Where is the Church. The building or the person?

Where is the Church. The building or the person? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church

Message

modu -> Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/9/2008 6:16:59 PM)
Let us use Biblical revelations. The Church is the Spirit of Christ in human vessels. Right or wrong? Discuss vmodu.com

theo_book -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/9/2008 6:48:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: modu Let us use Biblical revelations. The Church is the Spirit of Christ in human vessels. Right or wrong? Discuss vmodu.com I would not argue that is incorrect, however, the scriptures give us Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: The letters written by the apostles were addressed to the saints, who make up the church as the body of Christ, over which he is the head.

J_Michael80 -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 1:19:53 AM)
I agree theo_book. The church is the body of Christ, in which Jesus Christ is the head of the body. The greek word for church is (ekklesia) which literally means gathering. The word ekklesia comes from two Greek words "ek" which means "out" and "kaleo" which means "call." Therefore an ekklesia in ancient Greek also meant "calling out."

MrFribbles -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 1:22:46 AM)
The Church is neither the building nor the person. It is the people, plural.

Ezra -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 1:43:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: modu Let us use Biblical revelations. The Church is the Spirit of Christ in human vessels. Right or wrong? Discuss vmodu.com More precisely, the Church is human vessels with the indwelling Holy Spirit. Those who are children of God, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ are also the Body of Christ. The Church is also a metaphorical building of God, as well as the Bride of Christ, who will become the wife of the Lamb. Bricks and mortar do not constitute churches, but those who worship therein are the ekklesia or called out ones of God (if they are genuinely born again).

theo_book -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 7:27:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ezra quote: ORIGINAL: modu Let us use Biblical revelations. The Church is the Spirit of Christ in human vessels. Right or wrong? Discuss vmodu.com More precisely, the Church is human vessels with the indwelling Holy Spirit. Those who are children of God, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ are also the Body of Christ. The Church is also a metaphorical building of God, as well as the Bride of Christ, who will become the wife of the Lamb. Bricks and mortar do not constitute churches, but those who worship therein are the ekklesia or called out ones of God (if they are genuinely born again). I am not so sure about the "metaphor" part but mostly agree with the rest. I Cor 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. Eph 2: 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

LawrenceJCaldwell -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 8:41:07 AM)
Since most everyone seems to agree that the Church is the Body of Christ, then why do folks hold so fastly to the doctrine of the local church? What are your thoughts?

theo_book -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 8:58:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LawrenceJCaldwell Since most everyone seems to agree that the Church is the Body of Christ, then why do folks hold so fastly to the doctrine of the local church? What are your thoughts? I think the local building is the worst thing that happened to the church. It has reached the place where most Christians think nothing is wrong when they speak of "goint to church" on Sunday, when the reality is "We are gathering the church." Local churches in the days of the apostles, mostly consisted of gathering in someone's home. And they were family affairs. All that is lost to the "local church" mentality. Another problem with the "local church" concspt becomes evident almost annually when someone suggests "holding a revival." Someone will "head up a committee" to identify a "speaker" who will come to rejuvenate the "local congregation" and all the "sister congregations" that have been inundated with invitations to "join our effort;" with reciprocity lurking in the background. Then another committee will be made up of people who will encourage every member, on pain of salvations doubt, to "canvass the neighborhood" so that we can rest in the glory of having given it "our best." The problem with that is it violates what Jesus himself taught. He sent forth his seventy and told them "go into the nearest town, knock on the door of the first house you come to. If the good man of the house welcomes you, HE will round up his neighbors. If he does not welcome you, dust off your feet with the dust of THAT TOWN, (Note: Not that house, but that TOWN) and go to the next town. Then I am reminded of the situation when Paul was intending to go to a certain place when he was given a vision of a man standing beckoning and saying "come over into Macedonia and help us." I think that when a town of citizens is ready, even eager to hear the gospel, God will send a preacher. I do not however, think we can substitute our own zeal for the example set for us by Jesus himself. And the "local congregation" goaes against most of the examples taught in the scriptures.

JimboFletch -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 9:01:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LawrenceJCaldwell Since most everyone seems to agree that the Church is the Body of Christ, then why do folks hold so fastly to the doctrine of the local church? What are your thoughts? The bulk of the NT is epistles, i.e. letters to local churches containing correction, instruction, encouragement, and details of its structure. In Revelation, Jesus addresses seven distinct local churches. The local church is central to God's plan for each believer.

theo_book -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 9:35:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JimboFletch quote: ORIGINAL: LawrenceJCaldwell Since most everyone seems to agree that the Church is the Body of Christ, then why do folks hold so fastly to the doctrine of the local church? What are your thoughts? The bulk of the NT is epistles, i.e. letters to local churches containing correction, instruction, encouragement, and details of its structure. In Revelation, Jesus addresses seven distinct local churches. The local church is central to God's plan for each believer. That is the issue isn't it? I can show you several instances of "and the church that is in thy house" but know of no "church of the city of Laodicea, though there is the "church of the Laodiceans." Is it a local church or a church within a locality, but meeting in their homes? Remember, the church is "called out" not "called in."

rcjames -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 9:49:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LawrenceJCaldwell Since most everyone seems to agree that the Church is the Body of Christ, then why do folks hold so fastly to the doctrine of the local church? What are your thoughts? Paul distinquished the groups of believers that met at different homes or different place in this manner; (1Co 16:19) The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. He was referrencing the folks that gathered at the house of Aquilia and Priscilla not referrencing all believers everywhre. I see no difference in that than referrencing the groups of believers as we do today. I fail to see the distiction between the Church that meets here or there and the Church that meets at the Baptist place. Thsnks RC

JimboFletch -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 9:51:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book That is the issue isn't it? I can show you several instances of "and the church that is in thy house" but know of no "church of the city of Laodicea, though there is the "church of the Laodiceans." Is it a local church or a church within a locality, but meeting in their homes? Remember, the church is "called out" not "called in." You seem to be obsessed with a structure over function, form over purpose, a hang-up over the intention. Not sure what may have tweaked your nose, but there is no virtue in meeting in a house structure over a storefront building over a borrowed theater over a building specifically built and dedicated for God's people to meet, worship, praise, minister and go out refreshed to serve. If you've read scripture, you may have noticed that God had a central worship center in a portable network of tents, then an ornate and enormously expensive Temple. It was at a successor Temple that Jesus was taken for dedication, then later as a youth, then several times as an adult on mission. Scripture states it was His custom to go to synagogue each week. You may have issues with a structure, form, some hang-up, or even over the expense involved with a dedicated place of worship, but Jesus decidedly didn't have your problem with them. Neither do I, since He is Lord.

bluestone -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 9:55:25 AM)
The church building is a place members of the body can meet for instruction, worship, and fellowship. It is a neutral place where people who may not be welcome in a home would be welcome. So using the term "Church" for "Church building" is common. The worst thing to happen in recent years is the rise in unchecked home churches, where people are not under any authority, and false teachings grow. The early church did not have a choice, we do. Playing semantics to legitimize house churches, and cast a shade of illigitimacy on traditional churches is very common these days. Bunch of hooey.

theo_book -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 11:10:11 AM)
quote: (rcjames) Paul distinquished the groups of believers that met at different homes or different place in this manner; (1Co 16:19) The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. He was referrencing the folks that gathered at the house of Aquilia and Priscilla not referrencing all believers everywhere. I see no difference in that than referrencing the groups of believers as we do today. I fail to see the distiction between the Church that meets here or there and the Church that meets at the Baptist place. (theo) The difference is in deciding which error you want to associate yourself with. Paul very distinctly warned AGAINST dividing over names and allegiances. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" [I Cor 1:10-13] So YOU tell me. Which denomination teaches truth? The whole Truth? Nothing BUT truth? I know scripture IS True, and at least if I am judged at the final judgement, it will be for my own errors, not some committees of denominational traditions. quote: (theo_book) That is the issue isn't it? I can show you several instances of "and the church that is in thy house" but know of no "church of the city of Laodicea, though there is the "church of the Laodiceans." Is it a local church or a church within a locality, but meeting in their homes? Remember, the church is "called out" not "called in." (JimboFletch) You seem to be obsessed with a structure over function, form over purpose, a hang-up over the intention. Not sure what may have tweaked your nose, but there is no virtue in meeting in a house structure over a storefront building over a borrowed theater over a building specifically built and dedicated for God's people to meet, worship, praise, minister and go out refreshed to serve. That would be true if all Christians were allowed access to YOUR building, for one example. I have met time and again with Christians who limited the use of "their" building or rented space to those who agreed with "their" form of doctrine. It does not work the way you describe as you well know. quote: (JimboFletch) If you've read scripture, you may have noticed that God had a central worship center in a portable network of tents, then an ornate and enormously expensive Temple. It was at a successor Temple that Jesus was taken for dedication, then later as a youth, then several times as an adult on mission. Scripture states it was His custom to go to synagogue each week. (theo) If you've read scripture, YOU may have noticed that God changed the central temple for the temple constructed of individual Christians, each of whom is not only a temple of the living God, but is also a building block in the body of which Christ is the head. And the New Covenant temple is PORTABLE, not fixed. "They went everywhere preaching the word." Yet they remained the temple of the living God. quote: (JimboFletch) You may have issues with a structure, form, some hang-up, or even over the expense involved with a dedicated place of worship, but Jesus decidedly didn't have your problem with them. Neither do I, since He is Lord. (theo) I have no problem with any kind of meeting place. It is the DOCTRINE TAUGHT within the place that I have a problem with. If there is ONE Christian present who considers himself as having "the truth" while he denies others the same consideration based upon the fact they paint a different name over their building or door, and claim allegiance to a different denomination, it is not for me. I have no issue with form, structure, location, or expense. I take issue with substance. quote: (bluestone) The church building is a place members of the body can meet for instruction, worship, and fellowship. It is a neutral place where people who may not be welcome in a home would be welcome. So using the term "Church" for "Church building" is common. (theo) Agreed so far! Though why someone would be welcome in a "church building" but not in a "church in thy house" kinda puzzles me. quote: (bluestone) The worst thing to happen in recent years is the rise in unchecked home churches, where people are not under any authority, and false teachings grow. The early church did not have a choice, we do. Playing semantics to legitimize house churches, and cast a shade of illigitimacy on traditional churches is very common these days. Bunch of hooey. (theo) "Unchecked" by WHOM? Or perhaps you mean "unstopped?" Homes have always been appropriate for worship service to God. And what do you mean they are not "under authority?" Perhaps they do not bow and scrape to the pomp and glory of religious men who set themselves above their fellow, and that irks some, but all Christians realize and recognize that there is an "authority" which we understand to be "the head of the body." As to "false teachings" growing, how would you know that? Do you take a census of doctrines among Churches in homes? Or do you assume that if they were REALLY Christians they would meet with YOUR group like a GOOD Christian should? And what exactly do you understand those teachings to be that are responsible for the thousands of denominations? TRUTH? I think not. Or do you simply reference those who teach the spiritual Christ without all the pomp and glory given to men and it gets your goat?

JimboFletch -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 11:33:56 AM)
Theo, I'm not going to attempt to dig out your retorts to me. If you want to dialogue, fine; I'll be happy to continue. If you want to fill up a few pages with words addressed to several people and the world at large, then you're on your own. I will say this much: I can tell an awful lot more about the substance that I will encounter when I see "Baptist," "Catholic," "Methodist," etc. on a church building than the possible vipers-pit of doctrines I might face by joining a group of lone-ranger types in a home that refuse to submit to the authority established in the NT for local churches. IOW, not a single NT church outside Jerusalem was detached from the rest of Christendom to formulate its own belief system. Oh and BTW, the 1st Century Church did not have the books of the NT. Should we abandon those books and just use the ones they had available?

bluestone -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 12:36:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: (bluestone) The church building is a place members of the body can meet for instruction, worship, and fellowship. It is a neutral place where people who may not be welcome in a home would be welcome. So using the term "Church" for "Church building" is common. (theo) Agreed so far! Though why someone would be welcome in a "church building" but not in a "church in thy house" kinda puzzles me. quote: (bluestone) The worst thing to happen in recent years is the rise in unchecked home churches, where people are not under any authority, and false teachings grow. The early church did not have a choice, we do. Playing semantics to legitimize house churches, and cast a shade of illigitimacy on traditional churches is very common these days. Bunch of hooey. (theo) "Unchecked" by WHOM? Or perhaps you mean "unstopped?" Homes have always been appropriate for worship service to God. And what do you mean they are not "under authority?" Perhaps they do not bow and scrape to the pomp and glory of religious men who set themselves above their fellow, and that irks some, but all Christians realize and recognize that there is an "authority" which we understand to be "the head of the body." As to "false teachings" growing, how would you know that? Do you take a census of doctrines among Churches in homes? Or do you assume that if they were REALLY Christians they would meet with YOUR group like a GOOD Christian should? And what exactly do you understand those teachings to be that are responsible for the thousands of denominations? TRUTH? I think not. Or do you simply reference those who teach the spiritual Christ without all the pomp and glory given to men and it gets your goat? There are quite a few people that would not be welcome in my home: Those with criminal records, predators, etc. I won't take the risk. Two examples from my experience to answer your other remarks. My best friend and her husband left their church and became involved in a house church where no accountability for doctrine being taught was shown. Bizarre teachings began to creep up: non trinitarian, having more than one wife, etc. Who could put a stop to it? no one. They were not under any authority at all. Two other home churches in my town outgrew houses and bought property and built church buildings! The very thing they were on their high horse against! Seems they did not want to divide up into different homes. Far to many House churches are for those who are whiny and easily offended by legitimate churches. Or for those who did not get their way , so they took their marbles and went home.

theo_book -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 1:45:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluestone quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: (bluestone) The church building is a place members of the body can meet for instruction, worship, and fellowship. It is a neutral place where people who may not be welcome in a home would be welcome. So using the term "Church" for "Church building" is common. (theo) Agreed so far! Though why someone would be welcome in a "church building" but not in a "church in thy house" kinda puzzles me. quote: (bluestone) The worst thing to happen in recent years is the rise in unchecked home churches, where people are not under any authority, and false teachings grow. The early church did not have a choice, we do. Playing semantics to legitimize house churches, and cast a shade of illigitimacy on traditional churches is very common these days. Bunch of hooey. (theo) "Unchecked" by WHOM? Or perhaps you mean "unstopped?" Homes have always been appropriate for worship service to God. And what do you mean they are not "under authority?" Perhaps they do not bow and scrape to the pomp and glory of religious men who set themselves above their fellow, and that irks some, but all Christians realize and recognize that there is an "authority" which we understand to be "the head of the body." As to "false teachings" growing, how would you know that? Do you take a census of doctrines among Churches in homes? Or do you assume that if they were REALLY Christians they would meet with YOUR group like a GOOD Christian should? And what exactly do you understand those teachings to be that are responsible for the thousands of denominations? TRUTH? I think not. Or do you simply reference those who teach the spiritual Christ without all the pomp and glory given to men and it gets your goat? There are quite a few people that would not be welcome in my home: Those with criminal records, predators, etc. I won't take the risk. Two examples from my experience to answer your other remarks. My best friend and her husband left their church and became involved in a house church where no accountability for doctrine being taught was shown. Bizarre teachings began to creep up: non trinitarian, having more than one wife, etc. Who could put a stop to it? no one. They were not under any authority at all. Two other home churches in my town outgrew houses and bought property and built church buildings! The very thing they were on their high horse against! Seems they did not want to divide up into different homes. Far to many House churches are for those who are whiny and easily offended by legitimate churches. Or for those who did not get their way , so they took their marbles and went home. I apologize for misunderstanding you. I though we were discussing Christians and Christianity, not churchianity.

theo_book -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 1:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JimboFletch Theo, I'm not going to attempt to dig out your retorts to me. If you want to dialogue, fine; I'll be happy to continue. If you want to fill up a few pages with words addressed to several people and the world at large, then you're on your own. I will say this much: I can tell an awful lot more about the substance that I will encounter when I see "Baptist," "Catholic," "Methodist," etc. on a church building than the possible vipers-pit of doctrines I might face by joining a group of lone-ranger types in a home that refuse to submit to the authority established in the NT for local churches. IOW, not a single NT church outside Jerusalem was detached from the rest of Christendom to formulate its own belief system. Oh and BTW, the 1st Century Church did not have the books of the NT. Should we abandon those books and just use the ones they had available? What makes you think the churches in people's homes in the new testament were "viper pits" of doctrines? We use the new testament instead of doctrines and creeds of men, and catechisms. What is wrong with that? Oh and by the way, the first century church DID have the books of the new testament. The Epistle written by John was the last and was written about 96 a.d., and I doubt it took over four years to get copies to all the churches. And if it did, they still had the men to teach who heard it from the apostles themselves. What is the problem with that? It seems you have a far greater problem with home churches than I have with denominationalism. And if I understand you correctly, it is based on some concept of a lack of being under something identified as "authority." The home churches with which I am familiar with are NOT "detached from the rest of Christendom to formulate its own belief system." Though it seems to me that pretty much DOES describe the denominations today. Before you get all in a dither, suppose you tell me which denomination YOU think is correct. Then let the debate begin with all the other denominations. We'll soon see who it is that is "detached from the rest of Christendom to formulate its own belief system."

bluestone -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 1:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book I apologize for misunderstanding you. I though we were discussing Christians and Christianity, not churchianity. Actually, discussing home churches is pretty much discussing people with sour grapes towards established churches. Of course, anyone who does not agree with your line of thinking would fall under the heading of "churchianity" would they not?

theo_book -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 2:12:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluestone quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book I apologize for misunderstanding you. I though we were discussing Christians and Christianity, not churchianity. Actually, discussing home churches is pretty much discussing people with sour grapes towards established churches. Of course, anyone who does not agree with your line of thinking would fall under the heading of "churchianity" would they not? No. Anyone who insists that the "only true church" is found in thousands of doctrines dividing Christ among thousands of pontificates and bishops and prelates of one stripe or another pretty well says it for me. As for "sour grapes" it seems to me that has already been established within the group mentality toward those "Home churches" who have "detached from the rest of Christendom to formulate its own belief system."

JimboFletch -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 2:13:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book What makes you think the churches in people's homes in the new testament were "viper pits" of doctrines? We use the new testament instead of doctrines and creeds of men, and catechisms. What is wrong with that? You got me there! No... wait... uhmm... all those "home" churches in the NT were started and under the authority of the Apostles and recognized leaders. No lone rangers back then. quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book Oh and by the way, the first century church DID have the books of the new testament. The Epistle written by John was the last and was written about 96 a.d., and I doubt it took over four years to get copies to all the churches. And if it did, they still had the men to teach who heard it from the apostles themselves. What is the problem with that? I'm not bothering to make up for your lack of knowledge on that - go read some church history. quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book It seems you have a far greater problem with home churches than I have with denominationalism. And if I understand you correctly, it is based on some concept of a lack of being under something identified as "authority." The home churches with which I am familiar with are NOT "detached from the rest of Christendom to formulate its own belief system." Though it seems to me that pretty much DOES describe the denominations today. Before you get all in a dither, suppose you tell me which denomination YOU think is correct. Then let the debate begin with all the other denominations. We'll soon see who it is that is "detached from the rest of Christendom to formulate its own belief system." Huff and puff and blow all you want, it is YOU that is outside orthodoxy and away from the NT model, despite your posturing and hubris to the contrary.

JimboFletch -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 2:16:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book No. Anyone who insists that the "only true church" is found in thousands of doctrines dividing Christ... Earth to Theo, earth to Theo: YOU are, what?, adding just one more schism and division in YOUR enlightened doctrine of home churchianity. Shame on you and your divisive home churchianity movement! Shame!

Ezra -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 2:32:56 PM)
quote: The worst thing to happen in recent years is the rise in unchecked home churches, where people are not under any authority, and false teachings grow. The early church did not have a choice, we do. The use of the word "unchecked" indicates a false believe that Christians must seek the blessings of some "pope" or "bishop" or "denominational headquarters" (or worse yet, of the federal goverment) before they can gather to worship and fellowship! Therefore this comment is what I would term a wild accusation based upon urban myth-making. Home churches were the standard NT churches, and just because believers meet in a home does not mean there is no sound teaching and no biblical authority or leadership. If anything it is the denominational churches where false teachings abound, and where liberal seminary professors promote their heresies through those they have influenced. It was the mainline denominations which were overwhelmingly infected with liberal unbelief in the late 19th and earlier 20th centuries. The meeting place is not as critical as the nature of those who meet. One could meet in a park and still fulfill the requirements of a sound bibilical assembly. And if a home church is worth its salt, it will not be content to remain a home church but will engage is effective outreach, expansion, and growth so that it has a public meeting place. Nonetheless, the meeting place is not the church according to Scripture. And a denominational division is not according to Scripture either.

bluestone -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 2:43:45 PM)
So wear a tunic and sandals and ride a donkey. Nothing is the same as it was in Biblical times. Time does not stand still. I have to laugh every time the anti-church crowd starts to roar about how things were done in New Testament times. "Urban myth making?" puhleeze[8\|] Take a look at the Mormons and old Worldwide church of God. Two cults that began in home groups because the leaders did not like what they were taught elsewhere. They both mixed and mashed theology until they got the mixture they wanted..and would not be tolerated in a church. The home church movement reminds me of the WOF people. Think they have a special annointing that the "regular" believers don't.

theo_book -> RE: Where is the Church. The building or the person? (7/10/2008 2:55:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JimboFletch quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book What makes you think the churches in people's homes in the new testament were "viper pits" of doctrines? We use the new testament instead of doctrines and creeds of men, and catechisms. What is wrong with that? You got me there! No... wait... uhmm... all those "home" churches in the NT were started and under the authority of the Apostles and recognized leaders. No lone rangers back then. quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book Oh and by the way, the first century church DID have the books of the new testament. The Epistle written by John was the last and was written about 96 a.d., and I doubt it took over four years to get copies to all the churches. And if it did, they still had the men to teach who heard it from the apostles themselves. What is the problem with that? I'm not bothering to make up for your lack of knowledge on that - go read some church history. quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book It seems you have a far greater problem with home churches than I have with denominationalism. And if I understand you correctly, it is based on some concept of a lack of being under something identified as "authority." The home churches with which I am familiar with are NOT "detached from the rest of Christendom to formulate its own belief system." Though it seems to me that pretty much DOES describe the denominations today. Before you get all in a dither, suppose you tell me which denomination YOU think is correct. Then let the debate begin with all the other denominations. We'll soon see who it is that is "detached from the rest of Christendom to formulate its own belief system." Huff and puff and blow all you want, it is YOU that is outside orthodoxy and away from the NT model, despite your posturing and hubris to the contrary. Exercising your vocabulary does nothing toward making your point true. All you are doing is avoiding the obvious. i.e., the fact that the real problem lies upon the heads of "authority" that is willing to divide the body of Christ if it will allow them position and power, while truth and unity suffer. I take it you will not commit yourself as to which church YOU think is the one true church. Smart move, but not Christianity.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI