Protestantism, was the basis for the Reformation, the 95 Theses, proposed by Martin Luther were propositions defended in argument, which he hoped would curb the papal abuses and the sale of indulgences by church officials.
when he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church.

Luther himself saw the Reformation as something far more important than a revolt against ecclesiastical abuses. He believed it was a fight for the gospel. Luther even stated that he would have happily yielded every point of dispute to the Pope, if only the Pope had affirmed the gospel.

And at the heart of the gospel, in Luther's estimation, was the doctrine of justification by faith--the teaching that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to those who believe, and on that ground alone, they are accepted by God.

Of course we know "the rest of the story", since the Catholic  Church still to this very day, sales indulgences, in the way of offerings up for a mass or series of masses, for the deceased, for which the families of the dead pay.

As for Baptist, I understand the Baptist church to be of a variety similar to the "Heines 57" soups, it depends which group one belongs to, which will determine, what one believes;
On the one extreme end, you have the ultra liberal baptists, while on the other hand you have the Conservative Baptist, the later espousing and teaching to sound doctrine, these to my knowledge do not, consider themselves to the original 1st century church, and do consider themselves born out of the reformation.

Usually any visible church which considers itself to be the one and only true chuch, uses a formula, tying itself to some authoritarian figure who transferred or conferred the authority given by Christ to the Apostles.

In the case of Othodoxy, they have the same pope, the Roman Catholic church uses, to establish their authority, while some of the cults, use a perceived ordained prophet who is directly commissioned by  God himself, as an authoritative  figure, and some even claiming the Holy Spirit, as one who commissions the observances of God and the things of God.

Blessings,

Petro

[washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;]

Pastor Toms  reply #49

Baptism is rarely mentioned in the Gospels. Jesus is said both to have baptized (Jn 3.22) and to have committed baptism to his disciples (Jn 4.2).

Lets see, those verses;

Jhn 3
22  After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Jhn 4
1  When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2  (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples).

You must not have read my last post.  I gave you these verse in my last post..

I think you need to look at these verses, a little closer,  there is no evidence Jesus baptized, with water, but the scriptures do teach it is HE who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.  

 

. In Acts baptism is explicitly reported of almost every individual or group who accepts Christianity (Acts 2.38ff).

No argument there.

This baptism is said to be conferred in the name of Jesus (Acts 8.16; 10.48; 19.5); it is unlikely that this phrase indicates the formula employed in baptizing. It rather indicates that the person baptized receives the name of Jesus (Rev 14.1; 22.4), that is, they accept the claims of Jesus and unite themselves to the group which accepted Jesus as its founder and leader. Baptism is also called baptism in the Holy Spirit (Mk 1.8; Acts 1.5; 11.16). This phrase is clearly used metaphorically in Acts 1.5; 11.16; and it is probable that its use in Mk also is metaphorical, signifying the beginning of a new state, a new and critical experience. Elsewhere the Spirit is received with baptism (Acts 19.5 ff). For Paul baptism is the Christian's experience of the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus in themselves (Rom 6.3ff; Col 1.12). Baptism symbolizes expressly not only the beginning of a new life in Christ, but also death to the old Adam or Eve, the old life of sin. By baptism the Christian is washed, sanctified and made righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6.11). Christ sanctifies the Church, cleansing it by the washing of water in the word (Eph 5.26).

Please refer to  1 Pet 3
21  The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

This clearly is speaking of the "baptism that saves", washing of water, is not it..

That washing in Eph 5:26 is not physical water, but as you say, metaphorically speaking of the Spirit of God. this made very clearer in;

Titus 3:5   Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


Tom,

I feel as though I am wasting my time with you, going back and forth, all these verses I have quoted above,  I gave to you in my last post, you simply ignored them, and are cherry pickling verses, to keep arguing, an issue that cannot be resolved this way.

If you addresssed the verses which have been quoted, to you, in there context, I would be compelled to continue, with, but the fact is you are doing the same thing, mardis, and Ollie do.

You just ignore the scriptures giben you,  and continue arguing, for the sake of arguing..

All good things must come to an end.

I am outta hear, with you, on this issue..

Thanks for your opinions anyhow..

Blessings
Petro

["the exact frame work that God has seen fit to continue to this day in different places all around the world"]

Lightsavior reply #14

Petro, no sorry that never really cleared up much at all. I would like to say that i find no offence in you reading into what I say of the assembly I was gathered to. I know that as I dont explain its entire factual history you must be sceptical of our true desire to open the scriptures 100% and be taught by the Holy Spirit. But we do this, I pray you will see that by my diligence in discussion of this question.

You have not quoted scriptures whereby a father is an ordained pastor or elder automatically of the church of his family. I have not read it yet in my own reading, so therefore I do not see enough to convince me that you are right. I will continue to be open minded, but I desire scriptures to back up your opinion... at least on this very important subject.

Lightsavior,

You appear to place much emphasis on that which is seen, an ordained pastor, by man, in this day and age can be a ny unsaved individual who makes himself a preacher, evidenced by mail in diplomas, which can be puschased over the internet.

A father doesn't have to ordained anything.  God speaking of the father instructs him with promise,  at ;
Prov 22
6  Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
The child whom the father trains in the way he should go, God will bring it to pass.

You said "The Bride is the real church, what you see, is not the real church; I am wondering if you undertsand this?"

I wonder what you mean. Again I will ask this. When a person is saved they are automatically added to the Church or Bride of Christ. This is all believers, all those who would be raptured up if they're breath remains. However, as we are in discussion of the original church that was planted in Jerusalem (you spoke of concerning James), I would ask again, especially regarding these days. When a person is saved, many times they are not in correspondance with one of these divinely planted churches. Many times they may be found in a place where God would not want them to be. Many times they may not have any correspondance with a local assembly of believers at all. How then can you say there is not two different church settings. One is the Bride which every believer automatically enters into upon salvations day. And the other is the exact framework that God has seen fit to continue to this day in different places all around the world.    

Do you walk by faith or by sight?
Is your faith in Jesus, based on ther fact you fellowship, in a local assembly or because you know you are one of his??
No visible church today, is established or operating in "the exact frame work that God has seen fit to continue to this day in different places all around the world" Many calim to be and some even have the audacity to claim they are the only true one.
For instance, they don't meet, in peoples houses, and when the service is conducted, they are not perfectly observing all that has been commanded, in accordance with 1 Cor 14. They are held in a setting totally foreign to what was originally practiced in the early church.  Some break bread daily, believing that this remenbrance celebration is a true and proper sacrifice offered back up to God as a sin offering, evidenced by the changing of the elements of bread and wine (or juice) to the flesh and blood of Jesus, as a means of showing the work of their hands,  while others conduct it as a rememberance celebration, weekly or once a month, others as yourself, teach  that unless you sit under the teaching of an ordanined minister, one cannot be instructed by the Holy Speit nor receive blessings from above,  these are all mens teachings, trying to be taught as thought they be Gods Commandments.
Do you ask my opnion on these issues , so that you can believe what is right, and what isn't?
You read the same, bible I do, and if your are one of the saved, you also, possess the same spirit, and you fail to see, the liberty one has in Christ.
I have been very clear to state, that believers should worship corporately with other believers, but it is not a matter of them losing their salvation if they do not, they will miss out on spiritual blessings and fellowship, but you are wrong if you say, it is absolutely necessary to do so, since they cannot receive anything from above unless they do, it your way, or my churches way.

They cannot be one and the same, as not everyone is gathered in a place that God has planted. Yet all who are saved are part of the Bride.

God bless.

Well there you go, you can see, they are not one and the same, so what does this mean to you?

The invisible church is 100% regenerated people of God, the visible church is made up of sheep and goats, sometimes even the pastors and elders are goats, so for you to assume that just because there is a church around the corner by your house it is the reral thing, is naive, you wouldn't submit to its pastor and elders if they are not Christians, the fact that they ordained from somewhere, means nothing.

I  seems to me, you have trouble accepting these things ultimately by faith, what you are unable to understand with your mind.

So there are many groups of people that make up physical churches around, none are 100 % accurate in the way they observe all things of God,  so don't put your faioth in what you see, or appear to see, Jesus said;

The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21  Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.  Luke 17:20-21


Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Sorry, but I ve run out of time, hold your questions till I return..

I will answering one more post, after this one, and won't be here on this thread..

Belssings

Petro

An, another one bites the dust.  Petro you are one of the most prideful men I have ever known (read).

I don't think Pnotc prides himself on anything.  He speaks from his knowledge of the truth as presented in the Bible and church history.  

stelizabeth,

Well of course you do, you are in this camp the distorts Gods word with pnotc and others, using intermediaries which are against the good word of God, which able to make you wise unto salvation.

Shalom,

Petro

[believed]

Pastor Tom,


If water baptism, is the baptism, which accomplishes all this you have written, then there was  NO need for Jesus to speak of another baptism.

He himself was baptized, and yet, he spoke of another baptism, he would be baptized with, and spoke in this manner to his disciples this way;

Mat 20
22  .............Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
23  And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with:  (see the parallel in Mk 10:38-19)

The Apostle Luke writes in;

Acts 1
1  The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2  Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3  To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4  And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5  For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


At;

Acts 8, there was a certain man called Simon who was a sorcerer and had made a big impression on Samaria do to his sorceries, who was baptized with water at verse 13, of whom the scriptures say that he believed and yet remained in his sin, and the others who were baptized also, received not the Holy Spirit (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) verse 16;


But when Peter and John, who were sent from Jerusalem, prayed, for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:vs 15

17  Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

This Simon of whom the scriptures say he believed, he followed Phillip fascinated by the miracles he(Phillip) performed, and since he (Simon) had convinced many that he had "the great power of God" vs 9-10, he desired the gift, that he might impart thre Holy Spirit, for money, evidenced by Peters answer "They money perish with thee" verses 18-24.

So we see, plainly that Simon was a professor not a possessor, and,  those who teach salvation by (water) baptism  are faced with a dilema here, salvation by baptism with the Holy Spirit is what is required water baptism accomplished nothing because of the lack of Faith, this is a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9), and this was performed by the laying on of hands upon them that had received the Word of God and the preaching of the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, afterwards were given the Gift and sealed by that same Spirit of Truth.

This Simon, from whose name we get the word "simony" (making a business out of that which is sacred) was the forunner of those who seek rather to go to a human mediator
between God and themselves rather than the Lord himself.

That there was no true repentance  on simon's part is indicated by his words, "Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me."

He  did not repent for his sin, but only for the consequences which might bring on him.

The Apostle Paul himself was given the Holy Spirit, before being baptized (in water) for the remission of Sins, by the laying on of Annias's hands (Acts 9:17-18); note Ananias expresses full fellowship with him by the words which he speaks to Paul;  

"Brother Saul", the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.  And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Plainly, from the verse above, he received his sight because he had received the Holy Spirit.

And then finally, the Apostle says this;

1 Cor 1
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?
14  I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15  Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16  And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18  For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
 
Notice please where the emphasis is herein, not in baptism, for this was what caused the contentions here.

If water baptism is all that which is espoused herein by those who put there faith in it,  then it seems Paul would have straightened this matter out, but he makes it cleasr, at verse 16, how important baptism is in regards to the preaching of the word, by which people are saved. Undertsnadng that belief in the preached word was more important than the act of baptism.

He ends it by stating;

1 Cor 12
13  For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Plainly reffering to the passage I began this post with at    Mat 20:23.


The disciples understood there baptism was likened to the baptism of John,  because they baptized the people with that same baptism while Jesus walked with them, John 4:1-2.

And finally don't kid yourself, those who become children of God, do not because, they have been baptized with water, but because they have received Jesus, since the word is plain to say;

Jhn 1
12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

These are born from that incorruptible seed spoken of by Peter;

1 Pet 1
22  Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23  Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

And that baptism which is done not with human hands, is what does it; (Col 2:11-12) the baptism into Christ, which puts on Christ.

Gal 3
26  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.



Blessings,  

Petro

[you]

Petro-

"You already established your unbelief in the soveriegnty of God, no doubt because of methodist leanings which you have been unable to shake, even though you keep searching for the truth."

Once again we are blessed by your psychic ability to peer deeply into my soul!  I sincerely doubt that I have any Methodist leanings still clinging to my brain cells, since we weren't all that active in the church.  I mostly went to pre-school there and went to Sunday school until the 4th grade.  While I don't remember much of it, I don't think they delved too deeply into theological differences at that level.  And no, for the record, I fully believe in the sovereignty of God.  I simply believe that he is so sovereign that his authority and control are not threatened by free will in his creations.  Your God-concept puts God on the defensive; if he's not in control of everything, he's not in control of anything.  In this, Calvinism imposes a definition of sovereignty onto God that is not present in scripture.  Scripture certainly teaches that God is in control and has the power to do whatever he wishes, but there are also thousands of examples of his creations exercising choice.  

"You cannot and never will see, the biblical teaching of it, for a man must come by faith, believing in His wisdom and understanding."

I fully believe in His wisdom and understanding.  I also fully believe that you are adhering to what you believe to be true, however mistakenly that adherence may be.  And you're right, I never will see it, because it's not biblical.  It imposes outside conditions and ideas onto the Word.  Granted, they are imposed with good intentions, but they are nevertheless, false teachings.  

"You, who would question God, see yourself as just as soveriegn as He, which means to me, you are in for a rude awakening, unless you snap out of it."

Your psychic powers again?  You've stated this before, this "you-see-yourself-as-sovereign-like-God" thing, and I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now.  Care to elaborate?

"I ansawered it and just because you didn't like my answer you slithered off without telling us, why, God ordered His house decorated with them."

The question was originally asked by Kerygma, and you didn't answer it then.  And when you finally did "answer" it, your response was something along the lines of "I don't dare to questions Gods word you filthy, heathen sinners."  Okay, I added that last part, but it was certainly implied in the tone of your posts.  Also, I think you're forgetting that I did answer your question.  I'll save you the time of looking it up - God ordered those decorations because he sees (unlike you) the difference between idols and images used to bring him glory.  Cherubs and icons are the latter, whereas you continually confuse them with the former.  This, of course, is due to your hatred of all things Roman, and by extension, all things Traditional.  As for me slithering off, you're the one who decided to stop posting on that page.  You got off a couple of fleeing salvos, and then disappeared.  Want to rejoin the conversation?

"If not that is fine, as I can understanbd you wouldn't want to stick your neck out any further, then you have already, since you would have to use the scriptures to substantiate your presupposition."

Happily.  But this isn't the thread for it.  Come over to Orthodoxy part 2 and we'll get back into it.  

"we need the inspired version."

Or do you mean "Petro's version?"

"From what you have stated, here it is obvious you don't know what Calvin taught, you speak out of ignorance, better it be if you remain silent."

Actually, I know very well what Calvin taught.  I did some research in this area a few years back.  Calvin didn't teach TULIP, or any of that other stuff.  He simply laid the groundwork, and his followers took his teachings to their logical conclusions.  It is those conclusions that I was referring to.  You may hold to a different set of beliefs on the matter, but its really not a viable position.  Any Calvinist doctrine, taken to its logical conclusion, makes God the ultimate author of evil.  From your statements, you seem to fall in line with "hyper-Calvinism."  And yet you offer up ludicrous arguments like:

The evil one knows that there is a Godly seed, but he is in the dark as to who they are, just like us, this is why, his goal to deceive,  devour, kill, and murder, pillage rape, and what ever, in hopes of frusterating Gods Plan, if he can cause the death of just one of the elect,  whom God has chosen from before the foundations of the world, then he can thwart the Plan of God.

First off, if we don't know who the elect are, why do you continually condemn those of us who disagree with you?  How do you know we're not one of the elect?  For that matter, how do you know that you are?  Now, the last part of your statement is absurd.  If God has chosen these people before the foundations of the earth to be saved, then they will be saved.  There is no room for the devil to do anything, much less thwart God's plan.  If they die unsaved, then they were not foreordained to salvation.  You contradict yourself in this.  The elect are the elect are the elect.  The devil certainly has no say in this.  If they are elected for salvation before the foundation of the world, how on earth could they possibly lose that salvation?

but He brought me kicking and screaming and arguing with his Word,  to the truth that I was a sinner, needing to repent. He didn't force to repent

I'm assuming the last sentence intended to say that he didn't force you to repent.  The fact of the matter is, if he brought you kicking and screaming then he did.  Oh, and of course, this violates the I in TULIP.  Irresistible means, in this context, you were indeed forced into repentance.  Another hole in your logic.

Oh, and this kind of thing:

"Others see their salvation differently, and do so to give themselves credit, because they really don't want God to get all of the credit."

is self-serving, self-righteous crap.  All your talk makes it abundantly clear that you are very, very satisfied with yourself and quite full of pride.  It was a nice sentiment though.

pnotc,

You are still kicking and screaming  at Him and at the pricks, what are you talking about.

You resist the Holy Spirit, yet..

You fail to recognize, that there are limits, to Gods word which He has placed beyond which we can only assume, this what He did or didn't do, and your pre sumption that these images were given that you might worship images is exactly that, presumption; which you need to excercise and get approval for from other men, because you desire to pray to them or thru them to justify it to yourself.

I have already given you his word and what he says, seen you can't receive it, I find fruitless to carry on with you concerning the matter of praying to angels and departed saints, go and  do what you are bent on doing.

I am not interested in arguing with those which ignore good council.

If you are a child of God, you should recognize, that he places a hedges around that which belongs to Him, and it would be well for you to stay put, if you belong to him, His desire is 100% obedience to His desires, and you are not ignorant of them, at least you won't be able to claim ignorance beyond this point.

For to obey is better than to sacrifce..and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

You pride yourself in being a military man, and yet, you seem to ignore the commandments of the Captain of the Army of God (Jesus), who made the battle plan when He appeared before Joshua, actually, you ignore Him, because you are unable to discern the Lord..

I say argue amongsts yourselves, and or councel yourselves, whatever you want to do is fine with me..

I see, no need to speak with you about the matter further.

Petro

[And I knew him not]

Petro,

What do scriptures teach that baptism with water is for?

Would you explain it with scripture references?

Thanks,
Ollie

Ollie, I have already written much on this subject, I don't have time to go over it again, I knoiw I have given you the same information at leats twice before, which I plan to write herein now;  I am going to be very busy for the next two weeks or so, with my family, I doubt that I will have time to even spend on the correspondence we have been exchanging, but as soon as I get back to it, I'll try and catch up.

But, briefly, allow me to show u some key verses which might shed some light on the subject for you.. I have given these out over and over; even to the point where I wonder why I even get in these conversation with you all, since it appears top me you ignore them and keep on insisting, water baptism some how or other,  clinches the deal of receiving the Holy Spirit.

First of all, it is obvious when reading the account of Cornelius at Acts 10, they received the  Holy Spirit, excactly as the disciples received Him, on the day of pentecost, the disciples had already been baptized with John's baptism for the repentance of sin.  There is no account that the disciples where re-baptized after recieving the Holy Spirit, in fact the scriptures speaks of; "One Lord, One faith, One  Baptism (Eph 4:5)

Water Baptism, was what John came forth performing, while declaring;  Make straight the way of the Lord, (Jhn 1:23), and his message, was that;

26  I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

again,

29  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30  This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
31  And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32  And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33  And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Please note verse 31, the account that John gives us,  for the reason he came baptizing with water,

I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel , therefore am I come baptizing with water.

In the vernacular, John says; I came baptizing with water, so, that Jesus might be made manifest to Israel.

What does does this mean??

That Jesus might be revealed to Israel

Does this verse mean something else to you??

At  Mat 21:25, Jesus asks;

The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?

What is your answer??

I say it was from heaven, why because it was ordained by God himself, to John, and again, let me make sure you see, this, John testified;

33  And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34  And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Now knowing how you think, after all that has been said herein, your going to go to Acts 19; and try to prove that it is necessary to be baptized, in water by the laying on of hands of a priest, reverend or someone, in order to receive the Holy Spirit, but, this is where you are wrong,

Because when one reads the Account of Acts 19:1-7, there is no mention of "water at all", Paul simply laid his hands on these and the "holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Vs 6.

And what is not evident to those who read this passage superficially, is that these men, were unbelievers, who had been baptised with Jhn's baptism (in water) but knew nothing of the Holy Spirit, evidenced by their answer to Pauls question:  "Unto what then were ye baptized?" vs 3.

Just because the scriptures at verse 1, say;

Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Just because the word says these where disciples, it doesnt mean they where disciples of Jesus, or John.

Any carefull reader at this verse, should ask himself

Whose disciples are these, anyhow?

They knew something, but they didn't know anything about the Baptism of the Holy Gohst which was to follow Johns baptism which he preached, in fact they said;

"We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost."

So it is obvious they where;

1. Unbelievers.

2. Not disciples of John, nor Jesus.

If you read on in Acts 19, there was all sort of things happening by unsaved individuals using the name of Jesus and Paul to exorcize at Ephesus, note verses 13-14.

On the otherhand, when they believed and where baptized by Paul, they recieved the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

In every case the Apostle who baptized in water, did so, after those who were batized believed. And they ejmphasized "believe".

I am afraid you read to much into the scriptures to your own detriment, you assume these were baptized with water.

Now, yes I know Jesus, said to the Apostles;

Mat 28
19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

But they emphasized, belief as being the necessary for salvation, not baptism, and certainly not water baptism to be the real thing.

 
Now, contrast this passage of scripture with Acts 10:47, where water is mentioned for baptism to them who had not been baptized in water, but had received the Holy Spirit, and note that, the laying on of hands had not been done to this either.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The baptism of with the Holy Spirit is the real thing, and it is performed by God, the baptism of water for the remission of sins, is peformed by man, after one has come to faith and been sealed by the Spirit of Promise, both are perfomed at different times and received by faith, and only when one has been sealed by the Holy Spirit can it be truly said, this person is saved,

Many people today who place their faith in being batized by a priest, or reverend in a church, and have not believed, are damned, that baptism hasn't done anything for them, and anyone that tells them, you are saved don't worry about it,   just because they have been baptized, and belong to this or that church,  are derelict in their duty as a Christian, in giving out the word of truth.

There is only one baptism that saves, and that is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

Now what good is Water Baptism, well for one, the significance is not as evident today as it was then, but it is an out ward testimony of an inward need, of being cleansed from sin, washed, but it one of obedience to a command given by the Lord himself, signifying faith in Him,  it is the same today as it was then, it identifies you with the risen savior, get baptized, and there is no doubt in the minds of the people that hear about it, in whom you have placed your faith.



I now this is mystery to many..

Blessings,
Petro

[received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.]

Acts 17
11..................... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

So when a person sits under the teaching of elders, pastors, teachers, eveangelists, it is imperative that, that Christian receive the Word and study it to see, if what is being taught is of God, and where does one do that, if not by checking it against the scriptures, the Holy Spirit will confirm this as the one prayerfully studies, what he has received form man in the name of God..

The other principle that needs to be pointed out, is the ALL Christians are to study the Word, to show themselfs approved of God..rightly dividing the Word of God  (2 Tim2:15)

So whether or not you will accept it, or not,  it is not imperative, for Fathers as leaders of there families to sit under the teaching of elders or any one else, the Holy Spirit is well able to teach and lead, any Christians by virtue of there position in Christ, fulfilling the scriptures, prophecied in the OT Jer 31:34, and;

Jhn 6
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Don't think that just because someone comes to Christ, the teaching from God stops.

The Holy Spirit  is well able to teach anyone the word of God, perfectly,  without the need of the local assembly, Now if you ask me, should they make an effor to do find a local church, to become a part of,  may answer is, yes, but it is not imperative, they will miss out on blessings but they wont lose their salvation if they don't.  


   

Also, I wonder why my questioning the legitimacy of one man being the holder of all gifts in an assembly of believers... (ie a family by chance) can elude to me believing in a priestly system. And you said it would be something other than that planted by God. Would you agree that every circle of believers should have the ability for God to move and point out someone who should be removed from the circle? How then is this possible to maintain if only one man is in the circle? He then is accountable to only God, which is supreme indeed, yet if he be of a wrong spirit anyways, no one is there to correct him.

A father, is a father because God made a father.

By virtue of the fact that God has placed him in that position as father, king and priest, this is between God and that man, you can remove a father and his family from a church, but you could never remove him from his position as father, and the only way God could remove him, is to kill him..  

No father is going to disown his child because they (the children) have sinned, he is going to make every effort to reconcile that child back into the fellowship, both with himself and with God..

In removing a father from a church of believers, you would in effect remove his children, for they are not accountable to the church, they are accountable to their father, since their father has been placed over them, by God, and no church has the authority given to it by God, to rule or overule in a Christian family, but the father only.

A discerning Christian father, needs to subject himself to be led of Gods spirit, when He does this, He will know and be guided by Gods Spirit to meet the needs of his family, I am afraid, your views or mine on this won't influence Ollie, on what is best for his family, no more than, my having any influence to change your opinion on what is best for your family.  

I go to a place called a "Gospel Hall", the word we use for the building itself, not the people within. There are many many many Gospel Halls in this world. Perhaps thousands and all are self governing assemblies. There is no central government. I was at one time in the circle, but because of my own lawlessness I felt it necessary to remove myself. If I had of allowed it to continue without a letter removing myself then I would have been disciplined. The New Testament is very clear there needs to be correction/accountability within an assembly or circle. Therefore the governing head which is the elders, who by the grace of God decide only those things which are quite necessary. There are always an odd number of elders as decisions need to be made in sometimes very difficult situations.
God bless.

I have heard of Kingdom Halls, so long as it is not one of these, I suppose, gosple hall, can be used instead of church, or fellowship hall, I guess the name doesn't matter that much to me, some people may take issue with it, but, my concern would be what goes on inside of the building moreso, than what the building is called or looks like.

Ther are many churches today that ex communicate mothers and fathers, and sanction the breaking up of families, even when fathers are saved and chose to leave these churches, they exert such oppresive rule over their members, so as to cause families to be destroyed in the name of God.

As for your last question;

My question remains, how is there accountability within a family if the father is the only male?

Now, let me remind you we have been talking about a Christrian family, led by a Father who knows and loves the Lord.

I have already covered this, the father is the leader of the family, he is accountable to God and no one else, for his own family.

The husband is the head of his wife, just as Jesus is the head of the church, children are to obey there parents, fathers are instructed to bring up, their children, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.  Every father who knows the Lord will do this as the Lord leads Him, and he the father, does not have to consult with anybody else about how he ought to do it, if he doesn't want to.


I trust this has cleared something for you.


Blessings,  
Petro

Amen Ollie, this person has attacked rather than asked anything. The comments they made I am sure were not meant to say what they did, but were made in haste. I will not question further, but you were on the button exactly. Keep on. But one question, can you possibly clarify how a person is received into the church. We are not talking the Church (the Bride), but the churches that God plants in different areas. Not all are in the church that God has kept since its first being planted after our Lords resurrection. So I wonder what u mean by  

  "One is added to it such as should be saved."  I think what u mean is that if they are genuinely saved then it is in Gods plan for them to be added, but not that they are automatically added.

lightsavior,

Thanks for your response;  

I wouldn't make more than what it is that stelizabeth said, I understood perfectly what she meant, she was talking out a certain group that identifies itslef as such, unfortunately, one has to  identify oneself, in such a way, which would give the impression (to the unlearneded) that one is something other than he is, when dealing with religious people, but she knows exactly what I meant.

I am not Ollie, but I understand what Ollie is saying, as I stated before, the real church of God, is an invisible church, Christ being the head of it, and it is He who adds those to it daily (Acts 2:47) them whom  are given to Him by the Father.
The Holy Spirit, sealing them and empowering so to be able to live a victoriuos spiritual life, this is what he meant, and it is not necessarily any one institution which you associate with being the church of God or Christ which way you prefer to say it.

you said;

We are not talking the Church (the Bride), but the churches that God plants in different areas. Not all are in the church that God has kept since its first being planted after our Lords resurrection. So I wonder what u mean by  

The Bride is the real church, what you see, is not the real church; I am wondering if you undertsand this?

Petra, where in the Bible is a father given the divine place of being an elder? If it is within the bible I will take it as truth, but I have never seen nor heard of this scripture. As much as I agree God does not leave the side of those who have no one to be in fellowship with, I have never heard of this truth that supplies the head of a family with the divine right of being a moving testimony of Gods planted church.

In the first place the father doesn't need to be appointed an elder by anyone,  the fact that he is the father of the family, makes him the head; you need to consider the history of where the word elder came from and the function of its office, the office of an elder, does not supercede the office of father, king priest, and elder can be the same thing a father of a family, king and priest divinely appointed by God

It actually spans both Testament periods, in the OT, the term elder as used in the Bible usually designated one of several terms or ideas which were associated with age, experiernce, authority as well as leadership roles.

You might want to do a word study on this.  There is no need for me to teach it here.  But i will review it for you in a nut shell.

The basic meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words for elder is "old age".

Around the time Jesus walked the earth, their was a council of elders of 71 members called the Sanhedrin (Council, Assembly)which was the highest ruling body and court of justice among the jewish people, ordinarily the High Priest normally  was considered the chairman.

The prescense of elders in the NT church, indicate that this office was assumed likewise from the synagogue, The bible associates elders with James (the Apostle) who sat as the chair at the first council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), in the ascertaining of these doctrines which were called to question and were assumed as within the jurisdictional control of the chuches governing structure, so then it is understood that elders were administrators to govern and administrate and rule and judge over the affairs of the local church (central church at Jerusalem).

And an elder who held this office in the church, did so, usually by virtue of seniority of age ( 1 Tim 5:2, 1 Pet 5:5)


Having said this, then, elders during the life and times of the Apostles, were either appointed or chosen, by the Apostles, in the begining (Acts 14:23), they played an important role in the early church, and no doubt should fill this same roll today, they visited and prayed for the sick, prayed for the sins of those afflicted and in general would have filled the role, of what a pastor occupies today in the local Christian congregations, they taught and explained the scriptures, and no doubt taught doctrine, but they alone, were not, the only teachers, nor prophets, nor, evangelists or pastors.  

The father of a family, can teach his children, guide them in the things of God, he can intercede for them, and discipline them, of course he doesn't discipline his wife, but honors her,  as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. (1 Pet 3:7)


The Elders were administrators and overseers of the flourishing assemblies of the early churches.

Now let me remind you, right here, that there is really one ultimate teacher who leads all of Gods people in the way of truth, and it is the Holy Spirit, don't think form a moment, that just because there happens to an elder, and a pastor in a church today that they, are the primary teacher of all things considered to be of God, Jesus never entrusted His church to men, it is the Holy Spirit that guides the church, faithful men are used to administrate, and lead and oversee, the small bands of the flock of God;

So, if you think that someone must absolutely be under an elder or a pastor, you don't understand, this point,

Christians are to be diligent in the keeping of the word of God, and this involves reading , studying, and meditating in the Word, quick to hear it, and slow to answer, and being as noble or more so, than the Bereans who ;


Cont'd*************

Petra, do you believe in Gods planting of accountability within an area before a church?(ie, elders)?

Absolutely,

But an elder, is an elder by virute of the fact he is elected as an elder or chosen, by the congregation or assembly, or other elders, same as the deacons.

Every beliver is a priest and king, not because man has made him such, but because God has ordained it so.

So when I say, a family unit is sufficient, for gathering to worship, that is biblically correct; now if the father, of this family desires fellowship, and seeks that fellowship, among other believers, who are biblically minded, and is satisified, He and his family can be edified, and nurtured to grow and flourish in the faith with a certain group, then it is his perjorative to join the group, or not, He should submit himself to others of like faithminded indivduals, but, he is not under obligation to anyone to bow, before the cardinal, bishop, priests, reverends or whatever of the local Roman Catholic church, or Orthodox church or any ionstitution, claiming to be the only church, submission requires discernement to lead his family in the way and teaching of God according to the scxriptures, this responsinility is his given by him by God, and he doesn't just have to surrender it to anyone that comes along claiming to represent God.

If so, then you understand the need for this to go alongside any gathering place. How would a family break bread in the divine direction of God, when likely the father is the only one who could be an elder. Thus the father also likely has all the gifts of the assembly or circle. This would not be correct, as wrong teaching would be inevitable based on the scriptures.

You sound as thou you believe in the need for a priestly system, other than that established by God, do you?

The father has a priest standing before God, whatmore does he need, I don't see an elder having more authority in Gods pecking order.

The word of God calls all his children to submit one to another, as a father I will submit myself, after I have ascertained the people I am fellowshipping with are authentic, but not before, and it is important that the doctrines be viewed reasonably within ones own understanding, in the foundational doctrines, the are called the watershed of the Christian faith.

 And I agree that many places in this world are run by mans way, but we should be caught up in the word and what God tells for us to do. Not in comparisons, and what is least best or least worst, or however it is.

I don't know what your point is here, but, if your saying that the word of God, is not to be used to measure everything that is done in worship, this is where I jump off agreeing with you, the Word of God is supremely important in establishing, guiding and observing all that is desired by God, for by it, He has communicated what pleases Him, and what doesn't.

And what doesn't is called sin..

 

I mainly wonder at the first question, and truly appreciate you taking part in this dialogue, much can be learned when we understand where God wants us to be.

God bless.

In other countries, Christianis, may not even live close enough to havew fellowship with  others of faith, and the only thing that sustains them is the Holy Spirit, they don't have the opportunities we, have by virtue of the laws of the land, and they even live in fear of being found out;  Has God abandoned them?, are they not able to commune with God, just because they don't belong to an local assembly, or have elders, deacons, pastors over them, the only reason they can't fellowship the way we do,  is because there is over abundance of elders, deacons, pastors, reverends here, and no one will leave the comfort of their own little environmenst, to join them, in those countries to see after their welfare,  they might be abandoned by the physical church, but I tell you God hasn't abandoned them.

Do you think, they can't worship God, where they be..??




Blessings,
Petro

[And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;]

I thought I was being pretty clear.

In Baptism we die and rise in Christ.  "When we were baptized, we died and were buried with Christ.  We were baptized, so that we would live a new life, as Christ was raised to life by the glory of God the Father."

Only the Holy Spirit can enable the dying and rising of Baptism, and God's promise is that this is what the Spirit does in Baptism.

Yes, in Baptism we recieve the Holy Spirit.

Can someone receive the Spirit without being baptized?  Yes as happens to Cornelius and his household in Acts 10 and as is evident in many people of faith in churches that practice believer's Baptism.  Without the Spirit they would not have faith.

Shalom

Pastor Tom,

All believers are saved in exactly the same way as Cornelius and His ousehold were saved, it is clear they had received the Holy Spirit, before they were batized in water.

They had received Faith by Grace , which resulted in the sealing of the Holy Spirit exactly, the same way, that the disciples had,  at the day of Pentecost.

Note the scriptures at the First Council at Jerusalem, when Peter testifies, what happened that day at Cornelius's

Acts 15
7  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9  And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.


When he referred to Acts 10:45-46.

Please note the words;  in verse 9 above, purifying their hearts by faith.

And then, we read at the verse which has been previously quoted;

Col 2
9  For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10  And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11  In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

The circumscision made without hands (verse 11), and the baptism with the Holy Spirit are in view herein at this passage, and are the result of Gods work, in that He had promised to do the same for Israel, and since all believers are saved exacly the same way, for there is no difference between them and us, we can see who He does it;

Eze 36
24  For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
25  Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26  A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27  And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

All this is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, the promise fulfilled by faith in Jesus, to everyone who believes.

The Baptism, the Lord Commanded (water baptism) is not required at all for Salvation, Salvation is accomplished by the Work of God, through the Holy Spirit, this is the Batism, that Jhn spoke of in Jhn 1:33

This made clear by the verse which has been quoted and re-quoted herein,  

Mk 16
16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Since "believeth" is the word which clearly distinguishes those who are saved, and those that are damned, herein, one must conclude that water baptism, without belief, is useless.

And since belief, is what determines salvation, it is not focused on the act of water baptism at all, but, in the finished works of our Lord and Savior, our faith being in the operation of God  who by the power of ther Holy Spirit raise Him, from the dead, this is why, Paul tells us in;

Rom 8
9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10  And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11  But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

And all this occurs before a person is baptized in water, because Baptism with the Holy Spirit is an act of God, it is evidenced by the sealing of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit testifying to our Spirits that we are children of God, way before we are baptizeed, this is what is called the 'new birth' Jesus spoke of, to Nicodemus.

Of course this is what produces a desire to obey the Lords commandment and everyone should seek water baptism,

And this is the reason, I would never say as "mardis" claims, that water baptism is necessary fgor salvation, this is not what the scriptures  teach at all.

This teaching will decieve many, into believing they are saved, because they have said certain words, and had water sprinkled or have been submerged in it , and belong to a church, that teaches it.  This then would cause them to focus, on a wrong object for their faith.

I think it needs to be taught, so people do not confuse, which Baptism is the one that matters.

Blessings,  
Petro

Calvinism is a pernicious, unbiblical doctrine.  It was never held by anyone in the church (except for some Calvinistic leanings in St. Augustine) until the Reformation.  That in itself is a mark against it.  

However, the biggest problems I have with Calvinism are the way it distorts scripture and the fact that it makes God the author and agent of evil.  The former is evidently clear, as when Petro takes the verses that state God is not willing for any to perish to mean he is not willing to let those he's elected perish.  The clearest, most simple interpretation of that passage flies in the face of Calvinist teachings.  In fact, it would attempt to have it mean something diametrically opposed to it; God is very willing to let people perish.  Also, Petro states specifically that Christ did not die for the whole world, even though the Bible clearly teaches He did.  Once again, we are left with a convoluted reinterpretation of scripture to let it meet the demands of Calvinist doctrine.  There are many other examples.  

Now, for the latter.  Calvinism requires that God is exhaustively sovereign over every element of creation.  The rain, the sea, erosion, the sun, etc, etc.  
.  And this is a blasphemous, morally repugnant thing to believe.

Calvinism is also logically inconsistent.  To get around my points above, it had to create a doctrine that absolved God of evil but did not impugn his sovereignty.  So it came up with the idea that man is free to do exactly what he wants, but all the wants to do in his fallen state is sin (an obvious contradiction of Romans 7).  Therefore, God is still able to predestine people to heaven and hell, while still retaining his sovereignty, and yet is not evil because man has freedom.  A nicy tidy little package, until you get to the first 3 chapters of Genesis.  Adam and Eve were not fallen, so they were pure, they were holy, they had only good intentions and desires (which is all they were capable of since they did not have a fallen nature).  So why did they sin?  Either it is because God forced them to or they had the freedom to choose to disobey God.  The former makes God a monster and the original author of sin.  And the latter means that the unfallen nature is not entirely good.  If the unfallen nature is not entirely good, since it chose to sin knowing full well it was against God's wishes, then neither can the fallen nature be entirely bad.  Hence, the Calvinistic system falls apart.  

On a side note, I find it quite humorous that you are a Calvinist, Petro.  After you rail against Orthodox Christians for believing in the "traditions of men," it is very humorous to find you believe something that is so contrary to scripture, and is truly a recent and very human tradition.  

pnotc,

You already established your unbelief in the soveriegnty of God, no doubt because of methodist leanings which you have been unable to shake, even though you keep searching for the truth.

You cannot and never will see, the biblical teaching of it, for a man must come by faith, believing in His wisdom and understanding.

You, who would question God, see yourself as just as soveriegn as He, which means to me, you are in for a rude awakening, unless you snap out of it.

By the way, you asked a question on the images of the cherubs, being used in the tabernacle/temple of God.

I ansawered it and just because you didn't like my answer you slithered off without telling us, why, God ordered His house decorated with them.  

From tyhe confidence you exhibited in asking such a question, I was sure you knew, but I wonder if your really do.

Care to tell us?

If not that is fine, as I can understanbd you wouldn't want to stick your neck out any further, then you have already, since you would have to use the scriptures to substantiate your presupposition.  I am sure Orthodoxy has a piles of papers written on the subject, but they won't fly here, you know, we need the inspired version.

You said;

  by pnotc;
But it also requires that God be in utter control of our every action as well, including sin.  Every sin, every evil deed, thought or desire is the direct result of God's intent per Calvinist doctrine

From what you have stated, here it is obvious you don't know what Calvin taught, you speak out of ignorance, better it be if you remain silent.

Blessings,
Petro

[it (could be translated "they" referring to all those in Christ, of course) shall bruise they head,]

John,

I appreaciate your post, but you are to eloquent and sophisticated, in your writings, for my feeble mind,

This is why I don't read mystery novels, that keep people sitting on the edge of their seats.

When you said; It is and "it" on teddybears thread, you totally lost me.

I did remember, the the seed of the woman in Gen 3:15, "it (could be translated "they" referring to all those in Christ, of course) shall bruise they head,  speaking of Jesus, why I found very interesting, since the word "thou" (singular), is used for the next portion of the verse "shalt bruise His heel."

While there is some real possibility to your theory, the computer system, "the beast" doesn't quote fit the scenario, since in the end, the beast  together with the false prophet are cast both;  were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.   (Rev 19:20)

So if it wasn't for this verse, It is hard to you the Internet  and fit life which would find it being judged and castr into eternal torment, as and man or an angle.

So I guess, I would have digerst some of this before, I could accept it as fitting the scriptures.

Thanks anyhow,,


Petro

stelizabeth,

Sorry to disappoint you, I am non denominational, I have shared that herein many time before.

Church of Christ believes they are the only true church as your and most all others who are on the fringes of being recognized as cults..

Nice try, thou


Petro

lightsavior,


Sorry I misled, you, I never stated it was totally unecessary to meet in corporate worship, Ollies original post was about spiritual worship.

I tottally agree with the idea, that their are specific blessings in corporate assembling of the believers; this is where the edifying, and learning, and growing takes place, but it is not to say, that it is only here in this setting that it canm only take place.

Being in subjection to the Spirit of Truth, is ultimately the bootom line in as much as all this things entail.

The promise is that He  (the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter)  is the One that shall lead you into all truth, and will call to mind whatsoever I have said.

The assembling oneself with believers, allows the excersising of the gifts, which are to edify the whole body, in a smaller  setting this may not be as intense, not as grandious as it would appear in a larger setting, but the blessings can be more rewarding, in that there are less distractions.

So, in the end I was not at all, discounting the corporate worship, which I believe one must be involved in, to be nurtured and grow, but I do not believe, it is any more important that a small gatherings, whether it be one family or two people, the important thing is ones attitude, as Ollie has pointed out.

In this country, churches are filled to overflowing, and what I see, is they design programs for every age group, mothers this way, fathers over here, kids split up according to age groups, doing all sorts of different programs, an very little in the way of actual praising, or worshipping, it is more of a business format,  in at 10:00 am, and out at 10:45 am, because the scedule must be met for the next group of worshippers.

And it just feels good type of a ministry, what value is there in that?

While in other countries, the preaching might last for hours, and the whole family is together at the gathering.

I don't say none of it is totally wrong, but, when I read the NT early church program, it is not the same..

I am with Ollie, worship sholuld be 24/7/365.

This I agree with,for sure.

And my preference is and has always been, small churches is preferable than in the 1,000s.

Blessings,

Petro