[MacDuff]

Aron

The ekklesia

In the Bible, I see no indication of a unit of the ekklesia that is larger than the city. Obviously those who believe in the validity of the universal Church idea, in whatever form, see such a unit. Since the ekklesia in the home is so rarely mentioned, it is easy for me to think that they were a sub unit of the ekklesia in the city. That there were as many home units as necessary in each city ekklesia.

To clarify my own position, I don’t believe in the view that is common in Christianity. A Church with two aspects. And that the universal aspect is synonymous with the Body of Christ. Witness Lee apparently taught this view. When I participated in the Recovery, He only emphasized the practical expression of the local church.

Further, in my view, there’s a difference between “Church” and “ekklesia”. Witness Lee had a view of the Church not unlike the general view in Christianity. Which has led to a universal denomination not unlike any other denomination of Christianity. The ekklesia as described in the New Testament is something much different.

In my view, verses such as in Matthew 16 & 18 and in 1Timothy 3 are understood in their context of a city ekklesia. In Matt., Jesus was referring to what was to come in the ekklesia in Jerusalem. Which is recorded in Acts 1-15. Peter was the rock in the ekklesia in Jerusalem. A man with a solid experience. Paul became that rock after Acts 15. And even became a rock for a sliding Peter as he recounted in Galatians 2. In my view, the lesson in the Matt references has nothing to do with Apostolic succession. It has to do with how we can at varying times be a rock to one another. A rock is someone who leads a weaker one to the ultimate rock who is God himself. In Christ, it is God who is the source of life and strength.

In 1Tim 3., Paul was speaking in the context of the ekklesia in Ephesus (1:3). As he was in Eph 5.

Each ekklesia is called out of a city to take care of the affairs of God in the city in which it exists. Each ekklesia is a local manifestation that is intended to express the universal Body of Christ (Eph 1) and the residence or temple of God (Eph 2) and the common life of the believers in Christ as connected to the supernatural in the heavens known to all principalities and powers (Eph 3).

Anyway, that’s the way I see it.

Originally Posted by MacDuff
...Christians are more apt to believe in their interpretations of the Bible than the Bible itself..
Posted by Aron
Which is why we have discussions... as the name of this forum (hopefully) conveys: "Local Church Discussions". Occasionally I learn something from having discussions... at least I learn that my opinion isn't considered as equivalent to "the truth" by all and sundry.

My original purpose for coming on the internet was two-fold. To find other Christians of like mind (I was yet Christian then), and to increase my faith. I have instead discovered that I think like no Christian denomination, and my faith in Christianity has become nil.

I’m a fan of certain Comic Strips. One being “Non Sequitur”. A couple of years ago he had a Strip that now makes a great deal of sense to me.

As the story goes,

a man climbs a mountain to speak to a wise man. When he reaches the top he says,

“I’ve traveled half way around the world to learn the secret of contentment.”

The wise man says, “Ah, that’s easy...Live each day with this in mind...Arguing with idiots makes you an idiot.”

“That’s it?”

“Yep.”

He returns home and his wife asks, “Well...? What did he say?”

To which the man replies, “To stay off the internet and don’t run for congress.”

In my experience, forums tend to be more debate than discussion. In a discussion there is a civil sharing of ideas, where all parties can grow in their own understanding of reality through that which has been mutually shared. In a debate especially between Christians, there is the pontification of ideas, that too often leads to one party telling another party that their pontifications prove they are not Christian or not as Christian as they are. For those who’s nature it is to debate, who argue simply to argue, who’s only purpose is to pontificate their own superiority, the debate will never end. They are the ones who are creating divisions centered in themselves and personally I avoid them like the plague. Yet in the end, it is they who will interpret Romans 16:17-20 as referring to anyone who doesn’t agree with their doctrine and community.

Not sure what you think the Catholics created...

Catholicism is its own creation and its own ending. Just like all Christian denominations.

the apocrypha?

The Deuterocanonical/apocryphal Old Testament writings were bound together in the Bible used by the believers in the first centuries. There is some question among Christians as to whether or not they should be considered part of the inspired Bible.

In my view, it doesn’t matter. Most of what they say is already in the Old Testament. There are also included some matters that could be considered local superstitions. Something also contained in the Old Testament. Such as in one place a record of some praying for the dead. Certainly not sufficient to be a basis for the idea of communion between the living and the dead as the Catholics claim. How these writings are understood depends on interpretation. As does the question as to whether the New Testament writers referred to them. I personally have read them without finding anything in them as offensive as some Protestants make them out to be.

Bolded point one: Both myself and a few other writers here also went "non-Christian" as their post-LC religion of choice. After my sojourn in the void (agnosticism/science/philosopy) I eventually went back to Jesus Christ because 1) I decided I preferred a universe in which God existed, and 2) because Jesus still seemed to me to be the preferred way to approach God.

My preferences are why I do what I do. It's why I usually pick butterscotch pudding over vanilla. I choose something just because I like it better. My choices are neither innately morally superior to nor more rational than anyone else's. But it is my life and those are my choices. Now I try to live with them (not always easy).

You misunderstand me. I never left Jesus Christ. I’m just not so certain about the reality in Christ as I once was. Not because of persuasive arguments by non-Christians against the faith, but because of persuasive arguments by Christians for the faith that devalues that which they are arguing for. Which is why I say that today I have more hope than faith.

What I did leave was Christianity, with its human nature and denominational character. Again it was Christians, not non-Christians, that were persuasive and persuaded me that Christianity is just a man-made religion. Not quite their intention, of course. Yet not completely since I continue to attend a Christian Church. A Christian Church only because it is what I was born into and am used to. Thus I’m religious because I still attend a Christian Church. I’m Agnostic because of being uncertain about what I believe to be true about supernatural reality in the positive sense. Hence, a religious Agnostic.

Bolded point two: I have been greatly helped by non-Christian posters here, on the other forum, and elsewhere. Their opinions are just as valid as mine. I learn a lot from people who see differently; maybe more than from my Christian peers (and my fellow Christians are fairly diverse).

While I acknowledge that non-Christians often have a better understanding of what the Bible actually says than most Christians (for example, the commentary on Matthew by the current Dalai Lama is very insightful, yet as a Buddhist, he doesn’t believe in God), I have never found their arguments against the Bible or Christianity sufficiently persuasive to change my mind about anything Christian. That has been totally the prerogative of Christians. With the exception of one doctrine.

One of the great problems with ultra-orthodox groups like Lee's is that other voices are not welcomed; it causes too much confusion, they say. When really all they want to hear is their own voice, echoed back to them, which they think equals "the voice of God."..... Conversations are valuable this way: they are mutual explorations.

I would agree if I thought the Recovery was an ultra-orthodox group. Unfortunately, it is not when compared with mainline churches such as Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinistic Churches, Protestant Evangelical Churches, etc., etc., etc. All of which have the same exclusiveness in their doctrinal attitude that you call ultra-orthodox.

I enjoy writing. And I like writing here on this forum because it is free. No money is exchanged. I think money distorts the flow of ideas. When we merchandise our ministry, eventually the market, the quest for lucre, supervenes and supercedes our quest for truth. Like the prophet said a long time ago, "come without money and without price"...

I’m with you there.

Offhand, I can't remember if any reader has had their mind changed by my writings. I get agreement from the ones who were predisposed to agree. It would be nice if someone wrote that when they read my post, something like scales fell from their eyes and suddenly they could see. But that's not likely to happen. So I write because I like to, and if it helps someone else that's a nice bonus.

The changing of a person’s mind seems to have little to do with objective truth. It has everything to do with the charisma of the one who speaks and/or the rhetorical ability of the person who writes. According to the New Testament record, it took the Spirit to convince people that Jesus Christ was actually the Christ. With all the miracles it is said that Jesus did, that still did not persuade most people to believe in the truth that he presented.

I hate to break it to you, but based on the fact that neither of us has started our own denomination, apparently you and I aren’t very good writers, nor do we have much charisma to speak of. We are among those who must laugh in the face of adversity. LOL

Writing helps me clarify my thinking, and seeing others' opinions also helps me to think (I think).

I think so too.

The reason some of us are here for an extended period is that learning to think, and simultaneously becoming aware that others also think, and think differently from us, can be a long and slow process. You know, if you walk a mile into the woods you have to walk a mile to get back out!

Good point. Guess I didn’t walk so far into the woods that I forgot how to think.

Destroy!! Destroy!! MacDuff isn't writing according to the sacred codes of Groupthink!!

(A little humor)

LOL Red Alert.

MacDuff