Denominations are at odds with the true body of Christ

[pescador]

I don't attend a denominational church because they require that everyone agrees on a particular doctrine and/or statement of faith. I disagree with that approach because it isn't in agreement with the New Testament.

When the first ekklesia were formed they were groups of people, each person having been given a gift from the Holy Spirit that s/he was supposed to use for the benefit of the others. There was no clergy who determined what people were supposed to think. All who have become Christians have the Holy Spirit who will guide them into all truth. (John 16:13) There was (and is) no need for some particular "ordained" person -- we are a nation of priests -- to tell a passive audience what God has to say. That is a type of theater that was adopted by "the church" from the pagan Greco-Roman society, but it is not scriptural.

I am hoping and praying that some day the church will throw off the shackles that bind it and once again be the living, undivided body of Christ.

 

[Big Drew]

What type of church do you attend then? I'm assuming nondenom since you posted in this section, but in my experience nondenom churches have statements of faith, and adhere to a particular doctrine...I've seen some that are more Calvinist, while others are more Wesleyan...some that are charismatic, while others cessationist....and each claiming the Bible as their only source of doctrine, and sort of becoming a denomination all to themselves.

What would you say proper worship in an assembly of believers looks like?

 

[Serving Zion]

I don't attend a denominational church because they require that everyone agrees on a particular doctrine and/or statement of faith. I disagree with that approach because it isn't in agreement with the New Testament.

This isn't to judge you, but rather to introduce another point of view. I am one who goes to different churches because it encourages unity. Eg:

Romans 10:14, Daniel 12:4, Romans 10:8, John 21:17, Mark 9:35.

When the first ekklesia were formed they were groups of people, each person having been given a gift from the Holy Spirit that s/he was supposed to use for the benefit of the others. There was no clergy who determined what people were supposed to think. All who have become Christians have the Holy Spirit who will guide them into all truth. (John 16:13) There was (and is) no need for some particular "ordained" person -- we are a nation of priests -- to tell a passive audience what God has to say. That is a type theater that was adopted by "the church" from the pagan Greco-Roman society, but it is not scriptural.

I am hoping and praying that some day the church will throw off the shackles that bind it and once again be the living, undivided body of Christ.

Thank you, brother! We must encourage this, more enthusiasm to take back the kingdom from the rulers of the darkness of this age (Matthew 21:43, Ephesians 6:12).

The movement that started with the authentic disciples had no division in the doctrines. It is because men loved wickedness and refused to go near the light that their deeds be exposed, they gathered around false teachers that appealed to their lusts, becoming not servants of obedience but servants of sin (Romans 6:16) - not yielding to obedience, to remain in possession of The Holy Spirit.

The problem these days, is a prevalence of false doctrines are preventing the true doctrine of the resurrection of Christ: that Jesus Christ is alive and we do bear witness of His resurrection, seeing Him and knowing Him personally. There are many who dabble in spiritual discernment, but because they do not hold fast to the truth, become servants of sin and therefore unable to draw near to The Holy One. If they seek to worship Christ Jesus but refuse to repent that they may draw near to Him, they bear witness of an imposter spirit:

Let no one deprive you of the prize, one who takes delight in false humility and worship of messengers, taking his stand on what he has not seen, puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to The Head, from whom all The Body - nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments - grows with the growth of God.
Colossians 2:18-19

To crucify the flesh and it's passions, is to always acknowledge our error and choose to repent of it.

Isaiah 6:13 and Malachi 3:2 describes the holy path, the true doctrine of salvation that is the baptism of Christ (Luke 3:16).

 

[pescador]

What type of church do you attend then? I'm assuming nondenom since you posted in this section, but in my experience nondenom churches have statements of faith, and adhere to a particular doctrine...I've seen some that are more Calvinist, while others are more Wesleyan...some that are charismatic, while others cessationist....and each claiming the Bible as their only source of doctrine, and sort of becoming a denomination all to themselves.

What would you say proper worship in an assembly of believers looks like?

I would describe an assembly of believers as a relatively small number of Christians getting together in somebody's house or a public place such as a park and sharing how God has worked in their lives. Some might share personal stories, there might be some music, some might share prophecy, speak in tongues (with others interpreting), there might be healing, impromptu prayer, etc. It would really not be too different than a group of people getting together for a party except the emphasis would be on Jesus Christ and his workings among them. There also might be a celebratory meal, sharing, among other foods, bread and wine.

There is no such thing as "proper worship" in this setting. There would be no formal statement of faith, or adherence to a particular doctrine either.

By the way, my wife and I recently had breakfast with another Christian couple that we have known for years. We shared what Christ has done in our lives, and in the lives of our children and grandchildren. We celebrated our love for each other over 40 years, and our love for the Lord as well. That is "church".

 

[Big Drew]

I would describe an assembly of believers as a relatively small number of Christians getting together in somebody's house or a public place such as a park and sharing how God has worked in their lives. Some might share personal stories, there might be some music, some might share prophecy, speak in tongues (with others interpreting), there might be healing, impromptu prayer, etc. It would really not be too different than a group of people getting together for a party except the emphasis would be on Jesus Christ and his workings among them. There also might be a celebratory meal, sharing, among other foods, bread and wine.

There is no such thing as "proper worship" in this setting. There would be no formal statement of faith, or adherence to a particular doctrine either.

By the way, my wife and I recently had breakfast with another Christian couple that we have known for years. We shared what Christ has done in our lives, and in the lives of our children and grandchildren. We celebrated our love for each other over 40 years, and our love for the Lord as well. That is "church".

I gotcha. I do enjoy small group Bible studies and things like this. In your first post you mentioned the Church becoming unified again. How do you see this as being possible with no central episcopate or group of elders? As we both know, 10 different people can come up with 20 different interpretations of scripture.

 

[Serving Zion]

How do you see this as being possible with no central episcopate or group of elders? As we both know, 10 different people can come up with 20 different interpretations of scripture.

1 Corinthians 3:13, 1 Corinthians 4:20, Revelation 3:3.

 

[pescador]

I gotcha. I do enjoy small group Bible studies and things like this. In your first post you mentioned the Church becoming unified again. How do you see this as being possible with no central episcopate or group of elders? As we both know, 10 different people can come up with 20 different interpretations of scripture.

There is only one head of the church; his name is Jesus Christ.

In the New Testament there was no episcopate, only believers. There were elders, but their status was no higher than any other believer; there was no ordination to set them apart from the rest of the group. They were respected for their age and wisdom, similar to that of a grandparent. People were given authority to do certain things by the laying on of hands but as Paul said, they were considered to be "at the end of the procession".

We have all been given God's grace so interpretation of scripture is possible for everyone as God reveals it to them. No appointed priest or pastor should be regarded as an authority, higher than anyone else. There is one priesthood: the body of believers.

 

[Big Drew]

There is only one head of the church; his name is Jesus Christ.

In the New Testament there was no episcopate, only believers. There were elders, but their status was no higher than any other believer; there was no ordination to set them apart from the rest of the group. They were respected for their age and wisdom, similar to that of a grandparent. People were given authority to do certain things by the laying on of hands but as Paul said, they were considered to be "at the end of the procession".

We have all been given God's grace so interpretation of scripture is possible for everyone as God reveals it to them. No appointed priest or pastor should be regarded as an authority, higher than anyone else. There is one priesthood: the body of believers.

I agree that Jesus is the head of the church.

I disagree that the elders had no higher status...if we use the example of the Apostles and the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 we see that they had authority over the church, as directed by the Holy Spirit. In Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus he is writing to men who are pastors/bishops/overseers/elders, so there is indeed an order to things. In the eyes of God a believer is a believer...but we all need a leader or mentor we can turn to. I'm sure you have someone you admire and respect their view on things, and it has helped to shape yours...just as we all do.

I would say there has to be leadership of some sort, because if we expect all men to rely on their own interpretations of scripture...well...we get the 40,0000 denominations we have today.

And, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're incorrect in the way you choose to worship, I just don't see how your view would work, logistically when there are billions of people on the earth...we can hope and pray that they will all go down the correct path, but there's no way to believe that they would, given history.

I currently attend a nondenominational church...but the church has a board of elders to make sure no one representing the church is spreading any sort of doctrine that doesn't line up with their beliefs, which they believe to be based on the Bible.

I fear that if a church doesn't have some sort of governance then that would result in spiritual anarchy, which again, in many respects, is what we have in the Church today.

 

[FireDragon76]

Unless you are talking about Quakers or certain Brethren groups or Emergent groups, that kind of Christianity doesn't exist anywhere. And my guess is you'ld generally find those types too liberal.

 

[alex2165]

Hi guys.

Many people are searching for a perfect church, but would never find it.

It is not about the church as a building in which people congregate, and not about their doctrines, and dogmas and often lies and the greed of the church, but it is about to find someone or some people who believe to every word written in the Book and follow it.

Christ said to Peter: “.And I also say to you that you are Peter (Rock, Stone), and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” Matthew 16.18.

So the true church of Christ is not in Vatican, and is not somewhere else on Earth, but in the heart of every true Christian (Temple of GOD).

It seems that in the eyes of GOD, all who have similar qualities as Peter, no matter where they are on the face of the Earth that is the true and only Church of GOD.

And sometimes indeed, such people like Peter can find one another and have together wonderful time, and on such people like Peter Jesus Christ and built His church, and in this case Peter is the foundation, on which such church of Christ is built.

And while such people like Peter are far apart from one another and spread all over the face of the Earth,, they are spiritually connected together in their unity, righteousness, truthfulness, and faith in GOD, and according to their deeds of faith, they are count by their Lord, each and every one of them, as His only church and true worshipers, literally sons of GOD.

 

[pescador]

I agree that Jesus is the head of the church.

I disagree that the elders had no higher status...if we use the example of the Apostles and the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 we see that they had authority over the church, as directed by the Holy Spirit. In Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus he is writing to men who are pastors/bishops/overseers/elders, so there is indeed an order to things. In the eyes of God a believer is a believer...but we all need a leader or mentor we can turn to. I'm sure you have someone you admire and respect their view on things, and it has helped to shape yours...just as we all do.

I would say there has to be leadership of some sort, because if we expect all men to rely on their own interpretations of scripture...well...we get the 40,0000 denominations we have today.

And, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're incorrect in the way you choose to worship, I just don't see how your view would work, logistically when there are billions of people on the earth...we can hope and pray that they will all go down the correct path, but there's no way to believe that they would, given history.

I currently attend a nondenominational church...but the church has a board of elders to make sure no one representing the church is spreading any sort of doctrine that doesn't line up with their beliefs, which they believe to be based on the Bible.

I fear that if a church doesn't have some sort of governance then that would result in spiritual anarchy, which again, in many respects, is what we have in the Church today.

I believe that you aren't reading Acts 15 carefully enough. 1) It says, "So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question." (Paul, Barnabas, and other believers, i.e., a group of people who were appointed..."; they had no special status beforehand. 2) "When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders", in other words, by everybody. 3) "The apostles and elders met to consider the question" doesn't mean they had special authority, 4) "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them", 5) "Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers." The whole church chose these men who were leaders. If they already had been given authority, why did the whole church have to choose whom to send? 6) " Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers (not by a special committee) with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch.

Clearly this shows that there were no "ordained clergy" who functioned in a governing capacity. In this whole scenario, the church chose people to represent them, which wouldn't have been necessary if they already had official titles.

When you say, "In Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus he is writing to men who are pastors/bishops/overseers/elders, so there is indeed an order to things". 1) Timothy and Titus are not pastors/bishops/overseers/elders. They are Paul's partners in church building and planting. 2) These are positions of service to the church, they are not ordained positions of authority. They were chosen because they were men of character -- read the qualifications! -- who could set a good example and thereby influence the church body in a positive direction.

You also say, "the church has a board of elders to make sure no one representing the church is spreading any sort of doctrine that doesn't line up with their beliefs, which they believe to be based on the Bible". That's a pretty good description of a denomination in my opinion.

The original ekklesia were gatherings of people of equal status under one authority: Jesus Christ, the sole head of the church. There was no formal hierarchy of people who were given authority over others.

 

[Big Drew]

I believe that you aren't reading Acts 15 carefully enough. 1) It says, "So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question." (Paul, Barnabas, and other believers, i.e., a group of people who were appointed..."; they had no special status beforehand. 2) "When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders", in other words, by everybody. 3) "The apostles and elders met to consider the question" doesn't mean they had special authority, 4) "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them", 5) "Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers." The whole church chose these men who were leaders. If they already had been given authority, why did the whole church have to choose whom to send? 6) " Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers (not by a special committee) with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch.

Clearly this shows that there were no "ordained clergy" who functioned in a governing capacity. In this whole scenario, the church chose people to represent them, which wouldn't have been necessary if they already had official titles.

When you say, "In Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus he is writing to men who are pastors/bishops/overseers/elders, so there is indeed an order to things". 1) Timothy and Titus are not pastors/bishops/overseers/elders. They are Paul's partners in church building and planting. 2) These are positions of service to the church, they are not ordained positions of authority. They were chosen because they were men of character -- read the qualifications! -- who could set a good example and thereby influence the church body in a positive direction.

You also say, "the church has a board of elders to make sure no one representing the church is spreading any sort of doctrine that doesn't line up with their beliefs, which they believe to be based on the Bible". That's a pretty good description of a denomination in my opinion.

The original ekklesia were gatherings of people of equal status under one authority: Jesus Christ, the sole head of the church. There was no formal hierarchy of people who were given authority over others.

If what you say is correct then why the need for Apostles or Elders? If there is no need to keep order within the church then there are no need for positions of authority. If there is no significance to the position or calling then why the need to separate them in the scripture we're discussing? If the church as a whole can make all the decisions together, then why did Paul and Barnabas specifically go to the Apostles on these matters? Couldn't they just have stood before the Church and said, "Okay, guys, do gentiles get circumcised or not? Let's vote by a show of hands." Now, I do believe that a good elder will consult the congregation and that they work together...but there still has to be leadership...with no leadership there is anarchy, and that leads to confusion...which we know, God is not the author of.

 

[pescador]

If what you say is correct then why the need for Apostles or Elders? If there is no need to keep order within the church then there are no need for positions of authority. If there is no significance to the position or calling then why the need to separate them in the scripture we're discussing? If the church as a whole can make all the decisions together, then why did Paul and Barnabas specifically go to the Apostles on these matters? Couldn't they just have stood before the Church and said, "Okay, guys, do gentiles get circumcised or not? Let's vote by a show of hands." Now, I do believe that a good elder will consult the congregation and that they work together...but there still has to be leadership...with no leadership there is anarchy, and that leads to confusion...which we know, God is not the author of.

I'm afraid you're "mixing apples and oranges". Have you ever heard of leading by example? Or is everything regulated by people "in authority"? Apostles were church planters, they were not the heads of any particular "churches". Paul, who referred to himself as a servant of God. led by persuasion, but he had no right to go to any ekklesia and say "I'm in charge". Paul and Barnabas went to the church leaders for approval of their activities, but the church leaders had no authority over them (or even over their own "church"). Leadership and anarchy are entirely different things. There can be anarchy with or without leadership if the leaderships lacks the art of persuasion. It is not the role of the church leadership to rule over anyone.

As I have said before there is one head of the church: Jesus Christ. The head rules the body but no other part rules any other part. The idea of a hierarchical, authoritative leadership comes straight from the Roman philosophy of ruling people and was not present in the church prior to Constantine. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire, the emperor established church leadership hierarchy according to the Roman government model. [Staff edit].

 

[Big Drew]

I'm afraid you're "mixing apples and oranges". Have you ever heard of leading by example? Or is everything regulated by people "in authority"? Apostles were church planters, they were not the heads of any particular "churches". Paul, who described himself as referred to himself as a servant of God. lead by persuasion, but he had no right to go to any ekklesia and say "I'm in charge". Paul and Barnabas went to the church leaders for approval of their activities, but the church leaders had no authority over them (or even over their own "church"). Leadership and anarchy are entirely different things. There can be anarchy with or without leadership if the leaderships lacks the art of persuasion. It is not the role of the church leadership to rule over anyone.

As I have said before there is one head of the church: Jesus Christ. The head rules the body but no other part rules any other part. The idea of a hierarchical, authoritative leadership comes straight from the Roman philosophy of ruling people and was not present in the church prior to Constantine. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire, the emperor established church leadership hierarchy according to the Roman government model.

[Staff edit] I believe you're reading more into what I'm saying than what I am actually saying. I'm not calling for a dictatorial hierarchy or anything like that...I just believe we have to have order...we have to make sure the flock is not being lead astray. There's not someone going around spreading false doctrine in the name of the church... that's what being in church leadership is about, keeping God's children safe. Jesus is the Head, but he places people here to "feed His sheep."

 

[pescador]

I believe you're reading more into what I'm saying than what I am actually saying. I'm not calling for a dictatorial hierarchy or anything like that...I just believe we have to have order...we have to make sure the flock is not being lead astray. There's not someone going around spreading false doctrine in the name of the church...that's what being in church leadership is about, keeping God's children safe. Jesus is the Head, but he places people here to "feed His sheep."

[Staff edit]. Jesus said that he alone is the shepherd of his sheep. Does it make any sense to deputize sheep to rule the flock in his absence?

 

[Big Drew]

Jesus said that he alone is the shepherd of his sheep. Does it make any sense to deputize sheep to rule the flock in his absence?

Yes, yes it does...or else the sheep will be chasing after every doctrine that tickles their ears.

Do you think there were no leaders at all in the NT?

 

[Big Drew]

John 21:17

He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.

 

[pescador]

John 21:17

1) Yes, yes it does...or else the sheep will be chasing after every doctrine that tickles their ears.

Do you think there were no leaders at all in the NT?

2) He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.

1) Sheep follow the shepherd only. There are "wolves" who try to deceive the sheep, so they must listen to the shepherd only. Of course there were leaders the same as there are leaders of a flock of sheep. They are trusted and followed, but they have no authority. Only the shepherd has authority.

2) Jesus did indeed say "Feed my sheep". He did not say "Rule over my sheep". If you have ever kept livestock you would understand the difference. Peter was a "hired hand" to take care of somebody else's sheep, but he had no authority over them since they belonged to somebody else.

When my wife and I leave our ranch we ask others to feed our horses. That doesn't give them any authority over our horses (or us). We are the owners and when we return we will begin taking care of our own horses again.

 

[pescador]

Unless you are talking about Quakers or certain Brethren groups or Emergent groups, that kind of Christianity doesn't exist anywhere. And my guess is you'ld generally find those types too liberal.

Too liberal??

 

[Big Drew]

1) Sheep follow the shepherd only. There are "wolves" who try to deceive the sheep, so they must listen to the shepherd only. Of course there were leaders the same as there are leaders of a flock of sheep. They are trusted and followed, but they have no authority. Only the shepherd has authority.

2) Jesus did indeed say "Feed my sheep". He did not say "Rule over my sheep". If you have ever kept livestock you would understand the difference. Peter was a "hired hand" to take care of somebody else's sheep, but he had no authority over them since they belonged to somebody else.

When my wife and I leave our ranch we ask others to feed our horses. That doesn't give them any authority over our horses (or us). We are the owners and when we return we will begin taking care of our own horses again.

So, I think the problem here is that you think that I'm saying people fall under the authority of other people...I'm really not saying anything different than you are. I used to have horses, so I understand your analogy...and I know that when one of my horses got out of the fence, I would have to go bring them back...but there were also other folks that I trusted to do this for me if I wasn't there. And that's exactly what I'm saying church leadership does, watches over the flock in the Lord's absence.

Now, that I believe we have that cleared up.

How do we have unity when there are so many different ideas about what scripture teaches us? Especially when each one believes they are being lead by the Holy Spirit in forming their beliefs.

As you say there are wolves that are sent in to deceive the sheep...the sheep listen to the Shepherd, but in the absence of the Shepherd, isn't it the job of the "hired hand" to make sure the sheep are not deceived?