₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
This is one of the reasons i now attend my church quite infrequently.

Large churches make close-knit christian fellowships and bible studies impossible. Large churches today are no different from movie theatres . . . you go in, watch a 30 min concert that you dont participate in, listen to a 20 min motivational speech where you're not required to own a bible as the verses are put up on a screen for your convenience. Pay your usual gate fee (tithes and offerings) then leave.

Where is the place for searching the scriptures? What if you had burning questions to ask? where is the place for exhorting one another? Where is the opportunity to share testimonies that bolster the faith of others?

bawomolo:
why do u consider them strangers?

aisha2:
I believe that is what Home cells and Care groups are meant to address. If we say Churches should not have more than 5o members then we will have many more churches than we have now crowding the place

bawomolo:
most large churches typically have small groups. i know redeem does.

KunleOshob:
The large size of churches we have today actually don't have any scriptural basis, however i would not condem it as wrong but true fellowship is lacking in churches of such large size. In the early churches they used to share meals, there was always feasting which formed an essential part of the fellowship but today it is completely missing except for the occassional holy communion were tiny rations of bread and "wine"[as opposed to full meals] are given out in observation of Jesus commandment. The mordern church as tried to re-enact the close knit fellowship which the early church had through house fellowships and house cells but the sharing of meals is mostly missing in these fellowships and some of them still collect "offerings" which they re-mit to the church for what ever purpose. But large congregations [not churches] are not entirely unscriptural as Jesus used to have several open air sermons in which thousands were recorded to attend. A very obvious example was when Jesus fed 5,000 men after one of his sermons. In summary i won't condenm large church congregations as long as they provide a platform for true fellowship, but then again large congregations are unnecessary as i don't see any benefit in it for the congregation themselves apart from the intituitional church that stands to make more money from a larger congregation.

mazaje:
And how many of the deluded people here on nairaland that are calling you names truly know you? How and why should the opinion of faceless and anonymous people that have NOTHING to contribute to your life what so ever on an internet forum affect you in any way at all?. . .Mr man carry on with your life and allow the delude people here to keep on ranting about nothing. . . . How deep is your love for her if the opinions of faceless people that don't even know you is all it takes for your love for her to be gone?

JeSoul:
InesQor, I find this quote most, most interesting. Can you defend this biblically?

InesQor:
@JeSoul: sorry im mobile now, so my response is delayed. The Greek word "ekklesia" is used to define church, and means "the called out ones", a word that was used for the first church: Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness (Acts 7:38).

Read v39-47 to see how such a large company of called out ones erred because they cooperated in their large numbers to deliver evil counsel. Finish the chapter and see why they killed Stephen in the discourse.

As to fellowship and administration, recall Jethro's advice in Exo 18:21 to break up the group into chunks for better fellowship. Each chunk of 5, 10 as suggested is a Household, so to speak.

Fellowship is, in the Greek, koinonia, a partnership and social intercourse. The definition makes it clear that its not a very large unwieldy body, and the reason I personally say a house, is that, I can see various Biblical patterns of believers meeting in their houses.

I am not excluding meetings larger than houses, though, but each functional unit within the gathering, delivering the power of the gospel and sharing communion must not be larger than a household that is receiving guests. I am not a fan of crusades a la Benny Hinn. Only been to one in my life: Bonnke in 2000 or so. Make it a maximum of 50 to 100 depending on size of available space.

The key thing is that, like parts of the human body must not atrophy, no one should be able to transparently slip by in the meeting and not BOTH gain AND contribute. More questions?

InesQor:
I dont believe any single gathering of believers is meant to be larger than can fit in a house, where great fellowship can be shared and all parts grow. My 2 cents, sir.

Deep Sight:
As for the God preached by the bible, he has always been distinctly single -

"Hear o Israel, the Lord our God is one God" - Deut. 6:4.

InesQor:
I dont believe any single gathering of believers is meant to be larger than can fit in a house, where great fellowship can be shared and all parts grow. My 2 cents, sir.

osaass:
It is a right-wing dominated media in the uk for sure and to a large extent mainland europe.
The have been fanning the flames of xenophobia and nationalism. No surprise therefore that a neo-nazi fascist group the BNP is a registered political party and has millions of registered members here. They have loads of councillors and recently gained 2 seats in the european parliament.

ElRazur:
The majority of the UK media are not right-winged as you are claiming.

Image123:
JeSoul
I'll not go into that verse,

but at least we'll agree that faith is the evidence of things not seen, substance of things hoped for.

I believe God demonstrates and demonstrated this things.

The evidence of things not seen, He manifested it calling those things that are not as though they are. I think that is faith. Jesus demonstrated faith and expects us to do same. Well?

Deep Sight:
You see what I mean?

How do you know I am not God?

1. You admit that "spiritual matters fly over our heads". . . thus you cannot tell affirmatively that I am not God. The best you can say is that you do not know if I am in fact God - because it is a matter you have admitted transcends human understanding.

2. Your grim assurance that I am not God derives from the fact that you know I am a man: In this i put it squarely to your face that if you lived in Jesus' time and sat next to him and knew him the way you know me as a man - you would posess the same grim certainty that he was simply another man - and not the Almighty Creator. It would sound ridiculous to you - and it is only acceptable in your ears now because it is removed from you by the passage of time and the force of Church history has made it sound acceptable to call a fellow human being the Almighty creator.

3. Do not even dare point to miracles because there are people performing miracles today, just as others performed miracles back then - and you do not therefore accept any of them as God do you?

And by the way, i do perform miracles.

Deep Sight:
^^^
Let me put something to you.

Has it ever occurred to you that the real question is not -

- Could it be the case that such a thing as the Trinity can exist?

But -

- Does it in fact exist?

Could Jesus be God? Its possible. Anything is possible since our knowledge is limited. I might be God too. You cannot claim that you know everything - so it is possible that I too am God - and that this transcends your knowledge or understanding.

So the correct question in fact should be - Is Jesus in fact God? Is Deep Sight in fact God?

And not an explanation of how it could be possible. Because we already know anything might be possible.

Let me ask you particularly if you are aware of the origin of the doctrine of the trinity.

Image123:
I don't think there's anything wrong with the scriptures quoted. Hebrews 11v3 says God created the world through faith. The passages quoted above also imply the same. I don't think we should say it is wrong simply because so and so is the one saying it.

JeSoul:
The Holy Spirit is not Jesus, but yet He is - The Father is not the Son, but yet again, He is - because they are all God.
I know this will be confusing for non-christians especially.

aletheia:
Well, I sort of feel uneasy about Athanasius', because I think we cannot do better than what is written in scripture.

the diagram shows four nodes, which seems to detract from the unity of God. Much like the family of Smith, comprising John, Jane and John Jnr: All separate and distinct but all of them Smith (sort of like the Mormon concept of God). See. . .

aletheia:
I came across this entry of March 4, 2010 in Rhapsody of Realities.

My questions are:
1. Do these scriptures support the view that God operates by faith?

2. Is faith then a force that we can tap into for results, just as God does?

noetic16:
A ridiculously irrelevant and dogmatic submission influenced by ignorance, malady, lack of understanding and disdain for knowledge.

aletheia:
I am not saying that there are four persons in the Godhead

only that the diagram is a flawed illustration of the nature of God.

aletheia:
@JeSoul
If your diagram is taken as proof of the doctrine of trinity (as DeepSight seems to see it) then it is flawed because I could as well provide a four-sided or five-sided polygon showing a "quadrinity" or "pentanity". As an illustration, I am sorry to say that my opinion is that it is inadequate.

Deep Sight:
Can we come to an accord that there can be no accord in accordance with the accord of the Christian to make an accord out of the patently disconcordant?