Bible as the Absolute Authority

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Good word Unregistered ***35

However...

There is a danger and disconnect which can result in putting so much faith in scripture.

(Bible worship)<There's a danger in over using these two words also...

A balanced relationship with our God through both the guidance of scripture and The Holy Spirit.
The Supreme authority is and always have been Jesus. Not any local church, man or body...

May The LORD lead us ALL away from the religious spirit (Not just the LC) and back into His triumphant plan for the whosoever!

2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Hebrews 4:14
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

Grace and Peace

This is great for the individual-I can read the scriptures and feel the Spirit is guiding me, but when there are two, there are differences of opinion, three and some quarrel, four and sects, five and divisions, and geometrically resulting in today’s Christianity. The real question is are there some who are God given spiritual know-it-alls who should reign over the consciences of the little believers. Is it God appointed to have supreme spiritual leaders. Much, if not all of Christiandum has gone this way-the individual has to give up their “touch with the Lord” for the greater good of the whole.

[Boxjobox]

When I first encountered the local church in ‘74, I thought “wow, Christians meeting together apart from the nonsense, and people were free to speak what they felt were their spiritual experiences”. The elders were there so that things didn’t get too crazy, and we had fellowship with other like minded localities. Trainings were a gathering together to hear an older experienced brother share scripture. Slowly, that older brother became the benchmark for spiritual truth and authority. Some of the elders in my locality left because of this, and the others signed off the “local” for the Mr. Big rule.
One would think that the saints and elders in the locality would read the word and be guided by the Spirit to come to their senses and reject the great rule of “God’s Anointed”, but they walked away from the simplicity of meeting together as the local church, and I left because my individual conscience did not agree with the “corporate” word and spirit.

Since that time, I’ve had a hard time jumping into any Christian organization, because none seem to have the desire for that simple Christian gathering experience that I found in the early 70’s. It’s not that I’m without Christian fellowship, it’s just that the idea of turning over my conscience to an authority or organization is not there. I’m fine with reading scripture and discussing it, I’m fine with praying and seeking God’s guidance, I’m not fine with the organizations that seem to replace the “church” with their own dogmas. I would say this is a historical, major problem with the church.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

When I first encountered the local church in ‘74, I thought “wow, Christians meeting together apart from the nonsense, and people were free to speak what they felt were their spiritual experiences”. The elders were there so that things didn’t get too crazy, and we had fellowship with other like minded localities. Trainings were a gathering together to hear an older experienced brother share scripture. Slowly, that older brother became the benchmark for spiritual truth and authority. Some of the elders in my locality left because of this, and the others signed off the “local” for the Mr. Big rule.
One would think that the saints and elders in the locality would read the word and be guided by the Spirit to come to their senses and reject the great rule of “God’s Anointed”, but they walked away from the simplicity of meeting together as the local church, and I left because my individual conscience did not agree with the “corporate” word and spirit.

Since that time, I’ve had a hard time jumping into any Christian organization, because none seem to have the desire for that simple Christian gathering experience that I found in the early 70’s. It’s not that I’m without Christian fellowship, it’s just that the idea of turning over my conscience to an authority or organization is not there. I’m fine with reading scripture and discussing it, I’m fine with praying and seeking God’s guidance, I’m not fine with the organizations that seem to replace the “church” with their own dogmas. I would say this is a historical, major problem with the church.

I think that one of the problems is that the LRC took what was being bridled by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians and reopened the spigot to create something that appeals to anyone who thinks the best meetings are a free-for-all.

Remember that in that letter, Paul pointed to the fact that "everyone has" a song, hymn, tongue, prophecy, etc., then went on to put limits on it all. Some of it was to suggest that there should be no tongue that would not be interpreted (presumably by someone who could actually understand the language — otherwise the "interpretation" could be whatever that person wanted to say no matter how unrelated to the alleged tongue it might be). The rest was to give boundaries for how many. Even to prophecying. I know we like to latch onto "all can prophecy," but Paul had already limited the number to prophesy to 2 or 3, so "all" cannot be understood as the whole congregation unless we ignore the restraint to only have 2 or 3.

But once we get the taste of popping up and saying something and getting that enthusiastic encouragement of "amen" — possibly more than once — it just "feels" like it was a spiritual thing and therefore must be supported by the Bible.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that one of the problems is that the LRC took what was being bridled by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians and reopened the spigot to create something that appeals to anyone who thinks the best meetings are a free-for-all.

Remember that in that letter, Paul pointed to the fact that "everyone has" a song, hymn, tongue, prophecy, etc., then went on to put limits on it all. Some of it was to suggest that there should be no tongue that would not be interpreted (presumably by someone who could actually understand the language — otherwise the "interpretation" could be whatever that person wanted to say no matter how unrelated to the alleged tongue it might be). The rest was to give boundaries for how many. Even to prophecying. I know we like to latch onto "all can prophecy," but Paul had already limited the number to prophesy to 2 or 3, so "all" cannot be understood as the whole congregation unless we ignore the restraint to only have 2 or 3.

But once we get the taste of popping up and saying something and getting that enthusiastic encouragement of "amen" — possibly more than once — it just "feels" like it was a spiritual thing and therefore must be supported by the Bible.

[

It wasn't the pop up free for all that excited me, but the meeting where fellowship, and prayer, and praise, and singing etc., included all the saints. Most current Christian gatherings are pastor driven. In the LC, it went from fellowship to LSM dogma. The content of the LC became not the fellowship of the saints, but a selling of one's soul to LSM. You might say the soul of the LC became LSM.
I value the priesthood of every believer- in modern Christian church gatherings, it's pretty much pastoral.
So, in my view, what started in the LC thing as a recovery of the priesthood of every believer- as imperfect as that may have been, was sold out to LSM.
In Christiandom, the authority of the scripture seems more like a struggle for a preeminent interpretation, and if someone can present an authoritative interpretation the scriptures become secondary to that dogma. The little Christian reading the scripture and seeking God's guidance is directly confronted with the need to join with and meet with others. How can the individual spiritual walk be joined with others, who may not see the same things. I would say this is where the need for the fruit of the Spirit comes in- love, peace, joy, patience etc. This was rejected in the "recovery" for conformity to the LSM doctrine. The authority of the scripture for the individual who could gather together with others and fellowship, was sold out for a corporate LSM dogma.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

It wasn't the pop up free for all that excited me, but the meeting where fellowship, and prayer, and praise, and singing etc., included all the saints. Most current Christian gatherings are pastor driven. In the LC, it went from fellowship to LSM dogma. The content of the LC became not the fellowship of the saints, but a selling of one's soul to LSM. You might say the soul of the LC became LSM.
I value the priesthood of every believer- in modern Christian church gatherings, it's pretty much pastoral.

Somewhat true. And moreso in some places than in others. But the idea that we all are teachers in terms of the meetings for worship is inconsistent with the example provided. It does seem that the apostles taught (in the beginning) and then teaching was also done by elders (if we consider Paul's qualifications for elders). Not saying there is no place for the voice of the rest of us. But maybe our voice is mostly in the praise and worship of God.

And in the evangelical setting, this limited to singing (and too often songs that are more about us than God). We are more observers of others. And the amount of singing and scripture reading has been reduced further so that we can listen to a longer theological treatise that is often of little practical value other than to check off a box saying we "learned more about God." As much as we tend to dismiss the older liturgical traditions as "Christless," I wonder if we are missing something of the participation in worship beyond singing. Speaking together in almost all parts of the time of worship besides that much shorter sermon that is common there.

It is something that has seemed worthy of some further study.

[Sons to Glory!]

I think most any time the active participation of the saints can be had, it should be encouraged. Where the Lord has placed me these past 20 years has been a major blessing and a real help to me, in that there is open sharing and free fellowship. For instance, after a brother shared a really good message on Galatians 5 this Sunday (there are six bros who rotate in giving the Sunday message), various ones stood up to share what they had seen from the word. One brother in particular provided a clarifying word and hit on something that was so good, I told him afterward that I could hear a whole message on just that. This happens a lot, that is, saints sharing after the message really becomes a huge help. And rather than some rote thing, it is more like fellowship in the family.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by OBW

Somewhat true. And moreso in some places than in others. But the idea that we all are teachers in terms of the meetings for worship is inconsistent with the example provided. It does seem that the apostles taught (in the beginning) and then teaching was also done by elders (if we consider Paul's qualifications for elders). Not saying there is no place for the voice of the rest of us. But maybe our voice is mostly in the praise and worship of God.

And in the evangelical setting, this limited to singing (and too often songs that are more about us than God). We are more observers of others. And the amount of singing and scripture reading has been reduced further so that we can listen to a longer theological treatise that is often of little practical value other than to check off a box saying we "learned more about God." As much as we tend to dismiss the older liturgical traditions as "Christless," I wonder if we are missing something of the participation in worship beyond singing. Speaking together in almost all parts of the time of worship besides that much shorter sermon that is common there.

It is something that has seemed worthy of some further study.

I was raised a R Catholic, and have attended Lutheran "services" as well- the people sing, there are responsive prayers by the people, there is prayer for the unity of the Church, there is the Lord's table as the center of the gathering, the NT and OT are read- yes, there is something to consider and learn from the historical. Yet it is obvious that that whole liturgy was written for the masses of people who were illiterate and did not have individual bibles which they could read. For the time, I'm sure it was the best that could be done. Today, for the most part, everyone can read and have numerous translations of scripture at their fingertips. I can pull up a multitude of teachers on the internet and listen to messages on any and all bible topics. Yet, the typical modern day Christian gathering seems centered around a teacher and their teaching.
The thing that attracted me about the "recovery" was saint reading their bible, applying what they read and speaking, praying, praising, encouraging, etc., from what they got- worked the good land of their inheritance, brought their portion, and offered it up. God seemed glorified, the saints were encouraged, and there was building of God's house.
Then came the LSM takeover and the authoritative speaking of scripture that brought about fellowship, was replaced by a man's lofty teachings and then authority. All things were not the result of the individual working their inheritance and bringing their fruit, but adhering to and exalting LSM, and the lamp stand went out and it got dark!
Obviously, in the beginning, there was a need for teaching, as well as supernatural gifts apparently, but according to Paul ( Ephesians), that was to bring about the function of each member, and each member was responsible for the whole- Paul did not write his teachings to the Pastor of a church , but to all the saints.
It's amazing to me that the "recovery" sank so low and that the saints and the movers and shakers do not realize from whence they have fallen, and repent and do the first works. W. Née, whom they seem to want to stand on his shoulders, warned severely about spiritual pride. WL obviously fell off WN's shoulders, hit his head and got dillusional.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The thing that attracted me about the "recovery" was saint reading their bible, applying what they read and speaking, praying, praising, encouraging, etc., from what they got- worked the good land of their inheritance, brought their portion, and offered it up.

I do not necessarily have a problem with what is effectively some kind of "testimony time." But the very pattern of the teaching Jesus, of the things he said and taught to his disciples that were different from what he taught generally to the masses leads me to think that we are misapplying the notion of the priesthood of believers when we suggest that we can all just do it and it will be wonderful.

Yes, it is appealing, especially to people who have been taught from birth that they can do anything they put their minds to. But even that notion is part of the myth of American exceptionalism. Jesus was very clear in how he taught his disciples about being a different kind of leader, not how to not have leaders. And he taught them consistent with the manner of rabbis of the day who had disciples who would become rabbis and do the same thing he did.

We think that the printing press and general literacy raises us all to the level necessary to cast off leadership and be a commune of equal input. But the evidence on that subject is that it is not true. Instead, we have more crazy interpretations every day.

There are at least two sides to this. We need those who have the interest, calling, ability, etc., to give their time to the study of the scripture to bring us what we cannot get to on our own (and help keep our individual studies on the right track) and at the same time need to be aware enough not to let charlatans say that X really means Y. That was much harder when most of us were illiterate.

But if the time of worship is to be at least partly given to whatever I and others like me find from our private time reading the word, then we need help. It may be appealing, but it does not instill in me a sense of peace or certainty.

Besides, whether in or out of the "recovery," what kind of application of the study of the scripture are we talking about? My observation seems to point to a more filled-in structure of knowledge, or something to say in a meeting, not something that applies to "ordinary" life (which appears to be what we were put here for in the first place).

[JJ]

Boxjobox the model of the one big cheese who has all of the spiritual insight up front by himself was never there in the first place (there was always a group of apostles with different viewpoints that when taken together with the prophetic writings of old compose the whole truth and the same is true today). One need not dismiss the whole of Christendom and avoid it. As with old times brothers and sisters with discernment are called to discern the spirits of today’s prophets, reject and walk away from the charlatans who gather sheep to feed their own greed and licentiousness and not despise the prophecies of those who with humble, selfless hearts, announce the gospel according to their God given gifts regardless of cost and are willing to work with others with different but complementing viewpoints with scripture (not their ministry or ministries) as the arbiter of truth, and God’s Holy Spirit of Truth testifies to it as well. When you have found that, it’s out there, sometimes hidden, you have found the ekklesia as God intends it. I have seen it in every city. Keep looking, it’s there. There is a One Body Life event “What does Ekklesia Look Like” near Sacramento Saturday to explore this very thing.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by JJ

Boxjobox the model of the one big cheese who has all of the spiritual insight up front by himself was never there in the first place (there was always a group of apostles with different viewpoints that when taken together with the prophetic writings of old compose the whole truth and the same is true today). One need not dismiss the whole of Christendom and avoid it. As with old times brothers and sisters with discernment are called to discern the spirits of today’s prophets, reject and walk away from the charlatans who gather sheep to feed their own greed and licentiousness and not despise the prophecies of those who with humble, selfless hearts, announce the gospel according to their God given gifts regardless of cost and are willing to work with others with different but complementing viewpoints with scripture (not their ministry or ministries) as the arbiter of truth, and God’s Holy Spirit of Truth testifies to it as well. When you have found that, it’s out there, sometimes hidden, you have found the ekklesia as God intends it. I have seen it in every city. Keep looking, it’s there. There is a One Body Life event “What does Ekklesia Look Like” near Sacramento Saturday to explore this very thing.

JJ- I think you are a little "all over the map" in this response. Here we have a question of authority of the Bible, the ekklesia, keep looking, the apostles, and about two thousand years later exploring a One Body Life, and a call not to dismiss the whole of Christondum? I think your response illustrates my point.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

When I first encountered the local church in ‘74, I thought “wow, Christians meeting together apart from the nonsense, and people were free to speak what they felt were their spiritual experiences”. The elders were there so that things didn’t get too crazy, and we had fellowship with other like minded localities. Trainings were a gathering together to hear an older experienced brother share scripture. Slowly, that older brother became the benchmark for spiritual truth and authority. Some of the elders in my locality left because of this, and the others signed off the “local” for the Mr. Big rule.
One would think that the saints and elders in the locality would read the word and be guided by the Spirit to come to their senses and reject the great rule of “God’s Anointed”, but they walked away from the simplicity of meeting together as the local church, and I left because my individual conscience did not agree with the “corporate” word and spirit.

Since that time, I’ve had a hard time jumping into any Christian organization, because none seem to have the desire for that simple Christian gathering experience that I found in the early 70’s. It’s not that I’m without Christian fellowship, it’s just that the idea of turning over my conscience to an authority or organization is not there. I’m fine with reading scripture and discussing it, I’m fine with praying and seeking God’s guidance, I’m not fine with the organizations that seem to replace the “church” with their own dogmas. I would say this is a historical, major problem with the church.

Much my experience . . . I was even lead to my first LC gathering in 74! And I agree, I relish the open meetings with the freedom for all to participate! There are some groups out there that do this, but admittedly I haven't found many. Large gatherings may have small groups where there is better participation for each member.

Too bad the general LC practice of open/participative meetings didn't catch on much elsewhere . . . (let's see how much flack I catch for saying that on here)