Rebel wanted to know what the responsibility of the church was, let's have some discussion on it.
Starter is: Is the local assemnbly the church for each individual? Or is it a bigger item? calledoutPTL
The responsibility of the church is to teach about the things of God. Of the Kingdom. Will there be teaching as we know it in the Kingdom? The church will look quite different than we know it now. It's up to those that are now children of God to go and share the Kingdom.
There can't be a kingdom without a king. When a demoncratic country has people starving, it reflects on the country. When there is a king, it reflects the king doesn't it? So waht are the teachings of Christ in this matter? calledoutPTL
"When a democratic country has people starving, it reflects on the country."
Remember the revolution? The United States democracy was born in rebellion of a king. This was somewhat like the chosen rejecting God their King for a king of their choosing. Maybe the Canadians can give us the answers. Or did they rebel against a Kingdom too?
I see the responsibility of the church is simply to Love others, and bring them closer to Christ.
The biggest issue I have with churches is that they feel it is their job to perfect people. Isn't it true that when Jesus spent time with people He didn't make them clones of Himself or make them perfect to the standard He held himself to, but rather loved them unconditionally and made the people he spent time with feel better about His Father, and themselves, helping them to be the people they were called to be.
I feel a successful church, regardless of denomination, does the same. It gives the people who attend a desire to want to know more about their Heavenly Father, and grow spiritually. It also teaches us to love ourselves and understand how God sees us, equipping us to go out and love others unconditionally day to day in our daily lives. Understanding this it is much easier to be a blessing where ever we are working or encountering others, be it strangers or family.
Is the Holdeman church fulfilling that responsibility too, and if not, how was that determined?
Brent"
Brent, There are people on this site more qualified to answer that than me. I open the question to all...
I do however have a comment on the question and also the way it was asked.
By your wording you show how you assumed I would answer, or did you not care how a yes was determined?
In my limited firsthand knowledge of what is being taught, I must ask, Is "it" (assuming the Word) being taught with Gods intended purpose? And that my friends should be determined by the fruit of the members.
You simply cannot define the responsibility of the "church' until you describe the "church"
The term "church"
could mean the saved people worldwide, who have given their hearts over to Christ, and comprise the universal church.
They have a responsibility to love one another but not necessarily to discipline one another,
Then there is the local church, the responsibility there is to have and do and make their own rules on a local level and enforce them according to scripture, and the timeless principles of justice, according to the word of God.
The local church membership, by nature, must be held by consent (a membership agreement) and the individual member must be allowed to leave unmolested in order to have a peaceful environment of unbridled love.
The principles of the shunning charge on a willful perpetrator or definable evil, must be held by the individual that was harmed or has first hand knowledge, as apposed to the local church, or universal church holding that charge.
To allow a group holding a consortium of membership agreements to act in unison, and cause the group as one to ask a thing is to require the one being asked to address the group, thus making the group an individual, and assume it to be living organism, yet not having the prerequisites of life blood, veins, and breath, it is noting bit a shell, and idol.
To give life to an organization and address it as living
is the essence of idolatry, and is what idolatry is.
Addressing a man made creation as God is idolatry.
May God richly Bless your day!
This message has been edited by bawar on May 26, 2008 8:25 AM
I thought maybe this thread would come down to defining "church" at the expense of the "responsibility". And I have tried to define "church" as I have come to define it. (and been blasted ) I have added the word Kingdom to help me define.
The "church" is the local assembly. The congregation that you attend to learn about God and His ways. You may become a member or not.
The "universal church" is all the people that believe upon Jesus.
One automatically becomes part of the "Kingdom" when you become part of the universal church.
The Kingdom "is" but just because you are or attend a "church" does not mean you are part of the Kingdom.
Let me try to explain, Who owns everything you got? The King right? I can prove that, What did you bring with you into this world? So everything you have is a gift. It's not yours! The Kings job is to take care of you, for it is all His. He may let you use it, but you do not own it. That is why He can say worry about nothing. Your job is to do as He commands. He sees your needs.
Now the "church" says give tithe, and freely, that worked in the "universal church" in Acts. They understood the King owned all, and freely gave as there was a need. But the "church" has a conflict of interest, its need is to make sure it continues till the next collection, and only freely gives out of what is left. I have yet to see a church meet the need of all without taking care of self first, such as the church in Acts. Now when this does take place, as a need pops up elsewhere, that need is met too, maybe by one that was helped already. Because they feel free to give freely. ( I might add here that the "universal church" as a whole does not give freely until eveyone is sure that when they too have a need, it will be met.) See the "church" says, Give freely, so your needs can freely be met. Whereas the "Kingdom" says, Your needs are met, so you can give freely. God freely gave His son, holding nothing back for Himself, so that you could freely give. (I might ask here, Have you ever seen a "church" give "all" to the point that it might be the end of the congrgation itself?) The "church" has it backwards. That is why I can say the "church" is not the same thing as the "Kingdom".
Yes a "church" can exist within the "Kingdom". I don't like explaining this with money but maybe that will make it clearer for some. And yes this applies to more than money, its relationship to everyone. That takes us back to the responsibility side in teaching.
This message has been edited by Vinekeeper on May 26, 2008 10:50 AM
Rebel12, You want simple? The church I attend has a saying, "Entrusting to others what God has entrusted to us" What has God entrusted to you? To me that peels away what the church has added and leaves a Word so simple a child can understand.
Caution: This forum may contain statements and comments that are offensive. If you are easily offended, please exit this forum now.
By using this forum you agree to be accountable and liable for your post's. All postings are the responsibility of the posting participant. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management.