Should Christians go from Church to Church?

[Cornelius]

Well, I have just been fellowshipping with some brethren of the church in Pretoria, who meet in the house of Johan and Linda. Some of the other brothers and sisters of the church in Pretoria, meet in other homes all over the city. However, we are all THE church, part of the called out ones. There is only one church and it has no other name but :The Body of Christ.

So we send you all our love and greetings, from this side of the globe. One body, one church.

C

 

[mutzrein]

Well, I have just been fellowshipping with some brethren of the church in Pretoria, who meet in the house of Johan and Linda. Some of the other brothers and sisters of the church in Pretoria, meet in other homes all over the city. However, we are all THE church, part of the called out ones. There is only one church and it has no other name but :The Body of Christ.

So we send you all our love and greetings, from this side of the globe. One body, one church.

C

Praise God Cornelius! I love to hear of other members of the Body of Christ who gather for fellowship - especially in their homes. You know it thrills me somehow even thinking about it. We are indeed one in Christ no matter where we meet. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is unity.

My love and greetings is also extended to others in Christ from 'down-under' - in little old NZ - the home of the All Blacks! ;)

 

[Adullam]

Adullam is correct. The Biblical church has always been identified by the city in which it is.

There is an assumption that each "church" shares one faith, one baptism, and one Lord. They share in one Eucharist. According to your and Adullam's line of thought, there is only one church in each city. However, we all know there are many "churches" in each of these cities, some identified with Mithra, some with some other cult, some with Emperor cults, some with miscellaneous Greek gods. Furthermore, it is certain that there were OTHER people who did not consider themselves of the same "church" that Paul originated in Corinth and Ephesus. We know there were Judaizers and Gnostics who were a "church" of their own. Christianity was rarely monolithic.

By definition, a "church" (religious sense) is a body of believers who have the same beliefs. We know that there were more than one "church" in each of these cities, in this sense. Thus, this attempt to say the church is "identified by a city" is fallacy, since it ALREADY PRESUMES that the writers are writing to THE CHURCH identified with the community Paul had formed, not some other community.

Clearly, Paul is not identifying church solely by geographic location. He is writing to the same one Church, geographically separated, but sharing in the SAME loaf and the SAME Spirit.

The church in Jerusalem, or the church in Ephesus .Never the Baptists or Catholics, or Pentecostals etc.

So I am writing to you from the church in Pretoria.

As per my explanation, you would be correct in saying "I am writing to you from A church in Pretoria". Not necessarily THE Church. THE Church is identified by a visible community. Paul writes to real people who he can point to and teach and urge on. Not some invisible body that is only known by God.

clearly, Paul does not write to "baptists or pentacostals" or, "judaizers, gnostics, essenes, or adherents of mithra". Just catholics.

Regards

The use of the word catholic here can mean different things. The word universal can mean different things as well.

The fact remains, that in the days of Paul's writings (back when cardinals were still just birds) there were no ecclesiastical hierarchies nor institutions muddying the waters. These institutions were still the enemy of the brethren (as they still are albeit posing very cleverly themselves as a gathering of the brethren in our time; a strong delusion indeed!)
There were just simple home groups of disciples. This was the church. Nothing to boast about. In my understanding the subversion of the simplicity which is in Christ towards the well-known churchianity of Christendom is an historic fact. There has been a 180 degree pole shift which disqualifies these replacing systems from being truly the church; by leading people away from what the very meaning of what ecclesia( which means to be called out) is supposed to be. We are to come out of the systems of the world...not create a new one (or new myriads of systems). All denominations (including the RC sect) are subversions of what church is meant to be....the community of the saints; an outpost of heaven on earth. The church is to be the environment of those who are being conformed to Christ and this on a daily basis....or it is not really the church.

There is a divine unity among all who have been crucified with Christ. There are no territorial or denominational disputes here. The simple household ecclesia PREDATE all other "forms" of churches. So if we read the bible we should see that there is only ONE church. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. There is no such thing as clergy or church properties. The church is not a tax deductible non-prophet organization! (pun intended)

The church is based on love of God and the brethren. The church is an agape training center.

Try to find any groups that meet the biblical criteria for church nowadays. These are as few in number as in Paul's time. Nothing has really changed.

Greetings to all from the church in Montreal.

 

[Cornelius]

My love and greetings is also extended to others in Christ from 'down-under' - in little old NZ - the home of the All Blacks! ;)

Greetings to all from the church in Montreal.

I will indeed take your greetings to your brothers and sisters here. The church is doing well here and last night God spoke to us again about community. We are taking our fellowship into deeper waters, where we will meet more outside of Bible study. The people have a need to get involved with each other. Something started happening last night as we talked about it. God set two people free from old bondages.Nobody prayed for them, they just each had a private relevelation. One about being religious and the other about forgiveness.

This was the scripture given to us by the Lord ;

Psa 133:1 A Song of Ascents; of David. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity!
Psa 133:2 It is like the precious oil upon the head, That ran down upon the beard, Even Aaron's beard; That came down upon the skirt of his garments;
Psa 133:3 Like the dew of Hermon, That cometh down upon the mountains of Zion: For there Jehovah commanded the blessing, Even life for evermore.

John, you were mentioned and Kathryn and Jack sends their love and greetings to you . We have been blessed by you introducing us all the way from Montreal !

We pray for you all, that the Lord will indeed strengthen your faith that is ever growing.

We love you in our Lord Jesus
Cornelius

 

[mutzrein]

Cornelius - may I ask about your meeting in homes. Do you also attend formal 'church' meetings or have you made a conscious decision to be separate from that institution?

I'd love to hear from anyone else who attend house meetings also.

Blessings / Ed

 

[Cornelius]

I do not attend the meetings in the denominations anymore. I have been a Christian for 30 years now and 15 of them was spent in the denominations. Later years, my hunger for truth was not being satisfied by the institutions, so I prayed about it and God took me on a road that led me "outside the camp" . For a while I thought I was alone, but then I found the real church in full operation there . They all left the denominational system and are now just gathering all around in houses.

There are ex-Catholics, ex-Baptists, ex-Charismatics, ex-Full Gospel , plus many more. Funny thing is that one never seem to speak about what denomination we came out of. I have no idea, where the people in our fellowship came from, other than the few that have just mentioned it. I really do no even care. We just meet around the Word.

We break break and share wine when we meet, as they did in the times of the Apostles. Then everybody shares a word or there is a teaching if the Lord wants to.We have dreams and visions and God gives the interpretations. We have prophetic words , prayer for the sick and we see miracles happen, because the God follows the Gospel with signs and wonders.

Some people come only once and because we really stick to the Word, they do not come again. We do not break down anybody by name, we care not for gossip, we avoid the "us and them" we judge not those who are without and we share our possessions with those in the group who are battling financially.

Our focus is on Christ and Christ in His body. We believe Gal 2:20 fully and encourage each other to confess it and to walk it out in faith. So too 2 Cor3:18 . That allows us to be weak , so that God can move and transform the believer into the image of Christ. When people have realized this, the power of God stepped in and we see miracles.

C

 

[Cornelius]

I must add, that in the few years that we have been doing this, no money has changed hands in salaries because none was asked.We each contribute money for the printing of a book, that we give out for free again. The whole group participated in translating the book into our language (Afrikaans). We also supply CD's and DVD's for free throughout Africa, when somebody asks for material. We are functioning as a unit and God is bringing that to pass by HIS power. I am just amazed at what He has done in some of the lives in our group. When the Word is preached with no denominational slant, then God moves sovereignly and His work is truly lasting and it sets people free.

 

[Adullam]

Cornelius - may I ask about your meeting in homes. Do you also attend formal 'church' meetings or have you made a conscious decision to be separate from that institution?

I'd love to hear from anyone else who attend house meetings also.

Blessings / Ed

The Lord called us outside the institutional camp 20 years ago in order to break bread from house to house in simplicity. The first one to break bread with us was the pastor of the church we had been attending. He blessed us...and soon left the system as well.

It is only in close community that we have seen the fulfillment of what church is supposed to be. We have learned many things along the way...such as the danger of having idols. A church group can become an idol as well. We learn and grow from our mistakes. I am baffled that more believers in Jesus don't take the commands of Jesus seriously any more. One needs to be free from bondage and idols to see clearly.

Maranatha!

PS: God bless you together with the church that is growing in your midst Cornelius!

 

[francisdesales]

The fact remains, that in the days of Paul's writings (back when cardinals were still just birds) there were no ecclesiastical hierarchies nor institutions muddying the waters. These institutions were still the enemy of the brethren (as they still are albeit posing very cleverly themselves as a gathering of the brethren in our time; a strong delusion indeed!)

Perhaps you have read the Pastorals??? Maybe the catholic epistles, the ones following Hebrews in the New Testament??? I see "hierarchies" and "institution" all over. Maybe you should move beyond chapter 1-5 of Acts? The fact remains, my brother, that even in Sacred Scriptures, the Church found it necessary to organize itself into a monoarchial hierarchy for the purpose of defending the true faith in the face of false teachings. That is historical fact. The days of little independent house churches was relegated to the first few years of Christianity and came to a quick end within the time related in Sacred Scriptures. Subsequent writings reveal this development continued, even before Christianity became an accepted and allowed religion within the realm.

In my understanding the subversion of the simplicity which is in Christ towards the well-known churchianity of Christendom is an historic fact. There has been a 180 degree pole shift which disqualifies these replacing systems from being truly the church; by leading people away from what the very meaning of what ecclesia( which means to be called out) is supposed to be.

The institutional church does not keep people from being called out, as you seem to insinuate. While the institutional church has its own wrinkles, it continues to defend the deposit of the faith once given to the saints. Really, does the idea of house "churches" uphold the concept of "one faith"??? Hardly. House churches, no doubt, successfully teach the basic gospel and promote the spirituality of their small community. However, the institutional church does this on a bigger scale. It is incumbent upon the individual to take advantage of what is offered. The larger church offers small faith communities, as well. The issue is not the institution, but the people who want to be spoon-fed, or are just interested in membership, rather than advancing their spirituality.

We are to come out of the systems of the world...not create a new one (or new myriads of systems).

???

The church is not a system of the world!!! If you charecterize "things of the world" with human beings, people, then little house churches are also "a system of the world". However, Scriptures clearly tell us that "things of the world" are things that pull us from God, a life of sin. Not organizations. Institutions THEMSELVES do not pull us from God! That is a ridiculous assertion. What happens, in my opinion, is the people become complacent and accept the institutions "minimum acceptable standards" as the norm, thinking they have done enough. Thus, a person puts a few bucks in the collection plate, shows up at Sunday worship, and they are "good with God". We are taught, for example, that we must receive the Lord in communion at least once a year. Obviously, the Church tells us we OUGHT to come MORE often! The institution does not support that attitude of doing the minimum - men write about such things all the time from within the institution. However, many people do not take their faith seriously, and I do not think this is a "work" of the institution. That there are lukewarm people within the 'institution' does not mean the institution itself is the problem...

Did Jesus condemn the Church organization per sec, in Revelation? No, it was the people themselves, not the heirarchial setup of presbyters and bishops and deacons...

All denominations (including the RC sect) are subversions of what church is meant to be....the community of the saints; an outpost of heaven on earth. The church is to be the environment of those who are being conformed to Christ and this on a daily basis....or it is not really the church.

What exactly, according to you, is the Church MEANT to be, HERE? What does Ephesians say about the bride being presented SPOTLESS? When will this happen? Today? No. The Church will be presented as a spotless bride, but not in this world. I understand your desire for a perfect church in the here-and-now, but it isn't going to happen, whether house churches or institutional churches. This is a fantasy of the "church of one" crowds. Clearly, Christ teaches us parables that shoot this idea down, if such bother to read and heed. Parables of the wheat and tares, the catch of fish. GOD will separate out the "bad fish" at the end of time. NOWHERE do I find any discussion about MEN going into the "field" to separate the wheat from the tares, for example. Nor does it say anything about men moving to another field to "do it without the weeds"...

Thus, it is misplaced feelings that make people decide to leave the institutional church to start up their own "church" so as to invent a perfect church in the here-and-now. You want reform, then reform the church, not start another...

There is a divine unity among all who have been crucified with Christ. There are no territorial or denominational disputes here. The simple household ecclesia PREDATE all other "forms" of churches.

But Scriptures do not hold this model for emulation, my brother. Scripture merely relates that past model. Whether it was Abraham or whether it was the first apostles, how long did this model remain in existence, this "house church"??? Even from the viewpoint of Scriptures, they were a thing of the past. When "Luke" wrote Acts, the days of such "house churches" he describes in Acts 3 were things of the past. Same with "Moses" relating Abraham's "house church". They were not CURRENT models any longer. And yet, these men felt that the current model continued to be the Will of God (or they wouldn't have written for the institutional church of the time).

No, it is clear that God calls people into a larger and larger community. Whether OT or NT, we see a development of a move away from the "house church". The current move BACK to the house church is a de-evolution of God's plan laid out in Scriptures. To me, it is a lack of trust in the ways of God, who clearly desires man to congregate as a larger community. It is the concept that "I know better than everyone else, thus, I must invent my own church".

So if we read the bible we should see that there is only ONE church. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. There is no such thing as clergy or church properties. The church is not a tax deductible non-prophet organization! (pun intended)

If you read your bible, you'll see there is only one visible church, and those who claim to be "in Christ", such as Judaizers and Gnostics, had different faiths and were not considered part of the One Church, that had one faith. The idea of "Jew or Greek", etc, is taken out of context, since the Church, those called out, prior to the Incarnation, were strictly Jews. Now, Christ has broken down that wall, and everyone has access to membership. A person doesn't need to be Jew, and thus, the term, catholic.

The Church clearly continues to be blessed with prophets from God, if you are aware of the meaning of what a prophet is - someone who calls people back to God. I think it is beyond debate that a leader of a large institution has the power and ability to call people back to God - and we see many examples of such leaders. Thus, your view of the Church clearly is in need of some reflection.

The church is based on love of God and the brethren. The church is an agape training center.

Yes, we teach people all of that from within the institution, as well. Again, not sure of your point. You clearly present an invented false dichotomy.

Try to find any groups that meet the biblical criteria for church nowadays. These are as few in number as in Paul's time. Nothing has really changed.

You mean share in the Eucharist? Yes, the Bible talks about those who did not believe or share in the one Bread. They were not considered part of the Church community, even though they may have proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah in their own way. Again, I urge you to read Scriptures with the eye of a church historian and see for yourself how the community galvanized itself as it defended its understanding of the faith once given to the saints.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

The Lord called us outside the institutional camp 20 years ago in order to break bread from house to house in simplicity. The first one to break bread with us was the pastor of the church we had been attending. He blessed us...and soon left the system as well.

It is only in close community that we have seen the fulfillment of what church is supposed to be. We have learned many things along the way...such as the danger of having idols. A church group can become an idol as well. We learn and grow from our mistakes. I am baffled that more believers in Jesus don't take the commands of Jesus seriously any more. One needs to be free from bondage and idols to see clearly.

Maranatha!

PS: God bless you together with the church that is growing in your midst Cornelius!

Amen brother. Yes its amazing how the Lord is speaking with one voice from Montreal to Pretoria ! I was thinking we should go and break bread with some of the other house churches . I know of quite a few.

The other day I was listening to a message from the church in Pensacola and they were saying things that were 100% in line with what God was saying to us ! The message was about the involvement of the body in the meetings. We needed to not fall back into the Nicolaitan error of the clergy leading, but we had to involve the whole Body of Christ. Since then, the people have been growing more rapidly. In our fellowship we have not had a "leader" but the people are so use to sitting down and being "fed" by a "pastor" that they simply want to go back to that. As soon as somebody brings a teaching, they think they have found they leader LOL. We are careful not to let that happen. Old habits !

Talking to you and our other brothers in the church all over the world , is such a blessing.

Cornelius

 

[Adullam]

The fact remains, that in the days of Paul's writings (back when cardinals were still just birds) there were no ecclesiastical hierarchies nor institutions muddying the waters. These institutions were still the enemy of the brethren (as they still are albeit posing very cleverly themselves as a gathering of the brethren in our time; a strong delusion indeed!)

Perhaps you have read the Pastorals??? Maybe the catholic epistles, the ones following Hebrews in the New Testament??? I see "hierarchies" and "institution" all over. Maybe you should move beyond chapter 1-5 of Acts? The fact remains, my brother, that even in Sacred Scriptures, the Church found it necessary to organize itself into a monoarchial hierarchy for the purpose of defending the true faith in the face of false teachings. That is historical fact. The days of little independent house churches was relegated to the first few years of Christianity and came to a quick end within the time related in Sacred Scriptures. Subsequent writings reveal this development continued, even before Christianity became an accepted and allowed religion within the realm.

In my understanding the subversion of the simplicity which is in Christ towards the well-known churchianity of Christendom is an historic fact. There has been a 180 degree pole shift which disqualifies these replacing systems from being truly the church; by leading people away from what the very meaning of what ecclesia( which means to be called out) is supposed to be.

The institutional church does not keep people from being called out, as you seem to insinuate. While the institutional church has its own wrinkles, it continues to defend the deposit of the faith once given to the saints. Really, does the idea of house "churches" uphold the concept of "one faith"??? Hardly. House churches, no doubt, successfully teach the basic gospel and promote the spirituality of their small community. However, the institutional church does this on a bigger scale. It is incumbent upon the individual to take advantage of what is offered. The larger church offers small faith communities, as well. The issue is not the institution, but the people who want to be spoon-fed, or are just interested in membership, rather than advancing their spirituality.

We are to come out of the systems of the world...not create a new one (or new myriads of systems).

???

The church is not a system of the world!!! If you charecterize "things of the world" with human beings, people, then little house churches are also "a system of the world". However, Scriptures clearly tell us that "things of the world" are things that pull us from God, a life of sin. Not organizations. Institutions THEMSELVES do not pull us from God! That is a ridiculous assertion. What happens, in my opinion, is the people become complacent and accept the institutions "minimum acceptable standards" as the norm, thinking they have done enough. Thus, a person puts a few bucks in the collection plate, shows up at Sunday worship, and they are "good with God". We are taught, for example, that we must receive the Lord in communion at least once a year. Obviously, the Church tells us we OUGHT to come MORE often! The institution does not support that attitude of doing the minimum - men write about such things all the time from within the institution. However, many people do not take their faith seriously, and I do not think this is a "work" of the institution. That there are lukewarm people within the 'institution' does not mean the institution itself is the problem...

Did Jesus condemn the Church organization per sec, in Revelation? No, it was the people themselves, not the heirarchial setup of presbyters and bishops and deacons...

All denominations (including the RC sect) are subversions of what church is meant to be....the community of the saints; an outpost of heaven on earth. The church is to be the environment of those who are being conformed to Christ and this on a daily basis....or it is not really the church.

What exactly, according to you, is the Church MEANT to be, HERE? What does Ephesians say about the bride being presented SPOTLESS? When will this happen? Today? No. The Church will be presented as a spotless bride, but not in this world. I understand your desire for a perfect church in the here-and-now, but it isn't going to happen, whether house churches or institutional churches. This is a fantasy of the "church of one" crowds. Clearly, Christ teaches us parables that shoot this idea down, if such bother to read and heed. Parables of the wheat and tares, the catch of fish. GOD will separate out the "bad fish" at the end of time. NOWHERE do I find any discussion about MEN going into the "field" to separate the wheat from the tares, for example. Nor does it say anything about men moving to another field to "do it without the weeds"...

Thus, it is misplaced feelings that make people decide to leave the institutional church to start up their own "church" so as to invent a perfect church in the here-and-now. You want reform, then reform the church, not start another...

There is a divine unity among all who have been crucified with Christ. There are no territorial or denominational disputes here. The simple household ecclesia PREDATE all other "forms" of churches.

But Scriptures do not hold this model for emulation, my brother. Scripture merely relates that past model. Whether it was Abraham or whether it was the first apostles, how long did this model remain in existence, this "house church"??? Even from the viewpoint of Scriptures, they were a thing of the past. When "Luke" wrote Acts, the days of such "house churches" he describes in Acts 3 were things of the past. Same with "Moses" relating Abraham's "house church". They were not CURRENT models any longer. And yet, these men felt that the current model continued to be the Will of God (or they wouldn't have written for the institutional church of the time).

No, it is clear that God calls people into a larger and larger community. Whether OT or NT, we see a development of a move away from the "house church". The current move BACK to the house church is a de-evolution of God's plan laid out in Scriptures. To me, it is a lack of trust in the ways of God, who clearly desires man to congregate as a larger community. It is the concept that "I know better than everyone else, thus, I must invent my own church".

So if we read the bible we should see that there is only ONE church. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. There is no such thing as clergy or church properties. The church is not a tax deductible non-prophet organization! (pun intended)

If you read your bible, you'll see there is only one visible church, and those who claim to be "in Christ", such as Judaizers and Gnostics, had different faiths and were not considered part of the One Church, that had one faith. The idea of "Jew or Greek", etc, is taken out of context, since the Church, those called out, prior to the Incarnation, were strictly Jews. Now, Christ has broken down that wall, and everyone has access to membership. A person doesn't need to be Jew, and thus, the term, catholic.

The Church clearly continues to be blessed with prophets from God, if you are aware of the meaning of what a prophet is - someone who calls people back to God. I think it is beyond debate that a leader of a large institution has the power and ability to call people back to God - and we see many examples of such leaders. Thus, your view of the Church clearly is in need of some reflection.

The church is based on love of God and the brethren. The church is an agape training center.

Yes, we teach people all of that from within the institution, as well. Again, not sure of your point. You clearly present an invented false dichotomy.

Try to find any groups that meet the biblical criteria for church nowadays. These are as few in number as in Paul's time. Nothing has really changed.

You mean share in the Eucharist? Yes, the Bible talks about those who did not believe or share in the one Bread. They were not considered part of the Church community, even though they may have proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah in their own way. Again, I urge you to read Scriptures with the eye of a church historian and see for yourself how the community galvanized itself as it defended its understanding of the faith once given to the saints.

Regards

Thanks for your response Francis!

I respect the position of an earnest catholic more than an evangelical in many cases. Too much apostolic doctrine has been thrown out, in my view, in the quest of a personal salvation.

There is quite a big gulf between us from the praxis point of view, however. My viewpoint stems from both the word and experience. I realize that there are charismatics among catholics as well as special retreats called "cursios" (?) This is very promising.

What I am talking about involves the scale and intensity of our calling to be the church (not simply attend a mass or service) every day. This lines up with our calling to be disciples every day. The words of Jesus cannot be moved...no matter how big a church becomes. I don't believe that we are called to be large groups. Jesus said "where 2 or 3 are gathered". You will not find this principle of the kingdom being trumped anywhere in the bible. In fact, most institutions are coming to realize the necessity of small groups for their very survival. The RC denomination has been slower on this realization, and consequently their numbers are dwindling at a ferocious pace.

But the RC organization has things to share in spite of the idolatry and superstitions that are more commonly associated with it. For one...the RC church displays a reverence and piety which I find lacking in the protestant sects.

The goal of all Christians should be to follow Christ and be transformed into His image through the saintly grace of the indwelling Spirit. We should not argue over partisan structures that may or may not suit our particular needs. These needs will change and be obliterated in eternity at any rate. Our unity must come from the unity of the experience of the cross of Christ, and with it, the loss of all things. This loss as well as our common life in the divine life of Christ should suffice to make us one.

My personal difficulty (as well as a difficulty I see according the spiritual nature of Christ) is with the lack of desire for things of heaven among we modern believers. Where are the Pauls in our time? Rituals do not transform people....church life does. Traditions don't cause people to grow...but community in the Spirit does.

There are no ready -made formulas that work. No sect is right. We must be pilgrims on a journey to full agape in Christ. This is both rare and precious in the eyes of our Lord. We need not walk alone...as there are others who will be partners and fellow-sojourners together with us. We become as a band of disciples seeking His will. This has always been. It is a history that is not covered in any book. This quest is always pursued away from the limelight. Many organizations claim an exclusivity on this upward calling....but the truth defies any from holding, understanding, or possessing this calling in exclusivity. We should grow up in the faith and leave the things of God to God. He is after all on His own side. Would that we join Him rather than seeking to recruit Him to our own cause.

We seek the fellowship of the Holy Spirit with God and men, This is a world away from having a denominational tie of any kind. We must grow out of whatever institution we may have begun in. We must be joined to Christ OUTSIDE the camp. We are the ecclesia after all. There we will find our fellow pilgrims with whom we can share this earthly walk of faith.

Peace to you and grace in our Lord Jesus Christ,

John

 

[francisdesales]

There is quite a big gulf between us from the praxis point of view, however. My viewpoint stems from both the word and experience. I realize that there are charismatics among catholics as well as special retreats called "cursios" (?) This is very promising.

There are a number of people who happen to be part of an institutional church, say catholic or lutheran, who take their faith seriously and there is no "gulf" that exists between the institutional participant or the small faith group you belong to. I do agree that one's faith is strengthened by such revivals and retreats, such as the cursio, which I have done.

What I am talking about involves the scale and intensity of our calling to be the church (not simply attend a mass or service) every day. This lines up with our calling to be disciples every day.

Naturally, "we" teach the same thing. Just last night, we began the first of our RCIA meetings, and that is what I focus on - making our lives become interwoven with our faith. I make it a point to ensure they know that dogmas and such are just knowledge unless they have meanings in our everyday life. We are all called to live out our faith, and I still do not see how an "institution" would necessarily hinder people, although I can see where people can be more lukewarm, since people can become a small fish in the pond and can go largely unnoticed. It is up to the person to "group" or fellowship in some capacity. Certainly, the institutional church cannot demand such a thing, but can only offer suggestions on how to improve one's walk, if they are willing to take the steps...

The words of Jesus cannot be moved...no matter how big a church becomes. I don't believe that we are called to be large groups. Jesus said "where 2 or 3 are gathered". You will not find this principle of the kingdom being trumped anywhere in the bible. In fact, most institutions are coming to realize the necessity of small groups for their very survival. The RC denomination has been slower on this realization, and consequently their numbers are dwindling at a ferocious pace.

We will have to agree to disagree, regarding the bible's story of ever-enlarging communities that God calls His people into. Both OT and NT. The house church is just not the model we see in the later writings in either Testament. While Jesus says "where two or more are gathered", note He also says particular people (apostles) had the power to bind and loosen, which leads one to believe that the Church was indeed monarchial to some degree from the beginning, and only became more so with the death of the Apostles.

I do agree that to sustain one's spiritual life requires sharing in smaller groups. But again, I don't see the need to distance oneself from the institution at the same time. I see many faithful Catholics grouping every week, doing bible study, prayer, ministry, etc. Yes, small faith groups keep the fire burning for people, but it is within the context of the larger community - the small faith group is a PART of the Body that is visible.

I do not see this "ferocious pace" of decline you speak of. No doubt, the Catholic Church in America is consolidating and declining in some areas where liberal thought was the norm. However, in conservative diocese, the Church is growing very well. And of course, don't presume that America represents the Catholic Church as a whole. Less than 10% are American. We see gains in Asia and Africa...

But the RC organization has things to share in spite of the idolatry and superstitions that are more commonly associated with it. For one...the RC church displays a reverence and piety which I find lacking in the protestant sects.

As a whole, that is probably true. However, there are conservative non-catholic denominations that also have their own reverance and piety. I have a lot of respect for the historical Wesleyian movement, for example.

The goal of all Christians should be to follow Christ and be transformed into His image through the saintly grace of the indwelling Spirit. We should not argue over partisan structures that may or may not suit our particular needs. These needs will change and be obliterated in eternity at any rate. Our unity must come from the unity of the experience of the cross of Christ, and with it, the loss of all things. This loss as well as our common life in the divine life of Christ should suffice to make us one.

I agree and try to teach the same thing. But we do see a particular "usefulness" (if I may be so muted) in the structure presented to us in the Church. We believe that the Gospel's fullness (such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist) remains here - but we do not deny the Spirit's work elsewhere. And we do admit that in some manner, because of your baptism, you are indeed part of THIS Church, although you are not visibly joined to us...

My personal difficulty (as well as a difficulty I see according the spiritual nature of Christ) is with the lack of desire for things of heaven among we modern believers. Where are the Pauls in our time? Rituals do not transform people....church life does. Traditions don't cause people to grow...but community in the Spirit does.

I am not sure these can be attributed to a particular organizational scheme, Adullam. I believe it is the priority that people place on God in their lives today. It is very low for most. Many Catholics I know have a second grade education in theology, if that. They know more about football (and that would be the women!) then about God, Scriptures, and Apostolic Teachings, such as the Trinity. The lack of desire among people is the people themselves - this has always been a problem, I guess. I can see it even in Scriptures, as Paul constantly calls Christians to remain on course. This exhortation would be senseless if people "automatically" were "God-like" and perfect Christians. That certainly is the ideal, but, my brother, reality is not quite that way, nor do I believe it was even in Scriptures... I do not attribute this to any particular ecclesiastical methods, but to mankind in general.

There are no ready -made formulas that work. No sect is right. We must be pilgrims on a journey to full agape in Christ. This is both rare and precious in the eyes of our Lord. We need not walk alone...as there are others who will be partners and fellow-sojourners together with us. We become as a band of disciples seeking His will. This has always been. It is a history that is not covered in any book. This quest is always pursued away from the limelight. Many organizations claim an exclusivity on this upward calling....but the truth defies any from holding, understanding, or possessing this calling in exclusivity. We should grow up in the faith and leave the things of God to God. He is after all on His own side. Would that we join Him rather than seeking to recruit Him to our own cause.

Again, as I have said before on these forums, the Church does not claim exclusive rights to "correct" worship of the Risen Lord. We speak of fullness, realizing that God is pleased with ANYONE who has faith and seeks out the Lord (Hebrews). All that you mention above can be done within an organization that exists for the purpose of drawing people closer to God.

We seek the fellowship of the Holy Spirit with God and men, This is a world away from having a denominational tie of any kind. We must grow out of whatever institution we may have begun in. We must be joined to Christ OUTSIDE the camp. We are the ecclesia after all. There we will find our fellow pilgrims with whom we can share this earthly walk of faith.

Peace to you and grace in our Lord Jesus Christ,

John

John, I appreciate your discussion on this - but I, from the inside of a large organization, have found no need to step outside to find all that you speak of. It's all there. I think it is incumbent upon the individual to seek out God, and that the ecclesiastical heirarchy installed by Christ and the Apostles does not, by nature, impede men from this search of God. Quite the opposite, it makes it easier. We have the advantage of 2000 years of the thoughts and experiences of holy men who searched for God and found Him. Tradition is not a bad word, in this sense. This tradition grounds us and solidifies who we are, a community evangelizing to the world, continuing Christ's ministry even today. We do not depend upon the tides of society, we just continue to spread the Gospel as once given, but using language that people of today can understand. To maintain continuity with this Tradition, the link to our past, the heirarchy is instrumental.

I understand what you are saying, but I have to disagree that "HEIRARCHY", in of itself, is the cause of man failing to be good Christians today. I see fulfilled Catholics all the time and adults seeking something more are coming to us every year.

Brother in Christ,

Joe

 

[Adullam]

Thanks Joe, for this discussion. I am happy that you are finding the growing room you need (up to now ;) ) I will continue to watch for your posts in order to more fully understand your position and motivation.

God bless you brother!

John

 

[AnnaCondor]

Christians ARE the church, so we cannot go from "church" to "church"
We can however go from denomination to denomination, but that is skipping from one man's view, to another man's view. Denominations are wrong by themselves, so there is no correct way to change from one to another.
..................
At the moment there is no place you can go with four walls, no Cathedral, no anything, (contrary to what some believe) that you will find the church in.
C

Still, God calls us to be together and be part of an assembly (so i dont call it church). We cant live on our own or outside the denominations either.
As for not being a place to be exact to what the real church is, true, i agree with you. We are an assembly of people who sin and are wrong doers, but we come together t love Lord, to give Him honour and to praise Him. I think that in His eyes, wherever there are peple gathering in His name, He calls it part of His church (in faith) .

clearly, Paul does not write to "baptists or pentacostals" or, "judaizers, gnostics, essenes, or adherents of mithra". Just catholics.

Regards

And you have a biblical arguments for this statement, francisdesales?
Cos in my Bible, Jesus says "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, son that whoever believes in Him should have everlasting life".
Does your Bible say that God gives salvation to catholics only? I would very much like to see that . Please? :eyebrow

 

[Tina]

^

I don't recall the Apostle Paul mentioning "Catholic" anywhere in the Bible either .. :naughty
Christians were called by no other name but "Christians".

The name "Catholic" or "Katholikos" was only introduced by St. Ignatius in 107 AD.

 

[Cornelius]

Still, God calls us to be together and be part of an assembly (so i dont call it church). We cant live on our own or outside the denominations either.
[/quote]

I am in an assembly of believers, we meet together in homes. But we are definitely outside the denominations You are welcome to call it church, because the word church means the "called out ones" not a building, and also not a denomination.
G1577
á¼ÂκκληÃία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see'-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out .

 

[Cornelius]

I am sure Joe will tell you too that the word catholic (with small letters) just means "universal"

The Greek roots of the term "Catholic" mean "according to (kata-) the whole (holos)," or more colloquially, "universal." At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term "Catholic" in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

It really refers to the whole church (all believers) .Its only in when it becomes Catholic, that it refers to the institution. So in reality all who are part of the "called out ones" are indeed part of the "whole" or "catholic".

 

[francisdesales]

clearly, Paul does not write to "baptists or pentacostals" or, "judaizers, gnostics, essenes, or adherents of mithra". Just catholics.

And you have a biblical arguments for this statement, francisdesales?
Cos in my Bible, Jesus says "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, son that whoever believes in Him should have everlasting life".
Does your Bible say that God gives salvation to catholics only? I would very much like to see that . Please? :eyebrow

I didn't write that God gives salvation to catholics only. Salvation is available to all. I said Paul was WRITING to catholics, a particular VISIBLE body of Christians, not Judaizers, not Gnostics, not Essenes, not followers of Mithra, and certainly not invisible Christians with some vague connection to the Pauline communities as some imagine today.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

^

I don't recall the Apostle Paul mentioning "Catholic" anywhere in the Bible either .. :naughty
Christians were called by no other name but "Christians".

The name "Catholic" or "Katholikos" was only introduced by St. Ignatius in 107 AD.

How do you know Ignatius was the FIRST person who actually invented the term? It is only in WRITING there, but we all know we have very little of the actual writings of these men.

And doesn't the term speak of the universal mission that Christ gave to the Apostles in Matthew 28? I would think someone would have thought of the idea well before the 75 years you claim.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I am sure Joe will tell you too that the word catholic (with small letters) just means "universal"

It really refers to the whole church (all believers) .Its only in when it becomes Catholic, that it refers to the institution. So in reality all who are part of the "called out ones" are indeed part of the "whole" or "catholic".

Catholic generally means the entire Church, as opposed to a particular community, as, for example, the catholic epistles. It means "throughout the whole". Naturally, it refers to a particular community, in context of when the term was used. Clearly, Paul was not writing to people OUTSIDE the various communities. He was not writing to "all people of good will" in Thessalonia, nor was he writing to Judaizers in Corinth. He was not writing to Jews in Rome, nor was he writing to Gnostics in Colassae. And finally, he was not writing to men of Mithra in Ephesus... Thus, the term "catholic" refers to the men and women of the Church, those called out who had answered the call by joining the community through Baptism.

Regards