Questions about the church

[wildboar]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'institution.' 'Institution' has become a profanity among some today.

But regardless, the purpose for which such gifts are given are for the edification of the church corporately if you read on through the following the chapter. To separate Christianity from meeting together with other Christians is never promoted in Scripture.

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.

The translation you held in your hand was the product of an institutional church and I'm guessing that prior to the experience you had in your room, you had heard of Christ and His work on the cross. But even if I'm wrong the fact that you were able to read the Scriptures in English was a direct result of the fact that God's spiritual gifts were present in those who worked on the Bible translation you read and who were part of some institutional church.

God works through means. God uses baptism, the Lord's Supper and the preaching of the Word to forgive sins and this takes place within a visible church body.

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?

They partook of Christ's body and blood after being baptized. There was structure and relationships of submission.

[Eileen]

Charles,
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'institution.' 'Institution' has become a profanity among some today.

Well then perhaps instead of institution I should say “visible organized church” and what it promotes, especially the promotion of what is NOT found in Scripture. The promotion of a ‘membership roll’, the promotion that ONLY those on this roll can partake of the Lord’s Supper, the promotion that those in authority have the God given right to tell you what you are to believe in order to be on that roll and if you disagree, well then you are no longer a ‘member’. You can find that in most every ‘visible organized church’ but where do you find that in Scripture?

But regardless, the purpose for which such gifts are given are for the edification of the church corporately if you read on through the following the chapter. To separate Christianity from meeting together with other Christians is never promoted in Scripture.

As far as I can tell no one is separating Christianity from meeting together with other Christians, nor is anyone denying that the gifts are given for the saints as they meet corporately as well as for us individually. I LOVE to gather corporately with the saints, to hear the Word preached, to sing unto the Lord but at what cost? Are believers to inwardly believe one thing and yet outwardly make a show that they agree, therefore staying in good standing as a ‘member’? I don’t think so, do you? If so you would still be a member of the PRC wouldn’t you?

The translation you held in your hand was the product of an institutional church and I'm guessing that prior to the experience you had in your room, you had heard of Christ and His work on the cross. But even if I'm wrong the fact that you were able to read the Scriptures in English was a direct result of the fact that God's spiritual gifts were present in those who worked on the Bible translation you read and who were part of some institutional church.

If the gifts were given to men who worked on the Bible translation what does that have to do with any institutional church? Are you saying they HAD to be IN an institutional church in order for God to impart His gifts to them? That they HAD to be in an institutional church to translate the Bible? I’m thankful GOD raised up godly and instructed men to give us the translation that we have. Are you saying that is where they received their knowledge of how to translate, is that what you mean? So was it God who gave them the gifts or was it being involved in the institutional church.

God works through means. God uses baptism, the Lord's Supper and the preaching of the Word to forgive sins and this takes place within a visible church body.They partook of Christ's body and blood after being baptized. There was structure and relationships of submission.

I guess I’ve never heard anyone say that God uses these gifts to forgive sin, so I’m thinking that would flow from a belief in baptismal regeneration? I’m sure you know I would disagree with your view on baptism and the Lord’s supper. You say that we should be Christ centered and yet aren’t you now Sacrament centered? There is simplicity in the Christ, simplicity in the Gospel, shouldn’t believers be centered there, in Him and in His Gospel?

I do agree wholeheartedly that when the saints come together there should be structure and that there is mutual submission in relationships. The Scripture exhorts but oftentimes there is also promoted in the ‘visible’ a submission structure that is totally unscriptural, unsound and that borders on authority abuse.

Eileen~

[wildboar]

Eileen:

If membership rolls is the issue, there are plenty of 'Bible" churches that don't have a membership roll. Most churches also do not limit communion to those within their own membership. Most accept those who are members within the denomination or from other bodies in which they share some degree of agreement. There is a communal participation in the Lord's Supper and the person testifies of their general agreement by partaking.

As for the Lord's Supper and baptism being for the forgiveness of sins, I'm using the language of Scripture.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Matthew 26:27-28 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

[Robert R. Higby]

WB: 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.

Me:
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).

I have a gripe with any concept that posits goats and tares as an actual part of the ekklesia of Scripture or any notion that Ephesians teaches that the ekklesia might contain those that fall away. I believe that goats and tares can be present in the ekklesia only in this sense: some goats will say to Christ at the judgment: I ate and drank in your presence and you taught in my neighborhood.

If anyone wants to examine the verses in Ephesians that I quoted we can certainly do that!

[wildboar]

I have a gripe with any concept that posits goats and tares as an actual part of the ekklesia of Scripture

So are the passages already mentioned that speak of the ekklesia as including those who fall away or unregenerate or whatever--are they not Scripture?

[Robert R. Higby]

The incidental must be interpreted by the didactic. If a theology is not supported by Paul (Jesus Christ's mouthpiece to reveal the gospel in its fullness) but rather by a potentially uncommon use of a term in a passage it is wrong.

[wildboar]

Robert Higby:

So Jesus used Paul as his mouthpiece but didn't use his own mouth as his mouthpiece? What of John who wrote the last book of the Bible? If theology had developed to the point where 'church' always referred to the elect only then why would John use it in a different way after Paul? Why would Paul himself address church such and such and warn them if they continue in sin that they will not inherit the kingdom of God? Wouldn't it make more sense to interpret ekklesia in its context?

[lionovjudah]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101259/Joh...entered-Church


Very lengthy article, common to Owen's writings, but a very thoughtfull job none the less.

[lionovjudah]

The incidental must be interpreted by the didactic. If a theology is not supported by Paul (Jesus Christ's mouthpiece to reveal the gospel in its fullness) but rather by a potentially uncommon use of a term in a passage it is wrong.

Bob:, was not Paul the author of the book under discussion who used the word as Chuck is asking? If The Spirit inspired Paul to speak what he did, then Jesus' mouthpiece as you call him, was the one who made the distinction and statements reflecting what chuck is saying.

[Eileen]

Bob
The incidental must be interpreted by the didactic. If a theology is not supported by Paul (Jesus Christ's mouthpiece to reveal the gospel in its fullness) but rather by a potentially uncommon use of a term in a passage it is wrong.

I had to look up this word, didactic and it means ‘intended to instruct’ so are you saying that we must always look for the meaning of the word as it is intended to instruct specifically and not just as it might be used in every sentence? I’m thinking of the great word study of Grace and how your above statement could be reflective in that study of GRACE just as much as EKKLESIA.

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).

I have a gripe with any concept that posits goats and tares as an actual part of the ekklesia of Scripture or any notion that Ephesians teaches that the ekklesia might contain those that fall away. I believe that goats and tares can be present in the ekklesia only in this sense: some goats will say to Christ at the judgment: I ate and drank in your presence and you taught in my neighborhood.

I love the book of Ephesians for the very reason stated above, it DOES give us a clear picture of the TRUE Body of Christ; I read it often. So this would be didactic in nature as it is ‘fully intended to instruct’ us as to what the Body of Christ, the Bride, the church/ekklesia really is. If we are given this instruction in our understanding, we can then apply it to sort out the times the term may be used in a potentially uncommon way. Is this close to some of what you are saying about the use of the word EKKLESIA? It clearly shows why tares are not a 'part' of the EKKLESIA, but may be present.

Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

I agree with you completely Eileen. I am going to compose my interpretation of many of the EKKLESIA passages outside of Paul to clarify the position I am espousing.

The points you are bringing up focus on the two main uses of EKKLESIA in the New Testament: the ESSENCE is the body of Christ or all elect and regenerate persons and the PRACTICAL is whenever and wherever those elect persons assemble in fellowship. Since the practical aspect includes the possiblity of impostors being present in the assembly, many have falsely concluded that those impostors are actually or essentially a part of the EKKLESIA of Christ.

[Robert R. Higby]

EKKLESIA outside of Ephesians.

Paul in the book of Ephesians outlines the ESSENTIAL nature of the EKKLESIA founded by Jesus Christ. It is the full company or congregation of regenerate and elect humanity. This understanding fully harmonizes with Christ's own statement that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the EKKLESIA He would build on the foundation of apostolic testimony (Mt. 16:18). Not one person in Christ's EKKLESIA can end up as a damned soul.

Acts 2:47 completely harmonizes with this also: And the Lord added to the EKKLESIA daily those who were being saved.

Acts 7:38, referring to the EKKLESIA in the wilderness, simply uses the term to refer to a congregation or assembly. It is an incidental use and does not refer to the EKKLESIA that Christ promised to build on the foundation of apostolic testimony.

1 Corinthians and Galatians are addressed to local congregations or EKKLESIA. In 1 Cor. 1:2 Paul makes it clear that his letter is addressed to the elect at Corinth only. He also pronounces a blessing of Grace to the Galatian assemblies (Gal. 1:3). So what do we make of the unregenerate impostors who were physically present in the midst of such EKKLESIA? We have to realize that Paul is addressing the believers as a geographically gathered congregational entity, which is a PRACTICAL use of the term. So when those congregations are addressed, issues with unregenerate souls causing trouble in their midst are also addressed. But this is not a declaration that such souls are actually a part of the EKKLESIA founded by Christ!

The book of Hebrews is much the same. It is in essence a message to BELIEVERS to persevere in the faith once delivered and not be swayed by false Judaistic heresies. Again, the statement that impostors in their midst who go off into apostasy will never come to repentance does not change the fact that Luke is addressing believers in this book.

The EKKLESIA addressed by Christ in Revelation are true believers, not assemblies of primarily impostors. The apostolic doctrines were still taught in these congregations. The threat to cut off any of them is a judgment that Christ would perform against local CONGREGATIONS of EKKLESIA, not a cuting off of elect believers from the ESSENTIAL EKKLESIA. The picture of Christ standing at the door knocking is not an invitation to salvation, it is an assurance to elect believers that even if a local EKKLESIA is ended in judgment Christ will still sup eternally with His own.

This is a brief introduction to how I view these passages.

Bro. Bob

[Dorcas]

Acts 7:38, referring to the EKKLESIA in the wilderness, simply uses the term to refer to a congregation or assembly. It is an incidental use and does not refer to the EKKLESIA that Christ promised to build on the foundation of apostolic testimony.

This is an example of something that I learned recently that gave me a "light bulb" moment. My congregation is doing a study on ecclesiology and one of the fundamental assumptions people make when they read the word ekklesia is that it is always talking about THE "Church" (ekklesia) of Christ. But ekklesia was NOT a special, theological word. It was just a regular, common word that is found in all kinds of outside Greek literature. The translators of the Old Testament Septuagint used the work ekklesia all the time. Those instances in English are generally translated "assembly."
Psalm 1:5 and 89:5 are even a couple of instances where there is a concept of assembly of the righteous. So Christ, when He says He will build His ekklesia isn't coming up with a brand new word. He infuses something common with new meaning. (kind of like the word baptismos?)

So all this to say that there are a lot of possibly wrong hermeneutical assumptions made, and one has to examine the context and meaning deeper than our colloquial usage might lead us.

[Eileen]

It certainly has been a joy to read the Scripture with the thoughts of the "ESSENCE" of the body and the "PRACTICAL" of the body in my mind. The Scripture surely does come alive in understanding and applying the True nature of the Body of Christ.

I wonder if someone might address the fourth question from the beginning?

What is being referred to in Rev 18:4 when it says, "Come out of her, My people"?

Come out of the apostasy period?

Eileen~

[Brandan Kraft]

Here is Gill on the passage: Rev 18:4, GILL

[Eileen]

Here is Gill on the passage: Rev 18:4, GILL

Thanks Bro!

I think of the threads here on the ‘great whore’, the ‘family tree of the great whore’, ‘is the church apostate’ and many more that point us to this thought/command in Revelation to come out of her. So defining what we are to come out of, defining what the idolatries are, defining what the apostate doctrines are is the task that we are discussing much of the time.?

Do you think that Gill is limiting the call to coming out of Rome only, ‘the protestant in their separation from Rome’? I know that many do that so as we look at Rome and her idolatries and follow that down to as far as it goes, wherever it goes that is how we come to the knowledge of how the apostasy has permeated the majority of the ‘church’? Just trying to unravel it all in my mind. Thanks!

Eileen~

[Brandan Kraft]

Thanks Bro!

I think of the threads here on the ‘great whore’, the ‘family tree of the great whore’, ‘is the church apostate’ and many more that point us to this thought/command in Revelation to come out of her. So defining what we are to come out of, defining what the idolatries are, defining what the apostate doctrines are is the task that we are discussing much of the time.?

Do you think that Gill is limiting the call to coming out of Rome only, ‘the protestant in their separation from Rome’? I know that many do that so as we look at Rome and her idolatries and follow that down to as far as it goes, wherever it goes that is how we come to the knowledge of how the apostasy has permeated the majority of the ‘church’? Just trying to unravel it all in my mind. Thanks!

Eileen~

I don't know where Gill stood entirely, but I believe that this passage refers to ALL apostate churchianity. At least that's the way I personally read it. - Brandan

[Robert R. Higby]

I think it is important to note the areas in which Gill fell short, which includes his defense of the 'early fathers' (See specifically his discussion of each one of them in The Cause of God and Truth). To not expose and renounce the gross theological errors of those men is a major shortfall. Gill only quoted snippets that he could use to try and vindicate their orthodoxy. His discussion of Justin Martyr is truly pathetic and doesn't honestly explain the nature of Justin's doctrine of free will at all. Gill tries to mold Justinian free will into his own (false, in my judgment) beliefs on the pre-fall perfection of demonic angels and Adam.

To miss the heresies taught by the early fathers means that the extent of the apostasy is very poorly understood. It extends to Eastern Orthodoxy, free will nonconformity, and free will Protestantism as much as to Roman Catholicism.

[Eileen]

The points you are bringing up focus on the two main uses of EKKLESIA in the New Testament: the ESSENCE is the body of Christ or all elect and regenerate persons and the PRACTICAL is whenever and wherever those elect persons assemble in fellowship. Since the practical aspect includes the possiblity of impostors being present in the assembly, many have falsely concluded that those impostors are actually or essentially a part of the EKKLESIA of Christ.

It seems that the ESSENCE and the PRACTICAL have, since the time of the apostasy, more or less merged into one thing called ‘the visible church’. I know that is simplified in content but perhaps that is the drift. It also seems that in this merge the PRACTICAL has become the main focus of Christianity instead of on the ESSENCE.

I know there is validity in the practical, the Scripture instructs us in those ways. It can however become so prominent that the Gospel is buried and often then seems to vanish. I wonder if that is what the Lord rebuked the assembly at Ephesus for, “Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love”. Did that assembly leave the Gospel, isn’t our first love Christ?

This has been a great thread, thanks!
Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

I do not believe the assembly at Ephesus had left the gospel, otherwise Christ would not address them as an EKKESIA at all--their candlestick would have already been removed.

In order for Jesus to recognize any congregation as EKKLESIA, the following must still have been present:

1. True public recognition of the apostolic kerygma regarding the person and work of Christ. The teaching of the apostles would still have been the affirmed teaching of the congregation.

2. Elect believers having KOINONIA with one another and rejoicing in their faith.

The issue at Ephesus, I believe, was that other interests and preoccupations had significantly strained their long-standing and single-minded love of the gospel. If that trend continued the gospel would eventually take a 'back seat' like it has in so many churches. At that point that congregation could no longer be called an EKKLESIA because its public teaching and basis for fellowship would be centered around something else.