Billy Graham's Prophecy

The following quote was authored by Billy Graham in the year 1965. Turns out it was a prophetic word that has come to pass in our time.

Multitudes of Christians within the church are moving toward the point where they may reject the institution that we call the church. They are beginning to turn to more simplified forms of worship. They are hungry for a personal and vital experience with Jesus Christ. They want a heartwarming personal faith. Unless the church quickly recovers its authoritative Biblical message, we may witness the spectacle of millions of Christians going outside the institutional church to find spiritual food.

Quoted in “World Aflame”, pp. 79-80.

Here is another priceless quote by Graham:

I think one of the first things I would do would be to get a small group of eight or ten or twelve men around me that would meet a few hours a week and pay the price. It would cost them something in time and effort. I would share with them everything I have, over a period of years. Then I would actually have twelve ministers among the laymen who in turn could take eight or ten or twelve more and teach them. I know one or two churches that are doing that, and it is revolutionizing the church. Christ, I think, set the pattern. He spent most of his time with twelve men. He didn’t spend it with a great crowd. In fact, every time he had a great crowd it seems to me that there weren’t too many results. The great results, it seems to me, came in his personal interview and in the time he spent with the twelve.

Quoted in “Billy Graham Speaks: The Evangelical World Prospect,” Christianity Today, vol.3, no.1, p.5, Oct.13, 1958.

Wow both quotes are so true! I know there has been many people pull away from Institution for relation to me this will definitely happen more and more. In my mind I don't believe the Church is to far from persecution and this will soon push us into the more relational set that many are seeking. Thank you for sharing!

is EXACTLY how the Emergent Church operates

That's how the early church operated.

hi,I think we including Billy are talking about this subject as if God hasnt a say in.Surely its God that structures the groups and leads to the formation of the groups.If God builds the structure it should surely stand,staff

With Billy's vast experience that he obtained through travel and meeting Believers all over the world, this is a significant statement and observation by him. He is only giving utterance to what he is witnessing. I am sure he sensed more than he could see with his eyes.

The structure that God is building is the Church, His Body, His City and it is surely standing, despite man.

Man tries to overlay the Church with his idealogical template, but it just will not stick.

There is only one Builder and Maker of the City of God. I think Billy simply gave voice to what he "saw" and what he suspected might continue to happen. Of course, Billy did not and cannot make it happen. He is only a witness as are all of us.

I hope I understood what you were saying.

Exactly Approved!

I was keying more on the first part of what he talked about. That many would reject the institution that we call church.

There is no precedence in scripture for the other thing that he talked about. One man taking on eight or ten or twelve men, that would meet a few hours a week and "pay the price". That is not what Paul or any of the other Apostles did. They learned by doing and usually 2 or 3 at a time. They walked the walked, together. There were only a few cases where there were many in one place.

Here are all the examples of Apostles working in plurality with other believers. You don't see big groups of 8 and 12 or more. Another "good idea", but not the way God works. It's not real life or realistic that a man could do this. Paul was single, but most of the others were married and this would be even more difficult.

It sheds light on the fact that many were taught by the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. It was their own devotion to God and the ever present reality of the Holy Spirit leading them. Most of the 12 were fisherman and tax collectors with no formal training. If you graduated from high school, you have more formal education than the Apostles did, save Paul.

Anyway, here is the list I came up with.

Acts 3:1 “Peter and John”

Acts 4:36-37; 11:22,25-26,30 “Barnabus alone and with Paul.”

Acts 13:1-4 “In Antioch, certain prophets and teachers: Barnabus, Simeon, Lucious, Manaen, and Saul…They laid hands on Barnabus and Saul and sent them out.”

Acts 13:13 “Paul, Barnabus and John Mark.”

Acts 14:4,14 “Barnabus and Saul.”

Acts 15:2 “(apostles) Paul, Barnabus and certain other of them.” (Antioch)

Acts 15:2,4,6,22,23;16:4) “Apostles and elders.” (listed separately) I Peter 5:1; II John 1:1; II John 1:1 “apostles and elders.” (listed together)

Acts 15:22 (apostles, prophets & teachers) “Paul, Barnabus, Judas Barsabas, Silas, chief among the brethren.”

Acts 15:32 “Judas and Silas, being prophets.”

Acts 15:39 “Barnabus and John Mark.”

Acts 15:40 “(apostle) Paul and (prophet) Silas.”

Acts 16:1 “Timotheus (evangelist & apostle)…certain disciple of Lystra and Paul.”

Acts 16:10 “Luke (Physician-Colossians 4:14), Timothy and Paul.”

Acts 18:1-18,26 “Aquila and Priscila and Paul.”

Acts 18:24 “Apollos of Alexandria came to Ephesus.”

Acts 19:22 “Timotheus and Erastus sent by Paul to Macedonia.”

Acts 27:1 “Luke and Paul.”

Romans 16:7 “Andronious and Junius.”

I Corinthians 9:5 “Apostles, sisters and wives.”

II Corinthians 8:23 “Titus and messengers(apostles) of the churches…unnamed.”

Galatians 1:19 “But other apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”

Philippians 2:25 “Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labor, and fellow soldier, but your messenger(apostle), and he that ministered to my wants.”

I Thessalonians 2:6 “Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus, as apostles of Christ.”

hi,I get what the posts are saying here.Was it a prophesy though?or an observation?
If God calls a group together so be it.
I really enjoyed his last interview on youtube,staff

Could be that it was an observation, but the writer may have(Journalist) called it a prophecy. You know how journalists can be! Sensational headlines to get their material read. They want to make a name for themselves just like a lot of other people.

Anyway, observation or prophecy - it surely is happening.

Regarding the list that you provided. I just wanted to say how I was glad to see it displayed like that. It was like going up and down the aisle looking over the soldiers that stood for the testimony of Jesus Christ. The men (and women) who paid the price.

I know. It hit me that way, too. They were doers of the Word, not just Hearers. Their qualifications were few to none. They knew and loved the Lord.

Two very good comments by Dr. Graham. Sad that it seems he himself didn't go that route.

Then I would actually have twelve ministers among the laymen who in turn could take eight or ten or twelve more and teach them.

And sad to see that one word there: laymen.

That is certainly interesting and while I don't disagree or agree with the structure it does remind me that the Methodist movement started with a small group of people that found a common ground among themselves in their passion for the gospel. Not to be argumentative but to add a counterpoint I would recommend Martyn Lloyd Jones' sermons on schism in the church (they can be found on his website if interested). He speaks of the right and wrong reasons for schism and remarks how the devil in his craftiness often leads the most passionate and intelligent Christians into this folly. I don't think that was what Graham was saying here but I could see the potential for a Christian to take it as that and run with it.

Yes, interesting. I don't think Billy Graham is saying that schism is the cause, but I see why you might think this. Afterall, there are over 15,000 church splits a year in America. And Billy Graham could not have foreseen all the different reasons why God's people have left. It seems that he just saw them leaving without giving any further explanation.

And sad to see that one word there: laymen.

Yes, that is a very divisive word. The Lord Himself must not like it either for it divides the brethren. There should be no place for it in the church. There is certainly no mention of it in the Word except in the Old Testament.

Sad enough that the Catholic church's clergy/laity system is built on OT priesthood, but the Protestant church had to continue it also. The Holy Spirit is bringing more light today to the Church and showing us that we did not come out of the Catholic church, fully.

The problem is not with a hierarchy setup the problem is with power-loving and grabbing men who love this and are full of pride.

Amen. It is amazing how error ALWAYS makes people swing the wrong way. I always tell people that it is not the Devil's lies that bother me. It is the truth he wraps them in. It seems to me as if error, whether that be doctrinal, or attitudinal, has the believers reaction in mind more than the actual event itself. That is to say, the purpose of the error, is not for the enemy to revel in the error itself, but rather to revel in the reaction that error begets.

This is God's way and model to have no authority is to fall into great error and I believe if we individually cannot submit to healthy authority the problem could be our pride (which is something very dangerous).

Amen as well. "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." -1 Samuel 15:23. Our inability to submit to our brothers in Christ willingly, becoming the least, and promoting the more "external" members of the Body, may speak to the fact that we are malfunctioning, and gainsaying as Korah.

1 Peter 5...

By the way, just in case people do not notice, this website is literally loaded to the rafters with "leaders" sermons. Men who had positions of authority in the body. If it were not for that fact, there would be no website. I find it odd how often I see people on here decrying Godly authority. When this website could not even function apart from it.

An attitude that rejects authority is Satanic in its origin, and is the hallmark of end-time apostates. Jude 8, and Jude 11.

The problem is not with a hierarchy setup the problem is with power-loving and grabbing men who love this and are full of pride.

And people who are vying for the same position.

Seems to me if all would consider "how can I be of the most help to....most, if not all, power struggles would cease. But if there is a bully, just leave and find some others who would welcome your help. We are here to help others, not bully them around or grumble when some one else calls the shots contrary to your likening.

A proper perspective of authority is liberating. When the WORD with the enabling power of the Holy Spirit is our authority, we find ourselves is positions of service that brings delight to those we serve and provides us with lots of satisfaction.

I know this is idealistic, we have to deal with the old man who wants the preeminence. But we must always continue to strive to live as Jesus did - He is the perfect teacher.

Consider: Jesus is God. He is the creator who made the earth and heavens in 6 days. (How much can you accomplish in 6 days?) But he chucked his power, his authority and became obedient....He learned obedience...He worked in the carpenters shop fashioning whatever with man-made tools into...This is a drastic step down from his ability as the creator of the universe. Amazing. No, mind-boggling! Does this teach us something?

I don't think anyone is decrying Godly leadership.

I hope that is not being implied. And I hope that it is not being implied that someone is being rebellious, if they don't necessarily embrace the clergy/laity system.

I also don't see anyone talking about any particular man and we all can plainly see examples of ungodly and godly leadership, today.

Should we equate the clergy/laity system with Godly leadership? No, a system does not ensure Godly leadership. Godly leadership is all about the heart, not a particular system. I think that is part of the problem today. The sheep are made to believe if someone is part of the "clergy", then they are godly and authoritative. But we all know that, that is not necessarily true.

We don't submit to man, just because he has a certain hierarchical position over us. We are to discern the Body, and discern the Spirit of God in a man and submit to the Spirit of God. Isn't that correct? If my thinking is not correct, please let me know. I don't wish to argue, but I also don't wish to be put in the "rebellious box".

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Maybe we should move on to a new thread, before misunderstandings continue.

Personally i have learnt that God loves us all. I know a younger man who know so much of Gods word yet 'submits' to my 'eldership' (for lack of a better term) there are times when he goes to far of to the right or left and the spirit brings him back to christ centred theology. We have learnt and incredible amount together age or 'office' is never an issue it has always been a joy to study Gods word with this man. The other day he came with me to fellowship and made a statement that was spirit inpired and biblical yet the church leaders sat thier and patronised him to the point they made him feel really bad. All because they could swallow thier pride and allow God to do a great work through this young fellow. It was disheartening to see and made me wonder how many precious sheep of flocks do we discourage because of our pride, self-importance and religion? How many people have been turned away from xtian internet sites because of the unkind harsh treatment they received? All i could do was keep encouraging this young friend but it feels like the only fellowship i enjoy these days are small house fellowship where people just love Jesus. This whole 'man of God', 'touch not my anointed' thing makes me wonder was that created by God or man.

We don't submit to man, just because he has a certain hierarchical position over us. We are to discern the Body, and discern the Spirit of God in a man and submit to the Spirit of God. Isn't that correct? If my thinking is not correct, please let me know. I don't wish to argue, but I also don't wish to be put in the "rebellious box".

I am sorry if I implied that Blandina, it was not my intention, I was referring more to a tone in general and a theme I have seen in some believers in my own life and even on "occasion" here on these forums. In some cases it is from people who have gone away, it really had nothing to do with your posts whatsoever. Please do not think I was speaking to you. (I was building more on what Greg said to be honest.) I prefer to discuss things in a general sense, and as the forum rules dictate, we are to "play the ball, not the man." As much as possible, I attempt to do that on these forums. I think there are a few times I have had to apologize for being personal.

Hi Rainman,

That would definitely be an example of ungodly leadership.

David was an example of godly leadership and Saul was an example of ungodly leadership. David respected Saul's anointing but Saul was jealous and envious of David's anointing.

A David will be patronized and marginalized in the kingdom of Saul and eventually driven out. Saul is a typology of the flesh or religiousity. David is a type of Christ or true Shepherd's heart.

David had to flee Saul's kingdom, because Saul threw a spear at him and could not stand for him to be around. Saul sought the honor of man and saw that the people went after and respected David. David did not seek Saul's position, but Saul felt threatened anyway. David eventually left without being a schizmatic and bring division. God gave him a band of men to fellowship with in the wilderness and God was with David.

Ungodly leadership always feels threatened by those that truly have an anointing from the Lord. So, it has nothing to do with external position. But it has everything to do with our hearts submitted to God.

I was referring more to a tone in general and a theme I have seen in some believers in my own life and even on "occasion" here on these forums.

Hi Areadymind,

I have learned not to try to interpret "tones" in text, email, PMs or the like. It is nearly impossible, if you do not personally know the person.

A friend who knows me would automatically "know" where I was coming from.

Interpreting tones in text, is an ever-losing battle. Love believes all things and giving each other the benefit of the doubt is a better way to go, IMO.

Interpreting tones in text, is an ever-losing battle. Love believes all things and giving each other the benefit of the doubt is a better way to go, IMO.

Amen. Thank you for using that verse in that way. I struggled with that passage of scripture for a long time, and the way you just applied it is how I think the Holy Spirit showed me that it is supposed to be applied. Thank you for that confirmation. What a blessing.

As to the other things being said on this thread, this issue is a hot topic today because of abuse. I can completely understand why there is frustration over this issue today. Yet I am also concerned about the backlash, that is the only point I was trying to make.

I completely understand where you are coming from and do appreciate your heart on the matter. There is much spiritual abuse today, and sadly, it almost all emanates from people lording over other people. I notice that the Lord said twice in Revelation, that He hates the deeds of the Nicolaitans. He is passionate about anyone coming between He and His children.

The bad thing about text is that you have to type and wait, type and wait, type and wait, until you get the full "feel" for a person's heart and in between, waiting there may be a train wreck.

But talking in person, this could all be coverd in one 5 minutes conversation. You know what I mean? So, yeah, that scripture is pretty good for this type of communication. Be at peace and have a good day.

Not exactly. There is no given formula that that is what was done

True. I was talking in general more about the notion of small group meetings. The exact number isn't really relevant. That is mostly left up to practical considerations.

blandinia wrote:

There is no precedence in scripture for the other thing that he talked about... don't see big groups of 8 and 12 or more. Another "good idea", but not the way God works.

Well, Jesus did actively disciple 12 individuals on a very intimate basis. And when Paul called the Ephesian elders together, they knew exactly "what manner of man" Paul was. Indeed, for Paul to so loudly talk about the example he lived before the entire church regularly throughout his letters shows that there was much more than two or three people actively hanging around Paul. From a practical stand point, it's not an impractical thing to have a dozen people that you are closely working with.

Doesn't seem to be the rule, but certainly not impossible.

I guess we shouldn't make up rules.

With God all things are possible.

Amen :-)

blandina, I notice that you just joined this site on 1/25/11. Just to bring you a little up to date, the topic of authority in the church has been very hot and has cooled down in the past few months. I completely agree with your posts on this thread, and the article on authority you posted on another thread, and there are a few others who post here who also agree. Many of us who agree with you will probably not want to join this discussion because it has gotten heated and can get redundant.

Personally, I'm coming to the place where I can stomach the "clergy/laity system" more nowadays, due to the fact that the "you are all brethren" movement is too small at the present time, and there are many precious saints in the "clergy/laity system" who I want to be sensitive toward and not divide from.

I do hope that the "you are all brethren" movement will grow more in the coming days but I understand that there is currently too much resistance against it from the vast majority.
So I just wanted to encourage you not to be discouraged when you are labeled as a "rebel" who is operating under the influence of the devil. God bless.
Oracio

Hi Oracio,

Thank you for bringing me up to date.

We always need to remember that there are many precious godly people in the clergy/laity movement as opposed to the "you are all brethren movement" as you call it. So, I guess we can call it the clergy/laity movement. It has been going on for a very long time, hasn't it? (Old Testament).

We always need to hear from God's Word and here is a scripture that has helped me immensely.

1Sa 10:26 And Saul also went home to Gibeah; and there went with him a band of men, whose hearts God had touched.

Even in Saul's kingdom (man, fleshly, religious) there were men whose hearts God had touched. They did not flee with David right away, but nevertheless, there were Godly men that remained with Saul. Eventually, as you read on, Saul's kingdom crumbled, their eyes were opened and they went with David (type of true Shepherd).

So, the Lord knows them that are is and we don't.

We are always to follow the Lord and not a movement. Not even the "you are all brethren" movement.

That may also be a controversial statement to some on the other side, but think about it.

If the Lord is absent, there will always be abuses.

Rainman wrote:

The other day he came with me to fellowship and made a statement that was spirit inpired and biblical yet the church leaders sat thier and patronised him to the point they made him feel really bad. All because they could swallow thier pride and allow God to do a great work through this young fellow. It was disheartening to see and made me wonder how many precious sheep of flocks do we discourage because of our pride, self-importance and religion? How many people have been turned away from xtian internet sites because of the unkind harsh treatment they received? All i could do was keep encouraging this young friend but it feels like the only fellowship i enjoy these days are small house fellowship where people just love Jesus. This whole 'man of God', 'touch not my anointed' thing makes me wonder was that created by God or man.

Amen. I have seen that type of situation all too often after being in traditional churches for about 10 years. The Spirit is quenched all the time.

Oracio,

please see my other post.

I agree, we should forget about movements and just concentrate on Jesus. He will keep us safe from all spiritual abuse if we only seek to please Him. We may have tribulation, but we don't have to have spiritual abuse. There are true Brethren in every "religious structure" imaginable today, and the Lord tells us not to try to separate the tares from the wheat. Only the Lord can do that.

Areadymind wrote:

By the way, just in case people do not notice, this website is literally loaded to the rafters with "leaders" sermons. Men who had positions of authority in the body. If it were not for that fact, there would be no website. I find it odd how often I see people on here decrying Godly authority. When this website could not even function apart from it.

That said, I'm sure you and I can find many topics on which we will disagree with many of these "leaders", topics which are not essential to salvation. The issue of clergy/laity vs "priesthood of all believers" is one of those topics that are not essential to salvation.

To me, this whole site is not to be compared to a church setting, anymore than any other "para-church" ministry should be equated with a church.

I do not see anything wrong with having a seperate teaching/preaching ministry outside of a church setting, like Paul had at the school of Tyrannus(Acts 19:9). The problem I see is when a teaching/preaching ministry of one man becomes the center of a local church setting. That negates the priesthood of all believers and elevates one man or group of men above the rest of the body in the church. It keeps those who are not part of the "clergy" from devoping their gifts as prescribed in 1Cor.14, thereby quenching the Spirit.
But again, its something we will have to agree to disagree on and I do not see a need to divide over.

blandina wrote:

We are always to follow the Lord and not a movement. Not even the "you are all brethren" movement.

correction, In my last post I stated I would choose a certain house church movement over a clergy/laity movement, but I did not clarify enough.

I would choose the house church if it was made up of believers who want to grow in devotion to Christ. I have been aware of too many house churches that are just as materialistic and lukewarm as any dead traditional church.

If I had to choose between a dead house church and a vibrant Spirit-filled traditional clergy/laity church I would choose the latter.

No, argument there, Oracio. I also agree.

Also, even though, as you say, there has been a lot of discussion on this topic, new people don't know that, and may bring a fresh perspective.

Afterall, the entire Bible, in every book, constantly juxtaposes God's ways with man's ways. It is nearly impossible to have any lengthy conversation with a Believer, without eventually talking about the differences with the way God does things and the way that man has seen fit to do things.

Don't you agree? It seems to be a very big topic with the Lord. Even in our Christian walk, the Holy Spirit is trying to show us His ways and to get us to walk in His ways.

Isn't it interesting that the Lord told Peter the following? Get thee behind me Satan... then He says, you savor the things of men, not God. Wow! He puts Satan and men's ways together in the same rebuke.

So the things of men are equal to the things of Satan according to the Lord. Jesus says, if you are not for me, you are against me. So Satan puts things in man's heart that appear to be very good and of course, like Peter, we think the thoughts came from God, yet God wants no part of them and neither does he want us to have any part of them.

(Mat 16:22) Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

(Mat 16:23) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

So, here, Peter was really impressed with a very good idea that he had, and the Lord did not ignore it. He addressed it directly.

I am just asking, do you think the Lord wants us to ignore ideas of brothers and sisters, that are not authored by the Holy Spirit? Sounds harsh, but Jesus said Peter's thoughts came from Satan, and then compared them to the thoughts of men.

Doesn't say whether or not Peter was offended, but obviously the Lord was not out to win any popularity contests. What the Lord did was in love. He did not say, "now Peter, I want you to know that I don't want to hurt your feelings, but that thought you just had, came from Satan and you are entertaining it as a pretty good way of doing things".

See that's what we would do today. We have to preface everything with, "brother, sister, I love you and because I love you I am going to tell you ... blah, blah, blah".

You would think that just telling someone the truth would be enough, but we have to preface it with all the mushy stuff which I call "disclaimers". We throw out disclaimers to protect ourselves, just to make sure they don't come back and attack us. Seems to me, that Jesus never worried about that.

What if we all really walked like Jesus, seeking only the approval of God? Probably upset a lot of people and be called schizmatics. Who knows, it might just turn the world upside down. Jesus was slandered, marginalized, mocked (with religious words), said he did not represent God, and eventually tortured and killed.

I think most Christians are "kept in their place", pretty well by the modern Pharisaical tactics (same ones that Jesus ran into). You know, "be a team player", "get along", "Jesus did not mean that", "you are taking the scriptures too literally", you are causing division, etc., etc. All the same things that Jesus was attacked with.

I think that is why there is little power in individual lives and the church as a whole today. My opinion only. And it is important for me to see this if I want to walk like Jesus and have power in my own life and be a pleaser of God and not man.

Is this fair so far? I sure hope so, because if we cannot talk openly like this then that would be a bad thing.

I'm just asking a question, not saying anything about anyone in particular. Just talking about Christianity in general, today.

I know this is text and it is easy to read into what someone might be saying. I am not saying let's go around and blow everyone away with Scriptures. Obviously, you overlook a lot of things in young Christians just like when raising children. But if older Christians are propagating the ways of men, isn't it incumbent on us to speak the truth? I would not want my child to go through teen years and further in life, believing something that could hurt him/her and others.

I am just saying when confronted with a situation, or circumstance, or conversation, do we shy away because we think we will lose a friend or be misunderstood? Are we walking in truth wanting only the approval of God?

Jesus' interaction with Peter is very revealing in my opinion.

See, after all of this, I even feel like I need to say, "I am not trying to be contentious". It is too bad that there is this feeling in Christianity today, where you have to throw out your "disclaimers".

Even though this is a "christian" forum, you want to assume that everyone just wants to please God and believes the best about each other. We have no choice but to believe the best about each other because we are all just a bunch of internet nicknames.

Hope you get some of my humor and this post is not too heavy. These are things I deal with in real life. And isn't that what we should be talking about anyway? Real life challenges and how Jesus walked? And not just how He walked like admiring a picture on the wall, but conforming our lives to His.

Disclaimer
Well, anyway, don't hate me because I said this and asking heartfelt questions about this thing called Christianity.

sorry Sermonindex,

I posted, not knowing that you had posted.

I still don't see where anyone is against godly leadership.

I think those are false assumptions. People have clearly delineated between godly and ungodly leadership.

I just don't want to be mischaracterized or have words put into my mouth.

Greg said,

I don't find it a bad word for the fact that nature itself teaches that there is authority. Authority and submission is a theme in marriage, in the Godhead and in the Church.

Hi Greg: You're referring above to Dr. Graham's reference to "laymen," and the clergy/laity distinction.

By saying earlier that I found it sad to see Graham use the word laymen, I guess I'm the one who took this thread in a different direction than the original poster intended.

Sorry for that... but please let me emphasize that to take a stand against the clergy/laity division is not to stand against authority.

Far from it. It's just the KIND of authority-- and the true credential for authority-- that is being called in question.

What is the definition of laity? Well, what is the definition of clergy? Someone trained in a Bible school who has earned a certificate of some kind that gives him "authority" in a church. Does that mean that I or someone else who has no such certificate... we are excluded from a place of authority in the church?

Well, yes, that's what it means, if you have the denominational churches in mind.

But what of those who throughout the history of the church never saw the inside of a Bible school-- and whose authority consisted only of the anointing? One of your favourites, George Fox, for example. He cried against the clergy/laity distinction. Yet what authority he had! Where did he get it from? But these days he'd be called just a "lay" brother, because without that certificate he wouldn't qualify for a position of real authority.

And there are many others as well.

You mentioned the husband/wife example of authority. But dear brother... I am not my wife's clergyman. We are "heirs together of the grace of life." Yes, there is a divinely established order. But it's one of life, not of office. And that's how true authority is to be expressed in the churches.

...Anyway, dear brother, I know where you're at these days, I believe you will just have to walk it out till you're able to acknowledge that some of us who decry the clergy/laity system-- in which are many wonderful men and women of God at this time-- we aren't being what you call just individualistic and rebellious north Americans... who refuse to submit to God-ordained authority.

In any case, I'll comply with your wishes not to pursue this direction further here.

sermonindex wrote:

Brothers, I feel this topic of discussion is going off from the original posts of the thread and would ask in the future that we try and stay on the topic of the first thread. To me it is very clear in early church history that there was delegated authority in place, bishops were setup and sometimes in an area there was just one bishop (overseer). It is an error to say that bishops are just older brothers that is a mistake and lack of taking all the verses in context.

brother Greg, I did not think the issue of clergy/laity was a detraction from the OP since brother Graham mentions the rejection of the current institution of the church.

In any case, I will comply with your request not to post on that subject here.

Oh my, I hope I did not stir anything up. I did not know this site endorsed clergy/laity. I was only going by what I read in the Welcome and Intro section and was excited at the prospect of meeting others who held to these things.

Specifically:

"SermonIndex desires to be a expression of the apostolic church found in Scriptures."

"Biblical truth.....is the emphasis which is foundational for the ministry".

"We hold to the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as the inspired word of God."

"It is a place to share, discuss, listen, think and grow into all things in Jesus Christ."

"It is bible based."

"It is a seeking after the genuine and Sincere."

"It is this foundation and focus while fostering a great freedom of discussion within some practical guidelines."
(great freedom of discussion?)

"To be in the midst of some very experienced saints, not a handful who have walked with the Lord for many, many years." (the young ones can tell us a thing or two, also).

"You may have your theology turned inside out and upside down." (yes, but theology of whose choosing?)

"We must keep well in mind that expression of spiritual matters is often difficult enough, sometimes even impossible. Let us bear with one another with patience and understanding." (I do agree with that).

I did like this part below and hope we can really prove it out.

Jesus is Lord.
'We' do hold to a high view of His Majesty.
'We' have no particular creed other than that He be exalted above all.

It all sounded so very good. I will just read for awhile to see how "undenominational" this site is. That is one thing you also said in the Welcome section. "We are undenominational".

Jesus-is-God, very good word.

deleted