RE: House Church (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

thomasalan -> RE: House Church (6/25/2008 2:15:39 PM)

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: thomasalan

Yes, we do have seminaries and for the most part, they are good things. I have a seminary degree and I'm grateful for what God taught me. And even though they didn't call them such, I'm sure that many of the saints, especially the Apostles diligently studied the scriptures, as did the Church Fathers until know.

But that still doesn't address the main question:

What kind of external authority would make a house church legitimate?

A seminary trained preacher?
Association with a denomination?


or could it be as simple as holding ourselves accountable to other churches?


I guess what has me fired up in this post [:)] is the assumption that all house churches are unscriptural, heretical and out of God's will. If you think I'm exaggerating, go back and read some of the posts in this thread.

There are many many godly people out there who are choosing to worship in simpler forms without buildings, staff and programs because they feel called to do so. Are they all out of God's will because they are not in a building under a paid pastor as part of a denomination?

I'm just asking[8|]


I don't think you are just asking, I think you are being a pompus


Wow. I didn't see that coming.

RC, I want to apologize to you and everyone on this forum if I have come across as pompus. That is not my intention and I'm deeply sorry.

Your brother in Christ,

Tom



rcjames -> RE: House Church (6/26/2008 1:22:35 PM)

I guess pompass is in the eye of the beholder.

I think that the New Testament gives sufficient instructions on "Doing" Church and all of those instructions include or imply real accuontability. So I just think that as most, and notice I said most, House Churches are set up there is no real accountability, so they are in error.

Just my humble opinion.

Thanks
RC



Consecrated2God -> RE: House Church (6/27/2008 8:45:06 AM)

I don't think lack of accountability is always wrong, just that it can be dangerous. I think of the Pilgrims coming over to a new land for religious freedom. It was just them at that point--who were they accountable too? There are many independent churches in this country still, that aren't part of a larger denomination, too, and many of them are great churches that aren't in danger of turning into a cult.

Accountability is something to be sought after and desired, but it's not always possible.



momto4inva -> RE: House Church (6/27/2008 11:49:49 AM)

Hmm, can't believe I haven't thought of this until now but the church we currently attend (a Bible church) is completely independant and as far as I know doesn't answer to any outside council, board, organization, or whatever. That doesn't mean that we are not held accountable though, as we are accountable to God and each other. The pastor is accountable to the elders as the elders are accountable to the pastor.

If the pastor (or one of the elders, as they do preach on occasion) started preaching "garbage" I'm sure there'd be more than one or two people in the congregation that would see it and steps would be taken to discipline (or dismiss) that person.

So, even though the church I attend isn't a house church, I guess, according to some that have posted in this thread, we're in error as well.



phosadaud -> RE: House Church (6/27/2008 12:35:34 PM)

Independant doesn't have to equal no external accountability. In my area, many churches across denominations have pastors groups and such that meet and work together for the Kingdom. There are independant churches who are a part of this and are accountable to the group.

The problem with no external accountability is this: Satan doesn't usually operate by coming in and preaching outright heresy. He is crafty and will slowly and gradually start moving us away from the Truth. He is patient. He'll take his time. It's much, much harder to see this when you internally invested.

Think of it this way: In marriage, we put up blinders. We are emotionally attached so we look through funky glasses that distort reality. When a marriage is in trouble, the best thing for a couple to do is not to just simply just pray and hope God points out the problem to you and your spouse but to seek OUTSIDE advise - someone who is not emotionally invested to get a non-distorted view of what's really going on and what the real issue are. I know plenty of "godly" marriages with folks who have deep, mature faiths, but have huge blindspots in their marriages simply because they are so emotionally connected, they can't get a non-biased view.

It's the same in the church. It's not to say that folks don't have the emotional maturity to know right from wrong. It's not to say that folks are "bad". It's simply that when you are a part of a church family, you will have blinders on and an outside accountibility will see things and be able to address things when you can't see the entire picture by the mere fact that you are a human.

THAT'S why the early church had a system of internal and external accountability. That's why Paul didn't just plant a church and say just make sure you follow the Bible and you'll be just fine. The Holy Spirit wasn't blind when He led the early church to do that and contrary to what some may think, we are no different and no "wiser" than the early church. Humans are now what they have always been: blind, short-sighted, biased and easily led astray. I don't care how "mature" you think you are...



rcjames -> RE: House Church (6/27/2008 1:07:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: momto4inva
If the pastor (or one of the elders, as they do preach on occasion) started preaching "garbage" I'm sure there'd be more than one or two people in the congregation that would see it and steps would be taken to discipline (or dismiss) that person.


This brings up an interesting supposition, just how (with no established leadership or accountability) would steps be taken to discipline or better yet to dimiss someone who was never admitted to begin with.

Thanks
RC



bluestone -> RE: House Church (6/27/2008 2:58:49 PM)

What if the homeowner whose house the church meets in is very uncomfortable with someone attending the meetings?

There have been a few people I have attended church with that creeped me out to the point I would not have let them in my house.



Consecrated2God -> RE: House Church (6/27/2008 3:29:12 PM)

quote:

Independant doesn't have to equal no external accountability. In my area, many churches across denominations have pastors groups and such that meet and work together for the Kingdom. There are independant churches who are a part of this and are accountable to the group.


I'm glad they work together--I think that's great. What would they do in a situation where one of the pastors started preaching heresy? In a denominational church, the higher ups would come in and defrock the pastor if he no longer supported the doctrine of that denomination. Only the group that gave the credentials can take the credentials away. If a pastor is ordained in an independent church, that independent church is the only group that can un-ordain the pastor. If the independent church closes it's door and shuts down, the pastor cannot be defrocked. He can go and start an off-the-wall church somewhere and no one can do anything about it.



phosadaud -> RE: House Church (6/27/2008 5:45:53 PM)

True. I don't know that there is anything they can do from a legal standpoint, but they can confront the pastor. They can expel him from the associations. Etc. I don't think you will ever get the same level of accountability as a denomination, but it's better than nothing.

By the way: I am a member/employee of a large denominational church so I lean towards wanting denominational accountability.



J_Michael80 -> RE: House Church (6/27/2008 6:20:05 PM)

Has anyone ever attended a sunday morning service at a house church?

I attended a worship service at a house church once. It felt different, it didn't feel like a real church. Nevertheless, we must remember that a church is not the physical building but actually a "gathering of believers."

I would recommend an organized denominational church. However, we must also remember that a house church is absolutely imperative for Christians living abroad in countries that either persecute or outlaw Christianity.



rcjames -> RE: House Church (6/27/2008 6:56:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God
I'm glad they work together--I think that's great. What would they do in a situation where one of the pastors started preaching heresy? In a denominational church, the higher ups would come in and defrock the pastor if he no longer supported the doctrine of that denomination. Only the group that gave the credentials can take the credentials away. If a pastor is ordained in an independent church, that independent church is the only group that can un-ordain the pastor. If the independent church closes it's door and shuts down, the pastor cannot be defrocked. He can go and start an off-the-wall church somewhere and no one can do anything about it.


Well that is not how it works in the real world. If an Independent Church ordains someone it is for that Church only, and maybe for a few others that recognize that Churhes authority. If the Church goes belly up so does the ordination.

Why, because then there is absolutely no accountability of the ordained person because there is no ordaining Church.

So if he starts a Church claiming ordination, he is in error and a liar.


Thsnks
RC



rcjames -> RE: House Church (6/27/2008 6:59:16 PM)

If someone wants to be ordained, there are dozens of (if not hundreds of) ordination mill on the net. One can even get a Ph. D, D. D. or what ever other paper they want to carry there. But it is not worth the cash they were bilked out of to pay for it.

No vetting, no accountability, etc.

Thsnks
RC



Consecrated2God -> RE: House Church (6/28/2008 8:41:26 AM)

quote:

Well that is not how it works in the real world. If an Independent Church ordains someone it is for that Church only, and maybe for a few others that recognize that Churhes authority. If the Church goes belly up so does the ordination.


That's not what my husband told me he learned in school. I'll try and remember to ask him if he has a source for the information I gave.



thomasalan -> RE: House Church (6/28/2008 3:10:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: faithfulservant_

Has anyone ever attended a sunday morning service at a house church?

I attended a worship service at a house church once. It felt different, it didn't feel like a real church.



What does a real church feel like?



thomasalan -> RE: House Church (6/28/2008 3:20:32 PM)

Here's a link to an article about house churches on the mission field. Perhaps they are misunderstood and don't work too well here in North America (yet), but they are exploding on the mission field. Read why.

http://www.esler.org/2008/06/16/whos-a-better-missionary/

Blessings,

Tom



Ezra -> RE: House Church (6/28/2008 4:15:40 PM)

quote:

House Churches are set up there is no real accountability, so they are in error.


Accountability to whom is the real question. If you were to talk to the prelates of the RCC they would claim that you should be accountable to the pope. If you were to approach some denominational leaders, they would claim that you are accountable to their denominational headquarters.

However, when you turn to the New Testament, you will find that:

1. All churches had elders (pastor/elder/bishops) and deacons.

2. The church was accountable to their elders and to each other, but primarily accountable to Christ.

3. In the letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor (Turkey) every local church (assembly) was accountable directly to Christ.

A "house church" simply implies that the meeting place is a home rather than a public building. This is no way detracts from accountability if one remembers that denominations are man-made organizations with no authority in Scripture, and the RCC (which claims to be the one true, holy and apostolic church) is an organization that went off the rails long ago. The pope is not even recognized by the EOC!

In the EOC, they have what are known as "autocephalous" churches, what we would call "independent" churches. And this was indeed the NT pattern. There was no "mother church" in the NT in the strict sense of the word, although the church at Jerusalem was consulted regarding matters which needed resolution at that time. If anything, the church at Jerusalem would still have to be "the mother church" for all churches, if we wish to adhere to that pattern.

In the 1st century, church meetings were being held in homes (Acts 2:46), and this a a perfectly valid mode of gathering to worship. Where two or three are gathered in the name of Christ, He is there. If these house churches follow the NT pattern of assembly, organization, and leadership, they should be ultimately accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is always "in the midst of the churches" and who observes all things (Rev. 1:13-20). Therefore they are by no means "in error" as some assume.

The goal should be to not remain "a house church" but to effectively have an outreach so that thousands are added to it, as we note in the book of Acts.

The problem with too many denominational churches is the focus on the building and it's amenities, and the lack of true shepherding by those claiming to be pastors. Churches have become organizations instead of living organisms operating as families. This is the reason for the rise in house churches.



Ps103 -> RE: House Church (6/28/2008 5:02:10 PM)

quote:

In the EOC, they have what are known as "autocephalous" churches, what we would call "independent" churches.


I think you had beter check that out, Ezra. It isn't correct.



Ezra -> RE: House Church (6/28/2008 5:18:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ps103

quote:

In the EOC, they have what are known as "autocephalous" churches, what we would call "independent" churches.


I think you had beter check that out, Ezra. It isn't correct.


As defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica (a generally thorough and reliable source) "Autocephalous [is] a term used in the early church to describe bishops who were independent of a superior authority and now used to describe the independent Orthodox churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem (i.e. the four eastern patriarchates), Cyprus, Russia, Greece, ...."



Ps103 -> RE: House Church (6/28/2008 6:34:56 PM)

But it isn't the individual congregations that are autocephalous--it is the individual synods of bishops.



J_Michael80 -> RE: House Church (6/28/2008 8:11:13 PM)

quote:

original: thomasalan

What does a real church feel like?


Most churches I've visited has a sanctuary, fellowship hall, church staff & offices, praise team or choir and childrens ministry or classrooms. Nevertheless, I still believe that the house church-goers are still my brothers and sisters. I personally would not recommend a house church or an independent church because I fully support the established denominational churches.



rcjames -> RE: House Church (6/28/2008 8:20:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra
However, when you turn to the New Testament, you will find that:

1. All churches had elders (pastor/elder/bishops) and deacons.

2. The church was accountable to their elders and to each other, but primarily accountable to Christ.

3. In the letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor (Turkey) every local church (assembly) was accountable directly to Christ.


Please not to forget that they were accountable to Paul and the council in Jerusalem (a man made group I believe).

Self accountability is no accountability at all.

In modern independent Churches where the untimate authority here on earth rests with the local board which is elected by floor nomination and popular vote (read popularity contest), I do not think that is what is laid out in Scripture.

Now all you Independent Baptist can spam me.

Thanks
RC



Ezra -> RE: House Church (6/29/2008 2:25:42 AM)

quote:

Please not to forget that they were accountable to Paul and the council in Jerusalem (a man made group I believe).

Self accountability is no accountability at all.


In that case, since Paul has passed away, if your local church is not directly accountable to the Orthodox Church at Jerusalem, then you too have "self-accountability" which is invalid! So, RC, do you or do you not give account to Jerusalem?



rcjames -> RE: House Church (6/29/2008 10:24:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra
In that case, since Paul has passed away, if your local church is not directly accountable to the Orthodox Church at Jerusalem, then you too have "self-accountability" which is invalid! So, RC, do you or do you not give account to Jerusalem?


That might be a tod difficult since there has not been a council in Jeursalem since the sack of Jerusalem in AD 70.[8|]

Most house Church have no leadership, no Pastors, no Elders, etc. and they certainly have no accountability, so their doctrine is easy prey for those who would sway folks away from the truth.

Paul says;

(Gal 1:6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

(Gal 1:7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

(Gal 1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

(Gal 1:9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

So if there is no one to point out that the doctrine is changing; it just changes.

There are a few house Churches that do submit themselves to accuntability without becoming an actual part of the group of men that they submit themselves to. I have helped a number of startup groups over the years by doing this.

Accountability on the Part of a Pastor must be real. The group that the Pastor is accountable to must have the authority to tell the person when they are teaching bad doctrine and to tell them to stop or step dowm from teaching.

I believe the reason for this is that the outside authority is not swayed by the itching ears and whims of the congregation, where as the self-accountability board of an indepent church is created, supported, and maintained by the itching ears and whims of the congregation.

Just a disaster waiting to happen.(and does far too ofter)

Thanks
RC



Ps103 -> RE: House Church (6/29/2008 1:32:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ps103

quote:

In the EOC, they have what are known as "autocephalous" churches, what we would call "independent" churches.


I think you had beter check that out, Ezra. It isn't correct.


As defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica (a generally thorough and reliable source) "Autocephalous [is] a term used in the early church to describe bishops who were independent of a superior authority and now used to describe the independent Orthodox churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem (i.e. the four eastern patriarchates), Cyprus, Russia, Greece, ...."



Sorry I can't let this alone[:D]

Okay, Ezra, let us take the Church of Constantinople in your above post.

The head of the Church of Constantinople (on Earth) is His All-Holiness, Bartholomew I
Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch (in Instanbul, Turkey).

The nearest Orthodox Church to me, is a Greek Church, which is a part of the Church of Constantinople.

From their website:

quote:

Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Bluff City, Tennessee is under the spiritual supervision of His Eminence Metropolitan ALEXIOS and the Greek Orthodox Metropolis (Diocese) of Atlanta and ultimately, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.


Hardly an "independent church", by your definition[;)]

You cannot use the Orthodox Church (as fine as it is) to support your thesis.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI