The importance of church?

[aspen]

I think Hell will be the church of the individual, where doctrines take the place of relationships and everyone will argue their point of view with one goal in mind to be RIGHT. Might will win out for only for a moment until someone else gets the advantage. An all empty and proud declarations of private doctrine; an all pervasive atmosphere of a persecution complex; and all dualistic and concrete view of reality, without personal insight will be the character of Hell - wait.....yikes.......this sounds all too familiar!

 

[mjrhealth]

Is there anyone who would like to comment on these verses and tell me how it is that you don't need a preacher, can forsake the assembly and why you don't need to go to Church?

Simply. I have Christ, In Him is all I need, He is the way the truth and the life, He is the bread of life in which if any man eats of they shall never hunger.

In His Love

 

[marksman]

Is there anyone who would like to comment on these verses and tell me how it is that you don't need a preacher, can forsake the assembly and why you don't need to go to Church?

As I have said, if you are the church, you can't go to church. Wherever you are, the church functions when you are with another brother or sister.

2 Cor 5:20. means to be a representative. one who represents God. No preaching involved.

Romans 10:14. The word preacher means to herald as a public crier. This suggests an evangelist who spreads the good news to unbelievers and the verse has nothng to do with assembling together.

1 Cor 1:21. Once again, this is talking about sharing the good news with the unbeliever.

Hebrews 13:17. There is no mention here of meeting together or preaching.

Ephesians 4:11. These verses talk about the gifting given by Christ to the church. it is not referring to preaching or meeting together.

Hebrews 10:24/5. Nothing about preaching here and nothing about assembling in a building set aside for the purpose. In the context of the whole of scripture, the assembling together would be in the homes or the synagogue if you were a Jew. If you don't assemble in homes you are not assembling yourself together.

Good post Marksman, I agree, very neat and polite, thanks.

Thankyou so much. I must admit I do have my moments.

 

[jiggyfly]

Here is a scripture on assembling together.
17 But in the following instructions, I cannot praise you. For it sounds as if more harm than good is done when you meet together.18 First, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it.19 But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that you who have God’s approval will be recognized!1 Cor 11:17-19 (NLT)



Pretty much what I found in the various "churches" when I used to participate in religious liturgy.

 

[FHII]

As I have said, if you are the church, you can't go to church. Wherever you are, the church functions when you are with another brother or sister.

Actually, "you" are not the Church. The Church (body of Christ) is one body many members. You may be part of the Church, but "you" are not the Church. Church only happens when the body is gathered together.

2 Cor 5:20. means to be a representative. one who represents God. No preaching involved.

Actually, preaching is involved and its the main point for having an ambassador. When Christ's ambassador is talking, he is talking in place for Jesus. That actually is preaching.

Romans 10:14. The word preacher means to herald as a public crier. This suggests an evangelist who spreads the good news to unbelievers and the verse has nothng to do with assembling together.

What you did is go to Strongs for the definition of a preacher. However, you didn't quote the whole definition. It means to herald, as a public crier [it does not say he is a public crier], especially of devine truth. It doesn't say he's and evangelist who only preaches to unbelievers. Yes, he does preach to unbelievers, but also to believers. The chapter goes on to say faith comes by hearing. Believers need faith too.

1 Cor 1:21. Once again, this is talking about sharing the good news with the unbeliever.

No... This verse says the preaching is to save them that believe.

Hebrews 13:17. There is no mention here of meeting together or preaching.

It says to obey them that have the rule over you. That would be your pastor. They rule over you because they are preaching or bringing the Word to you.

Ephesians 4:11. These verses talk about the gifting given by Christ to the church. it is not referring to preaching or meeting together.

Umm.... It's talking about the Church leaders and who is needed for perfecting the saints. If you don't have them, you are not being perfected.

Hebrews 10:24/5. Nothing about preaching here and nothing about assembling in a building set aside for the purpose. In the context of the whole of scripture, the assembling together would be in the homes or the synagogue if you were a Jew. If you don't assemble in homes you are not assembling yourself together.

I don't care where you assemble... Do you have something against buildings? Church can be in a home or outside, or in a building. Still it's for assembling as a body. I don't see how you decided it would be in a home or a synagogue. It makes more sense that it would be in something larger than a home if the whole Body is going to assemble there. Strongs says its a complete collection, specifically for a Christian meeting (worship). It also says "...as is the matter of some is," which means it most likely doesn't mean going to your friend's home for a visit.

Let me throw this in.... If it's not important to have Church or preaching why did Paul waste his time explaining to Timothy and Titus how to handle the job?

Here is a scripture on assembling together.
17 But in the following instructions, I cannot praise you. For it sounds as if more harm than good is done when you meet together.18 First, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it.19 But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that you who have God’s approval will be recognized!1 Cor 11:17-19 (NLT)



Pretty much what I found in the various "churches" when I used to participate in religious liturgy.

Perhaps you ought to read the whole chapter, as well as chapter 12. This is not an excuse not to go to Church, it's a warning how not to behave when you get there. These two chapters still say you should have Church and specifically, one with leadership and order.

 

[jiggyfly]

Perhaps you ought to read the whole chapter, as well as chapter 12. This is not an excuse not to go to Church, it's a warning how not to behave when you get there. These two chapters still say you should have Church and specifically, one with leadership and order.

Actually I do meet with other Christians, I've been meeting with a couple of other guys on Sat. mornings for about 10 years and have participated in various other home groups through the years. I have no need for religious liturgy or the Christian religious system. I am part of the body, I am governed and taught by HolySpirit.

Been so captivated and infatuated with God's kingdom to be concerned with all the little micro kingdoms of the Christian religious institution.

 

[ronmorgen]

Good question and a lot of good answers. Sorry I couldn't read them all. Meeting together (such as this) helps the Christian grow in his faith, and sharpens the gifts the Holy Spirit has given him. Do try to find a godly Sheppard who cares for you personally, who speaks to you personally, and who corrects you with love when you're wrong. And do try to find fellowship with other believers. Just sitting in Church to do your time is not the way. But don't worry if you don't find a group right away. Seek the Lord with all your heart, study his word, obey the Lord, and eventually He will lead you to where you should be. Of course the obvious is true, if you are here, your in fellowship.

 

[FHII]

Actually I do meet with other Christians, I've been meeting with a couple of other guys on Sat. mornings for about 10 years and have participated in various other home groups through the years. I have no need for religious liturgy or the Christian religious system. I am part of the body, I am governed and taught by HolySpirit.

Been so captivated and infatuated with God's kingdom to be concerned with all the little micro kingdoms of the Christian religious institution.

Jiggyfly,

Hey, I see nothing wrong with that, except one detail. It's clear you are not forsaking the assembling of yourselves. It's also clear that you've been dedicated if you've been doing it for 10 years, along with your fellows. I'm not against the idea of meeting in houses or having informal meetings, for lack of a better term. I also don't blame you for your "no need for religious litigury or the Christian religious system", however you mean it. Actually, I shun them too. I go to a non denominational Church which focuses on teaching, worship and praise through song and dance. We care very little for tradition.

I get caught up in things and the reason I'm so passionate about this topic is because the Bible clearly says we have to assemble and we have to have Church leadership. By "Church" I mean a body of people. It can be 8 or 10,000.... Most likely you'll find it easier to get 8 doing it right.


The one detail I have a problem with is about leadership. Through the verses I've provided, it should be clear that there has to be an appointed and annointed leader. If you actually have that, then fine. If you don't but are looking for one, that's ok too. If you don't know whether you need one but would accept a leader who you find to be annointed, I can deal with that too. Please don't quote me on the figures... But Deborah was the leader for 40 years, there were 400 years when every man did that which was right in his own eyes (not a good time!) and God himself led for 3 years. Biblically, that's not a lot of time that men who wanted to follow God didn't follow one man, or at least a few chosen. So for 4 thousand years minus less than 500, there was always a leader who was a man. For 40 there was a good woman, and for three there was Jesus who was God in the flesh who was training 12 to carry on for another 100 and then some.

Despite the fact that I hate what the traditional church world is, I still cherish the roll of a man of God -- an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher. Absolutely I believe that the vast majority of the preachers today are charlatins (sp?) and of the devil. But the true men of God I hold dear. And anyone who is an enemy to them, is my enemy.

With that in mind, let me throw in a few points... Anyone who calls himself "Father" or "Reverened" is probably not a real man of God. He may be a future man of God, but right now he doesn't understand that those titles of God's names. I'd sooner follow someone who called himself a modern day Apostle or Prophet.

Now about today's modern preachers... First off, all who are on mass media television, I don't like them. I have some respect for two of them for some things they did: Creflo Dollar and Benny Hinn. Dollar defended the ministry's office when he defied the gov't. Benn defended the Gospel against another popular preacher and said, NO! Jesus is the only way!

Hey, a broken clock is right twice a day, right?

So, I don't mind your position and don't think you are breaking the teaching, except I don't know if you have a leader or at least an elder in you Church, which is an "informal" group meeting. And by that, I don't mean that "informal group meeting" is a bad thing. You meeting with a small Church is just as good, as long as you have leadership.

 

[jiggyfly]

FHII, the guys I meet with on Sat. morn are elders, and there have always been one or two in the different groups over the years including myself. After becoming dis-illusioned the christian religious institution HolySpirit began to open my eyes/ mind to dynamics of the spiritual body of Christ and it's simplicity.

 

[FHII]

FHII, the guys I meet with on Sat. morn are elders, and there have always been one or two in the different groups over the years including myself. After becoming dis-illusioned the christian religious institution HolySpirit began to open my eyes/ mind to dynamics of the spiritual body of Christ and it's simplicity.

I don't blame you for becoming dis illusioned with the institutions; I am too! Nothing about what you are doing sounds bad as long as there is leadership, descency and order to it. Just realize that not all churches are "christian religious instituteions" in the way you mean.

Hey.... Gotta defend my turf!

 

[thomas44]

I've always been interested in spiritual matters and joined a Presbyterian church with my wife 25 years ago. The more I read outside of the Bible, the more questions I had regarding the Bible. My collection of books goes far beyond what I would ever get from 1000 sermons (I've done both). The American church experience today is far different than what was taught or believed from the very early "Christians" from the years 0 to 300AD. You have to get into the Gnostist Gospels and the Essenes to get a better picture of what spirituality really is. Mainstream religion can only go so far as to what Jesus wants you to know. Mainstream religion is better than no spirituality, but when man comes up with so many different versions of the "correct" church experience, one has to wonder. No, one doesn't have to go to church to become truly spiritual, but it gets one thinking what Jesus really wanted for us.

 

[marksman]

Actually, "you" are not the Church. The Church (body of Christ) is one body many members. You may be part of the Church, but "you" are not the Church. Church only happens when the body is gathered together.

A pedantic tautology

Actually, preaching is involved and its the main point for having an ambassador. When Christ's ambassador is talking, he is talking in place for Jesus. That actually is preaching.

If preaching is talking, we might as well do away with the pulpit.

What you did is go to Strongs for the definition of a preacher. However, you didn't quote the whole definition. It means to herald, as a public crier [it does not say he is a public crier], especially of devine truth. It doesn't say he's and evangelist who only preaches to unbelievers. Yes, he does preach to unbelievers, but also to believers. The chapter goes on to say faith comes by hearing. Believers need faith too.

I have to admit that I have never met a private crier.

No... This verse says the preaching is to save them that believe.

How do you save someone who is saved?

It says to obey them that have the rule over you. That would be your pastor. They rule over you because they are preaching or bringing the Word to you.

I cannot find one single verse in the NT that says a pastor rules over you.

Umm.... It's talking about the Church leaders and who is needed for perfecting the saints. If you don't have them, you are not being perfected.

Precisely. It has nothing to do with preaching as I said.

I don't care where you assemble... Do you have something against buildings? Church can be in a home or outside, or in a building. Still it's for assembling as a body. I don't see how you decided it would be in a home or a synagogue. It makes more sense that it would be in something larger than a home if the whole Body is going to assemble there. Strongs says its a complete collection, specifically for a Christian meeting (worship). It also says "...as is the matter of some is," which means it most likely doesn't mean going to your friend's home for a visit.

I decided it would be in a home and the synogogue because that is what the scriptures says in Acts 2.

Let me throw this in.... If it's not important to have Church or preaching why did Paul waste his time explaining to Timothy and Titus how to handle the job?

I never said anything about not having church.

like so many people in the church today, you probably don't believe that you can have church unless you have a building, someone who is paid to be a christian and a set meeting time and liturgy that never varies. I used to think like that, but I have discovered a new way of living that doesn't need buildings other than your home, that is based on reality and relationship so religion and ritual is not needed, and where our identity is in Christ, not some name, title or denomination. When people ask what church I attend I say "His Church".

It appears I am not alone as I get reports all the time about saints leaving the historical church and branching out in their homes. Earlier this year I discovered a church of 100,000 in India and they all meet in homes. Who am I to argue about what God is doing.

 

[FHII]

like so many people in the church today, you probably don't believe that you can have church unless you have a building, someone who is paid to be a christian and a set meeting time and liturgy that never varies. I used to think like that, but I have discovered a new way of living that doesn't need buildings other than your home, that is based on reality and relationship so religion and ritual is not needed, and where our identity is in Christ, not some name, title or denomination. When people ask what church I attend I say "His Church".

It appears I am not alone as I get reports all the time about saints leaving the historical church and branching out in their homes. Earlier this year I discovered a church of 100,000 in India and they all meet in homes. Who am I to argue about what God is doing.

What do you have against an actual building? I don't believe you can have church unless you have a building. I have said before you can have church in your home. I have no problem with that. I do believe that someone has to be in charge in the form of an Apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher. I'll even say an elder, minister or director. But someone has to be a leader of the meeting. No, Church doesn't have to be formal, but it has to be descent and in order. Jesus had church in synagogues, homes and in open fields, but he was still the leader. Without some type of leadership, it is still good to meet under the name of Jesus, but it isn't church. It's fellowship which is still great. I am not for or against buildings, and fully support folks who meet at home to have Church as long as their is leadership involved. And if you have a leader -- one who spends his time digging out truths of the Bible to share with you when you meet, while you are busy carrying on with your job and not searching out the Bible with the same dilligence -- why wouldn't you support him?


"A pedantic tautology"


Luke 4:4



"If preaching is talking, we might as well do away with the pulpit."


Throw out the pulpit if you like, just don't throw out the preacher with it.




"I have to admit that I have never met a private crier."

Actually, neither have I. But I have met a preacher.


"How do you save someone who is saved? "


It didn't say save one who is saved, it said save them that believe. The believers HEAR. They can't hear unless someone is talking.



"I cannot find one single verse in the NT that says a pastor rules over you."


Are Pastors ministers? If so, then you can look at Romans 13 and Hebrews 13:17.



"I decided it would be in a home and the synogogue because that is what the scriptures says in Acts 2. "

Wonderful and good for you as long as you have a Peter there to correct your wrong beliefs, as in Acts 2.

 

[aspen]

I agree that some people believe that churches and tradition are what makes Christianity good, but I also think that other people like to believe that constant reform.....the house movement being a prime example - is going to bring us to a more pure form of Christianity.

The fact is, we cannot escape being human no matter where we worship God. The quest for purity is like chasing rainbows and is just as misguided as hiding in churches and tradition. It reminds me of people who collect books, but never read them. We seem to enjoy 'setting up' for the practice of Christianity, but actually practicing it is another story.

 

[jiggyfly]

I agree that some people believe that churches and tradition are what makes Christianity good, but I also think that other people like to believe that constant reform.....the house movement being a prime example - is going to bring us to a more pure form of Christianity.

The fact is, we cannot escape being human no matter where we worship God. The quest for purity is like chasing rainbows and is just as misguided as hiding in churches and tradition. It reminds me of people who collect books, but never read them. We seem to enjoy 'setting up' for the practice of Christianity, but actually practicing it is another story.

Very true, I have seen many times people saying they are "coming out of religion" just build something very similar in a house group. While religion and a relationship with Christ may look similar at first glance the differences are immense, one is a walk like Christ (religion) the other is simply a walk with Christ (relationship). Growing in this walk with Christ is simply more of Him and less of me.

 

[marksman]

What do you have against an actual building? I don't believe you can have church unless you have a building. I have said before you can have church in your home. I have no problem with that. I do believe that someone has to be in charge in the form of an Apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher. I'll even say an elder, minister or director. But someone has to be a leader of the meeting. No, Church doesn't have to be formal, but it has to be descent and in order. Jesus had church in synagogues, homes and in open fields, but he was still the leader. Without some type of leadership, it is still good to meet under the name of Jesus, but it isn't church. It's fellowship which is still great. I am not for or against buildings, and fully support folks who meet at home to have Church as long as their is leadership involved. And if you have a leader -- one who spends his time digging out truths of the Bible to share with you when you meet, while you are busy carrying on with your job and not searching out the Bible with the same dilligence -- why wouldn't you support him?

I don't have anthing against an actual building as such. What I am not FOR is millions spent on religious buildings for three reasons.

1. There is no mention at all in the scriptures of the church putting up specific buildings to meet in. Their primary place of meeting was the home (a building) and for the Jerusalem church, the synogogue but they did not meet there as the church. They met there as a sect of Judaism that believed Jesus was the Messiah.

2. It is indefensible to be spending millions on grandois buildings when the church worldwide is crying out for funds to help persecuted believers. Funds for housing because their homes have been destroyed by muslims. Funds for food and water because of natural disasters and muslims destroying their food crops and not being allowed to get a job because they are christians so they need seed captial to start their own business. Funds for bibles and literature to be printed in their own language as they have none.

We spend hundreds of millions on buildings that say "look at us" and in India it needs just over $1,000 to fund the building of a one room house for a christian family that has had their home destroyed by hindus. They are living in tents in a slum until that happens. How can we have such a skewed approach to Christianity whilst this situation exists. I cannot believe that God is pleased whilst we ignore those in need or have such a low priority to meet the needs of suffering saints.

3. It takes nothing financially to extend the Kingdom of God via homes because once you are too big to meet in a home, you just go and open up another home. Keep adding homes will grow the Kingdom of God quicker that having to raise millions to put up a building. In Africa, when you are ready to start your own church you go to a village where there is none, and start one in your home. As people get saved this is then multiplied over and over again. That is why the church there is growing. In India, there is a church of 100,000 and they all meet in homes. To me that is logical especially as satan is playing havoc in homes with families so meeting in homes puts you right where the action is.

 

[marksman]

I do believe that someone has to be in charge in the form of an Apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher. I'll even say an elder, minister or director. But someone has to be a leader of the meeting. No, Church doesn't have to be formal, but it has to be descent and in order. Jesus had church in synagogues, homes and in open fields, but he was still the leader. Without some type of leadership, it is still good to meet under the name of Jesus, but it isn't church. It's fellowship which is still great. I am not for or against buildings, and fully support folks who meet at home to have Church as long as their is leadership involved. And if you have a leader -- one who spends his time digging out truths of the Bible to share with you when you meet, while you are busy carrying on with your job and not searching out the Bible with the same dilligence -- why wouldn't you support him?

If you read the narrative of the NT you will find it is very specific. In all there are 25 verses that talk about the leadership of the church and they speak of Apostles, Prophets and Elders. Not once does it speak of a "pastor" leading the church. If that is the case, why do we have such a problem following the pattern. Is it because we are being governed culturally, not scripturally.

As I see the narrative, The Jerusalem church sent out the apostles to take the gospel to places where there was no church. They were supported financially if they wanted it but as we know Paul and Barnabas said no to this, preferring to be self supporting with their own business.

Once the church had been formed and established, Paul appointed or told someone to appoint local Elders from within the fellowship to have the oversight of it and they moved on to start another church. Nowhere does it say that they were to invite a "pastor" from outside of the church to come in and run it and get paid for the priviledge. There is no record anywhere in scripture of a "pastor" being in charge of a church. As we can see in the Corinthian letter, no one person had responsibility for ministry. It was a case of each one has.....known as the priesthood of all believers. That is not to say that specific people didn't have specific ministries i.e. teaching, shepherding, evangelism, prophetic, hospitality and helps but when they met together everyone was expected to contribute to what was taking place. When this happens, the Holy Spirit is in charge of the meeting. If you have not seen this in practice, it is hard to understand the concept.

One thing I need to ask is "if meeting without a leader is not church, why does the scripture say that Jesus is in the midst where two or three are gathered together in his name and not Jesus is in the midst where two or three are gathered together in his name with a leader."

And another thing I need to ask is what you deem to be decently and in order? So far all I have been told that for a meeting to be decent and in order, it has to have a meeting leader, a programme, time restrictions and only certain qualified people or people who are paid can dispense the main ministry.

 

[mjrhealth]

Men where never supposed to exercise lordship over men.

Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Bur satan knowing the ignorance of man, set up a hierarchy, called it church and so led men into bondage just as it was in Egypt, just as it was then it is now, christians afraid to leave the safety of church, afraid to come out of bondage. Jesus said He gave us the Holy spirirt to teach us and lead us into the truth, but men cry, no, we want"men" to tell us what to do, we have faith, but only when men tell us what to believe
, and so there they remain, exercising a kind of godliness, but not knowing God, as Jesus said, " they worship me with there mouths but there hearts are far from me". you can serve religion or Jesus, not both. You can only give all of your love to one or the other, you cannot serve two masters.

In His Love

 

[aspen]

Men where never supposed to exercise lordship over men.

Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Bur satan knowing the ignorance of man, set up a hierarchy, called it church and so led men into bondage just as it was in Egypt, just as it was then it is now, christians afraid to leave the safety of church, afraid to come out of bondage. Jesus said He gave us the Holy spirirt to teach us and lead us into the truth, but men cry, no, we want"men" to tell us what to do, we have faith, but only when men tell us what to believe
, and so there they remain, exercising a kind of godliness, but not knowing God, as Jesus said, " they worship me with there mouths but there hearts are far from me". you can serve religion or Jesus, not both. You can only give all of your love to one or the other, you cannot serve two masters.

In His Love

Hmm...

I tend to believe that God uses human authority to teach us how to obey. In fact, left to my own devices, I would end up doing what I like to do best, sleep! If it wasn't for my boss, I wouldn't know how to do my job or have a client roster. If it wasn't for the church leadership and educators throughout my life, I would know how to worship God or know Him in an orthodox context. I would be isolated from the body of Christ and not have direction in my sanctification.

 

[Robbie]

I kind of feel like men who wanted to set themselves up as my teachers were basically hindering me from entering in and those that wanted to rule over me were trying to take the place in this temple that belongs to the Lord... it's only the God that get's any Glory in my life... as far as people... the most important thing for me is relationships that are in the Light where He's in the midst of us... I'm over ever being in a place again where a man is called teacher and he has the position of talker and everyone else has the position of listener... to me that's not fellowship... for me it's all about two or more gathered equally in His name and Him being right there with us teaching us and giving us every good thing from the Father above... that's how it is the most real to me.