John Wyclife, of England, translated the first Bible into English in 1382, not from the original languages, but from the Latin. Wyclife translated the Latin word ecclesiam into chirche (in old English spelling):
But then William Tyndale in his 1526 New Testament translated ekklesia as congregation, except for Acts 14: 13 and Acts 19: 37 where he used churche, meaning a pagan place of worship. Tyndale broke with Catholic tradition and used congregation for ekklesia something which might have contributed to his being strangled at the stake by the Catholics. Tyndale was closer to being a remnant figure in the history of God's people than were Martin Luther and John Calvin. The principle of the remnant starts to work at a time when the multitude in the churches have moved into apostasy - II Thessalonians 2: 3-4 - and are teaching false doctrines. Tyndale was one of God's remnant people who did not have very many working with him, in fact so few that the Catholics strangled him.
See: http://www.christianassemblies.co/in...icle&article=1
"The word "church" was used by Theodore Beza in 1556, a Protestant, who followed John Calvin at Geneva, Switzerland. As a Presbyterian, Beza believed in the idea of a catholic church and its hierarchical form of government and therefore chose to support this false concept by using the word "church" instead of "assembly." The reason is obvious in that the use of the word "congregation" or "assembly" would not support his church's hierarchical form of church government. William Whittingham's Testament of 1557 followed Beza's usage of "church" and was actually the first edition of the Geneva Bible and was a revision of the Tyndale New Testament."
Any doctrine is established by the original meaning of the Hebrew or Greek words used to express that doctrine. A translation into English should not change that doctrine. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines ekklesia, number 1577, as "a calling out, i.e. (to) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation..."
The old English word circe, chirche, kirk or churche is said to have meant the house of a lord, a place of pagan worship, or circe, the Greek goddness. But circe, or churche was redefined by the clergy. Neither churche as a house of a pagan lord or circe as the Greek goddess have the same meaning as the Greek word ekklesia.
Why was the church redefined, and what did it come to mean?
I Peter 5: 2-3 says "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3. Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."
I Peter 5:2-3 says that what we call priests and preachers are to feed God's people, but they are not to constrain the people of God, are not to make money from feeding the people of God, and are not to be lords over them. This identifies how the priests and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church redefined the ekklesia (Greek), the Ecclesia (Latin) and the churche (early English) so that the priests and religious hierarchy could rule over the people. The ekklesia (Greek) is just a meeting,assembly,gathering or congregation of God's people, his elect plus some who are beginning to become interested. The ekklesia is not a proper noun; it is a common noun. The Ecclesia and the Churche were made into proper nouns,and into a man-made organization to be ruled by the clergy class.
When Theodore Beza, an early Calvinist, supported the burning of the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus (died 1553), he showed his view that the Churche should be an organization which rules over men. Beza, contrary to I Peter 5: 2-3 had the Calvinist Churche rule by constraint and to lord it over the people.
Christ said he came to bring life and it more abundantly. John 10: 10. And when in Luke 9: 54-46 James and John wanted Christ to call down fire from heaven to kill people in a village, Christ "...rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. "
Theodore Beza did not have the Holy Spirit because in wanting to burn Servetus to death he was acting contrary to the spirit of the Gospel given by Christ. Yet, Beza established for the Reformation the idea that the church should be an institution to rule over those claiming to be Christians. This is not to say that Calvinism is worse as a tradition of men than present day dispensationalism, which itself has fully continued the use of the church, the clergy and the seminary as a means of control of the doctrine of the people, which is dispensationalism.
False doctrines can more easily be established and maintained within a church structure with its clergy trained in seminaries. A clergy trained in seminaries in false doctrines then uses the control processes of the church to keep the Christians in line so they do not deviate from the accepted false doctrines.
Dean Gotcher, one of the leaders of the Christians outside the churches said that when he was in a Christian seminary one of his professors was teaching for a long period of time on some theologian, and finally he got up in class and asked why they were spending so much time on this theologian rather than studying the word of God. There was nothing but silence from the professor and the class. Gotcher got up and walked out, never to return to a Christian seminary. Many Christians outside the churches in the spiritual wilderness, or remnant, call the seminaries "cemeteries" because the "cemeteries" produce spiritually dead people.
Beza emphasized the authority of the church and of the ordained clergy more than did Calvin. Encyclopædia Britannica at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/.../Theodore-Beza says "In most matters, he reiterated Calvin’s views, though with greater stress on ecclesiastical discipline and rigid obedience to authority."
