Your Food is Giving Me Indigestion :-))

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...

Your Food is Giving Me Indigestion :-))

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)
Re:

The same point (RTC)
Re:

OK, One Last Shot (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Missed by a long shot? (RTC)
Re:

Perhaps it'sYou? Food for thought. (Christopher Yip)
Re:

More food on the table (RTC)
Date: 2001, Jun 12
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

RTC,
++Let me ask you, how do you work towards unity and still maintain denominational names and divisions? Such endeavours are set up for failure right from the start! In the end you only have organisational cooperation which is only skin deep. Likewise, God allowed the IC to exist, but does it mean God approved the IC? Do we always like to push the boundaries by treading on what God permits, or as some may say, Gods permissive will?
ME: True unity is NOT achieved by removing denominational names nor an artificial removal of what divides us. It truly surprises me you argue such a fallacy. It betrays an ignorance of what really made denominations.
Take you and me for instance. Are we brothers in Christ? Are we one in Christ? Surely we are even though you have a different ecclesiology from me. Now, will you raise your children after MY view of ecclesiology? Will you tell them that MY ecclesiology is biblical? No you won't. And will you let your children ATTEND MY church? Again, you won't except perhaps only to see how "good" your own house church is. Now, aren't YOU dividing the Body too with such a stance? But is it not the case that you are convinced that you have the truth, the biblical truth? And hence, there is a need to stand OVER THERE as opposed to being OVER HERE?
The point is that - although we are united as one in truth in Christ, we have our differences and we have our "supporters" and birds of a feather flock together. While we continue to dialogue and work out our differences, we still go to our own churches and worship with those who share a common tradition, a common ecclesiology. And over time, we distinguish ourselves by a name not for the purpose of excluding others but just for identifying the tradition, doctrinal stand, culture that we have embraced.
Does your "unity" mean we have to abandon denominational distinctives FIRST? If so, can we not reverse the situation and require YOU to come over our side first instead? What's the difference?
True unity is achieved through unity in the essential doctrines, the Gospel. It was the Gospel that was handed down, it was the Gospel that Jesus brought, the apostles preached, it is the Gospel that will save man. This is the essential. Protestants are united as to sola fide and sola Scriptura.
And how do YOU work towards UNITY when you maintain that ONLY the house church is faithful to biblical example, the house church alone expresses the full church life? Can you not see that the house church itself is becoming ANOTHER denomination with name of House Church? This is how denominations and divisions often start - with those who are convicted of certain stand and find it necessary to separate from another group. Do you not see it?
I, on the other hand, by recognising both models, have PREVENTED a further division. By encouraging house churches to work WITH, not AGAINST, the churches, I am encouraging unity but not at the expense of truth since to me, I don't see any critical doctrinal issues involved here which affect the gospel.
++And how is the implication wrong? Are you saying that NOTHING is wrong with your ecclesiology that perpetuates division in the body? As far as I know, house churches that refuse to be known by distinct names not only have the right understanding of what it means to be the church in this respect, they even practice it out. Not all house churches go all the way (some are still institutional in a small setting or are IC in the beginning stages) but those who do make in effort to avoid the use of denominational or sectarian names to differentiate themselves from the others. That doesnt mean that NO division (whether difference in opinions or finer points of doctrine) exists at all but that they do not form the basis of dividing the Body of Christ organisationally.
ME: Your definition of "unity" is rather odd and artificial. Our ecclesiology perpetuates division as much as your ecclesiology does. You just don't see it. House churches which meet in the same way as the NT did are dismissed as house churches because they name themselves or work with the churches. So, House churches are united - they simply exclude those who call themselves house churches, who practise the same "norms" of the NT church but give themselves a group name or work with the churches. This IS skin deep unity, RTC.
Is dividing the Body of Christ ORGANISATIONALLY the kind of disunity that Christ or the apostles reject? Where did you get this? The unity that Christ and the apostles talk about is always unity in TRUTH, not ORGANISATION. TRUTH in His WORD ALONE. Then we might as well argue too that NATIONALITY divides the Body. Since Scriptures say there is no Gentile or Jew division in the Body, we all might as well abandon our nationality because that is divisive and form another Christian nation!
++Then what about the IC? Is it the form that best expresses the principles and were shown to us in the NT?
ME: There is no "best" form for all time and all situations, RTC. You should be intelligent enough to see that. You are simply being stubborn. The churches follow the NT principles as well as the OT principles. When God called Israel together in the tabernacle, it was corporate worship. Just as not ALL of Moses' Law have been abrogated, not everything about the Temple is done away with. The Church, as I have always said, evolves and adapts while adhering to the principles. The form continually changes but the substance remains the same. Unfortunate that you see an either or thing, and are locked into this mindset which explains your obstinacy. For me, I see BOTH corporate services and cell meetings.
++Well said, you talk about life being complicated now, but have you thought about how much more complicated we have made it out to be? Instead of a weekly meeting of interactive church meeting in a small group, complemented by voluntary associations outside and occasional large purpose-specific meetings, we end up asking believers today to commit to Sunday meeting, Friday prayer meeting, Saturday music practice, Saturday youth meeting, follow-up meeting, over-night prayer meeting, midweek cell meeting. If this is not complicated, then what is? I dont think it is an issue of complicated lifestyle as much as wanting to hold on to the institutional mindset.
ME: Well, you can continue to think "sacred cow", "institutional mindset", etc. This shows you are not interacting with what we ACTUALLY believe but somehow, for some psychological comfort, it is important that you believe this about us. We can say too that this house church thing is not an issue of normative NT model but really you wanting to be right, to win the debate. Surely you take offense at that.
Whether house church or otherwise, everything requires commitment and discretion. The various meetings are held to focus on certain aspects of the corporate church life together. If you cannot see this, it is regrettable. Each person must THINK for himself, assess his needs and decide on his participation. My personal policy is to focus on cell and Sunday worship and then spare one or two other days at most to contribute to other activities. For me it is to give tuition to needy students and to teach CE classes. Beyond this, I exercise my discretion and do not overtax myself or my family.
I suppose you can do EVERYTHING in your house church meeting - prayer for everyone, focus on youth, sharing the Word, etc. Amazing. To us, spreading them out so that people ACTUALLY benefit, rather than just going through the motion, is being responsible as shepherds of the flock. Nothing in the bible says that we can only meet once, in home, with no order of service, with no guitars, etc. It does say that edification must take place, the word must be preached and we do that.
++I knew youd say that. If the Bible is truly useful for teaching and training in righteousness, then it is a big deal. Cell groups are a step towards solving the problem of apathy and lack of involvement in the church and in that direction that has been a great help. But cell groups, while trying to solve one problem, leave others undone. What about the clergy-laity distinction? Or the hierarchy found in the church? Or the denominational names? Or the huge amounts of money tied up in real estate that could have better use?
ME: Do not miss the point - the churches ARE following the principles of the bible - both NT and OT. Beyond that, it is a matter of expediency and prudence. This is the point. You better let this sink in first.
The churches are not perfect (familiar? you said that about house churches too) and if such imperfections are so damning, then what about those imperfections of house churches? It is the case of beauty being in the eyes of the beholder? If you are Reformed and believe that God's Word teaches TULIP, how do you react to the Agape Anabaptists House Churches' Arminianism and the fact that they are teaching it to their house churches? OK for you in the name of unity?
As for clergy/laity distinction, I have said it before. If you want to argue, don't argue your own strawman, argue our definitions. The churches do not specify clergy/laity distinction for the purpose of EXCLUDING the priesthood of all believers. Deal with this, not your own strawman. It is unfortunate that people get the wrong idea about their role in the church because they have a fulltime pastor. Unfortunate indeed, but abuses and misconceptions are not the truth. Hierarchy in the church, again, is not for the purpose of making someone Vicar or infallible or what. Please go find out the real meaning and purpose and deal with that.
++Calvins confidence is misplaced. In fact, with the current cell structure, we see even more layers! And if the trend persists, we will see more mega-churches on the rise offering a plethora of consumer goods to attract members into their fold.
ME: You are entitled to your opinion but that is all to it - your opinion. In the same way, I opine that house churches without affiliation to established churches with clear creedal affirmations pave the way for heresies to infiltrate the groups and lead them astray. In addition, I predict that some of these house churches' leaders/elders will end up like Jim Jones or David Koresh because there is no check. Asking members to check the teachers from whom they are learning the word is rather self-defeating, in my opinion. And if members are supposed to self-study and reach that kind of proficiency with Scriptures capable of refuting errors, that would be an even greater demand on them than attending the various meetings in the church. Of course, this is only my opinion.
++How do I account for them? Simple, the same way these people are found outside the IC, God raised them up. Did the IC produce the people or did God raise up these people in spite of the IC system? You really ought to expand your reading horizons. If you havent read the Pilgrim Church, I encourage to lay hold of one.
ME: And can we say the same with house churches? Did the house churches produce the people or did God raise up these people in spite of the house church system? You really ought to read Calvin's Institutes Book IV, and also Augustine and Cyprian's Unity of the Church. They are available at www.ccel.org. Have a broader view. Stop for a moment and consider the possibility that both forms of ecclesiology are permitted and are best for the advancement of the church. I know the kneejerk reaction is to say no but try it as an exercise to remove your prejudice. You have nothing to lose.
As for me, no need to tell me do the same because I basically am a house church advocate but I may be drawn to that kind of house churches different from yours. I know enough that there is no ONE house church model in the market, there are still divisions and it IS possible for both to co-exist and in my own analysis, it is best that both exist for the advancement of God's kingdom. I am drawn to those house churches that work with the churches, recognise their own weaknesses, and leverage on the strengths of the churches. Perhaps this is another "denomination" of house churches, if you like. Of course, this is my opinion.
++If best practices are time based, then why are churches going back to the idea of small groups? Which is the addition here, the small groups or the IC system? BTW, the church is not a business to be run like one.
ME: They are going back to small groups because that is what is expedient now - it is the way to reach the people, to disciple them and to minister to each other as more people like to take charge of their own spiritual growth. As you have previously noted, both house and public churches have co-existed for centuries, both serving different needs but the same objective of discipling the nations for Christ. What is best for one age may not be best for another. And what has worked in 1850, stopped working for a while in 1900, may again be useful in 2001. We are NOT arguing PRINCIPLES here because they are PERPETUALLY best for ALL ages. We are talking about FORMS - meeting in homes, having one elder or many, etc. If a love feast after service in the church can edify the people, then let it be done even though the NT church knows nothing of it.
And I did not say run the church like a business, RTC. Please interact with what I ACTUALLY say, not figments of your imagination. I said: "These are frameworks for business excellence built on principles that are gathered from recognised world class organisations. In the same way, established churches have thrived on their ability to continually adapt to the needs of the community while at the same time guarding against heresies and working towards unity." In what "same" way, RTC? In the same way they held to the PRINCIPLES while adapting the FORMS. To fulfil our commission, we too must hold on to the PRINCIPLES while adapting the FORMS.
++If the early church fathers took Peter as figure head of the church, then what kind of head is Jesus? Nominal head? I hope you can understand how false the statement Where Peter is, there is the Church is.
ME: It's obvious you have not read Ambrose or Cyprian on this. This is becoming quite characteristic of your response - arguing straw man created out of ignorance or bias. A cursory glance at my postings on Peter and the rock will tell you what the fathers mean by that statement. It was Peter's confession that was the Rock Jesus spoke about, hence, ANYWHERE, and ANYONE who confesses Christ as Peter did is part of that church. Peter was the first confessor. It is his confession that is being referred to metonymically as "Peter". Ambrose was certainly no fan of the papacy. As I said before, please interact with our ACTUAL beliefs, not your straw man.
++It is clear that you are trying to evade the force of the argument. I agree that the bishops were not the ONLY ones to guard doctrines, but the fact was that they were specially looked upon to defend doctrines, to be a visible point of church unity. Today is the same. I have come across pastors who looked upon themselves as sole custodians of church doctrines over the churches they pastor.
ME: What force? Could it be a BREEZE that I have just missed? It's unfortunate that sometimes the flock or the pastor himself look upon the pastor as the sole defender of doctrine. More education is needed but no need to dismantly the whole thing. The point is this: Have you come across a church constitution (besides the RCC) that declares that the bishop or pastor is the sole defender of doctrine? In other words, it is part of our churches' ecclesiology to make the bishop the sole defeneder of doctrines? Misunderstanding does not mean we endorse it. If any of your house church members looks up to you as the defender of doctrine and sees you as their chief pastor, even though you vehemently reject such notions, does it invalidate the house church ecclesiology?
And on the visibility of the church unity, it surprises me that you express such ideas. It seems that you aren't aware of the invisible and visible unity of the church as expounded by theologians over the last two millenia. Of course you can go fundamental on me and say you adhere only to Scriptures (not knowing that the fathers exegeted Scriptures on this), that's up to you but I would advise you to read more Historical Theology. A good primer would be Paul Einns' Moody's Handbook of Theology.
++ And Dan suggested going to the IC Sunday service to better appreciate the intimacy of house church life, not as an endorsement of the Sunday service meeting. As for attending house church conferences, it is true that disagreements do exists and I know of instances whereby people in the IC who entered into such conferences just to create trouble. The key is not the total absence of disagreements, but the biblical way of handling them. Family squabbles are fine and should be handled well, in a family way. But institutional squabbles are handled differently, and at times by being fired! All in all, Summit Fellowships is not an institutional church, it is a name used to designate a network of house churches.
ME: The churches do not need Dan's endorsement, RTC. You miss the point that house churches co-exist and work with the churches, not against them, calling for their abolition, saying they are unblibical, etc. That's a HUGE difference in attitude.
Your bias is again showing - so whenever there is trouble in house church conference, it is the "IC people" who create it? You mean ALL house churches are agreed on every aspect of their church life and doctrines and those who cause trouble are those "IC people"? So the doctrinal stand of Agape Anabaptists House Churches must be the work of "IC people", eh? In any case, what's this thing with "conference"? Is it biblical? Did the NT house churches meet to have conferences where they discuss "best practices"? Or they have plenary or breakout sessions? Or they listen to pastors talk - gosh!? Sorry, I was being exact.
When it comes to handling difference and church discipline, don't mistake the FORM for the PROCESS. The church may carry out inquiry and such elaborate procedures but it does not mean the biblical principles of witness and counselling and rebuke are not being followed. They just do it in a formal way. Again, we must not use abuses of the system as proof of faulty ecclesiology, you must study the constitution of the church to determine if they follow the biblical principles.
Summit is not a church, we all know that by reading the webpage. But why DIFFERENTIATE themselves by a NAME from other house churches? Is that biblical? What about Atkerson's NT Restoration Foundation? Why the name? Why not follow the biblical "norm" - to the church at Corinth, at Ephesus, so to the church in Chicago? And such names make them DISTINCT from others - don't they DIVIDE the Body also?
It makes me wonder why the same practices when done in house churches are "following patterns" but when done by the churches are either "unbiblical"? Strange way of arguing. Let me guess what you will say, it's all in my head. Well, we will let the readers judge.
++ If we are really here to affirm Jesus Christ, then lets have a church whose Builder is Christ. Our master-carpenter has told us in the NT how His church looks like, and it is a people whose fellowships are expressed in an organic-relational way. Homes do not define them, but the expression of their fellowships are lived out in the homes of believers naturally. In this church there is no class distinction, no official organisational affliliation, no sanctuaries and no temples, for they are the Temple of God and members one of another.
Yup, but that is not ALL there is to the church. The Church also worships God corporately. This is portrayed to us amply in the OT. You are mistaking the part for the whole.
++ My belief is this, if Jesus Christ is really central and Head of the Church, and people are gathered together around Him and for Him, what you have will be the expression of a first century church, not the IC. Think about it, try it.
You forget, RTC, that I am an advocate of house churches and I do attend cell meetings. We do make body ministry a part of our meetings. I don't have to just think about it, I have tried it. Instead, why don't you try and also join in the corporate worship on Sunday in the church? You will then have the blessing of both. In BOTH the church and cell, Jesus is ALWAYS central and Head and we are the people of His pasture. There is no such dichotomy that Jesus is Head and central only in cell and He is thrust aside on Sunday meetings.
++What are your arguments? Isn t it a boiling down to expediency? I hardly find myself arguing over Scriptures with you. The arguments you proffer falls mostly, if not all, under pragmatism and expediency. BTW, seems like expediency is another sacred cow to be kicked over!
You completely miss the point of the argument. How does expediency come into play in a Christian's judgement? Only when he is convinced that the bible has given that freedom. Since you completely miss my argument, let me state again. Scripture does not give a detailed ecclesiology, it gives normative ("rule") principles of priesthood of all believers, body ministry, preaching the word, guarding the gospel but not normative ("rule") FORM of ecclesiology. The principles rest on the imagery of a body functioning and working together as a whole.
Since the bible does not teach a mandatory form of ecclesiastical structure, the form must therefore be adapted to achieve the same goals while not sacrificing any principles. The NT does give us info on how they did it and we ought to listen to it and peruse it carefully and adapt it accordingly as the early church of the fathers did.
As much as we regret it, denominations are formed not for selfish reasons (although some are) but because one of the principles of the church is to be the pillar and ground of truth, that is, to safeguard doctrines, hence, such divisions are necessary. Denominations are also formed due to geographical and cultural causes but they maintain their unity on the two principles of sola scriptura and sola fide.
You know why you hardly find yourself arguing Scriptures with me? Could it be that you actually block yourself mentally from reading it? I have offered you exegeses from Calvin and there's plenty more from the church fathers on ecclesiology.
++Everyone claims to do exegesis, but we need to arrive at proper exegesis. And this will require time and reflection. You can challenge mine and I will also take you to the task. And I am not saying that the IC is incapable of proper exegesis at all. There may be instances of faulty exegesis even in ecclesiology which can be pointed out by people in the house church, and vice versa. In doing so we are all propelled towards a purer doctrine, and hopefully a purer expression of the church. The worst thing is to say we have always done it this way.
Yup. And my challenge is really very simple. For 7 or 8 posts I have asked only one question really - where does the bible indicate that the FORM of the early church meeting is to be set in stone for the rest of the church life? And my argument is this: If it is not set in stone, then obviously the church needs to evolve and adapt itself to best meet the challenges of her time in order to advance God's kingdom.
All you can argue is that the NT did it and so, you INFER that it therefore MUST be a perpetual model. You call that proper exegesis, I call it reading into the text. On my part, from the beginning until now, I provided you
- historical background (Schaff, Athanasius,Sozomen)
- exegesis (Calvin)
- other house church example (Summit, Agape, NT Restoration)
- patristic church pattern (I pointed out Augustine, Cyprian)
to show you that there was NEVER an understanding such as yours that the NT house church was to be the "best" form of ecclesiology for all time.
In closing, I would like to re-direct the same set of questions below to you on the house church. Now, if you will STOP long enough to think about these questions, I am quite sure you will reap some benefits:
++ This is enough to repudiate your false thinking that I need to find myself hung on a cross. Did the NT teach that every believer should die a martyr? Or did it teach that every believer would expect trials and persecution, even unto death in following Jesus? As believers we do not seek to be martyrs for Christ, we should seek to first live for Christ and if need be, to even suffer for Him. Do I have to live a Christian life and chart it such that I die a martyrs death?
Re-direct: This is enough to repudiate your false thinking that we need to meet in homes or to do away with denominational naming. Did the NT teach that every believer should meet in homes? Or did it teach that every believer should minister and edify each other and to preach the Gospel even unto death? As believers we do not follow the bible blindly, we should seek to preach the Gospel and minister to each other in the best possible way the age dictate without sacrifing our principles. Do I have to only be in a house church and nothing else?
++ Im not saying anything different, these practices are normative in that they were held in many places over the first few centuries, and they were backed by the authority of the apostles who planted these churches and established certain norms of behaviour and practices. You can always argue yourself out of these practices because of expediency or because you simply dont want to rock institutional traditions laid down by predecessors, it is up to you.
Re-direct: I'm not saying anything different, the bible does not say that the meeting in homes were "backed by the authority of the apostles who planted these churches". Instead, the bible speaks of the principles of body ministry and priesthood of all believers. Calvin has expounded on it and the church fathers have continued the same understanding in their ecclesiology. You can always argue yourself into believing that the house church is the ONLY way to go because it is THE "best practice" or you can examine Scriptures and church history and listen, it is up to you. It seems that you have gone too far and any admission of wrong is quite impossible at this stage, well, you just have to deal with it.
++The house church model is the NT model, and such it does not need to be abandoned. Do you abandon marriage because divorce rates are happening with other people or do you work on your own marriage and teach others the same? I do likewise, the church that meets in my house, or whoevers house, will start from our own. We dont throw down the gauntlet just because there is some that do not share the same view. We have started with ourselves and shared with others, what about you? If you need to pick examples, dont choose bad ones, otherwise you are simply being defiant in your attitude.
Re-direct: The principles are followed in the established churches, and as such the churches need not be abandoned. Do you abandon marriage because divorce rates are happening with other people or do you work on your own marriage and teach others the same? I do likewise, I encourage the members to attend cell and to actively participate in them besides coming together for corporate worship. What about you? If you need to be stubborn, be stubborn with the principles, not the forms, otherwise you are simply being legalistic.
Christopher