House Church Talk - Pattern or simply an adaptation?

[David Anderson]

>One reference is enough to
>disprove an idea, and this one was handy to me so I quickly referenced
>it.  It is sufficient to demonstrate that the idea of church buildings
>not coming into existence until the fourth century is erroneous.  I
>think those who claim such do so for shock value rather than because of
>serious historical study. 
>
>Peace be with you.
>David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.

David, are you working from a CD version or hardcopy of the The Nicene 
and Post-Nicene Fathers? The CD versions occasionally confuse the notes 
with the actual text due to the many kinds of formatting. If this is the 
case, then your one reference may be little more than a scholarly opinion 
of an editor who "edited" centuries later. I'll check the hard copy asap, 
though the texts and notes differ slightly from one edition to the next. 
I would be interested in seeing your other sources, not that I disagree 
with your conclusions.

Above all, it should be noted that such dates and council proclamations 
do not mean that all Christians everywhere subscribed to, obeyed, or even 
heard the conclusions of the Church Councils or Church Fathers. In other 
words, the house churches did not suddenly fall like dominoes in a 
certain calender year. It is reasonable to suppose that house churches 
have continued since the beginning, though certainly unnoticed for the 
most part and likely few in number.

It should also be obvious that these clerics, having multiplied church 
offices to about a dozen varieties, were heading in the wrong direction - 
away from Him who insisted that brotherhood rather than hierarchy was to 
be the arrangement for His church.

Thanks for your message, brother!

   in the Lamb,

      David Anderson