(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...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Only by twisting and turning, not by sound exegesis! 
House Church (again!) (Christopher Yip)
Clarifications (RTC)
The NT Model is not Normative, Not Meant to be. (Christopher Yip)
Not normative? On what basis? (RTC)
And Normative on What Basis? (Christopher Yip)
On basis that such was NT practices everywhere in first 300 years (RTC)
Is that therefore biblical? (Christopher Yip)
Yes it is (RTC)
Holds no water (passerby)
You use wrong cup (RTC)
pick up the same dictionary and please enlighten us what it says about Church(n/t)
Church is building for Christian worship (RTC)
Hee...Hee...Can't you even see the obvious contradictions to your arguments???(n/t) 
Hi Anon, 
biblical?
Let's see if you pass the biblical test (RTC)
Easton Bible Dictionary says...
Thayer's Greek Definition of Ekklesia (Christopher Yip)
Still got more (RTC)
Not Much Point in going further ... (Christopher Yip)
The same point (RTC)
OK, One Last Shot (Christopher Yip)
Missed by a long shot? (RTC)
Perhaps it'sYou? Food for thought. (Christopher Yip)
More food on the table (RTC)
Your Food is Giving Me Indigestion :-)) (Christopher Yip)
That's because you are not chewing! (RTC)
Nope. It's Because Your Food Is Indigestible - Too Much Imagination. Will Stick With The Bible. (Christopher Yip)
If you really stick to Bible, you won't get the IC today! (RTC)
We stuck with the Bible and we got BOTH the IC and HC! (Christopher Yip)
|
RTC, so your experience becomes THE standard for judging the validity of the ecclesiology of the church? No wonder you cannot think straight and look beyond your own disappointments. ++It is you who cannot think straight and who cannot see without using institutional rose-coloured glasses. You are the one who accuse me of being biased and keep asking me to consider both the cell and the church. And I am telling you that your accusation is baseless because I am not alien to what goes on in the IC. The reason why I mentioned about my experiences is to let you know (because you seemed to be willingly ignorant of this) that I am not just talking about ideas, but also that these are things which I have experienced. I have never looked at this issue based on my experience alone, that is your own strawman. My experience is but just one more statistic added to the countless others who have embraced non-institutional church life. Everyone speaks from the perspective that is part of his experience and do you nullify that? If I should be indicted for speaking out of my experience, you have self-indicted yourself too, for you also speak from your own experience in the IC. I have referred you to Scriptures, church history, many books which is sufficient to refute your accusation that what I am saying about the IC comes from just my experience. Please do not bury your head in the sand and pretend that all is well in Zion. ++ Rather it is you who have a lot of biased opinions about the HC, using the old sophistic arguments that HC is the stuff of cults, divisions, strife and bitterness etc. But many cults ARE formed from these! If your EXPERIENCE with HC is THE standard for judging validity, then the EXPERIENCE of such cults and their devastating consequences too speak of the impotence of the house church. Obviously, such an argument is invalid and THAT's the problem with YOUR argument. You take YOUR 20 years' bad experience with some particular church or churches and decide that the ecclesiology is therefore invalid. ++Are you saying that the IC is spared of cultic tendencies? How do you then explain the large cults in our midst today? Or do you pretend they don’t exist? I am not denying that cults have started from small groups, what I am saying is that these are not sufficient reason for indicting the HC just as the existence of large organised “Christian” cults do not provide sufficient reason for you to think that the IC should be questioned and abandoned. And your problem is to ignore that I have provided more than just my 20 years of experience (and I never said it was all 20 years of bad experience, so please retract that strawman), I have referred you to many other books and references, and even the Bible to tell you that the IC system is not based on Scriptures. If you need to restate my position, then do it properly. My experience with the HC is NOT the standard for judging validity, it is the Bible, and I am trying to bring my experience of the HC closer to that of the Bible, in BOTH principles and practices. Can't you SEE it? You are NOT interacting with our ecclesiology but with your own concoction of what we are. That's sad. ++What is even more sad is that you do not see the log in your eye. Tell me which are the things I have made up, can you? ++ And I regret that you see the problems with the HC as justification for perpetuating your own rather than to work towards the biblical model. See? Another figment of your imagination. I DO see problems with BOTH kinds of churches but I DO believe BOTH are NEEDED. You fail even to understand my position. What I was trying to do was to show you the INCONSISTENCY of your argument but I guess I failed. Too bad. ++Are you sure I am imagining things and not you? You are always saying “the HC also got this problem, also got that problem”, are you not? Wherein have I been inconsistent? Have I said the HC expression is problem-free? Haven’t I been saying all along that we need to bring the church in line with apostolic practices? What you have failed is to fail to see that the IC cannot be supported by Scripture. It is run like an institution and thus suffers from institutional and organisational problems. Such problems cannot be solved by appealing to Scripture because they do not arise out of being Scriptural, they are then sought to be solved largely through human management solutions. The HC also have their problems, but Scriptural problems have Scriptural solutions. For example, where a HC meeting gets a bit rowdy because people get too excited about sharing and become inconsiderate, Paul simply asked for self-restraint out of love, to take turns in speaking. The IC is different, because it fears that kind of rowdiness, it stops all participation (unless it is directed by the leader on the stage, and even so only for a short while) so that the program can run smoothly without any glitches. Anyway, it really doesn't matter if you don't BELIEVE that BOTH can co-exist because the fact of the matter is that they DO. ++Of course they do, but not without compromising, whether it is in regards to Scripture or with regards to the proper functioning of the church. It’s like the RCC and Protestanism. Do both co-exist now, of course they do. But do you think both should, in accordance to Scriptures? Now that’s a different conclusion altogether, isn’t it? I am curious, though, to know how it feels like to stand there and insist that this is not the way of the NT church when the churches succeed to transform the cell into NT churches. It probably would be similar to someone STILL insisting that a 20-year old car won't even start while watching it start and zoom off right before his eyes. ++You want to know how it feels? Well think about this, and I am using the same 1 Samuel 8 example. Was having a king over Israel God’s intended way of governing Israel? But then some of the kings did do quite OK. So are you going to ask God to “eat your heart out, what’s your problem, it’s working, isn’t it?” You must always remember one important truth, God will seek to bless those whose hearts are true to Him and seek to glorify Him, even if they employ less than His desired methods. God will still bless but such blessings would pale in comparison with what He would give if we used His ways. This is why I say God will bless in spite of those methods, not because of those methods. Can you grasp this or not? By the way, it came to my attention that any gathering of more than 5 people for such a purpose without permit or registration is against the law here. Do you know that? How are you getting around this problem? For us, it's OK because we come under the umbrella of the registered church. ++Firstly, there is an age-old myth that needs to be buried. The IC for almost 1,700 years have conveniently labeled those who chose to meet outside their system as heretics, usually not because of significant doctrinal controversy, but because these groups do not subscribe to their political and ecclesiastical stands. A good book to read is “The Reformers and their Step Children”. Secondly, you need a little education regarding this. Do you know how the police classify what is an illegal assembly? This is how it is: In the absence of a permit, any assembly or procession of 5 or more persons in any public road, public place or place of public resort intended — (a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person; (b) to publicise a cause or campaign; or (c) to mark or commemorate any event, is an offence under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order And Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules. The law applies equally to all and Police will not hesitate to take action against those who break the law. Now, does meeting in a home for a church meeting violate the above law? Not unless you think the house is a public place! So your problem is non-existent. And being regsitered with ROS does not mean you have a biblical church in existence. It just does not follow. Moreoever, being registered does not mean that you can then hold any meeting under the name of the registered entity, you still need a permit to meet in a public place. And this raises another issue. If I am not wrong, not all churches found in our 2000/2001 church directory are necessarily registered with the ROS. Do you think they constitute an illegal assembly even when gathered on Sundays? How do you deal with that? |
to:
Messages
Outline:
Here's Yet Another One of Your Blind Spots! by Christopher Yip, 2001, Jun 15
That spot already cleared, the blind spot is in your position by RTC, 2001, Jun 17
House Church (Again)! by PARROT, 2001, Jun 19
Something else for you to Parrot by RTC, 2001, Jun 20
Awck! Awck! RTC! RTC! PARROT KING!, 2001, Jun 26
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page