Martin Luther
New Member
EdSutton said:
I'm sure they mean well, but if something is wrong then let's change it. Baptist is just a word, it's the doctrine that is important, and we can chew the fat on that in a civilized Spirit filled manner.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What Do You Think Would Happen If...?
- Thread starter gb93433
- Start date
I'm sure they mean well, but if something is wrong then let's change it. Baptist is just a word, it's the doctrine that is important, and we can chew the fat on that in a civilized Spirit filled manner.
Good answer.Jim1999 said:
Beats a purported story I have heard, where a "Pulpit Committee" from a good size church, had heard a Pastor they wanted to steal, 'er I mean "call", from another church, and he (who liked the opening opportunity to move to a larger congregation) had in fact, been to the church to preach. He liked them, and the church also liked him well enough to empower the Committee to extend him a 'call', which it had done.) and he was now discussing more details of the aspects of the new pastorate with the Committee. He asked them what the position paid. They responded with "We'll pay you whatever you are worth."
He said, "Then I have to decline your call; I make more than that, already."
Ed
[/FONT]
4His_glory said:
I would respectfully disagree and ask for direct evidence rather than ad hoc criticisms like this.
Several of my dearest friends are part of a house church movement and are some of the most earnest and sincere Christians, as well as spiritually mature beyond most pew warmers in our institutional churches. They meet regularly and practice spiritual accountability, church discipline, and (frankly) are more reflective of the New Testament model than most of our institutional churches that meet on Sundays under a big spire.
The house church movement is one that is full of sincere Christians who are growing spiritually and doing the work of the Gospel in the midst of society more than most other churches.
For instance in one of my friends is the leader of a house church that meets in his home. They meet frequently, at least once a week for celebration, fellowship, Bible study, and communion (they practice communion during their regular meetings.) I would challenge anyone to show me where this model errs.
In their home they have a model of male headship, though not male exclusivity, and are led by elders. They receive offerings which go directly to the local coordinators office for use in supporting ministry. No leader takes a salary other than a small number in the local coordinators office and nearly 80% of the offerings go directly to support missionaries, missions, and ministries to help those in need.
I would love to see where this model errs according to Scripture.
What exactly is the number of "Biblical"?
The largest church in your area may be the "most Biblical."
The smallest church in your area may be the "most Biblical."
The smallest church in your area may be the "least Biblical."
The largest church in your area may be the "least Biblical."
The 'median' church in your area may be the "most Biblical."
The 'median' church in your area may be the "least Biblical."
The 'average' church in your area may be the "least Biblical."
The average church in your area may be the "most Biblical."
The Jerusalem church very likely numbered well into multiple tens of thousands. (They did have well over 8,000 saved on only two days.)
Some of the rural churches mentioned in Acts may have numbered into "double figures."
Are you starting to notice any pattern, here??
Ed
The largest church in your area may be the "most Biblical."
The smallest church in your area may be the "most Biblical."
The smallest church in your area may be the "least Biblical."
The largest church in your area may be the "least Biblical."
The 'median' church in your area may be the "most Biblical."
The 'median' church in your area may be the "least Biblical."
The 'average' church in your area may be the "least Biblical."
The average church in your area may be the "most Biblical."
The Jerusalem church very likely numbered well into multiple tens of thousands. (They did have well over 8,000 saved on only two days.)
Some of the rural churches mentioned in Acts may have numbered into "double figures."
Are you starting to notice any pattern, here??
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
Some pay with their lives while others just want a bigger pay check. Both get what they seek. Too often the one who pays with his life is seen as too radical while the other is embraced and praised. Thank God for men who preach and teach God's word and live the Christian life knowing that they fear God and not men.Fox said:
Last edited by a moderator:
gb93433 said:
That is just geography which holds no special meaning.
gb93433 said:
There seems to be a lack of common sense used here.
gb93433 said:
Indeed! I'd also point to Philemon, which is one of his oldest letters, that refers to Philemon explicitly as a leader in the church that met in his house.
In fact I'd say in the New Testament we never see evidence of a formal church building, but the totality of resources being used to minister to the poor, weak, and needy.
Seems spires only start going up after the professionalization of ministry.
Check out the other references in the NT: 1 Cor. 16:19; Acts 20:20; Romans 16:5; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2
While there is some evidence of an advancing ecclesiological structure, primarily to perserve doctrinal purity. The evidences of the early church is that believers spent more resources helping others than putting up buildings.
I know we can have an evolving view of how the church can exist, and I am not undermining the existence of visible church structures, but we should definitely be generous to those who desire to return to the purely New Testamnet way of doing church.
preachinjesus said:but we should definitely be generous to those who desire to return to the purely New Testamnet way of doing church.
When you demonize biblical leadership to justify your personal way of doing things you will most likely be met with some opposition.
Church assemblies also happened on the flat roofs of those buildings. We don't build many homes with flat roofs.
In the early centuries, believers also assembled in sewers! We don't build sewers big enough these days. Then, we don't have the same restrictions.
In later ages often churches were built as monuments to God. Nothing to do with ministry, but something ponting up to God in a godless society.
History does progress and meeting places fit in with society at large. True, we have gone overboard on some buildings, but we can also put life in reverse if all we want to do is build a false structure. I, for one, don't want to sit on someone's floor whilst trying to study the word, sing a hymn, receive the sacred bread and wine of our remembrance of Him. I want a place that I can consider as sacred and in His honour. But, that is me. You can do as you please in your house. When I was a child, I played with toy trucks. When I became a man, I drove real trucks.
Cheers,
Jim
In the early centuries, believers also assembled in sewers! We don't build sewers big enough these days. Then, we don't have the same restrictions.
In later ages often churches were built as monuments to God. Nothing to do with ministry, but something ponting up to God in a godless society.
History does progress and meeting places fit in with society at large. True, we have gone overboard on some buildings, but we can also put life in reverse if all we want to do is build a false structure. I, for one, don't want to sit on someone's floor whilst trying to study the word, sing a hymn, receive the sacred bread and wine of our remembrance of Him. I want a place that I can consider as sacred and in His honour. But, that is me. You can do as you please in your house. When I was a child, I played with toy trucks. When I became a man, I drove real trucks.
Cheers,
Jim
Revmitchell said:
I don't see that happening here. I see a frank discussion of what is going on in the church.
Seems funny to me that only people who get hot and bothered about "spiritual authority" and "guaranteed salaries" are the one's who have the most to lose in both areas.
I live and breath in the established church because that is where God has me...but I'm open to seeing Him change my life.
preachinjesus said:
You should go back and read a post or two of mine in this thread.
"there is nothing new under the sun"
Shropshire Baptist History
"Another Calvinistic Baptist movement began in Scotland. 'Scotch or Sandemanian Baptists', as they came to be called, were founded on the principle that both the doctrine and polity of a true church must be taken in literal detail from the New Testament. Each church should have at least two ruling elders, who were responsible for the government and teaching of the church, while deacons attended to financial matters. The elders were unpaid; Scotch Baptists often had contempt for an educated ministry and were antagonistic to what came to be called 'a one man ministry.'"
Vedder's Baptist History
Archibald McLean almost deserves to be called the founder of the Scotch Baptist churches. . . . His membership for a time in a Glasite or Sandemanian church had important consequences. It was the special endeavor of that peculiar sect to return as far as possible to apostolic simplicity, and to make the churches of to-day an exact reproduction of those of the New Testament. From many of his Sandemanian notions McLean never freed himself, and the Baptist churches of Scotland have perpetuated not a few of these notions, such as insisting on having a plurality of elders in every church, on the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and the like. Later investigations of the New Testament period have disclosed the fact, apparently not suspected by McLean and men of his time, that no single form of organization was common to all the churches of that period, and that it is unsafe to assert a practice found in a single church to be necessarily the norm for all other churches through all time."
"I remember that when Andrew Fuller had a very severe lecture from some Scotch Baptist brethren about the discipline of the church, he made the reply, "You say that your discipline is so much better than ours. Very well, but discipline is meant to make good soldiers. Now, my soldiers fight better than yours, and I think therefore that you ought not to say much about my discipline." So the real thing is not to be for ever calculating about modes of church government, and methods of management and plans to be adopted and rules to be laid down, which it shall be accounted a serious breach to violate. All well in their place, for order is good in its way. But come, now, let us go to work. Let us have something done." ---Spurgeon
Shropshire Baptist History
"Another Calvinistic Baptist movement began in Scotland. 'Scotch or Sandemanian Baptists', as they came to be called, were founded on the principle that both the doctrine and polity of a true church must be taken in literal detail from the New Testament. Each church should have at least two ruling elders, who were responsible for the government and teaching of the church, while deacons attended to financial matters. The elders were unpaid; Scotch Baptists often had contempt for an educated ministry and were antagonistic to what came to be called 'a one man ministry.'"
Vedder's Baptist History
Archibald McLean almost deserves to be called the founder of the Scotch Baptist churches. . . . His membership for a time in a Glasite or Sandemanian church had important consequences. It was the special endeavor of that peculiar sect to return as far as possible to apostolic simplicity, and to make the churches of to-day an exact reproduction of those of the New Testament. From many of his Sandemanian notions McLean never freed himself, and the Baptist churches of Scotland have perpetuated not a few of these notions, such as insisting on having a plurality of elders in every church, on the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and the like. Later investigations of the New Testament period have disclosed the fact, apparently not suspected by McLean and men of his time, that no single form of organization was common to all the churches of that period, and that it is unsafe to assert a practice found in a single church to be necessarily the norm for all other churches through all time."
"I remember that when Andrew Fuller had a very severe lecture from some Scotch Baptist brethren about the discipline of the church, he made the reply, "You say that your discipline is so much better than ours. Very well, but discipline is meant to make good soldiers. Now, my soldiers fight better than yours, and I think therefore that you ought not to say much about my discipline." So the real thing is not to be for ever calculating about modes of church government, and methods of management and plans to be adopted and rules to be laid down, which it shall be accounted a serious breach to violate. All well in their place, for order is good in its way. But come, now, let us go to work. Let us have something done." ---Spurgeon