Posted on 07/08/2004 11:21:45 PM PDT by A2J
The apostles got several years of training before they were sent out. Timothy trained under Paul before he was sent out. The idea of training was not foreign to the early church.
seminaries put out more disciples of the denominations that created them than genuine, Christ-like diciples.
In that case, your flock needs to avoid study Bibles, since they have as much theological bias as any seminary.
Insofar as that comment can be read to impugn your motives, I apologize. Certainly a new church with no structure of accountability can be led astray by a strong leader with novel theology, but I shouldn't presume that is where things are headed in your case.
But the learning was more mentoring than educational. In fact, Paul repudiated his formal training at the Gamaliel Seminary, counting it as "rubbish" (i.e., human feces) in comparison to the value of just knowing Christ as He reveals Himself to us PERSONALLY and not through the definitions of men.
Are you saying that the Early Church had "politics?" I don't think they did because they walked in an attitude of "one another," rather than attempting to see their "vision" implemented.
In fact, the early church went to great measures to distance themselves from anything even remotely resembling this system they were saved from: a hierarchial, Pharisaical structure that controlled the debate and decided what the people were to believe.
There's no doubt that the institutionalized church, or rather organizations, have many true and well-intentioned believers in them, but the moment that politics are introduced they no longer are the "called out ones," because they resemble the attitude of the world and cease representing Christ and His Body.
What we have now is chaos and watered down theology. People don't even know what sin is nor what virtue and manners are. We've come a long way baby.
Which are the direct results of the structure and institutionalizing that has entrenched itself since 300 AD. Priests, and later pastors, were forced to water down their version of the gospel because of fear of loss congregation and revenue. The Early Church didn't have to worry about either because they were more focused on the relationship that they had with Jesus and with other who called upon His name.
And exactly who should be accountable to whom?
In today's structures of "church" it's usually that the congregation is "accountable" to the so-called leadership, although biblical accountability is everyone, including most importantly leaders, being submitted "one to another" in the fear of Christ.
"Spiritual authority" is another of a long line of concocted notions of the power-hungry "clergy" and is intended to keep so-called "wayward sheep" in line with their edicts. But biblical authority is predicated upon the adherence to truth (i.e., the Truth), and does not recognize positional "offices" that men have created to keep themselves in power.
An example of this 'unity' in the early church:
1 Cor. 1:11-12 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. 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.
1 Cor 3:3-4 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
And don't forget the lawsuits between believers. (1 Cor. 6:7)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.