The arrogance of the NAR at work here. Nowhere are we commanded to figure out how to help Jesus with His stated objectives. We are simply charged with bring the Gospel to the world -- period. Perhaps God is extending His time of grace to sinners? Perhaps His love is staying His wrath? The underlying assumption being made here is that God WANTS to unleash judgment but cannot for some reason and Ed Silvoso thinks it is the job of the church to help make His objectives materialize. He then flat out lies beloved but in doing so we can see the underlying argument he intends to make. The church is to be considered bad and the NAR goals of conquering seven mountains is good. Nowhere does the bible teach that the church is supposed to be in any marketplace or transforming our cities and nations. That is straight up NAR-speak. People need to be saved out of the marketplace and culture.
'"If the church is so important, why did Jesus mention it only twice in the Gospels? And why is there neither a command nor instructions in the Bible on how to plant one? "The New Testament examples of church are vastly different from the contemporary notion that it is a place where members go, usually once a week. Back then, church always referred to people, never to buildings, and it was made up of individuals who operated 24/7 'from house to house' all over town as a transforming organism, not as a static institution (Acts 2:46; 5:42). Its objective was the transformation of people and of society, rather than acting as a transfer station for saved souls bound for heaven.' -- Ed Silvoso
Yeah, no Ed. This paragraph is so off even the conjunctions are lies. Let's go through the warped mind of an NAR acolyte one by one:
Jesus is God and thus wrote the entire bible. The New Testament is teeming with instructions on orderly church service. So what he is saying is so deceptive. If church was so wrong, why did Paul go on three missionary journeys establishing churches? In Revelation Jesus reprimands churches but never says they should not have started!
Yes the church today does differ wildly from what existed over 2000 years ago -- as does everything else in this world. If you examine how church is structured however, it still follows the model laid out in Scripture (not the apostate church but that was not the point he was making).
Yes, the Ekklesia are made up of people. Ekklesia means the ones called out. He is right to say that we collectively are the church but he does so to shoot down the idea of coming together for fellowship in a building and that is just ridiculous. The reason why the early church met house to house is there were no church buildings and there was great persecution.
The bible does not present the church as a transforming organism. It largely was a static institution beloved. Read Acts 2. They gathered together to hear the teaching, to break bread, and to fellowship. They were not trying to change the marketplace, conquer seven mountains, or any other NAR dream.
The notion that the objective of the church was to transform people and society is simply absurd. They preached the Gospel, period. It is the Gospel that transforms people, not the church. We are merely the chosen vehicle for His message. Perhaps the saddest commentary is his last line here. Ed Silvoso believes that a church that feeds the sheep and disciples them biblically is just acting as a waystation for heaven bound souls. This is how little the NAR thinks of the actual children of God. The things of God are still foolishness to those who are lost and the only thing that can save them is the Gospel. The sheep however, need to be fed and cared for. That is the job of the shepherd. The church is not a way station or a rest stop.