VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Did this question ever get answered??
Huose chruches (sic)
- Thread starter Scott Bushey
- Start date
- Status
Did this question ever get answered??
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
The house church movement is illicit; hence the intentional erred spelling. "Huose Chruches"
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Gotcha! 
Speaking during the worship service? The worship service is the preacher preaching and signing of the congergation. When do you want us to speak? The worship service is not the right time for it if it is to be done orderly. Thats not to say that there is no teaching of each other going on, jsut not at that particular time. As for your next two questions, yes and yes! I always question things my pastor has said, even at CanRef church I was at last weekend the pastor and I talked afterwards and I had him clairify his position. I've had discussions with my pastor on things he has said I disagree with, I go out for Coffee with him all the time. I thought this was normal
Bryan
SDG
Charismatic Calvinist
Puritan Board Freshman
In all fairness, your premise is stale, turns a blind eye to Church history, and stinks of Rome.
Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist
In all fairness, your premise is stale, turns a blind eye to Church history, and stinks of Rome.
And your view is dangerous, contrary to the principle of Sola Scriptura, and makes God have a Plan B. If God plans something other than the Church, what are we to make of Paul's statements about the eternal nature of the Church, and John's descriptions in Revelation.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist
In all fairness, your premise is stale, turns a blind eye to Church history, and stinks of Rome.
Chuck,
I have just reiterated church history to you. It is not stale with the decay of Romish belief or doctrine. Please enlighten me to church history Chuck. What I conveyed is not a novel idea; that is fact. The orthodox church holds the same premise. Rome diverted the teaching of the apostles and the reformation drew it back into orthodoxy. Please tell me how this is wrong, stale and stinking of Rome?
To say that God has new plans for the church and God people, outside of our established orthodoxical positions (as stated within the confines of our creeds and confessions) is acutely dangerous. Whose to say what then is wrong? Was the 'laughing' movement at the Toronto vineyard a few years ago a new move of the spirit? Solomon said it best, there is nothing new under the sun.
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
Chuck;
I used to be with you 100% my friend. I used to down right angry with people who wanted to "put God in a box". How dare they tell me that God can only operate in certain ways!
But what I have learned over time is that if we study the word and strive to take into our hearts as much as possible, then we should seek to keep as close to it's words as possible.
Don't get me wrong, I still struggle with much. I do not want to give up NFL football at all. I do not want to stop playing video games as often as I do, I do not want to stop watching some of the TV shows that I watch. I could go on.
At first, I did not want to attend a formula driven church. They bored me. But the more I studied the word of God the more I relaized that this formula was not done to please man, but to strive to conduct ourselvs in a way that pleases the Lord. I had to learn that church wasn't about ME. It was about God and doing things His way was done to honor Him.
I am still learning! Part of me still wants a service that's geared to make me feel good emotionally and cater to anyone who's never been inside a church. I know the day I take any of our girls to our church they are going to tell me how boring it is. It's going to be the complete opposite of my old church which my kids loved.
It's tough, I know. But listen to what Scott, Fred, and others have to say to this issue. I've learned much from it, hard as it may have been from time to time.
I used to be with you 100% my friend. I used to down right angry with people who wanted to "put God in a box". How dare they tell me that God can only operate in certain ways!
But what I have learned over time is that if we study the word and strive to take into our hearts as much as possible, then we should seek to keep as close to it's words as possible.
Don't get me wrong, I still struggle with much. I do not want to give up NFL football at all. I do not want to stop playing video games as often as I do, I do not want to stop watching some of the TV shows that I watch. I could go on.
At first, I did not want to attend a formula driven church. They bored me. But the more I studied the word of God the more I relaized that this formula was not done to please man, but to strive to conduct ourselvs in a way that pleases the Lord. I had to learn that church wasn't about ME. It was about God and doing things His way was done to honor Him.
I am still learning! Part of me still wants a service that's geared to make me feel good emotionally and cater to anyone who's never been inside a church. I know the day I take any of our girls to our church they are going to tell me how boring it is. It's going to be the complete opposite of my old church which my kids loved.
It's tough, I know. But listen to what Scott, Fred, and others have to say to this issue. I've learned much from it, hard as it may have been from time to time.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Joe,
Do you agree with this?
The Westminster
Confession of Faith
Chapter 25
Chapter XXV.
Of the Church.
I. The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.(a)
(a) Eph. 1:10, 22, 23; Eph. 5:23, 27, 32; Col. 1:18.
II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;(b) and of their children: (c) and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,(d) the house and family of God,(e) out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.(f)
(b) I Cor. 1:2; I Cor. 12:12, 13; Ps. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9, 10, 11, 12.
(c) I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Ezek. 16:20, 21; Rom. 11:16; Gen. 3:15; Gen. 17:7.
(d) Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7.
(e) Eph. 2:19; Eph. 3:15.
(f) Acts 2:47.
III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.(g)
(g) I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11, 12, 13; Matt. 28:19, 20; Isa. 59:21.
IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.(h) And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.(i)
(h) Rom. 11:3, 4; Rev. 12:6, 14.
(i) Rev. 2 and 3; I Cor. 5:6, 7.
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: (k) and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.(l) Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to His will.(m)
(k) I Cor. 13:12; Rev. 2 and 3; Matt. 13:24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47.
(l) Rev. 18:2; Rom. 11:18, 19, 20, 21, 22.
(m) Matt. 16:18; Ps. 72:17; Ps. 102:28; Matt. 28:19, 20.
VI. There is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ;(n) nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.(o)
(n) Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22.
(o) Matt. 23:8, 9, 10; II Thess. 2:3, 4, 8, 9; Rev. 13:6.
[Edited on 1-19-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Do you agree with this?
The Westminster
Confession of Faith
Chapter 25
Chapter XXV.
Of the Church.
I. The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.(a)
(a) Eph. 1:10, 22, 23; Eph. 5:23, 27, 32; Col. 1:18.
II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;(b) and of their children: (c) and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,(d) the house and family of God,(e) out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.(f)
(b) I Cor. 1:2; I Cor. 12:12, 13; Ps. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9, 10, 11, 12.
(c) I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Ezek. 16:20, 21; Rom. 11:16; Gen. 3:15; Gen. 17:7.
(d) Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7.
(e) Eph. 2:19; Eph. 3:15.
(f) Acts 2:47.
III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.(g)
(g) I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11, 12, 13; Matt. 28:19, 20; Isa. 59:21.
IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.(h) And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.(i)
(h) Rom. 11:3, 4; Rev. 12:6, 14.
(i) Rev. 2 and 3; I Cor. 5:6, 7.
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: (k) and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.(l) Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to His will.(m)
(k) I Cor. 13:12; Rev. 2 and 3; Matt. 13:24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47.
(l) Rev. 18:2; Rom. 11:18, 19, 20, 21, 22.
(m) Matt. 16:18; Ps. 72:17; Ps. 102:28; Matt. 28:19, 20.
VI. There is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ;(n) nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.(o)
(n) Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22.
(o) Matt. 23:8, 9, 10; II Thess. 2:3, 4, 8, 9; Rev. 13:6.
[Edited on 1-19-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Charismatic Calvinist
Puritan Board Freshman
Plan B? To draw such a conclusion based on my previous posts is both absurd and indicates no linear progression of thought on behalf of the reader.
The Chuch is without a doubt eternal in nature. One can hardly deny that. The real danger, however, lies with the Bride's idolatrous tendency to venerate the present day institution. Regarding this matter, I find New Testament painfully silent with regard to the permanence of any visible expression or manifestation of corporate worship/fellowship. There's your Sola Scriptura.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Chuck,
The new testament is not silent. It is very clear on what God requires of His people and His church. Our creeds clearly define what the bible has to say about these issues. Question: I would assume you embrace either the WCF or LBC?
The new testament is not silent. It is very clear on what God requires of His people and His church. Our creeds clearly define what the bible has to say about these issues. Question: I would assume you embrace either the WCF or LBC?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
This is exactly what my church does.........
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I don't know what churches you have attended Joe, but the one's I have (sans CC) have done exactly what you have described above.
Charismatic Calvinist
Puritan Board Freshman
Adam, thanks for the encouragement. I am doing my best to learn from these guys and keep my heart postured in such a way that I might receive the wisdom He has brought me here to glean. They have been wonderful teachers and I am blessed by their desire to share and edify those who gather here.
I don't attend a house church or cell group. I embrace all forms of expression (regarding corporate gatherings) in which the Brethren are mutually edified (as outlined in Scriptures) and in which the Scriptures are the final authority on such matters.
What concerns me is the aggression unashamedly demonstrated by many within a particular "system" (if I may) who seek to impose their expressional preference on the rest of the Body. God just might not be feeding all of His sheep in the same corner of His pasture.
I would, appreciate your prayers for His Spirit of wisdom and revelation (Eph. 1:17) in the knowledge of such issues as I continue to endeavor in my Reformed studies. God bless you!
I don't attend a house church or cell group. I embrace all forms of expression (regarding corporate gatherings) in which the Brethren are mutually edified (as outlined in Scriptures) and in which the Scriptures are the final authority on such matters.
What concerns me is the aggression unashamedly demonstrated by many within a particular "system" (if I may) who seek to impose their expressional preference on the rest of the Body. God just might not be feeding all of His sheep in the same corner of His pasture.
I would, appreciate your prayers for His Spirit of wisdom and revelation (Eph. 1:17) in the knowledge of such issues as I continue to endeavor in my Reformed studies. God bless you!
Charismatic Calvinist
Puritan Board Freshman
They are wonderful. I keep a copy of the WCF in my briefcase and study it in my spare time. But as Joe stated, they don't exhaust the Godhead.
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
Chuck;
I don't mean to speak for others, but it may help to know what "new expreiences" you specifically believe are or could be Godly. There are too many "weird" ones that seem definately not of God.
I don't mean to speak for others, but it may help to know what "new expreiences" you specifically believe are or could be Godly. There are too many "weird" ones that seem definately not of God.
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Puritan Board Junior
Sorry I must admit I have not ready every single post but have browsed along through most. I have come late into the topic.
Some of you have pointed out that there are house-church's which are biblical yet still called house church's. Over the last break I did some traveling around Asia and two countries in particular. They have what they call house-church's as the govt run church's are corrupt and the govt tells them what to preach. These house-church's have their own confession of faith (made only recently though) and are active. (In a period of 25 years they grew by 1000% - from the period of around 1950-1975 - since then the growth has slowed but is still rising at a shocking rate with a small fall away rate also unlike most large growing churchs in the west)
Some of you have pointed out that there are house-church's which are biblical yet still called house church's. Over the last break I did some traveling around Asia and two countries in particular. They have what they call house-church's as the govt run church's are corrupt and the govt tells them what to preach. These house-church's have their own confession of faith (made only recently though) and are active. (In a period of 25 years they grew by 1000% - from the period of around 1950-1975 - since then the growth has slowed but is still rising at a shocking rate with a small fall away rate also unlike most large growing churchs in the west)
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
They are not meant to exhaust the godhead. The statement is peculiar (I know Joe originally made it) in light of the fact that we all know it's a creed. I guess the question I will pose to you two is, did the devines who wrote the WCF just have a bad day, as you imply by this statement that the creeds do not comprise those items (a summary) necessary for Gods people?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Joe,
I am gonna do a Paul Manata to you:
Please show me how you have come to this conclusion?
You state that this is a fact. Where are the facts????
[Edited on 1-19-2005 by Scott Bushey]
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
Scott was nicer than Paul as Paul would just say PROVE IT
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Okay, I'm gonna throw a the can out there for you all to break open...
In the synagogues it is my understanding that the men, after the reading of the Torah and the man (whoever's turn it was) gave his explanation, then the other men (in orderly fashion) could/would question him, adding in things to think on...This caused the congregation to think, to make sure that the one reading understood and was explaning correctly, to make any corrections neccessary, and to bring those whose thinking was wrong back to a unified position.
Go at it, boys!
In the synagogues it is my understanding that the men, after the reading of the Torah and the man (whoever's turn it was) gave his explanation, then the other men (in orderly fashion) could/would question him, adding in things to think on...This caused the congregation to think, to make sure that the one reading understood and was explaning correctly, to make any corrections neccessary, and to bring those whose thinking was wrong back to a unified position.
Go at it, boys!
alwaysreforming
Puritan Board Sophomore
Joe,
I have a few points for you to consider, and also would like to point out where you are making a "straw man" argument concerning the Church:
The Straw Man is this:
Among other things, you have written that the Church as it is practiced today could be characterized by:
a starched, stagnent group of people with no life for an hour a week.;
15 sermon and one man show..... ;
entrenched in a starched order of practice;
[the worshippers] just stare at the necks of the people in front of [them];
the 15 minute "sermon" being the pinnacle instead of remembering our Lord.;
In his efforts to be the focal-point of the church meeting, [the pastor] is unwittingly robbing the saints of their right to minister to the body;
we are attached to a building and not Christ;
We pay HUGE salaries to men;
We speak of growth in numbers instead of edification of the body;
The above "cutting and pasting" of your posts can prove to be a bit unfair if taken out of context, etc, but by and large no one is arguing FOR the type of caricature of the Church you paint.
Just to speak to some of your characterization, the Church as most of us would defend and attend does NOT have a pastor who either preaches a 15 minute sermon or recieves a HUGE salary. The type of eldership and leadership we would find to be godly would NOT think of "numbers" over growth in holiness or love for Jesus. I'm sure NO one on this board is in any way "attached" to a building in ANY sense of the word. And as far as the saints not "having the right" to minister to each other (or not having a life but for one hour a week), nothing could be further from the truth. Why does all of this "ministering" have to be during the hour or two that the worship service is going on? MANY brothers and sisters are involved in "Home Groups" (Bible studies during the week) as well as participate in a MYRIAD of ministry opportunities to minister to each other and also the community at large. At my last church, there were so many ministry opportunities that it was hard to choose one! The truth is, EACH member of the congregation is NOT QUALIFIED to "teach" the other ones! If we had every one who wanted to, interrupt the service and "teach" or "speak a word" to someone else, much of the harmony and beauty of the worship service would be forsaken. The pastors and elders who teach and instruct the congregation do so BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES KNOWLEDGABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY. They have been tried, examined, trained, educated. There are men "responsible" for the souls of others. They protect Christ's sheep and do their best to keep them free of the leaven of heresy, unsound doctrine, unscriptural practices, and other "wolves in sheep's clothing."
You also characterize the "installation of elders" as almost a "non-event". The Bible says that they are installed "through the laying on of hands" which to me implies some sort of conferrence of grace, or at least SOMETHING special going on in the spiritual realm besides our man-made traditions.
I don't want this post to sound overly harsh. You have raised many valid concerns and have spoken very well on much. But I think part of the problem is just this "anti-institutionalism" that runs rampant in our individualistic hearts, and our fear to trust in any institution that is not between our own two ears. God has always worked through human means to rule His children. It seems like whenever we have Biblical examples of people going against this God-ordained institution it is always to the detriment of everyone involved. Why do we suppose this time it is any different?
I have a few points for you to consider, and also would like to point out where you are making a "straw man" argument concerning the Church:
The Straw Man is this:
Among other things, you have written that the Church as it is practiced today could be characterized by:
a starched, stagnent group of people with no life for an hour a week.;
15 sermon and one man show..... ;
entrenched in a starched order of practice;
[the worshippers] just stare at the necks of the people in front of [them];
the 15 minute "sermon" being the pinnacle instead of remembering our Lord.;
In his efforts to be the focal-point of the church meeting, [the pastor] is unwittingly robbing the saints of their right to minister to the body;
we are attached to a building and not Christ;
We pay HUGE salaries to men;
We speak of growth in numbers instead of edification of the body;
The above "cutting and pasting" of your posts can prove to be a bit unfair if taken out of context, etc, but by and large no one is arguing FOR the type of caricature of the Church you paint.
Just to speak to some of your characterization, the Church as most of us would defend and attend does NOT have a pastor who either preaches a 15 minute sermon or recieves a HUGE salary. The type of eldership and leadership we would find to be godly would NOT think of "numbers" over growth in holiness or love for Jesus. I'm sure NO one on this board is in any way "attached" to a building in ANY sense of the word. And as far as the saints not "having the right" to minister to each other (or not having a life but for one hour a week), nothing could be further from the truth. Why does all of this "ministering" have to be during the hour or two that the worship service is going on? MANY brothers and sisters are involved in "Home Groups" (Bible studies during the week) as well as participate in a MYRIAD of ministry opportunities to minister to each other and also the community at large. At my last church, there were so many ministry opportunities that it was hard to choose one! The truth is, EACH member of the congregation is NOT QUALIFIED to "teach" the other ones! If we had every one who wanted to, interrupt the service and "teach" or "speak a word" to someone else, much of the harmony and beauty of the worship service would be forsaken. The pastors and elders who teach and instruct the congregation do so BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES KNOWLEDGABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY. They have been tried, examined, trained, educated. There are men "responsible" for the souls of others. They protect Christ's sheep and do their best to keep them free of the leaven of heresy, unsound doctrine, unscriptural practices, and other "wolves in sheep's clothing."
You also characterize the "installation of elders" as almost a "non-event". The Bible says that they are installed "through the laying on of hands" which to me implies some sort of conferrence of grace, or at least SOMETHING special going on in the spiritual realm besides our man-made traditions.
I don't want this post to sound overly harsh. You have raised many valid concerns and have spoken very well on much. But I think part of the problem is just this "anti-institutionalism" that runs rampant in our individualistic hearts, and our fear to trust in any institution that is not between our own two ears. God has always worked through human means to rule His children. It seems like whenever we have Biblical examples of people going against this God-ordained institution it is always to the detriment of everyone involved. Why do we suppose this time it is any different?
a few personal notes:
When I preach, after I have finished, I allow for questions or comments to clarify what I am saying. I do not think we should interupt our pastor as they preach as this is direspectful to him and the Word being preached. Preaching, by the way, is not a time for discussion. If you believe it is then you do not understand the word "preach."
Saying that a form of polity is "apostacy" is to say that a church is preaching a false gospel if its "form" or "order of worship" does not fit your interpretation of the NT church model. That is looney.
There are too many generalizations in this thread. Overall I sense from those defending the house church movement as having contempt for the church today as it exists. Now I admit no church is perfect, but having contempt for the Bride of Christ for unfounded reasons is dangerous.
It is not about a relationship, it is about God. Period. When you come to church for what you can get instead of what you can give you have come for the wrong reason altogther and made an idol of yourself.
There is a time and place for ministering to one another, and it should happen between believers every day of the week. But the corporate meeting of the church for worship (not just fellowship between 2 or 3 people) has specific guidelines and is not a place for an open mike karoake Bible club.
that's all for now....I'm done rambling for the moment.
Phillip
When I preach, after I have finished, I allow for questions or comments to clarify what I am saying. I do not think we should interupt our pastor as they preach as this is direspectful to him and the Word being preached. Preaching, by the way, is not a time for discussion. If you believe it is then you do not understand the word "preach."
Saying that a form of polity is "apostacy" is to say that a church is preaching a false gospel if its "form" or "order of worship" does not fit your interpretation of the NT church model. That is looney.
There are too many generalizations in this thread. Overall I sense from those defending the house church movement as having contempt for the church today as it exists. Now I admit no church is perfect, but having contempt for the Bride of Christ for unfounded reasons is dangerous.
It is not about a relationship, it is about God. Period. When you come to church for what you can get instead of what you can give you have come for the wrong reason altogther and made an idol of yourself.
There is a time and place for ministering to one another, and it should happen between believers every day of the week. But the corporate meeting of the church for worship (not just fellowship between 2 or 3 people) has specific guidelines and is not a place for an open mike karoake Bible club.
that's all for now....I'm done rambling for the moment.
Phillip
ReformedWretch
Puritan Board Doctor
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Sounds like our Sunday School classes........Worship is worship & Sunday School is Sunday School.
Charismatic Calvinist
Puritan Board Freshman
Huh? Did I miss something?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
This one's done.
- Status
