House Churches

[Triumph1300]

I'm sooooo bad !!

True. ;-)

 

[Pisteuo]

Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Act 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
Act 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

I believe house churches are legitimate and the early church certainly often met in houses. Many times and even today in some countries people have to meet privately or suffer the recourse of their government. (some places in Russia I've heard). Maybe if they had a choice they would gather in buildings, idk, but regardless they are gathering where they can and I have no doubt God sees their gatherings as "assembling of themselves together" just like any other church building. As to the setup and ranks in the church it is often not talked about openly but still well understood who the bishops, deacons, and elders are. Those titles don't have to be assigned by the people, IMO, God takes care of that and is much better equipped to do so. We make up the a part of the Church, the body of Christ. We are not normally acknowledged as a "church" by local assemblies or many denominations. But we aren't after their acknowledgement or accolades anyway. Their fellowship is always appreciated though.

 

[tabletalk]

Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Act 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
Act 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

I believe house churches are legitimate and the early church certainly often met in houses. Many times and even today in some countries people have to meet privately or suffer the recourse of their government. (some places in Russia I've heard). Maybe if they had a choice they would gather in buildings, idk, but regardless they are gathering where they can and I have no doubt God sees their gatherings as "assembling of themselves together" just like any other church building. As to the setup and ranks in the church it is often not talked about openly but still well understood who the bishops, deacons, and elders are. Those titles don't have to be assigned by the people, IMO, God takes care of that and is much better equipped to do so. We make up the a part of the Church, the body of Christ. We are not normally acknowledged as a "church" by local assemblies or many denominations. But we aren't after their acknowledgement or accolades anyway. Their fellowship is always appreciated though.

Thanks for your thoughts.
"...well understood who the bishops, deacons, and elders are."
I've often thought that elders must be 'called by God' and that many churches have elders who are not. So, I agree that God "takes care of that and is much better equipped to do so."
Many elders and deacons resign, fall away, have scandals surrounding them, etc. I always wonder if God has really called someone who eventually resigns for whatever reason; or did they call themselves?

 

[Pisteuo]

Amen. I almost mentioned that according to 1 Tim chapter 3 most pastors, bishops, deacons, and general overseers I know would be disqualified if they were to apply all that is there. Perhaps some are "self called" and that is why we see a high number of resignations within the ranks. Many are called.....

 

[bbyrd009]

Amen. I almost mentioned that according to 1 Tim chapter 3 most pastors, bishops, deacons, and general overseers I know would be disqualified if they were to apply all that is there. Perhaps some are "self called" and that is why we see a high number of resignations within the ranks. Many are called.....

i suggest that these offices are also symbolic of doctrines that any seeker might hold in the construction of their "church" or temple, also. Iow,

As to the setup and ranks in the church it is often not talked about openly but still well understood who the bishops, deacons, and elders are.

might be understood differently, from a different perspective, when the offices are put in their proper place, and not made into literal mediators, iow.

Even if the physical follows the spiritual, and legit bishops do deserve respect

 

[Pisteuo]

Sure, I can see that. Good catch. (new to me) perspective for Saint, bishops, deacons but I'll give it thought for sure.

 

[bbyrd009]

Sure, I can see that. Good catch. (new to me) perspective for Saint, bishops, deacons but I'll give it thought for sure.

well as a new seeker we of course perceive our literal deacons and bishops as mediaries between us and God, but later after study the perception of the relationship changes, and deacons and bishops who drop out or burn out are kind of a sign imo that these are not the ones meant by the Book, in a spiritual sense anyway

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Thanks for your thoughts.
"...well understood who the bishops, deacons, and elders are."
I've often thought that elders must be 'called by God' and that many churches have elders who are not. So, I agree that God "takes care of that and is much better equipped to do so."
Many elders and deacons resign, fall away, have scandals surrounding them, etc. I always wonder if God has really called someone who eventually resigns for whatever reason; or did they call themselves?

I think too much power is given to the full salaried paid pastor.
He is only one elder, and it changes the whole structure of the church.
A pastor you can manipulate the people and hand pick his elders, gives them job descriptions and rules the church is exactly what is happening to the church today.
Do we really think there are elders in place who could force someone like John Hagee to step down?
No way.
He rules with an iron fist.
Not at all the church that God set up.

It is no wonder that people leave churches and try to form home groups.
I don't blame them one bit.

 

[FHII]

I enjoyed Aspen's post recently (#18) because among the many truthful things he said, one of them was they met in the temple. Jesus often teached in a temple. He also taught in other places. It can truly be said that wherever Jesus decided to lay down some doctrine, Church was in session.

There is nothing wrong with a home being a Church. It was done often. But I am going to say that just because 2 or 3 garher in a house and talk about Jesus... That doesn't make it a Church. It certainly is a blessed situation, but its not a Church.

Churches have order amd leadership. I dare say even a government! Think about the pure meaning of that word and not about earthly goverments. I will submit Isa 9:6-7, 22:21, 1 Cor 12:28 and 2 Peter 2:10 as scripural evidence. Furthermore, before the people wanted a king, Samuel WAS the gov't. He was the leader who made political, social and military decisions.

Next I'd like to move to 1 Cor 11.

1 Corinthians 11:18 KJV
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Payl clearly speaks of coming together in a "church". It was a literal place.

1 Corinthians 11:22 KJV
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

Background information: they were showing up at church having a feast and getting drunk. Even worse calling it the Lord's supper! It appears to me that they weren't sharing either. But i want you to notice he said, "what? Have ye not houses..."

Here's my point: Paul said they were coming to the Church and then asked if they had houses.

Two scenerios to consider:
1. The Corinthians actually had a designated building that was a Church property;
2. If it was a home, it ceased to be a home when Church was in session. Once everyone left, sure.. You get your home back.

In summary: Church can be in a home, but it ceases to be a home when Church is in session. It is not a Church unless there is order and a leader of some sorts.and the whole business about early Christians meeting in homes is just a smokescreen for folks looking for a reason not to go to Church.

You want to set upChurch in your home? Fine. But doi g so properly is going to be more work than if you actually just went to a Chhurch.

 

[FHII]

I think too much power is given to the full salaried paid pastor.
He is only one elder, and it changes the whole structure of the church.
A pastor you can manipulate the people and hand pick his elders, gives them job descriptions and rules the church is exactly what is happening to the church today.
Do we really think there are elders in place who could force someone like John Hagee to step down?
No way.
He rules with an iron fist.
Not at all the church that God set up.

It is no wonder that people leave churches and try to form home groups.
I don't blame them one bit.

Oh really Rollo? Yes, in this present time I might agree with you. But what happened when the "elders" told Moses that he took on too much and they were famous men too? And do we nepotism there? Now God picked Aaron... But it was Moses' brother... And let's face it... He was a flake!

Haggai wouldn't agree either. The elders said it wasn't time to build the Lord's house.

Would you question Paul or Peter for their appointments? Would you tell them they have too much power? Look. Forget them... If Thaddeus, Thomas or Simon the Zealot were speaking at Yankee Stadium I am going and I would pay 5 grand to hear them! If their fee was more, I'd pay that too!

Bottom line... Your view of Chirch Gov't. Is not what God instituted.it may be necessary in this day and age. But its not the way Goddoes it.

 

[bbyrd009]

You want to set upChurch in your home? Fine. But doi g so properly is going to be more work than if you actually just went to a Chhurch.

and way more than if you just realize that you are a Church, imo

 

[bbyrd009]

It was a literal place.

that is strictly an assumption, provided by your understanding, which is subject to change

 

[FHII]

and way more than if you just realize that you are a Church, imo

An individual is not a Church. It is no secret that the Church is a body of believers. I an not sufgesring otherwise. But when they met together under leadersgip, the Bible says they have gone ro Church.

 

[bbyrd009]

Paul said they were coming to the Church and then asked if they had houses.

Two scenerios to consider:
1. The Corinthians actually had a designated building that was a Church property;
2. If it was a home, it ceased to be a home when Church was in session. Once everyone left, sure.. You get your home back.

In summary:

3. What Paul said is being misinterpreted, and the summary results from bad premises, since Paul surely thought of the Church as the Living Stones there, wherever there was

 

[bbyrd009]

An individual is not a Church.

so you say

but i could Quote otherwise, and at length wadr

 

[FHII]

that is strictly an assumption, provided by your understanding, which is subject to change

No, its not an assumption. It is a fact. Please read the verse in context.

1 Corinthians 11:18 KJV
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

How anyone can say Paul was not speaking of a literal gathering place is illogical.

 

[FHII]

so you say

but i could Quote otherwise, and at length wadr

I suppose you could quote something to support this, but not the Bible. The Bible describes the Church as a body of members. It also speaks of a literal gathering place for the Church (a body of members). Go ahead and try to pull a verse out that says a Church is an individual.

 

[tabletalk]

I enjoyed Aspen's post recently (#18) because among the many truthful things he said, one of them was they met in the temple. Jesus often teached in a temple. He also taught in other places. It can truly be said that wherever Jesus decided to lay down some doctrine, Church was in session.

There is nothing wrong with a home being a Church. It was done often. But I am going to say that just because 2 or 3 garher in a house and talk about Jesus... That doesn't make it a Church. It certainly is a blessed situation, but its not a Church.

Churches have order amd leadership. I dare say even a government! Think about the pure meaning of that word and not about earthly goverments. I will submit Isa 9:6-7, 22:21, 1 Cor 12:28 and 2 Peter 2:10 as scripural evidence. Furthermore, before the people wanted a king, Samuel WAS the gov't. He was the leader who made political, social and military decisions.

Next I'd like to move to 1 Cor 11.

1 Corinthians 11:18 KJV
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Payl clearly speaks of coming together in a "church". It was a literal place.

1 Corinthians 11:22 KJV
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

Background information: they were showing up at church having a feast and getting drunk. Even worse calling it the Lord's supper! It appears to me that they weren't sharing either. But i want you to notice he said, "what? Have ye not houses..."

Here's my point: Paul said they were coming to the Church and then asked if they had houses.

Two scenerios to consider:
1. The Corinthians actually had a designated building that was a Church property;
2. If it was a home, it ceased to be a home when Church was in session. Once everyone left, sure.. You get your home back.

In summary: Church can be in a home, but it ceases to be a home when Church is in session. It is not a Church unless there is order and a leader of some sorts.and the whole business about early Christians meeting in homes is just a smokescreen for folks looking for a reason not to go to Church.

You want to set upChurch in your home? Fine. But doi g so properly is going to be more work than if you actually just went to a Chhurch.

Thanks, I agree. It is not always a smokescreen for folks looking for a reason not to go to church, though. A guy at the church I attend had a house church for many years in his home in Michigan because the 'regular church' he attended split up. He is now a member of a small church meeting in a building for that purpose.

 

[FHII]

3. What Paul said is being misinterpreted, and the summary results from bad premises, since Paul surely thought of the Church as the Living Stones there, wherever there was

Well lets put that to the test:

1 Corinthians 11:18 KJV
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

We have "ye coming together". That is to say "the Church" being one body, many members. And the Church came together in the Church. The Church met in a Church.

1 Corinthians 11:20 KJV
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

The Church came together into ONE PLACE. A place is not an individual. A place is not a body of members. A place is... Well, A PLACE! Its a location. A geographical point.

1 Corinthians 11:21-22 KJV
For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. [22] What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

The very fact that Paul contrasts houses and the Church of God shows he is speaking of a literal building. The verses I didn't list are speaking of eating literal food and drink. Everything about this is literal.

 

[FHII]

Thanks, I agree. It is not always a smokescreen for folks looking for a reason not to go to church, though. A guy at the church I attend had a house church for many years in his home in Michigan because the 'regular church' he attended split up. He is now a member of a small church meeting in a building for that purpose.

You are right. Its not always a smokescreen. I contend it sometimes is but I retract the statement that it is a smokescreen.