(SPLIT & MERGED) Do Protestants hold to a different definition of "church"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alwayswill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I am a true believer: am I included in the Body Christ (aka the ekklesia)?
If I am a NOT true believer: am I included in the Body Christ (aka the ekklesia)?
It is my understanding that it refers to an assembly of believers ( Christian in our case) who gather together under a unified authority which provides teaching and/or law. So if a Christian does not gather under a single, unified authority in which God is worshiped, then I would say no, they are not part of the ekklesia. I think this authority is defined as a church, the Catholic Church would be the original unified assembly for Christians, not simply as the teaching authority of God through scripture.
 
In the context of the New Testament:
Does the word ekkleisa (ecclesia Latin) imply ALL believers?
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION


PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER THREE
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

ARTICLE 9
“I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH”

Paragraph 1. The Church in God’s Plan

I. NAMES AND IMAGES OF THE CHURCH

751 The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.”

752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p1.htm#751
 
It is my understanding that it refers to an assembly of believers ( Christian in our case) who gather together under a unified authority which provides teaching and/or law. So if a Christian does not gather under a single, unified authority in which God is worshiped, then I would say no, they are not part of the ekklesia. I think this authority is defined as a church, the Catholic Church would be the original unified assembly for Christians, not simply as the teaching authority of God through scripture.
so I If I am understanding you correctly:
You are stating that there can be be believers who are not part of the ekklesia:

Do find that view is in agreement with the Catholic references I provided in the OP?
 
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION


PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER THREE
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

ARTICLE 9
“I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH”

Paragraph 1. The Church in God’s Plan

I. NAMES AND IMAGES OF THE CHURCH

751 The word “Church” (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to “call out of”) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose.139 Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.140 By calling itself “Church,” the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is “calling together” his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means “what belongs to the Lord.”

752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p1.htm#751
ok based on that reference and the ones provided in the OP
**
As used in context in the NT**
Are there any believers who are not part of the ekklesia ( I don’t need to paste the OP; right?)
Are there any unbelievers included in the ekklesia?
 
ok based on that reference and the ones provided in the OP
**
As used in context in the NT**
Are there any believers who are not part of the ekklesia ( I don’t need to paste the OP; right?)
Are there any unbelievers included in the ekklesia?
Only actual baptism makes one a formal member of the Church; baptism of desire does not do so. Since justification can be received by desire for baptism, as Trent states, justification and thus the state of grace can be received without formal membership in the Church. The desire for baptism is sufficient.

**Implicit Desire **

Later Catholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.

How does implicit desire work? Consider the following analogy: Suppose there is a person who is sick and needs a shot of penicillin to make him better. He tells his physician, “Doc, you’ve got to give me something to help me get well!” The doctor looks at his chart and says, “Oh, what you want is penicillin. That’s the right drug for you.” In this case the man had an explicit desire for a drug to make him better – whatever that drug might be – and the appropriate one was penicillin. He thus had an implicit desire for penicillin even if he had not heard of it before. Thus the doctor said: “What you want is penicillin.” This shows that it is possible to want something without knowing what it is.

A person who has a desire to be saved and come to the truth, regardless of what that truth turns out to be, has an implicit desire for Catholicism and for the Catholic Church, because that is where truth and salvation are obtained. By resolving to pursue salvation and truth, he resolves to pursue the Catholic Church, even though he does not know that is what he is seeking. He thus implicitly longs to be a Catholic by explicitly longing and resolving to seek salvation and truth.

Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified that those who are consciously non-Catholic in their theology may still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for Catholicism. Pope Pius XII stated that concerning some of “those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer” (Mystici Corporis 103).

How does this work? Consider our example of the sick man who needs penicillin. Suppose that he thinks that a sulfa drug will cure him and he explicitly desires it. So he tells the doctor, “Doc, I’m real sick, and you’ve got to give me that sulfa drug to make me better.” But the doctor notices on his chart that he has an allergy to sulfa drugs, and says, “No, you don’t want that; what you really want is penicillin.” In this case the person’s primary desire is to get well; he has simply mistaken what will bring that about. Since his primary desire to be well, he implicitly desires whatever will cause that to happen. He thus implicitly desires the correct drug and will explicitly desire that drug as soon as he realizes the sulfa would not work.

As papal and conciliar writings have indicated, the same thing is possible in religion.** If a person’s primary desire is for salvation and truth then he implicitly desires Catholicism even if he is consciously mistaken about what will bring him salvation and truth. He might be a member of some other church, yet desire salvation and truth so much that he would instantly become a Catholic if he knew the truth concerning it. In this case, his primary desire would be for salvation and truth – wherever that might be found – rather than his primary desire being membership in a non-Catholic church. **

However, the situation could be reversed. It is possible for a person to have a stronger desire not to be a Catholic than to come to the truth. This would be the case when people resist evidence for the truth of Catholicism out of a desire to remain non-Catholic. In this case their primary desire would not be for the truth but for remaining a non-Catholic. Thus their ignorance of the truth would not be innocent (because they desired something else more than the truth), and it would constitute mortal sin.

Even though some radical traditionalists are disobedient to the papal and conciliar documents which teach the possibility of implicit desire sufficing for salvation, the Church has still taught for centuries that formal membership in the Church is not an absolute necessity for salvation. This was the point made by Trent when it spoke of desire for baptism bringing justification. The issue of whether desire for baptism saves and the issue of whether that desire can be explicit or implicit are two separate subjects which radical traditionalists often confuse. If we keep them separate, it is extremely clear from the Church’s historic documents that formal membership in the Church is not necessary for salvation.

Taken from:

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447

+++

I encourage you to read the entire article. 👍
 


Taken from:

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447
Wow:
that certainly was a lot to read:

I was hoping for a “yes or no” answer

As the word ekkleisa is used in the NT:
Are there any believers who are not part of the ekklesia ?
Are there any unbelievers included in the ekklesia?
Maybe the questions cannot be answered with a " yes or no"
"ecclesia is never used by the Apostles to denote the Jewish Church. The word as a technical expression had been transferred to the community of Christian believers
As signifying the Church, the word Ecclesia is used by Christian writers, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a more restricted sense.
•It is employed to denote** all**** who, from the beginning of the world, have believed** in the one true God, and have been made His children by grace
•It may signify the** whole body **of the faithful, including not merely the members of the Church who are alive on earth but those, too, whether in heaven or in purgatory"
the “all who believe” and “the whole body of faithful” seem to indicate that all believers are part of the ekklesia and no unbelievers are part of the ekklesia:
Do you see it that way?
 
Wow:
that certainly was a lot to read:

I was hoping for a “yes or no” answer

As the word ekkleisa is used in the NT:
Are there any believers who are not part of the ekklesia ?
Are there any unbelievers included in the ekklesia?
Maybe the questions cannot be answered with a " yes or no"

the “all who believe” and “the whole body of faithful” seem to indicate that all believers are part of the ekklesia and no unbelievers are part of the ekklesia:
Do you see it that way?
You want a yes or no answer, but that is overly simplistic.

As Akin explained, there may be those who desire salvation but do not know Christ explicitly. Therefore, they would not be formal members of the body of Christ which comes through baptism.

If those, too, may be saved then it seems to me that there might be those who are technically “unbelievers” in this life but who will be members of the one body of Christ in the next.

Beyond this, I leave it in the hands of God.
 
You want a yes or no answer, but that is overly simplistic.

As Akin explained, there may be those who desire salvation but do not know Christ explicitly. Therefore, they would not be formal members of the body of Christ which comes through baptism.

If those, too, may be saved then it seems to me that there might be those who are technically “unbelievers” in this life but who will be members of the one body of Christ in the next.

Beyond this, I leave it in the hands of God.
It is my view (and many others) that the answers are very easy to answer

Are there any believers who are not part of the ekklesia ?
No: every believer is part of the ekklesia

Are there any unbelievers included in the ekklesia?
No: only believers are part of the ekklesia

Check your word studies, Greek references, Google: what does ekklesia mean, (note: sometimes it is spelled as “ecclesaia”)

some examples
biblehub.com/greek/1577.htm
ecclesia.org/truth/ekklesia.html
 
It is my view (and many others) that the answers are very easy to answer

Are there any believers who are not part of the ekklesia ?
No: every believer is part of the ekklesia
And this agrees with what I said. Of course, they may not have met Jesus until after their deaths, so their “belief in Jesus” began then.
Are there any unbelievers included in the ekklesia?
No: only believers are part of the ekklesia
Agreed. Only believers are part of the ekklesia.
Check your word studies, Greek references, Google: what does ekklesia mean, (note: sometimes it is spelled as “ecclesaia”)

some examples
biblehub.com/greek/1577.htm
ecclesia.org/truth/ekklesia.html
:rolleyes:

How long have you been a Christian, alwayswill?
 
And this agrees with what I said. Of course, they may not have met Jesus until after their deaths, so their “belief in Jesus” began then.

Agreed. Only believers are part of the ekklesia.

:rolleyes:

How long have you been a Christian, alwayswill?
I did the church “routine” as a child
faded away
came back to church when I had children.
I was active, moved into various leadership positions
About 10 years ago (in my mid forties) while I was alone;God convicted me of my sins:
I felt He called me out as a false Christian: God broke me down so hard; it took me weeks to understand what had a happened.
The Holy Spirit showed me who God was and who I was
I haven’t been the same since…
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" Ezekiel 36:
“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” 2 Corinthians 5
By the world’s definition I was a Christian since birth
I was called out of this world by Christ to Himself (the definition of ekklesia) about 10 years ago.
 
I did the church “routine” as a child
faded away
came back to church when I had children.
I was active, moved into various leadership positions
About 10 years ago (in my mid forties) while I was alone;God convicted my of my sins:
I felt He called me out as a false Christian: God broke me down so hard; it took me weeks to understand what had a happened.
The Holy Spirit showed me who God was and who I was
I haven’t been the same since…

By the world’s definition I was a Christian since birth
I was called out of this world by Christ to Himself (the definition of ekklesia) about 10 years ago.
Wow. Pretty awesome.

However, I would urge you to consider that while God reaches out to some in the powerful way that you describe, this is not universal. So, a word of caution: do not let pride cause you to look down on those whom God has called in a less dramatic fashion.

Normatively, people enter the Church through baptism, and therefore, it is true to say that they are Christians from that moment. This is NOT the world’s definition; this is the definition of the Church.

At the same time, I agree that it is necessary for us to go deeper as we mature.
 
Wow. Pretty awesome.

However, I would urge you to consider that while God reaches out to some in the dramatic fashion that you describe, this is not universal. So, a word of caution: do not let pride cause you to look down on those whom God has called in a less dramatic fashion.

Normatively, people enter the Church through baptism, and therefore, it is true to say that they are Christians from that moment. At the same time, I agree that it is necessary for us to go deeper as we mature.
Randy: You know if pressed; you will have to concede that it is possible to be baptized as an infant an be a lifelong God denying atheist until your last breath is gone.
It is possible to have been baptized NEVER to have believed in God.

Catholic theology allows for someone to be born again and be a lifelong atheist .
 
Randy: You know if pressed; you will have to concede that it is possible to be baptized as an infant an be a lifelong God denying atheist until your last breath is gone.
It is possible to have been baptized NEVER to have believed in God.

Catholic theology allows for someone to be born again and be a lifelong atheist .
You don’t have to press me all that hard for me to agree with you since Catholic theology does NOT teach “once saved, always saved”. 😛

Sure, we can lose the grace of baptism; that’s why we have the sacrament of reconciliation, also.

Lots of baptized folks will NOT enter heaven. But some who are NOT baptized or formal believers might.
 
I did the church “routine” as a child
faded away
came back to church when I had children.
I was active, moved into various leadership positions
About 10 years ago (in my mid forties) while I was alone;God convicted me of my sins:
I felt He called me out as a false Christian: God broke me down so hard; it took me weeks to understand what had a happened.
The Holy Spirit showed me who God was and who I was
I haven’t been the same since…

By the world’s definition I was a Christian since birth
I was called out of this world by Christ to Himself (the definition of ekklesia) about 10 years ago.
Thanks for sharing your testimony.

It always amazes me how efficient God is at pointing us in His direction without actually forcing us to do it, lol.

Glory to Him.🙂
 
Randy: You know if pressed; you will have to concede that it is possible to be baptized as an infant an be a lifelong God denying atheist until your last breath is gone.
It is possible to have been baptized NEVER to have believed in God.

Catholic theology allows for someone to be born again and be a lifelong atheist .
I’ve seen protestant Christians, who claim to be born again and know the bible, live worse than atheists.
 
Wow. Pretty awesome.

However, I would urge you to consider that while God reaches out to some in the powerful way that you describe, this is not universal. So, a word of caution: do not let pride cause you to look down on those whom God has called in a less dramatic fashion.

Normatively, people enter the Church through baptism, and therefore, it is true to say that they are Christians from that moment. This is NOT the world’s definition; this is the definition of the Church.

At the same time, I agree that it is necessary for us to go deeper as we mature.
Indeed

I was “born again” protestant style.

Then a few years after that felt God relentlessly tugging at my heart to go get baptized. I kept wrestling with God over this and asking why since I am a believer and this is obviously just a symbolic ritual. His response was because I said so, lol.

As a Catholic I now understand my protestant born again experience to be baptism of desire.

First we crawl, then we walk, then we run. 🙂
 
Indeed

I was “born again” protestant style.

Then a few years after that felt God relentlessly tugging at my heart to go get baptized. I kept wrestling with God over this and asking why since I am a believer and this is obviously just a symbolic ritual. His response was because I said so, lol.

As a Catholic I now understand my protestant born again experience to be baptism of desire.

First we crawl, then we walk, then we run. 🙂
and back to the OP …

Are there any believers who are not part of the ekklesia ?

Are there any unbelievers included in the ekklesia?
 
and back to the OP …

Are there any believers who are not part of the ekklesia ?

Are there any unbelievers included in the ekklesia?
Yes there are believers who are not part of the ekklesia. Because the ecclesia refers to an authority, not a church, but it refers to the Church, Catholic Church. It is a carry over from the Jewish ecclesia. Meaning Mosaic Law, which the Catholic Church is the fulfillment of. That’s not to say that if one is not part of the ecclesia that they cannot believe and be saved.

Unbelievers, by definition, would not be part of the ecclesia, whether they are baptized or not. They don’t believe, they have rejected God. Even if they show up in Church, they not part of it. If a Catholic has the slightest bit of doubt in atheism, they could be considered part of the ecclesia, if they have rejected God firmly and without doubt, they are not part of the believers (ecclesia).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top