posted
I really think the thought of "house churches" is making a doctrine and sect out of that which was a progressive thing in the beginning of God's testimony. I don't want to be offensive, but this whole movement has just added to sectarianism in the world. As noted below in that paper, the scriptural testimony has been in place since the revival of church truth in the early 1800's. Faithful saints need to support that---not begin a sect on some religious ideas. One can read more on this at www.BibleCounsel.homestead.com. - AStward.
A HOUSE CHURCH Commentary by R. L. DeWitt, 3/05
Recently we have been hearing more talk about house churches among some Christians, who promote it as a new thing, the right way, and a convenient thing for neighborhoods. The thought of meeting in homes is quite in accord with Scripture, and has been around from the beginning of the church; however, God never suggests "a convenient thing", nor a sectarian spirit as the ground of gathering. It is always in the place and way of God's choosing (see I Kings 12: 25-33; Deut.12; Matt.18:20; Luke 18: 9-12).
Some younger Christians---untaught in the Word, began to realize that the early church in the Bible began in homes, rather than ornate buildings, and decided they should start doing that, as though that is the sum of church truth. Not considering church history and the real scriptural order going on many places in the world, this sectarian spirit focused on gatherings in homes about eight years ago, and began to organize it into a fellowship of House Churches. They limit the size to what a house can hold, and then start a new one--- some in association with a "mother church" of one of the large sects, and others as a separate entity. It began in southern USA states and became popular also in Canada. The supporters say they want to get back to basics, but it appears they have ignored the basics of the Word. It is really just a new fad.
The early church of Biblical times often met in homes (Acts 5:42; Acts 20: 7-10; Acts 28:30-31; Rom.16:5; I Cor.16:19; Col.4:15; Phil.4:22). When an assembly grew large and required a building to accomodate them, they might find a rented space (even an "upper room" - Lk.22:10-13), or their own simple building. Gatherings were not independent nor in association with a "mother" church, but a local expression of the universal church in the world, and in happy fellowship with saints elsewhere. Such a truth has not been much recognized today, and forming "house churches" has become only more sects added to the numbers. The reasoning of men often perverts the truth of God.
Every aspect of the local assembly must be in accord with the Word of God, and not independent and according to the religious ideas of men. This is an important truth. It is so easy to forget this and go build some "tower" which fits our reasoning (Gen.11:4). We do not need more sects in the world.
AN OLD PAPER ON GATHERING
S C R I P T U R A L A S S E M B L Y (I John 1:3-4) (An invitation and statement adapted from a newspaper report in the 1900's)
There is a fellowship of Christians in this city gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone (Matt.18:20), apart from organization and systems of man's devising. They believe in the absolute inspiration, infallibility, and all-sufficiency of the Holy Bible as the Word of God to man (2 Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12; 2 Pet.1:20-21), and seek to obey "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), "rightly dividing the Word of truth" (2 Tim.2:15). They, therefore, reject all human creeds, programs, names and titles, etc. as adding to God's Word (Matt.17:4-8; Acts 2:41-42; Acts 20:27; Rev. 22:18-19), and not suited to a gathering led by the Holy Spirit (Gal.3:3; Eph.4:30; 1 Thess.5:19).
These believers own that the church is "one body" (1 Cor.12:12-27), and therefore seek to express that oneness in love according to the Word of God, and in happy fellowship with other scriptural assemblies throughout the world (Rom.12:5). This is not another innovation in Christendom, but a continuation of that revival of church truth which God raised up in the early 19th century. They see there is no such thing in the Word of God as going to "the church of your choice", as is often said.
As to church government this company, or assembly, takes no name other than what the Scripture allows and which is common to all saints of God. They have no hierarchy or minister in charge, and believe in the priesthood of believers and the leading of the Holy Spirit for the exercise of spiritual gifts (I Pet.2:5,9; I Thess.5:19; I Cor.14:12). They come together to remember the Lord in His death every first day of the week, and meet at times for prayer and study of the Word (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor.11:23-26). They also hold themselves responsible for preaching the gospel to the public, and teaching the children about the love of God. At public meetings they take no collections, seeing that the gospel is free, and the Word of God teaches there are those "within" and those "without" (1 Cor.5:12-13; Col.4:5). The only ordinances they hold are baptism and the Lord's supper, which the Lord gave to His disciples to keep until He returns (Mark 16:15-16; Rom.6:3-4; Luke 22:19-20). Care is exercised to see that a scriptural order of meeting and discipline is carried out (1 Cor.14:40).
As to God's work of grace these Christians understand that God, in His great love (John 3:16), sent His Son "to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). They acknowledge the ruin by sin from Adam and Eve (Gen.3; Rom.5:12-21), and that "all have sinned" (Rom.3:23), "there is none righteous" (Rom.3:10), and "except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). They believe the Bible teaches the worthlessness of good works or feelings for salvation (Gal.2:16; Eph.2:8-9; Titus 3:5). They see that salvation is by the suffering and blood of Christ (1 Pet.1:18-20), and that He must be received by faith for eternal life, which then cannot be lost (Rom.6:23; Rom.8:15-16; Gal.4: 4-7; 1 John 5:10-13).
It is generally held among these brethren that the return of Christ for His bride, the church, is the proper hope of every child of God before judgment is poured out on this world (1 Cor.15:51-57; 1 Thess.4:16-17; Rev.4:4,10; Rev.5:8-10; Rev.19:7,11). They understand that after the translation, or rapture, of the church there will be a tribulation period on earth, then Christ will return with the saints to reign a thousand years before the new heaven and new earth are formed (Matt.24:29-31; Matt.25:31-46; 2 Pet.3:10-13; Rev.20: 6; Rev.21:1). They see that everlasting condemnation awaits all who reject the grace of God in Christ (John 3:36), and everlasting joy in heaven awaits every true child of God (John 14:2-3; 2 Cor.5:1-2; 1 John 3:2). [Adapted from an old pamphlet - R.L.D.]
The writer would be pleased to help one find a sound Christian assembly, where one can gather with those who endeavor to maintain God's recovery of church truth and keep "the unity of the Spirit" as He intended.
posted
I don't get it neither... Homechurch has not the usual manpower, media and financial resources to promote. No politics, no peel pressure, no financial reward - it's a movement from the heart in it's purest form, if not the Holy Spirit. It's the advance of technology (reads internet) which brings it onto surface. Church can be anytime, anywhere on earth when a couple or more Christians open up the Bible to read or even discuss the Word. The article mentioned that home churches are by "Some younger Christians---untaught in the Word". Well, if only Christians care to open up their Bible to read and talk about it at home. The fact is, not too many do. You know, to serve the Lord at the church occupy too much of their time already. There are fellowships alright, there are Bible studies alright, there are worships alright - but seldom would one discuss how IC comes about this way - in many ways differ from what's recorded in the Bible. When the question is brought up, the explanations always link with Church history which is, in other words, human tradition.
posted
I'm not sure but looks like ASteward thinks we should HC the way HC has always been. It really isn't a new thing, but a continuation of the Church. I have noticed on some of the many new HC sites (do a search sometime) there are just about as many different brands of HC as there are IC. Some also tend to rally together just because they HC. Can you imagine all the IC rallying together just because they IC? Oh, isn't that called the ecumenical world church movement? So there are some in the HC who are doing the same thing.
The belief in Jesus Christ and his word as the standard for living with the doctrines taught by him and then the disciples is our plumb line. Instead of breaking away from the IC and continuing in their wrong doctrines and traditions (a lot like many of the reformers did), we need to continue putting off the old man made traditions and doctrines and continue to grow in Christ.
Eventually, all HC should begin to look and sound more and more alike------like Christ, and less and less like the denomination they came from.
IMO, Faith
-------------------- 1 Thes. 5:21 (KJV) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
quote:we need to continue putting off the old man made traditions and doctrines and continue to grow in Christ.
Eventually, all HC should begin to look and sound more and more alike------like Christ, and less and less like the denomination they came from.
This is exactly right! We need to stop protecting our cherished beliefs and take a fresh look at scripture with all our varied experiences and stay with it until we come into agreement. We cannot afford to agree to disagree any longer. We must persevere. God has given us gifts to the end that we might be edified with the knowledge of Christ until we "all come in the unity of the faith."
This is one thing the churches, IC or HC, have missed--the unity of the faith. Yes, they may segment themselves into smaller groups each believing their own flavor of the gospel and thus consider themselves to be in unity of the faith. But their estimation of the extent to which the unity must prevail is too limited. Excluded are those who do not hold to the same doctrines as they, not realizing that instead they should be working towards unity.
But there should be no unity with the fellowship of darkness. Trouble is every single group thinks they are the only ones in the light. So we get nowhere because we all stick our heads in the sand and refuse to confront the issue that maybe we are the stubborn one.
Its good to know what you believe and to not be cast to and fro by every wind of doctrine that comes along. But if we don't humble ourselves before God and listen to his still, small, voice then how will we ever learn? Oh, we may learn from some man but we need to learn the truth and only the Holy Spirit can reveal spiritual things to us. Sometimes through others but never contrary to the written word which become flesh and dwelt among us. When was the last time you sat down with your Bible and prayer with an open mind ready to be taught of the Holy Spirit? Don't we usually sit down to confirm what we think is already taught? And that something someone else taught us?
We have been playing at church for a long time and God has been waiting patiently. But he will come. There must be home church groups out there that are in harmony, accord, and of one body, but meeting in different homes. If we are not part of them then we may be the ones passed by. This cafe exposes our short-comings and is evidence that we have not acheived to the degree of unity our Lord desires for us. To continue to fail in this line demonstrates that we do not believe our Lord has given us the gifts to make it happen or we are not putting them to work.
The HC by-word has been, "Where two or three are gathered together." But we forget to mention how they are gathered together. Jesus said they meet in unity of the faith. "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." We can't be of one body any other way and we can't be of Christ's body unless our unity extends to his whole family.
If we want to be like the early church then we must start with the same foundation they laid. "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication."
I plead with everyone here to get very serious and study for yourself to check whatever you learned of men to make sure it is truth. Otherwise, if you don't prepare now with the blessing of the oil of the Holy Spirit then when the call comes to go out and meet the bridegroom you will not be prepared. And when he tarries, you will not have a deep enough experience in him to sustain you during the delaying period. Then, sadly, when his coming is imminent you will awake to find that your light has gone out and you have no oil with which to light it. Then as you go to obtain that which you neglected to obtain when you had opportunity you will return to find that the doors to the marriage feast have already been shut. Then there is no opening the door that the Lord has shut. Right now that door is open and no man can shut it. But one day the Lord will shut the door of mercy and then no man can open it.
May God bless us now as the door remains open. Let us all pray for each other.
Welcome to the Cafe! I have read your commentary and article with interest.
You have acknowledged that meeting in houses was certainly the scriptural pattern followed by first century churches and have noted many such scriptures. But then you wrote:"When an assembly grew large and required a building to accomodate them, they might find a rented space (even an "upper room" - Lk.22:10-13), or their own simple building. "
I have a few questions in this regard: (1) When did the church begin? Like 22 or Acts 2? (2) In what kind of building was the upper room of Luke 22 found? (verses 10 &11) (3) What scriptural examples might an assembly follow when it "grows large" to find either "a rented room" or "their own simple building"? (4) What instructions would teach them that renting a room for assembly gatherings or purchasing and "owning" their own assembly hall were really scriptural options for people guided by the scriptures and by the Spirit of God? (5) When the church at Jerusalem "grew large" did they rent or buy a building big enough to accomodate 3,000 believers (Acts 2), 5,000 believing males plus women and children (Acts 4:4)? Did all those believers EVER break bread together as a corporate company? Or did they break bread from HOUSE TO HOUSE as Acts 2:46 records? (6) Did any new covenant assembly anywhere in the Bible find rented space for their meetings other than normal rented homes in which believers lived ? (7) Did any such assembly in the Biblical record ever buy a building as a meeting hall? (8) Are assemblies which follow such practices (renting or owning assembly halls)being true to the scriptural pattern or are they following the wisdom of men apart from any scriptural or Holy Spirit guidance?
You also wrote:"Gatherings were not independent nor in association with a "mother" church, but a local expression of the universal church in the world, and in happy fellowship with saints elsewhere."
Would you mind answering a few questions regarding this statement?
I'm assuming by the term "universal churech in the world" you mean the church which is His (Christ's) Body which is spoken of in Ephesians 2 and Colossians 1. Since the body of Christ includes every saint, every child of God, every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ EVERYWHERE,... -Would you agree that a "local expression" of that body, i.e. at Corinth, would include all them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus at Corinth? I Cor.1:2 -In any other place, such as the city or town in which you live, would such a "local expression of that body" include all in that place that call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours? I Cor.1:2 -Is the gathering with which you assemble such a local expression of the body of Christ? -Can any gathering in a town, city or community make a genuine claim to be a "church of God" in that place unless it includes all that God has received in that place? I Cor.1:2 and Romans 15:5-7
Regarding fellowship, you suggested that the gatherings of which you speak "were in happy fellowship with saints elsewhere." -Brother is fellowship something that Christians can be "IN" or "OUT OF" "WITH OTHER SAINTS"? If so what scriptures would teach this? In other words, is fellowship a STATE or STATUS such as club membership that can be earned or meritted by meeting certain club prerequisites? Is fellowship something that can be conferred upon one by the action of others or something that can be revoked by the decision of others? So when some are "in happy fellowship" with certain "saints elsewhere" and presumably there are other Christians who are NOT "in such happy fellowship with saints elsewhere" is it comparable to those who are "in the club" and those who are "out of the club"? -What are the scriptural marks of one who is "in happy fellowship with saints elsewhere"? Are such sectarian marks or scriptural marks?
-Or is it scriptural to state that fellowship is something which a Christian either HAS or does NOT HAVE WITH OTHER SAINTS AND WITH GOD? I John 1:3-7 -Is it true that whether one HAS FELLOWSHIP or does NOT HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD is determined solely by his/her own WALK IN THE LIGHT or his/her own choice NOT TO WALK IN THE LIGHT? -Are not the scriptural marks of those who HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD that: (1)they have fellowship with other believers, and (2) the blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleanses them from all sin? I John 1:7
I look forward to hearing more of your views which you have shared with us.
posted
I will just make a few comments below on your letter, Bruce. I think we have corresponded in the distant past. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > Dear Brother Dewitt, > > Welcome to the Cafe! I have read your commentary and article with interest. > > You have acknowledged that meeting in houses was certainly the scriptural pattern followed by first century churches and have noted many such scriptures. But then you wrote:"When an assembly grew large and required a building to accomodate them, they might find a rented space (even an "upper > room" - Lk.22:10-13), or their own simple building. " I have a few questions in this regard: > (1) When did the church begin? Like 22 or Acts 2? [I BELIEVE IT IS ACTS 2, AS I SUPPOSE YOU DO]
> (2) In what kind of building was the upper room of Luke 22 found? (verses 10 &11) [I THINK I WAS IN THAT BUILDING ON A RECENT TRIP TO ISRAEL. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A HOUSE, AS THE SCRIPTURE MENTIONS, BUT NOT THE HOUSE OF A DISCIPLE OR BELIEVER---JUST A HOUSE, AND THEY DID NOT NEED TO RENT IT, FOR THE LORD HIMSELF ARRANGED IT.]
> (3) What scriptural examples might an assembly follow when it "grows large" to find either "a rented room" or "their own simple building"? [IT THE SAINTS WERE TO REMAIN TOGETHER IN ONE PLACE AS A COLLECTIVE TESTIMONY, THEY MIGHT NEED TO FIND A LARGER BUILDING; BUT OTHERWISE IF THEY WERE SEPARATED BY SOME DISTANCE, NO DOUBT A FEW MIGHT AGAIN MEET IN A HOUSE. THE IMPORTANT THING, BRUCE, IS THAT THERE IS NO RULE ON THIS. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A HOUSE.]
> (4) What instructions would teach them that renting a room for assembly > gatherings or purchasing and "owning" their own assembly hall were really > scriptural options for people guided by the scriptures and by the Spirit of > God? [AGAIN, THERE IS NO RULE GIVEN, SO AN ASSEMBLY TOO LARGE FOR ONE PLACE MIGHT HAVE LIBERTY TO MEET IN A LARGER PLACE.]
> (5) When the church at Jerusalem "grew large" did they rent or buy a building big enough to accomodate 3,000 believers (Acts 2), 5,000 believing males plus women and children (Acts 4:4)? Did all those believers EVER break bread together as a corporate company? Or did they break bread from HOUSE TO HOUSE as Acts 2:46 records? [AGAIN, I THINK YOU ARE TRYING TO ESTABLISH A RULE THAT PROHIBITS ANY MEETING OUTSIDE OF A HOUSE, AND THE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT. I AM CONVINCED THAT THEY WERE ALL IN ONE UNIVERSAL FELLOWSHIP WHEREVER THEY MET.]
> (6) Did any new covenant assembly anywhere in the Bible find rented space for their meetings other than normal rented homes in which believers lived ? > (7) Did any such assembly in the Biblical record ever buy a building as a meeting hall? [THE SCRIPTURE IS SILENT ON THIS, SO THE SAINTS HAVE LIBERTY TO GATHER WHERE THEY HAVE A SPACE.]
> (8) Are assemblies which follow such practices (renting or owning assembly halls)being true to the scriptural pattern or are they following the wisdom of men apart from any scriptural or Holy Spirit guidance? [I HAVE PERSONALLY KNOWN OF INSTANCES OF HOLY SPIRIT GUIDANCE IN FINDING A SUITABLE PLACE, AND A SUITABLE BUILDING IS ALLOWED, NOT PROHIBITED AS YOU IMPLY.]
> You also wrote:"Gatherings were not independent nor in association with a "mother" church, but a local expression of the universal church in the world, and in happy fellowship with saints elsewhere." Would you mind answering a few questions regarding this statement?
> I'm assuming by the term "universal churech in the world" you mean the church which is His (Christ's) Body which is spoken of in Ephesians 2 and Colossians > 1. Since the body of Christ includes every saint, every child of God, every > believer in the Lord Jesus Christ EVERYWHERE,...Would you agree that a "local expression" of that body, i.e. at Corinth, would include all them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus at Corinth? I Cor.1:2 > -In any other place, such as the city or town in which you live, would such a "local expression of that body" include all in that place that call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours? I Cor.1:2 > -Is the gathering with which you assemble such a local expression of the body of Christ? > -Can any gathering in a town, city or community make a genuine claim to be a "church of God" in that place unless it includes all that God has received in that place? I Cor.1:2 and Romans 15:5-7
[CONTRARY TO YOUR ASSUMPTION, BROTHER, A SCRIPTURAL ASSEMBLY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO RECEIVE ALL BELIEVERS REGARDLESS OF THEIR BEHAVIOR OR FALSE DOCTRINES THEY HOLD. THE EPISTLES ARE CLEAR IN SHOWING GOD'S GOVERNMENT TO EXAMINE ONE WHO IS TO BE RECEIVED---NOT EVERYONE WHO WALKS IN THE DOOR. YES, I BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURE SHOWS THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD IS EVERY TRUE CHILD OF GOD, AND A GATHERING IN A LOCALITY IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, NOT SECTARIAN AND SETTING UP A NEW ORDER TO SUIT RELIGIOUS IDEAS.] > > Regarding fellowship, you suggested that the gatherings of which you speak "were in happy fellowship with saints elsewhere." Brother is fellowship something that Christians can be "IN" or "OUT OF" "WITH OTHER SAINTS"? If so what scriptures would teach this? In other words, is fellowship a STATE or STATUS such as club membership that can be earned or meritted by meeting certain club prerequisites? Is fellowship something that can be conferred upon one by the action of others or something that can be revoked by the decision of others? So when some are "in happy fellowship" with certain "saints elsewhere" and presumably there are other Christians who are NOT "in such happy fellowship with saints elsewhere" is it comparable to those who are "in the club" and those who are "out of the club"? > -What are the scriptural marks of one who is "in happy fellowship with saints elsewhere"? Are such sectarian marks or scriptural marks?
[I DON'T THINK ONE SHOULD CALL A LOCAL EXPRESSION OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH "A CLUB". AS I SAID ALREADY, GOD'S GOVERNMENT FOR THE GATHERING MUST BE ESTEEMED AND HELD. ONE WHO WILL NOT BOW TO THE WORD, OR IS OTHERWISE REBELLIOUS MUST ALSO BE DISCIPLINED BY THE ASSEMBLY. ONE SHOULD STUDY TO UNDERSTAND CHURCH TRUTH.]
> -Or is it scriptural to state that fellowship is something which a Christian > either HAS or does NOT HAVE WITH OTHER SAINTS AND WITH GOD? I John 1:3-7 > -Is it true that whether one HAS FELLOWSHIP or does NOT HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH > GOD is determined solely by his/her own WALK IN THE LIGHT or his/her own choice NOT TO WALK IN THE LIGHT? Are not the scriptural marks of those who HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD that: (1) they have fellowship with other believers, and (2) the blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleanses them from all sin? I John 1:7 [ONE CAN HAVE LIMITED FELLOWSHIP WITH EVERY BELIEVER IN THE WORLD AS A BROTHER OR SISTER IN THE LORD, BUT ONE CANNOT WALK WITH EVERYONE IN ALL THE WAYS THEY CHOOSE. FAITHFUL SAINTS MUST FIRST OF ALL HONOR AND OBEY THE LORD.] > > I look forward to hearing more of your views which you have shared with us. > A brother in Christ, Bruce Woodford
[ALL THAT I HAVE SAID, BROTHER, HINGES ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN THERE AS A NEW SECT CALLED "HOUSE CHURCHES", BEING FORMED TO ADD MORE DIVISION IN THE CHURCH. I DON'T THINK THAT IS HONORING TO GOD. I WON'T PURSUE THIS IF YOU ARE SETTLED IN WHAT YOU HAVE.]
I agree with a lot of what you said. Problem is that God works in each of us at a different time. We are not all going to get it on the same issue at the same time. Thus, there will be times we must agree to disagree. We must also remember during those times of disagreement that it is not only possible we are wrong; but also that the other is wrong too. Certain issues like Calvinism and Arminianism both have valid points. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I suspect. Often, when there are two opposite sides to an issue, I think most likely the truth is in the middle.
I know Christ was well aware of the condition of the church during the last of the last days (at least closer than before). I believe that is one reason he mentioned gathering his scatter people from the four corners of the earth. Also the reason he said to let them grow together with the tares until the end harvest. We are not perfect in our understanding; but we are perfect in our faith in Jesus Christ, the Lord. The body of Christ is not only scattered in physical unity but still has some scattering of knowledge. NO one has complete understanding of all things in this life and we might as well face it. There will never be complete unity or all understanding of God's word for anyone in this life. Our unity lies in Christ.
We are not to fellowship with darkness and that means we must know what darkness is in order to avoid it. Is darkness not agreeing on every single point of scripture? Or isn't darkness those who lead away from the gospel of Jesus Christ and approve sinful lifestyles and show forth bad fruit? Many apostate churches are doing just that and we must avoid fellowship with them.
IMO, Faith
-------------------- 1 Thes. 5:21 (KJV) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
The key is unity not uniformity. Sometimes unity costs us our opinions but never our individuality. Sometimes unity means we must humble ourselves but it never involves surrender of our will to another human.
So in the house church experience I would expect that a fellowship would have more desire to be united in truth about Christ than simply all professing to be in Christ. Mere profession is no fellowship. Scripture tells us what fellowship with Christ is based upon.
"This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin."
There really is no need to walk in darkness. If we choose to hold onto "darkness" then we dishonor God and put Christ to shame.
The fellowship of the early church was based upon knowledge of Christ and obedience to the gospel. We cannot abide with Christ and the Father if we walk in darkness [disobedience].
"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
So the home church which fellowships with Christ is first obedient to his words. Isaiah confirmed this in the spirit when he wrote, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." If they speak not according to the law and testimony then they are in darkness regardless of their profession. And if they walk in darkness then there is no fellowship with Christ and the Father.
So while house churches are not new this idea of agreeing to disagree--at least on foundational doctrines--is new. It is a humanistic attempt to acheive the unity that Christ offers. But it is only an outward appearance of unity. Inwardly the same old cherished "darkness" resides. We are inclined to believe what we want to believe rather than the truth. We may have fellowship one with another but if we walk in darkness that fellowship excludes Christ for He is the Truth. Where Christ dwells darkness does not dwell, not even a shadow.
quote:Sometimes unity means we must humble ourselves but it never involves surrender of our will to another human.
Did you mean what you said? I believe when we humble our selves, we do sometimes surrender our will to others if it is God's will for us to do so. Our will is to be surrendered to God's will and purpose and that's what humbles us before others. Example: It's not my will to pay tax; but God says to so I humble my will and pay them to other humans.
I didn't mention professors of Christ. Though, I did say not to fellowship with the apostate churches. Do you think that any one who has Christ in them will automatically know all truth about all fundamentals? Do you know all truth and did you always? Even when you were wrong about a doctrine, were you still Christ's? Have you ever known anything but your denomination? What have you learned that they didn't teach you?
And then what are the fundamentals? Jesus said Repent, believe and go and sin no more. He didn't say to know all there is to know about him. Some professors know quite abit about him; but do not know him personally.
So what do you hold as darkness? Can you walk with anyone who doesn't have the same enlightenment as you about a subject because that would be unenlightenment or darkness?
It is up to the Holy Spirit as to how much knowledge and understanding each person has. Just like the parable about those who worked from morning til eve and those who worked only the last hour: all got the same reward or payment. Those who are his will enter the kingdom regardless of how informed they are about different doctrines. Some doctrines maybe sinful; but many are just not that clear.
One doctrine that stands out as sinful is to teach that there is another way to enter the kingdom than by Jesus Christ. That is what many apostate churches teach. (Some true Christians may be in those churches still; but should come out as soon as they realize what is being taught.) We can expose that doctrine and warn others; but we can't judge each who is still there for God may still be working on them. Neither can we join in that church for fellowship with the darkness of another gospel.
Do you think a man could be saved if he had only one page of the Bible? Or does he have to have the whole book and understand every word? When does one become a Christian, when they believe or when they fall in line to every single command?
Being unified in Christ doesn't mean we all agree on all doctrines, though it helps. Rather I think it has more to do with how we treat each other and even our enemies. Do our branches grow and eventually produce good fruit or do they wither and die?
quote:ALL THAT I HAVE SAID, BROTHER, HINGES ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN THERE AS A NEW SECT CALLED "HOUSE CHURCHES", BEING FORMED TO ADD MORE DIVISION IN THE CHURCH. I DON'T THINK THAT IS HONORING TO GOD. I WON'T PURSUE THIS IF YOU ARE SETTLED IN WHAT YOU HAVE.
Every so often you find a new sect springs up. From the sect of the Nazarenes to the sect of what you labelled housechurch, there has been at least a 100 in between. Some survived and became denominations. There's nothing new under the sun - almost all the so-called denominations have had something to do with causing division in the church. So let's bunch them up & burn them all!
I can't speak for others but the following is the reason why I left IC.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
I am only settled in a desire to do what scripture teaches and therefore if scripture teaches something else than what I currently believe and practice I desire to know it and do whatever it says.
I am under the impression that you teach that scriptural patterns for believers today are only established by way of direct commands or direct prohibitions stated in scripture. Is this correct?
You acknowledge that the Lord Jesus taught his disciples to base their ministries in houses, that the early church and the apostlles met and broke bread in houses but because there is no direct command or prohibition against assemblies renting or buying other accomodations for their meetings, there is no scriptural pattern in the matter.
You may very well be right and I am willing to investigate that possibility. However that approach to scripture seems to present numerous difficulries. Can you help me with some of them?
(1) The medium used for baptisms in the new testament is water. However there is no command to use water and no prohibition for using any other medium. Does that establish a scriptural pattern OR since scripture is silent on the matter, are we free to use other mediums as we may deem best? (Is your approach to this question consistent with your approach to the question of assembly meeting places?)
(2) If a common and oft recorded practice which is not commanded and other options are not prohibitted does NOT establish a scriptural pattern as you suggest....what shall we do with your very common practice of gathering together exclusively on the first day of the week to break bread?
There is no command to do this, nor is there any prohibition for doing it at any other time. That practice is only mentioned once in scripture (Acts 20), and there is no evidence that breaking bread exclusively on the first day of the week was ever a NT church practice, but rather they broke bread daily from house to house.
Is not this viewed by your assemblies as an absolute pattern that is not to be deviated from in any way? But is not there far more scriptural reason for meeting in homes than there is for exclusive first day of the week breaking of bread? (Is your approach to this question consistent with your approach to the question of assembly meeting places?)
(3) In short, what objective standard or criteria do you use to determine what establishes a NT pattern that assemblies are to follow at all times from practices which we are free to change or modify as our situation may indicate a needed change?
I look forward to hearing your answers and welcome any light that you can shed on these questions for us.
quote:Being unified in Christ doesn't mean we all agree on all doctrines, though it helps. Rather I think it has more to do with how we treat each other and even our enemies. Do our branches grow and eventually produce good fruit or do they wither and die?
It is impossible for fallen man to love his neighbor unless he knows the love of God.
1 John 4:8 "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."
Some do not have a correct knowledge of God and it shows in the way they treat others.
John 16:2 "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."
Don't be fooled here... these folks think they are doing God's will. The men who took down the twin towers believed they were honoring their god. One day they will wonder why no one ever took the time to tell them the truth. Instead of eternal glory they face eternal damnation. I wonder if they will say, well, correct doctrine is not important, it is how you treat one another.
Now don't miss this... according to their false doctrines they believed they were doing right.
What does scripture say is the right way to treat others?
"Romans 13 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
The early church had that unity of spirit. "And they all with one mind gave themselves up to prayer."
quote:What does scripture say is the right way to treat others?
"Romans 13 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
The early church had that unity of spirit. "And they all with one mind gave themselves up to prayer."
Jeff, the rich young man also obeyed the commands and yet Jesus said he was lacking for he did not have faith in Jesus. Thus, the commandments are not the only or even the main focus of church unity. Jesus is.
Are the ten commandments the only doctrine believers need to understand and be unified in? There are many other doctrines being taught and many folks may be new Christians or just haven't studied that point or haven't been led by the Spririt to see a certain point yet. Do we dismiss every person who doesn't have all knowlege yet? Does that show love?
Just how much knowledge does it take for one to be saved and thus unified? Do you know any Christians who agree on everything? Faith
-------------------- 1 Thes. 5:21 (KJV) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
What the rich young man lacked is exactly what Jesus exposed--he loved his wealth more than God. So if this young man was breaking the 1st commandment to love God with all your heart then according to James he was breaking all of them. Perhaps he gave large sums of money to charity but that was apparently just for show. He did not truly love anyone but himself.
When you talk about Jesus being the main focus of our unity you must also include the law of God. Jesus is love and the law of God is a law of love. His law defines love in simple human language. Jesus lived out in human flesh perfect obedience to his Father's will. He succeeded where the 1st Adam failed.
When we accept Jesus into our hearts we are receiving the promise of the New Covenant. His perfect obedience to the law, his sinless life, is written in our hearts and minds. The mind represents knowledge and assent that the commandments are righteous and good. The heart represents a willingness and desire to obey that which the mind acknowledges is God's will for us. This encompasses the whole man.
What Paul is saying in Romans 13 is that if you love your neighbor you cannot be breaking the law. You will not sleep with anyone you are not married to nor divorce someone you are married to. You will not kill anyone--not even with your tongue. You will not cheat or steal from anyone or take advantage of them. You will not lie about them and you will not covet anything they have. Nor will you do any of the other things prohibited by the law. In other words, you will treat people in the same manner as you would like for people to treat you.
Now you can make this a mechanical behavior as the rich young man did and fool yourself that you love your neighbor. Or you can receive Christ into your heart by faith. But either way your actions should be outwardly compliant with the law of God.
While the truth of God is wider than just the Ten Commandments, scripture does tell us that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and that the wise honor their father and keep his word. Surely, unity in the body of God must include all of these things.
How much knowledge does it take to be saved and thus unified?
Well, I would think that knowing Christ in truth would be essential. Do you want me to give you minimum requirements or do you want to go for bust? Merely knowing about Christ has no bearing on our salvation. But if we hear and do his words then we are likened unto a man who built his house on a Rock.
The better we know Christ the better our foundation. The better our foundation the less likely Satan can knock us off the rock with subtle deceptions which, if it were possible, will deceive even the very elect. And why should anyone be deceived? Because they received not a love of the truth.
Jesus is the truth and Jesus says, "If you love me, keep my commandments." And when we love something supremely it becomes the focus of our desires and attention. We seek after it earnestly. Those who do not seek after truth earnestly may find they do not have the oil to sustain their lamps when the cry is heard, "Behold, the bridegroom cometh."
Yes, Jesus is our focus and we are united in him. But I don't want anyone to get the idea from me that this is a sentimental kind of love. Our love for Christ and our love for one another must be based on reason rather than emotion. Knowledge is the power of reason and wisdom belongs to God alone.
The early church received the words of the apostles and their testimony of Jesus as the Son of God. They heard and by faith accepted. But without hearing and thus knowing they could not exercise faith "for faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
Maybe house churches are not new but the concept and reality of it may be new to us.
quote:[ALL THAT I HAVE SAID, BROTHER, HINGES ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN THERE AS A NEW SECT CALLED "HOUSE CHURCHES", BEING FORMED TO ADD MORE DIVISION IN THE CHURCH. I DON'T THINK THAT IS HONORING TO GOD. I WON'T PURSUE THIS IF YOU ARE SETTLED IN WHAT YOU HAVE.] [/QB]
ASteward,
It seems to me like you've already made up your mind. The true church doesn't have divisions. What is division? Division is made when the truth of Christ comes into a person's life and then people choose to divide over it. Christ said He would bring a sword, 2 against 3, mother in law against daughter in law, father against son even until death. Now that is division.
The divisions you see in the denominations are a result of, I really believe, what I call the "ever learning and never able to come to the truth" syndrome. They are constantly learning but never coming to the real truth so they just go on dividing and creating new and more denominations all while they are all just spinning in circles, none of them really ever coming to the real truth about what is happening, yet they all think they are right. Satan delights to keep them in that vicious cycle. It is called letting the dead bury the dead.
I disagree with your way of thinking but I do agree that some home churches will be nothing better than the ICs.
Email this page to someone.
