Congregational participation

[The Rogue Tomato]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

No more or less than someone trying to justify not following the pattern of the scriptures.

LOL - yes, you prove my point exactly. 

Conflict of interest means when you feel compelled to defend something because it is something by which you make your living (or defend something that provides you a material benefit of some kind).  It's rather hard to see the other side when your livelihood depends on believing what you believe.

There is no conflict of interest in discussing church models if you get no material benefit from any of them. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

No more or less than someone trying to justify not following the pattern of the scriptures.

LOL - yes, you prove my point exactly. 

Conflict of interest means when you feel compelled to defend something because it is something by which you make your living (or defend something that provides you a material benefit of some kind).  It's rather hard to see the other side when your livelihood depends on believing what you believe.

There is no conflict of interest in discussing church models if you get no material benefit from any of them.

You're assuming the people I pastor pay me.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

No more or less than someone trying to justify not following the pattern of the scriptures.

LOL - yes, you prove my point exactly. 

Conflict of interest means when you feel compelled to defend something because it is something by which you make your living (or defend something that provides you a material benefit of some kind).  It's rather hard to see the other side when your livelihood depends on believing what you believe.

There is no conflict of interest in discussing church models if you get no material benefit from any of them.

You're assuming the people I pastor pay me.

I'm not assuming anything.  I don't know who is a paid preacher/pastor here and who isn't.  I'm speaking in general.

If you (the editorial you, not you in particular) get paid to be a preacher/pastor in a modern pulpit-based church model, than yes, there is a conflict of interest in any arguments you would make about the building pulpit-based church model vs. the mutual edification model.  It doesn't matter who pays you. 

 

[subllibrm]

I'm sorry but the vast majority of believers who go hear a bible believing preacher preach ain't going cause they wanna be entertained.

Of course they are.  You are simply applying a narrow definition to entertainment.  They're there to sit down, be quiet, and listen to what they hope will be a good sermon, delivered with style. 

One thing is certain.  They aren't sitting quietly in pews for the purpose of mutual edification.

And you know this 'How'?
You also seem to have brilliant insight hidden from us mere mortals.
Almost thou persuadest me to gather around the kitchen table......nah!

He knows it the same way Alayman knows that the people at contemporary services are there merely to dutifully attend.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

No more or less than someone trying to justify not following the pattern of the scriptures.

LOL - yes, you prove my point exactly. 

Conflict of interest means when you feel compelled to defend something because it is something by which you make your living (or defend something that provides you a material benefit of some kind).  It's rather hard to see the other side when your livelihood depends on believing what you believe.

There is no conflict of interest in discussing church models if you get no material benefit from any of them.

You're assuming the people I pastor pay me.

I'm not assuming anything.  I don't know who is a paid preacher/pastor here and who isn't.  I'm speaking in general.

If you (the editorial you, not you in particular) get paid to be a preacher/pastor in a modern pulpit-based church model, than yes, there is a conflict of interest in any arguments you would make about the building pulpit-based church model vs. the mutual edification model.  It doesn't matter who pays you.

Which is a ridiculous assumption. You are judging motive and sincerity off percieved vested interest. We may as well canceł out your objectivity in a discussion on tithing. You are incapable of rendering a valid opinion or objection because it affects you directly. When we vote in church I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they will vote their conscience in the what the Lord wants, not an unobjective vote based on personal gain. Too bad you lack such objectivity.

 

[rsc2a]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

No more or less than someone trying to justify not following the pattern of the scriptures.

Meeting daily,  selling everything, and sharing all that you have while each member serves a vital role within the local body?

*crickets*

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Some of you unbiased, no dog in the fight experts....my eyes are rolling as I type...can settle the issue by giving chapter and verse as to the precise NT order of worship.....service....kitchen table is good auditoriums are bad scripture.

Now, FTR, I am not critical of house churches...we have a few that we helped launch, but hope and pray they will grow into real churches one day..... ;D

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

On that straw man issue, I totally agree...but I'm referring to the ones you r2 and Smellin erected.

I feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who sees the clear Biblical evidence to refute our position could then refute our position.

Castor and r2, are you now or have you been leaders in the kitchen table movement?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I'm sorry but the vast majority of believers who go hear a bible believing preacher preach ain't going cause they wanna be entertained.

Of course they are.  You are simply applying a narrow definition to entertainment.  They're there to sit down, be quiet, and listen to what they hope will be a good sermon, delivered with style. 

One thing is certain.  They aren't sitting quietly in pews for the purpose of mutual edification.

And you know this 'How'?
You also seem to have brilliant insight hidden from us mere mortals.
Almost thou persuadest me to gather around the kitchen table......nah!

It's self-evident.  You don't edify anyone by sitting quietly in a pew as an audience member. 

And there is no comparison between Jesus (and others) preaching to crowds and the gathering of believers for mutual edification.  Jesus was evangelizing.  He spoke to unbelievers.  The apostles spoke to crowds of unbelievers.  That's why it says things like, "and all who were appointed to eternal life believed" after such a message. 

Now, if the mission of your church building and service is designed to evangelize a building full of unbelievers, then yes, your church fits the Biblical model for that.  Otherwise, it's nothing like a biblical model.

The sermon on the mount was for non-believers?

What is self evident to me is that, like Smellin, you are your ultimate authority....you decide what is right or wrong.
Again, there is NO Biblical mandate for either of your 'preference'.
There is NO Biblical mandate denouncing the congregational model.

It's a matter of armpits and your's stinks. 

Yes, the Sermon on the Mount was for unbelievers as well as His disciples.

Do I decide by being the ultimate authority? Sure, but so do you and every single person on this forum. It is just that the boundaries are drawn up differently by each individual. You would claim that the Bible is your authority. I would claim that Jesus' teachings are my authority. Both of us have used our personal "authority" to make those personal choices and distinctions.

In the end, each and every one of us is authoritative in determining who we are going to follow. I will stick with the teachings of Jesus and run everything else through that particular grid.

You are the arbiter of true Scripture.....in your religion.
As I said before, too bad you weren't around in the first century or so to set the apostles and church fathers 'straight'.

 

[rsc2a]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

On that straw man issue, I totally agree...but I'm referring to the ones you r2 and Smellin erected...

Care to name one that you've seen from me on this topic?

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

On that straw man issue, I totally agree...but I'm referring to the ones you r2 and Smellin erected...

Care to name one that you've seen from me on this topic?

The thing is rsc2a, you don't add anything to a topic. On any other forum, you would be quickly pointed out as a troll. You rarely offer an opinion, you almost only question others. It is a vapid waste of time to answer your posts.

 

[rsc2a]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

On that straw man issue, I totally agree...but I'm referring to the ones you r2 and Smellin erected...

Care to name one that you've seen from me on this topic?

The thing is rsc2a, you don't add anything to a topic. On any other forum, you would be quickly pointed out as a troll. You rarely offer an opinion, you almost only question others. It is a vapid waste of time to answer your posts.

Odd....I'll bet virtually anyone who actually pays attention could give a pretty good summary of my beliefs based on my "rarely offered opinion" and "nothing but questions".  Some, whom I have chosen to share certain things with, could explain how my family actually lives out those beliefs in practice.

But when you cannot justify the holes people poke in your arguments....

(See also: "when all you have is a hammer..." and "when all you can see is black and white...")

 

[ALAYMAN]

He knows it the same way Alayman knows that the people at contemporary services are there merely to dutifully attend.

Bro, for the most part, you're one of my favorite posters on here, certainly in the top 10.  But I get tired of having to read where you mis-attribute stuff to me.  I think your integrity is for the most part superb, and your pot-stirring exquisite.  Your ability to figure out what I've said, is sub-par at best, or just downright atrocious.  If you keep twisting my words like this I'll be forced to think rsc2a has succeeded at his takeover of your keyboard.  I explicitly told you that my comments about the OP was not with the Contemporary Movement (see reply #12 in this very thread).

 

[Mathew Ward]

A few thoughts...

If one looks at how a synagogue operated, you will find the church operated and operates the same way. It is a great study.

As far as when the church started...1 Corinthians 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

If we find when he set the apostles we find when he started the church.

Luke 6:12-13  And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

 

[Mathew Ward]

First of all, the 120 met in the upper room awaiting the gift of the Spirit as they were commanded.
The Day of Pentecost came, the Spirit fell, peter preached and 3000 were saved....Jews from all over the world.
The church was 'officially born.

If the criteria was when they received the Spirit for the church to be born then it would have started here...John 20:22  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

 

[Smellin Coffee]

When we vote in church I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they will vote their conscience in the what the Lord wants, not an unobjective vote based on personal gain. Too bad you lack such objectivity.

In another thread, I posted: http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/for-ccm-please-convince-us-from-scripture-alone/msg70996/#msg70996

If they legitimately become members of a congregation, shouldn't they have a say?

IP responded: http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/for-ccm-please-convince-us-from-scripture-alone/msg71044/#msg71044

Depends. Initially, no. I don't mean they don't get to vote, but when new people join, I remind them that they are joining us, not the opposite. I also explain what we are as far as a church goes, including music. If they want to join a CCM playing church, don't join here. No one is forced to join. What I am getting at is that it is unethical to join a church with the intention of changing it, or I would join all the churches in town and make it my ministry to change them.

Mathew Ward chimed in: http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/for-ccm-please-convince-us-from-scripture-alone/msg71112/#msg71112

So when a new convert wants to join your church or be baptized you ensure they agree with all the doctrines prior to baptism or church membership?

IP's response: http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/for-ccm-please-convince-us-from-scripture-alone/msg71115/#msg71115

No. They need to grow. I do go over them to see if there are any they disagree with. Generally my  only concern with them beyond salvation is that they are not morally disqualified from memebership. For instance living with a boyfriend or girlfriend.

I am concerned with those who come from another church, especially if they ae not comng form a church of like faith and practice.

So do you give new members the "benefit of the doubt" or are you "concerned"?

Since membership has been brought up now, where did Jesus teach that the church is a system where a roll of members needs to be kept?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

First of all, the 120 met in the upper room awaiting the gift of the Spirit as they were commanded.
The Day of Pentecost came, the Spirit fell, peter preached and 3000 were saved....Jews from all over the world.
The church was 'officially born.

If the criteria was when they received the Spirit for the church to be born then it would have started here...John 20:22  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

In John 14 he told the the Spirit of Truth was with them and soon would be in them.
Before His ascension, He told them:
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Acts 1:8

I believe that happened at Pentecost and was the beginning of the church.
I think the church is an assembly of believers, so that did happen before Pentecost, but the church was launched then. IMO

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

On that straw man issue, I totally agree...but I'm referring to the ones you r2 and Smellin erected...

Care to name one that you've seen from me on this topic?

You make wrong assumptions that the church today is disobedient to Scripture in its operation and structure. You are also seem to assume that discipleship can't or doesn't happen in the so called traditional church model.

We know more of what you think is wrong with what we believe than what you actually believe.
As to my question, have you ever led or organized a 'kitchen table' type church ministry?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

No more or less than someone trying to justify not following the pattern of the scriptures.

LOL - yes, you prove my point exactly. 

Conflict of interest means when you feel compelled to defend something because it is something by which you make your living (or defend something that provides you a material benefit of some kind).  It's rather hard to see the other side when your livelihood depends on believing what you believe.

There is no conflict of interest in discussing church models if you get no material benefit from any of them.

You're assuming the people I pastor pay me.

I'm not assuming anything.  I don't know who is a paid preacher/pastor here and who isn't.  I'm speaking in general.

If you (the editorial you, not you in particular) get paid to be a preacher/pastor in a modern pulpit-based church model, than yes, there is a conflict of interest in any arguments you would make about the building pulpit-based church model vs. the mutual edification model.  It doesn't matter who pays you.

Which is a ridiculous assumption. You are judging motive and sincerity off percieved vested interest. We may as well canceł out your objectivity in a discussion on tithing. You are incapable of rendering a valid opinion or objection because it affects you directly. When we vote in church I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they will vote their conscience in the what the Lord wants, not an unobjective vote based on personal gain. Too bad you lack such objectivity.

I could sum up most of your recent posts with the phrase, "Nuh uh!  You!"  It's immature and silly, because you can't provide any evidence to back it up.  All you're saying is, "I am rubber, you are glue."

However, it is clear you don't understand the concept of conflict of interest.  I dealt with it in magazines all the time.  If someone made money from a computer software company, they were automatically disqualified from reviewing (giving opinions about) that company's products.  It was a conflict of interest.  Good magazines don't even settle for disclosure of their relationship to the company in the review.  The perceived conflict of interest is enough to disqualify them. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

It would be a waste of time to knock down the straw men erected in this discussion. 

I do, however, feel that it is important for the readers of this thread to note that anyone who makes his living as a pastor/preacher has a conflict of interest in this discussion.  Just consider that when reading the arguments.

No more or less than someone trying to justify not following the pattern of the scriptures.

LOL - yes, you prove my point exactly. 

Conflict of interest means when you feel compelled to defend something because it is something by which you make your living (or defend something that provides you a material benefit of some kind).  It's rather hard to see the other side when your livelihood depends on believing what you believe.

There is no conflict of interest in discussing church models if you get no material benefit from any of them.

You're assuming the people I pastor pay me.

I'm not assuming anything.  I don't know who is a paid preacher/pastor here and who isn't.  I'm speaking in general.

If you (the editorial you, not you in particular) get paid to be a preacher/pastor in a modern pulpit-based church model, than yes, there is a conflict of interest in any arguments you would make about the building pulpit-based church model vs. the mutual edification model.  It doesn't matter who pays you.

Which is a ridiculous assumption. You are judging motive and sincerity off percieved vested interest. We may as well canceł out your objectivity in a discussion on tithing. You are incapable of rendering a valid opinion or objection because it affects you directly. When we vote in church I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they will vote their conscience in the what the Lord wants, not an unobjective vote based on personal gain. Too bad you lack such objectivity.

I could sum up most of your recent posts with the phrase, "Nuh uh!  You!"  It's immature and silly, because you can't provide any evidence to back it up.  All you're saying is, "I am rubber, you are glue."

However, it is clear you don't understand the concept of conflict of interest.  I dealt with it in magazines all the time.  If someone made money from a computer software company, they were automatically disqualified from reviewing (giving opinions about) that company's products.  It was a conflict of interest.  Good magazines don't even settle for disclosure of their relationship to the company in the review.  The perceived conflict of interest is enough to disqualify them.

So Pastors are disqualified from giving opinions?