Here's chapter 5:

http://imgur.com/a/2XkRq

A very good discussion of authority, leadership, and the greek words found in the NT that relate to these concepts.

Hello all. I know I've not been giving enough attention to this subreddit for a while and I stopped some of my post series. I'm going to start the Ekklesia posts again, though, and I'm going to be updating the links so that the pages of a given chapter are hosted on Imgur as an album. I think that will make it easier to access. But it may take a while for me to get all that done because of the process of scanning in pages and/or converting file formats, etc.

I've also added some submitters so we'll probably be getting some new discussions going. Eventually, I'd like for this subreddit to grow and become a hub of ecclesiological knowledge and discussion.

The modern Church, especially in countries like America, has become lukewarm and stagnant, and I think some discussion regarding the true nature and purpose of the Body of Christ would be beneficial to Christians.

Hello all! I've just started a new subreddit called /r/christianvideo and I wanted to invite you come check it out. This will be a place to share videos which you find encouraging, interesting, or just enjoyable. Think, sermons, sermon clips or sermon jams, conference videos, debates, music videos, and more! Please come check us out, subscribe, and start submitting!

Chapter 3 - Interactive Meetings. Please excuse the messy notes I scribbled in some of the pages. At the end of the chapter the author placed a few extra things such as a sample introduction letter and a humorous re-phrasing of the I Cor. 14 passage.

There are a few things I disagree with the author on in this chapter (this is mostly differences of opinion on some gray areas and you'll have to come to your own conclusions of where to stand on these things):

1. He distinguishes at one point between 'worker's meetings' and 'I Cor. 14' meetings, saying that certain things should only take place in one or the other, but I see no clear Biblical reason to assert that distinction.

2. I differ with him regarding tongues in that I believe tongues and other charismatic sign gifts have already served their function in the early church period and no longer exist. For more on this, please read the excellent chapter on speaking in tongues from John MacArthur's book Charismatic Chaos.

3. He also seems at one point in the chapter to discourage theological questions being asked during the meeting. I see no problem with people asking questions in a meeting.

4. He asserts that punctuality is necessary and not being on time or not starting promptly would be rude. This is essentially a cultural issue, however, and although in American culture it somewhat applies, there are other cultures in which it is definitely not true (i.e., it is fine and normal for people to come in late and for the meeting to start a little later than scheduled, etc). I see no Biblical mandate that all churches across the world should be strictly prompt in starting meetings.

I'll go ahead and post up the second chapter, The Lord's Supper: Feast or Famine?

Here's the next part of the book, 'Chapter 1: Apostolic Tradition: Obsolete?' It's a good discussion of how to approach and interpret the things we read about the Apostles and Early Church in the New Testament. How literally must we follow in their steps? Did Paul and the others command us to follow the traditions they started?

I am going to upload the book Ekklesia by Steve Atkerson chapter-by-chapter and post it all here on /r/ecclesiology so that you can read and discuss it. Here's the first part:

http://imgur.com/a/vmiGT

A bit of history: I've been having doubts and questions about church and ecclesiological practice for quite some time now. I started noticing that what I read about the early church in the New Testament didn't seem to match up with many things we do in modern churches, and I wondered why. Some traditions churches have added don't make sense and seem to have no precedent in Scripture, and some things that the early church did seem to be forgotten in our modern church meetings. I knew something was wrong, but I couldn't put my finger on it at first or quite say why it was wrong. As time went on, my thoughts and questions became more crystallized and defined, culminating in my recent reading of this book, Ekklesia.

It's not some magical book, or equivalent to Scripture, or anything; it's simply the result of some good Christian brothers' ecclesiological studies. The book surprised me though because it put many of my ponderings and questions into words and answered them very well from the Bible. In fact, it seemed to be the very same kind of book/project I myself had been planning on one day writing; namely, a statement of what the bare essentials and requirements of church really are.

Of course, as with most books, I don't agree with the author 100% on everything he says, and I urge you to take it all with a grain of salt and with much of your own Scripture reading and searching, to 'see if these things be true.' I also am excited to see what others think of this book and I encourage discussion about it.

Edit: ok, I re-uploaded the intro. It's now hosted as an album on Imgur so it should be easier to access.

This chapter begins with a list of prophets and teachers which were in the church at Antioch. Prophets are 'forth-tellers' who give God's messages to the people and who also may do some teaching, while teachers are those who are not prophets but instruct their fellow brethren of the doctrines of Christ and of the Scriptures. These three prophets and two teachers are told by the Holy Spirit to separate Barnabas and Paul to the work God has for them, and they respond by laying their hands on the two and sending them away with their blessing. It is clear throughout the passage and especially in verse four that they were sent by (commanded, commissioned, given orders from) the Holy Ghost, rather than just 'sent' by the church of Antioch.

EDIT: I read back over this post, and I think to prevent misunderstanding I should warn that: 1. It's just a summary, and not an argument or essay; 2. It contains very few Scripture references or Scriptural reasons to back up what it's saying; 3. Most of what I say here is discussed (in a much better way) in the book Ekklesia, which I've recently started posting here one /r/ecclesiology; 4. It's a personal summary I made for convenience, to organize several thoughts about church planting and leadership processes, and not necessarily a definitive or complete summary. I'll leave it here anyway since there still might be some benefit from it for readers of this subreddit, and since it might help you think about things that you might not otherwise consider, but keep the aforementioned in mind, and always search the Scriptures for yourself and use logic regarding any topic.

This is something I wrote as a summary of several thoughts concerning the process of Church planting and the way in which leaders are to be appointed, according to the New Testament (mainly drawn from Paul's example):

Missionaries are sent/called by the Holy Ghost out of the group of prophets and teachers in the church in a given place (Acts 13:1-4). The saints of that church lay hands on them and send them to their work. Then the Missionary establishes churches and appoints elders in those new churches. After that, new elders are appointed as needed in those churches by the congregation, under the guidance of existing elders.

Remember that the authority in a given local assembly belongs strictly to the entire congregation and not to a few board members or a single pastor/elder. Christ taught that no Christian brother should be higher than any other, and that we should not call any man "Master" or "Father." Of course, the Holy Spirit calls brethren to be teachers, prophets, evangelists, elders, etc. Also remember that elders are to be plural in number in any given assembly (unless the church does not have enough men trained in the Word to qualify yet, of course) and are not to 'lord over' their fellow brethren, but simply act as teachers and guides and be there to resolve disputes and keep order.

Also, missionaries/evangelists have a right to financial support from churches, but following Paul's example, they must not actively seek or expect that support; it should be given to them voluntarily by the churches, since according to the New Testament ministry is always for free (and funded by voluntary donation). Remember that Paul said in I Cor. 9 that although he was entitled to support as an Apostle, he willingly gave up those rights and worked with his own hands (as a tentmaker) to support himself. According to I Timothy 5:17-18, certain elders also qualify to receive monetary support from the Church. These are any elders whom God calls to a ministry/level of study that would prevent them from having the time or ability to make a living through a secular profession or craft. However, it must be noted that under a proper implementation of elders according to the New Testament this case would probably be rare, since elders should not have too much burden with church issues and should thus be free enough to work to provide for themselves if 1. there are a plurality of elders and 2. none of the elders takes charge of the entire assembly or administrates.

In reality, the modern office of 'Pastor' has completely blown out of proportion the idea of an elder, and has wrongly encouraged the notion of one man rising above the congregation and lording over it, speaking from an official 'pulpit' on a raised platform. The Christians of the Early Church considered all the brethren equal and everyone participating in a given meeting would be given the opportunity to speak or minister or prophesy or sing or testify or what have you. There was no 'service' or 'order of service,' there was indeed not even a 'sanctuary.' It was simply an open and informal meeting of the brethren. But I digress...

Not that there are many subscribers to this subreddit, this small small corner of the vast internet, but I still feel like writing about this, for the future benefit of anyone interested. I've been reading a fascinating book called Ekklesia by Steve Atkerson. It's basically similar in intent and philosophy to my own work on this subreddit; the author believes that we must return to the original formulas given to us in the New Testament for Church function and form, and that we should thus discard modern traditions, church buildings, elevation of pastors, etc. I find myself agreeing for the most part with him, although there are some things he seems adamant on that I wouldn't push so strongly.

In one part of the book, there is a very good statement about the three things that must be in every church in order for it to be considered Biblical:

1. Open worship and sharing with no one leading from the front

2. The Lord's Supper as a full meal [and as the central reason for the church coming together to meet every week]

3. Non-hierarchical, plural, male, indigenous leadership

These things, and many others, are discussed and explained in more detail in the rest of the book, of course. I highly recommend all Christians to read it, as it is full of good questions and explains how the currently accepted model for church is flawed, though again I will emphasize that I do not completely agree with or endorse every conclusion that the author comes to.

As strange as the above three things may seem, I agree that they are indeed the bare necessities/requirements of a Biblical church. I think if you read through the New Testament and look at the early church and the Apostles, you'll come to the same conclusion. If not, I'd be interested to know why.

After Peter's defense, Luke takes us back in time somewhat to begin again at Saul's Persecution and relates a different chain of events, giving a brief description of the scattered Christians preaching. They preached only to the Jews, except for a group in Antioch that preached also to the Grecians. It is possible that this happened before Peter's meeting with Cornelius, although the news of it probably came after Peter's defence. What is interesting is that these men decided to preach to the Grecians on their own, without any specific command from God or any approval from the church leaders at Jerusalem. Nevertheless, "the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord." Barnabas was sent to confirm these things, and he was glad to see that it was true. He went to Tarsus and found Saul, and brought him to Antioch, and "a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people."

Acts 10-Peter is commanded of God to speak the Gospel to Cornelius and his friends and family, people who were not Jews. This was something new and eye-opening for Peter, who came to realize through this that he ought not 'call any man unclean' or think that only Jews could be saved. This signals the opening of the Gospel to those beyond Judaism, and confirms that outsiders did not have to become Jewish proselytes to be part of the Church, but only had to believe on Christ.

Acts 11-Peter goes back to Jerusalem, but must defend his actions in the previous chapter to those who still believed that only Jews could receive salvation. "They that were of the circumcision contended with him," and he responded by relating his entire story including the visions and messages from God. They reluctantly accept it, but we are not told whether they regard it as a new precedent or simply an exceptional case. Throughout the passage, however, it is of note that Peter was not regarded as any kind of overlord or pope.

Firstly, this and other passages confirm that Baptism does not confer any righteousness and has no part in the rebirth (salvation) of a person. In verse 37, Philip responds to the Ethiopian's request to be baptized with "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." The New Testament is clear that it is by faith in Christ alone that we are reborn. Ephesians 2:8,9-"For by Grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (in the Greek text the 'that' in the phrase 'and that not of yourselves' refers to the entire concept of salvation, and not to either the 'grace' nor the 'faith' mentioned in verse 8, as some have interpreted it. Salvation as a whole is from God and not man, but God's Grace is only received through faith on our part.)

Secondly, the nature of the baptism here described may be of some interest. Verses 38 and 39 are clear that they both 'went down into' the water, which confirms what can already be seen from the etymology of the word Baptism ('baptidzo' in Greek): that Baptism is only 'by immersion' or being completely covered by water, and not by sprinkling. Also of note is the curious fact that this baptism occurred in the desert with no witnesses but Philip (who was doing the baptizing) and and unknown number of servants and such, who traveled with the eunuch. Obviously, both Philip and the Spirit of God considered this a genuine baptism; thus, we can effectively dispense with the notion that Baptism must only be performed in a 'sanctuary' of a church building, or in any specific place, or even in the presence of other believers.

-Acts 8-The church at Jerusalem experiences great persecution (mainly from Saul) and is scattered into the regions of Judea and Samaria. Luke tells us also that the Apostles stayed at Jerusalem and "they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word." So here it is not only the Apostles, but the rest of the disciples that are carrying out the Great Commission they were given by Christ, and spreading the Gospel beyond Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria.

-Acts 8-Philip is commanded by God to go on the path toward Gaza so that he could meet a man who needed his guidance. There he sees an Ethiopian eunuch (of great authority) who is returning from Jerusalem, reading aloud from a scroll of Isaiah which he must have purchased while staying there. Philip speaks with him and from that scripture and others begins to expound Jesus as Christ to him; the Ethiopian believes. Here is the part which may be of more specific interest to us however: they draw near to a small body of water, and the Ethiopian asks Philip if he may be baptized there (apparently Philip had told him of the practice of Baptism following conversion). Several things are of note here (continued next post).

-Acts 6-The church was now becoming so large and widespread that the Apostles were not able to fully carry out the 'daily ministrations' to the poor, the widows, etc. They also did not want to neglect their study and preaching of the Scriptures, so they proposed to the whole church that several wise and Spirit-filled men be appointed to this business of taking care of and dispensing the food and funds, and when they were chosen, the Apostles prayed over them and laid hands on them, presumably to ask God to give them the necessary strengths and faculties to perform the work.

The same Greek root from which we have the word 'deacon' appears also in the phrases translated as 'daily ministration' and 'serve tables.' This passage is the origin of the idea of a Deacon, the emphasis being that the Deacon ministers to the physical needs of the people so that the Apostles, evangelists, elders, etc. can focus on the spiritual needs, shepherding, and devotion to the Scriptures.