Mind me asking where you got this definition?
Ekklesia vs. christian religious institutions
- Thread starter Swordman
- Start date
Mind me asking where you got this definition?
You're right. It is a carnal test, which, simply stated, is one that anyone can perform in their mind's eye, and therefore understand without any need for a spiritual test they would almost never be allowed to actively apply.
Experientially speaking, most clergy have a tendency to defend the institution against tests of its integrity by labeling anyone a trouble-maker, a dissenter, and a radical who dares to apply any challenges of their status and the institution itself.
Many people have done as I have suggested, which was to go and crack open the financial records of their organization in order to discover for themselves where all the money is REALLY going. Much to the amazement of most, they found themselves on the receiving end of unfounded suspicions eminating from the staffing, the pastors, and the elder/deacon boards for daring to do their own investigation. There were a few who reported that they had no problems getting access to the records, which simply indicated to me that the pastors were completely oblivious to the fact that they were guilty of robbing God.
Anyway, every one of them (who were allowed to view the records) discovered is that what I told them was true. The vast majority of their primary giving is consumed by the facility expenditures and staff salaries, with only what's left over going for benevolent outreaches.
That literally screams "FOUL" into the ears of anyone who has ever taken the time to study God's priorities in our giving.
It's generally expected that everyone blindly accept the biblicity of religious organizations without question. The men who have nothing to hide, and who prioritize the facility secondarily to the needs of the people, well, simply stated, those men are rare gems among the hoards of robbers and thieves who are looked upon by the masses as representatives and ministers of God.
That, my friend, is why I've backed off from telling people to go, do the footwork, and discover for themselves exactly what foundation their organization is built upon. It's much easier to sit right there in front of the monitor, do a little mental imagry, and therefore see the validity of my statement by simply recognizing what would happen when the money is removed. Besides, most are either too lazy or too mathematically challenged to go and view the financial records of their religious institution.
I also want to reiterate that institutional church organizations aren't wrong or evil in and of themselves. Many of them are indeed used by the Lord to accomplish His ends. I have no problem with that. The real test of where people's affections truly lie is to dare uttering the truth about the matter, and then listen as the cries and screams of religionists begin to build in pitch and volume. The cacophony is very telling indeed. The model most people today call the church is simply a man-made system. It's a matter of calling a spade a spade.
If one demans a spiritual test, then they can do that one as well, right there in front if their monitors.
Ask yourselves:
Can unbelievers and wolves in sheep's clothing enter into the ranks of believers in those places, utter the membership drone by confessing whatever it is they are expected to say, and then mesh right in with the rest?
You bet they can!
What about the Church. Can unbelievers join the ranks of TRUE believers within the TRUE Church by being sneaky and forging their names into the Lamb's Book of Life?
Well, that's pretty much another one of those no-brainers.
Exactly my point in relation to institutional church organizations that most refer to as the church. Institutional churches are organizations, while the Church is a spiritual, living, breahting organism (so to speak).
Believers populate the pews and chairs of institutional church organizations, but, then, so do unbelievers and wolves.
No wolf or unbeliever walks among the ranks of the redeemed.
There's the spiritual test for anyone who rejects the carnal one.
You've GOT to be kidding me.......
Yes, please do share with us where you got this? Surely you're trying to mess with our minds.....in the hopes that none of us knows Greek well enough to realize the utter absurdity of that definition.....
You're right. It is a carnal test, which, simply stated, is one that anyone can perform in their mind's eye, and therefore understand without any need for a spiritual test they would almost never be allowed to actively apply.
Experientially speaking, most clergy have a tendency to defend the institution against tests of its integrity by labeling anyone a trouble-maker, a dissenter, and a radical who dares to apply any challenges of their status and the institution itself.
Many people have done as I have suggested, which was to go and crack open the financial records of their organization in order to discover for themselves where all the money is REALLY going. Much to the amazement of most, they found themselves on the receiving end of unfounded suspicions eminating from the staffing, the pastors, and the elder/deacon boards for daring to do their own investigation. There were a few who reported that they had no problems getting access to the records, which simply indicated to me that the pastors were completely oblivious to the fact that they were guilty of robbing God.
Anyway, every one of them (who were allowed to view the records) discovered is that what I told them was true. The vast majority of their primary giving is consumed by the facility expenditures and staff salaries, with only what's left over going for benevolent outreaches.
That literally screams "FOUL" into the ears of anyone who has ever taken the time to study God's priorities in our giving.
It's generally expected that everyone blindly accept the biblicity of religious organizations without question. The men who have nothing to hide, and who prioritize the facility secondarily to the needs of the people, well, simply stated, those men are rare gems among the hoards of robbers and thieves who are looked upon by the masses as representatives and ministers of God.
That, my friend, is why I've backed off from telling people to go, do the footwork, and discover for themselves exactly what foundation their organization is built upon. It's much easier to sit right there in front of the monitor, do a little mental imagry, and therefore see the validity of my statement by simply recognizing what would happen when the money is removed. Besides, most are either too lazy or too mathematically challenged to go and view the financial records of their religious institution.
I also want to reiterate that institutional church organizations aren't wrong or evil in and of themselves. Many of them are indeed used by the Lord to accomplish His ends. I have no problem with that. The real test of where people's affections truly lie is to dare uttering the truth about the matter, and then listen as the cries and screams of religionists begin to build in pitch and volume. The cacophony is very telling indeed. The model most people today call the church is simply a man-made system. It's a matter of calling a spade a spade.
If one demans a spiritual test, then they can do that one as well, right there in front if their monitors.
Ask yourselves:
Can unbelievers and wolves in sheep's clothing enter into the ranks of believers in those places, utter the membership drone by confessing whatever it is they are expected to say, and then mesh right in with the rest?
You bet they can!
What about the Church. Can unbelievers join the ranks of TRUE believers within the TRUE Church by being sneaky and forging their names into the Lamb's Book of Life?
Well, that's pretty much another one of those no-brainers.
Exactly my point in relation to institutional church organizations that most refer to as the church. Institutional churches are organizations, while the Church is a spiritual, living, breahting organism (so to speak).
Believers populate the pews and chairs of institutional church organizations, but, then, so do unbelievers and wolves.
No wolf or unbeliever walks among the ranks of the redeemed.
There's the spiritual test for anyone who rejects the carnal one.
Good post Swordman, very neat and clear. Some years back, a person was suspicious that their pastor was possibly a hireling and asked me if there was a test to discern the matter. I simple replied "stop paying him" if he stays you'll know he wasn't a hireling.
I have known many people who are genuinely called by God to minister to others, but most of those while being genuinely called are still very misguided on how the ministry is to manifest and operate in their lives. They are directed by tradition rather than HolySpirit and typically become some form of mediator between God and His people, thus the clergy/laity system. It is not hard to recognize that the religious system at it's very best is nothing more than a poor imitation of the true body of Christ. A carnal system can only satisfy, edify, strengthen and encourage carnal members.
Now when it comes to discerning the difference we can wait till the assistant pastor and the church secretary run off with the money, the pastor gets caught in homosexual affairs, the "house prophet" is caught manipulating young girls and women into having sex, or we can be led by HolySpirit and steer clear of such scandals and scoundrels.
Last edited:
Thanks. I'm glad it came across as it did because I'm usually not as clear when I'm as rushed as I was this morning.
Oh, my. You are a stinker, aren't you? :singing:
You got that right, bro. It's one thing for a guy to end up making the entirety of his living from a people who desire that he work for the congregation full time, but quite another to go into the ministry with the assumption of finding a people do support him on the strength of paradigm. I actually heard one sucker admit that he was looking for a congregation to support him. Another sucker, who liked to be called Pastor David Brace, stood in front of his followers and stated that he was worth a six-digit income, but that because of the new facility costs, he had to take slightly less than six figures each year. He later was arrested down in Texas for money laundering for what he THOUGHT was drug cartel from Columbia, but was actually federal agents who had entrapped him. He even had the audacity to tell his congregation that it was the Lord who led him into that situation. What a guy. I don't know what god he serves, but the One described in scripture stated that He tempts no man with sin.
Now, folks, don't get the wrong idea. This isn't a pastor-bashing party. It's true that there are many who truly do seek to serve the Lord.
Remember: Many are called, but FEW ARE CHOSEN.
What does that mean? Well, I think that, given a little thought, the murkiness will clear. One doesn't need a degree in advanced culculus (as if there were such a thing) to ascertain, upon reflection, that the local elders of the early church are nowhere exemplified as making the entirety of their living off the people to whom they ministered. So, from where did our modern model originate?
Well, I don't want to say because it might offend some in these forums.
Suffice it to say that the hireling-minister model encourages one main problem that exists in almost any church organization at which one may point. I've affectionately labeled the phenomenon as:
PERPETUAL SHEEPDOM
Do ya think that'll get my name into the anals of witty euphemisms?
This pretty much characterizes the vast majority, meaning 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all institutional church orgniazations.
As you can see, I've left very little wiggle room for myself, but I have that level of confidence that most who see this post will find this to be true of the one they attend.
At least this way, I can't be accused of making blanket generalizations, right?
Amen Abigya, Christ is building His ekklesia and Hades' gates could not hold Him and keep Him from fulfilling Father's will.
P.S. really like your signiture.:wink:
Last edited:
Yeah, but what about the institutional church model? I can't figure out why so many people attribute that model as being representative of the ecclesia.
Many assume that model originated from God, but it did not.
Many believe they can assume that model upon the integrity of the Bible, but they can't.
My thinking on this is that everything that originated from God can't be corrupted, such as the genuine ecclesia, and bride of Christ. The bride is pure and glorious, but religious church organizations have many inferior elements within their makeup, even if we disregard institutionalism's history.
If I darken the doorway of one, my love is for the people, not the building and its organizational structure.
Recently, I've challenged the integrity of the assumption that all the so-called pastors over each institution are truly men of biblical stature and caliber, and thus worthy of the support of the saints.
It's one thing to pay them because they're employees hired by a congregation or its appointed board of trustees who are charged with the task of choosing a hireling for the job, but those who are truly chosen of God are few and far between.
People today have a very strange view of what it means to be a true leader of biblical stature. A piece of paper from a religious cemetary or bible college simply denote that they accomplished at least the minimal demands of some institution of higher intellect. Such institutions have no power to create spiritual giants. Spiritual giants are giants in spite of their education, not because of it.
I praise the Lord for those few men who have a strong, spiritual spine, most of whom don't have nor need a cherry or oak podium to prop them up in front of a congregation. Such men never hold a congregation in limbo mode (perpetual sheepdom), but rather seek to raise people up to spiritual maturity, and then those men move on to the next person or group who needs what the Lord has for them. True men of God don't hold a congregation in the iron grip of their position, charisma and skills of oratory, but rather teach the people to fly with their own wings, and then sets them free. Such men are better at putting themselves OUT of a job rather than go about looking for one.
If the people of a congregation were truly mature in Christ, they would have no need of any man perpetually lording over them at each and every meeting. They would know how to function as mature believers rather than sitting passively at a religious show. I know a number of men who have sat for 70 years in pews, spiritually castrated, thus robbed of their spiritual heritage, and who, to this day, have not one clue of what they've relinquished.
What a tragedy indeed.
Many assume that model originated from God, but it did not.
Many believe they can assume that model upon the integrity of the Bible, but they can't.
My thinking on this is that everything that originated from God can't be corrupted, such as the genuine ecclesia, and bride of Christ. The bride is pure and glorious, but religious church organizations have many inferior elements within their makeup, even if we disregard institutionalism's history.
If I darken the doorway of one, my love is for the people, not the building and its organizational structure.
Recently, I've challenged the integrity of the assumption that all the so-called pastors over each institution are truly men of biblical stature and caliber, and thus worthy of the support of the saints.
It's one thing to pay them because they're employees hired by a congregation or its appointed board of trustees who are charged with the task of choosing a hireling for the job, but those who are truly chosen of God are few and far between.
People today have a very strange view of what it means to be a true leader of biblical stature. A piece of paper from a religious cemetary or bible college simply denote that they accomplished at least the minimal demands of some institution of higher intellect. Such institutions have no power to create spiritual giants. Spiritual giants are giants in spite of their education, not because of it.
I praise the Lord for those few men who have a strong, spiritual spine, most of whom don't have nor need a cherry or oak podium to prop them up in front of a congregation. Such men never hold a congregation in limbo mode (perpetual sheepdom), but rather seek to raise people up to spiritual maturity, and then those men move on to the next person or group who needs what the Lord has for them. True men of God don't hold a congregation in the iron grip of their position, charisma and skills of oratory, but rather teach the people to fly with their own wings, and then sets them free. Such men are better at putting themselves OUT of a job rather than go about looking for one.
If the people of a congregation were truly mature in Christ, they would have no need of any man perpetually lording over them at each and every meeting. They would know how to function as mature believers rather than sitting passively at a religious show. I know a number of men who have sat for 70 years in pews, spiritually castrated, thus robbed of their spiritual heritage, and who, to this day, have not one clue of what they've relinquished.
What a tragedy indeed.
Last edited:
Oh, and just to make sure it's understood, I'm not against institutionalism as a whole, but rather its inherent weaknesses that serve as stumbling blocks to the spiritual functionality of the saints when they gather in those places.
Most who attend the institutional model seem to be content with passivity in their relations with one another, and they all certainly have that freedom. It's just not for me.
I want to rejoice with fellow saints when they're joyful and have much for which to be thankful, and I want to suffer and grieve along with my fellow saints when they're down-trodden and experiencing loss so that I can help to lift them up, along with the combined strength of fellow believers.
The isolation of most institutional gatherings is chronically crippling.
Yes, there are some places where openness is encouraged and practiced, but even those, from my experience, have their limits on account of the almighty program.
After all, the show must go on.....right?
Most who attend the institutional model seem to be content with passivity in their relations with one another, and they all certainly have that freedom. It's just not for me.
I want to rejoice with fellow saints when they're joyful and have much for which to be thankful, and I want to suffer and grieve along with my fellow saints when they're down-trodden and experiencing loss so that I can help to lift them up, along with the combined strength of fellow believers.
The isolation of most institutional gatherings is chronically crippling.
Yes, there are some places where openness is encouraged and practiced, but even those, from my experience, have their limits on account of the almighty program.
After all, the show must go on.....right?
SpiritLedEd
Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2005
- Messages
- 5,315
I have the Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate edition and I couldn't find ekklesia listed in it. What version did you use?
You can go to dictionary dot com and find it spelled ecclesia. From the latin, it's spelled ecclesia, from the Greek it's spelled ekklesia.
[Latin ecclēsia, from Greek ekklēsiā, from ekkalein, to summon forth : ek-, out; see ecto- + kalein, klē-, to call; see kelə-2 in Indo-European roots.]
I disagree with a portion of the second definition in the following:
Ecclesia
Ec*cle"si*a\, n.; pl. Ecclesi[ae]. [L., fr. Gr. ?.]
1. (Gr. Antiq.) The public legislative assembly of the Athenians.
2. (Eccl.) A church, either as a body or as a building.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
A building has no life, nor can it be called out from something. It's a dead pile of building material. It's not holy, nor does it hold any signifigance whatsoever to the Lord. Buildings don't glorify the Lord, and they don't represent the Lord, nor do they represent the body of Christ given that the Holy Spirit indwells US, not dead structures. I guess there are some groups who enjoy an emotional rush when dedicating their building to the Lord, which is meaningless in relation to the Lord.
That's reason for praise right there.
Last edited:
