The same point

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...

The same point

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)
Re:

Not Much Point in going further ... (Christopher Yip)
Date: 2001, Jun 05
From: RTC

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. ++I have never even once implied that it has to be the rule for us today. I don’t think you can produce any of my postings as saying that. I have always held to the meaning of norm as in the “usual” and that’s the way I used it. Since it was the usual way, their norm of doing things, my question is why would we want to depart from those norms. You tend to misrepresent my position by saying that I advocate a do or die position, that I am demanding that we “must” do exactly what they do. You have missed the point, I am not advocating holding to a form blindly. Rather I am saying that we need to structure our forms consistent with a proper ecclesiology, and that the NT practice gives us the best practices instituted by the apostles towards that end. 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. ++Like what? Be precise. 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. ++The book of Acts presents the ministry of some of the Apostles, particularly the ministry of Peter in the first part and Paul in the second. If we see the apostles establish a single pattern of the church repeatedly and in different places, should we not take that as a norm to be followed? If that pattern is different from or contrary to the cultural, religious, or political practice then current, the case is strengthened. If that pattern is consistent with or an outgrowth of the doctrinal teaching of Scripture, then we must conclude that it was meant as an authoritative example for the church. Were the apostles not uniquely chosen and commissioned by Christ with a unique authority, and were they not part of the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20)? Why is the form of the church they established not to be considered a pattern? Are we looking in Scripture for authoritative guidance as to the organization and practice of the church, or are we satisfied with having a church whose polity and practice is just not opposed to Scripture. Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation held to the latter policy. He was therefore content to accept many of the trappings of the church of Rome as long as they did not contradict a biblical teaching or principle. The radical reformers sought to form the church on the basis of what is specifically taught in Scripture. When we approach Scripture we should always ask “what does it teach and why?” It should not be “it never say cannot, so we can” attitude, and then go on to declare that it is biblical. 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. ++That’s fine. Since when have I confined the church meeting strictly to the homes and deny that there were public meetings? Can you produce any such things I have said? Rather I have always said that the early church primarily met in homes. You don’t have to show me what I have already been trying to show you. Rather you have to show me that the institutional church that we know today existed in the NT, or was something spoken of in the NT which the church naturally would move to. 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. ++But how is this support for the institutional church? Public meetings and private meetings do take place, but there is no such thing as public church and private church for you to meet in. 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? ++Sure you can have them if you want, but they are not biblical. That’s the point. 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) ++That’s appalling! You mean to say that Paul approve of their way of dividing themselves according to personalities? Then why the rebuke in Chapter 1? I am surprised at the way you interpret this portion of Scripture. We must be careful in interpreting the NT. In Chapter 11 Paul was not endorsing their divisions, he was simply recognising that division is inevitable because people are like that. But among such divisions some will be found to be approved by God whereas some will not. Surely those who decry the “I am of Peter” syndrome in some way separate themselves from among the others in their actions and thinking, and these are the people whom God approved. And among believers there will be diversity of opinions on any issue but some are clearly more Scriptural in their understanding than the others, these again are those who have God’s approval in the sense that their views are faithful to Scriptures. 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. ++I distinguish between the house church and the cell church, not just what they do. In fact, some people also can’t see any major difference between what goes on in a house church meeting and a cell meeting. You know why? Because the cell group is borrowing house church principles! But there are differences, most clearly that of a hierarchy within the cell group itself. And even though the atmosphere is much more informal, the similarity in the format of their meeting bears much resemblance to a Sunday meeting. Someone has said this and I find this is very insightful The Old Covenant way (Temple, priests, clergy): The Roman Catholic, Traditional Protestant Churches The New Covenant way (no temple, no clergy) : Organic (House) churches Mixture of Old and New: Cell churches 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. ++The problem is that you have made the exceptions the norm! The early church weren’t thinking institutionally like you do. 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? ++I’m talking about all institutional churches, not those who fare worst than the others. What do you mean by vibrant churches? What were they before being vibrant? How did they maintain that vibrancy? Programs? Activities? A charismatic pastor? 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. ++You have not addressed the point about the early church doing their evangelism differently from us. And who said that you always need to command a crowd? The early church were a sent out people, they preached to those who had ready ears to listen, and who gathered in places for such discourses. With our “come-in” mentality, we bound believers to the same flawed theology we have about the church, and subject them to practices rooted in the Roman Catholic church. We get them to join a denomination rather than to join themselves to Christ. And also we do not equip believers to preach the Gospel but rely on professionals to do the job. 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? ++I will not comment much on this, except to issue a warning that we could end up presenting a social gospel. I have been involved and given no small amount to the Love Singapore Movement too. And surely God is to be praised for the cases of salvation we hear. But I have also seen the other side where the nonbelievers simply see the church as a charity organisation, a haven for free money and free goods. This wasn’t the picture the early church painted towards the unbelieving public. They weren’t mobilised in cleaning up people’s homes and washing horse carriages as community work to put the church in a good light. We may just be guilty of removing the offense of the cross and ending up giving a very diluted Gospel message, robbed of its power. 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?!? ++I have been through almost whatever the IC has to offer. You can name almost anything and I can say that I have put my hand into it, short of being an ordained minister. I have experimented with Gospel rallies, distributing free food, street evangelism, follow-ups, you name it. But like the author Ray Comfort who wrote about the way we share the Gospel and their results, I’m of the opinion that we may not be doing things the better way. Discipleship is not learnt in a class, it is lived out in relationship with the Body of Christ. Discipleship is a way of life, not a series of meetings going through follow-up materials, which often time amounted to little more than a transfer of information. 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. ++That’s what prooftexting does, but not if you understand the NT story. That’s why I pointed you to read “Revolution” by Gene Edwards. 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. ++How elaborate should it be? God gave us simple truths, no clergy, no laity, all priests, everyone functions. What have we done? We added on to simple truths by setting up clergy over laity, professionalising the ministry to a select few, establish building funds, laid down layers upon layers of hierarchy among the clergy. In the Body of Christ there is only one government, Jesus. And He has appointed elders and deacons, tested and matured believers, to guide the church and to lead by example, not to govern them or rule over them or to manage them. They are to provide an environment for the free expression of ministry, not to decide beforehand what ministries are available and slot people into them. People who say the Bible is ambiguous about church are also those who practice one distinct form of church and will defend them with their last breath. Think about it, if God is so meticulous over the instructions given to Moses for the construction of the tabernacle, which is but a shadow of heavenly things, would God leave the church, Jesus’ Bride, to our own whims and fancies? God has clearly told us in no uncertain terms how the church was like in the NT, but people do not want the better way. 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. ++And that very definition serves as an indictment on the divisions in the Body, and denominations are a blatant violation of that unity. YOU: As for the dictionary reference you quote, note that only the following is consistent with the NT teaching on the church, ME: Yup. And how does this definition of ekklesia invalidate our ecclesiology? ++How does it justify institutionalism and denominations? 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. ++Again you are going by the “never say this, never say that” approach to the neglect of what the early church did and why. I base my practice on what the Bible says whereas you base yours on what the Bible does not say. The bottom line is still the Word of God, you simply have no basis for how the church is functioning in the institutional church setup. 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. ++What’s the solution to divisions in the Body? Institutionalism? Was that what Paul did? Was Paul being insensible? I have said that I will not repeat myself. Unless I see something new in your posting, I will retire from this thread. ++What kind of new thing do you want to read, that I now am back in an IC and supporting the system? The call back to the NT church is a call that has gone forth right from the beginning of the Christian faith. Books like the Pilgrim Church, Torch of the Testimony, Reformers and Their Step-Children, The Radical Reformation, The Believers Church, all attest to this fact. In the same way, God says nothing new when He keep asking the Israelites to return to Him. The solution will always be the same because the problem is the same. In any case, just suit yourself, whether to continue or to retire from this thread. I am nevertheless grateful for the many times you have provoked me into deeper reflection and reading in order to reply you.