Is this supposed to be in agreement with her that we are all in Babylon because we are in a "building"?
I don't see where she said people are in Babylon BECAUSE they are in a building.
I DO recall her several times saying the building is immaterial.
I was MOVING ON from the gnat of buildings and on to the more important issue of pursuing biblical Christianity, examining all things and discarding those elements of our faith and practice that are not from Divine Revelation (the scripture) but from pagan religious traditions of men.
But apparently, everybody wants to harp on endlessly about whether meeting in a particular building is 'sin' or not.
Or on whether Jesus is actually present WHEREVER two or three are gathered in His name.
It gets tedious when threads digress into endless debate about who said what instead of actually dealing with the thread topic. Sort of like missing the forest because of being so fixated on the bark on one tree.
It gets tedious when threads digress into endless debate about who said what instead of actually dealing with the thread topic. Sort of like missing the forest because of being so fixated on the bark on one tree.
Have fun, guys.
Like debating whether or not it's proper or Biblical to use the term "House of God?"
The thread topic was a list of things alleged to be sins which the RCC brought in...
Tithes
Clergy
Church Buildings
That was the original post to set the topic of the thread.
I don't see where she said people are in Babylon BECAUSE they are in a building.
I DO recall her several times saying the building is immaterial.
Its in her FIRST post where she made the assertion of coming OUT of Paganismn and then gave a LIST of what she meant
She starts with the bible quote (The same one you referred to about coming out of Babylon)
Come Out Of Her My People
Do I need to say more?
Well here is more
Quote "Let's face it. We are ruled in the churches by Pagan Christianity."
Pagan Christianity. She then goes into a list of what she means
Quote: "It was the Catholic Church that brought in the Trinity baptism.
The hierarchy of Clergy and Laity.
The paying of tithes. Church buildings
And many other things."
Then she adds
Quote: "And the only way that I see “to come out of her” is to start Home Churches by those that are completely dedicated to God."
Start a HOME church by those that are COMPLETELY DEDICATED TO GOD.
I don't know how you can't see that is what she said
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
I'm so happy that this thread was started I was thinking about asking the same questions myself it has been on my mind a very long time. I may get some heat for this but the clergy/laity system was started by the RCC to keep women submissive, this is not the way Christ intended for his people to be. Why do we need a elder, district elder, bishop, suffragan bishop, bishop, presiding bishop etc. I really wish in it's early year's that the P.A.W. wouldn't have adopted an episcopal form of leadership.
I'm so happy that this thread was started I was thinking about asking the same questions myself it has been on my mind a very long time. I may get some heat for this but the clergy/laity system was started by the RCC to keep women submissive, this is not the way Christ intended for his people to be. Why do we need a elder, district elder, bishop, suffragan bishop, bishop, presiding bishop etc. I really wish in it's early year's that the P.A.W. wouldn't have adopted an episcopal form of leadership.
"William L. Bonner became the third presider in 1973 and reign to 1995. He is now the Chief Apostle."
Notice how the 'presider's are said to 'reign'. Also notice they have Mr Bonner identified as the 'Chief Apostle.
Compare with Scriptural teachings regarding:
1. The use of religious titles.
2. Wanting to have 'pre-eminence' (aka Diotrephes, anyone?)
3. 'Reigning' (ie 'lording it over', ruling as the gentiles do, etc).
Here we have the hierarchical clergy system imported into Christianity by what would later become the catholic church, being emulated quite nicely (with modern updates, of course) by an 'apostolic' denomination.
I wonder why they don't just call their leader a 'pope'?
"William L. Bonner became the third presider in 1973 and reign to 1995. He is now the Chief Apostle."
Notice how the 'presider's are said to 'reign'. Also notice they have Mr Bonner identified as the 'Chief Apostle.
Compare with Scriptural teachings regarding:
1. The use of religious titles.
2. Wanting to have 'pre-eminence' (aka Diotrephes, anyone?)
3. 'Reigning' (ie 'lording it over', ruling as the gentiles do, etc).
Here we have the hierarchical clergy system imported into Christianity by what would later become the catholic church, being emulated quite nicely (with modern updates, of course) by an 'apostolic' denomination.
I wonder why they don't just call their leader a 'pope'?
They might as well, looks the same doesn't it. Even though home assembly has its issues this structure would never manifest itself. Reason being Jesus is acknowledged as head. No earthly head/ruler in most home assemblies. The ministry is functional/servantile and can be paid, say traveling expenses or missionary work.
One issue home assembly has here in the U.S. is lack of evangelism and missionary work. Apostleship = church planting maybe?
"William L. Bonner became the third presider in 1973 and reign to 1995. He is now the Chief Apostle."
Notice how the 'presider's are said to 'reign'. Also notice they have Mr Bonner identified as the 'Chief Apostle.
Compare with Scriptural teachings regarding:
1. The use of religious titles.
2. Wanting to have 'pre-eminence' (aka Diotrephes, anyone?)
3. 'Reigning' (ie 'lording it over', ruling as the gentiles do, etc).
Here we have the hierarchical clergy system imported into Christianity by what would later become the catholic church, being emulated quite nicely (with modern updates, of course) by an 'apostolic' denomination.
I wonder why they don't just call their leader a 'pope'?
Esaias, I didn't watch that one. I watched some on how House Churches function. I tried to find a Pentecostal House Church on U tube, I didn't find any.
Hybrid Mode
