Acts The Church and Ministerial Training

Kaitiaki's picture

Basically this is just a "what do we learn about the Church from Acts?" thread. As we watch Paul and Barnabas and then Paul and Silas building the Church in Acts, what can we learn about their concept of the Church as a whole? Robert suggested my original plan was too cumbersome so asked me to create new threads.

Thread Moderator: Kaitiaki

There are two aspects to this thread: the training of the local congregation (for the work of ministry - as in Ephesians) and the theological training of ministers (or pastors).

Acts shows us local congregations that trained young men (and women) for every appropriate aspect of Church work. That included the work of ministry and missions. Discuss this statement. Do you think it is valid? What implications (if any) are there for the present system in almost every denomination of sending young men to a seminary to be trained? How does your Church seek to apply those implications in the way they train ministers and missionaries?

Groups:

Couple points on continued arguments

1. The reality of a similarity of order of service is irrelevant in the absence of objective proog it is contrary to scripture, or that it poses a problem for some but not all American Christians.

2. Estep's assertion "The Reformation was a revolt against papal authority but not against the Roman concept of the church as an institution" is meaningless without demonstration that the institutional church organization is eiher contra-scripture or unhealthy to spiritual growth. YOu have not provided a convinving argument of either Clark.

3. I think Elton raises an excellent point in his statement. Here is the quote you provided "Now, after more than three centuries, we can, if we will, change gears again. Our opportunity for a big step lies in opening the ministry to the ordinary Christian in much the same manner that our ancestors opened Bible reading to the ordinary Christian. To do this means, in one sense, the inauguration of a new Reformation while in another it means the logical completion of the earlier Reformation in which the implications of the position taken were neither fully understood nor loyally followed."

4. Beckhan also has some relevant thigs to consider but none of them are as radical as you are saying Clark, or go as far as to assert we in the IC are idolaters.

5. You assert that the IC (Institutional Church) is focusing on the wrong center. Your quote includes "But I think we have done something amiss in focusing so much of our time together in teaching the bible apart from the revelation of Jesus Christ in those scriptures." I agree churches as living on less than God intends when we put scripture study above living real personal worship to God and Body ministry. In all you have said this is perhaps where we agree the most. The problem I have is that the solution, IMO, does not lie in abandoning church order, or abandoning a Pastor leading the service, or abandoning a dedicated church building. Since you are freely quoting Viola, I think most of the "problems" he sees are not standing in the way at all, including sermons, music ministry, Sunday school, trained leaders, choirs and choir robes, etc. We have lost a sense of the Awe for a Holy and Supernatural God who wants to FILL (not just inclusion but possession) our daily lives. But to focus on the issues here is (IMO) taking us down the same path G Fox did. In the end result is often just another way of doing denominations that does not necessarily lead to the living Christ but a mystical one not grounded in scripture but our own imagination of Him.

Acts 2 contains much of the solution: unite and turn our hearts toward Christ. And brother that can be done in a dedicated Upper Room where 1 person (like Peter) provides human leadership with a group of elders (12 Apostles) ... and the church united behind God appointed leadership seeks God with their whole heart.

In Christ,

Dan Fugett




Advertisements