House Church

[common_sense (common_sense)]

setfree (setfree)
Member
Username: setfree

Post Number: 57
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 67.86.101.65
Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 11:16 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can someone who knows how - start a "House Church" thread under "Doctrine/beliefs...."

I would but I'm not quite getting it - Thanks!

[true22698 (true22698)]

house churches are not a good idea.

[common_sense (common_sense)]

Why?

[warr (warr)]

We have some "friends" who conduct house church basically for themselves and their three 20 something children-they have strong beliefs against organized churches-but I think you really aren't able to be held accountable for your actions or really grow and gain insight to the Bible the way you can in a "church" setting where different teachers and peachers can share their views-plus the praise and worship just isn't the same-of coarse I don't doubt they love Christ with all their hearts but there are folks out there who just can't find anyplace that pleases them the Bible says don't forsake the assembling of the brethern .warr

[common_sense (common_sense)]

Matthew 18:20 (KJV)
20<font color="ff0000">For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them</font>.

[arron (arron)]

because most, if not all "housechurches" start because thye dont want any controll over them. they dont want any doctrine of any kind.

[common_sense (common_sense)]

I believe that we are incredibly blessed here in the U.S. to be able to gather in large groups to worship and be taught. I also believe the day is probably coming when those who worship God in spirit and in truth will be persecuted and driven "underground" into "house churches." Will the Church be any less legitimate then? Will the praise and worship be diminished? Will our ability to grow and gain insight into the Word be diminished? Will we be less or more accountable for our actions when every move we make can mean life or death to ourselves or one of our brothers or sisters?

Ask some believers in China or the Soviet Union for their perspective -- you might be surprised at the answers.

[common_sense (common_sense)]

<font color="0000ff">because most, if not all "housechurches" start because thye dont want any controll over them. they dont want any doctrine of any kind.</font>

You are making an incredible generalization there which is absolutely false, IMO. MANY organized churches have started on the same premise, and it is wrong no matter what form the organization takes.

Let's put it this way: do you believe there can be a pure motive for moving to a "house church"?

[warr (warr)]

commonsense- I see nothing wrong with groups gathering in the home but this a family of 5 seperating themselves from the congregation -I knew I would get a response like that-we have home bible studies in the sunday evening with various individuals from our church- and I can remember this from being a young adult opening up in front of my parents would be a bit difficult and these particular people are against large organized churches it's a little different then the underground church

[warr (warr)]

there are always 2 sides to the story and like arron said many people stay at home because they( as these friends put it )do not need any man to tell them how to live their lives and teach them about the bible- hey my mother came to the Lord watching Rex Humbard on sunday morning in the 70's but she then was encouraged to get out and find a place of fellowship-warr

[friend (friend)]

Oh my, Common...Christians actually suffering? Does Tim Lahaye know your views on this http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif?

The "house church movement" sounds pretty cool. I know of one house church community in our area that is really doing some wonderful things. Sadly, folks think without a well paid minister, church pews, large steeple, altar calls, choir entertainment, there is no church.

I myself don't attend a house church. We have a "Meeting House"...we don't use the name, "church" for a building. Our Meeting houses are simply furnished, very plain. Although this is not my Meeting, it is an example of what Quaker Meeting Houses look like (if anyone cares http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif): http://www.friendshouston.org/construction_pictures/interiormeetinghouse.jpg

Peace ya'll!

"And they went from house to house..."

(Message edited by friend on October 06, 2005)

[common_sense (common_sense)]

<font color="0000ff">Christians actually suffering? Does Tim Lahaye know your views on this ? </font>

Well, Friend, if he reads FACTNet he now knows my views on this AND on his books! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/proud.gif

[turtle (turtle)]

See this is the thing I try and encourage my bible study group to find there own church and are welcome to visit the one I attend. Main problem I have with my group is everyone has been hurt by a church in the passed. Not so much from what was taught but people's attitudes because of income or disabilities. I really think everyone here is well aware how cruel christian can be to one another.

I too would be concern of a church made up of one intire family and no outsiders. Unless you lived two hundred miles in the middle of nowhere. Just like my big concern of churches or home churches popping up all over. REalize this is a cult board. Makes you wonder is it possible to feel lead and actually lead people astray. Most know me by my threads what I believe so I am not to concern with that comment. But sometimes I wonder if it would not be better to lead people to a church after some searching where they might be comfortable. There are over fifty churches in my area and would they not benifit from having more members to help in their church, instead of beginning another one.

[warr (warr)]

yes Turtle-i agree with you so many have been hurt by the church-my mother used to say people in the world are sometimes kinder then those in the church it's a sad thing especially up here in Michigan where there is a big dutch and christian reformed movement it's really hard to fit in one thse churches especially if your whole family tree hasn't attended there thru the ages and if you are a little different believe me you won't fit in .warr

[setfree (setfree)]

THANK YOU Common sense!!

Warr, interesting points.

Let me start by saying I am not in a house church, but I have read and studied this movement. As a whole, this movement seems to be the most Biblically centered approach to church organization out there. Many of its practises are straight from what is described of the early church in Acts and the epistles.

To someone who is fully indoctrinated into the "institutional church" (denominations, mega-churches, independent churches that practise similar to denominations...), the "house church" movement would seem foreign, strange, perhaps even heretical.

It is easy to dismiss house church attenders as "independent, rebellious, unaccountable", but from my studies, the reverse is quite true.

I hate to use the term "paradigm shift" because it is so overused (especially when "senior pastors" introduce the latest and greatest methodologies to their congregations), but that is what is required here. It is a shift back onto the biblical, historical foundation of the early church from which we have far strayed.

When there are "strong beliefs against organized churches", it is more against unscriptural practises of organized churches. Certainly "house church" people should be recognizing and loving their denominational brothers and sisters.

Unbiblical practises in institutional churches (oh, if I only had the time...)

1a. Clergy/Laity distinction. Martin Luther fought for the "priesthood of the believer" in his 95 theses. Protestants bought the idea, but have yet to practise it. In the Word, we are declared a "Kingdom of priests":

Heb 7:26 For such an <u>high priest became us</u>, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

1Pe 2:5 <u>Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood</u>, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:9 But <u>ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood</u>, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Rev 1:6 And <u>hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father</u>; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

(These were all written to the churches, not to pastors of churches!!! This IS WHO WE ARE, because of and for Him, Saints of GOD!!! Hallelujah!!!)

1b) The notion of a "Senior Pastor", a "Set Man", a single "leader among equals (an elder of elders)" in the local church --- it's just plain not there.

That said, the house church movement should be careful not to attack pastors. Eph 4:11 is clear that they are a GIFT to the body. Our culture (this goes back to Constantine in the mid-300's) has twisted this precious gift and abused it. We look to the pastor for all direction, all teaching, all spiritual guidance. We say "bring so-and-so to the pastor for counseling" when God may well have appointed us, or another in His body. Why do we put so much burden on the pastor?

1c) Clergy salary? - Unscriptural. The saints abroad took offerings for the poor in Jerusalem. Sometimes to support apostolic work. Nowhere do we see a full-time salaried position in scripture. Paul (tentmaker) labored hard before those he ministered to in order to be above reproach. The result of paying a full-time pastor (I know this topic is a hard one for many modern Christians to swallow)? We expect him to be superman. He is "bought" by us, so it is in his financial interest to "please" us (thank God for pastors who have integrity and put God first at the risk of personal loss!). It promotes the clergy/laity separation from both sides. It actually can put enmity between us!

2. Priesthood of the Believer. I've already touched on this. Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 give an overview of how we all are called to minister one to another. The "one another-ing" as put forth throughout the NT is absent for the most part in churches in America today.
Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

3. Communion/Lord's Supper - in how it is practised. To quote Frank Viola and others, it's not "The Savior's Sampler", "The Nazerene Niblet", or some other light appetizer consisting of a shot of grape juice and a paper wafer. It was and is a covenant feast, a meal shared by the saints, that is reflective, redemptive, celebratory, and anticipatory of the wedding supper of the Lamb! God ordained covenant-making around meals, and something happens in the Spirit at a true celebration of the Lord's supper that isn't quite there with the wafer and juice. House churches, from my studies, embrace the Lord's Supper in a more biblical way, because they desire to, and because, practically, they can.

4. Tithing. See the tithing thread.

5. Church structures. Why must we erect great buildings that cost tens of millions of dollars that suck up well-intended people's financial resources? WE ARE THE TEMPLE OF LIVING STONES THAT GOD IS BUILDING. Church building construction, planning, maintenance is a huge burden for the church. House churches collect offerings and give freely as the Lord directs. No pastor salary or building to financially support? Yes, a church running without any financial burden on the Lord's people except to give as they have purposed in their hearts. Can you imagine all of the $1Million+ annual church budgets in the US suddenly going 100% (as opposed to the current 5-10%, my estimate, being generous) to the poor, the widows, the orphans, to missions, and to our own members who may have a need?

I'd like to continue, but I do have to work (fortunately, I'm my own boss, so I'm not stealing time from him!). More later. Blessings to all.

[setfree (setfree)]

An excerpt from my post on another thread, before this one was started:

I have become convinced that the true church of Jesus is wherever 2 or more gather in His name. We don't see Paul closing his epistles with "Bibleway COG on Main Street, and First Baptist on the Green greet you in the name of our Lord"! We are ONE church in Him, that meet in many places. Honestly, I even struggled with naming our "church" because it automatically draws an identity separate from other believers.

<font size="+2">I do believe with all my heart that THE REFORMATION that is needed is the Reformation of the Church to its Biblical roots, tearing down all that divides us.</font> I doubt the fulfillment will come in my lifetime, (perhaps my great-grandchildren's?) but I'm excited to somehow be part of it.

[friend (friend)]

Awesome posts setfree! I'm printing out what you wrote and giving it to a friend that attends a house church. Thanks!!!

[setfree (setfree)]

Thanks friend.

I appreciate your posts and your enlightening us to Quaker practices. I confess that before reading your posts, your (Quaker) beliefs were foreign to me (outside of pacifism). From my "fundamental" church upbringing, I wouldn't have even considered you a brother. Now I know better. Would you forgive me for my prior prejudices?

[warr (warr)]

Setfree- wonderfully said we have enough of these megachurches-making a profit off the name of Jesus -times are a changin

[friend (friend)]

setfree...I tend to talk way to much about being a Quaker. Most importantly, I am a Christian. I am really proud (how unQuakerly) of being a Quaker. They not only lead me to the Gentle Shepherd, they have sustained my family on many occasions. At one time I HATED anything Christian because of my upbringing. They were a healing balm for me.

By the way...all Quakers are not the same. Sadly, they are divided into many groups. Part of that reason is there is really no governing body for Friends. The other is that Friends avoid any type of heirarchy...each Meeting is autonomous and can affiliate with whichever group they wish (or multiple groups).

We do work together on disaster recovery, peace issues, things like that. The really cool thing is that we have begun working more closely with other "peace" churches such as the Mennonites and Church of the Brethren. The fellowship is awesome and we can really learn alot from each other.

God's peace!

[common_sense (common_sense)]

Setfree,

That post ROCKED!!!! I would add one more point, but I'm afraid to disturb the unity at this point. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[setfree (setfree)]

Common sense, are you in a house church?

BTW, to all, I'm not trying to be legalistic about the "house" as THE place for church meetings. Our culture is entirely different than that of the first century. Back then as houses came to the Lord, their sphere of influence was primarily the neighborhood they lived in. Naturally, believers in proximity met together. Nowadays, with the advantage(?) of automobiles, we drive to churches sometimes an hour away without thinking twice about the believers near us, or worse, our unsaved neighbors that must be reached.

Anyway, believers could meet in Starbucks, offices, meeting halls, (yes even church buildings), wherever (wherever 2 or more are gathered). The home of a believer, though, happens to be a great place, and easy place, to meet.

Also, the points I laid out before can be shocking to someone who has been a faithful pew-sitter for years and years. I'm not trying to upset anyone's faith - I just long for seeing the Bride of Christ become what He desires, and am sharing what I've been learning on the journey. When I say certain practises aren't Biblically supported (tithing, dedicated expensive mega-church structures, identity-branding, salaried full-time pastors and passive pew-sitters), I am not attacking those people, and I'm not suggesting we "abandon ship". I'm inviting all to join the conversation and share what they see is scripturally supported or not, and more importantly, to share "how do we get there from here", if "there" is where the church is going. As a side note, the "Emerging Church Conversation" also has my attention, as it attempts to restore the missional aspect of the church while being relevant to our post-Christian culture. Streams in the desert, I suppose.

Again, I think its not so much about houses, as it is a return to scriptural church practises. An argument that should surface is whether or not what we read of the New Testament church is DEscriptive or PREscriptive (Does the Bible simply describe things that happened in the early church, or does it prescribe patterns that we are to follow?). Steve Atkerson et al, in a book I recently started called Ekklesia, gives good arguments from the PREscriptive standpoint.

Common sense, I'm excited to hear what point you would add. I still have to cover the one man sermon (monologue) and praise/worship entertainment (both should be participatory; not pulpit-audience driven).

Blessings to all.

[common_sense (common_sense)]

Setfree,
I'm not in a house church but our fellowship has endeavored to follow the NT model in many ways. We have no denominational affiliation and are led by a plurality of elders. Teaching/preaching duties are shared by a number of men (no paid pastor), and there is a real emphasis on equipping all believers for ministry. We truly are like a family.

The point I would add is the emphasis on water baptism. Some of us have discussed this in length on other threads.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Hey, this is good company!

The thrust of my web site is to encourage Christians to gather outside of man-made denominations. http://www.ChurchGrowth.CC

Does my following article describe how we could meet most similarly to the early church even at this time? http://www.churchgrowth.cc/howto.htm

Here's a way to find house churches in your area: http://www.hccentral.com/directory/index.html

--Alan.

[turtle (turtle)]

wyoming wonder where you have been. Especially when this subject came up.

[setfree (setfree)]

Interesting stuff Wyoming. The baptism teaching is new to me - I'm going to dig deeper into it.

Thanks.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

My Turtle Dove,

The Red Sox were off today so I thought I'd check in. I've been trying to stay off FactNet but sometimes in my weakest moments my curiosity gets the best of me and I find a topic in which I'm interested. [My wife just scolded me for being on FactNet.]

People put themselves in the authoritative place of God when personally offended and there are so many mean spirited demigogues on FactNet offended so easily. I'm not going to argue on FactNet anymore, especially with the Pentecostalists because they are all nuts and can be touched off like a powder keg. I'll explain a doctrine if someone is interested and not being combative. I'm too old to have to win an argument. If folks want to be wrong, let them be wrong. I think that FactNet polarizes people deeper into their set ways. However, I noticed who was posting on this thread and I know I'm in good company. Sometimes we hookup with folks who have a unity of spirit even when we disagree.

--Alan.

http://www.mauricejohnsonarchives.com/

(Message edited by Wyoming on October 07, 2005)

[turtle (turtle)]

So wyoming I am a nut that is okay. I have not been posting that much either. Just of the few interesting discussions.

[setfree (setfree)]

"[My wife just scolded me for being on FactNet.]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif I know how you feel! Perhaps we should start a FactNET Recovery Group (which would, of course, continue the vicious cycle)! This place can be addictive, and as you alluded to, hostile.

Hopefully peace and constructive discussion will be maintained on this particular thread.

Wyoming, Erich (if you've found us yet), anyone else in house or non-sectarian groups - please feel free to share highs &amp; lows, victories &amp; pitfalls from your journey. I believe we can learn much from your experiences.

Blessings to all.

1 Peter 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

[setfree (setfree)]

The following excert is quoted from Wolfgang Simpson's "15 Theses Towards a Reformation of Church" (just found this, and much bears witness to what I perceive as essential reformation):

http://www.harvestnet.org/tc/15theses.htm

<u>13. From Denominations to city-wide celebrations</u>
Jesus called a universal movement, and what came was a series of religious companies with global chains marketing their special brands of Christianity and competing with each other. Through this branding of Christianity most of Protestantism has, therefore, become politically insignificant and often more concerned with traditional specialties and religious infighting than with developing a collective testimony before the world. Jesus simply never asked people to organize themselves into denominations. In the early days of the Church, Christians had a dual identity: they were truly His church and vertically converted to God, and then organized themselves according to geography, that is, converting also horizontally to each other on earth. This means not only Christian neighbors organizing themselves into neighborhood- or house-churches, where they share their lives locally, but Christians coming together as a collective identity as much as they can for citywide or regional celebrations expressing the corporateness of the Church of the city or region. Authenticity in the neighborhoods connected with a regional or citywide corporate identity will make the Church not only politically significant and spiritually convincing, but will allow a return to the biblical model of the City-Church. (emphasis mine)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement, and I have a faint vision of it in my head.

1) Is this truly happening anywhere right now?
2) Does anyone have valid historical references of the early church gathering in city/region-wide celebrations?

Thank you!

[easeltine (easeltine)]

My wife...

There you go again talking to your Internet buddy Alan. You both are so stubborn. You are not going to change each others minds, why are you on FactNet so long. You need to knock it off and take time to be with the family.

[setfree (setfree)]

The Holy Spirit, to me...

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

...ouch! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/blush.gif

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.
Erich, mon frere, you just don't like what I have to say, therfore it is best that I go away and be silent?

[turtle (turtle)]

wyoming here is a verse for you. Just keep this one in your heart with dealing with our differences.

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
(Ephesians 4:12-15)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

It's a labor of love and responsibility; caring. I want to have a loving attitude, even when we disagree. If I say, among old friends, that a certain group is nuts, "nuts" is hard to define; you should know that I am just playing with you; especially in context with the rest of the message. Your response reveals that you are temporate in my playing with you. When getting intense with doctrine I am very careful to keep it academic and to not make it personal. If and when you detect that I am being disrepectful to anyone's person and need correction, let me know.

(Message edited by wYOMING on October 11, 2005)

[sally (sally)]

I am grateful for a "home church" thread. I support coming out of the institutional churches and start following the design of the church when it first started. I would like to add a bit of caution for those who are getting involved with home churches. It seems as thought the same divisions that have plagued the churches is now starting to happen in the home churches also. People in the home church movement are polarizing to the groups that they agree with over such issues as women preaching or covering their heads. We should strive and seek to follow the instructions that the apostles received through the Holy Spirit for the early church.

When you do decide to home church, there aren't a whole lot of home churches around. Don't feel like you have to attend the local home church because it is the only one if indeed they are getting into wrong doctrine or off the true path. I'm kind of picky what home church I get involved in and what group of people I get involved with. There are certain customs that the early church followed that a lot of people no longer want to partake of because love is waxing cold and people have itching ears.

I enjoy the freedom of worshipping outside the insitutional churches. I enjoy meeting and seeking out people who are very serious about following God. Sometimes it may be just a meeting of 2 people, but I'd sooner have a good conversation between 2 people that are really serious about God than attend of church of 300 people and not get anything out of it at all and go away feeling empty.

Let no man decieve you by any means.

Sally

(Message edited by Sally on October 07, 2005)

[setfree (setfree)]

Thank you Sally.

It's ironic - a movement attempting to end separatism and alrady schisms in the camp. When will we (humans/Christians) ever learn?!?

I believe (the optimist in me) that Christians can get to a place of humility that we differ on some doctrines without hurling insults and accusations of heresy at each other. "By this the world will know you are my disciples - by the love you have one for another."

Please share more as you are led. How do you see the BIG picture of what God desires of His Bride?

God bless all this weekend - be refreshed in the Lord!

[sally (sally)]

Setfree,

His bride will come out of all churches, I think, now and wait for Him.

Just as Satan tried to decieve us in church he will launch as all out attack against the people coming out of the churches now. He'll do anything he can to keep us from going on and learning more of the real truth. He will try and bring leaven into the home churches now.

What would I do now?
1)Endure until the end
2)Cling to His promises
3)Make it through day by day
4)Keep his works until the very end, either until I die or I see Jesus
5)Don't let anyone decieve me by any way, I don't know how strongly I can say this
6)In my patient waiting for Jesus possess my soul
7)Live in His peace that knows no fear
8)Read the Word a lot
9)Try and find fellowship where I won't be deceived
10)Continue to seek even more about the early church than what I know now, in other words keeping looking for more truth
11)Watch and pray that my garments are kept and I'm not found naked

Sally

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

We do home church not because we are running from authority but rather because we have finally run to the genuine unhindered authority of Christ as the Head of the church. In many institutional churches (and yes even some home churches), Jesus is not honored as the Head in reality but only in lip service and instead a man has stepped in and taken over total control of the church. A man, namely a Senior Pastor (interesting - no such role is mentioned anywhere in the Bible) is honored and recognized above Jesus Himself and everyone runs to this man. The Bible teaches that we are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ but the average pastor teaches submission to himself alone. Among other things, this limits or all together prevents the brethren from having vital relevant contact with each other for accountability, edification and correction.

Further, the Bible shows that the church is the final court of appeals under Christ (See Matt 18:15-17). We know this because when a brother or sister is offended by another brother or sister and cannot resolve the issue according to verses 15 and 16, he or she is to bring the matter before the church (v.17). The Word does not say to bring the matter to “the pastor”. But most churches today, for whatever reasons, are set up to bring everything to the pastor and not to the church. This is a direct reversal of biblical order and this kind of thinking leads to the body not submitting to one another and not supplying each others needs as they are supposed to be connected by “joints and ligaments”. Undo reliance is placed on a single often overburdened man to the neglect of the much needed ministry of the whole body. Therefore most Christians do not know who they really are, nor what their true identity and heritage is in Christ. This just isn’t taught in most churches, as it is not conducive to the job security of the presiding leadership.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

I posted this at another thread but I think it fits here:

I think it is mostly impossible to reform a movement that has gained any size and infrastructure. As goes the leader, so goes the institution. It's all about power and control.

The nature of man is the same in a small group as in a large group. In a small group that is new and growing, whoever has the upper hand is usually fearful that things will get out of hand and is intent upon keeping it tight. Then the group is no longer focuses on scriptural communion under Grace. In a smaller group you may be able to deal with these issues better if enough folks are resolved to have the right attitude and do not stoop to the level of the vicious troublemakers. You have to win over the ones who are the most influential and develop a confidence level. Watch out not to develop into a group controlled machine. The less rules, the better. There aren't any ideas that are better than scriptural ideas. God doesn't need our help. The formula for success is to keep our eyes on the Lord and off of each other. If we are right with the Lord, we will automatically be right with each other.

--Alan.

[easeltine (easeltine)]

Alan and others in Home Churches,

This is a concern about Home Churches expressed by some on FactNet. This is what Arron said:

"...because most, if not all "house churches" start because they dont want any control over them. They dont want any doctrine of any kind."

This is not a problem in the Home Church that we go to. We have a Statement of Faith, and we actually have a head pastor. Is lack of control or a lack of doctrine a problem that any of you have experienced in the Home Churches that you go to? It does not seem to be a valid criticism in our group. There are many issues that are not required for salvation that we may not see eye-to-eye on.

Erich

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Hi Easeltine,

I’ve seen home churches without doctrine. They believe that truth and Christ are somehow at odds with each other and they often work overtime to try and separate Christ from the Word, which is impossible. For Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1, John1:14, Rev 19:13) and the Word is the Word of Truth. These kinds of churches often sit around with glassy goo-goo eyes claiming they are just “loving Jesus” like some kind of hippie flower children. They claim that they have no need for doctrine and are just spurring each other on to good works. What good works is my question? JW’s, Mormons and other cults do all kinds of “good” works. They often feed the poor, do various outreaches, etc. but the end result is they use this appearance of genuine love to draw these needy people in and make converts to their false religions.

Sound doctrine is critical, but control is another things all together. This is the where one of the major problems lies. When Jesus loses control to a man or a group of men, you have the beginnings of an institutional church even if it starts in a home. It will always move in the wrong direction.

There is a huge misunderstanding in the church today regarding leadership and authority. This misunderstanding suits the promotion of high seats in the church and again, it is not in the “best interests” of the presiding rulers to teach truth in the area. The church doesn’t know who she is! She is the BRIDE of the MASTER Jesus Himself. And, if the King of Kings and Lord of Lords is her husband, which of course He is, then can she not be likened to a Queen? Will she not rule and reign with Christ?

Today’s average church ruler acts as if they alone (and other rulers like them) are the bride and the rest of the believers will just be in the bridal party. If believers only knew who they really are and the kind of real authority in Christ that each of them have, they wouldn’t put up with all the false teachers, wolves, thieves, hirelings and novices in positions of authority that plague churches today.

Paul

[turtle (turtle)]

Hello Paul, Glad to see you still hanging around.

To everyone,
I think some good points have been made about statement of faith being needed. without one it can let the devil in to try and take control. What Ir really mean by devil is false teacher or preacher. People can be eloquent in speech and really lead people astray and slip in disguised. True it can still happen with a statement of faith, but if some guidelines are made it helps weed out some problems.

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Thanks Turtle,

Glad to see you're still around too and I'm happy that this string has been started.

I agree with you that a statement of faith is important but there are some churches with good sound statements of faith yet they have very different beliefs and practices in operation behind the scenes. This is often difficult to discover for those who are not in the typical “inner circle” of unbiblical favoritism. Unfortunately many of these never come to see the truth of how dangerous a church like this can be because they have fallen for the false doctrine of blind submission to their leaders.

Those who are not actively pursing truth, studying the Word for themselves and trusting Christ directly are prey for the predator, likely to be captured into a manmade system of unbiblical teachings and traditions. Once captured it can be very difficult for anyone to escape who remains ignorant of what the Scriptures really teach.

Paul

[sally (sally)]

Greetings all,

It is nice to see a real thread about home church, I've been looking for it all over the internet. The home churchers have been scared off, I think, because of all the disagreements and diversity of issues. I think they are, most of them, withdrawing from the internet. Which I'm not sure I totally disagree with them. But the bible says that God is not pleased with those who shrink back.

I will share with you all a couple of experiences I've had with trying to home church. The first home church experience I had was like 20 years ago when it wasn't even popular or talked about. There were just some people who had a difficult time in the church I attended and they left it and started to meet in their homes. We attended in that home church about two years. We didn't question anything that was told us or what they did. They got into some really far out doctrines about the bride that were just too far out for us and we ended up leaving them.

Then we moved like 5 states away into a totally new area. I've been looking off and on for about 5 or 6 years for people to home church with. We met some people in a city about 2 hours from us and the experience was really interesting. We had plans to start worshipping together, I think the one guy wanted to start an actual church. It got really interesting when we started to talk about if a woman could cover her head if she wanted to. They weren't too open to it. But before any could get started the one family moved away and everything fell apart.

In the city we live there aren't any home church groups that have been organized and we are in a pretty big city. I'm looking on the internet and found website like www.meetup.com (http://www.meetup.com) but no matter what website or home church group I find they are always in different cities. Nobody has started anything in my city yet that I can see.

After years and years of looking for people in my city who are interested in home churching I found one post from a person who lives in my own town and is 2 miles away from me. So tomorrow we are actually getting together for the first time. I guess they have some other people that they have been meeting with. So I'm really really excited about this. I know the bible says seek and you shall find and I think it's just an absolute miracle that after looking and searching for all these years I've just located someone just 2 miles from me. So pray for us.

At this point yet, I know doctrine is important, very important but I just want to meet them and get to know them, that's all. Have some breakfast together!!!!! Sounds fun, doesn't it!!

Sally

[turtle (turtle)]

Does sound fun only one thing make sure it not a group dissimiliar of your basic beliefs.

[sally (sally)]

Turtle,

I know that they are from the Assembly of God church, so I think that's pretty good. I was pretty happy when I found out about that. I think I wouldn't find any problem with assembling with people like that.

Yeah, I was just hoping they weren't fundementalist. And they aren't, so I was really glad about that.

It's not an easy process to start meeting with people in their homes, it really isn't. And I can't find anyone in Orlando hardly that is getting together.

But fellowship has come to mean something different to me than what it use to when I was attending an institutional church. My private time with God is when I'm home now. That is where I daily abide with Him, you might say. I've learned to live without a lot of other people around for fellowship. I don't like it that it's that way, but I don't believe God is going to require us to go into some deceived churches just so we can say "yeap, we are assembling together". I think it is just a much deeper issue than that. The bible has warned us over and over and over, many times about not letting yourself get decieved by false people. And then God would just want us to march into a church that is decieved to be assembling, that just doesn't even make any sense whatsoever at all. Just so we can say, yes, we are doing God's Word, we're assembling together even as we see the day approaching.

Assembling with other believers to me now can be when I met another person online and we talk. I'd sooner spend time with one or 2 people and really talk about serious things about God and what is happening and helping one another be more in Christ than what we already are. Assembling together now means meeting in a home or motel conference room with everyone bringing a plate of food and sitting around fellowship and talking about God and the Church. Everyone is just so into wanting to find the real truth now, it's never boring and everyone is always talking about Jesus, God, the Church, the falling away. Assembling together is just meeting that man and woman walking their dog and they've just happened to stop outside my RV and are looking at the sunset and we get talking together. And I find out they are serious christians and God's just brought them my way to chat.

I just truly want to be focused on the true Church now, the real Church, wherever that may be, wherever it is. We dispersed now, we're scattered now, we are here and we are there and we definitely out of the churches by now. Especially with this internet as more and more hear the real truth and what is really happening. And the real truth is that the falling away is so bad now that the churches just aren't doing things God's way anymore, they have itching ears. They want to do it their way, even if it isn't God's way. Yeah, their into their fables now, strong and firm!!!

Did you hear another major earthquake in Asia today? The destruction that Hurricane Stan has done to Central America? Look at Katrina and Rita and the tsunmias, people it's here. This is it, this is the start of the end. And the falling away has occurred now.


Sally

[turtle (turtle)]

True body of believer has no denomination but the same knowledge and understand who Jesus is. Guide by the HOly Spirit and not man. Amen. May God richly bless you as you search for new fellowship.

[sally (sally)]

Turtle,

I guess they are not getting together this Sunday (tomorrow) but the Sunday after this Sunday. So I guess I will have to wait another week to meet my new home church friends. I'm kind of disappointed I was looking forward to meeting them at 11 tomorrow.

Sally

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Hey Turtle - Right on!

Hi Sally,

Many great things in your post. You made some very good points. Sorry fellowship didn't work out for you today. Regarding assembly, you have an unusually healthy view. I believe that you truly have been spending some serious time with God.

The Bible teaches that we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is. They key word is “ourselves". This refers to disciples of Christ not disciples of men or of a denomination. You are correct in thinking that it’s foolish to just assemble to assemble as you said. Many make this mistake and fall into cults.

Sometimes our home meetings are small (just my family of 6) and other times larger. Not that I’m into numbers but last week we had five total guests. Today none. It changes depending on people’s schedules and what they are doing. Some aren’t sure and are still searching for (false) opportunities afforded in the competitive environment of an institutional church, “opportunities” that are not found in a biblical church. Some have moved out of state. Our largest meeting to date has only been 20 people including children and even that is rare, as few in this area (Chicago Southside suburbs) seem much interested in the truth.

Paul

[franklin (franklin)]

Whether you attend an institutional Christian church, home church or neither, just keep speaking and living the Word of God. Keep your eyes on God, not man. Speak and live the Word!

As Christians we are validators of the Word to the world. People meet us, see that we try to live the Word, we are validating the Word. We are doing what Christ commanded us to do.

Then they meet others who validate the Word. Finally they settle with whom they are comfortable with. People who validate the Word of God without beating them over the head with legalism. But as validators we have done our part.

We might be the first Christian or the last Christian to validate the Word of God to these seekers, but no matter what sequence, we've done our part.

Let's try to be the best validators of the Word of God that we can be. Not violators. Keep on validating the Word of God to everyone you meet!

[sally (sally)]

Paul,

It is great to hear from someone else that is also very dedicated to home church, not many are. I will home church regardless.

Well, if I have a healthy attitude it is because of what I have gone through in life. I'm very serious about God and I don't mess around. There are some really serious things happening out there and Satan would love nothing more to get us to return to his deception.

It's a serious thing to serve God.

The bible tells us that he who is not willing to bear his cross is not worthy of Him, it says that Jesus kindled a fire (and it is raging still), if we do not love mother, father, brother, sister, wife more than God we are not worthy of Him, He'll bring a sword 2 against 3, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law, father against son unto death (mind you to death). This is some serious stuff!!! And most don't realize just how serious but they will in days to come. I think may of them are going to be very regretful.

The days are drawing to an end. My goodness, just in the last year so many terrible natural disasters!!! This isn't normal, not this many. And that terrible earthquake in Pakistan, how very sad, my heart just aches.

I just heard that Sea World, and they have one down here in Orlando, is using some experimental technology for the government now. You can't enter the park unless you place your right hand in a scanner. So look how close we are too this happening, very close.

I heard President Bush Senior say with my own ears that he tried to implement the New World Order and it had failed. I was shocked when I heard him say that. Imagine how much closer they are to doing it now!

But we never know, it could fail again for a few more years or happen this time. It looks like they are really putting an all out effort into doing it again with this terrorist thing.

Sally

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Sally,

Every generation has thought that the rapture and the trubulation were going to take place in theri lifetime. It might not take place for another 350 years, or when the Jewish calendar hits 6000 for that matter. Various world leaders throughout history were thought to be the anti-Christ. There have been times on Earth that have been many times worse than things are today. Let's be faithful without getting paranoid. Yes, Satan is out to get us. And Satan goes to church.

--Alan.

[sally (sally)]

Wyoming,

That is true, but some time it is going to happen. After all now over 2000 years have past now. And we have abortions now that they've never had in the past, so the days are worse than ever before. And the days are getting like the days of Lot too.

It's silly to sit around and talk about when something that the bible tells us will happen, is actually going to happen really. It really doesn't matter when it happens it just matters that we are ready. Unless you don't really think it will happen.

Definitely techology has to evolve to the point that the things the bible say will happen can. I mean I have thought about it that the people in Africa, the poor people how will they get scanned to buy and sell? But then again the antichrist will have 3 and 1/2 years to go full force to implement his great plan before his plan goes into effect. Three and a half years is a long time when knowledge is doubling every 20 months now. You get the whole world behind you, every man in every army and all the nations and see how much you can achieve in 3 1/2 years, probably a lot! I would imagine.

Sally

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Sally,

Thank you but please don't get me wrong. I am dedicated to Christ not to home church per se. I'd meet with genuine Christians on the side of a mountain, in a park, in a house or in a barn. It's not about the real estate. Jesus demonstrated this principle by the diversity of where He taught.

There’s a lot of “home churchers” (I’m not saying you) who are all about home church. Everything revolves around convincing everyone to meet in homes. (I am not saying that you are doing this). Suddenly it’s not about Jesus anymore. The same kind of thing happens to many music ministries, prophetic ministries, etc. They become music-centric, prophecy-centric, etc. not in a healthy way as in simply using their gifts but overboard to the displacement of Christ. Nothing must be allowed to displace the centrality of Christ in our lives.

Yes, buildings are vastly overused today and often lead to a building-centric mentality where everything in the church starts to revolve around the needs, upkeep and expansion of the facilities. So we must be careful. But if God leads a rich person in a congregation, for example, to donate a building without debt and without a pastor manipulating members out of their money for it, who are we to say they cannot meet there?

God knows what various congregations need (and who might be able to handle a building without going nuts over it) and who cannot handle a building. In general, I’ve seen a lot of problems with buildings and how they greatly hurt congregations. Very few congregations can handle them due to problems caused by unbiblical controlling leadership structures in operation in most churches today. If that were not the case, buildings would be less of a problem. But currently, many churches would be far better off meeting in someone’s big house or a rented room.

But let’s say, for example, that in a particular area, that large meetings in private homes is forbidden by the laws of that city. Christians there might then need to rent a room if available or build a humble building. They would likely do this out of love and to demonstrate submission to governmental authorities as Christ commanded.

My point is that we can’t legislate a doctrine here. We can only point out the practicalities and difficulties with this particular course of action because there is NO “Thou Shalt Not Build a Building” in the Scriptures. However, we see as a pattern that the early church did not build buildings. Yet we cannot convert a pattern in the Scriptures into a doctrine or command. This is what many legalists do.

I will happily meet with genuine brothers and sisters who hold to sound doctrine anywhere they meet. We meet in a house primarily because there is no other viable alternative where we live at this time. Area churches are worldly, heretical or both.

If I learned of some true elders (rare indeed) in the area that were meeting in a rented room or even building, I would be happy to go meet them, check it out and maybe combine works if the Lord so led. There are home church heretics and institutional church heretics. We must be on guard. It’s about beliefs and practices far more than where we meet.

Paul

[sally (sally)]

Paul,

You know some people follow the latest fad even in the "christian" world. I'm sure there are those that are home churching because it's the latest new thing to do.

I don't mean this to be a mean, but those are the kind of people I wish weren't home churching. Some are just bringing their institutional church right along with them into the home churches. If I would have wanted the institutional church I would have stayed there.

Are there heretics in home churches, sure there are. It is just important for us today to not let any one deceive us by any means.

I kind of see it like the 10 virgins are us at the end days now. We're starting to wake up, while we were half asleep it was possible for us to get caught up in a home church cult or just a bad situation. But as we fully wake up, boy, it's going to be much much harder for that to happen to us. Especially when we understand that God doesn't want us to let others deceive us and entrap us in cults. He gives us permission to leave them, it's not true what they say about you when you want to leave them. God doesn't want us to let ourselves be deceived. It's OK if you don't let yourself be deceived. God gives us that permission. It's a good thing, it's a strong thing, it's a noble thing, and it the right thing to do not to let yourself be deceive by anyone.

That's why I don't let it upset me if I get involved with a home church and then have to leave. It use to be this big old emotional experience for me and I just don't look at it that way anymore. If they aren't right, then I leave. So many people feel that just because we are told to assembly ourselves together even as we see the day approaching that means we have to met with the local group of home churchers, it's like we think we have no choice. You have a choice, you don't have to met with any group that is going to draw you down. Go home and worship with your own family and wait and see who God brings along in your life to worship with. It's no crime to go from group to group, especially if they aren't doing it right. We have the right not to be deceived.

Sally

[wyoming (wyoming)]

A former group of separatists I was with were large enough that we were too big for homes and we had to rent the use of auditoriums such as womens clubs and lodges. We decided to get out of the Masonic Lodge because of what we found out about their pagan rituals. When searching for other communities, the property owners wanted us to get insurance and licenses or permits from the city. The cities and the insurance companies wanted us to have an incorporated name. For us it would be the worst thing we could do in denominating ourselves with a name. We ended up finding situations in unincorporated county areas because the cities were more demanding.

[friend (friend)]

Wyoming....first, good to see you back. Second, your beliefs about baptism reflect my own. Interestingly enough there are several groups that have that understanding as well....Salvation Army, Christ's Sanctified Holy Church, Society of Friends.

[sally (sally)]

To all,

I am very interested in home church message boards and websites. If you know of any would you please let me know. I'm really having a very hard time finding any message board that I can stay on for any amount of time.

Wyoming, it sounds to me like you've at least been around fairly large groups of people. Can I ask if you all believed in the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

Home churching really is interesting to me. I find it absolutely fascinating. I've found home church discussion groups and only lasted one day on them because their views are different than mine. One thing I find in the home church movement is that the issue of women preachers is separating people into two groups.

If it is anything like the thread over in Doctrine/beliefs/proofs/practices it is hopeless. People are just so stuck on believing their fables now. I'm starting to get to the point that God has gotten to. He says let he who is righeous be righeous, he who is filthy be filthy, he who is unrighteous, be unrighteous. I say let them believe what they want to believe. It seems as though things are about sealed now to for the end to me. Most people are believing in fables and most are in a delusion now. I just about can't comprehend this, but it is to the point that Jesus wondered. There isn't hardly any real faith anymore. And heavenly forbid if those with real faith would get together with others, they would probably in a short time no longer be real faith anymore. Maybe that is why God has kept all of us separated, so we wouldn't corrupt one another.

Sally

[sally (sally)]

Anyone know of any good home church message boards to go to? I'd like them to believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit function today.

Sally

[bee (bee)]

Sally can you email me? I would like to speak to you more about home churches &amp; beliefs. Friendly talk, as I picked up on some of the same things you &amp; I believe. Bless You.
fitnessbee@hotmail.com

[iamlives (iamlives)]

sally, I would appreciate an email as well! I've been looking for fellowship with others of similar beliefs,

lkludeke@copper.net

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Sally,

I was kind of thinking this was becoming a good string. Unless I am reading you wrong, apparently you do not. It seems like you are planning to move on. Regarding your post before last: On the contrary, God is not saying that he is who is filthy or unrighteous should remain that way. He calls all men to repentance. And no, God does not separate those of real faith, (those of the truth) from others of the truth. We are only supposed to separate from those of unrepentant sin or serious error (Rom 16:17-18, 1Cor5, 2Thess3, etc.). When those of real faith get together, they do not destroy each other as you suggest. They find genuine unity unto Christ and His Headship, not a counterfeit unity unto a man or a man’s peculiar views. Those of the false church usually attempt to destroy true disciples.

[bear (bear)]

Most house church's are born out of rebellion; this is not a good thing.

From a biblical model, all church's were ordained by another church, or spiritual head.

Where two are three are gathered is not a proof text for a house church. Now, some church's start in a house, but those that do it correctly, have some form of spiritual covering.

We can not equate a HC in the USA with one in China. That is like the proverbial apples and oranges.

(Message edited by beAR on October 17, 2005)

[common_sense (common_sense)]

<font color="0000ff">Most house church's are born out of rebellion</font>

Generalization -- please cite evidence.

<font color="0000ff">From a biblical model, all church's were ordained by another church, or spiritual head. </font>

Scriptural basis for this statement?

<font color="0000ff">Now, some church's start in a house, but those that do it correctly, have some form of spiritual covering.</font>

Please define "spiritual covering" if other than Christ.

<font color="0000ff">We can not equate a HC in the USA with one in China.</font>

Why?

[bear (bear)]

Common Sense,

Fair questions.

1. Every house church that I have seen, and those seen by others, have one thing in common: They did not like something, or their doctrine was off, so they decided to "make" a church in their house. When the high percentage of HC are started for this reason, or others similar, it ceases to be generalization.

2. The book of Acts is a great place to start. Anytime a person was sent out, they had hands laid on them, they were prayed for, and their work blessed. Every letter to a church was done so from an authority figure. Every person who deviated from this fellowship was put on the spot; people were discouraged from having any dealings with them.

Show me on shred of textual evidence to support a house church without spiritual covering.

3. As for spiritual covering. In the scriptures, spiritual covering comes from those in authority over us. Yes, Christ is our covering, but a comment like yours shows your lack of biblical knowledge. God has placed spiritual heads in our life. When people say "my only head is Christ" they are not following the biblical pattern.

4. In the USA we are reaching Americans, not Chinese. The Chinese church is persecuted; forced to meet underground. However, there is still a organized church. Come on, read the facts about this stuff before you comment!

[warr (warr)]

here's too senerios Bear-sometimes it's best "these" people stay in their houses if they are causing problems in every church they attend because they can't find the "perfect" one let them stay home we'd all be alot better off then with the constant conflicts they cause(not all of them but some are just trouble makers) also some folks just don't feel comfortable in the large mega churches of day they get lost in the fold and a small familiar group may be the best way for them to grow spiritually-warr

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Bear:

I don’t have the space right now to address all the errors you expressed, but I would like to touch on one:

I quote you: <font color="0000ff">“As for spiritual covering. In the scriptures, spiritual covering comes from those in authority over us. Yes, Christ is our covering, but a comment like yours shows your lack of biblical knowledge. God has placed spiritual heads in our life. When people say "my only head is Christ" they are not following the biblical pattern.”</font>

Ahh, the false doctrine of a man as our covering:

On the contrary Bear, you advocate that which Christ prohibited and that which the Scriptures clearly teach against. You make the common and very popular erroneous claim that man can in fact obey two masters when Jesus said that was impossible and that someone making such and attempt would love the one master and hate the other. The context of this passage is clearly regarding money but the principle applies to anything or anyone that would master us. We know this because the fact is self-evident and because other Scriptures uphold this teaching such as in 1Cor 11:3, where we see that the Head of every man is Christ. We see NO mention of Christ AND a man such as a pastor for example, both being heads. In Matt 23: 8-10, we see that we have ONE MASTER, Christ and we are all brothers – not two masters (Jesus and the Senior Pastor), not three masters (Jesus, the Senior Pastor and his Associate Pastor), not four masters and so on. Your teaching flies in the face of the clear teachings of the Scriptures such as Mark10: 42-45 where we are commanded not to lord over (control) each others as the gentiles do who exercise authority over those that they govern. Common sense would dictate this question: Just what is one supposed to do when master #2 (or head) gives instructions that contradict with those of Master #1? You simply cannot obey two masters simultaneously. It is abusive to teach and to try to follow your theology on this subject.

If you get this key principle wrong, you get virtually everything wrong regarding authority in the church and even to a great degree an erroneous view of ecclesiology in general (the study of the church itself). Your thinking keeps the wolves, thieves, hirelings and novices in positions of authority in business. No one has authority over us, but God appoints those who have the WATCH over us. Big difference. There is no covering attributed to those who faithfully watch over us, but there is genuine wisdom gained by their examples and protection that is found in God.

Jesus Christ alone is HEAD of the church (Eph 1:22, Col 1:18). Why do you think most churches can’t get along? The answer is simple: they have multiple heads, each with their own eccentricities and peculiar visions for THEIR churches. Jesus gave us His vision for the church directly and through His Apostles. Today we have a number of churches in counterfeit unity that seem to get along with one another but this is just because they have unwittingly submitted to a single human head (not unlike a Roman Pope), a man who gives them their marching orders, a man who gained his counterfeit authority by selling millions of his books and rallying a huge following unto himself. Jesus never said you shall know them by their book sales or by the size of their churches. He said you shall know them by their fruit. Other Scriptures also teach, in so many words, that we shall also know them by their doctrine.

Sadly, it seems that you support counterfeit authority and manmade military and corporate hierarchical structures. If only the church would give the world real examples of authority to follow, we wouldn’t have some many churches looking to the world for answers and following their ways.

Paul Howey

[overseas (overseas)]

Hello Paul. I agree.
If some beduins find a Bible in the desert and in few years there is a fine christian community there, if their doctrine is right and they do right things, then what 'covering' do they need ? On the other hand, acting under some 'covering' may allow for abuses. In the end, Jesus said His Word will be the judge, there is no other criteria over His Word. Then, where is the 'covering' ?

[warr (warr)]

yes and you can hold church in a brothel too-warr

[turtle (turtle)]

I would like to speak up for need for house church in this way.
I personally know people who have been treated badly by their church they went too and would not go back because of it. But in their hearts they desire to know truth of God word. They found people like them and began to meet for bible study. Can this group become a church if it grows, I believe so. I do not wish to force people into a building where they do not feel welcome do to clothes, speech, handicap or some other thing they got in their way. Most ministers are not this snobby to people who have physical or mental, or financai needs but people in the church can be that way. If people feel shunned for this reason what is the harm for them to meet together invite new people to come and study God's word. Or should they stick it out in that church that critized them and feel like an outcast. I am glad right now I can have both worlds of a church and a home bible study group that might just become a church if it grows.

[warr (warr)]

Very true Turtle-up here in Michigan we have a "Drive-In" church-I know a lady who attends because she has a fear of crowds and feels more comfortable in her automobile-people can worship whereever they like as long as they aren't doing it out of rebellion

[turtle (turtle)]

Warr, Only time I could see has rebellion has being a good thing if a church was teaching false doctrines and they had gone and spoke with the pastor and elders and were told this was not true. And it wasn't just a difference of interpetation or understanding.

[warr (warr)]

yes but I wouldn't call that rebellion I'd call that a protest-rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft(I didn't mean to sound preachy with that last quote)http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[turtle (turtle)]

Warr, I don't disagree. I sound a bit preachy at times but you weren't being preachy.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.
Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them".

http://www.churchgrowth.cc/the_need.htm

[warr (warr)]

amen wyoming -it doesn't get much clearer then that-the Bible really isn't as deep as some try to make it-it's pretty understandable isn't it-God' truly is not interested in all the pomp and circumstance of the church-the big buildings-the highend sunday school bus or big screen tv's on each side of the altar or weather a women or man can speak in front of the crowd it's really about simply loving others into His kingdom

[setfree (setfree)]

Wyoming nailed it. A few months ago it finally dawned on me that Matthew 18:20 is about as good a definition of "church" there is.

Turtle, you said earlier:
"They found people like them and began to meet for bible study. Can this group become a church if it grows, I believe so."

I would say they already are church.

We need to get into our heads that church is not the place or time we gather (something we go to); it is who and what we are. Always.

[turtle (turtle)]

Amen! It is still hard to think in terms of church that way when one is still trained to meet in a building but the definition has always been Matthew 18:20. It not whether the Spirit falls He should already be there if you are meeting with other brothers and sisters in the Lord. There are christians people love to be with because when you are among them you have no doubt the reality of God in ones heart. I can remember as a child seeing those what some might call super christians not realizing it had nothing to do with being super christian. When christians began to have fellowship God presence is felt, why because no doubt he is there. But wasnt' He there all along inside every believer. Do we not as christian commune with God by ourselves in our personal walk with Him. Then let me ask a pencostal why would the Spirit of God have to fall on a group to get blessed. That is still a pencostal term i do not agree with. Anyone got a good answer.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Religious people hold themselves in high esteem and insult God when they think they need to help God with a better program - as if God needs their help. It's for entertainment, empire building, crowd control, status, and power.

Psalm 46:10, "Be still and know that I am God."

Micah 6:8, "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God."

Deuteronomy 10:12-13, "And now Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of the Lord, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good."

(Message edited by Wyoming on October 18, 2005)

[turtle (turtle)]

wyoming,
Ps 46:10 is one of my favorite verses whether one is alone or in a crowd sometimes we just need to be still and know God to have relationship with him to commune with HIm.

The other two versess is my hearts cry. Thank you for posting them.

[bear (bear)]

Paul,

I agree in one respect, and disagree in another.

By covering, I mean sent out; a father/son type of relationship. We see this in the book of Acts. We also see this through Paul's ministry.

Paul wrote 2/3 of the NT. He wrote these letters as a man in authority. If what you are saying is true, then we need to trash the letters to the church in Corinth, to Timmothy, infact, all of Paul's letters.

Paul and Timmothy is another great example.

Yes, Jesus did give us his vision, however, God also gives individuals a vision, which may be different from another, in line with that vision. I am not for denominational structure. I believe that the pastor is the head of that church, yet he must have spiritual fathers in his life.

God gives us people in our life as leaders. Most house church's are started by people who have the belief system that you shared. My expirience has proven that they do not want anyone telling them what to do. Every scripture that you stated does not really prove the intended position.

Yes, many church's have dictators for pastors. This is the exception, not the rule. God uses people to also have leadership over us. Mavericks usally end up in big trouble.

As for everything else, which time does not allow for you to expose my error, I say that is too bad. The dogma that you expressed is embraced by less than 1/2% of Christians. I am not moved by the minority, especially when I know what it takes to make a church work.

Let me say this in closing: I believe that a house church is great when it is legitamate. Many church plants begin in a home, however, their goal is not to stay small, rather, to reach out to the community. Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them and were sent out. They were given a blessing by those who held a spiritual covering over them (this was ordained by God). If a HC receives a biblical sending, then go for it. If not, then 9 times out of 10, it is born in rebellion.

The proof is in the proverbial pudding!

Note: I am debating the content of your post, not trying to offend you as a brother.

[bear (bear)]

Paul,

I agree in one respect, and disagree in another.

By covering, I mean sent out; a father/son type of relationship. We see this in the book of Acts. We also see this through Paul's ministry.

Paul wrote 2/3 of the NT. He wrote these letters as a man in authority. If what you are saying is true, then we need to trash the letters to the church in Corinth, to Timmothy, infact, all of Paul's letters.

Paul and Timmothy is another great example.

Yes, Jesus did give us his vision, however, God also gives individuals a vision, which may be different from another, in line with that vision. I am not for denominational structure. I believe that the pastor is the head of that church, yet he must have spiritual fathers in his life.

God gives us people in our life as leaders. Most house church's are started by people who have the belief system that you shared. My expirience has proven that they do not want anyone telling them what to do. Every scripture that you stated does not really prove the intended position.

Yes, many church's have dictators for pastors. This is the exception, not the rule. God uses people to also have leadership over us. Mavericks usally end up in big trouble.

As for everything else, which time does not allow for you to expose my error, I say that is too bad. The dogma that you expressed is embraced by less than 1/2% of Christians. I am not moved by the minority, especially when I know what it takes to make a church work.

Let me say this in closing: I believe that a house church is great when it is legitamate. Many church plants begin in a home, however, their goal is not to stay small, rather, to reach out to the community. Paul and Barnabas had hands laid on them and were sent out. They were given a blessing by those who held a spiritual covering over them (this was ordained by God). If a HC receives a biblical sending, then go for it. If not, then 9 times out of 10, it is born in rebellion.

The proof is in the proverbial pudding!

Note: I am debating the content of your post, not trying to offend you as a brother.

[common_sense (common_sense)]

Wow! Great thoughts! I definitely vote that "FACTNet Post of the Week" -- and it's in the running for "Post of the Year." http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

A few ideas that really jumped out at me:

<font color="0000ff">-There must be a doctrinal reason to separate, not an emotional one.

-More small churches means more pastors and teachers to be used.

-churches mean people and the church is as good or scriptural as the people that make it.

-Christians should be free to build and express different honest opinions and learn to live together in the same church.

-I am not in favor of un-supervised or loosely managed churches, just advocate for the Christians’ individual freedom INSIDE the church. Cause I believe without individual freedom there is no individual responsibility.

-The church is as vulnerable as the weakest member. Church is strengthened when we support our weakest brother to search, understand and be convinced of God’s truth.

-Why should he ask for approval if he IS the church ? </font>

There's enough to chew on for a long time -- thank you!

(Message edited by common sense on October 20, 2005)

[warr (warr)]

great so I guess this means we are all pretty much in agreement here worship where you want but do it from a pure heart-gosh do posts really need to be that long to make your point!! next post

[common_sense (common_sense)]

warr,
I usually just skim or skip past posts that long, but that one was worth reading carefully! There were some tremendous insights in it.

[overseas (overseas)]

Sorry for the long post, but it is you all that raised so many interesting crucial topics. It is great to participate to your thread.

[warr (warr)]

overseas it was great I didn't mean to be smart-warr

[fatherofaking (fatherofaking)]

there will come a time when all of christendom wil be united under the umberella of ecumenism.
the catholic church is getting close to bringing what they call the wayword christians under their authority once again. this they say is when the kingdom of heaven will be here on earth. they are so right! what will happen is that jesus will return in order to stop the tyrany and persecution from the so called people of god that have agreed to disagree on the commands of christ. if you are a part of the catholic church or any protestent denomantions get out while you can. they will not tolerate anything that deviates from there set standards however and the time will come when all that will not conform will be persecuted. some to the point of death. in the name of a unity that is not unity at all.

[overseas (overseas)]

It is interesting to note that many denominations hold to the dominionist view of church triumphant in the last days ! I could never reconcile with that doctrine, based on scripture and what happens in the world. My understanding is that real christians will be persecuted in the last days more than ever. This is why we should be prepared to live with God first on personal/ not corporate level.

[overseas (overseas)]

Hello warr.
It is interesting to note that many denominations hold to the dominionist view of church triumphant in the last days ! I could never reconcile with that doctrine, based on scripture and what happens in the world. My understanding is that real christians will be persecuted in the last days more than ever. This is why we should be prepared to live with God first on personal/ not corporate level.

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Thanks Overseas,

It's great to read your posts too! Lots of good thoughts.

Paul

[setfree (setfree)]

Overseas,
Great post, thanks for adding to the conversation!

You said after,
<font color="0000ff">It is interesting to note that many denominations hold to the dominionist view of church triumphant in the last days ! I could never reconcile with that doctrine, based on scripture and what happens in the world.</font> <font color="000000">

There are several threads on last days around this forum. I'm in a minority position, but I offer an attempt to help you reconcile with the church triumphant doctrine. It has to do with how we view/filter the scriptures (our paradigm). If we believe that the "last days", or great tribulation, lies ahead in the future - it is nearly impossible to reconcile. If, however, one sees the last days/great tribulation as already fulfilled (which can be done scripturally &amp; historically), there is HOPE, and the ability to hold onto promises such as "of the increase of His government there shall be no end"; "the Lord said to my Lord 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool'"; "the bride has made herself ready", etc.

God bless!</font>

(Message edited by setfree on October 20, 2005)

[fatherofaking (fatherofaking)]

setfree
scripture and history can be used to prove most any point. there in lies the problem.
the deception will be so great that even the elect will be decieved if that were possble. this is in the bible as well.
the reason that the elect will not be decieved is because they have the holy spirit. the only ones that will know who they are will be god and others that have the holy spirit.

[turtle (turtle)]

It was interesting to see all we wrote condensed into one long statement. I do think we are more in agreement then in disagreement on alot of issues but it is breaking down language barriers.

[setfree (setfree)]

fatherofaking-

"scripture and history can be used to prove most any point. there in lies the problem. "

Yes, people can twist scripture to prove just about any point - no argument there. However, Scripture in and of itself is Truth, which, when supported by historical facts, gives credibility to a particular scriptural worldview.

I would be far more concerned with the dangers of what has been called "newspaper exegesis", or trying to read Bible prophesy into every news headline.

Could it be that the enemy is trying to deceive us by weighing us down with concerns over a horrible time to come that just isn't so, thereby stealing from us the ability to grasp all the promises and benefits afforded to us by Jesus' atonement on the cross?

"the deception will be so great that even the elect will be decieved if that were possble. this is in the bible as well.
the reason that the elect will not be decieved is because they have the holy spirit."

I agree with the statement, except that it happened already. The elect in Jerusalem knew to get out and not be deceived prior to its judgment and destruction in AD70. The Holy Spirit reminded them of Jesus's olivet discourse (Matt 24, the whole text supports my argument, but I've selected verses here that emphasize my point)(one should read from Matt 23 as well, as this leads into the olivet discourse). Jesus was clear the Great Tribulation was coming to Jerusalem and vicinity, it was coming to that generation, and He spoke privately and specifically to His disciples concerning them and their generation. Was Jesus a liar?

Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed <u>from the temple</u>: and his disciples came to him for to shew him <u>the buildings of the temple</u>.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There <u>shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.</u>
Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive <u>you</u>.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
...
Mat 24:9 <u>Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you</u>: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
Mat 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
...
Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
...
Mat 24:15 When <u>ye therefore shall see</u> the <u>abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet</u>, <u>stand in the holy place</u>, (whoso readeth, let him understand)
Mat 24:16 Then let <u>them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains</u>:
Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Mat 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Mat 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
Mat 24:20 <u>But pray ye that your flight</u> be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
...
Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when <u>ye shall see</u> all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, <u>This generation</u> shall not pass, <u>till all these things be fulfilled</u>.

"Generation" in the NT ALWAYS means a group of people living at the same time; Jesus would have used a different word for "race of people" or "human race" or "people group".

Jesus was speaking PRIVATELY to His disciples. He said "YOU" in warning them, not "my future people".

Jesus is clear the Great tribulation was to occur in Jerusalem and surrounds. He gave specific warnings (the abomination of desolation in the holy of holies).

All of the things Jesus warned of specifically have happenned and are validated either by scripture itself and historical fulfillment. The great tribulation was God's final judgment on the system and people (Jews who rejected Christ and continued in OT sacrifices) who refused to accept the New Covenant offered by Christ - the once and for all Sacrifice for our sins. God left the holy of holies (veil torn from top to bottom) the moment Christ's sacrifice was complete. In patience and longsuffering, He waited the full generation (40 years) to execute final judgement on the temple order, as He is now building a new temple of living stones.

If all this troubles the reader, look carefully at your own foundation of end-times belief, and compare it to God's Word. As I have said on other threads, in this scripturally supported and sound worldview, I enjoy tremendous freedom in knowing that God is in control, on the throne, that His purposes and promises for us are true, and that we are part of building something of eternal value. The generations that proceed from me will know who they are as kings and priests unto our God, that they have been called with a purpose, and they need not fear anything. That is not to say we will not face various tribulations in our lives, but that the thought of escaping (rapture) from a future worldwide calamity is of no concern to us.

Grace and peace.

(Sorry to go off topic)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Setfree,

Instead of breaking the wonderful spirit of todays immediate postings and going off topic, why don't you start a Pretorist thread so that folks can understand where you are coming from and not be confused by the doctrine you are proposing: That Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD rather than about 90 AD. [sic] And that God is finished with the nation of Israel: The promise to Abraham null and void, the everlasting covenant null and void, and the new covenant with Israel and the house of Judah [which hasn't been fulfilled yet] null and void.

--Alan.

[setfree (setfree)]

Alan,

I was simply bringing an answer to overseas and balance to fatherofaking's doom and gloom approach to the future. Why isn't he singled out for his 10:32AM post?

I requested that the house church thread be started and will endeavor to stay on point. There is a lot of great insight here. In no way have I intended to break the wonderful spirit of today's postings; I was flowing with the topic at hand and sharing my view.

That all said, I appreciate your reminder to stay on topic, and once again, will endeavor to stay on point.

God bless.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.

Sometime we can't help it but this one was a douzy. Otherwise, I appreciate you and your postings tremendously.

[warr (warr)]

get out of the house and go to church

[setfree (setfree)]

Alan - you're right - it was a douzy - my bad! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif

Thanks

[turtle (turtle)]

get out of the house and go to church by warr,

Why leave the house lets have church on line.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

[warr (warr)]

yeah-I love it!!! hide the beer the pastors here!! see turtle when I run out of logical things to say-the foolishness comes out

[turtle (turtle)]

Some churches like catholic you wouldn't have to hide the beer or is that wine. Who knows I am neither. LOL

[mikko (mikko)]

house church is for the worldy unless you live in a country where Christian persecution is high like China ,Saudi Arabia ,Malaysia, Vietnam ,Laos, Sudan ,Eritrea, ..you don't need it ,the house church frenzy has started because of some that were wounded in a church hurt or disappointed and some have a spirit of offense as they are never satisfied that the church can't do anything right FOR THEM (selfishness)
i could give 10 scriptures but i know they will be ignored so if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant still..

[turtle (turtle)]

Mikko who you calling ignorant. Some people cant get to church should they be denied fellowship withone another and not have bible study or church in their homes.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Mikko,

Be careful to not generalize because "always" and "never" are <u>seldom</u>. People do the right things for the wrong reasons and the wrong things for the right reasons. Christians can have house churches for the wrong reasons and for the RIGHT REASONS. Consider that!

--Alan
http://www.churchgrowth.cc/

[common_sense (common_sense)]

<font color="0000ff">i could give 10 scriptures but i know they will be ignored so if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant still..</font>

Go ahead, mikko, I'd love to hear them.

Keep in mind that believers ARE the Church and "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I (Christ) in the midst of them." What is a church other than two or three or 200 or 2000 believers gathered in Christ's name? All the organization in the world does not change the essence.

[turtle (turtle)]

Warr, church got interupted sorry. I guess we could have church on another thread.

[warr (warr)]

see what I mean with people like mikko in church who would want to go ha..ha.. some people are just too closeminded when it comes to how God can work as if it has to be within the walls of a denomination

[turtle (turtle)]

Mikko, you aren't one of them people that believe you have to be in a certain church also????

BAD Turtle

[overseas (overseas)]

Setfree, thank you and I am gonna have a close look at your coomentary.

Mikko post gives a boost to our discussion, isn't it ? I am not advocating for 'doing house church' as a purpose in itself. But if one seriously follows the Lord and is interested in close fellowship and opportunity to serve others, one may end up in a house church.
I am used to have bible studies with students and now I am opening my house for inviting them or I am going where they invite me for fellowship. My pastors know about this and have nothing against it.
On the other hand I have seen many house churches in the countryside of my country, where people are too poor, too busy to make a living of agriculture and too uneducated for doing church in a very formal and ceremonial way. And that was good and genuine experience.

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Re: "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I (Christ) in the midst of them."

Amen, and...

Not that we are adamant about small numbers per se, but better are 2, 3, 6, 10 or 30, etc. gathered in the name of Christ than 300 or 3,000 gathered in the name of a man.

[mikko (mikko)]

in a house church ,who is the pastor? where does the tithe go ? any equipping ? any evangelism ?
ah yeah the usual defense ''where there are two or three gathered in my name there am i in the midst of them"
however the house church many of them gather in thier own names ,yeah they believe theres a Jesus but if he is Lord they will do what he says.

[warr (warr)]

wow mikko aren't you the pompus one today who the heck cares who the pastor is where the tithe goes etc-half the people don't know where it's going in a "regular" church oh I know most of it goes into the pastors pocket wise up cut the crap and all the legality you don't need a big building to evangelize you should be doing that on your own daily anyway-warr-

[turtle (turtle)]

Mikko read the thread those questions were answered in this thread because i asked a few of them myself. And yes there can be evangelism this way. That was not answered. It is not up to just a pastor to do evangelism work. It is up to every christian.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

1 Peter 2:9 [To all the church:]

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."

Can some of you help me find more scriptures on the priesthood of all believers?

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Before anyone can answer, "Who is the pastor?", they must first know what a pastor is and is not.

A genuine elder (overseer or pastor as commonly called) is supposed to be a faithful servant-guard protector who watches over those they care for (not control). Unlike the business CEO's running most of today's churches, the genuine elder, among other things, pleads, admonishes, lovingly attempts to convince, and if necessary even begs those in their care to continue in and adhere to the teachings of the Bible.
They do not sit in comfortable offices cracking out commands and dictating policies. The average church has a “worldling” in charge who is skilled at convincing naïve believers (and unbelievers as well) that they are "movers and shakers" with abilities to “move the church ahead”. Their skills often include a combination of anything and everything but the discernment necessary to spot false teachings that attack the sheep. Lack of discernment prevents a potential teacher from being able to teach accurately and therefore disqualifies them from being able to be an elder. An elder must be able to teach (1Tim 3:2). This is a Biblical requirement. It’s not negotiable.

Paul

[fatherofaking (fatherofaking)]

Ro 15:16 To be a servant of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, doing the work of a priest in the good news of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles might be pleasing to God, being made holy by the Holy Spirit.
1pe 2:5 You, as living stones, are being made into a house of the spirit, a holy order of priests, making those offerings of the spirit which are pleasing to God through Jesus Christ.
Re 1:6 And has made us to be a kingdom and priests to his God and Father; to him let glory and power be given for ever and ever. So be it.
Re 5:10 And have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are ruling on the earth.
Re 20:6 Happy and holy is he who has a part in this first coming: over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will be ruling with him a thousand years.

[common_sense (common_sense)]

Paul,
Are you familiar with Alexander Strauch?

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Common Sense,

Yes, I am familiar with Alexander Strauch. While his book “Biblical Eldership” teaches a number of things that are consistent with what the Bible already teaches on this subject matter, Alexander seems to miss the big picture: The source of true authority, the reality of the Headship of Christ and the fact that We have One Master Christ and we are all brothers and equals (see my previous posts).

I quote from Biblical Eldership: <font color="0000ff">“It was never our Lord's will for one individual to control the local church.”</font>

True! But it was never the Lords intention for a group of men to control the church either! (Mark10: 42-45, Matt 23: 8-10, etc.)

Alexander’s work seems to in part, shift the control of a church from a one-man to a multi-man team. This is really no help. It can actually cause more problems as it has an “appearance” of wisdom and will therefore tempt many to drop their guards even further. The average Christian today needs a predisposition towards more discernment not less.

While a proper plurality of elders is good (faithful servant-guard protectors who watch, warn, plead with and admonish those that they care for - NOT CONTROL), Alexander seems to inadvertently advocate a type of controlling plurality of eldership that can quickly digress into a multi-man dictatorial leadership system or worse might even be a wolf pack in disguise. I would rather contend with a single lone wolf than an entire wolf pack. The only thing I can think of that is worse than a one-man novice or one-man wolf is a group of three or four novices or wolves in synergy with each other drawing off each other’s diversities in abilities. This can create a very dangerous and beguiling multi-minded “super-leader” with a diversity of earthly talents. A church so governed has not the headship of Christ.

Alexander’s teachings facilitate a multi-man heavy shepherd clergy-laity hierarchy known as Nicolaitanism which greatly suppresses believers. The word Nicolaitan comes from a compound Greek term. “Nico” means suppression or conquering. “Laos” means people and is where we get the word laity. Jesus said that He hates the practices and teachings of the Nicolaitans (Rev 2: 6, Rev 2: 15). Even though it seems that Alexander whole-heartedly tries to avoid a clergy-laity separation, he unwittingly creates one. He simply creates a hierarchy with less official levels. Christ must remain the sole Head otherwise we have multiple masters in our midst and Jesus made it clear that it is impossible to obey two masters (let alone three, four, five or more).

Certainly, over time, due to the faithful service of a particular elder, a church may choose to heed the warnings of that more seasoned and established person in the congregation in comparison to the advice of some other people in the assembly. But that elder has EARNED the right for his advice to be followed due to a life of good service, sound doctrine and good example to the believers. Additionally, he who brings the most biblically accurate teachings or “revelations” on a particular subject obviously earns the right to be heard and heeded. It about gifting and performance, not titles.

Alexander also advocates the “first among equals” error which is an obvious contradiction in terms that immediately collapses upon itself. Because, as soon as one of the “equals” is considered to be the "first" or "greatest" among them, he is no longer an equal. Simple logic. Alexander dances a tight rope in an attempt to incorrectly establish validity for one of the elders to ultimately be in charge over the other elders, who in turn are supposedly in charge of the whole assembly. Not true.

Alexander is a church elder within an obvious framework of control so he probably cannot see these problems. This is likely because he has probably not submitted his doctrine on these issues to Scriptural examination. Christians tend to fail to examine unbiblical practices that they unwittingly take part in.

Sorry for the long answer to a very short question -

Thanks,

Paul Howey

[common_sense (common_sense)]

<font color="0000ff">Sorry for the long answer to a very short question -</font>

Don't be. I very much appreciate your insight and have seen some of the pitfalls you describe.

[setfree (setfree)]

Likewise, thanks for the valuable insight Paul. I had never heard of Alexander Strauch until reading common sense's question to you last night. I immediately looked him up. While he comes a long way in bringing restoration to biblical eldership, I also struggled with (and believe he falls short) with the "leader among equals" doctrine. This was "taught" in my former IC; but in reality it was a one-man dictatorship, surrounded by yes-men. There was no room for expressing concerns or even Biblical dissent.

Keep the good info coming.

Some things to ponder for all:

The church I came from had transitioned into a cell church (about 1200 members), specifically G12 (which sucks doctrinally and practically, and tilts into cultlike control and heresy, IMHO). Anyway, a lot of "mega-churches" are jumping into one cell-based model or another. While this is a brave attempt on leaders' parts (perhaps?) to bring Biblical one-anothering via smaller groups, it virtually always exerts a pyramid structure of control.

To me, this is putting a band-aid on a cancerous (unscriptural, man-made) leadership structure. It seems to turn the Biblical "model" upside down! What would be more scriptural, IMO, would be for a mega-church leader to "release" full authority to autonomous small groups (change cell groups into house churches). If the mega-church leaders are the real-deal, anointed and gifted of God, they can then minister apostolically (from bottom-up, not top-down) in serving the smaller groups, and working with other leaders in the city to discern God's purposes and implement strategies to bring the city-wide church together to achieve <u>the church's mission</u>. Easier said than done, I know!

Here's a link to a podcast/Godcast of a pastor in South Africa who is doing something like this, though he started with a smaller congregation. Once the link opens, scroll down to the "Ladysmith Story". About 15-20 minutes long.

http://www.thegodjourney.com/audio/index.html

I'm still working these thoughts out, so please bring what you have to the table!

[bear (bear)]

Paul,

I agree with your post, for the most part.

If one will ythe scriptures, we all always see a leader. From Moses to Paul, we see strong men of God at the helm.

A senior Pastor is the head elder. Yes, they must be able to teach, but, they also need to be able to lead. In many church's, we have a chaplain, not a biblically defined pastor.

Many pastor's do forget theit job description, however, leadership is essential. A church without strong leadership is weak, and most of all, unbiblical.

The description of an elder, as you stated, is true, but caution must be taken. If an elder is not a strong leader, they become people pleasers; unable to carry out the vision that God has placed within them. I do not see ANY PLACE in the text where a pastor must "beg" people. He can plead, as a loving shepherd, but "beg", I say not.

The pastor is the CEO of the church he pastor's. If he is not, then who is leading? Someone is.

[common_sense (common_sense)]

I think the difference is between leading and controlling. There is a distinct difference.

lead
1. To show the way to by going in advance.

con·trol
1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct.

Unfortunately, the predominant church culture does closely parallel the business world, thus giving credence to your statement that "The pastor is the CEO of the church he pastor's." A CEO definitely must do more than lead; the position requires control. But is that the biblical model?

[bear (bear)]

Actually, a good CEO will lead.

Whether a CEO, pastor, teacher, coach, etc, control is an issue of character.

The control freak pastor is out there, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Many people do not like it when their pastor confronts them on an issue. These people are usually very independent, and they do not understand authority in any form. They usually grit it, not follow it. Many HC are begun due to this fact.

The bottom line is that a pastor is biblical, structure is biblical, titles are biblical, having a vision is biblical.

I have see HC work overseas. In one country that I ministered in, they had "zone church's"; house church if you will, each with their own pastor. However, the HC were a part of one larger body, with a senior pastor at the helm.

I think I read about another church that was structured that way...oh yes, Timmothy, in the bible. If you study the history behind Timmothy, you will find what I just stated is a fact.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Bear,

The Holy Spirit, which indwells us, is our leader. Each of us has a spiritual gift performed under Grace, we to not have a job description under Obligation from "Leadership." I don't think you have a picture of the Pastoral Epistles, which is the Biblical model.

The Apostles where not CEO types. CEOs are the authoritarian worldly model and leaders of religious cults.

The word "leadership" is not in the Bible. "Leaders" is in 3 books, and "leader" in two.

Jehoiada was the leader of the Aaronites. I Chronicles 12:27

David consulted... with every leader. I Chronicles 13:1

I have given him... a leader and commander to the people. Isaiah 55:4

Leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. II Chron. 32:21

The leaders of this people cause them to err; and... be destroyed. Isaiah 9:16

They be blind leaders of the blind... both shall fall into the ditch. Matthew 15:14

CONCLUSION: Leadership is associated with command and control, as above, in worldly examples. The apostles vaunteth not themselves nor the other, in their writings. Leadership in the apostolic writings is a soft sell. It is a gracious relationship. Anybody who gets in your face and tries to remind you that he is a leader, is certainly not an example of a leader. The Chairman of the Board is not an appropriate concept for leadership in the Church. For a better concept of oversight for the Church, study the pastoral Epistles -- Timothy and Titus, specifically about elders and bishops, which is all we need to know about leadership, unless your ideas are better than God's.

--Alan

[bear (bear)]

Alan,

You have the wrong idea of what I am saying. In fact, if you re-read my previous post, you will see that I do agree.

Leadership is biblical, and ever present in the epistles. Paul gave leadership to those with whom he had a relationship.

[common_sense (common_sense)]

I think I'm lost http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif but here goes anyway! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Bear,
I still have to go back to the issue of control being required of a CEO but not of a leader. By definition, a leader is all about example (that does NOT preclude confrontation of sin, etc.). One who is in charge of an organization (a CEO) must by the very nature of the position be in control of it.

<font color="0000ff">The bottom line is that a pastor is biblical, structure is biblical, titles are biblical, having a vision is biblical.</font>

Okay, I'll agree...conditionally. The problem is when we begin defining those terms. We need to go to Scripture to determine the biblical example of a pastor, structure, titles and vision. In other words, we can't impose our view of what a pastor is on the Scripture -- we must let the Scripture teach us what a pastor should be.

<font color="0000ff">However, the HC were a part of one larger body, with a senior pastor at the helm.</font> So the zone churches were under the authority of the senior pastor? And to whom did the senior pastor report?

Paul,
Back to Alex Strauch. One of my concerns with his <u>Biblical Eldership</u> book is the handling of Hebrews 13:17. His premise for application of the passage is that "obey" is in the imperative while I have understood that it means "to be persuaded by". Any thoughts?

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Bear,

If a man is at the helm, then Christ is surely not. This reminds me of the popular “Jesus is my co-pilot” thinking which is erroneous. Jesus is the pilot and we are not even the co-pilots or navigators. We are His servants who are supposed to be doing His will as He told us through His Word. He leads and navigates, we follow. It’s that simple. There is also no such thing as a man navigating as Jesus leads. This is nonsense. Men are absolutely determined to have control and they come up with some of the cleverest schemes imaginable to try and gain it. Until we give up control, we cannot possibly submit to God’s will because we are still self-willed, and we haven’t even begun to die to ourselves, deny ourselves and carry our crosses daily.

Regarding your disagreement with the word “beg”: At times, the Apostle Paul pleaded in tears (Acts 20:31). I think that this clearly constitutes begging the brethren to not heed false doctrines and go the way of false teachers. Also, I said the word beg in the context of, “and if necessary”. This was last in my list and represents a last resort.

“Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” Acts 20:31

Bear, you are teaching conflicting things and dancing a fine line while doing it. In one breath you disagree with a “control freak” and then in another breath advocate exactly what constitutes a control freak. Who is this “control freak” you mentioned? Is this the guy who is not clever enough to make everyone think that he is humble as so many clever men have made an art form out of doing so? I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard a gullible Christian rave about how humble their “pastor” is, the very guy controlling them towards the shipwrecking of their faith if they haven’t already arrived. What they don’t see is that when a man permits himself to be elevated above Christ, that man is monumentally prideful and brazenly arrogant even though he may be soft spoken and have a false appearance of humility.

Lastly, how can you say that titles are biblical in light of the clear-as-a-bell teaching of Jesus in Matt 23: 8-10? Titles in the church serve to elevate men and depreciate the importance of everyone else not so “favored” to have one.

When I have more time, I will answer the common and very popular “Timothy as Controller” myth that you also mentioned. Now it’s time to get ready for assembly.

Talk to you later,

Paul

[overseas (overseas)]

Quote: house church is for the worldy unless you live in a country where Christian persecution is high like China ,Saudi Arabia ,Malaysia, Vietnam ,Laos, Sudan ,Eritrea...

This opinion gave me much to think about. My conclusion is that church should basically be conducted the same no matter the circumstances. If the American model cannot stand the Chinese conditions, then American model is wrong. I do not mean to gather in caves and I do agree with cultural differences. But the spiritual objectives should be the same. People who are persecuted should also rejoice in the Lord. People who are free to gather should not take that for granted and they should not nurture a worldly joy that does not have its source in the Lord.
It is about why chistians gather together. Many times it is like we gather together to celebrate our religious freedom + the lack of adversities in our lives. I am speaking for myself and for what I experienced.
I will check the leadership discussion later. God bless.

[warr (warr)]

leadership discussion-did I hear this right CEO-what has the church become today? A corporation-I see a well oiled machine? warr

[bear (bear)]

Paul,

Overseer, deacon, Apostle...these seem like titles to me. In Matthew, Jesus is warning against pride that can be attatched to having a title, not in titles themselves. The context is important.

Jesus is the one who gave the title of "apostle" to his students. We must interpret one passage in light of the rest of the text.

Tommothy, according to history, had a church of over 100,000 people. You do not lead that many without structure. Control has different meanings, and it is not always negative.

Be careful when you begin to define the Greek language. If you do not understand placement, you can get in to trouble. By placement I mean how a word in used in a particular context. If a person does not know English, and they go to a dictionary, and read off all of the meanings, they can become confused. We have many words that can mean two different things, depending on the context.

Why is structure important in every other area of our life, except in church. That does not make any sense. I have a legitamate question: What type of fellowship do you belong to? Please explain, for it will help me to understand your established belief system.

[bear (bear)]

Paul,

In response to to your statement that Hebrews 13:17 has been incorrectly translated, I must laugh. It does not fit your theological dogma, but I assure you that the translators knew what they were doing.

By your post I can see that you do not have any formal Greek training. if you say that you do, in order to lash back, you will prove that the statement is untrue.

1. The word "peitho" can mean many of the words that you defined, as it is straight out of Strong's. A good translation would be to rely upon.

2. The word "hegeomai" for rule means to lead, or to command with authority.

3. The word "hipepeiko" for submit means to surrender.

You keep defining what an elder is to be. However, your are interpreting this to mean passivity, instead of humble. Jesus was humble, but not passive. Paul was humble, yet he knew how to correct harshly, while remaining humble.

Before you you dictate what is incorrect in a translation, allow me to make a few suggestions:

- take a Greek grammar course
- by a lexicon
- buy the Greek study bible by Dr. Zodihates. This book contains a lexical helps section. This helps one to understand how a word is used in a particular verse.

[overseas (overseas)]

I personally benefit a lot from the discussion and I just hope we will all be able to do this in peace and with arguments. Another long discussion on leadership was some time ago on GGWO thread as those people came out of an abusive system.
The issue of control over the church encompasses many aspects as control is not possible without the cooperation of the controlled ones. For pastors with good intentions, control is the easiest way to keep the flock secure, as the (biblical) alternative is to find a system where each believer is personally involved in studying, understanding the Scriptures and making decisions for himself. For many believers with good intentions, obeying an established leadership has an appearance of godliness as it emphasizes the humility of the believer.
Is strong leadership necessary in order to have a strong church ? If we define a strong church from a formal and organizational perspective, then strong leadership will surely ensure a visible unity and common action of the church. If we are interested in the personal state of each believer, then as people get closer to the Lord the less necessary is the strong leadership. I am still looking for an answer to this: if people are close to the Lord, then leadership is not necessary; if people are departing the Lord, then should leaders keep them together on another basis than personal adherence to the Word ?
This Sunday a visiting pastor complained about the low understanding of some Christians he heard praying stupid things in his church. My impression is that those people were his responsibility and they are the fair result of pastor’s practice. Then the pastor mentioned how he regularly has consultations with other pastors and I wondered why he doesn’t do that with laymen in his church – do they not have the same Holy Spirit and same gifts ?
I feel that Paul H. principle ‘no men at the helm’ means that there should be no leadership apart of leadership based on the authority of sticking to the Word. No leadership based on personal abilities. I know this does not sound very practical, but Christians are in a supernatural business with different rules.
For Heb 13: 17, my emphasis is on (pls excuse my very rough quote) ‘as those who take care of your souls’. When I can see that some people are genuinely interested in my soul and they generously seek to serve my spiritual needs, then I will gladly look for their guidance and submit to this type of ‘leadership’.
Paul, thanks for the explanations on ‘peitho’. I still can’t see how Bear response contradicts your presentation.

[wyoming (wyoming)]

<font color="0000ff">Overseer, deacon, Apostle, etc. are roles not titles.</font>

Yes! You are the first person besides myself who has said this. The translators take common Greek words and formalize them as Capitalized proper nouns. I blame the High Church tradition as already being a gargantuan man-made institution with its lofty cathedrals with popes and arch-bishops, etc. That is the mindset of the translators that take liberties when translating our wonderful Greek Textus Receptus into an otherwise fine translation as our King James Bible. "episcopos", epi=over, scopos=scope, line-of-sight, oversight, they turn into "office of a Bishop". There is no "office of" implied anywhere in the Greek text. The same thing with the "office of a Deacon". "deaconai" simply means "helpers". "apostelo" simple means "sent-out-one". The Greek word for "elder" simply refers to "aged" brethren who have experience in the faith.

[warr (warr)]

And who said church wasn't fun right boys? have church wherever the heck you please-don't let the Bible intellects(bear,aaron)ruin it for youhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[common_sense (common_sense)]

<font color="0000ff">1. Overseer, deacon, Apostle, etc. are roles not titles.</font>

Paul,
Can you expand on this? There are specific qualifications outlined for these "roles" and people were to be recognized as such. Wouldn't it then follow that they assume the "title"?

[setfree (setfree)]

<font color="0000ff">1. Overseer, deacon, Apostle, etc. are roles not titles. </font><font color="000000">

Wyoming, Paul, I agree. I wrote a bit on this on the G12 thread several months ago. I'll see if it applies to conversation at hand and re-post here if it flows.

God bless all.

BTW, aside from the leadership discussion, anyone have a response to my Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 12:58 pm post on disbanding cell/mega churches for a better Biblically-based model of how "local assemblies" should/could interact?

I'd greatly appreciate sound input and discussion on how house churches interconnect with the body of believers in the city/region. The meshing of "how we do church" today with how believers first gathered (who?, where? why? when? how? are all things to be examined as most church goers today don't even consider the true reasons or answers to these questions). How do we get there from here? </font>

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Common Sense,

Sure, I'd be happy to expand on this: The truth about roles (as opposed to titles or offices) comes from Matt 23: 8-10, Mark 10: 42-45, 1Cor 12: 1-31, etc., which establish the fact that all Christians are equals under Christ yet with differing giftings. Our only opportunity for greatness within this framework of equality exists in direct proportion to how much we are willing (and obedient) to become servants of all. If in impatience, we run “ahead” for a title, we despise humble beginnings contrary to the clear teachings of the Scriptures.

A role is that which you do and relates to the duties you accomplish in accordance with your gift or gifts. A title is more like a badge of honor that is often worn to impress and garner respect before respect is earned. Titles are a stumbling block to both the holder and to the onlooker and are used to gain followers to self and gain artificial greatness not based on true servanthood. A role mindset helps foster genuine service to others and helps create an atmosphere in which to set good examples. Roles edify and remind us of our individual jobs. Titles puff up and serve to elevate the holder and depreciate the value of those without titles. Jesus told us not to give or receive titles in Matt 23: 8-10. Roles are a celebration of what God has made us to be. Titles are often a mark of what we aspire to be in the flesh and accomplish in our own strength.

Some say, “how can we identify each other without titles?” We should first know Christians for who they are as people and secondary to this by what they do in the church as a role. We need to know eachother relationally and know what each other’s gifts and callings are in order to supplying each others needs and receive the spiritual help we need.

“From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplies, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, makes increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” Eph 4: 16

There is a big difference between being introduced to someone known as Jim who happens to be a pastor (role) and Pastor Jim (title). Being known for who you are as a person and secondary to this, being known by what you do as a role in the church is a healthy thing. Being known by a title is destructive in the church.

For example, I liken all of us to dishwashers, fry cooks and potato peelers. Is the fry cook greater than the dishwasher? Would the fry cook have any baskets to cook in if it were not for the dishwasher? Would the fry cook have fries to cook if it were not for the potato peeler? The Apostle Paul used body parts in the same kind of illustration in 1 Cor12: 12-31. We see that we genuinely need each other.

Now imagine the “comradery” and great edifying fellowship between the fry cook, potato peeler and dishwasher as they work along side each other in joy and cooperation discussing the things of the Lord and greatly enjoying each other’s company. Now in modern churches, in walks the “great chief” manager / CEO and a hush comes over the people. Equality goes right out the window along with the true fellowship that instantly disintegrates as everyone wonders if the pastor needs anything or if they should have gotten his permission to discuss things, etc. In comes the great divide and with it big trouble.

On Sunday mornings in a modern church you see people watering the plants and others vacuuming the carpets getting ready for service time. Musicians pick out songs and warm up on their instruments. Children’s workers get ready to receive the kids, and so on. Often you see many of them enjoying nd edifying time of genuine fellowship together in a real sense of unity and then in walks that guy AND EVERYTHING CHANGES. Hmmm. I wonder why… You’d think someone would get a clue. Today you often need to have real “church” after the phony “church” just to get any real edification!

A genuine pastor (elder) is nothing more than a humble dishwasher or fry cook and has a role as servant not commander to people in the church. Pastors / elders blend into the woodwork positionally since they are no greater in stature or status than any other Christian in the church. But don’t get me wrong, a genuine elder will rise up to protect the flock if a wolf should come in or if someone starts teaching false doctrines.

Paul

[bear (bear)]

Paul,

I must apologize. I did not mean to attack you personally. I did not think that I was, but after reviwing my post, I must humble myself, and stand corrected. It will not happen again.

[bear (bear)]

In a true sense, overseer, deacon, etc, are roles, just like a pastor is a role.

I have seen church done correctly, and I have seen the abuses with titles, control, etc. My point is, that here is not anything wrong with calling someone pastor, as long as the pastor does not demand it.

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Thank you so much Bear,

I pray that I too will follow your good example here the next time that I need to apologize for something that I’ve said.

You have more than just my forgiveness, you have my respect.

Paul

[overseas (overseas)]

Paul, Bear - I am glad to be in your company. As for others here of course http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif
God bless

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Thanks Overseas,

Likewise!

Paul

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Thanks Wyoming,

Right on! Very good post. You are right on the "money" because it's the love of money, the root of all evil, that drives corrupt men, and I think has primarily driven a clever conspiracy that has corrupted the translation of many authority related Scriptures.

To All:

I just ran into a great little book called, “The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy”, which spells out much on this subject in an easy-to-read form. I read most of it yesterday and finished it up early this morning. It is a fantastic confirming word to many things that the Lord has been showing many of us. I think the authors shed light on some things that many of us may not have realized. Personally, while I have done some study on this topic and have had my suspicions, I had no idea how potentially deep this rabbit hole of organized conspiracy regarding Bible mistranslation really runs.

Lastly, while I do not know the rest of what these authors teach and so I therefore cannot vouch for their overall theology at this time, they did an absolutely great job on this book and demonstrate an excellent understanding of genuine biblical authority. This book is one of the best of its kind and it's FREE! Don't get me wrong - these guys might be as solid as a rock theologically on other subjects as well, I just don’t know as this is the only writing of theirs that I have read. While I haven’t verified their research or traced their sources, their work seems honest and solid nevertheless. Regardless, all things must be tested and we must always receive every teaching presented to us with the heart of the Berean, being willing to verify everything according to what the Scriptures teach and be willing to use our common sense as well in examining related facts and evidence.

Please check out: http://www.awildernessvoice.com/GEC.html
and pass it on. It’s more than worth the read.

Paul

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Paul,

Excellent book! It's the first time I've found reaffirmation of my position.

Recently, I created 9 threads under DOCTRINE> BIBLE> KJV ONLY. Here is some basic knowledge that is worth our while:

The New Testment is translated from original Greek. There are over 5000 ancient manuscripts surviving. The modern English versions are from one text from Alexandria, Egypt, assuming that older is better. It reflects what you might expect from the Alexandrian School of philosophers. It is identified with Origen and Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, and the revisionists of 1889 and 1901 and ever since. Modernist liberals and unbelievers prefer it because it does everything it can to systematically removes the deity of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, turning the Bible into a social gospel.

What you have to do to be convinced of the corruption of the modern translations is to do a survey of long lists of scriptures to see the consistent changes, and conclude it is systematic and deliberate. [Take a look at the introduction and the forward in your Bibles to see what youve got.]

From Europe to the Near East, 95% of the Bibles were based upon the text known as the Byzantine Text, Textus Receptus, or majority Greek text: KJV, Geneva Bible, etc.

I'm building a page on my web site:

http://www.churchgrowth.cc/content_Textus_Receptus.htm

--Alan.

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Thanks Alan,

I only had time so far to review it briefly, but your website seems to take a King James Only view. I could be wrong but is this true? Because there are some translational problems in the King James translation as well. This is why we must be led by the Holy Spirit and sometimes look at multiple translations in order to come to truth on certain subjects that have been obscured. A concordance such as Strong’s can help as well. But of course a concordance is not critical to find truth otherwise God would have added one as the 67th book of the Bible.

The truth is that the preserved infallible Word of God is the Bible in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). All translations by men are subject to potential error. But the good news is any decent translation is usually about 98.5% or so accurate. So there is usually not too much to be overly concerned about.

I find lots of value in the AMP and NASB for example. Even the NIV with all its problems can by useful if you are aware of the problems. But your site has an article listing even good Bibles overall such as the AMP and NASB as fakes. But I am not alarmed to the point of renouncing the overall KJV translation just because there is some ecclesiastical tampering with authority verses in it. I am simply aware of the need for retranslating these passages. That's all.

Any thoughts?

Paul

[common_sense (common_sense)]

Please note that there is an extensive discussion already in progress on FACTNet on this subject. (Just don't want to see us get too far sidetracked off our House Church topic. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif)

FACTNet Message Board » Religious Cults and Sects » Doctrine / Belief / Proofs / Religious Practices » The Bible » KJV ONLY ADVOCATES (Authorized King James Version Received Text only Advocates)

[wyoming (wyoming)]

Paul,

I'm not a KJV Onlyist, I'm a Textus Receptus Onlyist. (You've read above an isolated problem I have with the KJV.) If you only have time to read one thing, read the article on DOCTRINES EFFECTED BY THE MODERN VERSIONS, for you to see the tip of the iceburg regarding the translations you are reading that you think are o.k.

I'd like to get you over to the threads that Common_Sense and I mentioned but there is a disrupter over there who gets us to fall for his sucker bait conversationally, when he should be ignored, and diverts an otherwise scholarly discussion led by "Schmuel" aka Steven Avery.

--Alan

(Message edited by Wyoming on October 26, 2005)

[common_sense (common_sense)]

And I thought "sucker bait" was more descriptive of Schmuel's style -- ah, well, guess it's all in the perception! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[wyoming (wyoming)]

.

You just don't like the way he beats up on you. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif

[paul_howey (paul_howey)]

Thanks Common Sense for the heads up regarding another string for this. I didn't know there was one, but I was thinking we could easily get way off track from house church with this subject.

Thanks Alan, for the heads up about the disruptor over there. In submission to our good brother Common Sense, and of course in light of the fact that his suggestion is a good one, let's continue this part of this discussion over at the other string, if there is a place to jump in with what we were talking about. I will check it out later today.

One quick comment before switching over there: as far as me, I only think the translations that I mentioned are “OK” in the sense that they are by far accurate enough for us to easily detect important translation errors simply by applying proper rules of context while being led by the Holy Spirit into all truth. This is done by looking at both the proximate local context of a particular passage of Scripture and also by viewing that passage in context with the whole Bible by taking into account everything that the Bible teaches on the subject.

Paul