tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post7830244108860881809..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: The Meaning of Ekklesia....Hmmmm, YesKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-22962708004815796732010-11-27T09:57:55.761-08:002010-11-27T09:57:55.761-08:00Is there a "Bride of Christ"?
Is that b...Is there a "Bride of Christ"?<br /><br />Is that bride made up of all those who have trusted Christ?<br /><br />If so, then refuse to give it the label church if you want, but it is a catholic group -- a group made up of the whole.<br /><br />KeithAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12487589010866605322010-10-18T09:23:40.166-07:002010-10-18T09:23:40.166-07:00Wow. I was hoping for a scriptural debate. That wa...Wow. I was hoping for a scriptural debate. That was over in the first thirty seconds with Dricoll's "according to who?" response. So what does ekklesia mean, Driscoll? No answers to that question. What followed was chest-thumping numbers dropping and pragmatism. All of the arguments were pragmatic. Unfortunately, all of Dever's questions were pragmatically oriented. Why didn't he engage them with more Scriptural questions?<br /><br />In this video, Driscoll reminded me of not a few IFB celeb preachers who have the attitude that "I'm right and you're wrong because my church is bigger than yours."<br /><br />Regarding multi-site churches, I'm still undecided. This conversation answered none of my questions.Joe Cassadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332557908306763199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-30549278058755219722010-10-16T16:36:42.516-07:002010-10-16T16:36:42.516-07:00Assemblies assemble. That's what they do.
Oh ...<i>Assemblies assemble. That's what they do.</i><br /><br />Oh c'mon now, that's too easy and too reliant on the words of the text itself. You'll never get out of DBTS with that sort of an attitude.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-47028177621863345462010-10-16T10:58:27.989-07:002010-10-16T10:58:27.989-07:00Thanks Bill.
Thanks Christian.
I'll be back ...Thanks Bill.<br /><br />Thanks Christian.<br /><br />I'll be back with further stuff for Victor.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-8853657299857158702010-10-16T06:38:28.232-07:002010-10-16T06:38:28.232-07:00I have a few (too many to count right now) concern...I have a few (too many to count right now) concerns (both subjective and objective) about this video. But for now I will just offer two links for those interested in the discussion in CE circles.<br /><br />The first is the recently released 9Marks Journal dedicated to the subject of multi-site churches:<br />http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/multi-site-churches<br /><br />The second is a particular article by Jonathan Leeman entitled "Theological Critique of MultiSite: What Exactly Is a 'Church'?" This article expands on Brother Dever's argument about <i>ekklesia</i>. (I had similar reactions to this article as Brother Brandenburg did to the video above):<br />http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/theological-critique-multi-site-what-exactly-%E2%80%9Cchurch%E2%80%9D<br /><br />For His glory,<br />Christian MarkleChristianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03131539290436726669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-23000965571463212332010-10-14T21:20:28.682-07:002010-10-14T21:20:28.682-07:00I have a number of issues with this video.
Firs...I have a number of issues with this video. <br /><br />First, I get the icky feeling listening to James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll shoot down Mark Dever's explanation of the meaning of "ekklesia." Driscoll with his dismissive rant "according to who?" tells me that he fails to find meaning in the text itself. Meaning is everything, and when it is rooted in the text then we have a solid foundation for doctrine. However, eliminate that, and we are doomed to invent meanings according to our own subjective sentiments.<br /><br />Second, pragmatism. They are just as aweful with the numbers as Jack Hyles was with his. What good is a work that grows from 200 to 500 in 6 months when their is zero confrontation of sin. A small church, that loves the Lord, and His Word, faithful to His ordinances is big in God's eyes - more so than a multi-sattelite group of people who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. Pragmatism is cheap, but obedience is priceless.<br /><br />Third, pious overtones. "I'm just part of the set design." Just listen to the Spirit, enjoying the Scriptures, Say what God lays on my heart...my take on this is that Driscoll doesn't want to pastor people. In his massive missiological contextualization - he fails to actually pastor God's flock. I have a problem with this contextualization - it is unscriptural. The pastor is called to "feed the flock of God" (Acts 20:28). The pastor is the main instrument in Eph. 4:12 of perfecting the saints - He is responsible to restore them to their rightful place (I can hear it now..."according to who?"). Is it too much to ask for the pastor to well, pastor? To preach the word with all longsuffering and doctrine, to reprove, rebuke, and exhort? How can you reprove sin when you are "not even there" - you know just being part of the set design.<br /><br />FWIW, I am glad for men like Pastor Brandenburg, men like my own pastor - and a many other pastor friends who really care about God's Word and His people. They lead, shepherd, serve, preach, love, pray for their flock, and rebuke others when needed. Praise God for godly pastors.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-420209942573204442010-10-14T21:18:57.584-07:002010-10-14T21:18:57.584-07:00I have a number of issues with this video.
Firs...I have a number of issues with this video. <br /><br />First, I get the icky feeling listening to James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll shoot down Mark Dever's explanation of the meaning of "ekklesia." Driscoll with his dismissive rant "according to who?" tells me that he fails to find meaning in the text itself. Meaning is everything, and when it is rooted in the text then we have a solid foundation for doctrine. However, eliminate that, and we are doomed to invent meanings according to our own subjective sentiments.<br /><br />Second, pragmatism. They are just as aweful with the numbers as Jack Hyles was with his. What good is a work that grows from 200 to 500 in 6 months when their is zero confrontation of sin. A small church, that loves the Lord, and His Word, faithful to His ordinances is big in God's eyes - more so than a multi-sattelite group of people who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. Pragmatism is cheap, but obedience is priceless.<br /><br />Third, pious overtones. "I'm just part of the set design." Just listen to the Spirit, enjoying the Scriptures, Say what God lays on my heart...my take on this is that Driscoll doesn't want to pastor people. In his massive missiological contextualization - he fails to actually pastor God's flock. I have a problem with this contextualization - it is unscriptural. The pastor is called to "feed the flock of God" (Acts 20:28). The pastor is the main instrument in Eph. 4:12 of perfecting the saints - He is responsible to restore them to their rightful place (I can hear it now..."according to who?"). Is it too much to ask for the pastor to well, pastor? To preach the word with all longsuffering and doctrine, to reprove, rebuke, and exhort? How can you reprove sin when you are "not even there" - you know just being part of the set design.<br /><br />FWIW, I am glad for men like Pastor Brandenburg, men like my own pastor - and a many other pastor friends who really care about God's Word and His people. They lead, shepherd, serve, preach, love, pray for their flock, and rebuke others when needed. Praise God for godly pastors.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-17932969415904622882010-10-14T13:57:03.845-07:002010-10-14T13:57:03.845-07:00Victor,
Thanks for commenting. I am not going to...Victor,<br /><br />Thanks for commenting. I am not going to be able to give you a long answer right at the moment, but I'll come back. I've got to leave in a minute here. As a matter of fact, my wife just said, "About ready to go?"<br /><br />We start with how did the people understand ekklesia who were hearing it in that day? You have to spiritualize it for it not to be an assembly, and we have no basis for spiritualizing it. Dever gives a good reason for that when he gives the Acts 18 example, which I'll come back to, but I've got to go. "In Christ" is soteriological, and our position is a spiritual one. Ekklesia is not used like that up until scripture was written and we have no verse that would explain that it changed in its basic meaning.<br /><br />I'll get to your references later.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-11158430524760500992010-10-13T20:30:32.055-07:002010-10-13T20:30:32.055-07:00The video is very interesting. I had no idea mult...The video is very interesting. I had no idea multi-site churches were growing that large.<br /><br />Meanwhile on the subject of Ekklesia meaning assembly, I wonder how you would respond to a line of reasoning that states that all New Testament saints are as a matter of fact currently assembled together, such assembly being in Christ, according to the following texts, and therefore they do in fact constitute an assembly in every sense of the word Ekklesia, as they were not "called out" into the local church but into Christ: Romans 8:1, 12:5, 16:7; II Corinthians 1:21, 5:17; Galatians 3:28; Philippians 1:1, 4:21; I Peter 5:14; and especially John 17:21-23; Ephesians 2:6, 2:11-22; Colossians 3:1-3; Hebrews 12:23.<br /><br />I have never heard a well reasoned response to this line of thinking and I believe that if anybody would have such a reasoned response it would be you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-11119240272759098792010-10-13T19:37:09.234-07:002010-10-13T19:37:09.234-07:00I've never heard of going to a church to liste...I've never heard of going to a church to listen to the pastor via video. Hmmmm, scary.Garynoreply@blogger.com