Are independent churches Biblical? (believers, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Bible)

[cg81]

Originally Posted by flaja

“And to us”. The individual congregations did not take it upon themselves to settle the doctrinal issue of circumcision. They submitted to Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem. They recognized Paul et al as conduits for the Holy Ghost. They trusted Paul et al to verify the Holy Ghost’s power. Unlike a pastor/elder/member of a local congregation, the people who held power at the council of Jerusalem didn’t have any vested interest in any of the local congregations that accepted the authority of the council of Jerusalem.

Acts 15:1 ¶ And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 ¶ And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
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.

There were no "people holding power at the council of Jerusalem". Paul and Barnabas went to the church at Jerusalem to discuss this issue with the apostles and elders at the church there. The leaders of the church were supported by and given confidence by the church to meet and discuss these matters. These were not people to whom was given special powers of discernment, but rather servants who were given the task of leading and directing the church.. They met with their fellow elders and discussed the matter, until they came to a conclusion that they could feel was led of God. In turn they relayed what they had discussed to the congregations at home. The people at home were just as close to the Holy Spirit as they were, and so could see that this judgment was correct.

I didn’t say that they were acting as God, but they were acting on God’s behalf. Each of the local congregations at the time (as well as local congregations today) could have called upon the Holy Ghost to come to them and clarify doctrine, but then each congregation could have interpreted what they claimed the Holy Ghost had said to them in whatever way they needed to support whatever was convenient for each congregation. The council of Jerusalem took the local congregations out of the equation so what the Holy Ghost wanted could not be misconstrued and the local congregations recognized that the council of Jerusalem had the authority to relay to them what the Holy Ghost wanted.

Once again, no, it was not a matter of "the authority of the council of Jerusalem".. it was a matter of the church operating in the unity that Christ had commanded, and that was necessary for the Holy Ghost to work. The church, even tho spread out, were one. Any matter of doctrine needed to be discussed with all, and not independently... as a means of keeping the church in unity. Sure, the Holy Ghost could have spoken to each church individually about this, or even spoken to each person individually about this matter so all would be in agreement, but that was not God's plan.. they needed to feel the need of each other, in order to remain truly one. We can see the results of "independent thinking" in churches today.. total lack of unity.

I am not certain that the representatives from the local congregations had any sway over the council. Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem constituted a separate and distinct entity and I think that they are the ones that had the final say according to the Holy Ghost. I am not sure that the representatives from the local congregations had the authority to overrule what Paul, the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem concluded.

Paul, the Apostles and the elders were the representatives from the local congregations!

I think that the council of Jerusalem presents a picture of an episcopalian polity- authority went from God to Paul/Apostles/elders in Jerusalem to the local congregations.

Paul flatly denies this kind of thinking in 1 Cor. 1-3 (1:12 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). The Holy Spirit was given to each one. They did have leaders, but the leaders were accountable to the congregation. We can see thru history what happens when leaders speak for God and are not accountable to the congregation.. that is not a position that God places on a person.

Since I don’t accept the Catholic/Anglican claims of apostolic succession (because I don’t accept their doctrine in total), I don’t know how a NT episcopalian polity can exist in the 21st century since I don’t know who can exercise the authority of the NT Apostles. Since I already reject congregational polity (authority exists only within local, independent congregations), I am left with presbyterian polity, but I am still trying to figure out how this polity should be established.

It can work, but it takes this: //www.city-data.com/forum/chris...we-really.html The Holy Spirit must be given complete freedom to operate in each heart, and all members must be spiritually alive.

Then how can two people claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and still reach opposite conclusions? My friend in the nursing home has been preaching Pentecostalism (filled with the Holy Ghost) for as long as I have known her and for most of that time she was always very kind-hearted towards children and animals (although she and her husband could have some humdingers of spats over money and her compulsive buying habits). But since she went into the nursing home I have seen her being hateful towards the nursing home staff as well as her family and me because we won’t try to get her out of the nursing home. If this woman has always been lead by the Holy Ghost, then the Holy Ghost is not the same as He once was.

If you look at the New Testament Church, they were "all with one accord, of one mind". Not that they didn't have disagreements, but disagreements in doctrine could not be left unresolved. Pure doctrine was very important, and issues were discussed and a conclusion was reached.. those that were teaching "seditious" doctrines or doctrines preaching "another Jesus" were admonished, and if they refused to follow the light of the congregation, were put out of the church. There is a tremendous safety in this that is lost when churches live independently, or even if members live independently within a single congregation.

But wouldn’t this lead to either an ungodly compromise or an equally ungodly mutual admiration society? If two people in a congregation adamantly disagree on a point of doctrine (baptism for example) how can they submit to each other?

If two people disagree, they need to talk about it. If they are living in a spiritual submission to the Holy Ghost, it will not be hard to find the unifying guidance of the Holy Ghost's leading. Of course when we allow spirits of pride or self-righteousness in our lives, it becomes much harder... and hopefully with our brethren's help we can see these in our lives and deal with them.

If two people in a congregation want to sleep with the pastor’s wife, what would keep them from submitting to each other’s authority to say it is OK and thereby both end up committing adultery?

As I mentioned before, the direction of the Holy Ghost needs to be proved first, and then the direction of our brethren.. Sometimes this direction will come simultaneously, (from both the Holy Ghost and our brother) but if we receive direction from our brethren that clearly contradicts how we have received the Holy Spirit's guidance in our life, and does not match up with the word, then we need to prove this together as well. In the above instance obviously the Holy Spirit's direction is being ignored.

Some points:

The Holy Ghost only says one thing.

The Word only says one thing.

There are many people today who seem to receive or follow different interpretations of the Spirit's direction, or scriptures in the Word.. and this does not necessarily mean that God is not speaking to them at all in any area, even tho they may hold some beliefs in error. This is an issue that arises because many people are forced to live "independently"...

But with a third, just as important form of direction - the New Testament Church with its system of accountability - this brought it all together. This Church, following the Holy Ghost and the Word, with members humbly accountable to each other, had power to discern truth. I can't stress enough how important this is.

[cpg35223]

The problem with the various self-described "Bible-Believing" churches is that you could flip through the Bible and find contradictory passages throughout. You could find passages that seemingly endorse all kinds of behavior that would be morally wrong by the standards of most.

After all, as I mentioned earlier, Lot got his daughters pregnant. Abraham pimped out his wife to the Egyptian Pharaoh. David had Bathsheba's husband murdered. And the list goes on and on. And yet these are honored Biblical figures. Heck, an entire village was wiped out on the pretext that Onan practiced the withdrawal method during sex. If a brother dies, do you marry his widow? One book of the Bible says absolutely, while another says absolutely not.

That's why I'm really suspicious about somebody promoting his church as Biblically-based. Because from my reading of the Bible, that could mean almost anything.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

Can you tell me what people used prior to 1611?

You tell me. There were not many complete English translations prior to 1611, let alone any that were based on original language documents rather than a Latin translation. Tyndale was the first to translate any of the Bible from the original languages into English, but he was murdered before he had finished. Later English translation, through the AKJ of 1611, contain much of Tyndale's work. I haven't had the opportunity to examine any English translation from before 1611, so I cannot say whether or not any of them is a complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible record of God's revelation to the Church. The same goes for translations in other languages. However, none of the post-1611 English translation, that I have examined, is a complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible record of God's revelation to the Church; this is a matter that I take on faith but it is faith that is verified by knowledge of history.

Have you truly researched this idol to make sure it's worthy of worship?

I have researched this topic and I can safely conclude that the AKJ is not an idol. Since you think the AKJ is an idol, I must conclude that you haven’t researched the issue at all.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by OnOurWay2MO

I used to attend IFB churches and I never noticed the pastor seeming to want to be, or come across as a dictator. I think they are independent because they want to only be accountable to God and eachother (the local body of Believers).
We all voted on issues, not just the pastor or the deacons.

If you are a part of a large denominational group and they change rules that you believe are not Biblical, then what? Would you not still be liable to them and be lumped together with them.

If an independent pastor is wrong on a given issue, how does God tell him that he is wrong? The same goes for a congregation. If you assume that you are always following God and obeying Him, will you believe God when He tells you (or has someone tell you on His behalf) that you are wrong?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by nay624

wow....

you sure seem to have your own idea of 'how a church' should be led or 'what bible ' to use......

interesting....sounds a little judgemental........
maybe you've been to the "my religion is beter than yours" thread......

I have asked honest questions in an effort to get some idea regarding what you think it means to be King James only. Instead of answers you give mockery, so I must conclude that you don’t know anything at all about the King James only issue.

[freedom]

Originally Posted by flaja

I have asked honest questions in an effort to get some idea regarding what you think it means to be King James only. Instead of answers you give mockery, so I must conclude that you don’t know anything at all about the King James only issue.

Why is King James only an issue?
To me it is a choice. A very good choice, nonetheless a choice.

As to a church, i advise no one give any church the power of teaching them, and that all things one desires to believe are held before God for confirmation. The blind leading the blind is the format of every church that i have ever attended.
Church has value for many things, teaching the word of God is not one of them.

How do i know this? Ye shall know them by their fruits.
godspeed,


freedom

[flaja]

Originally Posted by nay624

My church is non-demoninational.....bible believing bible teaching....

so are the rest of out 'little family' of churches 'Calvary Chapels'

maybe you should not have such a strong opinion of things you dont understand.....

its immature to place your 'frame of reference' or standards on others.... just my opinion

By holding up your preferred independent church as a paragon of virtue, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing- drawing generalized conclusions based on your personal experience.

If it is wrong for me to conclude that all independent churches are bad based on my limited personal experience with a certain type of independent churches, it is equally wrong for you to conclude that all independent churches are good based on your limited personal experience with a certain type of independent churches.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by needrain

A pastor that has to answer to a board or something for what he feels the Lord is leading him to preach could be walking on egg shells and not be able to say what is best for the flock--the pastor is supposed to be the undershepherd watching out for those souls in the assembly of believers.

Exactly. This is why a pastor/elder needs the backing of a denominational hierarchy that can impose God’s will on an errant congregation.

After all I been through with corrupt pastors I can only come to one conclusion--if you have a God-fearing pastor and a church united in truth, then you have very good possibility of having a God-fearing congregation. He sets the tone, but the Lord is the head of the Church, so a pastor doesn't need someone else to be head over him because if he is in line with Christ then he will be a good pastor.

But what do you do with a pastor that is not God-fearing if you don’t have a mechanism whereby the pastor can be removed from office? A Godless pastor of an independent church could rule the congregation by fear and intimidation to the point that the congregation is too cowed to confront him. And a Godless pastor with a Godless congregation could form a mutual admiration society whereby they each serve to validate the other’s sins.

But found a southern baptist church that does teach the right doctrine and he is not greedy like the IFB church I left because of so much corruption-money wise, demanding we do all this visiting that was in addition to door-knocking and many meeting besides the services.

Can a church that uses a translation that does not uphold right doctrine 100% of the time really be teaching right doctrine? If a translation ever says or implies that Jesus was not born of a virgin or is not God or that we are saved by works rather than by faith alone, how can a Godly church use it?

[Asthedeer]

Originally Posted by flaja

If an independent pastor is wrong on a given issue, how does God tell him that he is wrong? The same goes for a congregation. If you assume that you are always following God and obeying Him, will you believe God when He tells you (or has someone tell you on His behalf) that you are wrong?

I assume the way He tells any of us that we are wrong. By the Holy Spirit and through our brethren teaching us through the word.

Well I would believe if I knew God were telling me something was wrong, that is why we left the church.

The pastor is no longer the pastor there because he was found to be committing adultery, so he was found to be in the wrong.

Like you mentioned earlier (I think), are many of these pastors today actually called to be pastors by God or are they doing it out of their own desire/will? I guess one would know by the fruit the pastor is producing and how the sermons line up with God's word.

We are currently unchurched because we cannot find a KJV only church that teaches Biblical doctrine.
The main problems are eternal security and pre-millenialism

Another thing, my dad was a southern Baptist preacher and I know they are suppose to be under others in the "convention". I see how drastically the southern Baptist convention has changed over the years so who really is each church under? They are all a lot different. Some fundamental and some very liberal. So where is the accountability? I think it is mainly about money, by being in conventions/groups etc.

[freedom]

Translation is certainly important, but the interpretation of the correct translation is where the churches split, contorted and watered down the gospel of Christ.

godspeed,

freedom