I think you need to develop this. Otherwise, you've stated something on its face easily refuted.
The word used in the Greek NT is "ekklesia". In Latin this is simply transliterated "ecclesia". The English word "church" derives this way (according to my Websters II):
[ME chirche < OE cirice < LGk kuriakon < Gk kuriakos, of the Lord < kurios, Lord]
Tyndale chose "congregation" rather than "church" in his 1526 Englisth NT translation. There is some unfortunate RCC baggage attached to "church", but the word means "assembly". And it is not uncommon for people to associate the meeting place with the assemblage, as inaccurate as that is. (This rhetorical devise is called metonymy which substitutes one word or phrase for another with which it is closely associated.)
So, the word "church" is not the issue, but the "concept" or meaning. I think what you intended to say is that there is no notion of a "universal" church with an official priesthood taught in the Bible. The Bible calls us "saints"/"called" (Romans 1), a "priesthood" (1 Peter 2) all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, Jew or Gentile. All who believe are the "children of promise" according to Romans 4:16 and Galatians 4:28.
Thanks for doing that ‘technical heavy lifting’ on the word origins!
The word used in the Greek NT is "ekklesia". In Latin this is simply transliterated "ecclesia". The English word "church" derives this way (according to my Websters II):
[ME chirche < OE cirice < LGk kuriakon < Gk kuriakos, of the Lord < kurios, Lord]
Tyndale chose "congregation" rather than "church" in his 1526 Englisth NT translation. There is some unfortunate RCC baggage attached to "church", but the word means "assembly"."
You have set out the very argument; thank you for saving me the time. Tyndale's view that the "assembly" is not a trademarked name (the way "Church" implies), but rather simply a congregation or gathering is the very problem to which I refer. RCC morphed the concept into their organization, and killed Tyndale for attempting to free the slaves.
Check Acts; the "ekklesia" was also the mob uprising against Paul, helping to establish the idea that there was not a brand understanding by the writers of the NT.
No, I intended to say exactly what I said. There is no such thing as a branded "Church" in view by the Apostles. They simply were referring to the gatherings in homes, businesses, public centers during those early years. Rome hijacked this simplicity in order to enslave the disciples under their tragic cult-like control.
Gatherings in homes are just as much a part of the universal ekklesia of Jesus Christ as any other...perhaps moreso. The absence of sacerdotalism, cultish rituals, pergatory, indulgences, mariolatry, idolatry (icon veneration), Sainthood (canonizing), papalism, and a ton other background noise actually sets them above the long-ago disqualified RCC. Most of the other "denominations" of "protesting" groups have unfortunately followed their lead and wandered off into the weeds, too.
But, you are absolutely dead-on with your definition of the children of promise. Those who were elected before the foundation of the world, found in Him not having a righteousness derived from the Law, those are the Body of Christ, wherever they may gather to be taught and celebrate Christ, alone.
Dutchboy88’s posts are generally like that — statements with no facts behind them, rather a refusal of facts
If we are to accept that "Church" means a gathering of believers and not an entity unto itself why do you think the Apostles Creed, which is almost universally accepted by Protestantism, clearly differentiates between a (Holy Catholic and Apostolic) Church and a Communion of Saints.