NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH LIVING

[andy pandy]

The church in the New Testament bore no resemblance to the church that is evident today, So I am going to take a look at what life was like in the New Testament and make some comparisons to the church today. First of all, I am going to point out what the NTC did not do. This list is not comprehensive as I will deal with the major differences.

ONE. They did not meet in churches. Bearing in mind that the church that came into being on the day of Pentecost was made up of Jews who met in the synagogue for their weekly dose of religion. Outside of that, they met in their homes.

TWO, They did not meet on Sunday morning. They worked from sunup to sundown on Sunday. Their day off was sundown Friday until sundown Saturday.

THREE. They did not have meetings that was led by "a pastor" and in the case of some denominations they did not dress up in holy regalia.

FOUR. They did not have a hymn prayer sandwich meeting.

FIVE. There was no such thing as holy communion/lord's table/eucharist or any other so-called litargy.

SIX. They only knew mega-churches as there was only one church in each town i.e. The church at Corinth; The church at Ephesus. If asked what church they were from their answer would be the church at Philippi.

to be continued.

 

[andy pandy]

SEVEN. They did not have a group of like-minded people that had a branch in each town.

EIGHT. They did not have bible colleges.

NINE. They did not have leaders that they brought in from outside of the church.

TEN, They did not have female Elders.

I am sure you can add to this list but I will start from here as all these are important in what made the NTC what it was.

ONE. In Acts 1 v 13 it says that when the apostles had left Jesus or is that when Jesus left the apostles, they went back to Jerusalem to the upper room where they were staying. Joining them were some women and Jesus' brothers.

In all there were 120 people together v15 and they were using the time to pray. The first job was to replace Judas to make up the 12. Their criteria was someone who had been with them and could act as a witness to Jesus' ressurection. Note they did not have to have a degree or five years' experience as a pastor. The only criteria is that they had been members of Jesus bible school.

Having prayed they drew lots to decide between two people. This may seem a bit strange of a method to make a decision like this. The fact is that it was normal to do this in Judaism. In the casting of lots they believed that the choice made was God's way of telling them who was to be chosen.

They prayed and asked God to show them which one of the two were to be chosen. By drawing lots God would show them his chosen replacement. Because that was standard practice it meant there was no trying to get votes to get selected. The choice of replacement was God's choice entirely. Matthias was therefore chosen by God so there was no factional divide and the other feeling resentful that they were not chosen.

to be continued....

 

[Cnkw3]

The church in the New Testament bore no resemblance to the church that is evident today, So I am going to take a look at what life was like in the New Testament and make some comparisons to the church today. First of all, I am going to point out what the NTC did not do. This list is not comprehensive as I will deal with the major differences.

ONE. They did not meet in churches. Bearing in mind that the church that came into being on the day of Pentecost was made up of Jews who met in the synagogue for their weekly dose of religion. Outside of that, they met in their homes.

The word church in the NT is never used to refer to a building. They met wherever they could. Sometimes in houses and sometimes in public spaces. The first group in acts 2 seem to meet in the temple. They had a large group of jews and it’s probably all they new.

TWO, They did not meet on Sunday morning. They worked from sunup to sundown on Sunday. Their day off was sundown Friday until sundown Saturday.

They may have. Acts 20 has that group meeting late in the day.

THREE. They did not have meetings that was led by "a pastor" and in the case of some denominations they did not dress up in holy regalia.

There were no ”denominations“ in the early church. The word “pastor” in the NT is an elder, bishop, overseer, etc. They are all the same office. And they were not controlled by just one. There was plurality of Elders in the church. There was no one man pastor rule like we see in most denoms today.

FOUR. They did not have a hymn prayer sandwich meeting.

Probably right

FIVE. There was no such thing as holy communion/lord's table/eucharist or any other so-called litargy.

They did partake of the Lords supper. They did that on the first day of the week. Acts 20:7

SIX. They only knew mega-churches as there was only one church in each town i.e. The church at Corinth; The church at Ephesus. If asked what church they were from their answer would be the church at Philippi.

to be continued.

Yes. There were no denominations and there were no instruments of music used in there worship either.

 

[Cnkw3]

SEVEN. They did not have a group of like-minded people that had a branch in each town.

dont understand this one. The body of Christ is a group of like minded people that have a different congregation in different towns. They all practice and preach the same thing.

EIGHT. They did not have bible colleges.

this is true. We dont need them today either.

NINE. They did not have leaders that they brought in from outside of the church.

True

TEN, They did not have female Elders.

true. Nor female preachers in the assembly.

 

[andy pandy]

dont understand this one. The body of Christ is a group of like minded people that have a different congregation in different towns. They all practice and preach the same thing.

Denomonations

 

[andy pandy]

So what were the essentials that made the NTC different?

ONE. it was a home-based church. In Act 2 it says they met from house to house and in their meeting, it was focused around a meal where they ate, talked, were taught, and prayed. Nothing more and nothing less. having experienced such a meeting I can testify that it takes up the whole evening.

I remember being part of a home group in which I had written a manual for the church to guide them and the leader of my group ignored everything I had written. The meetings were boring and not interactive. One week he said he wouldn't be there so we had to decide what happened. Striking whilst the iron was hot I suggested we have a communal meal with all sharing. There was 100% agreement. That meeting was like no other. No singing hymns. All we did was talk and talk and talk and shared and prayed and discussed the word. It literally came alive.

The group did not last much longer as the leader came back and did his thing so people lost interest and he wasn't prepared to change.

Don't forget the NTC met DAILY from house to house so everyone involved would know each other in a very intimate way so they were on top of each other's needs and wants. The NTC was effective because their love for each other was so evident. In the modern-day church, most of the time all you love is the back of someone's head.

I am reading a book on the life of the church over a period of 2,000 years and it is clear that meeting in the home was very prominent at various times and it was at those times that the church was most effective. Of course the Roman
Catholics opposed such gathering because they did not have a priest to control everything.

I have said many times that the foundation of the NTC at Pentecost and in Acts was prayer, power and home fellowship.

2B continued

 

[Cnkw3]

So what were the essentials that made the NTC different?

ONE. it was a home-based church. In Act 2 it says they met from house to house and in their meeting,

No it wasn’t. Did they meet in houses some? Yes. The first church in acts 2 met in the temple. 2:46

it was focused around a meal where they ate, talked, were taught, and prayed.

They did eat together some but it doesn’t say they did this as a part of worship.

Nothing more and nothing less. having experienced such a meeting I can testify that it takes up the whole evening.

What day did they partake of the lords supper?
What day were they commanded to lay by and store?
Did they sing? The church is commanded to sing. Not play but sing.

I remember being part of a home group in which I had written a manual for the church to guide them and the leader of my group ignored everything I had written.

I would be very curious to know what was In that manual. Why did you need a manual?

The meetings were boring and not interactive. One week he said he wouldn't be there so we had to decide what happened. Striking whilst the iron was hot I suggested we have a communal meal with all sharing. There was 100% agreement. That meeting was like no other. No singing hymns. All we did was talk and talk and talk and shared and prayed and discussed the word. It literally came alive.

The group did not last much longer as the leader came back and did his thing so people lost interest and he wasn't prepared to change.

Why was he “the leader”. The NTC did not have one man as a “leader”.

Don't forget the NTC met DAILY from house to house so everyone involved would know each other in a very intimate way so they were on top of each other's needs and wants. The NTC was effective because their love for each other was so evident. In the modern-day church, most of the time all you love is the back of someone's head.

I am reading a book on the life of the church over a period of 2,000 years and it is clear that meeting in the home was very prominent at various times and it was at those times that the church was most effective. Of course the Roman
Catholics opposed such gathering because they did not have a priest to control everything.

I have said many times that the foundation of the NTC at Pentecost and in Acts was prayer, power and home fellowship.

2B continued

There is nothing wrong with meeting in your home but when you get to a certain size most likely it will be impractical and may also be against the law. Remember who the primary beneficiary of worship should be.......God.
In the process the saints too will be edified because they all want to please God and not self. You get out of something what you out into it.
Paul actually condemned a church for putting food as a priority.
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat,(this eat was the lords supper) tarry one for another. And if any man hunger,(regular meals) let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
1 Corinthians 11:33-34 -
There is plenty of eating in all these churches around me and I don’t think it has helped them one bit. Attendance in church in general continues to decline.

 

[andy pandy]

I have noted in my reading of the book of Acts that there are several references to meeting in homes. Especially by Paul as he moved around the churches. When he moved to a new town and new church, he was welcomed in a home, given lodging, and held meetings there to teach and strengthen the church. And I note that they always had a meal together. You know the saying that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. The NTC used that to the full as teaching over a meal makes for vigorous discussion and learning as I have found out and it is clear why the NTC utilized that form of meeting. If he wanted to reach the Jews, he would go to the temple on Saturday and talk to them about the Messiah.

I also noted the several references to the church as being members of the Way, indicating they were still recognised as a branch of Judaism, not a separate Church. Despite the claims of some people, they did not meet in the temple as members of the Way. Apart from the fact that they would not have been allowed to by the Temple rulers, they met in the temple because they were still Jews and followed the requirements of Judaism. I am reading a book ATM by Joel Comiskey "2000 Years of Small Groups" which is quite revealing as it shows that such meetings have always been part of the life of the church despite opposition from the ++++++ church, which I am not allowed to name even if it is a statement of fact. It was during those periods when small (home) groups were at their strongest that the church was the strongest. That in itself tells you something.

People who insist that the NTC met in purpose-built buildings are doing nothing more than speculating as there is not one reference in scripture that suggests this. Nor is there any evidence that they built anything. In Judaism, the Jews met in the synagogue once a week on the Sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night). The rest of the week they met in homes over a meal, hence the practice of the Way.
2B Cont.



































































































acts how many references there were to meting in the homes.

 

[andy pandy]

I have noted in my reading of the book of Acts that there are several references to meeting in homes. Especially by Paul as he moved around the churches. When he moved to a new town and new church, he was welcomed in a home, given lodging, and held meetings there to teach and strengthen the church. And I note that they always had a meal together. You know the saying that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. The NTC used that to the full as teaching over a meal makes for vigorous discussion and learning as I have found out and it is clear why the NTC utilized that form of meeting. If he wanted to reach the Jews, he would go to the temple on Saturday and talk to them about the Messiah.

I also noted the several references to the church as being members of the Way, indicating they were still recognised as a branch of Judaism, not a separate Church. Despite the claims of some people, they did not meet in the temple as members of the Way. Apart from the fact that they would not have been allowed to by the Temple rulers, they met in the temple because they were still Jews and followed the requirements of Judaism. I am reading a book ATM by Joel Comiskey "2000 Years of Small Groups" which is quite revealing as it shows that such meetings have always been part of the life of the church despite opposition from the ++++++ church, which I am not allowed to name even if it is a statement of fact. It was during those periods when small (home) groups were at their strongest that the church was the strongest. That in itself tells you something.

People who insist that the NTC met in purpose-built buildings are doing nothing more than speculating as there is not one reference in scripture that suggests this. Nor is there any evidence that they built anything. In Judaism, the Jews met in the synagogue once a week on the Sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night). The rest of the week they met in homes over a meal, hence the practice of the Way.
2B Cont.

Probably not known to a lot of people, The Methodist movement was started by John Wesley specifically to emulate the New Testament Church. In his reading of scripture, he could see the dynamism of the meetings in the homes and he set out to replicate that. Unlike today the central aspect of the church was not the Sunday morning meeting as they were held irregularly. The class meetings were considered much more important and that was the focus of Methodism. It did not start as a Methodist denomination. Wesley remained committed to the Anglican Church and always worked within its confines. He felt that the Anglican church had lost its way and he was trying reform it through his class meetings.

He did not succeed in reforming the Anglican Church but he did set people on fire through the class meetings. I apologise to anyone who is reading this and see it as an attack on the Anglican church as it is not. It is just a statement of fact that is recorded in the church history books.

Unfortunately after Methodism because a denomination in and of itself, the fervour of the Wesley's dissipated and it descended into dead formality. Again this is not a criticism of Methodism but a fact recorded many times over by the writers of church history.

This aspect of church history shows that the home meeting never really died out but was central to the covenant life of the church and has been so in modern-day Christianity in various forms. I was living in England when a time of renewal took place and it birthed the restoration movement. Central to all the various branches of it were house meetings. Like Paul, I had a job traveling all over England and if there was a house church of the restoration movement in the town I always looked them up and was offered lodgings for the night and we usually spent the evening in a house fellowship meeting.

People have a habit of making criticism of such things as house church meetings and can find all sorts of reasons why it doesn't work or point out its failings so all I have to say is what is there in the church that does not have its faults and failings. Having spent a lot of my working life in sales and marketing much of which was in a senior role, I tend to focus on not what you can't do or shouldn't do but on what you can do. People who focus on the negative do not usually succeed as they are not much more than a pain in the +++.

I will point out one of the failings of house fellowships not as a criticism but as a warning that things CAN go wrong but try and avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A movement sprang up in the 60s known as the
Discipleship Movement. This was spearheaded by Don Basham, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince, Ern Baxter, and Charles
Simpson.

I knew Derek Prince personally and had met all the others so I knew that they lived impeccable lives that could not be faulted. Whilst the Discipleship Movement had pure intentions to fold everyone in a class meeting for growth and was not intended to be like it ended up, in many churches it was enforced too rigorously and incorrectly. I remember my spiritual mentor who could run rings around anyone being made to be subject to a 25-year-old man who had only been saved a few years. He was extremely gracious about it but things like that contributed to its downfall. However, the Discipleship Movement was not the sum total of meeting in the home, and although the movement has come and gone meetings in the home have not.
2BCont.

 

[Cnkw3]

I have noted in my reading of the book of Acts that there are several references to meeting in homes.

Where are those references? You haven’t posted any above..

Especially by Paul as he moved around the churches. When he moved to a new town and new church, he was welcomed in a home, given lodging, and held meetings there to teach and strengthen the church.

I’m sure he probably did this but do have references? Here is one...
Acts 20:7. But it does not say it was a house.
20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
Just an upper room of some building that could have been a house. The point is....the text does not say what it was.

And I note that they always had a meal together.

Where are the references to this? You say “always”. I do not believe the Bible EVER says that.

You know the saying that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. The NTC used that to the full as teaching over a meal makes for vigorous discussion and learning as I have found out and it is clear why the NTC utilized that form of meeting. If he wanted to reach the Jews, he would go to the temple on Saturday and talk to them about the Messiah.

So he went to the synagogues to eat?

I also noted the several references to the church as being members of the Way, indicating they were still recognised as a branch of Judaism, not a separate Church.

Again.....references? I don’t see any above.
“The way” in the NT refers to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Here is a reference for you.
Acts 24:14.

Despite the claims of some people, they did not meet in the temple as members of the Way. Apart from the fact that they would not have been allowed to by the Temple rulers, they met in the temple because they were still Jews and followed the requirements of Judaism.

The temple was a large complex. They were all Jews so they would not have been kept out. They may have still been practicing some Judaism but they preached the gospel in the Temple. Just read Acts 3 and tell me what they were preaching from Solomon’s porch.

I am reading a book ATM by Joel Comiskey "2000 Years of Small Groups" which is quite revealing as it shows that such meetings have always been part of the life of the church despite opposition from the ++++++ church, which I am not allowed to name even if it is a statement of fact. It was during those periods when small (home) groups were at their strongest that the church was the strongest. That in itself tells you something.

There have been and are still many congregations around the world meeting in homes today.

People who insist that the NTC met in purpose-built buildings are doing nothing more than speculating as there is not one reference in scripture that suggests this.

There were 3000 converts on Pentecost. You think all or even a portion of them met in a home?

Nor is there any evidence that they built anything.

You are correct. I do not believe there are any references to building a church building but the command to assemble opens up the way for one to build a facility large enough for bigger groups to worship in since we can’t all sit out in the cold, rain and weather and worship effectively.

In Judaism, the Jews met in the synagogue once a week on the Sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night). The rest of the week they met in homes over a meal, hence the practice of the Way.
2B Cont.


acts how many references there were to meting in the homes.

I will be looking to study all of the references cause I didn’t see any..

 

[andy pandy]

Having studied the history of the church since Pentecost and availed myself of the wisdom of many, many writers from various backgrounds, all of whom confirmed the NTC met in homes until Emperor Constantine made it the official religion of Rome, who then transformed it from the religion that it was to the one that we know today of buildings and formality and caused the banishment of the priesthood of all believers and inaugurated the priesthood of the chosen few which is the way of the church today. Unless you have the appropriate degree from the denomination's approved place of learning you cannot contribute to the meetings or events of the church.

For example, I was invited by a friend to their church's men's breakfast every month. The priest in charge always attended. Whether by choice or requirement I don't know. Anyhow, we has our usual chatter and banter as men were wont to do whilst eating, and then we got to the serious bit. Always that was done by the priest. Never by one of the men even though every one of them was quite capable of providing input.

I stopped going after two years as the serious bit was just a theological statement that was never followed up on so nothing of any consequence happened.

Sad to say modern-day Christianity is replete with sermons and theological treatises but not much else. It seems that you are not expected to do anything with what you have heard.

The NTC was the opposite. When they got together I can see that a lot of the discussion going on was about how to reach so and so and how do I get past this objection or that objection and can we pray for my neighbor who needs to embrace the truth of Jesus but is having difficulty doing so.

The NTC home meetings were very hands on, dealt with the here and now with each joint supplying insight and wisdom in the every day things of life. If people wanted follow up advice or wisdom they only had to wait for 24 hours before the next days gathering.

If we got back to this way of doing things I am sure we would not be seen as those involved in religious formality but those who are dealing with life where the rubber hits the road and with the way things are going these days don't we need that.

Just a word to cnkw3. Your constant criticism of my posts is a waste of time. I am not going to ditch the wisdom of many well-informed and respected writers to keep you happy. As you are so keen to criticize what I write may I suggest you start your own thread on the topic and then you can say what you want without having to spend time correcting everyone else?

 

[Who Me]

dont understand this one. The body of Christ is a group of like minded people that have a different congregation in different towns. They all practice and preach the same thing.

this is true. We dont need them today either.

True

true. Nor female preachers in the assembly.

yep, lets keep on reinventing the wheel!

Get involved in any Christian organisation, even this forum and you will quickly see there is a real need for solid Christian teaching.
In the developing third world there is a growing problem of poorly educated Christian leaders teaching false teachings like health and wealth.

 

[Cnkw3]

Having studied the history of the church since Pentecost and availed myself of the wisdom of many, many writers from various backgrounds, all of whom confirmed the NTC met in homes until Emperor Constantine made it the official religion of Rome, who then transformed it from the religion that it was to the one that we know today of buildings and formality and caused the banishment of the priesthood of all believers and inaugurated the priesthood of the chosen few which is the way of the church today. Unless you have the appropriate degree from the denomination's approved place of learning you cannot contribute to the meetings or events of the church.

For example, I was invited by a friend to their church's men's breakfast every month. The priest in charge always attended. Whether by choice or requirement I don't know. Anyhow, we has our usual chatter and banter as men were wont to do whilst eating, and then we got to the serious bit. Always that was done by the priest. Never by one of the men even though every one of them was quite capable of providing input.

I stopped going after two years as the serious bit was just a theological statement that was never followed up on so nothing of any consequence happened.

Sad to say modern-day Christianity is replete with sermons and theological treatises but not much else. It seems that you are not expected to do anything with what you have heard.

The NTC was the opposite. When they got together I can see that a lot of the discussion going on was about how to reach so and so and how do I get past this objection or that objection and can we pray for my neighbor who needs to embrace the truth of Jesus but is having difficulty doing so.

The NTC home meetings were very hands on, dealt with the here and now with each joint supplying insight and wisdom in the every day things of life. If people wanted follow up advice or wisdom they only had to wait for 24 hours before the next days gathering.

If we got back to this way of doing things I am sure we would not be seen as those involved in religious formality but those who are dealing with life where the rubber hits the road and with the way things are going these days don't we need that.

Just a word to cnkw3. Your constant criticism of my posts is a waste of time. I am not going to ditch the wisdom of many well-informed and respected writers to keep you happy. As you are so keen to criticize what I write may I suggest you start your own thread on the topic and then you can say what you want without having to spend time correcting everyone else?

This is CLASSIC! You just spent an entire post saying how bad it is for the religious big wigs (like PhDs in theology) to have a Bible study and discourage anybody from challenging their position. You conclude that this is what’s wrong with the system today and then you close by telling me......don’t challenge or criticize?????? Really????
You started a thread on the NTC. Just because it’s “your thread” does not mean all truth comes from you. I disagree with some of your positions and feel like it’s my place or anybody else’s to question you on it. But, noooooooo.....Please don’t challenge the PhD!!!
I tell you again....you have NOT disappointed.

 

[Cnkw3]

yep, lets keep on reinventing the wheel!

Get involved in any Christian organisation, even this forum and you will quickly see there is a real need for solid Christian teaching.
In the developing third world there is a growing problem of poorly educated Christian leaders teaching false teachings like health and wealth.

You quoted my post here. So are you disagreeing with something I said? If so, please be more specific.

 

[andy pandy]

A WORD OR TWO ABOUT FEMALE ELDERS/LEADERS/PASTORS/VICARS/BISHOPS.

There is nowhere in the new testament where it talks about the above. They did not exist. In the life of the Jews of the NTC without exception, the man was head of the house. To transfer that authority to women in the church was laughable. It just did not happen. The fact that women were described as helpmeets was very relevant. Please realize that the word helpmeet does not imply inferiority. It is a descriptor of roles that God has ordained.

When one likes to look at things objectively, which the church tends not to do, the role of women in the home and the church is essential. They are called to do things that man cannot do. A man cannot nurture a baby as a woman can. A man cannot teach a toddler how to hold his spoon as a woman can. A man cannot give a baby the warmth and confidence that a mother does. It is so true that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. That is a truism that the world has ignored in its attempt to get women to abandon their babies and join the workforce.

I can remember so clearly in the first half of my Christian walk, men were the leaders of the church. Men were the Elders of the church. men were the deacons of the church. Men were the evangelists of the church. Men were the preachers in the church. Did it suffer because of that? No.

Today we have sold out our children because the one thing they need is the leadership of men to teach them what it means to be a man.

It is on record that the church has become a haven for women. The majority of churches are 30% men and 70% women. So why would a man want to be involved in a female gabfest? The figures show that they don't. another criticism raised is that churches are decorated to please women. Lots of flowers and fancy things.

I read of one church who decided to do something about that. In the entrance they put a Harley Davidson motorcycle. Did it make a difference? You bet. The number of males in the church started increasing. I mean what full-blooded male wouldn't want to sit on the saddle of a Harley Davidson?

Should every church put a Harley Davidson at the entrance? Of course not. What it should do is ask itself what do we need to do differently that is going to appeal to men. I notice that nearly every church has a compliment of ministry to women. Rarely do I see a compliment of ministry to men. It is all too hard. So you reap what you sow.

Another church had the great idea the men could come to the church but they didn't have to attend the meeting. They turned a room next door to the entrance into a coffee lounge and told the men they could spend their time there socializing. And they did. They came to the meeting with their wives and socialized over coffee with other men. Slowly over a period of time, the men began to drift into the meeting. Slowly over a period of time, they ditched the coffee lounge. Just shows what lateral thinking can achieve.

Back to scripture. When I am assailed about women being leaders in the church. it all comes down to Pricilla and
Aquila; Junias; and Deborah in the Old Testament. I then ask "How can a woman be the husband of one wife as expressly required of leadership in the book of Timothy" Mumble, mumble, mumble. They will invent all sorts of reasons except the obvious. They cannot be the husband of one wife so they cannot be leaders.

In my study of the NTC in reality, at no point were the women leaders. They had responsibilities that involved leadership but they were never leaders of the church. They were never leaders in the home so they never aspired to be leaders in the church. it was a case of as the home was so was the church. The roles in the home were identical to the roles in the church. Sorry ladies but that is a fact.

So what happened to lead the church astray and embrace female leadership? In my country, it was as clear as day. The AOG embraced secular feminism. That is not a criticism that is a statement of fact. I watched it happen. When the feminist movement started to push their barrow and began taking over leadership roles in the name of equality, AOG churches which had ALWAYS been led by a man slowly and surreptitiously started to announce the church was led by a man and his wife. Now virtually every AOG is led by a man and his wife. Now in some denominations, there are more female leaders than males. it is known as the slippery slope.

No wonder men are deserting the church. The Anglican church in my country last year was pleased to announce its first female bishop. haven't said too much about its homosexual priests. Or two homosexuals married leading the church. Or lesbians running things. Currently, they are fighting over when they should marry two homosexuals or lesbians.

Those that want to are saying those that don't should not leave the church and cause a split. I am pleased to say those that who want to stand on the word of God have unequivocably said they cannot fellowship with people who put secular trends before the word of God.

And it all started with females wanting to be leaders. When you start to compromise the word of God you are on the road to perdition.

This is CLASSIC! You just spent an entire post saying how bad it is for the religious big wigs (like PhDs in theology) to have a Bible study and discourage anybody from challenging their position. You conclude that this is what’s wrong with the system today and then you close by telling me......don’t challenge or criticize?????? Really????
You started a thread on the NTC. Just because it’s “your thread” does not mean all truth comes from you. I disagree with some of your positions and feel like it’s my place or anybody else’s to question you on it. But, noooooooo.....Please don’t challenge the PhD!!!
I tell you again....you have NOT disappointed.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. You have yet to learn criticism is only useful if it is constructive. To date, you have not made one single constructive criticism of my writing. All you have done and are doing is trying to put me down and prove you are right. And I might add. trying to disparage the learning you don't have but others do.

Man, I can read you like a book so I suggest you pull up stumps before you dig a deeper hole. So let me say it again. I am not interested in what you have to say because it is not based on copious study and the wisdom of others.

 

[Who Me]

You quoted my post here. So are you disagreeing with something I said? If so, please be more specific.

You said christian colleges/theo,optical colleges etc are not needed.
Which means Christians in order to grow and learn about Christianity, they have to find out what others learnt years ago.

As I said, if you were aware of what is happening g where there is no theological teaching, like,e in third world countries, where the prosperity gospel is often taught because there is no sound theolog teaching.

 

[Cnkw3]

You said christian colleges/theo,optical colleges etc are not needed.
Which means Christians in order to grow and learn about Christianity, they have to find out what others learnt years ago.

As I said, if you were aware of what is happening g where there is no theological teaching, like,e in third world countries, where the prosperity gospel is often taught because there is no sound theolog teaching.

I didn’t say teaching is not needed. I said Bible colleges are not needed. There is a huge difference.

 

[andy pandy]

In today's church life and practice, there is a need for things like bible college as most churches do not teach. They provide weekly homilies that have very little relevance to real life and the issues that are facing people on a day-to-day basis.

For example, in a well know church that is deified as a leader for cessationists one of its leaders was heading for a mental breakdown. He went to the right person for help (a charismatic one) and told him he was at a breaking point because he had several problems that had overtaken him but as he was a leader he could not admit to them because leaders don't have problems. Before ending up in the looney bin he got some wise counsel from the charismatic and over time he got back on a level pegging.

Despite being in some very good churches I knew I wanted more, so I investigated bible colleges and ended up at an excellent one where I learned my theology and most of the things that I was not taught at church.

In the NTC they were not needed because every house meeting was a time of learning (apostles doctrine) and the needs of the church were not tied up with buildings and denominations so they could concentrate on what mattered.

Sad to say we are so obsessed with our way of doing things we have lost the plot and the simplicity of church life. People argue with me over these things but it is as plain as day they are arguing from a mindset that is controlled by what is happening now, not what happened in the New Testament.

 

[Cnkw3]

In today's church life and practice, there is a need for things like bible college as most churches do not teach. They provide weekly homilies that have very little relevance to real life and the issues that are facing people on a day-to-day basis.

If churches “do not teach” then they are not the church that Jesus built. I travel and when I’m out I attend other congregations of the Lords church and they ALL teach and very good Bible classes and sermons. It’s always based on book chapter and verse.
If any man speak let him speak as the oracle of God. 1 pet 4
The church is to be.....”the pillar and ground of the truth”. 1 Tim 3:15
Timothy, an evangelist, was told to....teach faithful men who would then teach others also. 2 Tim 2:2
So if the church anyone attends does not do a good job of teaching then I’d move. You can know there not the church Jesus built.

For example, in a well know church that is deified as a leader for cessationists one of its leaders was heading for a mental breakdown. He went to the right person for help (a charismatic one) and told him he was at a breaking point because he had several problems that had overtaken him but as he was a leader he could not admit to them because leaders don't have problems. Before ending up in the looney bin he got some wise counsel from the charismatic and over time he got back on a level pegging.

Despite being in some very good churches I knew I wanted more, so I investigated bible colleges and ended up at an excellent one where I learned my theology and most of the things that I was not taught at church.

The only time I could see attending a college for more might be if someone wanted to learn the Greek language or some basic history classes of a certain period in time or maybe an archeological class but not for learning doctrine or the truth of the “law of Christ”. That’s where Bible colleges have a problem.

In the NTC they were not needed because every house meeting was a time of learning (apostles doctrine) and the needs of the church were not tied up with buildings and denominations so they could concentrate on what mattered.

Sad to say we are so obsessed with our way of doing things we have lost the plot and the simplicity of church life. People argue with me over these things but it is as plain as day they are arguing from a mindset that is controlled by what is happening now, not what happened in the New Testament.

I find it interesting that you are against church buildings and the like based on them not doing it in the early church but then you are ok with Bible colleges even though they didn’t use those in the early church. Teaching was through the simplicity of the church. Why should it change today?

 

[sagoksok]

So what were the essentials that made the NTC different?

ONE. it was a home-based church. In Act 2 it says they met from house to house and in their meeting, it was focused around a meal where they ate, talked, were taught, and prayed. Nothing more and nothing less. having experienced such a meeting I can testify that it takes up the whole evening.

Why it was a home based Church? Are this early Christian persecuted or not? Do they hide or not? Let us consider also what happen to at this time.