When Is The Church Not The Church?

25 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

When we use the bible word church to describe the place of fellowship.

 

When we use the bible word church in part of the title of our place of fellowship.

 

My whole point is to get you thinking about how you use Bible terms in un-biblical ways.

 

The more we call our places of fellowship churches the more we put credence to the Roman Catholic teaching that the church is a building or place of fellowship instead of the body of Christ.  When we do such we are subtly affirming that membership in a local "church" equals salvation"  it also puts credence to works over faith.

 

What is the church?

 

and How they are to assemble?

 

These are not clearly taught that is why it has deteriorated to what we do today in calling our fellowship the Independent Baptist Church of "what so ever and ever".  The Bible never used the term church in that way. 

 

 I am going to paste here a teaching on the church written by a KJV Bible Believer.  Using only the word of God.  and hopefully if any of you read it you will see why I challenge you to use biblical terms and word when we speak. and to desire to practice those things you learn as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

When we do such we are subtly affirming that membership in a local "church" equals salvation"  it also puts credence to works over faith.

Not true.  

John81 and DaveW like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Not true.  

 

 

I will post a great article by a KJV Bible believing man.

 

Then afterwords we can answer your questions.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't have any questions. I'm just saying that statement is false. That's all.  :smug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There is only ONE Body of Christ that is made up of many members. That ONE Body is identified in the Word of God as the CHURCH. Christ only has one Body.

That said, there are also buildings called Churches in the Bible.

In Revelation, we see Jesus speaking to the angel that was sent to the Church at Sardis, to the angel at the Church at Ephesus, and to five ofther Churches in other geographical locations.

I believe those Churches in Revelation to be places of worship where members of the ONE CHURCH, the Body of Christ met. Individually, we are not separate Churches. Rather, we are all members of ONE Body, ONE CHURCH, of which every joint supplieth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There are local, new testament churches, to which 98% of the NT references are written, and there is the church, overall, the full body of all believers, (despite how many may argue against that, it IS biblical). 

 

The building is not the church, though there is nothing wrong with giving a local body a name with 'church' in the title, to identify it as such. There is little difference between the church at Galatia and Bible baptist church of Herlong. We give them more of a name now, because with so many false groups calling themselves churches, we add so we can identify what we are. If I just say the church at Herlong, well, many will ask, Which One? The AOG? The SBC? The BBC? the Catholics? the mormons? We identify further in the name to show the difference. We may hate denominations, but they DO help to identify WHAT we are. Not necessarily a right/wrong issue, but a necessity today.  

AVBibleBeliever likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

a few food for thought questions

 

1) Why are there so many divisions of the blood bought Saints to the point they have to have so many different doctrines and practices?

 

2) Which group of blood bought Saints is correct and who is not?

 

3) Are we willing to emphasize that the church is not the place but the group of blood bought saints?  (Happy clarified that and I knew that.  My point was to get minds stirred up to think biblically about the words we use, especially when it comes to the word church or churches.)

 

4) Knowing what we have learned above how many of you are willing to forgo fellowship with blood bought Saints that are not of our Genre?  If so why?

 

5) How much can we rely on the teaching of men verse the teach of Gods word?  If you know that Gods words are pure, true and right should we not put all we learn to the text of the Holy Scriptures and not our Bible colleges, commentaries and dictionaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Which One? The AOG? The SBC? The BBC? the Catholics? the mormons? We identify further in the name to show the difference. We may hate denominations, but they DO help to identify WHAT we are. Not necessarily a right/wrong issue, but a necessity today.

Good point uke you are on the right track, but I think your conclusion is wrong.  Because most of what we add to God's words are not of God but men.  should we allow men to help us define who and what we are?  or Should we filter it all through solid Bible first and let God define what we are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Not true.  

Happy we cannot know anyones heart this is for sure.  the Bible does speak of knowing them by their fruit.  I and you have seen people in the fellowships that do not have changed lives and many of them give more than a Tithe.  The unsaved in the fellowships give more money than the saved.  I got that statement from the Operation World Stats of 2001.  hence the conclusion is they are replacing faith with works for salvation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

George Anderson???  The Ruckmanite?

Interesting that you are quoting a Ruckmanite.

I thought you said months ago you weren't a Ruckmanite?

You continuously reveal the fact that you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Happy we cannot know anyones heart this is for sure.  the Bible does speak of knowing them by their fruit.  I and you have seen people in the fellowships that do not have changed lives and many of them give more than a Tithe.  The unsaved in the fellowships give more money than the saved.  I got that statement from the Operation World Stats of 2001.  hence the conclusion is they are replacing faith with works for salvation.

Your first statement here is accurate. PrOBlem is, by that statement, you negate the statement that referring to a church "subtly affirming that membership in a local "church" equals salvation"  it also puts credence to works over faith."  And that is why I said your statement was not true.

 

Some people replace works for salvation, but simply referring to a place as a church does not affirm, in any way, that membership is equal to salvation nor does it put credence of works over faith.  That is a very broad-brush statement and it just isn't accurate - no matter who comes to that conclusion.  

 

There may be lost folk who attend our church (and, yes, I did use that word), but if so, they are in the minority, and  definitely do not give more $ or time or anything than those who are members. And, if they attend often, they hear the truths about salvation on a consistent basis - no way that anyone could assume that our usage of the word church in our name implies works.  

 

While I admit the same would not be true of other places, we cannot broadbrush and say it is the general order of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 I sincerely believe we can know a persons' heart.  That which is in the persons' heart eventually manifests itself sooner or later.

If we can't know what is in a persons' heart, then why would the Apostle Peter speak of men of "like precious faith"?  Why would the Apostle Paul call anyone saints and faithful? 

Why?  Because what was in their hearts manifested on the outside.  Their actions and words revealed they were indeed "saints and faithful Brethren".

We can know whether one is saved or not, just as the Apostles also knew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Eventually being the key word...because there are people who claim that they are saved and live like they are who aren't. But eventually...even if that eventually is in Heaven.

Invicta likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't believe the "eventually" will wait until one is in Heaven. 

Why would we be admonished to know them that labour among us?

Why the admonishment not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers?

I believe we can know who is and who is not a Believer, by their fruits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Perhaps if one is spending a great deal of time with a person it can be determined whether they are truly exhibiting evidence of salvation or not, but when encountering people only casually or even less, it may not be possible to know, at least not for an extended period of time.

 

I know plenty of folks I believe are saved that if one had looked at them at various points of their Christian life they might not have thought they were saved.

 

At the same time I know plenty of "good Christians" who appear to be evidencing the good fruit yet they have no biblical testimony of salvation.

 

Those we are closest to we should be able to tell where their heart is. We should be much closer to our fellow, local brothers/sisters in Christ but that's typically not the case, at least in America. Many of us only see fellow church members once or twice a week and very little, if any, actual contact with them. We can't know one another under such circumstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The local church is primary a place where Christians can meet together to be taught the Word of God.

I can WORSHIP God anytime and anyplace.

I can FELLOWSHIP with God and fellow believers anytime and anyplace.

 

"I worship God up at the Church house the same as I worship Him down at my house.

I worship God down at my house the same as I worship Him up at the Church house."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Good point uke you are on the right track, but I think your conclusion is wrong.  Because most of what we add to God's words are not of God but men.  should we allow men to help us define who and what we are?  or Should we filter it all through solid Bible first and let God define what we are?

The difficulty is in getting people saved, or getting them in the fellowship.

 

in fact, there is a pseudo-denomination that only refers to itself as 'the church'. That's great, but what are they? I agree we shouldn't have to add to ourselves a label, but labels have been added since believers were called Nazarenes, or That Way, or Christians. There has always been a need to identify the followers of Christ, and from the ones we see in the Bible, like I have mentioned above, though these were terms given by men, often as an insult, yet they were embraced and used to identify themselves, or for others to identify them. Why should we not? Men don't define us, we define ourselves-I have chosen to be called independent Fundamental Baptist because I believe the terms, while not specifically used in scripture, (except Baptist), they are biblical things.

Miss Daisy and AVBibleBeliever like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Our church building is where our church meets.
It is just down the road from the Scout hall which is where the Scouts meet.

The Scout Hall is not the Scouts even though it has Scouts written above the double entry doors. But having scour hall written on it allows people to know what is there, and allows people who are looking for scouts to find them.

Our church building is not our church even though it has church written on the wall.

No Nicolaitans likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Perhaps if one is spending a great deal of time with a person it can be determined whether they are truly exhibiting evidence of salvation or not, but when encountering people only casually or even less, it may not be possible to know, at least not for an extended period of time.

 

I know plenty of folks I believe are saved that if one had looked at them at various points of their Christian life they might not have thought they were saved.

 

At the same time I know plenty of "good Christians" who appear to be evidencing the good fruit yet they have no biblical testimony of salvation.

 

Those we are closest to we should be able to tell where their heart is. We should be much closer to our fellow, local brothers/sisters in Christ but that's typically not the case, at least in America. Many of us only see fellow church members once or twice a week and very little, if any, actual contact with them. We can't know one another under such circumstance.

That is the prOBlem with todays fellowships they are not personal enough for people to get to know each other.

 

large fellowships in Paul's day ended with people drawing followers after themselves.

1Cor 1:10 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Cor 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

these people were comeing together having various teachings, take the Lords table in vain, and divided themselve into groups when they came together.  Not much different than today in America.

 

We have big fellowships and only know a few because we have only one leader pretty much the senior pastor ( which is unbiblical) maybe a asst or two and youth pastor while the rest of the fellowship sit on their hands and leave the work to the few when all the body is to be fit together and working as a body and it is not.

 

American Fellowships are gathered around men who are hirelings, get a salary, 401k, insurance package, some get a home and a car to drive.  and the more people they bring in the more they get.  Ever seen how John Hagee has grown in waist size since he started.  Now a days his ministry wont even give a dvd or book to a missionary who could use it for free.  that is the American fellowship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The difficulty is in getting people saved, or getting them in the fellowship.

 

in fact, there is a pseudo-denomination that only refers to itself as 'the church'. That's great, but what are they? I agree we shouldn't have to add to ourselves a label, but labels have been added since believers were called Nazarenes, or That Way, or Christians. There has always been a need to identify the followers of Christ, and from the ones we see in the Bible, like I have mentioned above, though these were terms given by men, often as an insult, yet they were embraced and used to identify themselves, or for others to identify them. Why should we not? Men don't define us, we define ourselves-I have chosen to be called independent Fundamental Baptist because I believe the terms, while not specifically used in scripture, (except Baptist), they are biblical things.

Yes I have run into them and they have some way out fellowships to the point of drunken and sexual fellowships.  Stay away from them they are not all like them but the ones I ran into were.  We rebuked them and left.  I will never go to any fellowship that says they are the church in "What ever city name". they are perverted for sure.

 

Don't get the term wrong using Christian is it taught by men that it was a term of derision but the context point to Paul and Barnabus being the ones who called them Christians in Antioch and it was a compliment not a derisional name.

 

but the church (people) have been dividing themselves up since the beginning and paul tried to put a stop to it but once he was gone they went right back to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This is a fallen world. There are no perfect Christians, no perfect fellowships or congregations. We have to deal with the situations we face as best we can with the Lord's help; and what we face is different around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now