Matthew 13:24....the world, or the church?

[The Rogue Tomato]

Simple hermeneutics people.

Interpretation is one application is many.

I didn't say the interpretation was the church I said it was a plausible application of the truth.

Did Jesus say the field is the world, or that one of many possible applications of the truth in this parable is that the field is the world? 

Since "church" means "called out", does "called out" really mean "a blend of called out and not called out"?  Isn't that what it must mean in order to apply this parable to the church? 

When did the meaning of "church" change from "called out [ones]" to "An assortment of peeps who attend services?"

Does the local church that you attend have any that are not called out?

Does it have wheat and tares?

When will these wheat and tares be revealed?

Not really that difficult to make an application of the truth that Jesus taught in the parable.

Does the world contain both called out and not called out? 

What have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world? 

Do you actually teach this crap as an associate pastor or do you save your useless hermeneutics for posting on forums? 

Since it has been said on here that people who are pastors who should not be are miserable, are you sufficiently miserable? 

 

[Mathew Ward]

Simple hermeneutics people.

Interpretation is one application is many.

I didn't say the interpretation was the church I said it was a plausible application of the truth.

Did Jesus say the field is the world, or that one of many possible applications of the truth in this parable is that the field is the world? 

Since "church" means "called out", does "called out" really mean "a blend of called out and not called out"?  Isn't that what it must mean in order to apply this parable to the church? 

When did the meaning of "church" change from "called out [ones]" to "An assortment of peeps who attend services?"

Does the local church that you attend have any that are not called out?

Does it have wheat and tares?

When will these wheat and tares be revealed?

Not really that difficult to make an application of the truth that Jesus taught in the parable.

Does the world contain both called out and not called out? 

What have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world? 

Do you actually teach this crap as an associate pastor or do you save your useless hermeneutics for posting on forums? 

Since it has been said on here that people who are pastors who should not be are miserable, are you sufficiently miserable?

Do you take anything for that hostility of yours?

I'm sure that Obamacare can take care of that.

I also noticed that like Steven Avery, you do not like to answer questions asked of you.

Oh, so there is application to the church, like was said previously.


But if as you claim this cannot be applied to the local church what do you do with these verses?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Simple hermeneutics people.

Interpretation is one application is many.

I didn't say the interpretation was the church I said it was a plausible application of the truth.

Did Jesus say the field is the world, or that one of many possible applications of the truth in this parable is that the field is the world? 

Since "church" means "called out", does "called out" really mean "a blend of called out and not called out"?  Isn't that what it must mean in order to apply this parable to the church? 

When did the meaning of "church" change from "called out [ones]" to "An assortment of peeps who attend services?"

Does the local church that you attend have any that are not called out?

Does it have wheat and tares?

When will these wheat and tares be revealed?

Not really that difficult to make an application of the truth that Jesus taught in the parable.

Does the world contain both called out and not called out? 

What have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world? 

Do you actually teach this crap as an associate pastor or do you save your useless hermeneutics for posting on forums? 

Since it has been said on here that people who are pastors who should not be are miserable, are you sufficiently miserable?

Do you take anything for that hostility of yours?

I'm sure that Obamacare can take care of that.

I also noticed that like Steven Avery, you do not like to answer questions asked of you.

Oh, so there is application to the church, like was said previously.


But if as you claim this cannot be applied to the local church what do you do with these verses?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Are you a false apostle?  If you were a false apostle, would you answer that honestly? 

Again, what have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world? 

 

[Mathew Ward]

Simple hermeneutics people.

Interpretation is one application is many.

I didn't say the interpretation was the church I said it was a plausible application of the truth.

Did Jesus say the field is the world, or that one of many possible applications of the truth in this parable is that the field is the world? 

Since "church" means "called out", does "called out" really mean "a blend of called out and not called out"?  Isn't that what it must mean in order to apply this parable to the church? 

When did the meaning of "church" change from "called out [ones]" to "An assortment of peeps who attend services?"

Does the local church that you attend have any that are not called out?

Does it have wheat and tares?

When will these wheat and tares be revealed?

Not really that difficult to make an application of the truth that Jesus taught in the parable.

Does the world contain both called out and not called out? 

What have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world? 

Do you actually teach this crap as an associate pastor or do you save your useless hermeneutics for posting on forums? 

Since it has been said on here that people who are pastors who should not be are miserable, are you sufficiently miserable?

Do you take anything for that hostility of yours?

I'm sure that Obamacare can take care of that.

I also noticed that like Steven Avery, you do not like to answer questions asked of you.

Oh, so there is application to the church, like was said previously.


But if as you claim this cannot be applied to the local church what do you do with these verses?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Are you a false apostle?  If you were a false apostle, would you answer that honestly? 

Again, what have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world?

A dodge just isn't a car.

If you don't want to make application of this truth, don't.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Simple hermeneutics people.

Interpretation is one application is many.

I didn't say the interpretation was the church I said it was a plausible application of the truth.

Did Jesus say the field is the world, or that one of many possible applications of the truth in this parable is that the field is the world? 

Since "church" means "called out", does "called out" really mean "a blend of called out and not called out"?  Isn't that what it must mean in order to apply this parable to the church? 

When did the meaning of "church" change from "called out [ones]" to "An assortment of peeps who attend services?"

Does the local church that you attend have any that are not called out?

Does it have wheat and tares?

When will these wheat and tares be revealed?

Not really that difficult to make an application of the truth that Jesus taught in the parable.

Does the world contain both called out and not called out? 

What have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world? 

Do you actually teach this crap as an associate pastor or do you save your useless hermeneutics for posting on forums? 

Since it has been said on here that people who are pastors who should not be are miserable, are you sufficiently miserable?

Do you take anything for that hostility of yours?

I'm sure that Obamacare can take care of that.

I also noticed that like Steven Avery, you do not like to answer questions asked of you.

Oh, so there is application to the church, like was said previously.


But if as you claim this cannot be applied to the local church what do you do with these verses?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Are you a false apostle?  If you were a false apostle, would you answer that honestly? 

Again, what have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world?

A dodge just isn't a car.

If you don't want to make application of this truth, don't.

Again, what have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world?

 

[Mathew Ward]

Simple hermeneutics people.

Interpretation is one application is many.

I didn't say the interpretation was the church I said it was a plausible application of the truth.

Did Jesus say the field is the world, or that one of many possible applications of the truth in this parable is that the field is the world? 

Since "church" means "called out", does "called out" really mean "a blend of called out and not called out"?  Isn't that what it must mean in order to apply this parable to the church? 

When did the meaning of "church" change from "called out [ones]" to "An assortment of peeps who attend services?"

Does the local church that you attend have any that are not called out?

Does it have wheat and tares?

When will these wheat and tares be revealed?

Not really that difficult to make an application of the truth that Jesus taught in the parable.

Does the world contain both called out and not called out? 

What have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world? 

Do you actually teach this crap as an associate pastor or do you save your useless hermeneutics for posting on forums? 

Since it has been said on here that people who are pastors who should not be are miserable, are you sufficiently miserable?

Do you take anything for that hostility of yours?

I'm sure that Obamacare can take care of that.

I also noticed that like Steven Avery, you do not like to answer questions asked of you.

Oh, so there is application to the church, like was said previously.


But if as you claim this cannot be applied to the local church what do you do with these verses?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Are you a false apostle?  If you were a false apostle, would you answer that honestly? 

Again, what have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world?

A dodge just isn't a car.

If you don't want to make application of this truth, don't.

Again, what have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world?

The wheat and the tares are together in the church not just in the world.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The wheat and the tares are together in the church not just in the world.

If the church is literally the "called out," then don't you mean the local assembly of both believers and non-believers and not the church?  How can the called out be anything but the called out, which eliminates the possibility of containing tares? 

And if the world is made up of believers and non-believers, and the local assembly is made up of believers and non-believers, then what exactly have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world? Isn't the local assembly of believers and non-believers just a subset of the world of believers and non-believers? 

Isn't that like saying, "All dogs have hair.  And through my hermeneutics, I have deduced an important application of this truth: My dogs have hair."...? 

So I ask again, what exactly have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world? 

 

[subllibrm]

The point has been made as fine as a frog's hair split four ways and sanded.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The point has been made as fine as a frog's hair split four ways and sanded.

But the point is stupid.  It's like saying an application of the truth describes people who go to the movies.  Of course it does.  The people who go to the movies are a mixture of believers and non-believers because they're just a subset of the world.  So what have we gained by pointing that out?  Nothing. 

There's a reason why saying this "truth" applies the local assembly sounds like a spiritual insight.  But nobody here has said it, and apparently nobody will say it.  I think I know why, but there's no point in explaining if nobody has the intellectual honesty.

 

[subllibrm]

The point has been made as fine as a frog's hair split four ways and sanded.

But the point is stupid.  It's like saying an application of the truth describes people who go to the movies.  Of course it does.  The people who go to the movies are a mixture of believers and non-believers because they're just a subset of the world.  So what have we gained by pointing that out?  Nothing. 

There's a reason why saying this "truth" applies the local assembly sounds like a spiritual insight.  But nobody here has said it, and apparently nobody will say it.  I think I know why, but there's no point in explaining if nobody has the intellectual honesty.

So let's be clear on something. I really don't care about the fracas between you and Alayman and Matthew Ward over the OP. I was addressing your question about the "expression" go to church. That is all. Nothing about tares or wheat. Just pointing out that "go to church" is an idiom. Nothing more nothing less. If I were to look at this thread and say that The Rogue Tomato has a "chip on his shoulder" no one would take that to literally mean you have anything on your shoulder.

So I get it, you don't like that particular idiom. Well I don't like "at the end of the day". So what? I still know what people mean when they say it. And when aunt Tilly gets up this Sunday morning and tells uncle John to get ready to go to church; he knows, I know, you know and everyone else knows what she means. That is how idioms work. Kind of like when I got to work the other day, I didn't really "run into a buzz saw" but you would certainly understand that my day didn't start well.

 

[rsc2a]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

Exactly.  I can't respond better than this. 

And that misunderstanding leads to incorrect statements such as "the field is the church" or "the parable has application to the church".  No, it doesn't.  Church means the called out, just as oranges means oranges.  If you are talking about a people who have been infiltrated by the NOT called-out, then they're not the called out anymore.  Therefore it is logically impossible for the field to be the church.  Just as it is logically impossible to mix a basket with apples and oranges and call it a basket of oranges. 

Once again, saying that the assembly is a mixture of called out and not called out is the same as saying movie-goers are a mixture of called out and not called out.  In other words, it's not even worth saying.  The only reason anyone even cares to say this about the assembly is because the assembly of believers is not supposed to be infiltrated by people of the enemy. 

But that's a much more painful issue to address, given that everyone takes it for granted that the assembly is mixed, in most cases by design. 

 

[Ransom]

didn't say the interpretation was the church I said it was a plausible application of the truth.

So the church has no way to sort out false Christians from its midst, and it's just supposed to wait for God to do it at the end of days?

Did anyone make Paul aware of this "application" before he told the Corinthians to get rid of the guy who was shtupping his mother?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

didn't say the interpretation was the church I said it was a plausible application of the truth.

So the church has no way to sort out false Christians from its midst, and it's just supposed to wait for God to do it at the end of days?

Did anyone make Paul aware of this "application" before he told the Corinthians to get rid of the guy who was shtupping his mother?

I thought it was step-mother. 

Not that it matters.

 

[subllibrm]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

I suppose. I'm not sure this incorrect understanding is anywhere near the catastrophe as it is being portrayed. Certainly not in the circle of people I run with. We are all pretty adept at discerning the difference between "the church needs a new roof" and "the church is the body of Christ". Context? I know you are a fan. 

At the same time, mater has not provided the acceptable alternative to my saying to my wife something like "I am running out to the church to get something I left there. I will be back in a little while". And to say that my using that phrasing somehow undermines our walk with the Lord is a ridiculous leap of logic.

Now I will make my prediction that mater will jump in here to say that I have told my wife that "I am going to the called out ones to get something I left on them" and as such have done great damage to the truths of scripture. I say something that is commonly understood and he hears finger nails on a chalkboard. That is why the wad is in his panties and not mine. 

 

[Mathew Ward]

The wheat and the tares are together in the church not just in the world.

If the church is literally the "called out," then don't you mean the local assembly of both believers and non-believers and not the church?  How can the called out be anything but the called out, which eliminates the possibility of containing tares? 

And if the world is made up of believers and non-believers, and the local assembly is made up of believers and non-believers, then what exactly have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world? Isn't the local assembly of believers and non-believers just a subset of the world of believers and non-believers? 

Isn't that like saying, "All dogs have hair.  And through my hermeneutics, I have deduced an important application of this truth: My dogs have hair."...? 

So I ask again, what exactly have you elucidated with your hermeneutics that was not already made clear by saying the field is the world?

I thought you were the one that said this didn't apply to the church.

But now it does apply to the church.

Are you running for political office?

 

[Ransom]

I thought it was step-mother.

Not that it matters.

I assume that assumption is because Paul says it's "his father's wife" rather than just saying, "his mother." As you say, neither here nor there.

 

[Mathew Ward]

didn't say the interpretation was the church I said it was a plausible application of the truth.

So the church has no way to sort out false Christians from its midst, and it's just supposed to wait for God to do it at the end of days?

Did anyone make Paul aware of this "application" before he told the Corinthians to get rid of the guy who was shtupping his mother?

So those are the only non Christians in the church, those that are "shtupping his mother"?

Is that really your position?

 

[rsc2a]

didn't say the interpretation was the church I said it was a plausible application of the truth.

So the church has no way to sort out false Christians from its midst, and it's just supposed to wait for God to do it at the end of days?

Did anyone make Paul aware of this "application" before he told the Corinthians to get rid of the guy who was shtupping his mother?

So those are the only non Christians in the church, those that are "shtupping his mother"?

Is that really your position?

There are no non-Christians in the church.  That's the point we keep trying to make.

 

[rsc2a]

Sub -

Generally,  I would agree with you in this point. The problem here it's that the idiom feeds an incorrect understanding of what the church is,  a very common misunderstanding that affects how those in the church live their everyday lives.

I suppose. I'm not sure this incorrect understanding is anywhere near the catastrophe as it is being portrayed. Certainly not in the circle of people I run with. We are all pretty adept at discerning the difference between "the church needs a new roof" and "the church is the body of Christ". Context? I know you are a fan. 

At the same time, mater has not provided the acceptable alternative to my saying to my wife something like "I am running out to the church to get something I left there. I will be back in a little while". And to say that my using that phrasing somehow undermines our walk with the Lord is a ridiculous leap of logic.

It's extremely pervasive as MW's post demonstrates. If there wasn't the confusion, it wouldn't matter but for a huge chunk of the population, "church" means "a building", "a service", and "a people"...and not depending on context,  but as synonyms.

So long as people see them as synonymous, I believe using the term in a way other than how the Bible defines it is damaging.