God's Order in the Church vs Man's Order

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 21, 2017

It can take one or two generations for an alive, revived, New Testament church to fall away to being a dead monumental has-been. This happened to the Early Church once the last Apostle and their disciples passed away. It's like taking a copy of a video, and then taking a copy of a copy, and so on. As each successive copy is made, the quality of the video declines and the video gets fuzzier and fuzzier. We can see this when we view documentaries with video clips of film clips from the 1960s. You see that these video clips look quite out of focus. This is because they are copies of copies of copies of the original films or tapes.

The Early Church went the same way. After the last of the Apostle's disciples died by the end of the First Century, the disciples in the Second Century were "copies" of those first disciples, and so the sharp, cutting edge quality of the involvement of the Holy Spirit and purity of holiness and doctrine was a little "fuzzier". When the Church reached the Third Century, there were copies of copies of the original disciples, and so the fuzziness of doctrine and Holy Spirit involvement became more pronounced. We then see that miraculous healings, prophecies, and tongues were starting to fade away. By the Fourth Century, the Church became fuzzier still, and so you get Augustine teaching things that support the man-made organisation of the Church and teaching less about the signs, wonders and miracles. The progression went on until the dark ages where the resulting Church was nothing like the Early Church at all! There were so many "copies" that the clear view of New Testament Christianity was gone.

What has caused some restoration at times are the supernatural revivals that have taken place through the centuries that have restored important truths back into the Church.

But the same scenario takes place. Martin Luther started a revival based on Justification by Faith. While he and his original disciples were alive, the church won thousands to Christ. Then as the succeeding generations came along, that movement faded through copies of copies.

Then there was Calvin's revival. After he and his disciples died, the same thing happened. Calvin's good teaching because fuzzy and corrupted through copies of copies.

The Puritan revival, because Puritanical through a couple of generations of copies of copies.

The same happened with the Quaker revival, Methodist revival, the Holiness revival, the Welsh revival, the Pentecostal revival, the Charismatic revival.

Charles Finney had constant revival through his lifetime. When he joined the Congregational Church, he had it in revival. But after his generation, the Congregational church slowly died. Even after one and a half generations, the Charismatics are experiencing a fading of the cutting edge of what the Holy Spirit did through them.

This is what happens after every revival. In a revival, the Holy Spirit is attempting to restore God's order in the Church. It happens while the leaders of that revival and their disciples are alive and are involved. But after they disappear from the scene, the revived church or movement fades back into a man-ordered organisation where ritual and ceremony replace the reality of the Holy Spirit.

All you have to do is to study the history of the Christian church and you will see it quite clearly. We can pray for revival and work towards it by good teaching and encouragement for others to unite in prayer. God can then do a supernatural work as a result. But we have to accept that once we and our disciples have disappeared from the scene, others who do not have the same vision and passion will take over, and the revival will fade away, and so God has to raise up others to pray and believe for another revival down the track.

Whatever people say about the Brownsville and Pensacola revivals, they were real revivals even though some had some unusual manifestations in the meetings. But hundreds, perhaps thousands were saved for Christ. But where is the revival now? The fact is that the churches have been taken over by leaders who do not have the same vision for that type of revival, so it has reverted back to just another denominational church. It is a copy of a copy.

I have heard that the Argentinian revival is still going on. Well, that was about a year ago. I wonder if it is still as powerful and effective as it was? I don't know. I haven't heard much about it lately. Maybe the leadership is now a copy of the original and so is not as powerful as it was. It will be interesting to find out.

Paul Yohannan · Feb 21, 2017

Oscarr said:
It can take one or two generations for an alive, revived, New Testament church to fall away to being a dead monumental has-been.

Not if it continues to adhere to the apostolic faith as described in the Nicene Creed.

This happened to the Early Church once the last Apostle and their disciples passed away.

It most certainly not.

Also, by this argument, which is contrary to Matthew 16:18, you have no basis for accepting the canonical New Testament, which was not defined until the Fourth Century (the last living disciple of the apostles was probably St. Polycarp, who died in the second century).

Which is just as well, because the canonical New Testsment precludes such an ecclesiological misconception.

It's like taking a copy of a video, and then taking a copy of a copy, and so on. As each successive copy is made, the quality of the video declines and the video gets fuzzier and fuzzier. We can see this when we view documentaries with video clips of film clips from the 1960s. You see that these video clips look quite out of focus. This is because they are copies of copies of copies of the original films or tapes.

This analogy does not apply to the Orthodox Christian faith, which is unchanging from generation to generation.

Our worship today is largely unchanged from our worship in the year 500.

The Early Church went the same way.

It did not. Thr Early Church is still extant in the form of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.

After the last of the Apostle's disciples died by the end of the First Century,

St. Polycarp's death is dated to 155 AD. He was a disciple of St. John the Apostle.

the disciples in the Second Century were "copies" of those first disciples, and so the sharp, cutting edge quality of the involvement of the Holy Spirit and purity of holiness and doctrine was a little "fuzzier". When the Church reached the Third Century, there were copies of copies of the original disciples, and so the fuzziness of doctrine and Holy Spirit involvement became more pronounced. We then see that miraculous healings, prophecies, and tongues were starting to fade away.

Miraculous healings never faded away. They remain a part of the traditional Christian faith in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Neither did prophecy, for that matter. Recent Orthodox blessed with the gift of prophecy include the noted 20th century monastic St. Paisios the Athonite.

As far as tongues are concerned, these are not what Pentecostals claim them to be. See: Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

Also your argument has the interesting effect of rendering more recent versions of Christianity progressively less important per each successive generation. If followed logically and consistently, your argument would preclude the validity of Pentecostalism, since we can trace it to the 1906 Azusa Street Revival.

By the Fourth Century, the Church became fuzzier still,

No. It was in the fourth century that the vital Nicene Creed and the New Testament canon were promulgated.

and so you get Augustine teaching things that support the man-made organisation of the Church and teaching less about the signs, wonders and miracles.

Signs and wonders are not the basis for a solid faith. See Matthew 24:24

The progression went on until the dark ages where the resulting Church was nothing like the Early Church at all!

The "dark ages" as commonly understood are a myth. They did not happen in the Christian East. Even in the West, the dark ages are a distortion. For example, in Britain, the Dark Ages can be said reasonably to have lasted only for the period between the collapse of the Roman provincial government and the arrival of St. Augustine of Canterbury in the seventh century (not the same person as the fourth century St. Augustine of Hippo).

There were so many "copies" that the clear view of New Testament Christianity was gone.

No, it certainly was not. We clearly see the New Testament church preserved throughout history.

What has caused some restoration at times are the supernatural revivals that have taken place through the centuries that have restored important truths back into the Church.

There is no evidence linking the alleged supernatural events at Pentecostal revivals to the actual practices of the early Church. They do however resemble the rigorist Montanist sect of which Tertullian became a member.

But the same scenario takes place. Martin Luther started a revival based on Justification by Faith. While he and his original disciples were alive, the church won thousands to Christ.

No, it did not. No one was converted in the course of the Reformation from a non-Christian faith to Christianity in any action directly attributable to the Reformation; they merely moved from one denomination in the West to several, which was a huge step in the wrong direction.

Then as the succeeding generations came along, that movement faded through copies of copies.

No it did not. Confessional Lutheranism (like the LCMS) remains one of the most vibrant Christian denominations. To claim it is faded is a huge error.

The so-called mainline Lutheran churches have unfortunately faded, but that fading is a recent phenomena, a 20th century process that I believe we can trace to the unwise adoption of theological modernism.

The LCMS nearly went down that road, but managed to avoid it and bounce back in a Gospel-centric direction.

Then there was Calvin's revival. After he and his disciples died, the same thing happened. Calvin's good teaching because fuzzy and corrupted through copies of copies.

Now this simply shows a lack of historical knowledge. John Calvin was a contemporary, and I think I can safely say, an opponent, of Martin Luther (they both advocated reformation of the Roman Catholic Church but disagreed dramatically on the Eucharist and related questions of doctrine).

The Puritan revival, because Puritanical through a couple of generations of copies of copies.

Puritanism was a horrible movement which in no sense represented a return to Patristic values.

The same happened with the Quaker revival, Methodist revival, the Holiness revival, the Welsh revival, the Pentecostal revival, the Charismatic revival

This argument makes no sense, because Lutheranism, Calvinism, Quakerism, and the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement have virtually nothing in common. There is much more commonality between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, than between Lutheranism and Quakerism, or between the faith of the Puritans and the Charismatics.

This is what happens after every revival. In a revival, the Holy Spirit is attempting to restore God's order in the Church. It happens while the leaders of that revival and their disciples are alive and are involved. But after they disappear from the scene, the revived church or movement fades back into a man-ordered organisation where ritual and ceremony replace the reality of the Holy Spirit.

I am proud of the fact that the Orthodox Church has never had a "revival" and never will. I don't think revivals are a natural event or ecclesiologically healthy.

What you describe as revivals, I see, in some cases (setting aside Lutheranism and Methodism, which were doctrinally traditional) a movement away from the apostolic faith. I see needless schisms and the propagation of doctrinal error. I see Galatians 1:8 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 being ignored.

All you have to do is to study the history of the Christian church and you will see it quite clearly.

I am well versed in this subject, and I don't see it. Instead, I see the savagely persecuted Christians of the East, the victims of unbelievable predation by Islam and Communism, preserving the true faith against all odds, and being either ignored by or subject to offensive "missionary" campaigns from Western Christians.

We can pray for revival and work towards it by good teaching and encouragement for others to unite in prayer.

Since revival almost invariably means schism, I actually pray against it daily, and also, every time I go to church.

God can then do a supernatural work as a result.

To the extent supernatural forces are involved in these events, how can you say they are divine? Why would God cause a schism in His own Church? Our Lord prayed that "we may all be one," just as He and the Father are One.

I think based on that, based on Galatians 1:8, et cetera, it is inconceivable that God would cause supernatural forces to create a schism.

But we have to accept that once we and our disciples have disappeared from the scene, others who do not have the same vision and passion will take over, and the revival will fade away, and so God has to raise up others to pray and believe for another revival down the track.

I don't believe we should think individually of having disciples. Our Lord had disciples, in the form of the members of His Church. When we begin thinking of ourselves as the makers of disciples rather than the Church, we head down an individualistic path which leads to error.

Whatever people say about the Brownsville and Pensacola revivals, they were real revivals even though some had some unusual manifestations in the meetings.

I have investigated these events, and I do not believe they were beneficial; if that is what a "real revival" is; I am forced to conclude such events are destructive.

But hundreds, perhaps thousands were saved for Christ.

How many of those simply converted from one denomination to another?

It is not "being saved" when one merely changes denominational affiliation.

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 21, 2017

Paul Yohannan said:
Not if it continues to adhere to the apostolic faith as described in the Nicene Creed.

It most certainly not.

Also, by this argument, which is contrary to Matthew 16:18, you have no basis for accepting the canonical New Testament, which was not defined until the Fourth Century (the last living disciple of the apostles was probably St. Polycarp, who died in the second century).

Which is just as well, because the canonical New Testsment precludes such an ecclesiological misconception.

This analogy does not apply to the Orthodox Christian faith, which is unchanging from generation to generation.

Our worship today is largely unchanged from our worship in the year 500.

It did not. Thr Early Church is still extant in the form of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.

St. Polycarp's death is dated to 155 AD. He was a disciple of St. John the Apostle.

Miraculous healings never faded away. They remain a part of the traditional Christian faith in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Neither did prophecy, for that matter. Recent Orthodox blessed with the gift of prophecy include the noted 20th century monastic St. Paisios the Athonite.

As far as tongues are concerned, these are not what Pentecostals claim them to be. See: Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

Also your argument has the interesting effect of rendering more recent versions of Christianity progressively less important per each successive generation. If followed logically and consistently, your argument would preclude the validity of Pentecostalism, since we can trace it to the 1906 Azusa Street Revival.

No. It was in the fourth century that the vital Nicene Creed and the New Testament canon were promulgated.

Signs and wonders are not the basis for a solid faith. See Matthew 24:24

The "dark ages" as commonly understood are a myth. They did not happen in the Christian East. Even in the West, the dark ages are a distortion. For example, in Britain, the Dark Ages can be said reasonably to have lasted only for the period between the collapse of the Roman provincial government and the arrival of St. Augustine of Canterbury in the seventh century (not the same person as the fourth century St. Augustine of Hippo).

No, it certainly was not. We clearly see the New Testament church preserved throughout history.

There is no evidence linking the alleged supernatural events at Pentecostal revivals to the actual practices of the early Church. They do however resemble the rigorist Montanist sect of which Tertullian became a member.

No, it did not. No one was converted in the course of the Reformation from a non-Christian faith to Christianity in any action directly attributable to the Reformation; they merely moved from one denomination in the West to several, which was a huge step in the wrong direction.

No it did not. Confessional Lutheranism (like the LCMS) remains one of the most vibrant Christian denominations. To claim it is faded is a huge error.

The so-called mainline Lutheran churches have unfortunately faded, but that fading is a recent phenomena, a 20th century process that I believe we can trace to the unwise adoption of theological modernism.

The LCMS nearly went down that road, but managed to avoid it and bounce back in a Gospel-centric direction.

Now this simply shows a lack of historical knowledge. John Calvin was a contemporary, and I think I can safely say, an opponent, of Martin Luther (they both advocated reformation of the Roman Catholic Church but disagreed dramatically on the Eucharist and related questions of doctrine).

Puritanism was a horrible movement which in no sense represented a return to Patristic values.

This argument makes no sense, because Lutheranism, Calvinism, Quakerism, and the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement have virtually nothing in common. There is much more commonality between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, than between Lutheranism and Quakerism, or between the faith of the Puritans and the Charismatics.

I am proud of the fact that the Orthodox Church has never had a "revival" and never will. I don't think revivals are a natural event or ecclesiologically healthy.

What you describe as revivals, I see, in some cases (setting aside Lutheranism and Methodism, which were doctrinally traditional) a movement away from the apostolic faith. I see needless schisms and the propagation of doctrinal error. I see Galatians 1:8 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 being ignored.

I am well versed in this subject, and I don't see it. Instead, I see the savagely persecuted Christians of the East, the victims of unbelievable predation by Islam and Communism, preserving the true faith against all odds, and being either ignored by or subject to offensive "missionary" campaigns from Western Christians.

Since revival almost invariably means schism, I actually pray against it daily, and also, every time I go to church.

To the extent supernatural forces are involved in these events, how can you say they are divine? Why would God cause a schism in His own Church? Our Lord prayed that "we may all be one," just as He and the Father are One.

I think based on that, based on Galatians 1:8, et cetera, it is inconceivable that God would cause supernatural forces to create a schism.

I don't believe we should think individually of having disciples. Our Lord had disciples, in the form of the members of His Church. When we begin thinking of ourselves as the makers of disciples rather than the Church, we head down an individualistic path which leads to error.

I have investigated these events, and I do not believe they were beneficial; if that is what a "real revival" is; I am forced to conclude such events are destructive.

How many of those simply converted from one denomination to another?

It is not "being saved" when one merely changes denominational affiliation.

Oh well, let the readers decide who is correct.

DrBubbaLove · Feb 21, 2017

Oscarr said:
It can take one or two generations for an alive, revived, New Testament church to fall away to being a dead monumental has-been. This happened to the Early Church once the last Apostle and their disciples passed away. It's like taking a copy of a video, and then taking a copy of a copy, and so on. As each successive copy is made, the quality of the video declines and the video gets fuzzier and fuzzier. We can see this when we view documentaries with video clips of film clips from the 1960s. You see that these video clips look quite out of focus. This is because they are copies of copies of copies of the original films or tapes.

The Early Church went the same way. After the last of the Apostle's disciples died by the end of the First Century, the disciples in the Second Century were "copies" of those first disciples, and so the sharp, cutting edge quality of the involvement of the Holy Spirit and purity of holiness and doctrine was a little "fuzzier". When the Church reached the Third Century, there were copies of copies of the original disciples, and so the fuzziness of doctrine and Holy Spirit involvement became more pronounced. We then see that miraculous healings, prophecies, and tongues were starting to fade away. By the Fourth Century, the Church became fuzzier still, and so you get Augustine teaching things that support the man-made organisation of the Church and teaching less about the signs, wonders and miracles. The progression went on until the dark ages where the resulting Church was nothing like the Early Church at all! There were so many "copies" that the clear view of New Testament Christianity was gone.

What has caused some restoration at times are the supernatural revivals that have taken place through the centuries that have restored important truths back into the Church.

But the same scenario takes place. Martin Luther started a revival based on Justification by Faith. While he and his original disciples were alive, the church won thousands to Christ. Then as the succeeding generations came along, that movement faded through copies of copies.

Then there was Calvin's revival. After he and his disciples died, the same thing happened. Calvin's good teaching because fuzzy and corrupted through copies of copies.

The Puritan revival, because Puritanical through a couple of generations of copies of copies.

The same happened with the Quaker revival, Methodist revival, the Holiness revival, the Welsh revival, the Pentecostal revival, the Charismatic revival.

Charles Finney had constant revival through his lifetime. When he joined the Congregational Church, he had it in revival. But after his generation, the Congregational church slowly died. Even after one and a half generations, the Charismatics are experiencing a fading of the cutting edge of what the Holy Spirit did through them.

This is what happens after every revival. In a revival, the Holy Spirit is attempting to restore God's order in the Church. It happens while the leaders of that revival and their disciples are alive and are involved. But after they disappear from the scene, the revived church or movement fades back into a man-ordered organisation where ritual and ceremony replace the reality of the Holy Spirit.

All you have to do is to study the history of the Christian church and you will see it quite clearly. We can pray for revival and work towards it by good teaching and encouragement for others to unite in prayer. God can then do a supernatural work as a result. But we have to accept that once we and our disciples have disappeared from the scene, others who do not have the same vision and passion will take over, and the revival will fade away, and so God has to raise up others to pray and believe for another revival down the track.

Whatever people say about the Brownsville and Pensacola revivals, they were real revivals even though some had some unusual manifestations in the meetings. But hundreds, perhaps thousands were saved for Christ. But where is the revival now? The fact is that the churches have been taken over by leaders who do not have the same vision for that type of revival, so it has reverted back to just another denominational church. It is a copy of a copy.

I have heard that the Argentinian revival is still going on. Well, that was about a year ago. I wonder if it is still as powerful and effective as it was? I don't know. I haven't heard much about it lately. Maybe the leadership is now a copy of the original and so is not as powerful as it was. It will be interesting to find out.

So the idea is God appealed to men's hearts for correction for thousands of years. He gradually changes their notions of Justice, Mercy and Love, enough to finally hear it all from Himself. While here delivering on His Promise to Abraham He sets up a Church to deliver His News to all of mankind. Gives the leadership of that Church a body of teachings along with Authority to guide that Church in teachings. Sends them a Spirit to assist them in their task. Completes His Work by winning victory over death for Himself and through Him us. Only to have that Work completely fail and fall apart in less than 70 years.

When I look at that the natural order He put into Creation to the small detail, it is hard for me to imagine Him not being able to accomplish something as simple as putting together a Body of Believers and giving them both a framework and ability to maintain a Body of faithful followers until He returns. Which sort of sounds like "even the gates of Hell shall not prevail against". So the only answer that was acceptable to me then was the Church would never fail. As once a Protestant and even now for them, I see only a couple alternatives to maintain that thought and explain how a body of believers with the "most Apostolic" or in their view perhaps most correct teachings arrives intact today. None of those alternatives are particularly satisfying to me (adding "now" as obviously they were at one time).

The idea God's Personal Act in the first century would need a human to come along and "revive" His Church is even less satisfying an explanation. Especially when many of the so called "revivals" have resulted in such a fractured body of believers.

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 21, 2017

DrBubbaLove said:
So the idea is God appealed to men's hearts for correction for thousands of years. He gradually changes their notions of Justice, Mercy and Love, enough to finally hear it all from Himself. While here delivering on His Promise to Abraham He sets up a Church to deliver His News to all of mankind. Gives the leadership of that Church a body of teachings along with Authority to guide that Church in teachings. Sends them a Spirit to assist them in their task. Completes His Work by winning victory over death for Himself and through Him us. Only to have that Work completely fail and fall apart in less than 70 years.

When I look at that the natural order He put into Creation to the small detail, it is hard for me to imagine Him not being able to accomplish something as simple as putting together a Body of Believers and giving them both a framework and ability to maintain a Body of faithful followers until He returns. Which sort of sounds like "even the gates of Hell shall not prevail against". So the only answer that was acceptable to me then was the Church would never fail. As I Protestant and even now for them, I see only a couple alternatives to maintain that thought and explain how a body of believers with the "most Apostolic" or in their view perhaps most correct teachings arrives intact today. None of those alternatives are particularly satisfying to me.

The idea God's Personal Act in the first century would need a human to come along and "revive" His Church is even less satisfying an explanation. Especially when many of the so called "revivals" have resulted in such a fractured body of believers.

So how do you explain how an Early Church that preached the gospel with signs, wonders and miracles turn into a liturgical church without the miracles?

LoveofTruth · Feb 21, 2017

Paul Yohannan said:
This, very obviously, refers to the Pagan temples and not the Christian temples.

the pagans said the christians saw temples as dead houses. yes thats what they are

DrBubbaLove · Feb 21, 2017

Oscarr said:
So how do you explain how an Early Church that preached the gospel with signs, wonders and miracles turn into a liturgical church without the miracles?

Supernatural acts occur all the time. The Eucharist occurs daily 24/7/365. Miracles at Lourdes have not ceased since the first one. Books have been written about miracles old and new. Books not just among the various "Catholic" Churches either, although in terms of sheer total volume of miracles the tide goes with the Church on this point. How many Churches have an administrative branch dedicated to researching miracles?

That Satan would attack a fledgling Church with more intensity I could imagine, but neither have those attacks ceased. I agree many Protestants have stopped believing in miracles or make excuse for them not being needed as much anymore, but there have been and always will be many more Christians than them witnessing miracles every day.
Another approach perhaps???

LoveofTruth · Feb 21, 2017

Paul Yohannan said:
Marcus Felix is not a recognized saint; his work contains Pagan influences from Stoicism and is to be rejected.

All christians are called to be saints and are saints.

Also Im sure you would reject many of the christians of the past that spoke contrary to you or things you believe.

The so called church fathers also had a variety of errors mixed into their words as can easily be shown. yet we would not say they were not christian, or at least I would not.

But this man was a christian apologist in the 2nd century. The interesting thing about his quote is he does not speak for himself alone but he says

"since we have no temples or altars"

Notice the "we" part. He is speaking for the christian church at that time. And what he said in the quote was very true about God and the heart etc.

So your attack on these words as evidence against the so called Church buildings or temples is false. i can bring other evidences from that early time and earlier i believe showing that the christians did not build temples or so called church buildings for worship. The pagans criticized the christians for this.

but about the man who made the quote here is some history

"Marcus Minucius Felix (died c. 250 AD in Rome)[1] was one of the earliest of the Latin apologists for Christianity. He is from a Berber origin.[2]

Nothing is known of his personal history, and even the date at which he wrote can be only approximately ascertained as between AD 150 and 270. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus #58 speaks of him as "Romae insignis causidicus" [one of Rome's notable solicitors], but in that he is probably only improving on the expression of Lactantius [3] who speaks of him as "non ignobilis inter causidicos loci" [not unknown among solicitors].

He is now exclusively known by his Octavius, a dialogue on Christianity between the pagan Caecilius Natalis and the Christian Octavius Januarius. Written for educated non-Christians, the arguments are borrowed chiefly from Cicero, especially his De natura deorum (“Concerning the Nature of the Gods”), and Christian material, mainly from the Greek Apologists.[1]

The Octavius is admittedly earlier than Cyprian's Quod idola dei non sint, which borrows from it; how much earlier can be determined only by settling the relation in which it stands to Tertullian's Apologeticum.[citation needed]"

and from an encyclopedia

"Minucius Felix was a Roman advocate, rhetorician, and Christian apologist. Like Lactantius, Minucius was a convert to Christianity. His only known work, the dialogue Octavius, is one of the earliest examples of Latin apologetics; it is an attack upon paganism and skepticism, and a defense of early Christianity as it was known in the Roman world. Minucius is of interest not only to theologians and Church historians, but also to those with an interest in philosophy and rhetoric. Unlike other Latin apologists of the period, such as Tertullian, who asserted credo quia ineptum (I believe because [it is] absurd) (De Carne Christi 5.4), and who was openly hostile to speculative philosophy, Minucius attempted to establish at least the rational possibility of the Christian faith. The rhetoric found within the Octavius can be considered Ciceronian, having elements of the six-part speech (exordium, narration, partition, confirmation, refutation, and conclusion)."

It seems that since this evidence is so clear to expose your assumptions about the early church and so called church buildings and temples, you simply try to find fault with the author.

What i quote from him was not so much his theology, but a evidence of that time that Christians did not have temples to worship in (or church buildings falsely called). I have other quotes I can use as well.

You are on shaky ground here and have no scripture or even early church history that is slid to stand on about your church buildings and temples. The real turn for the christians was Constantine and his building projects that spread all over. based on the basilica form of pagan temple s and other things.

Paul Yohannan · Feb 21, 2017

LoveofTruth said:
All christians are called to be saints and are saints.

The Orthodox Church commemorates as saints only those persons known to us to have been saved.

I have no reason to believe Marcus Felix was a Christian, at least in accord with how the majority or members of CF.com would define Christianity. The established facts suggest he was a non-Christian heretic who adhered to a mix of stoicism and Christianity.

One thing you have to remember is that, in that era, one encounters the writings of a large number of individuals who practice religions which are heretical modifications of Christianity, which have little in common with any contemporary interpretation. Marcion, Tatian, Valentinus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea; all of these prominent figures practiced a sort of hybrid of Christianity and Paganism.

One can't call their religion Christian, because they express theological views later rejected at Nicea, and they used in many cases a very substantially different Bible than what we use, with important books, sometimes the entire Old Testament, missing, and other books of apocrypha like The Acts of Thomas, which we discussed previously, added.

Thus, many of these 2nd and 3rd century figures practiced religions as far removed from what you or I would recognize as Christian, as Mormonism and the JW faith are. Of the list I provided, the closest adherents to our views are Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea. Origen however believed in reincarnation, among other errors, and Eusebius did not really believe Jesus Christ was consubstantial with God the Father (he disagreed with Nicea and paid only lip service to it).

The safest and surest indicator as to whether or not an ancient figure such as Marcus Felix is a genuine Christian as opposed to an adherent of a semi-Christian sect is whether or not they are commemorated as a saint by the Orthodox or Catholics (the Orthodox have the most complete list of Greek, Syriac and other Eastern saints, and the Catholics, of Latin speaking saints).

Also Im sure you would reject many of the christians of the past that spoke contrary to you or things you believe.

Not if they are commemorated as saints by my church or Rome.

If they postdate Protestantism, I accept them as Christians if their views are compatible with the CF.com Statement of Faith (they accept the Nicene Creed, they accept the apostolate of St. Paul, and so on; our Statement of Faith is a very good baseline definition of Christianity in an ecumenical context, one of the best I have seen).

The so called church fathers also had a variety of errors mixed into their words as can easily be shown. yet we would not say they were not christian, or at least I would not.

There are no really material errors in the works of any Patristic figures commemorated as saints.

But this man was a christian apologist in the 2nd century.

In the 3rd century.

A valid 2nd century apologist would be St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

The interesting thing about his quote is he does not speak for himself alone but he says

"since we have no temples or altars"

Notice the "we" part. He is speaking for the christian church at that time.

No, he is not. We know from surviving contemporary liturgical texts, like the second century Anaphoras of St. James, St. Mark, the Twelve Apostles, and Hippolytus, that the church of that era had temples and altars.

And what he said in the quote was very true about God and the heart etc.

So your attack on these words as evidence against the so called Church buildings or temples is false. i can bring other evidences from that early time and earlier i believe showing that the christians did not build temples or so called church buildings for worship. The pagans criticized the christians for this.

but about the man who made the quote here is some history

"Marcus Minucius Felix (died c. 250 AD in Rome)[1] was one of the earliest of the Latin apologists for Christianity. He is from a Berber origin.[2]

Nothing is known of his personal history, and even the date at which he wrote can be only approximately ascertained as between AD 150 and 270. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus #58 speaks of him as "Romae insignis causidicus" [one of Rome's notable solicitors], but in that he is probably only improving on the expression of Lactantius [3] who speaks of him as "non ignobilis inter causidicos loci" [not unknown among solicitors].

He is now exclusively known by his Octavius, a dialogue on Christianity between the pagan Caecilius Natalis and the Christian Octavius Januarius. Written for educated non-Christians, the arguments are borrowed chiefly from Cicero, especially his De natura deorum (“Concerning the Nature of the Gods”), and Christian material, mainly from the Greek Apologists.[1]

The Octavius is admittedly earlier than Cyprian's Quod idola dei non sint, which borrows from it; how much earlier can be determined only by settling the relation in which it stands to Tertullian's Apologeticum.[citation needed]"

and from an encyclopedia

"Minucius Felix was a Roman advocate, rhetorician, and Christian apologist. Like Lactantius, Minucius was a convert to Christianity. His only known work, the dialogue Octavius, is one of the earliest examples of Latin apologetics; it is an attack upon paganism and skepticism, and a defense of early Christianity as it was known in the Roman world. Minucius is of interest not only to theologians and Church historians, but also to those with an interest in philosophy and rhetoric. Unlike other Latin apologists of the period, such as Tertullian, who asserted credo quia ineptum (I believe because [it is] absurd) (De Carne Christi 5.4), and who was openly hostile to speculative philosophy, Minucius attempted to establish at least the rational possibility of the Christian faith. The rhetoric found within the Octavius can be considered Ciceronian, having elements of the six-part speech (exordium, narration, partition, confirmation, refutation, and conclusion)."

It seems that since this evidence is so clear to expose your assumptions about the early church and so called church buildings and temples, you simply try to find fault with the author.

Where the author is not a Christian, their views are irrelevant.

What i quote from him was not so much his theology, but a evidence of that time that Christians did not have temples to worship in (or church buildings falsely called). I have other quotes I can use as well.

That will not be neccessary.

You are on a=shaky ground here and have no scripture or even early church history that is slid to stand on about your church buildings and temples. The real turn for the christians was Constantine and his building projects that spread all over. based on the basilica form of pagan temple s and other things.

I have many examples of Scripture and early Church history, which I have presented, including, but not limited to, the aforementioned church in Kerala.

Paul Yohannan · Feb 21, 2017

Oscarr said:
So how do you explain how an Early Church that preached the gospel with signs, wonders and miracles turn into a liturgical church without the miracles?

Miracles are de rigeur in the Orthodox and Catholic churches. We are not cessasionist. That said, this is not by itself a reason to believe in Orthodoxy, Catholicism or any other denomination. Signs and wonders are not a viable basis for making a decision about the Christian faith. See Matthew 24:24.

LoveofTruth · Feb 21, 2017

Paul Yohannan said:
Not if it continues to adhere to the apostolic faith as described in the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene creed was around 325 AD. Long after the apostles had written to churches God's order and the truths in scripture. The scriptures were copied and known by believers. If there was a time when they did not have the apostles letters at the initial moments, they still had the scriptures in the OT scriptures. Which the very gospel is found in type and according to the scriptures. But they had the actual apostles Paul and peter and John etc with them in person. What Paul spoke in scripture by the spirit he more than likely spoke in person to many as well. And as John said we have no need that any man should teach us the anointing teaches all things. All true believers then and today have the Holy Ghost to guide them into all truth and the Spirit of Christ and His word in them, this is the anointing that teaches all things. And all things will be in line with what the Spirit said through other parts of the body and which became holy scripture.

Also, after jesus resurrection he gave the gift of apostles to the church as well, we see such men as Paul, Barnabas, Timotheous, Silvans etc were apostles" for the church. God still gives all five gifts for the church and no scripture says he doesn't.

The order of God given to men like Paul and peter and other apostolic workers was handed down as Paul said he taught the same things in every church. These handed down truths and traditions are found all through scripture if you see Paul setting them in order everywhere he went. Things like allowing God to move freely in the body and following after Christ and not man made traditions and philosophies, allowing all to prophesy in turn, to wait for gifts and revelation, women roles in the gathering and qualifications for ordaining elder/overseers (plural). The supper of the Lord and other aspects of the order of God. These things were passed on through the apostolic workers and the other apostolic workers would also hand them down as well, there is scripture for this as I may have posted in the first post.

But since many believers were tossed about by every wind of doctrine and many evil men crept into the gatherings to draw away disciples after them, this order is seen in scripture as revealed by the Spirit to those especially who are in such a work of apostolic ministry as I am and many others. These things are hidden from the carnal and fleshly men who seek their own.

LoveofTruth · Feb 21, 2017

Paul Yohannan said:
The Orthodox Church commemorates as saints only those persons known to us to have been saved.

All the truly faithful are saints

Psalm 50:5
Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice."

Psalm 89:5
"And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints."

Romans 8:27
"And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God."

Romans 16:2
That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also."

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

Paul Yohannan · Feb 21, 2017

LoveofTruth said:
All the truly faithful are saints

Indeed so. And I see no basis for counting Marcus Felix among the truly faithful.

LoveofTruth · Feb 21, 2017

Paul Yohannan said:
No, he is not. We know from surviving contemporary liturgical texts, like the second century Anaphoras of St. James, St. Mark, the Twelve Apostles, and Hippolytus, that the church of that era had temples and altars.

No the earliest record is in 256 Ad, as most will agree, except you and others with biased ideas to justify their altars and temples. The most High dwelt not in temples made with hands, I don't know how clear that can be. No amount of fancy philosophy and metaphysical talk can change that to mean yes God is in the temple.

also some of the early believers among the Jews had been struggling with the law and were zealous for it and the customs. If a man named James was one of those then that still would not justify what they did or if men build temples etc. The James of Acts 21 was zealous for the law and a jew and zealous for the customs of the jews. These were not needed and the entire covenant was fading away and the new covenant was to be known and taught. To let OT types and temples and sacrifice ideas longer into the church is wrong and unbiblical.

but as to the Anaphoras of St James

"Its date of composition is still disputed, but most authorities propose a fourth-century date for the known form, because the anaphora seems to have been developed from an ancient Egyptian form of the Basilean anaphoric family united with the anaphora described in The Catechisms of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.[1]" ( Divine Liturgy of Saint James - Wikipedia)

again you are giving questionable evidence and nothing to do with scripture. We have the order from Paul and it is very clear how they met what they did the freedom among them the meal fellowship etc. There was no prescribed form or liturgy, Paul said all can edify each other in God's order and so did Peter say this (1 Peter 4:10,11 KJV)

LoveofTruth · Feb 21, 2017

Paul Yohannan said:
Indeed so. And I see no basis for counting Marcus Felix among the truly faithful.

Whether he was a Christian or not is not my issue here, although he is considered a Christian apologist of the time by many. It is the fact that early on as we see the christians had no temples and altars.

LoveofTruth · Feb 21, 2017

The early church met in homes for the most part in their gatherings and ministry to each other and a meal, fellowship and prayer etc with gifts from God for edifying.

We see this all over in the historical study and in many many scriptures showing the the church met in their houses.

It is false for anyone to deny that the earliest Christians met in houses. The book of Acts shows clearly Christian assemblies taking place in peoples' houses (Acts 2:42; 5:42; 20:20). Church meetings are recorded in the homes of John's mother (Acts 12:12), Lydia (Acts 16:40), Aquilla and Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19), Gaius (Rom. 16:23), Nympha (Col. 4:15), and Philemon (Philem. 2).

One of the reasons they met in houses, is to have a family type environment for all believers are the family of God and brothers and sister. They also met in houses to have a mela nd have close fellowship and intimate ministry and prayer. Meeting in a house deliberately makes the gatherings smaller rather than larger for a good reason, the edification and body ministry is best in such a forum. In a large assembly of 2000 people it is hard for every one to have a doctrine psalms prophecy etches they are commanded to be allowed to have in 1 Cor 14:26-38.

"When a "church" wasn't a building
These early believers did not have church buildings to meet in. They met mostly in homes. The first church buildings did not start to appear until the early 200s."(A Look at the Early Church) (I wouldn't call then "church buildings as the author here did)

"The Roman prefect interrogated Justin Martyr and his associates: “What sort of life do you lead? What are your doctrines? You admit that you are a Christian?”

To each question, the Christian philosopher made a direct reply.

Then the prefect, Rusticus, demanded: “Where do you meet?”

“Wherever it is each one’s preference or opportunity,” said Justin. “In any case, do you suppose we can all meet in the same place?”

Rusticus pressed him, no doubt for information that might compromise others: “Tell me, where do you meet? In what place?”

Justin said, “I have been living above the baths of [text corrupt] for the entire period of my sojourn at Rome … and I have known no other meeting place but here. Anyone who desired could come to my residence, and I would give to him the words of truth.” The proceedings of Justin’s trial, just prior to A.D. 168

"In the Rome of Justin’s day, Christian meetings were still being conducted in private residences, in much the same way as over a century earlier, during the ministry of Paul. This is remarkable in light of Justin’s depiction of Christian worship, which included baptism, common prayers, preaching, and Communion. Though baptism played a prominent role in the Christian community, formal baptisteries were as yet undeveloped. Justin’s only comment is that the candidates “are brought by us where there is water.”
...Justin’s defense before Rusticus also suggests that although the Christians in Rome were becoming fairly numerous, they did not abandon meeting in homes, even if that meant the Christian community could no longer assemble in one place. Thus, the house-church pattern, first articulated in the New Testament, continued for the first generations of the church’s expansion in the Roman world.
...The Acts of the Apostles portrays the first Christian community in Jerusalem as gathering in the temple colonnades and “breaking bread in their homes.” As the Christian message gained a wider hearing in eastern Mediterranean cities, early believers commonly met in the homes of the community’s more prominent members: Gaius, Titius Justus, and Stephanas at Corinth, Phoebe at Cenchcrea, Priscilla (Prisca) and Aquila at Ephesus, Nympha at Laodicea.'"
(Where Did Christians Worship?)

"Before Emperor Constantine recognized Christianity as a legal religion in 313, corporate ownership of property by the church could be legally ambiguous. It seems that the first property owned by the Roman church were the catacombs. These were not places of meeting, however, but burial sites....Unless claims for recent discoveries of early Christian meeting places are confirmed, the earliest building certainly devoted to Christian use is at Dura Europos on the Euphrates River in eastern Roman Syria. It was a house that came into Christian possession and was remodeled in the 240s. Two rooms were combined to form the assembly room, and another room became a baptistery—the only room decorated with pictures. Dura was destroyed by the Sassanian Persians in 256,"(Why and when did Christians start constructing special buildings for worship?)

"There are no known church buildings prior to the time of Constantine. During the apostolic era and for the next two centuries, churches met primarily in the private homes of its wealthier members. This necessarily meant that the typical congregation was smaller rather than larger.

THE PURPOSE
Everything in the New Testament was written to churches that met in private homes. The relationships the New Testament describes work best in situations where everyone knows each other. These smaller settings foster the intimacy and accountability that characterized the New Testament church. A loving, family-like atmosphere is more easily developed. Celebrating the Lord’s Supper as an actual meal is much more conducive to a smaller setting. Achieving congregational consensus is easier when everyone knows everyone else and open lines of communication genuinely exist. The many “one another” exhortations of Scripture can be much more realistically lived out. Church discipline takes on real significance. Participatory worship is natural to a smaller setting and is more meaningful...
THE PROFESSORS
According to Anglican evangelist David Watson, “For the first two centuries, the church met in small groups in the homes of its members, apart from special gatherings in public lecture halls or market places, where people could come together in much larger numbers. Significantly these two centuries mark the most powerful and vigorous advance of the church, which perhaps has never seen been equaled. The lack of church buildings was no hindrance to the rapid expansion of the church; instead . . . it seemed a positive help.”[1]

A Yale University archaeology pamphlet stated, “The first Christian congregations worshipped in private houses, meeting at the homes of wealthier members on a rotating basis . . . Worship was generally conducted in (either) the atrium, or central courtyard of the house.”[2]

Graydon F. Snyder, professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary, observed that “the New Testament Church began as a small group house church (Col. 4:15), and it remained so until the middle or end of the third century. There are no evidences of larger places of meeting before 300.”[3] Again quoting Snyder, “there is no literary evidence nor archaeological indication that any such home was converted into an extant church building. Nor is there any extant church that certainly was built prior to Constantine.”[4]

The ESV Study Bible notes that “Early Christian churches, since they were small and not recognized as a legitimate (or legal) religion, met in homes . . . There is extensive archaeological evidence from many cites showing that some homes were structurally modified to hold such churches.”[5]

Martin Selman, lecturer in Old Testament at Spurgeon’s College in London, wrote that “The theme of the ‘household of God’ undoubtedly owed much to the function of the house in early Christianity as a place of meeting and fellowship (e.g. 2 Tim. 4:19; Phm. 2; 2 Jn. 10).”[6]

Reformed scholar William Hendriksen, said “since in the first and second centuries church buildings in the sense in which we think of them today were not yet in existence, families would hold services in their own homes . . . The early church numbered many hospitable members, ready and eager to offer their facilities for religious use: meetings, services, etc.”[7]

According to Anglican commentator W.H. Griffith Thomas, “For two or three centuries Christians met in private houses . . . There seems little doubt that these informal gatherings of small groups of believers had great influence in preserving the simplicity and purity of early Christianity”.[8]

In his monumental work New Testament Theology, Donald Guthrie (lecturer on New Testament at the London Bible College) wrote that “the expression ‘in church’ (en ekklésia) . . . refers to an assembly of believers. There is no suggestion of a special building. Indeed, the idea of a church as representing a building is totally alien to the NT.”[9]

Ronald Sider, in Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, made a good point. He said, “The early church was able to defy the decadent values of Roman civilization precisely because it experienced the reality of Christian fellowship in a mighty way . . . Christian fellowship meant unconditional availability to and unlimited liability for the other sisters and brothers — emotionally, financially and spiritually. When one member suffered, they all suffered. When one rejoiced, they all rejoiced (1 Cor. 12:26). When a person or church experienced economic trouble, the others shared without reservation. And when a brother or sister fell into sin, the others gently restored the straying person (Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:5-11; Gal. 6:1-3). The sisters and brothers were available to each other, liable for each other and accountable to each other. The early church, of course, did not always fully live out the New Testament vision of the body of Christ. There were tragic lapses. But the network of tiny house churches scattered throughout the Roman Empire did experience their oneness in Christ so vividly that they were able to defy and eventually conquer a powerful, pagan civilization. The overwhelming majority of churches today, however, do not provide the context in which brothers and sisters can encourage, admonish and disciple each other. We desperately need new settings and structures for watching over one another in love.”[10]

THE PROOF
The word church (ekklésia) in the New Testament never refers to a building. It fundamentally means assembly, gathering, meeting or congregation.[11] It is clear from Scripture that the early church met in the private homes of its more affluent members.[12] For example Philemon, who was wealthy enough to own a slave, also hosted the church in his home (Phlm 2b). Church hostess Lydia was a prosperous businesswoman who sold expensive purple fabric and could afford servants (Ac 16:14). A church met in the home of Aquila and Priscilla who engaged in the lucrative first century trade of tent making (Ac 18:1-3). Gaius, a man with the means to generously support missionaries (3Jn 1-5), had a home big enough to host the whole church (Ro 16:23). Less well known is the fact that the early church continued this practice of house churches for hundreds of years after the New Testament writings were completed. What are we to do with the fact that the early church met mostly in homes?
(A Little History of the 1st Century Church)

and so on and soon, there is so much history about this and the norm of Christian gathering for about the first 300 years it is staggering.

But those who are biased and have vested interest in maintaining their large pagan style buildings and calling then :churches' will find an argument against this.

scripture is clear, no church buildings but rather a spiritual house built up with living stones the church, which is the body of Christ and Jesus Christ is the head of that body.

LoveofTruth · Feb 21, 2017

Paul Yohannan said:
This, very obviously, refers to the Pagan temples and not the Christian temples.

The early church met in homes for the most part in their gatherings and ministry to each other and a meal, fellowship and prayer etc with gifts from God for edifying.

We see this all over in the historical study and in many many scriptures showing the the church met in their houses.

It is false for anyone to deny that the earliest Christians met in houses. The book of Acts shows clearly Christian assemblies taking place in peoples' houses (Acts 2:42; 5:42; 20:20). Church meetings are recorded in the homes of John's mother (Acts 12:12), Lydia (Acts 16:40), Aquilla and Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5; 1 Cor. 16:19), Gaius (Rom. 16:23), Nympha (Col. 4:15), and Philemon (Philem. 2).

One of the reasons they met in houses, is to have a family type environment for all believers are the family of God and brothers and sister. They also met in houses to have a mela nd have close fellowship and intimate ministry and prayer. Meeting in a house deliberately makes the gatherings smaller rather than larger for a good reason, the edification and body ministry is best in such a forum. In a large assembly of 2000 people it is hard for every one to have a doctrine psalms prophecy etches they are commanded to be allowed to have in 1 Cor 14:26-38.

"When a "church" wasn't a building
These early believers did not have church buildings to meet in. They met mostly in homes. The first church buildings did not start to appear until the early 200s."(A Look at the Early Church) (I wouldn't call then "church buildings as the author here did)

"The Roman prefect interrogated Justin Martyr and his associates: “What sort of life do you lead? What are your doctrines? You admit that you are a Christian?”

To each question, the Christian philosopher made a direct reply.

Then the prefect, Rusticus, demanded: “Where do you meet?”

“Wherever it is each one’s preference or opportunity,” said Justin. “In any case, do you suppose we can all meet in the same place?”

Rusticus pressed him, no doubt for information that might compromise others: “Tell me, where do you meet? In what place?”

Justin said, “I have been living above the baths of [text corrupt] for the entire period of my sojourn at Rome … and I have known no other meeting place but here. Anyone who desired could come to my residence, and I would give to him the words of truth.” The proceedings of Justin’s trial, just prior to A.D. 168

"In the Rome of Justin’s day, Christian meetings were still being conducted in private residences, in much the same way as over a century earlier, during the ministry of Paul. This is remarkable in light of Justin’s depiction of Christian worship, which included baptism, common prayers, preaching, and Communion. Though baptism played a prominent role in the Christian community, formal baptisteries were as yet undeveloped. Justin’s only comment is that the candidates “are brought by us where there is water.”
...Justin’s defense before Rusticus also suggests that although the Christians in Rome were becoming fairly numerous, they did not abandon meeting in homes, even if that meant the Christian community could no longer assemble in one place. Thus, the house-church pattern, first articulated in the New Testament, continued for the first generations of the church’s expansion in the Roman world.
...The Acts of the Apostles portrays the first Christian community in Jerusalem as gathering in the temple colonnades and “breaking bread in their homes.” As the Christian message gained a wider hearing in eastern Mediterranean cities, early believers commonly met in the homes of the community’s more prominent members: Gaius, Titius Justus, and Stephanas at Corinth, Phoebe at Cenchcrea, Priscilla (Prisca) and Aquila at Ephesus, Nympha at Laodicea.'"
(Where Did Christians Worship?)

"Before Emperor Constantine recognized Christianity as a legal religion in 313, corporate ownership of property by the church could be legally ambiguous. It seems that the first property owned by the Roman church were the catacombs. These were not places of meeting, however, but burial sites....Unless claims for recent discoveries of early Christian meeting places are confirmed, the earliest building certainly devoted to Christian use is at Dura Europos on the Euphrates River in eastern Roman Syria. It was a house that came into Christian possession and was remodeled in the 240s. Two rooms were combined to form the assembly room, and another room became a baptistery—the only room decorated with pictures. Dura was destroyed by the Sassanian Persians in 256,"(Why and when did Christians start constructing special buildings for worship?)

"There are no known church buildings prior to the time of Constantine. During the apostolic era and for the next two centuries, churches met primarily in the private homes of its wealthier members. This necessarily meant that the typical congregation was smaller rather than larger.

THE PURPOSE
Everything in the New Testament was written to churches that met in private homes. The relationships the New Testament describes work best in situations where everyone knows each other. These smaller settings foster the intimacy and accountability that characterized the New Testament church. A loving, family-like atmosphere is more easily developed. Celebrating the Lord’s Supper as an actual meal is much more conducive to a smaller setting. Achieving congregational consensus is easier when everyone knows everyone else and open lines of communication genuinely exist. The many “one another” exhortations of Scripture can be much more realistically lived out. Church discipline takes on real significance. Participatory worship is natural to a smaller setting and is more meaningful...

THE PROFESSORS
According to Anglican evangelist David Watson, “For the first two centuries, the church met in small groups in the homes of its members, apart from special gatherings in public lecture halls or market places, where people could come together in much larger numbers. Significantly these two centuries mark the most powerful and vigorous advance of the church, which perhaps has never seen been equaled. The lack of church buildings was no hindrance to the rapid expansion of the church; instead . . . it seemed a positive help.”[1]

A Yale University archaeology pamphlet stated, “The first Christian congregations worshipped in private houses, meeting at the homes of wealthier members on a rotating basis . . . Worship was generally conducted in (either) the atrium, or central courtyard of the house.”[2]

Graydon F. Snyder, professor of New Testament at Chicago Theological Seminary, observed that “the New Testament Church began as a small group house church (Col. 4:15), and it remained so until the middle or end of the third century. There are no evidences of larger places of meeting before 300.”[3] Again quoting Snyder, “there is no literary evidence nor archaeological indication that any such home was converted into an extant church building. Nor is there any extant church that certainly was built prior to Constantine.”[4]

The ESV Study Bible notes that “Early Christian churches, since they were small and not recognized as a legitimate (or legal) religion, met in homes . . . There is extensive archaeological evidence from many cites showing that some homes were structurally modified to hold such churches.”[5]

Martin Selman, lecturer in Old Testament at Spurgeon’s College in London, wrote that “The theme of the ‘household of God’ undoubtedly owed much to the function of the house in early Christianity as a place of meeting and fellowship (e.g. 2 Tim. 4:19; Phm. 2; 2 Jn. 10).”[6]

Reformed scholar William Hendriksen, said “since in the first and second centuries church buildings in the sense in which we think of them today were not yet in existence, families would hold services in their own homes . . . The early church numbered many hospitable members, ready and eager to offer their facilities for religious use: meetings, services, etc.”[7]

According to Anglican commentator W.H. Griffith Thomas, “For two or three centuries Christians met in private houses . . . There seems little doubt that these informal gatherings of small groups of believers had great influence in preserving the simplicity and purity of early Christianity”.[8]

In his monumental work New Testament Theology, Donald Guthrie (lecturer on New Testament at the London Bible College) wrote that “the expression ‘in church’ (en ekklésia) . . . refers to an assembly of believers. There is no suggestion of a special building. Indeed, the idea of a church as representing a building is totally alien to the NT.”[9]

Ronald Sider, in Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, made a good point. He said, “The early church was able to defy the decadent values of Roman civilization precisely because it experienced the reality of Christian fellowship in a mighty way . . . Christian fellowship meant unconditional availability to and unlimited liability for the other sisters and brothers — emotionally, financially and spiritually. When one member suffered, they all suffered. When one rejoiced, they all rejoiced (1 Cor. 12:26). When a person or church experienced economic trouble, the others shared without reservation. And when a brother or sister fell into sin, the others gently restored the straying person (Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:5-11; Gal. 6:1-3). The sisters and brothers were available to each other, liable for each other and accountable to each other. The early church, of course, did not always fully live out the New Testament vision of the body of Christ. There were tragic lapses. But the network of tiny house churches scattered throughout the Roman Empire did experience their oneness in Christ so vividly that they were able to defy and eventually conquer a powerful, pagan civilization. The overwhelming majority of churches today, however, do not provide the context in which brothers and sisters can encourage, admonish and disciple each other. We desperately need new settings and structures for watching over one another in love.”[10]

THE PROOF
The word church (ekklésia) in the New Testament never refers to a building. It fundamentally means assembly, gathering, meeting or congregation.[11] It is clear from Scripture that the early church met in the private homes of its more affluent members.[12] For example Philemon, who was wealthy enough to own a slave, also hosted the church in his home (Phlm 2b). Church hostess Lydia was a prosperous businesswoman who sold expensive purple fabric and could afford servants (Ac 16:14). A church met in the home of Aquila and Priscilla who engaged in the lucrative first century trade of tent making (Ac 18:1-3). Gaius, a man with the means to generously support missionaries (3Jn 1-5), had a home big enough to host the whole church (Ro 16:23). Less well known is the fact that the early church continued this practice of house churches for hundreds of years after the New Testament writings were completed. What are we to do with the fact that the early church met mostly in homes?
(A Little History of the 1st Century Church)

and so on and soon, there is so much history about this and the norm of Christian gathering for about the first 300 years it is staggering.

But those who are biased and have vested interest in maintaining their large pagan style buildings and calling then :churches' will find an argument against this.

scripture is clear, no church buildings but rather a spiritual house built up with living stones the church, which is the body of Christ and Jesus Christ is the head of that body.

Presbyterian Continuist · Feb 21, 2017

DrBubbaLove said:
Supernatural acts occur all the time. The Eucharist occurs daily 24/7/365. Miracles at Lourdes have not ceased since the first one. Books have been written about miracles old and new. Books not just among the various "Catholic" Churches either, although in terms of sheer total volume of miracles the tide goes with the Church on this point. How many Churches have an administrative branch dedicated to researching miracles?

That Satan would attack a fledgling Church with more intensity I could imagine, but neither have those attacks ceased. I agree many Protestants have stopped believing in miracles or make excuse for them not being needed as much anymore, but there have been and always will be many more Christians than them witnessing miracles every day.
Another approach perhaps???

Having said what I said about the miraculous, I believe that the real signs, wonders, and miracles accompanied the preaching of the gospel to pagans and other unbelievers as seen in the Book of Acts. I believe that there has been a change of attitude where some churches have been quite self-indulgent in claiming miracles for their own religious "club" members instead of trusting God to do the miraculous as they go out into the community to win unbelievers to Christ. I think that is why we don't the miracles that we should be seeing in conjunction with the Church. (When I say "Church" I mean across all denominations, including the RCC).

PeaceByJesus · Feb 22, 2017

DrBubbaLove said:
So the idea is God appealed to men's hearts for correction for thousands of years. He gradually changes their notions of Justice, Mercy and Love, enough to finally hear it all from Himself..

And chose a people and nation unto whom were committed the oracles of God, to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers (Romans 3:2; 9:4-5) yet who soon were a divided kingdom, and with only a relative remnant that would recognize the next Moses as being of God. And who did so in dissent from those who sat in his seat.

While here delivering on His Promise to Abraham He sets up a Church to deliver His News to all of mankind. Gives the leadership of that Church a body of teachings along with Authority to guide that Church in teachings.

And which church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 4:4; 19:4-5; 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation of the body “unto whom were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertained "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) but who wrongly supposed lineage made them correct, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:33) and thus the authenticity of Truth claims and oral preaching of the word must be subject to the only wholly God-inspired body of Truth, the Scriptures. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28)

Which body, as progressively written, became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as is abundantly evidenced.

In the light of which, what the NT church in Scripture (as seen in Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels) did NOT profess/teach practice were such things as:

• Praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite prayer being so basic a practice that the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of approx. 200 prayers by believers, with none being addressed to anyone else but God, who alone is shown able to hear all such from Heaven. Only pagans prayed to invisible heavenly beings than God, as the Spirit is faithful to record.

• Kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods. Only pagans burned incense unto the queen of heaven: Jeremiah 44:16-17), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them
Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

• That the act of baptism itself renders souls formally justified by their own holiness so that they would directly enter Heaven if they died at the time of the baptism, but which thus means that the same (due to the outworking of their remaining sinful nature) usually have to later endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough (and atone for venial sins) to enter Heaven.

• Nor were novenas made to obtain indulgences to escape RC purgatory, as instead by effectual faith true believers are already accepted in the Beloved, and positionally seated together with Him in Heaven, and have boldness to enter into the holy of holies, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6; Heb. 10:19; cf. Phil. 3:21) and will go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. . (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul, who expressed he would go to be with the Lord at death, yet was not already perfect. (Phil. 3:10f)

And with the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life is that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

• That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints," the latter being the only believers who directly go to Heaven at death, contrary to Scripture.

• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests ," whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin.

• That the Catholic Eucharist was the paramount, supreme central practice in the life of the church, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved. For instead it is only manifestly described in one epistle (besides "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12) and in which the Catholic Eucharist is not evident, but the church is the focus as the "one bread" and the body of Christ, purchased with the sinless shed blood of Christ, whose death, and the love behind it, the church is supposed to declare by sharing food in that communal meal. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) More , by God's grace.

• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests ," whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin. Neither presbuteros or episkopos mean priest, which conflation is the result of an etymological fallacy in ecclesiastical evolution, and are not even described as officiating at the Lord's supper and dispensing the elements, much less offering them as a sacrifice for sins.
• Nor is this Catholic function taught as being a primary or unique function of the clergy, who instead are exhorted to preach the word, (2 Timothy 4:2) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) with the word of God, which is what is called spiritual "milk" and "meat" (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:13; 1 Peter 2:2) by which souls obtain spiritual life within themselves, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Ephesians 1:13) and then by which they are "nourished" (1Timothy 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)

• That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes.

• That celibacy was a requirement for clergy. Instead both apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5) and NT clergy were normatively married with children, which evidenced his qualifications for the pastorate, (1 Timothy 3;1-7) and with celibacy being a gift that not all have, ((1 Corinthians 7:7) and it is only wrongly presumed that all or almost all clergy do.

• Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning over the churches from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.

• Choosing apostolic successors (or preparations for it) as was done for Judas (n order to maintain the original number of 12: Rv. 21:14) by casting lots, (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Prov. 16:33; Leviticus 16:5,8,9-10,15-16,29-30) despite the vacancy left by the martyrdom of the apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2)

• That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (thereby infallibly declaring that she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.

More to see by God's grace.

Only to have that Work completely fail and fall apart in less than 70 years.

That is either a strawman or otherwise is an invalid statement. The church never completely failed, much less in 70 years, but saw the progressive accretion of traditions of men and adoption of "king" and carnal means of power, and religious syncretism. By the middle of the 4th century, we have a pope (Damasus 1) who began his reign by employing a gang of murderous thugs to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint."

The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…

Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin. (John Henry Newman [made a cardinal by Pope Leo III in 1879]; Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power, Chapter 8;
More more.

"When I look at that the natural order He put into Creation to the small detail, it is hard for me to imagine Him not being able to accomplish something as simple as putting together a Body of Believers and giving them both a framework and ability to maintain a Body of faithful followers until He returns. "

Indeed He can but a theology that presumes that God will do something based on on what He can do is not sound, yet God has always promised to preserved His people who believe, including in the OT, as well as punish declension, and that a (relative) remnant shall be saved, (Romns 9:27) and has preserved the remnant, only one true church, that universal body which the Lord purchased with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) for it alone only and always consists 100% of believers, whereas visible organic churches, however Scriptural, inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares., with the one true church only being the universal body.

As I Protestant and even now for them, I see only a couple alternatives to maintain that thought and explain how a body of believers with the "most Apostolic" or in their view perhaps most correct teachings arrives intact today. None of those alternatives are particularly satisfying to me.

That's history. God gives grace, which man is a steward of. The Israel seen under good leadership was not the Israel seen under bad, and your own history includes such declension (leading up to the Reformation) as that which Cardinal Ratzinger described, among others:

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196)

The idea God's Personal Act in the first century would need a human to come along and "revive" His Church is even less satisfying an explanation. Especially when many of the so called "revivals" have resulted in such a fractured body of believers.

That is also history. There were manifest revivals in Israel, and the Corinthian church and 5 out of the 7 churches in Revelation needed revival, and which means division from the impenitent. Indeed, Christ came to bring division, (Lk. 12:51) and Scripture commands division (Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you:" 2 Corinthians 6:17), and thus true believers need to leave both Catholic and liberal Protestant church to worship and be taught in a fellowship of true believers, and realize spiritual unity. And which is not in mere paper or perfunctory professions, but in heart and deed. And most evangelical converts from Catholicism testify to converting due to spiritual lack in the latter, while as separatist, evangelicals have long been found to be the most unified in basic beliefs/values, though in the promised general apostasy, this is in declension. And most evangelical converts from Catholicism testify to converting due to spiritual lack in the latter.

Paul Yohannan · Feb 22, 2017

LoveofTruth said:
and by the way I question the faith of any who worship bread as God among the faithful, as scripture forbids to do in any form

In what sense is the body and blood of our Lord not worthy of worship?

God's Order in the Church vs Man's Order

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Senior Veteran

Christ builds His church from within us

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Christ builds His church from within us

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christ builds His church from within us

Christ builds His church from within us

Well-Known Member

Christ builds His church from within us

Christ builds His church from within us

Christ builds His church from within us

Christ builds His church from within us

Senior Veteran

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Well-Known Member

Similar threads