Why I 'home church' [Archive]

MaFunk

9th November 2005, 11:02 AM

I read the bible at home and have daily conversations with god. I live two miles from the beach so on Sunday's I'm thinking about going to a quiet part of the beach, setting out a lawn chair, and worshipping god through bible study, prayer and just plain old appreciating the natural beauty around me.

I would like to be a part of a church community, however these are the things that hold me back:
1. Many churches feel far to large, impersonal and commercial for my taste.
2. I am what am liberal. When one reads the bible I think that they will see that Jesus was a liberal who loved all. He was not judgemental. Rather he saved humanity through loving kindness and radical thinking. I feel that most churches attract people who are too judgemental and rigid. I feel like they have forgotten what a true liberal, radical, loving spirit Jesus had.
3. I have tried to attend a 'Universalist Unitarian' church, but that was wa-a-a-a-y too liberal. No committment to god or Jesus - actually they seemed hostile to jesus. I didn't feel the spirit there.
4. I attended a 'New Thought Christianity' church and I liked it. They spoke the word of Jesus and worked with the bible. BUT it was way to big and I didn't like that. Also eventually the church was closed because the lead pastor was embezzling money.
5. I went to 'City Bible' and 'bible thumper' church. I enjoyed the passion, musical ministry and energy. But when I took my husband (a skeptic) everyone kept asking him 'do you know Jesus'. Rather than bring him closer to god, they scared him away by being to invasive and judgemental.
6. I went to the little lutheran church down the street from our house. The people were nice, but the sermon was boring as heck.

So here I am, home churching myself.

Wisdom's Child

9th November 2005, 12:35 PM

Continue onwards brother...

And if per chance, another person walking on that beach should stop and meet with you, don't turn him away, invite him politely to join with you in uplifting worship.
Don't concern yourself with where he is faith wise. Just savor the moment together.

strikerchris0411

10th November 2005, 12:34 AM

Thats how I feel, the biggest reason I don't go to church, is because the pastor takes it a way that I may not.

You get a beach, gosh I live in floria but am not that close to a beach

angelwind

10th November 2005, 11:25 AM

SteelDisciple

11th November 2005, 05:27 PM

The reason my wife and I home church is simply...there complete lack of fellowship at churches..yeah, we can find people who do the "hi, how are you?" generic small talk...but we have yet to meet anyone of "our type"..basically the christian geek type.hehe :) Soooooo many rigid christians.

The-Doctor

12th November 2005, 02:22 PM

Sounds like a good life.

discernomatic

12th November 2005, 10:00 PM

Hi MaFunk and welcome! :wave:

The beach idea sounds great. Who knows, a few might saunter by that want to fellowship with you. I have the liberal issue too. Don't fit in anywhere except in the generic Body of Christ, it is just that some others don't think so. They think that liberal means heathen or something.

d.

strikerchris0411

17th November 2005, 12:23 AM

vWhere in the bible does it say you must go to a church though.

New_Wineskin

17th November 2005, 07:23 AM

vWhere in the bible does it say you must go to a church though.

Probably the same place that says that the bible is authoritative .

Honibee

17th November 2005, 07:48 PM

discernomatic

18th November 2005, 03:43 PM

I read my own heart on this thread, regarding why home churching is a valid way of worshiping God.

If you get time, visit www.saveus.org (http://www.saveus.org/). Former lawyer and pastor, Chuck Crismier has archived radio broadcasts that endorse this move. He is working on organizing a way people can find other people to 'homechurch' with in their area.

No problems with home church, but it depends on how you do it.

His organisation may serve to collect the unchurched and bind them officially to his organisation, He stresses Christian unity, not a bad concept in itself, but there are certain church movements out there, manipulative ones, that I would not want to be united with. Also, the idea of a contract to be signed, they call it a covenant, (though it does not have the same meaning as the OT word in my opinion) is not scriptural nor was it practiced by early Christians. It is a recent fad. I think that it is just another method of control.

From that site: http://www.saveus.org/docs/declaration.html (http://www.saveus.org/docs/declaration.html)

"We, therefore, as Christian Believers in the Body of Christ in these United States of America, do hereby pledge to our Lord and His Body which we serve, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Calling to rebuild and establish the Covenant Community of Christian Believers on these shores in mutual dependance upon God and His Son, Jesus Christ, and in mutual Interdependence upon one another under the authority of the Scriptures with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
To this end we affix our names as follows:"

When one is born-again one is automatically a member of the Body of Christ with Jesus as its king. Pledging myself in writing even to Him is not necessary, the Holy Spirit is the seal of the promise. Pledging myself to others would be even less scriptural in my opinion. Although Christians are to serve their brothers and sisters, they are for Jesus Christ alone - and through Him the Father.

Also, the site promotes cell churches - as part of that organisation. They practice discipling, also called mentoring or shepherding in other circles. There are versions of this that can be harmful, leading to psychological trauma. Before joining such a group, I would be wary and try to get as much information as possible, doing a search on the internet for ex-members of that particular group to read their testimonies. Of course the organisation would never say anything negative about itself. Even if you decide to join, keep your eyes and ears open and look for signs of manipulation, peer pressure positive or negative, prayer used as a tool to make you do something, prophecy used as a tool to make you do things, required tithing - scripture tells us it should be a joy not a burden, having to report finances to your discipler or mentor, having to report a future marriage, many church meetings, using all of your spare time for volunteer work in the church, set programs of learning that you must agree with and cannot question, and the list goes on.

The size of the group or organisation it belongs to does not matter. Manipulation and tyranny can be found in single house churches as well as from the top down or in isolated cases in larger groups.

I am for home churches, but do not trust organisations that claim to excercise authority to control those groups. Involvement in such a group can be just as damaging as belonging to a "fixed" church that is overly authoritarian. Often it has to do with money. If you MUST tithe to belong, then that is already one sign that something is not right. Just be careful.

Quentin

18th November 2005, 03:52 PM

I am currently "churched" but am strongly working to become "unchurched". I am fed up with my church and their expectations and such. Pray for me everyone.

discernomatic

18th November 2005, 04:47 PM

Am praying for you JesseBasset. :prayer: I hope you are able to cope.

Honibee, I just posted some information in another thread that contains links about cell churches and why they may be harmful.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2300632-good-books-about-the-home-church-movement.html#post20040535

Honibee

18th November 2005, 05:22 PM

Also, the idea of a contract to be signed, they call it a covenant, (though it does not have the same meaning as the OT word in my opinion) is not scriptural nor was it practiced by early Christians. It is a recent fad. I think that it is just another method of control.

Hi Discernomatic- Thank you for responding to the site. In mentioning it, I was stating there is an unorganized move to simiply know the truth of God's word. Chuck Crismier has been contacted numerous times by people asking for church references. Because of this outcry, he is trying to help these people.

I agree completely that covenants, documents, or any such thing do not need to be signed to be part of the Body of Christ. Maybe I overlooked something, but his ministry is to America, and the 'Declaration of Interdependance' (which you site) is his creative way of stating that believers in America (and particularly his ministry) strive to keep the faith of forefathers. (Odd, I didn't see any actual 'undersigned' ;) ) I appreciate your diligence in standing for truth.

I'd be very interested in reading your testimony - if you have it posted anywhere. Deception is often a subtle thing, and a person can never be too careful. I take the biblical mandate to 'test all things' very seriously- as I see you do too. Blessings in Him.

tryme

19th November 2005, 01:21 AM

Well, I am "un-churched"...I guess because of my health these days...cannot get to meetings...nor have people in my home...I have found there is a real connection with believers by internet...I have stayed with Cf now for a year...

I probably would be in an "assemby" of believers if I could be...yet now after over a year of not attending...I have no desire for that kind of meeting anymore...maybe I will learn something new from you people here.

I do miss corporate worship, some of the churches I went thru had wonderful seasons of worship.

Hi angelwind. :wave:
I highlighted a few things from your post because it most all relates to me.

Because of many health problems I can not get to church. :cry:
I do not like this situation but that is the way it is.
I listen to sermons from SermonAudio.com and other websites which have messages to listen to.

Because of my inability to function on a regular work schedule I retired (in my 40's) this past September.
I do good just to get to the grocery store once a month if I am lucky.

But the Lord is good and has lead me to this site.
I was craving a way to connect with other Christians and be helpful/useful to others.

Having said that I am associated with a local Methodist church via a Yahoo group and have been PMing with the pastor.
I want to work with him to see if they have a program for "invalids" and if not maybe assist in developing one.
"Invalids" really refers to anyone homebound for any reason.

discernomatic

19th November 2005, 09:55 AM

[/font]I was stating there is an unorganized move to simiply know the truth of God's word. Chuck Crismier has been contacted numerous times by people asking for church references. Because of this outcry, he is trying to help these people.

I agree completely that covenants, documents, or any such thing do not need to be signed to be part of the Body of Christ. Maybe I overlooked something, but his ministry is to America, and the 'Declaration of Interdependance' (which you site) is his creative way of stating that believers in America (and particularly his ministry) strive to keep the faith of forefathers. (Odd, I didn't see any actual 'undersigned' ;) ) I appreciate your diligence in standing for truth.

I'd be very interested in reading your testimony - if you have it posted anywhere. Deception is often a subtle thing, and a person can never be too careful. I take the biblical mandate to 'test all things' very seriously- as I see you do too. Blessings in Him.
It could be that he is really trying to help, I cannot be sure about his motives, but I think that his doctrine can and should be questioned.

I would never undersign a contract or covenant of any sort. If the Holy Spirit is not making me one enough with other believers then I don't know what will.

There are very few, I think, who really try to 'test all things' intentionally. I think that it is good that you are making an effort to do so. :thumbsup: Don't accept anything at face value.

I don't have a testimony anywhere as such, but a short one is listed in my personal profile. My website is listed there too, it contains a testimony of an incident of spiritual abuse that I suffered.

As far as home churches go, I am trying to start one in my area, but not based on any particular program. I have the feeling that soon there may be more like myself that have suffered in church systems and will be looking for an alternative. Also, there are not many born-again Christians in my area, a small church group that meets at home does have a ministry potential to those that would never darken the door of a church. The emphasis of the group will be the gospel and the purity thereof, living a simple Christian life of learning Scripture and serving one another, without contracts, covenants, gimmicks, unnecessary rules and regulations. Everyone has a God-given purpose (nothing to do with purpose-driven), mine will be to start the group and teach the others how to feed themselves and discern so that they will not be deceived by every new doctrine that comes along. I can do at least that much. That is why I plan to emphasize the gospel itself. New doctrines can always be compared to it. I have noticed that if you ignore all of the hype and just compare what is being offered to the true meaning of the gospel, the difference usually becomes clear quickly, if there is a difference. I see the gospel as being God-centered not man-centered as is more often the case these days. That may constitute the difference between the real gospel and false ones that Jesus and Paul both warned us about.

God bless.

discernomatic

19th November 2005, 10:04 AM

Because of many health problems I can not get to church. :cry:
I listen to sermons from SermonAudio.com and other websites which have messages to listen to.
Hi magnify,

Sorry you are limited to staying home most of the time. I agree that the internet offers possibilities that were previously unavailable to shut-ins.

I don't have access to a doctrinally sound group of Christians, and born-agains are scarce where I live. I like to listen to SermonAudio.com, too. Sometimes they are a bit conservative for my taste, but the doctrine is sound.

Perhaps the church you spoke of can have their bible study at your place sometimes, that would give you an opportunity for fellowship. If everyone brings a bit to eat or drink that can be shared that would keep the burden off of you to have to serve everyone. They just have to help clean up afterward too. Just a suggestion.

discernomatic

New_Wineskin

19th November 2005, 10:45 AM

I am currently "churched" but am strongly working to become "unchurched". I am fed up with my church and their expectations and such. Pray for me everyone.

May the Lord give you guidance .

oworm

19th November 2005, 03:49 PM

vWhere in the bible does it say you must go to a church though.
Hebrews 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

WAB

19th November 2005, 07:27 PM

Hebrews 10:24,25... "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." (NKJV)

As put forth elsewhere, we home church. Please, MaFunk, do not be offended, but in light of the above quote, "...homechurching myself." would seem to be a non-entity considering the necessity of someone else to assemble with.

Of course the scripture above was given/written long before the world wide web came into existence, and no doubt someone will declare that fellowship on sites such as this one qualifies as "assembling together." There is no doubt as to the benefit of sites such as this... but as you well know, there is a personal contact that is missing. If you are healthy enough to go to the beach, would you not be healthy enough to attend home church if a biblical one is within reach?

As the following paper will attest, we are well aware of the problems in many established churches, and fully endorse the homechurch movement.

THE CHURCH
The occasion for this re-vamp of a prior paper with the same title stems from the situation a dear Brother in the Lord brought to my attention when a representative of a local denominational church informed him that every Christian must belong to an established church if they are to be biblically correct. (Preferably of their denomination of course).

When the Brother mentioned house churches as an alternative when all of the established churches in the vicinity are embracing some facet of the apostasy, such as Cursillo, Purpose Driven Life/Church, ECT, etc., etc., then the representative mentioned above became irate.

So.......

First of all, The Church as mentioned often in the New Testament, is an organism, not an organization; and that is irrespective of whether that organization is good or bad, biblical or un-biblical. What follows will clarify.

Paul (previously known as Saul) was converted (saved or born-again) in approximately 34 AD. He wrote the epistle to the Galatians in approximately 54-58 AD; Ephesians in approx. 62-64 AD, and Colossians in approx. the same time frame as Ephesians. These epistles contain wonderful truths concerning the Body of Christ, which is identified as the Church in Colossians 1:18,24.... "And He is the Head of the Body, the Church: Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence." and in vs. 24... "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His Body’s sake, which is the Church:"

Ephesians 1:22,23..... "And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." (KJV, Caps. added).

Second.... The local churches mentioned in the New Testament were of various sizes, depending upon the response to the preaching of the Gospel in the region. In some areas there was an immediate and numerous response to the preaching of the gospel, and the believers met in buildings large enough to accommodate them; or perhaps gathered even in the open as conditions permitted.

Specifically, Romans 16:3-5a and 1 Corinthians 16:19 refer to the local church that met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila. Let’s look at these references...

Romans 16:3-5a..... "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house."

1 Corinthians 16:19.... "The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house."

Obviously both references concern one local church.

Colossians 4:15.... "Salute the brethren who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church which is in his house." Obviously this was a different church.

Philemon 2.... "And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the church in thy house." Different area, different church, same venue;

i.e. the local church meeting in one of the believer’s houses. I use the term "houses" because that is the term used in the above references. Sometimes we prefer to call the structures in which we live "home". But as the old song goes...

"This world is not my home, I’m just a-passin’ through."

So........ The early believers met in places appropriate to their needs. Were they not legitimate members of the Church because they met in one or another of the believer’s houses? Of course they were legitimate members of the Church! Unfortunately, the idea that you must meet at, and be under the tutelage or even the dominion of a denominational entity, and in their church gathering, stems not from the Scriptures, but from a business perspective. The home office requires compliance, or your monetary assistance (or reward) will disappear.

To return briefly to the situation mentioned on page one.... The Brother was also informed that to have a legitimate ministry, one must be ordained by a denominational entity and remain under their authority. If that position were correct, then many of the best known and respected missionaries, of both the past and present, would be ruled out as being legitimate messengers of the Gospel. Men such as Hudson Taylor and women such as Gladys Ayleward would not have qualified. However, research their ministries!

Having just had a ‘phone conversation with a leader in the West Coast office of Overseas Missionary Fellowship (the current name of what used to be known as China Inland Mission), I was told that no ordination by any church or denomination is required by OMF. The same applies to other well known missionary sending agencies with which I am familiar.

For example, New Tribes Mission does issue an ordination certificate to those who have completed their training course, the intent of which is to facilitate the processing of visa papers and other official documents, and the ordination is valid only for the time the missionary serves with NTM. If the missionary candidate’s home church would prefer to issue an ordination certificate, NTM will accept that, and not issue a certificate.

If the requirement stated by the denominational rep. referred to above were legitimate, then none of the missionaries sent by the groups mentioned really qualified as messengers of the Gospel. I hasten to add that every missionary sending agency with which I am familiar (and my family and I spent 24 years on the so-called foreign mission field), does require missionary candidates to have schooling and capabilities in the areas of ministry to which they are called and sent.... Such as language skills and/or evangelism.

Unfortunately, in addition to teaching such aberrant doctrines as mentioned above, there are even groups that declare themselves to be the purveyors of truth..... and anyone who would be so unlearned as to question their take on the Scriptures will come under their anathema. We learned this first hand.

An adherent to Grace School Of The Bible (G.S.O.T.B.) of Bloomingdale, IL who attended Bible studies at our house, when we lived in Oregon, gave us papers from that organization that taught that those who responded to the Gospel that Peter

preached at Pentecost were members of the "Pentecost church" or the "Apostolic church" ..... not the "Body Church", and that Peter himself was not a member of the Body of Christ, but that the Body of Christ Church only came into existence at "the raising up of Paul." Also, that Peter’s epistles, along with the writings of James, John, Jude and the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews (who I believe to have been Paul), were not directed to the Body Church, and are not to be considered for the Body Church, but to the so-called Pentecost or Apostolic church (and subsequently to those in the millennium).

Note: Having accessed G.S.O.T.B.’s web site on 14 Oct. ‘04, I found that they have not changed their position. Here is a brief quote from an article titled "Building Strong Believers...How Not To Be A Spiritual Wimp!"

"Paul is our Apostle–in contrast with Peter and the Twelve who were Israel’s apostles (Matt. 19:29, Gal. 2:8). Thus Paul’s gospel is our gospel–in contrast to that proclaimed by Peter and the Twelve before him (Gal. 1:11,12; 2:6-9). this (sic) is all the more important when we remember Paul’s solemn pronouncement that one day soon ‘God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel’ (Rom. 2:16)."

Let us take a look at the facts. Second Peter was written in approx. 66-67 AD, well after Paul’s epistles were written and available. To whom was Peter writing? In chap.3 vs. 2, (and please reference all of the scriptures included in this paper), Peter speaks of "... the commandment of us the apostles..." This was directed to those living prior to "...the day of the Lord." (3:10). Was this commandment to Believers in the Body Church? Or was there, as G.S.O.T.B. declares, a concurrent Pentecost church to whom he was writing? And if the latter, how did the believers enter that church? Peter speaks in 1 Peter 1:23 of being "born again". Was this a different kind of new birth that applied only to those who responded to the "gospel of the kingdom"? I think not.

In 2 Peter 3:9, Peter speaks of the unwillingness of God "... that any should perish..." And in verse 15 that: "...the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;" Salvation into the Pentecost church? Or, as common sense tells us, into the One True Church....The Body of Christ. Notice also that Peter calls Paul his "beloved brother"... And that Paul had written the same information that Peter was putting forth, and to the same people! If Peter was writing for the benefit of the Pentecost church, as G.S.O.T.B. claims, doesn’t it seem strange that Paul was writing the same things to the same people if he was writing to the Body Church? The fact is, that both Peter and Paul, who were brothers in the Lord and therefore both members of the Body of Christ, were writing for the instruction and edification of the individuals who comprise the Church, so that the Whole Church would benefit.

In 1 Corinthians 1:2, after identifying himself as the sender of this epistle, Paul is addressing his letter to..... "...the Church of God...which is at Corinth..."

In Chap.15 and verse 9 of this same letter, Paul, after giving a thumbnail (but accurate) description of the Gospel which he preached to the Corinthians, declares that he had previously "....persecuted the Church of God". (That is, before his conversion).

Were these two different "Churches of God"?? Or, as reason and common sense would tell us, are these two references to the same Church? !

In his exhortation to the elders of the church at Ephesus, Paul said this: "... I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (Greek epis’kopos, = Bishop/Pastor/Shepherd), to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." Note that it was the Holy Spirit who ordained these elders.

For some time I considered the doctrinal positions of G.S.O.T.B. to be relatively minor aberrations from the truth. However, the more I studied and learned of their doctrine, the more serious these aberrations appeared. Consider just the idea that writings of all the authors (or rather secretaries of the Lord) named above (other than Paul), according to the teaching of G.S.O.T.B., are not for the edification and instruction of the Body of Christ. This would include the book of the Revelation, written by the Apostle John. A short perusal of Revelation 22:18-21 would attest to the seriousness of this issue.
Be a Berean... Check it out!

Written by: W.A.B. (Note: Quotes are from the KJV and the NKJV).

New_Wineskin

19th November 2005, 08:10 PM

Hebrews 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

People who use this passage as a supposed command usually violate it by refusing to meet with all in the general area . They usually only meet with some people in particular groups . This is giving up meeting together . Meeting with only some is disobeying this supposed command .

Honibee

19th November 2005, 08:32 PM

The Church as mentioned often in the New Testament, is an organism, not an organization

Great matrial, WAB- thank you for sharing it. . .

FLANDIDLYANDERS

19th November 2005, 11:56 PM

People who use this passage as a supposed command usually violate it by refusing to meet with all in the general area . They usually only meet with some people in particular groups . This is giving up meeting together . Meeting with only some is disobeying this supposed command .

Yes! This is the whole point of this verse! It is about inclusion and community, rather than what we all tend to call *church*! Also, in the context of a life reaching beyond *church* AND *CHURCH* NEEDING TO BE IN THE *WORLD*, it is a warning against *meetings* and an emphasis on meeting *each other*...

Relationships are what was being promoted here, not meetings. duh.

Johnnz

23rd November 2005, 06:37 PM

A while ago I wondered about a church in the NT and what would it have been like for them.

There was no church building.
There were no pews, choirs, organs
There were no robes for office holders
There was no order of service
There was no one pastor who controlled church life and gave all the teaching
Leaders were not paid
A leader had to be seen as competent in his affairs before being accepted as one, suggesting they were generally not young, and that they had been part of society, not graduates of an institution.
There was no order of service

So, I decided to experiment and find out. That's the way our homegroup functions - church without all our historical bagggage. I'm here for keeps.

John
NZ

discernomatic

24th November 2005, 08:25 AM

it is a warning against *meetings* and an emphasis on meeting *each other*...

Relationships are what was being promoted here, not meetings. duh.

Yes! I agree completely! Now why don't more churches get the message?

They ought to be going like this: :doh:

John,

I'm happy for you, that you found(ed) a group that fits the description! :thumbsup:

I am planning on starting one too. Got any tips based on your experience? What worked for you? What didn't work?

Johnnz

24th November 2005, 11:20 PM

Hi discernomatic,

Groups will vary according to their composition, so be prepeared to be flexible and creative.

Some things we have found helpful:

Leadership is a function, not a status. Thus, we all have an input into decisions
Paul tells us about the whole body working together to build each other up (Eph 4). We all contribute. The initiator of the talk and/or discussion is spread amongst us all. Initially, we endured some dreadful sessions, but teh benefits in self confidence and improved deleivery, construction etc made it all worthwhile.
Most times we meet, chat over coffee, have time teaching etc then continue talking and relating over lunch - informal and relaxing. Sometimes our coffee chat just goes on and "church' is around a table and food. We all bring food.
Each family acts as host, including the older single girl who was marginalised ina larger church. She has begun a new career, and is attending unversity part time. Her time wiith us gave her that confidence.
We sometimes listen to tapes, DVD's etc, reproduce articles for discussion, and attnd good speakers and teachers who are in town. I read widely. It is important not to become isolated.
We don't criticize other Christians and their churches.

Hope this helps

John
NZ

vincejohn

25th November 2005, 05:28 PM

My name is Vinny Im from Australia. I thank God I have finally found a group of believers like me. I am married ,no kids. Every Friday we light up a candle. I dont believe in tithes as there are no more Levitical priests around. I believe all people who actually receive the Holy Ghost are ministers of the word. I also believe in the 10 commandments and this is one reason why I left them all because they were trying to tell me Jesus killed off the commandments and this does not exist in our Bibles. Jesus actually said ''to enter life keep the commandments..'' I am free now., as far as Im concerned being here with you is assembling with believers. The great hypocrites in the churches ,the leaders I mean, tell you to pay them tithes when they are not levites and then go and tell you theres no more commandments..pack of snakes. please forgive me Im really a nice man but I feel so liberated to have finally found a place like this.
God has given me many gifts which they were trying to destroy...Holy Jesus Christ bless you all, peace to all of you...Vince. We have been home churching for 3 years.

New_Wineskin

25th November 2005, 05:48 PM

Yeah , finding a group of people who agree on all of the doctrines that they all consider as important is a difficult task . Like that 10 commandments issue , I don't see it relevant to me . I don't say that Jesus took it away ... it is simply that I am a Gentile and so they were never an issue to be dealt with . Yet , I agree with you on the tithes issue . It might come down to finidng out what topics that would not be good for anyone to bring to the table and which ones are not to be compromised .

vincejohn

25th November 2005, 06:18 PM

New_Wineskin

26th November 2005, 06:22 PM

I dont believe in this we gentiles them Jews . In Revelations it says the dragon will pursue the church that keeps the commandments and the witness of Jesus. The Holy Ghost has made us all equal in Gods eyes. What nationality is the Holy Ghost, God never changes.

I said nothing about "them gentiles" or "them Jews" . I also said nothing about "nationality" . I am one with my siblings in the Holy Spirit - that has nothing to do with being a descendant of one at the mountain to whom those and *all* of the Law were written .

Well , this is an old topic .

cenimo

26th November 2005, 09:38 PM

New_Wineskin

26th November 2005, 09:52 PM

This is an interesting thread. I go to a denominational church but reading some of the posts here sure can make a person wonder.

Go into the denominational forums and you get the feeling people just let themselves be blinded with doctrines of one kind or another to a point of where they miss the truth.

That certainly *is* one reason why people "home church" . However , the problem persists if the group makes the same mistakes and insists on everyone agreeing on doctrines . The one that was recently brought forward is a good example . Freedom from doctrinal constraints helps .

oworm

27th November 2005, 06:08 AM

That certainly *is* one reason why people "home church" . However , the problem persists if the group makes the same mistakes and insists on everyone agreeing on doctrines . The one that was recently brought forward is a good example . Freedom from doctrinal constraints helps .
Hmmm.. .........the pastoral epistles make numerous mention of the importance of right doctrine and the dangers of neglecting it.
If you mean freedom from denominational constraint which is departed from the clear teaching of scripture then that would indeed be a great help. But, freedom from biblical doctrine would most certainly be unhelpful! We do need doctrine and we do need to sit under the ministry of those who have been called and ordained of God to exegete and expound that doctrine.

New_Wineskin

27th November 2005, 09:16 AM

Hmmm.. .........the pastoral epistles make numerous mention of the importance of right doctrine and the dangers of neglecting it.

Well , if the author was concerned about the great many doctrines , they would have spelled out which ones were the important ones . If you are going by those specific epistles , then only the doctrines clearly spelled out and declared as "doctrines" of importance should be considered as such . ( no need for specific person to expound on them because they would be "clear" ) . If you consider that a doctrine such as what hymnal to use is a reason to "split" a "church" , then I wish you luck on finidng even a few people that agree with every doctrine that can be had . But , groups have split on this issue .

But , I was not discussing that , was I ? There are important doctrines but they are very , *very* , few ( another reason why there is no need for a specifc person to exegete on them ) . To nitpick on clothing and hairstyles and jewlry and other things only invites people to not wish to be a part of such groups . Then there are the *seemingly* important doctrines . But , there are those that consider the hair and clothing issues as important . When people insist on having the correct doctrines , there is never enough of them and they pop up everywhere .

If you mean freedom from denominational constraint which is departed from the clear teaching of scripture then that would indeed be a great help. But, freedom from biblical doctrine would most certainly be unhelpful! We do need doctrine and we do need to sit under the ministry of those who have been called and ordained of God to exegete and expound that doctrine.

One can prove *any* doctrine as having "clear teaching of scripture" . Well , everyone *except* that very doctrine . There is no "clear teaching of scripture" on there *needing* a "clear teaching of scriptue" . *I* can give you a clear teaching on putting to death those that break the Sabbath . But , those that claim a need for clear teachings ignore it .

There is no clear teaching of scripture on a *need* to sit under a someone concerning doctrine . However , there is a clear teaching on the Holy Spirit being our teacher alone .

If the Scriptures are clear on something and one actually considers that the Scriptures must be clear to agree with it , there is no need for someone to expound or exegete on it . It is already clear . A need for expounding or exegeting on anything shows that the thing is not clear and should be thrown out according to the rule of clarity .

Those doctrines , of course , could be considered important to some but not to all . That is why I made my previous post . *Your* doctrine would require a specific person(s) to expound on doctrine . That usually means that people will find it necessary to *pay* the person . This leads to other doctrines . Most likeley , there would be a doctrine on authority . Then , "membership" becomes a priority because one needs people to stick around so that the person is paid enough and there are people who would "obey" their authority . And then , what about gender of the person(s) *ordained by the Lord* to have such position(s) ? Doctrines beget doctrines like rabbits with no preditors and lots of food .

The very doctrines that you have brought up are what I was discussing . *What* is the minimal set of doctrines that you would require those with whom you fellowship ? The more you have , the fewer who will be willing to fellowship with you . What are the requirements of salvation ? Those are the only ones about which *I* care . If it isn't about salvation , it can be thrown out the window .

oworm

27th November 2005, 10:28 AM

Well , if the author was concerned about the great many doctrines , they would have spelled out which ones were the important ones .
He does spell it out:
....................for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me ( 1Tim:1,10-11) Conformity to the teaching of the "glorious gospel of God" is sound doctrine!

If you are going by those specific epistles , then only the doctrines clearly spelled out and declared as "doctrines" of importance should be considered as such .
2Tim3:16 implies that the whole body of scripture encapsulates all the doctrine of God!
( no need for specific person to expound on them because they would be "clear" )
1Cor12:28 Eph4:11 Heb5:12 All allude to the need for teachers.

If you consider that a doctrine such as what hymnal to use is a reason to "split" a "church" , then I wish you luck on finidng even a few people that agree with every doctrine that can be had . But , groups have split on this issue .
Thats kind of a moot point since hymnals are not the word of God! Anyway I would not consider the contents of a hymnal to be grounds for separation!

But , I was not discussing that , was I ? There are important doctrines but they are very , *very* , few ( another reason why there is no need for a specifc person to exegete on them ) .
If there is no need for specific persons to exegete then why does scripture tell us that some are apponted to such a task:scratch: See my scripture references above for confirmation.

To nitpick on clothing and hairstyles and jewlry and other things only invites people to not wish to be a part of such groups . Then there are the *seemingly* important doctrines . But , there are those that consider the hair and clothing issues as important . When people insist on having the correct doctrines , there is never enough of them and they pop up everywhere .
Point taken and those issues you mention above and similar are often dividing issues. You have illustrated perfectly from what you say above that there is infact a great need for teachers who are called and ordained of God to teach what is in accordance with SOUND and BIBLICAL doctrine. Many self appointed teachers often "major on minors" and "minor on majors"

One can prove *any* doctrine as having "clear teaching of scripture" . Well , everyone *except* that very doctrine . There is no "clear teaching of scripture" on there *needing* a "clear teaching of scriptue" . *I* can give you a clear teaching on putting to death those that break the Sabbath . But , those that claim a need for clear teachings ignore it .
Again you illustrate above the need for those ordained by God and set apart by him for that task of correctly handling the word of truth faithfully as is stated in 2Tim 2:15

There is no clear teaching of scripture on a *need* to sit under a someone concerning doctrine . However , there is a clear teaching on the Holy Spirit being our teacher alone .
Heb 13:17 disagrees with you. The writer tells the recipients of the letter that they should submit to those who are over them in the Lord because those in authority are responsible for their spiritual nourishment !

If the Scriptures are clear on something and one actually considers that the Scriptures must be clear to agree with it , there is no need for someone to expound or exegete on it . It is already clear . A need for expounding or exegeting on anything shows that the thing is not clear and should be thrown out according to the rule of clarity .
The scriptures are most certainly clear but those who read them can be far from clear about what the bible is actually saying about a given subject,hence the need for those who are steeped in scripture from Genesis to Revelation and who have given themselves to the study of it diligently. Having a grasp of the whole cousel of scripture better enables the individual to interpret scripture according to scripture. That,coupled with the anointing of the Holy Spirit in the life of the man who is set apart for such a task is the menas whereby God teaches us.

Those doctrines , of course , could be considered important to some but not to all . That is why I made my previous post . *Your* doctrine would require a specific person(s) to expound on doctrine . That usually means that people will find it necessary to *pay* the person . This leads to other doctrines . Most likeley , there would be a doctrine on authority . Then , "membership" becomes a priority because one needs people to stick around so that the person is paid enough and there are people who would "obey" their authority . And then , what about gender of the person(s) *ordained by the Lord* to have such position(s) ? Doctrines beget doctrines like rabbits with no preditors and lots of food .
Again you illustrate the need for those who are called of God for the task of teaching.Men who will not tickle itching ears but who will proclaim gods word!

The very doctrines that you have brought up are what I was discussing . I don't recall bringing up any specific doctrines :scratch:
*What* is the minimal set of doctrines that you would require those with whom you fellowship ?
Those pertaining to salvation in Christ alone

The more you have , the fewer who will be willing to fellowship with you .
Sadly yes that is often the case,especially with those narrowminded enough to allow peripherals to become central or to "Major on Minors"
What are the requirements of salvation ? Regeneration,Repentance and Faith in Christ.
Those are the only ones about which *I* care . If it isn't about salvation , it can be thrown out the window .
Thats a bit radical is it not? What about the teaching on Sanctification,the Sovereignty of God,His providence in all the varied situations and experiences of our lives which all bring comfort and consolation to the life of the most weakest of believers. Throwing away everything except the teaching on salvation would very much impoverish us and we would not grow in grace or learn anything about the character and attributes of God

New_Wineskin

27th November 2005, 01:17 PM

He does spell it out:
....................for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me ( 1Tim:1,10-11) Conformity to the teaching of the "glorious gospel of God" is sound doctrine!

Talking *about* sound doctrine is not spelling out what those doctrines *are* . Also , since the gospel is simple and short , there is no need for other doctrines .

2Tim3:16 implies that the whole body of scripture encapsulates all the doctrine of God!

I wrote : There is no "clear teaching of scripture" on there *needing* a "clear teaching of scriptue" . That passage says nothing about "need" and says nothing concerning "clarity" . Another and *very* important point is that the author was referring specifically to the older writings and not his own .

1Cor12:28 Eph4:11 Heb5:12 All allude to the need for teachers.

Alluding to indicates no "clarity" . You stated the need for the Scriptures to be clear . But , now you are going with what you consider is alluded to . There is no sense of *need* . The Lord Himself is quoted as saying to call *no* human teacher but that the Holy Spirit is to be one's teacher . While human teachers are *useful* ( depending on who they are ) , they are not *needed* . The letter called "Hebrews" specofically states that there is no longer a need for a Moses to find out the things of the Lord for His own . Jesus is far superior to Moses . The need for human teachers is stating that there is still a need for more Moses' .

Thats kind of a moot point since hymnals are not the word of God! Anyway I would not consider the contents of a hymnal to be grounds for separation!

Not a moot point at all . People had Scriptural grounds for splitting because of that . Your not agreeing with their basis is beside the point . What *is* the point is that they went with *your* doctrine and even you disagree with it . My point is that your point can extend to all sorts of nonsensical doctrines . This brings me to my point to limit doctrines because insisting on everyone agreeing with every little doctrine is why people leave those groups .

If there is no need for specific persons to exegete then why does scripture tell us that some are apponted to such a task:scratch: See my scripture references above for confirmation.

Those passages do not state that such people are for everyone ( let alone needed by anyone ) . Nor do they state that one who is currently with one , that they have a need to have one from that time forward .

Point taken and those issues you mention above and similar are often dividing issues. You have illustrated perfectly from what you say above that there is infact a great need for teachers who are called and ordained of God to teach what is in accordance with SOUND and BIBLICAL doctrine. Many self appointed teachers often "major on minors" and "minor on majors"

Again you illustrate above the need for those ordained by God and set apart by him for that task of correctly handling the word of truth faithfully as is stated in 2Tim 2:15

LOL!! I am stating that those so-called people are the ones who have brought about this mess in the first place . Their insistance that so many doctrines are needed and only the ones that they agree with only creates little areas of control .

Heb 13:17 disagrees with you. The writer tells the recipients of the letter that they should submit to those who are over them in the Lord because those in authority are responsible for their spiritual nourishment !

One would need to have someone over them to be under their authority . That passage states nothing about those who have none over them . Plus , your idea contradicts the letter as a whole . One of the main topics of the letter is that there is no need for written laws as there exists a new covenant . Your view of the passage is stating that a writing has such control when the author has already stated that none are needed . The author would be a hypocrite if they were intending that passage to be looked at in the way with which you are .

The scriptures are most certainly clear but those who read them can be far from clear about what the bible is actually saying about a given subject,hence the need for those who are steeped in scripture from Genesis to Revelation and who have given themselves to the study of it diligently. Having a grasp of the whole cousel of scripture better enables the individual to interpret scripture according to scripture. That,coupled with the anointing of the Holy Spirit in the life of the man who is set apart for such a task is the menas whereby God teaches us.

If that were true , in order to make sure that one has this knowledge and understanding , one would to at least have an equal understanding of the Scriptures to make that determination . Since the person would be equal , they would have no need for such . Otherwise , anyone can convince another that they know enough to lead them .

To say that they are clear but not to the average person gives a priesthood class that contradicts the letter called "Hebrews" .

Those pertaining to salvation in Christ alone

We agree . There is no need to expound on those doctrines or to exegete them . For , as believers , we are already agreed on them . And , there is no need for others .

Thats a bit radical is it not? What about the teaching on Sanctification,the Sovereignty of God,His providence in all the varied situations and experiences of our lives which all bring comfort and consolation to the life of the most weakest of believers. Throwing away everything except the teaching on salvation would very much impoverish us and we would not grow in grace or learn anything about the character and attributes of God

Sanctification *is* the salvation message . What is needed for the "sovereignty of God" when one has already agreed to the salvation message ? How is it not included ? How is the Lord not capable of maintaining His part of the relationship with us by teaching us all things ?

oworm

27th November 2005, 02:07 PM

Talking *about* sound doctrine is not spelling out what those doctrines *are* . Also , since the gospel is simple and short , there is no need for other doctrines .

I wrote : There is no "clear teaching of scripture" on there *needing* a "clear teaching of scriptue" . That passage says nothing about "need" and says nothing concerning "clarity" . Another and *very* important point is that the author was referring specifically to the older writings and not his own .

Alluding to indicates no "clarity" . You stated the need for the Scriptures to be clear . But , now you are going with what you consider is alluded to . There is no sense of *need* . The Lord Himself is quoted as saying to call *no* human teacher but that the Holy Spirit is to be one's teacher . While human teachers are *useful* ( depending on who they are ) , they are not *needed* . The letter called "Hebrews" specofically states that there is no longer a need for a Moses to find out the things of the Lord for His own . Jesus is far superior to Moses . The need for human teachers is stating that there is still a need for more Moses' .

Not a moot point at all . People had Scriptural grounds for splitting because of that . Your not agreeing with their basis is beside the point . What *is* the point is that they went with *your* doctrine and even you disagree with it . My point is that your point can extend to all sorts of nonsensical doctrines . This brings me to my point to limit doctrines because insisting on everyone agreeing with every little doctrine is why people leave those groups .

Those passages do not state that such people are for everyone ( let alone needed by anyone ) . Nor do they state that one who is currently with one , that they have a need to have one from that time forward .

LOL!! I am stating that those so-called people are the ones who have brought about this mess in the first place . Their insistance that so many doctrines are needed and only the ones that they agree with only creates little areas of control .

One would need to have someone over them to be under their authority . That passage states nothing about those who have none over them . Plus , your idea contradicts the letter as a whole . One of the main topics of the letter is that there is no need for written laws as there exists a new covenant . Your view of the passage is stating that a writing has such control when the author has already stated that none are needed . The author would be a hypocrite if they were intending that passage to be looked at in the way with which you are .

If that were true , in order to make sure that one has this knowledge and understanding , one would to at least have an equal understanding of the Scriptures to make that determination . Since the person would be equal , they would have no need for such . Otherwise , anyone can convince another that they know enough to lead them .

To say that they are clear but not to the average person gives a priesthood class that contradicts the letter called "Hebrews" .

We agree . There is no need to expound on those doctrines or to exegete them . For , as believers , we are already agreed on them . And , there is no need for others .

Sanctification *is* the salvation message . What is needed for the "sovereignty of God" when one has already agreed to the salvation message ? How is it not included ? How is the Lord not capable of maintaining His part of the relationship with us by teaching us all things ?
Experience has taught me that to engage any further in a discussion of this nature will only amount to something akin to travelling on a merry-go-round whilst expecting to arrive at a destination other than the inevitable.
Good day to you my friend and may God bless you in your walk:)

Quentin

27th November 2005, 02:16 PM

I home church because I don't like looking at the back of people's heads in a pew. I'd rather have the fellowship!

cenimo

27th November 2005, 03:54 PM

Poke around a bit in the denominational forums...there's a whole lot more of "Calvin said" or "Luther said" or "Wesley said", etc... than there is quoting Scripture.

Johnnz

27th November 2005, 03:59 PM

The issue of doctrine and unity is an interesting one. Paul faced this problem at Corinth (1 Cor 1-4) Paul set out principles of unity. He did not spell out which doctine was correct. He wanted to stress how each beliver is part of Christ's body, i.e our unity derived from relationship.

If you read Paul carefully you will discover that his constant emphasis was our relationship with Christ. Today we emphasise doctrine about Christ to the point of division.

Of course correct doctine was important to Paul. But he had been a pharisee. He knew firsthand how easily doctrine and their accompanying rules can become a substitute for a real relationship with God.

John
NZ

New_Wineskin

27th November 2005, 05:50 PM

Experience has taught me that to engage any further in a discussion of this nature will only amount to something akin to travelling on a merry-go-round whilst expecting to arrive at a destination other than the inevitable.
Good day to you my friend and may God bless you in your walk:)

Okie dokie . Adn , May He guide you in your relationship , as well . :)

I suspect that we both consider that the exchange itself proves our points . I am satisfied with that .

New_Wineskin

27th November 2005, 05:55 PM

MrJim

27th November 2005, 07:33 PM

Interesting thread.

Guess I don't trust myself enough in hearing the Holy Spirit as a sole teacher-but then I trust others (or do I?)...ok now you guys got me thinking again...

Johnnz

27th November 2005, 09:45 PM

Interesting thread.

Guess I don't trust myself enough in hearing the Holy Spirit as a sole teacher-but then I trust others (or do I?)...ok now you guys got me thinking again...

This is an interesting comment.

One affect of a pastor/leader domination is lack of confidence in ones' relastionship with God. The clergy/laity division implies a certain spiritual inferiority for anyone who is not the 'religious professional'. In our group we address this by having everybody lead our weekly teaching session. There has been some wonderful teaching, and the growth in self confidence of each person has been very special.

I believe that it is really important to keep in touch with good teaching from outside the small group - conventions, books, tapes and DVD's, special speakers in town, and maintaining friends who go to other churches.

John
NZ

discernomatic

28th November 2005, 10:13 AM

Hi discernomatic,

Groups will vary according to their composition, so be prepeared to be flexible and creative.

Some things we have found helpful:

Leadership is a function, not a status. Thus, we all have an input into decisions
Paul tells us about the whole body working together to build each other up (Eph 4). We all contribute. The initiator of the talk and/or discussion is spread amongst us all. Initially, we endured some dreadful sessions, but teh benefits in self confidence and improved deleivery, construction etc made it all worthwhile.
Most times we meet, chat over coffee, have time teaching etc then continue talking and relating over lunch - informal and relaxing. Sometimes our coffee chat just goes on and "church' is around a table and food. We all bring food.
Each family acts as host, including the older single girl who was marginalised ina larger church. She has begun a new career, and is attending unversity part time. Her time wiith us gave her that confidence.
We sometimes listen to tapes, DVD's etc, reproduce articles for discussion, and attnd good speakers and teachers who are in town. I read widely. It is important not to become isolated.
Saw your post yesterday, just didn't have time to answer. Thanks for the tips, I'll keep them in mind when we get started. That could take a while depending on whether others support the idea of a house church with me or not.

discernomatic

discernomatic

28th November 2005, 10:28 AM

I believe that it is really important to keep in touch with good teaching from outside the small group - conventions, books, tapes and DVD's, special speakers in town, and maintaining friends who go to other churches.
I have been criticized because I go to different churches but belong to none. I have acquaintances in a few churches, and even friends in one. The churches round about are all male oriented, not that I want a female oriented church, but I think that if I am one of the founders the other churches may not acknowledge us because I am a woman. Even if all teach and all learn, somebody's name and phone number will have to represent the group. Someone also has brought the issue up of a church needing a "presence" such as a building. I think that a website and a telephone number in the phone book are good enough, but my friends disagree. They want to convince me to go to their church, which has too much false doctrine in my opinion. I do not agree with the books they read or the films they promote either.

The laws here in Italy may play a role. Some have told me I might need an "umbrella," that is need to belong to a denomination to legally be accepted as a church body. Some churches here have therefore ascribed to AoG, Baptist or Reformed, though the latter are more an organisation and not a denomination. I was hoping to avoid any legal hassle, but that might not be possible due to laws here. Some have said that if an "umbrella" doesn't exist for a group and it meets in a home, then it is seen as a cult. The more I look at the possibilities, the less there seem to be. I was thinking more of a "neutral" group, or one that is as neutral as possible, avoiding trends and false doctrine that can befall some denominations.

New_Wineskin

28th November 2005, 06:07 PM

I have been criticized because I go to different churches but belong to none. I have acquaintances in a few churches, and even friends in one

The laws here in Italy may play a role. Some have told me I might need an "umbrella," that is need to belong to a denomination to legally be accepted as a church body.

Some have said that if an "umbrella" doesn't exist for a group and it meets in a home, then it is seen as a cult.

Those things are all a part of the hypocritical and controlling doctrines that have been handed down throughout the generations . People quote the passage in Hebrews about not forsaking but then say that people *must* forsake all but one group . They want people to feel like they cannot leave .

discernomatic

28th November 2005, 06:40 PM

Those things are all a part of the hypocritical and controlling doctrines that have been handed down throughout the generations . People quote the passage in Hebrews about not forsaking but then say that people *must* forsake all but one group . They want people to feel like they cannot leave .
I agree with Johnnz statement that we should maintain friendships with those of other churches, but how can we do that if they won't accept us? Some take it personally if you don't like their doctrine. I was kicked out of one church for that, and another thinks I'm too proud to join them, or too afraid of authority, but that is not the case, I am only trying to protect myself from false doctrine. Plus, I don't like worshipping with Pentecostals, those of the second church, but prefer rather to fellowship with them by reading the bible together, and just plain friendship. I don't see why I must officially join their church for that. Fellowship does not necessarily mean the same thing as worship to me. I think that if at all, it has more to do with mutual edification and encouragement.

Johnnz

1st December 2005, 12:40 AM

I have been criticized because I go to different churches but belong to none. I have acquaintances in a few churches, and even friends in one. The churches round about are all male oriented, not that I want a female oriented church, but I think that if I am one of the founders the other churches may not acknowledge us because I am a woman. Even if all teach and all learn, somebody's name and phone number will have to represent the group. Someone also has brought the issue up of a church needing a "presence" such as a building. I think that a website and a telephone number in the phone book are good enough, but my friends disagree. They want to convince me to go to their church, which has too much false doctrine in my opinion. I do not agree with the books they read or the films they promote either.

The laws here in Italy may play a role. Some have told me I might need an "umbrella," that is need to belong to a denomination to legally be accepted as a church body. Some churches here have therefore ascribed to AoG, Baptist or Reformed, though the latter are more an organisation and not a denomination. I was hoping to avoid any legal hassle, but that might not be possible due to laws here. Some have said that if an "umbrella" doesn't exist for a group and it meets in a home, then it is seen as a cult. The more I look at the possibilities, the less there seem to be. I was thinking more of a "neutral" group, or one that is as neutral as possible, avoiding trends and false doctrine that can befall some denominations.

Don't be discouraged. Your friends are immersed in an organisational viewpoint. Lack of structures and form cannt be imagined. But that is what the home church is all about - an organism that lives and sustains itself through the one who is Life. It really is a radical step to move outside structures, and it is partly unknown territory. But stimulating and real.

A web site is fine. Keep it simple and relevant to your group only. You are not setting up another denomination. Each home church group is autonomous. Interelationship is voluntary and spasmodic. We have not registered as a demonination, since we have no intention of becomming one. So, we don't get tax rebates on tithes but that's no big deal. We are not paying of church mortgages and a pastor's salary either.

Do what is on your heart, and let the results speak for themselves. But do recognise that sucha basis for 'church' is inconceivable for most people.

Blessings on you

John
NZ

vincejohn

3rd December 2005, 01:13 PM

I do not like the teachings of Paul. He started all these denominations by his Gospel of Grace. He told the people. '' I am your father follow me'' when Jesus said call no man meaning rabbis father. He even took the OT I believe Isaih prophecy '' I will give you as a light to the gentiles'' Further more He called Jesus an Apostle. Regarding the law 10 commandments he is like a tossed wave. God is not the author of confusion .Paul even stuffed up his Jesus encounter story , they heard the voices but saw no one, then they heard no voices but saw the light. It goes on and on. I am sorry if this offends my brothers and sisters here but I am not saved by Paul or his doctrine..Jesus said if you want to enter life keep the commandments, as is Revelations ''the dragon pursued the church of God that kept the commandments and the witness of Yeshua Jesus.
I believe the writings of Paul were put in the bible by the Romans who used them to create their church, it is a watered down doctrine now used by practically every denomination. I belong to no earth man religion. It is written '' the children of Israel written in the book of life.''
I believe the true Israel are Gods' children who do his will and keep his laws in our hearts and minds and love Holy Yeshua Jesus. Being here in this group is a blessed thing thankyou.
There are only 12 Apostles as testified by Revelations the foundations of the new Jerusalem and the lamb. I do not consider Paul a true Apostle.
I light up a candle every Friday evening and saturdays and try to relax. My conscience is happy that I at least try to keep the Sabbath where all the established churches dont including the Adventists who say Saturday is the Sabbath but actually it starts Friday evening...Ive left Paul. Vince

discernomatic

3rd December 2005, 03:35 PM

Don't be discouraged. Your friends are immersed in an organisational viewpoint. Lack of structures and form cannt be imagined. But that is what the home church is all about - an organism that lives and sustains itself through the one who is Life. It really is a radical step to move outside structures, and it is partly unknown territory. But stimulating and real.

A web site is fine. Keep it simple and relevant to your group only. You are not setting up another denomination. Each home church group is autonomous. Interelationship is voluntary and spasmodic. We have not registered as a demonination, since we have no intention of becomming one. So, we don't get tax rebates on tithes but that's no big deal. We are not paying of church mortgages and a pastor's salary either.

Do what is on your heart, and let the results speak for themselves. But do recognise that sucha basis for 'church' is inconceivable for most people.
Thanks for the encouragement John. I will keep your advice in mind. Am already starting to set up a skeleton webpage so that when things get going, all I have to do is write in the relevant info and get it hosted. I'd like to keep it non-denominational and unofficial if at all possible.

The church money thing would be irrelevant unless we want to do charitable work, but that is all in the future. We would just have to pay for bible study materials and some photocopies - a minimal amount - and everyone can pay that himself when he gets them. We would have to officially leave the churches we came from to stop paying taxes to them. The govt. here collects a small tax for them along with its own.

discernomatic

3rd December 2005, 05:45 PM

Hi vincejohn,
There were too many points in your post to address, so I will just take a few.
I do not like the teachings of Paul. He started all these denominations by his Gospel of Grace. He told the people. '' I am your father follow me'' when Jesus said call no man meaning rabbis father.

I don't think that it was Paul's intention to start different denominations. He urged the Body of Christ to be united rather than divided. I could not find the reference to Paul as a father of Christians you refer to. Could you list where you found it?

I found a few verses where Paul urges us to follow Jesus Christ and directs attention away from himself.

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." 1 Corinthians 1:10-17.

And again:

Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. 1 Corinthians 3:3-9.

Paul did say in 1 Corinthians 11:1, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." But you have to look at the situation to interpret it. Here he is not saying he is their father, but is trying to correct their completely deviant behavior. I think that as far as the descriptions go, the Corinthians were the church with the least amount of Godly behavior and that is why Paul had to go to such lengths to correct them. He did not do any of the carnal things they did, yet admitted to being the worst of sinners for having persecuted Christians and the least worthy to be an apostle.

He even took the OT I believe Isaih prophecy '' I will give you as a light to the gentiles''

The reference in Acts 26:23 is clearly referring to Jesus Christ as the light to the gentiles.

Another one is Acts 13:46-48.

"Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us:" 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

The phrase refers to Isaiah 49:5,6. "And now the LORD says— he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength- he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.""

The verses in Isaiah are uttered by Jesus Christ quoting his Father. By referring to this, the apostles are not equating themselves to Jesus Christ, but are referring to their function as part of the Body of Christ to do what has been prophesied, bring the gospel to the Gentiles. They were addressing a crowd of Jews that had rejected the gospel. When the gentiles heard about what they told the Jews they knew that the message was not only for the Jews but for themselves and gladly believed.

Further more He called Jesus an Apostle.

I was able to find the verse you referred to, but do not agree with your interpretation of it.

"Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess." Hebrews 3:1.

I think that before one criticizes Paul in this we have to find out what he means when he uses the word "apostle". One dictionary definition goes: "any messenger commissioned by or as by divine authority." Apostle from the Scripture text which is the Greek "apostolos" can be literally translated "one sent with a message", "apo-stello" = to send out - as a missionary for example. Jesus was sent by his Father to be a witness to him, to speak his words,

"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say." John 12:47-50.

In that sense, Jesus was an apostle from God the Father, Paul, Peter and the rest were apostles from Jesus. I do not think that anyone today can claim the authority that they had, whether he call himself the Holy See or a modern day apostle within the five-fold ministry movement which is trying to build up an apostolic para-church structure in Protestant churches.

I am sorry if this offends my brothers and sisters here but I am not saved by Paul or his doctrine....I believe the writings of Paul were put in the bible by the Romans who used them to create their church, it is a watered down doctrine now used by practically every denomination. I belong to no earth man religion. It is written '' the children of Israel written in the book of life.''
I believe the true Israel are Gods' children who do his will and keep his laws in our hearts and minds and love Holy Yeshua Jesus. Being here in this group is a blessed thing thankyou.
There are only 12 Apostles as testified by Revelations the foundations of the new Jerusalem and the lamb. I do not consider Paul a true Apostle.
I light up a candle every Friday evening and saturdays and try to relax. My conscience is happy that I at least try to keep the Sabbath where all the established churches dont including the Adventists who say Saturday is the Sabbath but actually it starts Friday evening...Ive left Paul. Vince

I was not offended by your post, but did see a need to show why I disagree with much of it.

Sure, I would doubt that a man could only say what the Holy Spirit told him to every minute of the day, but Paul did demonstrate a great measure of being filled with the Spirit by his actions in my opinion. I do not agree with some of Paul's opinions on dress and conduct, but do agree with him when he proves what he is saying using the Old Testament. I feel that a few verses in the letters may have been manipulated after Paul and the others wrote them, but they are only very few, and this is only my opinion. If anyone feels that they must accept the bible as infallible from cover to cover, why shouldn't they be able to do so?

As far as the sabbath is concerned, do what you see fit to do, but it is best not to look down on others for not keeping it on Saturday. One takes the risk of becoming like a Pharisee and burdening oneself down with man-made laws as they did with those under them. Man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man. Putting quality time for God aside and resting from work for one's health is the spirit of the law, doing it on Saturday follows only the letter of it. In my opinion any other day would serve as well. Some people must take jobs that give them no choice but to work on Saturdays or Sundays. It is sad, but some cannot afford to take a day off, and must do with only hours here and there to rest and pray. That is not their fault, but the fault of their employers that do not pay them enough to live on in six rather than seven days. The main point is that we are Christians 24/7 and are to live a holy life, no matter what day of the week it is or whether we are at work or at home.

discernomatic

vincejohn

3rd December 2005, 09:35 PM

discernomatic

6th December 2005, 07:29 AM

I think it is wrong to water down the commandments as denominations do, the seventh day is the seventh day. Even if people work to survive and at that stage have no other choice at least they should acknowledge within their hearts that it is the sabbath.
I appreciate you trying to answer my thoughts. I do not agree with any dictionary, as Yeshua said their are only 12 Apostles and they are the foundation stones.
Another part of the message that erks me about Paul is he was not commanded to baptise only to preach, preach what his new gospel.. Holy Yeshua Jesus said we must be baptised to fulfill all righteousness. Paul even writes that God justifies the ungodly. In the OT God writes he will never justifie the ungodly for they are an abomination.
God never changes , we must live by everyword of God and not man..the ultimate teacher is the Holy Spirit if you are blessed enough to receive it and Holy Yeshua Jesus Messiah. I received the Holy Spirit in 1988 after losing 2 family members and crying out to Jesus....yes '' blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted '' Praise our God and Holy Messiah HaMaschiac Yeshua Jesus. God of Holy Jesus Messiah bless all here and in the other sections on this forum.
Hi vincejohn,

I have read something about the doctrine you believe in, but was unable to find a name for it. Do you know what it is called? I saw in an online book, that those that believe like you do, say that Paul was not an apostle and that his gospel was not the one that Jesus preached. I saw the proofs and was not convinced.

I do not blindly believe in Paul nor what he wrote, but approve of what the Bereans did - they checked the Scriptures (OT) to see if what he said was true. I agree with the arguments he uses from the OT, but not with some of his opinions. I do not believe that Paul was infallible, as many Christians do. That is perhaps why the argument did not shock me, as it is meant to shock Christians that believe in the infallibility of the entire bible - including the letters.

I can see where you are coming from now, but I see belief in this other doctrine as a reaction to the realization that Paul was not infallible, and that his logic was not always perfect. Just because I don't like fascism doesn't mean that I become a communist. One does not need to go from the far right to the far left, nor from ultra-conservatism to ultra-liberalism or even from one conservative view to another one. I see the doctrine that you believe in as conservative - that is, conserving what you see as fundamental - another kind of fundamentalism. That is your prerogative. Everyone can believe what he wants. I can only say here that I cannot agree with your views, that even though I do not believe every word that Paul wrote, and that the Church has misused and misinterpreted it and Scripture sometimes, that I still know that Paul preached the real gospel.

If you would like to continue the discussion on this topic, I suggest you start a new thead and PM me where it is so I can respond there.

vincejohn

7th December 2005, 06:57 AM

No I have no need to start a new thread thankyou sister. How is your day going it is very hot here but blessedly hot. love vinny

vincejohn

7th December 2005, 06:59 AM

By the way moderators I find you health monitor quite stupid and ungodly my health is blessed at this stage praise God. Im 100 per cent not 37 per cent.

laughing247

20th December 2005, 02:25 PM

Is it wrong not to go to Church. And if you home church should you donate to other sources?

MaFunk

20th December 2005, 03:53 PM

Is it wrong not to go to Church. And if you home church should you donate to other sources?
Why would it be wrong not to go to church? God is in the heart of all believers, no matter where they worship.

In terms of donating money. . . .
I have never donated money to the church. I donate to:
1. The Library
2. Environmental Causes
3. Disaster Victims
4. Troubled Youth
5. And whatever other cause I believe in.

I think its about helping people, I don't think that it has to be a church.

just my humble opinion.

Johnnz

20th December 2005, 10:10 PM

Why do I home church? Here is one very important reason, to explore life in Christian community without non biblical patterns of leadership.

Mark Strom
Reintepreting Paul writes

Why did the ekklesia gather? Most evangelicals, and indeed Christians of nearly
all persuasions, traditionally answer that churches meet for worship. Paul's consistent answer was "to build each other up. The members met to use their personal endowments from the Spirit for the common good. They prayed, read Scripture, encouraged, sang, taught, and prophesied to one another as the Spirit enabled them. Paul never defined ekklesia in terms of a vertical relationship of worship. The meeting was for one another. The gathering was a conversation - a rich, diverse, extended conversation.

The meal at the heart of the gathering clearly expressed the centrality of relationships in the ekklesia and the corresponding rejection of religious and social prestige. The meal was not a cultic ritual in terms recognizable to Greeks and Romans. It seems that the Christians adopted the standard Jewish practice of commencing their meal by sharing bread and ending it by drinking wine. They would also pray at both the beginning and the end of the meal. Inthis regard, no outsider familiar with Jewish custom would have noticed anything unusual. The proceedings also fell somewhat within the expectations of a non-Jewish outsider, though the whole affair would have seemed grossly inadequate from a religious point of view. The meeting would have failed the expectations of both Jewish and Gentile observers.

Paul expected the ekklesia to disregard social distinctions and to honor the less honorable. This advice must not be intellectualized. It involved inverting the normal conventions of honor. Paul expected them to break with the normal convention of allocating food and seating according to status (1 Cor 11:17-22, 33-34). He expected Greeks and Jews, citizens and noncitizens, slaves, owners and freedmen to dine together without regard for positions of honor. A man of means might take a lowly place at the meal, perhaps even serve his slave or children. All of this was scandalous by normal community standards. There were prayers, singing and conversations about God and the world, but no priest presided. Hosts and regulars saw great significance in their eating and drinking. They spoke openly of the death and resurrection of Jesus, of how he had given his life for theirs and of how they would eat with him one day. The meal expressed the solidarity and intimacy of the group and formed a focus for their conversation.

This engagement with one another and the constant concern about compromise with the world's patterns partly explains the strong intellectual life among the communities. Participants in each ekklesia had to grapple with ongoing challenges of making sense of their lives in the light of the story of Jesus Christ. Each community was an informal learning network. Their well-being required them to remain open to the learning that the Spirit would bring to bear through their conversations and care for one another and their interactions within the wider society. Paul Sampley gives voice to the vitality of this arrangement:

It is no wonder Paul's communities had such a liveliness: each individual counted, yet the community's well-being was always valued. The community is supposed to provide a vibrant, supportive, and corrective context for the maximum development of the individual, and the individual is supposed to contribute to and care for the common good. Little wonder that the pot almost boiled over from time to time. It is a delicate balance - maximizing individual expression and development on the one hand and community well-being on the other-but its power may lie precisely in its frailty and vulnerability

It is timely to reflect on this vitality for our own contexts. This description of Paul's communities bears little resemblance to what most of us have known as church. The conventions of preaching and church services effectively gag our conversations. There is no meal. Spontaneity is avoided, absent or slotted into five- or ten-minute "greeting" or "sharing" segments, small conversational digressions from the main performance led from the front. We endorse the need for "sharing" but locate it away from "real church." In a sad irony of Paul's meals, we speak of coming to church to be "fed." In our case, the "meal" is usually a course of words prepared by one chef rather than the smorgasbord of rich conversation

Happy pondering

John
NZ

strikerchris0411

20th December 2005, 10:45 PM

What do you guys actually consider a "church"?

Johnnz

21st December 2005, 11:56 PM

What do you guys actually consider a "church"?

The word translated church (ekklesia) refers to people not buildings or programmes etc when the NT is referring to local congrgations.

John
NZ

jckstraw72

22nd December 2005, 03:27 AM

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

strikerchris0411

22nd December 2005, 03:27 AM

The word translated church (ekklesia) refers to people not buildings or programmes etc when the NT is referring to local congrgations.

John
NZ]

Yeah thats whta i thought just a gathering of people.