Who started the modern notion of the Ekklesia?

[adf417]

Hi Ianman,

Both Roman Catholic and Protestants/Evangelicals who claim to be believers can fall into sin or have wrong motives or think they doing good when they are actually doing evil. We are all biased based on what we have been taught, our life experiences, our internal struggles, our selfish motivations and so forth. Satan uses our weaknesses to try to get us to fall. That is why there are scandals in both Catholic and Evangelical churches from time to time. It is not because the definition of “church” is wrong or because the church uses the wrong form of government. It is because we are all prone to sin and being a bishop or priest or pastor or elder does not immune someone from falling into sin.

Agreed - that is as far as the invisible (practical) church goes. But you said in post 16 you agree in an invisible and a visable church. This does describe the invisable side and I will add than when these believers are not living in sin they, this invisable church, are perfect in the sence God made His church and everything God makes is perfect. Now apply this perfectness to the visable (theoretical) church.

And lets not forget that not everyone who claims to be part of the catholic/universal church is actually part of “the elect” and not everyone attending a gathering of believers is an actual believer. This is true of both Roman Catholics and Protestant/Evangelicals. God however, knows the heart of all. God is the only one who can separate the Sheep from the Goats.

Also, many of these groups like Westboro Baptist aren’t gathering in the name of Christ. They are gathering in the name of hatred, or a political movement, or personal agenda. Instead of following Christ they are using the name of Christ to further a worldly agenda. This is not new as religion has been used by people to rally folks to political/hateful/worldly causes over and over again throughout history.

Again, this is critiquing the invisable (practical) church but you have not addressed the visable (theoretical) church.

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

Again, this is critiquing the invisable (practical) church but you have not addressed the visable (theoretical) church.

Peace!!!

I think you and I have a different definition of visible. My definition is to be seen by the world, to share the gospel message, to give a cup of cold water in Jesus name. Any time 2 or 3 (or more) of “the elect” gather together and worship, pray, study, serve, share and minister then the invisible (individual people) church becomes the visible (assembly) church.

 

[adf417]

I think you and I have a different definition of visible. My definition is to be seen by the world, to share the gospel message, to give a cup of cold water in Jesus name. Any time 2 or 3 (or more) of “the elect” gather together and worship, pray, study, serve, share and minister then the invisible (individual people) church becomes the visible (assembly) church.

Lets see, you have an invisible church doing works that can be seen making the invisible church visible, right? I will speculate that this same invisible church “member” can do unworthy acts at times also, correct? Making the existence of the visible church contingent upon the invisible church? Not sure this make any theological sense and a BIG GASP.

Other areas your definition of visible church fails:

1. Your original claim of the invisible church logically included the WBC until you nuanced your position. Im certain the WBC would use the same scriptures and position to claim the same thing you do about your denomination and others.
2. The Baptist church across town teaches baptism is not necessary for salvation but the Lutheran church teaches it does
3. The Episcopal church next door teaches a sort of real presence in their Eucharist but the non denomination church says its only symbol.
4. …are having woman ordinations others find this an outrage.
5. You and I have different definitions of visible church.
6. …many other salvific differences among the “invisible churches”

What we have here is a need for a visible church as described in Mt 18:16-17 to definitive declare which of these are correct which can be seen in action in Acts 15. Your definition of visible church cannot and does not address these issues above and im certain Jesus wouldn’t want a church that is incapable of tending His flock leaving them wondering which of these issues they should follow. Ianman, I exort you to consider a new definition of visible church.

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

Lets see, you have an invisible church doing works that can be seen making the invisible church visible, right? I will speculate that this same invisible church “member” can do unworthy acts at times also, correct? Making the existence of the visible church contingent upon the invisible church? Not sure this make any theological sense and a BIG GASP.

Other areas your definition of visible church fails:

1. Your original claim of the invisible church logically included the WBC until you nuanced your position. Im certain the WBC would use the same scriptures and position to claim the same thing you do about your denomination and others.
2. The Baptist church across town teaches baptism is not necessary for salvation but the Lutheran church teaches it does
3. The Episcopal church next door teaches a sort of real presence in their Eucharist but the non denomination church says its only symbol.
4. …are having woman ordinations others find this an outrage.
5. You and I have different definitions of visible church.
6. …many other salvific differences among the “invisible churches”

What we have here is a need for a visible church as described in Mt 18:16-17 to definitive declare which of these are correct which can be seen in action in Acts 15. Your definition of visible church cannot and does not address these issues above and im certain Jesus wouldn’t want a church that is incapable of tending His flock leaving them wondering which of these issues they should follow. Ianman, I exort you to consider a new definition of visible church.

Peace!!!

The thing is those doctrinal differences, and you can through Catholicism into the list, is not what defines if someone is a member of the universal church. It is if they have faith in Christ, have been indwelled with the Spirit, have been adopted as children of God, and are new Creation in Christ. If that has happened then they are part of the family of God. Christ is who saves someone, not doctrine. Doctrines are our attempts as humans to explain God and how He works. Because we are human and have different experiences, cultures, languages, heritages, educations, and so forth… we have disagreements about doctrines and practice. And it is because of those differences that we have different expressions of Christianity. This fact is even within the Roman Catholic Church as you have a wide variety of expression and beliefs (Traditionalist, Conservatives, Liberals, Evangelical/Charismatic, Cultural Catholics…).

Someone who loves Jesus and trust Him with all their heart and soul but have really screwed up doctrine can be part of “the church” and someone can have perfect doctrine (if that is even possible) and yet have only an intellectual knowledge of Christ without having a “Broken and contrite heart”. The one with the heart for God will be welcomed into Glory and the one with the intellectual knowledge only will be told “Depart from me …for I never knew you”.

 

[GladTidings]

I would agree that “the Church” is both visible and invisible. The catholic (universal) church is made of the elect. The visible church is made of the elect gathering together. This visible church can be seen in 3 or 4 folks meeting for prayer and Bible study at a coffee shop, the hundreds of folks who gather at the local First Baptist Church on Sunday morning (or the First United Methodist Church or the local Roman Catholic Parish) or a Passion Conference where 20,000 people gather to praise and worship the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Jesus said, “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Matthew 18:20. Wherever people gather in Christ name and Christ is present the church becomes visible.

It is interesting you said the Catholic Church is made of the elect. As a Baptist, how can you say that?

Also, in your opinion, do people use Matthew 18:20 as proof that it is okay to start their own church? An example: when people start a church on Main Street, USA, where the insurance company used to be located.

Couple that with the idea of the elect who are gathered, throw in a person who studied at a Bible College, and that makes it okay to start a church? (for some people, I mean).

 

[lanman87]

It is interesting you said the Catholic Church is made of the elect. As a Baptist, how can you say that?

Also, in your opinion, do people use Matthew 18:20 as proof that it is okay to start their own church? An example: when people start a church on Main Street, USA, where the insurance company used to be located.

Couple that with the idea of the elect who are gathered, throw in a person who studied at a Bible College, and that makes it okay to start a church? (for some people, I mean).

I used catholic as meaning universal church. The universal church is made of the elect. There is a difference between catholic (universal) and Roman Catholic (the church of Rome).

Most Protestants see being a Pastor or Missionary as a Spiritual Calling. The folks I’m familiar with see church planting as a mission field. When they start a local community church where the insurance company used to be it is because they feel compelled to by the Holy Spirit. Usually they feel God is calling them to try to reach a certain community or people group or cultural group with the Gospel.

I have also seen Bible studies grow into a church. I know of several churches that started out as Bible studies in someone’s house or apartment. I know of one local church in particular that started out with 4 couples in an apartment. They studied the Word and shared the Gospel and it started growing. When they realized that 30-40 folks came to the meeting regularly they started praying about starting a local church. Today, 12 years later, 600-700 folks meet on Sunday mornings every week and dozens of home groups meet during the week. Hundreds of people have come to faith in Christ and they have sent Missionaries to dozens of countries and they do lots of “works of mercy” in the community.

 

[adf417]

Greetings Ianman,

The thing is those doctrinal differences, and you can through Catholicism into the list, is not what defines if someone is a member of the universal church. It is if they have faith in Christ, have been indwelled with the Spirit, have been adopted as children of God, and are new Creation in Christ. If that has happened then they are part of the family of God. Christ is who saves someone, not doctrine.

indeed - If you are defining the invisible church which we already agreed to. The invisible church made up of the body of Christ scattered through out the world, including those who have not yet heard the Gospel but will some day come to this knowledge.

Doctrines are our attempts as humans to explain God and how He works. Because we are human and have different experiences, cultures, languages, heritages, educations, and so forth… we have disagreements about doctrines and practice. And it is because of those differences that we have different expressions of Christianity. This fact is even within the Roman Catholic Church as you have a wide variety of expression and beliefs (Traditionalist, Conservatives, Liberals, Evangelical/Charismatic, Cultural Catholics…).

I understand this is your view of doctrine and respect it but this is where im asking you to consider a more perfect view of the body of Christ in the visible sense. Christ’s body cannot be flawed as you have described here. Please try to separate doctrines and practices which is what our conversation has been about to this point in the “visible” vs “invisible” church. You imply that while the certain rites within the Cathlic Church practice their liturgies differently they have different doctrines. This is not true. Please understand this.

Im sure you agree there is an absolute way we are supposed to be/act and then there are our flawed practical acts. I hope you agree this absolute way we are supposed to be/act is perfect, complete, known to all including to simplest at all times and those who read the bible may or may not glean this absolute understanding. This understanding can only come to us from the perfect body of Christ - visible. And if it is not the Catholic Church, fine but please show me where this body is and I will become a member today but please dont tell me it is hidden, obscure, or nonexistence because Christ lives always for all. An non visible body of Christ for anyone searching would be a horrible joke from a loving Father.

We do have doctrinal disagreements but should we? Doctrines are not out attempts as humans but God’s loving visions to keep His people united as one.

Someone who loves Jesus and trust Him with all their heart and soul but have really screwed up doctrine can be part of “the church” and someone can have perfect doctrine (if that is even possible) and yet have only an intellectual knowledge of Christ without having a “Broken and contrite heart”. The one with the heart for God will be welcomed into Glory and the one with the intellectual knowledge only will be told “Depart from me …for I never knew you”.

I agree with this also but please consider the possibility that God did not leave us orphans with no way of knowing this perfect doctrine for us to TRY to follow.

Having this perfect doctrine to follow and following it is two completly different things. Just because we fail while trying to follow the perfect doctrine doesn’t mean that those seeking to find what it is to they are supposed follow have no way of finding this visible, tangable, ever living WAY.

Peace!!!