Questions about the church

[Highlyfavored]

In light of the Membership in the local church thread, I have some questions about the church for anyone who would answer:

1. Is the term "church" found within scripture?
   
2. Is the visable church the ekklesia?
   
3. What do the sheep/goats and the wheat/tares signify?
   
4. What is being referred to in Rev 18:4 when it says, "Come out of her, My people"?

   Rev 18:4, (MKJV), And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that you may not be partakers of her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues.

[Robert R. Higby]

I will start tonight by attempting to answer the first question. I will get to the other 3 soon.

Is the term "church" found within scripture?

No. It is not a valid translation of EKKLESIA (special gathering or assembly) but the root of the term is from KURIAKON or KURIAKEE (of or belonging to the Lord--used in 1 Cor. 11:20 and Rev. 1:10). The very utterance of the term 'church' in its common use completely distorts all sane interpretation of what it is supposed to be. A theologian might propose that it should be used strictly to refer to the elect PEOPLE of God in Christ. However, that will never happen and no average churchgoer will ever think that is what is referred to when the word is uttered. The word in its common use strictly refers to an institution of religion (good, bad, or ugly) and will never mean anything else to the masses. Therefore it should be dropped. 'Whorehouse' is a good biblical term for any apostate religious institution. A meeting of two or more of the Lord's people should be termed strictly what it is in scripture (EKKLESIA)--a company or assembly or gathering of elect saints.

I have often illustrated this by the man who leaves his elect family to go clean a building where corporate worship takes place. In the lingo of all common folk this would be stated "I'm leaving home, going to the church to clean, and returning home." If the proposed theologically correct use of 'church' was used the man would habitually say "I'm leaving our church, going to clean an empty building, and returning to our church." We all know that kind of use of the term is impossible for a culture addicted to traditional jargon.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Here's the answer to #3;

(Mat 13:37-38) "He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; Mat 13:38 "... The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;"

[Eileen]

Great thread Greg, perhaps it will clear up the still lingering confusion in my mind (at least a start anyway)…I hope that I don’t confuse the thread by asking seemingly contradictory questions, they are simply for clarification and learning.

Jesus said that He would build His ‘ekklesia’ and the gates of hell would not prevail it. (mine own, the same, them, your selves) (Matthew 16:18) I connect this in some ways to: (Romans 8:38-39).

Would this be the gathering or assembly of elect saints or the saints themselves or both? Doesn’t He build this ekklesia by adding unto to it, in time, those who are elect, by faith? (Acts 2:41)

It seems that the Scripture could refer to both the people and when they gather. In Acts 14:27 the Apostles gathered the ‘ekklesia’ together, wouldn’t that be an example of both? The people of God assembled.

I was told not long ago that the ‘church’ always referred to the ‘visible’ and I mentioned Acts 20:28 where the elders are exhorted to take heed as to how they were to feed the ‘church’ of God, which He had purchased with His own blood, which of course are ONLY His people, not wheat and tares. The response was that Christ’s blood is beneificial to all, I knew then I was where I didn’t belong.

I think the confusion, the trouble, the control (whatever we may call it) comes into play when the saints are gathered and there is no allowance for anyone to be a ‘good berean’ or to adhere to their own conscience or to even ask a question that might be controversial. I think it might be called power!

Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

The second question is: Is the visible church the ekklesia? The answer to this question should by default answer Eileen's most recent challenges:

Would this be the gathering or assembly of elect saints or the saints themselves or both? Doesn’t He build this ekklesia by adding unto to it, in time, those who are elect, by faith? (Acts 2:41)

It seems that the Scripture could refer to both the people and when they gather. In Acts 14:27 the Apostles gathered the ‘ekklesia’ together, wouldn’t that be an example of both? The people of God assembled.

The doctrine of an 'invisible' ekklesia has validity only when considering the fact that all elect believers of all time are not presently visible to small bands of gathered elect believers in any particular time on earth. It does not have validity if such a concept is based on this assumption: 'we can't know for certain who constitute the real and true EKKLESIA of eternity.' Unfortunately, the latter false notion is what a great deal of 'invisible church' doctrine is based on.

'The visible church' is obviously NOT the biblical EKKLESIA if that expression is proposed to refer to one or many institutions of religion calling themselves 'Christian.' The book of Ephesians is the clearest on the nature of the bride of Christ, the EKKLESIA, the assembly of true elect believers (1:22,23; 2:14-22; 3:8-21; 5:25-32). It is the entire body of Christ. There is no contradiction between the IDENTITY of this body and its ASSEMBLY to experience KOINONIA with Christ and each other. So it is both the saints and the saints gathered. The full company of elect believers will be gathered only in eternity future, however, EACH gathering of a partial number of them in the present earthly life represents and is a microcosm of the gathering of the whole. Christ is present among two or three gathered in His name right now just as He will be present among all saints of all time gathered in the heavenly New Earth!

So the New Testament also refers to local gatherings of elect believers as EKKLESIA. This does not in any way refer to a religious institution. When Paul refers to the EKKLESIA of God in a particular place, he means two or more elect believers in that place gathered for the worship of Christ. It could easily refer to several gatherings in different places; even the larger weekly corporate assemblies at a place like Rome certainly did not occur in one building--but consisted of many different groups of believers coming together for KOINONIA in different localities.

So we can see that the biblical EKKLESIA refers only to the whole company of the elect and each local gathering of that company. In no way does it refer to an organized denomination or sect as distinct from another, or one local building where people gather as distinct from another. It refers to ANY gathering of the elect in any place, period.

[Eileen]

The second question is: Is the visible church the ekklesia? The answer to this question should by default answer Eileen's most recent challenges:

I'm so sorry, I didn't mean my questions to be a challenge.

[Eileen]

Please forgive me for my show of emotion, my sensitive and emotional antenna are in high gear right now due to the somewhat ‘beating’ I have undergone in the last few weeks. I think perhaps I need a quiet break until I get back on even ground.

I know that the Apostle Paul asks us in 1 Cor 1:13 “Is Christ divided” and that is the way it seems to be in the Christian realm if you are of ‘reformed’, if you are of 'baptist', if you are of this or that, instead of….are you of Christ? That alone should be our KOINONIA, as the Spirit witnesses.

I see with more clarity that the ‘visible’ church, the ‘religious institution’ is NOT the ekklesia of the Scripture. I have had wonderful KOINONIA within this institution, but that would be with ONLY the saints that were there.

There is ONE body (Eph 4:4), of which I am a member of (1 Cor 12:27) and am no longer a stranger or foreigner, but a fellow citizen with the saints and the members of the household of God (Eph 2:19).

When two or more of these members of the ONE body gather together, rather in their home or elsewhere, that is when they experience KOINONIA with Christ and with one another. I have probably experienced that in reality more in bible study with a sister in her home than I ever have in the ‘church’. Such a sad statement.

Thanks, it gets clearer!
Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

Eileen,

CHALLENGE is a GOOD thing, not bad. I was using it in the context of stirring up people to think on an issue which I thank you for doing! I apologize for not making this clear.

--Bob

[Brandan Kraft]

Eileen,

CHALLENGE is a GOOD thing, not bad. I was using it in the context of stirring up people to think on an issue which I thank you for doing! I apologize for not making this clear.

--Bob

Exactly Bob - we MUST be CHALLENGED in order to grow. Thanks!

[wildboar]

1. No English word is found in Scripture. The word does have a wider range of meaning than ekklesia does, but there are very few words in any language that have a corresponding word in another language with the exact same range of meaning. The word is adequate and has an overlapping semantic range with ekklesia. Bob is right that the word "church" finds its origins in a Greek which is not ekklesia, many words which are derived from other languages develop and take on their own meanings. The Greek word from which we get our word barbarian originally referred to anyone who didn't speak Greek. Although people would be using the word "church" in a way different from ekklesia when referring to the church building, even the average Joe in the pew recognizes that if he belongs to Good Shepherd Lutheran Church (or whatever) and they outgrow their building and purchase a new one and meet there he is still a member of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church and is then using the word in way very harmonious with ekklesia. If he also happens to confess during the service that he believes in a holy catholic church then he also has some understanding of what the ekklesia is.

2. Depends upon the context of the particular Scripture passage.

3. Sheep-those within the ekklesia who produce fruit. Goats-those within the ekklesia who produce no fruit.
Matthew 25:31-46 " When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 "And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 'for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 'I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 'When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 'Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' 41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 'for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 'I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' 44 "Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' 45 "Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

wheat-sons of the kingdom, tares-sons of the wicked one

Matthew 13:37-40 He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 "The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 "The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 "Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.

4. Babylon-it could very well be referring specifically to the particular errors of the Roman Catholic church--both its false doctrine and sinful living.

[Eileen]

• What do the sheep/goats and the wheat/tares signify?

Jesus said:

“The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one. Mat 13:38

I was always taught that the ‘kingdom’ of God IS actually the ‘organized church’, but doesn’t this Scripture teach us differently?

The field that the sheep/goats-wheat/tares operate in IS the world. Isn’t that what Jesus meant when He said that He choose us ‘out’ of the world but we are not ‘taken’ out? The EKKLESIA, in time, live and move in the ‘Kingdom of God’ IN the world but the EKKLESIA is not OF the world. How can this be the ‘organized church’ when we know that institution contains tares? At the end of the age won't the harvest be from the world?

A whole fascinating study of the word ‘world’ in this context.

Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

Yes, our long-standing difference with Wild Boar is that he wants to bring goats and tares into the EKKLESIA of scripture--when Paul in Ephesians is clear that she is the elect only!

Eileen is correct, the field is the world that the elect operate within but are taken 'out of' as the EKKLESIA or community founded in Christ's electing grace. Their unconditional entrance into the everlasting Covenant and resulting membership in the EKKLESIA is 100% counter-cultural, regardless of which earthly geographic, religious, or political culture we are talking about.

[wildboar]

Revelation 3:14 And to the angel of the ekklesia of the Laodiceans write, ' These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:

So was every member of the church of Laodicea elect and if so why was Jesus spewing them out of his mouth?

Acts 7:38-39 "This is he who was in the ekklesia in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, 39 "whom our fathers would not obey, but rejected. And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt,

So every Israelite was elect?

I'm not saying that "ekklesia" never means only the elect but I have a hard reconciling the position that it always does with the Biblical passages. Ekklesia is even used in Scripture to speak of secular assemblies.

[Robert R. Higby]

I am not proposing that any biblical word is necessarily used to mean the same thing every time it is used; many interpreters have gone down that road and ended up with strained interpretation of certain passages/verses.

The EKKLESIA as a Greek term in general was used even to refer to assemblies of government.

My proposition is that the majority, fundamental meaning of EKKLESIA in the NT is what Paul lays out for us in Ephesians. That is the book where his theology of it is developed and stated most completely and authoritatively.

On the surface it would appear that even Christ himself used the term differently. In Matthew he stated that the gates of hell would not prevail against the EKKLESIA, yet in Revelation he states that an EKKLESIA might have its candlestick removed from his presence. A 'removal' might easily be understood by some to refer to a demonic victory over the subjects removed--hence the gates of hell prevailed over their souls in that situation.

A local assembly certainly might contain impostors in its midst; according to Paul's theology of EKKLESIA those individuals are really not part of Christ's body, however, they still reside physically in his presence for a time since they have made a false profession.

When Christ addressed Laodicea there were still some elect persons remaining in the congregation (assembly--EKKLESIA) there. So theologically the true EKKLESIA remained. The congregation would become a false assembly with no EKKLESIA remaining (hence, its candlestick removed from Christ's presence) once any of the following happened:

1. The remaining elect believers died.
2. The remaining elect believers split off into a separate congregation since the heresy or apostasy of the majority body became intoerable to fellowship with.
3. The judgment of God somehow ended the existence of an assembly professing Christ in that geographic area entirely.

--Bob

[Eileen]

Bob,

Can we look at the commendations, the warnings given to the seven 'churches' in an individual manner in any way? In Rev 3:19 Jesus says that as many as He loves He chastens and rebukes, so therefore be zealous and repent.

I remember a discussion some time ago about how you could tell if a particular assembly was apostate or not, and you said one thing it could be based on was what the 'assembly' wanted to hold on to and wasn't willing to let go of.

It seems that this passage on the 'churches' in Revelation could be indicative of the same thing, both corporately and indivudally as well, perhaps?

Eileen~

[wildboar]

Yes, our long-standing difference with Wild Boar is that he wants to bring goats and tares into the EKKLESIA of scripture

My proposition is that the majority, fundamental meaning of EKKLESIA in the NT is what Paul lays out for us in Ephesians. That is the book where his theology of it is developed and stated most completely and authoritatively.

So your gripe with me isn't really that I want to bring goats and tares into the ekklesia of Scripture but that I believe that the ekklesia that Paul describes in Ephesians contained those who may have fallen away? Is there a particular passage in particular you are referring to? My brain is operating in a somewhat different paradigm than it was six months ago so perhaps we are not really in disagreement or perhaps we are in disagreement in another way. Regardless, since the question at the top of the thread had to do with what ekklesia means in Scripture and not what it means in Ephesians or what it means the majority of times (which would take some thorough studying to figure out) I don't see how anyone could really answer it differently than I did.

[Highlyfavored]

So your gripe with me isn't really that I want to bring goats and tares into the ekklesia of Scripture but that I believe that the ekklesia that Paul describes in Ephesians contained those who may have fallen away? Is there a particular passage in particular you are referring to?

Charles before any of us lets this thing spin out of control let me try to clarify the poll since I was the one who submitted it:

In light of the Membership in the local church thread, I have some questions about the church for anyone who would answer:

1. Is the term "church" found within scripture?
   
2. Is the visable church the ekklesia?
   
3. What do the sheep/goats and the wheat/tares signify?
   
4. What is being referred to in Rev 18:4 when it says, "Come out of her, My people"?

My real thrust of this is that many of the elect have been brainwashed IMO by the organized "church". I believe through asking questions like this and having honest dialog we can help lost brothers and sisters navigate their way out of the matrix and begin to discover what scripture is plainly stating outside of and in regards to the churchian dogma/paradigm that has been spoon fed to all of us, since we have all in one way or another grown up within the walls of the "church".

My brain is operating in a somewhat different paradigm than it was six months ago so perhaps we are not really in disagreement or perhaps we are in disagreement in another way.

I for one would be interested to hear where you are now coming from. I haven't always agreed with you, however I would welcome real dialog with you if that's what you are interested in doing here.

Regardless, since the question at the top of the thread had to do with what ekklesia means in Scripture and not what it means in Ephesians or what it means the majority of times (which would take some thorough studying to figure out) I don't see how anyone could really answer it differently than I did.

I think I already answered this one, if you want more of a clarification, I'll be happy to give it.

[wildboar]

My real thrust of this is that many of the elect have been brainwashed IMO by the organized "church". I believe through asking questions like this and having honest dialog we can help lost brothers and sisters navigate their way out of the matrix and begin to discover what scripture is plainly stating outside of and in regards to the churchian dogma/paradigm that has been spoon fed to all of us, since we have all in one way or another grown up within the walls of the "church".

I think your last sentence really gives the answer to the whole mess although I'm still not exactly sure what you mean. We have all heard about Christ and his work within the context of a visible church--generally not in a closet somewhere or by some direct revelation and so in at least that sense the visible church is the ekklesia. The visible church is where we receive God's good gifts.

I for one would be interested to hear where you are now coming from. I haven't always agreed with you, however I would welcome real dialog with you if that's what you are interested in doing here.

As Jesus Himself said all Scripture is about Him and Paul said that he wished to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. Therefore the crucifixion must be at the center of all theology and preaching. All preaching must be Christ-focused and cross centered or it is not Biblical preaching. It can deal with such things as election and the covenant and whatever else but it is unbiblical if it is ceneterd upon these things. For this reason I have joined a local Lutheran church where every sermon is cross centered, every sermon contains both Law and Gospel, and the liturgy is like taking a big bath in Scripture.

It's all about the cross. It's all about what Jesus did. It's about you being a miserable and rotten sinner who sins in everything that he does and Christ shedding His blood for you and forgiving you. And God uses visible people in a visible church to bring this visible message.

[Eileen]

I think your last sentence really gives the answer to the whole mess although I'm still not exactly sure what you mean. We have all heard about Christ and his work within the context of a visible church--generally not in a closet somewhere or by some direct revelation and so in at least that sense the visible church is the ekklesia. The visible church is where we receive God's good gifts.
It's all about the cross. It's all about what Jesus did. It's about you being a miserable and rotten sinner who sins in everything that he does and Christ shedding His blood for you and forgiving you. And God uses visible people in a visible church to bring this visible message.

Hi Charles,
I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but I’d like to respond if you don’t mind. I don’t fully agree with what you have said above. The gifts of God are given to His people, 1 Cor 12:28, I don’t think that they are given to an institution, if that is what you mean by the visible church. They can be visible gifts and can be recognized by the elect only. I recognize the varying gifts in the saints that God has placed in my life, regardless of ‘where’ those gifts are manifest.

Interestingly, it was in my room (although not the closet), with the Word of God open and being digested that the Lord gave me ears to hear and eyes to see and brought the Gospel to my heart in power and in Truth, not in the ‘visible church’. I don’t know what you mean by direct revelation but doesn’t the Holy Spirit write the law of faith upon our hearts and isn’t the Holy Spirit the One who teaches us all things and leads us into all Truth. HE points us to Christ and the WHOLE counsel of God, be it election, covenants, etc. ALWAYS leads us to the cross.

I find the liturgy of the ekklesia in Acts 2:42 “And they continued steadfastly (firm in purpose) in the Apostle’s doctrine and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer. In simplicity they came together to do exactly what you have said, to confess Christ crucified, to fellowship, to pray and to break bread. Now if this refers to the memorial gift of the Lord’s Supper, did they have to join in membership before they could partake of this gift that Christ gave to HIS PEOPLE? Or did they gather and celebrate in their mutual confession of Christ?

It is about what God has done in Christ for this miserable, rotten sinner because Christ died for the ungodly. The good news, I am longer miserable because God has peace with me, therefore I can have peace with Him.
Eileen~

BTW, how is your family?

[Bob Martin]

I totally agree with the last paragraph by Wildboar, and especially the last sentence. For several years, my wife and I "holed" up by ourselves instead of fellowshipping with other chosen ones. In the last several years I became strongly convicted of the selfishness of it for us. We have since started a fellowship where we are now dealing with real issues with three other families. Issues that require time in the Word together, time in prayer together, and times of confession to each other and being real. It is hard, but God is growing each of us as we learn how to get along with each other and as we getting to know Him better and better. I have never been more committed to the body of Christ (in this setting) than I am now. The Hebrew passage about not forsaking the meeting together has to mean something. In our previous "home church", my wife and I never disagreed, but in our weekly fellowship, we disagree frequently which drives us to the Word. Hearts are changed to conform our beliefs and behaviors to His Word.