Comments on: A Conversation with Frank Viola, Part I

By: cwynn

cwynn — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:16:37 +0000

I have glanced through Frank V’s Here to Eternity, it is a work that is Blasphemous at best ….

[Note: The remainder of this comment has been removed since it violated the unpublished comment guidelines of this website by descending into an ad hominem attack on the author rather than commenting substantively on the content.]

By: House Church: Ready for Prime Time? Frank Viola says ‘Yes!’ « zoecarnate

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:45:06 +0000

[...] responses to ‘organic church’ praxis evolve over the years, from initial wariness to active [...]

By: Linda Spagnola

Linda Spagnola — Sun, 11 May 2008 19:16:51 +0000

I would like to add a comment regarding Richard’s question about changes to the book: the book ref in Rev 22:18-19 is the same book that the Lamb opened in Rev chpt 5. As Bro Maynard noted, this “book” was circulated on its own. Additionally, I would postulate that the “changes” referred to in Rev 22:18-19 are not so much the tangible writings of the book (which began as a vision, which was not written), but rather the story the book presents – that is the revealing of Jesus Christ and his Ekklesia and the subsequent battle between Christ and those are his with the unbelieving world. It is a spiritual battle, according to Eph 6:10-13.

I should like to shift back to Frank’s book for a moment: One of the questions brought up was why can’t the org church then be changed, if so much of it is paganistic practices? Besides the idea of starting a building project with a faulty foundation or trying to put new wine into old wineskins, there is this: The organized/institutionalized church systems of today are geared towards and promote individualism. Individualism, if you will recall, is what has all but disintegrated family in this country. Are you aware that most Muslims, who are very family oriented, will not even consider Christianity because our so-called Christian country is no longer family oriented? This hit me like a ton of bricks and mortar (church bldg) this morning. Following Christ is not to be an individualistic endeavor: there is a reason for Christ’s many-membered bride, the Ekklesia. God’s first desire is to have a people (not a single person) who meet together to worship him and to help each other, while spreading the good news to others. The org church system is a fractured house, beginning with preacher vs lay person, with many rooms (independent ministries). People meet a couple of times a week to do things and then spend the rest of the week on their own. There is no sense of family of God there. There is no daily gathering to solely minister to God in Christ – no horizontal relationship as directed by the Vertical relationship. Our relationship with God and with each other should be interdependent with regular meetings, accountability and most of all, with Christ as its head to lead and guide.

By: Brother Maynard

Brother Maynard — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:10:36 +0000

No, it wouldn’t — the book of Revelation was originally circulated on its own and that’s how the original hearers would have understood it, and it’s a hermeneutical principle that “it cannot mean now what it never meant then.” Review the explanations I gave above, and you’ll find that if these verses refer to the entire Bible, then it’s quite possible that the New Testament itself violates them. The simple explanation is the more narrow application in this case.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:22:45 +0000

Maynard, I understand your points, however if Revelation is one of the books that make up the Bible would that not than pertain to the whole Bible? Thanks

By: Brother Maynard

Brother Maynard — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:41:19 +0000

Richard – on Revelation 22:18-19:
The book of Revelation would have originally been circulated on its own, not with other books of the Bible. The Christian canon as we have it today was not agreed upon until 393; the book of Revelation was argued against for inclusion, but ultimately of course it was put in. If one accepts the same author for Revelation and John’s gospel, it would be instructive to note that the gospel doubtless went through at least one and probably more stages of editing before arriving in its final form. Revelation, according to the cited verses, was not to be redacted in any way. A late date for Revelation puts it around the same time as the Gospel; an early date puts it as much as 30 years before the Gospel. Checking a few commentaries on Revelation should confirm that it is the majority view that the verses refer to Revelation and not to the entire canon… which at the time may well have not been closed. We just don’t actually know for sure.

Then too, one must take into consideration the method by which the books of the Bible, and the New Testament specifically, were written. No scholar seriously considers that the writers of these books actually knew they were writing scripture — this would be especially apparent with the epistles.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:32:36 +0000

If God inspired the authors of the various books that were written to form one book, The Bible, how can Revelation 22:18-19 only pertain to the book of Revelation? Does this means that we should only go by the Old Testament? Or is the Bible only relevant for the people back then? If all these books form one book “The Bible” how do we then get to pick or choose which books are relevant and pertain to us? And for the guys who thought this was a commentary only for PC, forgive me, for wanting to learn about God’s Word.Thanks guys

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:16:59 +0000

I’m not writing to say who’s right or who’s wrong. I am writing though to learn what people think and how they interpret different religions. It’s the one way and probably the most important of all communication “seek first to understand” then to be understood. Jesus demonstrated this by asking questions of the people He came in contact with. Thanks guys

By: George dunn

George dunn — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:38:42 +0000

I think that too often we (including myself) tend to think of “the faith” in terms of belief or assent to a system of beliefs, truths or theology. Almost as in a creed, “I believe in…”. I grew up with all this, was an avid bible scholar, was “churched”, baptized in water, educated in “the faith” and puffed up with knowledge (knowledge does indeed puff up but love edifies). Then I had an epiphany, and in a moment of great weakness surrendered my “religious christian” self to Christ. My search for meaning had led me to a point of desperation and absolute surrender and I cried out “Lord if you are there please take my life because if not I will take it. I’m empty. I want to know you as you really are!” It was not even a conviction of “sin” in the traditional sense of having done “bad things” (which I had) but a sense of deep emptiness, separation from Him, incompleteness and need for knowing God in an experiential way. As I lay there on the floor something marvelous happened. I was changed, in an instant Christ revealed himself and life came into me and the Lord lifted me up off of the floor. This began a new and living way.

As I began to study God’s word, apart from any “church”, the Holy Spirit began to enlightened my cluttered mind and breathe life into the word of God and into me and open my eyes to the marvelous truth of God. I began to see the Kingdom of God and began to experience a new and deep fellowship with God.

Years later I was to give up this wonderful relationship for “church”, good works and recognition as a “man of God” and I lost much ground, the peace of Christ and intimace with Him. I traded life for legalistic and self centered knowledge and works based Christianity. I stopped BEING a witness and settled for witnessing. I stopped being an ambassador for Christ and settled for recognition by the brethren. I traded honest open and intimate fellowship with God and with other believers for superficial churchianity. I traded spiritual prosperity for the material “prosperity gospel”. Instead of a genuine disciple I became a know it all theological Christian windbag and a spiritual phony! I was a tree with fake fruit wired onto the branches and I wondered why the world wasn’t attracted? Little did I realize the fragrance was the stench death and not life.

Now, once again, I’ve come full circle…back to the beginning realizing that “the way” is not some formula, or systematic understand of the scriptures or “truth of God’s word” but a living way. The truth is not some irrefutable mental assent to scriptural rightness or doctrinal purity but Jesus Christ is the truth. The life is not living up to a set of standards…being “religious” but once again is Jesus Christ. I’m re-discovering that Christianity is not a religion but “Christ in you the hope of glory.”

That is why I am thrilled that Pagan Christianity has dared to slaughter so many sacred cows. If we read it trying to decide if Barna and Viola are right then we lose. But if, on the other hand, we let it challenge us too look to Him for for truth and for life we will find; for He said “seek and you will find”.

I do not think that it is important that we “do” church by the book but that we BE church by the spirit of the living God. That we “bear fruit” to the praise of His glory. The church is not an end or even a means it is His creation..something He himself is building and adding to out of living stones. I’m so often reminded of the statement by the late Keith Green, “Going to church does not make you a christian any more than going to Mc Donalds makes you a hamburger.”

It is my prayer that reading Pagan Christianity will not lead you to seekinga better way to “do church” but to seeking Him! May we stop looking for anything less than Him. He IS the way, the truth and the life! He is the pearl of great price! All the rest is just procedure.

By: Brother Maynard

Brother Maynard — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 03:12:35 +0000

Richard,
I’m sure Raymond would interpret Revelation 22:18-19 the same way I would — that it refers to the book of Revelation and not to the Bible as a whole. The canon as we know it did not exist at the time Revelation was written, so if it referred to the “Bible” as it existed at the time, it would have referred to the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament.

George,
Good reminder.