The Old and the New

HEADER FOR MessageBoard II

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome to Messageboard II

Agora Messageboard now functions as a quorum. Please click to join as a member. We want to hear from you... A query that needs an answer, a word to uplift the people, a statement of concern that needs prayer, a cry for help...

God bless you...

Previous Messageboard have been archived.

The Old and the New

Forum: Messageboard
Re:

church in Jurong West vicinity
Re:

City Harvest (Liz R.)
Re:

Sorry, City Harvest is not Traditional Church, Lolz...eom (Emmanuel)
Re:

The true City (Ivan)
Re:

Impressive (RTC)
Re:

What great feats of men to turn the wasteland into a holy masterpiece sanctuary of God! (Ivan)
Re:

Reasons??? (RTC)
Re:

I believe every building of a new church is a testimony of the members' faith in a great God (Ivan)
Re:

I can see that, but can you see this? (RTC)
Re:

In times like these (Ivan)
Re:

Living in the Old? (RTC)
Date: 2001, Dec 27
From: Ivan Ivan

YOU++Like others, you have to resort to quoting the OT for support. Brother, we are now living in the NT! The Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands. The NT bears this teaching as can be seen in the practices of the early church.
ME: How well do you know about the churches in Acts times? Are there buildings for them to meet besides the home churches? And do you think God dwell in the homes of believers in the NT? Are you writing this reply from hearsay? Is it a reliable source? Is it credible? Can you accept archaelogical findings as proof of churches existence in Antioch? Archaelogical excavations at the site (Antakya) have unearthed over 20 ruined churches dating from the 4th century AD. Can I ask you whether is the OT part of the Bible? You might as well throw away the OT as you like it if you don't want to quote from it. You don't have to follow the letter like observing the Levitical laws but you can make applications based on spiritual principles in the OT for our Christian living.
YOU:++I see that you have equated the Church of God with a piece of property. Sorry but I do not share the same paradigm as you do. Neither do I look upon my home as a sanctuary where believers come in with somber faces. Nor is my home a place for believers to come and meet God. There is nothing sacrosanct about my home. We can just as well meet in someone’s home or in a park by the beach. I am more interested in the church (people) of God than the church (building), therefore my energies would not be channeled to lifeless stones but to living stones.
ME: If you really want to follow to the letter of Acts, then you might as well preach the gospel like Paul at the marketplace in Singapore You can even go further to pitch up tents as preaching points and places of worship like what the men of God did in the past. I still see that you are arguing for argument sake. And I may not like to entertain you further. We are all interested in the people and the pastors are building up the living stones with Jesus, the Chief Cornerstone. When we love God and obey Him, we can experience the manifested presence of God in a church building or in a home.
YOU++It’s about being biblical, not pragmatic. We still live in homes today as in times past. So tell me, where is the difference? Please do not make the mistake of caricaturing us who want to capture the expression of the first century church as archaic or living in the past. If that is so, the Christian faith you are professing is 2,000 years old. Does that qualify yourself as living in those times? Think about it, Jesus has fulfilled the requirements of the Law, Hebrews say that the New Covenant has rendered the Old Covenant obsolete with all its rituals and human priests and temple practices. Are you now bringing back the obsolete Old Covenant practices into the New Covenant life?
ME: You cannot differentiate between belief and living? You are wrong to say that our Christian faith is 2000 years old. It is longer than that; I cannot even date it; it originates in the heart of God. We know that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the New has superseded the Old. Are the churches still practising the sacrifice of lambs? These are ludicrous statements.
YOU:++How is meeting in homes irrelevant today? Like others, you also make the mistake that just because someone wants to capture the first century expression of CHURCH life, you charge them with wanting to capture the first century expression of EVERYDAY secular/cultural life, right down to the clothes they wear and the modes of transport they have. That’s a strawman argument you have, often employed to make the other person look ridiculous and foolish. Oh yah, BTW, there is a movement to restore the five-fold ministries today, don’t you think it is being irrelevant and living in old times?
ME: What I am pointing out is that with modernisation, church buildings, etc have changed. It is not like the old times. I did not say that meeting in homes is irrelevant. Like I have said, you are just arguing for argument sake. If you know the Biblical prophecy re the restoration of the apostolic and the prophetic ministries in the last days to bring about a spotless and wrinkleless church, you would not have made such comments.
YOU:++When Jesus was with His disciples and were walking in the temple, note that it was the apostles who gawked at the glory of the temple. Did Jesus acted the same way as them? Did He compliment the Jews for having such a magnificent building? Did Jesus give glory to God for the temple? If not, why not? Sorry but I do not share the same sentiments concerning the building that you have built for yourselves. The reasons you give for the church building is not rooted in any NT theology but rest on nothing but pragmatism. OK, even if there is some remote justification for a church building, can you justify the budget? How does a rotating cross serve as an outreach? How does a titanium clad structure serve a spiritual need?
ME: Are you equating the churches of the day with the temple of the Jews? With all the question marks in your statements, I sense that you are unsure of what you are saying. Living in those times, I like to think that under Roman rule, how glorious can those temple be as compared with the Roman buildings. And in touch with realism and architectural progress, these buildings have advanced in design and structure. I am not an architect or am knowledgeable in architecture, I think it is architecturally sound to have a titanium clad outfit given such a structure of 4-storey down and 4-storey up. The cross is an important symbol of the Christian faith. If you make the cross rotate, do you not think that it will also make heads turn? Can it serve as a talking point to point people to Jesus? I have already said they are believing God for a $43m church building.
YOU++I thought it was you who talked about the church having great faith to build such a big building? That perhaps you are implying that building such a big thing requires big faith? Or am I mistaken? As far as I can see from the Bible, God does not even care about church buildings to derive any glory from them. He lives in us, and as we are changed into the likeness of Jesus Christ from glory to glory, God is glorified.
ME: Have you considered the verse in 1 Cor 10:31, whatever we do, do all to the glory of God. What you say is in order and that also includes the building of new CHC which you disagree. Do you know how many have thanked and praised God for the things He has done for the new CHC and give God the glory? At least 13,000 believers including me. They believed God for the impossible and they give glory to God. Can I count you in?
YOU++On the contrary, I am not the least interested in building any structure and labelling it as church. This will distort the biblical meaning of church. I am interested in life, not buildings.
++The early church endured the cross for the work of planting churches and to stand up for the Lord in the face of opposition. None of such enduring faith was towards a church building! Are you sure you are following the right example?
ME: I think it is your last straw to save yourself by harping that the church is an organism. It is true in the Acts times. The Christians met in buildings as well as home cells. Many times, the Bible use buildings to illustrate human lives. When the Bible mention the church at Antioch, Corinth, etc, what do you make out of these? Likewise when you say CHC you know the believers are meeting at a building at No. 1, Jurong West St 91. But when you say the Church of Jesus Christ, we mean all believers in Christ who form the body of Christ, the Head of the Church.
YOU:++The early church was as down to earth as anyone else can be. It is the same today. The fact that I can communicate with you on the computer shows that I do not suffer from any tension of having to live in denial of today’s advances on one hand and practicing the first century church life on the other. Anyway, I have already answered this point above. In short, it is important that you understand what I am actually advocating and what I am actually denying, rather than try to cast me in a mold of your own making.
ME: You can still practise the Christian life and the dynamics of the church life in our modern settings inclusive of high tech buildings which you try to avoid.
YOU:++Then maybe you have skipped Hebrews 1-10 and jumped to Heb 11? Also, Heb 11 tells us the content of the faith of the people mentioned. I don’t see any having to do with church buildings. Yes, indeed God rewards those who seek Him in faith. However, it is not just the presence of faith that God seeks. It is faith that seeks God IN ACCORDANCE to His revealed will and purpose.
ME: You are again avoiding church buildings though there is an all-inclusive word "things" in Heb 11:1 and also in Heb 10:24,25 not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together.
YOU++First take a look at Acts 11. Antioch was probably the first Gentile city where the Gentiles first believed. The rest of the believers spoke to Jews only whereas some enlightened folks preached to the Gentiles. This is a background you must bear in mind! From Acts 11 to Acts 13 at least some years has passed. Then when we come to Acts 13 we see the existence of prophets and teachers (believers who matured through the soil of church life, not a theological seminary!). It was then that the Holy Spirit sent out Barnabas and Paul through the church at Antioch. Does that qualify as a mission base? Is the church at Antioch operating like a CHC? The answer is a resounding no. I am not arguing for argument sake. I am telling you the Scriptures! Certainly the NT do not see any relationship between the church building and the missionary work of the apostles. So why should we?
ME: Like I said before, we need not follow the letter but the spiritual principles to operate the works of God or to do His business. CHC need not follow what the church at Antioch did per se. They are free to train up Christian workers or missionaries in their School of Theology to supply the need for trained Christian workers from other countries. It is in order.
YOU++The church, being born from above, has spiritual principles which are often at odds with the worldly methods of the world. The management styles of the world cannot be imposed on the spiritual-organic nature of the Bride of Christ without doing violence to Her. The NT shows us what the early church did when the church in Jerusalem was facing an economic crisis. Paul, together with a few co-workers, collected free-will giving from the Gentile churches to give to the Jewish church in Jerusalem. That was a test of breaking down walls of division between Gentiles and Jews, and the Gentiles passed the test! But the money was collected because there was a crisis. It wasn’t deposited in a central bank to earn interest for some future emergency. The arrangements were temporary and met immediate needs. Those who has gave to those who lacked was the practice of the early church. And they had no CPF!
++Paul says to follow his example. What was his example? Paul worked to support himself and his co-workers. He rebuked those who would not work. Similarly, every believer should work with his or her own hands. In difficult times, believers who have lost their jobs should not be picky about jobs. And if they could not find work, fellow believers can be involved to help them through until they are self-sufficient again. This is what families do, don’t they? Or do family members require each other to contribute a certain amount into a central family fund and apply for its use when times are bad?
ME: Like I said before, we need not follow the letter, but the spiritual principles in matters pertaining to seeking the welfare of those who are needy. This is a separate topic altogether which I will not dwell at length here.