Posted on 04/08/2013 9:22:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC
"I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
Jesus Christ proclaimed, almost 2,000 years ago, "I will build My church." He declared that His Church would never die out, promising that "the gates of Hades [the grave] shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
As we will see in the pages that follow, the institution to which Jesus referred was not an earthly building or a mere physical organization. Rather, the Church was and remains the called-out assembly of Christ's spiritually transformed and faithful followers.
Jesus assured His disciples that He would guide and preserve His Church until His return, promising them, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
What happened to the Church Jesus built? An eyewitness tells us that immediately after Christ ascended into heaven following His resurrection, His apostles "went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs" (Mark 16:20). The Church had a powerful beginning.
Millions of people profess Christianity; they claim to be members of the Church Jesus founded. But Christianity is a divided religion, comprising hundreds of denominations and schisms. Through the centuries, most of Christianity's branches have assimilated many non biblical traditions—philosophical, cultural and religious—into their teachings and practices, spawning even more variations.
How can we account for the explosion of contradictory practices and conflicting factions in the world of Christianity? Is it possible to reconcile competing denominational groups with the standards and objectives Christ established for His Church? Can we know whether Christianity's bewildering variety of customs and teachings faithfully represents those of Jesus Christ? Remember, Jesus not only promised He would build His Church, but He assured His disciples that His Church would not perish. Is the divided Christianity we see around us that Church? Only the Holy Scriptures can provide a reliable answer to this question.
If Christ's promise that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail" against His Church should be considered a guarantee that those who believe on His name could never be misled or corrupted, then we would have every reason to accept the collective sum of the various divisions of Christianity as the Church Jesus built.
But He guaranteed no such thing. Instead, He warned His disciples that "false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22, emphasis added throughout).
Later the apostle Paul expressed his concern to Christians in his day that their minds could be "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by the preaching of "false apostles" (2 Corinthians 11:3 , 13).
Jesus spoke even more plainly, explaining that "narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:14-16).
In these pages we examine the fruits Jesus and His apostles said would identify His Church. We look at the contrasting fruits that identify those who are influenced by a different spirit and preach a different gospel. We will learn, not from human tradition or opinion but directly from God's Word, how we can distinguish "the church of the living God" (1 Timothy 3:15) from those who follow "false prophets" in sheep's clothing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For clarity throughout this booklet, the word Church (with a capital C ) refers to the faithful Church that Jesus Christ founded. The word church (with a small c ) refers to local groups of believers or other physical organizations. Since church is not capitalized in the Bible translations quoted, all scriptural quotations—whether referring to the Body of Christ or a local congregation—use church with a small c.
True, different from traditional Christianity but the same way the new testament church understood the Godhead.
I would have to assume that those not teaching this belief would lack the right foundation, etc. and therefore be quite unlikely to be among the “Church Jesus Built” per the UCG.
It's unknown. The general belief in United is that there are members of God's church in all organizations or at least future members of God's church. At the same time however it's understood that Satan has sway over the world including over some of those who are in United or other churches of God.
Of course I believe that the doctrine that the organization "United Church of God" embraces is the closest to biblical truth else I wouldn't attend services or fellowship there. But even living under completely false doctrine, such as Islam, doesn't exclude someone from God's kingdom. God can overcome anything when he calls people and he is eminently fair and loving.
'Tis an oxymoron you speak. :)
Of course God can overcome anything; but one of those things should not be wrong teaching by His Church.
I appreciate your reply very much.
......”The problem today is that there are very few who know (or want to know!) scripture well enough to combat false teachings and thus avoid being deceived”.......
Though there’s truth in saying that...the bigger problem is few ‘Christians’ are standing against those falsehoods even if they do know the scriptures...they won’t speak it.
I agree with some who are saying that because of the “tolerance” level pushed on our society today...there is no interest in “truth” because each chooses and accepts the others....no matter if false. Thus there is no debate.....and where there is no debate...truth then is not heard.
Oh I agree with that....Satanic deception about certain hot issues today is practically complete. The deception is so wide and so deep that it's a miracle, an honest to goodness real miracle, that anyone has any faith or belief in Christ whatsoever.
Islam, communism, humanism, new age beliefs, etc. etc. Add on to that those who call themselves "Christian" but are really just nominal Christians, Christians in names only, who don't really serve Christ or know him and it's clear how Satanic deception is and will literally deceive the whole world.
But He guaranteed no such thing. Instead, He warned His disciples that "false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22, emphasis added throughout). I think that happened along about the 1600's
What is the History of Your Church?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
“The word Jesus used (which was morphed by Rome) is “gathering” or “assembly”.”
In Greek, “assembly” is “ekklesia”.
In Latin, “assembly” is “ecclesia”.
Rome didn’t change anything there.
In Latin, “assembly” is “ecclesia”.
Rome didn’t change anything there."
I am aware of the Greek term, and evidently you missed the point here... There is no such word as "Church", especially Church with a capital "C", the way Rome has laid claim to the term. Jesus made no reference to an organization on earth, but rather was indicating His "assembly" of believers from all over the world gathering in small "assemblies" in homes, shops, underground.
Rome is guilty of morphing the concept, the term, the intent into an excuse to control its sheeple and guilt them into behaving as it directs. None of this is biblical, but at least part of it arises from the underlying aberration of turning the common word "assembly" into the specific term "Church".
The word ekklesia was a word that had been ingrained in the Greek culture for at least 400 years before Jesus used it. To the Greels the ekklesia was not some loose grouping, but rather a formal assembly whose purpose it was to make the most significant decisions for a city-state. The ekklesia was formed only of makes over the age of 20 who had actually fought in defense of the city-state. It was structured, hierarchical and obligatory. Those failing to assemble when called (the root of the word) were subject to receiving public beatings. Those arriving late would be struck with whips dipped in paint so that they would wear their shame (stripes). The ekklesia were the only ones who could impose the death penalty, declare war or remove and try high civil officials.
It is hard to believe that the Word of God would not know the meaning of this word.
Peace be with you
????
My arthretic right ring finger appologizes. Please see below with corrections:
The word ekklesia was a word that had been ingrained in the Greek culture for at least 400 years before Jesus used it. To the Greeks the ekklesia was not some loose grouping, but rather a formal assembly whose purpose it was to make the most significant decisions for a city-state. The ekklesia was formed only of males over the age of 20 who had actually fought in defense of the city-state. It was structured, hierarchical and obligatory. Those failing to assemble when called (the root of the word) were subject to receiving public beatings. Those arriving late would be struck with whips dipped in paint so that they would wear their shame (stripes). The ekklesia were the only ones who could impose the death penalty, declare war or remove and try high civil officials. It is hard to believe that the Word of God would not know the meaning of this word. Peace be with you
My puzzlement is not over your typos (sorry to hear about that rascal finger). My "???" were there primarily because you proved my point. The term "ekklesia" in Koine' Greek was used by Luke (in Acts) to describe the riotous mob assembled in Ephesus as well as the gatherings to listen to the apostles teachings. It had no "special" meaning. To (over time) morph this term into a "CHURCH" organization is to create something out of whole cloth. It simply is not allowed by the text.
Now, don't get me wrong...many so-called Protestant groups have latched on to this false organizational moniker, also. Rome has just done this beyond all imagination. But, the conspicuous absence of that kind of use in the Scriptures is telling. Your comments about the civilian origin of the term underscores the mis-use.
I am simply pointing out how this mis-use has grown, no better "exploded", into an institutional use that is non-existent in and unwarranted by the Book. That is, unless your organization conducts "public beatings" for failure to show??
A careful reading of Acts 19 will show that the "riotous mob" was actually under the control of some and acted with purpose. There is a very specific reason that the word used was ekklesia and not homilos as was used to describe riotous crowds throughout the rest of the Gospels.
Peace and Blessings
That is your "careful reading"?
28 When they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, “Great is [r]Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29 The city was filled with the CONFUSION, and they rushed [s]with one accord into the theater, dragging along Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia. 30 And when Paul wanted to go into the [t]assembly (people), the disciples would not let him. 31 Also some of the [u]Asiarchs who were friends of his sent to him and repeatedly urged him not to [v]venture into the theater. 32 So then, some were shouting ONE THING and some ANOTHER, for the [w]ASSEMBLY (ekklasia) was in CONFUSION and the majority did not know [x]for WHAT REASON they had come together."
Sounds like Rome to me...
Yes, it is a careful reading, considering every word and meaning.The confusion existed, not in the language, but in the empowerment of the ekklesia. Greek tradition and culture was that the ekklesia held supreme power, not unlike the Temple priests in Jerusalem, however, like Jerusalem, Ephesis was under Roman control rendering the ekklesia powerless. That is why there were the references to officials, courts and even a proconsul (Acts 19:38) the same rank as Pilate.
I invite your comments on why the author of Acts chose to use the work ekklesia and not homilos as was used with the crowd of Jews who demanded that Jesus be crucified and that Barabbas be freed.
Peace be with you
My FRiend...your bias is palpable. Read the text. The point of the post was that right here in Acts was an ekklasia that was an ordinary, public, argumentative, chaotic, meeting where unbelievers contemplated killing Paul. Now, that I re-read this, it does sound like the RCC. Grace to you.
As is yours. It is apparent that Protestantism is the lens through which you read and interpret all Scripture whereas Scripture is the lens through which I read and interpret both Catholicism and Protestantism. You should try it sometime.
Peace be with you
“Seriously, there is no true religion,”
I hope you are using the word “religion” in a different way than this appears, because Jesus is quite clear that He is the Way, Truth, and Life, the only way to the Father.
“Well....IF one believes the new testament ... :-)”
You certainly don’t. Unless your a polytheist, the scriptures clearly teach that Jesus Christ is God. Ignatius was calling Jesus God before the end of the 1st century, as he had learned it from the Apostles directly before his death. It is no invention of the Catholics hundreds of years later.
Instead of blaspheming with constant assertions, you should defend your cult with the scripture, so that I may crush it with the scripture.
Now just a moment, my FRiend. You were the one pointing out that ekklasia is a public meeting, not associated with a specific gathering of believers. I simply pointed out that this is true and Rome has absconded with this meaning and replaced it with "CHURCH" so that it can make an institution out of thin air. There is nothing "Protestant" or biased in a normal hermeneutic which simply extracts a text's ordinary meaning.
It is you who is wringing an organizational mandate out of nothing here. No reasonable reader could conclude that the word "ekklasia" means anything more than a normally called public meeting. You said it yourself. Now, you wish to twist that observation into a "bias". Sadly, Rome must require such obedience because so much is at stake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.