MERGED: Protestant Church Planting - Where is it in the Bible?

[manualman]

I’m not a fan of the “fake Luke” authorship of Acts theory myself, so lookee! We agree on something! (I could swear there used to be a beer mug raising smilie here. On second thought, we might not agree on that…)

But right away we derail on the next step. You assert that Galatians simply has a “more specific” timeline. Another possibility is the difference in intent. In Galatians, Paul is attempting to demonstrate that his authority to teach does NOT arise from his Jewishness, but from Christ. It never dawns on Paul (or anybody else for the next 1500 years) that his words will be misconstrued as denigrating the need for apostolic succession (a term that had surely not yet been coined, but the idea behind which is already visible in the behavior of the Church). Paul is simply giving an account of his commission that emphasizes Christ, not Mosaic Law.

We agree again that Luke isn’t a modern historian either. If I came off that way, I apologize. What I was trying to say was that Luke is more interested in telling the story generally. Galatians Paul is primarily interested in arguing against the idea that christianity is merely a subset of Judaism. If you loose sight of that, you can make all kinds of bad conclusions from what Paul says.

Again, please try to understand the difference between apostolic succession and apostle. What I see in Acts (and alluded to in Galatians, though minimized to avoid confusing his main point) is Paul coordinating and receiving his mandate from the Holy Spirit THROUGH the Church, not in a direct, personal revelation to him alone. His conversion may have happened that way, but his mission as an apostle didn’t. You are trying to set up a false dichotomy of differentiating the “local church” at Antioch from the apostles. Might as well try to separate the head from the torso!

 

[Rightlydivide]

But right away we derail on the next step. You assert that Galatians simply has a “more specific” timeline. Another possibility is the difference in intent

 

[Nicea325]

Answer: The clever Catholic apologist attempts to impale Bible-believing Christians on the horns of a dilemma. He gives us two unpleasant options: either we accept every Roman Catholic dogma or else we deny the Bible. We are rather reluctant to do either one!

The whole thing turns out to be a false dilemma. There is a mixture of true biblical doctrines (which we readily accept) and a few distinctive Roman dogmas which we reject. We do not reject them because we disregard the Bible, but in fact, because we believe the Bible, and because we realize that the “proof texts” do not really prove that Roman position at all.

So, for example, to the first question (Do you baptise?), we readily answer “Yes” because baptism is a rite commanded by our Lord in the Holy Scriptures. Similarly we affirm the virgin birth of Christ, His Deity and humanity, the immortality of the soul and the bodily resurrection.

But to the question, “Do you pray for the dead?” we answer with an emphatic “No.” The Bible verses proposed in support for this practice are not proofs at all. Second Maccabees is an apocryphal book, it not part of the canon of Scripture; whereas 1 Corinthians 15:29 says nothing about praying for the dead. (We are not sure what ‘baptism for the dead’ means, even Catholic commentators disagree on its meaning, so how can this verse become the sure foundation of praying for the dead?) To learn whether we should pray for the dead or not, when we examine the hundreds of prayers recorded in Scripture, we find no precedent for this pagan practice.

We’re also asked whether we reverence Mary and the saints. Of course we do! We love and respect the saints, both the living and the departed. We meet the living saints every week in our church meetings, and we long to meet those who are already with the Lord, though for the time being we are separated by death and cannot communicate with them. On the other hand Catholics do not ‘reverence’ Mary or the saints. They dishonour them by making and bowing down before their idols, and attributing to them titles (e.g. “Mary our life, our hope”) and functions (“mediatrix of our salvation”) which belong to the Lord alone.

Further, we’re asked whether we accept the visible Church. Yes, we recognize both the visible and invisible aspects of the church of Jesus Christ. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes a similar distinction: “The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ” (paragraph 779). However, by accepting the “visible” church, we do not have to accept the hierarchical structure of the Rome institution. The church was “visible” well before the bishops of Rome ururped their proud and unbiblical claim to universal authority over the entire Church.

Do we believe in the sacrifice of the Mass? No! The Mass is an insult to Christ. Christ was offered once for all, and he is now sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high. His sacrifice is not being “carried on,” “perpetuated,” “renewed,” and “re-presented” as claimed by the Catholic Church. The Bible texts simply do not teach any of that. On the contrary, the Bible is emphatic that the sacrifice of Christ was done once for all; it is complete and finished; the Lord’s Supper is the memorial and proclamation of the Cross, and not a propitiatory sacrifice.

Do we accept the power of the Church to forgive sin? Yes we do. The church has the power to forgive through the preaching of the Gospel. The church is also called to discipline obstinate members and to forgive the repentant. But that does not mean that we agree to the late invention of private confession to the priest, absolution, penance or indulgences.

Do we accept the primacy of Peter? No we don’t. Though prominent among the apostles, the apostle Peter never took upon himself the right of supreme authority, universal jurisdiction and infallibility, contrary to what is claimed by the modern bishops of Rome. Peter was a married man; the Pope is celibate. Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” The Pope says, “Silver and gold, I have plenty, but apostolic power I have none.” Peter preached salvation in Jesus name alone, the modern Popes gives hope of salvation to all religionists, whether they believe in Jesus or not!

One final example, “Do we believe in the unity of the Church?” Yes, we do. That’s why we receive all true believers, irrespective of their denominational affiliation, as dear brothers and sisters, and members of the one church, the body of Christ. Rome cannot discover the church beyond the confines of its boundaries: “The Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church.” By excluding non-Roman Catholic Christians from the church, the Roman magisterium injures the body of Christ to uphold its sectarian prejudice.

In conclusion, Bible-believing Christians answer “No” to some of the questions listed by the Catholic apologist because the Bible does not teach those specific Catholic doctrines. Indeed we appeal to our Catholic friends to examine their faith in the light of Scripture; hold on to what is good, and do not be afraid to discard those doctrines which are not biblical.

– just for catholcs website

<<<<>>>

Do you think you could provide something new instead of the same anti-Catholic spam? Just for Catholics website? I find it more amusing than educational.

 

[adelore]

A friend of a friend has been “encouraged by the Holy Spirit” to plant new churches. My evangelical friend thinks this is ok but i didnt think it was. Are there any biblical arguments either way?

The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus started through Peter. It has stood the test of time.

Many years later “other branches” broke off from the Catholic Church and started their own churchs. And yet today, “more churchs” continue to break off from “other” churchs.

People continue to start “churchs” for several reasons. (and by no means is this a complete list)

1. They want to write their own church rules.
2. They don’t want to answer to the Catholic Church or the Pope.
3. They don’t want to answer to the “church” they broke off from.
4. They want more “modern ways”. (Yet, the Bible says God is the same now and always, He never changes.)
5. They can “tweek” (or so they think) the Bible to say what they want it to say. For example JW’s do this.

The list goes on and by no means do I have all the reasons on why they start new Churchs…they just do. (My personal feelings, maybe Satan is wanting to pull people away from the one and only True Church?)

While I do believe there are several wonderful loving Christians in other churchs, who truely love Jesus and God. I also know, that even though this may be true, they are missing out on all the wonderful things the Catholic Church has…

They have love for Jesus and God, but their churchs don’t teach or pratice the Complete Truths.

 

[elvisman]

my post was in direct response to elvisman’s list of often repeated off topic machine gun questions: all that was missing was that 50 gazzilion protestant denonminations proves protestants are wrong,

elvisman won’t even accept a defintion of a word if it comes from a protestant. or greek to english dictionary.

Uhhh, no.
My “machine gun questions” were aimed at the fact that you are trying to redefine “Church”.

A rudimentary scan of the New Testament shows your understnading of it (or, misunderstanding) to be totally out of sink with the words of christ and the Apostles.

By the way - the thousands of Protestant sects DOES prove that you are wrong because Jesus intended for His Body to be UNDIVIDED.
**Read John 17 . . . **

 

[The_Old_Medic]

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended directly onto each Apostle, not onto “the Church”.

Many Protestant churches refer to the act of forming new congregations, getting a church established in a new community, etc. as “planting”. It comes from the concept of working in “The Vineyard of the Lord”. You are, in effect, “planting a new vine in the vineyard”.

My maternal grandfather, “planted” 23 Churches in the Willamette Valley of Oregon between 1903 and 1940. He was a Free Methodist Minister, a “District Elder”, etc. for 55 years.

 

[wmscott]

Text removed to fit my response . . .

Well – that’s quite an answer - your decision to copy and paste an enormous amount of text from an anti-Catholic website notwithstanding . . .

Do yourself a favor next time – do some homework and come up with your own “valid” reasons for rejecting the truths of the Church* instead *of slapping and pasting the usual anti-Catholic rubbish. This is the same, old tired that is so easily debunked.

I especially like the phony rubbish about us Catholics practicing idolatry with Mary and the saints in heaven.

So, let’s see – by your pasted diatribe I gather the following:
You believe in Baptism (but not baptismal regeneration?)
You believe in the Church’s power to forgive sin – but not* really*.
You rejectprayers for the dead in Christ.
You accept a visible Church, but reject the way Christ and the apostles set up its hierarchy.
You reject the Sacrifice of the Mass because you have no idea what it means and have completely misunderstood the ETERNAL sacrifice of Jesus before the Father on our behalf (2 Pet. 3:8, Rev. 13:8, Revelation 5:6).
You believe in the UNITY of the church, yet you advocate its constant splintering as evidenced by the tens of thousands of bickering, differing “denominations”.

Finally** – you refer to Protestants as “Bible-believing Christians”, all the while, rejecting** so much of the Bible with your heavily-flawed belief systems.

This is one contradiction after another. By this, it is abundantly clear that Catholics are the TRUE Bible-believing Christians because we accept ALL of God’s truth instead of cherry-picking through those truths we like while ejecting the others we don’t.

ELVIS is in the building!!! Go Elvis Go

 

[elvisman]

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended directly onto each Apostle, not onto “the Church”.

Many Protestant churches refer to the act of forming new congregations, getting a church established in a new community, etc. as “planting”. It comes from the concept of working in “The Vineyard of the Lord”. You are, in effect, “planting a new vine in the vineyard”.

My maternal grandfather, “planted” 23 Churches in the Willamette Valley of Oregon between 1903 and 1940. He was a Free Methodist Minister, a “District Elder”, etc. for 55 years.

So, the fact that the HS descended upon the individual leaders of the Church means that the church was not ONE Body? What kind of logic is that? Remember one thing:
They were ALL together in one room at the time.

Your grandfather planted 23 ecclesial communities - not Churches. There is only ONE Church (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, 1 Tim. 3:15) - not 23 or 10 or 30,000.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Sorry to disagree, but in fact, there are many Churches. Even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges this fact (read the documents from Vatican II). The Roman Catholic Church believes that it is the “One True Church”, but it is far from the only church.

Your “superior” statement does nothing to help draw anyone to the Catholic Church, instead it tends to push people away.

As to the Holy Spirit, yes he infuses the whole church. But, he appeared as "Tongues of Flame over each SEPARATE Apostle, infusing that Apostle with himself.

Therefore, each Apostle was filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[elvisman]

Sorry to disagree, but in fact, there are many Churches. Even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges this fact (read the documents from Vatican II). The Roman Catholic Church believes that it is the “One True Church”, but it is far from the only church.

Your “superior” statement does nothing to help draw anyone to the Catholic Church, instead it tends to push people away.

As to the Holy Spirit, yes he infuses the whole church. But, he appeared as "Tongues of Flame over each SEPARATE Apostle, infusing that Apostle with himself.

Therefore, each Apostle was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, but you are wrong.
You need to read JPII’s Encyclical from 2000, Dominus Iesus, wherein I quote:

*“On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63 ***

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.

It was written to correct "erroneous or ambiguous interpretations” of the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II said in its documents that Protestant churches, "because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood", had NOT “preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery”.

As for the Holy Spirit - each Apostle received the goly Spirit TOGETHER in the same room because they were united as ONE Church - ONE Body (John 17).

 

[elvisman]

As to the Holy Spirit, yes he infuses the whole church. But, he appeared as "Tongues of Flame over each SEPARATE Apostle, infusing that Apostle with himself.

Therefore, each Apostle was filled with the Holy Spirit.

One final thought on this.
If God is omnipresent and can be in multiple places at the same time - why do you suppose Jesus told the Apostles to remain in Jerusalem so that the Holy Spirit could descend upond them (Acts 1:4-5)?

It was becuase of the UNITY he prayed for in John 17. there is no such thing as “Lone Ranger” Christianity. We are ONE Body and that’s how Jesus wanted it to remain.

 

[Nicea325]

One final thought on this.
If God is omnipresent and can be in multiple places at the same time - why do you suppose Jesus told the Apostles to remain in Jerusalem so that the Holy Spirit could descend upond them (Acts 1:4-5)?

**It was becuase of the UNITY **he prayed for in John 17. there is no such thing as “Lone Ranger” Christianity. We are ONE Body and that’s how Jesus wanted it to remain.

Elvisman,

Some people will never get it or insist the opposite. Jesus’ did not teach to create thousands of different denominations.

 

[wmscott]

Elvisman,

Some people will never get it or insist the opposite. Jesus’ did not teach to create thousands of different denominations.

Thankfully a billion or more do get it.

 

[onenow1]

Thankfully a billion or more do get it.

And if only more folks would study history a little closer, they would find out that Catholic Monks, copied copies of the bible,and no extant parchments have remained to copy from; the leadership of the Cathilic church measured the texts and deemed them inspired of the Holy Spirit. Thus all that read NT scripture can only do so because of the Catholic Church and really have no authority to translate its more profound multiple meanings.

Matthew 18:17, Jesus said that if one brother offends another they were to take it to "the Church. Wow !

If church only means persons, that reduces Jesus Church to a democracy and that is obsurd.

God Bless All
onenow1

 

[Janet1983]

I think this church-planting business is rather strange. I understand starting a church where there is none, but they even plant in areas where you could easily go to another church.
They started a cowboy church here last year and they do have a different approach and have a different group of people who will come to the faith there. Regular churches which are newly planted close to other churches just take the people out of other locations…

 

[4Squarebaby]

I think this church-planting business is rather strange. I understand starting a church where there is none, but they even plant in areas where you could easily go to another church.
They started a cowboy church here last year and they do have a different approach and have a different group of people who will come to the faith there. Regular churches which are newly planted close to other churches just take the people out of other locations…

The theory is that every individual is unique and they will respond to a different messenger, the charismatic pastor. The local churches will build their own communities but some evangelist will need to reach out to the unchurched and something about the personalities of the planting team may just do that.

Yes the slice that plants the new church will make their parent church’s congregation smaller and some other local church attenders may leave their home church to attend the new plant but the goal is to reach those who have been unreached.

 

[SnakeMauler]

I met this guy who’s going to Bible school or something and he told me he wants to do Church planting. He said he wants to do it outside of the United States though, particularly in Yugoslavia, since his buddy said he hasn’t heard of many churches over there. I told him that that would probably make sense because Yugoslavia doesn’t exist as a country anymore. He didn’t seem to believe me, so then I inquired more. He said the way it works is you go to a town, talk to people, and then eventually set up bible study groups and then you get elders and deacons and all that. My question is, what the heck is church planting, why would he want to do it in a country that doesn’t exist anymore, and what the heck are his concept of elders/deacons and all that?

-Snakemauler

 

[Eutychus123]

What denomination, if any, is he? That would determine what the role(s) of Elders and Deacons play.

The bible study route is a way for some Protestant groups to start up a new church.

Maybe he wants to go to Bosnia, which has a high percentage of Muslims.

 

[onenow1]

The theory is that every individual is unique and they will respond to a different messenger, the charismatic pastor. The local churches will build their own communities but some evangelist will need to reach out to the unchurched and something about the personalities of the planting team may just do that.

Yes the slice that plants the new church will make their parent church’s congregation smaller and some other local church attenders may leave their home church to attend the new plant but the goal is to reach those who have been unreached.

Hi 4, As you have probably observed, many dissensions accompany these slices.
I’ll ask, does it make sense to steal the message of Jesus, from one eccliasial community to another with a different appeal to scripture ? Or does it make more sense we speak with one voice,as Jesus prayed for and St.Paul made abundantly clear ?

Jesus Christ gave a higher authority for disputes between persons, even when there are two or more witnesses. He told them to appeal to the Church in Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” Here, Christ gave full authority to His Church.

John 17: 20-21 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 20:21–23).
“As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20

God Bless
onenow1

 

[ohioszo]

I think Siberia would be a good place to start something like that! (I’m reading Travels in Siberia, by Ian McEwan.)