Not Much Point in going further ...

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Not Much Point in going further ...

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

House Church (again!) (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Clarifications (RTC)
Re:

The NT Model is not Normative, Not Meant to be. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Not normative? On what basis? (RTC)
Re:

And Normative on What Basis? (Christopher Yip)
Re:

On basis that such was NT practices everywhere in first 300 years (RTC)
Re:

Is that therefore biblical? (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Yes it is (RTC)
Re:

Holds no water (passerby)
Re:

You use wrong cup (RTC)
Re:

pick up the same dictionary and please enlighten us what it says about Church(n/t)
Re:

Church is building for Christian worship (RTC)
Re:

Hee...Hee...Can't you even see the obvious contradictions to your arguments???(n/t)
Re:

Hi Anon,
Re:

biblical?
Re:

Let's see if you pass the biblical test (RTC)
Re:

Easton Bible Dictionary says...
Re:

Thayer's Greek Definition of Ekklesia (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Still got more (RTC)
Date: 2001, Jun 05
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

RTC,
There is really not much point in going futher with you on this thing. I have said what I wanted to say and it would be merely repeating if I were to start again. As far as I can see from your writing, there is really no compelling reason to interpret the way the early believers met as normative (not norm as in "usual" but norm as in "rule") for the church today.
You drew many unwarranted conclusions from many unwarranted assumptions. It is my view that you have read into the passage your theology of house churches. In this response, I just want to point these out and to state the reasons why I posted this definition. I won't go through the same questions that I have already raised which you have failed to answer to my satisfaction - the main one being where does the bible say that it is normative for us to meet in homes or that the church cannot have structure and hierarchy.
YOU: The public assemblies were the gathering of the various house churches in the locality. Such public assemblies were the exception and not the norm.
ME: The point here is that there were public meetings, not just meeting in homes. There were meetings OUTSIDE the homes for RELIGIOUS purposes. That is what the churches are doing. That is all I am trying to show.
YOU: These public assemblies are also called church as are the various house churches. The context determines the scope of the word.
ME: Thank you. So early believers did meet OUTSIDE their homes in public places. That is what the churches are doing. I think that is scriptural support for meeting in public churches.
YOU: However, these public assemblies weren’t institutional churches in any sense of the word. They had no denominational names, no buildings, no salaried pastors, no hierarchy, no pews, no pulpits, no sermons, no membership rolls etc. They weren’t cell churches meeting in homes and coming together each week for a celebration, as some would like to read into it.
ME: As I said before, can we not have them because they didn't have them? Why?
They didn't have denominational names then, they divided themselves this way: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:12 KJV) Paul later told them that such divisions were necessary: "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Corinthians 11:18-19 KJV)
You distinguish between house church and cell meetings. Does the bible actually tell us what the church did in their house meeting that cell groups cannot or aren't doing? How long did they meet, for example? How many songs did they sing? Oops, I am going back to my argument again.
YOU: What we have in the NT are house churches (already experiencing deep church life) coming together for some purposes, usually to hear an apostle teach or to make some decisions concerning the church.
ME: OK, so they met in homes and in public. In homes like our cell meetings - body ministry, prayer and learning the Word. When they come together, they hear the pastor preach the Word and listen to the announcements, and you are against them taking up an offering or having a time of worship and testimony? Surely not.
YOU: But what we have today is the opposite, we have large institutional churches (devoid of deep church life) that have to implement cells to meet such a need or else face a declining membership.
ME: SO you are only talking about those churches that are
1. devoid of deep church life
2. using cells to reverse declining membership
What about those vibrant churches? They are scripturally ok?
YOU: In Acts 2:6, 2:46, 3:11-26, 5:12-16, 17:19-34 and others, the church deliberately gathered in such public places as synagogues, temple courts and the Areopagus; places where lost people were sure to see and hear their evangelistic/ apologetic message. Note the content of the messages preached in these large, public meetings. Note that unconverted sinners were present. Contrast this logical strategy of taking the gospel where the lost folks are with our pathetic practice of preaching "salvation" messages to rooms full of churched people, in church buildings, at Sunday "worship" services. The New Testament strategy to preach the gospel where there are lost folks is clearly better.
ME: The Salvation Army, for instance, have Gospel Rallies. These are meetings specifically dedicated to preaching to the non-believers. Members are urged to bring their non-Christian friends to it. In Singapore, can we simply walk out on the streets and preach the Gospel to a gathering crowd? I don't think so. In UK, the Salvation Army does something like that. They march down the streets with their brass bands to draw attention to the Gospel. I believe they also give out tracts as they go along. That is perhaps the latitude the law would allow them.
The Love Singapore movement has gone to the streets, to the HDB, to spread the Gospel through social action. The Love Changi Carnival on June 17 is yet another communal activity to make the presence of the church felt in Changi.
Many such activities can be multiplied from the testimonies of the established churches. Who says we just preach to our own people?
There is a time and place for each activity. We need to teach new converts the Word and doing that in a discipleship class in the church would be an ideal way. We don't try and go to Wisma Atria and teach them the Sermon on the Mount, do we?
Where have you been, RTC?!?
YOU: In any case, the point still stands that the institutional church cannot appeal to Scripture to justify its existence.
ME: And as we have told you, the three forms of church governance - episcopalian, congregational, prebyterian are all mentioned, albeit in sketches, in the bible. The bible does not give us an elaborate ecclesiology - that's a fact you haven't come to terms with. Ecclesiology is developed over time, conditioned by the needs of the community. The aim is to meet the spiritual needs of the church using current and relevant means.
YOU: The verses you quoted do not negate what I have been saying all along in this forum. All these verses do not lend any support for dividing the Body of Christ into denominational institutions.
ME: Did I say this definition is to justify denominationalism? If so, you have missed the point. This response was to the definition of ekklesia.
YOU: As for the dictionary reference you quote, note that only the following is consistent with the NT teaching on the church,
1d. in a Christian sense 1d1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting 1d2. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake 1d3. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body 1d4. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth 1d5. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
ME: Yup. And how does this definition of ekklesia invalidate our ecclesiology?
YOU: Here’s something from the NIV Expository Dictionary,
We know a little of the form of the local NT ekklesia. Early believers did not meet in public buildings ("churches") for at least the first 120 years of the Christian era. The typical meeting of the church was in a home. When such a congregation met, "everyone [had] a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation" (1 Co 14:26). Individuals shared, and others would "weigh carefully what [was] said" (1 Co 14:29). In part because of the relatively small size of the group, the people could "all prophesy in turn so that everyone [might] be instructed and encouraged" (1 Co 14:31). Such sharing remains essential to the very existence of the church as the community of faith. Christians are not to "give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing." Instead, as individuals in community we are to "consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds" (Heb 10:24-25).
The relatively small size of the congregation in the early church had advantages, but it also had disadvantages. On the positive side, individuals were not isolated members of a silent mass, seated on wooden pews, observing. Each person was expected to contribute and to serve others with his or her spiritual gift(s). Each would also be served by the concern of the community and spurred on to personal growth and commitment. On the negative side, the smaller groups could become factions--splinter groups, seeking separate identity by following some leader or by emphasizing a particular doctrine (cf. 1 Co 1:10-17; Col 2:16-19). (note: institutional churches are not immuned to this as well and it seems that there aren’t that many disadvantages!). The corrective to this is seen in the NT's stress on love and on the unity of the body of Christ (e.g., Eph 4:1-6).
ME: The expositor has mixed his preference with the definition. The bible does not say you cannot sit on pews, you cannot take your turn to speak, or that you should not listen to a sermon preached by one who studies the word. Sure, there are churches that need some reformation in the way they meet but it is altogether different to say they are unscriptural. They are as unscriptural as the house churches in that details of how churches should meet are simply not there.
Big churches have the problem of getting everyone involved, house church have the problem of faction. What would be the sensible thing to do? Do both. Is that against the bible? Nope.
I have said that I will not repeat myself. Unless I see something new in your posting, I will retire from this thread.
Christopher