Is not going to church a sin?

[holo]

What is "not being flawlwss"? Being imperfect, opposite of perfection. Can be doing it right, of knowing how it's done right, attempting to do it right, but not alway perfect yet striving to be perfect. Maybe sometimes perfect in all ways, but not always.

Her quote was:
But yes, I do think there are a lot of things the church doesn't get right.

Yes, and don't you agree?

 

[rosiecotton]

Well Rosie Cotton I finally found you a pick of a black forest Gateau;

Wow!!! You can gain 5 pounds just by looking at it!!!

 

[Psalms34]

Yes, and don't you agree?

No I don't. Some churches do get it right. They don't need to be perfect to get it right.

 

[Koey]

No I don't. Some churches do get it right. They don't need to be perfect to get it right.

I quite agree with that statement. What is right? I suppose the real question is, what is salvation? Is it only available in traditionalism, apostolic succesionism, Catholicism, Orthdoxy, tongues speaking, immersionism, Sabbatarianism or is it only available in Jesus?

I believe that those churches that get it right, don't just use Jesus' name, don't just give lip service, but actually teach salvation in Jesus as their orthodoxy and doing what Jesus taught as their orthopraxy.

Anything else is far inferior by comparison.

 

[ANM29]

God did not ordain religious institutions (as we know them today) and Paul's instructions were to the Body of Believers NOT the religious institution. The "Churches" planted by Paul, et al, were new bodies of Believers responding to the preaching of the Gospel and not religious institutions.

 

[ANM29]

Being a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ has nothing to do with being a member of a religious institution. Jesus did not establish the religious institutions. He called out followers. The religious institutions ("church") with all its doctrine, dogma, rules, regulations, traditions and properties were established by man apparently in an effort to have something more tangible than an invisible God. IMO the religious institution, by being self-centered, has done more to damage the cause of Christ than Satan could have ever hoped for. Certainly there are some Believers in religious institutions but I believe those churches that help them grow are rare.

 

[ANM29]

You are quite right! Church means any gathering of believers, OR it can mean what believers have done institutionally to their fellows to cajole, manipulate, keep people in line and preserve human control. It is the latter that has caused all our problems.

It is good to know somebody out there really gets 'it'......

 

[ANM29]

I quite agree with that statement. What is right? I suppose the real question is, what is salvation? Is it only available in traditionalism, apostolic succesionism, Catholicism, Orthdoxy, tongues speaking, immersionism, Sabbatarianism or is it only available in Jesus?

I believe that those churches that get it right, don't just use Jesus' name, don't just give lip service, but actually teach salvation in Jesus as their orthodoxy and doing what Jesus taught as their orthopraxy.

Anything else is far inferior by comparison.

 

[ANM29]

And not only that - when I meet with fellow believers, we learn from each other, exhort one another, praise the Lord together, pray, have communion (actual meals, not the symbolic sip of lemonade and a cracker) and so forth. It may not outwardly resemble your average sunday service, but so what?

So yes, we're pretty much church, and the pub we're sitting in is hence our church building. Which is wonderful - it's occupied by believers as well as sinners, and we don't have to pay rent. But for some reason, most christians simply refuse to see it as "church" and demands that we all go to "church." I really don't know what it would take for you to recognize us as a real church. What if we created a membership system? Or elected one of us pastor, perhaps? Or started organizing it? Paying a few of us? Registering us as an organization?

But hey, it doesn't matter too much, because we're not called to satisfy some western christitian traditional idea of what church is, but to BE church, to BE His. I'm tired of having to answer to all sorts of christian "authority" for not fitting into, or supporting, a certain way of organizing the Body.

and AMEN again........We are the 'church' ...................

 

[ANM29]

Assembling together is any body of believes together, wherever.......We are the the church, not the building we go into...

 

[Nadiine]

I hate to tell you, but it's not just "we're the church", so don't bother with going to a real church.

Scripture refers to the corporate church assembly as well. The system is established by God and Paul teaches the proper structure for gathering. That was already relayed here earlier so when I get time I'll dig it back up & quote it.

Ignoring God's instructions becuz you prefer to stay home on Sundays & watch tv isn't helpful. This is what's happening today - more and more are unchurched and we wonder why we see so much false teaching and doctrinal ignorance going on.

People who refuse to go or don't want to bother with church are showing a spiritual issue as far as I'm concerned. It could be rebellion or apathy or something else.

 

[holo]

People who refuse to go or don't want to bother with church are showing a spiritual issue as far as I'm concerned. It could be rebellion or apathy or something else.

True. It seems like they've forgotten what church is all about, what church is. For example, one alcoholic I chatted with complained that there are literally hundreds of churches in this town, and some of them have several thousand members, but he never saw even one of them come to him for as much as a chat.

Personally, I don't think it's rebellion, but apathy mixed up with a false and traditional view of what church and service is all about. So it's not that they prefer to stay at home on sundays, they just prefer going to the church house instead, not making the slightes more difference in anybody's life than if they'd just stayed at home.

 

[Nadiine]

No, it's not. Sorry, but Paul's writing clearly establish the existence of the local church. In I Corinthians 11:20, believers are admonished for "meeting together" (Greek sunerchomai) with divisions among them. Paul does not admonish them for having a meeting place or an attitude of community, which is what a church is. He admonishes them for failing to live up to the purpose of the church, the word ekkesia which he uses in v. 18 just before this admonition. In 1 Thessalonians 1:1, he again uses ekkesia and does he admonish the elievers for being a community? No, he offers them grace and peace as a local church. His pastoral letters reinforced his instruction to Timothy as the pastor of a local church, not an itinerate preacher living and working in the streets.Really? Then why did He use the same word ekklesia three times in Matthew?

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Matthew 16:18)

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church to ; and if he refuses to listen even to the church , let him be to you as a Gentile and a taxcollector. (Matthew 18:17)

If Jesus didn't establish the local church (and you cannot differentiate between the "local" church and the doctrine to which it adheres) He would not have used the word ekklesia in both these passages. Jesus called His followers to draw together in local assemblies for worship, for instruction and for accountability. To leave it to the body as a whole would have been ludicrous, as any of those things without assembly is impossible.That may be true of some factions of the universal church, but to abandon the concept based on the erroneous focus of some is cutting your nose off to spite your face.That's balogne. Obviously in the first Matthew passage above, He clearly stated that "His church" would be built, not on Peter, but on the kind of faith Peter expressed two verses earlier. Jesus clearly established "the church" as He promised. In the rest of the New Testament, ekkesia designates the community of Christian disciples who gathered at least weekly for common liturgy and prayer. "Church" is used 62 times in the letters attributed to Paul, most often to denote the local Christian community or clusters of them (Rom 16:4; 1 Cor 1:2, 14:33; 2 Cor 8:18; Gal 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1), or occasionally to refer to the whole church (Gal 1:13; 1 Cor 12:28) in a universal, cosmic sense (Col 1:24; Eph 5:29).Of Paul's 13 letters (I do not count Hebrews) 10 of them were addressed to local churches. If they didn't "establish them," Paul wouldn't have been writing to them, other than to instruct them to disband as being contrary to the Lord's will.

What you have a problem with is not "church" but denominationalism, and I agree there are denominations that twist, warp and pervert the will of the Lord for His body. But that is true of individuals as well as denominations, and we don't cast out misguided members of the body simply for being misguided.

Paul, Silas,and Barnabas planted churches. Timothy, Trophimus, and Clement pastored churches and even the venerable John was the pastor at Ephesus before his exile. Paul gave us guidelines for the church office. Yout contention that "man" established churches in contravention of God's will denies the biblical evidence. I'll stick to the Bible, thanks. I think I can trust it more than the opinions of men.

These bear repeating.

Being "anti church" is the problem and that's mostly what I see in the attitude of plenty of people today refusing to go for whatever excuses they drum up not to go.

It's turned into an anti church movement - people who refuse to go and attack those who do for being 'hypocrites, cliques, gossipers"...... pretty much SINNERS... as if they aren't themselves?

As my favorite saying goes, "if you find the perfect church, please don't go, you'll only spoil it for the others".

Bottom line is, people don't want to go in many if not most cases. So be it.

 

[holo]

Being "anti church" is the problem and that's mostly what I see in the attitude of plenty of people today refusing to go for whatever excuses they drum up not to go.

I don't think people are looking for "excuses" not to go, as much as they're missing reasons to go. Having an "excuse" not to go means that you think you should go, but you don't want to. I don't think the first christians felt this obligation to go to church like you suggest we should have. I think it was a natural thing for them to assemble, just like it's a natural thing for me and my friends to assemble.

Do you really think your church, or most other organized churches around, resemble the first bunch of believers very much? I don't.

Bottom line is, people don't want to go in many if not most cases. So be it.

And why don't they want to go, that's the question.

 

[Mickey1953]

I believe this was mentioned before that churches were in houses.... Peters house was one....

Excavations of First Century House
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/baptism.html#Synagogue

also on the same web site:

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/church.html

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer…All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. (Acts 2:42, 44-45)​

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had…And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/5

The early church was full of love-they "had all things in common".....

http://www.liturgica.com/html/litEChLitJ.jsp?hostname=null

Most scholars agree that the structure of Christian worship came almost directly from the Synagogue form of Jewish worship.

http://www.progressiveu.org/235552-...n-the-bible-why-are-some-judged-for-not-going

.....the Bible doesn't say much about the necessity of going to church regularly, but it does say some things. One of the most important reasons, I think, is mentioned in Hebrews 10:25. The writer of this book says, to the believers, "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another."

The purpose of meeting together is not only to worship God, but also to be encouraged by other believers.


​

 

[Mickey1953]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_not_going_to_church_a_sin

No. It is not a sin. It is best to keep fellowship with other believers becasue the more you will hear and read the Word, pray, and worship God in the spirit with others. At home you would not do it as often as you should. In Hebrews 10:25 it says "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another, so much the more as ye see the day approaching."

As I shared before, I believe not attending is not a sin... but it keeps you spiritually supported and fed...

Being a follower from Jesus' time meant others care came before your own needs. And old barriers between people were broken down - slavery, gender, and race...
And though we should, that is a hard act today for us to follow...and though our church is imperfect, it does pretty good. I encourage attending a church...
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sanserif]
[/FONT]

 

[ANM29]

True. It seems like they've forgotten what church is all about, what church is. For example, one alcoholic I chatted with complained that there are literally hundreds of churches in this town, and some of them have several thousand members, but he never saw even one of them come to him for as much as a chat.

Personally, I don't think it's rebellion, but apathy mixed up with a false and traditional view of what church and service is all about. So it's not that they prefer to stay at home on sundays, they just prefer going to the church house instead, not making the slightes more difference in anybody's life than if they'd just stayed at home.

Halo brother, You actually GET IT..

When you are a follower of Christ, you are free to lead wherever God leads you..There is no ONE WAY of anything with God...

There is freedom in Christ and all are free to be lead by the Holy Spirit and live life how God would have for them. If you like a organized religion, go for it.....If you like home gatherings, go for it...You are not saved by whether or not you go to a local building...You are the church and everywhere you go you should be 'walking ministry' in action..That is what being a CHristian is, not thinking your association at a certain place makes you one...

 

[Nadiine]

Ya, lets just keep attacking that church & all the horrific people who hate everybody and just want to form cliques & gossip & be hypocritical...

I do get sick of it - it's Satan's job to do that if anyone needs reminding.

If this is how we treat our family in Christ, I'm worried. It's sad when nonbelievers are treated better than God's family.
Sometimes with some people I can't even tell which family they're from

 

[Nadiine]

Halo brother, You actually GET IT..

When you are a follower of Christ, you are free to lead wherever God leads you..There is no ONE WAY of anything with God...

There is freedom in Christ and all are free to be lead by the Holy Spirit and live life how God would have for them. If you like a organized religion, go for it.....If you like home gatherings, go for it...You are not saved by whether or not you go to a local building...You are the church and everywhere you go you should be 'walking ministry' in action..That is what being a CHristian is, not thinking your association at a certain place makes you one...

this isn't about SALVATION, it's about why people refuse to go or want to go to church.

Last I checked it's about GOD not about people and what we get out of whom. or who does what, etc.

IT IS about meeting - and we meet somewhere. Whatever, I'm actually glad some of these anti church people refuse to go.
It might actually h elp keep a church more healthy without them.

 

[ANM29]

this isn't about SALVATION, it's about why people refuse to go or want to go to church.

Last I checked it's about GOD not about people and what we get out of whom. or who does what, etc.

IT IS about meeting - and we meet somewhere. Whatever, I'm actually glad some of these anti church people refuse to go.
It might actually h elp keep a church more healthy without them.

The local body is made up of sinners who are not healthy and need God just for that reason..If you are already healthy, then you don't even need Jesus...

There are a lot of reasons why people don't want to go to church, MANY reasons Nadiine.

The last time I checked it was about PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO BE LEAD BY THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR THEMSELVES AND FOLLOW THE PATH GOD HAS LEAD OUT FOR THEM.

NOT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE A PART OF A LOCAL CHURCH, AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY...THE CHURCH IS US, WE ARE TO BE MINISTRY IN THE WORLD TO THE LOST AS WELL, NOT JUST TO EACH OTHER.

Organized religion is not the start or end of being a Christian. Assembling together can be anywhere.........if there are two or three, God is there in the midst of them...

If a local church works for you, great...It is not for all...and there are many reasons why people don't go...different circumstances, different calls to people lives.......It is not about some man made order to be under to get Gods approval, ..That is why some are lead to Calvary Chapel, some are lead to Assemblies of God, and etc.....and some are lead to have home based gatherings.....or whatever....Do you know what it means to be Spirit-lead Nadiine? That means you are Free in Christ to follow where God knows will work for you....and for what his goals is.......So, yes, it is about GOD.

That is the part you don't get.........It is about God, and being lead by him and being in and what works for YOU........and for his ultimate plan.....