-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
A Plurality of Elders to Aid a Troubled Marriage?
- Thread starter Dr. K.R. Allen
- Start date
Scarecrow
Member
Steve…thank you for your concern.
If I was to claim to be anything it would probably be a Reformed Calvinist for the most part. I understand there are numerous doctrinal differences between Arminians, Calvinists, etc… What was interesting to me was that after reading a number of different translations of the Bible on my own I then discovered that what the Bible had taught me, by the leading of the Holy spirit, matched up incredibly closely to that of the Reformed Calvinist doctrine.
I become concerned when I see people basing their entire train of thought on one flawed assumption rather than a thorough knowledge and understanding of the scriptures (virtually all cults arise from this type of speculation). For example Tom Shipley lays the foundation for his opinions of divorce based on a scripture that allows a slave girl to leave her master if he does not provide for her. I sent him an email stating that this passage does indeed allow the girl to leave the care of her master, but nowhere does it indicate that she has or is allowed to divorce him. I provided numerous scriptures to point to glaring contradictions between his opinions and the scriptures themselves. In his answer to me he simply copied and pasted from his work and stated that we would probably continue to disagree; he made no attempt to address the scriptural proofs I provided. I can only assume that he may have a personal motive for reaching the conclusions he has. In essence you are doing the same thing with your theory about Eve. You seem determined to press the point when there simply is nothing to back up your assumption other than your desire to believe something that is not stated or implied. In contrast I could provide you with a lengthy argument in support of my statements and a plethora of scriptures to demonstrate why I believe as I do. I will spare everyone such a lengthy discourse as it is not required here and now. Should you be interested in obtaining a clearer understanding of God’s omniscience, sovereignty, foreknowledge, and many other traits of a God that is beyond our wildest imagination, I would highly recommend the works of Calvin and St. Augustine.
If I was to claim to be anything it would probably be a Reformed Calvinist for the most part. I understand there are numerous doctrinal differences between Arminians, Calvinists, etc… What was interesting to me was that after reading a number of different translations of the Bible on my own I then discovered that what the Bible had taught me, by the leading of the Holy spirit, matched up incredibly closely to that of the Reformed Calvinist doctrine.
I become concerned when I see people basing their entire train of thought on one flawed assumption rather than a thorough knowledge and understanding of the scriptures (virtually all cults arise from this type of speculation). For example Tom Shipley lays the foundation for his opinions of divorce based on a scripture that allows a slave girl to leave her master if he does not provide for her. I sent him an email stating that this passage does indeed allow the girl to leave the care of her master, but nowhere does it indicate that she has or is allowed to divorce him. I provided numerous scriptures to point to glaring contradictions between his opinions and the scriptures themselves. In his answer to me he simply copied and pasted from his work and stated that we would probably continue to disagree; he made no attempt to address the scriptural proofs I provided. I can only assume that he may have a personal motive for reaching the conclusions he has. In essence you are doing the same thing with your theory about Eve. You seem determined to press the point when there simply is nothing to back up your assumption other than your desire to believe something that is not stated or implied. In contrast I could provide you with a lengthy argument in support of my statements and a plethora of scriptures to demonstrate why I believe as I do. I will spare everyone such a lengthy discourse as it is not required here and now. Should you be interested in obtaining a clearer understanding of God’s omniscience, sovereignty, foreknowledge, and many other traits of a God that is beyond our wildest imagination, I would highly recommend the works of Calvin and St. Augustine.
Scarecrow
Member
Nope...my assumptions are based on what I already explained.
When analyzing scripture it is a sound and common practice to assume the status quo unless given a reason to believe otherwise. We are to assume that a situation and its circumstances have not changed unless the scriptures clearly indicate otherwise. We don't assume that Joseph lived out his life in the pit his brothers threw him into because we are later told that his brothers sold him into slavery and he was taken to Egypt. We know that he is no longer in the pit because the status quo has changed; we have been told that it changed, and we have been told what the change is.
This is a logical and competent manner by which to derive conclusions about the information we are given in the scriptures. It is when people attempt to read between the lines and develop a doctrine where one does not exist that we see schisms in the church.
Frequently we find scriptures commenting on other scriptures often providing insight into them that they did not originally provide. Should you ever find any scriptures related to your opinions about Eve’s alleged actions or words I would be eager to research them.
For a cursory understanding of God's foreknowledge and predestination I have listed a few scriptures to aid in your understanding of my previous statements:
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Hebrews 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Revelations 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Acts 4:27-28 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
John 6:37-39 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Ephesians 1:4-5 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
To summarize; clearly God has a plan, and only one plan, and knows the end from the beginning. “All that the Father gives to me will come to me” We cannot resist the will of God, nor can we overcome it.
Where people seem to get confused is that they do not understand the perspectives involved. God knows what choices we will make before we make them. From our perspective those choices have not been made yet and we make them in real time. God is not constrained by time as we are, therefore it can be difficult to understand things from His perspective. An analogy that has helped some individuals is that of a novel. Where the reader of the book does not know the events written on the next page, yet they are already written and fully known by the author. Again it is determined by perspective.
I hope to see better and more thought provoking responses from you and less sarcasm. Iron sharpens iron; hopefully those reading and involved in these discussions can gain insight from the information presented by everyone involved.
When analyzing scripture it is a sound and common practice to assume the status quo unless given a reason to believe otherwise. We are to assume that a situation and its circumstances have not changed unless the scriptures clearly indicate otherwise. We don't assume that Joseph lived out his life in the pit his brothers threw him into because we are later told that his brothers sold him into slavery and he was taken to Egypt. We know that he is no longer in the pit because the status quo has changed; we have been told that it changed, and we have been told what the change is.
This is a logical and competent manner by which to derive conclusions about the information we are given in the scriptures. It is when people attempt to read between the lines and develop a doctrine where one does not exist that we see schisms in the church.
Frequently we find scriptures commenting on other scriptures often providing insight into them that they did not originally provide. Should you ever find any scriptures related to your opinions about Eve’s alleged actions or words I would be eager to research them.
For a cursory understanding of God's foreknowledge and predestination I have listed a few scriptures to aid in your understanding of my previous statements:
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Hebrews 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Revelations 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Acts 4:27-28 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
John 6:37-39 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Ephesians 1:4-5 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
To summarize; clearly God has a plan, and only one plan, and knows the end from the beginning. “All that the Father gives to me will come to me” We cannot resist the will of God, nor can we overcome it.
Where people seem to get confused is that they do not understand the perspectives involved. God knows what choices we will make before we make them. From our perspective those choices have not been made yet and we make them in real time. God is not constrained by time as we are, therefore it can be difficult to understand things from His perspective. An analogy that has helped some individuals is that of a novel. Where the reader of the book does not know the events written on the next page, yet they are already written and fully known by the author. Again it is determined by perspective.
I hope to see better and more thought provoking responses from you and less sarcasm. Iron sharpens iron; hopefully those reading and involved in these discussions can gain insight from the information presented by everyone involved.
i was looking for something and read back over this thread. to my surprise the answers that i remember reading were nowhere to be found. after some haid-scratching i realized that i had read them in a parallel thread with the same type of agenda.steve said:
my apologies if i confused anyone
rc;
just for clarification to anyone reading this thread i am posting a statement here condensing my perception of our beliefs.
your assumption is that your understanding of the adam and eve story is the reality
my assumption is that it was probably richer and more complicated than what our Creator gave us in those few words.
just for clarification to anyone reading this thread i am posting a statement here condensing my perception of our beliefs.
your assumption is that your understanding of the adam and eve story is the reality
my assumption is that it was probably richer and more complicated than what our Creator gave us in those few words.
Scarecrow
Member
Ok now things are beginning to make a little more sense...you are absolutely right, and I think we are arguing the same point from two different directions. Unfortunately we only know for certain that which has been preserved for us in God's Word; however there is obviously a mountain of detail that is not given to us in the scriptures. About these things we can only contemplate the possible scenarios, and even then may not stumble upon the truth...that remains my concern. There are a number of books that are not in the Bible, and I tend to question their validity and accuracy, but they do offer insight into certain things and are, if nothing else, interesting.
enlitener
New Member
I agree with a plurality of elders in each church. I have done extensive studies of this matter of plurality of elders for many years now. And I also agree with the concept of how this arrangement can not only make a strong church help create strong "biblical" families.
I want to briefly address the subject of New Testament “church structure” at this time. The word elder, bishop, presbyter, pastor, shepherd, overseer and teacher are all used interchangeably of the same “office” in the New Testament. In 1 Timothy 4:14 the presbytery is just the plural collection of local elders or presbyters. In Acts 20:28 shepherds (pastors) are referred to as overseers. This term translated “overseers” here is also translated bishop in 1 Timothy 3:2. These local church leaders were the ones who were primarily the teachers in the local church.
When the apostle Paul referred to the local church leadership in his salutation when he wrote to a church - it was to the “elders” or “overseers” (plural). (Philippians 1:1) Not only is that the case but we also see that whenever “pastors” were appointed in a local church by an apostle - it was ALWAYS a plurality of “pastors”. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5 -9; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:17; 1 Peter 5:2-3) In Volume one of “The Ante-The Nicene Fathers” by Alexander Roberts we find that the pastoral function as a “one man show” did not even begin until about 100 years after Christ.
THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 Volume I - The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus by Alexander Roberts
Previous to that time the position of “pastor” (spiritual leader) was always a “plural” position in a local church. This was only natural for the new Jewish believers because they were used to there being a biblical “plurality” of elders or “spiritual leaders” in Israel. (Compare Exodus 3:16; 17:5; Leviticus 9:1; Numbers 11:16 & Deuteronomy 21:19-20 for example with Acts 4:5, 8, 23; 6:12 & 11:30)
Yet, in spite of these facts “Christians” still tenaciously hold on to the tradition of the “one man show” (pastor - singular) as well as to the tradition to give unbiblical meanings to the biblical terms that describe local church “pastors”. Why didn’t Paul write to “the” Pastor (singular) or why didn’t the apostles appoint “the” Pastor (singular) at churches? Because there wasn’t just ONE! They were ALWAYS plural. Think about it for a moment. Both John the Baptist and Jesus either sent workers out two by two or in even larger teams.
They NEVER sent out just ONE person by himself! (Matthew 11:2; Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1; Mark 14:13; Matthew 18:19-20; Matthew 21:1; John 8:17) The plurality of leaders mutually and equally submitting to each other provide the necessary accountability and support that is needed for spiritual leaders to function at their best. The “church” is in much of the mess that it is in today because we don’t have that mutual accountability and support for a plurality of local church “pastors” in our churches. Therefore, many so-called “spiritual leaders” are not very accountable to anyone and often get a “God complex”. This in turn leads to “man-worship” and many other grievous sins.
How did this “one man show” start anyway? According to church historians, one of the elders at the church at Rome decided that he was THE pastor (singular). For some reason he was able to get by with it. Then later he also successfully claimed authority over other churches and dubbed himself Bishop. (As if that was actually a different position than “pastor” or “elder”). Finally, this trend succeeded so well that eventually someone who held that same position later on also named himself Pope and proclaimed that this meant that he was the head of the whole church on earth. This movement eventually became known as the Roman Catholic Church.
THE PAGAN HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY
Around 325 AD the Roman Emperor Constantine professed to become a Christian and declared Christianity the “state religion”. To accommodate everyone they allowed pagan temples to become “church buildings” and put “Christian” names on their gods and on many of their pagan practices. If you trace the roots of these pagan religions and their practices you will find that they basically began with Nimrod and they spread worldwide when his people were scattered from the tower of Babel throughout the world.
These various pagan religions are basically just different forms of Satanism and Witchcraft. For more information on that subject I recommend that your read Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church by Frank Viola. Pagan Christianity exposes the reality that much of our current church practice has little basis in the Bible and Reimagining Church takes the next step to establish what truly biblical church life looks like.
Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices
by Frank Viola, George Barna
Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity
by Frank Viola
From approximately 500 AD to 1500 we have a period in history called the “dark ages”. This was when the apostate Roman Catholic Church tried to eradicate true expressions of “Christianity” from the face of the earth. During that time at least 50 million “Christians” were killed. It was also during this period of time when the unspeakable horrors of the “Spanish Inquisition” took place.
Finally the “Protestant Reformation” occurred when a significant number of “Christians” protested the religion of Roman Catholicism being imposed on them. The King of England was convinced to declare this “protestant” version of “Christianity” the official religion of his country. England fought and won their right to have their own church that was independent of the “Roman Catholic Church”.
This became known as the “Anglican Church”. As more truth was restored to seeking “Christians” they broke away from the “Anglican Church” and were also persecuted by that church. Finally, the Pilgrims and Puritans came to America in order to be able to practice their spiritual beliefs in peace. They established a government that would allow to do that. Because they were still considered to be a “colony” of England - they eventually had to fight for their independence from England’s taxation and oppression also.
Even so - many traditions of men and even pagan practices have still ignorantly been passed down from generation to generation in this more traditional version of the “protestant” church. For instance “church buildings” are still primarily built in the same rectangular shape as the pagan temples from which they derived their origin. Not only that but church “steeples” are merely copies of the “obelisk” that represented the male sex organ that stood in front of pagan temples.
That was because sex orgies with “temple prostitutes” were a main part of these pagan religions. Now this “obelisk” has simply been moved atop the front of “Christian” “temples”. This “tradition” is nothing less than an abomination to God! Even the Old Testament forbids that the people of God have anything to do with such obelisks and what they represented. (Exodus 34:13)
GROUNDS FOR CHURCH DIVISION
Furthermore, the only thing that should be the grounds for division in the TRUE church of Jesus Christ is LOCALITY. ALL the believers in any locality ARE the collective church of Jesus Christ in that locality. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) But most “Christians” find every other reason that they possibly can for bringing division in the church. (1 Corinthians 1:12; & 3:4)
If a particular leader, doctrine, experience, creed, or organization, becomes a center for drawing together the believers of different places, then the center of such a church organization is something other than the WILL and WAY of God according to His WORD. (This of course is taking for granted that these believers are at least adhering to the very basic concepts of the “gospel“ of the Kingdom of God.) Whenever some sphere of human invention displaces the “foundation” of the WILL and WAY of God according to His WORD - divine approval cannot rest on that work.
Not only that, but we find that the New Testament church normally met in homes rather than specially constructed buildings. (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 2) Therefore, the meetings were much, more casual, intimate and promoted participation by all – not just a “superstar”. As required, the local house church leaders could also meet together with other house church leaders and in turn their representatives could meet so that all would be in contact and would be in unity. This certainly was a much more economical, efficient and effective arrangement than that which is used by most churches today. If it is feasible the whole church in a particular location could meet together as needed in a borrowed or rented facility. (1 Corinthians 14:23) Also if it was actually deemed necessary and the means were available they might chose to purchase a reasonable and practical facility – where they can meet together DAILY.
WHAT A LOCAL CHURCH IS NOT!
In contrast, most “Christians” today would believe that a “church” does not even exist if they don’t have a professional “pastor”, a traditional “church building” and a traditional “church service”. Yet, the truth is that the TRUE church would still remain WITHOUT any of these! It is quite evident in the gospels that this is how Jesus viewed the matter. Whose opinion on this subject have you adapted? Where did “Christians” got such erroneous ideas from egotistical and deceived pastors who created and perpetuate that system for their own benefit.They are therefore “guilty” of gross misrepresentation of God and His WILL and WAY as they are revealed by His WORD!
The best book that I have ever found on the basics of biblical church "structure" and church "government" is Watchman Nee's “The Normal Christian Church Life”, published by Living Stream Ministry, Anaheim, California.
The Normal Christian Church Life
by Watchman Nee
I want to briefly address the subject of New Testament “church structure” at this time. The word elder, bishop, presbyter, pastor, shepherd, overseer and teacher are all used interchangeably of the same “office” in the New Testament. In 1 Timothy 4:14 the presbytery is just the plural collection of local elders or presbyters. In Acts 20:28 shepherds (pastors) are referred to as overseers. This term translated “overseers” here is also translated bishop in 1 Timothy 3:2. These local church leaders were the ones who were primarily the teachers in the local church.
When the apostle Paul referred to the local church leadership in his salutation when he wrote to a church - it was to the “elders” or “overseers” (plural). (Philippians 1:1) Not only is that the case but we also see that whenever “pastors” were appointed in a local church by an apostle - it was ALWAYS a plurality of “pastors”. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5 -9; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 5:17; 1 Peter 5:2-3) In Volume one of “The Ante-The Nicene Fathers” by Alexander Roberts we find that the pastoral function as a “one man show” did not even begin until about 100 years after Christ.
THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 Volume I - The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus by Alexander Roberts
Previous to that time the position of “pastor” (spiritual leader) was always a “plural” position in a local church. This was only natural for the new Jewish believers because they were used to there being a biblical “plurality” of elders or “spiritual leaders” in Israel. (Compare Exodus 3:16; 17:5; Leviticus 9:1; Numbers 11:16 & Deuteronomy 21:19-20 for example with Acts 4:5, 8, 23; 6:12 & 11:30)
Yet, in spite of these facts “Christians” still tenaciously hold on to the tradition of the “one man show” (pastor - singular) as well as to the tradition to give unbiblical meanings to the biblical terms that describe local church “pastors”. Why didn’t Paul write to “the” Pastor (singular) or why didn’t the apostles appoint “the” Pastor (singular) at churches? Because there wasn’t just ONE! They were ALWAYS plural. Think about it for a moment. Both John the Baptist and Jesus either sent workers out two by two or in even larger teams.
They NEVER sent out just ONE person by himself! (Matthew 11:2; Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1; Mark 14:13; Matthew 18:19-20; Matthew 21:1; John 8:17) The plurality of leaders mutually and equally submitting to each other provide the necessary accountability and support that is needed for spiritual leaders to function at their best. The “church” is in much of the mess that it is in today because we don’t have that mutual accountability and support for a plurality of local church “pastors” in our churches. Therefore, many so-called “spiritual leaders” are not very accountable to anyone and often get a “God complex”. This in turn leads to “man-worship” and many other grievous sins.
How did this “one man show” start anyway? According to church historians, one of the elders at the church at Rome decided that he was THE pastor (singular). For some reason he was able to get by with it. Then later he also successfully claimed authority over other churches and dubbed himself Bishop. (As if that was actually a different position than “pastor” or “elder”). Finally, this trend succeeded so well that eventually someone who held that same position later on also named himself Pope and proclaimed that this meant that he was the head of the whole church on earth. This movement eventually became known as the Roman Catholic Church.
THE PAGAN HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY
Around 325 AD the Roman Emperor Constantine professed to become a Christian and declared Christianity the “state religion”. To accommodate everyone they allowed pagan temples to become “church buildings” and put “Christian” names on their gods and on many of their pagan practices. If you trace the roots of these pagan religions and their practices you will find that they basically began with Nimrod and they spread worldwide when his people were scattered from the tower of Babel throughout the world.
These various pagan religions are basically just different forms of Satanism and Witchcraft. For more information on that subject I recommend that your read Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church by Frank Viola. Pagan Christianity exposes the reality that much of our current church practice has little basis in the Bible and Reimagining Church takes the next step to establish what truly biblical church life looks like.
Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices
by Frank Viola, George Barna
Reimagining Church: Pursuing the Dream of Organic Christianity
by Frank Viola
From approximately 500 AD to 1500 we have a period in history called the “dark ages”. This was when the apostate Roman Catholic Church tried to eradicate true expressions of “Christianity” from the face of the earth. During that time at least 50 million “Christians” were killed. It was also during this period of time when the unspeakable horrors of the “Spanish Inquisition” took place.
Finally the “Protestant Reformation” occurred when a significant number of “Christians” protested the religion of Roman Catholicism being imposed on them. The King of England was convinced to declare this “protestant” version of “Christianity” the official religion of his country. England fought and won their right to have their own church that was independent of the “Roman Catholic Church”.
This became known as the “Anglican Church”. As more truth was restored to seeking “Christians” they broke away from the “Anglican Church” and were also persecuted by that church. Finally, the Pilgrims and Puritans came to America in order to be able to practice their spiritual beliefs in peace. They established a government that would allow to do that. Because they were still considered to be a “colony” of England - they eventually had to fight for their independence from England’s taxation and oppression also.
Even so - many traditions of men and even pagan practices have still ignorantly been passed down from generation to generation in this more traditional version of the “protestant” church. For instance “church buildings” are still primarily built in the same rectangular shape as the pagan temples from which they derived their origin. Not only that but church “steeples” are merely copies of the “obelisk” that represented the male sex organ that stood in front of pagan temples.
That was because sex orgies with “temple prostitutes” were a main part of these pagan religions. Now this “obelisk” has simply been moved atop the front of “Christian” “temples”. This “tradition” is nothing less than an abomination to God! Even the Old Testament forbids that the people of God have anything to do with such obelisks and what they represented. (Exodus 34:13)
GROUNDS FOR CHURCH DIVISION
Furthermore, the only thing that should be the grounds for division in the TRUE church of Jesus Christ is LOCALITY. ALL the believers in any locality ARE the collective church of Jesus Christ in that locality. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) But most “Christians” find every other reason that they possibly can for bringing division in the church. (1 Corinthians 1:12; & 3:4)
If a particular leader, doctrine, experience, creed, or organization, becomes a center for drawing together the believers of different places, then the center of such a church organization is something other than the WILL and WAY of God according to His WORD. (This of course is taking for granted that these believers are at least adhering to the very basic concepts of the “gospel“ of the Kingdom of God.) Whenever some sphere of human invention displaces the “foundation” of the WILL and WAY of God according to His WORD - divine approval cannot rest on that work.
Not only that, but we find that the New Testament church normally met in homes rather than specially constructed buildings. (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 2) Therefore, the meetings were much, more casual, intimate and promoted participation by all – not just a “superstar”. As required, the local house church leaders could also meet together with other house church leaders and in turn their representatives could meet so that all would be in contact and would be in unity. This certainly was a much more economical, efficient and effective arrangement than that which is used by most churches today. If it is feasible the whole church in a particular location could meet together as needed in a borrowed or rented facility. (1 Corinthians 14:23) Also if it was actually deemed necessary and the means were available they might chose to purchase a reasonable and practical facility – where they can meet together DAILY.
WHAT A LOCAL CHURCH IS NOT!
In contrast, most “Christians” today would believe that a “church” does not even exist if they don’t have a professional “pastor”, a traditional “church building” and a traditional “church service”. Yet, the truth is that the TRUE church would still remain WITHOUT any of these! It is quite evident in the gospels that this is how Jesus viewed the matter. Whose opinion on this subject have you adapted? Where did “Christians” got such erroneous ideas from egotistical and deceived pastors who created and perpetuate that system for their own benefit.They are therefore “guilty” of gross misrepresentation of God and His WILL and WAY as they are revealed by His WORD!
The best book that I have ever found on the basics of biblical church "structure" and church "government" is Watchman Nee's “The Normal Christian Church Life”, published by Living Stream Ministry, Anaheim, California.
The Normal Christian Church Life
by Watchman Nee
Scarecrow
Member
It seems that most of the posts I get involved with end up discussing numerous topics...but that is good fellowship... : ) In any case your assumptions are correct...determinism is the belief that the events of the present determine the path of the future and nothing could be further from the truth. As if the world was a clock that God wound up and then set to motion to function on its own without His guidance. The future was determined by God, and is not determined by men. We are merely participants in God’s plan, for which I thank Him frequently that He has chosen to work through me at times.
Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
Romans 9:20-24 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Romans 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.
What seems to get past us is that men love to accept the kingship of their little kingdom and require submission from their wives and children, yet seem to feel that they/we are not required to fully submit to the Lord. “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”
Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
Romans 9:20-24 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Romans 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.
What seems to get past us is that men love to accept the kingship of their little kingdom and require submission from their wives and children, yet seem to feel that they/we are not required to fully submit to the Lord. “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”
Tlaloc
Member
Nice to meet you enl,
The titles of Elder, Pastors, and Bishops also held a considerably different meaning to them than it did us. Pasters as we have them generally preform the bulk of the roles of evangelists, prophets, and teachers as well as the pastoral role.
IIRC Constantine stopped the persecution of Christianity via the Edict of Toleration c312 but that edict protected pagans from oppression as well as Christians, and he never renounced heathenism nor was he baptized until 337, so if he was indeed Christian it was not until his deathbed. He only recognized the Christian religion and believed in various aspects of Christian mysticism and promoted Christianity as other emperors promoted heathenism. A lot of people tend to love him or hate him for what he did, but really he was quite the morally neutral politician trying to appeal to the majority (both Christian and pagan) and his own fancy. He certainly never set up Christianity as the 'state religion'.
It was Constantius who overthrew the edict of toleration and began to persecute heathens, looting their temples and giving the booty to the 'church'. If thats what you mean by "To accommodate everyone they allowed pagan temples to become “church buildings” and put “Christian” names on their gods and on many of their pagan practices." then you've really softpedded it on top of attributing it to the wrong person and wrong decade. He ambitiously looted and killed paganism, he didn't merge it with Christianity. Though it can be said he made Christianity the 'state religion' by his actions and forced many false conversions. But even then it needs to be pointed out that he violently oppressed and banished Nicene orthodoxy, a fact that really throws a wrench in the idea that Nicene orthodoxy was created and maintained by the state.
Then, just because God wants us to know for sure that its his plan and church that endures rather than that of a state or governemnt, we have Julian the Apostate. Constantius cousins who in his (ironic, considering you're citing Viola's work) call for a natural and organic religion reinstated the pagan priesthood and rebuilt their temples and turned hard on Christianity. Whatever false conversion was wrought under Constantius was undone under the very next ruler.
Now, thats just one little thing of many where works like Violas falls apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. His works are fueled by contempt and suspicion and while he does get some facts straight, he is often an outright devil throwing false accusations and devious suspicions on his targets. He needs to be carefully scrutinized and when he is a lot of his basis falls out from under him.
The heart of the problem with those type of works is that they are re-constructionist rather than revivalist. He's promoting a new cults or sects rather than actually working with people and groups where they are at. His solution is not at all organic, but its an excuse to create a new type of institution in home groups that looks different enough from the old to fool people.
Just as Christ did not come to tear down the law and the Prophets but to fulfill them, to correct the pharisees where they added falsehoods, we should work towards revival of the church where it has strayed rather than seek to tear it down to foolishly try to create our own ideal of church.
The titles of Elder, Pastors, and Bishops also held a considerably different meaning to them than it did us. Pasters as we have them generally preform the bulk of the roles of evangelists, prophets, and teachers as well as the pastoral role.
IIRC Constantine stopped the persecution of Christianity via the Edict of Toleration c312 but that edict protected pagans from oppression as well as Christians, and he never renounced heathenism nor was he baptized until 337, so if he was indeed Christian it was not until his deathbed. He only recognized the Christian religion and believed in various aspects of Christian mysticism and promoted Christianity as other emperors promoted heathenism. A lot of people tend to love him or hate him for what he did, but really he was quite the morally neutral politician trying to appeal to the majority (both Christian and pagan) and his own fancy. He certainly never set up Christianity as the 'state religion'.
It was Constantius who overthrew the edict of toleration and began to persecute heathens, looting their temples and giving the booty to the 'church'. If thats what you mean by "To accommodate everyone they allowed pagan temples to become “church buildings” and put “Christian” names on their gods and on many of their pagan practices." then you've really softpedded it on top of attributing it to the wrong person and wrong decade. He ambitiously looted and killed paganism, he didn't merge it with Christianity. Though it can be said he made Christianity the 'state religion' by his actions and forced many false conversions. But even then it needs to be pointed out that he violently oppressed and banished Nicene orthodoxy, a fact that really throws a wrench in the idea that Nicene orthodoxy was created and maintained by the state.
Then, just because God wants us to know for sure that its his plan and church that endures rather than that of a state or governemnt, we have Julian the Apostate. Constantius cousins who in his (ironic, considering you're citing Viola's work) call for a natural and organic religion reinstated the pagan priesthood and rebuilt their temples and turned hard on Christianity. Whatever false conversion was wrought under Constantius was undone under the very next ruler.
Now, thats just one little thing of many where works like Violas falls apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. His works are fueled by contempt and suspicion and while he does get some facts straight, he is often an outright devil throwing false accusations and devious suspicions on his targets. He needs to be carefully scrutinized and when he is a lot of his basis falls out from under him.
The heart of the problem with those type of works is that they are re-constructionist rather than revivalist. He's promoting a new cults or sects rather than actually working with people and groups where they are at. His solution is not at all organic, but its an excuse to create a new type of institution in home groups that looks different enough from the old to fool people.
Just as Christ did not come to tear down the law and the Prophets but to fulfill them, to correct the pharisees where they added falsehoods, we should work towards revival of the church where it has strayed rather than seek to tear it down to foolishly try to create our own ideal of church.
Tlaloc
Member
Scarecrow,
What you said about determinism is very important to remember, and I do agree with it. What I was getting at though was your position on volition, but I didn't want to use the term Free Will as that term often means unmitigated or unlimited freedom in choice. I do not believe anyone is capable of making any choice whatsoever, but they are free to choose from the many options presented to them. Examples of this in scripture are:
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deu 30:20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
Jos 24:14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve;
Isa 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received(with roots in making the choice to accept) him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
I object to the Calvinists who believe acts of volition are non-existent or irreverent to the process of an individuals salvation. I was wondering weather you held that position or not.
What you said about determinism is very important to remember, and I do agree with it. What I was getting at though was your position on volition, but I didn't want to use the term Free Will as that term often means unmitigated or unlimited freedom in choice. I do not believe anyone is capable of making any choice whatsoever, but they are free to choose from the many options presented to them. Examples of this in scripture are:
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deu 30:20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
Jos 24:14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve;
Isa 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received(with roots in making the choice to accept) him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
I object to the Calvinists who believe acts of volition are non-existent or irreverent to the process of an individuals salvation. I was wondering weather you held that position or not.
Scarecrow
Member
Again it goes back to perspective... Free will? Absolutely (from our perspective). Does god know, and did God know before the foundations of the Earth were set, what decisions we would make? Absolutely. That is the difficulty people have, they want to believe one or the other not both, and that is due to the limitation most put on the perspectives involved. A good example is Moses when he was speaking to God on the mountain. God threatened to destroy everyone with Moses and raise up a new nation through a new lineage from Moses. Then Moses prayed for the people and God "relented". God did not change His mind suddenly because Moses prayed. Prayer does not change God's plans, rather it accomplishes his plans, and has a wonderful effect on the one praying. Moses had been criticizing these people ("your people" Moses was disowning them) and God used the circumstances to soften Moses's heart toward them, even throwing it on Moses by calling them "your people" as if they were Moses's. The point is Moses did not know that God would consider destroying them, but God had a plan all along to accomplish His will, and in that circumstance it was to help Moses understand God's heart for the people and soften Moses's heart toward them as well.
We are really here for one primary purpose, and that is to build our character, the one and only thing we get to take to heaven with us. I was overseas recently and was with a family that questioned their purpose for being here. One of the ladies had little girl 8 months old. I asked her "Would you like your daughter to grow until she is 5 years old then stop growing and remain 5 years old mentally, physically, and emotionally?" her obvious response was "NO! I would want her to grow up and have a family of her own and grow old watching her grandchildren growing up." I then told her that is what God is doing with us. We are presented with numerous tests in life, each an opportunity to overcome and build our character. Just as a baby falls many times when learning to walk, we too fall many times as we learn to overcome the tests the Lord places in our path. Just as we are to calculate the costs of our ambitions before we proceed that we may complete them, the Lord determined the completion of His plan and fully knew the cost.
We are really here for one primary purpose, and that is to build our character, the one and only thing we get to take to heaven with us. I was overseas recently and was with a family that questioned their purpose for being here. One of the ladies had little girl 8 months old. I asked her "Would you like your daughter to grow until she is 5 years old then stop growing and remain 5 years old mentally, physically, and emotionally?" her obvious response was "NO! I would want her to grow up and have a family of her own and grow old watching her grandchildren growing up." I then told her that is what God is doing with us. We are presented with numerous tests in life, each an opportunity to overcome and build our character. Just as a baby falls many times when learning to walk, we too fall many times as we learn to overcome the tests the Lord places in our path. Just as we are to calculate the costs of our ambitions before we proceed that we may complete them, the Lord determined the completion of His plan and fully knew the cost.
Tlaloc
Member
Right, I believe I essentially agree with you. I don't believe it is simply a matter of perspective though, knowledge, even perfect foreknowledge, does in no way eliminate the existence of volition. I agree perfectly that the problem arises when one wants to belie one or the other and sees the positions as mutually exclusive.
I also agree perfectly with what you say our purpose of continued existence is. Thanks for clarifying. I like to know what peoples positions are.
I also agree perfectly with what you say our purpose of continued existence is. Thanks for clarifying. I like to know what peoples positions are.
Well this is certainly off topic but........
The debate over the term free-will is because the terms are defined differently.
There is the libertarian free-will view and then there is the compatibilist free-will view.
I believe the Bible makes the case for compatibilist free-will, not libertarian free-will.
Libertarian free-will says that a person can and will act contrary to their strongest desires of their nature. A person, according to this view, is able to choose contrary to their nature. The other view says that man will choose according to his strognest desire and will choose according to his nature. I'm convinced that the Bible teaches a compatibilist free-will view.
Dr. Allen
The debate over the term free-will is because the terms are defined differently.
There is the libertarian free-will view and then there is the compatibilist free-will view.
I believe the Bible makes the case for compatibilist free-will, not libertarian free-will.
Libertarian free-will says that a person can and will act contrary to their strongest desires of their nature. A person, according to this view, is able to choose contrary to their nature. The other view says that man will choose according to his strognest desire and will choose according to his nature. I'm convinced that the Bible teaches a compatibilist free-will view.
Dr. Allen
A
Anonymous
Guest
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
As degenerate men (and women), we are bound -- tied -- to sin, with no ability to "choose" anything other than our dead, sinful flesh.
A
Anonymous
Guest
May I suggest another consideration? Paul often spoke of a plurality of elders or pastors because he was speaking of multiple congregations. We have no reason to assume that each congregation was large enough to field multiple leaders. I suspect that as a church grew so would the pastoral team. When we read the term "elders", it is possible that it is the pastor or pastors and the deacons serving together for the well being of the body in that local. Note, that when Paul wrote to Timothy, he gave the description of bishops/pastors AND deacons. One more thought. If a plurality of pastors, etc. was necessary, why did Jesus dictate seven letters to the singular leader of each church. I think we can agree that the angel of the church of Thyatira was a man, a messenger to the church. To make things clear, I believe a plurality is desireable when possible, but not demanded of God. I have been a pastor for over fourty years and have never believed or practiced superiority, but counted it a privilege to serve God by serving His people.
mrscottyl
Member
John Whitten said:
John, I would have to disagree here. If countries can have an angel watching over them, then it is quite possible that congregations/assemblies can have an angel watching over them. There are plenty of examples of where a single angel was sent with a task or was performing a task, such as the one in Daniel that was over Persia. But how many times in Scripture do we see a single Pastor over a congregation/assembly? I would have to agree with Enlightener on this one.
Scott