.

[Gwen-is-new!]

CHURCH IS NOT REQUIRED FOR WORSHIP
John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

John 4: 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

CHURCH IS NOT REQUIRED TO LEARN OF GOD
Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

CHURCH IS NOT REQUIRED TO PARTAKE OF CHRIST
1 Corinthians 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.

CHURCH IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SAVED
1 Corinthians 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

CHURCH IS FOR MINISTRY AND THOSE WHO NEED IT – IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT
1 Corinthians 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

I don't think anyone was implying that you had to go to church to be saved, learn, or even worship. What do you mean by "those who need it"? Who would that be and who wouldn't that be?

 

[Extraneous]

Can you provide some examples of church causing one to stumble?

No, sorry i cannot, because its against the forum rules to discuss such things.

 

[Gwen-is-new!]

He opens the Bible and preaches from it. He brings God's truth to the sheep, and that is vital. "You shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord."

Wow, that would be amazing!! I'm wondering if they are discouraging/training the pastors coming out of seminary to open their bible and preach from it? I'd be okay if they held their bible via kindle/Ipad, but I'm not even seeing that!

I've only had one pastor in 15 yrs who viewed himself as the Shepard of a flock.

 

[Gwen-is-new!]

No, because its against the forum rules to discuss such things.

oh dang, I truly was looking for examples of stumbling.. I guess you mean theologically/doctrinal.. I was thinking gossipers, slanders, etc.. and I was also thinking just people, in general, can cause me to stumble - being in a spiritual battle and all

 

[Extraneous]

oh dang, I truly was looking for examples of stumbling.. I guess you mean theologically/doctrinal.. I was thinking gossipers, slanders, etc.. and I was also thinking just people, in general, can cause me to stumble - being in a spiritual battle and all

I was referring to stumbling in joy and peace. Its like Paul says- "the kingdom is about peace and joy in the spirit, so lets not judge or despise one another". (my paraphrase) (Romans 14)

 

[sunlover1]

Paul's writings were included, but not considered scriptures. He made it clear they were epistles.
Other scriptures were the OT.
Certainly Peter wasnt saying anyone being 'taught' by the Bishops, the ordained, or the Apostles themselves - were ignorant, but those who for themselves... wrested them.
Wrested is the original English word for wrestling with.

The Apostles did not say they were writings scriptures.
Paul's Epistles were the correct term which means letters.
Why would Peter write it twice?
The same word?

In fact, the Apostles writings were held, maintained, carried, and rewritten many times by the original Church by monks [until a printing press] - and it was not until the late 300's that the Pope and a couple now saints discussed which were accurately written... because by late 300's - gnostic writings found their way into the mix. BUT because God chose the chair of Peter - the Church abided by HIS decision which would be canon, and by HIS decision that it was true, accurate and inerrant.
Nobody else had the power to say that or do that

Here you are, quoting the text hand picked and chosen by the chair of Peter in 380 + AD and believe you understand it better. And you believe the same line of Peter's chair is unable to accurately understand those same writings. Hmmm

I find it ironic, AT the very least.

??
You interpret however you like
To me, it shows that Peter considers it 'scripture'.

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,
which ignorant and unstable people distort,
as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Wow, that would be amazing

It's only amazing in that, after being at 100 churches, there are sadly very few who preach the texts of scripture. Most do a Tonight Show monologs followed by a few personal stories and some life lessons.

I've only had one pastor in 15 yrs who viewed himself as the Shepard of a flock.

Consider yourself fortunate.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I don't think anyone was implying that you had to go to church to be saved, learn, or even worship.

Correct. No one here said that, least of all me; however, it's what some people hear when you discuss this subject.

 

[Gwen-is-new!]

Is it safe to say that attending church is as optional as getting baptized (believer's baptism just to clarify).. They both seem to be commanded and done out of obedience, but are not required for salvation, and the lack thereof IS NOT a good sign of assurance of one's salvation?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Is it safe to say that attending church is as optional as getting baptized (believer's baptism just to clarify).. They both seem to be commanded and done out of obedience, but are not required for salvation, and the lack thereof IS NOT a good sign of assurance of one's salvation?

If I told my wife that it's not required that we live in the same house or even same state in order to be married, would that sound odd to her? Would she swoon with love if I said that?

While it's true that, baptism or church membership are not required to be saved, shunning church is as odd as my saying that I love my wife and honor my vows to her, yet live in Chicago and never want to see her. (Can you tell that we don't live in Chicago )

 

[sunlover1]

It's only amazing in that, after being at 100 churches, there are sadly very few who preach the texts of scripture. Most do a Late Night monolog followed by a few personal stories and some life lessons.



Consider yourself fortunate.

This ^ is why it makes no sense to try to force others to join one of the clubs.
IMO

 

[FanthatSpark]

I don't follow.

thatbrian ,

Our duality ... John 8:42-47, concentration on 43 & 46. One can go literal or one can apply it to self and/or the church. Our minds are in default mode of judgment "Who convinceth me I sin".

The "who" relates to mankind. The OP talks of church yet there are two distinctions of church. OT church and NT church of self (Fishing for men... minds/hearts ). A thing seen... Different churches with people ate up in the Spirit . However, our sanctification (for those that can) , is between us and God. The church/training matters not to God, it is what we bring to it . love or strife.

 

[Simon Crosby]

Is being joined to a local body of believers, and under the authority of the church, optional or manditory for a Christian?

Is it personal preference, like toppings on a pizza, or is it obligatory and fundament for all Christians?

We are saved through our membership in the Church. We must be baptized in the church and receive her sacraments.

However, some of us live too far away from a church. Also, in some traditions, like Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, very advanced monastics can, with the permission of their spiritual father, seek permission to be hermits and live a solitary life. They remain members of the Church however, and some of them occasionally receive the Sacraments, and we are talking about people who spend all their time praying. An example would be Fr. Lazarus el-Antony, an Australian convert to the Coptic church, who after many years of monastic service, was allowed to live as a hermit.

Unlike most of the early hermits, he is also a priest, and celebrates the Eucharist nightly in the cave of St. Anthony. St. Anthony however and most of his peers were not priests, and were very seldom visited by one; the institution of the monastic priest, or hieromonk, came much later.

I think Anglicanism, on the extreme Anglo Catholic end of the spectrum of churchmanship, may have had one or two hermits.

It must be remembered though: hermits, although not members of a local church, are members of the Church, and are typically under the authority of a monastic abbot or diocesan bishop.

 

[Extraneous]

Ye are saved by Faith. Faith commeth by hearing, hearing by the Word.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Is being joined to a local body of believers, and under the authority of the church, optional or manditory for a Christian?

Is it personal preference, like toppings on a pizza, or is it obligatory and fundament for all Christians?

Define the word "church" in biblical context.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is it safe to say that attending church is as optional as getting baptized (believer's baptism just to clarify).. They both seem to be commanded and done out of obedience, but are not required for salvation, and the lack thereof IS NOT a good sign of assurance of one's salvation?

Coming from a Lutheran POV such a view of Holy Baptism is dangerous, in that it sees Baptism as a sacrificial act rather than a Sacrament. Sacrificial acts are things we do for God, offering ourselves in praise, thanksgiving, etc. Baptism, however, is never treated this way in Scripture; Scripture repeatedly speaks of Baptism not as our work, but as God's work; what happens in Baptism is what God does for us. So, when we read in Romans 6 that all who have been baptized have been baptized into Christ's death, the Scriptures mean what they say on this point.

Therefore to say that Baptism is optional is simply not in line with the consistent witness of Holy Scripture. This isn't to say that without Baptism as person can't be or isn't saved--we can't say that--but neither is it optional if we are to trust God's written word.

Attending church is different, though I can't see how we could call it optional. We don't gather because by our gathering we merit something from God and this wins us divine brownie points. Rather, Scripture confesses that the Church is the locus of where God and His people have encounter, God encounters His people through Word and Sacrament. By refusing to be part of this holy communion of God's people we are depriving ourselves of where and how God has promised to be present through Word and Sacrament. It's like a sick person refusing to go to a hospital, even though hospitals are the places where one will receive medical care for what ails them. The Church is the hospital for sinners, it's where the Great Physician has promised to be, and His Word and Sacraments are the medicine for what ails us.

Can God be present elsewhere? Of course He can. By saying "We know where God has said He would be and how He would act" is not to say "God won't and can't act elsewhere or in other ways"; but it is worth seriously considering why we would choose not to be where God has said He would be.

And I feel I must make this point clear: By talking about where God said He would be, I'm not talking about the church building. It isn't the wood or stone, the windows, the paraments, or any of these things that make the Church the Church, it is Word and Sacrament. If the Faithful gather in a cave, if there is Word and Sacrament, then there the Church is. These things are the Means through which God ministers to us with His Gospel, it's where we hear and receive forgiveness of sins, are comforted with the assurance of God's love for us in Christ, are fed the life-giving body and blood of the Lord, hearing His gracious, comforting, saving Word.

The issue is not "What do we need to do to be saved?" Because the answer to that is nothing. There's nothing we can do. Because it's not about Law, but Gospel. It's about the promises of God, the grace of God, the generosity and kindness of God--that God has promised these things for us, that we might be comforted, forgiven, have confidence and assurance in Christ on His account. So the issue shouldn't be "What must I do, what requirements must I meet? etc" But rather, "What has God promised?" And trusting in God's Word and promises, hearing, receiving, confessing in faith of these promises. We are knit together by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ because it is here where Christ is, for us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gwen-is-new!]

Scripture repeatedly speaks of Baptism not as our work, but as God's work; what happens in Baptism is what God does for us. So, when we read in Romans 6 that all who have been baptized have been baptized into Christ's death, the Scriptures mean what they say on this point.
-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for replying and proclaiming the Good News!

I thought the 2 would make a good compare/contrast I didn't know anything "happens" at baptism - I thought it was a public profession and a symbol of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (not to downplay it's significance, of course!). I will study the scriptures more on this one.

To me, church definitely is NOT optional, but I will also admit that I grew up unchurched, so it's a sensitive and personal area to me (outside of scripture), and I still struggle with forgiving my parents for NOT taking me and exposing me to His AMAZING Word - a form of child abuse IMHO.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Define the word "church" in biblical context.

"Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul." (Acts 13:1)

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I thought it was a public profession

I thought the same thing for more than 20 years, but read every scripture that refers to baptism, and be prepared to have a paradigm shift.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Is it safe to say that attending church is as optional as getting baptized (believer's baptism just to clarify).. They both seem to be commanded and done out of obedience, but are not required for salvation, and the lack thereof IS NOT a good sign of assurance of one's salvation?

It was Apostolic practice to baptize those who professed faith, having gladly professed faith (Acts 2.41) and it's recorded that new believers 'continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers' (Acts 2.42). It seems to have been the case of willingness implied and expected.