SYMPTOMS OF THE MODERN-DAY CHURCH

[Josheb]

Josheb:

Let me say that for the sincere believer, everything is an expression of worship, for worship for the committed believer never ends, if I understand Jesus’ statements correctly in John 4:21-24. He said simply that worship in the new age, the Christian era, would be anytime and the place where we are.​

Then our "church structures" are an expression of worship and not a testimony of idolatry.

The Lord’s Supper, when offered, would be the nucleus of attention. The Supper would be a period of jubilation and pondering, not a death march.

I’d like to quote from the late Charles Spurgeon regarding worship, temples, and houses. The quotation may be found in his message, “Additions To The Church.” Please do not by-pass this, as it contains wisdom worth digesting.​

Can you see what you're doing? You're jumping around from one thing to another, and then another and another, and never addressing what I (and others) are bringing to bear on this op. You're also resorting to extra-biblical sources (fallacious appeals to authority) instead of scripture. Theologically speaking, I tend to side with Spurgeon and I am a big fan of his writings, but he is NOT more authoritative than God's word. For every five theologians you quote to support your views some other poster might quote five different theologians of different positions and none of us would get anywhere. We'd be playing a game of "Competing Theologians" and not seeking consensus with a correct rendering of God's word.

A lot of this relates to what you've covered thus far. Hope it enlightens.

Perhaps but I am not going to be sidetracked into discussing Spurgeon when we're supposed to be discussing this op and measuring the conversation with and by Scripture.

1. Will you define the term "Church"?
2. Will you define the term "idol" or "idolatry."
3. Can you address the observation this op does not describe all of the Church?
4. Can you, or will you, address the fact God is what makes something holy, not us? You have just said, "...for the sincere believer, everything is an expression of worship..." If that is true then everything we, the sincere believers do is also holy. On every occasion where we separate something for sacred purpose it is an act of worship, yet this op indicts the Church and calls its church structures a testimony of our idolatry. Can you not see these statements are contradicting one another?
5. The op uses the phrase "church structures" and calls them "monuments". Is the phrase "church structures" a reference to physical buildings in which Christians gather for fellowship, worship, and service, or is that reference to things like the liturgy, sacraments, and/or the other accouterments of religious practice? Whichever you mean, can you explain exactly how it is idolatrous and provide some objectively observable examples?
6. Can you address @makesends' observation (Post 2) that anecdotal experience is neither rational, nor scriptural? Can you understand the resulting appeal to Luther (and Rhodes) was a dodge (and, imo, you should be embarrassed to have even made the attempt). Luther is no more a measure of whole scripture than is anyone's anecdotal experience.
7. Can you further address @Ladodgers6's concern church structure and the practice thereof is scriptural. For centuries most in the Church had no Bible of their own and even if they owned one, most were illiterate. For most of Church history the Church was creedal, and the truths of scripture were learned through ritual. Those are not sectarian views, those are facts of history, ones well established in scripture, both Old and New. You may not realize it but Post 8 may be incorrect because it does appear you did, in fact, indicate it is wrong to meet in a church structure. This is why you were (repeatedly now) asked to clarify the op and the comments of subsequent posts.............. which has not happened.
8. Can you address @CrowCross' inquiry (Post 12) asking you how denominations would sanctify a church and present them as a holy article or entity?
9. Can you address @prism's observation the Church began in Acts? I disagree with that assertion but to the degree it is op-relevant it deserves address.
10. Can you also address @prism's concerns pertaining to Jesus being God and Jesus having blood in contrast to the claim the eternal God has no blood?
11. Can you address the (recurring) selective use of scripture?
12. Can you acknowledge the false dichotomy in which church structures are juxtaposed against ministry and missions?
13. Can you acknowledge (any) the obedience of the Church?

I started out with just a few questions/observations and most of the others started out with a single point or inquiry. None of it has been addressed and now the comments and inquiries are increasing. In other words, the op is getting away from you. With each new post you get further and further away from 1) your own op, and 2) the concerns we've brought to you. No one can speak for you but you. I cannot speak for anyone else here but I, and I suspect everyone else, would love to find consensus with you relevant to God's word and the objectively verifiable facts of reality, but that's not happening. We'd all love to have someplace to commend the op but that opportunity is not being availed.

• Define your terms.
• Clarify your points.
• Wherever critical, provide justifying scripture and an observable example (evidence).
• Address that which others bring to bear on the op. Do so with well rendered scripture wherever possible and, if nothing else, use the opportunity to hone both content and method.

Or however you think is best to respond to our many (and growing) concerns.




(Josh pulls up a chair and asks prism for some of that popcorn)
.

 

[Carbon]

Pass the popcorn please.

Here you go......

 

[prism]

Can you address @prism's observation the Church began in Acts? I disagree with that assertion but to the degree it is op-relevant it deserves address.

Actually I believe the Church started at the Cross, not Acts 2...

Acts 20:28 KJV
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

 

[CrowCross]

Actually I believe the Church started at the Cross, not Acts 2...

Acts 20:28 KJV
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Maybe the church started with the protoevangelium in Gen 3:15.

 

[prism]

Maybe the church started with the protoevangelium in Gen 3:15.

That was a promise to saran, not a statement for or about the Church.

 

[CrowCross]

That was a promise to saran, not a statement for or about the Church.

You mentioned..." to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Was that not part of Gen 3:15?

 

[Josheb]

Actually I believe the Church started at the Cross, not Acts 2...

Acts 20:28 KJV
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

I stand corrected. I disagree but that's not the point being made with the op. Maybe I missed it, but I do not read your original inquiry being addressed and (regardless of date of inception) the inquiry is a valid one.

 

[prism]

You mentioned..." to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Was that not part of Gen 3:15?

Some think so.

 

[Mr GLee]

Actually I believe the Church started at the Cross, not Acts 2...

Acts 20:28 KJV
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The church (called ones) eternal bride(neither male nor female . . Jew or gentile .

She began with Abel the second born to represent to the world "a man must be born again from above"

Cain the first born murdered the apostle Abel the martyr . He was replaced by another second born Enos the spiritual seed of Christ, the husband it continued until the birth of Jesus the son of God . The first born again .

It was then that dying mankind began to call out to their husband Christ.

Genesis 4:25-25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.