The Church With No Doctrine

[marksman]

If you had left out "without being an autocrat", then I would have understood your question.

I didn't put without being an autocrat in. You did. I asked where that was in scripture.

 

[marksman]

I see no biblical justification for a senior pastor not being under the authority of a body of elders, which is exactly what you find in some churches.

I see no biblical justification for a senior pastor full stop.

 

[FHII]

I see no biblical justification for a senior pastor full stop.

Neither did Korah.

 

[marksman]

Neither did Korah.

Whose Korah?

 

[Asyncritus]

A properly prepared communion table atop an alter...

You gotta be kidding me!!!!!!! Scripture please?

You ever read the letter to the Hebrews and its comments about priests, altars, sacrifices, holy days etc etc? No? Then I strongly suggest that you do.

This whole business of having 'priests' and 'altars' and bishops, and archbishops, and cardinals, and popes and spirit filled elders is just too depressing for words.

The NT talks about 'elders', and that's about it.

If you're in a church stuffed full of such people, then in your own interests you should leave. You are worshipping unscripturally, being led unscripturally, and if scriptural teaching and example matter to you, then what you have before you every week should be raising very large questions in your mind - to which there are no answers.

BTW, the other day I saw on British television a 'church' that does not use the word 'God'. I could hardly believe my eyes. Anybody else see it?

 

[marksman]

I expect three things out of a church...

1. Worship - A good worship service
2. Word - A time in the word of God by someone who has prepared a sermon
3. Ritual - I like for rituals like the Eucharist to be done honarably.
4. Doctrine - I like a well defined doctrinal position.

When these four conditions are met I can sit in and enjoy a church service. I loved the worship service a The Dwelling Place, but it is disturbing to me not to have a time in the word, public communion served by holy men around an altar, and a well defined doctrine.

A properly prepared communion table atop an alter...

Can't let this one pass Rocky. You expect three things out of a church and then you list four and then you say "these four conditions..."

Then you talk about a properly prepared communion table atop an alter altar.....

it seems like you are rusted onto religion, not christianity. I say this because...

"I expect..." If the Holy Spirit is in charge, all you can expect is that he will not consult you about what he can and cannot do.

The NTC church did not have a well defined doctrine beyond the risen ascended Christ who is saviour of the world. The doctrine was worked out as they went along, hence the letters.

When your four conditions are met you can sit and enjoy...REALLY? Where does it say in scripture that when you come together you sit and enjoy? my bible says that when you come together EVERYONE HAS....and it doesn't say that a meeting is right when everything is to your satisfaction.

And....and this is a BIG and....where did you get this strange notion of holy men around an altar? God did away with "holy men" when he tore the curtain at the entrance to the holy of holies and replaced it with the priesthood of all believers who need no "holy man" to be an intermediary between the believer and God.

I talk to God man to man. I don't need a "holy man" to run messages to God for me and for him to tell me what God wants. That is religion which is the invention of carnal man. God has nothing to do with it.

 

[Asyncritus]

The NTC church did not have a well defined doctrine beyond the risen ascended Christ who is saviour of the world. The doctrine was worked out as they went along, hence the letters.

Sorry MKM. This is completely inaccurate. They didn't just make it up as they went along.

That's what the 'churches' did - and behold the incredible diverstiy of erroneous doctrines that emerged, and which we behold today!

The true Christian church simply added Christ's teachings and resurrection to the Jewish basic doctrines, which in sum were (and you can look carefully at Acts 2 and Peter's speech and you ill see them all there)

1 There is One God, Jehovah
2 Jesus in the Son of God
3 God made immense promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as to David
4 Whose guarantee of fulfilment is the fact the Christ rose from the dead
5 And sits at the right hand of God, that resurrection being the Christian hope since
6 No man has gone to heaven, save Jesus alone

There's much more there, but it is all obvious to the careful reader.

I talk to God man to man. [A bit of a misnomer, isn't this????] I don't need a "holy man" to run messages to God for me and for him to tell me what God wants. That is religion which is the invention of carnal man. God has nothing to do with it.

 

[Suhar]

A properly prepared communion table atop an alter...

[SIZE=medium]“Properly” as declared by whom? Jesus and twelve other guys in the room. Not one chair, maybe no table and definitely no crucifix on it. I kind of doubt that there was a stained glass window and stainless steel stack of trays. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]“Properly” is all in the eyes of beholder[/SIZE]

 

[marksman]

[SIZE=medium]“Properly” as declared by whom? Jesus and twelve other guys in the room. Not one chair, maybe no table and definitely no crucifix on it. I kind of doubt that there was a stained glass window and stainless steel stack of trays. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]“Properly” is all in the eyes of beholder[/SIZE]

And the so called "communion" that we have today is totally subjective.

The Catholics want you to attend every day to improve your chances of heaven.

Then there are those who cannot have a meeting without communion.

Then there are those who have communion once a week.

Then there are those who have communion twice a month

Then there are those who have communion once a month.

Then there are those who have communion once a year (Passover).

The there are those who have biblical communion (when you come together to eat...).

Then there are those who do not see any reason for communion at all.

So one begs the question "Whose understanding of communion is the right one?" They can't all be right, because if they are, it means that anyone can interpret the scripture to suit their own prejudice or doctrine.

Having done a thorough study on the subject, I think I know which one is the right one, but the wrong ones are so entrenched it will take mountain moving faith to get people to do what the scripture says because denominational dogma is king.

 

[Dodo_David]

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (ESV):

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

The above-quoted verses do not say how often that communion is supposed to take place.

The there are those who have biblical communion (when you come together to eat...).

Marksman, it looks to me like you are begging the question with that above-quoted statement of yours.

 

[marksman]

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (ESV) The..... verses do not say how often that communion is supposed to take place.

The King James translates the verse 1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

The CEV however is different. "The Lord meant that when you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you tell about his death until he comes"

This is a truer translation becuase the Greek is "How you eat the bread and drink this cup" not "when."

This fits in with the content of the chapter because Paul was giving instructions on how they conducted themselves during the agape meal.