Question on Ephesians

[Amanah]

We mostly think of our individual bodies as being the temple of the Holy Ghost. But when I read the following verses, it seems to me that we are collectively the temple of the Holy Ghost.

If a family wanted to be a "house church" by themselves, I mean just Husband, Wife, and Children, is it possible for them to be: "the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

It seems that we would have to include all who are filled with the Spirit as part of the household of God. It seems that denominations are against the spirit of this passage.

Of course there is the part about being built on the foundation of the Apostles. I suppose that could be used to exclude others who are Spirit filled but aren't build on the same doctrinal position as we believe the Apostles taught.

Ephesians 2
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

We mostly think of our individual bodies as being the temple of the Holy Ghost. But when I read the following verses, it seems to me that we are collectively the temple of the Holy Ghost.

If a family wanted to be a "house church" by themselves, I mean just Husband, Wife, and Children, is it possible for them to be: "the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

It seems that we would have to include all who are filled with the Spirit as part of the household of God. It seems that denominations are against the spirit of this passage.

Of course there is the part about being built on the foundation of the Apostles. I suppose that could be used to exclude others who are Spirit filled but aren't build on the same doctrinal position as we believe the Apostles taught.

Ephesians 2
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

We are both collectively and individually the temple of God through the Spirit.

Many colonist & pioneer families that first settled or lived on the plains didn't "attend church" but maybe once a month if a circuit riding preacher road through. "Paw" would read the Bible and lead in prayer and the family would talk, have prayer requests, confess, and essentially "house church" as we'd call it today. However, they typically didn't shy away from fellowshipping other Christians should the opportunity arise.

"Let not him who worships under a steeple, condemn him who worships under a chimney." ~ John Newton

And yes... denominations are against Scripture. We're all to strive to abide in the Apostles doctrine. Now, it's been two thousand years with many controversies. I believe the issue is primarily... love. Do we, those who claim to know Christ, love one another in spite of our differences? Ultimately, only God is qualified to judge among His people.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We are both collectively and individually the temple of God through the Spirit.

Many colonist & pioneer families that first settled or lived on the plains didn't "attend church" but maybe once a month if a circuit riding preacher road through. "Paw" would read the Bible and lead in prayer and the family would talk, have prayer requests, confess, and essentially "house church" as we'd call it today. However, they typically didn't shy away from fellowshipping other Christians should the opportunity arise.

They also did not make churches a "Professional job" back in those days. There were no business meetings. It was not considered a "corporation" until the institution of IRS 501 C 3 tax-exempt status. Church leadership was not "passed down" to upcoming ministers that were son's or grandson's as if they inherited a business. I've seen this happen in my region for the past 30 years. Out of all the churches here, there is virtually only one church who voted for a fresh face to pastor.

It was a calling for the men of God. Take the scripture where Jesus told the 12 disciples in Luke 9:1-6 to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick. If they encountered one person while on the road, such as in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, or to a crowd of thousands, they preached the gospel,baptism of the Holy Ghost the same and did not require a tithe.

How did the Church become a money-making store that people are mandated to come to every fellowship with one man calling the shots?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

They also did not make churches a "Professional job" back in those days. There were no business meetings. It was not considered a "corporation" until the institution of IRS 501 C 3 tax-exempt status. Church leadership was not "passed down" to upcoming ministers that were son's or grandson's as if they inherited a business. I've seen this happen in my region for the past 30 years. Out of all the churches here, there is virtually only one church who voted for a fresh face to pastor.

It was a calling for the men of God. Take the scripture where Jesus told the 12 disciples in Luke 9:1-6 to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick. If they encountered one person while on the road, such as in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, or to a crowd of thousands, they preached the gospel,baptism of the Holy Ghost the same and did not require a tithe.

How did the Church become a money-making store that people are mandated to come to every fellowship with one man calling the shots?

I think most are good men who just do church the way they were taught. Others appear to have made a way to exploit Christianity to make profit.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think most are good men who just do church the way they were taught. Others appear to have made a way to exploit Christianity to make profit.

amen, amen

[NorCal]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

They also did not make churches a "Professional job" back in those days. There were no business meetings. It was not considered a "corporation" until the institution of IRS 501 C 3 tax-exempt status. Church leadership was not "passed down" to upcoming ministers that were son's or grandson's as if they inherited a business. I've seen this happen in my region for the past 30 years. Out of all the churches here, there is virtually only one church who voted for a fresh face to pastor.

It was a calling for the men of God. Take the scripture where Jesus told the 12 disciples in Luke 9:1-6 to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick. If they encountered one person while on the road, such as in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, or to a crowd of thousands, they preached the gospel,baptism of the Holy Ghost the same and did not require a tithe.

How did the Church become a money-making store that people are mandated to come to every fellowship with one man calling the shots?

I think your view of "Professional job" or "Corporate Transfer" is flawed.
1) Paul trained ministers in the churches he started. Whether it was his "son" Timothy, or any other such man he chose to lead the "church" when he left.
2) Not all pastors transfer a church to a family member when they "retire". See DKB and his church.
3) If it is passed to the pastors son, it is usually a good reason and has been "vetted" by the deacons or other "assistant pastors"
4) The "Corporation" Status is so that money can be properly tracked. This limits the chance of money being stolen or miss used.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by NorCal

I think your view of "Professional job" or "Corporate Transfer" is flawed.
1) Paul trained ministers in the churches he started. Whether it was his "son" Timothy, or any other such man he chose to lead the "church" when he left.
2) Not all pastors transfer a church to a family member when they "retire". See DKB and his church.
3) If it is passed to the pastors son, it is usually a good reason and has been "vetted" by the deacons or other "assistant pastors"
4) The "Corporation" Status is so that money can be properly tracked. This limits the chance of money being stolen or miss used.

1. Sister, Timothy was not Paul's son...he was Paul's convert. Paul was full Jewish and Timothy's father was a Greek. ACTS 16:1,2 & 3.

2. I specifically said I've seen this passing of churches down for the last 30 years "in my region". I have no idea what pastors do in other regions.
If it is passed to the pastor's son, in this region, it is usually because the people don't want an "outsider" over them. They don't want change, fresh blood, fresh ideas, fresh preaching. Not necessarily always the pastor's fault but then my bad for not explaining further.

3. Since when is the Bride of Christ made into a "corporation"? Sorry, but that is not New Testament teaching. That is extra biblical. Corporations are considered nameless, faceless, soulless entities that the courts ruled to be "persons". It is an artificial person. Have you read the IRS's rules on the 501 C 3 status? They limit the church in many ways. Pastor's are not free to preach certain things and they can add to their rules anytime they want to. Certain limitations in there, if violated, can cause the tax-exempt status to be revoked...possibly all the way to the very beginning to where millions of dollars, plus interest, plus penalties are imposed. Are we not supposed to have freedom in Christ to preach or say anything the Holy Ghost lays on their hearts?

Consider what happened to Indianapolis Baptist Temple Church.

I dare say that the organized church system worries too much about how much money they can draw in. Does the church really need state of the art sound systems and television monitors to get the message across?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

1. Sister, Timothy was not Paul's son...he was Paul's convert. Paul was full Jewish and Timothy's father was a Greek. ACTS 16:1,2 & 3.

2. I specifically said I've seen this passing of churches down for the last 30 years "in my region". I have no idea what pastors do in other regions.
If it is passed to the pastor's son, in this region, it is usually because the people don't want an "outsider" over them. They don't want change, fresh blood, fresh ideas, fresh preaching. Not necessarily always the pastor's fault but then my bad for not explaining further.

3. Since when is the Bride of Christ made into a "corporation"? Sorry, but that is not New Testament teaching. That is extra biblical. Corporations are considered nameless, faceless, soulless entities that the courts ruled to be "persons". It is an artificial person. Have you read the IRS's rules on the 501 C 3 status? They limit the church in many ways. Pastor's are not free to preach certain things and they can add to their rules anytime they want to. Certain limitations in there, if violated, can cause the tax-exempt status to be revoked...possibly all the way to the very beginning to where millions of dollars, plus interest, plus penalties are imposed. Are we not supposed to have freedom in Christ to preach or say anything the Holy Ghost lays on their hearts?

Consider what happened to Indianapolis Baptist Temple Church.

I dare say that the organized church system worries too much about how much money they can draw in. Does the church really need state of the art sound systems and television monitors to get the message across?

The problem lies with the government interfering in religious affairs, and the increasingly litiguous culture that we are in. Churches had to do certain things to protect themselves from people who would prey on them. Also, until the 1960s a church never had to worry about its tax exempt status, but then LBJ came and changed the tax code to restrict the rights of ministers to say certain things when in a ministerial position (he was indignant that a large number of pastors endorsed his rival). This has since continued and accelerated as PC became the order of the day.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

They also did not make churches a "Professional job" back in those days. There were no business meetings. It was not considered a "corporation" until the institution of IRS 501 C 3 tax-exempt status. Church leadership was not "passed down" to upcoming ministers that were son's or grandson's as if they inherited a business. I've seen this happen in my region for the past 30 years. Out of all the churches here, there is virtually only one church who voted for a fresh face to pastor.

It was a calling for the men of God. Take the scripture where Jesus told the 12 disciples in Luke 9:1-6 to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick. If they encountered one person while on the road, such as in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, or to a crowd of thousands, they preached the gospel,baptism of the Holy Ghost the same and did not require a tithe.

How did the Church become a money-making store that people are mandated to come to every fellowship with one man calling the shots?

You need to study your church history, because that has indeed happened in the past. 'Business meetings', churches being passed to family members in the ministry, and often the ministers did nothing else, which made it a full time position, and did in fact teach the tithe. I have made church history a specific study of mine for a few years now, and all of these elements have existed, even from the days of the book of Acts.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Jay

You need to study your church history, because that has indeed happened in the past. 'Business meetings', churches being passed to family members in the ministry, and often the ministers did nothing else, which made it a full time position, and did in fact teach the tithe. I have made church history a specific study of mine for a few years now, and all of these elements have existed, even from the days of the book of Acts.

Oh my! I must have hit a nerve. Are you a pastor or a minister that collects the tithe? Or just a saint who firmly believes in tithing?

I prefer to be thought of as a giver than a tithe payer because it is patently false that the New Testament teaches it. New Testament teaching is that God loves a cheerful giver and it is not specified who to give it to.

Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

(II Corinthians 9:7)

Tithe Payers must give 10% of their money or are told they might just go to that hot place down there. That is a conditional salvation teaching...negates the blood of Christ and the Cross.



Church history and what they've always done and what is actually written in the New Testament are two different stories, Jay. The Catholic church has always had their dogma since it's inception, claiming it came from the Apostles...but most of it doesn't. They say Peter is their first pope and that his bones can be viewed through some glass box located within the Vatican. HUH? There is no scriptural basis for this either. They say that Mary veneration is appropriate because she is the mother of our Blessed Savior, but is it New Testament teaching?

I don't know what you've read in the Book of Acts concerning tithe, I never read any commandment from the Apostles that taught the tithing doctrine.

The tithe today is not even remotely the same as the Old Testament tithe. I did an extensive and exhaustive study on the Jewish tithe. We are not Jewish Levites and there are no commandments to Gentiles to live as the Jew lived. In fact, Jewish law was done away with because the Priestly order changed to Jesus, who is not a Levite, but from the tribe of Judah. Hebrews Chapter 7 is very clear changing of the Priesthood.