The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Biblically, what does the word "Church" mean?

Whenever was meant to mean at any given time, not every time, so my apology of using poor, unclear English. I was thinking of the prophets of the O.T. when they brought a message that was not to the people’s liking, and when Luther stood at the Diet at Worms, and others who stood for truth and suffered, many dying for their testimony, so my mind was on them not going against conscience because of their Holy fear of God yet able to stand because of their infallible trust of God.
As you must know, I’m talking about how individuals make personal judgments and belittle anyone in opposition to their beliefs; this is speaking solely of doctrinal beliefs. My x and x were about biblical/Christian ethics, not a matter of doctrinal belief. It was a statement with me included, my demeanor must constantly be kept in check. In this discussion group if a person is outside the general consensus, they are not made to feel very welcome some times.
Again, this was my fault again for not being clearer. My point was that the RC’s and Pharisees were both confident that they had the absolute handle on the truth, that they comprehended God totally and there wasn’t anything that they needed to learn anymore. They basically built walls around their beliefs to keep everything out, including the Holy Spirit. You will notice I said to protect the “law”, meaning God’s Word is good, with full agreement, the loss of the authority of the word or its place in the church is the most devastating thing that happens, both in the O.T. and the N.T. However, we must not protect it so staunchly that we are unable to learn more from it through His Spirit.
Or (C’) having the mind of Christ 1 Cor. 2:16
That sheds light on everything, instead of being treated as a brother in Christ, when there is disagreement, the opposing person is considered ignorant and unless the one who disagreed doesn’t admit to their ignorance, they will be treated and considered as such. That is why a person feels belittled. I honestly grieved over how Carlos was treated. Although I didn’t agree with what he was saying, he still came across as a brother in the Lord who was only excited about what God was doing in his life, yet the desire was to quench his enthusiasm. We didn’t even give him a chance to work through things showing patience and love.
I’m not a philosopher nor do I do any “I” ratings, I’m poor in English and not as learned as most in this group. However, I am a child of God who has sought to honor, be obedient and glorify Him, knowing full well the condemnation I bring on myself by teaching error.
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. (James 3:1)" and
"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matthew 12:36-37" and
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)
I acquiescence to the verses above, and if I’m out of line with these, may the Lord rebuke me. I have always sought to be true to His word with the ability He has given me. I am seen as a standaloner which is not my intention, I am only stating what I believe to be truth, and until the Spirit convinces me otherwise, It’s impossible for me to agree just because people say I must due to the history of the past. It isn’t that easy to go contrary to conscience.

I’m awed and blessed also, with the spiritual understanding which God gave these giants of the past. After the Bible I find no greater joy than spending time with the saints of old. Additionally, they don’t judge me when I disagree with them either. They continue to kindly speak to me in spite of our small disagreements.

The desire was to quench his enthusiasm? What on earth are you talking about? Do you consider the contempt (yes, contempt!) Carlos displayed toward "Sunday churches" to be brotherly love? Was his constant characterization of "Sunday churches" as being "mute spectators" focused on gathering in a building once a week a knowledgeable characterization? Was his claim to the authority to baptize, speak aloud spontaneously in worship, serve communion himself at home, etc., evidence of humility? Or did his griping about the functionality of the board (a result of his own ignorance) advance discussion?

If you're going to make accusations of ill-treatment, you need to cite exactly what you think was ill-treatment (by whom!) & point to what scriptural principles you think were violated. Vague generalizations aren't acceptable.

Hisalone,

Thanks for responding.

About what you called your "poor, unclear English", I wasn't thinking in those terms at all. My home is in a neighborhood where English is certainly not the first language, and I have had 2 children who were nearly unintelligible to anyone but myself as toddlers, and a 3rd who spoke only Mandarin when newly in our family, so I have learned a few ways to get to the heart of what someone is trying to communicate. I would not have raised a challenge to your use of "whenever" if it might have been just a poorly chosen word; I did so because your use of it went along with other statements--your recent "opposition" line, earlier comments about having little trust in historical records (apparently accepted by majorities) come to mind--which make it seem that you have very little use for the consensus of the church.

Now that you have clarified yourself that the real issue for you is not minority vs. majority:please tell me this--

with regard to an essential doctrine of the faith, how do you resolve any conflict between your conscience and the overwhelming historical testimony of the church, when both yourself and the testimony of the church claim a biblical foundation for the doctrine?

About your expansion of the "forcing beliefs" issue, I would appreciate more about this statement: because it sounds like you're saying that it's fine to tell someone what to do about biblical/Christian ethics, but it's not right to tell someone that they are personally wrong about a point of doctrine. I'm not sure that's what you're saying, though, and would appreciate clarification.

And since you clearly have the treatment carlos123 received in mind, specifics would be very appropriate since you have now made general charges about:

• "belittl(ing)",
• absence of "gentleness",
• "muscling their truth on people",
• not "allow(ing) the Spirit to speak",
• "discourag(ing)",
• "hammering our truth down their throats",
• assuming we were "given the job of the Holy Spirit",
• causing "trouble in the church",
• not being "more Christlike in how we relate to each other"

These are very serious charges, hisalone. You must substantiate them or withdraw them.

Now onto the lessons you draw from the Pharisees. Here it was not lack of clarity, but that you were--in your original post--and continue--in your clarification--misrepresenting the clear exegesis of the Lord's rebuke of them, making your application--comparing the Pharisees' and Catholics' approach to tradition to the biblical Christian's approach to the consensus of the church--a strawman.

You err greatly in implying that the Pharisees were guilty of protecting the Law so much that they shut out the work of the Holy Spirit. This is a great error because it sets the Law and the Spirit--who breathed the Law!--in opposition. May it never be! The Pharisees, and all who remain under condemnation in their native self-righteousness, demonstrated rather, by their fruitlessness and hatred of Christ, that they DESPISED THE LAW OF GOD, always supplanting it with their own innovations, emendations, re-interpretations and self-aggrandizing misapplications, rather than embracing it, as intended, as it drove them to the cross--and they were doubtless quite secure in their consciences.

How can you have too much of the Law? Jesus cries through the Psalms "Oh how I love Thy Law!" and "I come to do Thy will!" Can He be accused of "too staunchly" protecting the Law? By thus misinterpreting the Pharisees, you are implying that the church can somehow have too much reliance on its own consensus with the Word of God, and that the individual conscience, led by a Spirit who is somehow not shackled by the Law, should be the ultimate arbiter of truth. Is that your intent?

About your 3rd alternative, please let me know--does "having the mind of Christ" cause any individual Christian's mind to become something other than finite? (If you are thinking of going into "know this love of Christ which surpasses knowledge", please understand that the distinction I am hoping to draw is not natural vs revealed knowledge or even varying degrees of knowledge, but simply this: can any human being have a mind which is other than finite?)

It looks like most of your remaining paragraphs have been addressed above. One last thing, however, since you said "I am not a philosopher". While Paul soundly whacks philosophy/philosophers in 1 Cor. 1:28 and Col. 2:8, in both verses he makes it clear that he is talking about those of this world system rather than philosophy in general (if that were not the case, he would be denying scholarship and wisdom as well, in contradiction to Scripture). Not knowing you personally, I am still quite confident in issuing a new challenge--against your denial of being a philosopher--because the word itself simply means:

"one who loves knowledge"

and I strongly doubt you would deny that characterizes you! I strongly exhort you, however, to value more highly the Berean-approved wealth of wisdom that has preceded you among those who cared more for the church of Christ they served than their own lives, not least by using all their powers to preserve that wisdom and truth intact and without innovation for our own generation.

Paul, (first, you don't need to read this, it is long and boring, just an attempt to clear up some of my attitude on this whole issue of Carlos)

The whole tone of your response to me is much different than the tone that Carlos received. I think if Carlos would have gotten a more gentle response than that he needed to repent of his slanderous accusations etc, he might have hung around and possibly learned and even changed his views. I believe the regulars on this discussion board are planted well enough doctrinally that opposing views are not going to easily shake them. When opposing views come, they present opportunities to sharpen swords and make us stronger in doctrine. This is one of the reasons I like this group, it challenges me continually, and it gives me opportunity to think through things.

I guess I related to Carlos, because I was where he was, not the Pentecostal type tendencies, but the part where I had to sit below a pastor and elders who were dead spiritually. I finally got the chance to teach through the book of Romans and when I got to the doctrine of predestination, I was run out of the church. The pastor made the comment that from “HIS” pulpit, he would only teach the love of Christ. He also said that God never said we were to hate our brothers, sisters, wives and children and that I was teaching heresy. We stayed at the church because we thought we could have a positive impact on it and the church wasn’t all about how great it was. After that, my wife and I looked around for churches in our area. One we attended was legalistic and all they preached was how bad everyone else is and how great “they/we” were. Others were also dead spiritually, only teaching man centered messages, so at that period in my life, I would have made the basically the same comment Carlos did, not intending it to be inclusive of all churches. In older posts on this board, back in 2003 when I joined it was because of what we were up against. It was then I stumbled on to the highway and realized there still was a “remnant” and we weren’t alone. It may sound odd to someone who hasn’t experienced that.
Side note: shortly after we were run out, the pastor came under conviction that he could not stay there any longer. The new pastor they installed began teaching the whole counsel of God. People only wanting to hear about the “love” of Christ found that the teaching about the justice and wrath of God was distasteful and they left. I’m now back to teaching, leading prayer meetings and giving an occasional message from the pulpit, this is from a church group that 4 years ago forced me out. God is in control and we need to always be sensitive to His guidance and leading.

That said, I believe Carlos was led here by our sovereign God. It didn’t seem to me that he came here to intentionally disrupt things but to open up and quite possibly find that he isn’t alone. I suppose that is why I was so grieved about Carlos, I saw myself about 5 years ago.
Those are some of the reasons I made the comments I did. Belittling was making a snide remark about computer skills, not a big deal, but he was already struggling with his view of Christians, gentleness, again a rebuke and asking him to repent, not trying to understand why he was in the disheveled state he was in. Muscling the truth was just giving him a huge load of resources and telling him to read this or that instead of trying to dialog with him. I know he appreciated the links and we all do, but some times why not try discussing it? It is a little more personal instead of wham, here you go. The job of the Holy Spirit means let Him work, again, I believe Carlos was led here for a reason and doing the previous things I mentioned he might have seen more clearly what everyone was trying to say to him. Causing trouble in the church is again, episodes where individuals want to run the church instead of allowing God to run it, seeking to force their agendas instead of following the line of authority, and in doing that, seek the highest authority, Christ Himself by praying over things first. All the problems in our church are caused by the less than faithful who believe it is their job to run the church, and if we don’t do it their way, then we are out of the will of God. Being Christ like means that we are patient, longsuffering and attentive trying to see why the person is in the state they are and addressing that instead of snap judgments on the intentions and spirit of the person.

In response to the Pharisees, I am trying to say, they were protective of their false understanding of the “truth”. Over the generations, each generation was taught lies and these are what they protected. Sort of allowing sewage into the drinking water and then doing everything possible to keep it that way, not allowing means of purification to get in. As far as law, again, I don’t communicate very well, but an example is protecting the legalistic, moral aspect of the law and missing completely the spiritual in it. Something a majority of churches are guilty of today.
My comment about not being a philosopher was meant to mean I have a hard time holding everything together logically, in my mind I know exactly what I’m thinking but my comments and way of phrasing is completely scrambled. I just was thinking how philosophy goes from point a to point b in their arguments.
My love of knowledge is the spiritual knowledge I receive through the Bible, the saints of old and groups like this. I am poorly equipped with the knowledge of the world, but I do know my redeemer. I’m seen as one who contradicts the wisdom of the past, but I don’t know why, again, I see things a little differently, but I don’t deny what they have spoken in the past, I just have expanded on it looking at it from a different viewpoint.

Anyway, thanks for the gentle reply, if only we would always respond in such a manner, it defuses any defensiveness or irritation even if we have been provoked by others. The best thing is to understand why the rash comments were made which you did here, calling me out on my comments concerning the treatment of people on the discussion group and I answered why I made those statements.

That is entirely a matter of your opinion. From my vantage point, I see things totally opposite.

IF it was the Holy Spirit Who brought carlos123 here, which I heartily agree it was, then the same Holy Spirit would have opened his eyes, softened his heart and given him a mind to accept, at least for serious consideration those things which were said and/or linked to. The Spirit doesn't lead a man to water only to let those who are distributing it take over and ultimately determine whose thirst is quenched and who dies of thirst. This is not to deny human responsibility.

It has been your repetitive contention that, at least in part, that the "stalwarts" and many of us here are to be considered like these Pharisees because we desire the "old paths" and have no shame in unwaveringly defending what was considered to be the truth of God which has been consistently believed, defended and even died for throughout history. By implication, whether you intend it that way or not, this comes across as saying that all of the above are defending a "false understanding of the 'truth'. Again, "each generation was taught lies and these are what they protected." Without question the statement on its face is undeniably true. But you have used it in such a way that it is applicable to men such as Calvin, Edwards, Owen, Hendriksen, et al, ... myself and others here. You have constantly stated that you do not and will not "align myself with you (Pilgrim) nor any man", thus making yourself logically as a "lone ranger"; one who stands alone and rests upon his own understanding because you have your Bible and the Holy Spirit. I need not tell you what this amounts to, right? Think about it!

It's unfortunate that at this time you cannot see how you show yourself as one who has little to no respect nor humility in regard to "the wisdom of the past". On the one hand you occasionally say you appreciate and even benefit from the "old writers of the past". But more often you denigrate them and even summarily dismiss them because they are "fallible men". Fallible men they were, but not as implied that they are not to be trusted at all... but your "insights" are to be trusted. I'm sorry, but I also don't accept this euphemism from a different viewpoint. The "viewpoint" which these men of the past had and I pray most of us here have is one which is biblically based; 1) genuine humility toward God, 2) utterly dependent upon the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of God's written Word, 3) prayerful and careful study of that Word with the hermeneutic (method of interpretation) which the Scriptures themselves regulate, 4) a love for the Church as it is "the pillar and ground of the truth." and thus great respect for those who have gone before and who were gifted by the Holy Spirit for teaching. Much more could be included, but these few things I think were foundational in these men. It was such men who produced by the providence of God the great Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms which we are blessed with.

The point of all this is that I have to wonder if you ever consider within yourself when you come across what you deem "new insights" from Scripture, particularly those which most of us here find problems with, that they haven't been presented before, they were scrutinized and were rejected? But you get upset when that happens to you here. I'll always remember the flippant way you dismissed William Hendriksen in a post where his "viewpoint" contradicted yours. I believe the topic was the "love of God" where you presented a "new viewpoint" on how to understand God's love to all men. Your "new insight" was challenged and I personally opposed you as did others because it isn't an "expansion" of what others have believe, but rather contrary to what they believed and what Scripture clearly teaches. But you dismissed all the statements of those in the past, all the statements found in the Confessions and the Canons of Dordt, all the Scriptural references shown you, etc. You deliberately chose to stand alone on the premise that "God continues to reveal Himself in these last days"... more than He has to others in the past. Can you appreciate how that appears to someone reading such things? Think about it!

Lastly, I would like to provide a quote from Martin Luther, that incredible man who had the tenacity and courage, thanks be to God, to stand up against the entire organized church of his day because he discovered that "truth once delivered to the saints" (notice not some "new insight"):

In His grace,

In everything said concerning my stance and your view of me is right as you and others see it, and maybe even as God sees it. As to the issues concerned, I am seeing things differently than everyone else and I can't help that. Just because others disagree does not change my convictions, it isn't that easy. Don't you think I would change my mind if I was convinced of what you are saying? I don't mean to be arrogant or give the appearance of stepping on everyone, I'm only pointing to what I've been convinced of, presenting it for others to consider, not necessarily to accept. If I'm under deception, which is possible, then I trust in time to be convicted of that, but I can't just change my view to go with the majority without the conviction I'm wrong. I know I'm poor at giving examples, and I'm not saying anything other than trying to show what I mean. A convinced Arminian will not be convinced about the doctrine of election until the Holy Spirit opens his or her eyes to understand the Sovereignty of God. They are appoaching the doctrine of election according to their human understandings, God could never reject anyone, He loves everyone. Or how about when you understood the doctrine of election, was there any way you would go back to the old way of thinking? Of course not, it would be counter to the truth. There is a people in our church right now that are staunch Arminians, after realizing that talking to them about the sovereignty of God was fruitless, I let it drop and just teach the truth not trying to change their views. They believe they are absolutely right and they use anger when defending their view. Not a very pleasent experience.

Again, keep in mind, I have taken everything you said about me and my views to heart, but until I have liberty to lay down the views I currently hold, I can't go back. I appreciate everyone's opinion and honesty and I do not mean any disrespect to anyone. As for what Martin Luther said, I still believe as scripture instructs, we must approach a brother in error with gentleness. I submit to your views concerning me, but not to the views concerning the differences in doctrine, not at this time.

BTW, the issue about the Armour of God I realized the view wasn't good but it took time. Just yesterday I heard David Jeremiah, who I appreciate, say "IT IS" putting on Christ, so now I disagree with him, previously I would have said yeah, that's true!!!

As you said:
"IF it was the Holy Spirit Who brought carlos123 here, which I heartily agree it was, then the same Holy Spirit would have opened his eyes, softened his heart and given him a mind to accept, at least for serious consideration those things which were said and/or linked to."

Perhaps it would have taken some time but was underway. I think that plants take time to grow!
Not that I totally buy all your statements.

Hisalone,

In view of what you say about yourself having different views, even with some chapters in the WCF: Can you perhaps give an example of where you differ? Thus, with which chapter do you differ, what is your view on that particular "doctrine", and what is your justification for that view?

Johan

Several times you have brought up the matter of "conviction". And it would appear that the only legitimate reason for someone to embrace a certain doctrine, teaching or practice when it is shown to be biblically evident is if one "experiences conviction" that it is so. Again, I sadly must take issue with this type of view. I remember vividly pointing out a sin in a brother's life, clearly showing him that what he was doing was sin according to the Scriptures. And his response was, "What you have shown me is true, but until the Holy Spirit convicts me of that sin, I will not repent." Now, I am going to presume that you would also find this brother's response fallacious, no? And why is it fallacious? Because it matters not if one "feels conviction" before one stop sinning. Perhaps another example on the matter of theological doctrine. Many of those embracing neo-orthodoxy and even Liberalism are more than knowledgeable concerning what historic Presbyterian holds to be true. In fact, many of the neo-Orthodox and even some Liberal denominations still give recognition to the Westminster Standards. But when pressed as to their hypocrisy and/or their unbiblical "views" they refuse to recant and embrace biblical Calvinism. Now, why is that? Yes, yes.... only the Spirit can bring one to faith, etc. That's a given. So, that isn't an issue here. What stands out is that EVEN when shown the truth they flatly reject it because it contradicts what they believe. The point here is that we must never bifurcate the head from the heart. The two are complimentary.

Jonathan Edwards was one who firmly held to the depravity of man as you well know. In fact, the world disdains some of his more well-known sermons, e.g., "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". He was aware that in his congregation there were unbelievers; unregenerate sinners who of themselves had no desire nor ability to repent and believe on Christ. Yet, this did not prevent him from rebuking them for not doing what they had no interest in nor ability to do. Was he nuts? Was he totally inconsiderate of their condition? Was he unkind? Was he unChristlike? not on your life. He was simply emulating his Lord and God. What he told these individuals is that even though they had no desire and no ability to convert they were still wholly responsible. For, what they could do is make use the means available to them, e.g., attend worship services where the Word of God was faithfully preaches, for faith comes by hearing the Word of God, they could read the Scriptures for in them Christ is found, they could pray that God would convict them of their sin and draw them to Christ. Am I making any sense here? One may not be "convinced" in his heart that a certain doctrine is true, but that doesn't relieve that person from the responsibility of embracing the truth. True doctrine can be and most often is comprehensible, for how else would one reject or accept it, right? And thus one can embrace something with the intellect even though it is not fully understood, tasteful, etc. If one can be shown that biblically, logically and reasonably that a particular view doesn't square with Scripture, then convicted or not, it is incumbent that one abandon the erroneous view even though there is no "conviction" that the other view is 100% correct.

Okay, this is my attempt to try and get you to understand that one is not excusable for embracing error just because they don't "feel convinced" that it is error. Again, this is NOT to say that conviction isn't relevant or even important, but rather it is not the all-and-all of why a believer embraces any particular teaching. You can believe something but still not like it!

In His grace,

Robert,

I am going to ask you to please consider only including those portions of a quote from another source which are germane to what you are going to respond to. In the reply to which I am responding you have a lengthy quote most of which is irrelevant. If nothing else it would be a courtesy to those reading your replies if you would do this since some are still on dialup. Some other reasons are it needlessly uses bandwidth and it takes up space in the database, all of which I have to pay for.

So, put another way, how about providing "Cliff's Notes" rather than the entire book?

THANKS!

Pilgrim,

I agree 100% with what you said, I am not shirking my responsibility. I want to answer Johan's post later when I get the time. I will show where I disagree with the Westminster Confession and why. Most likely in a separate thread. Not to stir controversy but to try to be more clear. I want to take time to point to the scriptures that lead me to believe as I do. I also want to do a little searching to see if this view ever was presented, meaning the objective love of God versus His subjective love and the arguments against it. Until then, understand, I do take full responsibility for my view heretical or not, it isn't based on a like or dislike, it is simply my view of God. I fully accept that God chooses who He will and rejects others, my point is that God's Love is more extensive than we give it because we fail to see it objectively.

Thanks again for your posts, they have all been well received.

Good.

Johan