The Alleged Superiority of the Institutional (c)hurch Model

[SwordmanJr]

All the true believers. Got it. I think I've heard some of the institutional churches you decry say the same thing. Maybe you are the same as them after all.

I enjoyed D. James Kennedy's statement he made years ago one Sunday morning when addressing his congregation/audience. He said that there were many right there in that place who would not make it into Heaven. You could hear a pin drop in that place. One doesn't have to be a member of a (c)hurch organization to know that virtually ALL models of gathering expressions have within their ranks at least some who are not TRUE believers.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

No. That's something you added to what I said.

I wasn't necessarily adding anything. I drew a parallel with to point out the fact that there is indeed similarities.

No, it doesn't. But now it's your turn. What "authority" do you think is appropriate for the Church?

There is only one Authority. Any hireling who doesn't recognize the Head as being above all is not worthy of being considered a leader within the (C)hurch. He is indeed a leader over his schismatic little organization with four walls and membership followers, but not a leader within the (C)hurch. True leaders are men who are authorities in doctrine in order to serve as bastions against heresies. They are the ones who oversee the discipling of new converts...helping to grow them into giants in the faith so that they can spread their wings and fly among the eagles (so to speak). Authoritarianism is not synonymous with biblical leadership and authority.

I recall David, when his son (Absalom think it was) was trying to unseat him from the throne and take over the kingdom, so he stepped down and was ready to walk away rather than to start a war within the kingdom. King David actively put it all into the hands of the REAL Authority; to let Him be the One who decided who was to be on that throne. That snot-nosed boy died an infamous death hanging from a tree with his hair (if I remember the story correctly). We have many examples throughout scripture of true leadership and authority.

Jr

 

[Resha Caner]

There is only one Authority. Any hireling who doesn't recognize the Head as being above all is not worthy of being considered a leader within the (C)hurch. He is indeed a leader over his schismatic little organization with four walls and membership followers, but not a leader within the (C)hurch. True leaders are men who are authorities in doctrine in order to serve as bastions against heresies. They are the ones who oversee the discipling of new converts...helping to grow them into giants in the faith so that they can spread their wings and fly among the eagles (so to speak). Authoritarianism is not synonymous with biblical leadership and authority.

These generalities don't accomplish anything. The leaders of the churches you dismiss would claim they are doing all the things you list as proper. You've done nothing to distinguish one from the other.

Being direct, my impression is you're doing nothing but choosing based on your own preferences. I keep stating that your polemic statements don't apply to my church and you've not once asked anything about my church. You just respond with more unfounded statements that don't apply.

You claim human authority has no place (i.e. there is only one Authority), yet expect me to accept your authority - your version of church. Good luck with that.

 

[Oldmantook]

I remember an article that Christianity Today published about (c)hurch organization spending. The nationwide survey they did of more than 80,000 respondent organizations reported that more than 80% of them absorb more than 88% of what they take in from the membership's "tithe/giving" in order to support the facility, programs and staffing expenditures.

That is a radical departure from the biblical model for what was done with the OT tithe, and with the primary giving of the first century (C)hurch. So, my initial question in the OP continues to grow massively large legs for support as to how the modern, institutional model is superior?

Jr

I always felt guilty rec'g a salary generated from the collection of tithes though of course I myself tithed. The tithe is the lifeline of the institutional church yet this OT principle has been grossly distorted for the purpose of keeping the church afloat. Only later did I find out that the OT was never about the giving of monies.
Deuteronomy 14:22
Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
Malachi 3:10
Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
Deuteronomy 26
26 And it shall be, when thou art come in unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it, and dwellest therein; 2 That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the earth, which thou shalt bring of thy land that the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt put it in a basket, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name there.
Matthew 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
The OT was never about collecting money.

The NT "tithe" is not mandatory but is a collection taken up by the saints to help their fellow brethren who are in need. It is not done under compulsion but is done from the heart out of love for others which is why God loves a cheerful giver.

The institutional church has distorted the OT tithe and manipulated it into taking care of the needs of the organization instead of taking care of the needs of the organism which is the body of believers. The institutional church, like the emperor, has no clothes on.

 

[Oldmantook]

You claimed I take the opposite approach to the simplicity of the gospel

That is a far cry from REJECTING the gospel isn't it? Jesus simply stated that one must become like a child in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. You prefer to believe that one must become like a learned adult equipped with all doctrine firmly established in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. That is your prerogative but I prefer to believe the words of Jesus.

 

[Oldmantook]

I don't know of any evidence at all that agrees with all Scripture , to even try to show that Constantine or those with him were ever right. Rather, the objective true evidence supports that they were continually wrong and wicked.

One would think that as a purported Christian, Constantine would show mercy to his own wife and son. Perhaps even forgiveness? Perhaps even a [long] jail sentence? But no, Constantine chose to use discreet methods to have them killed. By their fruits you shall know them.

 

[☦Marius☦]

That is a far cry from REJECTING the gospel isn't it? Jesus simply stated that one must become like a child in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. You prefer to believe that one must become like a learned adult equipped with all doctrine firmly established in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. That is your prerogative but I prefer to believe the words of Jesus.

Where did I say that at all? Why would a person need to know theology in order to be saved. If anything Constantine probably didn't know theology and was therefore less bound to it.

You seem to also imply that Constantine couldn't be a Christian because he sinned. That suddenly after becoming a catechumen (Christian in training), he was suddenly free from the temptations of court? Of anger at finding out your wife is sleeping with your son? How many Christian husbands may have lost it and murdered their spouse simply from cheating. Are they unable to repent and be forgiven? Or are you one of those people who think every true Christian will be perfect. Not only that, but Constantine was unfortunately baptized late in life. It is with Baptism and Chrismation that the Holy Spirit enters and regenerates an individual.

 

[Oldmantook]

Where did I say that at all? Why would a person need to know theology in order to be saved. If anything Constantine probably didn't know theology and was therefore less bound to it.

You seem to also imply that Constantine couldn't be a Christian because he sinned. That suddenly after becoming a catechumen (Christian in training), he was suddenly free from the temptations of court? Of anger at finding out your wife is sleeping with your son? How many Christian husbands may have lost it and murdered their spouse simply from cheating. Are they unable to repent and be forgiven? Or are you one of those people who think every true Christian will be perfect. Not only that, but Constantine was unfortunately baptized late in life. It is with Baptism and Chrismation that the Holy Spirit enters and regenerates an individual.

Your claim is that Constantine didn't know enough and systematic theology was not yet well developed therefore giving him an excuse. I think that's a very poor excuse as I have always stated that genuine faith is easy enough to be obtained so that even a child can understand and possess it. You choose to believe otherwise, which I obviously disagree with however that is certainly your prerogative.

You give Constantine great leeway in sinning. Everyone sins, but certainly not to the degree that Constantine did when he had his wife and son killed. And it is not with water baptism that the Holy Spirit enters and regenerates. It is upon conversion based on trust in the Savior for the forgiveness of sin that the Spirit regenerates. Baptism is a commanded act of obedience publically demonstrating that one is saved. If Constantine was saved earlier, he was in disobedience for his entire Christian life as he waited until his death bed to get baptized. Chronic disobedience results in spiritual death.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Your claim is that Constantine didn't know enough and systematic theology was not yet well developed therefore giving him an excuse. I think that's a very poor excuse as I have always stated that genuine faith is easy enough to be obtained so that even a child can understand and possess it. You choose to believe otherwise, which I obviously disagree with however that is certainly your prerogative.

You give Constantine great leeway in sinning. Everyone sins, but certainly not to the degree that Constantine did when he had his wife and son killed.

I didn't say it was an excuse, I was countering your point that I apparently think you need to know theology to be saved. I also think faith is easily obtained, however I disagree that the "degree" as you so put it, is somehow worse. Firstly all sin is equal in the eyes of God, and secondly Constantine was EMPEROR of the Roman Empire, his temptations are going to be greater then any other man simply because he can effectively do whatever he wants.

Not only that, but you are assuming he did not repent of this, despite it happening 10 years before he was baptized and died. Is 10 years not long enough to repent of a sin?

And it is not with water baptism that the Holy Spirit enters and regenerates. It is upon conversion based on trust in the Savior for the forgiveness of sin that the Spirit regenerates. Baptism is a commanded act of obedience publically demonstrating that one is saved. If Constantine was saved earlier, he was in disobedience for his entire Christian life as he waited until his death bed to get baptized. Chronic disobedience results in spiritual death.

Yes that is what EVANGELICALS believe but I think you will find Baptism treated differently in the Apostolic Churches. That however is an entirely different debate.

 

[Oldmantook]

I didn't say it was an excuse, I was countering your point that I apparently think you need to know theology to be saved. I also think faith is easily obtained, however I disagree that the "degree" as you so put it, is somehow worse. Firstly all sin is equal in the eyes of God, and secondly Constantine was EMPEROR of the Roman Empire, his temptations are going to be greater then any other man simply because he can effectively do whatever he wants.

We agree that sin is sin however the fact that he was Emperor is of no consequence as God is no respecter of persons. In fact I can argue for the exact opposite. It goes without saying that Constantine was given much in life in terms of power, privilege, wealth, prestige, etc. Therefore, Lk 12:48 certainly befits Constantine. "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Much and not less, was required of Constantine.

Not only that, but you are assuming he did not repent of this, despite it happening 10 years before he was baptized and died. Is 10 years not long enough to repent of a sin?

We don't know for certain. My guess is that based upon his actions/fruit, Constantine was a shrewd accommodationist. He accommodated pagan beliefs into the Church thus allowing leaven into the body. He had plenty of time to repent of his syncretism but the fact it continued during his reign and after his death speaks volumes.

Yes that is what EVANGELICALS believe but I think you will find Baptism treated differently in the Apostolic Churches. That however is an entirely different debate.

Yes different indeed for another place & time.

 

[☦Marius☦]

He accommodated pagan beliefs into the Church thus allowing leaven into the body.

Protestant myth. There are no pagan beliefs in the apostolic church, just Protestants/evangelicals unwilling or unable to understand what symbols mean. But once again no point in debating any of this anymore.

 

[Oldmantook]

Protestant myth. There are no pagan beliefs in the apostolic church, just Protestants/evangelicals unwilling or unable to understand what symbols mean. But once again no point in debating any of this anymore.

Symbols with pagan origins no doubt. We agree to disagree.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Symbols with pagan origins no doubt. We agree to disagree.

"no doubt" like what? Please inform me of what pagan symbols you know about. Or are you just slandering my church for no reason as is typical? Ironic your username is named after a character made by a Catholic in a book series ridden with Catholic symbolism.

 

[Oldmantook]

"no doubt" like what? Please inform me of what pagan symbols you know about. Or are you just slandering my church for no reason as is typical? Ironic your username is named after a character made by a Catholic in a book series ridden with Catholic symbolism.

No, it's quite ironic that symbols have meaning and your iconographic image of the Last Supper contains halos which have no mention or description of in the whole of Scripture. I suggest you not be ignorant of church history as the depiction of halos were adapted by the church from pagan sources - not Scripture.
As for my username, your presumption is unfounded and without merit as it is the song title from America's "Old Man Took."

 

[☦Marius☦]

No, it's quite ironic that symbols have meaning and your iconographic image of the Last Supper contains halos which have no mention or description of in the whole of Scripture. I suggest you not be ignorant of church history as the depiction of halos were adapted by the church from pagan sources - not Scripture.
As for my username, your presumption is unfounded and without merit as it is the song title from America's "Old Man Took."

Actually the Uncreated light, which was later changed artistically in the west to being called "halos", is not from pagan sources, but a representation of the manifestation on the Holy Spirit. Some people have literally shined of this light when in perfect communion with God.

Just because something is artistically similar doesn't mean it is the same. Did the Jews and pagans both not sacrifice animals? Did they not both have temples and altars? Does that mean the Jews founded these things based on paganism? No. They were inspired by God just as the Churches traditions are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

But I'm sure those secular sources you are fond of will convince you otherwise. Talk about going outside of scripture for inspiration.

Scripture does in fact speak multiple times about people who shine with light when filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Oldmantook]

Actually the Uncreated light, which was later changed artistically in the west to being called "halos", is not from pagan sources, but a representation of the manifestation on the Holy Spirit. Some people have literally shined of this light when in perfect communion with God.

Just because something is artistically similar doesn't mean it is the same. Did the Jews and pagans both not sacrifice animals? Did they not both have temples and altars? Does that mean the Jews founded these things based on paganism? No. They were inspired by God just as the Churches traditions are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

But I'm sure those secular sources you are fond of will convince you otherwise. Talk about going outside of scripture for inspiration.

Scripture does in fact speak multiple times about people who shine with light when filled with the Holy Spirit.

I as wrote earlier study your church history as you may not be as informed as you perceive yourself to be. Due diligence is a necessity, not optional; but ultimately your prerogative.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I as wrote earlier study your church history as you may not be as informed as you perceive yourself to be. Due diligence is a necessity, not optional; but ultimately your prerogative.

"study my church history", yeah I had to do a lot of that during the 6 years I spent looking into Orthodoxy before converting from Baptist.

Telling me to study more is not a refutation by the way. I've read the secular perspectives, and I've read other accounts from Christians that refute them. Strange. I trust Christian scholars over secular.

 

[Oldmantook]

"study my church history", yeah I had to do a lot of that during the 6 years I spent looking into Orthodoxy before converting from Baptist.

Telling me to study more is not a refutation by the way. I've read the secular perspectives, and I've read other accounts from Christians that refute them. Strange. I trust Christian scholars over secular.

Good for you. I studied and graduated from seminary.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Good for you. I studied and graduated from seminary.

That's nice, My two years in seminary is what turned me away from Protestantism, but to each his own I suppose. Also I wasn't the one questioning someone's education, so no need to try to flex on me.

 

[Oldmantook]

That's nice, My two years in seminary is what turned me away from Protestantism, but to each his own I suppose. Also I wasn't the one questioning someone's education, so no need to try to flex on me.

No flex intended. To each his own. We agree to disagree.