Should Churches be non-denominational?

[francisdesales]

Have you ever personally taken part in a public stoning? An autodafé? A burning? Are you speaking from experience here?

I do not see how this refutes the clear Scriptural verses that has God COMMANDING the community, the Church, to stone people for particular offenses against God. This line of thought was not an aberration, but carried over a thousand years into the time of Christ. Did Jesus refute the Law in the passage on the adulterous woman??? No, He didn't. As usual, you have a difficult time with the Scriptures, so you avoid them and try to make this a personal affair...

The only known deaths attributed to the church where true disciples met was by Peter who acted by speaking through the power of the Holy Spirit.

"True disciples" as defined by you, but not by the Bible. Where does the Bible call the apostles "true disciples" while relegating the rest, the common believer, to a bunch of nobodies who could not even be called "true disciple"? More of your arrogance and unscriptural attitudes.

That is, until men with their ecclesiastical lawyers got their greedy fingers mixed in.

Or self-righteous people who are not familiar with the Scriptures start cutting and pasting... I have provided clear indication that the Church was given the power to put someone to death. You are just dancing the dance of the ignorant...

The weapons of a true Christian are not carnal, but spiritual, and powerful to bring down the temporal reign of principalities and worldly powers.

Scriptures, please...

And please, again, define "worldly powers", if you can. I want to verify if you actually understand what it means, Scripturally speaking.

 

[francisdesales]

Bump for Cornelius

I am saying that there is no capital punishment that the church is EVER authorized to do in the Bible.

Silly boy, of course there is... :biglaugh

Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Lev 20:2

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them. Lev 20:27

Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. Lev 24:14

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death. Lev 24:16

And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses. Lev 24:23.

How about the NT???

Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? John 8:4-5

the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. John 10:31-33

There are more examples, but this is sufficient to show that yet again, you have little knowledge of what the bible says about much of anything... Just sniping without any sights on your rifle...[/qoute]

I do not recall being proven wrong on the Nicolaitan error ( laity ruling over the people of God)

Of course you don't! Your memory is short, isn't it? Consult my post from Sept 16, 5:42 AM from this very thread, if you want to read it again and pretend you didn't see it...

Thanks for clarifying how little you know about Scriptures and history...

 

[NIGHTMARE]

Have you ever personally taken part in a public stoning? An autodafé? A burning? Are you speaking from experience here?

I do not see how this refutes the clear Scriptural verses that has God COMMANDING the community, the Church, to stone people for particular offenses against God. This line of thought was not an aberration, but carried over a thousand years into the time of Christ. Did Jesus refute the Law in the passage on the adulterous woman??? No, He didn't. As usual, you have a difficult time with the Scriptures, so you avoid them and try to make this a personal affair...

The only known deaths attributed to the church where true disciples met was by Peter who acted by speaking through the power of the Holy Spirit.

"True disciples" as defined by you, but not by the Bible. Where does the Bible call the apostles "true disciples" while relegating the rest, the common believer, to a bunch of nobodies who could not even be called "true disciple"? More of your arrogance and unscriptural attitudes.

That is, until men with their ecclesiastical lawyers got their greedy fingers mixed in.

Or self-righteous people who are not familiar with the Scriptures start cutting and pasting... I have provided clear indication that the Church was given the power to put someone to death. You are just dancing the dance of the ignorant...

The weapons of a true Christian are not carnal, but spiritual, and powerful to bring down the temporal reign of principalities and worldly powers.

Scriptures, please...

And please, again, define "worldly powers", if you can. I want to verify if you actually understand what it means, Scripturally speaking.

I do not see how this refutes the clear Scriptural verses that has God COMMANDING the community, the Church, to stone people for particular offenses against God. This line of thought was not an aberration, but carried over a thousand years into the time of Christ. Did Jesus refute the Law in the passage on the adulterous woman??? No, He didn't. As usual, you have a difficult time with the Scriptures, so you avoid them and try to make this a personal affair...

The pharisees and scribes did not present the woman to Christ following the law,,,for the judgement of the woman should not have been stoning........

 

[Drew]

Perhaps you should start a new thread...Is Preterism biblical? This thread concerns denominations. Preterism is not a denomination per se...it is a heresy that seeks to reconcile spiritual things with outlandish human reasonings. It is a great waste of time to argue over what is clearly a ridiculous premise. Are UFO's biblical? etc....

You have this interesting way of avoiding the responsibility to actually defend your position. It was you, Adullum, who invoked Matthew 24 in support of your position. I pointed out that you cannot simply claim that this text refers to a future enthronement - you need to make an actual case to that effect.

What do you do? You dismiss that responsibility as if your position was "self-evidently" correct. And, in so doing, as you have done many times in this and other threads, you try to get off the hook from actually making a case.

 

[Drew]

That is a preterist viewpoint.

I do not think labels are helpful.

Do you want to get into actual scriptural arguments about the timing of the material in Matthew 24?

Perhaps you should start a new thread...Is Preterism biblical? This thread concerns denominations. Preterism is not a denomination per se...it is a heresy that seeks to reconcile spiritual things with outlandish human reasonings. It is a great waste of time to argue over what is clearly a ridiculous premise. Are UFO's biblical? etc....

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

You clearly think that this text from Revelation applies to the future. Well, I assert that it does not. But, because I am fair-minded in my approach to these matters, I am not going to dismiss your "futurist" take on this text as "outlandish human reasoning" or a "ridiculous premise".

But I am not going to go to the effort of making the necessary argument if you are simply going to ignore what I post - as you have done many times.

So, we obviously agree that this text (and others like such as the text in Matthew 24) are relevant to the issue of whether Jesus is presently enthroned.

Therefore, are you willing to engage the matter if I start another thread on it, or make the arguments in the present thread.

You are not obliged to do so - it would be a time-consuming exercise. And I will not claim that a lack of willingness on your part to go down this road shows that your position is wrong.

But - and let's be clear - if you are not willing to go that route, you cannot simply claim the correctness of a futurist take on this text.

 

[Vic C.]

Find me first scriptures that disprove that spiders have 12 legs, the sky is orange, and pigs can fly. Ridiculous assertions are a dime a dozen.

This is how you discuss and debate issues in light of what Drew has presented? Sorry but there is no coherency or logic in that at all.

... and you say the established church is in disarray?

May I remind everyone that this Thread is about whether or not churches should be of no denomination. I feel this topic is nearing it's end anyway.

 

[Adullam]

Have you ever personally taken part in a public stoning? An autodafé? A burning? Are you speaking from experience here?

I do not see how this refutes the clear Scriptural verses that has God COMMANDING the community, the Church, to stone people for particular offenses against God. This line of thought was not an aberration, but carried over a thousand years into the time of Christ. Did Jesus refute the Law in the passage on the adulterous woman??? No, He didn't. As usual, you have a difficult time with the Scriptures, so you avoid them and try to make this a personal affair...


So you did participate in a stoning? :gah It is quite telling that those who proclaim that Jesus is presently ruling over the earth also claim that nothing has changed in regards to the means of obeying the law. Same lawlessness...new management. Backwards is just that.

The only known deaths attributed to the church where true disciples met was by Peter who acted by speaking through the power of the Holy Spirit.

"True disciples" as defined by you, but not by the Bible. Where does the Bible call the apostles "true disciples" while relegating the rest, the common believer, to a bunch of nobodies who could not even be called "true disciple"? More of your arrogance and unscriptural attitudes.

Actually we are called to follow the example of the apostles. They are a standard that has been given to emulate. Why would Paul write that we should emulate him if his conduct were not according to the truth? Is the bible wrong again?
So, we are to follow the example and doctrine of the apostles. In this way we can also become true disciples of Christ. This is the corporate part of being a Christian that you are now against. Is it just to be contrary?

That is, until men with their ecclesiastical lawyers got their greedy fingers mixed in.

Or self-righteous people who are not familiar with the Scriptures start cutting and pasting... I have provided clear indication that the Church was given the power to put someone to death. You are just dancing the dance of the ignorant...

LOL. You have given what???? Backwards again. I have given YOU the only biblical reference to the putting of someone to death in the Christian community and you ignore the fact that it was the Holy Spirit who slew the guilty. Peter never laid a hand on them...neither did he do the self-righteous hypocritical ecclesiastical thing and hand them over to the temporal authorities. God runs the church Himself. He doesn't need our help...at all!

The weapons of a true Christian are not carnal, but spiritual, and powerful to bring down the temporal reign of principalities and worldly powers.

Scriptures, please...

OK...ignore this...

"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought
into captivity to the obedience of Christ". (2 Corinthians 10:4,5)



And please, again, define "worldly powers", if you can. I want to verify if you actually understand what it means, Scripturally speaking.

Do us both a favour and read the many times I have already done this. At the bottom of the page...well, you probably know how to look at old posts! ;)

 

[Adullam]

Bump for Cornelius

I do not recall being proven wrong on the Nicolaitan error ( laity ruling over the people of God)


Of course you don't! Your memory is short, isn't it? Consult my post from Sept 16, 5:42 AM from this very thread, if you want to read it again and pretend you didn't see it...

Thanks for clarifying how little you know about Scriptures and history...

Cornelius, I believe, is travelling to another city at the moment. But he is right, of course.

Nico: Greek for victory or dominion
Laitan: The Greek we know as "laity" the common folk.

This represents the class of Christians called clergy. Those who self-righteously put themselves over the flock. This is a heresy based on the misuse of the Greek Klairion, (used only once in the bible) which means heritage or flock. It has nothing to do with a special class of priests. All believers are priests...the Klairion is actually the whole flock, not the leaders. Ecclesiastical engineers have really stretched the truth to arrive at this unbiblical lording by a special caste of what amounts to the Pharisee system. If you are looking for the self-righteous usurpers...look no further. The church is not to be led by hireling professional mercenaries.

Anyone doing a bible study can look at the meaning of the Greek or Hebrew words to get more insight into the meaning of the text. One does not require a lot of education to do this. However one requires much carnal education to miss it.

Here is another example of a Greek word whose meaning gives us a clearer picture of the text.

Theophilus: This is the man that Luke wrote to..but there is another meaning here in the word itself.

Theo: God
Philus: lover

So the meaning is that the letter is adressed to those who love God. You won't get too many arguments here since this understanding does not directly challenge a principality or power. But there are many such word messages in the bible. Especially in the Hebrew. This is why the study of the bible is so rewarding. God has hidden His words in plain view. As it is written.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." This actually can also be translated as...

"It is the glory of God to conceal a word: but the honour of kings is to search out a word."

Here "davar" has been rendered as "word". This is the primary meaning of "davar." So even here, we must dig a little just to see that God has indeed hidden His truth WITHIN the words that are used to convey the biblical message. Imagine hiding meanings in words! ;) Sure fooled the system types. They never would have thought of that!

 

[francisdesales]

Cornelius, I believe, is travelling to another city at the moment. But he is right, of course.

Whatever. I bumped it for him so he could see it when he "returns"...

He is wrong, as I have pointed out in the post that he "missed" while "traveling" (but found time to address other posts while "away"...)

Nico: Greek for victory or dominion
Laitan: The Greek we know as "laity" the common folk.

This doesn't prove a thing. You are bringing your bias into historical matters.

EVEN IFthe name of the heresy came from the Greek words you point out, It can mean the OPPOSITE of what you THINK it means.

In other words, it could be the "church of one" goof balls who think they have dominion and victory over the rest of God's People. :biglaugh

I have already thoroughly destroyed Cornelius' assertion from historical writings, as well. Go and read them, if you want to see the evidence. Clearly, you have nothing to support your assertion except your own wishful thinking... There is no historical evidence that "nicolaitan" refers to some "clergy" class lording it over the "laity". You are being totally anachronistic and projecting your already-formed opinions onto an era that did not think as you do (fortunately for them).

The bible just does not support the notion that all organizations, including religious, were to be disbanded because they were of little value and heeded or prevented people from coming into a relationship with Christ. QUITE the opposite.

It is the proud OUTSIDE of the community who is shunned by the likes of the Apostles and those who followed them, such as Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote DURING the time of the Nicolaitans.

Thus, we can more correctly presume that "Nicolaitans" is the error that Jesus hated, the error of placing the individual laity above the leaders that Christ Himself appointed!!!

 

[francisdesales]

Find me first scriptures that disprove that spiders have 12 legs, the sky is orange, and pigs can fly. Ridiculous assertions are a dime a dozen.

This is how you discuss and debate issues in light of what Drew has presented? Sorry but there is no coherency or logic in that at all.

... and you say the established church is in disarray?

May I remind everyone that this Thread is about whether or not churches should be of no denomination. I feel this topic is nearing it's end anyway.

Vic, I've been waiting for you or a another moderator to say this...

Rather than getting any sort of Scriptural evidence, it is just unproven assertions. I am hoping you will spare us of further soap-box antics... He has had ample time to bring up ONE Scripture verse that backs up his claims...

Thanks.

 

[francisdesales]

I do not see how this refutes the clear Scriptural verses that has God COMMANDING the community, the Church, to stone people for particular offenses against God. This line of thought was not an aberration, but carried over a thousand years into the time of Christ. Did Jesus refute the Law in the passage on the adulterous woman??? No, He didn't. As usual, you have a difficult time with the Scriptures, so you avoid them and try to make this a personal affair...

So you did participate in a stoning? :gah It is quite telling that those who proclaim that Jesus is presently ruling over the earth also claim that nothing has changed in regards to the means of obeying the law. Same lawlessness...new management. Backwards is just that.

Typical inability to actually read what is written. No wonder you can't figure out what the Bible says.

I will "anxiously" await your providing a text from the Scriptures that backs up your claims that Jesus was against institutional church - though I know this won't happen because you are unable to do such a thing as listen to another person's request.

The above comment from you epitomizes where this conversation has gone and how inept you are in figuring out what Jesus actually taught...

 

[francisdesales]

The pharisees and scribes did not present the woman to Christ following the law,,,for the judgement of the woman should not have been stoning........

Being caught in the act of adultery was cause for stoning, according to the Law, is that not correct?

 

[Adullam]

"Why do ye also transgress the Commandment of God by your tradition? ... But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:3,9 KJV)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:8-9 KJV)


"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?" (Colossians 2:16-22 KJV)

"Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" (Galatians 4:3-9 KJV)

 

[francisdesales]

"Why do ye also transgress the Commandment of God by your tradition? ... But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:3,9 KJV)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:8-9 KJV)


"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?" (Colossians 2:16-22 KJV)

"Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" (Galatians 4:3-9 KJV)

I comment on these in the parallel thread.

 

[Adullam]

Here is an interesting book report on the subject of church leadership.

Elders as honored household heads and not holders of "office" in earliest Christianity. - "The Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity" - book review

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1

 

[dadof10]

First of all, as I asked Adullam, define "worldly ways".

I will make you a deal: I will explain worldly ways to you, if you first explain the "Rest of God" in Hebrews 4 to me.

I was not asking for the definition to be coy. I was asking for clarification. If you don't want to answer, don't. I don't see how "God's Rest" has anything to do with the OP.

[quote:1je4j0vr]Do you mean sin? Secondly, I belong to the Church of Acts 15, which is visible and has an authoritative hierarchy.

If you indeed belonged to the church of Acts 15, then you would do the works of the church in Acts 15. Saying we belong to the church is not enough in the New Testament. We can ONLY be part of the church of Acts, through our fruit. Our works /walk/fruit show this to be true.
Nothing we SAY makes it so, we have to SHOW. Your denomination has showed plenty through the years and they do not resemble the church in Acts 15.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?


I am not making ANY statement about your denomination, that is not based on the fruit that you manifest to the world. I judge them by their fruit and they are lacking.[/quote:1je4j0vr]

This is typical of people who reject revealed Truth and authority to follow "the Spirit" in their own heads. Start attacking the "bad works" of your opponent's Church trying to distract from the point made. OK, fine, I'll deal with Acts 15 later.

1) "Good fruit" has a broad meaning in Scripture. Jesus meant PERSONAL "FRUIT" in the "false prophets". Answering the following question will be a teachable moment for you. If the “fruit†of a builder is what he builds, and the “fruit of a teacher is what she teaches, what specifically is the “fruit†of a prophet?

2) “Good fruit†applies to PROPHETS, not churches. It applies to INDIVIDUALS, not groups, and, in context, has NOTHING to do with discerning Truth revealed by the Church, only the INDIVIDUAL who is prophesying TO OR IN the Church.

Even if I grant the point that Jesus means “works/walk†here, that still doesn’t speak against the TEACHING of the Catholic Church, or ANY Church for that matter.

1) The "good fruit" (however you personally define it) that is born by the Catholic Church FAR outweighs the bad.

2) The "good fruit" (however you personally define it) born by ALL Protestant denominations FAR outweighs the bad.

3) There is not ONE PERSON (including you) or one community of believers (including yours) that is perfect, so if Jesus meant that a "prophet" must be perfect to be a "true" prophet, there is no such thing as one. You are ONLY looking for "bad fruit" and ignoring "good fruit" in order to justify a preconceived notion.

4) Jesus said “by their fruit you shall know THEMâ€Â, not THEIR CHURCH.

If "good fruit" is how we determine where the "True Church", which teaches "true doctrine" is, what about the JW's? They are morally upstanding citizens, and as far as I can tell, and bear only "good fruit/works/walk". Do they teach true doctrine? Same thing with the Mormons. What about the Buddhists? I know PLENTY of small Protestant churches who have Godly pastors and members and have only born "good fruit", mainly because they are only a few years old, instead of 400 or 2000. Are they ALL teaching Truth EVEN WHEN THEY DIRECTLY CONTRADICT YOU AND EACH OTHER?

So, when these "good fruit" bearing churches DISAGREE ON A DOCTRINE, which one is right? Do you see the folly of using Jesus' words "good fruit" in an attempt to recognize which CHURCH teaches Truth? He is telling His disciples that if a PROPHET comes to them, look to HIS PERSONAL "fruit". This verse has NOTHING to do with discerning true PUBLIC doctrine.

[quote:1je4j0vr]You have been dodging my references to the first ecumenical council in Jerusalem for about a month now. I know you have to because they had a SYSTEM in place for dealing with doctrinal disputes, which involved a group of men being in authority over others with the power to "bind and loose". They weren't just a loose group of "believers" who split from each other at the least hint of discord

.

When did I say that I do not submit to the authority in the church?[/quote:1je4j0vr]

When you said the Holy Spirit speaks directly to you in the context of revealed doctrine, in another thread. Why would anyone who is receiving direct revelation from God on doctrinal matters, need to submit to another authority on those same matters?

I have elders above me. I have apostles, pastors, teachers, prophets and evangelists that I submit to.

Even when they disagree with the "Holy Spirit" within you?

But they do not lord it over me. They all serve me, and I have true love for them. I respect them with all my heart and I serve them too the best I can , out of love.

What a coincidence. Same relationship I have with the Catholic Church.

[quote:1je4j0vr]As I've said on more than one occasion, this is how the CATHOLIC CHURCH operates even now (and many Protestant denominations, for that matter). You, however, do not operate in this way. In fact, you call the Churches that DO operate this way "worldly" and "whores".

I look at their fruit.[/quote:1je4j0vr]

Are you JW? Mormon? Baptist? Maybe you are all of them, a Jehovah's Mormon fundamentalist evangelical. You can’t possibly think your group of “believers†is the ONLY one bearing “good fruitâ€Â, and all who disagree with you DOCTRINALLY aren’t?

[quote:1je4j0vr]If we are looking for the "Biblical Church", like your quote from a book (website?) on another thread claims to do, then why won't you take Acts 15 and the early Church's way of settling disputes into consideration? Why no mention of it AT ALL?

Who said I do not? What I see in what people call "church" or "Church" is a far cry from Acts.[/quote:1je4j0vr]

Your subjective judgment carries no weight and your preconceived notion of “invisible church†is un-Scriptural. I am very curious as to how you handle doctrinal disputes within your concept of “churchâ€Â, though.

Where are these “apostles, pastors, teachers, prophets and evangelists that I submit to�

Are you a member of the hierarchy?

When a decision is made, and it is the opposite of the decision of the “spirit†within you, which “spirit†do you submit to?

Can you give me a few examples of decisions that have been reached by your “councils�

When you reach a decision in South Africa, is it binding on Adullum’s community in Canada, even if they don’t send representatives?

People WANT me to just accept they are OK, because they claim things. You say you are part of THE CHURCH. Then SHOW me. LIVE like the apostles.Walk like Jesus.BE and overcomer. Do not go to the world for your solutions, protection etc. SHOW me, by manifesting Christ, so that I can call you a Christ-in person. Stop telling me about an organization that you call "Church" and BE Church to me.

I tell you the truth, that I love you and do not hate you. But I do hate what people have done to you.I hate the systems of men that they claim to be the systems of God. I hate what it has done to sincere people like you. I hate to see you holding on to that which men have sold to you as THE TRUTH and then they created fear around this, so you cannot let go and question it. The oldest trick in the book. Like a spiritual 9-11 they make you fearful of you loosing your salvation if you left THEM, because they are IT !

I do not post on Catholic forums, but I read. I am so, so saddened by the fear. There is only confusion. I read about how a woman was worried about her babies salvation, because he grabbed the bread and ate it and then spat it out. She was so worried and scared ! Then the "councilor" told her the "correct way" was to have taken a tissue , pick it up and take it to a priest who would have the authority to correctly dispose of the "body of the Lord" God knows its a lot of baloney and the "Church" is FULL of it.

Irrelevant...

 

[Adullam]

If we compared churches to restaurants we would have to conclude that denoms are like fast food chains. The fastest service is with the pre-made reheated get-em in and get'em out types. The RCC fits the bill here. Like Mc Donalds. 45 minutes of religious theatrics and it's the race for the parking lot till next week. This is the furthest from the biblical model.

Next we have the "reformed" fast food chains. The slogan is "where's the beef?" These actually have real beef patties! The service is a litle longer, but essentially it's still junk food!

No one can survive on a junk food diet.

The community home fellowships are of a different sort. They are like either home cuisine diners, or full fledged many-coursed restaurants. A meeting there may last from 4 to 8 hours or longer. Rather than soda pop and fries, there is fine wine and fresh bread. Of course the better the restaurant the higher the cost. The cost of discipleship is a lot higher than religious adherence.

Few have the time to devote to eternal things any longer. So the fast food chains flourish. It is a sad reality of the popular Christian pop culture that exemplifies the apostasy of our times. :verysad

 

[dadof10]

If we compared churches to restaurants we would have to conclude that denoms are like fast food chains. The fastest service is with the pre-made reheated get-em in and get'em out types. The RCC fits the bill here. Like Mc Donalds. 45 minutes of religious theatrics and it's the race for the parking lot till next week. This is the furthest from the biblical model.

Next we have the "reformed" fast food chains. The slogan is "where's the beef?" These actually have real beef patties! The service is a litle longer, but essentially it's still junk food!

No one can survive on a junk food diet.

The community home fellowships are of a different sort. They are like either home cuisine diners, or full fledged many-coursed restaurants. A meeting there may last from 4 to 8 hours or longer. Rather than soda pop and fries, there is fine wine and fresh bread. Of course the better the restaurant the higher the cost. The cost of discipleship is a lot higher than religious adherence.

Few have the time to devote to eternal things any longer. So the fast food chains flourish. It is a sad reality of the popular Christian pop culture that exemplifies the apostasy of our times. :verysad

Not a proper analogy. If the Catholic Church and organized Protestant churches are like "fast food" restaurants, then home churches are like catering trucks. No health inspections, no oversight, anyone who has a cookbook can open one and the menu KEEPS CHANGING to suit the whims of the "cook" (if you can call them that)....This burrito doesn't taste right...what's in it??? "What the Spirit of Julia Child told me to put in it, it tastes good to me, you just need to eat it and trust me, because Julia speaks through me."...

 

[jasoncran]

without getting to a jw debate, which i was once, i think the problem that we have is no two readers of the bible are going to see the exact same intrepreations, outside of mormonism and jw's. all of the christian doctrine has(not the bible itself) flaws, we could pick on rc,lutherans and my church the christian and missionary alliance, let's rather examine our own lives and be willing to go where christ leads us, and let him correct us in our interpretation. i disagree with my much of the rc doctrine, but i have seen some faithful,god fearing people in that demonation.

i could easily blast the protestant,evengelical and others on the celibration of easter(not communion). simple to do look up astart, the babylonian god of fertility then look at what have our kids do each easter.

we could do that with any holiday.

jason

 

[Adullam]

If we compared churches to restaurants we would have to conclude that denoms are like fast food chains. The fastest service is with the pre-made reheated get-em in and get'em out types. The RCC fits the bill here. Like Mc Donalds. 45 minutes of religious theatrics and it's the race for the parking lot till next week. This is the furthest from the biblical model.

Next we have the "reformed" fast food chains. The slogan is "where's the beef?" These actually have real beef patties! The service is a litle longer, but essentially it's still junk food!

No one can survive on a junk food diet.

The community home fellowships are of a different sort. They are like either home cuisine diners, or full fledged many-coursed restaurants. A meeting there may last from 4 to 8 hours or longer. Rather than soda pop and fries, there is fine wine and fresh bread. Of course the better the restaurant the higher the cost. The cost of discipleship is a lot higher than religious adherence.

Few have the time to devote to eternal things any longer. So the fast food chains flourish. It is a sad reality of the popular Christian pop culture that exemplifies the apostasy of our times. :verysad

Not a proper analogy. If the Catholic Church and organized Protestant churches are like "fast food" restaurants, then home churches are like catering trucks. No health inspections, no oversight, anyone who has a cookbook can open one and the menu KEEPS CHANGING to suit the whims of the "cook" (if you can call them that)....This burrito doesn't taste right...what's in it??? "What the Spirit of Julia Child told me to put in it, it tastes good to me, you just need to eat it and trust me, because Julia speaks through me."...

It is a good analogy. Just one that doesn't favour mass religion. Compare the spiritual growth, or lack thereof, between those with quickie services, and those who tarry before the Lord. That would give you a spiritual health reality check in a hurry. Overseers as such actually exist....they just oversee. The Body is left to function as such. Brothers are encouraged to open up and be transparent before all.

Rather than following a liturgy, the true church waits on the Lord to be led by the Spirit. This unfamiliarity with biblical practice and especially the submission to the Holy Spirit you display is common among those who follow a religious system. They fear what they don't know...and this especially with true holy things. Keep it worldly, they say! Any spirit is dangrerous! Follow the agenda. This fear of the unknown is due to the process of pastorization that eliminates anything supernatural from the menu. Trust in priestcraft has eliminated any possibility of a direct link with God. It is now seen as impossible unless for the decorated pope of vatican selection. God speaks to no one else, they say of any cult leader. Rather where the Spirit is, there is liberty. All may eat and drink of the Lord.