The Damage Of Constanstine.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Well, at least we don't hafta throw virgins into volcanoes er somethin'.

Yeah. lol. It's liturgy in a very mild form now.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The worst damage I see, is the introduction of the Greek philosophers, and the handing over of the same ritualistic pagan services in temples to the church. In the pagan temples, before Christianity was granted those same buildings, a priest did all the spiritual work for the people, and they paid him to study spirituality for them, while they watched him perform of a spiritual show for an hour and then go home and carry out in no personal spiritual progress for themselves. The same thing was repeated all over again with the Christians once they were handed these temples. And there was born Catholicism and all the similar liturgical churches.

Having a building was not a problem, I think. It was paying a priest to do study spirituality FOR THEM, just as the pagan priests did before in those same temples.

Form follows function. The Apostle Paul explained the body ministry as commanded by the Lord in I Corinthians 14. All were to prophesy, offer song, and edify one another. With the additions of these grand buildings congregations became too large to function according to the NT purpose of the church (assembly). Revisit it Bro. Blume...

I Corinthians 14:26-40
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[i]

39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Here we see everyone bringing something to offer: a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All were to be done in order for the strengthening of the church. If there was an utterance in tongues it was to be limited to three individuals at most to maintain order... but a member present had to provide an interpretation. If no interpretation came forth after an utterance... they were to cease speaking and disrupting and simply pray to God. Two or three anointed preachers (prophets) were to come prepared to speak and teach and the listeners gathered were to seriously weight what was said that they might be built up in Christ Jesus. However, if something were revealed to a listener present, the speaker was to stop speaking and let the brother share his understanding. This way, though two or three prophets governed the meeting, all were allowed to prophesy (teach and share anointed thoughts and messages) in turn. They were sharing their understandings and teaching one another like a round table discussion. However the two or three elders functioning in the meeting were to have spiritual authority over anyone who wished to speak... the spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets. Women were not permitted to interrupt the elders when teaching with questions (remember women were largely unlearned in those days). If they had a question they were to ask their husbands at home. For a woman to interrupt or challenge teaching was disgraceful. Paul then asks them where they got the authority to do things their way and get out of order. They are then admonished if anyone believes they are a prophet or spiritual that they are to know that these are THE LORD'S COMMANDS. And if any saint ignored this general order of worship and gathering he was to be ignored. I'd say that when a group becomes too large to facilitate this functionality of body ministry it's too big and unbiblical.

So you're right... it's not necessarily the building that is what is wrong... it's what the building does to the depth of fellowship and how it derails the very purpose of a church meeting. Smaller home based church meetings better accomplish their NT goal. Individualized mentoring and discipleship are far easier. In a building the congregation gets to be so large it's like a farm where cattle are fed in mass. The building isn't the problem... but it breeds the "spectator spirit". It only became manditory to pay a pastor to perform religious service when the body became too big to be an open forum for body ministry.

This is why the church thrived and grew like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire when they met in smaller home based fellowships. I'd like to note, occasionally the believers in a city would meet in a square or public venue for exhortation but their basic services and structures where home based and no one could stop their growth. It was a "church without walls"... a growing and vibrant Kingdom... not an incorporated church or organization.

The building also required the Catholic Church's revival of the tithing principle to sustain the buildings and the priesthood. And now, just as back then, nearly 80% of all revenue go into the building and ministry leaving next to nothing for benevolence and assisting the broken.

The side effects of having buildings has slowed the church down greatly and saddled the saints with massive debt. It's become an object of pride, a status symbol, and has replaced the concept of the church being people... for the idea that the church is a structure. If one doesn't attend one of these required and sanctified meetings in a building it is said that they are "out of church". Wrong. So very wrong. You can meet with 5 to 10 brothers and sisters at home, in a Starbucks, a book store, a mall, a park, at a lake, in a back yard, you name it... and there you have churched. I think our having buildings has contributed to the church becoming a mile wide and an inch deep because teaching cannot be personalized.

Also reproduction and spreading the Kingdom has suffered. We have infighting and competition because of what's needed to sustain these monsters. Today's churches multiply like elephants and are, like the elephant an endangered species. However, the Apostolic church of the Bible was smaller and multiplied rapidly like rabbits. That's a great comparison. Traditional church is a lumbering elephant trying to reproduce itself... house churches are rabbits who can reproduce anytime, anywhere. The only problem is... traditional church has totally changed America's ideas of what it means to church. If you meet in a home many Americans think it's strange. No... it's biblical. Here... the traditional church has harmed the advancement of the kingdom yet again.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

1) Faith Alone doctrine which hurdles itself at the foundation of truth and creates improper concepts
2) False grace concepts
3) Free Will teaching...(lack of)
4) Original Sin
5) Atonement as an acquittal vs pardon
6) Eternal security which deal with (2) and the OSAS offspring views
7) Lack of proper teaching on the law and it's relationship to the believer. Which later Luther recanted from his antinomian views to some degree.
8) Improper views of the Jews and Judaism... replacement theology and others...
9) revival of Marcion doctrine
!0) Strict Paulinistic philosophy that goes against the whole grain of scripture, Jesus and the other Apostles.

shall I go on....

I want to respond with specific questions to ascertain exactly what you are saying-- will do so later.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If one disagrees with Paul's teachings then its no wonder a person might say original sin is error. Paul plainly taught it.

Those who propose Paul was in error need to take Peter's admonition that Paul was a beloved brother whose writings were categorized as scripture as much as whatever else was considered scripture.

If 2 Peter is really from Peter which is easily debatable. Agreeing it is, no they mistake his teachings to there own destruction.... It's not whether you agree but understand him. Which is a huge issue on whether he is even consistent with himself.

Please define Original Sin! It's either Pelagianism or Total Depravity. Do you believe in total depravity? Man has free will to choose.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

If 2 Peter is really from Peter which is easily debatable. Agreeing it is, no they mistake his teachings to there own destruction.... It's not whether you agree but understand him. Which is a huge issue on whether he is even consistent with himself.

Please define Original Sin! It's either Pelagianism or Total Depravity. Do you believe in total depravity? Man has free will to choose.

Man has free will to choose, however, that power of choice is overshadowed by man's sinful nature. So a man has the power to choose the cross or damnation. Man cannot choose to be sinless or perfect... else Christ would not have needed to die for mankind.

It's really a no brainer.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Man has free will to choose, however, that power of choice is overshadowed by man's sinful nature. So a man has the power to choose the cross or damnation. Man cannot choose to be sinless or perfect... else Christ would not have needed to die for mankind.

It's really a no brainer.

You have confused two parts...

Man has the desires of the flesh... We fail the righteousness of God because of the weakness of the flesh. We choose to sin, not forced to. Man chooses many times not to sin which is righteous acts. This can happen before man "comes" to God per se(though man is always before God in his conscience of which all creation bears witness). Many non christians do righteous acts do to the conscience God has given them. Religions are full of this. Man chooses God or not whether the cross is presented to him or not by creation and the conscious act of man. God is always the source of truth of which we respond. Also man did choose, his name was Jesus Christ the righteous. If he did not have the passions of the flesh he was not tested. Did we need a saviour? YEs! WE chose to and HE did not to sin. We are condemned because WE choose to sin not someone else.

Also the main points of contention of original sin are after conversion. We are not bound by the flesh "to" sin as most teach. Many teach we don't overcome literally the flesh but can't stop sinning and all we do is sin. Thus they make the cross of non effect and truly not a transforming time but only a theoretical position change before God. Thus they see Jesus's righteousness not us sinning. Blood covering or bubble theology.

Gotta go for now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...inal+sin&hl=en

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

You have confused two parts...

Man has the desires of the flesh... We fail the righteousness of God because of the weakness of the flesh. We choose to sin, not forced to. Man chooses many times not to sin which is righteous acts. This can happen before man "comes" to God per se(though man is always before God in his conscience of which all creation bears witness). Many non christians do righteous acts do to the conscience God has given them. Religions are full of this. Man chooses God or not whether the cross is presented to him or not by creation and the conscious act of man. God is always the source of truth of which we respond. Also man did choose, his name was Jesus Christ the righteous. If he did not have the passions of the flesh he was not tested. Did we need a saviour? YEs! WE chose to and HE did not to sin. We are condemned because WE choose to sin not someone else.

Also the main points of contention of original sin are after conversion. We are not bound by the flesh "to" sin as most teach. Many teach we don't overcome literally the flesh but can't stop sinning and all we do is sin. Thus they make the cross of non effect and truly not a transforming time but only a theoretical position change before God. Thus they see Jesus's righteousness not us sinning. Blood covering or bubble theology.

Gotta go for now.

Legal,

Do you believe you have ceased from sin and that you will never sin again?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Legal,

Do you believe you have ceased from sin and that you will never sin again?

Will I sin is up to the future. Have I sinned yes! I must turn completely though.

Did you die to sin thus not obey it's desires? Are you a servant of sin or of rightouesness. Can you serve to masters? One is to death the other to life?


1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Sin is not "we do" because we always do. It is THAT YE SIN NOT! but IF we do we have the "Grace"ful provision of Christ.

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

THe main point of contention is power over the flesh of which many do not believe you have power over through the provision of Christ. We are redeemed and the law written on our hearts SO it will cause us tol obey his laws, statutes and commands. sorry gotta go!

[mfblume]

hi Aquila,

God's Spirit is not limited whether we gather in a small house meeting or a building dedicated to worship. The fact is that leading of the Spirit raises us above any limitations, and believe me, I am involved with Spirit-led congregations. It is as wrong to say one cannot gather in a building dedicated for worship as it is to say house meetings are wrong. We can carnalize things with both aspects.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

If 2 Peter is really from Peter which is easily debatable. Agreeing it is, no they mistake his teachings to there own destruction.... It's not whether you agree but understand him. Which is a huge issue on whether he is even consistent with himself.

Please define Original Sin! It's either Pelagianism or Total Depravity. Do you believe in total depravity? Man has free will to choose.

So, you do not agree with Paul's teachings?