Who started the modern notion of the Ekklesia?

[GladTidings]

A few bells have been going off lately, and I remember when I subscribed to the idea of belonging to the Ekklesia when I was a Fundamentalist.

Who? You ask. Well, apparently Fundamentalists believe their church always existed even in antiquity through people who were living in the shadows.

These people responded to the Holy Spirit and exist today in any church. Even Catholics? Yes, from what I understand. They are evidently the true Christians. Things they did in history paved the way for modern Christians.

Anywho, to me it is a way for Fundamentalists to say that their church also goes back to an early time. Approximately the third or fourth century.

What I’m wondering is, what is the origin of this theory? Who, (probably a televangelist) was the first to create this idea that certain modern Christians are here because of the early Ekklesia?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I Think it goes back to the first believers even befor there was a Roman Church. Before the councils the Church was much less formalized and defined. Some protestants view thier belief and thus their community in Christ as a linage of the first believers. I do not think this is a “modern notion”. But a perennial notion.

 

[Estevao]

I Think it goes back to the first believers even befor there was a Roman Church. Before the councils the Church was much less formalized and defined. Some protestants view thier belief and thus their community in Christ as a linage of the first believers. I do not think this is a “modern notion”. But a perennial notion.

Sorry, this is wrong. There was no time such as the one you are describing.There has been a Roman Church since St. Peter founded one there. Please see Pope St. Peter’s first encyclical letter 1 Peter 5:13 for evidence of this.

The idea of an invisible Church is a Protestant novelty created when Martin Luther was painting himself into a corner during his disputations with Catholic theologians such as the great John Eck. It’s not a “perennial” notion lol. Feel free to attempt to justify this belief with Scripture if you want.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Sorry, this is wrong. There was no time such as the one you are describing.There has been a Roman Church since St. Peter founded one there. Please see Pope St. Peter’s first encyclical letter 1 Peter 5:13 for evidence of this.

The idea of an invisible Church is a Protestant novelty created when Martin Luther was painting himself into a corner during his disputations with Catholic theologians such as the great John Eck. It’s not a “perennial” notion lol. Feel free to attempt to justify this belief with Scripture if you want.

And when did he found it and was there no church befor that? James was a leader in the church in Jerusalem and Paul was founding churches all though Asia Minor. The existence of multiple versions of the various gospels and letters attests to many different branches of the early Christian Church. I dont quite see your point in 1 Peter 5:13.

 

[SyroMalankara]

And when did he found it and was there no church befor that? James was a leader in the church in Jerusalem and Paul was founding churches all though Asia Minor. The existence of multiple versions of the various gospels and letters attests to many different branches of the early Christian Church. I dont quite see your point in 1 Peter 5:13.

If that is their argument, it is weak indeed, as it would pit Peter against James, and Paul against them both; instead of seeing them as united, even though expressing the Truths in various ways.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Ekklesia is simply the Greek word meaning “called out of” that is applied to the Church, the word here being rendered in transcript.

Your query makes no sense to me.

Are you referring to some specific usage of this word?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

If that is their argument, it is weak indeed, as it would pit Peter against James, and Paul against them both; instead of seeing them as united, even though expressing the Truths in various ways.

Not necessarily. We can see in the NT writings that the followers in the churches often needed correction. In fact it took Church councils to define orthodoxy and heresy. The original apostles may have been united but the many churches with the many followers, quite naturally, went all kinds of direction and brought the need for definition and organization.

 

[josephback]

And when did he found it and was there no church befor that? James was a leader in the church in Jerusalem and Paul was founding churches all though Asia Minor. The existence of multiple versions of the various gospels and letters attests to many different branches of the early Christian Church. I dont quite see your point in 1 Peter 5:13.

Babylon is a code word for Rome, that’s the point. What is at stake is a view of the Church as an objective society existing and founded on the word of Christ versus a denominational view which changes “the church” into an amorphous, doctrinally confused but spiritually united “body” consisting of several different and contradictory entities. The denominational view arose as a way to explain how diffferent protest movements against Rome could still compose a united Church. The Incarnation implies a concrete element to the Church as “Body of Christ”, which is united by the one sacrifice of the Mass and present in the sacraments. The Church exists outside its visible boundaries in mysterious ways, but the concrete element cannot be denied without doing harm to the deposit of faith.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Babylon is a code word for Rome, that’s the point. What is at stake is a view of the Church as an objective society existing and founded on the word of Christ versus a denominational view which changes “the church” into an amorphous, doctrinally confused but spiritually united “body” consisting of several different and contradictory entities. The denominational view arose as a way to explain how diffferent protest movements against Rome could still compose a united Church. The Incarnation implies a concrete element to the Church as “Body of Christ”, which is united by the one sacrifice of the Mass and present in the sacraments. The Church exists outside its visible boundaries in mysterious ways, but the concrete element cannot be denied without doing harm to the deposit of faith.

Yes, code for Rome, one of many local churches but without tv, radio, and all the means of communication we have today, maintaining unity was no easy task. I encountered Baptists who claimed to be aligned with John the original Baptist. It is pretty clear that from the beginning there have been divergences from unity. We see it in NT letters. That is not to say that there was no core of unity that became what we know as the Catholic Church. It is not surprising that modern day (I wont even call them protestants because they beleive they predate the reformation) believers try to identify with early believers.

 

[GladTidings]

Ekklesia is simply the Greek word meaning “called out of” that is applied to the Church, the word here being rendered in transcript.

Your query makes no sense to me.

Are you referring to some specific usage of this word?

I guess one reason it doesn’t make sense is because the usage in this case has to do with an unorthodox meaning.

There are people, typically in an upstart non-denominational church, who believe they are an elite, almost underground Christian movement. They believe they are the true Christians, although they also believe every other church has people like them who are in the shadows.

One person on this thread so far has suggested it goes back to disputations between Eck and Luther, which is interesting since I thought it originated sometime after 1870 when Fundamentalism began, IMO.

 

[James248]

And when did he found it and was there no church befor that? James was a leader in the church in Jerusalem and Paul was founding churches all though Asia Minor. The existence of multiple versions of the various gospels and letters attests to many different branches of the early Christian Church. I dont quite see your point in 1 Peter 5:13.

Churches back then were dioceses today. So imagine James as the Bishop of the diocese of Jerusalem, the Twelve as Archbishops/Cardinals, with Peter of course, being the first Pope.

 

[lanman87]

I guess one reason it doesn’t make sense is because the usage in this case has to do with an unorthodox meaning.

There are people, typically in an upstart non-denominational church, who believe they are an elite, almost underground Christian movement. They believe they are the true Christians, although they also believe every other church has people like them who are in the shadows.

One person on this thread so far has suggested it goes back to disputations between Eck and Luther, which is interesting since I thought it originated sometime after 1870 when Fundamentalism began, IMO.

As a good Baptist I’m required to say that we are just going back to the original meaning of “church” as defined by the New Testament.

However, in a historical context, John Wycliffe, in the 14th Century said the church was made of “the elect” and being a Roman Catholic does not automatically make someone part of the church and not being Roman Catholic doesn’t automatically exclude someone from being part of the elect. Of course Wycliffe was considered a heretic by the RCC.

200 or so years later, Luther and Calvin and the other reformers agreed with Wycliffe. Since that time the teaching most held by Evangelicals is that the Roman Church hijacked the term “church” from what it meant in the New Testament (assembly, called out ones, elect) to mean Roman Catholic Church and everything that goes along with the RCC.

 

[adf417]

As a good Baptist I’m required to say that we are just going back to the original meaning of “church” as defined by the New Testament.

However, in a historical context, John Wycliffe, in the 14th Century said the church was made of “the elect” and being a Roman Catholic does not automatically make someone part of the church and not being Roman Catholic doesn’t automatically exclude someone from being part of the elect. Of course Wycliffe was considered a heretic by the RCC.

200 or so years later, Luther and Calvin and the other reformers agreed with Wycliffe. Since that time the teaching most held by Evangelicals is that the Roman Church hijacked the term “church” from what it meant in the New Testament (assembly, called out ones, elect) to mean Roman Catholic Church and everything that goes along with the RCC.

Hi Ianman,
This is one of those places we should insert the “both-and” paradigm into the definition. The Catholic Church would agree with your and Wycliffe’s assessment that the church is certainly made up of “the elect” as an invisable body scattered throughout the world, however, this sense cannot be the only one as it fails in in many instances such as Mt 18:16-18. Therefore an added sense of church being also, not only, a visual body is needed. Both of these senses are needed to complete the fullness of Christ in our midst.

This “both-and” paradigm is very important to out Christian faith in many other facets such as Father and Son as one, man and woman as one in marriage, body and soul as one…

Peace!!!

 

[Estevao]

It’s really fascinating to see how the different sects of protestantism have so many different claims for when the “ekklesia” apostasized and become the false or defective Roman Catholic Church they claim exists today that needs a “reformation”. However the reformation is never supposed to come from actual reformers like St. Catherine of Siena and all the rest of the true reforming saints down the centuries that God raised up, but troubled souls like Martin Luther and the t(name removed by moderator)ot tyrant of Geneva John Calvin. Like there’s so many different positions on when the Church “went bad” you could write a book on all the different claimed options, all the way from Pope St. Linus to the First Vatican Council.

 

[susanlo]

Ekklesia is an ancient Greek term that was in use before Christianity. It is used to describe an assembly or congregation. There was an ekklesia of all citizens that would gather and vote on leaders and laws in Athens.

In the New Testament, the word ekklesia is often translated to church and can mean a local group of Christians that meets weekly in one city as well as all of Christianity. The term ekklesia is also translated to other words: such as in Acts 19: 39 If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly (ekklēsia). 40 As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of what happened today. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it.” 41 After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly (ekklēsian).

Those who gather to worship together weekly are a church (ekklesia), and this church is part of the world-wide body of believers (ekklesia).

 

[lanman87]

Hi Ianman,
This is one of those places we should insert the “both-and” paradigm into the definition. The Catholic Church would agree with your and Wycliffe’s assessment that the church is certainly made up of “the elect” as an invisable body scattered throughout the world, however, this sense cannot be the only one as it fails in in many instances such as Mt 18:16-18. Therefore an added sense of church being also, not only, a visual body is needed. Both of these senses are needed to complete the fullness of Christ in our midst.

This “both-and” paradigm is very important to out Christian faith in many other facets such as Father and Son as one, man and woman as one in marriage, body and soul as one…

Peace!!!

I would agree that “the Church” is both visible and invisible. The catholic (universal) church is made of the elect. The visible church is made of the elect gathering together. This visible church can be seen in 3 or 4 folks meeting for prayer and Bible study at a coffee shop, the hundreds of folks who gather at the local First Baptist Church on Sunday morning (or the First United Methodist Church or the local Roman Catholic Parish) or a Passion Conference where 20,000 people gather to praise and worship the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Jesus said, “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Matthew 18:20. Wherever people gather in Christ name and Christ is present the church becomes visible.

 

[adf417]

I would agree that “the Church” is both visible and invisible. The catholic (universal) church is made of the elect. The visible church is made of the elect gathering together. This visible church can be seen in 3 or 4 folks meeting for prayer and Bible study at a coffee shop, the hundreds of folks who gather at the local First Baptist Church on Sunday morning (or the First United Methodist Church or the local Roman Catholic Parish) or a Passion Conference where 20,000 people gather to praise and worship the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Jesus said, “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Matthew 18:20. Wherever people gather in Christ name and Christ is present the church becomes visible.

Your definition above of the visible church would then also have to include The Westboro Baptist Church and the like. Im sure you can see where this will go with the definition you give.

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

Your definition above of the visible church would then also have to include The Westboro Baptist Church and the like. Im sure you can see where this will go with the definition you give.

Peace!!!

Both Roman Catholic and Protestants/Evangelicals who claim to be believers can fall into sin or have wrong motives or think they doing good when they are actually doing evil. We are all biased based on what we have been taught, our life experiences, our internal struggles, our selfish motivations and so forth. Satan uses our weaknesses to try to get us to fall. That is why there are scandals in both Catholic and Evangelical churches from time to time. It is not because the definition of “church” is wrong or because the church uses the wrong form of government. It is because we are all prone to sin and being a bishop or priest or pastor or elder does not immune someone from falling into sin.

And lets not forget that not everyone who claims to be part of the catholic/universal church is actually part of “the elect” and not everyone attending a gathering of believers is an actual believer. This is true of both Roman Catholics and Protestant/Evangelicals. God however, knows the heart of all. God is the only one who can separate the Sheep from the Goats.

Also, many of these groups like Westboro Baptist aren’t gathering in the name of Christ. They are gathering in the name of hatred, or a political movement, or personal agenda. Instead of following Christ they are using the name of Christ to further a worldly agenda. This is not new as religion has been used by people to rally folks to political/hateful/worldly causes over and over again throughout history.

 

[GladTidings]

Sorry, this is wrong. There was no time such as the one you are describing.There has been a Roman Church since St. Peter founded one there. Please see Pope St. Peter’s first encyclical letter 1 Peter 5:13 for evidence of this.

The idea of an invisible Church is a Protestant novelty created when Martin Luther was painting himself into a corner during his disputations with Catholic theologians such as the great John Eck. It’s not a “perennial” notion lol. Feel free to attempt to justify this belief with Scripture if you want.

Which disputation was this? I’ve been looking for it.

 

[pnewton]

Ekklesia is simply the Greek word meaning “called out of” that is applied to the Church, the word here being rendered in transcript.

Your query makes no sense to me.

It is a Protestant thing, I would even call it a fad. Some preacher focuses on a Koine Greek word, develops his sermons around it, and maybe writes a book. The usage spreads. Other examples include Agape (the ever popular), Oikos, etc. I am sure others could throw in more examples.

The same thing is done with other rather benign points. The most striking example of this is the popularity of the Prayer of Jabez a few years ago.

The best way to answer this type of question is to not answer it, but rather to answer the less loaded question. Do not ask about Ekklesia. As about the theology of the Church, that is ecclesiology. The Catechism is one source for this for the layman.