 that Old Covenant Israel had to become born again to be saved, and understand some of what being born again means, so the Transformational Marxists are seen in Orwell's novel as teaching that two plus two can be five or some other number and not necessarily four, as truth would demand. The point Orwell is making is that the older "epistemology" demanded rational implications be drawn from a statement of truth, like in math two plus two must be four and two plus four must be six by the same truth. But Transformational Marxism in tearing down that old structure of truth in order to build a totalitarian Marxist collective is like teaching that two plus two is no longer four. To argue against the certain implications of some scriptures is like saying two plus two is not four.

Then in the period of the fifties to seventies in the U.S, social psychologists in the Group Dynamics movement, and clinical shrinks and others in the Encounter Group movement perfected the Marxist dialectic as a method for changing attitudes, beliefs and behavior. In the Group Dynamics movement, social psychologists like Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back in the fifties did lab work on creating cohesive small groups so that such a group could be used for attitude and behavior change.

The Encounter Group psychologists like Carl Rogers and his side kick William Coulson made use of some of the work of the Group Dynamics social psychologists on creating small groups for the purpose of changing the attitudes and behavior of the group members. Rogers and Coulson and several other facilitators were so successful in changing the beliefs of the nuns of the Immaculate Heart order in Southern California that William Coulson in an interview called "The Story of a Repentant Psychologist" long after the encounter groups were run on the Nuns in 1966 and 1967 said "Within a year after our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority, except the authority of their imperial inner selves."

This is the form of the dialectic that was popularized and which seeped into the major institutions of American society and then into the churches and to the Christian seminaries. Rogers and his facilitators ran encounter groups using the Nuns, and processed them with the dialectic in groups which were relatively cohesive. Though most preachers have not used the techniques of Group Dynamics and the Encounter Group psychogists, Rick Warren has used these techniques in small groups.

See: FIRST-PERSON: Relationships: the glue that holds your church together

"I don't have the space to give a detailed explanation of our small group strategy and structure. Let me just say this: Small groups are the most effective way of closing the back door of your church. We never worry about losing people who are connected to a small group. We know they've built relationships which truly make them a part of the body." Rick Warren

Something like the Marxist dialectic is used in Rick Warren's small groups to mold the people into accepting Warren's mega church false doctrines.

In the conflict between a few who do not accept the method of interpretation of John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer and those who follow these guys, those promoting or defending dispensationalism often argue against the absolute authority and absolute truth of scripture and want to diminish or compromise that truth in some way.

This is the Marxist version of the dialectic in action. You can find something like the Marxist dialectic in the Bible, especially in Genesis 3: 1-6, where Satan got Eve to dialogue with him and made subtle arguments to her saying that what God had said was not true. She believed him and Adam followed her as his woman, and we got the Fall. You can see the dialectic as the Pharisees' rejection of the absolute truth standing before them in the person of Jesus Christ in John 8. Christ taught truth and they argued with that absolute truth.

Revelation 13: 11-12 says "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed." The second beast of Revelation 13 is the False Prophet, though not one individual. The second beast represents the many false prophets of Matthew 24: 11 who are said to rise and deceive many. The false prophets have two horns like a lamb, but they speak like the dragon. OK, a literal young sheep does not have two horns. But the false prophets give the appearance of being lambs, while they speak like a dragon. The false prophets speak a deceptive language; they speak the dialectic, which means that the dialectic is from the Dragon who used it on Eve in Genesis 3: 1-6 to correct her obedience to God and by the Pharisees in John Chapter 8 to argue with the Truth, which was Christ among them.

Making arguments against the truth of scripture to defend and promote the doctrines of Darby, Scofield and Chafer is the dialectic, and now in 2015 the dialectic used is the Marxist version.

But in the churches, if a preacher should preach a part of the truth, those who argue with the truth of scripture are not usually allowed to argue with the preacher in the congregations during a sermon. If someone should stand up and argue with the preacher, he might just invite them to leave. Maybe they would go out in the streets and argue with anyone they could find, to exercise their obsession with wanting to argue,
 
"I don't have the space to give a detailed explanation of our small group strategy and structure. Let me just say this: Small groups are the most effective way of closing the back door of your church. We never worry about losing people who are connected to a small group. We know they've built relationships which truly make them a part of the body." Rick Warren

Something like the Marxist dialectic is used in Rick Warren's small groups to mold the people into accepting Warren's mega church false doctrines.

In the conflict between a few who do not accept the method of interpretation of John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer and those who follow these guys, those promoting or defending dispensationalism often argue against the absolute authority and absolute truth of scripture and want to diminish or compromise that truth in some way.


Man…. I can't stand Rick Warren…. he makes me want to puke. There are some verses out there about clouds without rain, and blots at your feasts, and something else to that accord…. he fits the ticket for all of them.

John Nelson Darby was an egomaniac and a control freak. He mixed truth with error and was responsible for introducing a bunch of nonsense to "Christendom". If it wasn't for C.I. Scofield though, most people would never have even heard of Darby or his doctrines. I would take Darby over Warren any day of the week though, if I was forced to choose between the two.

Blessings!

Travis
 
I have seen way to much of ther body of Christ taking the Hermeneutics approach to study scripture. Every single one of them have no real spiritual understanding of His written word. Oh they believe they have all the right answers and will argue their point until they get so mad they quit.

It is truly sad seeing how God said His truths are hidden from the world. This means you have to gain spiritual understanding of His word and you can not do this with out true spiritual guidence from the Holy Spirit. I was praying about this and then I saw it. LOL
Her"men"eutics It's simply another of mans ways to try and gain Knowledge and wisdom with out God.
I know many of you may think I am wrong or out in left field and that is ok too. I like it where God has me. ; )
Blessings and Love in Christ
Jim
I agree, It is the anointing that teaches us not some man made idea in how to study scripture. This would fall under this scripture....

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
 
I agree, It is the anointing that teaches us not some man made idea in how to study scripture. This would fall under this scripture....

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Amen Brother and how many times do read how His word is hidden from the world. His truths are there but they can not be found by the traditions of man nor the carnal minded Chrisitan either.
 
So, Darby, Scofield and Chafer started from the assumptions that God now has two peoples, Old Covenant Israel and the Church. They also started from a literalist method of interpretation. Their system postulated or assumed these positions on how many groups God has and on the literal method of interpretation without use of supporting scripture. So, when they say of Romans 11: 26 that all Israel shall be saved means all of Old Covenant israel shall be saved, this is circular reasoning - because the system starts from the postulate or assumption that Israel must always be Old Covenant Israel.

They not only changed the method of interpretation, but changed the doctrines dealing with who is Israel. Who is Israel involves a more subtle understanding which the person in the state of the natural man of the flesh of I Corinthians 2: 14 does not understand very well. And the system of these guys - Darby et al - is based on the flesh of the natural man who does not discern very well the things of the Spirit (I Corinthians 2: 14).

You can also look at Ephesians 2: 11-20 and see that the way Darby and his followers understand the meanings of scripture do not acknowledge the implication here. Verse 12 says the Gentiles, those who are not of the bloodline of Old Covenant Israel, were aliens from Israel. Then verse 13 says these Gentiles were made close by the blood of Christ. The implication is that they were made close to Israel, but this Israel is not Old Covenant Israel, its Israel reborn in Christ by the Spirit.

Not understanding or not acknowledging the difference between a proper noun and a common noun, people of the church tried to make the church as the meeting, assembly or congregation of Christians and those just interesting in becoming Christians into the Elect, the Body of Christ.

Church is a translation of ekklesia, which is used almost always in the New Testament to refer to a local congregation. Paul uses ekklesia in a few places to refer to many congregations. But in the Book of Revelation John uses ekklesia in Chapters Two and Three to refer to local congregations. My George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek-English New Testament has, for example, for Revelation 2: 1, "To the angel of the Ephesian assembly write, ..." He uses assembly for ekklesia consistently in Chapters Two and Three.

Meeting, assembly or congregation are common nouns. Israel, Body of Christ, Christians, the Saints, the Elect are all proper nouns. A proper noun identifies a specific, one-of-a-kind item, or concept, and a proper noun begins with a capital letter.. Note that the King James Version does not capitalize church.

The Elect assumes it is a Christian Elect, or the Elect in Christ, so Elect is a proper noun too. For example, a beagle is a common noun, but Wolfus as one beagle dog is a proper noun. Writer is a common noun, but John Steinbeck is a proper noun, because he is unique. Restaurant is a common noun, but Lombardino's is a proper noun, because it is unique. So, ekklesia as meeting, assembly or congregation is a common noun because it refers to a kind of thing or event. Since church is a translation of ekklesia church is also a common noun. Church refers to a meeting of some unique group, for example, a synagogue would refer to a type of meeting of those in Talmudic Judaism. A Christian church would refer to those who are the Body of Christ, the Saints or the Elect - all proper nouns - plus some who are interested but are not yet part of the Body of Christ, or the Kingdom of God seen in John 3: 3.

Making the meeting, assembly or congregation into the Body of Christ - the Elect, the Kingdom of God - creates confusion and opens the door to.the doctrine that a person is saved by the church, by joining the church.


Tyndale in his 1526 English New Testament consistently translated ekklesia as congregation, except for Acts 14: 13 and Acts 19: 37 where he used churche, meaning a pagan place of worship. Tyndale broke with Catholic tradition and used congregation for ekklesia something which might have contributed to his being strangled at the stake by the Catholics.
 
Back
Top