Church is it even biblical

[luigi]

I am curious. Do you believe the epistles and the book of Revelation are inspired, too? There are more passages on this than the ones you mention. In Acts, 3:21, we read that Jesus is in heaven until the time of restoration of all things. Paul wrote about the Lord returning. There are many references to it in his writings.

Christ sent His Spirit as a Comforter. We experience Christ now through the Spirit of Christ, but He is seated in heaven and will return again when it is time for the restoration of all things.

Yes, I do believe in the epistles and the book of Revelation.
When the scripture says that Christ is there where two or three are gathered in His name, I believe it literally to be so.
How I rectify this with the scripture that shows the sign of the Lord returning on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, is by understanding the context in which it is taking place in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13.
This is during the 42 month reign of the beast as in Revelation 11, 12, and 13, at the end of which the Lord then commences to reign on the earth.
Prior to the Jesus commencing to reign on the earth, He is seated at the Lord Omnipotent s right hand until He makes His enemies His footstool. Does this nullify the scripture which states the Lord being among those inquiring about Him? All I see it meaning is that while here among us now, He is still not returned with the power and great glory He will have at the conclusion of the beasts system.

 

[Sketch]

When the scripture says that Christ is there where two or three are gathered in His name, I believe it literally to be so.

Isn't that a common biblical misunderstanding?
As I understand it, it is not about what constitutes a church, but what constitutes a loosing or binding decision in the church.
Here's the verse with near context included. The verse in question begins with the word "For". (meaning because)
Jesus gives the decision authority because he is present when two or three agree.

Matthew 18:18-20
“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

 

[JaumeJ]

Christ said it, we believe it, and that settles it.

 

[Sketch]

Christ said it, we believe it, and that settles it.

You might want to add "we understand it" to your list.
It doesn't do much good to believe a misunderstanding.

 

[garee]

Isn't that a common biblical misunderstanding?
As I understand it, it is not about what constitutes a church, but what constitutes a loosing or binding decision in the church.
Here's the verse with near context included. The verse in question begins with the word "For". (meaning because)
Jesus gives the decision authority because he is present when two or three agree.

Matthew 18:18-20
“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

The decision authority is not based upon the two or three as that seen but the word of God, as to the spiritual understanding.

That translation in chapter 18 like in chapter 16 in the end turns things upside down making inspiration earthy of the devil after the god of this world. The Catholic ideology for one use it to lord it over the non venerable ones making Peter the rock ( it) that the gates of hell could never prevail against .

The proper translation turns things right side up. In both chapters (16 and 18)

And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens. `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.'Mathew 16: 17-19 YLT


`Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens. `Again, I say to you, that, if two of you may agree on the earth concerning anything, whatever they may ask -- it shall be done to them from my Father who is in the heavens,Mathew 18:18-19 YLT

 

[Noose]

John cake in the spirit and power of Elijah. That does not mean e was possessed ny is ghost.


Yes, the resurrection, when odies that sleep in the dust arise. Resurrection- not Paul's spitit oming back help them after he dies.

In one passage he says it would be gain or him to depart and be with Christ but beneficial or the if he stayed.

Ghost and spirit are one and the same thing and if a person comes in the spirit of another, it means they are indwelled by the ghost of the other person.

Mal 4 :5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadfulDay of the LORD.

Matthew 11:14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.

Matthew 17:10 The disciples asked Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"

Luke 1:17 And he will go on before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

No doubt, Paul taught a continuous resurrection. 2 Cor 4 is not about suffering but how he dies and resurrects to indwell his listeners.
Not only Paul, Peter also taught the same:

2 Peter 1:12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body,14because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

 

[luigi]

Isn't that a common biblical misunderstanding?
As I understand it, it is not about what constitutes a church, but what constitutes a loosing or binding decision in the church.
Here's the verse with near context included. The verse in question begins with the word "For". (meaning because)
Jesus gives the decision authority because he is present when two or three agree.

Matthew 18:18-20
“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them, means Christ is here among the true brethren inquiring about Him.
Isn't twisting/wresting scriptures to mean something other than what is clearly stated wrong?

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[presidente]

'Its not pot predestination, But as many as the father gave the Son they will come destination. For no man can possibly come unless the Father gives His faith to make it possible to come. The key is many.

Did you not get the joke? I don't see how you can get whatever theological issue you are trying to address out of my post.

 

[presidente]

The passages you quoted say absolutely nothing about the idea of Paul's spirit coming back to indwell the believer. You are seeing stuff that is not tgere and not seeing atuff that is in the Bible.

You could benefit from instruction from believers gifted to give it.

 

[garee]

Did you not get the joke? I don't see how you can get whatever theological issue you are trying to address out of my post.

Have any heavily deterministic Calvinists out there taken to call it 'pot predestination'?

No I got the joke it seemed to be against the many as those elected from the foundation of the world.. Seeing no man can come unles the father gives them the faith to hear his voice of prophecy. Seemed to be a pot shot at eterministic Calvinists?

 

[Noose]

Long post alert and gender sensitive issue.

Some have appealed to the gifts of the Holy spirit to legitimize today's churches and practices. The gifts also ceased in the 1st century when the new covenant set in. All these things ceased because God's appointments and therefore authority that comes with such appointments ceased.

Q. Did women in the 1st century church posses such gifts?
A. No
Why? Generally and originally, women were not appointed to have dominion over men (Adam & Eve story) rather, men were appointed and therefore have authority over women. The word of God (spirit of truth) is only effective if it moves from a point of authority and all authorities come from God through appointments. These hierarchies are not just set for show but it is how the spirit moves.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

So generally, women could not evangelize because the word of God would be of no effect, same thing with self appointed preachers/teachers/evangelists today in these churches. They have not been appointed therefore have no authority from God and whatever they speak is not from God/has no effect.

Now, concerning appointments, upto what level did God appoint people and in which hierarchy?

Heb 1:1On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. 2But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things,and through whom He made the universe.

Everything in this new covenant is about the son and everything about the son is the gospel of the kingdom of God.So the hierarchy appointments were as follows:
-the son
-The disciples and the apostles, appointed and given authority to expound the gospel
-The apostles helpers and 1st century church members

The last group is the least common denominator (spiritually) because these were given authority over one another within the church and also unbelievers in the form of gifts. The apostles had power to do many things, prophesy/evangelize/heal e.t.c but these members could only do one thing for the sake of the rest, one would heal another would prophesy and still another would teach all these so that they can grow together spiritually. The one who prophesies had the authority over others only with that regard, and another had authority to teach so the rest becomes his subordinates to that respect only- and this is how the church was supposed to be. These members had no authority to appoint other people after the departure of the apostles, from that moment on, the only words from authority that are effective are the recorded words and actions of Jesus, the apostles and the 1st century members and it is what we call the bible.

 

[Quantrill]

The eternal Spirit of God dwelt in the corrupted flesh of the Son of man. God did not become a man . He is not a man as us having mother and father, beginning of spirit life or end of it. He is supernatural without a nature.

I would think a real person in respect to what the eyes see does have a beginning, Melchizedek was a vision (not flesh and blood)

In order to establish a perfect type of the character and nature of the priesthood of the Lord, there was no man who could be a perfect type and so God Himself appeared in the form of a man as that seen . He did not take on a human nature. Melchizedek did not become man as He did when Jesus Christ became man, but He did appear in the form of a man in the person of Melchizedek. Again this was in order to set up a type, a perfect type of the eternal character of the priesthood of the Jesus .An demonstration of the unseen lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world the real redemption... not the demonstration.

God is not a man us he remains without from as our invisible God. We walk by faith the unseen eternal. One demonstration of the temporal seen..............the veil is rent.

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him "no more".2 Corinthian 5:16

It causes me to wonder when he does come on the last day will he find faith or those looking for another outward demonstration.

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Luke 18



A daysman is one usurps the authority not seen and gives it over to one seen, which also describes the antichrists.

We have him as the Son of God the Holy Spirit of God and not the Son of man used as a one time demonstration.

If we would have our invisible God as a Son of man that would describe a daysman . The Son of man resisted being a called a daysman. When accuses of good master seeing we can only serve one the Son of man replied; only God not seen is good. In the same way we are to call no man on earth Father the same applies to teacher master Rabbi

Good is defined by Him not seen not Him seen .The Pagan nations look for God made after the rudiments of this world.

No infallible fleshly interpreter set between God not seen and man seen. That would describe the Pope for one.

The flesh of the Son was not corrupted. As God the Son, Jesus had no mother or Father. As the God/Man He did have a mother. (Matt. 12:46). If Jesus were not a true Man, then we are not saved. He was a true Man and thus can redeem man. The supernatural meets the natural in Jesus Christ. The God/Man.

Melchizedek was a type. He was a real person, a real priest of God. You're into fantasy.

Jesus is a Man. And Jesus is God.

No, a daysman is one who can plead between two . (Job 9:33) Jesus Christ would later be that 'daysman'. He can only be a 'daysman' if He is both God and Man.

Quantrill

 

[Noose]

The passages you quoted say absolutely nothing about the idea of Paul's spirit coming back to indwell the believer. You are seeing stuff that is not tgere and not seeing atuff that is in the Bible.

You could benefit from instruction from believers gifted to give it.

I could benefit yet i'm here struggling to understand your instructions, they don't make sense to me.

 

[preston39]

Ok so is preservation of the saints different than OSAS , in your understanding?
Blessings..Bill

Yes...Saints have been determined to be...awarded, etc...(past tense). Once determined by Christ at judgement ....all Saints are included.

 

[preston39]

Be reminded.......Ghost was improperly translated from the Greek word...Pneuma......properly the interpretation is...Spirit...(Strongs).

 

[Laish]

Yes...Saints have been determined to be...awarded, etc...(past tense). Once determined by Christ at judgement ....all Saints are included.

Ok I am slow . Can you unpack what you said here . So your saying eternal security is only eternal after death and judgment, and this notion came about in the 1960 according to your research?
Blessings
Bill

 

[Laish]

Ok I am slow . Can you unpack what you said here . So your saying eternal security is only eternal after death and judgment, and this notion came about in the 1960 according to your research?
Blessings
Bill

To clarify the notion I ment is the of the being saved from the point of regeneration then belief onwards.
Blessings
Bill

 

[melita916]

I confess I didn't read the last 7 pages of this thread lol.

husband and I weren't able to attend our local fellowship this morning.

I hope those who were able to go to an assembly had a wonderful time of fellowship

 

[presidente]

Long post alert and gender sensitive issue.

Some have appealed to the gifts of the Holy spirit to legitimize today's churches and practices. The gifts also ceased in the 1st century when the new covenant set in. All these things ceased because God's appointments and therefore authority that comes with such appointments ceased.

Q. Did women in the 1st century church posses such gifts?
A. No

{/quote]

Yes
Acts 2
17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
(ESV, emphasis mine)

Acts 21
8 On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. 9 He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.
(ESV, emphasis mine)

So generally, women could not evangelize because the word of God would be of no effect, same thing with self appointed preachers/teachers/evangelists today in these churches. They have not been appointed therefore have no authority from God and whatever they speak is not from God/has no effect.

John 4
39 Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.”
(ESV)

John 20
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
(NIV)

The last group is the least common denominator (spiritually) because these were given authority over one another within the church and also unbelievers in the form of gifts. The apostles had power to do many things, prophesy/evangelize/heal e.t.c but these members could only do one thing for the sake of the rest, one would heal another would prophesy and still another would teach all these so that they can grow together spiritually. The one who prophesies had the authority over others only with that regard, and another had authority to teach so the rest becomes his subordinates to that respect only- and this is how the church was supposed to be. These members had no authority to appoint other people after the departure of the apostles, from that moment on, the only words from authority that are effective are the recorded words and actions of Jesus, the apostles and the 1st century members and it is what we call the bible.

What is your basis for the cessationism in your theory? If you do not believe hierarchies exist, why wouldn't you believe in a church with no hierarchy that still meets?

Acts 13 shows us that the Spirit can speak to believers mere prophets and teachers, and point out men he has called, who then become apostles. These two men were sent out without any evidence that the twelve apostles appointed them to be apostles. We know the the twelve did not appoint Paul. And John, Peter, and James the Lord's brother added nothing to Paul or Barnabas when they went to visit them.

If the Holy Spirit can appoint apostles, why can't he work through the church or those in leadership to appoint elders? Matthew 18, though it is speaking of church discipline, says that whatever you bind on earth shall have already been bound in heaven. The Lord expresses the authority of heaven through Christ's church.

 

[presidente]

My post came out wrong and I missed the edit deadline, so I am posting this again, fixed this time.
Noose said:

Long post alert and gender sensitive issue.

Some have appealed to the gifts of the Holy spirit to legitimize today's churches and practices. The gifts also ceased in the 1st century when the new covenant set in. All these things ceased because God's appointments and therefore authority that comes with such appointments ceased.

Q. Did women in the 1st century church posses such gifts?
A. No

Yes
Acts 2
17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
(ESV, emphasis mine)

Acts 21
8 On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. 9 He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.
(ESV, emphasis mine)
So generally, women could not evangelize because the word of God would be of no effect, same thing with self appointed preachers/teachers/evangelists today in these churches. They have not been appointed therefore have no authority from God and whatever they speak is not from God/has no effect.
John 4
39 Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.”
(ESV)

John 20
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
(NIV)

The last group is the least common denominator (spiritually) because these were given authority over one another within the church and also unbelievers in the form of gifts. The apostles had power to do many things, prophesy/evangelize/heal e.t.c but these members could only do one thing for the sake of the rest, one would heal another would prophesy and still another would teach all these so that they can grow together spiritually. The one who prophesies had the authority over others only with that regard, and another had authority to teach so the rest becomes his subordinates to that respect only- and this is how the church was supposed to be. These members had no authority to appoint other people after the departure of the apostles, from that moment on, the only words from authority that are effective are the recorded words and actions of Jesus, the apostles and the 1st century members and it is what we call the bible.
What is your basis for the cessationism in your theory? If you do not believe hierarchies exist, why wouldn't you believe in a church with no hierarchy that still meets?

Acts 13 shows us that the Spirit can speak to believers mere prophets and teachers, and point out men he has called, who then become apostles. These two men were sent out without any evidence that the twelve apostles appointed them to be apostles. We know the the twelve did not appoint Paul. And John, Peter, and James the Lord's brother added nothing to Paul or Barnabas when they went to visit them.

If the Holy Spirit can appoint apostles, why can't he work through the church or those in leadership to appoint elders? Matthew 18, though it is speaking of church discipline, says that whatever you bind on earth shall have already been bound in heaven. The Lord expresses the authority of heaven through Christ's church.