Come Out Of Her My People

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Because words mean something.

God's thoughts are expressed by his words.

His words are perfect.

Historically, when Christians began using unscriptural terminology, the result was trinitarianism, Arianism, and a whole host of other isms. Servetus pointed out the bible knows no such things as the 'theological terminology of the Scholastics and Doctors of divinity' who were the constant unending source of heresies and schisms.

Shall we call 'justification' by a different, unbiblical term? A term that taken at face value is opposite to the biblical meaning of justification? Shall we take a term that means one thing, and apply it to justification (which the term does not mean), and say 'well, who cares?'

Does it matter what is said in baptism?

Do words mean anything anymore?

Or is it all lost in a slough of relativism?

Why should we call sin SIN? Should we be happy and content to speak about 'homosexuals' or 'gays' instead of sodomites? Shall we call it 'shacking up' or 'living together' and refuse to call it fornication?

We should call Bible things by Bible names, meaning, we should hold fast the FORM OF SOUND WORDS delivered to us by the apostles and prophets.

BTW the bible specifically tells us HOW to baptize (doctrine)

It doesn't tell us "the building your church meets in must be called X" or "The building your church meets in can't be called X"

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We should call Bible things by Bible names.

Jesus warned us about traditions of men, and how they are often used to make void the Word of God. By calling the meeting-house 'the house of God' we do several things:

1. We instill and reinforce the unbiblical notion that God dwells in temples made with hands. The first martyr of our Lord died because he strictly affirmed that God does NOT dwell in houses made with hands. By constantly speaking of the meeting-house as 'God's house' we inadvertently cheapen his testimony and its importance and significance.

2. Related to number 1 above, the new covenant is RADICAL. It is a RADICAL departure from old covenant religion. It is a RADICAL departure and indeed a RADICAL repudiation of many of the Pharisees' and Sadducees' (and the Gentiles' as well) ideas of God, religion, piety, and practically everything else. One of those RADICAL ideological (theological) elements of new covenant religion is the idea that God has REJECTED physical temples ('houses') as being insufficient and temporary relics of a by-gone and now-rendered-moot paradigm and form of religion. God dwells in a PEOPLE by His Spirit, not in a building. One worships God 24/7, on a daily basis in daily life, not merely at set times in set places (see Jesus' statements to the woman of Samaria, for example).

Words mean something. 'What difference does it make?' is the ideology of people like Hillary Clinton, not disciples of Jesus. By speaking of a meeting place as 'God's house', indeed by speaking of a meeting-house as a 'church', we deny by our words one of the fundamental bases of new covenant reality. We ought to abstain from such things.

3. We are commanded to 'hold fast the form of sound WORDS, which we have learned' from the apostles. The apostles never referred to a meeting place as 'God's house', and their theology does not allow for such a concept. By departing from the apostolic 'sound words', and calling bible things by unbiblical names, we may still be speaking theology, but it's not the apostles' theology.

4. We are forbidden to cause children to stumble. Children, when told that the building is God's 'house', do not immediately self-correct by thinking 'well, that's just a common, cultural term and really it isn't, because the house of God, or temple of God, or CHURCH is the people themselves'. Instead, they simply take what is said at face value, and are led into the darkness of ignorance of just what it really means when Paul says 'know ye not that YE are the temple of God?'.

5. Calling the meeting-house 'God's house' or 'the church' is indicative of a mind-set and an ecclesiology that is sub-biblical and quite frankly ignorant. I have had a pastor tell me that you can't have a move of God in a living room like you can in a church building. And he was serious. Carnal people crave and require the proper 'set and setting' to have a glorious religious 'experience'. Temples and cathedrals and such-like are designed for just that. And thus is demonstrated that many people's 'Pentecostalism' is just exactly that - another '-ism'. We have replaced Pentecost with this PentecostalISM. We must have our special building, our special music, our special musicians, our special speakers, our special occasions to meet our special God and have our special ecstatic experiences. When what we really need is to come and meet Abba.

6. An analogy: Is it proper and okay for us to call the Lord's supper 'the Eucharist'? Why not? What difference does it make? Should we speak of the Lord's Supper as 'the Sacrifice of the Mass'? Again, what difference does it make? Obviously, we should not be doing those things, because of all the theological baggage that comes with them. Same with calling the meeting-house a 'church' or 'God's house' - it carries with it a lot of theological baggage.

Is ignorance of said baggage an excuse to continue toting that luggage?

These are just a few reason why some of us prefer to seek to be as Biblical as possible. Others are content with not rocking the boat or making a fuss. YMMV.

Peace.

So, if I have an old sister in the church who refers to the building as the "house of God" (she been calling buildings where people meet by that title for 35 years) should I stop her? If I don't stop her, will God hold it against her and me? Oh by the way, Eucharist is a Biblical word εὐχαριστέω appears in the Bible 39 times. It means giving thanks.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW the bible specifically tells us HOW to baptize (doctrine)

It doesn't tell us "the building your church meets in must be called X" or "The building your church meets in can't be called X"

What is so hard about this?

[renee819]

I hope I haven't got this all messed up. I've been writing this over a 2 day period, in between visiting with company.

Evang. Ben asked,

Sister how long you been in and around Pentecost?

"Oneness?"

About 76 years. Enough to see and know the workings of God. To know the power of God, when He was moving in such a great degree that you could have stayed all night, wanting to just bath in His Spirit. And to see and feel the slumps when the leaders were not living right. Two Pastors had to be removed. At the last one, in UPC, God told me to leave, and then the board saw that he was not right. And on and on. I had noting to do with any of that.

And to know the difference when a worship team, or a person is working on peoples emotions to try to get 'the spirit up' which most of the time is an emotional response and not the Spirit of God, Not just my thought's, but by God's discernment.

Evang Ben wrote,

I look at it this way, if you wanted to know, you wouldn't ask on the fly, you would of made the arrangements to sit down and have a pow wow with the preacher. You would of found out more than just what organization they were involved with, but he might of dealt with your entire list

.

And that is why, I said, “You, your wife and I need to sit down and discuss what we believe.” he didn't seem interested. And it wasn't on the fly, most of the church had already left.

Evang Ben wrote,

Still, most ministers don't want to get into a hair pulling contest with people who showed up three times, and who just inform them that THEY are not into a LOT (which logically mean they're into some) of man made rules. I can't fault the brother, one, I wasn't there, two, I can be sensitive to his position, since he probably didn't know what you would of done if he went into a discussion right there in the building.

I never intended to get into a discussion there in the building, but I also know when I'm being ignored. And i'm not the hair pulling type. God really had to work on me to even speak up when I was younger. I sat for 30 years in a UPC church, observing some things that I knew was wrong, and never said a word. I am a generally very quiet person, hating to draw attention to myself.

Evang Ben wrote

You do have a right to ask questions, and the minister is there to answer your questions. But, on these forums we always read about Big Bad Church, The Big Bad Dictator Standard Pastor, but what about the individuals who come to just ask questions (not to get answers) but to just drain the guy in the suit?

Yes, I knew I had to ask questions. No more will I set under a minister as he teaches wrong doctrine or standards. I don't believe that God wants us to, and we should be able to discuss things from a Biblical standpoint and not from just traditions of the church. That is the mistake that the Jews made, when Jesus was trying to teach them the truth and spirit of the Law, instead of all of the man-made laws of the Priests.

Evang. Ben asked

Can I ask you a question?

What made you go to that church in the first place? What I'm trying to ask is how did you choose that church? How much did you know about the church before you set a foot in the door?

I noticed the sign, “Apostolic Lighthouse” my granddaughter had just moved across the street from the church. She used to be in Pentecost, but when the Pastor went into false doctrine, we all left that church. I thought if they were right, maybe I could get her started again.

I looked on the Internet to see if they had a web site, they didn't. There was no way to find out but to go. I'm not really looking as much for myself as many of my grand and great grandchildren . It grieves my spirit to see how they are living and bringing up their children.
But I do see some favorable changes in them, since their daddy, (my son got lung cancer) It has shook them up some. My son, needs his faith back. I know that I can't do it, but if I could find a church where there is more faith than trying to hang onto tradition, more faith than trying to appease the world. Where the gifts, (all of them) are in operation, not for show, but with results.

If it is a ho-down shouting meeting, with people talking in tongues, then there should be results. Someone getting healed, some getting saved. The church edified, instead of just an emotional service.

It was a little country church, with about 30 people there, in a very small town about 3-4 miles from me. Sunday, I'm going to go to a different church.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Because words mean something.

God's thoughts are expressed by his words.

His words are perfect.

Historically, when Christians began using unscriptural terminology, the result was trinitarianism, Arianism, and a whole host of other isms. Servetus pointed out the bible knows no such things as the 'theological terminology of the Scholastics and Doctors of divinity' who were the constant unending source of heresies and schisms.

Shall we call 'justification' by a different, unbiblical term? A term that taken at face value is opposite to the biblical meaning of justification? Shall we take a term that means one thing, and apply it to justification (which the term does not mean), and say 'well, who cares?'

Does it matter what is said in baptism?

Do words mean anything anymore?

Or is it all lost in a slough of relativism?

Why should we call sin SIN? Should we be happy and content to speak about 'homosexuals' or 'gays' instead of sodomites? Shall we call it 'shacking up' or 'living together' and refuse to call it fornication?

We should call Bible things by Bible names, meaning, we should hold fast the FORM OF SOUND WORDS delivered to us by the apostles and prophets.

I guess we all better learn Hebrew and Greek...

[KWSS1976]

What do people have against the Hebrew and Greek, the bible when it was first wrote was not wrote in English..

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

After reading this I understand why Paul said "I suffer not a woman to teach."

ROFLMBO!!!!!

[Nitehawk013]

Originally Posted by shag

Because it (a man made structure) is not God's house according to new covenant scripture, WE(the church) are now the House and Tabernacle of the living God, that's why. So when folks go on and on about how nice Gods house looks, or how we need to keep the lights on at Gods house, or somebody needs to vacuum Gods house today, it is nonsense and unscriptural, according to the new covenant. That's why.


"Better slow down, you're in Gods House!"
"Better watch yourself, you're in Gods house"!
"Better not talk like that, you're at Gods House!"
"Did you see the way they were acting in the House of Gawd!!!"

And you say why make a big deal over it? So who actually is?:This kinda nonsensical talk goes on all the time. I hear "Gods House" referring to the structure about 5-10x during the first ten minutes of church meetings, almost every time.

Give me a break. Call it Gods house all day long, but at the end of the day, its not, we are.

The reasoning is simple. Most Pastors today, across denominal lines, desire to create a "temple" religion out of CHristianity where the local building becomes the most important edifice in ones life in every measurable way.

Vacation? Skip it. You can't miss the house of God.
Job wants you to work on Sunday? Quit. The "house of God" is more important.
Make sure you pay your tithes at the "house of God".
Pay into the building fund at teh "house of God".
Never ever miss any service when the doors are open at the "house of God".

I have listened to, on multiple occasions now, my Pastor (a great man who I think very highly of) say that the "House of God" should be more important than your own home to the extent that if you had to sell your own home and live cheaper in order to give more to the church to keep the doors open and the building looking good...then you should do so. You should put the church building ahead of your own home. Take care of "God's house" and He will take care of your house.

Leaders want us to build our lives around the church building and the 2-3 services a week that go on there. It is a manner of control and gaining numbers. You cannot get it through some people's heads that WE ARE the church. Buildings are just buildings. There is nothing special or anointed about a building. WE ARE God's house, not these stupid money holes we call churches. Jesus and the Apostles did pretty well in spreading the gospel without church buildings.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by n david

You forgot to add a street, drive or city in the name!

First Market Street Assembly Gentile Tabernacle House of God

The First Baptist Synagogue

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, if I have an old sister in the church who refers to the building as the "house of God" (she been calling buildings where people meet by that title for 35 years) should I stop her? If I don't stop her, will God hold it against her and me? Oh by the way, Eucharist is a Biblical word εὐχαριστέω appears in the Bible 39 times. It means giving thanks.

So you have no problem with people being baptised in the titles then? After all, they appear in the Bible (in connection with baptism, even).

Eucharist does not appear as a DESIGNATION for the Lord's Supper or for the bread and wine.

If an old sister in the church refers to the meeting house as 'the house of God' she should be reminded that the house is no more God's house than her own house or apartment or mobile home is - and to the same extent, and for the same reasons, and nothing more.