How to shop for a Church

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Alright I was originally going to open this up in the Apologetics section, but I decided I was interested in hearing from some of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters about this.

A little background; this was sent to me by my father-in-law. He is anti-institution to the extreme, meaning he does not believe those in the Baptist congregations, the Lutheran Congregations, or the Anglican are true believers because true believer’s church services should be at home. (basically if you are a mainstream Christian, i.e. Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, anything that has a large following you are apostate). He calls those who attend these churches as believers in “Churchianity.” Those inside these “institutions” are apostate because they do not follow the worship style of the Book of Acts, which to him, was in the home of believers.


http://www.preparehisway.com/shopping_church_3

There is a lot here and probably would be better covered in several different threads. So I apologize for that.

So, thoughts? Look forward to seeing people’s opinions.

God bless

 

[Seeking12]

Alright I was originally going to open this up in the Apologetics section, but I decided I was interested in hearing from some of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters about this.

A little background; this was sent to me by my father-in-law. He is anti-institution to the extreme, meaning he does not believe those in the Baptist congregations, the Lutheran Congregations, or the Anglican are true believers because true believer’s church services should be at home. (basically if you are a mainstream Christian, i.e. Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, anything that has a large following you are apostate). He calls those who attend these churches as believers in “Churchianity.” Those inside these “institutions” are apostate because they do not follow the worship style of the Book of Acts, which to him, was in the home of believers.


http://www.preparehisway.com/shopping_church_3

There is a lot here and probably would be better covered in several different threads. So I apologize for that.

So, thoughts? Look forward to seeing people’s opinions.

God bless

Many churches have these “home gatherings” and it is not dead. Although Bible studies of that nature can be dangerous because the people leading them often do not meet the qualifications as an overseer. I would ask him what he has done to make that happen. Why not, what is holding him back? Then there is always the command that we are given not to forsake the assembling for fellowship and edification; what does he do with that? Anyway-just a few thoughts.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Many churches have these “home gatherings” and it is not dead. Although Bible studies of that nature can be dangerous because the people leading them often do not meet the qualifications as an overseer. I would ask him what he has done to make that happen. Why not, what is holding him back? Then there is always the command that we are given not to forsake the assembling for fellowship and edification; what does he do with that? Anyway-just a few thoughts.

Wow, someone replied to my thread. Thanks for offering your thoughts on it.

I wouldn’t say home churches are dead. I went to a buddy’s home church once and I wouldn’t say it was dead by any means. I hope 1) I did not say that and 2) if I did not say it I hope I didn’t imply it in anyway. I will have to re-read my original post.

He does not believe the idea of leadership in a church, even an overseer, is biblical. They are all brothers and sisters in Christ with no distinctions. The priesthood of all believers. So there is no need for pastor, elders, ministers, popes, bishops, so on and so forth.

Thanks for your thoughts

God bless

 

[jblake]

Roman_Catholic;:

I wouldn’t say home churches are dead. … if I did not say it I hope I didn’t imply it in anyway.

I didn’t read it that way. The article you cited implicitly endorsed home churches.

He does not believe the idea of leadership in a church, even an overseer, is biblical.

• It is a sub-text within Christian Anarchism;
• Pretty standard Church of Christ (Mutual Edification) theology. I’m not sure how position that gets reconciled with 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, but anyway. (Probably something along the lines of “since there is nobody with the appropriate qualifications, we can’t have a specific person as leader”.);
• One of the issues in the Home Church Movement, is that it is not uncommon for the individual who leads a specific Home Church, to decide that there is no reason for them to kowtow to anybody else;
• “Leaderless Revolution” as a political philosophy usually has “no church leadership” as part of its Christian Theology;

jonathon

 

[Cat]

I would say not to get too worried. Without a leader and standard operating procedures, any organization, secular or spiritual, implodes and dies eventually. Your father-in-law will see that for himself. He will see that within the home church, a natural leader will emerge and begin taking on more “leadership” characteristics, and the home church will begin to look more and more like an “institutionalized” church. The nail in the coffin will be hammered in (at least, as far as your father in law is concerned!) when the home church decides to become a “community church” and purchases land for a building, gets a loan, pays a mortgage, hires a staff, establishes a constitution, etc.!

This “home church” movement has been around for a long time, but it hasn’t taken hold because of what I said above. A big proponent of the anti-institutionalized church trend is Frank Viola–he’s written several books proving that the way Christians have done church for 2000 years is all wrong, and he has figured out the right way! Yeah, right.

.

 

[Seeking12]

Wow, someone replied to my thread. Thanks for offering your thoughts on it.

I wouldn’t say home churches are dead. I went to a buddy’s home church once and I wouldn’t say it was dead by any means. I hope 1) I did not say that and 2) if I did not say it I hope I didn’t imply it in anyway. I will have to re-read my original post.

He does not believe the idea of leadership in a church, even an overseer, is biblical. They are all brothers and sisters in Christ with no distinctions. The priesthood of all believers. So there is no need for pastor, elders, ministers, popes, bishops, so on and so forth.

Thanks for your thoughts

God bless

You did not say it was dead; I was just commenting. Sounds like he is just anti religion or perhaps an agnostic or had some real bad experiences with church. Because even you and I would agree on the office of Pastor and Deacon because it is in the plain reading of Scripture. I would put Timothy and Titus in his hand and ask him to read it and ask what the Bible means by those two offices. Probably a waste of time because there seems to be some root cause that has not been exposed.

 

[Seeking12]

Alright I was originally going t

God bless

**I wanted to thank you for your service as a police officer; you guys have a very difficult job and not getting any easier and are usually very underpaid for always putting your life potentially in harms way. I always make the effort to assist our local police department when I have the chance and of course the best way to do that is keep an eye on your neighbor and do your best not to break the law.
**
I would have probably gotten a ticket the other day for going 64 in a 55 because I was not using my cruise control and listening intently to something Glen Beck was saying. It is funny; because it was just a temporary mental lapse and the officer was clocking the other direction; here I am aware now and thanking God feverishly that he was clocking the other way.

 

[JonNC]

Alright I was originally going to open this up in the Apologetics section, but I decided I was interested in hearing from some of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters about this.

A little background; this was sent to me by my father-in-law. He is anti-institution to the extreme, meaning he does not believe those in the Baptist congregations, the Lutheran Congregations, or the Anglican are true believers because true believer’s church services should be at home. (basically if you are a mainstream Christian, i.e. Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, anything that has a large following you are apostate). He calls those who attend these churches as believers in “Churchianity.” Those inside these “institutions” are apostate because they do not follow the worship style of the Book of Acts, which to him, was in the home of believers.


http://www.preparehisway.com/shopping_church_3

There is a lot here and probably would be better covered in several different threads. So I apologize for that.

So, thoughts? Look forward to seeing people’s opinions.

God bless

R_C,
I read through the section “It’s Not Scripture?”. You and I (and others) have chatted lately about classic sola scriptura and the more recent solo scriptura. This is it, it seems to me, in the extreme.
Interesting website.

Jon

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Alright I was originally going to open this up in the Apologetics section, but I decided I was interested in hearing from some of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters about this.

A little background; this was sent to me by my father-in-law. He is anti-institution to the extreme, meaning he does not believe those in the Baptist congregations, the Lutheran Congregations, or the Anglican are true believers because true believer’s church services should be at home. (basically if you are a mainstream Christian, i.e. Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, anything that has a large following you are apostate). He calls those who attend these churches as believers in “Churchianity.” Those inside these “institutions” are apostate because they do not follow the worship style of the Book of Acts, which to him, was in the home of believers.


http://www.preparehisway.com/shopping_church_3

There is a lot here and probably would be better covered in several different threads. So I apologize for that.

So, thoughts? Look forward to seeing people’s opinions.

God bless

I would start by pointing out that in the beginning they met were ever they could that was safe, be it in a cave or the home of other believers. Remember Saul was going around arresting followers of the WAY ill his conversation.
AS for leader We read in Act that the Apostles selected seven men to do a lot of the task that was taking them away from spreading the good news ( deacon they are now called) one of them Phillip we read in acts I think chapter 8 after preaching the word in Samaria and baptizing new beleivers called for Peter and James. they came and laid hands on those new converts for the reception of the Holy Spirit on them ( Confirmation). This also shows that not all followers of Jesus, the Way, Christians have the same Authority. If he wants to follow the Church of Acts he needs to get to Mass

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

jblake:

One of the issues in the Home Church Movement, is that it is not uncommon for the individual who leads a specific Home Church, to decide that there is no reason for them to kowtow to anybody else

I have never been to one of their meetings; I have never been invited (gatherings are for ‘Christians’ for fellowship, edification and the strengthening of the congregation. It is not for unbelievers and for those who are still lost; or so my wife and I have been told) So I do not know the structure of their meetings. The way it sounded to me was that it was a bible study with the breaking of the bread.

I would say not to get too worried. Without a leader and standard operating procedures, any organization, secular or spiritual, implodes and dies eventually.

They already had one major split (half of the congregation left) due to them believing you could lose your salvation. They had no way to settle the issue (since obviously both sides appealed to Scripture) and so half of them split. They have recently reconciled with some of these members and determined that it was a non-essential issue and no reason to split the church over. However the others who did not come back did not agree that it was a non-essential and have stayed “rebellious”.

seeking12:

I wanted to thank you for your service as a police officer

:tiphat: Turn the Glen Beck down npatrol: Actually I listen to his show all the time while I am patrolling, so I understand.

jon:

R_C,
I read through the section “It’s Not Scripture?”. You and I (and others) have chatted lately about classic sola scriptura and the more recent solo scriptura. This is it, it seems to me, in the extreme.
Interesting website.

Jon

I completely agree Jon. My wife sent him your article about the Reformers view on Sola Scriptura. He told her it gave him a lot to “chew on” and he spent hours looking over it with his Bible

I would start by pointing out that in the beginning they met were ever they could that was safe, be it in a cave or the home of other believers. Remember Saul was going around arresting followers of the WAY ill his conversation.

We actually had this discussion he basically stated

He said that service should be like it was in the Book of Acts.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

In case anyone was curious, here is my FIL’s church’s web-site (Isn’t it the ‘institutionalized’ churches who do web-sites? I don’t recall reading John discussing web-sites in the Book of Acts )

openairseattle.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1

And here is there statement of faith:

http://www.openairseattle.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67&Itemid=27

We believe that every saved person should follow the Lord in baptism by immersion and should not forsake the gathering of believers by maintaining an active role in a local New Testament Church.

This is an interesting statement of faith. Notice the words, “New Testament Church” and also keep in mind that it is them who decide which Churches fall into this category.

From my discussions with my FIL, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians are without question out. Most baptist churches and Pentecostal Churches (especially the AoG Church) are out. Non-denominational churches have to be closely studied, but if there is a “head pastor” or “elder” of any kind they are out and not a ‘New Testament’ Church.

And here is an article about what they refer to as, “Churchianity”:

openairseattle.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63%3Amodern-qchurchianityq-&Itemid=50

After telling the newly arrived church-hopper they are saved and going to heaven no matter what they live like, they only have to tithe to maintain their “status of blessedness” in the eyes of their new CEO CreamPuff Pie pastor…

Great way of describing fellow Christians and people who are supposed to be men of God.

Also notice throughout the article how “street evangelism” becomes a work, and if you don’t do it you are “lukewarm frauds”.

And it is Catholics who are accused of believing a work-based salvation

God bless

 

[JonNC]

In case anyone was curious, here is my FIL’s church’s web-site (Isn’t it the ‘institutionalized’ churches who do web-sites? I don’t recall reading John discussing web-sites in the Book of Acts )

ROTFL

What? You don’t have St. Paul’s Email to the Romans, or St. Peter’s 1st Blog to the Hebrews??? And you accuse us Lutherans of removing blogs from the Bible!!

Jon

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You pose a most interesting question. In some sense your father is right. The most basic church is at home. But these always tend to be small. And it strikes me that you miss the opportunity to learn from a larger gathering.

The main thing going for it in my opinion, is that helps stave off the tendency we sometimes find, where one seems more involved with Church than with God.

Bickering about what faith community is better or best, or whatever suggests that God has been lost, and the institution is now being worshiped.

On the side of the institutionalized church I would say that the biggest thing is it’s ability to serious address issues of poverty and caring. Our church is dedicated to Matt 25. We have dozens of ministries trying to reach out and help people on many levels. Small home churches cannot do this on the same scale of course.

But I think your father’s point is well taken. There is no question a tendency to miss Jesus in the attempt to be following the Church properly. On some of these threads, Jesus is almost not mentioned, so intent are the posters to prove their point on minor issues of church v church or what is “correct” doctrine in some respect. I’m almost always sure in the end, that Jesus would simply shake his head in disbelief.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

ROTFL

What? You don’t have St. Paul’s Email to the Romans, or St. Peter’s 1st Blog to the Hebrews??? And you accuse us Lutherans of removing blogs from the Bible!!

Jon

Those emails and blogs were determined to be uninspired by the second Council of Yahoo and this decision was reaffirmed at the 1st council of Google.

I have no problem not including them in the canon.

God bless