On preaching and the hearer's responsibilities.

[prophet]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

I do not mock home assemblies as some mock churches that have grown past meeting in a home. I have Pastored/led a home assembly.
I mock those who believe the only biblical church is 5 people assembling of which 3-4 are 'equal elders'. 

You still don't understand the difference between all of the assemblies in an a given area are part of the local church,  VS every Assembly is its own Church.

In the former, most elders are debating Scripture (Paul's words) regularly, assembling on the Lord's day with other believers, and when necessary, with the rest of the local church for larger meetings.

Try to picture Acts in action, rather than your life experiences (which is what you claim my Theology is based on, a poor reaction to my life experiences, when any one with a spoonful of objectivity can see that you are actually the one doing this).
The Gospel spreads from house to house, organically, it always has.

I've told you before, the time of our liberty to assemble in the U.S. is drawing rapidly to a close.  I will no longer plant churches with a giant target on their building's front door.

You'd do well to start warning the millennials, with which you have influence, to  take heed.



Earnestly Contend

Honestly, I do personally believe that some of what you believe about the church is based on your past experience.
I repeat...I have NO problem with a house church. The church I helped start and still Pastor was a house church for awhile. Our church body has started/helped to start a number of churches in houses. In fact, we are helping to plant a new church right now.

I would not be surprised if you are correct about the future status of our freedom to worship being in some jeopardy. However, that doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned about the local church. I have yet to see a church begin in a house that could fit into the house 6-10 months later. That's my experience.

And what you believe, about the church growing into and out of larger and larger buildings is what is going to be a thing of the past.
Also, it is not found in the Scripture, not one example.
You can claim experiential on my part all you want to, I've planted churches that outgrew buildings, and that would be viewed as a success from your viewpoint, so your opinion of my experience is provably invalid.

The examples I mention are found in Scripture, yours are found in recent history, yet you feel you are right, because the majority is on your side.

I don't care, my life won't affect yours, but please don't lie to the next generation about what they should prepare for, and how they should grow.

Earnestly Contend

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I would not be surprised if you are correct about the future status of our freedom to worship being in some jeopardy. However, that doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned about the local church. I have yet to see a church begin in a house that could fit into the house 6-10 months later. That's my experience.

What do you do when a group expands to the point where not everyone can get a chance to share?  You split up into smaller groups.  You don't move into a traditional church model where the entire dynamic changes from mutual edification to sitting and listening to a sermon. 

 

[Matthew1323]

Thanks!


A thread like this is so less confusing to us less mentally gifted individuals, when some concessions are made and there is a hint of agreement, every now and then. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

....

And your 'only familiar with an IFBx tradition' is the key to understanding where some of the criticism comes from. But, some here seem to argue against the extreme IFB position regardless. They oppose a clearly Biblical position of Pastor because some have corrupted the position....and assume those who disagree with them hold that position...regardless of the facts.

Yeppers, exactamundo.

This very thought you've centered on brought me back in my mind today to a post on a long defunct version of the FFF which highlighted this phenomenon to a Tee.  Our beloved poster known as Marine (Tim Lee) was preaching at a church relatively close to here.  I wanted to hear him preach so I attended the service where he was the guest evangelist.  It truly was a good message, with quite a few being saved and rededicated.  But in the course or the message he said a few things that I knew the FFF would take issue with.  The FFF was much more robust back then, and I figured I'd have some fun with them.  I kept Marine's identity anonymous and posted a few of his sermon thoughts, which I knew would be like throwing meat to the lions.  Very quickly the forum went into full attack mode on Marine's statements.  Many of those who pounced were venerable forum members (but most were IFBx haters, including our own Dr Bob, whom I miss still today).  Marine quickly discovered I had posted some of the material from his recent sermon  and told me he thought I was trying to exploit him, but after I explained to him what was going on he was cool with it, understanding that I was not misrepresenting or betraying him in any way.  Ya see, those same forum members who fawned over Tim (a former IFBxer of Jim Vineyard fame) did to him the same thing they do to folk regularly by attacking with a super critical (David Cloud-like) spirit.  Once they found out the quotes in question were Tim Lee they walked their criticism back, many with egg on their face.

What's the point of this story?  All too often our biases and prejudices in this online format get in the way of our genuine personalities and discretionary discernment.  Most are good folk, but are too quick to put folk in neat little boxes of our own making, without any regard to seeing a larger more nuanced picture. 

 

[Recovering IFB]

What's the point of this story? 

You were actually trying to make a point? I just thought you like to hear yourself talk, Gour wide must be a saint!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

What's the point of this story? 

You were actually trying to make a point? I just thought you like to hear yourself talk, Gour wide must be a saint!

He was illustrating a point.
And, so did you. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

He was illustrating a point.
And, so did you. 

Don't drink and type?










@ RIFB

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

I do not mock home assemblies as some mock churches that have grown past meeting in a home. I have Pastored/led a home assembly.
I mock those who believe the only biblical church is 5 people assembling of which 3-4 are 'equal elders'. 

You still don't understand the difference between all of the assemblies in an a given area are part of the local church,  VS every Assembly is its own Church.

In the former, most elders are debating Scripture (Paul's words) regularly, assembling on the Lord's day with other believers, and when necessary, with the rest of the local church for larger meetings.

Try to picture Acts in action, rather than your life experiences (which is what you claim my Theology is based on, a poor reaction to my life experiences, when any one with a spoonful of objectivity can see that you are actually the one doing this).
The Gospel spreads from house to house, organically, it always has.

I've told you before, the time of our liberty to assemble in the U.S. is drawing rapidly to a close.  I will no longer plant churches with a giant target on their building's front door.

You'd do well to start warning the millennials, with which you have influence, to  take heed.



Earnestly Contend

Honestly, I do personally believe that some of what you believe about the church is based on your past experience.
I repeat...I have NO problem with a house church. The church I helped start and still Pastor was a house church for awhile. Our church body has started/helped to start a number of churches in houses. In fact, we are helping to plant a new church right now.

I would not be surprised if you are correct about the future status of our freedom to worship being in some jeopardy. However, that doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned about the local church. I have yet to see a church begin in a house that could fit into the house 6-10 months later. That's my experience.

And what you believe, about the church growing into and out of larger and larger buildings is what is going to be a thing of the past.
Also, it is not found in the Scripture, not one example.
You can claim experiential on my part all you want to, I've planted churches that outgrew buildings, and that would be viewed as a success from your viewpoint, so your opinion of my experience is provably invalid.

The examples I mention are found in Scripture, yours are found in recent history, yet you feel you are right, because the majority is on your side.

I don't care, my life won't affect yours, but please don't lie to the next generation about what they should prepare for, and how they should grow.

Earnestly Contend

And, my opinion concerning past experience could very well be invalid..but it is my opinion.
The church growing into a larger venue isn't in scripture argument is moot.
Scripture doesn't give an prohibition of such just as no order of worship service is mandated by Scripture. The church is not an organization but a living organism and living things grow and change by their very nature.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts...and that vague, incorrect 'don't lie to the next generation' is a load of poop. Churches should make disciples who make disciples...which is growth by it's very essence.
I feel I'm right for the same reason you think you're right.
The difference is that I'm actually right! 

 

[prophet]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

I do not mock home assemblies as some mock churches that have grown past meeting in a home. I have Pastored/led a home assembly.
I mock those who believe the only biblical church is 5 people assembling of which 3-4 are 'equal elders'. 

You still don't understand the difference between all of the assemblies in an a given area are part of the local church,  VS every Assembly is its own Church.

In the former, most elders are debating Scripture (Paul's words) regularly, assembling on the Lord's day with other believers, and when necessary, with the rest of the local church for larger meetings.

Try to picture Acts in action, rather than your life experiences (which is what you claim my Theology is based on, a poor reaction to my life experiences, when any one with a spoonful of objectivity can see that you are actually the one doing this).
The Gospel spreads from house to house, organically, it always has.

I've told you before, the time of our liberty to assemble in the U.S. is drawing rapidly to a close.  I will no longer plant churches with a giant target on their building's front door.

You'd do well to start warning the millennials, with which you have influence, to  take heed.



Earnestly Contend

Honestly, I do personally believe that some of what you believe about the church is based on your past experience.
I repeat...I have NO problem with a house church. The church I helped start and still Pastor was a house church for awhile. Our church body has started/helped to start a number of churches in houses. In fact, we are helping to plant a new church right now.

I would not be surprised if you are correct about the future status of our freedom to worship being in some jeopardy. However, that doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned about the local church. I have yet to see a church begin in a house that could fit into the house 6-10 months later. That's my experience.

And what you believe, about the church growing into and out of larger and larger buildings is what is going to be a thing of the past.
Also, it is not found in the Scripture, not one example.
You can claim experiential on my part all you want to, I've planted churches that outgrew buildings, and that would be viewed as a success from your viewpoint, so your opinion of my experience is provably invalid.

The examples I mention are found in Scripture, yours are found in recent history, yet you feel you are right, because the majority is on your side.

I don't care, my life won't affect yours, but please don't lie to the next generation about what they should prepare for, and how they should grow.

Earnestly Contend

And, my opinion concerning past experience could very well be invalid..but it is my opinion.
The church growing into a larger venue isn't in scripture argument is moot.

It isn't moot, when juxtaposed against something that IS in Scripture.

It isn't moot because you say that the example I give is a result of my experience, yet it IS found in Scripture.

I've told you before, there was a day, in Western history, when that model, that you espouse, worked.  It should be viewed as part of 20th Century history, and not Church tradition. 

Yes, the Gospel causes growth.
Yes, new babies are being born regularly.

No, you don't have to buy a building and put them all into it, when you can get access to a community center, or Public School theater, or etc. for those occasional larger assemblies.

Earnestly Contend

 

[ALAYMAN]

It isn't moot, when juxtaposed against something that IS in Scripture.

It isn't moot because you say that the example I give is a result of my experience, yet it IS found in Scripture.

Just because something is found in Scripture doesn't make it normative nor prescriptive.  For instance, when it comes to marriage somebody might argue for the courtship method on the basis of some Scriptural principles, but to make it an absolute for all time, and for all people is stretching the application.  The Bible doesn't say "thus sayeth the Lord, thou shalt only meet in houses", and to read into it, as you and TRT is doing does a disservice to the word of God the same way some folk do when they insist that women MUST wear dresses based on a wrongheaded hermeneutical approach to Deut 22:5

 

[prophet]

It isn't moot, when juxtaposed against something that IS in Scripture.

It isn't moot because you say that the example I give is a result of my experience, yet it IS found in Scripture.

Just because something is found in Scripture doesn't make it normative nor prescriptive.  For instance, when it comes to marriage somebody might argue for the courtship method on the basis of some Scriptural principles, but to make it an absolute for all time, and for all people is stretching the application.  The Bible doesn't say "thus sayeth the Lord, thou shalt only meet in houses", and to read into it, as you and TRT is doing does a disservice to the word of God the same way some folk do when they insist that women MUST wear dresses based on a wrongheaded hermeneutical approach to Deut 22:5

You are, once again, very adept at the erection and destruction of jonny-on-the-spot strawmen.

Earnestly Contend

 

[BALAAM]

Believe me, I have heard some of these guys preach and I don't think anyone has to worry whether or not they will grow out of the living room.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

It isn't moot, when juxtaposed against something that IS in Scripture.

It isn't moot because you say that the example I give is a result of my experience, yet it IS found in Scripture.

Just because something is found in Scripture doesn't make it normative nor prescriptive.  For instance, when it comes to marriage somebody might argue for the courtship method on the basis of some Scriptural principles, but to make it an absolute for all time, and for all people is stretching the application.  The Bible doesn't say "thus sayeth the Lord, thou shalt only meet in houses", and to read into it, as you and TRT is doing does a disservice to the word of God the same way some folk do when they insist that women MUST wear dresses based on a wrongheaded hermeneutical approach to Deut 22:5

You are, once again, very adept at the erection and destruction of jonny-on-the-spot strawmen.

Earnestly Contend

LOL at the strawmen.  And ROFL at the line in bold, because that has been the entire argument to support the current church model. 

"The Bible records the historical fact that Paul preached to crowds.  Therefore that is the prescriptive scripture for how modern assemblies should work."

The Bible says, "let two or three speak".  Forget that, just because something is found in Scripture doesn't make it normative nor prescriptive.

The Bible says, "assemble together for the purpose of mutual edification and exhortation".  Forget that, just because something is found in Scripture doesn't make it normative nor prescriptive.

So historical accounts are prescriptive, but instructions are not. 

See:  http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/the-two-primary-reasons-why-people-don't-go-to-church/msg142766/#msg142766

 

[prophet]

It isn't moot, when juxtaposed against something that IS in Scripture.

It isn't moot because you say that the example I give is a result of my experience, yet it IS found in Scripture.

Just because something is found in Scripture doesn't make it normative nor prescriptive.  For instance, when it comes to marriage somebody might argue for the courtship method on the basis of some Scriptural principles, but to make it an absolute for all time, and for all people is stretching the application.  The Bible doesn't say "thus sayeth the Lord, thou shalt only meet in houses", and to read into it, as you and TRT is doing does a disservice to the word of God the same way some folk do when they insist that women MUST wear dresses based on a wrongheaded hermeneutical approach to Deut 22:5

You are, once again, very adept at the erection and destruction of jonny-on-the-spot strawmen.

Earnestly Contend

LOL at the strawmen.  And ROFL at the line in bold, because that has been the entire argument to support the current church model. 

"The Bible records the historical fact that Paul preached to crowds.  Therefore that is the prescriptive scripture for how modern assemblies should work."

The Bible says, "let two or three speak".  Forget that, just because something is found in Scripture doesn't make it normative nor prescriptive.

The Bible says, "assemble together for the purpose of mutual edification and exhortation".  Forget that, just because something is found in Scripture doesn't make it normative nor prescriptive.

So historical accounts are prescriptive, but instructions are not. 

See:  http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/the-two-primary-reasons-why-people-don't-go-to-church/msg142766/#msg142766

Seems like we've  boiled it down to a common denominator that Stevie and Ray can't see...

Earnestly Contend

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Half a dozen people could be wrong and it wouldn't phase me one bit. This isn't a popularity contest, and I don't form my opinions about another person's theology from the collective consciousness of the FFF.[/quote]

See also: arrogance, pride.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I do not mock home assemblies as some mock churches that have grown past meeting in a home. I have Pastored/led a home assembly. [/quote]

You know Satan is the father of lies, right?

I mock those who believe the only biblical church is 5 people assembling of which 3-4 are 'equal elders'. 

Then you erect a strawman to beat up.

And, my opinion concerning past experience could very well be invalid..but it is my opinion.
The church growing into a larger venue isn't in scripture argument is moot.
Scripture doesn't give an prohibition of such just as no order of worship service is mandated by Scripture. The church is not an organization but a living organism and living things grow and change by their very nature.

No order of worship given?

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.

Interestingly enough, that section is even subtitled "Orderly Worship" in my Bible.

 

[ALAYMAN]

You are, once again, very adept at the erection and destruction of jonny-on-the-spot strawmen.

To tell you the truth, in all seriousness, I can rarely understand the stuff you write.  It's disjointed and often near incoherent.  I don't say that to be cruel, but to point out that your writing style is odd and often doesn't make sense.

So I'll punt and try again.  Is your point that assemblies/churches should never grow any larger than can be accommodated by an average sized house?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Half a dozen people could be wrong and it wouldn't phase me one bit. This isn't a popularity contest, and I don't form my opinions about another person's theology from the collective consciousness of the FFF.

See also: arrogance, pride.
[/quote]

You still have yet to provide one iota of evidence that Tozer was a mannagawd.  Why?  Because you're full of it, plain and simple.

I excuse Aleshanee, because she has not read Tozer and doesn't know any better.  And TRT, well, he's just a tool that likes to hate on authority structures.  Subllibrm has said that Tozer's word choice was poor, but he knows that Tozer didn't mean that he should have unchecked authority.  The bottom line is that Tozer was saying what the OP was saying, that Christians should listen to God's word and heed it when it is faithfully, authoritatively, and accurately proclaimed, rather than seeking to have their ears tickled or a dialogue to ascertain what each person around the kitchen table thinks it means to them.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Then you erect a strawman to beat up.

And, my opinion concerning past experience could very well be invalid..but it is my opinion.
The church growing into a larger venue isn't in scripture argument is moot.
Scripture doesn't give an prohibition of such just as no order of worship service is mandated by Scripture. The church is not an organization but a living organism and living things grow and change by their very nature.

No order of worship given?

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.

Interestingly enough, that section is even subtitled "Orderly Worship" in my Bible.

Do you even know what the word MANDATED means?

 

[prophet]

You are, once again, very adept at the erection and destruction of jonny-on-the-spot strawmen.

To tell you the truth, in all seriousness, I can rarely understand the stuff you write.  It's disjointed and often near incoherent.  I don't say that to be cruel, but to point out that your writing style is odd and often doesn't make sense.

So I'll punt and try again.  Is your point that assemblies/churches should never grow any larger than can be accommodated by an average sized house?

Yes, I agree, by your answers that you don't understand my posts.

They stay on message, refer to Scripture, point out error, etc.

This is really an admission, by you, that you don't participate well in a conversation that brings up points on a topic that you haven't heard before.

I've said several different times, in this thread alone, that the Gospel causes growth. 
I've detailed how that growth should look vs. current pop-culture tradition.
I've mentioned how this is chronicled in the book of Acts.

The Spirit of God is your guide.
I'm not, neither is Tozer, "your pastor" or any commentary, etc.

Maybe you should concentrate on other posters' posts, and ignore mine.

Earnestly Contend