Is the Church Irrelevant?

[Aaron]

Who was the author of Hebrews' target audience? Was it Jewish believers who were under persecution and were tempted to go back to animal sacrifices, or was it Christians who were skipping church because they wanted to sleep in on Sunday?

I'm hoping at least one person can be honest about this.

The targeted audience was the Helenized Hebrew Christians engaged in Christian worship being persecuted by the Jews and pressured to return to Judaism.

 

[Aaron]

Christ is perfectly capable of teaching His sheep. I could give $700 to someone who would actually need it instead of enabling some college dean to continue to line his pockets.

I see a cult in the making here.

 

[Stopgap]

I see a cult in the making here.

How so?

 

[Stopgap]

What would make Jesus more happy?

Giving $700 to a church building where it gets funneled through like some money laundering operation and is mostly absorbed by building expenses and salaries?

Or giving that $700 directly to a poor person or fellow believer in need that they can use to buy food, clothing, and maybe a room to stay in for a few days?

I think there is only one right answer that should be obvious to everyone.

 

[Aaron]

How so?

The lack of accountability.

 

[Stopgap]

The lack of accountability.

Lack of accountability?

Oh, you mean like how church buildings or any other religious institution with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status are protected by the IRS from having to disclose financial records to the public?

That seems to be how most cults operate, in case you didn't know.

 

[Aaron]

Lack of accountability?

Oh, you mean like how church buildings or any other religious institution with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status are protected by the IRS from having to disclose financial records to the public?

No, like you saying you have a direct line to Jesus, so you don't need the gifts He's given to the Church, i.e., preachers and teachers. So anyone questioning you must be questioning God, right?

 

[Stopgap]

No, like you saying you have a direct line to Jesus, so you don't need the gifts He's given to the Church, i.e., preachers and teachers. So anyone questioning you must be questioning God, right?

In which post did I claim to have a direct line to Jesus?

I think ya done messed up, A-A-Ron!

 

[Aaron]

In which post did I claim to have a direct line to Jesus?

I think ya done messed up, A-A-Ron!

LOL.

Well, Jesus' disciples didn't have to go to a Bible college either. He just opened their minds to understand the scriptures—as is the case with all of Christ's sheep who know Him and hear His voice.

Quite frankly, I don't answer to either of you, and it's none of your business which method I choose to follow.

You're not saying anything different than the Mormons or the Pentecostals have been saying for over a hundred years. The church is corrupt, but you are restoring it to its pure form. You're taking it back to the days of the Apostles! Hallelujah!

 

[Stopgap]

You're not saying anything different than the Mormons or the Pentecostals have been saying for over a hundred years. The church is corrupt, but you are restoring it to its pure form. You're taking it back to the days of the Apostles! Hallelujah!

Hallelujah!

No, I'm allowing the Holy Spirit to guide me into all spirit and truth. Unlike the Mormon prophets or the pope, I don't claim to receive special divine revelation. I hear the voice of Christ found in Scripture just as much as you do. That doesn't mean we're supposed to agree 100% on everything, and I'm open to being corrected where I'm wrong.

I'm not wrong about this, however.

 

[Aaron]

Hallelujah!

No, I'm allowing the Holy Spirit to guide me into all spirit and truth. Unlike the Mormon prophets or the pope, I don't claim to receive special divine revelation.

Give it time.

I hear the voice of Christ found in Scripture just as much as you do. That doesn't mean we're supposed to agree 100% on everything, and I'm open to being corrected where I'm wrong.

I'm not wrong about this, however.

K.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think it's important for self-proclaimed Protestants, by conviction, to adhere to the practice of Sola Scriptura and allow the New Testament to define for us what "the church" actually is, which is the body of believers. It's the elect of Christ that He's been gathering since the beginning of time.

There are too many Protestants today, by tradition, who seem to think that "the church" is a building with a steeple on top. While a church meeting can take place within a physical structure, I believe what we mostly see today is not the model that is found in Acts and the Epistles. Christians in the first century went from house to house and gathered in the wilderness.

The model that I see today has too much focus on maintaining the building itself rather than maintaining the spiritual kingdom. This inevitably leads to pastors misusing OT scriptures related to financial giving in order to guilt trip folks into feeling the need to contribute to the building's enormous cost overrun, which profits the utility companies who have been unnecessarily hiking up their rates for years, as well as paying down the building's debt, which goes into the banker's pockets rather than going directly to those in need of food, clothing and shelter.

So, if we were to define "the church" by what we mostly see today in corporate America, then I would say it absolutely is irrelevant and always has been.

I think your model sounds absolutely ghastly, though if it works for you, by all means carry on. One thing that we know the church in Corinth did was to meet regularly 'as a church.' While they didn't do that particularly well, Paul does not suggest that they go back to wandering about from house to house. I expect that the church had become too big for that. Paul speaks of the 'churches [plural] of Galatia' (1:2), which probably means those churches in the various towns in the region of Galatia, but whatever it means, they weren't doing much better than the church at Corinth [singular - 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1], were they?
The Lord Jesus and His apostles kept a money bag. Does that mean they were a business? The N.T. is very clear that it is the command of Christ 'that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel' (1 Cor. 9:14. Read from v.7). Where did the money come from to give the preachers that living? From the free-will offerings of the people, just as it is today. How did Paul pay for the rent of the 'school of Tyrannus'? In just the same way, no doubt. Are there some pastors today who 'suppose that godliness is a means of gain'? No doubt, but so it was in the 1st Century.
At the little church that I attend, we never demand that anyone should give anything - we don't even take up a collection, but the saints in Exmouth UK give according to their means and the congregation of around 70 are able to support one full-time and two part-time workers, and keep the church buildings in good repair.

 

[Stopgap]

Give it time.

Indeed, none of us have been fully conformed to His image yet.

 

[Ascetic X]

One thing that we know the church in Corinth did was to meet regularly 'as a church.' While they didn't do that particularly well, Paul does not suggest that they go back to wandering about from house to house. I expect that the church had become too big for that. Paul speaks of the 'churches [plural] of Galatia' (1:2), which probably means those churches in the various towns in the region of Galatia, but whatever it means, they weren't doing much better than the church at Corinth [singular - 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1], were they?

You show your contempt for house churches, the original model, by calling it “wandering about from house to house”.

Where in the book of Acts does it say they wandered about from house to house?

They met in homes. As attendance grew, a home church would split and meet in multiple homes, but were still the church collectively.

This mega church idea that the more attendance grows, bigger buildings are needed is based on pastor egos.

No pastor can shepherd effectively hundreds or thousands of church members.

New Testament "church in the house" (house church) verses describe early believers gathering in private homes for worship, prayer, and fellowship, rather than specialized buildings.

Rom 16:5 (church in their house), 1 Cor 16:19 (church at Aquila and Prisca's house), Col 4:15 (church at Nympha’s house), and Philemon 1:2 (church in your house).

 

[Stopgap]

I think your model sounds absolutely ghastly, though if it works for you, by all means carry on.

I find the model we see in the 21st century to be absolutely ghastly, but sure—you do you, and I'll do me.

One thing that we know the church in Corinth did was to meet regularly 'as a church.' While they didn't do that particularly well, Paul does not suggest that they go back to wandering about from house to house.

He didn't expect that they should erect physical structures either. In fact, he does say that the body of Christ is the temple made without hands.

The Lord Jesus and His apostles kept a money bag. Does that mean they were a business?

I suppose if they used it to buy up real estate and get into debt with the banks with the expectation that their followers contribute to paying it back with interest, then yes, that would make them a business.

How did Paul pay for the rent of the 'school of Tyrannus'? In just the same way, no doubt.

As well as the income generated from his job making tents. All we see in Scripture is that ministers of the Gospel should be compensated for their labor, but that does not necessitate that they get to decide how much they should be compensated.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You show your cvia mediaontempt for house churches, the original model, by calling it “wandering about from house to house”.

Where in the book of Acts does it say they wandered about from house to house?

I was thinking of Acts 2:46. Obviously things were great in those very early days, but my impression is that as soon as possible they met together in a building where they could have proper regular fellowship.

They met in homes. As attendance grew, a home church would split and meet in multiple homes, but were still the church collectively.

How were they the 'church collectively? They would have been becoming atomized, splitting into more and more separate units. How did they stay connected? They had no internet or emails to hold them together; no mobile 'phones to keep in touch with each other, no way for the elders and deacons to function efficiently.

This mega church idea that the more attendance grows, bigger buildings are needed is based on pastor egos.

No pastor can shepherd effectively hundreds or thousands of church members.

You seem to think that there is no via media between home churches and mega churches, but for many hundreds of years there was neither, except perhaps in times of persecution. In Britain, where I live, there are really no mega churches. When a church building becomes too small for its congregation, the correct way to proceed IMO is to plant new churches in areas where there are no Bible-believing congregations.

New Testament "church in the house" (house church) verses describe early believers gathering in private homes for worship, prayer, and fellowship, rather than specialized buildings.

Rom 16:5 (church in their house), 1 Cor 16:19 (church at Aquila and Prisca's house), Col 4:15 (church at Nympha’s house), and Philemon 1:2 (church in your house).

I don't deny at all that many churches started off meeting in homes, but in Acts 14:23, Paul and Barnabas 'appointed elders in every church.' You can argue that this means every house where Christians met, but really there's not enough information to go on. How big were these houses in the light of descriptions of Christ's followers in Luke 5:20; 1 Cor. 1:26, and James 2:5?
If you want to be part of a house church, that's fine, but my impression is that most such churches either fade away quite quickly or find their own premises.