That's because you are not chewing!

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...

That's because you are not chewing!

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)
Re:

Your Food is Giving Me Indigestion :-)) (Christopher Yip)
Date: 2001, Jun 14
From: RTC

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. ++I know how denominations come about. But understanding how it comes about is one thing, but does understanding it justify it? True unity is already ours according to the Bible when we are born into God’s family. That’s why we are called to maintain it, not to seek for it. Removing of denominational names without understanding the need to do so is useless. Where’s the fallacy in my argument? The removal of denominational names may not mean that unity is recognised overnight, but it certainly goes a long and right way towards maintaining unity. On the other hand, it is fallacious to argue that there is unity while everyone cling on to their denominational loyalties. 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 difference we have is over the expression of the church and it boils down to our understanding of Scriptures. We may choose to be involved in a particular fellowship according to the light we received but that does not justify the taking on of distinctive attitudes or names where it becomes “my church” or “your church”. I will gladly welcome you into my house even if we don’t share the same view and I will also expect the same from you as we receive each other in the name of the Lord. For sure, because of our different ways of understanding church, I will seek to bring believers into the house church expression rather than the IC expression, after properly explaining to them. But in no way will I teach them that those in the IC are not our brethren whom we would refuse. 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. ++I’ve no problem with various distinctiveness of churches and differences between churches. I believe the NT makes provision for that too. But I have problems with taking on labels and brands to propagate and advance these distinctiveness. And like it or not, labels and denominations have the effect of excluding others and is meant to convey what one believes in contradistinction to what the other does. It serves to highlight differences and stress the divisions rather than the similarities and the common. 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? ++Hey, I’ve been on your side for many almost two decades already. Nothing has changed and probably will not. We have only successfully held our hands over our own fences for some shortlived purposes but the fences are still rooted to the ground. And I’m not asking you to come to my side. If you follow what the Scriptures teach, we’ll all be on the same “side” and it’s not my side, but it’s what the Scriptures talk about. If you think it is a matter of sides rather than about being biblical in our practices, then you are still unenlightened about the subject matter. Can you not see that the house church itself is becoming ANOTHER denomination with name of House Church? ++The house church is not a denomination. I do not see it as a denomination but a return to the practice of the first century style church. It is simply a term used to distinguish itself from the IC. It is no more a denominational term than is the distinction between a male and female. I am more than comfortable to simply use the word church but it will only confuse readers. But can you not see that by restoring the first century-styled church we are actually removing denominations rather than adding to it? By saying that the HC is a denomination, you have betrayed your faulty understanding of the HC, putting it on the same platform as other denominations. The HC mindset is fundamentally different from the IC mindset. From a house church perspective, I do not work towards unity as much as I should act consistently with what God has said about us, that we are already united in Christ. The IC says “to be united we need this and that, do this and that”. The HC says “because we are united in Christ, we will do this and that”. 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. ++You are not encouraging anything at all but simply perpetuating denominations. By treating the HC as a denomination like the IC you have added to it rather than prevented it. Unity is not confined to the means by which we entered into God’s family, the Gospel. And we are not talking soteriology here, but ecclesiology. For sure the issues we discuss have little to do with the Gospel message. But if these are not critical issues, my question to you is then “why do we divide ourselves over non-critical issues?” ME: Your definition of "unity" is rather odd and artificial. Our ecclesiology perpetuates division as much as your ecclesiology does. ++Again your faulty understanding is evident. A true understanding of the church does not permit the excluding of any other believers, whether in the IC or HC. If some HC take on distinctive names, that to me is a shame, but I do not treat them any less my brethren. If HC really meet the NT way, they will not take on distinctive names, other than to be known as “the church in thy house”, which is not really a name as much as to specify where the church meets. That’s exactly how the NT church addresses itself. 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. ++ Where did you get the idea that Christ or the apostles accept the organisational divisions we have today? Yes we are united in truth, and what is truth or who is truth? Isn’t it Jesus? If Jesus, who is the Truth, is the basis for our unity, what’s the basis for those denominations? 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! ++Talk about strawman arguments! I didn’t know you also practice what you denounce. The NT recognises such geographical separations in Paul’s writings. If Paul has no problem with that, I also have no problem, so why should you? You want to talk about sola scriptura, then this is one of it. You are always free to “as well argue this or that” but if it is not based in Scripture it is of no value other than being a debate tactic. Just as not ALL of Moses' Law have been abrogated, not everything about the Temple is done away with. ++What? You are still living under the old covenant? Which part of the Temple is not done away with? What OT principles are you alluding to? God’s people in the OT had to live under the parameters of holy places and a separate priesthood. But when Christ came, these gave way to a new and better spiritual reality, that of a holy people and a priestly people. You have to be specific about what are the things the NT church did which is a carried over from OT practices. 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. ++Here’s where you are wrong. You divorce form from function as if form has no effect on function. IC and HC to me is certainly an either/or thing, simply because the NT does not describe anything that resembles the IC setup and that’s where your obstinacy comes in. You first have to deal with yourself over one issue: does the NT church describe the HC/church in the home or does it describe the IC in action? For me, I see both small meetings (house church) and occasional larger scale meetings (house churches coming together for some purpose) but it is not a cell church setup nor an IC. 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. ++What you actually believe will be evident with HOW you actually behave. I do not take offense whether you think the NT is normative or not. It’s your call and any loss is yours, not mine. There’s no loss to me if you don’t follow NT practices in your meetings. 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. ++Of course I can see this. In fact, it has to be so simply because that’s the way the system runs. Because it is so big by nature, it has to run some mini-activities to cater to these needs. Being big organisationally really complicates matters, if you can’t see this, then it is regrettable. 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. ++What is so amazing? The NT church can do the teaching, praying, fellowship and breaking of bread when they come together, why? That’s because their meetings are by design small and did not have the idea of a 2 hour service. The IC knows that the 2 hour service cannot meet everyone’s needs and so have to resort to breaking up into other meetings to supplement it. The HC meeting has no motion to go through, no agenda or format of service to adhere to for two hours to justify that meeting. Compare that to the IC, the “show” goes on even if the congregation is half-asleep or not paying attention! 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. ++Always look at what the Bible says first, not what it does not say. Am I saying that the HC meet once a week only, no guitars and musical instruments? That’s not what I say. Certainly edification must take place, but do you have any idea how it takes place? Is it via an order of service, spectator-style? Or a meeting that is orderly, participant-style? Think about that. 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. ++What you should allow to sink in first is that how the church function is not about expediency and prudence! Principles are one thing, but practice also follow closely. I do not wish to elaborate further as I already have done so. 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? ++Here we go again, your argument is “if you can do that imperfectly, then I am also justified in persisting in mine.” That’s nothing but pure rebellious defiance. All believers should provoke each other towards what God has intended. One’s failures or shortcomings should only be used as learning points, and not cause for remaining in the status quo and nestling in it. You have clearly opted for the latter. 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. ++Of course no pastor who wants to keep his job will tell you straight to the face that the clergy and laity distinction is used to exclude the priesthood of believers. But can these very people pretend to be ignorant about what clergy and laity means, bearing in mind that many have went through seminaries? So what is YOUR definition of clergy and laity and how do YOU justify it from Scriptures? 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. ++It comes with the territory. If the church is paying you to do the job that they are supposed to be doing, then you can’t blame them for taking the back seat. Just look at any pastor’s job description, which one is the sole domain of the pastorate? If there are abuses and misconceptions, how did they come about? 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. ++I can’t find the real meaning of hierarchy in the church from the Bible. In fact, I don’t see even any slight notion that there is to be a hierarchy among believers. The dictionary says that hierarchy means pecking order, higher rank and lower ranks. Is there another “real” meaning other than this that you can tease out from the NT? ME: 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. ++Is your definition of established churches that with a denominational name, works like a well-oiled corporation, and is registered under the ROS? That doesn’t seem to be fit with the Bible. When it comes to false doctrines, you can’t hide behind an organisation and think you are exempt from it. In any case, you probably have little idea what and how cults work. Cults can work in small groups and big groups (JWs, Moonies, Mormons). You are therefore not immune to the dangers of your own prediction. Like I said, marriage is taught in Scripture and if some bombed, that doesn’t mean you question the whole marriage thing. Similarly, the HC is taught in Scripture and if some bombed (as the NT forewarned already) it does not mean the whole model is suspect. The solution is to be a diligent man of the Word. But is the IC taught in Scripture? Not unless you have a poor grasp of the Scriptures. 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. ++ The Scriptures even exhorted believers to be diligent in the matters of Scriptures, and the folks in Berea even had to double-check on Paul. This is a demand that Scriptures require of everyone, are you undermining it? I don’t care about your opinion. I care about what Scripture says. Every believer should make understanding the Bible an important part of their Christian life, to strengthen them and to recognise false doctrines. Is that self-defeating? Not at all, maybe the only thing it defeats is the pastor’s job! Or are you for keeping the people as spiritual infants, always depending on your for a right understanding of the Bible? 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. ++I hate to repeat this over and over again but I have been an active part in the cell church movement, using Touch resources and follow up kits, involved in the sponsor program, what have you. I have already considered that possibility and lived with it for some time. I have thought through it, experimented with it, lived in it and come out of it. And this is not because the IC is bad to the core, but because the NT has shown the better way. 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. ++My opinion is that you are not as much house church advocate as you are small groups advocate, and you think the cell group is a house church. The work of the church is not the church. Individuals from HC may choose to share in the work of the IC where they are comfortable, whether it be a city march or a musical drama. The only problem is whether IC will accept people from the HC as part of their ad hoc projects without asking “who is your covering?”, “which church you go to?” 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. ++It is not a matter of expediency. Rather it is the recognition of what house churches have been trying to say all along. And these house churches did not function on the basis of expediency, but on biblical norms. If as you said, cell groups are better in doing those things, then why is there a need to maintain the organisation with all the overheads? That would make the IC setup redundant. Though I have noted that both HC and IC have co-existed, I am not in any way saying that the IC has as much biblical justification as the HC. 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. ++Meeting in homes have always been bested suited for church meetings for the past 2000 years, even Luther recognised that, only to lament that he cannot find such people within his congregation. As to leadership, the principle of equal and plural leadership has always been an obvious teaching of Scripture. As to love feast, if the NT knows nothing of such a dichotomy between a service and a love feast, then we need to ask why. It baffles me to think that only you can think of expediency as a reason and not them. You have to let the point sink in that forms are not divorced from principles. 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. ++Whose talking about papacy here? I admit I have not read Ambrose or Cyprian, except to come across references to them and their words in church history texts. So I am taking the statement “where Peter is, there is the church” at face value and similar to Ignatius similar remarks of “Where the bishop is, there is the church.” You can simply present that statement to any ordinary believer and I am doubtful that many can reply the way you did. ME: 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? ++Here’s where your significant problem lies in. You are always asking me to prove where something is explicitly taught in the churches, thinking that if something is not expressly taught in creedal form or doctrinal form, then there is no case. But it is common knowledge that the pastor is always seen as the rally point, the spokesman, the man with the vision, the man who hears from God, the man like unto Moses, who leads the way to the promised land etc. He becomes “the” man the church looks up to. 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. ++I am familiar with the distinctions, but they are a product of the Reformation, not of the Scriptures. As to church unity, Philip Schaff says that “The most important personages in the development of the doctrine concerning the church are, again, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian. Their whole doctrine of the episcopate is intimately connected with their doctrine of the catholic unity, and determined by it. For the episcopate is of value in their eyes only, is the indispensable means of maintaining and promoting this unity: while they are compelled to regard the bishops of heretics and schismatics as rebels and antichrists.” You may charge me for reading it wrongly but I find the statement pretty clear. 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"? ++Remember you warned about not interacting with my figment of imagination? Well, you just fell right into one. I said “some instances” but now you say it is “whenever there is trouble it is the IC people.” HC people do not agree on EVERYTHING but they should not let these disagreements be the basis for division. 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. ++No, you are not being exact, but being fault finding. I have said before, the early HC did gather on certain occasions for some specific purposes, either to hear an apostle or to make some decisions, but it wasn’t for a weekly service. HC people call such larger meetings “ministry meetings” to denote such a type of meeting as distinct from “church meetings”. So we have these conferences as a form of network and to encourage one another. We have them you also not happy, we don’t have them you also charge us with not being affiliated. What’s your problem? 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? ++You slap yourself in the face. First you acknowledge that Summit is not a church, but then you charge them for differentiating themselves from other house churches. That’s just being a fault-finder. If a setup or a web page does not cite itself as a church, don’t make it up to be. You have again fell into the confusion between the church and her work. People from the various HC can come together for the express purpose of sharing truths via a bookshop or a website, they are simply engaging in the work of the church. 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. ++So are you saying you have no disagreement to what I have said above, except to add the dimension of corporate worship? Then again, what and who defines corporately? How many do you need to have to have a corporate worship? Obviously what you have in mind is the IC setting. That to you is the corporate church, but then that is arguably mistaking the part for the whole too. A HC meeting with 15 people is as much engaged in corporate worship as is an IC with 10,000 people. 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. ++You forget that your idea of HC is different from mine. For you the HC is the cell group which I disagree. And you also forget that I have been in the IC setting, attending services for many years and been active in cell groups. In both meetings, Christian cliché would have us mouth “Christ is head” but the all too common reality is that people look to the cell leader or pastor to see the meeting through. It’s not that these people becomes the head doctrinally, but that in practice people look to them primarily rather than to the Lord. 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. ++It is you who have completely missed the argument. It is true that Scripture does not give a detailed ecclesiology, but then it is not true that there is therefore no normative forms given in Scripture. If I were to ask you what are some of the things in the NT church that is consistently practiced, can you say you can’t see any at all? Of course you can fall back on “that does not mean I must follow it” but you cannot say that “Scripture is silent on that or that it provides no details on that so that it is up to us to decide on it.” The imagery of the Body provides a framework for how the church should function when they meet, it is not just a nice imagery with no practical value. 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. ++Apparently you do see some normative forms of church structure in the NT, it’s just that you do not think we have to follow them. Here’s where we agree. I have never said that these NT forms are absolutely binding for us, except for any that are explicitly stated. But what I have been saying is that these forms are best suited for the functioning of the church. Something does not have to be explicitly commanded in order to remain authoritative for church practice. Rather, distinctive apostolic patterns should suffice. They stand out; they are discernible; and they reflect Christian theology. Just think of the absurdities that we would be led to if we argued that only those things which are directly commanded should be practiced by our churches. It is not simply a matter of whether or not it is commanded; that misses the point. We have to stop thinking in those terms if we are to recapture the intended theology behind apostolic orthopraxy. Let us reexamine afresh apostolic orthopraxy lest as a church we continue to second-guess the divine design and in the process find ourselves relying on the "wisdom of the age" rather than on the wisdom of God. 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. ++ Alexander R. Hay, in his classic work, The New Testament Order for Church and Missionary, argues strongly for following the apostolic pattern in church polity: It has been concluded by some that no definite or permanent form of church organization is given in the New Testament. It is suggested that, at the time of the apostles, church organization was still rudimentary in form and only in process of formation and that its was God’s purpose that it should be developed and perfected later as the need arose. Such a conclusion, however, is a grave error: it is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture and throws open the door to whatever organization man may deem necessary. The fact is that the apostles, fulfilling the ministry which God gave them, laid a complete and perfect foundation for the church, both as regards structure and doctrine. A careful and unbiased study of the New Testament will make it abundantly clear that a full and detailed revelation is given regarding the structure of the church and that all the congregations planted in apostolic times were organized in accordance with that pattern . . . It is clearly evident that Paul and all the other church-planters of that time introduced a complete and uniform order into all the churches. It is true, of course, that much was changed and much was added in the organization of the church after the days of the apostles. A definite tendency to do this had been evident even in their day and had been strongly resisted. To those who would have introduced a different order in Corinth, Paul wrote: "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (1 Cor.11:16). That rebuke in itself proves that there was a definitely established order recognized by all the churches. It clearly implies that the order was uniform in all the churches and that no deviation from it was permitted in any congregation. Later, however, after apostolic times, this tendency to modify the divinely revealed order gained ground in the less spiritual churches. Man began to tinker with both the structure and doctrine of the foundation laid by God through the apostles, and there began the long process of development in the organization of the church, along the lines of human organization, which reached its height, in the course of several centuries, in the Roman Catholic Church. To know the doctrines and spiritual truths that God has given us, it is necessary to "search the Scriptures." It is not surprising, surely, that a diligent search of the Word of God is necessary to know the full revelation of the pattern which He has given for His church. It is not that the teaching regarding the church is obscure or difficult to discover. On the contrary, it is clear, ample and detailed. The real difficulty arises when we approach the Word with preconceived ideas. If we have modern church organization as the basis of our thinking and try to fit Scripture into that mold, we shall find ourselves faced with an impossible task. Not finding what we look for, we may conclude that the revelation is incomplete in that respect. It hardly should be necessary to say that if we desire to know the order and methods practiced in the New Testament church, we must seek to approach the Word with an entirely open mind, prepared for any unexpected discovery (pp.133-135). 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. ++And my reply is also really very simple. For many posts I have advanced one common theme, that even without explicit commands from the apostles in the epistles (which were not manuals on church structures but letters addressing church issues with some references to church structures), distinct forms have been laid down by the apostles in every church they planted which is sufficient for us to adhere to for our benefit. My argument is this, if the NT did it, there must be good reasons why they did it, especially if it was a widespread practice, and the church today needs to return to these practices to find herself consistent with both apostolic practice and theology. All you can argue is that the NT never said cannot, and so infer that anything we do today is therefore justified. In fact, you are guilty of reading into the text rather than me. I am asking that we should follow NT practice, so I am not reading anything 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. ++You have already defined the conclusion by referring to post apostolic examples. We must be faithful to apostolic ecclesiology and yet appreciative for those advances or contributions which Christ has brought to His church through His servants (e.g., such men as Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, and others). At the same time, we must also guard ourselves from romanticizing the Reformation period and making the ecclesiology of the Protestant Reformers the final standard – for in many areas, the Reformers simply continued the rigid clericalism and excessive institutionalism began in the fourth century and which continued into the Medieval age. And those HC examples, sorry to say, all agree that the HC is the biblical way to meet. 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: ++If you would stop long enough to think through what you are saying, I think you are the one who will reap the benefits rather than me. Here’s what you are saying (I have rephrased your words) plus my counter comments: we need not meet in homes (++Did I ever said we must, need to or have to? Even cell groups find homes the best and ideal place to meet in. That’s what I have been saying all along, that the home is the best and most natural place to meet for a first century styled interactive meeting. It’s a shame that we realise it only 2000 years later) we can retain our denominational naming (++If you insist in perpetuating divisions that Paul rejects, it’s up to you) Do I have to only be in a house church and nothing else? (++What is nothing else? Just look at the NT church, did they have house church meetings only and nothing else? Read your Bible!) the bible does not say that the meeting in homes were "backed by the authority of the apostles who planted these churches". (++neither did the Bible say that “the church needs to evolve and adapt itself to best meet the challenges of her time in order to advance God's kingdom.” I can claim biblical precedent and support not only for what I do, but also how I do it, but can you? Not unless you read into the text!) 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. (++As far as the proper exegesis of the NT goes, the only expression of the church they knew was the HC expression, or the church that meets in the house. There is no such thing as the IC. You can examine the Scriptures and see for yourself. It is you who have taken in 1700 years of RCC practices which you find hard to admit that it needs to be reviewed and discarded. You have to deal with it.) The principles are followed in the established churches, and as such the churches need not be abandoned. (++You don’t abandon the church, you reject the system. You cannot reject the church which is the people, or are you thinking of buildings and organisation again, and confusing the church with the system again?) If you need to be stubborn, be stubborn with the principles, not the forms, otherwise you are simply being legalistic. (++To be legalistic means to place too great an importance on keeping exactly to what the law says. Is that what I am saying? Not at all. I have stated many times that you don’t just follow the form blindly. It all begins with a right understanding of what the church is, and the form will follow the function, bearing in mind the NT precedents. In closing, I quote from J.L. Dagg who, in his Manual of Church Order (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books [Reprint, 1858]), provides an illuminating comment on this issue of direct command and its absence in matters of church practice: It must be admitted, that the Scriptures contain very little in the form of direct precept relating to the order and government of churches. But we have no right to require that everything designed for our instruction in duty, should be made known to us only in the way of direct command. Judicious parents give much instruction to their children by example; and this mode of instruction is often more intelligible and more useful than precept. It was made the duty of the apostles to teach their converts whatsoever Christ had commanded, and to set the churches in order. If, instead of leaving dry precepts to serve for our guidance, they have taught us, by example, how to organize and govern churches, we have no right to reject their instruction, and captiously insist that nothing but positive command shall bind us. Instead of choosing to walk in a way of our devising, we should take pleasure to walk in the footsteps of those holy men from whom we have received the word of life. The actions of a wise father deserve to be imitated by his children, even when there is no evidence that he intended to instruct them by his example. We revere the apostles, as men inspired with the wisdom which is from above; and respect for the Spirit by which they were led, should induce us to prefer their modes of organization and government to such as our inferior wisdom might suggest. But the apostles designed that their modes of procedure should be adopted and continued. Paul commended the church at Corinth, because they had kept the ordinances as he had delivered them. Some things which needed further regulation, he promised to set in order when he came, evidently implying that there was an order which ought to be established. Titus, whom he had instructed, he left in Crete, to ordain elders in every city, and to set in order the things that were wanting. To Timothy, he said: "The things which thou hast heard of me, the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also"[2 Tim.2:2]. As matters of church order formed a part of of his own care and action, and a part of what he had committed to Titus, so we must believe that they formed a part of that instruction which he had given to Timothy, to be transmitted by him to other faithful men, and by them to their successors . . . We arrive, therefore, at the conclusion that, whatever the apostles taught, whether by precept or example, had the authority, not only of the Holy Spirit by which they were guided into all truth, but also of their Lord who had commissioned them (pp.84-86). Alfred Kuen, a Bible teacher at the Emmaus Bible Institute in Switzerland, has written: Has the not the history of twenty centuries of Christianity proved that the plan of the primitive church is the only one which is suitable for all times and places, is most flexible in its adaptation to the most diverse conditions, is the best able to resist and stand against persecutions, and offers the maximum of possibilities for the full development of the spiritual life? Each time that man has believed himself to be more intelligent than God, that he has painstakingly developed a religious system "better adapted to the psychology of man," more conformable to the spirit of our times, instead of simply following the neotestamentary model, his attempt has been short-lived because of failure due to some unforeseen difficulty. All heresies and deviations in the church spring from the abandonment of the Scripture and of the model for the church which they present . . . the churches established by the apostles remain the valid models for churches of all times and places (I Will Build My Church, pp.17, 253).