PDA

View Full Version : The Damage Of Constanstine.


Scott Hutchinson
07-06-2009, 12:12 PM
What damage did the emeperor Constanstine,do to western Christianity by the things he did when was in power ?

Are we still feeling the effects of these changes in the church world today ?

Shawn
07-06-2009, 12:19 PM
Augustine, Jerome.......

this should be a good thread.


:popcorn2

Scott Hutchinson
07-06-2009, 12:22 PM
Let me ask this question how much of modern Christianity has been influenced by Greek Philosphy ?

Shawn
07-06-2009, 12:24 PM
I really don't know....


But I do believe a lot more people have RCC leanings then they realize or will ever admit. I believe , unfortunately, the influence is deep.

Withdrawn
07-06-2009, 12:56 PM
Let me ask this question how much of modern Christianity has been influenced by Greek Philosphy ?
For starters:

The sacred building for gathering/worship
The basillica arrangement of the "sanctuary" with the elevated platform, surrounded by the audience
The homily/sermon

GrowingPains
07-06-2009, 01:47 PM
I really don't know....


But I do believe a lot more people have RCC leanings then they realize or will ever admit. I believe , unfortunately, the influence is deep.

Not all the RCC did was evil. The PR was a revolt against indulgences, then doctrine of salvation. But does that mean everything RCC was about was a lie? I don't think so personally.

Aquila
07-06-2009, 02:08 PM
For starters:

The sacred building for gathering/worship
The basillica arrangement of the "sanctuary" with the elevated platform, surrounded by the audience
The homily/sermon


Amen.

Also the notion of one's "Sunday best". When Constantine made Christianity the official religion he made Christian leaders of the church public officials. To come before a public official in common attire was considered disrespectful of their office. So many Christians were cast out of churches because they weren't "dressed up". This practice continues to this day in churches where one is expected to wear suit & tie, a fancy dress, etc.

TheLegalist
07-06-2009, 02:16 PM
Well, shall we also bring up the heresies in the reformation as well? Constantine destroyed a lot and we are still having issues today. Sadly the reformation probably caused just as much pathetic heresy as the RCC. PAthetic all around really! Wow, what man does to truth.

GrowingPains
07-06-2009, 02:26 PM
Amen.

Also the notion of one's "Sunday best". When Constantine made Christianity the official religion he made Christian leaders of the church public officials. To come before a public official in common attire was considered disrespectful of their office. So many Christians were cast out of churches because they weren't "dressed up". This practice continues to this day in churches where one is expected to wear suit & tie, a fancy dress, etc.

Aquila, surely you don't feel this is wrong or bad? While I'm a fan of mixing things up with a casual mid-week -- or even on Sunday if one wishes, I think dressing up is a sensible option for a church, and not one we should write-off just because the RCC also did that. That's sort of like saying no make-up because Jezebel wore it. Know what I mean?

GrowingPains
07-06-2009, 02:28 PM
If you're in a casual city, then go casual. If it's an area where dress-up-to-church is the tradition, stick to dressing up. I think both ideas are sensible though, and neither should be dogmatized.

MomOfADramaQn
07-06-2009, 02:34 PM
The spirit of "I am your pastor you will do as I say"

GrowingPains
07-06-2009, 02:35 PM
Well, shall we also bring up the heresies in the reformation as well? Constantine destroyed a lot and we are still having issues today. Sadly the reformation probably caused just as much pathetic heresy as the RCC. PAthetic all around really! Wow, what man does to truth.

Your statement is astounding. It was the Reformation that set the scene for Azusa, an outpour of the Holy Ghost not seen on this scale since Pentecost.
The Reformation, though imperfect, was the right direction. Shall we bring up our modern-day heresies?

*AQuietPlace*
07-06-2009, 03:48 PM
On a different board (non-religious) someone asked a question about the difference between Catholics and Protestants. Someone posted an answer that included this:

Some of the things that Catholics do or believe in that many other Christians don't are-

<snip>

* that the Bible is an important way of knowing God's will, but that Tradition, which is the teaching of the Catholic church through the ages, is just as important
* that Catholics have the Fullness of the Gospel, and other Christians only have part of it.

The Catholic church doesn't teach that you must be "born again" in the way that some Christians mean it; they believe that you are born again when you are baptized.

I thought those points were interesting. We are similar in some ways. :)

TJJJ
07-06-2009, 03:58 PM
Your statement is astounding. It was the Reformation that set the scene for Azusa, an outpour of the Holy Ghost not seen on this scale since Pentecost.
The Reformation, though imperfect, was the right direction. Shall we bring up our modern-day heresies?

Maybe you can expound on this comment, I doubt what you say here but wish to give you some area to correct me.

How did the reformation set the scene for Azusa?

GrowingPains
07-06-2009, 04:14 PM
Maybe you can expound on this comment, I doubt what you say here but wish to give you some area to correct me.

How did the reformation set the scene for Azusa?

If you look at all this from a large picture view of history, you will see a progression that culminated in one of the largest outpourings of the Holy Ghost since Pentecost. The Protestant Reformation brought the doctrine of grace without works, the idea of "priesthood of all believers", it provoked men to print the Bible outside the Latin vulgate, so everyone could read it for themselves (including years later a group of Bible School students studying about the baptism of the Holy Ghost in Topeka). We hear about the Anabaptists, the Methodist and the Holiness Movement, the Great Awakenings and finally a culmination of a New Birth of Pentecost in Azusa, an event that has seismologically shattered the foundations of religion.

Reformation broke the glass, opened the door for protest, provoked and spawned personal devotion and study, and sparked hunger for God's word, rather than just depending on the priest and participating in rites as a duty.

Yes, it was flawed. Yes, Luther would fall over in his grave to see where we are today. But it was right, and a whole lot bigger than Luther.

Jermyn Davidson
07-06-2009, 05:35 PM
Not all the RCC did was evil. The PR was a revolt against indulgences, then doctrine of salvation. But does that mean everything RCC was about was a lie? I don't think so personally.


I agree with your statement and at once, anything that appears distinctly rcc to me makes me want to vomit!

Jermyn Davidson
07-06-2009, 05:36 PM
Well, shall we also bring up the heresies in the reformation as well? Constantine destroyed a lot and we are still having issues today. Sadly the reformation probably caused just as much pathetic heresy as the RCC. PAthetic all around really! Wow, what man does to truth.



Ok, I'm baited.


What heresies were birthed out of the Reformation?

Not saying none were, just would like to know your thoughts behind this post.

GrowingPains
07-06-2009, 05:40 PM
The RCC has taken sole possession of history and have claimed St. Peter as their own Pope. Does anyone know when the first official RCC gathering was? There's no demarcation in their own history books between Pentecost (or even Christ) and today. Interested if someone else has a history.

Yes, RCC had some evils. I think every generation has to do a "Spring Cleaning" and determine what needs to be reformed, keeping the main thing always the main thing.

Aquila
07-06-2009, 08:06 PM
Aquila, surely you don't feel this is wrong or bad? While I'm a fan of mixing things up with a casual mid-week -- or even on Sunday if one wishes, I think dressing up is a sensible option for a church, and not one we should write-off just because the RCC also did that. That's sort of like saying no make-up because Jezebel wore it. Know what I mean?

GrowingPains,

I'm for the Simple Church model. I believe that churches (assemblies) should be small (12-15 people on average) and meeting in homes. I don't believe in a single pastor governing a given group but rather a team of elders who are saints mature in the faith with a "ministry to pastor" not hold an office. I don't believe everyone should sit in a church meeting in a row of noses staring at the back of someone's head while on man "sermonizes", but rather these smaller fellowships should have chairs turned inward to face each other, the elders should come prepared to teach in turn and those saints in the group should be permitted to add their understandings, ask questions, and participate. I don't believe that children should be herded into "Sunday Schools" but rather they should be allowed to play outside, upstairs, or color in the floor while the group is meeting. As they watch adults mingle and share the Word of God they should be encouraged to participate. A child's religious education should be the sole realm of the parents... not a stranger in a rambunctious class. Lessons should be taught "life time" meaning life lessons at points where the lessons are to be learned with tenderness, love, and Scripture. The ministry shouldn't be salaried and full time, "mooching" off the tithes of the flock, but rather the guiding elders should work real jobs (ask Paul about tent making) so that they can preach the Gospel without charge and maintain a grip on reality. Since there isn't any "building" to worship, tithing is unnecessary but rather free will offerings are to be collected to assist with extra costs of ministry and to aid saints in need. Seeing my position regarding all this I see no need to "dress up". Apostolic Christians should have no need to appear to be something other than what they are 24/7.

Personally, I believe that the greatest hindrance to revival in America is the traditional church itself. Instead of equipping saints and setting them free to reach their communities, turning their homes into meeting places scattered throughout the city, the traditional church herds Christians into buildings, tells them to be quiet and listen. It teaches a spectator mentality. The "professional ministry" inadvertently causes many average saints to feel that they should leave the bulk of reaching this world on the hired professionals. Traditional church often causes Christians to want the music to move them, the preaching to entertain them, the building to identify them, and the "rule book standards" to sanctify them. Traditional church has become a big business. Most of our churches have a hand full of men who should have been released years ago to reach their world, but for the sake of sustaining a building and pastoral salaries these ever faithful saints have been held back. A pastor once told me point blank, "If I released every man with a call on his life, I'd loose the most devoted members we have (read devoted tithers). And where would my church be then?" So we have a generation of frustrated and burned out men who should be on the battlefields acting as cash cows for their pastor's vision. Pastors delude themselves into thinking their grand building will somehow become the spiritual center of their given community to the exclusion of neighboring churches (read competitors). And don't even get me started on the internal politics of organizational religion. The average American will tell you, they like Jesus and that they'd like to know more about Him. However, they don't trust and don't like what they see being billed as "the church".

It's time for a new paradigm. It's time for a network of Christian leaders to begin meeting in homes, multiplying these fellowships wherever a roof can be found. It's time we shift from being focused on growing the membership of our given church buildings and organizations to something bigger. It's time to become a "church without walls". A church where the vision is not to advance our religious building's membership and property (or our organization's influence) but rather to advance - the Kingdom.

The final stage in the Apostolic Reformation is dawning... and church as you know it will never be the same.

crakjak
07-06-2009, 08:28 PM
What damage did the emeperor Constanstine,do to western Christianity by the things he did when was in power ?

Are we still feeling the effects of these changes in the church world today ?

Lots, and Yes!

crakjak
07-06-2009, 08:32 PM
Your statement is astounding. It was the Reformation that set the scene for Azusa, an outpour of the Holy Ghost not seen on this scale since Pentecost.
The Reformation, though imperfect, was the right direction. Shall we bring up our modern-day heresies?

We should always be willing to discuss wrong teaching whether it is current or old stuff still being practiced.

GrowingPains
07-06-2009, 11:44 PM
GrowingPains,

I'm for the Simple Church model. I believe that churches (assemblies) should be small (12-15 people on average) and meeting in homes. I don't believe in a single pastor governing a given group but rather a team of elders who are saints mature in the faith with a "ministry to pastor" not hold an office. I don't believe everyone should sit in a church meeting in a row of noses staring at the back of someone's head while on man "sermonizes", but rather these smaller fellowships should have chairs turned inward to face each other, the elders should come prepared to teach in turn and those saints in the group should be permitted to add their understandings, ask questions, and participate. I don't believe that children should be herded into "Sunday Schools" but rather they should be allowed to play outside, upstairs, or color in the floor while the group is meeting. As they watch adults mingle and share the Word of God they should be encouraged to participate. A child's religious education should be the sole realm of the parents... not a stranger in a rambunctious class. Lessons should be taught "life time" meaning life lessons at points where the lessons are to be learned with tenderness, love, and Scripture. The ministry shouldn't be salaried and full time, "mooching" off the tithes of the flock, but rather the guiding elders should work real jobs (ask Paul about tent making) so that they can preach the Gospel without charge and maintain a grip on reality. Since there isn't any "building" to worship, tithing is unnecessary but rather free will offerings are to be collected to assist with extra costs of ministry and to aid saints in need. Seeing my position regarding all this I see no need to "dress up". Apostolic Christians should have no need to appear to be something other than what they are 24/7.

Personally, I believe that the greatest hindrance to revival in America is the traditional church itself. Instead of equipping saints and setting them free to reach their communities, turning their homes into meeting places scattered throughout the city, the traditional church herds Christians into buildings, tells them to be quiet and listen. It teaches a spectator mentality. The "professional ministry" inadvertently causes many average saints to feel that they should leave the bulk of reaching this world on the hired professionals. Traditional church often causes Christians to want the music to move them, the preaching to entertain them, the building to identify them, and the "rule book standards" to sanctify them. Traditional church has become a big business. Most of our churches have a hand full of men who should have been released years ago to reach their world, but for the sake of sustaining a building and pastoral salaries these ever faithful saints have been held back. A pastor once told me point blank, "If I released every man with a call on his life, I'd loose the most devoted members we have (read devoted tithers). And where would my church be then?" So we have a generation of frustrated and burned out men who should be on the battlefields acting as cash cows for their pastor's vision. Pastors delude themselves into thinking their grand building will somehow become the spiritual center of their given community to the exclusion of neighboring churches (read competitors). And don't even get me started on the internal politics of organizational religion. The average American will tell you, they like Jesus and that they'd like to know more about Him. However, they don't trust and don't like what they see being billed as "the church".

It's time for a new paradigm. It's time for a network of Christian leaders to begin meeting in homes, multiplying these fellowships wherever a roof can be found. It's time we shift from being focused on growing the membership of our given church buildings and organizations to something bigger. It's time to become a "church without walls". A church where the vision is not to advance our religious building's membership and property (or our organization's influence) but rather to advance - the Kingdom.

The final stage in the Apostolic Reformation is dawning... and church as you know it will never be the same.

Aquila, I truly do share your burden. I highlighted some of those most prominent points, and points where I'd like to comment.

1) I think there is plenty of Scripture to support Pastors receiving financial support of the congregation (1 Corinthians 9:6-7,14 and others). Paul, being conscious of people guessing his motives (read Romans, Corinthians) went above and beyond, including being a tent maker for a period of time, to be above reproach. However, other verses make it clear the leadership can certainly live by the Gospel, and to not muzzle the ox which treads the corn.

2) The next things you said I wanted to stand up and clap. I felt it that passionately. I've been called to ministry for years, still spending time in Bible college/seminary and am looking at the church like the sleeping disciples in the G.O.G. moments before Christ presented Himself to the world. WAKE UP! What you said is of great importance -- turning church from a spectator sport, to genuine Christianity that is practiced. It's more than having a soul winning campaign, it's taking church into our neighborhoods, bringing food to some, always love to all.

3) I asked some questions about large churches in another post. I wonder how Apostles would take advantage of a Western Culture and nation like America? We are wealthy. Should we continue to have church like we are in catacombs?

4) I've read many other's post, and am looking forward to some good literature on pastoral leadership in the NT. I'm not thoroughly convinced there isn't still a prominent leader, though that leaders role is less of a dictator and more of an under-shepherd who's duty is to rightly handle the word of Truth and to keep correct doctrines in the church.

I think you and I have some of the same ideals. I truly do.

TheLegalist
07-07-2009, 07:42 AM
Ok, I'm baited.


What heresies were birthed out of the Reformation?

Not saying none were, just would like to know your thoughts behind this post.

1) Faith Alone doctrine which hurdles itself at the foundation of truth and creates improper concepts
2) False grace concepts
3) Free Will teaching...(lack of)
4) Original Sin
5) Atonement as an acquittal vs pardon
6) Eternal security which deal with (2) and the OSAS offspring views
7) Lack of proper teaching on the law and it's relationship to the believer. Which later Luther recanted from his antinomian views to some degree.
8) Improper views of the Jews and Judaism... replacement theology and others...
9) revival of Marcion doctrine
!0) Strict Paulinistic philosophy that goes against the whole grain of scripture, Jesus and the other Apostles.

shall I go on....

*AQuietPlace*
07-07-2009, 07:47 AM
!0) Strict Paulinistic philosophy that goes against the whole grain of scripture, Jesus and the other Apostles.

.

Could you explain this, please?

TheLegalist
07-07-2009, 08:22 AM
Could you explain this, please?

Basically it is easy believism in part. Some are spun views of calvinism.

Bob George, Erwin Lutzer, and others teachings.... do nothing and still saved. Works are not needed. They take a few scriptures from Paul and run with them to the contrary of what Jesus and others say. Jesus was very clear in his view of law.... it still is around. Some take Pauls teachings to negate law which they don't. Covenants may change but law does not. Nowhere will you find law being done away with in OT prophecy. You look at Jesus teaching on works, with John and others.... nowhere near the teaching of these strict Paulinists. Many even teach Jesus Words for the most part are not for today. They say this to ease the tension between Jesus and Paul. It's more of "What would Paul do".
Hyperdispensationalists are in this area as well. They also make Paul contradictive to himself. A good book to start with would be The Cost of discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer is just a start.

mfblume
07-07-2009, 09:59 AM
The worst damage I see, is the introduction of the Greek philosophers, and the handing over of the same ritualistic pagan services in temples to the church. In the pagan temples, before Christianity was granted those same buildings, a priest did all the spiritual work for the people, and they paid him to study spirituality for them, while they watched him perform of a spiritual show for an hour and then go home and carry out in no personal spiritual progress for themselves. The same thing was repeated all over again with the Christians once they were handed these temples. And there was born Catholicism and all the similar liturgical churches.

Having a building was not a problem, I think. It was paying a priest to do study spirituality FOR THEM, just as the pagan priests did before in those same temples.

mfblume
07-07-2009, 10:03 AM
1) Faith Alone doctrine which hurdles itself at the foundation of truth and creates improper concepts
2) False grace concepts
3) Free Will teaching...(lack of)
4) Original Sin
5) Atonement as an acquittal vs pardon
6) Eternal security which deal with (2) and the OSAS offspring views
7) Lack of proper teaching on the law and it's relationship to the believer. Which later Luther recanted from his antinomian views to some degree.
8) Improper views of the Jews and Judaism... replacement theology and others...
9) revival of Marcion doctrine
!0) Strict Paulinistic philosophy that goes against the whole grain of scripture, Jesus and the other Apostles.

shall I go on....

Saying this list above shows what "heresies" came from reformation period sounds like the error that Paul was against what Christ taught ,and vice versa. This view is proposed by the "higher thinking" of the seminaries and theological courses presented in universities where intellectualism replaced spirituality, instead of complementing it.

Though OSAS and Marcionism and some forms of Faith Alone are heresies, I believe, I do not agree the rest are heresies to that degree.

TheLegalist
07-07-2009, 10:07 AM
Saying this list above shows what "heresies" came from reformation period sounds like the error that Paul was against what Christ taught ,and vice versa. This view is proposed by the "higher thinking" of the seminaries and theological courses presented in universities where intellectualism replaced spirituality, instead of complementing it.

Though OSAS and Marcionism and some forms of Faith Alone are heresies, I believe, I do not agree the rest are heresies to that degree.

For the most part almost all those teachings are tied togethor. For example you cannot ignore Original sin doctrine and say I believe in Free Will. Many make theological leaps to get them to agree but it is what it is. Which then leads to grace and atonement etc...

Timmy
07-07-2009, 10:10 AM
The worst damage I see, is the introduction of the Greek philosophers, and the handing over of the same ritualistic pagan services in temples to the church. In the pagan temples, before Christianity was granted those same buildings, a priest did all the spiritual work for the people, and they paid him to study spirituality for them, while they watched him perform of a spiritual show for an hour and then go home and carry out in no personal spiritual progress for themselves. The same thing was repeated all over again with the Christians once they were handed these temples. And there was born Catholicism and all the similar liturgical churches.

Having a building was not a problem, I think. It was paying a priest to do study spirituality FOR THEM, just as the pagan priests did before in those same temples.

Well, at least we don't hafta throw virgins into volcanoes er somethin'. ;)

mfblume
07-07-2009, 10:56 AM
For the most part almost all those teachings are tied togethor. For example you cannot ignore Original sin doctrine and say I believe in Free Will. Many make theological leaps to get them to agree but it is what it is. Which then leads to grace and atonement etc...

If one disagrees with Paul's teachings then its no wonder a person might say original sin is error. Paul plainly taught it.

Those who propose Paul was in error need to take Peter's admonition that Paul was a beloved brother whose writings were categorized as scripture as much as whatever else was considered scripture.

mfblume
07-07-2009, 10:56 AM
Well, at least we don't hafta throw virgins into volcanoes er somethin'. ;)

Yeah. lol. It's liturgy in a very mild form now.

Aquila
07-07-2009, 11:02 AM
The worst damage I see, is the introduction of the Greek philosophers, and the handing over of the same ritualistic pagan services in temples to the church. In the pagan temples, before Christianity was granted those same buildings, a priest did all the spiritual work for the people, and they paid him to study spirituality for them, while they watched him perform of a spiritual show for an hour and then go home and carry out in no personal spiritual progress for themselves. The same thing was repeated all over again with the Christians once they were handed these temples. And there was born Catholicism and all the similar liturgical churches.

Having a building was not a problem, I think. It was paying a priest to do study spirituality FOR THEM, just as the pagan priests did before in those same temples.

Form follows function. The Apostle Paul explained the body ministry as commanded by the Lord in I Corinthians 14. All were to prophesy, offer song, and edify one another. With the additions of these grand buildings congregations became too large to function according to the NT purpose of the church (assembly). Revisit it Bro. Blume...

I Corinthians 14:26-40
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[i]

39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Here we see everyone bringing something to offer: a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All were to be done in order for the strengthening of the church. If there was an utterance in tongues it was to be limited to three individuals at most to maintain order... but a member present had to provide an interpretation. If no interpretation came forth after an utterance... they were to cease speaking and disrupting and simply pray to God. Two or three anointed preachers (prophets) were to come prepared to speak and teach and the listeners gathered were to seriously weight what was said that they might be built up in Christ Jesus. However, if something were revealed to a listener present, the speaker was to stop speaking and let the brother share his understanding. This way, though two or three prophets governed the meeting, all were allowed to prophesy (teach and share anointed thoughts and messages) in turn. They were sharing their understandings and teaching one another like a round table discussion. However the two or three elders functioning in the meeting were to have spiritual authority over anyone who wished to speak... the spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets. Women were not permitted to interrupt the elders when teaching with questions (remember women were largely unlearned in those days). If they had a question they were to ask their husbands at home. For a woman to interrupt or challenge teaching was disgraceful. Paul then asks them where they got the authority to do things their way and get out of order. They are then admonished if anyone believes they are a prophet or spiritual that they are to know that these are THE LORD'S COMMANDS. And if any saint ignored this general order of worship and gathering he was to be ignored. I'd say that when a group becomes too large to facilitate this functionality of body ministry it's too big and unbiblical.

So you're right... it's not necessarily the building that is what is wrong... it's what the building does to the depth of fellowship and how it derails the very purpose of a church meeting. Smaller home based church meetings better accomplish their NT goal. Individualized mentoring and discipleship are far easier. In a building the congregation gets to be so large it's like a farm where cattle are fed in mass. The building isn't the problem... but it breeds the "spectator spirit". It only became manditory to pay a pastor to perform religious service when the body became too big to be an open forum for body ministry.

This is why the church thrived and grew like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire when they met in smaller home based fellowships. I'd like to note, occasionally the believers in a city would meet in a square or public venue for exhortation but their basic services and structures where home based and no one could stop their growth. It was a "church without walls"... a growing and vibrant Kingdom... not an incorporated church or organization.

The building also required the Catholic Church's revival of the tithing principle to sustain the buildings and the priesthood. And now, just as back then, nearly 80% of all revenue go into the building and ministry leaving next to nothing for benevolence and assisting the broken.

The side effects of having buildings has slowed the church down greatly and saddled the saints with massive debt. It's become an object of pride, a status symbol, and has replaced the concept of the church being people... for the idea that the church is a structure. If one doesn't attend one of these required and sanctified meetings in a building it is said that they are "out of church". Wrong. So very wrong. You can meet with 5 to 10 brothers and sisters at home, in a Starbucks, a book store, a mall, a park, at a lake, in a back yard, you name it... and there you have churched. I think our having buildings has contributed to the church becoming a mile wide and an inch deep because teaching cannot be personalized.

Also reproduction and spreading the Kingdom has suffered. We have infighting and competition because of what's needed to sustain these monsters. Today's churches multiply like elephants and are, like the elephant an endangered species. However, the Apostolic church of the Bible was smaller and multiplied rapidly like rabbits. That's a great comparison. Traditional church is a lumbering elephant trying to reproduce itself... house churches are rabbits who can reproduce anytime, anywhere. The only problem is... traditional church has totally changed America's ideas of what it means to church. If you meet in a home many Americans think it's strange. No... it's biblical. Here... the traditional church has harmed the advancement of the kingdom yet again.

Jermyn Davidson
07-07-2009, 11:02 AM
1) Faith Alone doctrine which hurdles itself at the foundation of truth and creates improper concepts
2) False grace concepts
3) Free Will teaching...(lack of)
4) Original Sin
5) Atonement as an acquittal vs pardon
6) Eternal security which deal with (2) and the OSAS offspring views
7) Lack of proper teaching on the law and it's relationship to the believer. Which later Luther recanted from his antinomian views to some degree.
8) Improper views of the Jews and Judaism... replacement theology and others...
9) revival of Marcion doctrine
!0) Strict Paulinistic philosophy that goes against the whole grain of scripture, Jesus and the other Apostles.

shall I go on....


I want to respond with specific questions to ascertain exactly what you are saying-- will do so later.

TheLegalist
07-07-2009, 11:20 AM
If one disagrees with Paul's teachings then its no wonder a person might say original sin is error. Paul plainly taught it.

Those who propose Paul was in error need to take Peter's admonition that Paul was a beloved brother whose writings were categorized as scripture as much as whatever else was considered scripture.


If 2 Peter is really from Peter which is easily debatable. Agreeing it is, no they mistake his teachings to there own destruction.... It's not whether you agree but understand him. Which is a huge issue on whether he is even consistent with himself.

Please define Original Sin! It's either Pelagianism or Total Depravity. Do you believe in total depravity? Man has free will to choose.

Aquila
07-07-2009, 12:33 PM
If 2 Peter is really from Peter which is easily debatable. Agreeing it is, no they mistake his teachings to there own destruction.... It's not whether you agree but understand him. Which is a huge issue on whether he is even consistent with himself.

Please define Original Sin! It's either Pelagianism or Total Depravity. Do you believe in total depravity? Man has free will to choose.

Man has free will to choose, however, that power of choice is overshadowed by man's sinful nature. So a man has the power to choose the cross or damnation. Man cannot choose to be sinless or perfect... else Christ would not have needed to die for mankind.

It's really a no brainer.

TheLegalist
07-07-2009, 01:13 PM
Man has free will to choose, however, that power of choice is overshadowed by man's sinful nature. So a man has the power to choose the cross or damnation. Man cannot choose to be sinless or perfect... else Christ would not have needed to die for mankind.

It's really a no brainer.

You have confused two parts...

Man has the desires of the flesh... We fail the righteousness of God because of the weakness of the flesh. We choose to sin, not forced to. Man chooses many times not to sin which is righteous acts. This can happen before man "comes" to God per se(though man is always before God in his conscience of which all creation bears witness). Many non christians do righteous acts do to the conscience God has given them. Religions are full of this. Man chooses God or not whether the cross is presented to him or not by creation and the conscious act of man. God is always the source of truth of which we respond. Also man did choose, his name was Jesus Christ the righteous. If he did not have the passions of the flesh he was not tested. Did we need a saviour? YEs! WE chose to and HE did not to sin. We are condemned because WE choose to sin not someone else.

Also the main points of contention of original sin are after conversion. We are not bound by the flesh "to" sin as most teach. Many teach we don't overcome literally the flesh but can't stop sinning and all we do is sin. Thus they make the cross of non effect and truly not a transforming time but only a theoretical position change before God. Thus they see Jesus's righteousness not us sinning. Blood covering or bubble theology.

Gotta go for now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656131899587741846&ei=XYhTStDiH53-qALQ3PGRAQ&q=Original+sin&hl=en

Aquila
07-07-2009, 01:22 PM
You have confused two parts...

Man has the desires of the flesh... We fail the righteousness of God because of the weakness of the flesh. We choose to sin, not forced to. Man chooses many times not to sin which is righteous acts. This can happen before man "comes" to God per se(though man is always before God in his conscience of which all creation bears witness). Many non christians do righteous acts do to the conscience God has given them. Religions are full of this. Man chooses God or not whether the cross is presented to him or not by creation and the conscious act of man. God is always the source of truth of which we respond. Also man did choose, his name was Jesus Christ the righteous. If he did not have the passions of the flesh he was not tested. Did we need a saviour? YEs! WE chose to and HE did not to sin. We are condemned because WE choose to sin not someone else.

Also the main points of contention of original sin are after conversion. We are not bound by the flesh "to" sin as most teach. Many teach we don't overcome literally the flesh but can't stop sinning and all we do is sin. Thus they make the cross of non effect and truly not a transforming time but only a theoretical position change before God. Thus they see Jesus's righteousness not us sinning. Blood covering or bubble theology.

Gotta go for now.

Legal,

Do you believe you have ceased from sin and that you will never sin again?

TheLegalist
07-07-2009, 01:32 PM
Legal,

Do you believe you have ceased from sin and that you will never sin again?

Will I sin is up to the future. Have I sinned yes! I must turn completely though.

Did you die to sin thus not obey it's desires? Are you a servant of sin or of rightouesness. Can you serve to masters? One is to death the other to life?


1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Sin is not "we do" because we always do. It is THAT YE SIN NOT! but IF we do we have the "Grace"ful provision of Christ.

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

THe main point of contention is power over the flesh of which many do not believe you have power over through the provision of Christ. We are redeemed and the law written on our hearts SO it will cause us tol obey his laws, statutes and commands. sorry gotta go!

mfblume
07-07-2009, 01:59 PM
hi Aquila,

God's Spirit is not limited whether we gather in a small house meeting or a building dedicated to worship. The fact is that leading of the Spirit raises us above any limitations, and believe me, I am involved with Spirit-led congregations. It is as wrong to say one cannot gather in a building dedicated for worship as it is to say house meetings are wrong. We can carnalize things with both aspects.

mfblume
07-07-2009, 02:00 PM
If 2 Peter is really from Peter which is easily debatable. Agreeing it is, no they mistake his teachings to there own destruction.... It's not whether you agree but understand him. Which is a huge issue on whether he is even consistent with himself.

Please define Original Sin! It's either Pelagianism or Total Depravity. Do you believe in total depravity? Man has free will to choose.

So, you do not agree with Paul's teachings?

Aquila
07-07-2009, 02:09 PM
Will I sin is up to the future. Have I sinned yes! I must turn completely though.

Did you die to sin thus not obey it's desires? Are you a servant of sin or of rightouesness. Can you serve to masters? One is to death the other to life?


1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Sin is not "we do" because we always do. It is THAT YE SIN NOT! but IF we do we have the "Grace"ful provision of Christ.

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

THe main point of contention is power over the flesh of which many do not believe you have power over through the provision of Christ. We are redeemed and the law written on our hearts SO it will cause us tol obey his laws, statutes and commands. sorry gotta go!

I'm curious Legal, how do you define "sin"? What "sins" should be avoided?

Aquila
07-07-2009, 02:12 PM
hi Aquila,

God's Spirit is not limited whether we gather in a small house meeting or a building dedicated to worship. The fact is that leading of the Spirit raises us above any limitations, and believe me, I am involved with Spirit-led congregations. It is as wrong to say one cannot gather in a building dedicated for worship as it is to say house meetings are wrong. We can carnalize things with both aspects.

Bro. Blume, I think you missed the point of my concern...

I Corinthians 14:26-40
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[i]

39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

This is how the Lord has commanded the church to be. A small group can accomplish this easily. Once a body is too large to accomplish this it's time to multiply through division or it ceases to be a church. Most of what people believe is "church" today isn't church... it's just a religious schooling where they sit as observers for a lesson... never ministering or functioning as God intended.

GrowingPains
07-07-2009, 03:46 PM
Good discussion on this thread so far. Keep it going.

Scott Hutchinson
07-07-2009, 08:29 PM
Boy for a ole redneck,I sure can ask some good questions.

GrowingPains
07-13-2009, 12:27 PM
bump to keep this discussion going