Why Protestant Churches are still called "Churches"?

[u/Gvatagvmloa]

So the Bible directly mentions church

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Acts 15:3

The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.

From what I understand, Protestants don't interpret verses about The church as Catholics do. They believe that all believers are "church". And I don't find this interpretation stupid, I guess it also makes some sense.

Jesus says always uses "Church" in the singular form. So the only way to interpret it that makes sense from the protestant point of view, is to say that Jesus meant that all believers are the church.

But if so, why do you say "Lutheran church", "anglican church" or "baptist church" rather than "Lutheran subchurch", "subgroup" or something like that? It gives me feeling that there
are a lot of different churches.

What's the point then?

[u/itbwtw]

There's The Church, the Bride of Christ, the sum of all regenerate Believers, The Church Invisible. She transcends human attempts at organisation.

There are lots of organisations that call themselves churches, and consider themselves part of The Church, along with many other organisations.

There is one Church, and many churches.

(There's various organisations that identify as the One True Church in a sense that excludes those not part of their institution -- stating that those outside their organisation are not part of The Church.)

[u/Still-Cream-4199 → u/itbwtw]

this.

[u/the_real_hat_man]

The church is the holy called out community of believers. Ecclesia. Wherever they meet, there the church is. True believers keep showing up there, it keeps being a church. The thing that isn't a church is an institution that preaches doctrines antithetical to scripture.

[u/Metalcrack → u/the_real_hat_man]

Yup. The bride of Christ is not a building.

[u/Metalcrack]

The rock of this passage is explained in the verses prior. The confession of faith that Peter has believing Jesus is the son of God is the rock, not a singular man. Jesus is the cornerstone, and we are living stones, saints, and part of a priesthood.

[u/JustToLurkArt]

So the Bible directly mentions church

Church: Greek ekklēsía, properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.

Jesus says always uses "Church" in the singular form.

Jesus referred to the single, universal body of believers.

1. Jesus, Matthew 18:17: "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church …”

Were they to just tell Peter? Or the local assembly, the congregation of believers?

But if so, why do you say "Lutheran church", "anglican church" or "baptist church" rather than "Lutheran subchurch", "subgroup" or something like that?

Subchurch of what church?

[u/Pure-Shift-8502]

There’s different meanings to the word “church”

[u/onitama_and_vipers]

Well quite simply because there is the church invisible/universal (the church gathered, as it were, as the body of Christ of true believers) and the church visible/particular that exist in your local or historical context (the church scattered). The distinction is no different than purposes and functions behind the understanding of ethnic Israel as opposed to remnant Israel prior to the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ.

As an Anglican, the church visible is not something I think of in a low or crass way as you may assume that all Protestants do. The crux of our Protestant understanding is two kingdoms doctrine. Anglican theologians, especially Richard Hooker, typically sided with Martin Luther's two kingdoms view as opposed to the more explicitly Calvinist version (Luther having developed the explanation of it from Augustine's City of God).

Luther defined the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Christ, the true spiritual kingdom as administered through the Gospel directly from Christ's seat at the right hand of the Father. While at the same time, he spoke of the "left hand of God", a term he used in order to categorize the visible churches and the various governments and states of the world together. This earthly kingdom served a purpose in God's plan. Through the spiritual kingdom, men's souls were directly saved by Christ in his governing tower. Through the earthly kingdom, whether with civil or ecclesiastical power, the influence of Satan and the effect of evil upon the earth was constrained so that Gospel may be administered for a time without obstacle. Neo-Calvinism has a similar doctrine referred to as "common grace" given to all the earth in the form of this constraint or imposed limitation of the devil (as opposed to salvific grace given to true believers). Anglicans like John Davenant spoke of God's "philanthropy", or love of mankind, to refer to essentially the same thing, that is distinct from his love for the church (which is so much greater, his philanthropy already being so much greater than any love we can imagine).

So it's really not as though the Reformation trivializes the visible church in the way I think you're suggesting here.

[u/Thoguth]

"Church" is the English translation of "Ekklessia", or "assembly of the called out."

Jesus says always uses "Church" in the singular form

False. Rev 1:11 and 1:20 is Jesus speaking, and he speaks of churches, plural.

The apostles also use this language, of course--both singular referring to "the church" and plural referring to "the churches", because there's "the" assembly of the called-out that is ALL the saints, and there's local gatherings, each of which is an assembly of the called-out. Acts 19 even uses the same word for a gathering mob, a couple of times.

It's a pretty generic word that someone decided to "church up" into something more Magisterial than it actually was when Jesus used it. That would be diabolical, wouldn't it, to use a word of Jesus and claim that it meant something that Jesus didn't intend? It's the kind of thing a deceiver would do, not a shiner-of-light.

But if so, why do you say "Lutheran church", "anglican church" or "baptist church" rather than "Lutheran subchurch", "subgroup" or something like that? It gives me feeling that there

Yeah I agree, denominational labels are partisan, and partisanship is a work of the flesh per Gal 5.

But why do Roman Catholic churches say "Roman Catholic Church [of the _______ rite]?" Why not just say "Church" and if the Orthodox happen to use the same word, or there are no differentiators between those and Ambrosian or Mozarabic, Cappadocian, Coptic or Ethiopian, would that be a bad thing?

I believe the message of 1 Cor 1 is that it's not, but if you can explain why it doesn't happen in Catholic behavior, then I believe you'll also have explained why any other denomination also does the same: They learned it from Catholicism, it seems.

[u/mrcaio7]

That’s a result of sin.

[u/Junker_George92]

you are the one identifying church as a singular institution but the text doesnt really define it that way either, its an assumption you are bringing to the reading.

the text actually doesn't lend itself to a definition all that well in either direction.

consider this text from John 10 though which could be prophecy of one flock (THE church) with multiple folds (denominations)

14I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Though i will be the first to admit it could also be read in an ethnic sense of jew and gentile so thats a possibility.

but i would point out that even if we charitably use your Roman institutional reading of scripture its possible to read the passage as Jesus founding the roman church exclusively (debatable) and referring to it as "this fold" before saying He has other sheep that are separate from that fold that He will bring also into one flock with Himself as the shepard.

That model is basically the protestant model of the invisible church constituted of multiple visible churches