NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH LIVING

[Cnkw3]

Bible Colleges??
For example...
When someone attends the Dallas Theo seminary they are required to affirm certain beliefs and this is one of them....

1. salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone

This IS NOT taught in the Bible! The statement itself is disqualifying. How could salvation be by by “grace alone” if it’s by “faith alone”. Doesn’t the word “alone” mean.....all by itself? Maybe not at DTS. This is your standard Bible college. These people will learn false doctrine then go spread it everywhere.

 

[sagoksok]

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?

Classic

 

[Who Me]

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

Yes there is a huge difference between a Sunday sermon and a lecture.

Very few sermons match the qualities of a college lecture, if one is preparing for service it is far better to go to college.

 

[andy pandy]

In the NTC, being a follower of the Way was a serious business, There was no time for believers to be CHINOs. Aptly illustrated by Ananias and Sapphira. It was a time of giving in the church and they agreed to sell a property they had and give the proceeds to the church. The scriptures say that with his wife's connivance, he kept back part of the proceeds and gave the impression that was the sum total of the sale. In other words, he lied.

As far as Peter was concerned if that was what they wanted to do that was OK by him. What wasn't OK was lying to the Holy Spirit. Lying to Peter was the same as lying to the Holy Spirit. As Peter said it is not to men that you have lied but to God" Gulp! When Ananias heard this what happened? He fell down dead. This made a profound impression on everyone. I BET IT DID!!

When Sapphira turned up she was questioned and told the same lie as Ananias. Whoops! She got the same treatment as her husband and was taken out and buried next to him. Apparently, this made a profound impression on the whole church. I bet it did. DON'T TELL LIES! I can guarantee after that event people would have been very careful about what they said. There would be no "I heard a rumour that..."

And then there was Stephen who testified to the High priest. it was no softly softly come to Jesus' sermon. He told them they were stubborn and had pagan hearts and ears. and they had become Jesus' betrayers and murderers. Not exactly a Billy Graham message. Result? They got infuriated just like homosexuals do when they hear the gospel. They rushed him in anger at the truth and sent him out of the city and stoned him to death. Doesn't seem to happen these days except if an Islamic jihadist gets a bee in his bonnet and decided to kill you.

An interesting verse in Acts 5 v 42 which says they preached every day, not met for meetings, in the Temple, and in private houses.

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.

A classic example of negative crticism.

 

[andy pandy]

Adding to my comment about female elders, I am reading a book "Early Christian "Writings" and in a letter from Clements to the church at Corinth he says this......

Your Elders were treated with the honour due to them (note not pastors); your young men were counseled to be sober and serious-minded; your womenfolk were bidden to go about their duties in irreproachable devotion and purity of conscience, showing all proper affection to their husbands; they were taught to make obedience the rule of their lives, to manage their households (not church) decorously and to be patterns of discretion in every way.

Does that sound like today's church??

 

[Cnkw3]

Yes there is a huge difference between a Sunday sermon and a lecture.

Very few sermons match the qualities of a college lecture, if one is preparing for service it is far better to go to college.

Who said anything about a Sunday sermon? Never heard of a Bible study?
I don’t think a theological lecture at liberty university is gonna do me any good when it comes to understanding the Bible. I could not even go Dallas Theo Seminary because I would never sign there false doctrine affirmation statement above.

 

[Cnkw3]

A classic example of negative crticism.

You do know I have agreed with about 75-80% of the stuff you have presented here right? For some reason you don’t care about that. You only see the disagreements. I guess if someone disagrees in a situation like this they should shut up and take it. I feel that’s exactly what I would get at a Bible college.

 

[andy pandy]

PASTORS

one of the biggest problems in the modern-day church is the practice of bringing professional leaders in from outside of the church to run the place. I will never understand this mainly because the scripture is very clear. The leaders were elders chosen from amongst the local congregation. Not once did any NTC put out feelers to see if there was someone from another church available to "pastor" the church. As such pastors were not leaders. Every verse in the NT that speaks of leaders speaks of apostles, prophets, and elders as leaders. There are 23 in all and a pastor is not mentioned once.

If you look at 1 Timothy 3, you will note the qualifications for Eldership. The only way anyone can know if the person involved is meeting those requirements is because they were already part of the fellowship.

I have been told that in defending a pastor, they are subject to a board. They may well be but they normally run the show and in too many cases they are the pastor, teacher, evangelist, apostle, and prophet (maybe). The rest of the congregation fills in the bits that are left. The pastor usually does 90% of the preaching. Not good. You can't have one man doing 90% of the preaching and the priesthood of all believers.

Outside pastors are dangerous. I took the trouble one day to read 243 adverts for pastors in a Christian magazine. Only three of them wanted a man of prayer. All the others wanted men who were experienced; could make things happen, and had a degree. In other words, they wanted someone who could run a business.

To know where things have gone wrong, in my little country there are 10,000 ex pastors, men who gave up because of the demands made on them. If you have a plurality of Elders, that does not happen. In all my years involved in the Brethren Chuch, I did not hear of one case of an elder resigning because of exhaustion and the demands of the job. In America, there are 60 pastors resigning every month.

I remember the case of a prestigious protestant church which was run by the founding pastor. He was undertstudied by another pastor. When the original pastor retired he handed over to the understudy and he found out being the top dog was an entirely different story. Within two years he had resigned and went off to manage a supermarket.

So what is the message? Ditch the paid pastors and appoint multiple Elders from within the congregation. That is God's way going back as far as the government of the children of Israel. When we do it God's way it always works. When we do it our way, anything can happen and does.

 

[andy pandy]

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

It is nothing unusual for the church to ignore scripture and put its own take on things. When I was writing for my Ph.D on the subject I spoke to several denominational leaders. I asked them if the scripture said this, why do you do this? Everyone gave the same answer. "Yes, but..." and then went on to say why they ignore scripture and do what they do. So in fact they were presenting the gospel according to the so and so denomination, not the gospel according to the word of God. I think this is one of the reasons why churches do not grow because what they have to offer is insufficient for what people need. We are called to pronounce the whole counsel of God. As that is an ongoing thing tying yourself into a statement of faith is limiting as it does not give God the opportunity to enact what he has yet to show you. As we are being changed from glory to glory, being a Christian is not a static thing so a statement of faith is pretty useless. As I said, most of the time it is used to keep people out, not draw people in.

For years and years, I believed everything I was taught about communion. I took part in it every Sunday and it became nothing more than a ritual. I have read all sorts of things about communion from the catholic transubstantiation to various mystical things that make it some sort of ethereal experience.

And then I found out the truth. For most people, everything revolves around the term "breaking of bread." That means coming together on Sunday morning to have a bit of bread and a sip of wine.

When I looked into it in depth I unravelled custom and meaning and found that it meant no such thing. To do this I had to look at the way of life of people in the Middle East. What I discovered was that in its common language, to talk about breaking of bread was to talk about having a meal.

For example, if I met you in the street and started chatting before we parted I might say. "Doing anything tomorrow evening? If not come and break bread with us?" That was not an invitation to come and eat a bit of bread and drink a sip of wine. It was in invitation to a full meal. If I served up "communion"they would think I was weird.

I read several books on this topic and they all said the same. Breaking bread is a meal. We have chosen to ignore this reality and put our own spin on it.

Acts 2 v 46/47 shows us what it is all about. In the Jerusalem Bible it says, They went as a body to the
Temple every day BUT met in their houses for the breaking of bread: they shared their FOOD gladly (not a sip of wine a piece of bread) and generously. (how can you share a sip of wine and a piece of bread?)

 

[andy pandy]

It is nothing unusual for the church to ignore scripture and put its own take on things. When I was writing for my Ph.D on the subject I spoke to several denominational leaders. I asked them if the scripture said this, why do you do this? Everyone gave the same answer. "Yes, but..." and then went on to say why they ignore scripture and do what they do. So in fact they were presenting the gospel according to the so and so denomination, not the gospel according to the word of God. I think this is one of the reasons why churches do not grow because what they have to offer is insufficient for what people need. We are called to pronounce the whole counsel of God. As that is an ongoing thing tying yourself into a statement of faith is limiting as it does not give God the opportunity to enact what he has yet to show you. As we are being changed from glory to glory, being a Christian is not a static thing so a statement of faith is pretty useless. As I said, most of the time it is used to keep people out, not draw people in.

For years and years, I believed everything I was taught about communion. I took part in it every Sunday and it became nothing more than a ritual. I have read all sorts of things about communion from the catholic transubstantiation to various mystical things that make it some sort of ethereal experience.

And then I found out the truth. For most people, everything revolves around the term "breaking of bread." That means coming together on Sunday morning to have a bit of bread and a sip of wine.

When I looked into it in depth I unravelled custom and meaning and found that it meant no such thing. To do this I had to look at the way of life of people in the Middle East. What I discovered was that in its common language, to talk about breaking of bread was to talk about having a meal.

For example, if I met you in the street and started chatting before we parted I might say. "Doing anything tomorrow evening? If not come and break bread with us?" That was not an invitation to come and eat a bit of bread and drink a sip of wine. It was in invitation to a full meal. If I served up "communion"they would think I was weird.

I read several books on this topic and they all said the same. Breaking bread is a meal. We have chosen to ignore this reality and put our own spin on it.

Acts 2 v 46/47 shows us what it is all about. In the Jerusalem Bible it says, They went as a body to the
Temple every day BUT met in their houses for the breaking of bread: they shared their FOOD gladly (not a sip of wine a piece of bread) and generously. (how can you share a sip of wine and a piece of bread generously?)

 

[andy pandy]

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

It is nothing unusual for the church to ignore scripture and put its own take on things. When I was writing for my Ph.D on the subject I spoke to several denominational leaders. I asked them if the scripture said this, why do you do this? Everyone gave the same answer. "Yes, but..." and then went on to say why they ignore scripture and do what they do. So in fact they were presenting the gospel according to the so and so denomination, not the gospel according to the word of God. I think this is one of the reasons why churches do not grow because what they have to offer is insufficient for what people need. We are called to pronounce the whole counsel of God. As that is an ongoing thing tying yourself into a statement of faith is limiting as it does not give God the opportunity to enact what he has yet to show you. As we are being changed from glory to glory, being a Christian is not a static thing so a statement of faith is pretty useless. As I said, most of the time it is used to keep people out, not draw people in.

For years and years, I believed everything I was taught about communion. I took part in it every Sunday and it became nothing more than a ritual. I have read all sorts of things about communion from the catholic transubstantiation to various mystical things that make it some sort of ethereal experience.

And then I found out the truth. For most people, everything revolves around the term "breaking of bread." That means coming together on Sunday morning to have a bit of bread and a sip of wine.

When I looked into it in depth I unravelled custom and meaning and found that it meant no such thing. To do this I had to look at the way of life of people in the Middle East. What I discovered was that in its common language, to talk about breaking of bread was to talk about having a meal.

For example, if I met you in the street and started chatting before we parted I might say. "Doing anything tomorrow evening? If not come and break bread with us?" That was not an invitation to come and eat a bit of bread and drink a sip of wine. It was in invitation to a full meal. If I served up "communion"they would think I was weird.

I read several books on this topic and they all said the same. Breaking bread is a meal. We have chosen to ignore this reality and put our own spin on it.

Acts 2 v 46/47 shows us what it is all about. In the Jerusalem Bible it says, They went as a body to the
Temple every day BUT met in their houses for the breaking of bread: they shared their FOOD gladly (not a sip of wine a piece of bread) and generously. (how can you share a sip of wine and a piece of bread generously?)

Of course, I realise that the Corinthian passage is quoted as justification for "holy communion." If you want to ignore the context, sure. But if you deal with it in context, no. As they say a text without a context is a pretext. So what is the context?

For most people, 1 Corinthians starts at verse 23. The previous verses are irrelevant. But they are very important because they set out the context. And what is that? v29 says that when you hold meetings IT IS NOT the Lord's
Supper that you are eating. Since when the time comes to eat (not have a sip of wine or piece of bread), everyone is in such a hurry to start his own supper (agape meal not holy communion????) one person goes hungry and another gets drunk. Tell me how can you be filled with a bit of bread and get drunk on a sip of wine?

The agape meal was one where everyone contributed to make sure those that were without could join together in a meal. Bringing food and eating it and ignoring the poor people was an embarrassment that denied the purpose of the meal.

Paul's dissertation from verse 23, he was describing the Passover meal, not a sip of wine or piece of bread event. during which bread was eaten and wine drunk. Note he took the cup after SUPPER,

And in verse 33, he says "So to sum up my dear brothers, when you meet for the (agape) meal, wait for one another. A sip of wine and a piece of bread would not be considered a meal. Anyone who is hungry should eat at home...If people were hungry I doubt that they would come out for a sip of wine and a piece of bread

When you put everything in context, you can see that claiming this to be holy communion is about as convincing as a partridge in a pear tree.

 

[for_his_glory]

John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

The Pharisees and Sadducees were followers of a certain heretical, which departs from established beliefs or standards. They were the elite of Jewish society. They were priest, merchants and aristocrats. They supported the Roman authorities because they enjoyed a privileged status under Roman rule. They were loyal to the Law of Moses insisting that any other interpretation of the law could not be trusted. They did not believe in what Jesus was teaching, because it came against their interpretations. They did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (Mark 12:18 - 27; 1 Corinthians 15:35 - 58) and this is why they came against Jesus and had Him crucified and tried to persecuted those of the NT church first established on the day of Pentecost. The new Christians feared them and had to keep their gatherings a secret meeting in each other homes behind locked doors, or in caves, fields or wherever they could hide themselves from Roman authorities. I watched a documentary one time where they would make coded signs on stones in the street to show where they were gathering.

Nicodemus, Joseph of Aremathaea (Luke 23:50- 53), and Gamaliel (Acts 5:34- 39) were three Pharisees that believed in Christ, but had to hide it for fear of going against the sect. Paul also was a Pharisee that persecuted Christians to death for the sake of the sect (Acts 22).

 

[for_his_glory]

In today's church life and practice, there is a need for things like bible college as most churches do not teach.

Sorry, but I can't agree with this. When I became a licensed Evangelist for God's time and purpose of doing prison ministry I had to take a teacher training course that was provided by the state to those who were accepting this calling of God, as my Pastor at the time who had no Bible college degree would pick out certain ones in whom he knew had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Biblical knowledge and felt that we would be good leaders and teachers of the word of God. He instructed us to pray and seek God to know for a surety that it was He that was calling us into the ministry.

The first Bible College was first established in 1882 in New York City here in America, another one in 1840 in the UK. Now think about this, did the Prophets or Apostles attend any type of Bible college before they were sent out to peach the word of God, did they need a College degree, no, they were taught by God in the OT and by Jesus in the NT and nothing has changed as we are ordained by God, not man, to take His word out into the world.

I was going to enroll in a Bible college at one time and was checking out the criteria and you talk about being strick and conforming to their unbiblical policies producing robots instead of Biblical scholars this was God telling me there is no such thing as a Bible college, but that our learning only comes by His Holy Spirit. A college can only book learn you, but it's only the Holy Spirit that teaches all Spiritual truths.

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

[for_his_glory]

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.

Amen

 

[Cnkw3]

For years and years, I believed everything I was taught about communion. I took part in it every Sunday and it became nothing more than a ritual. I have read all sorts of things about communion from the catholic transubstantiation to various mystical things that make it some sort of ethereal experience.

And then I found out the truth. For most people, everything revolves around the term "breaking of bread." That means coming together on Sunday morning to have a bit of bread and a sip of wine.

When I looked into it in depth I unravelled custom and meaning and found that it meant no such thing. To do this I had to look at the way of life of people in the Middle East. What I discovered was that in its common language, to talk about breaking of bread was to talk about having a meal.

I disagree with this and I’m about to give you a Bible based piece of extremely constructive criticism.
Why does the church take a bite of bread and a drink of fruit of the vine?
Because that’s what Jesus did!!!
When Jesus instituted the Lords supper it was for a memorial. It was not meant to be a feast. It’s not about the food! A piece of unleavened bread is to remind us of his body that hung on the cross. A sip of grape juice is to remind us of the blood he shed. It does not have to be a whole meal to bring about a solemn remembrance.

Lk 22:17-20 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
The key here is the phrase....”after the supper”. It seems, by the text, that Jesus did this at the end of the meal, as they were finishing.

Mk 14:22-24 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it. This should confirm that this was something separate from the meal they were eating. Because, do you think he waited until mid meal or after to bless the food? No! This would have been a totally separate blessing then the one I’m sure he said before they began eating.

Mt 26:26-28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

There is nothing in the text that indicates that the memorial Jesus instituted was to be a whole meal. It is just that....A memorial! It’s not a time for you to fill your stomach.
So why do we do it the way we do? Because that’s what Jesus did. If it was good enough for him it’s good enough for me.

 

[Who Me]

Who said anything about a Sunday sermon? Never heard of a Bible study?
I don’t think a theological lecture at liberty university is gonna do me any good when it comes to understanding the Bible. I could not even go Dallas Theo Seminary because I would never sign there false doctrine affirmation statement above.

Surmon, bible study a total of maybe two forty minute surmons and a thirty minute bible study compared to a wee of full time lectures.

I have not named any colledges, that would be the choice of the student, together with his/her sending church.

 

[andy pandy]

Sorry, but I can't agree with this. When I became a licensed Evangelist for God's time and purpose of doing prison ministry I had to take a teacher training course that was provided by the state to those who were accepting this calling of God, as my Pastor at the time who had no Bible college degree would pick out certain ones in whom he knew had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Biblical knowledge and felt that we would be good leaders and teachers of the word of God. He instructed us to pray and seek God to know for a surety that it was He that was calling us into the ministry.

The first Bible College was first established in 1882 in New York City here in America, another one in 1840 in the UK. Now think about this, did the Prophets or Apostles attend any type of Bible college before they were sent out to peach the word of God, did they need a College degree, no, they were taught by God in the OT and by Jesus in the NT and nothing has changed as we are ordained by God, not man, to take His word out into the world.

I was going to enroll in a Bible college at one time and was checking out the criteria and you talk about being strick and conforming to their unbiblical policies producing robots instead of Biblical scholars this was God telling me there is no such thing as a Bible college, but that our learning only comes by His Holy Spirit. A college can only book learn you, but it's only the Holy Spirit that teaches all Spiritual truths.

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I never asked you to agree with me. In fact, so far all you have done is pick holes in what I have said so agreement is out of the question.

 

[Cnkw3]

Have fun with your man made substitue for the real thing.

So you think the “real thing” is you sitting down with a few others and filling your stomach up?

 

[andy pandy]

John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

The Pharisees and Sadducees were followers of a certain heretical, which departs from established beliefs or standards. They were the elite of Jewish society. They were priest, merchants and aristocrats. They supported the Roman authorities because they enjoyed a privileged status under Roman rule. They were loyal to the Law of Moses insisting that any other interpretation of the law could not be trusted. They did not believe in what Jesus was teaching, because it came against their interpretations. They did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (Mark 12:18 - 27; 1 Corinthians 15:35 - 58) and this is why they came against Jesus and had Him crucified and tried to persecuted those of the NT church first established on the day of Pentecost. The new Christians feared them and had to keep their gatherings a secret meeting in each other homes behind locked doors, or in caves, fields or wherever they could hide themselves from Roman authorities. I watched a documentary one time where they would make coded signs on stones in the street to show where they were gathering.

Nicodemus, Joseph of Aremathaea (Luke 23:50- 53), and Gamaliel (Acts 5:34- 39) were three Pharisees that believed in Christ, but had to hide it for fear of going against the sect. Paul also was a Pharisee that persecuted Christians to death for the sake of the sect (Acts 22).

Relevance to the topic?

 

[Cnkw3]

Isn't sarcasm a violation of the ToS?

There was no sarcasm in that post. It was a genuine question in response to your false position with the lords supper.