Countless billions have gone to the afterlife with no knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Will they end up in the Lake of Fire? If so, is that really justice?
"Christians don't know what they believe." - until they are brainwashed
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Will they end up in the Lake of Fire? If so, is that really justice?
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
That's the standard, yet worthless, apologetic.
Are you claiming that a person that acknowledges a creator god is saved?
Right, I didn't think so.
Try again.
Got nothing?
Right, I didn't think so.
That's the Word of God, that you said you don't trust. Worthless? Remember you said that. Jesus will.
I didn't claim anything. I quoted God.
I have all I need, the Bible, the written Word of God that you constantly attack. Even you will SOON believe!
Luke 21:24-33
24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations.
And they did.
And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
And they were.
32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.
Some who witnessed Israel recover Jerusalem will live to witness Jesus return. Time is nearly up STV.
MacArthur is no longer living so it dosent matter what he thinks.... first off the Church is a learning center for the equipping of the saints.. while there are some denoms that do brainwash.. i will leave that alone... we go to church to be fed and it prepares us for the world.. the Bible is our combat hand book.. a pastor equips you to use the Bible. 2. some of your questions remarks makes me think your a babe in Christ still on the milk
Quoting STV: "no wonder I don't trust the Bible"
Now you know.
a good home church has many benefits. the Church dont save you or keep you saved.. to each there own if one is a stay at home christian that does not attend Church.. granted they are just as saved as those attend..
for the sake of discussion.. why was the first Church congregation formed at Antioch plus all through out the Bible they did assemble them selves yes they did at times go from house to house..
paul wrote this
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
i pastor a church on sunday morning i get up and watch Charles Stanley 2 times different messages.. my point is if iam not careful something will distract me from listening to the message...
there is more to church than just going..
The SAD part is that most church goers are entertained by their minister, and feel good. Then they go home and almost never open their Bibles. Often they start church not even knowing if the church is Satanic! We have thousands of churches with drastically different beliefs. That can't be God!
to be fair yes there is that . the area Churches i know for the most are not entertainment .. not saying some dont i have concern where in bigger churches you have your bands ( praise bands ) lights bells whistles my other concern is turning away of the hymns completely. see most of this depends on area .. i am in Mo rural area most of the churches still use the hymns and also sings the new contemporary..
i agree on the thousand churches . so many want a church they Built instead of God . scripture say unless the Lord build the house our labor is in vain.. that could be interpreted as family or Church body of Christ . many attend A church instead of the Church ,, upon this rock ..
i also believe as the days progress we are going to see more apostasy . more of things we thought we would never see there are true Bible believing Churches that are true blue not saying you wont have to do some searching but they are there.
i pastor a gen baptist Church but i only preach the Bible not what general baptist says .. one thing i like about gen baptist the headquarters does not oversee the Church . i know some denoms headquarters ask you preach on certain subjects for the month. i know of one that does stewardship preaching.. my self i wait for what the Lord wants.. ( i am not tooting my own horn.. } its how i believe.
might i also add we have a unction that we may know all things .. if we know the word we have built in radar . many dont care they just want a feel good ear tickled.
in defense of the good we still have solid Churches .it takes effort to find them . a good pastor does more than just preach
that falls under hosea my people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge they rejected it
Rethinking “Church”: Recovering the Meaning of Ekklesia
The word “church” in modern usage evokes a familiar set of images: a building, a scheduled weekly service, and an organized institution governed by leaders. These associations are so deeply ingrained that they are rarely questioned. Yet when one examines the original Greek term ekklesia, from which “church” is translated, a striking divergence emerges. The modern concept appears not merely as a translation, but as a transformation—one that has significantly reshaped how Christian community is understood and practiced.
At its core, this inquiry raises a fundamental question: does the contemporary notion of “church” faithfully reflect the original meaning embedded in ekklesia, or has something essential been lost? The evidence suggests the latter. Over time, linguistic evolution, institutional development, and cultural adaptation have shifted the meaning of ekklesia from a dynamic, participatory assembly into something more static, hierarchical, and place-centered. This shift carries not only linguistic implications but theological consequences, affecting how individuals understand identity, community, and purpose within the Christian framework.
To grasp the depth of this transformation, one must begin with the ancient roots of ekklesia. In classical Greek society, particularly in Athens, the ekklesia referred to the formal assembly of citizens. It was not a casual gathering but the central decision-making body of the polis. Citizens were summoned to participate actively in governance, deliberating on matters such as war, leadership, and public policy. Participation was not optional in a conceptual sense; it defined citizenship itself. The ekklesia embodied collective responsibility and agency, oriented toward the common good of the city.
This civic meaning is crucial. When early Christian writers, especially Paul, adopted the term, they did not select a neutral or generic word for “group.” They chose a term saturated with political and communal significance. The implication was profound: the emerging Christian community was not merely a religious association but a new kind of public assembly—a people called together with shared responsibility, identity, and purpose.
The term’s transition into Jewish religious usage further enriched its meaning. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, ekklesia was used to render qahal, the assembly of Israel. Here, the word began to carry religious connotations, referring to a people gathered before God. Yet even in this context, the communal and participatory dimensions remained intact. The assembly was not passive; it was a people defined by covenant, identity, and collective relationship with the divine.
By the time the New Testament writers employed ekklesia, the term had accumulated both civic and religious resonance. It could refer to the universal body of believers, regional communities, local gatherings, or specific assemblies meeting for worship and instruction. This flexibility underscores its fundamental meaning: not a place, but a people; not a structure, but an event of gathering; not an institution, but a living community.
A recurring debate among scholars concerns whether the etymological sense of “called out” remains central to the term’s meaning. Some argue that ekklesia should primarily be understood as an “assembly,” with its original roots largely faded. Others emphasize that the idea of being “called out” retains theological significance, highlighting divine initiative and the formation of a distinct community. A balanced view recognizes both dimensions. The ekklesia is indeed an assembly, but it is one convened by a call—summoned into existence by God for a purpose that extends beyond itself.
This dual aspect carries important implications. Being “called out” is not merely about separation from the world but about participation in a new kind of community oriented toward the world. The early Christian ekklesia did not withdraw into isolation; it understood itself as representing a new kind of citizenship, one that embodied and demonstrated an alternative social reality.
The nature of early Christian gatherings further reinforces this understanding. Accounts in texts such as 1 Corinthians reveal assemblies that were participatory, diverse, and interactive. Individuals contributed through teaching, prophecy, prayer, and other expressions of communal life. Even passages that appear restrictive, such as instructions for silence, are better understood as calls for order rather than prohibitions against participation. The emphasis consistently falls on mutual edification and active involvement.
Over time, however, this participatory model began to shift. External pressures, internal conflicts, and the need for institutional stability led to increasing formalization. Leadership structures became more defined, participation more regulated, and gatherings more structured. Interpretations of key texts were shaped by these developments, often narrowing the scope of communal involvement. What began as a dynamic assembly gradually took on the characteristics of an institution.
This transformation is closely tied to the process of semantic drift. Words evolve over time, and ekklesia is no exception. Through mechanisms such as narrowing and metonymy, its meaning shifted from a broad concept of assembly to a more specific association with religious institutions and physical buildings. The term “church” came to denote not the people themselves but the place they gathered, and eventually the organizational structure that governed them.
This linguistic shift has had profound consequences. When the word used to describe a community begins to emphasize location or institution rather than participation, it subtly reshapes how that community is experienced. The ekklesia becomes something one attends rather than something one embodies. Participation gives way to observation; contribution yields to consumption.
The modern model of “going to church” reflects this change. Services are often structured around a central performance—music, preaching, and liturgy—while the majority of attendees assume a passive role. Leadership is typically hierarchical, with authority concentrated in a few individuals. While such structures can provide stability and organization, they stand in tension with the original ethos of the ekklesia as a participatory assembly.
This shift is further reinforced by broader cultural trends, particularly the rise of individualism. Modern society places a strong emphasis on personal experience and self-expression, which can lead to a privatized understanding of faith. The community becomes secondary, a means to individual spiritual fulfillment rather than an end in itself. Theological developments, such as distinctions between visible and invisible forms of the church, have sometimes unintentionally supported this perspective.
The result is a disconnect between the original concept of ekklesia and its contemporary expression. Where the early community was characterized by shared life, mutual responsibility, and active participation, the modern church often struggles with disengagement and lack of involvement. This is not merely a practical issue but a conceptual one, rooted in how the community is understood.
Reconsidering ekklesia therefore requires more than linguistic correction; it demands a reorientation of perspective. The church must be understood not as a place but as a people—a community called together for a purpose that transcends individual concerns. This involves recovering the sense of collective identity and responsibility that defined the original assembly.
Such a recovery would emphasize participation over observation, relationship over structure, and mission over maintenance. It would encourage forms of gathering that allow for interaction, contribution, and shared ownership. Leadership would be understood in terms of function and service rather than hierarchy, enabling a broader distribution of responsibility within the community.
Equally important is the recognition that the ekklesia exists not for itself but for the world. Its identity as a “called-out” people is inseparable from its role as a witness to a different way of life. This outward orientation restores the original civic dimension of the term, reimagining the community as a kind of alternative polity—a people whose life together reflects a distinct set of values and priorities.
In this light, rethinking “church” is not an abstract exercise but a practical necessity. It invites a return to a more dynamic, relational, and participatory form of community—one that aligns more closely with its original meaning. The challenge is not to discard existing structures entirely but to critically evaluate them in light of the concept they are meant to embody.
The journey from ekklesia to “church” has been shaped by centuries of linguistic, cultural, and institutional change. Understanding this journey makes it possible to discern where divergence has occurred and to consider how a more faithful expression might be recovered. Ultimately, the question is not simply what the church is called, but what it is—and whether its current form reflects the reality it was originally meant to represent.
So how does this video below fit into our understanding of the modern Church… given it was made 13 years ago….
CONTEMPORVANT
The word “church” in modern usage evokes a familiar set of images: a building, a scheduled weekly service, and an organized institution governed by leaders. These associations are so deeply ingrained that they are rarely questioned. Yet when one examines the original Greek term ekklesia, from which “church” is translated, a striking divergence emerges. The modern concept appears not merely as a translation, but as a transformation—one that has significantly reshaped how Christian community is understood and practiced.
At its core, this inquiry raises a fundamental question: does the contemporary notion of “church” faithfully reflect the original meaning embedded in ekklesia, or has something essential been lost? The evidence suggests the latter. Over time, linguistic evolution, institutional development, and cultural adaptation have shifted the meaning of ekklesia from a dynamic, participatory assembly into something more static, hierarchical, and place-centered. This shift carries not only linguistic implications but theological consequences, affecting how individuals understand identity, community, and purpose within the Christian framework.
To grasp the depth of this transformation, one must begin with the ancient roots of ekklesia. In classical Greek society, particularly in Athens, the ekklesia referred to the formal assembly of citizens. It was not a casual gathering but the central decision-making body of the polis. Citizens were summoned to participate actively in governance, deliberating on matters such as war, leadership, and public policy. Participation was not optional in a conceptual sense; it defined citizenship itself. The ekklesia embodied collective responsibility and agency, oriented toward the common good of the city.
This civic meaning is crucial. When early Christian writers, especially Paul, adopted the term, they did not select a neutral or generic word for “group.” They chose a term saturated with political and communal significance. The implication was profound: the emerging Christian community was not merely a religious association but a new kind of public assembly—a people called together with shared responsibility, identity, and purpose.
The term’s transition into Jewish religious usage further enriched its meaning. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, ekklesia was used to render qahal, the assembly of Israel. Here, the word began to carry religious connotations, referring to a people gathered before God. Yet even in this context, the communal and participatory dimensions remained intact. The assembly was not passive; it was a people defined by covenant, identity, and collective relationship with the divine.
By the time the New Testament writers employed ekklesia, the term had accumulated both civic and religious resonance. It could refer to the universal body of believers, regional communities, local gatherings, or specific assemblies meeting for worship and instruction. This flexibility underscores its fundamental meaning: not a place, but a people; not a structure, but an event of gathering; not an institution, but a living community.
A recurring debate among scholars concerns whether the etymological sense of “called out” remains central to the term’s meaning. Some argue that ekklesia should primarily be understood as an “assembly,” with its original roots largely faded. Others emphasize that the idea of being “called out” retains theological significance, highlighting divine initiative and the formation of a distinct community. A balanced view recognizes both dimensions. The ekklesia is indeed an assembly, but it is one convened by a call—summoned into existence by God for a purpose that extends beyond itself.
This dual aspect carries important implications. Being “called out” is not merely about separation from the world but about participation in a new kind of community oriented toward the world. The early Christian ekklesia did not withdraw into isolation; it understood itself as representing a new kind of citizenship, one that embodied and demonstrated an alternative social reality.
The nature of early Christian gatherings further reinforces this understanding. Accounts in texts such as 1 Corinthians reveal assemblies that were participatory, diverse, and interactive. Individuals contributed through teaching, prophecy, prayer, and other expressions of communal life. Even passages that appear restrictive, such as instructions for silence, are better understood as calls for order rather than prohibitions against participation. The emphasis consistently falls on mutual edification and active involvement.
Over time, however, this participatory model began to shift. External pressures, internal conflicts, and the need for institutional stability led to increasing formalization. Leadership structures became more defined, participation more regulated, and gatherings more structured. Interpretations of key texts were shaped by these developments, often narrowing the scope of communal involvement. What began as a dynamic assembly gradually took on the characteristics of an institution.
This transformation is closely tied to the process of semantic drift. Words evolve over time, and ekklesia is no exception. Through mechanisms such as narrowing and metonymy, its meaning shifted from a broad concept of assembly to a more specific association with religious institutions and physical buildings. The term “church” came to denote not the people themselves but the place they gathered, and eventually the organizational structure that governed them.
This linguistic shift has had profound consequences. When the word used to describe a community begins to emphasize location or institution rather than participation, it subtly reshapes how that community is experienced. The ekklesia becomes something one attends rather than something one embodies. Participation gives way to observation; contribution yields to consumption.
The modern model of “going to church” reflects this change. Services are often structured around a central performance—music, preaching, and liturgy—while the majority of attendees assume a passive role. Leadership is typically hierarchical, with authority concentrated in a few individuals. While such structures can provide stability and organization, they stand in tension with the original ethos of the ekklesia as a participatory assembly.
This shift is further reinforced by broader cultural trends, particularly the rise of individualism. Modern society places a strong emphasis on personal experience and self-expression, which can lead to a privatized understanding of faith. The community becomes secondary, a means to individual spiritual fulfillment rather than an end in itself. Theological developments, such as distinctions between visible and invisible forms of the church, have sometimes unintentionally supported this perspective.
The result is a disconnect between the original concept of ekklesia and its contemporary expression. Where the early community was characterized by shared life, mutual responsibility, and active participation, the modern church often struggles with disengagement and lack of involvement. This is not merely a practical issue but a conceptual one, rooted in how the community is understood.
Reconsidering ekklesia therefore requires more than linguistic correction; it demands a reorientation of perspective. The church must be understood not as a place but as a people—a community called together for a purpose that transcends individual concerns. This involves recovering the sense of collective identity and responsibility that defined the original assembly.
Such a recovery would emphasize participation over observation, relationship over structure, and mission over maintenance. It would encourage forms of gathering that allow for interaction, contribution, and shared ownership. Leadership would be understood in terms of function and service rather than hierarchy, enabling a broader distribution of responsibility within the community.
Equally important is the recognition that the ekklesia exists not for itself but for the world. Its identity as a “called-out” people is inseparable from its role as a witness to a different way of life. This outward orientation restores the original civic dimension of the term, reimagining the community as a kind of alternative polity—a people whose life together reflects a distinct set of values and priorities.
In this light, rethinking “church” is not an abstract exercise but a practical necessity. It invites a return to a more dynamic, relational, and participatory form of community—one that aligns more closely with its original meaning. The challenge is not to discard existing structures entirely but to critically evaluate them in light of the concept they are meant to embody.
The journey from ekklesia to “church” has been shaped by centuries of linguistic, cultural, and institutional change. Understanding this journey makes it possible to discern where divergence has occurred and to consider how a more faithful expression might be recovered. Ultimately, the question is not simply what the church is called, but what it is—and whether its current form reflects the reality it was originally meant to represent.
So how does this video below fit into our understanding of the modern Church… given it was made 13 years ago….
CONTEMPORVANT
History repeating it self....
Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho:
Trypho : "Do you really admit that this place Jerusalem shall be rebuilt? And do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the Patriarchs...?"
Justin: "I and many others are of that opinion, and believe that this will take place, as you are assuredly aware; but on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith think otherwise. Moreover I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical and foolish. . . . I choose to follow not men or men’s teachings, but God and the doctrines delivered by Him. For if you have fallen with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit the truth of the resurrection . . . who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls when they die are taken to heaven, do not imagine that they are Christians . . . But I and others who are right-minded Christians on all points are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah and others declare. . . . We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The Day of the Lord,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general and the eternal resurrection of all men would take place."
Now.... Jack.... Do you believe if you died today... tomorrow you would be in heaven? Don't be too quick...
Ti 2:16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.
Tertullian:
Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation" (of the Three in One).
These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The Greeks (either Greek Christians or Christians that spoke Greek in different lands) refused altogether to believe him.
Augustine of Hippo (354–430 A.D.) appears in his work Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love (also known as Enchiridion ad Laurentium or Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love), specifically in Chapter 112.
Full Context (Enchiridion, Chapter 112):
"There are very many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments; but say that God, being merciful, will not inflict eternal punishment upon any one, but that after a certain time, more or less according to the amount of their guilt, He will set free even the most wicked from punishment, and associate them with the saints in everlasting happiness."
How much do you really know about the history of the Body of Christ!
I can't imagine an answer that would be acceptable to you.
If I say, "The God of the Bible.", you will say that I don't trust the Bible.
So, what would be the point in that?
Good article, though rather long-winded.
This is where the church (ekklesia) has lost a lot of traction. IMHO
1) The ekklesia is seen as a consumer good. (product for sale)
2) Church people in public have made the ekklesia itself ugly. Completely unattractive.
3) Those who do participate seem to attend out of obligation. (fear) ???
4) When people are forced together they tend to eat one another. (like rats)
Last edited:
I would like to see us discuss solutions to the problems presented in the article.
If the form that the church has currently taken is not satisfactory, what would be?
How can the church become the ekklesia that it should be?
Similar threads
