Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question for church-goin Christians...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    You're RCC?
    No. Conservative Protestant.
    "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

    "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
      I suspect in Protestant circles, emphasis on attendance is more a sign of legalism especially if tithing is added in to the mix. (For the record after much study I have come to the position that the Christian is not under the tithe.)
      I think legalism is a problem for human beings in general. We seem to find it hard not to pin down exactly what we must or must not do.

      For the record I also do not feel the Christian is "under" the tithe. I see it, none-the-less as appropriate for non legalistic reasons. God, and His Church, do not need my money. I need to give to serve the others in my local church and to help in the sharing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #33
        It is a mandate that we meet together on a regular basis, according to Hebrews 10. I am simply not convinced that going to "church" qualifies as said "fellowship."

        The word "church" is defined by Webster’s dictionary as: “a building for public and especially Christian worship”, and also “a body or organization of religious believers: as a: the whole body of Christians”.... however, the word church itself appears to have no Biblical root.

        It is thought to have been somehow transliterated from the Scottish kirk, or the Greek kuriakos or the German kirche, all three of which describe a building or place belonging to a ‘lord’.

        By contrast, in the New Testament the Greek word ‘ekklesia’ is used to describe the various bodies of believers, a word which literally means “the called out ones”, referring specifically to people whom have been called out from the world, or ‘believers’… not an organization, or a building.

        When one opens the Scriptures and studies the New Testament, it is clear that where the word "church" is written, the text is actually saying ekklesia.

        In the Old Testament, the word often used to denote the "congregation" or community of Israel (especially in its religious aspect as the people of God) was qahal. The Old Testament qahal can be described as a theocratic society, or subjects of the Heavenly King.

        The Christian ekklesia is more of a theocratic democracy, a society of believers that are free, yet are always aware that said freedom is derived from their obedience to the King, Jesus Christ the Lord.

        The New Testament ekklesia is not like the Old Testament qahal, which required one to be Jewish in order to be a member; in the New Testament the ekklesia is made up of Jews and Gentiles who have been born again, who have been ‘called out’ to congregate, apart from the world, and since Christ has already fulfilled the Law of Moses--creating a new covenant--the ekklesia is redeemed from its sin and is promised eternal life in the Kingdom of God.

        The first place in the New Testament where the word ekklesia is applied to the Body of believers is in Matthew 16:18, by Jesus:

        Mathew 16:18b – “… I will build my church (ekklesia)”
        In Matt 16:18, Christ Himself denotes that it is He who builds the ekklesia; it is man who builds buildings. Man uses stones to build, but Christ is the chief Cornerstone… and yet stone buildings are not the ekklesia, nor is the Body of Christ located in building built by any builder on earth. Instead the ekklesia looks for a home, not built with hands but is looking for

        “… a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.” (Heb 11:10)
        I'll admit there is a great mystery with the ekklesia, but there's no evidence to suggest that going to some building on Sunday qualifies as meeting together as the ekklesia.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Steven View Post
          Follow up question to original: how does one "go to church"?
          The believers are the church. It is the meeting together. Not so much any one time or any one place.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
            I think legalism is a problem for human beings in general. We seem to find it hard not to pin down exactly what we must or must not do.

            For the record I also do not feel the Christian is "under" the tithe. I see it, none-the-less as appropriate for non legalistic reasons. God, and His Church, do not need my money. I need to give to serve the others in my local church and to help in the sharing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
            I agree that not being under the tithe is no excuse to not contribute to the work of God including but not exclusively His church.

            (On the other hand having just worked on my taxes and seeing how pathetically low my charitable giving was, maybe I should put myself under the tithe to learn better. )
            Last edited by Thoughtful Monk; 02-01-2015, 05:16 PM.
            "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

            "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

            Comment


            • #36
              For many wealthy believers, the tithe might serve as an excuse to not give generously. "Freely you have received, freely give." That doesn't sound like following an exact formula.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Steven View Post
                It is a mandate that we meet together on a regular basis, according to Hebrews 10. I am simply not convinced that going to "church" qualifies as said "fellowship."

                The word "church" is defined by Webster’s dictionary as: “a building for public and especially Christian worship”, and also “a body or organization of religious believers: as a: the whole body of Christians”.... however, the word church itself appears to have no Biblical root.
                Eph 5:25 - Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

                Church = ἐκκλησία = ekklēsia - a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I really don't understand why you're making this so difficult.

                  "Church" is the meeting of the body of Christ. There's the "local church" (a local body of believers - "the Church at Phillipi) and the "universal church" --- all of the saints through all of the ages.

                  Sure, we call the building we meet in "a Church", but many of us used to qualify that by saying "the Church house". It's just more convenient to say "I'm going to Church".

                  Now, if I'm just going to the Church to mow the lawn, I wouldn't say "I'm going to Church", I'd probably say "I'm going to the Church".

                  Is there an actual point you're trying to make that I may have missed?
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Cow Poke, yes. If you're trying to make a comparison with modern Christendom, then who was the "pastor" of the church at Phillipi?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Steven View Post
                      Cow Poke, yes. If you're trying to make a comparison with modern Christendom, then who was the "pastor" of the church at Phillipi?
                      That was before my time. Ask Mossy.

                      I'm beginning to think you're looking for justification to NOT meet regularly with a body of Christians to whom you would be accountable.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Cow Poke - There was no pastor of the church at Phillipi. We can't draw parallels between modern Christendom and Biblical Christendom to try to prove a point. A lot of the modern traditions of men simply don't exist in Biblical Christendom... not that slighting anyone for "going to church", as if one could.

                        I have already agreed that it is mandated for the Ekklesia to meet regularly. It's up to the "church" to prove that the time/place/building tradition surpasses this Biblical mandate. For example, if someone was to tell you "I don't go to a church" but they do meet regularly in with Christians in another setting, would you accuse them being "out of fellowship" or "alienating" themselves?

                        I do take umbrage at the assumption that one must go to a traditional church building in order to meet certain spiritual 'qualifications'/outward appearances.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Steven View Post
                          Cow Poke - There was no pastor of the church at Phillipi.
                          We don't know that.... some say Luke was pastor there.

                          We can't draw parallels between modern Christendom and Biblical Christendom to try to prove a point.
                          It looks like your point is to cause division.

                          A lot of the modern traditions of men simply don't exist in Biblical Christendom... not that slighting anyone for "going to church", as if one could.
                          Fords and Chevies didn't exist in Biblical "Christendom", as you call it.

                          I have already agreed that it is mandated for the Ekklesia to meet regularly.
                          How very noble.

                          It's up to the "church" to prove that the time/place/building tradition surpasses this Biblical mandate.


                          For example, if someone was to tell you "I don't go to a church" but they do meet regularly in with Christians in another setting, would you accuse them being "out of fellowship" or "alienating" themselves?
                          It's not my place to judge them.

                          I do take umbrage at the assumption that one must go to a traditional church building in order to meet certain spiritual 'qualifications'/outward appearances.
                          Who's claiming that? Again, it looks to me like you're just trying to find fault - cause division.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Steven View Post
                            It's up to the "church" to prove that the time/place/building tradition surpasses this Biblical mandate.
                            Why would anybody need to "prove" that their worship practice "surpasses" a Biblical mandate? That's just .... weird. When I meet with fellow Christians to praise God and learn more about him, the LAST thing on my mind is "proving" to somebody that we're "surpassing" some kind of Biblical mandate.

                            Perhaps we need to check in with the local Pharisee union?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Steven View Post
                              Cow Poke - There was no pastor of the church at Phillipi.
                              You're arguing from silence, which is always dangerous.
                              We can't draw parallels between modern Christendom and Biblical Christendom to try to prove a point. A lot of the modern traditions of men simply don't exist in Biblical Christendom... not that slighting anyone for "going to church", as if one could.
                              This is pretty vague. Is the 4th century "modern"?
                              I have already agreed that it is mandated for the Ekklesia to meet regularly. It's up to the "church" to prove that the time/place/building tradition surpasses this Biblical mandate. For example, if someone was to tell you "I don't go to a church" but they do meet regularly in with Christians in another setting, would you accuse them being "out of fellowship" or "alienating" themselves?
                              You seem to have missed my post. What is done at the meeting is not unimportant.
                              I do take umbrage at the assumption that one must go to a traditional church building in order to meet certain spiritual 'qualifications'/outward appearances.
                              You appear to be burning a strawman here. My current local church only started meeting in a "traditional church building" two years ago. It started in someone's basement 20 years ago, and was no less a church then.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Steven View Post
                                Cow Poke - There was no pastor of the church at Phillipi.
                                New Testament churches did have leaders. There were Elders and Deacons. Many churches (local) count the pastor as the head elder. We do not have a great deal of data on the leadership of NT churches.
                                Originally posted by Steven View Post
                                I have already agreed that it is mandated for the Ekklesia to meet regularly. It's up to the "church" to prove that the time/place/building tradition surpasses this Biblical mandate. For example, if someone was to tell you "I don't go to a church" but they do meet regularly in with Christians in another setting, would you accuse them being "out of fellowship" or "alienating" themselves?

                                I do take umbrage at the assumption that one must go to a traditional church building in order to meet certain spiritual 'qualifications'/outward appearances.
                                I do not recall anyone saying that going to church required any certain type of building. One church I attended met in a school building. Are you suggesting that we were not a church?

                                We are the Church where ever we choose to meet together. Why are you being so difficult about this?

                                Also I do not see it as a mandate as I said before. It is a guideline for a strong faithful church not a rule to follow.
                                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X