Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate
Browse by what's: hot | new | rising | top of the week

Can you be a Christian without going to church?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Link 4golf
I guess I should make a little better point when I am joking; Saying I agree with some one! First I am nolonger a Pastor in the Church of God, so I will let some one else answer that. You don't believe that a church should have a Pastor? Please tell me you are joking! Have you ever sit in on a elders or a decons meeting? Very few can come to a 100% agreement most of the time. Yes New Testament church was Always set up with a Pastor, One Lead Pastor. Remember reading in Acts 6:2 It is no desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Deacons means to be a server. A server of the church and a servant of the Pastor. Deacons and elders were called to help the Pastor lead the church. Never were they called to Lead the church themselves! You might want to read Ephesians 4:11 and He ""The Lord"Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some ""PASTORS"" and teachers. Are you saying the Word of God and God are wrong???? Bound By Beaulah
Posts: 1003
12/19/11 6:24 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post mytimewillcome
Church attendance is not only NOT necessary, it can actually hurt our faith in some instances. See Matthew 23:13-15

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are."
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3658
12/19/11 10:39 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Change Agent
Link Stated:
Except that these are some of the unbiblical things I am talking about. who says a church is supposed to have 'the pastor' the way we see it now? I can't find that in the Bible.

'The pastor' stands up and gives a 30 to 45 minute oration every week while the rest sit in silence. The apostles appointed elders to pastor and oversee the churches. Where does it say their job was to 'preach the sermon' or that there should be one big sermon? What about the I Corinthians 14:26 activities carried out by the body that the Bible DOES talk about?

Why would church nee to be about one man, besides Christ Jesus? If you have a whole body of people ministering, why is church centered on one pastor? If you have a group of elders like we see in the Bible, why would you think of church as being about 'the pastor' when there are several men pastoring? And who says their role in speaking in the assembly necessarily has to be so prominent that their identity equals the churches identity? If 'every one of you' is exhorting the assembly, and no one teaches false doctrine or causes trouble, a visitor just might not know who they are the first time he attends.

And where does this idea of 'voting' the preacher out come from? Can you do that in the COG, where most people on the forum are from? Where does the idea of voting the preacher out because he isn't humble enough come from? I can't find that in the Bible. The apostles appointed elders in the Bible. If someone wouldn't repent of a sin, they could be cut off from fellowship. Elders are no exception if there are two or three witnesses. But voting someone out, based on a majority? Can you vote someone who prophesies out of the church if they aren't humble enough? Should we vote out the person with a gift of helps who isn't humble enough.

(Be that as it may, there are a number of other ways a church can be 'more Biblical' than another besides church structure and church government issues, like by loving others. I don't decided where to go to church based on which church is 'more Biblical.' If I believe the Lord wants me going somewhere with the traditional pastor setup, I do that. Sometimes a church has a lot of opportunities where I can minister.)

Link, that was and outstanding post showing that the model of church we see in the USA does not follow biblical patterns. I fail to see in the scriptures that the current COG (including other denominations) model is biblical. Scripture does not give the Pastor the authority that the COG organization gives him. That additional authority given by the COG limits the other offices in the church, namely, elders, deacons, teachers, apositles and prophets.

The pastor (king) relationship in the church in the COG will not change in the near future because many (not all) pastors depend on the the system for their security.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1449
12/19/11 10:53 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Isn't it weird... bradfreeman
Clint Wills wrote:
My assumption, based on the original post, was that assembling at all is institutional church. You asked if going to a Sunday morning meeting was a requirement of being a Christian. Home churches have regular meetings, fellowship based groups have regular *scheduled* meetings. At what point is that not a church meeting??


Church is that sense of community that comes from knowing that people love you and are praying for you. Church is people committed to a sense of spiritual family. You can have that sense even when the people you are in community with are far away. Regular or scheduled meetings are not essential to that sense of community. But I certainly agree that when the church meets, it's a "church meeting" and it can help build that sense of community! Smile
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
12/20/11 12:22 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Link
Change Agent wrote:
gives him. That additional authority given by the COG limits the other offices in the church, namely, elders, deacons, teachers, apositles and prophets..


Thanks for the post.

If there are pastors who are not elder-overseers or apostles, then they should operate under the direct of the elders. The elders appointed as overseers are the ones in scripture that were appointed by the apostles. They are the 'official' leaders who are recognized. Paul tells the elders of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. He also tells them to pastor the church of God. Peter tells the elders to pastor the flock of God.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/20/11 12:37 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Link Link
4golf wrote:
I guess I should make a little better point when I am joking; Saying I agree with some one! First I am nolonger a Pastor in the Church of God, so I will let some one else answer that. You don't believe that a church should have a Pastor? Please tell me you are joking! Have you ever sit in on a elders or a decons meeting? Very few can come to a 100% agreement most of the time.


I've spent quite a bit of time in a plural eldership church and I have been in on meetings where elders met that were open to people in the congregation. Things did move slow there for a while in terms of decision making, but that probably had more to do with the impossible Jakarta traffic and managing to get together to decide things. They divided up responsibilities different and things ran more smoothly. I am not saying there aren't certain challenges. Decisions can be made quickly with one autocratic leader, but if the Lord didn't instruct us the example to set things up that way and didn't command it, why should we?

Actually, there is one Leader in the church, and one Head. In I Peter 5, Peter exhorts the elders, plural, and tells them to pastor. Then he says when the chief Pastor appears, they would receive a crown of glory that does not fade away. The Lord is that chief Pastor. Jesus is the good Pastor, the chief Pastor, and the Pastor and bishop of our souls.

Quote:

Yes New Testament church was Always set up with a Pastor, One Lead Pastor.


Can you show me this in the Bible? I can't find a good case for this in scripture, but I can find plenty of evidence that churches were led by a plurality of elders. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders. Timothy appointed elders.

Quote:

Remember reading in Acts 6:2 It is no desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Deacons means to be a server. A server of the church and a servant of the Pastor. Deacons and elders were called to help the Pastor lead the church. Never were they called to Lead the church themselves!


Where did deacons come into this? Elders had a pastoral ministry in the New Testament. (They also served, as did apostles.) The verse you referred me to is about the twelve apostles appointing seven deacons to handle feeding the widows so that they, the apostles and witnesses of the resurrection, could give themselves to the ministry of the word and to prayer. What does this have to do with a one-man pastorate?

Quote:
You might want to read Ephesians 4:11 and He ""The Lord"Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some ""PASTORS"" and teachers. Are you saying the Word of God and God are wrong????


Notice that pastors is in the plural. It doesn't say 'the pastor.' The apostles appointed a group of elders in every church. Ther eis no evidence that they ever appointed just one. These men were from within their own churches.

If you will look up the Greek word 'poimen' it is the word used for those guys who used to spend a lot of time outside watching sheep. There is no reason to think that the first century meaning of the word meant a professional clergyman CEO of a religious organization who alone gave 45 minute orations every week. "Forty-five minute speech" is not part of the definition. The hierarchical senior pastor system we have now is not part of the definition.The idea that these pastors are above another group of men called elders is not scriptural.

I read an interesting article from a theology journal written by a Reformed man about how the roles of elder and pastor got separated into two roles in Reformed tradition. Other denominations were influenced by this. The RCC and from them the episcopals had one bishop above a group of priests. The priests were considered to be 'pastoral' and offered communion.

But in the Reformation, in Geneva Switzerland where Calvin taught, that city sought to be theocracy. They had their group of people they considered to be Biblical elders. Now they apparently liked to refer to them as 'pastors.'

The word 'priest' derived from the Greek word for elder. Prebuteros>prester>priest. But translations had used the word for 'priest' to refer to the kohen, the descendants of Aaron, which led to a big theological mess. Luther had taught the priesthood of all believers-- in the kohen sense, not in the sense of being a church elder.

So the Genevans used the word 'pastor.'

But they wanted a Christian government and they searched out models of civic government from Christian communities in North Africa and Syria. One communit in the 300's had church elders and also a community role called 'garousia' in Greek-- another word for elder.

So they had their church elders in Geneva, whom they considered to be presbuteros-- the ones they associated with the word 'elders' in scripture. These were the preachers of the word and the ministers of the sacrament in their theology. The other group of 'elders' was a city position, like our city councilmen. They were 'civic elders'--and not intended to be the elders in scripture. This was an attempt at a theocracy, so these were church going men and they were also leaders in the church community and began to take over some of the roles as deacons in the RCC, if not in Geneva, then in Scotland where the Reformed "Church of Scotland" imitated the Genevans.

Yes the Presbyterians in Scotland had 'elders' who did not correspond with Biblical elders in their own theology. They would reference 'governments in I Corinthians 12, when referring to these elders in their church documents, and not to the 'elders' verses in the Bible. But a couple of hundred years later, they used the 'elders' scriptures to refer to these people.

What emerged was the creation of the 'board elders'-- the non-pastoral elder. We also ended up with something that resembled an episcopal system on a smaller scale with one pastor over a board of elders. This is not what we see in scripture. We see multiple pastoral elders in a single church, a single city-church at that.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/20/11 1:27 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Pastors 4golf
The reason Pastors is plural is the same the rest are plural. The Lord did not just call one prophet, Evanglist, and preacher. One could not cover the whole church all over the world.God intended to have one head over the church. That is what the example in Acts about the helpers is for, the Pastor and the church. Anything with two heads is a freak! We will have to agree to disagree and leave it there. My point about a group of deacons and elders is that very rarely they all can come to agreement on anything 100% and if you have a "Group" leading a church it is only a matter of time before it explodes! Bound By Beaulah
Posts: 1003
12/20/11 8:56 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post I am for the local church... Mat
I am for the local church, small or large, complex or simple, strong or weak; I am for it in every expression. It is the God-designed body in which the Christian can best express their gifts and witness. It is the place of true accountability and credibility in ministry and as we see in the New Testament it is the will or God that believers be part of an organized local (city) church. What I don’t believe in is any ministry or minister that is not submitted to a local church, especially if they are supported by local churches. To me, it is the height of hypocrisy to say a believer does not need to “go to church (that is a local church)” to be a Christian when you are supported by local churches or want local churches to support your ministry. In other words, it you don’t think local churches are important don’t ask us for money and if your ministry is too “big” for you to be part of a local church, then your ministry is too big to be supported by local churches.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
12/20/11 12:56 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Pastors Link
4golf wrote:
The reason Pastors is plural is the same the rest are plural. The Lord did not just call one prophet, Evanglist, and preacher. One could not cover the whole church all over the world.


So in other words, you assume the one-man pastorate or senior pastorate structure is God's will, without any scripture to back it up, and interpret scripture based on that idea?

Quote:
God intended to have one head over the church. That is what the example in Acts about the helpers is for, the Pastor and the church. Anything with two heads is a freak!


And that is an indictment of the pastoral system you endorse. If Christ is the Head, one pastor cannot be the head. Christ is a type of Moses. Moses led Israel and there were 70 elders who assisted him.

Regarding deacons, Acts 6 shows deacons helping _the apostles_, not the one pastor. Paul mentions them after discussing the requirements for elders/overseers, not 'the pastor.'

Quote:

We will have to agree to disagree and leave it there. My point about a group of deacons and elders is that very rarely they all can come to agreement on anything 100% and if you have a "Group" leading a church it is only a matter of time before it explodes!


I have yet to see a plural eldership explode. Decisions can be made slowly. I also saw that the plural eldership church I was last a part of had a lot more ministry involvement, it seemed like, from rank and file members, than a lot of other churches.

Why don't you get out a concordance and look up 'elders,' 'bishops' and 'overseers' in the New Testament and also do some word studies?
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/20/11 2:02 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: I am for the local church... bradfreeman
Mat wrote:
What I don’t believe in is any ministry or minister that is not submitted to a local church, especially if they are supported by local churches. Mat


When you say "submitted to a local church", are you really saying "submitted to a local pastor"? If not, is "submitted" the wrong word to use? What do you mean "submitted"? Does the minister seek approval for meetings, or ministry direction? Does the minister give the local church a cut of his offerings?
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
12/20/11 2:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Isn't it weird... Poimen
bradfreeman wrote:
I certainly agree that when the church meets, it's a "church meeting" and it can help build that sense of community! Smile


And to willfully neglect or forsake that assembling of the church is in direct disobedience to the command of Scripture, and the Lord who gave it. How can we thus call him Lord and do not the things that He says?

The real issue here is motive and intent, not "church" availability or format. So, while noting there are exceptions, generally speaking, the rule is to attend. And one cannot long remain a Christian who can attend bit will not attend "church" -- wherever that may be & whatever that may look like.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
12/20/11 4:35 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Re: Pastors Poimen
4golf wrote:
The reason Pastors is plural is the same the rest are plural. The Lord did not just call one prophet, Evanglist, and preacher. One could not cover the whole church all over the world.God intended to have one head over the church. That is what the example in Acts about the helpers is for, the Pastor and the church. Anything with two heads is a freak! We will have to agree to disagree and leave it there. My point about a group of deacons and elders is that very rarely they all can come to agreement on anything 100% and if you have a "Group" leading a church it is only a matter of time before it explodes!


That's not so friend, pastors and/or elders is in the plural even in reference to the church local. Furthermore, the pastor is not distinct from the elders. Rather the elders are pastors, and pastors are elders. The terms (biblically) are synonymous.

While I don't agree with everything Link says about the "order" of church, nor do I deny the function of "teaching elders" and the place of a "sermon" in the life of the church I also agree with him about the need for all parts having a place and outlet to minster to one another, all gifts to operate or be operated in, etc. I also agree with Him (at least in as far as I have read here that I can recall) about the nature of elders and the eldership. We've got it wrong. The Presbyterians more or less have it right, at least on the local level, as does the Church of Christ (that is the nature and function of elders, not necessarily anything else).

As for unanimity in leadership and decision making, it's not as hard as it sound among godly, qualified persons. And it's probably not as much about lock step conformity, as it is unity of direction and purpose. Some may disagree, but will yield, etc. There are biblical principles and methods for addressing such. But throwing out the biblical model for one we contrive to be more convenient is certainly no better, and (as we have seen) can often be worse.

An elder led church is not a two headed monstrosity. Christ is the head, with the elders under Him. Besides, if being elder-led makes a local church monstrous, what of denominations of which local churches are part? How are they not, by such reasoning, multi-headed monsters as well? Obviously, I don't think that line of argument really applies here. You may maintain your disagreement, but I hope I've at least given yous something to think and pray about.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
12/20/11 4:49 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Ken Shelton
Yes. The unrestricted dimension and action of the Holy Spirit ensures that to be the case. In fact, according to John, "we need no man to teach us."
_________________
Primum non nocere...Do no harm
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1052
12/21/11 9:00 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Troy Hamby wrote:


that wasn't the question...the question was can you be a Christian without going to church. I believe that you can...you will be like one of those homeschool kids who never interact with other kids and has no social skills but you'll still be a follower of Christ.


Those homeschool kids? What homeschool kids are those?
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/21/11 1:01 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
I wonder how much of our energy, money, time and attention we should invest in the institution. For example, how many MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollars are spent each year on salaries for cronies and facilities that are used 3 hours a week--it is largely a waste of money and energy that could be put to MUCH better use.

That is something I wonder about too.



Quote:
Threads sometimes take on a life of their own. I enjoy observing what people assume about the intention of a thread and the comments threads enable them to vent. The POINT of this thread...I think we should soften our condemnation of those who find other means of "assembling".

In general I agree, but in reality, the people I've found taking unconventional paths of "assembly" drift into bizarre beliefs or are reacting to hurts received in the conventional assembly. That's just my observation from my limited personal experience.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
12/21/11 1:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Link
Poimen,

I would not say I am 'anti-sermon'. I believe it is a legitimate way to teach. I'd rather there be a sermon at church than light Christian coffee house chit chat.

I don't think preaching a 45 minute sermon every week is inherent in the definition of 'poimen' ('pastor') in the New Testament, though. And if a church is experiencing I Corinthians 14:26 style meetings, messages need to be shortened or the meeting has to go on for a really, really, really long time, depending on the size of the church. Making one sermon the center piece of a church meeting and sticking to a two hour church meeting can leave little time for prophesying (or other prophesying as the case may be) and that doesn't seem in line with the priorities Paul expresses for church meetings in I Corinthians 14.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/21/11 2:38 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
I talked with a man several years ago who'd gone to a WOF church. I think he and his wife had been hurt. Later, he wasn't going to a church, and I asked him why he didn't go. Basically, he didn't want to go without his wife being in unity, and she had some sort of codependency thing going on or hadn't healed up from some trauma and had to be with her husband 24/7 for psychological reasons, it seemed. He was enthusiastic about street evangelism, too.

But what he said was that he and his wife would meet with people like he was meeting with me and my wife at the time several times a week and fellowship and share the word of God. He wouldn't mind being a part of a church, but the situation made it difficult, And he considered what he did to fulfill 'forsake not the assembling of yourselves together' because he considered 'two or three' to be enough.

I pointed out that in the Bible churches were big enough to have elders, and were larger communities. 'Two or three' seems to be related to the number of witnesses in the previous verses. But I couldn't really 'prove him wrong' if I were so minded. But I certainly didn't think what he was doing was optimal.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/21/11 2:43 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Isn't it weird... mytimewillcome
Poimen wrote:

And to willfully neglect or forsake that assembling of the church is in direct disobedience to the command of Scripture, and the Lord who gave it. How can we thus call him Lord and do not the things that He says?


The "Lord" said that? Check again.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3658
12/21/11 3:40 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Isn't it weird... Poimen
mytimewillcome wrote:
Poimen wrote:

And to willfully neglect or forsake that assembling of the church is in direct disobedience to the command of Scripture, and the Lord who gave it. How can we thus call him Lord and do not the things that He says?


The "Lord" said that? Check again.


Do you not believe all Scripture is Spirit inspired or God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)? Do you not believe the Lord is that Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17)? And do you not believe that the person of the Spirit does not speak of Himself, but that which He hears (John 16:13)?
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
12/21/11 6:02 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post chainrattler
The obvious answer to this question is "Yes", you can be a Christian without going to church. "Going to church" doesn't make you a Christian, faith in Jesus Christ is what "makes" you a Christian.

However, in order to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and in order to minister the gifts and callings God places in your life - you cannot do that in isolation, you must be in fellowship with other believers of like precious faith.

This question is actually the same as "Do I have to be baptrized in water to be a Christian", and as someone else pointed out, motivation of the heart is vitally important here. Why would you not want to be baptized in water? Why would you NOT want to "go to church" or be a part of a church? Because you were hurt? The answer to that is "Man up!" (or Woman up).

The apostle Paul said that it had been granted (notice the word choice there) to the Phillipians "on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him." Suffering is part of the package; it comes with the faith. We expect that suffering to come from the world, but more often than not it comes from the church. The world, for the most part, ignores us (which can be a form of suffering in itself when it comes to evangelism).

Also, remember the parable of the tares and the wheat, both will grow together until the harvest. That means regardless of what church or style of worship we subscribe to we are going to be faced with immature and false brethren that are going to try our faith, in the both the pulpit and the pew.

It's easy to run away and become an isolationist ("It's just Jesus and me!" - which being interpreted means - "It's just Jesus and poor little me.") It takes a real man or woman of God to persevere and endure. We are called to be overcomers, not run and hiders.

Can I be a Christian without going to church? Yes, but being a Christian will lead me to church.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 975
12/21/11 11:45 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.