SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : why have we been failing for almost 1700 years?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )

 Re: why have we been failing for almost 1700 years?

The sources used to locate this information are not merely what has been cited, however anybody with half an interest can do a bit of footwork on their own and find much more than what has been revealed here.

This is by no means an accusation against as what we know to be the leaders and the state of the church, but rather a call to seperate from them altogether and stop with all the accusations that have historically proven to be rationalized away.

There is alot of personal distain for the state of affairs currently seen, however, in reading this, look and catch a glimpse how this first began... and then do something about it.

This is not complete and detailed, but only gives a glimpse of what is behind what we see currently afoot today.

Acts 20:32

Had the Reformation been a total break from the Babylon Mother (OF HARLOTS), i could abide Protestantism. Having spent quite some time studying history of this so-called Christianity, at present, it seems stupid for me to think that any form of Protestant Demonationalism is anything less than than a hodge podge of daughters, who are just as much hookers as their Babylonian mother.

A large majority of conservative Protestant and Orthodox leaders and theologians will wholeheartedly agree that Roman Catholicism is a perpetuation of Babylon. In fact, alot of people know early Protestant Reformers clearly identified Rome as the Great Whore of Bablylon described near the end of Revelation.

...but regarding the Reformation, what kind of break really occurred?

Without going into too much detail about this, the Great Reformation was hardly the first of The Mother of Abomnation's whoring daughters taking their brand of prostitution to the streets. There have been several such incidents of this Mother of Harlots daughter's running away from home and fabricating their own red-light district.

For example, the Anglican Church ran away from her Mother because her Pimp, the King of England, was not granted divorcement. ( This is the foundation upon which Anglicanism was laid.)

After every council of the RCC, whether: Nicea, Ladocea, Trent, etc...there were schisms, and more daughters of the Mother Harlot sold their wares in more and more places.

Every single one of these reformings (Reformations), which claimed to maintian and adhere to the one true faith, were simply reactionary in nature, and based their so-called reformation on what Roman Catholicism had already tainted of the One True Faith. There really was never a complete break and coming out from Babylon. All former 'reformations' have the earmark of not an elimination of walking in apostate prostitution, but have been merely variations of it, to either a greater or lesser degree.

Has Protestantism succeeded?

Has the great Reformation really gone back to the original plan laid out by Jesus and through the apostles?
The good news that Jesus Christ proclaimed, the gospel of Jesus Christ, hardly finds any resemblance with what we see or hear today ...even amongst those who think the devised belief system they adhere to is dot perfect.

How can their be any complete no-holes-barred relationship with Jesus if what we adhere to anything which goes against what He lived and taught? A whole-hearted relationship with our Heavenly Father in His Son does not occur by doing and telling others, "not all the principles God provides for profitable living are valuable." Neither does, "God is love and he has made a way to escape fire, when Jesus plainly states, "EVERYONE WILL BE SALTED WITH FIRE."

Faith is not faithfulness to Jesus Christ if our own words and actions do not conform to His example in both deed and word. What kind of affinity does God have with somebody who picks and chooses what is and is not right about what God has clearly revealed in the pages of the Bible?

Amidst all the rank apostacy abounding, seemingly seen in everywhere we turn, this seems to be the coupe de gra (sp) of not recognizing The One who made us as The One and only source of right instruction and direction in living how he designed us to best function.

Who has really returned to the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”?
(Jude 3).

Protestants claim commitment to following Jesus and His apostles in every respect, yet if this were true, we would once again see the [book of (the)] Acts of the Holy Spirit more powerfully displayed than at the advent of the Jerusalem Church, just because "where sin does abound, grace does much more abound." Further, "...those who experience and percieve their Elohim shall be mightily courageous, even performing as He is" (Dan. 11:32).

When have you seen this occur as a regular daily event?

The liberal christian (aka:sadducees) says the bible is myth, metaphor, and allegory, so because we believe God cares for us, the Good Book has good examples for ethical morality. The conservatives and/or fundamentalists (aka:pharisees) says they believe God has done and sometimes does and says everything His testimony declares ...but, since the 1st century, some things that happened then have changed because God no longer operates that way or perhaps it's a different dispensation.

Tell me what the difference is! Isn't this what "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof" is all about? After that statement about "having a form of godliness but are actually powerless," Paul says to have NOTHING to do with them.

How do you obey that command, and just what do you think "come ye out from among" them really means?

Are the Scribes (expositors and theologians) living and teaching what Jesus has exampled as the way into life?

The Herodians (religious right and moral majority) think it's all about manipulating things in affiliation with the powers of church and government...but when did Jesus ever do this? In fact when did He ever advocate being part of any system of domination whose ideals rest on their own opinions of what will right the wrong (however they concieve it to be)?

Anyway, nearly everybody acknowledges Martin Luther to be the primary original founder of Protestantism, yet when it satified Martin's own devisings he repeatedly rejected the authority of scripture. In the 95 thesis nailed to the door of the RCC hold, that castle, we can read that he did not protest indulgences and penance (taxing), but the over-abuse of them. (How many of you have taken the time to investigate what you are told is true regarding the history of the christianity currently promoted?)

Mark Twain once made an astute observation, something to the extent that :what is currently believed and practiced in Christendom, is the result of a succession of others telling others ad infinitum, and the end result isn't even worth a brass farthing.

Rejecting the doctrine of transubstantiation, Luther declared : “For that which is asserted without the authority of Scripture or of proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but there is no obligation to believe it…. Transubstantiation… must be considered as an invention of human reason, since it is based neither on Scripture nor sound reasoning” (Documents of the Christian Church, ed. Henry S. Bettenson, p. 280).

If he had applied this standard to everything we might be livng in a very different world.

When he was charged with inserting the word “sola” (alone) into Romans 3:28, as cited by Alzog the church historian, he haughtily replied, : “Should your Pope give himself any useless annoyance about the word sola, you may promptly reply: It is the will of Dr. Martin Luther that it should be so” (Manual of Universal Church History, Henry Alzog, D. D. p. 199). PLEASE NOTICE: no other reason for such unscriptural changes as these were ever given. When it came to his personal doctrinal convictions, Martin Luther was in reality a self-promoting man.

Determining the stripe of any person, institution, or movement, Jesus said, “By their fruits (words and deeds) you will know them” (Mt. 7:20).

Note these instructions Martin Luther gave to the German princes when thousands of the peasants, who had sincerely followed his revolt against Rome, themselves rebelled against those arrogant princes:

“Rebellion is not a vile murder, but like a great fire that kindles and devastates a country; hence uproar carries with it a land full of murder, bloodshed, makes widows and orphans, and destroys everything, like the greatest calamity. Therefore whosoever can should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man. Just as when one must slay a mad dog; fight him not and he will fight you, and a whole country with you. Let the civil power press on confidently and strike as long as it can move a muscle. For here is the advantage: the peasants have bad consciences and unlawful goods, and whenever a peasant is killed therefore he has lost body and soul, and goes forever to the devil. Civil authority, however, has a clean conscience and lawful goods, and can say to God with all security of heart: ‘Behold, my God, thou hast appointed me prince or lord, of that I cannot doubt, and has entrusted me with the sword against evildoers” (Romans 13:4)…. Therefore I will punish and smite as long as I can move a muscle; thou wilt judge and approve.”… Such wonderful times are these that a prince can more easily win heaven by shedding blood than others with prayers.’” (A Short History of the Baptists, Henry C. Vedder, pp. 173–174).

Are these the words of a man directed by the Holy Spirit?

Luther’s personal rebellion would have had made very small marks on the world if had he not appealed to the political and financial gains of German princes. And “it is true to say that the motives which led to the Lutheran revolt were to a large extent secular rather than spiritual” (Alfred Plummer, The Continental Reformation, p. 9).

If Martin Luther was God's man of the hour, then what is the measure of True Christianity?

Was our risen Saviour really using this man?

Facts are, Luther (and Calvin,too) had personal agendas at the root of their rebellion called "Reformation." Protestantism's first Reformer's’ insisted on their basic unity with the Catholic Church and identification of her as their “Mother” church!

Regarding John Calvin, George P. Fisher wrote: “He did not deny that the Christian societies acknowledging the Pope are ‘Churches of Christ’…. He indignantly denies that he has withdrawn from the Church” (History of Christian Doctrine, p. 304). Philip Schaff noted Calvin’s description of the historical Roman church: “As our present design is to treat of the visible Church, we may learn even from her the title of Mother, how useful and even necessary it is for us to know her” (History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII, p. 450).

As Fisher wrote, regarding Luther: “In the retention of rites and customs he did not require an explicit authorization from Scripture. Enough that they were not forbidden, and are expedient and useful. His aversion to breaking loose from the essentials of Latin Christianity in matters of doctrine is equally manifest” (History of Christian Doctrine, p. 283). In Luther’s own words: “No one can deny that we hold, believe, sing, and confess all things in correspondence with the old church, that we make nothing new therein nor add anything thereto, and in this way we belong to the old Church and are one with it” (Thomas M. Lindsay, A History of the Reformation, Vol. I, p. 468).

How much of the Great Roformation was really and truly any reformation at all?

Martin lived tortured with a continual sense of guilt. His insisting that 'faith' alone saves, and his rejection of countless scriptures teaching the need for obedience, Martin Luther showed just how stubborn, self-willed he proved to be. His extreme emphasis on salvation by faith alone magnifies his desperation to devise some system where the law of God and the justice of God would have no place.

The Greek word for faith does not mean mere belief, but is a total confidence so that one lives in an honorable and obedient relationship with the party to whom they are faithful. Luther's concept of faith was not faith at all.

Completely ignoring it's direct parallel with the teachings of Jesus Christ, Martin Luther proudly declared of the book of James: “Compared with the Epistles of St. Paul, this is in truth an epistle of straw: it contains absolutely nothing to remind one of the style of the Gospel” (Henry Alzog, Vol. III, p. 208). Luther stubbornly rejected the entire book of James as unagreeable with his doctrines ...and in his high-handed disgust with it threw it into a river.

James explains: “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty” (Jas. 2:10–11). Referring to these Ten Commandments he concludes by telling us to speak and act according to this law. And the words of Jesus Christ agree. For when a young man came to ask Him the way to eternal life, He answered, “If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments,” and He proceeded to name some of the Ten Commandments (Mt. 19:16–19).

The Bible teaches: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn. 3:4). This is clearly referring to the Ten Commandments—the spiritual law written by the very finger of God.

Since Luther regarded Moses as having to do with God’s law—which Luther hated—he wanted “nothing to do” with Moses’ inspired writings! In rejecting the first five books of the Bible, Luther declared: “We have no wish either to see or hear Moses. Let us leave Moses to the Jews, to whom he was given to serve as a Mirror of Saxony; he has nothing in common with Pagans and Christians, and we should take no notice of him” (Alzog, Vol. III, p. 207).

Since Luther stubbornly wished to “take no notice” of Moses, we might remind him of the Apostle John’s description of the victorious saints of God singing “the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb” (Revelation 15:3). But Luther’s own writings promptly answer: “I look upon the revelations of John to be neither apostolic nor prophetic” (Jules Michelet, The Life of Luther, p. 273). He might then add, “Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it” (Alzog, Vol. III, p. 208).

Luther’s favorite writer was the Apostle Paul it's wondered why he never noted Paul’s inspired words to Timothy: “From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:15–16). Remember that only the Old Testament Scriptures were written when Timothy was a child. (...or Romans 7:12 or Paul's admission that he himself adhered to the foundations of the faith passed down from his forebearers (II Tim. 1:3) , or totally ignored that it was Paul's custom, just as it was Jesus' and the Apostles to attend Sabbath assemblies.

Plain and simply put, Martin Luther willfully rejected the authority of any book in the Bible to which he felt an “aversion.” As well, he turned a blissful eye away from inspecting the actual details of what his favored writer's were referring to.

Jesus declared, "MAN SHALL not LIVE by bread alone, but BY EVERY WORD THAT COMES OUT OF GOD's MOUTH" (Mt. 4:4).

Although most regard it as the word of God, few read it anymore; much less, study into the fine details to learn God's heart in any matter. For example, you can mention meditation on scripture and many think about eastern buddistic, hindu, or various catholic magico-mystical contrivances.

Even evangelicals seem more focused on loving Jesus than on learning what He has to say, yet Jesus is the very One who says, "If you love me, keep my commandments" (Jn. 14:15).

So confused, so divided, and so ignorant about what the inspired word of God is trying to tell them, yet they say they love Jesus and they say they love God. They approach scripture with sentimental attitude doing a cut and paste of bits and pieces—not really reading the entire Bible with a desire and prayer for understanding and asking God for the willingness to obey what He is telling them in its pages!

You can find literally hundreds of examples of this in 'christian' newspapers and magazines.

One that really floored me was in June 2006, the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States passed a resolution "essentially condemning the Bible as an ‘anti-Jewish’ document. Not only does the resolution aim to address perceptions of anti-Jewish prejudice in the Bible and Episcopal liturgy, but it suggests that such prejudice is actually ‘expressed in… Christian Scriptures and liturgical texts’" (, June 15, 2006).
(and that's when my subscription to "Discipleship Journal" came to a sudden halt for quite some time.)

Are most 'believers' out of their sentimentality loving gourds?

When really studied and even half-way understood, the Bible is completely pro-Jewish and is, in fact, an account about how God gave this people, His chosen people, a basic way of life in the Old Testament
—though only in the letter of the law—
and of how Jesus Christ, a Jew whom any Bible reading person ought to recognize as the genuine Author of true Christianity—referred to the Old Testament again and again as "Scripture." He put His stamped impress on it and certainly on what we call the New Testament as well. But, today, the basic Christian concept of the Bible as the "inspired word of God" is being "watered down," criticized, and virtually eliminated from our professing "Christian" culture! In fact, the vast majority of present-day religious leaders often teach attitudes and ideas totally contrary to what the Bible actually says! Instead of just admitting this is their own "philosophy," they teach their ideas in the name of "Christianity"!
What even gives them the right to bring Christ’s name into it, when it has nothing to do with Jesus or what He taught?

So much more could be said, however, it seems the point is clear enough already. Consider these things and think about your own 'christian' stance in relation to these historic and biblical facts.

Finally brothers and sisters:

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

II Cor. 6:14-18

 2010/7/18 16:57

 to Paul (giggles)

How can i canvey how blessed and happy you all have made me by even deigning to respond my complaint?

You all have given me blessing upon blessing because i know that i am not alone in the natural, among the Body of believers, and i say that to those who might disagree with what i outlined.

'disagreement' is not bad, quite the opposite, for if we disagree, and are filled with the Holy Spirit, that means we can REASON TOGETHER IN LOVE, and that is good, that is profitable.

so i thank You all, for at least taking the time to read what is on and in my heart.

So Paul, let me say this, you have been gifted with wisdom, and i have taken your words to heart and weighed them.

meaning, its always been like this, as in the Temple, as in the Church, there are those souls, who might be "just going thruough the motions", May God awaken them, there is nothing new under the sun.

in your 2nd point you spoke of a "winning" church. The way i see such, i can't attach the adjective "winning" to a church, or the Church. i dont say that in contention...oh no. sitting here pondering as i write, the words

"loving", "welcoming", "inclusive", come to my heart.

It seems so many professional clergy attach great importance to counting heads, or how many they "run". (i've actually heard this word used, 'how many do you run on Sundays?"...the heart breaks)

on your third point, you make a very valid point: and i quote you:

"3. I believe it is important, somewhat in regards to the last point and overall in general, to respect the unique distinctness of the original church. The first century, apostolic, church of Acts is the foundation for which we are built upon. They did certain things that have to be regarded as special: were literal witnesses to risen Lord Jesus, wrote scripture, walked in consistently miracle-performing lifestyles, faced extreme opposition daily, lived communally, preached a new message to a completely virgin world."


then you wrote that not all these things can be re-done.

in the Case of literally witnessing Jesus and writing Scriptures, TRUE, can't be re-done.

But something's gotta give, because we've just fallen into a sort of "roman-lite".

You see Paul, a storm is a brewing, and let me talk in the natural for a second. There are three main elements afoot in the 21st century, that could possibly lead to a most diminished life, secular life.

a dwindling crucial resource-petroluem.

violent religious fundamentalism in the lands where most of this resource lays.

man's lust to attain nuclear weaponry.

what i'm trying to get at is this, maybe this comfy lil life we all have going is going to be snatched away from us.

while that might seem like a bad thing, millions dead upon dead, starvation, sickness, etc is never a good thing, but out of such trials, maybe humankind will wake up and recognize their dependence on God....and out of that dependence, might come the realization that not only are we utterly dependent on God, but on each other, and out of this revelation, might new vibrant forms of congregation give birth, out of desperation. i dont know.

Your point 4 is spot on. "Jesus' Promises".

the "Rock" of Peter, as i read it, was THE CONFESSION, this FIRST Confession, "You are the Son of God", is what the Body of Christ is built on....can we agree on that?

here's some you wrote that i amen:

"The true Church of Christ has always had expression throughout history".

"Hernhutt" comes to my heart and mind immediately. i'm sure you know of Count Zinzendorff's Holy Ghost hideaway at Hernhutt, but here's for tzzadiqim (hebrew for saints) that dont:

its a good Wiki article on Count Zinzendorf.

Paul, you got to item 6 and said you "if" i'm still "patiently bearing with you"?

OF COURSE!! You spend time in fruitful discussion with me, and may God deal with me ever so severely if i dont return this love you have shown me in fellowship, albeit cyber fellowship.

item 6 is Paul Washers you tube piece, but can i go back to the "remnant theology', which i must study on. I think i know what you mean.....the "true" Christian, the "true" Church.

i feel i would be scaling the heights of arrogance if i was ever to breath the attribute "true" in relation to my walk, or to a congregation i belonged to as being the "true". Implication being, others are false, and the way i see it, thats in God's Jurisdiction, mindful of the words of Gamaliel in Acts

"When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"
Acts 5:33-39 (ESV)

i love that portion of Acts, in my view, Gamaliel was the only one of that lot blessed with Godly wisdom and sense, and who knows, maybe Gamaliel eventually apprehended Jesus as Messiah.

Back to Paul Washers message; Paul, we're all different, we all gravitate towards different teachers, and while Paul Washer is a true man, i dont gravitate towards his message. Mind you, if i was to fellowship with him, break bread, we'd have a wonderful time in Christ.

I could delineate WHY i don't gravitate towards Paul Washer, but its not neccesary...and you posting such a video is NOT insensitive, not in the least, its sharing, and i love you for it.

Good message, what i got out is, we have to be careful with ripping the tares, coz we'll yank wheat too, and that is sad.

i have read BB Warfield's article once, and do need to read it again, it's very good.

Have you ever read Bonhoeffer's "Life Together"? I find that book, written based on his expierences headed up a secret seminary in nazi germany, a sort of primer on how we configure together.

i guess thats what i long for, life together with other followers of Jesus...."communal"? to an extent, meaning nothing is "mandated". "cultish"? God forbid.

Bud, let me close this, coz i'm fading, and tell you, i've been crafting what i call the "Order of Service" as the Lord would be a worship service, more like "worship sharing", where all congregants can share with each other, heart testimony, share burdens, share Scripture, share tears, share victory, with Jesus as The Pastor.

God carress you in your sleep tonight, neil

 2010/7/18 23:17

Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 1481

 Re: to Paul (giggles)

hi,Jesus is the head of the church and i am His.we won already at the cross and ressurection.praise Him!jimp

 2010/7/18 23:46Profile

Joined: 2010/2/19
Posts: 89

 Re: why have we been failing for almost 1700 years?

brother Neil,
I wholeheartedly agree with your post. I think part of the problem is the issue of focusing on building "church buildings" as opposed to following the pattern we see in the New Testament, namely, house churches. I would encourage my brothers and sisters to consider this website and the information therein: (particularly an article entitled "Toward A House Church Theology").
I know that "house churches" per se are not the answer, as there are many "dead" ones out there right now. But I believe it would be a good step toward the answer, as it helps to foster genuine Christian community.
Along with the problem of focusing on buildings, comes the problem of the the hierachical "clergy/laity" system where the equality of every believer under the Headship of Christ and the priesthood of all believers(1Pet.2:5,9), is no longer visible. This system elevates the "clergy" above the "laity" and hinders the "laity" from operating in the gifts and callings of God upon their lives. It helps make them lukewarm "pew sitters", and it creates a "One Man Show" mentality, where the gifted pastor is seen as the star of the show(Sunday Service)for all to see and idolize and marvel at. In 1Cor.14 we see clear commands on how the church is to operate during church meetings. Most of those commands are completely ignored in today's church system, such as the command to allow participatory activity from every believer during the meetings.
A couple thoughts for the brethren who believe that the title of "Pastor" is biblical. The Bible does teach that God has given pasors/teachers to His Church for its edification, just as he gave apostles, prophets and evangelists(Eph.4:7). However, those giftings, callings, or functions are nowhere described as "titles" of superiority for Christians to wear. Nowhere in the NT do we see anything like "Pastor so and so", "Evangelist so and so", "Prophet so and so", or even "Apostle so and so". In Matt.23:8-12 Jesus clearly forbade them from placing any titles of that sort on themselves. Why? because it elevates one Christian above another. Someone says, what about the authority that is given to pastors/elders? That authortiy is given to them to protect the sheep from wolves and heresy, not to lord it over God's people(1Pet.5:3). They are His sheep, and He is their Pastor.
With regard to the Church failing, yes, but God has always had a remnant. And even today within this traditional church system there is a remnant of true believers in Christ. And I believe God is stirring up many of His remnant to long for New Testament book of Acts Christianity. I believe He is saying to His sheep, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches".
In Matthew 15:3 our Lord asked the Pharisees, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
In general, much of the church has strayed from biblical church life for the sake of man-made traditions.

 2010/7/19 18:42Profile

Joined: 2010/7/19
Posts: 2

 Re: why have we been failing for almost 1700 years?

I agree with a lot of what you said, except mainly the part about leadership. I agree that titles get abused, but they roles are biblical. I'm not going to get into an argument an that, because we share the same frustration, so let's get past the minutiae.

There is a current revival taking place in Kansas City. The power of God is evident, but not just as a Charismaniac Free-For-All. People get healed, lives get changed, and many people have found it worth the effort and pain to uproot themselves from their homes and relocate just to be where God is.

What is more overwhelming to me, besides just the evidence of the Holy Spirit, is the conviction in the Word preached. It has produced a healthy body of people, who have been trained to respond to the Word of God by changing, and allowing God to bring them closer and closer to perfection. The pastor (pardon the expression for those of you who despise the 5-fold ministry) doesn't just speak on how much God loves us despite our faults, but he brings to light fresh revelation that isn't just a regurgitation of denominational instruction.

Another fresh facet of this revival is the direction it is going. It isn't just circling around on anointing or inaugural event (as if revolving around some imminent drain to bring it to it's demise like every other move of God), but the people (not just guests or leadership) want MORE or God. They want to grow, expand and mature in what God has for them, not just enjoy "drunkeness" (a word I wince at when blurted by Charismatics).

If you are interested in seeing for yourself, look up World Revival Church, they are on YouTube, Daystar, and their own website. There really is something unique and fresh happening, and almost the entire congregation is hungry for God like most of us here. I really hope this reaches out to the people here, as it seems this is a website for people hungry for the REAL, POWERFUL, CORRECTING Father that we have.

 2010/7/19 21:45Profile

Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 1481


hi, 1 million latinos are becoming born again christians every 6 weeks ... 1 million chinese every 4 weeks ... 1 hundred thousand moslems this year so far...give to missions or go to the field and see the great real revivals going on around the world from efforts and monies from us ...Jesus is in chargeof His bride.jimp

 2010/7/19 23:13Profile

Joined: 2009/12/12
Posts: 592

 Re: To Neil

Blessings to you Neil. Your heart is something to be coveted in this hour. In humble response to your post, I submit to you:

I asked about your definition of a "winning" church only because the thread's topic is that of a failing church. If we are failing, there is the possibility we could not fail, that is, to put it crassly: win/succeed/etc. And in a way, that is almost the question behind the question or thought behind the thought. We are failing but only because we are not winning, which would look like this ______ (fill in the blank). I anticipated your response and for that I beg forgiveness for my presumption, as you didn't seem to go there.

I thought you, as many people do to show the inadequacy of the modern church, would appeal to primarily the Church of Acts and perhaps revival era churches in as secondary support to show how miserably subpar the current church is. This is why I had a point three arguing for the unique nature of the first church, as well as the disctinctly human element (the sin, the sectarianism, the heresy, the legalism, etc) that most certainly shows these people were anything but perfected divines of sainthood. Most people tend to hagiograpghy when they recount the early church, and then they compare their elevated view of it to the worst of the worst in today's church so the difference is emphasized. So without denying the awesome nature of that first church, I wanted to also convey it, that were it not for God's divine purpose of establishing them as the foundation of His church universal, they would not appear so different from us today.

I would cautiously say the same for revival era churches. I have heard many cliches from various revival preachers that revival should be the norm for the church. To that I say a resounding no. If that was the norm, then it would be the norm. Those times are also uniquities in the history of the church that should be treasured for what they are and realized for what they aren't (to the former, the bar of measure; to the latter, above reproach, for we are prone to ignore their faults and exalt their high marks).

And so without digressing further from our subject... You concurred with that premise, at least in regard to the early church, but then you immediately concluded that that reasonable proposition (the early church was unique in nature) has brought us to "roman-lite." Can you please explain how this is so? Why their being unique defaults us to roman-lite? Or if it is a necessary result, how then that is not God's plan, for what other way could we have?

As far as the global state of things, I couldn't agree more that persecution and chaos could be the necessary ingredients to invoke some sort of awakening-type atmosphere, whether for professing Christians to get serious and/or unbelievers to come unto Christ.

You said and asked: '"the "Rock" of Peter, as i read it, was THE CONFESSION, this FIRST Confession, "You are the Son of God", is what the Body of Christ is built on....can we agree on that?'

Absolutely. We are agreed. You went on to mention Hernhutt to which I would also agree was an expression of the true Church of Christ. But I would also say that there's a thousand other Hernhutt like peoples, albeit on much smaller scales(perhaps even on an individual person scale) that history has not recorded. To go back to the Old Testament Israel/Church typology, a Hernhutt would be like an Elijah. A definite, historical phenomenon. But we cannot forgot that God had 7,000 other men who were completely His as well, but we get no mention of their names, and this was in a most apostate Israel under the most aggregious and idolatrous king. Yet they were there, and so it is throughout history. There is always a definite group in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation and largle apostate professing church.

Now you did say this: "i feel i would be scaling the heights of arrogance if i was ever to breath the attribute "true" in relation to my walk, or to a congregation i belonged to as being the "true". Implication being, others are false, and the way i see it, thats in God's Jurisdiction, mindful of the words of Gamaliel in Acts..."

With respect to the Gamaliel passage, I do not think it is out of the realm of safe exgesis to say that the Bible certainly encourages a believer to test his or her faith against criteria it lays out, and so while humility and brokenness should be our aim, let us not also treat as common what the Father has sanctified as holy by the blood of His Son. If you are His, there is no shame in admitting and even rejoicing in that revelation, for it is His merit and work that saved you. He purchased you with His blood, knowing that He would not see you perfected til heaven (or second coming or....well this isn't an eschatalogical or glorification discussion, so whenever that may be), and yet He wanted you nonetheless. Jesus saves the unrighteous and sick, not the self-righteous and those in no need of a physician.

Perhaps, it is in retrospect that one can more safely judge fruit biblically, at least in grayer areas. I'm sure neither of us would have trouble declaring Mormonsism or Jehovahs' Witnesses or Muslims as thoroughly false. And this is because, yes there is a false. There is a true. Jesus said He was the true vine; there is a false one (the vine of the earth Rev. 14:18-19). So I wholly endorse a humility and modesty and caution when it comes to making claims to true and false churches, but let us not attempt to live above the scriptures which endorse distinguishing between true religion and false, for the sake of salvific purposes. We are continually exhorted to not to follow false preaching and teaching, not to decieve ourselves with our religious pretenses, and to hunger, thirst, and seek after righteousness and truth. Somewhere in that lines must be drawn.

Now I'm not trying to hammer out specifics here, as far as doctrinal and praxy differences within the realm of biblical, historical Christianity. I am merely saying that where the Spririt of the Lord is there is freedom and life and light and you cannot hide that.

I feel I'm digressing now.

I appreciate you listening to the Washer message and was in no way asking you to endorse all he stands for by acknowledging what he is presenting in that snippet. All I was asking is for you to hear the message delivered; it could have been anyone giving that word. I know Mr. Washer has a sort of iconic status, to where many hold him as infallible. I do not. I merely appreciate his high view of the Bride of Christ and the work of Christ to secure and preserve her. And I think that is what you saw. There is tares with the wheat, that shouldn't make the wheat any less wheat though, right?

All I am arguing for is that Christ's Bride is whole and she is glorious because He has redeemed and regenerated her and is committed to completing that work. That does happen within the context of a sinful world and a messy church sub-culture, as evidenced by the original church. The point of all of that dear brother was to encourage you to not lose heart. Your heart is tender, your spirit poor, your soul perhaps even mournful. The Bible calls you blessed my friend.

As for that Bonhoeffer work I haven't read it, but will put it on my list. Bonhoeffer is one I would love to dive into though. I have truthfully only got through maybe a third of The Cost of Discipleship and have not even cracked that copy of Ethics I got for Christmas a few years back. Also, just ordered the bio on him that was recently published. O Lord save me from being merely a book collector...let me be a reader!

You closed with this, "i guess thats what i long for, life together with other followers of Jesus...."communal"? to an extent, meaning nothing is "mandated". "cultish"? God forbid."

Perhaps you could expound this more? This might be the heart of why you see failure everywhere. You are longing and searching for this, but can't seem to find it.

"i've been crafting what i call the "Order of Service" as the Lord would be a worship service, more like "worship sharing", where all congregants can share with each other, heart testimony, share burdens, share Scripture, share tears, share victory, with Jesus as The Pastor."

This sounds a little like what trendy church engineers would call a small group setting. I say that only to encourage you that life is out there. People are yearning for this; it's just that broken, human people are engaging them. Please let us not live reactionary lifestyles that throw the baby out with the bathwater because mainstreamers water-down and secularize legitmate biblical concepts.

EDIT: Grammar, clarity.


 2010/7/20 1:22Profile

Joined: 2009/12/12
Posts: 592


Dear Brother Oracio,

I saw this comment you wrote:

"A couple thoughts for the brethren who believe that the title of "Pastor" is biblical. The Bible does teach that God has given pasors/teachers to His Church for its edification, just as he gave apostles, prophets and evangelists(Eph.4:7). However, those giftings, callings, or functions are nowhere described as "titles" of superiority for Christians to wear. Nowhere in the NT do we see anything like "Pastor so and so", "Evangelist so and so", "Prophet so and so", or even "Apostle so and so".

I was compelled to encourage you to re-read the introduction verses of the epistles. You will find Paul and Peter consistently appealing to their apostleship as their authority to be writing instruction to their respective audiences (which includes us too). Paul specifically and constantly defended his authority as an apostle as well: 1 Cor. 4, 1 Cor. 9, 2 Cor. 11-12. As for the authority that comes with this apostleship, Peter writes 2 Pet. 3:2. And Paul describes it in 2 Cor. 10 and 13.

I only mention this for your personal edification and that you may rightly divide the word of truth. I understand the abuse of these office titles that is prevelant today. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater though because certain people are abusing a biblical concept. Closely tied with Paul's apostleship was a role as spiritual father and mentor. He used the spiritual weight rightly his given by the Lord in a way that Jesus used His: as a servant-leader, not a tyrant/king/etc.

Edit: Grammar


 2010/7/20 1:42Profile

Joined: 2010/7/19
Posts: 2


I tried to put up a video, but for some reason it didn't work. How do I put them on this site? Anyways, here's the link to a recent testimony reel from World Revival Church of Kansas City.

 2010/7/20 2:57Profile

Joined: 2010/2/19
Posts: 89


Dear brother Paul,
You wrote,

I was compelled to encourage you to re-read the introduction verses of the epistles. You will find Paul and Peter consistently appealing to their apostleship as their authority to be writing instruction to their respective audiences (which includes us too). Paul specifically and constantly defended his authority as an apostle as well: 1 Cor. 4, 1 Cor. 9, 2 Cor. 11-12. As for the authority that comes with this apostleship, Peter writes 2 Pet. 3:2. And Paul describes it in 2 Cor. 10 and 13.

Thank you for your reply. In Paul's introduction to his epistles we see statements such as "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ" and "Paul, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ". The same thing goes for Peter's epistles. But that is much different than giving themselves a "title" name. You will never find anywhere in the NT statements like "Apostle Paul" or "Apostle Peter". They simply state what function, gifting, or calling they operate in within Christ's Church. It's like me saying, "Oracio, an evangelist of Jesus Christ" instead of "Evangelist Oracio". Believe it or not their is a huge difference. A difference on which abuse of one's functional gifting hinges.
I understand that the first century apostles had a special authority over all the churches in the early church. They were clothed with divine authority as the founders of the Church of Jesus Christ and writers of the New Testament Scriptures. We are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets(the NT and OT Scriptures), Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone(Eph.2:20). There is no question about that. But not even they took upon themselves a prestigious title, because the Lord had warned them not to do so(how else do you interpret Matt.23:6-12?). If the apostles themselves were careful not to place titles on themselves, how much more careful should pastors/elders be? They do not have the same level of authority that the first apostles did. The current main stream church system sets them up on a pedestal that is forbidden biblically. Case in point: in the early church there was no such thing as an elevated pulpit in a church with chairs(thrones) behind it. They met in homes of believers and shared their spiritual gifts with one another mutually. There was much participation among the brethren. There was much stirring one another up to zeal and good works for the Lord. The pastors/elders were there to set things in order so that there would not be heresy allowed, and also to teach the Word of God. But they were not the only ones who were allowed to teach, because they were not the only ones who had gifts of teaching.
Was there teaching/preaching to larger crowds than would fit in a house church? Of course, but not in the regular church meetings, because they were not to be a one man show. Someone says, "what about the huge churches we read about like the church in the city of Ephesus? Surely they were too big to fit in a house". I say yes, but the churches in each city were made up of networks of small house churches. In other words, they were broken up into house churches, making each church like a closely knit family.
My main point is that in the early church the pastors/elders did not lord over the church meetings as we see today. And of course they were not perfect, but they excelled in many things of which we lack today. My hope and prayer is that we get back to the basics as much as possible, that's all. From what I've heard and read, the underground house churches in China resemble the early church in many things. Maybe it will come down to persecution being an instrument to get us back to that resemblance. Blessings to you as you seek the Lord.

 2010/7/20 3:21Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy