Huose chruches (sic)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not wrong, it was only a practice...not a princicple. A custom, not a command.

Acts? No, I'm thinking WAY bigger than Acts. I'm not sure what the Church will look like...but new wine is always put into new wineskins!
 
I am currently talking to someone about his house church!

Here is the last thing he said to me.

It's awesome. We hold to no denomination. We have only three elders and they are appointed. No votes are taken. We are not interested in building a church but were are into building believers.

We have grown from thirty or so, to 150 with four missionaries, a prayer chain around the world and over 2000 people on it. My wife and I lead four bible studies Mon, Weds, Thurs, Sun night. About 75 - 80 all totaled. Only a few regulars from our church and we cover two cities.

It's a family. You come twice and can say, "Jesus Christ came in the flesh for the salvation of mankind", you are one of us and we don't care where you came from.
Click to expand...
 
That sounds kind of cool...again, living it. That is what carries any sort of eternal value. However you go about it, relationship is an absolutely critical ingredient for the healthy maturation of a regenerate (wo)man.
 
relationship is an absolutely critical ingredient for the healthy maturation of a regenerate (wo)man.
Click to expand...

Chuck, while I somewhat agree with that statement, (please don't take offense here) it is a bit too "Rick Warrinish" for me.
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!

Adam, you didn't!!!!!

You could have at LEAST insulted my mother or something instead! Sheesh...


rant.gif
 
:D Sorry, but I attended too many churches who stressed relationships. SOunded great until the subject of Holy living ever came up. Then the so called friends weren't too friendly.
 
Just for the record, my wife's (Methodist) grandmother bought me that book. I found use for it as a weight on top of one of our gerbil's cages to keep him from getting out.
 
:lol:

As I was saying I just cleaned my book shelves yet again. I couldn't believe how many Wolvorood and Charles Stanley books I had yet. Need any more help with your gerbal cages?
 
I have two young gerbils in another cage, Mica (mee-ka) and Tikka. When the get bigger, I have some Max Lucado for their cage. Hold onto the Charles Stanley...I might get a hamster.
 
Originally posted by lionovjudah
Originally posted by puritansailor
I think you also have to put Acts into the historical perspective as well. The churches back then took much of their practice from synagog worship. The "primitive house worship" model is just an assumption yet to be proven. They met in some houses sure, but that doesn't mean they all did. The earliest practice of the church was to meet in the Temple! So saith the book of Acts. So whose worship form more resembles Judaism??? The NT doesn't give us a perfect model guys. We received principles of organization (i.e. required elements of worship, office bearers, etc.) and a variety of narrative cases (from meeting in the Temple, to houses, to the school of Tyranus), and we are left with that to work with and apply to our situation.

If anyone besides the pastor hath a doctrine, let him not speak; let him hold his peace. Let him sit in the pew, and face the back of the neck of the person which sitteth ahead of him.

Let the people keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith church tradition. But if they will learn anything, let them ask their pastor after the service, for it is a shame for a layman to speak in the church. For the pastor, he hath a seminary degree, and the layman, he hath not so lofty a degree.
Click to expand...

Joe, you are misunderstanding of the text because you have an assumption that "everyone" refers to all individuals in the congregation. But that is mistaken. Not everyone possessed the gift of prophecy, tongues, etc. The "everyone" refers to everyone of those with those particular gifts and offices. Otherwise you completely undermine the careful instructions given in the rest of the book, and the descriptions of the offices in Timothy and Titus.
Click to expand...


DO you deny the above example of a church today? Have you ever raised your hand and asked the "pastor" could you please go over that again, I do nto fully understand? We are confusing where we worship with HOW we worship together. The building is nto imporatant to me. Of course some "house churches" of today are heretical in practice, but where they assemble is not the crux of the issue. The cultural context has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Joe,
Where these house churches gather is the crux of the issue; they are a ship to themselves, removed from Gods church by choice. The biblical examples in Acts resemble the *connectionism that is generally missing from the present day evangelical church. House churches are generally independant of this and based upon that are not churches at all, no matter how much you believe they may in fact resemble the biblical profile. Thier independancy destroys any truth left that may be beneficial or accurate. Christ has given the keys to His church to a certain schematic; House churches burn the schematic in that they rewrite the design God intended, making them (essentially) false churches or synagogues of satan.
 
Joe,

I AGREE with you concerning the Lord's Supper. To use our church as an exmaple (which IS trying to rectify this) the last pastor had the church particpating in communion one a quarter. Our current pastor has it almost down to once every other week; once in the morning and once in the evening on consecutive Sundays. However, before that will actually become spiritually helpful to the congregation, there are certain ideas about the supper that need to be taught, and the people need to learn a great deal about it. The church as a whole sees it more Zwinglian than Calvinistic. So there are inroads there that need to be changed before that becomes helpful. I would grant, though, that this is not the primary reason for gathering.

Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Teaching
Fellowship
Communion
Prayer

These build on one another in a healthy church.

Also, it was not weekly that they had communion, but daily.

Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,

Corinth was instructed on communion, "1 Corinthians 11:20, "When you come together."
 
God owns everything - our lives, our property. Perhaps this idea is not in the Scriptures as you word it, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I am referring to the passing of the plate quote, not the God owns everything.

Got to watch those wandering pronouns. :banghead:
 
I understand the concerns of the ppl attending house churches. Unfoftunately, every house church I have known of has developed for one of two reasons....no church can live up to their expectations or demands on the outward things (becoming legalistic instead of remaining and being the influence)...or they can not tolerate any form of authority (Christ is the their head not any man...refusing to believe it biblical that God places certain men in authority over others).

I have attended a house meeting (different from house church)...it was enjoyable, we met because we were all dealing with the same issues (outsiders joining "plain" churches).

As far as the Lord's Supper in our church goes...we have it once or twice a month...plus we have a fellowship luncheon once a month immediately following service.

On pastors' salaries I do think that it would be best if pastors worked during the week and earned his living that way while being a minister to the church. I know many ministers (unfortunately none that are reformed) that do this. The extra money is sved for those that might end up in need or literally taking care of their widows (paying their rent, bills, etc). The thing that I believe causes this to be a impossibility in the reformed churches is that they need to be paid enough to pay for their student loans which are high because that helps pay for their professors' student loans, etc, etc. I believe this extreme expense is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong. But I believe it puts limits on those that would go into ministry. It's like saying that only those that can afford it are called. And in a way I think is putting a price on the teaching of the men of God. This I DO find wrong. And this is ALSO another reason some start or seek house churches, so that they don't assist in the increase of the "price" of education.
 
:handshake: Agreed! This is why I do NOT support the housechurch movement. Instead let's work within our churches. And our pastor's DO draw a salary...I'm not demeaning this...just pointing out how it came to be this way and I feel that it is sad that there are those who feel you have to have a formal "in classroom" education instead of being trained by another pastor. We are under a pastor that is willing to in the future train my hubby. There is no way we can afford school (5 children, DH works 2 jobs and we live bare minimum, and Dh doesn't even have a Associates let alone a BA)
 
Joe,
Our Pastors are not the top. We actually are an elder run church. We have about 5-7 elders...the pastor's are considered elders. One is a teaching elder and the other is a reigning elder (meaning that he handles more of the administrative I believe) and the first two are accountable to the others. Our elders don't spend 3hrs deciding where to put a door, they spend it in study...this is how an Independent Bible Church became Reformed! Dh's ministry has been on the street mainly for the past 7yrs. His closest friend is in seminary now and they have talked of a ministry together.
 
As far as house churches go though...I think there is a time and place for them (ie China)...but I have yet to see a healthy one here in America. The problem is the "Lone Ranger Syndrome".
 
How about this gang...and this is entirely theoretical...if the Lord were to invite us to partner with Him in shutting down "the machine" as He raises up a new expression of corporate worship, how many of us would be offended with His intent? Within how many of us would the institution of the church be exposed as a golden calf?

Regardless, the historic church structure/model wouldn't exist if it wasn't so ordained/decreed by God. However, that doesn't mean that He hasn't also decreed the gradual/eventual change in His Bride's expression of corporate worship/fellowship as she matures in the faith...



eusa_think.gif
scratchchin.gif
eusa_think.gif
n1qshok.gif
 
Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist
How about this gang...and this is entirely theoretical...if the Lord were to invite us to partner with Him in shutting down "the machine" as He raises up a new expression of corporate worship, how many of us would be offended with His intent? Within how many of us would the institution of the church be exposed as a golden calf?

Regardless, the historic church structure/model wouldn't exist if it wasn't so ordained/decreed by God. However, that doesn't mean that He hasn't also decreed the gradual/eventual change in His Bride's expression of corporate worship/fellowship as she matures in the faith...



eusa_think.gif
scratchchin.gif
eusa_think.gif
n1qshok.gif
Click to expand...


Chuck,
How do you come to this theory, that God may or will do something new, or that He is continuing to do new things?
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Chuck,
How do you come to this theory, that God may or will do something new, or that He is continuing to do new things?
Click to expand...

I've never known a sovereign God who was bound by historic precedent.
 
Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Chuck,
How do you come to this theory, that God may or will do something new, or that He is continuing to do new things?
Click to expand...

I've never known a sovereign God who was bound by historic precedent.
Click to expand...
\

Chuck,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Please give me an example of what you consider God may do that is new?
 
Chuck,
Thats a gimme; However, thats not related to what you said previously (unless I missunderstood you).

Regardless, the historic church structure/model wouldn't exist if it wasn't so ordained/decreed by God. However, that doesn't mean that He hasn't also decreed the gradual/eventual change in His Bride's expression of corporate worship/fellowship as she matures in the faith...
Click to expand...

From what I get from your statement above is:

1) You acknolwedge that God ordained and decreed the present church model
2) You also acknowledge that it is quite possible that God will do something new to this already ordained/decreed model.

What I asked, was how have you concluded this?
 
Look, if you will, at the (simplified) progression or metamorphosis that has occurred throughout Church history in the expression of corporate worship/fellowship within the Body of Christ: Book of Acts model (prototype?) ---> the Ecclesiastical Church model (ala Vatican fun) ---> Protestant historic/denominational model ---> who knows what's next?

Would you not agree that God has ordained the models of corporate worship/fellowship of the past? I would safely wager that the ecclesia of the apostolic age and ecclesiastical era would have posed the same objections as yours if you were to describe to them the predominant expression of corporate worship/fellowship present in the Church today, "How do you come to this theory, that God may or will do something new, or that He is continuing to do new things? evidence the same thought history speaks for itself.
 
Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist
Look, if you will, at the (simplified) progression or metamorphosis that has occurred throughout Church history in the expression of corporate worship/fellowship within the Body of Christ: Book of Acts model (prototype?) ---> the Ecclesiastical Church model (ala Vatican fun) ---> Protestant historic/denominational model ---> who knows what's next?

Would you not agree that God has ordained the models of corporate worship/fellowship of the past? I would safely wager that the ecclesia of the apostolic age and ecclesiastical era would have posed the same objections as yours if you were to describe to them the predominant expression of corporate worship/fellowship present in the Church today, "How do you come to this theory, that God may or will do something new, or that He is continuing to do new things? evidence the same thought history speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Chuck,
To begin with, the church and it's structure has not metamorphosised; it diverted, i.e. Rome. The church remained orthodox, that is according to scripture, until Rome diverted the orthodoxy. What the reformation accomplished, which in fact was not new, but old, was again restore the church to it's biblical, orthodoxical practice that Christ and the apostles implemented. The closed canon of scripture reflects the standards of ecclesiology that we see embraced by our confessions and the body of Christ today.

Your premise is dangerous. It opens up the door to accept the charismatics and their silly notions as possibly a new move of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Annointing the sick?
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
reaganmarsh
reaganmarsh
Back
Top