Everyone Interested in The Church Should Read This

Cal · 04-17-2012, 09:49 AM

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...h.html?start=1

"But here's the deal. Whenever you bring people together, religious or not, to get something done together, history demonstrates what you are going to get. First you'll get something done: you'll start a tutoring program or build a community center or form a soccer league or whatever. But this is what you'll also get: politics, bureaucracy, legalism, pettiness, backstabbing, greed, dishonesty, conformism, self-interest—and that's on the good days! Now add religion to the mix, so that the people involved do politics, bureaucracy, legalism, backstabbing, and so forth with a pious smile on their faces. That's the church many days.

"Yes, the church is also the institution that created the university, built hospitals, and is a major contributor to the social welfare of the poor and needy. It's also a place where many find healing and love and forgiveness of sin. But take my church, which has a deserved reputation for its effective healing ministry and dynamic spiritual life. It's also a place where I've witnessed leaders become self-righteous, where members hurt one another, where insecurity becomes manifest, where the cause of the poor is sometimes neglected—and I would include myself in all these sins. And this in what is widely considered a very effective and spiritual church!

"So the charge stands: the church is in crisis, and organized Christianity is in trouble.

"As it has been since day one."

....

"All signs of a failing and dying institution, no? But here's the thing. This supposedly failed institution has yet to fail. This organized religion on the verge of collapse still stands. This faith that is in crisis, well, it's still in crisis—and still upheld and loved and used by a gracious God."

I will build my church, and the gate of hell shall not prevail against it.

Cal · 04-17-2012, 10:02 AM

"Amidst the confusion and complexity of modern faith, it's tempting to long for a simple faith, one with a simple theology and simple ethics. What we are going to discover sooner or later, though, is something better: the faith Jesus offers us, one immensely rich and varied, as complex as a bottle of fine wine, as colorful as an impressionist landscape, as exasperating and wonderful as a family. It's a faith where forgiveness finally wins—Jesus' forgiveness of the church, Jesus' forgiveness of us, and our forgiveness of one another."

Cal · 04-17-2012, 01:14 PM

"The Church is an organism, not an organization."

Heady words. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't say this. Organization is not a dirty word, and organization is necessary.

"I don't like organized Christianity."

No one really means this. What they mean is (A) they would like to see more spiritual spontaneity in the Church, or, (B) they don't like the way the Church is organized. But the fact is, nobody would be happy in a church that wasn't organized.

People who pine for a church experience where everyone in everything are spontaneously led by the Spirit are living in a fantasy. This has never really existed for any appreciable period of time; and, like a mirage, when it does occur it vanishes into the vapor as quickly as it appeared. Holding out for it is sort of like holding out for a wife/girlfriend who is gorgeous, humble, nice, thick-skinned, funny, and likes nothing better than to go watch you hit golf balls at the driving range. In short, it ain't going to happen.

Cal · 04-17-2012, 01:42 PM

There are three ways to respond to the imperfections of the Church, aka "organized Christianity."

Do as Andrew Sullivan recommends and "forget about" the Church and just "follow Jesus."
Work within the Church, doing your best to contribute and be a positive influence in whatever flavor of the Church you find yourself.
Start your own "ideal Church," with special ways and rules, and which, by means of a rigid culture, is designed to drive away anyone who doesn't fit in. Strengthen the internal image of your church by claiming it is the true way and that all other groups are pretenders, rebels, Babylon, etc, etc.

#1 is obviously not a scriptural option. We've had several come by these forums which have taken this path.

#2 is the best path, IMHO.

#3 is the path the LRC took.

But each choice is a way to deal with the issue of the Church not being perfect. Which, history tells us, is not going to change any time soon.

UntoHim · 04-17-2012, 02:24 PM

Very interesting Igzy. And very applicable to our discussions I would think.

Quote:

Do as Andrew Sullivan recommends and "forget about" the Church and just "follow Jesus."

Work within the Church, doing your best to contribute and be a positive influence in whatever flavor of the Church you find yourself.

Start your own "ideal Church," with special ways and rules, and which, by means of a rigid culture, is designed to drive away anyone who doesn't fit in. Strengthen the internal image of your church by claiming it is the true way and that all other groups are pretenders, rebels, Babylon, etc, etc.

In my experience and observation there are "shades" of areas in between these "extremes" (for lack of better term). For instance, there are people that involve themselves in parachurch organizations, and for all intents and purposes that is their "churchlife". I think I speak from a somewhat "educated" stance, since at one time or another, I could have considered myself as being in one of these three categories. I'm with Igzy here, I think number 2 is the healthiest place for the great majority of Christians. This is not to say that God does not call us individually, for he surely does. But to forget about the church is to forget about the Body of Christ.

ZNPaaneah · 04-17-2012, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...h.html?start=1

"But here's the deal. Whenever you bring people together, religious or not, to get something done together, history demonstrates what you are going to get. First you'll get something done: you'll start a tutoring program or build a community center or form a soccer league or whatever. But this is what you'll also get: politics, bureaucracy, legalism, pettiness, backstabbing, greed, dishonesty, conformism, self-interest—and that's on the good days! Now add religion to the mix, so that the people involved do politics, bureaucracy, legalism, backstabbing, and so forth with a pious smile on their faces. That's the church many days.

Why is this true? I would suggest several factors are at play.

1. Man is flesh. According to the Lord's parable of the Good Samaritan the Church is likened to a hospital. What is truly not scriptural is the idea that any church would be composed of saints who were not sinful or fleshly.

2. Man has struggled with creating human government for 6,000 years. The US constitution is a major event in this history, as are the writings of Karl Marx, the writings of Plato, the French Revolution, etc.

The fact that man as a society is much more than the sum of his parts has been proven over and over again. Likewise the fact that man hasn't figured out how to govern himself has also been proven over and over again. I am reminded of the Lord's prophecy "As the lightening flashes in the East and Shines unto the West, so also is the coming of the Son of Man". We are here at the end of the age, we have satellite telecommunications. We can now see live video shining in the West of bombs flashing in the East. Everyone should be amazed at how the Scientific age has put such amazing power at our control. Yet for all of our technological brilliance, rocket ships, lasers, etc. Still we haven't figured out the most basic thing of how to govern ourselves, still we are looking for the Son of Man to come and save us.

Igzy "The Church is an organism, not an organization." Heady words. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't say this.

Well, the Bible does say that the Church is "the Body of Christ". This is not a parable or a figure of speech, it is a statement of fact. This is spoken by Paul in his epistles, but it is also seen in Acts where the Lord tells Paul "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest". Now the human body is organized in a wonderful way, but we wouldn't refer to the human body as an organization but as an organism. Taken in context it is not correct to say that the Bible doesn't say this.

ZNPaaneah · 04-17-2012, 04:32 PM

From the article: "let's begin with Sullivan's frustration with theology, or as he put it, "theological doctrines of immense complexity." He's an admirer of Thomas Jefferson, and deeply angry about 'doctrines' about Jesus' incarnation or divinity, which he says are 'supernatural claims that, fused with politics and power, gave successive generations wars, inquisitions, pogroms, reformations, and counterreformations.'"

Common response, if something is hard let's not do it. In football I was taught "to fight the pressure". If the other team is pushing you one way that is not the way you want to go.

Likewise we have touched on complex doctrines like: Ground of the Church; MOTA; and deputy authority. What is the benefit of understanding the intricacies and fallacies and perhaps even deceit hidden in these? I believe that one goal of this age is to prepare a "man child" who will exercise the Lord's authority on Earth. In order to do that you must be trained in all of the lies and deceits of the evil one. So unless you can overcome the ways in which power, politics and theology have been interwoven in the past how could you possibly be prepared to reign in the next age?

ZNPaaneah · 04-17-2012, 04:42 PM

But he's convinced that "organized religion itself is in trouble" and that "Christianity is in crisis." As the cover copy put it: "Forget the Church. Follow Jesus."

In my own experience the church (defined as brothers and sisters meeting together in the name of Jesus) was instrumental in my following Jesus. Shortly after being saved I set out on a cross country hitch hiking trip "following Jesus". I headed north and was in Conn. when I was completely miserable, feeling totally lost. I prayed to the Lord and His answer was "if you are following Me I am there" and I could see him pointing to Houston where I had met the saints that had preached to me and led me to get baptized.

Cal · 04-17-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, the Bible does say that the Church is "the Body of Christ". This is not a parable or a figure of speech, it is a statement of fact. This is spoken by Paul in his epistles, but it is also seen in Acts where the Lord tells Paul "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest". Now the human body is organized in a wonderful way, but we wouldn't refer to the human body as an organization but as an organism. Taken in context it is not correct to say that the Bible doesn't say this.

The fact that the Church is the Body of Christ does not imply, nor should we assume, that it is in every way or in even in most ways similar to a human body.

The reason we do not refer to the human body as an organization is that our definition of organization includes the idea of the parts of the organization consciously and cognizantly communicating and coordinating. The parts of the human body have no mental consciousness of coordination. They cannot have ideas. However, the parts of the Church, the Body of Christ, do have such consciousness. This is just one way the Body of Christ does not exactly match the picture of a human body.

Further, the Church is not just the Body. It is also the family of God, the people of God, and the army of God. All these are organizations.

So, the picture of the Body does not justify the statement "The Church is an organism, not an organization." Better to say, the Church has aspects of both.

History has borne this out. There is no reason to believe the Lord begrudges the organizational aspects of the Church, or that their existence indicates some kind of failing. Human beings are a lot more complex that human organs. For one as I've said they usually require conscious communication to come to an understanding of how they are supposed to coordinate It's naive to take the picture of the Body and assume from that you know all you need to know about how the Church is to function and operate.

It is precisely this naive interpretation of the Church as the Body which leads people to expect and search for a simplicity and spontaneity of function and operation that has probably never existed and probably was never intended to exist, and to find fault with "Christianity" as it fails to live up to that fantastical ideal.

Lee's life-talk and organic-speak produced an overblown mythology of the life aspect of the Body which allowed him, of course, to condemn the "system" of Christianity. As if his movement was not a system as well.

ZNPaaneah · 04-18-2012, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The fact that the Church is the Body of Christ does not imply, nor should we assume, that it is in every way or in even in most ways similar to a human body.

I will cede that we should not assume that the analogy will hold in every way or even in most ways. However, I don't see a basis to say that it definitively does not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The reason we do not refer to the human body as an organization is that our definition of organization includes the idea of the parts of the organization consciously and cognizantly communicating and coordinating. The parts of the human body have no mental consciousness of coordination. They cannot have ideas. However, the parts of the Church, the Body of Christ, do have such consciousness. This is just one way the Body of Christ does not exactly match the picture of a human body.

The NT says to "be imitators of God". In accordance with that charge some have tried to create robots that can perform the same functions of the human body. In that endeavor they learned that they would need a processor at every joint. I think that until we fully understand how the body works we shouldn't assume that we do. And that the proof of that would be that we can imitate God to create a working body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Further, the Church is not just the Body. It is also the family of God, the people of God, and the army of God. All these are organizations.

This is very interesting, you are clear about the limits of our analogy with the human Body and also of our limits with these other aspects of the church. I am not at all so clear. For example, it is quite reasonable to say that the Body's immune response is "an army". I don't disagree that it is far too glib to say that "the church is not an organization" and I would also agree that there is plenty of Biblical support to say that it is organized. However, I would also agree that unlike other kinds of organizations like "corporations" the church has an essential "life" element that is a prerequisite and overriding mission. An organism is a good example of an organization with the "life" element as a prerequisite and mission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

So, the picture of the Body does not justify the statement "The Church is an organism, not an organization." Better to say, the Church has aspects of both.

The statement is a simplification pointing out that being an organization without the prerequisite life element is not sufficient. Hence, coming into a church and wanting to adjust the organization to better mimic practices in a corporation may not necessarily be profitable. Without a doubt it is too glib to stand on its own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

History has borne this out. There is no reason to believe the Lord begrudges the organizational aspects of the Church, or that their existence indicates some kind of failing. Human beings are a lot more complex that human organs. For one as I've said they usually require conscious communication to come to an understanding of how they are supposed to coordinate It's naive to take the picture of the Body and assume from that you know all you need to know about how the Church is to function and operate.

It is precisely this naive interpretation of the Church as the Body which leads people to expect and search for a simplicity and spontaneity of function and operation that has probably never existed and probably was never intended to exist, and to find fault with "Christianity" as it fails to live up to that fantastical ideal.

Lee's life-talk and organic-speak produced an overblown mythology of the life aspect of the Body which allowed him, of course, to condemn the "system" of Christianity. As if his movement was not a system as well.

History has also born out that corporations act as psychopaths and are definitely not a good analog for the church. In addition, any condemnation of the "system" of Christianity by WL works equally well to condemn the system he established with the LSM run churches. Also, although it is fair to say that WL's condemnation of Christianity was overblown and hypocritical, it doesn't change the fact that many of the failings of Christianity are just that, failings.

Cal · 04-18-2012, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The statement is a simplification pointing out that being an organization without the prerequisite life element is not sufficient. Hence, coming into a church and wanting to adjust the organization to better mimic practices in a corporation may not necessarily be profitable. Without a doubt it is too glib to stand on its own.

Anyone who believes that all the Church needs is some organizational restucturing to operate better has no spiritual sense. How many of these type people really exist? Probably quite few.

Anyone who believes that sophisticated organizational techniques are necessarily a bad thing for the Church is probably hyper-spiritual. You see these people a lot.

Quote:

History has also born out that corporations act as psychopaths and are definitely not a good analog for the church. In addition, any condemnation of the "system" of Christianity by WL works equally well to condemn the system he established with the LSM run churches. Also, although it is fair to say that WL's condemnation of Christianity was overblown and hypocritical, it doesn't change the fact that many of the failings of Christianity are just that, failings.

There are failings everywhere, and as the article says, the Church endures.

My point was that this general longing and insistence on this church ideal, which for some is a legacy mindset left over from their LRC experience (and which regularly makes its appearance on this board) is probably windmill chasing and may even be snobbery.

Further, this attitude feeds into leaning toward the "solution" of creating one's special "true" church, which does not have the failings of general Christianity. This error has happened again and again in church history, including the LRC, big time

ZNPaaneah · 04-18-2012, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Anyone who believes that all the Church needs is some organizational restucturing to operate better has no spiritual sense. How many of these type people really exist. Probably quite few.

These people are very common. They always want to help "improve" the church and then talk about what they do at work and how that would make things better. I could give many examples, but these ones rarely if ever share a message. They are the "Marthas" of the church. One example common to this forum is the use of accounting techniques by the FTTT to account for number of people preached to, number that received gospel, number of doors, number baptized, etc.

ZNPaaneah · 04-18-2012, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

My point was that this general longing and insistence on this church ideal, which for some is a legacy mindset left over from their LRC experience (and which regularly makes its appearance on this board) is probably windmill chasing and may even be snobbery.

Further, this attitude feeds into leaning toward the "solution" of creating one's special "true" church, which does not have the failings of general Christianity. This error has happened again and again in church history, including the LRC, big time

I came to the conclusion many years ago that the church is a hospital. A normal church will have fleshly and sinful members as well as gospel contacts who haven't received the Lord.

But how would anyone who identifies the failings of Christianity not be tarred with this same brush? If you can say that wanting to have an "ideal" church life is snobbery why can't others use that same judgement on you for the criticisms you make of WL and the LRC?

To me the answer to this dilemma is simple, you are very strict in judging yourself and very general to others. You are very strict in pointing out your own failings and very general in discussing others. This doesn't mean you make excuses for sins (PL, etc.) or blatantly unscriptural actions (quarantine of TC. lawsuits, etc). But someone longing for the "ideal" church life depicted in the NT is not something I feel is for me to judge.

Cal · 04-18-2012, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I came to the conclusion many years ago that the church is a hospital. A normal church will have fleshly and sinful members as well as gospel contacts who haven't received the Lord.

But how would anyone who identifies the failings of Christianity not be tarred with this same brush? If you can say that wanting to have an "ideal" church life is snobbery why can't others use that same judgement on you for the criticisms you make of WL and the LRC?

People can believe what they want. But I'm not saying the LRC is hopeless, I'm just stating where I feel they went wrong, for the benefit of readers. The LRC on the other hand has stated again and again that "Christianity" is hopeless. That's the difference.

Can you see that?

Quote:

To me the answer to this dilemma is simple, you are very strict in judging yourself and very general to others. You are very strict in pointing out your own failings and very general in discussing others. This doesn't mean you make excuses for sins (PL, etc.) or blatantly unscriptural actions (quarantine of TC. lawsuits, etc). But someone longing for the "ideal" church life depicted in the NT is not something I feel is for me to judge.

Well, I understand your point, and believe me I consider my own possible judgmentalism a lot.

But as I said, I'm not saying the LRC is categorically hopeless, as they did of every group other than their own.

It's one thing to call people to do better; it's another to say they have to join you to even be in the game.

I hope people can see that difference.

aron · 09-24-2012, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

There are three ways to respond to the imperfections of the Church, aka "organized Christianity."

Do as Andrew Sullivan recommends and "forget about" the Church and just "follow Jesus."
Work within the Church, doing your best to contribute and be a positive influence in whatever flavor of the Church you find yourself.
Start your own "ideal Church," with special ways and rules, and which, by means of a rigid culture, is designed to drive away anyone who doesn't fit in. Strengthen the internal image of your church by claiming it is the true way and that all other groups are pretenders, rebels, Babylon, etc, etc.

#1 is obviously not a scriptural option. We've had several come by these forums which have taken this path.

#2 is the best path, IMHO.

#3 is the path the LRC took.

But each choice is a way to deal with the issue of the Church not being perfect. Which, history tells us, is not going to change any time soon.

I saw a quote elsewhere from Igzy which reinforcing option #2, which said, "...it becomes apparent that if we give up on the church, we are giving up on humanity. Because the church is the promise and presence of a redeemed humanity in Christ."

My response was: "...this for me subsequently calls into question the legitimacy of the whole Protestant Reformation, with its call to 'come out of her, my people'... and I have been a card-carrying Protestant from day one (save my foray into the Nee/Lee secession from the Protestant fold)."

If we paraphrase 1 Corinthians 7 and say, in effect, "whatever church you got saved in, there remain", then we are forced to consider the legitimacy of every church group emerging since the first one. Each new and separate church, measured against this rule, is less legitimate than the last. The Roman church, having been separated from the Orthodox church over the date of Easter, is illegitimate, as are the Protestant movements (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, etc) and their various splinters (Lee's LRC included). Each spin-off is less legitimate than it's parent. It is like a bitter man who produces bitter children. They are so bitter they even despise their father!

So I have that small caveat to Igzy's option #2. Interestingly, however, it seems that the way for you to remain "legitimately Christian" is to love your brothers and sisters in those gatherings. If that's where you got saved, or where the cat dragged you in after salvation, fine. Stay there. Remain. I think 1 Corinthians 7:17 is a great guide to finding yourself in imperfect religious groups as well as other less-than optimal social circumstances. Jesus clearly told us to love our neighbors as ourselves. This command clearly leads me toward option #2 (in spite of my repeated criticisms of Church history, structure, teachings, etc).

aron · 09-24-2012, 05:02 AM

The first option listed by Igzy specializes in telling you everything wrong that has happened in the last 2,000 years. Here is a sample I found on the web. The problem I have with this option is that it is fairly negative and critical in tone (a giveaway as to its source), and second it seems to minimize loving the person next to you. Even when your neighbor is being foolish, dull, and venal, and ensnared in a dull, foolish, and venal religious system, you still have to love them. That is straight from "The Boss".

"PTK (Guest) 17/11/2009 06:28
CHURCH GOSPEL VERSES CHRIST VICTORY!
By Gary Amirault (part one)

"For 'whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:13-15, NKJV)

These are the words used by most church organizations to go out and "save" those who will obey their "gospel." Those who obey will receive eternal life and those who reject or don't live up to their "gospel" will be damned. Most denominations believe they have received the commission to "go out into all the world." They believe they have the authority of Scripture to make disciples of men. A person who does not "go to church" is often suspect of not "being saved." Evangelists often use Scriptures like the above to make one believe that without your dollars to support their work, many people will go to hell. Our involvement or lack of it, directly effects the very eternal life of millions of people. Often the face of a little foreign child is used in their advertisements with a message reminding you that you are responsible for this child's eternal life. These organizations can be gathered together under the feminine Christian term "Church."

Question: Did God trust the eternal destiny of the earth's inhabitants to the institution called "church?"
Before we answer that question, let us take a quick tour into church history to observe a few things. Please understand these facts are not meant as an attack on any follower of Jesus Christ, in church or out. They are just plain history found in most history books. Often, we associate with institutions so emotionally that we have difficulty separating who we really are apart from them. Those of you who emotionally become attached to institutions like church denominations may feel personally attacked when someone reveals its past history. This short article is not an attack on any human being, especially Christians. It is just a brief unveiling of an institution that has fallen far short of what it claims to feed the world, the "Good News." If you feel offended, check and see if your allegiance is perhaps more institution-centered than Christ-centered. We mean no offense even though we know there will be many offended. Hard facts can become rocks we stub our toes on. But I would rather one stub their toes on a few rocks than for the Rock to one day fall on their head in judgment.

• At the first council meeting of the church held in Jerusalem, the church fought over whether a convert had to enter the nation of Israel through circumcision before "getting saved." Fortunately, this problem was solved peacefully.
• At the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. the church literally killed one another over whether there were three or one in the Godhead.
• For over a thousand years, the church forbade an individual from having a copy of the Bible in their native language on the penalty of death!
• During most of church history, the "gospel" was preached from the end of a sword, convert or die was the "good news." (Ask a Jew). During the great early "crusades" the Christian mobs who went to "save" Jerusalem killed and plundered Moslems, Jews, and other Christians alike. They plundered many Christian Greek Orthodox cities and killed their inhabitants.
• At one point in "church" history, the church had two popes. They excommunicated each other, that is, they sent each other to hell.
• During the inquisition, the church invented some of the most cruel and sadistic instruments of torture man could conceive. The priests of Christendom mutilated thousands of human beings to "test" them to see if their faith was pure.
• During the reformation, hundreds of thousands of Christians killed other Christians and condemned each other to hell. Catholics against Huguenots, Lutherans against Anabaptists, Anglicans against Presbyterians, Reformed against Catholics, etc.
• In "evangelizing" the New World, the priests first took all their gold, then converted them with the sword and gunpowder. Their gold is still decorating the Vatican.
• In the early history of the United States, the church enacted civil laws on all citizens such as the following: Whosoever shall be found observing Christmas, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, every such person shall pay as a fine 5 shillings to the county. Today, any one is looked upon with suspicion if they do not celebrate Christmas! Hypocrisy, maybe?
• During the Civil War in the United States, many of the largest denominations of Christendom, divided into separate denominations over the issue of whether slavery was Biblical. Obviously, many Christians thought slavery was just fine with God.
• Most of the nations fighting each other in World War I and II were Christian. American Baptists killed German Baptists, Lutherans killed Lutherans, Catholics killed Catholics Methodists killed Methodists.
• Even today, churches split, fight and shun one another over things as silly as whether God allows one to use a tractor with rubber tires or whether one has to take the tires off and put on steel rimmed wheels, such as the Mennonites.
• Evangelical organizations such as Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Clyde Dupin Ministries, and a host of other evangelical ministries gather all these different types of churches with different ideas of what is salvation and how to get it, and organize "crusades" whereby thousands of people hear a version of the "gospel" which most of the denominations who participate in these events do not even believe themselves! The Billy Graham organization, for example, believes in a "once saved, always saved" gospel. With the exception of some Baptist, Presbyterian, and Reformed denominations, most of the other churches that participate in these "crusades" believe and teach a convert can lose their "free gift." A person can hear an unconditional salvation message from Billy Graham and be sent to a church that teaches Christians can go to hell! Is this honesty? Often churches that participate in these mass crusades consider other churches that participate in the same crusade not truly Christians. The Catholic church still has in her canons (laws) that salvation is only in the Roman Catholic Church. All other denominations are going to hell, yet Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (Protestant), who is condemned to hell by Roman Catholic law, sends new converts to the Roman Catholic Church! This is insanity! ...
PTK (Guest) 17/11/2009 06:32
Part two...
• Imagine thousands of Christian churches all over the world hearing on Sunday how those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, or who have not entered the True church will ultimately be tortured beyond man's ability to imagine. Then the pastor, evangelist, elders and congregation go to a nice restaurant dining away, praising the preacher for his fine sermon, while driving through streets passing thousands they believe are on their way to hell; having waitresses serve them, bus boys clean their dishes and never warning them about what the preacher just preached. Then they go home to watch football, or play golf, and they wonder why the world doesn't believe their "gospel." Imagine the world going to hell, and yet few pastors and flock are pounding on our doors begging us to get right with God. Imagine TV evangelists today telling the world that any day now the world will end, while they stash billions of dollars sincere people sent them into retirement funds, funds for their children's college education, and homes costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes, millions of dollars.
• Every Roman Catholic priest in the world has to swear on the Bible, before being ordained, to believe and defend the eighty articles of the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX. It contains the official Roman Catholic Doctrine for Priests and Bishops. It contains some of the following which speaks only of the rights and authority of the Roman Catholic Church as being the only true and legal representative of God: 21. The Church (Roman Catholic) has power to define dogmatically the religion of the Catholic Church to be the only true religion. 34. The doctrine which equaled the Roman Pontiff to an absolute Prince, acting in the Universal Church, is not a doctrine which prevailed merely in the Middle Ages. 42. In legal conflicts between both powers (Civil and Ecclesiastical) the Ecclesiastical Law prevails. 54. Kings and Princes (or heads of government) are not exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church (Roman Catholic), and are subordinate to the Church in litigated questions of jurisdictions! 73. Marriage among Christians cannot be constituted by any mere civil contract; The marriage-contract among Christians must always be a sacrament; and the contract is null, if the sacrament does not exist. 77. It is necessary even in the present day that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of religion. 78. Whence it has been unwisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholic, that persons coming to reside therin shall enjoy free exercise of their religion.
• The Pope, who had to sign the above to become a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, is presently going around the world praising all the world's leading religions as good. He even joins in their rituals while having signed the above. Is this truthful?
Question: In light of the above history, which is open to the entire world to read, if you were the Creator of the Universe and had all power, knowing the beginning from the end, demanded perfect justice, loved everything you created including your enemies; if you had some of your children lost on some tiny planet called Earth, would you send a woman like the one called "church" to safely bring back your children?
I wouldn't and neither would our Father, and if you got honest with yourself for a moment, neither would you, that is, if you were sane. Praise Him forever for having the wisdom to send His Son Who said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all mankind unto myself! (John 12:32) "The Father loved the Son and has given all things into His hands. (John 3:35) "As you have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him." (John 17:2) The Scriptures further declare that Jesus Christ created all things, reconciles all things, is Heir of all things, has authority over all things, will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, His grace comes to all men, He takes away the sin of the world, He gave His flesh for the life of the world, He is the propitiation for the sins of the world, whose gifts are irrevocable, one of which is His life for the world, who was manifested to put away sin, who preached to the spirits in prison, who holds the keys to death and hell, who never changes, who loves His enemies and prays for them, whose prayers and intercessions are always heard and answered by the Father, who made all things alive, who completed the work His Father gave Him which was to restore all things, who became a ransom for all to take away the curse, who became the Savior of the whole world and then will deliver it up to His Father that the Father might be all in all! "It is finished!" Believe it!
Now here is a Savior we can trust with everything we have and are. Here is the Gospel, the Good News. This Savior is able and willing to deliver one from themselves, sin, addictions, Satan, and from someone who often is the most powerful enemy of mankind and its Creator, a "woman" who calls herself "Church," better known among the Greeks as "Circe" daughter of the Sun, who, in Greek mythology, had the power to turn men into animals.
If you are weary, lost, broken hearted, deceived, turned off by religion, or unable to do what you know in your heart is right, turn directly to the One Who is the Way of true Life. He will send you His Spirit Who will lead you into all Truth. Yes, the road is straight and narrow, it is as narrow as One Man; His name in English is Jesus the Christ, the One sent by the Creator of all. In Hebrew He is called Yashua Ha Mashiach, in Greek Iesus Christos. He is not only the Way, but the Door and the Good Shepherd. He will lead you to our heavenly Father Who has been waiting for you. He will take your sin-stained garments and/or your religious robes of self-righteousness and burn them away. He will not burn your bodies and torture or annihilate you, as many Christians say. This is false doctrine which entered the "church" early in its history and crept into many, but not all Bibles. Jesus Christ is your Savior whether you presently know Him or not. Your eternal well-being has been secured by His act on the Tree of Crucifixion. He has not failed you for "Love never fails!" The Creator of the universe may have many attributes, but His overall nature is Love, a Love that will never leave nor forsake you, never! Here is Someone you can trust yourself, your family, and the entire world to. Now seek your Maker with all your heart.

aron · 09-24-2012, 05:09 AM

Option #3 might be called "The Nuclear Option". Burn it all down and start anew. Igzy correctly cites the LRC model as found in this vein.

Here is a quote from the web:

THE CORRECT MEANING OF "CHURCH" AND "ECCLESIA"

Let us make it clear from the very beginning that the established religious system, which manifests itself in the abomination called "church", is NOT of God. We intend to make it very clear, by studying the Greek words found in the New Testament, that the pattern which God intends His people to follow and live by is the ECCLESIA system, and is RADICALLY different than that which calls itself "church" in our day. As you read this short study the truth will dawn on you that Christians today have been fed a LIE, and that they have been enslaved by the religious systems of men. If you truly love Jesus and desire to follow Him in total obedience then you must seriously consider the facts that follow. We encourage each and every person who names the name of Christ to PRAY, FAST AND SEEK GOD concerning the important differences between how the first Christians lived and how Christians live today.

THE CORRECT MEANING OF "CHURCH"
Let's start by defining the word. "Church" comes from the Old English and German word pronounced "kirche." In Scotland, it was "kirk."

The following entries are from the Oxford Universal English Dictionary:

Church [Old English cirice, circe; Middle English chereche, chiriche, chirche; whence churche, cherche, etc.: -Greek Kuriakon...]

Kirk The Northern English and Scottish form of CHURCH, in all its senses.

In the earlier Greek It was pronounced "ku-ri-a-kos" or "ku-ri-a-kon." As you can see, this word doesn't even resemble the Greek word "ecclesia" whose place it has usurped. The meaning of "Ku-ri-a-kos" is understood by its root: "Ku- ri-os," which means "lord." Thus, "kuriakos" (i.e., "church") means "pertaining to the lord." It refers to something that pertains to, or belongs to, a lord. The Greek "kuriakos" eventually came to be used in Old English form as "cirice" (Kee-ree-ke), then "churche" (kerke), and eventually "church" in its traditional pronunciation. A church, then, is correctly something that "pertains to, or belongs to, a lord."

Now, as you can see, there is a major problem here. The translators broke the rules in a big way. When they inserted the word "church" in the English versions, they were not translating the Greek word "kuriakos", as one might expect. Rather, they were substituting an entirely different Greek word. This was not honest! The word "church" would have been an acceptable translation for the Greek word "kuriakos." However, not by the wildest imagination of the most liberal translator can it ever be an acceptable translation for the Greek word "ecclesia." Are you following this? Consider it carefully. This truth will answer many questions you've had about churches, and the kingdom.

"Ecclesia" is an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning than "kuriakos." In fact, the Greek word "kuriakos" appears in the New Testament only twice. It is found once in I Corinthians 11:20 where it refers to "the Lord's supper," and once again in Revelation 1:10 where it refers to "the Lord's day." In both of those cases, it is translated "the Lord's..." - not "church." This word does not appear again in the New Testament. Nonetheless, this is the unlikely and strange history of the word "church" as it came to the English language. Eventually, through the manipulation of organized religion "church" came to replace "ecclesia" by popular acceptance. Again, we must emphasize the importance of knowing word meanings in order to know the intent of those who wrote the Scriptures.

THE CORRECT MEANING OF "ECCLESIA"
Now, let's look at the word, "ecclesia". This Greek word appears in the New Testament approximately 115 times. That's just in this one grammatical form. It appears also in other forms. And in every instance, except three, it is wrongly translated as "church" in the King James Version. Those three exceptions are found in Acts 19:32, 39, 41. In these instances the translators rendered it "assembly" instead of "church." But, the Greek word is exactly the same as the other 112 entries where it was changed to "church" wrongly.

In Acts 19, "ecclesia" is a town council: a civil body in Ephesus. Thus, the translators were forced to abandon their fake translation in these three instances. Nonetheless, 112 times they changed it to "church." This fact has been covered-up under centuries of misuse and ignorance. The Greek word "ecclesia" is correctly defined as: "The called-out (ones)" [ECC = out; KALEO = call]. Thus, you can see how this word was used to indicate a civil body of select (called, elected) people.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

In the New Testament, "ecclesia" (signifying convocation) is the only single word used for church. It (ecclesia) was the name given to the governmental assembly of the city of Athens, duly convoked (called out) by proper officers and possessing all political power including even juridical functions.

Obviously, in Greece an ecclesia had no resemblance to a church. An "ecclesia" was a civil assembly in Athens even before the writing of the New Testament. In the Oxford Universal English Dictionary (considered the standard for the English language) the word "ecclesia" is listed in its English form as used by our English forefathers. (Nowadays, only forms of the word appear - like, "ecclesiastical").

Quoting from the Oxford Universal English Dictionary on the word "ecclesia":

Ecclesia [mediaeval Latin, and Greek - from : SUMMONED] -A regularly convoked assembly, especially the general assembly of Athenians. Later, the regular word for church.

Thus, two of the most prestigious word resources in the English language confirm the fact that an "ecclesia" was originally a select civil body, summoned or convoked for a particular purpose. What, then, did the writers of the New Testament mean when they used the word "ecclesia" to describe a Christian body of people? We can assume that they intended to convey the original Greek meaning of the word: a body of Christians called out of the Roman and Judean system to come together into a separate civil community. It meant a politically autonomous body of Christians under no king but Jesus; under no other jurisdiction but that of Jesus. No man ruled them! Only Christ. And that was the reason these same Christians ran into trouble with kings and rulers; were arrested, crucified and martyred. They dropped Caesar as their King and took up Christ.

In Acts 17, verses 1-6 we see that Paul and Silas had a reputation that preceded them. They were "turning the world (system) upside down." What was their inflaming message? Were they telling the people to find a minister and support him; go to church every weekend; be nice to their neighbors? Could this have been the message that set the city fathers against them? Or maybe they were asking people to send their tithes to them so they could build a nice church or develop a Christian recreation center? No? What then? What were these guys doing that was "turning the world system upside down"? The answer is found in verse 7:

"Whom Jason hath received (into his house): and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus."

Now is that clear? Do you see what they were doing? They were announcing ANOTHER KING! Not Caesar! This was a king who was bigger than Caesar. They were forming civil bodies that no longer looked to Caesar as their king. They were forming civil outposts for Christ's conquering army! They were at war!

Paul and Silas weren't "church builders" like preachers today claim. They weren't proselytizing people from one church or synagogue to another. They were kingdom builders! They were dethroning rulers in the minds of the people and alienating them from the mental hold Caesar had upon them through heathenistic (central) government. They were teaching the principles of Christian government. They were putting forth the call of God to whomever would hear and obey, and those whose hearts responded to the call became citizens of Christ's kingdom and joined themselves to the ecclesia, or community of believers.

CHURCH AND STATE DESTROY LIBERTY
The Oxford Dictionary also has an interesting entry under "congregation":

...used by Tyndale* as a translation of 'ecclesia' in the New Testament, and by the sixteenth century reformers instead of "church." (*William Tyndale was the fifteenth century reformer and Bible translator murdered by the church)

Tyndale was willing to die for God's word and truth. He didn't like the word "church." Instead, he used the word "congregation." Now that tells us something! Godly Tyndale, and other sixteenth-century reformers who were more reputable, did not like the word "church." They used other words like "congregation," "governmental assembly," etc.

When you consider the fact that an "ecclesia" was "a civil body politic", this is strong proof that the Christian ecclesias we read about in the New Testament were independent civil bodies of Christians -independent from worldly kings and governors, ruled by the Theocratic government of God's Spirit. They wanted freedom to serve King Jesus. They weren't building and attending churches! Please understand! The pattern laid down in the New Testament bears no resemblence to what we know today as "church". God's people are meant to live by the ecclesia pattern -together in communities, holding all things common, under the government of God through His anointed leaders. Quit saying "church" when it is supposed to be "ecclesia"! It's an important step in retrieving your brain from the trap of religious confusion.

CHRISTIAN CIVIL BODY
Independent self-government under Christ! That is what the ecclesia represents - not a religious organization for meeting on weekends. The Bible does not indicate that churches would eventually take the place of ecclesias. The change of words was not sanctioned by Scripture. There is NO Scriptural authority for Christians to build churches, attend churches, or support churches! Churches are ungodly organizations designed for and by the heathen.

We should be forming and defending ecclesias instead of the disgusting churches with their con games, entertainment, cultic mystery, childishness, and heathenistic worldly nonsense. We once used the word "church" to describe ourselves, but no more thank God. We're doing our best to break that image. It's a slow process, but we're putting the old church ways behind us.

THE IDOLATRY MUST STOP
If you profess to follow Christ, then it's time you quit voluntarily feeding the anti-Christ beast. Men who want to sincerely follow Christ must wean themselves from worldly governments and churches. It is the height of absurdity for a Christian to attend and support the very institutions which are destroying his relationship with God. Those who voluntarily support man-made religious church systems, by believing and teaching that they are good in any way, or that they help us, or that we need them, are still living in a dream world of deception. The ecclesia system, with it's Theocratic government and individual responsibility, is capable of freeing us from the bodage of religion. True peace and liberty cannot be found outside of Christ. Christ's system is the ecclesia system. Freedom awaits all those who will break away from the religious slavery of church and become a humble bondslave of Jesus Christ. We must stop idolizing men in their religious hypocrisy and let Christ once and for all be our King!

So, there is really no other choice for those who would truly follow the pattern laid down for us in God's Word. We must do the same thing the apostles did. We must form ourselves into actual communities under the guidance of God's anointed and appointed leaders, called out and separated from the world, with none other than Jesus Christ as our ruler and King. In other words, ECCLESIAS!

As a whole, Christians have departed from the pattern laid down in the book of Acts and have built, according to their own wisdom, an artificial, phony, putrifying religious mess called "church". It's time to REVOLT against the wisdom of our religious flesh and get back to the wisdom of God. It's time to re-evaluate and re-examine everything about how you think the true followers of Jesus should live. It's time for REVOLUTION against DEAD RELIGION! We are determined to change the way the world thinks about how true followers of Jesus should live. We have been following the ecclesia pattern for over 10 years and have seen the blessings and power of God every step of the way. God does miracles for those who are willing to sacrifce ALL. Write for more information about how you can join us in the struggle to bring back the truth of the ecclesia.

Source: aggressivechristianity .net

My reply: in abandoning "the church", you may end up sucked into the lunatic fringe. At least in the Episcopal church there are some safeguards to restrain the madness of the prophet. In these "recovery" or "restoration" groups there is usually little or no safeguard to balance the ignorant zeal of the fire breathers. So I'll stick to mainstream, degraded christianity, thanks very much.

If you look at "aggressive christianity .net", cited above, you get the prophetic visions of "General Deborah Green", who is portrayed on the home page in full military regalia. But, in contrast, Jesus said, "If you want to be great in the kingdom of the heavens, be the least". So this "Shim Ra Na Nation" doesn't look at all like "the guidance of God's anointed and appointed leaders" to me. So no thanks.

aron · 09-24-2012, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

There are three ways to respond to the imperfections of the Church, aka "organized Christianity."

Do as Andrew Sullivan recommends and "forget about" the Church and just "follow Jesus."
Work within the Church, doing your best to contribute and be a positive influence in whatever flavor of the Church you find yourself.
Start your own "ideal Church," with special ways and rules, and which, by means of a rigid culture, is designed to drive away anyone who doesn't fit in. Strengthen the internal image of your church by claiming it is the true way and that all other groups are pretenders, rebels, Babylon, etc, etc.

I argue that the first option, "forget about the Church, and follow Jesus" will lead you to option #2, the imperfect Church. Because if you take carefully your path of being Jesus' disciple, you will clearly hear Him saying, "take care of the sick, the poor, the hungry, etc..." and "Shepherd My Sheep. Feed My lambs". And you will feel God's care, in Christ Jesus, for the lost souls; and you will also sense the power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead now operating in you and through you to reach others, who are now dead to the Father (cf 'My son was dead but now lives' in Luke 15).

And, I would argue that wherever two or more are gathered in His name, there is the ekklesia. As soon as you love God, you must perforce love others (see e.g. 1 John 2:9), and if you love your neighbor and receive them in the Lord's name He says He will be there. To some that may not be officially "option #2" if there is not a website and a name registered with the government, but to me it may have those outward aspects but it does not necessitate them. If you make an effort to love your neighbor then you are still in the flock, following the Lord. Unless you become a desert hermit, you cannot and will not "go it alone".

aron · 09-24-2012, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Unless you become a desert hermit, you cannot and will not "go it alone".

Even the desert hermits were supplied by rich women in Rome, and wrote them letters instructing them on the paths of life. None of us who follow Christ are truly alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

aron · 09-24-2012, 09:50 AM

Two more points related to this morning's thoughts:

1. I never saw Jesus (or anyone in the NT) make the case that the Second Temple, built by Herod the Great, was somehow inferior to the one built by Solomon, even though it wasn't according to the exact specifications given to God by Moses on Mt. Sinai, as Solomon's had been. The temple was just the temple. Jesus pointedly didn't get all fixated on "those beautiful stones" (see Luke 21 & Mark 13). Likewise, I think organisational constructs according to some ideal first-century blueprint are beside the point. The only first century ideal is to love one another.

2. I am pretty tolerant of the various ekklesia. If they are imperfect, surely I am even less perfect. For every fault I could find, God could find five faults in me. So I feel kind of live-and-let-live with regards to assemblies out there.

But I am less sanguine about assemblies that seem predicated on how bad everybody else is. If their platform is the ruination of Christianity, and that they alone have recovered the ideal of God's corporate expression on the earth today, I am likely going to be less tolerant of them than of another group.

Jesus said that as you do to others it shall be done to you. If you don't tolerate others, don't be shocked when others don't tolerate you. Unless, of course your own 'persecution complex' is part of your platform. Then after you self-righteously 'rebuke' and 'correct' and 'expose' the degraded Christianity, you can in turn be 'persecuted' and 'attacked' and 'slandered' by them.

OBW · 09-24-2012, 04:06 PM

I am not sure how to read the posting by aron of these diatribes from this external party. I note that there are careful definitions provided that, if accepted as correct, could lead somewhere in the vicinity of where the source intends to go with them.

(I'm looking mostly at #16)

But, for example, noting that "ekklesia" infers some kind of "body politic" and therefore makes "church" a bad thing is really a kind of equivocation. We start by establishing that the use of "ekklesia" was not simply of a word with a singular meaning. It may be that its most common use was of a group that came together within a region, city (whatever) to negotiate/legislate/rule. But that was not the meaning that was intended when Jesus spoke of building his "ekklesia." So to force that back into the discussion is a little disingenuous (being generous).

Now in this particular post, the guy has a laundry list of times/issues where the leadership of the more global organization of churches have taken rather ignoble stances, and where people, being the fallen things that we are, have used misapplication of religious texts to justify heinous things. The thing is that in almost all of these cases, the real issue is that there were those who wanted to do those heinous things, or be the absolute leaders, and searched for ways to wrestle the religious texts into conformity with their desires.

In other words, they had a goal and went seeking for a way to force the documents that outwardly guided their morality to conform to the morality that they wanted rather than letting the morality of their religious texts guide them. I doubt that any of the things or politics or war pointed to were started because good religious people were reading their bibles (or whatevers) and found that they should go out and destroy everyone not in agreement with them. (Well, there may be some religions that actually have those commands, but not Judaism or Christianity.)

War is war. The comments about WWI and WWII were ridiculous. Finding that there are Christians on both sides is not news. They were not fighting each other for religious reasons. Both sides may have prayed for their own victory and/or safety. And both may have considered God to be on their side. But the cause and driving forces were not religious. Even most wars that put on religious faces are really wars of greed, pride, revolt, etc. The religion is mostly just part of the cultural differences that keep them from finding peaceful solutions. But the solutions are political, not religious.

The Bible was mostly silent on the issue of slavery. But its emphasis would eventually lead to the end of the institution. But in no way did it suggest the armed overthrow of one in favor of the other.

And neither does the church. Except to the extent that it is populated by fallible people with fallible thoughts and goals.

The problem is not the church. It is not simply church leadership. It is not denominations nor the RCC (and/or the EOC). That the Greek and Roman popes would excommunicate each other is evidence of the stupidity of man. It is not evidence of the failure of the church. Neither had authority to condemn the other to hell in the first place.

The church is not a "body politic" in the negative sense that the writer claimed. Man may create aspects of politics within it, but that is not the church.

Separate the wheat from the chaff. To a great degree, this kind of separation is happening all around. Not uniformly nor in all places or all aspects. But those who would direct you to the next version of the "this is it" church want you to distrust all others. The next LRC is just a dung heap of rhetoric away. Throwing the very term "church" under the bus is sounding like the next Witness Lee, or Troy Brooks, or even (dare I say) cult leader of much more dangerous designs. They are boldly declaring that red is grey and yellow white. And they don't want you to even think about whether you have your own opinion on the subject.

OBW · 09-24-2012, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Two more points related to this morning's thoughts:

1. I never saw Jesus (or anyone in the NT) make the case that the Second Temple, built by Herod the Great, was somehow inferior to the one built by Solomon, even though it wasn't according to the exact specifications given to God by Moses on Mt. Sinai, as Solomon's had been. The temple was just the temple. Jesus pointedly didn't get all fixated on "those beautiful stones" (see Luke 21 & Mark 13). Likewise, I think organisational constructs according to some ideal first-century blueprint are beside the point. The only first century ideal is to love one another.

2. I am pretty tolerant of the various ekklesia. If they are imperfect, surely I am even less perfect. For every fault I could find, God could find five faults in me. So I feel kind of live-and-let-live with regards to assemblies out there.

But I am less sanguine about assemblies that seem predicated on how bad everybody else is. If their platform is the ruination of Christianity, and that they alone have recovered the ideal of God's corporate expression on the earth today, I am likely going to be less tolerant of them than of another group.

Jesus said that as you do to others it shall be done to you. If you don't tolerate others, don't be shocked when others don't tolerate you. Unless, of course your own 'persecution complex' is part of your platform. Then after you self-righteously 'rebuke' and 'correct' and 'expose' the degraded Christianity, you can in turn be 'persecuted' and 'attacked' and 'slandered' by them.

Yes, aron, you are on what I think is the right track. Church is not the problem. And everyone else is not the problem. If there are problems, we are all to blame. Jesus did not attack the "new and improved" temple. Neither did he attack the structure of the Jewish leadership. He did, however, attack the positions of the leaders. I think that we are too often quick to take those words and apply them to the fact of leadership. I don't think it is so.

Rather than being discouraged about the state of Christianity, I am finding myself more and more encouraged. It is only when I listen to too much of the "noise" of the nay-sayers that I get discouraged.

Love God. Love one another — including all "neighbors."

Ohio · 09-24-2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

If we paraphrase 1 Corinthians 7 and say, in effect, "whatever church you got saved in, there remain", then we are forced to consider the legitimacy of every church group emerging since the first one. Each new and separate church, measured against this rule, is less legitimate than the last. The Roman church, having been separated from the Orthodox church over the date of Easter, is illegitimate, as are the Protestant movements (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, etc) and their various splinters (Lee's LRC included). Each spin-off is less legitimate than it's parent.

aron, I'm not following why each spin-off is "less legit" than its "parent." Perhaps you can explain this.

If what you say has merit, then we must all consider a return to the Messianic movement, because they are convinced that only they are the true church of Jesus, and every Gentile church is just another division of the one body of Christ.

Cal · 09-25-2012, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

aron, I'm not following why each spin-off is "less legit" than its "parent." Perhaps you can explain this.

If what you say has merit, then we must all consider a return to the Messianic movement, because they are convinced that only they are the true church of Jesus, and every Gentile church is just another division of the one body of Christ.

Yeah, I'm not getting that either. How can you say a group is less legit than another based on which group it split from? That's a very RCC mindset. It neither makes sense from an ontological standpoint nor a historical standpoint. To me that says that the Church is doomed to an ongoing degradation into lack of legitimacy. We are all off-shoots of off-shoots of off-shoots.

Ohio · 09-25-2012, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yeah, I'm not getting that either. How can you say a group is less legit than another based on which group it split from? That's a very RCC mindset. It neither makes sense from an ontological standpoint nor a historical standpoint. To me that says that the Church is doomed to an ongoing degradation into lack of legitimacy. We are all off-shoots of off-shoots of off-shoots.

The ability and the inherent liberty to "off-shoot" is the lifeblood of the Christian faith, is it not?

Cal · 09-25-2012, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The ability and the inherent liberty to "off-shoot" is the lifeblood of the Christian faith, is it not?

Even the Recovery idea is dependent on being able to off-shoot. That is, until the LC movement came along. Then they conveniently decided that off-shooting is no longer valid, but was now indicative of "division" and "rebellion." Not that the switch meant they weren't still the Recovery.

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

09-25-2012, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yeah, I'm not getting that either. How can you say a group is less legit than another based on which group it split from? That's a very RCC mindset. It neither makes sense from an ontological standpoint nor a historical standpoint. To me that says that the Church is doomed to an ongoing degradation into lack of legitimacy. We are all off-shoots of off-shoots of off-shoots.

I think the legitimacy of the experience has to come from the Spirit of Christ. Therefore it is very possible for some within the Catholic church to "wear white" and "not know the deep things of Satan". Imagine there are some within a church who are involved in the "deep things of Satan" and there are others who are wearing white before the Lord. Likewise, with the LRC.

aron · 09-25-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

aron, I'm not following why each spin-off is "less legit" than its "parent." Perhaps you can explain this.

I was kind of arguing the option #2 of Igzy to its extreme. Igzy's #2 says:

Work within the Church, doing your best to contribute and be a positive influence in whatever flavor of the Church you find yourself.

So I was proposing that whomever doesn't "work within the Church" that they find themselves, a la 1 Corinthians 7:17, and starts something "new and better" is arguably creating a division. Including, the patron saint of the Protestants, Martin Luther, and the patron saint of the Lord's Recovery Church, Watchman Nee. With the East-West schism even the RCC isn't sacrosanct. My point was using Option #2 as the measuring stick, Christian history is full of "illegitimate" movements and spin-offs. Maybe it is nothing but.

Then, I tried to make the point that if you find yourself in "an illegitimate spin-off" (which is arguably everyone), just stay. Don't create yet another schism.

Two problems with my thinking are: that it was probably not presented clearly, so Ohio and others didn't get what, if any, point I was making; and also that it is just a hypothetical statement. I am just taking a point which seems reasonable prima facie to the extreme that it maybe creates uncomfortable tension. If looking at the historical record through Option #2 creates cognitive discomfort, how to reconcile with that?

Often I present a hypothetical or provisional statement as if it were "real" or "true" just to see what it looks like. Will everyone explode in derisive laughter? Or just shrug, or.... anyway, thanks for trying to follow along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

If what you say has merit, then we must all consider a return to the Messianic movement, because they are convinced that only they are the true church of Jesus, and every Gentile church is just another division of the one body of Christ.

Exactly. Try to see where a train of thought leads you. If you accept a premise, at what point does it lead to illogical, impractical, or absurd consequences. That was kind of my point in presenting "General Deborah Green" of the Shim Ra Na Nation, whose arguments had some merit. But look at their website (extremechristianity dot net) and see where their arguments have taken them -- to La-la land. And it's relevant to the Local Churches of Lee because I think the "ground of oneness" has also lead to quite a bit of cognitive tension which is not easy to resolve without getting even more extreme. It's like the poem: "I know an old lady who swallowed a fly. I think she'll die". Her solution to the problem is to continue the behavior which created the problem. Absurdity inevitably ensues.

aron · 09-25-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Even the Recovery idea is dependent on being able to off-shoot. That is, until the LC movement came along. Then they conveniently decided that off-shooting is no longer valid, but was now indicative of "division" and "rebellion." Not that the switch meant they weren't still the Recovery.

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Right. "My off-shoot is the genuine move of God. Every other off-shoot is illegitimate. Why? Because I said so." This is the kind of subjectivism found with 4-year old boys in the sandbox. "It is so because I desire it to be so."

OBW · 09-25-2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

So I was proposing that whomever doesn't "work within the Church" that they find themselves, a la 1 Corinthians 7:17, and starts something "new and better" is arguably creating a division.

But while there are some who consider those who step out and start their own thing to be "divisions," there are now many who will even support them as taking the gospel to a different constituent.

We may like to think about those all-inclusive groups like Paul wrote to. You know. The ones that have children up to grandparents. CEOs down to gardeners. All manner of racial and ethnic groups. And they sing a hymn, a praise chorus and a Matt Redman (Redmond?) song every service. With people dressed in suits and torn jeans.

And there are people who will see this an come in because of the open inclusiveness, listen to the gospel, and become Christ followers.

Then there is the group that is more of a "birds of a feather" kind of group, and the person that is just not even going to consider that big diverse group, but is comfortable with others similar to them comes along and does the same.

The trappings are different. The group that seems so much alike probably has no fewer problems/issues because of the "sameness." And the wise Christian welcomes it all as serving in the growth and spread of the kingdom.

One sort of odd effect of the notion that where you are "born" you cannot leave is that if you are born (again) in a place that is a splinter from another, does that mean that you have to stay, but those that left another to start it are in error and should return from whence they came?

And we wonder how it is that people ever started arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin!! We are so prone to create hard-and-fast rules where non exist while ignoring the "main thing."

It just seems to be another way in which we make the main thing into an afterthought while elevating the trivial into the main thing.

And despite all of the writings by Paul and some others to the church, and even considering some of the things written about the church, I'm not sure that the church is really the main thing. I think it is the result of the main thing, not the main thing. Jesus really said very little about it. The things he said about it may have been profound, but it was far from his primary teaching.

And even when we read Paul's words to the various churches, they do not seem to be so much about the church, but about the people. It is about the evidence (or lack thereof) of transformation in their lives as seen in their interactions within the church. Outside of parts of 1 Corinthians, most of his words concerning that practical operations of church were not to the church, but to leaders. Yes, we have it all to read. But like everything else, there is a context. We can know what is written to our leaders. But it does not make us the leaders. And just like the other letters, they were shared around.

But unlike the instructions that Lee wrote out for LRC elders that DR has referred to in the past, we can all see what was written to Timothy and Titus. And even a very personal note written to Philemon. And we can benefit from those words. It still does not make us all leaders. It doesn't qualify us for eldership.

But it should spur us on in faith and righteousness.

aron · 09-26-2012, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

But while there are some who consider those who step out and start their own thing to be "divisions," there are now many who will even support them as taking the gospel to a different constituent...

When Jesus said to go forth into all the world and preach the Good News He wasn't sanctioning divisions. When He sent out seventy before Himself, they weren't creating seventy divisions. They were simultaneously going forth, or as you put it "stepping out", and they were also abiding in Him, in His word, and in His commands. So the increase in assemblies, even within one geographic area (city or whatever) can be arguably "multiplication" rather than "division". The Lord's Recovery local churches concede this practical point with their various assemblies, designated as "Meeting Halls", sharing urban space.

Perhaps the rub is this: when you go out are you preaching the Good News or are you telling everybody the Bad News of how everyone else is degraded and poor and Babylonian, and only you have recovered the "pure strain"? In other words, are you part of the great going forth of Christianity or are you separating yourself from it?

If anyone was qualified to burn it all down and start something new it was the aged apostle John. Looking back at the Asian assemblies from his vantage point on Patmos, he was forced to keep writing, "repent". One assembly he did threaten with the removal of their lampstand. But he wrote to them all, as the older brother who loved them all, just as Christ had loved him. John did not start something new. He stuck with them. We also should "stick together". Degradation, failure, repentance, and all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

..One sort of odd effect of the notion that where you are "born" you cannot leave is that if you are born (again) in a place that is a splinter from another, does that mean that you have to stay, but those that left another to start it are in error and should return from whence they came?..

My supposedly logical extension of Igzy's "try to work things out in the church in which you find yourself" may only have showed the ultimate weakness in thinking logically. Which is fine, because exposing weakness in and of logic is part of the thinking & discussion process. That was what I was attempting to do with my copious sections of copied text. I felt that their gripes with "Christianity" as they find it are arguably legitimate, just as Marx' had been with capitalism. But they become so enamored of their thinking, ensnared by their critiques, that they end up in La-la land. "And the last state of the man becomes worse than the first."

Quote:

...We are so prone to create hard-and-fast rules where non exist while ignoring the "main thing." It just seems to be another way in which we make the main thing into an afterthought while elevating the trivial into the main thing..

The only hard-and-fast rule is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Every other rule should follow that, and be subservient to it. If the rule "love the church", for example, which I now see being bandied about, causes you to lose (avoid, ignore, weaken, abandon) your 'first love' for your neighbor, forget it. The same goes for any special pet doctrine, group, leader, or work.

Quote:

...And despite all of the writings by Paul and some others to the church, and even considering some of the things written about the church, I'm not sure that the church is really the main thing. I think it is the result of the main thing, not the main thing. Jesus really said very little about it. The things he said about it may have been profound, but it was far from his primary teaching...

Agreed. If we Keep It Simple Stupid and focus on the primary teaching, the other stuff will organically (ha-ha.. couldn't resist) emerge. Otherwise we really do end up arguing the equivalent of 'how many angels can simultaneously touch an angstrom'.

aron · 09-26-2012, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The ability and the inherent liberty to "off-shoot" is the lifeblood of the Christian faith, is it not?

That's a good question. It certainly seems intrinsic to the notion of "go forth and preach to all the nations", doesn't it? The balancing correlation, to me, is that we simultaneously go forth, and we also abide. We abide in Him, in His teachings, in His love, and in the common fellowship of the faith.

I think that the NT saints didn't think they were doing something "new" as in different or novel. Rather, they were climbing into the reality of the promise. Notice how they kept meeting in the synagogues and in the temple.

Ohio · 09-26-2012, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

So I was proposing that whomever doesn't "work within the Church" that they find themselves, a la 1 Corinthians 7:17, and starts something "new and better" is arguably creating a division.

I know this is secondary to your point, but I don't think I have heard this verse related to assembling. The verse primarily addresses being either single or married, and I guess Paul's instruction has a wider application, but I have usually limited that to jobs or schooling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

When Jesus said to go forth into all the world and preach the Good News He wasn't sanctioning divisions. When He sent out seventy before Himself, they weren't creating seventy divisions. They were simultaneously going forth, or as you put it "stepping out", and they were also abiding in Him, in His word, and in His commands. So the increase in assemblies, even within one geographic area (city or whatever) can be arguably "multiplication" rather than "division".

The recovery became so narrow over time, not caring at all whether Jesus was sending some out or whether He was moving in other gatherings of believers. LC membership eventually narrowed down to official approval by LSM, and only their official sanctions for outreach were recognized.

This was the only way they could continually sell their program to members. If only they are the "true" testimony of the church, and all other congregations are hopelessly degraded divisions, then we dare not let the average brother possess the yardstick of "true church" legitimacy. That would be far too dangerous! We must keep the yardstick locked in the secret vaults at LSM. Then if we need to "recalibrate" the official yardstick, as they did during every quarantine, then the yardstick can be safely guarded until the next "storm" occurs.

09-26-2012, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

There are three ways to respond to the imperfections of the Church, aka "organized Christianity."

Do as Andrew Sullivan recommends and "forget about" the Church and just "follow Jesus."
Work within the Church, doing your best to contribute and be a positive influence in whatever flavor of the Church you find yourself.
Start your own "ideal Church," with special ways and rules, and which, by means of a rigid culture, is designed to drive away anyone who doesn't fit in. Strengthen the internal image of your church by claiming it is the true way and that all other groups are pretenders, rebels, Babylon, etc, etc.

#1 is obviously not a scriptural option. We've had several come by these forums which have taken this path.

#2 is the best path, IMHO.

#3 is the path the LRC took.

But each choice is a way to deal with the issue of the Church not being perfect. Which, history tells us, is not going to change any time soon.

I ignored this thread because I didn't like the choices given in this post. However, I feel it has become interesting so I would like to return to these choices.

I view the situation differently. I see the church as a tree and this tree releases acorns every year. As a result new trees are sprouting and growing, but in my mind it is just "one" oak tree. The DNA is the same, the nature and expression is the same. The fact that we have an oak tree here and another one there doesn't equal a division rather it equals a forest. This is the practical way in which an oak tree can evangelize the entire earth.

So then, if you become an acorn, that is not that different from the account in Acts where the saints were scattered. You may have to leave the great big oak tree and begin with a small sprout but that is the way the church has been spreading for thousands of years. Now that new sprout may take years to grow and develop before it starts pushing out acorns. Likewise you might be an acorn from an old, diseased tree and when the new sprout comes along it seems to be "brand new" and "ideal". Again, the brand new tree, working within the tree, and leaving the old tree are all part of the cycle which has been going on for the last 2,000 years.

So I would like a fourth choice "All of the above".

Cal · 09-26-2012, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So I would like a fourth choice "All of the above".

How can it be "all of the above" when they are mutually exclusive?

Ohio · 09-26-2012, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I view the situation differently. I see the church as a tree and this tree releases acorns every year. As a result new trees are sprouting and growing, but in my mind it is just "one" oak tree. The DNA is the same, the nature and expression is the same. The fact that we have an oak tree here and another one there doesn't equal a division rather it equals a forest. This is the practical way in which an oak tree can evangelize the entire earth.

So then, the Recovery is just an acorn which fell off the branch of the oak tree, and there is no major difference between the Recovery and the body of Christ? They have the same DNA?

09-26-2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

How can it be "all of the above" when they are mutually exclusive?

When I was first saved I was very happy and would have been happy if things stayed the same way for my entire Christian life. This was the LRC and seemed to be the "ideal" church by comparison with the religion I saw when I grew up. i.e. choice 3. However, that is not what happened, instead I found the situation within the LRC untenable and forced to make a decision, do I follow Jesus and forget about "the church" or do I continue in this situation even though I feel Jesus is leading me elsewhere. Choice 1. I chose to follow Jesus. This ultimately led me to meet with a non denominational church which is where I work now. Choice 2. You may say that choice 1 was actually choice 2, that when I left the LRC I actually entered another congregation. But at the time it felt like choice 1 and that is the way I prayed.

In hindsight I feel that I grew up in an old, decayed version of Christianity, so that when I met the LRC, a young sapling by comparison it seemed new and "ideal". But it also aged, decayed and was plagued by the same pests and parisites that all of Christianity is, leading me to realize the decay is part of the usual process. It isn't ideal, or "normal" but it is usual.

09-26-2012, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

So then, the Recovery is just an acorn which fell off the branch of the oak tree, and there is no major difference between the Recovery and the body of Christ? They have the same DNA?

That is too broad a question. How about this, a man with cancer is just a man with the same DNA as any other man?

In my opinion the Recovery is diseased. This disease is not unique to the Recovery. I can argue that Denominations are diseased or that the RCC is diseased, etc. The particular disease may be unique, but abuse of power, sin and the flesh are not. But I have met with many, many Christians from many different congregations, backgrounds, denominations, etc. Every group I have ever met with had issues. The worst issue I have ever seen is the group that says they don't have issues.

aron · 09-26-2012, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I see the church as a tree and this tree releases acorns every year. As a result new trees are sprouting and growing, but in my mind it is just "one" oak tree. The DNA is the same, the nature and expression is the same. The fact that we have an oak tree here and another one there doesn't equal a division rather it equals a forest. This is the practical way in which an oak tree can evangelize the entire earth.

I like the oak/acorn analogy. I think in the main it holds true. But I add the detail that some acorns respect the oak and some don't. And some PRETEND to respect the oak but if you look carefully at how they treat the other acorns you have to wonder just what they are spreading.

Jesus said, "You honor the ancients but your fathers killed them". Luke 11:47

John wrote, "They came out from us because they were not of us." 1 John 2:19

Remember the parable (in Matt. ch 13) of the "other seeds" mixed in with the crop. This may pertain to congregations as well as individuals. For the Mormons I think this is true. They are arguably a Christian spin-off but they are also arguably not a Christian assembly. Same with Unification Church, etc, etc. Similar but arguably a different DNA.

Where the line is drawn, is of course not so clearly delineated. But lack of respect for the parent "oak tree" and/or the "fellow acorns" gives me a clue of which way they are tending. The fruit is being manifest, of what sort it is. I think "receiving one another" a la Romans 15:7 is a big marker for identifying the children of the original oak tree.

Ohio · 09-26-2012, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

That is too broad a question. How about this, a man with cancer is just a man with the same DNA as any other man?

In my opinion the Recovery is diseased. This disease is not unique to the Recovery. I can argue that Denominations are diseased or that the RCC is diseased, etc. The particular disease may be unique, but abuse of power, sin and the flesh are not. But I have met with many, many Christians from many different congregations, backgrounds, denominations, etc. Every group I have ever met with had issues. The worst issue I have ever seen is the group that says they don't have issues.

Agreed. Agreed. And agreed.

Are you the same "unregistered" as the last "unregistered" poster?

aron · 09-26-2012, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you the same "unregistered" as the last "unregistered" poster?

The DNA is the same. The nature and expression is the same.

OBW · 09-26-2012, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

When Jesus said to go forth into all the world and preach the Good News He wasn't sanctioning divisions. When He sent out seventy before Himself, they weren't creating seventy divisions. They were simultaneously going forth, or as you put it "stepping out", and they were also abiding in Him, in His word, and in His commands. So the increase in assemblies, even within one geographic area (city or whatever) can be arguably "multiplication" rather than "division". The Lord's Recovery local churches concede this practical point with their various assemblies, designated as "Meeting Halls", sharing urban space.

I can look at this in a couple of different ways. Or even both at the same time. And it makes it hard to know how to reply.

But I think that one thing would be to say that I generally do not think of more assemblies as simply divisions. In fact, even among the established groups that have notable doctrinal differences between them, I think that the "divisive" aspects of the group are way overblown by those who would insist upon their division as being the only "non-division."

I like the view on the sending out of the 70. (And I have tended of late to note that the "go ye therefore into all the world" bit was not spoken to everyone, but to those he took aside. Not saying. But once again there is a context that is generally ignored.)

And people went out and assemblies sprang up as people responded to the gospel. It wasn't just Paul and a few select others. And Barnabas was still one of them.

(BTW. I hate the modern use of the word "organic." All my food is organic. I'm just not into inorganic food. It doesn't nourish. And I have yet to find any organization of man — or even God — to be growing because of the presence of carbon molecules. I wish people would find a more meaningful way to say things "Organic" is just a hip/cool new way to elevate one thing over another. And even if you are talking about real farms, I'm not entirely sold on the "organic" version as being so much better.)

Ohio · 09-26-2012, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

The DNA is the same. The nature and expression is the same.

Which came first, the acorn or the tree?

Cal · 09-27-2012, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Which came first, the acorn or the tree?

Right now, it's the acorns. They keep me up at night falling on my roof.

OBW · 09-27-2012, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right now, it's the acorns. They keep me up at night falling on my roof.

They miss my roof. They are falling in my pool, making it almost impossible to keep it from turning green despite copious quantities of chlorine and other chemicals. (I guess this pool is not too "organic.")

Ohio · 09-27-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Right now, it's the acorns. They keep me up at night falling on my roof.

They can't be falling very far.

Last time I was in Texas, in Fredricksburg, I noticed that none of the trees were taller than 20 feet because none of the soil was deeper than one foot.

09-27-2012, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Agreed. Agreed. And agreed.

Are you the same "unregistered" as the last "unregistered" poster?

Post's 34, 37 and 38 are all the same unregistered.

Ohio · 09-27-2012, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesameUnregistered

Post's 34, 37 and 38 are all the same unregistered.

Now you have a name.

04-17-2012, 01:42 PM	#4
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Everyone Interested in The Church Should Read This There are three ways to respond to the imperfections of the Church, aka "organized Christianity." Do as Andrew Sullivan recommends and "forget about" the Church and just "follow Jesus." Work within the Church, doing your best to contribute and be a positive influence in whatever flavor of the Church you find yourself. Start your own "ideal Church," with special ways and rules, and which, by means of a rigid culture, is designed to drive away anyone who doesn't fit in. Strengthen the internal image of your church by claiming it is the true way and that all other groups are pretenders, rebels, Babylon, etc, etc. #1 is obviously not a scriptural option. We've had several come by these forums which have taken this path. #2 is the best path, IMHO. #3 is the path the LRC took. But each choice is a way to deal with the issue of the Church not being perfect. Which, history tells us, is not going to change any time soon.

04-17-2012, 04:32 PM	#7
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Everyone Interested in The Church Should Read This From the article: "let's begin with Sullivan's frustration with theology, or as he put it, "theological doctrines of immense complexity." He's an admirer of Thomas Jefferson, and deeply angry about 'doctrines' about Jesus' incarnation or divinity, which he says are 'supernatural claims that, fused with politics and power, gave successive generations wars, inquisitions, pogroms, reformations, and counterreformations.'" Common response, if something is hard let's not do it. In football I was taught "to fight the pressure". If the other team is pushing you one way that is not the way you want to go. Likewise we have touched on complex doctrines like: Ground of the Church; MOTA; and deputy authority. What is the benefit of understanding the intricacies and fallacies and perhaps even deceit hidden in these? I believe that one goal of this age is to prepare a "man child" who will exercise the Lord's authority on Earth. In order to do that you must be trained in all of the lies and deceits of the evil one. So unless you can overcome the ways in which power, politics and theology have been interwoven in the past how could you possibly be prepared to reign in the next age?

04-17-2012, 04:42 PM	#8
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Everyone Interested in The Church Should Read This But he's convinced that "organized religion itself is in trouble" and that "Christianity is in crisis." As the cover copy put it: "Forget the Church. Follow Jesus." In my own experience the church (defined as brothers and sisters meeting together in the name of Jesus) was instrumental in my following Jesus. Shortly after being saved I set out on a cross country hitch hiking trip "following Jesus". I headed north and was in Conn. when I was completely miserable, feeling totally lost. I prayed to the Lord and His answer was "if you are following Me I am there" and I could see him pointing to Houston where I had met the saints that had preached to me and led me to get baptized.

09-24-2012, 05:09 AM	#17
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,628	Option 3: The Nuclear Option Option #3 might be called "The Nuclear Option". Burn it all down and start anew. Igzy correctly cites the LRC model as found in this vein. Here is a quote from the web: THE CORRECT MEANING OF "CHURCH" AND "ECCLESIA" Let us make it clear from the very beginning that the established religious system, which manifests itself in the abomination called "church", is NOT of God. We intend to make it very clear, by studying the Greek words found in the New Testament, that the pattern which God intends His people to follow and live by is the ECCLESIA system, and is RADICALLY different than that which calls itself "church" in our day. As you read this short study the truth will dawn on you that Christians today have been fed a LIE, and that they have been enslaved by the religious systems of men. If you truly love Jesus and desire to follow Him in total obedience then you must seriously consider the facts that follow. We encourage each and every person who names the name of Christ to PRAY, FAST AND SEEK GOD concerning the important differences between how the first Christians lived and how Christians live today. THE CORRECT MEANING OF "CHURCH" Let's start by defining the word. "Church" comes from the Old English and German word pronounced "kirche." In Scotland, it was "kirk." The following entries are from the Oxford Universal English Dictionary: Church [Old English cirice, circe; Middle English chereche, chiriche, chirche; whence churche, cherche, etc.: -Greek Kuriakon...] Kirk The Northern English and Scottish form of CHURCH, in all its senses. In the earlier Greek It was pronounced "ku-ri-a-kos" or "ku-ri-a-kon." As you can see, this word doesn't even resemble the Greek word "ecclesia" whose place it has usurped. The meaning of "Ku-ri-a-kos" is understood by its root: "Ku- ri-os," which means "lord." Thus, "kuriakos" (i.e., "church") means "pertaining to the lord." It refers to something that pertains to, or belongs to, a lord. The Greek "kuriakos" eventually came to be used in Old English form as "cirice" (Kee-ree-ke), then "churche" (kerke), and eventually "church" in its traditional pronunciation. A church, then, is correctly something that "pertains to, or belongs to, a lord." Now, as you can see, there is a major problem here. The translators broke the rules in a big way. When they inserted the word "church" in the English versions, they were not translating the Greek word "kuriakos", as one might expect. Rather, they were substituting an entirely different Greek word. This was not honest! The word "church" would have been an acceptable translation for the Greek word "kuriakos." However, not by the wildest imagination of the most liberal translator can it ever be an acceptable translation for the Greek word "ecclesia." Are you following this? Consider it carefully. This truth will answer many questions you've had about churches, and the kingdom. "Ecclesia" is an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning than "kuriakos." In fact, the Greek word "kuriakos" appears in the New Testament only twice. It is found once in I Corinthians 11:20 where it refers to "the Lord's supper," and once again in Revelation 1:10 where it refers to "the Lord's day." In both of those cases, it is translated "the Lord's..." - not "church." This word does not appear again in the New Testament. Nonetheless, this is the unlikely and strange history of the word "church" as it came to the English language. Eventually, through the manipulation of organized religion "church" came to replace "ecclesia" by popular acceptance. Again, we must emphasize the importance of knowing word meanings in order to know the intent of those who wrote the Scriptures. THE CORRECT MEANING OF "ECCLESIA" Now, let's look at the word, "ecclesia". This Greek word appears in the New Testament approximately 115 times. That's just in this one grammatical form. It appears also in other forms. And in every instance, except three, it is wrongly translated as "church" in the King James Version. Those three exceptions are found in Acts 19:32, 39, 41. In these instances the translators rendered it "assembly" instead of "church." But, the Greek word is exactly the same as the other 112 entries where it was changed to "church" wrongly. In Acts 19, "ecclesia" is a town council: a civil body in Ephesus. Thus, the translators were forced to abandon their fake translation in these three instances. Nonetheless, 112 times they changed it to "church." This fact has been covered-up under centuries of misuse and ignorance. The Greek word "ecclesia" is correctly defined as: "The called-out (ones)" [ECC = out; KALEO = call]. Thus, you can see how this word was used to indicate a civil body of select (called, elected) people. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: In the New Testament, "ecclesia" (signifying convocation) is the only single word used for church. It (ecclesia) was the name given to the governmental assembly of the city of Athens, duly convoked (called out) by proper officers and possessing all political power including even juridical functions. Obviously, in Greece an ecclesia had no resemblance to a church. An "ecclesia" was a civil assembly in Athens even before the writing of the New Testament. In the Oxford Universal English Dictionary (considered the standard for the English language) the word "ecclesia" is listed in its English form as used by our English forefathers. (Nowadays, only forms of the word appear - like, "ecclesiastical"). Quoting from the Oxford Universal English Dictionary on the word "ecclesia": Ecclesia [mediaeval Latin, and Greek - from : SUMMONED] -A regularly convoked assembly, especially the general assembly of Athenians. Later, the regular word for church. Thus, two of the most prestigious word resources in the English language confirm the fact that an "ecclesia" was originally a select civil body, summoned or convoked for a particular purpose. What, then, did the writers of the New Testament mean when they used the word "ecclesia" to describe a Christian body of people? We can assume that they intended to convey the original Greek meaning of the word: a body of Christians called out of the Roman and Judean system to come together into a separate civil community. It meant a politically autonomous body of Christians under no king but Jesus; under no other jurisdiction but that of Jesus. No man ruled them! Only Christ. And that was the reason these same Christians ran into trouble with kings and rulers; were arrested, crucified and martyred. They dropped Caesar as their King and took up Christ. In Acts 17, verses 1-6 we see that Paul and Silas had a reputation that preceded them. They were "turning the world (system) upside down." What was their inflaming message? Were they telling the people to find a minister and support him; go to church every weekend; be nice to their neighbors? Could this have been the message that set the city fathers against them? Or maybe they were asking people to send their tithes to them so they could build a nice church or develop a Christian recreation center? No? What then? What were these guys doing that was "turning the world system upside down"? The answer is found in verse 7: "Whom Jason hath received (into his house): and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus." Now is that clear? Do you see what they were doing? They were announcing ANOTHER KING! Not Caesar! This was a king who was bigger than Caesar. They were forming civil bodies that no longer looked to Caesar as their king. They were forming civil outposts for Christ's conquering army! They were at war! Paul and Silas weren't "church builders" like preachers today claim. They weren't proselytizing people from one church or synagogue to another. They were kingdom builders! They were dethroning rulers in the minds of the people and alienating them from the mental hold Caesar had upon them through heathenistic (central) government. They were teaching the principles of Christian government. They were putting forth the call of God to whomever would hear and obey, and those whose hearts responded to the call became citizens of Christ's kingdom and joined themselves to the ecclesia, or community of believers. CHURCH AND STATE DESTROY LIBERTY The Oxford Dictionary also has an interesting entry under "congregation": ...used by Tyndale* as a translation of 'ecclesia' in the New Testament, and by the sixteenth century reformers instead of "church." (William Tyndale was the fifteenth century reformer and Bible translator murdered by the church) Tyndale was willing to die for God's word and truth. He didn't like the word "church." Instead, he used the word "congregation." Now that tells us something! Godly Tyndale, and other sixteenth-century reformers who were more reputable, did not like the word "church." They used other words like "congregation," "governmental assembly," etc. When you consider the fact that an "ecclesia" was "a civil body politic", this is strong proof that the Christian ecclesias we read about in the New Testament were independent civil bodies of Christians -independent from worldly kings and governors, ruled by the Theocratic government of God's Spirit. They wanted freedom to serve King Jesus. They weren't building and attending churches! Please understand! The pattern laid down in the New Testament bears no resemblence to what we know today as "church". God's people are meant to live by the ecclesia pattern -together in communities, holding all things common, under the government of God through His anointed leaders. Quit saying "church" when it is supposed to be "ecclesia"! It's an important step in retrieving your brain from the trap of religious confusion. CHRISTIAN CIVIL BODY Independent self-government under Christ! That is what the ecclesia represents - not a religious organization for meeting on weekends. The Bible does not indicate that churches would eventually take the place of ecclesias. The change of words was not sanctioned by Scripture. There is NO Scriptural authority for Christians to build churches, attend churches, or support churches! Churches are ungodly organizations designed for and by the heathen. We should be forming and defending ecclesias instead of the disgusting churches with their con games, entertainment, cultic mystery, childishness, and heathenistic worldly nonsense. We once used the word "church" to describe ourselves, but no more thank God. We're doing our best to break that image. It's a slow process, but we're putting the old church ways behind us. THE IDOLATRY MUST STOP If you profess to follow Christ, then it's time you quit voluntarily feeding the anti-Christ beast. Men who want to sincerely follow Christ must wean themselves from worldly governments and churches. It is the height of absurdity for a Christian to attend and support the very institutions which are destroying his relationship with God. Those who voluntarily support man-made religious church systems, by believing and teaching that they are good in any way, or that they help us, or that we need them, are still living in a dream world of deception. The ecclesia system, with it's Theocratic government and individual responsibility, is capable of freeing us from the bodage of religion. True peace and liberty cannot be found outside of Christ. Christ's system is the ecclesia system. Freedom awaits all those who will break away from the religious slavery of church and become a humble bondslave of Jesus Christ. We must stop idolizing men in their religious hypocrisy and let Christ once and for all be our King! So, there is really no other choice for those who would truly follow the pattern laid down for us in God's Word. We must do the same thing the apostles did. We must form ourselves into actual communities under the guidance of God's anointed and appointed leaders, called out and separated from the world, with none other than Jesus Christ as our ruler and King. In other words, ECCLESIAS! As a whole, Christians have departed from the pattern laid down in the book of Acts and have built, according to their own wisdom, an artificial, phony, putrifying religious mess called "church". It's time to REVOLT against the wisdom of our religious flesh and get back to the wisdom of God. It's time to re-evaluate and re-examine everything about how you think the true followers of Jesus should live. It's time for REVOLUTION against DEAD RELIGION! We are determined to change the way the world thinks about how true followers of Jesus should live. We have been following the ecclesia pattern for over 10 years and have seen the blessings and power of God every step of the way. God does miracles for those who are willing to sacrifce ALL. Write for more information about how you can join us in the struggle to bring back the truth of the ecclesia. Source: aggressivechristianity .net My reply: in abandoning "the church", you may end up sucked into the lunatic fringe. At least in the Episcopal church there are some safeguards to restrain the madness of the prophet. In these "recovery" or "restoration" groups there is usually little or no safeguard to balance the ignorant zeal of the fire breathers. So I'll stick to mainstream, degraded christianity, thanks very much. If you look at "aggressive christianity .net", cited above, you get the prophetic visions of "General Deborah Green", who is portrayed on the home page in full military regalia. But, in contrast, Jesus said, "If you want to be great in the kingdom of the heavens, be the least". So this "Shim Ra Na Nation" doesn't look at all like "the guidance of God's anointed and appointed leaders" to me. So no thanks. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive*" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

09-24-2012, 09:50 AM	#20
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,628	Two more points on the Imperfect Church Two more points related to this morning's thoughts: 1. I never saw Jesus (or anyone in the NT) make the case that the Second Temple, built by Herod the Great, was somehow inferior to the one built by Solomon, even though it wasn't according to the exact specifications given to God by Moses on Mt. Sinai, as Solomon's had been. The temple was just the temple. Jesus pointedly didn't get all fixated on "those beautiful stones" (see Luke 21 & Mark 13). Likewise, I think organisational constructs according to some ideal first-century blueprint are beside the point. The only first century ideal is to love one another. 2. I am pretty tolerant of the various ekklesia. If they are imperfect, surely I am even less perfect. For every fault I could find, God could find five faults in me. So I feel kind of live-and-let-live with regards to assemblies out there. But I am less sanguine about assemblies that seem predicated on how bad everybody else is. If their platform is the ruination of Christianity, and that they alone have recovered the ideal of God's corporate expression on the earth today, I am likely going to be less tolerant of them than of another group. Jesus said that as you do to others it shall be done to you. If you don't tolerate others, don't be shocked when others don't tolerate you. Unless, of course your own 'persecution complex' is part of your platform. Then after you self-righteously 'rebuke' and 'correct' and 'expose' the degraded Christianity, you can in turn be 'persecuted' and 'attacked' and 'slandered' by them. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

04-17-2012, 09:49 AM	#1
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Everyone Interested in The Church Should Read This http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...h.html?start=1 "But here's the deal. Whenever you bring people together, religious or not, to get something done together, history demonstrates what you are going to get. First you'll get something done: you'll start a tutoring program or build a community center or form a soccer league or whatever. But this is what you'll also get: politics, bureaucracy, legalism, pettiness, backstabbing, greed, dishonesty, conformism, self-interest—and that's on the good days! Now add religion to the mix, so that the people involved do politics, bureaucracy, legalism, backstabbing, and so forth with a pious smile on their faces. That's the church many days. "Yes, the church is also the institution that created the university, built hospitals, and is a major contributor to the social welfare of the poor and needy. It's also a place where many find healing and love and forgiveness of sin. But take my church, which has a deserved reputation for its effective healing ministry and dynamic spiritual life. It's also a place where I've witnessed leaders become self-righteous, where members hurt one another, where insecurity becomes manifest, where the cause of the poor is sometimes neglected—and I would include myself in all these sins. And this in what is widely considered a very effective and spiritual church! "So the charge stands: the church is in crisis, and organized Christianity is in trouble. "As it has been since day one." .... "All signs of a failing and dying institution, no? But here's the thing. This supposedly failed institution has yet to fail. This organized religion on the verge of collapse still stands. This faith that is in crisis, well, it's still in crisis—and still upheld and loved and used by a gracious God." I will build my church, and the gate of hell shall not prevail against it.

04-17-2012, 10:02 AM	#2
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Everyone Interested in The Church Should Read This "Amidst the confusion and complexity of modern faith, it's tempting to long for a simple faith, one with a simple theology and simple ethics. What we are going to discover sooner or later, though, is something better: the faith Jesus offers us, one immensely rich and varied, as complex as a bottle of fine wine, as colorful as an impressionist landscape, as exasperating and wonderful as a family. It's a faith where forgiveness finally wins—Jesus' forgiveness of the church, Jesus' forgiveness of us, and our forgiveness of one another."

04-17-2012, 01:14 PM	#3
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,330	Re: Everyone Interested in The Church Should Read This "The Church is an organism, not an organization." Heady words. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't say this. Organization is not a dirty word, and organization is necessary. "I don't like organized Christianity." No one really means this. What they mean is (A) they would like to see more spiritual spontaneity in the Church, or, (B) they don't like the way the Church is organized. But the fact is, nobody would be happy in a church that wasn't organized. People who pine for a church experience where everyone in everything are spontaneously led by the Spirit are living in a fantasy. This has never really existed for any appreciable period of time; and, like a mirage, when it does occur it vanishes into the vapor as quickly as it appeared. Holding out for it is sort of like holding out for a wife/girlfriend who is gorgeous, humble, nice, thick-skinned, funny, and likes nothing better than to go watch you hit golf balls at the driving range. In short, it ain't going to happen.

09-24-2012, 05:02 AM	#16
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,628	Option #1: The Church Has Failed The first option listed by Igzy specializes in telling you everything wrong that has happened in the last 2,000 years. Here is a sample I found on the web. The problem I have with this option is that it is fairly negative and critical in tone (a giveaway as to its source), and second it seems to minimize loving the person next to you. Even when your neighbor is being foolish, dull, and venal, and ensnared in a dull, foolish, and venal religious system, you still have to love them. That is straight from "The Boss". "PTK (Guest) 17/11/2009 06:28 CHURCH GOSPEL VERSES CHRIST VICTORY! By Gary Amirault (part one) "For 'whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:13-15, NKJV) These are the words used by most church organizations to go out and "save" those who will obey their "gospel." Those who obey will receive eternal life and those who reject or don't live up to their "gospel" will be damned. Most denominations believe they have received the commission to "go out into all the world." They believe they have the authority of Scripture to make disciples of men. A person who does not "go to church" is often suspect of not "being saved." Evangelists often use Scriptures like the above to make one believe that without your dollars to support their work, many people will go to hell. Our involvement or lack of it, directly effects the very eternal life of millions of people. Often the face of a little foreign child is used in their advertisements with a message reminding you that you are responsible for this child's eternal life. These organizations can be gathered together under the feminine Christian term "Church." Question: Did God trust the eternal destiny of the earth's inhabitants to the institution called "church?" Before we answer that question, let us take a quick tour into church history to observe a few things. Please understand these facts are not meant as an attack on any follower of Jesus Christ, in church or out. They are just plain history found in most history books. Often, we associate with institutions so emotionally that we have difficulty separating who we really are apart from them. Those of you who emotionally become attached to institutions like church denominations may feel personally attacked when someone reveals its past history. This short article is not an attack on any human being, especially Christians. It is just a brief unveiling of an institution that has fallen far short of what it claims to feed the world, the "Good News." If you feel offended, check and see if your allegiance is perhaps more institution-centered than Christ-centered. We mean no offense even though we know there will be many offended. Hard facts can become rocks we stub our toes on. But I would rather one stub their toes on a few rocks than for the Rock to one day fall on their head in judgment. • At the first council meeting of the church held in Jerusalem, the church fought over whether a convert had to enter the nation of Israel through circumcision before "getting saved." Fortunately, this problem was solved peacefully. • At the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. the church literally killed one another over whether there were three or one in the Godhead. • For over a thousand years, the church forbade an individual from having a copy of the Bible in their native language on the penalty of death! • During most of church history, the "gospel" was preached from the end of a sword, convert or die was the "good news." (Ask a Jew). During the great early "crusades" the Christian mobs who went to "save" Jerusalem killed and plundered Moslems, Jews, and other Christians alike. They plundered many Christian Greek Orthodox cities and killed their inhabitants. • At one point in "church" history, the church had two popes. They excommunicated each other, that is, they sent each other to hell. • During the inquisition, the church invented some of the most cruel and sadistic instruments of torture man could conceive. The priests of Christendom mutilated thousands of human beings to "test" them to see if their faith was pure. • During the reformation, hundreds of thousands of Christians killed other Christians and condemned each other to hell. Catholics against Huguenots, Lutherans against Anabaptists, Anglicans against Presbyterians, Reformed against Catholics, etc. • In "evangelizing" the New World, the priests first took all their gold, then converted them with the sword and gunpowder. Their gold is still decorating the Vatican. • In the early history of the United States, the church enacted civil laws on all citizens such as the following: Whosoever shall be found observing Christmas, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, every such person shall pay as a fine 5 shillings to the county. Today, any one is looked upon with suspicion if they do not celebrate Christmas! Hypocrisy, maybe? • During the Civil War in the United States, many of the largest denominations of Christendom, divided into separate denominations over the issue of whether slavery was Biblical. Obviously, many Christians thought slavery was just fine with God. • Most of the nations fighting each other in World War I and II were Christian. American Baptists killed German Baptists, Lutherans killed Lutherans, Catholics killed Catholics Methodists killed Methodists. • Even today, churches split, fight and shun one another over things as silly as whether God allows one to use a tractor with rubber tires or whether one has to take the tires off and put on steel rimmed wheels, such as the Mennonites. • Evangelical organizations such as Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Clyde Dupin Ministries, and a host of other evangelical ministries gather all these different types of churches with different ideas of what is salvation and how to get it, and organize "crusades" whereby thousands of people hear a version of the "gospel" which most of the denominations who participate in these events do not even believe themselves! The Billy Graham organization, for example, believes in a "once saved, always saved" gospel. With the exception of some Baptist, Presbyterian, and Reformed denominations, most of the other churches that participate in these "crusades" believe and teach a convert can lose their "free gift." A person can hear an unconditional salvation message from Billy Graham and be sent to a church that teaches Christians can go to hell! Is this honesty? Often churches that participate in these mass crusades consider other churches that participate in the same crusade not truly Christians. The Catholic church still has in her canons (laws) that salvation is only in the Roman Catholic Church. All other denominations are going to hell, yet Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (Protestant), who is condemned to hell by Roman Catholic law, sends new converts to the Roman Catholic Church! This is insanity! ... PTK (Guest) 17/11/2009 06:32 Part two... • Imagine thousands of Christian churches all over the world hearing on Sunday how those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, or who have not entered the True church will ultimately be tortured beyond man's ability to imagine. Then the pastor, evangelist, elders and congregation go to a nice restaurant dining away, praising the preacher for his fine sermon, while driving through streets passing thousands they believe are on their way to hell; having waitresses serve them, bus boys clean their dishes and never warning them about what the preacher just preached. Then they go home to watch football, or play golf, and they wonder why the world doesn't believe their "gospel." Imagine the world going to hell, and yet few pastors and flock are pounding on our doors begging us to get right with God. Imagine TV evangelists today telling the world that any day now the world will end, while they stash billions of dollars sincere people sent them into retirement funds, funds for their children's college education, and homes costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes, millions of dollars. • Every Roman Catholic priest in the world has to swear on the Bible, before being ordained, to believe and defend the eighty articles of the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX. It contains the official Roman Catholic Doctrine for Priests and Bishops. It contains some of the following which speaks only of the rights and authority of the Roman Catholic Church as being the only true and legal representative of God: 21. The Church (Roman Catholic) has power to define dogmatically the religion of the Catholic Church to be the only true religion. 34. The doctrine which equaled the Roman Pontiff to an absolute Prince, acting in the Universal Church, is not a doctrine which prevailed merely in the Middle Ages. 42. In legal conflicts between both powers (Civil and Ecclesiastical) the Ecclesiastical Law prevails. 54. Kings and Princes (or heads of government) are not exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church (Roman Catholic), and are subordinate to the Church in litigated questions of jurisdictions! 73. Marriage among Christians cannot be constituted by any mere civil contract; The marriage-contract among Christians must always be a sacrament; and the contract is null, if the sacrament does not exist. 77. It is necessary even in the present day that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of religion. 78. Whence it has been unwisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholic, that persons coming to reside therin shall enjoy free exercise of their religion. • The Pope, who had to sign the above to become a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, is presently going around the world praising all the world's leading religions as good. He even joins in their rituals while having signed the above. Is this truthful? Question: In light of the above history, which is open to the entire world to read, if you were the Creator of the Universe and had all power, knowing the beginning from the end, demanded perfect justice, loved everything you created including your enemies; if you had some of your children lost on some tiny planet called Earth, would you send a woman like the one called "church" to safely bring back your children? I wouldn't and neither would our Father, and if you got honest with yourself for a moment, neither would you, that is, if you were sane. Praise Him forever for having the wisdom to send His Son Who said, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all mankind unto myself! (John 12:32) "The Father loved the Son and has given all things into His hands. (John 3:35) "As you have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him." (John 17:2) The Scriptures further declare that Jesus Christ created all things, reconciles all things, is Heir of all things, has authority over all things, will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, His grace comes to all men, He takes away the sin of the world, He gave His flesh for the life of the world, He is the propitiation for the sins of the world, whose gifts are irrevocable, one of which is His life for the world, who was manifested to put away sin, who preached to the spirits in prison, who holds the keys to death and hell, who never changes, who loves His enemies and prays for them, whose prayers and intercessions are always heard and answered by the Father, who made all things alive, who completed the work His Father gave Him which was to restore all things, who became a ransom for all to take away the curse, who became the Savior of the whole world and then will deliver it up to His Father that the Father might be all in all! "It is finished!" Believe it! Now here is a Savior we can trust with everything we have and are. Here is the Gospel, the Good News. This Savior is able and willing to deliver one from themselves, sin, addictions, Satan, and from someone who often is the most powerful enemy of mankind and its Creator, a "woman" who calls herself "Church," better known among the Greeks as "Circe" daughter of the Sun, who, in Greek mythology, had the power to turn men into animals. If you are weary, lost, broken hearted, deceived, turned off by religion, or unable to do what you know in your heart is right, turn directly to the One Who is the Way of true Life. He will send you His Spirit Who will lead you into all Truth. Yes, the road is straight and narrow, it is as narrow as One Man; His name in English is Jesus the Christ, the One sent by the Creator of all. In Hebrew He is called Yashua Ha Mashiach, in Greek Iesus Christos. He is not only the Way, but the Door and the Good Shepherd. He will lead you to our heavenly Father Who has been waiting for you. He will take your sin-stained garments and/or your religious robes of self-righteousness and burn them away. He will not burn your bodies and torture or annihilate you, as many Christians say. This is false doctrine which entered the "church" early in its history and crept into many, but not all Bibles. Jesus Christ is your Savior whether you presently know Him or not. Your eternal well-being has been secured by His act on the Tree of Crucifixion. He has not failed you for "Love never fails!" The Creator of the universe may have many attributes, but His overall nature is Love, a Love that will never leave nor forsake you, never! Here is Someone you can trust yourself, your family, and the entire world to. Now seek your Maker with all your heart. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

09-24-2012, 04:06 PM	#21
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,382	Re: Everyone Interested in The Church Should Read This I am not sure how to read the posting by aron of these diatribes from this external party. I note that there are careful definitions provided that, if accepted as correct, could lead somewhere in the vicinity of where the source intends to go with them. (I'm looking mostly at #16) But, for example, noting that "ekklesia" infers some kind of "body politic" and therefore makes "church" a bad thing is really a kind of equivocation. We start by establishing that the use of "ekklesia" was not simply of a word with a singular meaning. It may be that its most common use was of a group that came together within a region, city (whatever) to negotiate/legislate/rule. But that was not the meaning that was intended when Jesus spoke of building his "ekklesia." So to force that back into the discussion is a little disingenuous (being generous). Now in this particular post, the guy has a laundry list of times/issues where the leadership of the more global organization of churches have taken rather ignoble stances, and where people, being the fallen things that we are, have used misapplication of religious texts to justify heinous things. The thing is that in almost all of these cases, the real issue is that there were those who wanted to do those heinous things, or be the absolute leaders, and searched for ways to wrestle the religious texts into conformity with their desires. In other words, they had a goal and went seeking for a way to force the documents that outwardly guided their morality to conform to the morality that they wanted rather than letting the morality of their religious texts guide them. I doubt that any of the things or politics or war pointed to were started because good religious people were reading their bibles (or whatevers) and found that they should go out and destroy everyone not in agreement with them. (Well, there may be some religions that actually have those commands, but not Judaism or Christianity.) War is war. The comments about WWI and WWII were ridiculous. Finding that there are Christians on both sides is not news. They were not fighting each other for religious reasons. Both sides may have prayed for their own victory and/or safety. And both may have considered God to be on their side. But the cause and driving forces were not religious. Even most wars that put on religious faces are really wars of greed, pride, revolt, etc. The religion is mostly just part of the cultural differences that keep them from finding peaceful solutions. But the solutions are political, not religious. The Bible was mostly silent on the issue of slavery. But its emphasis would eventually lead to the end of the institution. But in no way did it suggest the armed overthrow of one in favor of the other. And neither does the church. Except to the extent that it is populated by fallible people with fallible thoughts and goals. The problem is not the church. It is not simply church leadership. It is not denominations nor the RCC (and/or the EOC). That the Greek and Roman popes would excommunicate each other is evidence of the stupidity of man. It is not evidence of the failure of the church. Neither had authority to condemn the other to hell in the first place. The church is not a "body politic" in the negative sense that the writer claimed. Man may create aspects of politics within it, but that is not the church. Separate the wheat from the chaff. To a great degree, this kind of separation is happening all around. Not uniformly nor in all places or all aspects. But those who would direct you to the next version of the "this is it" church want you to distrust all others. The next LRC is just a dung heap of rhetoric away. Throwing the very term "church" under the bus is sounding like the next Witness Lee, or Troy Brooks, or even (dare I say) cult leader of much more dangerous designs. They are boldly declaring that red is grey and yellow white. And they don't want you to even think about whether you have your own opinion on the subject. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel