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?

[mizpeh]

We are individually and collectively the temple of God.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

We are individually and collectively the temple of God.

[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

[AreYouReady?]

Yep.

[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.

[mfblume]

There is both collective and personal temple concept in the NT.


1Pe 2:5 KJV Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.