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Previous Messageboard have been archived.
No house of God 
church in Jurong West vicinity 
City Harvest (Liz R.)
Sorry, City Harvest is not Traditional Church, Lolz...eom (Emmanuel)
The true City (Ivan)
Impressive (RTC)
What great feats of men to turn the wasteland into a holy masterpiece sanctuary of God! (Ivan)
Reasons??? (RTC)
I believe every building of a new church is a testimony of the members' faith in a great God (Ivan)
I can see that, but can you see this? (RTC)
In times like these (Ivan)
Living in the Old? (RTC)
The Old and the New (Ivan)
reply (RTC)
I am... (Ivan)
What about my questions? (RTC)
I try... (Ivan)
Place of worship???? (RTC)
I think... (Ivan)
It is heartening.... (Ivan)
Best of both worlds?? (RTC)
RTC: Return To Christ (Ivan)
Already have (RTC)
On "house of God" (Ivan)
|
No where in the Bible are we commanded to stick to the old pattern of doing church ie, house church. But we are commanded to follow the pattern and model of good deeds and works. The verse you quoted in 1 Cor 14:26 does not command meeting in house church; it can also be applied to home cell. I think Keith has answered your question in his posting. ++That’s the most common counter-argument used against meeting as house churches. Critics always use the “bible never say this expressly or command this” argument, not knowing that they shoot themselves in the foot, if they would simply apply this argument to the distinctive practices they defend with their lives. For example, nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to form denominations or incorporate churches or to build church buildings, so why do you do it? Nowhere are we taught in the Bible that there is any hierarchy in the church, so why do you propagate it? Nowhere in the Bible are we taught that we need to say the sinners’ prayer, so why invent it? Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to have quiet times, so why do we practice it? Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to hold a holy snack comprising of a crumb of bread and a shot of juice, so why do it? You fail to realise that you treat many church practices as a given and something as a norm, even when you have no clear biblical commands for them. You have committed the mistake of treating the Bible as a theological textbook that addresses all topics in a systematic manner, with a content page telling you which page “church building” falls under. No. The Bible is none of that and should never be used in that way. The Bible has a lot of moral imperatives which are clearly expressed. Some practices are also commanded though not specified in detail. For example, baptism is a commandment. But then there is no command to be dunked into the waters. Yet the undeniable practice of the early believers were nothing short of immersion. This is something almost all believers hold it to be true, but it isn’t commanded in the Scriptures! See what I mean? The same goes for the early church. Even though there is no commandment to meet in homes, honest Christians who have done their homework will not fail to admit that the early church were house churches. God told Moses to construct the tabernacle “according to the pattern”, Jesus said, “follow me”, Paul said, “imitate me”, “we have no other practice”, “in everything I showed you by example” and many others. Does this not tell us that besides a clear command to do something, a practice that is universally practiced in the early church is a normative one for all other believers to come? That if we are following these practices, that we are within the bounds of apostolic practices which best reflects apostolic teachings? You show me your church practice without referring to Scripture, and I’ll show you mine with undeniable Scriptural basis. You can stick to your own traditional practices, but I can tell you that you are outside apostolic practices, and will limit what the Spirit can do had you done it according to how the Spirit led the apostles to lay the foundation for the church. Why must you think in terms of such terms "hierarchy and institutionalism" when we talk about the God-ordained leadership or authority. ++I’m not thinking in terms of them. It is obvious! Just look at the org chart and everything that goes on. Let me ask you, if the Spirit of God has left that building, would things still go on? Israel continued to repeat the temple rituals long after God’s Spirit has left. That’s institutionalism at work. Even if half the congregation fail to turn up, the “show” will go on. Even if there’s no unbelievers, the message will not be altered. Even if there are only 20 people, which makes for a great interactive meeting, the Sunday service format will prevail. Can you see what I am saying? As to hierarchy, I do not need to belabour that point. You can deny all you want, by if I ask for an org chart, your argument falls to pieces. BTW, you still haven’t tell me what God-ordained leadership is like from the Bible. You have only showed me a worldly way of organisation which is used by the church. The authority of church leaders are delegated from God (Mt 28:18) and the Bible has a lot to say about how to relate to leaders and the conduct of leaders and members. What I am saying is that in any establishment whether secular or spiritual, there is in place one form of authority or another depending on the settings and requirements for eg teachers and students, principals and teachers, disciplemakers and disciples, coaches and trainees, employers and employees, sales managers and sales representatives, etc. ++So what do you make of Jesus words, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant..” The secular world have their means of doing things according to the human nature. But in the church it is the spiritual principles that take precedent. The ways of the Spirit are not the ways of the world. We cannot say we are following the Spirit when we are employing the ways of the world. Human nature says, we need a hierarchy to keep things (the “beast” in human nature) in order. The Spirit says, I will write my laws into their hearts, give them my Spirit, and they will live according to my ways. Does the Spirit brings confusion and chaos? No! My brother, are we familiar with the workings of the Spirit to know that such workings work better than any man-contrived organisation? According to you the "h and i" seems to be derogatory terms or shall we call it "structure and establishment" which has more positive connotations. ++The use of house church and institutional church terms is meant to distinguish the two ways of working. How are they derogative? Again you seem to be offended by the word buiding whether referring to church or home. ++Huh? In what way? How can I better put it that I have nothing against a building? FYI, I work in an office building everyday and I do not struggle with that one bit. So what are you talking about? We can call it "house of God" which is more amicable and above all, Biblical. ++Biblical? I would like to see you demonstrate that. Show me an instance when the NT believers talked about worshipping in the house of God, or when the analogy of building is used, it refers to a church building. Hey, don't be so naive, any property on earth comes with a price whether a church building or a house church. So, is it justifiable now to have a glorious "house of God?" where we can corporately worship God or at home cell in small groups to experience 1 Cor 14:26. Isn't this biblical? ++This is interesting. I can’t believe the distance you would go to justify the church building (just go to show how much you cherish it). Now you are saying, buy house also need money. Build church also need money. Therefore, church building is OK and biblical. Huh???? Where on earth or which pastor ever gave you such a teaching or reasoning? I can see that you are getting frustrated. Because you know that you cannot biblically justify a church building, you have sought to even undermine the existence of the house too! I know of no house church host who sees his/her house as the glorious “house of God”. Yes, a house needs an owner who bought it with money. That goes without saying. The NT believers had no problem with that. The house is a social need. Everyone needs a place to stay. It is a place of residence and also a suitable venue for family gatherings (and the church is a family). There is nothing sacred about the home. Can the same be said of the church building? Look at my reply above. We agree to call it "house of God" and have corporate worship which is biblical now. Can we agree? ++No. Corporate worship is biblical. But house of God? Is it a term injected to make something approved? Sorry, but to be consistent with NT theology, I cannot with a clear conscience say “this is the house of God” while pointing to a building. But I can with all good conscience point to a gathered assembly of believers and say “you are the temple of the Holy Spirit, the House of God!” So, now you have outgrown your house church and you want to look for a big place to do church. You may start to rent which is a recurring cost or you build your own "house of God" which is more practical in the long run. ++Sorry, but please do not project your own institutional paradigm to mine. I have no desire to “do church” the way you do it. If our numbers increase, we simply meet in more homes. It’s that simple. It’s what the early church did. And if anytime we want a big gathering once in a while, we simply go outdoors or rent a space for that meeting. Or if we are having a house church conference, we can book some hotel rooms and use their facilities. It’s that simple. Or maybe someone rich has a big bungalow or a condominium who can have access to meeting rooms. We’ll use that. Again it’s that simple. Can you see how much more practical that is, if practical is your criteria? What will never happen in our church meetings will be that hundreds or thousands of people gather regularly in a house (unthinkable, smelly, cramped) or in a building for a worship service. That won’t happen. However, that DOES happen in some house churches, simply because they are yet-to-be-full-blown institutional churches meeting in homes as a temporary thing while raising money to secure a building. And Apostle Paul also taught us how to do public worship in 1 Cor 14:19,23 where the unbelievers may walk in to check it out. And I am sure that Paul is not talking about house church here which is not open to the public. ++Unfortunately you are wrong in your facts. Check out some archaeological books and find out more about the meetings and homes of the early church. Then you will be able to appreciate what Paul was saying. Btw, I see that you have erected a false dichotomy in the Sunday Service as public worship and the house church as private worship. Where did you get this concept from? Also I do not share the current notion of a worship service. There’s no such thing as a worship service in our house church meetings. So you will be wrong in trying to project such notions into our meetings and comparing them. You also still covering the old grounds re the use of money for building the "house of God"; you are as stuck to your old position which I hope is not on quicksand. Please shout if you need help! ++I think I’m on surer footing than you would want to admit. Perhaps you might want to take a look at the ground your feet are standing on? When you are lost in worship of His Majesty and when you hear an anointed sermon, you will not make such unthinking remarks. You can still live out 1 Cor 14:26 at home cell. ++What’s the basis for relegating 1 Cor 14:26 to the home cell in the first place? And where did you get the idea of hearing sermons in church meetings? Where is it expressly commanded to hear one man dish out sermons week after week while the rest are a passive-listening assembly? Application is a central part to make knowledge of the Bible comes alive. Seminaries are establishments set up to teach and impart knowledge. However, good seminaries are those who will supervise the application process by the students to experience the reality of the riches of God's Word in one's life or church life. Right teaching will also breed right application of God's Word which will help one to see not only the clergy-laity misconception but also following spiritual principles and not the letter of early church practices. ++You have forgotten then what seminaries today do. Their job is primarily to make you a graduate in whatever course you have applied to study for. And like I said, no teaching will ever undo the clergy-laity problem as long as you are teaching from the perspective of a clergy-laity system and bound by it. And if the early church practices do not serve as an example and precedent for us, it is no wonder that today Christianity is full of unbiblical practices that many has come to accept as the norm, since God never said “we can’t do this or can’t do that”. That means you are still OK and I sincerely hope that it will not degenerate into something undesirable. I think you have to hold your horses here re the remarks on Holy Communion which is uncalled for. Knowing the significance and the seriousness of the Holy Communion is paramount as this is a time of remembrance of the Lord's death till He comes and is only for believers only. I don't know whether you will be shouting for joy when it is the last meal. We should be thankful and express gratitude to the Lord Jesus for His death at the cross that we can receive the inheritance of saints. ++Today the holy communion has indeed degenerated into a holy snack that’s over in a few minutes. It is a far cry from that which the early church knew and participated in. Those of us bred in the IC have no idea what we have missed out. Let's agree then to call it the "house of God" which is biblical and not be hemmed in by the term "institutional." ++I’ve commented about this above. I’ll repeat it again. Calling a building “house of God” does not make it so, simply because you have no biblical basis for doing that. The key to solving the problem is through right teaching and prayer that the heart will be the fertile soil for the planting of God's Word which will produce 100-fold. We can change the environment with prayer and right teaching of God's Word for the removal of the clergy-laity distinction. If you use the right language as in "house of God", then change is inevitable and expected. ++Let’s see, 400 years after the reformation and the supposedly restoration of the priesthood of believers. Besides the name change and titles change, the clergy and laity distinction still exist. Every protestant church claims the heritage of the priesthood of believers, yet the clergy-laity distinction is as entrenched as ever. More prayers? More “house of God” language? We need to stop deceiving ourselves. The solution is in knowing who the Agent of change in our lives and also church life, worshipping His Majesty individually in a corporate setting or at home cell level to experience 1 Cor 14:26 and body ministry in a small group setting. It is not by human might, nor human power but by the Spirit of the living God who is the Agent of change. ++Indeed the Spirit is key solution. But the workings of the Spirit has been hampered by the traditions of man, perpetuated by well-meaning people who do not want to give up the pomp and glamour associated with large buildings, great sermons, nice-sounding bands, in exchange for pure and simple Christianity. |
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page