|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 3, 2007 19:29:38 GMT -5
One of the main issues between the Friends and the ex-2x2s revolve around the doctrines about "church". I believe many well-meaning ex-2x2 people get confused between doctrines of Christ and the doctrines of the Church whenever they consider the fellowship. On one hand we have the ex-2x2 theology regarding salvation and the church in which Jesus is elevated as the source of eternal redemption, and the church that one chooses to belong to is considered to be of significantly lesser importance to the concept of salvation. This explains the many statements we read on this forum about no church "owning God"; or having "all the right answers", or being "the only way". Alternatively we have the theology of the fellowship, which I believe closely aligns with the views of Augustine of Hippo. (It has been said that the Reformation was merely the battle between Augustine's Doctrines of Grace, and Augustine's Doctrines of Church.) We also believe the only source of eternal life and redemption is Christ Jesus, but we view the Church to be very important - in fact, indispensable - to living a Christian life. Some readers will challenge this and say, " The Friends believe salvation comes through the workers and meetings, not Jesus", but I think most of my brethren would agree that this is a complete nonsense. Our hymnbook - largely written by friends and workers around the world - present a universal declaration that only in Jesus is salvation, and that this comes through grace not our own efforts. (Eg. " The best men living unrenewed by God, must be shut forever from that blest abode" etc.) The hub of dispute is our beliefs regarding the Church, which we hold is the authorised teacher of the Gospel. What does the Bible tell us about the Church? Firstly, let us consider what the Church is comprised of. The New Testament is instructive here, because it tells us the organisation of the Apostolic Church, which we can be sure was in accord with God: ORGANISATION:There were elders in each church:Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. (Acts 14:23)Leadership was vested in the Apostles and Elders:When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. (Acts 15:4) (Note that they reported their experiences to the apostles and elders.) Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. (Acts 15:22)The Holy Spirit made some overseers:Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)Women had important functions, and notable positions in the Church:I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. (Romans 16:1) (Note use of "servant" terminology). It was common to refer to ministers as "workers":As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you; as for our brothers, they are representatives of the churches and an honor to Christ. (2 Corinthians 8:23) (Note that the harvest field imagery originated with Christ and is assumed frequently in the New Testament.) Those with positions of proclaiming the gospel were worthy of honour:The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17)From these verses we can conclude that there is nothing in the organisation of the fellowship that is contrary to scripture, unlike many denominational churches with their elaborate power structures, titles, and complete absence of elders in their churches. Of course, some ex-2x2s will object to this and say, " This is all well and good, but where does it say that this is the only acceptable way. Where does the Bible make this organisation the way it must be forever and ever?" The answer is that the Bible nowhere makes these offices in the Church a commandment, but by the same token, remains totally silent on any alternatives. Given that there is only one set-up spoken of in scripture, it seems wise to follow it. NAMES:Despite Brad's oft-repeated and monotonous claims that the Way and Truth is Jesus (which we in the fellowship agree with), the Church does not identify itself with Christ, or confuse the power of the Lord for itself. Yet, at the very beginning, the Church was often referred to as "The Way". We can therefore lay claim to such names because this is what the Church in the New Testament was called, and it is foolishness to either deny this, or make it into a great issue: Paul persecuted followers of "this Way":I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison (Acts 22:4) (Note: Capitalisation in original) The Way was considered a sect among the Jews:However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets (Acts 24:14) (Note: Here the Way refers to the Church or the corpus of Christian teachings, and not to Christ himself. The Jews were calling The Way a sect, and one cannot use this terminology in reference to a person, only a group.) Governor Felix was familiar with the Way:Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. "When Lysias the commander comes," he said, "I will decide your case." (Acts 24:22) (Note: Again "Way" here refers to the church. It would be utter foolishness to construe this passage as saying that Felix was well-acquainted with Christ. His greed and lack of moral scruples suggest this was far from the case.) The existence of the Way prompted disturbances:About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. (Acts 19:23) (Note: Another reference to the Church and Christian teaching. There could not be a great disturbance about Jesus the Way because by this time he had already ascended into Heaven.) Believers "belonged to the Way":...and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:2) To be continued...DOXOLOGY:
I know You will come again in glory, LORD JESUS CHRIST, to judge the world, the living and the dead.
On that Last Day we, Your Church, believe You will take us away from this present evil world to dwell with You forever - as You promised and taught us from the beginning. And we ever pray: Hosanna in the highest! Save us, Jesus of Nazareth! For there is salvation in none other, but You.
We know that all who call upon Your name will be saved. We therefore praise and magnify Your name!
We are nothing. You are everthing. All glory, praise, honour and power belongs to You, Most High God!
Your Church implores You to return soon, O Holy One of Israel.
Amen.
|
|
|
Post by this on Aug 3, 2007 22:16:46 GMT -5
This entire compost heap is negated by the 2x2s' own belief that they cannot go to heaven if they leave the 2x2s.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 3, 2007 22:50:34 GMT -5
could you clarify exactly what you mean by this statement?
thanks...
|
|
Gloryintruth Unlogged
Guest
|
Post by Gloryintruth Unlogged on Aug 3, 2007 23:04:19 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] This entire compost heap is negated by the 2x2s' own belief that they cannot go to heaven if they leave the 2x2s.
I am no longer going to bother to interact with these sorts of comments, except to point out that this is an excellent example of the kind of spirit, attitude, and perspective held by many ex-2x2s. I intend to copy and save all such comments in a Word document, for display on a website I am planning to put together.
The anonymous posters brigade who submit negative one-liners; who call citation from the Bible "compost"; who call prayer according to the doctrines of the Gospel "compost"; and who reduce things to simplistic monosyllabic slogans speak enough for themselves without any additional comment necessary from me.
Bert and Nathan: Have you considered publishing these sorts of comments on your websites? I have found from personal experience that such hate-mail, displayed on other websites calmly, quietly andf without any explanation, serves as a vital testimony. It stands on its own as a powerful witness indeed.
|
|
gloryintruth unlogged
Guest
|
Post by gloryintruth unlogged on Aug 3, 2007 23:07:48 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] This entire compost heap is negated by the 2x2s' own belief that they cannot go to heaven if they leave the 2x2s.
Snip.
Now stored in my "evidence folder" on my computer, with date, time, thread title, and link.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 3, 2007 23:08:59 GMT -5
I would reject this assumption... since most of these sort of comments, besides those from brad, are made by anonymous posters... WHICH MEANS we are unable to know if the comments are made by 1 or 100 persons...
Does this make sense?
As for the comment itself in which it's stated, " 2x2s' own belief that they cannot go to heaven if they leave the 2x2s"... This is a VERY COMMON belief found in the fellowship... do you deny this?
|
|
|
Post by this on Aug 3, 2007 23:23:23 GMT -5
No sir, GIT. I was referring to your words as compost. It is rather deceitful of you to pretend I was talking about the Bible verses.
Get over yourself and the church to which you hold your faith. Only Christ can save. Not your membership in the 2x2s.
|
|
|
Post by More on Aug 3, 2007 23:28:04 GMT -5
One of the main issues between the Friends and the ex-2x2s revolve around the doctrines about "church". I believe many well-meaning ex-2x2 people get confused between doctrines of Christ and the doctrines of the Church whenever they consider the fellowship. On one hand we have the ex-2x2 theology regarding salvation and the church in which Jesus is elevated as the source of eternal redemption, and the church that one chooses to belong to is considered to be of significantly lesser importance to the concept of salvation. This explains the many statements we read on this forum about no church "owning God"; or having "all the right answers", or being "the only way". Alternatively we have the theology of the fellowship, which I believe closely aligns with the views of Augustine of Hippo. (It has been said that the Reformation was merely the battle between Augustine's Doctrines of Grace, and Augustine's Doctrines of Church.) We also believe the only source of eternal life and redemption is Christ Jesus, but we view the Church to be very important - in fact, indispensable - to living a Christian life. Some readers will challenge this and say, " The Friends believe salvation comes through the workers and meetings, not Jesus", but I think most of my brethren would agree that this is a complete nonsense. Our hymnbook - largely written by friends and workers around the world - present a universal declaration that only in Jesus is salvation, and that this comes through grace not our own efforts. (Eg. " The best men living unrenewed by God, must be shut forever from that blest abode" etc.) The hub of dispute is our beliefs regarding the Church, which we hold is the authorised teacher of the Gospel. What does the Bible tell us about the Church? Firstly, let us consider what the Church is comprised of. The New Testament is instructive here, because it tells us the organisation of the Apostolic Church, which we can be sure was in accord with God: ORGANISATION:There were elders in each church:Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. (Acts 14:23)Leadership was vested in the Apostles and Elders:When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. (Acts 15:4) (Note that they reported their experiences to the apostles and elders.) Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. (Acts 15:22)The Holy Spirit made some overseers:Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)Women had important functions, and notable positions in the Church:I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. (Romans 16:1) (Note use of "servant" terminology). It was common to refer to ministers as "workers":As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you; as for our brothers, they are representatives of the churches and an honor to Christ. (2 Corinthians 8:23) (Note that the harvest field imagery originated with Christ and is assumed frequently in the New Testament.) Those with positions of proclaiming the gospel were worthy of honour:The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17)From these verses we can conclude that there is nothing in the organisation of the fellowship that is contrary to scripture, unlike many denominational churches with their elaborate power structures, titles, and complete absence of elders in their churches. Of course, some ex-2x2s will object to this and say, " This is all well and good, but where does it say that this is the only acceptable way. Where does the Bible make this organisation the way it must be forever and ever?" The answer is that the Bible nowhere makes these offices in the Church a commandment, but by the same token, remains totally silent on any alternatives. Given that there is only one set-up spoken of in scripture, it seems wise to follow it. NAMES:Despite Brad's oft-repeated and monotonous claims that the Way and Truth is Jesus (which we in the fellowship agree with), the Church does not identify itself with Christ, or confuse the power of the Lord for itself. Yet, at the very beginning, the Church was often referred to as "The Way". We can therefore lay claim to such names because this is what the Church in the New Testament was called, and it is foolishness to either deny this, or make it into a great issue: Paul persecuted followers of "this Way":I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison (Acts 22:4) (Note: Capitalisation in original) The Way was considered a sect among the Jews:However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets (Acts 24:14) (Note: Here the Way refers to the Church or the corpus of Christian teachings, and not to Christ himself. The Jews were calling The Way a sect, and one cannot use this terminology in reference to a person, only a group.) Governor Felix was familiar with the Way:Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. "When Lysias the commander comes," he said, "I will decide your case." (Acts 24:22) (Note: Again "Way" here refers to the church. It would be utter foolishness to construe this passage as saying that Felix was well-acquainted with Christ. His greed and lack of moral scruples suggest this was far from the case.) The existence of the Way prompted disturbances:About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. (Acts 19:23) (Note: Another reference to the Church and Christian teaching. There could not be a great disturbance about Jesus the Way because by this time he had already ascended into Heaven.) Believers "belonged to the Way":...and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:2) To be continued...DOXOLOGY:
I know You will come again in glory, LORD JESUS CHRIST, to judge the world, the living and the dead.
On that Last Day we, Your Church, believe You will take us away from this present evil world to dwell with You forever - as You promised and taught us from the beginning. And we ever pray: Hosanna in the highest! Save us, Jesus of Nazareth! For there is salvation in none other, but You.
We know that all who call upon Your name will be saved. We therefore praise and magnify Your name!
We are nothing. You are everthing. All glory, praise, honour and power belongs to You, Most High God!
Your Church implores You to return soon, O Holy One of Israel.
Amen.More long winded rantings--- Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah No only are they long winded but lack much real substance.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 3, 2007 23:28:15 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] No sir, GIT. I was referring to your words as compost. It is rather deceitful of you to pretend I was talking about the Bible verses.
Get over yourself and the church to which you hold your faith. Only Christ can save. Not your membership in the 2x2s.
Friend, I am as guilty as you are when it comes to forgetting to be courteous, but why can't we simply have a dialogue about these verses and about the nature of the Church? I'd be delighted - absolutely delighted! - to have a good, polite, friendly discussion about it without any unpleasantries at all.
But your words seem to condemn out of hand. Moreover, you speak without any apparent knowledge of my position on the fellowship. I repeat this for the umpteenth time: I can allow that "Salvation is possible outside of the Church, but not outside of Christ."
I'm still snipping your second comment and storing it away.
Kind regards, friend.
Postscript: I thought I did a good job of keeping an objective tone, representing both sides of the argument fairly and without negativity, and basing most of my comments on scripture. Obviously I have fouled up somewhere - I am not infallible. Could you please point out which of my statements \ words you feel are "compost"?
Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 3, 2007 23:33:20 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] More long winded rantings---
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
No only are they long winded but lack much real substance.
Snip. Into my file for future use.
By the way, could you give me some examples of any of my comments that lacked "real substance"?
Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by composting GIT on Aug 3, 2007 23:55:46 GMT -5
GIT,
When you twist the words of others to fit your narrow view.... that's compost.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 4, 2007 0:07:24 GMT -5
[Somone Wrote] GIT, When you twist the words of others to fit your narrow view.... that's compost.
But...
How have I done this? As anyone familiar with my contributions on this forum will know, I am very big on representing other people's views and statements fairly. I don't do straw man arguments.
If you could please point out my errors or misrepresentations, I would be glad to consider them.
Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by looks like on Aug 4, 2007 0:16:30 GMT -5
As anyone familiar with my contributions on this forum will know, I am very big on representing other people's views and statements fairly. As someone rather familiar with your so-called contributions, I disagree wholeheartedly with this misrepresentation.
|
|
|
Post by Recycle on Aug 4, 2007 3:36:44 GMT -5
GIT, why do you revile your tilling of the scriptures being compared to compost ?
Although compost is dying matter, surely it is rich in nutrition and produces life in abundance ?
The early followers of Christ were originally called "Christians" in a derogatory manner by outsiders, yet they embraced this name with pride, joyfully identifying with and suffering for HIS name's sake.
Perhaps you should likewise re-consider the term "compost" as applied to your efforts ?
One man's feeding is another man's poison !
Compost is a big thing in this world nowadays when we must re-cycle as much as possible. Is not the word of God re-cycled over and over again ? Is it not a form of spiritual compost, relying upon dying life in order to produce spiritual nutrition for new life to grow ?
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 4, 2007 3:39:20 GMT -5
GiT,
Please reply to my two posts above...
|
|
|
Post by wondering on Aug 4, 2007 3:42:44 GMT -5
The early followers of Christ were originally called "Christians" in a derogatory manner by outsiders, yet they embraced this name with pride, joyfully identifying with and suffering for HIS name's sake. How do you know this?
|
|
|
Post by Recycle on Aug 4, 2007 4:55:09 GMT -5
There are only 3 references in the NT to "Christians." Two of these are interpreted by a number of scholars to be less than complimentary.
|
|
|
Post by Recycle on Aug 4, 2007 5:05:46 GMT -5
The third and remaining reference to "Christians" comes from the man who Jesus called the rock, i.e. the Apostle Peter, viz:
1 Peter:4.16 "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on his behalf."
Here Peter readily identifies followers with the term Christian. He also identifies suffering with the name as well as potential for feeling ashamed by it. However he exhorts Christians not to feel ashamed by the name/life of being a Christian, but rather to glorify God on behalf of Christ through the name and life of being a Christian.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2007 5:09:57 GMT -5
Hi GIT. We are just completing our 2007 website, excerpts of which have appeared here the other day on the subject of church buildings. We want to do a much larger one for 2008-2009 which will cover all aspects of our church mentioned here. Your own material is always of interest to us. But I haven't copied any personal attack posts, other than the general statements made about us, for the sake of doctrinal response.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 4, 2007 6:09:17 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] As someone rather familiar with your so-called contributions, I disagree wholeheartedly with this misrepresentation.
Two points.
Firstly: "so-called contributions"? - What else would you suggest they be called?
Secondly: I have often said to people in the past - and I'll say it again - that if you can demonstrate that I have poisted any misrepresentation, lie, or untruth about someone else and their writings, then I will gladly and speedily apologise, retract my words, and reprent publically.
So far no one has been able to actually show evidence for their accusations. Hard as it is to believe, there are some really bizarre people out there - people like me - who actually have the audacity to request proof to accompany any condemnation. Simply wierd. To expect someone to show dishonesty (if it exists) by cutting and pasting two citations together. But I have learnt not to expect anything concrete.
Furthermore, whilst I am accustomed to being called self-righteous, arrogant, pious, verbose, "waste of space" etc - such insults being my constant companions during my months of interactions here (this rarified corner of the internet always plumbing the depths of sheer, unmitigated hatred) - the number of people on this forum who have accused me of being a liar could be counted on one hand.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 4, 2007 6:12:29 GMT -5
[Bert Wrote] Hi GIT. We are just completing our 2007 website, excerpts of which have appeared here the other day on the subject of church buildings. We want to do a much larger one for 2008-2009 which will cover all aspects of our church mentioned here. Your own material is always of interest to us. But I haven't copied any personal attack posts, other than the general statements made about us, for the sake of doctrinal response. Your website is of interest to me as well. I wonder whether there is anything I could contribute? If so, please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Aug 4, 2007 6:22:18 GMT -5
One of the main issues between the Friends and the ex-2x2s revolve around the doctrines about "church". I believe many well-meaning ex-2x2 people get confused between doctrines of Christ and the doctrines of the Church whenever they consider the fellowship. I wonder why you call those in the church "friends" and those formerly in the church "ex-2x2's". Seems a bit of prejudice. Could we just as well say 2x2's and ex-friends? Or perhaps more objectively members and former members? I also prefer your use (later) of "fellowship". On one hand we have the ex-2x2 theology regarding salvation and the church in which Jesus is elevated as the source of eternal redemption, and the church that one chooses to belong to is considered to be of significantly lesser importance to the concept of salvation. This explains the many statements we read on this forum about no church "owning God"; or having "all the right answers", or being "the only way". There is no "former member" theology. Former members' differing theology, perhaps, but no theology that encompasses all. For that matter, there is no theology that encompasses the members of the fellowship. Well, there is the theology of one God, but that exists in and out of the fellowship. Is the gospel about accepting a certain church or body or about accepting a certain being, man, Savior, Lord? Is the fellowship east of the Rockies (mountains) in the USA the right "church" or "body of believers" because they allow remarriage after divorce? Can one body believe both that their head is the Christ and God in the flesh and the Christ, but not God in the flesh? Can one body believe both that there are saved people outside the fellowship and there is no salvation outside the fellowship? Alternatively we have the theology of the fellowship, which I believe closely aligns with the views of Augustine of Hippo. (It has been said that the Reformation was merely the battle between Augustine's Doctrines of Grace, and Augustine's Doctrines of Church.) We also believe the only source of eternal life and redemption is Christ Jesus, but we view the Church to be very important - in fact, indispensable - to living a Christian life. I think many former members believe the "church" or "body of Christ" is indispensable. Does one need to know about Augustine and his teachings to know and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? Some readers will challenge this and say, "The Friends believe salvation comes through the workers and meetings, not Jesus", but I think most of my brethren would agree that this is a complete nonsense. Our hymnbook - largely written by friends and workers around the world - present a universal declaration that only in Jesus is salvation, and that this comes through grace not our own efforts. (Eg. "The best men living unrenewed by God, must be shut forever from that blest abode" etc.) If you could profess here that salvation definitely can be had while prefering no direct fellowship with the friends and workers, then I could accept that you might indeed believe that salvation comes only through Jesus and the grace of God. With this profession I mean similarily one of the fellowship members as a Christian might prefer to not have direct fellowship with a Lutheran fellowship. The hub of dispute is our beliefs regarding the Church, which we hold is the authorised teacher of the Gospel. Whereas some former members consider and are convicted that the Holy Spirit is the authorized teacher of the gospel and more. The "church" being the teacher seems to be quite like Roman Catholic practice. What does the Bible tell us about the Church? Firstly, let us consider what the Church is comprised of. The New Testament is instructive here, because it tells us the organisation of the Apostolic Church, which we can be sure was in accord with God: So then, if a fellowship does not follow specifically what is supposedly laid out as a form, then is that fellowship in error? And if another fellowship seems to vary more, is that church in greater error? How much error is acceptable? And are members of each fellowship to be judged by how their fellowship does or does not compare to such a form? ORGANISATION:
There were elders in each church: Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. (Acts 14:23) Other fellowships have elders. Seems there is no specified number of elders. One could say there is an elder for every gathering in the homes of believers, but that is more prejudicial speculation than scriptural instruction. Leadership was vested in the Apostles and Elders: When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. (Acts 15:4) (Note that they reported their experiences to the apostles and elders.) Arguably the elders of the fellowship differ in responsiblilty and authority from the elders of the New Testament fellowship. Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. (Acts 15:22) Seems the whole church (in Jerusalem) had a voice in this matter. Whether this was always the case or whether this specific case was unusual is debatable. Still, there likely are some members and former members that cannot recall a time when local "apostles" (more about apostles and workers later), elders, and the fellowship conferred about a matter. The Holy Spirit made some overseers: Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (Acts 20:28) These overseers were bishops/elders of the local church and differ from "overseers" of the fellowship. Women had important functions, and notable positions in the Church: I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. (Romans 16:1) (Note use of "servant" terminology). Important function, indeed, in the New testament fellowship and many fellowships. The matter of "position" and/or office is another question. It was common to refer to ministers as "workers": As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you; as for our brothers, they are representatives of the churches and an honor to Christ. (2 Corinthians 8:23) (Note that the harvest field imagery originated with Christ and is assumed frequently in the New Testament.) Yes, "reference". They were also referenced as fellows soldiers. The New Testament ministries had offices and used designations of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. The fellowship does not. Their ministry is comprised of "workers" in office and identifier. When Paul wrote of evil workers did he mean fellow soldiers and fellow laborers in the fellowship and in the body (church)? or was his use "workers" of reference just generic and not specific to the church? Those with positions of proclaiming the gospel were worthy of honour: The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17) This speaks of elders/bishops that not only led/shephered the local fellowship, but also "labored in"/preached the gospel. And despite the objections of some, the double honor is payment in money, not praise or esteem. And you may ask how were they to be paid, where is this instruction? The answer is the how is not important. The importance is that the ox be not muzzled. From these verses we can conclude that there is nothing in the organisation of the fellowship that is contrary to scripture, unlike many denominational churches with their elaborate power structures, titles, and complete absence of elders in their churches. Seems all fellowships differ in form, even this fellowship. I would question those that make contention "we have the same and exact fellowship form as the New Testament fellowship". Could such be said without pride? And would such give any a better chance or maybe the only chance at salvation? Would you contend that all in the New Testament fellowship were saved and have eternal life to come with God because they upheld and proclaimed a specific form? Of course, some ex-2x2s will object to this and say, "This is all well and good, but where does it say that this is the only acceptable way. Where does the Bible make this organisation the way it must be forever and ever?" The answer is that the Bible nowhere makes these offices in the Church a commandment, but by the same token, remains totally silent on any alternatives. Given that there is only one set-up spoken of in scripture, it seems wise to follow it. I don't know if "wise" is the correct term. Perhaps "acceptable" is the correct term. Many former members think the fellowship form is acceptable. The objection is not in the form, but in the importance of the form for salvation and the rejection and eternal judgmetal condemnation of other forms and their members. NAMES:
Despite Brad's oft-repeated and monotonous claims that the Way and Truth is Jesus (which we in the fellowship agree with), the Church does not identify itself with Christ, or confuse the power of the Lord for itself. Yet, at the very beginning, the Church was often referred to as "The Way". Often? Three or four times, perhaps (not that the number of times gives any more credibility to your expressed thoughts/teachings/beliefs/convictions). I think only in Acts, for that matter. And thus only by Paul (or perhaps just the writer, Luke). Yet is "the Way" universally accepted by the friends and workers? I think not. Also, there is a fellowship which does take the name "The Way". Does that mean it is? Of course not. We can therefore lay claim to such names because this is what the Church in the New Testament was called, and it is foolishness to either deny this, or make it into a great issue: Many fellowships lay claim to the same names in regard to Christianity. They just do not make the claim about their own specific fellowship nor do they (adventist, mormons, and jehovah witness aside....hmmmm, how much those in that way are like the fellowship of the friends and workers) make them (it) a great issue as do the friends and workers. So who is demonstrating foolishness? Paul persecuted followers of "this Way": I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison (Acts 22:4) (Note: Capitalisation in original) What original? Can you possibly accept that "this Way" is in reference to a pattern of religious practice and belief and is capitialized so as to help distinquish from "this way" as in direction of location or travel or "any way" or pattern of doing something? Further, if I would write or speak of the fellowship of the friends and workers and use the term "that Way" or "that way", I would by no means infer nor should one take implication that I mean it is the same fellowship of the New Testament. The Way was considered a sect among the Jews: However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets (Acts 24:14) (Note: Here the Way refers to the Church or the corpus of Christian teachings, and not to Christ himself. The Jews were calling The Way a sect, and one cannot use this terminology in reference to a person, only a group.) Right. Governor Felix was familiar with the Way: Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. "When Lysias the commander comes," he said, "I will decide your case." (Acts 24:22) (Note: Again "Way" here refers to the church. It would be utter foolishness to construe this passage as saying that Felix was well-acquainted with Christ. His greed and lack of moral scruples suggest this was far from the case.) Right. So to have conviction about "the way" or "the Way" and to use such terms or identifiers whether in or out of the fellowship is no indication of belief and profession of the Christ. The existence of the Way prompted disturbances: About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. (Acts 19:23) (Note: Another reference to the Church and Christian teaching. There could not be a great disturbance about Jesus the Way because by this time he had already ascended into Heaven.) The existance of the fellowship of the friends and workers is a very small disturbance, if any, except for in the lives of some children of hard-line member parents and some under domineering workers. That being said, there is no indication that "the way" cause parents to be so and other closely knit fellowships currently and in the past have had similar domineering leaders (locally and otherwise). Believers "belonged to the Way": ...and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:2) Right, but of no indication that the name "the Way" was a name accepted by and for the New Nestament church.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 4, 2007 6:50:41 GMT -5
THE FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH The function of the Church as it is described in the New Testament is far from the Sunday-club atmosphere of some denominational churches (I speak from experience of having attended a good number of them). In the New Testament, the Church is described as having a mission in the earth; responsibilities to discharge. As we shall see, these responsibilities revolve around the proclamation of God's message to humanity - the Gospel - not to become absorbed in temporal activities, such as alms, increasing numbers, or social work (all commendable, but not the chief function of the Church).
God's wisdom is declared through the Church: His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 3:10). (Note: much has been written on this forum that express the view that all a man needs is the Bible, and a quiet place, and he can work out Christianity by himself - in other words, the principle of solo scriptura as opposed to sola scriptura. Yet the Bible clearly demonstrates that the Church has a vital teaching role that is not to be ignored).
It is through the Church that God recieves glory: ...to him [God the Father] be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. (Ephesians 3:21) (Note: While people have an individual responsibility for glorifying God, all true believers glorify God corporately through the Church).
The Church is closely identified with Christ: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (Ephesians 5:23) (Note: In one sense the Church is the visible manifestation of Jesus Christ in the earth, and his remaining witness. Here the intensely close relationship between the Saviour and the Church is demonstrated.) See also: After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church... (Ephesians 5:29)
Christ died expressly for his Church: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her... (Ephesians 5:25)
The Church comprises the "household of God": ...if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth... (1 Timothy 3:15) (Note: Many times the Friends are ridiculed for referring to themselves as "God's children". Here we find support for this teaching, however, in that all true Christians, by being participants in the Church of the living God, also inhabit his very household!)
Each church has an eternal resonance and significance: The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (The Revelation 1:20) (Note: The churches in Asia Minor are each described as having an angel - or messenger - conveying to them the words of Jesus. This suggests that each church was very important in a spiritual frame of reference. Moreover, the imagery of the lampstand is significant. Just as a lamp yields light, so it is the responsibility for each church to shine into the dark abyss.)
The Holy Spirit addresses each church individually: He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. (The Revelation 2:7).
This short survey indicates that the function of the Church is not to be approached lightly. It is not merely a matter of selecting a group which suits our tastes and personality, as many view "church" in these post-evangelistic, seeker-sensitive days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2007 7:46:47 GMT -5
That should be ST. Augustine of Hippo
and
It is not the "Roman" catholic church. It is known as the Latin Rite. There are 7 rites to the Catholic church, they are Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean.
If you are using the Catholic church as an example please at least get it right
thank you
|
|
|
Post by to git on Aug 4, 2007 8:05:06 GMT -5
git (aka alan) we've made similar requests of you many times and your response was to ignore the request.
Hope you enjoy the medicine. It came from your shelf.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 4, 2007 12:04:48 GMT -5
git (aka alan) we've made similar requests of you many times and your response was to ignore the request. Hope you enjoy the medicine. It came from your shelf. GIT is NOT alan... GIT is not a kiwi... You should know this...
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 4, 2007 13:02:32 GMT -5
The early followers of Christ were originally called "Christians" in a derogatory manner by outsiders, yet they embraced this name with pride, joyfully identifying with and suffering for HIS name's sake. How do you know this? First called Christians - Acts 11:26 Suffering for His Name - Acts 15:26, I Pet 2:21 Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Denial of Use on Aug 4, 2007 16:29:37 GMT -5
Hi GIT. We are just completing our 2007 website, excerpts of which have appeared here the other day on the subject of church buildings. We want to do a much larger one for 2008-2009 which will cover all aspects of our church mentioned here. Your own material is always of interest to us. But I haven't copied any personal attack posts, other than the general statements made about us, for the sake of doctrinal response. I hereby deny reproductions of any and all of posts made by me and any handles used by me at anytime on this forum. No permissions are given to discuss, copy or reproduce in any form said posts. Signed Anonymous Poster. (c) Bert, you should copy some of Brad Lewis' outrageous remaks and the nasty anonymous ones! on here about the friends and the workers are the children of the Satan. I am gathering stuffs for my 2x2 message board experiences.
Thanks, GIT for the suggestion.
|
|