Jesus didn't institute a church

[heymikey80]

That cult of personal opinion started with some of the earlier bishops of Rome - nothing as viscous as what the Evangelicals teach - but, there was a tendency in Rome to see itself as a Chief ruler. East does give honour to Rome acknowledging it for what it is (was) Primus inter pares - first among equals.
* * *
The whole of Protestants reformation fought against the idea – the incorrect idea – perpetrated upon the West that Rome is the Church. All of the spurious and ideas that Protestants fought against that came from Rome – came from non-catholic Rome – Rome that was not one of the five – but one of itself.
* * *
So, the West has two ways. One in which millions will disregard their own opinions to listen to an opinion of One person – sitting in Rome, and millions of those who disregarded and protested against that One person – only to start listening to another One person – themselves.

It is all same to us – in the East – you are all “acatholic” – for whether it is an opinion of John Paul II or John Smith – it is an opinion that is not according to the whole.
* * *

1. Protestantism doesn't tell people to "start listening to themselves." Find that place where Westminster instructs its people to "start listening to yourselves [or for that matter, any other person] as the right or infallible authority," and we'll talk.

2. The East is acatholic inasfar as it's not according to the whole that is including the West, either. The Schism may've been triggered by the West. But if your idea is accurate, it destroyed catholicity -- not just western catholicity -- on the terms you've set so far. Would you like to expand on that?

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

the word Church . . . .

Then you believe that Jesus lied when He said that He would found His Church?

 

[phoenixgw]

I've done the tour, from Eastern Orthodox to Charismatic, Mennonite to Pentecostal, Non-denominational to Salvation Army and have had some time to consider these matters. In fact, that is why I chose the path of study that I did. I wanted to find out what the churches were doing wrong so that I could do it right.

Problem 1: Church replaces Ekklesia

In my studies, I discovered the origin of the word 'church.' It comes from the Greek ekklesia, which means 'a calling out.' Remember reading about John the Baptizer in the NT? He was baptizing people in need of repentance. Do you remember where John did this? Was it in Jerusalem? NO. It was outside the city in the Jordan River.

Ekklesias were first exercised by the Greeks when they found that their city state govts. were becoming too corrupt or oppressive. The citizens would publicly call for an ekklesia (assembly). If enough people came out and refused to accept the govt.'s authority, the government would collapse.

When Jesus preached in Jerusalem, he eventually was rejected and was called out to preach in areas near the Sea of Galilee. People would come out of their towns to greet him and worship him.

What do the churches of today do? What is their ekklesia, their calling out? For Baptists, they usually do an 'altar call' at the end of the service, asking if Jesus has called them out of their sinful lives to walk with the Lord in obedience. If someone comes forward, the pastor and/or elders and deacons will pray with these people and will decide if they are ready for baptism.

While John baptized for repentance, people were baptized in the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The submerging represents the death of the old person and the emergence of the new creation, governed by the Holy Spirit.
After that happens, (s)he goes back to church the next week and does the same thing (s)he did before the baptism. Do you see the problem?

Church has taken the place of ekklesia. People do not leave the comforts of their community, families, and friends to be baptized. The 'calling out' is more of a 'welcoming in,' meaning that instead of non-conformists making up the assembly, we now have conformists making up the assembly, joining the community, families, and friends. This means that along with the Holy Spirit calling out someone, we also have the peer pressure of the church calling people into it. This leads to people joining the assembly for different reasons; some are baptized into the assembly of God, while others are baptized into the church community, not having the spiritual experience of being "born again."

Eventually what happens in Baptist churches is that the born again believers recognize that leaders and several of the congregation are not guided by the Holy Spirit and obey the call of the Holy Spirit to the real ekklesia (calling out), leaving the church to fight over matters of doctrine, their music, the colour of the carpet--worldly concerns.

Though different denominational churches have different methods of initiation and indoctrination, the results are the same. The church in the city or town with the 4 walls is doomed to become too oppressive (legalistic) and/or corrupt because a genuine ekklesia hasn't taken place. We see this happening today with clergy and deacons who become too oppressive or too permissive. These extremes result in either neurotic congregations of mules trying to gallop like horses (read: Baptists) or the inclusion of abominations like common-law marriage, idolatry , homosexuality, alcoholism, etc. (United).

Most fights between and within different denominations happen because of theology (vs. sound doctrine/teaching). Do you know who the first recorded theologian in the Bible was? It was the serpent! "Did God really say...?" Theology means the word/matter/things of God. So like the serpent, one theologian challenges the authority of one's statement, creating conflict and strife instead of the harmony that emerges when people humble themselves and submit to God. The process of true debate, dialectic inquiry, demands confrontation in order to arrive at a higher "truth," which is assaulted by various critics until another "truth" emerges, creating an endless cycle of confrontation.

Some churches, which I won't name, are a mixed bag of strictness and permissiveness, who either ignore the sin and strife or try to hide it behind closed doors. The image of unity is shattered only when a sex scandal is reported in the media, and even then, the church will try to resolve the matter as quickly and as privately as possible by monetary compensation and/or the transfer of the offending party to another church.

Problem 2: Emotionalism replaces worship

While true worship is responding to God's glory and includes praise, a response to God's attributes, the churches create their own kind of "Praise and Worship." While the more traditional churches (the ones packed with Seniors) feature older hymns with Scriptural references, the "big box" and non-denominational churches engage in emotionalism to reach a spiritual high, much like the pagans used to do. Sexual elements are common, as are loud bands with various musical instruments and sermonettes to direct the "Praise and Worship." Some critics of this practice suggest that it even invites demons to join in their worship. You can read this for yourselves.
http://www.piney.com/Charismatic.html

The Temple of Christ

Acts 2 pretty much describes the ekklesia (assembly) as it should be. No walls, no membership lists; the new temple of God is a fluid collection of individuals who come together for events and projects like a movie crew. When the project is over, people go their separate ways and reassemble as the Holy Spirit orchestrates. My name for this form of impromptu worship and action is "Ad hoc fellowship."

I pray for the people in the churches, but I don't worry about the churches or how people perceive Christianity because of the public debates and the church splits that occur . As these churches become more corrupt and oppressive, more ekklesias will happen and more people will join the body of Christ.

 

[heymikey80]

Do you know who the first recorded theologian in the Bible was? It was the serpent! "Did God really say...?" Theology means the word/matter/things of God. So like the serpent, one theologian challenges the authority of one's statement, creating conflict and strife instead of the harmony that emerges when people humble themselves and submit to God.

The serpent wasn't a theologian. The serpent was challenging what God actually said. He might qualify as a "radical scholar". He wouldn't qualify as a theologian.

When one human challenges another human, that's very different from one human challenging God. For instance, I disagree with much of what you say. I don't consider you God, and I don't see the need to submit to you as taking dictation from God on the truth about church. We're supposed to compare your words with Scripture to see if they're true. Had Eve done so, she may not have had this problem with the serpent.

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 1 Cor 11:18-19
​

Acts 2 pretty much describes the ekklesia (assembly) as it should be. No walls, no membership lists; the new temple of God is a fluid collection of individuals who come together for events and projects like a movie crew. When the project is over, people go their separate ways and reassemble as the Holy Spirit orchestrates. My name for this form of impromptu worship and action is "Ad hoc fellowship."

I've not seen that in Scripture.

since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. Heb 10:21-25
​

In fact many of the situations described in Scripture seem to assume the exact opposite -- that there is a clear body of people who are constant in fellowship and growth with one another, together.

Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. 2 Jn 8-11
​

They're called by names expressing this constant closeness as well: "family", "nation", "fellow-citizens", even "assembly" itself in 1 Cor 14 reflects a constant, frequent connection.

And if the church is so fluid, how might someone be removed from the church? (1 Cor 5) How might someone leaving the church be considered antichristian? (1 John 2:18-19, Heb 6:4-6)

Greek ekklesiai were actually governing bodies in Athens. There was a representative ekklesia of Roman senators into the Senate. These bodies were not ad-hoc -- they consisted of empowered citizens, as well as other outsiders who might be invited to attend and sometimes even to speak at the ekklesia. The ekklesia was a civic responsibility of the citizens.

The view does sound much like the Americans' traditional understanding of the church. The progression in ecclesiology in the US seems to be swept along by the culture into an ad-hoc organization around certain common beliefs, gathering when they feel so inclined (stamping it with religion, "when the Spirit leads"), and neglecting the effort and time that it takes to engender real fellowship and communion among believers. This generally fits John Locke's view of religious gatherings and religious tolerance. It also fits well with the modern culture of doing what we want when we want. I'm unsure where we could find this idea in Scripture.

 

[JoabAnias]

The serpent wasn't a theologian.

Do you know what he is?

We're supposed to compare your words with Scripture to see if they're true. Had Eve done so, she may not have had this problem with the serpent.

Would those be the fig leaf scriptures?

 

[sealacamp]

the key point is that denominationalism has nothing to do with whom Jesus calls his own.

I must agree with this concept and have been saying that for years. I call myself a follower of Christ and attempt to be just that, nothing more and nothing less. The denomination of group where I attend worship has nothing at all to do with me being a follower of Christ or not.

In addition I have traveled about some and have found Gods people, Christs brothers and sisters in every denomination that I have visited. So Gods people are everywhere not just in a particular denomination.

Sealacamp

 

[Sheeple]

Are we missing the point of the scripture?

Matthew 16:15-18
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. {ESV}

When Peter replied to Jesus' question with ..."you are the Christ..."; Jesus noted that he was able to say that not because he heard Jesus preach it, but because His "Father who is in heaven" had revealed it to Peter. LOL that verse has nothing to do with Peter being the head of the church, this is just plain silly.

It has everything to do with the fact that you can have 2 people standing side by side who can hear the gospel message. They can both make a profession that Jesus is the Christ. One will make the confession because he heard someone say it; the other will make it because the Holy Spirit revealed it to his heart-this man will bear fruit as a result of that revelation. He will experience a true remorse for his sins, and bear fruit in keeping with repentance.

This passage goes right along with every other parable Jesus taught. The rock of revelation is just simply that: Jesus is building His church on people of have authentically received the "revealing" in their hearts. You know, the ones who walk down the narrow path and enter through the narrow gate.

I agree with the Author's original post. The true church has nothing to do with the 501-c3 non profit ministry machine, although there are true believers in it.

 

[calluna]

the word Church, when interpolated into the text, is in error.

Ekklesia, is NOT church. Ekklesia is an assembly.

But the English word 'church' is merely translation of the Greek word ekklesia. In French, the equivalent word is eglise, in Spanish, iglesia, which are derived from the Greek word through the Latin ecclesia, the word used by all the educated before modern vernacular languages came into use by those people.

Now where did this concept of 'church' come from? Did Jesus just invent it? No, as ever, his thought was founded in existing Scripture. In the OT there are several equivalents, but most commonly they refer to a body of people 'called out' from their homes for an assembly. This was indeed the practice among the Israelites, and also among the Greeks, who were called out to discuss and vote upon civil issues. The Hebrew words and the Greek ekklesia can be used to describe any sort of assembly, even those opposed to the purposes of God. The word 'church' is different, because it derives from the Greek kyrios meaning 'Lord', and means 'belonging to the Lord'. It is therefore a much more specific word, in one important sense, though not in another, less important one.

But the NT use of the word, including Jesus' use, indicates much more than an assembly on particular occasions. It really does mean 'those called out of the world', called to 'be separate', whether gathered together or separated from each other. In truth, there is no word in existence that properly describes what we call 'the church'.

Now what was it that prompted Jesus' use of the concept of those called out of the world? He had been asking his disciples who the world thought he was, and the world had come up with different good, but wrong, answers. It was recognition of Jesus as the Christ, 'God with us', that brought on the mention of church, and it is this recognition, and of course the commitment entailed by that recognition, that makes the church of the Christ, who is Lord because he is Savior. Jesus then explained that, because of that recognition and commitment, the power of sin to condemn the conscience (the 'Gates of Hades') is overcome, and immortality therefore accrues to the church, those called out of the world.

 

[Rick Otto]

Main Entry: 1church Pronunciation: \&#712;ch&#601;rch\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master; akin to Sanskrit &#347;&#363;ra hero, warrior Date: before 12th century 1: a building for public and especially Christian worship2: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body3often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as a: the whole body of Christians b: denomination <the Presbyterian church> c: congregation 4: a public divine worship <goes to church every Sunday>5: the clerical profession <considered the church as a possible career>



Britannica Concise Encyclopedia | Date: 2007

(Greek, ekklesia: &#8220;gathering of those summoned&#8221 In ancient Greece, the assembly of citizens in a city-state. The Athenian Ecclesia already existed in the 7th century; under Solon it consisted of all male citizens age 18 and older. It controlled policy, including the right to hear appeals in the public court, elect archons, and confer special privileges. After discussion, members voted by a show of hands; a simple majority determined the results. The body could not initiate new business, since motions had to originate in the boule. Ecclesias existed in most Greek city-states through Roman times, though their powers faded under the empire.

 

[calluna]

Main Entry: 1church Pronunciation: \&#712;ch&#601;rch\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master; akin to Sanskrit &#347;&#363;ra hero, warrior Date: before 12th century 1: a building for public and especially Christian worship2: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body3often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as a: the whole body of Christians b: denomination <the Presbyterian church> c: congregation 4: a public divine worship <goes to church every Sunday>5: the clerical profession <considered the church as a possible career>

Why Satan's view here?

 

[Rick Otto]

Why Satan's view here?

LOL,... hi Cal.
I sympathise with Uphill Battle in that "called out ones" (ecclesia) seems to have a different meaning than "church".
Being "churched" in fact, seems to be opposite of being called out.
Ecclesia emphasizes leaving an establishment while church is about creating, or about a created establishment.
The problem being obvious in that "the church" seems to be more a part of society than an alternative society.

 

[calluna]

LOL,... hi Cal.
I sympathise with Uphill Battle in that "called out ones" (ecclesia) seems to have a different meaning than "church".
Being "churched" in fact, seems to be opposite of being called out.
Ecclesia emphasizes leaving an establishment while church is about creating, or about a created establishment.
The problem being obvious in that "the church" seems to be more a part of society than an alternative society.

I can't see why that is a problem for those who use secular dictionaries rather than Scripture.

 

[TheDag]

I can't see why that is a problem for those who use secular dictionaries rather than Scripture.

you don't seem to have a problem using the internet now do you?? Or in other words there is nothing wrong with using a non-christian source especially when we are talking about a dictionary. It is a problem if one starts using unbiblical sources. One is against the bible the other is neither for or against. A secular dictionary can be correct. In any case I don't see a definition written in the bible for what ekklesia means so therefore we can't use the bible. If there are several meanings then certainly we use the bible to get the context to make sure we use the correct meaning but the definition is still coming from elsewhere.

 

[calluna]

you don't seem to have a problem using the internet now do you??

No. Unusual, eh.

 

[wmssid]

To: Uphill Battle

I have been looking for you, and others like you, for many years.

Please, do not disapoint me!

1) Jesus' "Called-out" (Ek KLesia) was the conversion of the apostles in the beginning.

2) Jesus told the Pharisees, "the kingdom of the God has come"; because of John the Dipper, and the healing miracles of the Lamb.

3) "I Am the resurrection."

4) "tribulation 10 days/years" = AD 67-77.

5) "A Little" (John 16.16) = 45 literal days, and Jesus left. "again, A Little" = 45 prophetic days/years and Jesus came on the clouds.
A Little = AD 32 + 45 Years = AD 77.

6) "1335 Days" = 1258 BC (Judges 10.6) - AD 77.

7) "2300 Days" = about Dec 15, 167 BC - AD 77 (multiplier of "38").

8) The Preterist are "messemgers from God." NOTE: Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar were "messengers from God" to Joseph and Daniel.
Axiom: God uses even pagans for "His messengers." What this means is that you must examine every source diligently. Even Caiphas, who hated Jesus, was a prophet of God

9) There are NO EKKLESIA TODAY! The EKKLKESIA is ONLY in Third Heaven with God and the Lamb, since AD 77

10) God has blessed Preterism with minimal success since the 1980s.

11) Many men have denounced the true part of their message, which they have proved INDISPUTABLY. They have also denounced the false part of their message. But then, Jesus taught to separate the "wheat" from the "tares."

12) "The Great Debate: 3 = 2; 1992," in Ardmore, OKlahoma was between two "3 = 2" adovcates. God teaches 6 Particular Resurrections, and 3 General Resurrections: Anointed, Called-out, Final Resurrection - Rev 20.11-15; 21.7-8.

13) If they both believed the message of the Beast: 3 = 2, then, What were they arguing about?
A) Don Preston taught the Final Resurrection was in AD 70.
B) Bill Lockwood taught the Final Resurrection would be at The End of the Christian dispensation.
C) Don Preston denied the Final (New Covenant) Resurrection.
D) Bill Lockwood denied the First Century (Old Covenant) Resurrection.
E) Both debaters believed in Jesus' Resurrection.
F) Sid & Barb Williams accepted all three resurrections; 1) AD 32 - Jesus; 2) AD 77 - Called-out; 3) End of Time.
G) Sid & Barb Williams accepted all 6 Particular Resurrections: 1) Enoch - 3300 BC; 2) Elijah - 800 BC; 3) Lamb of God - AD 32; 4) Called-out - AD 77; 5) First Resurrection - AD 1775 (Rev 15.1-16.2); 6) Final Rsurrection - End of Time; possibl - AD 2115.

type and antitype:
Enoch = type of Pre=flood Age.
Elijah = type of Old Heavens age.
Jesus = Lamb of God, without whose blood no one gets to heaven.
Called-out Resurrection included Pre-flood and Old Heavens saved.
First Resurrection = martyrs of Jesus = type of New Covenant Resurrection.
End of Time = New Covenant saved - only.
The Beast and the False Prophet teache "only 2 resurrections."

Jesus wrote about this fact:

"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle (New Jerusalem - Rev 21.1-3), and those who dwell in heaven (AD 77 & AD 1775)" - Rev 13.6.

wmssid

 

[wmssid]

Church (church) n [...... kuriakos, of the lord]

The Greek manuscripts do not use "kuriakos" for the word mistranslated, "church."

The MSS read: ekklesia, which is translated, "from calling"; or, "called out of."

One word does not equal two words; that is, "church" does not equal, "called out."

Webster's word, "church" is from men; while God's word, "called-out" is from God.

Besides that, "called-out" only lasted until AD 77. In Jesus' Revelation, the word, "called-out" is only in OT Scripture; Rev 1.11 - 3.14; and in the "Good-bye Salutation" - Rev 22.16.
The Five Months (Rev 9) and 42 Months (Rev 11) and Babylon (Rev 17-18; and "thousand year reign" (Rev 20) do not contain the word, "called-out."
The Millennium was AD 1859-1959; and I was there!

God's names for "churches" are: "Mother of Prostitutes" and "Gog and Magog and Devil that deceived them" (Nations), and "Beast and False Prophet" and "False Prophet of the East" (Rev 16.13).

Before the Second Dark Ages men were aware of these facts; and -- I was there!

wmssid

 

[DarkGreenMind]

the word Church, when interpolated into the text, is in error.

Ekklesia, is NOT church. Ekklesia is an assembly.

When you look at the scriptures in this light, you can see much more clearly the truth of the matter.

Matt.16
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my (assembly of believers), and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

so, the powerr of death will not prevail against Gods children. A wonderful promise! And it completely does away with the notion that He ever promised an error free institution.

Matt.18
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the (assembly of believers); and if he refuses to listen even to the (assembly of believers) let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.


another instance that flies in the face of authority of one orginization! We are to take them to the assembly of believers. NOT a church.

it really chages the claim that Jesus instituted the EO or RCC church, doesn't it!

Absolutely true.

Destroy the churches - save Christianity !

 

[calluna]

Church (church) n [...... kuriakos, of the lord]

The Greek manuscripts do not use "kuriakos" for the word mistranslated, "church."

It is most important to listen properly in class, otherwise one comes up with garbled stuff like this. I did not tell you that 'church' is a mistranslation, and no-one properly trained would say so. The word 'church' is the normal word, in English, that corresponds to eglise and iglesia in other languages, and has the same meaning, as commonly understood, if not the same derivation. Surely that is not too hard to understand? Those who don't listen fail their exams.

To correct any misunderstanding, and there obviously is some, here is the lesson again, with emphases, which unfortunately seem necessary. Read it carefully.

The English word 'church' is merely translation of the Greek word ekklesia. In French, the equivalent word is eglise, in Spanish, iglesia, which are derived from the Greek word through the Latin ecclesia, the word used by all the educated before modern vernacular languages came into use by those people.

Now where did this concept of 'church' come from? Did Jesus just invent it? No, as ever, his thought was founded in existing Scripture. In the OT there are several equivalents, but most commonly they refer to a body of people 'called out' from their homes for an assembly. This was indeed the practice among the Israelites, and also among the Greeks, who were called out to discuss and vote upon civil issues. The Hebrew words and the Greek ekklesia can be used to describe any sort of assembly, even those opposed to the purposes of God. The word 'church' is different, because it derives from the Greek kyrios meaning 'Lord', and means 'belonging to the Lord'. It is therefore a much more specific word, in one important sense, though not in another, less important one.

But the NT use of the word, including Jesus' use, indicates much more than an assembly on particular occasions. It really does mean 'those called out of the world', called to 'be separate', whether gathered together or separated from each other. In truth, there is no word in existence that properly describes what we call 'the church', though 'church', as it happens, is the closest representation of what Jesus actually meant, and it is actually heresy to say that it is a mistranslation.

Now what was it that prompted Jesus' use of the concept of those called out of the world? He had been asking his disciples who the world thought he was, and the world had come up with different good, but wrong, answers. It was recognition of Jesus as the Christ, 'God with us', that brought on the mention of church, and it is this recognition, and of course the commitment entailed by that recognition, that makes the church of the Christ, who is Lord because he is Savior. Jesus then explained that, because of that recognition and commitment, the power of sin to condemn the conscience (the 'Gates of Hades') is overcome, and immortality therefore accrues to the church, those called out of the world.

If any do not understand, ask. That's why you're here.

 

[Rick Otto]

I can't see why that is a problem for those who use secular dictionaries rather than Scripture.

Give yourself time.
Use some of it reading a biography of Webster.

 

[calluna]

Give yourself time.
Use some of it reading a biography of Webster.

Americans are wonderful.

In their own eyes.