Come Out Of Her My People

[renee819]

Originally Posted by renee819
So this is your suggestion. That I was out of order for inquiring what their standards are? And are you insinuating, that I was there to cause a split?
I was hoping to gain information as to what they believe? What Organization if any that they belong. And I was being transparent, maybe they won't want me there. I could feel the coolness last Sunday, I probably won't go back.

Evang Ben wrote

Sister, did you walk up to the minister and TELL him that YOU weren't into MAN MADE RULES IN THE CHURCH?

When did you feel the coolness? Was it before or after you TOLD Pastor John Q Foofoofnick how the cow ate the cabbage?

Being transparent?

You felt by the 3rd Sunday it was time to be transparent and candid?

To TELL the preacher that he is nothing but a Pagan advocating false prophet? I know it didn't sound like that to you, but maybe, just maybe, it sounded like that to him? You believe 3 Sundays are adequate enough time to reveal your hidden manna? Do you really feel that this guy was going to fall down on his face worshiping God, and report that God is in you of a truth?

You made the comment that some pastors are dictators, so what does that mean? Are you saying that because some people abused their authority that makes their position null and void?

Another thing because the platform (pulpit) is used for entertainment by "some" that means it is wrong for all?

I shouldn't answer this ridicule, but I will. Do you want to know the whole conversation?

What did I hope to gain? A church home where I could worship and feel the presence of God. Not where they felt so liberated, that anything goes. . I could see that they weren't.
Or so bound by man made rules that “you do what I say, or you're a second class Christian.”

As we were going out the door, on my second visit, I asked, what did they believe?
He answered, “Oh, we are oneness.”
I knew that. But I wanted to know their standards. So, I said, 'I don't believe in a lot of man made laws.”
He said, nothing.
Therefore I assumed that he did believe in the man-made laws, whether he knew they were man-made or not. So in being transparent, I said, “For instance, I don't believe it is wrong for women to wear pant suits.
He just repeated what I said, made no comment and went out the door.

Last Sunday, I wasn't as welcome. He touched on holiness, saying that we shouldn't look like the world. (I agree with that when I look around and see how the world dresses) and then said, “What you in the pew does is between you and God but who gets on this pulpit is between me and God.” Making a difference between the saints and the pulpit.

I believe I was innocent of any wrong doing, but you make it seem like a crime.
I was trying to find what their standards were, to see if I wanted to go there, and take my grt. grandchildren there. And also, if they knew what I believe, they might not want me to come there.

[n david]

Originally Posted by renee819

As we were going out the door, on my second visit, I asked, what did they believe?
He answered, “Oh, we are oneness.”
I knew that. But I wanted to know their standards. So, I said, 'I don't believe in a lot of man made laws.”
He said, nothing.
Therefore I assumed that he did believe in the man-made laws, whether he knew they were man-made or not. So in being transparent, I said, “For instance, I don't believe it is wrong for women to wear pant suits.
He just repeated what I said, made no comment and went out the door.

You said earlier that you told him that you, him and his wife needed to sit down to talk, but he didn't have time. Honestly, I don't blame him. If someone walked up to me and said, "I don't believe in man-made laws; I think it's okay for women to wear pant suits," that comes across as confrontational, and I would likely pass on discussing anything further.

Now, were someone to come up and say, what are your beliefs on holiness or outward dress -- that's completely different, because it's not confrontational.

Originally Posted by renee819

Last Sunday, I wasn't as welcome. He touched on holiness, saying that we shouldn't look like the world. (I agree with that when I look around and see how the world dresses) and then said, “What you [do] in the pew is between you and God but who gets on this pulpit is between me and God.” Making a difference between the saints and the pulpit.

I see nothing wrong with his statement. It's quite true actually. What people do is between them and God; who is allowed to preach or speak is between the Pastor and God. Like it or not, personal prejudices aside, the Pastor is the one responsible for the church and who ministers. If there are any legal issues, who do you think gets contacted - Joe Schmo in the third row? No, it's the Pastor. If a person preaches at a church and later is found to be a fraud -- who's the one who gets questioned and criticized? The Pastor. So the statement, regardless of if you like it or not, is absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by renee819

I believe I was innocent of any wrong doing, but you make it seem like a crime. I was trying to find what their standards were, to see if I wanted to go there, and take my grt. grandchildren there. And also, if they knew what I believe, they might not want me to come there.

No one is saying it's a crime. I said it was an odd way to get information. Based on your account above, I still believe it was an odd way to ask for information. I guarantee, had you been less confrontational at the beginning and asked what they believed, he probably would have told you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by renee819

Originally Posted by renee819
So this is your suggestion. That I was out of order for inquiring what their standards are? And are you insinuating, that I was there to cause a split?
I was hoping to gain information as to what they believe? What Organization if any that they belong. And I was being transparent, maybe they won't want me there. I could feel the coolness last Sunday, I probably won't go back.

Sister how long you been in and around Pentecost?

"Oneness?"

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. 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.

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?

Not asking him at lunch, not on a one to one with him and his family, but right in the middle of a winding down service, where not only YOU 3rd time visitor wants his attention, but other people want to talk with him over all sorts of issues.

Originally Posted by renee819

I shouldn't answer this ridicule, but I will. Do you want to know the whole conversation?

Sister, I can't know the "whole" conversation, that would take the brother who you questioned, and at least three other bystanders to be posters here.
Telling their sides of what happened according to their perception. Yet, I would love to hear your SIDE of the story. Still, (and I'm not saying you do this) but these forums end up being a place to shred Apostolic churches, preachers, and the teaching of a movement. So, please forgive me if your post (in my assessment) just seems to be another rant about the Big Bad Pentecostal Preacher blowing off the sincere 3rd time visitor.

Originally Posted by renee819

What did I hope to gain? A church home where I could worship and feel the presence of God. Not where they felt so liberated, that anything goes. . I could see that they weren't.

Come on!

Sister?

Sister, you don't believe in tithing, correct?

So, before you set a foot in that building you thought that church didn't believe in tithing also?

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? If you are looking for a church family, wouldn't it be more logical to inquire if there is a group in your area which believe everything on your list? I mean if I was looking for a church family, I wouldn't be looking for churches close to my house, but those who believed what I believed. To worship and feel the presence of God is up to YOU, not up to them. Sister it really sounds like you need to find a group who meets all the points on your list.

Originally Posted by renee819

Or so bound by man made rules that “you do what I say, or you're a second class Christian.”

Sister, that happens in any group, whether it's the homeowners association, or a Boy Scout troop. It isn't just about man made rules, it is about how some people run the show. Yet, like I said before, you need to go find something that fills YOUR requirements. Why walk into a building (when you already know what is going on) and make the preacher do a little dance, when you know he will not meet your needs. That would be like walking into a Eastern Orthodox Church and telling priest that you aren't into a lot of man made rules. I'm just stating the obvious.

Originally Posted by renee819

As we were going out the door, on my second visit, I asked, what did they believe?
He answered, “Oh, we are oneness.”
I knew that. But I wanted to know their standards. So, I said, 'I don't believe in a lot of man made laws.”
He said, nothing.
Therefore I assumed that he did believe in the man-made laws, whether he knew they were man-made or not. So in being transparent, I said, “For instance, I don't believe it is wrong for women to wear pant suits.
He just repeated what I said, made no comment and went out the door.

Did this Sunday service just consist of you, your grandchildren, the pastor, and his family? Because if this brother had more than the above mentioned, then he couldn't just deal with you at that moment. You all are funneling out the door. Like I said, I don't know the whole deal.

Originally Posted by renee819

Last Sunday, I wasn't as welcome. He touched on holiness, saying that we shouldn't look like the world. (I agree with that when I look around and see how the world dresses) and then said, “What you in the pew does is between you and God but who gets on this pulpit is between me and God.” Making a difference between the saints and the pulpit.

I couldn't answer this quote any better than "n david" answered.
So, I'll leave you with his words.

Originally Posted by n david

I see nothing wrong with his statement. It's quite true actually. What people do is between them and God; who is allowed to preach or speak is between the Pastor and God. Like it or not, personal prejudices aside, the Pastor is the one responsible for the church and who ministers. If there are any legal issues, who do you think gets contacted - Joe Schmo in the third row? No, it's the Pastor. If a person preaches at a church and later is found to be a fraud -- who's the one who gets questioned and criticized? The Pastor. So the statement, regardless of if you like it or not, is absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by renee819

I believe I was innocent of any wrong doing, but you make it seem like a crime.

Well, not everything is always what it seems. Yet, in my opinion you went about it the wrong way. So, maybe next time you might do things differently. Yet I strongly suggest that you take the time to find people who believe what you believe, and worship with them.

Originally Posted by renee819

I was trying to find what their standards were, to see if I wanted to go there, and take my grt. grandchildren there. And also, if they knew what I believe, they might not want me to come there.

Sister, the bottom line (which I placed in bold) says that you already knew in advance you believe something different from them. So why believe that you would be in harmony in a place you already knew you would have opposition?

The Lord Jesus Christ guide you in your search

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by renee819

Originally Posted by renee819
So this is your suggestion. That I was out of order for inquiring what their standards are? And are you insinuating, that I was there to cause a split?
I was hoping to gain information as to what they believe? What Organization if any that they belong. And I was being transparent, maybe they won't want me there. I could feel the coolness last Sunday, I probably won't go back.

Evang Ben wrote


I shouldn't answer this ridicule, but I will. Do you want to know the whole conversation?

What did I hope to gain? A church home where I could worship and feel the presence of God. Not where they felt so liberated, that anything goes. . I could see that they weren't.
Or so bound by man made rules that “you do what I say, or you're a second class Christian.”

As we were going out the door, on my second visit, I asked, what did they believe?
He answered, “Oh, we are oneness.”
I knew that. But I wanted to know their standards. So, I said, 'I don't believe in a lot of man made laws.”
He said, nothing.
Therefore I assumed that he did believe in the man-made laws, whether he knew they were man-made or not. So in being transparent, I said, “For instance, I don't believe it is wrong for women to wear pant suits.
He just repeated what I said, made no comment and went out the door.

Last Sunday, I wasn't as welcome. He touched on holiness, saying that we shouldn't look like the world. (I agree with that when I look around and see how the world dresses) and then said, “What you in the pew does is between you and God but who gets on this pulpit is between me and God.” Making a difference between the saints and the pulpit.

I believe I was innocent of any wrong doing, but you make it seem like a crime.
I was trying to find what their standards were, to see if I wanted to go there, and take my grt. grandchildren there. And also, if they knew what I believe, they might not want me to come there.

Nothing at all wrong with wanting to know where they stand.

[Praxeas]

The early church ALWAYS worshiped in man made buildings. That they were someone's home is irrelevant. And the Jewish believers in Acts also met at the Temple

Also the RCC did not invent having a permanent place of worship

CHURCHES Literary evidence (Acts 1:13–14; 2:46) shows that the earliest congregational meetings of the disciples of Jesus, for prayer, the eucharist and the agape (a love-feast held in connection with the Lord’s supper) took place in private houses. The first archaeological evidence is the community house at Dura Europos, dated to the first half of the 3rd century AD. Built as a peristyle house (Houses) with a courtyard, several rooms on three sides and a portico on the fourth, it was altered in AD 231 to serve as a meeting-place for the city’s Christian community. The reception room with benches on three sides was connected with the adjacent room, providing space for 50–60 people. In another room a baptistery was installed.

Negev, A. (1990). The Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall Press.

Church meetings in homes was natural, just as it is when we first sent Missionaries out to other nations. The simple truth is they had to meet somewhere and it would take a long time to get the money to buy land and do construction especially in a nation that is antagonistic towards Christians...forcing them underground.

It wasn't a doctrine. It was a practice born out of necessity

[KeptByTheWord]

IF you can find and attend a church whose sincere purpose and mission is focused on Jesus, that is a wonderful thing, and I believe there must still be those type churches out there.

But for every church that has the real heart of Jesus at their core, there are a hundred whose main focus is not about Christ, but more about a building, a program, a financial obligation, a social event, a preacher, a worship team... and on the list goes etc...

If there is a ministry or a church whose heart is such as John the Baptist... i.e. "I must decrease, but HE must increase"... that is the kind of church to be a part of. But when a church becomes all about who is the pastor, how great the worship team is, or what kind of building program is going on, and so on the list goes... I would not be interested in being a part of such a place.

Finding a church or a ministry that truly has an "I must decrease" heartbeat... now that is the challenge. That is why home churches are appealing to those who are tired of the shows that go on in so many of the churches today, and less of that is dealt with in a home church setting.

Home churches are not perfect, not by any means... but they are far better than going nowhere at all... or being a part of a church who has a "please me" mindset.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

IF you can find and attend a church whose sincere purpose and mission is focused on Jesus, that is a wonderful thing, and I believe there must still be those type churches out there.

But for every church that has the real heart of Jesus at their core, there are a hundred whose main focus is not about Christ, but more about a building, a program, a financial obligation, a social event, a preacher, a worship team... and on the list goes etc...

If there is a ministry or a church whose heart is such as John the Baptist... i.e. "I must decrease, but HE must increase"... that is the kind of church to be a part of. But when a church becomes all about who is the pastor, how great the worship team is, or what kind of building program is going on, and so on the list goes... I would not be interested in being a part of such a place.

Finding a church or a ministry that truly has an "I must decrease" heartbeat... now that is the challenge. That is why home churches are appealing to those who are tired of the shows that go on in so many of the churches today, and less of that is dealt with in a home church setting.

Home churches are not perfect, not by any means... but they are far better than going nowhere at all... or being a part of a church who has a "please me" mindset.

Amen! And thank you, Kept by the Word.

That is the Truth, exactly. Buildings mean nothing. We could meet in a Restaurant, a warehouse, a home, storefront, anywhere. That shouldn't be the point.

[renee819]

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues

.

N David wrote

I don't believe this is speaking about church buildings, tithes/offerings, etc. It clearly states "...be not partakers of her SINS."

And what the RCC has put into place has led to sin. It was sin in the first place, because, …
Constantine, for Political reasons, a Pagan until he died, took churches away from Pagan Priests and gave them, to the Christians. Which sounds great, but at what price? They had to compromise, agree to baptize in the Trinity.

It is a sin to compromise with False Doctrine.

N David wrote

You give the RCC too much credit. Like it or not, tithes and offerings are in the OT. That was done by Israel, not something started later by the RCC

.

David, take a lesson from history. It has been said, “Those that don't know their history are bound to repeat it.”
Constantine started the first United Religions. Combining Paganism, OT teachings and Christianity.
Of course Tithes were in the OT. Three types of Tithes. I believe most of it was food. And the Priests were not allowed to own property. But we are not to go back to the laws of the OT. Jesus brought us a New Covenant. Which did not include Tithes. Nor did the First Century Church receive Tithes. To go back to the OT and "cherry-pick" just the laws you want to abide by, is just as bad, as the Denominal Churches, that pick certain scriptures for their salvation, in the New Testament, while ignoring the Foundation.

N David wrote

Clergy and Laity are also not something created by the RCC. IMO, the RCC took that from the example of the priests in the Bible. One could also argue the Temple and Synagogues were the first "church buildings." The Synagogues had daily and weekly teaching and instruction in the Torah; the Temple was for annual rites and sacrifices.

Again to find Priests, and Synagogues, you have to go back to the Old Testament. Jesus told the Apostles,...

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

I've met many ministers that claim to be humble, and are there to minister to the people, but if you try to point out what you think is not right, see what happens. I have seen it happen over and over again. For instance, there was a big split in the church that I belonged to, for over 30 yrs. Over toeless shoes.

N David wrote,

This whole thing is kind of left field to me. The thought that we should abandon buildings and such because of the connection to the RCC is absurd. The RCC practices prayer and communion, so I suppose we should shun that as well

.

Do you practice prayer (beads) and communion the same way that the RCC does?
I'm not really saying that we have to abandon buildings. I don't know what to say about that. But if they are set up as little Kingdoms with a King (man) as the ruler. Then I see no other way than to abandon the whole system. But any man in that position is not likely to do so.

However, persecution is on it's way. And just like Constantine, the churches will be asked to join the One World Religion, and if not, they will take the buildings away from you.

I read an article where a person was at one of these United Religion Meetings. And the question was asked, what would happen to people that would not join? It was stated, “They have to be eliminated.”

[n david]

Originally Posted by renee819

And what the RCC has put into place has led to sin. It was sin in the first place, because, …Constantine, for Political reasons, a Pagan until he died, took churches away from Pagan Priests and gave them, to the Christians. Which sounds great, but at what price? They had to compromise, agree to baptize in the Trinity.

It is a sin to compromise with False Doctrine.

Constantine built the first church in Constantinople, which is documented. It's also documented that he considered himself a Christian and was baptized later in life. Not saying he was right, only that history states he was influenced by his mother and declared himself to be a Christian. Where is it written that in order to have the churches, they had to agree to baptize in the Trinity?

Originally Posted by renee819

Of course Tithes were in the OT.

You gave a list of a few things you claimed were started by the RCC, you listed tithes among them; my point was not to debate whether or not it should be in practice today, the point was it was not something started by the RCC. The origins were in the OT.

Originally Posted by renee819

Again to find Priests, and Synagogues, you have to go back to the Old Testament.

What was Jesus doing, and where was he doing it when he went missing for several days as a child? He was teaching in the Synagogue. That's NT. There are several stories of Jesus and the Apostles which show them being at the Temple or Synagogue.

As for clergy being a "sin" we've taken from the TCC, Paul disagrees in Ephesians 4

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

You mentioned that the hierarchy of Clergy and Laity was started by the RCC, and while they do have their positions, it does not mean that all churches are in sin because they have a Pastor over them with other church leaders as well. Why would Paul speak of these ministries and positions as being given by God, if it were not to be implemented and followed?

Originally Posted by renee819

Jesus told the Apostles,...

You are taking this out of context and meaning. This was in response to a mother who wanted her two sons to be seated at the right and left hand of God. This is not speaking about the church.

Originally Posted by renee819

I've met many ministers that claim to be humble, and are there to minister to the people, but if you try to point out what you think is not right, see what happens. I have seen it happen over and over again. For instance, there was a big split in the church that I belonged to, for over 30 yrs. Over toeless shoes.

This takes me back to something you mentioned in your first post above...

Originally Posted by renee819

And this makes my 3rd Sunday to a Pentecostal Church. I talked to the Pastor a few minutes after church, and told him, I didn't believe in man-made laws for the church. But we didn't have time to discuss it.
It seems they may be pretty strict on the UPC rules, although I believe they are Independent. I told the Pastor that we, he, his wife, and I, need to set down and have a talk. But we haven't yet. Any suggestions?

On your 3rd visit to a church, you tell a Pastor that you don't believe in man-made laws for the church and that you, him and his wife need to have a talk...? What are you hoping to gain from this?

I've seen church splits as well. They're mostly started by someone who starts coming to a church, who disagrees with what the Pastor is preaching/teaching and instead of removing themselves from the church, they demand to speak with the Pastor to give their thoughts about how he's wrong....and then when the Pastor doesn't give in to their demands, they go through the church, causing division.

Originally Posted by renee819

Do you practice prayer (beads) and communion the same way that the RCC does? I'm not really saying that we have to abandon buildings. I don't know what to say about that. But if they are set up as little Kingdoms with a King (man) as the ruler. Then I see no other way than to abandon the whole system. But any man in that position is not likely to do so.

There was a man who was in the church I attend now. He helped in the music department and even preached/taught from time to time. Out of the blue, he decided to leave the church; like you, he didn't believe in a man being over a church. Ironically, he decided he was going to start his own church. When I asked who would lead, he said "I will, of course."

Any kind of gathering, whether it's in a home or a large building, can have a "little kingdom" issue. The problem isn't with brick and mortar, the problem is flesh and pride.

You say, "I'm not really saying that we have to abandon buildings," but your first post says just that: "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."

[Timmy]

Think of the possibilities! No one telling you what to believe or what to preach. No chain of command. No accountability. No denominations. Er, well, actually, zillions more denominations!