Paul's Passing Thoughts

It is well documented that church discipline no longer addresses congregants behaving badly but instead parishioners questioning the “authority” of a church’s leadership while decadent behavior among the congregants and leaders alike is ignored.

~ Andy

This realization was the straw that broke this camel’s back. 8 years out of the institution now – HalleluYah!

Absolutely. And here was another shocker for me: church discipline is not for public misbehaviors of the baser sort, but rather for ANYTHING that the elders deem, “sin.” The other shocker: church discipline, according to church orthodoxy, is a declaration by the elders concerning one’s salvific status that heaven will bind. You are not only declared an unbeliever, YOU ARE AN UNBELIEVER while under church discipline. Yet another shocker: church membership equals church discipline on different levels. A member in “good standing” is under “instructive discipline” as in “raise up your children in the way they should go.” If a member doesn’t follow the “instructive discipline” they fall under “corrective discipline” and ultimately, if necessary, “redemptive discipline.” Any kind of counseling is considered corrective discipline, so, many, when they seek pastoral counseling, are unwittingly bumping themselves up to the next level. Furthermore, the information gathered in counseling is often used for the redemptive discipline (excommunication). In regard to those who are living in open sin, but not questioning church authority over their salvation, well, we are all just sinners saved by grace anyway, right?

It took me a while to understand all of that even after we left the institution. I knew what I knew but couldn’t quite piece all of it together to make a lucid assertion. You and Andy actually helped me to do that very thing and I am grateful for it.

And we are still learning how it all fits together, and early on you suspect certain conclusions, but you hold off from drawing conclusions because of the absurdity of it. It’s awful tempting to write off Churchians as stupid nitwits but then I must remember that I fell for it for 30 years though I will give myself a little credit; I knew all along that something wasn’t right…something was off, but could never put my finger on it.

EXACTLY!!!

Nevertheless, do a survey of Churchians and you will find that 98% of them think church discipline is for those flaunting sin of the baser sort in public. There isn’t a cult in the world that can even hold a candle for Protestantism. At least Catholics are in the open about their church authority.

As you always point out, most in the institution do not know what the “leaders” actually mean. The same words and phrases are used by “clergy” but they are not saying what the “laity” thinks they are. I experienced this very early on in my church going. I did not understand why we weren’t living and acting (as a congregation) as if we were born again new creations. We kept hearing we are merely saved sinners; saved, being saved, and will be saved. I knew nothing of progressive justification back then, I just knew that what was being taught didn’t seem to reconcile with Holt Writ, but the “powers that be” were saying salvation so we must be speaking the same language? 2 denominations and 20 years and we finally left the institution for exactly what Andy posted in his OP.

Yes, we didn’t know why, but the what becomes enough to know something is seriously defective…we will figure out the why from a safe distance.

Link to pdf book “New Calvinism and Church Discipline”

I have nothing against the home church movement per se.

Well, that’s gracious of you, but we do. A church in a house is still church. We are a home fellowship movement driven by Justification by New Birth, not Justification by Faith. Pretty radical, but we welcome challenges to our position.

I read the article, and chapter 11, and I didn’t find much that I thought I disagreed with, other than it seems the Corinthians were already meeting in an established “church” and it wasn’t the homes of Christians, and you seemed to infer that it wasn’t until after the passing of the Apostles that the “church” was organized outside of the home and that this was the “falling away” in part, mentioned by the Apostle. Also, Paul preached in building with at least two stories because a young man fell asleep and fell down, and was revived by Paul. Seems to me that the “church” was meeting in other places than the home and that there was an authority structure in place as well as described to Timothy.

All, or at least most residential homes of that era were multiple story dwellings.

Were the Corinthians not meeting in a “church”, that is, a building outside of their homes that the Apostle Paul refers to as a church? It seems to me that the Apostle Paul is indicating that the Corinthians had a place of meeting where they came together for worship, other than their homes.

Right, it’s a good point. But “church” is not a biblical word and does emphasize a place where authority resides. Ekklesia is a gathering that might take place anywhere for a specific purpose. “Church” denotes institutionalism and was used in the Bible to replace ekklesia when the assembly of Christ was institutionalized. Without lodging a scriptural argument that explains why these passages shouldn’t be understood in the traditional way, let me jump directly to the historical argument. It was against the law for any religion to have purpose build locations that were not state sanctioned religions.

A slightly different rendering, but still, the Apostle asks the question, “Do you not have houses to eat in?” Intimating that where they were meeting was not the homes, but in a single, separate location, as the church…the ecclesia. NASB

The letters to the Corinthian “church” were incited by other “household[s] of faith” tattling on what was going on in some of the other home fellowships. Paul’s second letter to them included the “church’s” expansion into Archaia. This would suggest an expansion of multiple purpose build locations which is historically impossible.

Some were gathering outside the home…that “do you not have houses to eat in” infers that they were not in their “homes” or the home of anyone else. They were wealthy, in Corinth. They had the means, where many Christians did not. I’ll have to do some more research of my own, either way, it’s not a hill for me to die on. I see no prohibition in Scripture that says we cannot gather in a single building, other than homes, or that home gatherings are necessarily superior.

Actually, that verse kinda makes the contrary point. Paul isn’t saying, “Hey, don’t you guys live in homes where you can eat?” He is saying, “Don’t you have your OWN homes to eat in?” The word “have” denotes possession which is why several translations have it,  your “own home” rather than A HOME as opposed to some institutional structure. When you observe how this word is used in other verses such as one regarding a woman with child, the baby is her own possession, not just some [other] baby somewhere…So, this particular verse actually makes the contrary argument. However, to your point, in many English translations it comes out as a house as opposed to something else other than another house.

Can’t find the comment you made regarding the issue not being a hill to die on…that’s true, so if both have merit, why not go with the one that has no massive infrastructural overhead and will work in every political and socioeconomic condition?

That and the synagogue was very much part of the Jewish tradition, so it would be a natural for Christians to imitate the structure for the church. I don’t see it as necessarily wrong.

There were institutionalized synagogues that were run by the Jewish religionists and sanctioned by the local government. Indeed, “The Way” ended up doing some business in these places (evangelism), but there are no archeological findings regarding purpose builds for the movement. However, several residential homes with baptismals built inside of them have been discovered dating back to the 2nd century [furthermore, the book of Acts states that Christ’s first century assembly had dramatic global impact which means that archeological evidence should be ample if they used public buildings. Also, traditionally, synagogues were, in fact, for the most part in private homes].

There can, and have been abuses in gatherings of any type, whether in the home or in a “church” building.

True, but our primary dichotomy is family, leadership, gifts, fellowship; not institution, authority, progressive salvation, and membership.

I think you’re reacting to the same “mega church” apostasy that I am. What I see you describing is the apostate “seeker sensitive” “purpose driven” heresy that pervades so many churches, together with the New Calvinists that are bringing in the rock and roll “Christian” music. I think if you watch that video I posted, you could find some things about it that you identify with.

We would also say that home fellowships speak to the confession of our gospel, that is, a new birth into God’s literal family as opposed to an institution where justification is a mere “legal declaration” obtained by submission to an authoritative religious institution. Not passing any judgments here, just stating our position.

No problem. But no church I’ve ever been associated with has ever asserted such things, either from the pulpit or in their church covenants.

Hmmmmm, sorry for my skepticism on that. Nevertheless, let me also say this: there are many people in church who have a proper intellectual idea of Justification by New Birth and also function that way. However, unbeknownst to them, that’s NOT Protestant orthodoxy which denied the new birth in no uncertain terms. Church has totally rewritten its history and uses language that plays on the proper assumptions of parishioners while [slowly] indoctrinating them with Progressive Justification.

I have the Spirit of God, and I know Christ as my Savior, I can tell you I in no way have ever been taught these things “unawares” and if I had, I certainly would have objected. You have a “one size fits all” view of the institutionalized church, and I think it may apply in some areas, especially Catholicism and some Lutheran circles, but not in every case, in every gathering that meets in a “church”. Not by a long shot. The Lord knows those that are His…and they don’t all worship at home…My problem is that you seem to throw the baby out with the bath water. I understand your rejection of organized religion today. It is repugnant in a lot of facets, but there are a great many local gatherings of believers where the Spirit of God is present that you simply are not, and cannot, be aware of that truly do worship God in Spirit and in Truth, and i hope you can at least acknowledge that I am speaking the truth.

That’s what I just said, but here is the problem: Justification by Faith, is, what it is. As far as a “one size fits all,” name one church that would deny Justification by Faith. The problem comes in when somebody like myself is a Berean about bibliology, but then extends that to actually reading the Protestant soteriological documents. Ooops. Houston, we have a huge problem.

I think you are getting into semantical hair-splitting which many hyper Calvinists do. I will post for you what I post for them many times. You are fully persuaded that you are correct, and nothing I can say will ever move you, so I don’t wish to continue. You’ve made your position clear, as have I. Here is what I answer to hyper Calvinists, about their arrogance.

When John Piper states that “Christians still need to be saved,” When Matt Chandler states that “Christians are wicked sinners who still need the cross of Christ,” they are in fact stating Protestant orthodoxy. In regard to Protestant soteriology, they are SPOT ON. How is everyday progressive justification “semantical hair-splitting” [?]. Salvation is either a finished work in the believer or it isn’t. The New Calvinists are right and have done the church a great service in making the church wakeup to what it really believes.

He’s an apostate, as is Chandler, and sadly John McArthur has fallen in with these as well. You’re preaching to the choir, please understand. “The Spirit speaks expressly that in the last days some shall DEPART from the faith…” They’ve departed from the faith they once held, if Chandler ever really held to it at all.

Let’s not get the cart before the horse. Show me an institutional church that rejects Calvin and Luther’s gospel and you are showing me a church that I just might fellowship with. And unfortunately, the New Calvinists are the best thing that has happened to the church because what the Reformers really believed is being brought into the light [in regard to what Justification by Faith really means].

Wrong. John Piper is a New Calvinist, you do realize that, right? As is Mark Driscoll and Al Mohler, et al. Apostates all…These men are seducing the church with “another gospel”.

They are right about what Protestantism is which was confused with people reading the Bible for themselves after the Puritan Theocracy was sent packing. The New Calvinists claim that they are recovering the true Protestant gospel and indeed they are.

And it’s a lie…the New Calvinists are ushering in liberalism into the church and seducing many young people into error. Read the book I posted. Its short and to the point.

The New Calvinists are recovering authentic Protestant orthodoxy, and though they are right, I don’t like them and that’s putting it mildly while I like you, but you are wrong about them.

So, is “human effort” involved after we give our heart to God?

I think it talks about the first and main factor to achieve having proper relationship with others is to have good relationship with God first. It doesn’t mean we can be rude to others after having proper relationship God, then we will still have proper relationship with others. But it talks about having proper relationships with others is based on our relationship with God.

Why wouldn’t it be based on our new nature?

What do you mean by new nature?

The born again Christian is a new creation, no?

But does being born again mean our sinful nature completely gets rid? If so, why do we still commit sin every day now?

Yes, according to the Bible, “ALL things are new.” A remaining sinful nature wouldn’t be “new.” In the new birth, the old person dies with Christ, so, no, that person is no longer around. And no, since the new person resurrected with Christ is no longer under law, they do not sin because, “where there is no law there is no sin.” Christians fail to love according to the law because they are “weak,” but being weaker than God is not sin. Weakness does not = “sin.” Though not a legal loophole because the nature of the born again Christian is changed from being indifferent to God’s word to loving God’s word, and a willing spirit as apposed to an unwilling spirit, it is incorrect to say that a Christian commits sin that needs ongoing forgiveness to prevent condemnation. Justification is not progressive; our sin is not merely covered, it is ended.

“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”

Love must necessarily come from freewill. It’s doubtful that God is loved by people because He created them to do so or preordained it. Though God does intervene in the affairs of mankind to guarantee love will win in the end, for the most part God isn’t much interested in making people do what He would like to see them do. God isn’t like a lot of marriages that are under law; the wife is content to get her own way via nagging, and the husband does what pleases her to merely avoid the consequences of breaking her laws. That’s not love.

God is unlimited. A god that controls everything is limited because said god could be overcome by something that comes out of an uncontrolled freewill reality. An all-powerful unlimited God does not fear anything that might come from an unlimited freewill reality. God knowing the future is not that big of a deal if He is the author of a prewritten metaphysical narrative, but if He knows what’s going to happen in a freewill unlimited reality, that’s pretty impressive.

God has a certain way of dealing with evil. No, God isn’t the creator of a limited evil that He needs to control because He is limited and might create a rock too big for Him to move. God allows evil, but turns every act of evil against His children into good. And evil knows it. Evil knows that every act it commits will be turned into good by God, and this in and of itself causes evil to limit itself in some circumstances.

The angels rebelled, and God created man, a living being. The living beings were deceived, and God made them His very family. Formally, they were just living beings. God’s chosen people, Israel, rebelled, and God turned that rebellion into the saving of the whole world (Romans 11). That is God’s mode of operation in dealing with evil. More examples can seen throughout Scripture, and if you think about it, in our own lives.

Recently, we had a neighbor go to the city and complain about two large storage facilities that I built on our property. Eventually, after a few hearings, the city made me tear them down and allowed me to rebuild one in a different area of our property. The neighbor, a devout Catholic, by the way, waited till the buildings were completely finished before complaining to the city. She had also done her homework and knew that the buildings were in violation of a zoning law by 24 inches.

Even though it was a tough situation and very hard, I knew that God was going to bring something better out of it. I am presently finishing the reconstruction and the layout and construction of the new building is a much better situation for us in regard to the use of our property. I knew it would end up that way.

Though a trivial example, this mode of operation applies to every evil event in our lives; it’s a promise. What good God is going to bring out of the evil may not come immediately, but inevitably, it will.

paul