Stephen said:

“Now, what early church do we mean? Do we mean:

the early church in Jerusalem which tried to persuade gentiles to be circumcised and effectively become Jews before they could be called Christians?”

Hey, Stephen, apparently the so-called “good Bible-teaching” you picked up either wasn’t as good as you think or maybe you forgot it somewhere.

You are being extremely disingenuous when you imply that the early Church in Jerusalem, as a whole, tried to persuade Christians to become circumcised and to follow the Law. 

You should know that it was SOME who tried to establish that practice but it was quickly stopped in its tracks by Paul, James, et al, who realized that in attempting to do so, they were trying to apply something (i.e., circumcision, Law) that they themselves were unable to bear/keep.

Read it, Stephen, it’s in the Book of Acts.

Stephen again:

“The church in Galatia with a similar problem?
The church in Colossae with the Jesus-plus gospel?
The church in Corinth with their factions? their failure to recognise apostolic authority? Their incestuous sexual relationships?
The churches which received John’s letters which were beset by pre-gnostic docetic heresies?
The wider early church with itinerant false teachers (wolves in sheep’s clothing)? which they had to deal with at a time when no church had yet received all of the New Tesament revelation?
etc, etc”

That’s right, that Early Church!!!

The vast difference, Stephen, is that instead of a make-believe position such as “pastor” (you know, the CEO, Big Dog role and title we’ve created in our Western minds), ruling the masses, keeping them in check through rules, regulations, membership requirements, etc., it was the Holy Spirit who ruled and led the Church.  Are you saying He hasn’t done a good job?

The only times that Paul and the other elders involved themselves in the affairs of a local church was when there was false teaching, heresy, etc.  They respected the autonomy of the individual churches who met for the purpose of mutual edification and exhortation and where everyone was encouraged to participate through the expression of their gifts.

This is so foreign to us today, especially since the superstar professionals do all of the work, as they entertain their congregations, lulling them into a deep apathetic sleep, while increasing their dependence upon The Man (no, not Christ, but the pastor).

Again, you act as if what you listed was the norm when in fact, it was the exception.  Why do you think that with all of the myriad of problems you claim that plagued the Early Church they were still able to evangelize the world to such an extent that we can only drool with wonder at how they did it?  It certainly wasn’t because of the structured institution that you apparently and lovingly embrace that spends more time and resources on buildings and budgets than on directly helping people.

Additionally, again you misrepresent the truth in implying that in the Corinthian church there were multiple “incestuous sexual relationships” when Paul mentions only ONE that was dealt with the moment he heard of it.

If you’re going to be a sychophant for the institutionalized church, at least tell the truth.

Finally, you claim that there were numbers of “itinerant false teachers (wolves in sheep’s clothing)? which they had to deal with at a time when no church had yet received all of the New Tesament revelation?”

True, there were false teachers that attacked the Early Church against whom the elders painstakingly confronted, but to say that because they didn’t have the full “revelation” of the New Testament is again arrogant and saying that they were not as “righteous” as we who have the bible.

Maybe, Stephen, because they LIVED the revelation of the New Testament, whereas we can only hope to do so, they didn’t need all of the classes (i.e., “discipleship,” membership, et al), teaching tapes and boring sermons that we are so “blessed” to have today. 

In fact, since receiving the “full revelation” there have been far more heresies, false teaching and misrepresentation of the Scripture and God’s character than the Early Church could have dreamed of confronting.

So please, Stephen, stop your character-assassination of the Early Church, the ekklesia of Christ and just admit that we’re far worse off today than they ever came close to being.

Todd, because you’ll probably delete this post, I also posted it on Stephen’s blog.

Go Ricky!!  I loved it.

I haven’t heard anyone here saying the church today is better, more advanced, or more biblical than the early church.  I think you’re the first to suggest that anyone thinks we’re superior to those who served with Jesus himself.

I’m the first to admit that what we call church is a very western version of the early church.  Just as it was here in the 60’s, the 50’s, the 1800’s and earlier.

But the church today still points to the same person the early church did… Jesus, the Christ.  It has through the ages.  And although she looks different today than ten years ago (or 200 or 2000 years ago) she is still the church.

It reminds me of one of the last church’s I served in.  People in that church talked about the ‘glory days’ 25 years go.  How they loved the church; the unity; the people coming to Christ; the music; the pastor.  These same people were the ones who stayed through the most intensive time of fighting in that church’s history… a pastor who left in the middle of a service to start a new church; and a split right down the middle… guess what… 25 years ago!  I think some just have a tendency to look back and see how great everything was, when things, in reality, were not all that great.

I think the same goes here.  Especially those who are disillusioned with the church today… they look back and say, ‘OH, if we could just be like the early church’.

In reality,

1.  They had their problems too (and they were big ones to live through, I’m sure).

2.  We can’t go back.  It doesn’t mean there aren’t things to learn from that time, but, quite frankly, we just can’t go back.  If you’d like to try to re-create it, go for it.  But don’t think there won’t be problems.  There will.  Because there are still people and sin.

It’s late.  My incoherent thoughts are calling me to sleep. 

Todd

The church is the bride of Christ. Won’t we all be surprised at the wedding feast when we find how much we are loved by Him? Spots and all! He knows the way that we take and is also mindful that we are dust and yet He loves us. It’s incredible and mind boggling. Love covers a multitude of sin!Peace.

Todd:

“I think some just have a tendency to look back and see how great everything was, when things, in reality, were not all that great.”

Sorry Todd, but 3,000 being added in one day and disciples (not spectators) being added daily is a far cry from where we find ourselves today.

I suppose, though, that one of the biggest differences is the sense of awe that was felt EVERY time the Early Church met.  There was spontaneity, joy, revelation, testimonies, gifts in operation, and a Godly fear of it all.  It was this same awe that both captivated the surrounding community as well as drew them to Christ.

Why?  Was it because of the great expositional teaching or preaching?  Was it because of the way the worship leader led the choir in song?  Was it the comfortable seats that carefully cradled the collective tushes of the congregation?

NO!

It was because each one had a psalm, hymn and a spiritual song AND the encouragement to share what the Lord had placed in their hearts.

Today, there is no sense of wonderment, no spontaneity and certainly no encouragement for others to openly share their giftings. 

Saddest of all, there is no longer that awe, that Godly fear of wanting to know and yet fearing to experience Christ Himself in the midst.

True, today’s “church” does stumble into doing some good, but nowhere near the impact the Early Church did.  I long for the day, and it is coming, when droves of believers will leave the buildings, the budgets, the professionals to find Christ outside the walls.

And find Him they will.

Todd, et al,

I too am always fascinated when pastors advocate returning to the early church....I also think the dream is there, but reality is not....for instance, I know this will upset some folks, but if my reading of some of the early church fathers is right, baptism was done either in the nude or nearly nude....in fact that was one of the signiture purposes of deaconesses....

And after the VERY EARLY first century church (ie by the end of the 1st century), baptisms were done only on Easter morning after a VERY lengthy catechism...(something most of our missionaries have practiced for years - the lengthy catechism part-helping people learn how to change from their idolatry and paganism to life in Christ....not far from good ole 21st century USA).

And in fact, I think a real study of early church history will show that every one of the current theologies of the Lord’s Supper for instance (memorial ordinance, transubstantiation, Presence of Christ, etc. ) were present in one of the early church theologians....not to mention the disagreement by church leaders in various parts of the then known world over ritual, penance or repentance, infant baptism vs believers baptism.....the list goes on and on....

There is little doubt that the “early” church was the foster ground for all of these theological principles and not the 15th century Roman Catholic Church and the subsequent Protestant Reforamation.....

And lest we think there were not “denominations”.....may I remind you that among others, we have identified historically the different churches - the Antiochian church, the Syrian church, the Alexandrian church, the Roman church....and that’s only a few....and all of them differed not in location but in points of theology and emphasis....they were NOT a unified church, despite that fact that we like to think so......

Maybe there is a real validity in being careful what we wish for ---"returning to the early church” is not exactly the most useful vision we can have....there were both strengths and weaknesses in the “early church”....let’s just be sure we keep the things that were good, but be careful what we wish for....we just might get it......

Do you not think with as many churches as we have today, that we are not getting more converts today than in Acts?  We have gone to more places in the world than Apostle Paul ever thought about.  Quoting the three thousand number does not necessarily impress me.  It does impress me put in to context.  With the audience He was speaking to, and it was in one day.  However if you would like to go back to the church of Acts I hope you don’t mind fearing daily for your life.  Or worshiping in secret from time to time.  Now some places still face persecution, but in America I don’t think we must fear for our life for worshiping our Father, or believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
Having said all that, there is something I feel the Acts church had and did that we don’t today.  They really served one another and communed with one another.  That is the area we need to work on.  Being a Christian comes with some responsiblities.  We are to serve each other.  Regular church goers seem to have a “give me” kind of attitude.  Is this just me or do others agree?

Jade said:

“Regular church goers seem to have a ‘give me’ kind of attitude. Is this just me or do others agree?”

The responsibility of which lies at the feet of the “professionals” who seem to want to keep that welfare mentality so that they can maintain their power and control.

I’m not saying that they do so intentionally but rather ignorantly, having been taught (erroneously) that people come to “church” to “receive” instead of the Early Church practice of “giving.”

The seeker-sensitive thrust, as a major example, deepens this dependence upon the organization instead of telling people that their spiritual walk (i.e., prayer, bible study, outreach, etc.) is THEIR responsibility.

Unfortunately, the damage has been very deep and lasting and only a real move of God, returning our hearts back to the simplicity of the Chrisian walk that our Early Church family experienced and away from the “give me” attitude of most in “churches” today, will correct that.

[BeHim & Ricky,

I’m about done on this one… BeHim:
1. You have too much time on your hands!
2. You read too much into others are saying!

Anyway, let’s rip another brother to shreds so we can prove our point. Nice. (Sorry, Stephen.) Nice to have you both back… time to turn the comment protection back on.]

Whoa!

It seems everyone has a voice except those who are willing to stand in the gap and discuss the REAL deep down issues (why are you not willing to discuss).  A person’s assumptions.  Stephen assumes allot in his post.  What’s wrong with Scripturally testing his assumptions?  Especially where they are wrong.

Test my assumptions, I’m willing to discuss (and defend Scripturally) my assumptions openly!

BTW.  What difference does it make about my time Todd???? Is this your way of disagreeing?  It’s like name calling when you’re wrong.

It’s like you have a vendetta against some here Todd… You make statements and post articles you know will push the envelope on these issues and then tell those you know who WILL stand up and say something to sit down and shut up.  Just like you did with my post about the Focus on the Family article.  At the very least send my post to me via email and tell me you’re not allowing it, so I can send it to those on the blog who really care about hearing a Scriptural view of what is really being communicated by these articles (there are some who seek Truth).  You accuse me, rightfully so, in #2 of reading into what others say.  YES!!!  I test men with Scripture not Scripture with men.  The Scripture is my authority, what is your’s?  Autonomy?!?

I say Stephen is wrong in his assumptions, you say he is right, let’s take it to Scripture and test it Todd.  Don’t just whine about you’re tired of people disagreeing with your assumptions and tell them they “have to much time” on their hands.

Let’s test our assumptions, both your assumptions and my assumptions.  Let’s get down to Scripture testing our thoughts and desires.

In Him I beg of you.

[The early church had some great things going for it and it had some issues. My understanding of the Epistles is that each one of them was written precisely because they had problems.

The present day church can desire the good things the early church experienced and address the modern manifestations of the old problems with apostolic teaching and authority.

We take off the rose colored glasses that make us see the past better than it was and don the clear glasses with the right prescription that will allow us to see the present day church as it is. No different in many ways than the early church. No better, no worse.]

Well put PJLR!

One more thing…

Let me give a good example to BeHim and others.  This comment was just posted on the ‘seeker’ topic by Aldolfo.  I couldn’t disagree more with a couple things he states, but notice the way he ‘disagrees’.  It is not offensive.  It doesn’t make anyone feel stupid or defensive.  It’s a great post (again, even though I don’t fully agree with it).  Here it is:

The argument can be settled when we move beyond talking about “the methods for reaching the lost” to the presuppositions that form the basis for your fundamental beliefs.

If one believes that making someone confortable enough, to hang around church long enough, and in that process they may get fed small digestable dozages of the gospel which will bring them to acceptance of the gospel, and in turn salvation, than your philosophy is right. It is a man centered view of the gospel!

On the other hand, if one believes that the gospel is hidden to every man and only the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit can open their understanding and allow them to respond to its truth, than one must continue to preach its simplicity with boldness and without gimmicks.

Yes, the first approach might bring you good results and that will embolden your stand. This is why it is the prevalent method of our era, i.e. a pragmatic gospel.

It is filling churches with people who have accepted a religious movement, but are they born from above, living holy lives, committed unto death to the gospel? Are they first century type of Christians willing to die for the truth? Or, are they simply in church because it is a nice place to make friends and live a good American life? Are they truly regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Or, are they prey of ministers who soothed them with words of peace to fullfill their own ambitions?

These are questions that one day we’ll have to answer before an omniscient God!!!

Todd

Todd,
Thanks for the great forum for our ideas, comments and other spewing. I appreciate the blog to get across ideas that normally I wouldn’t even consider. Things like this remind me of my early days in the church… Pastor preaching about my need to accept Christ as my Saviour and ask for forgiveness of my sins. That was about 30 years ago. I knew absolutely didly about the “early church” back then. I know a smidge more today and I know that we are all in the same boat, sinners who need a Saviour. If we would put aside our pettiness and go after the ones who are lost and ready for an eternity in Hell the “early church” problem might not seem so much a big deal. Lord Bless… RevJay

http://www.sexen-sexs-leketoy.toyt3.com ^^^ http://www.avholde-store-pupper.toyt3.com ^^^ http://www.ridiculous-operaio-azione.str0nz0.com ^^^ http://www.love-segretaria-gruppo.str0nz0.com ^^^ http://www.liten-kuk-strimma.pul4.com ^^^ http://www.destithosgamiso-tuttarse.pul4.com ^^^ http://www.bagatell-photo-stygn.pu1a.com ^^^ http://www.kat-hynda-utlosning.pu1a.com ^^^ http://www.naurettava-sihteeri-rakas.huor4.com ^^^ http://www.pilkallinen-tytot-erotiikka.huor4.com ^^^ http://www.valtava-teini-toiminta.hu0ra.com ^^^ http://www.ponneton-lehmitytto-suihinotto.hu0ra.com ^^^ http://www.deciso-studentessa-ubriache.fott1.com ^^^ http://www.buono-bionde-merda.fott1.com ^^^ http://www.pallido-cameriera-anale-fotti.f0tti.com ^^^ http://www.intrepido-cowgirl-ubriache.f0tti.com ^^^ http://www.tsekki-maksuton.sexsipillu.com ^^^ http://www.tommi-ruohola-perverssi.sexsipillu.com ^^^ http://www.adelina-sexy-hyndan.sexknulla.com ^^^ http://www.sexigt-dick.sexknulla.com ^^^ http://www.sex-hot-girl.sexfitte.com ^^^ http://www.modne-pusy.sexfitte.com ^^^ http://www.lesbe-chocha-peluda.sessololiti.com ^^^ http://www.famosas-en-bragas-sesso.sessololiti.com ^^^ http://www.sborrate-videosgratisgay.sesso-loliti.com ^^^ http://www.sesso-cazzoni-neri.sesso-loliti.com ^^^ http://www.raflott-purk-sexen.toyt3.info ^^^ http://www.lateks-sexy-mykporno.toyt3.info ^^^ http://www.cartoline-virtuali-natale.tettin3.info ^^^ http://www.derisorio-femmina-fottilo.tettin3.info ^^^ http://www.pallido-indecente.tett1ne.info ^^^ http://www.tias-en-tanga-sesso.tett1ne.info ^^^ http://www.desire-zoccoleborghesi-amore.tard0ne.info ^^^ http://www.chibolitas-com-porn.tard0ne.info ^^^ http://www.lesbica-fotos-probadores.t3ttine.info ^^^ http://www.autocoscienza-agente-di-polizia-spogliarello.t3ttine.info ^^^ http://www.perverssi-forelsket-dalte.t0yt3.info ^^^ http://www.penest-asiatisk-gruppene.t0yt3.info ^^^ http://www.lul-Shemales.sl3tterig.info ^^^ http://www.quel-cul-bukkake.sl3tterig.info ^^^