Are there any radical reformers out there?

true.

Bible + Holy Spirit.

And many will teach this so listen to what they say. But do not follow what they do. For they preach this but they don't practice this. They adhere to confessional statements, and doctrinal statements. And then they claim you can become a member and you are not bound by them, but they lie and you are bound by them.

Many will preach gospel alone and Spirit alone, but then they go to conferences, and go to this book or that book or listen to this megachurch pastor and book writer to aquire their spiritual truth and knowledge from the world.

Make no mistake. Books and teachers are great for historical knowledge and facts. But for spiritual truth there is only ONE teacher and one book. finally, let us fellowship with believers that we may wash each other's feet. for we are to each bring our spiritual gift and fellowship with one another allowing the spirit to teacher us though one another. But we must alway beware for Jesus appointed 12 apostles and even one of them, whom he loved, was a traitor.

So when you see a denomination of 16 million or a megachurch of 1000 plus members. How many Judas Iscariots are within? Please do the math.

So if too many people are getting saved and you grow past 1000 shut down the church immediately. Actually megachurches are usually defined as 2000 or greater in attendance. This small church mentality is not biblical. 3000 were saved and added to the Church on the day of pentecost and all fellowshipped together and listened to the apostles teachings and ate together. Sounds like a MEGACHURCH. This is God's plan from day one. Y'all better stop criticizing God's plan. Praise God for Megachurches. Get out there and make a small church grow into a megachurch like your supposed to be doing and quit finding fault with Christ's Bride.

Joel Osteen is a megachurch.

Why do you have to come on my thread? You are obviously NOT a radical reformer or disenfranchised with organized churches. So please stop posting on this thread.

Has anyone in the western world (where there is freedom) that has found pretty much all the evangelical, and baptist churches to be false or seriously lacking? Not to say that you haven't learned from them because I have. But that as you learn more you see more and more the errors they hold fast to.

Is there anyone out there that found the closest thing to the new testament church is via small bible studies at one another's home with people who are excited about and trusting of the Word?

It's a public chat forum. That being said, the new testament church did not meet in small groups in living rooms. That is a misconception of what a House church meant in the 1st century. The houses were often build around a large courtyard. Those who were wealthier had houses that could allow for several hundred to meet in one of these courtyards. Living rooms were no doubt off limits to the guests. The 2000 year culture gap has people thinking and saying things about house churches that is not correct.
The great commission compels us to win souls and evangelize. Those who are filled with the Holy Spirit and empowered by the Holy Spirit will be effective. Growth should be explosive. If not one should reexamine their methods. We are striving for success in soul winning not failure.
If you call out churches like the Baptists as false expect someone to disagree. You can always ignore me if you can't handle correction. God is using the Baptists throughout the world to win souls. No church is perfect. If you find one and join it, it will no longer be perfect.

"But for spiritual truth there is only ONE teacher and one book." Quoting you, I have to ask whose interpretation is the true and full gospel?

For example John MacArthur teaches from the book the gifts of the spirit no longer exist. Derek Prince taught that they did. Both have big followings.

Kenneth Copeland teaches from the book that God wants you to be rich like him because that is the full gospel. Others teach that is not the case.

So we have the book but different interpretations of it so who do we say is a teacher of the full and true gospel? How do we know who is the teacher of the full and true gospel?

Just one problem. You are comparing the church today with the church of the New Testament which are alike as chalk and cheese.

The NTC was a megachurch because it was not divided up into different denominations, not because of its numbers. Having done an in depth study of the NTC, you will find that there was only ONE church in each town as in the Church in Corinth, the church in Damascus, the church in Ephasus, the Collosian church and so on.

The church in any given town was overseen by a body of Elders, not pastors and they were responsible for the discipline, teaching, care and fellowship of the church.

The church in any given town met in homes of up to 30 people, mainly to eat together and care for one another, to be taught and to pray together. There were no buildings and Sunday morning meetings. Whilst and where it was still a Jewish church, they met together in the temple on the Sabbath because they did not stop being Jews.

So megachurches overseen by a CEO as they are today were unknown.

We are supposed to put our trust in God, not men. God is our teacher, if you believe.

John 14:25-26

New International Version

25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

How I would love it if the organized churches reformed. What I would like to see as a reformation that churches all go strictly by scripture, not by tradition. It would be back to God as our leader, with all of the ideas of men taken out of the church.

That would mean that the old testament would be accepted as the word of God, an eternal word. When the new covenant was given to man, they used it to not only wipe out what was obsolete like fleshly circumcision, but to wipe out the much of the spirit of Christ.

Those courtyards in bigger houses could have seated hundreds. They used a school so we know they used whatever they could get. If they met down by a river that would suggest that if the weather was right they could have met in places where hundreds even thousands gathered. I don't see any scriptural basis for saying that the early church met in small groups in living rooms. I think people are imagining that in their own minds.

hermeneutics

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Simple. They met from house to house according to scripture.

Yes. Nevertheless in hermeneutics (the art and science of interpretation (of scriptures namely)) there is a rule of cultural context. One must close the 2000 year cultural gap and define what that looked like in the first century. What did the houses that the churches met in look like in 50AD? 60AD? 90AD? We get this information from other documents written at the time and from archaeology and historians that wrote during or near to this time. What we discover is that many houses were built with courtyards large enough to seat many people. A couple of hundred or more depending on the size of the house. It is well known that those who were wealthy in Ephesus, Colossae, Philippi were using their houses for the church to meet in. These obviously had more room.

It makes sense that a house with a a courtyard or larger rooms were used for a church meeting than to say they limited the number of people in a church to what could fit in the average poor persons one room apartment don't you think?

And I don't find it scripturally accurate to say that they met in living rooms that could only seat 20 people so why do people try to make others think that is how the first churches met. It isn't true. There was no efforts to make churches small in the first century.
Every effort was to win souls, the more the better.
If your church is not experiencing explosive growth, teach soul winning classes and sermons. Let's get busy, the time is short.


A 1st century home with courtyard. Upper middle class.

The square footage of a house could vary enormously. Concerning the ruins at Pompeii, Carolyn Osiek and David Balch observe, “The average property is ten times larger than the smallest, the largest ten times larger than the average.” (17) Examination of 234 ruins at Pomepeii and Herculaneum revealed homes that ranged from 100 square meters to 3,000 square meters. (201) The specifics of the homes varied considerably but the basic features I just described were fairly constant.

These homes were often remodeled, or torn down and rebuilt. It is believed that the original house churches met in these homes, in either the atrium or the peritsyle. As the numbers of people expanded, walls would be torn out to make more space. According to Osiek and Balch, it appears that Christians in the mid-Second Century and later began to buy homes and convert them into shells with open space to hold a number of people. (35) These became the first domus ecclesia buildings dedicated entirely to meeting for worship. But even prior to emergence of these domus ecclesia it was possible that large numbers could have met together in the peristyle of some homes. Some of the larger homes in Pompeii could easily have handled a couple hundred folks. The House of Citharist could have accommodated more than 1,100 people. (201) It is not accurate to assume that all of the New Testament churches were limited to two or three dozen people.

I think you know how to Google or use a dictionary so you probably already looked it up. The reason it is good to learn this word when discussing Bible interpretations is because we are constantly referring to one of the rules in hermeneutics as the reason a mistake in interpreation is being made.

I could say it like this. "There are agreed upon rules of interpretation such as
1)The immediate context of the text being examined, what was said before it and immediately after it, in order to get the idea of what the author was discussing.
2) What is said that might have meant something different in the first century than it does today. For example a house with a large courtyard might not come to our minds when we read of a church meeting in a house but it would to the reader in the first century. That is called Cultural Context.
3) Is there shades of meaning in the original Greek that needs explanation because they don't translate perfectly into one English word and retain the same thought that the Greek reader would have?
4) Are there other scriptures in the bible that talk about the same subject being discussed that shed light on the topic.
AND SEVERAL other rules that I will not take time to list.
These rules are all combined called. Hermeneutics.
Now that we understand it as a list of rules of interpretation in an effort to define the authorial intent, we could say 'What is the best hermeneutic' and mean "which is the best interpretation after applying all of the rules of interpretation" without having to list all the rules. Just use that one word hermeneutic and we know that we are referring to the entire list of rules. Has the interpretation in questions been filtered through all of the rules of hermeneutics and found to be the best interpretation? If we do this (and if we have made a mistake in interpretation) we will usually discover a rule where the interpretation fails and this will let us know that we have made a mistake and must change our position.

I was despairing at how long some of these replies are lol but am guilty as charged. A heads up if you only want a quick reply, this is a marathon. Just jump on over to the other side lol

This thread has been an interesting read so far. I have been to quite a few different denominations over the years, reformed, Salvation Army, AOG, Methodist etc.

Firstly I would have to say that I have found no two Individual churches are the same even if they are similar in style and differing.

It’s hard not to sound like an arrogant, self-deceived, judgemental nit-picker when discussing these matters to be frank, but I understand the posters dilemma and genuine desire to both follow their current convictions and to have fellowship.

So (despite the risk of being misunderstood and offending just about everyone - eek ) here goes.

Personally speaking, I have found similar human character flaws -and strong lopsided doctrinal bias in all of the churches and house groups I have attended, but I have also found many biblical strengths, and (At the very least) a handful of genuine believers in most.

I have spent several years in a “reformed church”. It was both a wonderful and horrific experience many ways. I met some wonderful believers and heard some good teaching and I learned a lot, but sadly I learned about who not to become by much of what I observed and heard the longer I stayed there. Overall, I don’t regret going though. As my gran used to say - (sorry to non meat eaters) you need to learn to eat the meat and just spit the bones out.

If you think the “reformers” have nailed Balanced biblical doctrine, follow the “church of acts“ lifestyle, and abound in the fruit of the spirit, more than any other denomination, I am sorry but you may find a big fall or at least a big disappointment awaits you.

I can’t say that you will find a better experience in any other bias and pyramid-power style denomination, or so called “free” non denominational (usually with non- accountable elders/leadership).

What I can encourage you to do though, is to maybe look for evidence of Christ in individual believers.

And in the whole, a Preaching of the genuine simple gospel,

And leadership (they all have them even if they claim not to) who have and hold to solid basic biblical principles - but also manifest an obvious down to earth humility and exhibit a great willingness to embrace those who disagree on non-salvational issues, and accept them equally into the fold as it were.

The “flock”should also have Healthy differences and respect for each other’s differing opinions and personal convictions, and a willingness to Genuinely LISTEN, to discuss and examine their own thoughts and beliefs even with those who seem to be at odds with them.

A church with a willingness to deal with sin, but also to not to force (Even the leaders’) personal convictions on one another.
.
Please I urge you, don’t look for a label, look for the good in others. Look for the evidence of Christ, not human failings. If you don’t then you won’t go/stay anywhere Or fellowship with anyone except replicas of yourself who hold to your own specific convictions, misconceptions, errors in doctrine (we all have them) and biases.

If you want to grow in grace and the other fruits, go where you can be challenged, go where you have to bear with others and go where you find Christ, not a mirror.

Look for The fruits.... The love. The desire and attempting to live by scripture, even if it’s a bit lopsided or not all as you perceive it should be, (not talking about basic salvational issues or embracing obvious sin into the. church) the willingness to love, the willingness to learn and grow together. The willingness to bear with you as you are now, and to treat you as family and an equal.

I admire your desire to find a biblical church, but the biblical churches were a mess honestly. Large or small.

It isn’t about where we meet, it isn’t about how we arrange the “service”, “gathering” or whatever, it isn’t about one pastor, 12 elders, a little group of “equals” or any of that.

It’s about us wanting to come together in a place where we can all
Focus on Christ and one another.
Where we can worship our saviour and talk of His love, where we can follow a tradition or not follow a tradition to help us focus on Christ. Where we can be loud and dance like david, or Be still and know that He is God. It really doesn’t matter.

What matters is the body come together and they come together to be near those who love Christ, to grow to know one another better so we can serve and build up one another, and share His word and worship Him together.

Go where you can be at peace and where you can grow, but ultimately your walk and your growth depend on you clinging to Christ and seeking His face and studying His word to check what you hear and to challenge your own beliefs as you go. He will lead you in all Hos ways as you trust in Him, but never ever trust in man. Love man, fellowship with man and serve man, but remember you are as flawed as they and they are as right as you. Love them all.

To cut through, I have done extensive research into New Testament life and the prevailing record is that they met in an upper room that held about 30 people. The main reason they met was to have a meal together as many of the beleivers were unable to provide for themselves. That is what breaking of bread means. It has nothing at all to do with a sip of wine and piece of bread.

Tell me something I don't know.

So let's leave the first century for a minute. We can agree to disagree on what we think we know about the early church.

Regardless of what level of success the church was having in winning souls from one city to the next in 1st Century Roman Empire, I am now responsible for fulfilling the great commission in my day and in my community. I believe in soulwinning. The more the better.