"Home" churches

[Walt]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

Why burden the people of God with this?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

Why incorporate at all?

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

Haklo

I don't know of many churches that can gather comfortably in someone's house.  Clearly, when the church at Jerusalem met with thousands of members, they did not all meet together; no one's house could hold that many people.

 

[prophet]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

Why burden the people of God with this?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

Why incorporate at all?

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

Haklo

I don't know of many churches that can gather comfortably in someone's house.  Clearly, when the church at Jerusalem met with thousands of members, they did not all meet together; no one's house could hold that many people.

Where did they meet?

Hmmmm, you don't know.

In fact, you don't know if they ever all assembled at once, do you?

You are shooting the past through a recent prism, and it doesn't work.

Haklo

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I know that some on the HAC FFF do not attend traditional churches, but rather have home church.  I think this will be a good topic for discussion.  Here are some questions to get things started:

How often do you see someone come to salvation in Christ?
How often do you see someone baptized and discipled?
Do you take an offering and if so how are the monies used?
Do you support missionaries?
How many services a week do you have?
Do you recognize the office of a bishop, elder, or deacon?

I once was a part of a house church...in that, we met in a home.
We saw people come to Christ, baptized them and helped disciple and nurture them.
Because of that, we outgrew the house.

And the result, as Japhethites, was to build an Empire complete with an Emperor?

Of course you grow, so now there are more households with the church in them.

You could even assemble with those other households, in the same area, for conference once in a while.

What causes you Nicolaitans nosebleed, is the thought of "how could I control that?".
You can't.
And, so, you will remain forever opposed to the Church's Groom. 



Haklo

You are now my go to guy for ecclesiology and the pastoral epistles to determine how to keep a house church in a house.
IF I would ever desire that knowledge or application.

It isn't "a house church", it is "The Church in a house".

Haklo

Once an e-mail offered to sell me a church in a box....was that you?
Semantics aside, it takes special 'gifts' to keep a church microscopic in size if said church is making disciples. 

 

[rsc2a]

Simply a matter of growth by division

 

[IFB X-Files]

Simply a matter of growth by division

I believe Lee Roberson was a master at that.

 

[prophet]

I know that some on the HAC FFF do not attend traditional churches, but rather have home church.  I think this will be a good topic for discussion.  Here are some questions to get things started:

How often do you see someone come to salvation in Christ?
How often do you see someone baptized and discipled?
Do you take an offering and if so how are the monies used?
Do you support missionaries?
How many services a week do you have?
Do you recognize the office of a bishop, elder, or deacon?

I once was a part of a house church...in that, we met in a home.
We saw people come to Christ, baptized them and helped disciple and nurture them.
Because of that, we outgrew the house.

And the result, as Japhethites, was to build an Empire complete with an Emperor?

Of course you grow, so now there are more households with the church in them.

You could even assemble with those other households, in the same area, for conference once in a while.

What causes you Nicolaitans nosebleed, is the thought of "how could I control that?".
You can't.
And, so, you will remain forever opposed to the Church's Groom. 



Haklo

You are now my go to guy for ecclesiology and the pastoral epistles to determine how to keep a house church in a house.
IF I would ever desire that knowledge or application.

It isn't "a house church", it is "The Church in a house".

Haklo

Once an e-mail offered to sell me a church in a box....was that you?
Semantics aside, it takes special 'gifts' to keep a church microscopic in size if said church is making disciples. 

You are ,again, misunderstanding me, because you are prejudiced against The Scriptures.
I am claiming that every household added to The Church in an area, is The Church in that house.

I've been church planting for years.
The households that we've discipled have not only continued, but added others.

Read my post about the building we rented space in from the Mennonites.
We had 35 adults by then.

Of course growth occurs in a healthy body.

I'm not against growth, I'm against the retardation falsely called "growth" that builds a bunch of buildings, incurs a bunch of debt, and saddles the Saints with it.

I've reached into hundreds of homes with the Gospel, and am grateful to God for allowing me to be a part of this.

The Church in an area is made up of all the Saints.  They can't possibly assemble together all of the time.

I have never once said that true believers won't multiply their numbers.
I have never said that a house is the only place the church meets.

We are Missionaries, and are supported by more households than churches.
Whenever a church says that they want to support us, I ask them to just be willing to take up a collection, if I ever call with a specific need.
So far, we've never called...

We have 2 vans, given to us by households.
We regularly receive donated food, and durable goods, as God leads people to give.

Maybe I have made it look like I'm an Anarchist, but I'm not.
I just see the world wide church of God needing to go back underground.

Your generation may make it to your crowns relatively unmolested, but mine won't.



Haklo

 

[IFB X-Files]

The Church in an area is made up of all the Saints.  They can't possibly assemble together all of the time.

Whoa there, buddy!  The Briders will NOT like you for saying that!

 

[Mathew Ward]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

I did not know you needed to be a home owner to be ministering. Why should the burden fall on one individual?

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

As there are for a home church.

Why burden the people of God with this?

Shouldn't the people of God bear the expense where they meet?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Is it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

You mean a lawyer could not target a home?

Why incorporate at all?

Render unto Caesar comes to mind. Romans 13 too...

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

Like we are unashamed of being "official"?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

If you mean the evil will only go after incorporated churches, then you are mistaken.

Haklo

If a church meets in a house or in a corporately owned building is no different then if they are traditional or contemporary in style.

 

[prophet]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

I did not know you needed to be a home owner to be ministering. Why should the burden fall on one individual?

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

As there are for a home church.

Why burden the people of God with this?

Shouldn't the people of God bear the expense where they meet?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Is it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

You mean a lawyer could not target a home?

Why incorporate at all?

Render unto Caesar comes to mind. Romans 13 too...

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

Like we are unashamed of being "official"?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

If you mean the evil will only go after incorporated churches, then you are mistaken.

Haklo

If a church meets in a house or in a corporately owned building is no different then if they are traditional or contemporary in style.

I believe your head is in the sand here.

The difference between the 2 is bills, and who pays em.

Corporately owned buildings must be insured to higher levels, are targets for the new age mafia lmnopq , must conform to handi-reqs, etc, etc, ad inf.
And the middle class worker, with enough to care for his own and an occasional neighbor or Saint, gets handed a bill sandwich made of false Scriptural claims and guilt trips.

A house, that has a head, can easily swallow a few extra bucks a month for the utilities that the extra people use for a few hours.

There is a HUGE difference.

And it isn't preference, it is doctrine.

Haklo

 

[16KJV11]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

I did not know you needed to be a home owner to be ministering. Why should the burden fall on one individual?

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

As there are for a home church.

Why burden the people of God with this?

Shouldn't the people of God bear the expense where they meet?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Is it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

You mean a lawyer could not target a home?

Why incorporate at all?

Render unto Caesar comes to mind. Romans 13 too...

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

Like we are unashamed of being "official"?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

If you mean the evil will only go after incorporated churches, then you are mistaken.

Haklo

If a church meets in a house or in a corporately owned building is no different then if they are traditional or contemporary in style.

I believe your head is in the sand here.

The difference between the 2 is bills, and who pays em.

Corporately owned buildings must be insured to higher levels, are targets for the new age mafia lmnopq , must conform to handi-reqs, etc, etc, ad inf.
And the middle class worker, with enough to care for his own and an occasional neighbor or Saint, gets handed a bill sandwich made of false Scriptural claims and guilt trips.

A house, that has a head, can easily swallow a few extra bucks a month for the utilities that the extra people use for a few hours.

There is a HUGE difference.

And it isn't preference, it is doctrine.

Haklo

I see no command in the NT that tells us that we have to meet for church in houses.  I am certain that they met in houses more out of necessity than anything else.
Not against it, but it's not a command.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

I did not know you needed to be a home owner to be ministering. Why should the burden fall on one individual?

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

As there are for a home church.

Why burden the people of God with this?

Shouldn't the people of God bear the expense where they meet?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Is it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

You mean a lawyer could not target a home?

Why incorporate at all?

Render unto Caesar comes to mind. Romans 13 too...

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

Like we are unashamed of being "official"?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

If you mean the evil will only go after incorporated churches, then you are mistaken.

Haklo

If a church meets in a house or in a corporately owned building is no different then if they are traditional or contemporary in style.

I believe your head is in the sand here.

The difference between the 2 is bills, and who pays em.

Corporately owned buildings must be insured to higher levels, are targets for the new age mafia lmnopq , must conform to handi-reqs, etc, etc, ad inf.
And the middle class worker, with enough to care for his own and an occasional neighbor or Saint, gets handed a bill sandwich made of false Scriptural claims and guilt trips.

A house, that has a head, can easily swallow a few extra bucks a month for the utilities that the extra people use for a few hours.

There is a HUGE difference.

And it isn't preference, it is doctrine.

Haklo

No, your post simply reflects your past experience, mostly bad, I assume.
It's your Peerophet made doctrine of the local church.
Kind of depressing that you haven't experienced a thriving, local New Testament church that could thrive once it passed the meet in a living room of a house stage.

 

[prophet]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

I did not know you needed to be a home owner to be ministering. Why should the burden fall on one individual?

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

As there are for a home church.

Why burden the people of God with this?

Shouldn't the people of God bear the expense where they meet?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Is it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

You mean a lawyer could not target a home?

Why incorporate at all?

Render unto Caesar comes to mind. Romans 13 too...

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

Like we are unashamed of being "official"?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

If you mean the evil will only go after incorporated churches, then you are mistaken.

Haklo

If a church meets in a house or in a corporately owned building is no different then if they are traditional or contemporary in style.

I believe your head is in the sand here.

The difference between the 2 is bills, and who pays em.

Corporately owned buildings must be insured to higher levels, are targets for the new age mafia lmnopq , must conform to handi-reqs, etc, etc, ad inf.
And the middle class worker, with enough to care for his own and an occasional neighbor or Saint, gets handed a bill sandwich made of false Scriptural claims and guilt trips.

A house, that has a head, can easily swallow a few extra bucks a month for the utilities that the extra people use for a few hours.

There is a HUGE difference.

And it isn't preference, it is doctrine.

Haklo

No, your post simply reflects your past experience, mostly bad, I assume.
It's your Peerophet made doctrine of the local church.
Kind of depressing that you haven't experienced a thriving, local New Testament church that could thrive once it passed the meet in a living room of a house stage.

My post reflects the desire to be Scriptural, not traditional.

You have no idea what my background is, but it includes 16 church plants, 14 of which you would find familiar.

You think that I am somehow jaded?

I'm not, I forsee evil, and I'm hiding in what we should have done all along.

Try answering the question:

Where in Scripture do you find a mandate to purchase corporately owned property which perpetually burdens the members?

Once we get past this simple answer, then we find we are back on equal ground, and our ideas are closer to Scripture than yours.

BTW, I'm not saying that the American model never worked, just that it expired.

Try to keep up, it is getting crazy out here.

The Bible belt fell around America's ankles, in Adultery, pornography, murder, and Sodomy.

Keep pretending that all is well, like some Monty Python spoof, but your grandkids will be sacrificed on the altars you built.

Haklo

 

[prophet]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

I did not know you needed to be a home owner to be ministering. Why should the burden fall on one individual?

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

As there are for a home church.

Why burden the people of God with this?

Shouldn't the people of God bear the expense where they meet?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Is it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

You mean a lawyer could not target a home?

Why incorporate at all?

Render unto Caesar comes to mind. Romans 13 too...

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

Like we are unashamed of being "official"?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

If you mean the evil will only go after incorporated churches, then you are mistaken.

Haklo

If a church meets in a house or in a corporately owned building is no different then if they are traditional or contemporary in style.

I believe your head is in the sand here.

The difference between the 2 is bills, and who pays em.

Corporately owned buildings must be insured to higher levels, are targets for the new age mafia lmnopq , must conform to handi-reqs, etc, etc, ad inf.
And the middle class worker, with enough to care for his own and an occasional neighbor or Saint, gets handed a bill sandwich made of false Scriptural claims and guilt trips.

A house, that has a head, can easily swallow a few extra bucks a month for the utilities that the extra people use for a few hours.

There is a HUGE difference.

And it isn't preference, it is doctrine.

Haklo

I see no command in the NT that tells us that we have to meet for church in houses.  I am certain that they met in houses more out of necessity than anything else.
Not against it, but it's not a command.

There is no otherwise example, in the NT. 


Haklo

 

[subllibrm]

Didn't many of the believers meet in the synagogs early on?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

I did not know you needed to be a home owner to be ministering. Why should the burden fall on one individual?

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

As there are for a home church.

Why burden the people of God with this?

Shouldn't the people of God bear the expense where they meet?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Is it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

You mean a lawyer could not target a home?

Why incorporate at all?

Render unto Caesar comes to mind. Romans 13 too...

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

Like we are unashamed of being "official"?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

If you mean the evil will only go after incorporated churches, then you are mistaken.

Haklo

If a church meets in a house or in a corporately owned building is no different then if they are traditional or contemporary in style.

I believe your head is in the sand here.

The difference between the 2 is bills, and who pays em.

Corporately owned buildings must be insured to higher levels, are targets for the new age mafia lmnopq , must conform to handi-reqs, etc, etc, ad inf.
And the middle class worker, with enough to care for his own and an occasional neighbor or Saint, gets handed a bill sandwich made of false Scriptural claims and guilt trips.

A house, that has a head, can easily swallow a few extra bucks a month for the utilities that the extra people use for a few hours.

There is a HUGE difference.

And it isn't preference, it is doctrine.

Haklo

No, your post simply reflects your past experience, mostly bad, I assume.
It's your Peerophet made doctrine of the local church.
Kind of depressing that you haven't experienced a thriving, local New Testament church that could thrive once it passed the meet in a living room of a house stage.

My post reflects the desire to be Scriptural, not traditional.

You have no idea what my background is, but it includes 16 church plants, 14 of which you would find familiar.

You think that I am somehow jaded?

I'm not, I forsee evil, and I'm hiding in what we should have done all along.

Try answering the question:

Where in Scripture do you find a mandate to purchase corporately owned property which perpetually burdens the members?

Once we get past this simple answer, then we find we are back on equal ground, and our ideas are closer to Scripture than yours.

BTW, I'm not saying that the American model never worked, just that it expired.

Try to keep up, it is getting crazy out here.

The Bible belt fell around America's ankles, in Adultery, phornography, murder, and Sodomy.

Keep pretending that all is well, like some Monty Python spoof, but your grandkids will be sacrificed on the altars you built.

Haklo

I do find your attitude jaded, and experience tells me that is based on your experience.

Try answering this question...where in Scripture do you find a prohibition on corporately owned buildings? And again, your "burden on the members" is a jaded and false assumption...based on your bad experience, I assume.


You are right, I don't know any more about you than you do about me....therefore I go on your posts here....and that is the assumption I make reading your posts!

 

[prophet]

Didn't many of the believers meet in the synagogs early on?

Til they were run out of them, by the Jews, yes. 
But, it wasn't their building.
They met there because the Law was disputed on a certain day of the week.
It wasn't their "church worship service", it was an evangelistic outreach.

So, again, they weren't meeting in corporately held real estate that they had to pay for.

Haklo

 

[prophet]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

I did not know you needed to be a home owner to be ministering. Why should the burden fall on one individual?

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

As there are for a home church.

Why burden the people of God with this?

Shouldn't the people of God bear the expense where they meet?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Is it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

You mean a lawyer could not target a home?

Why incorporate at all?

Render unto Caesar comes to mind. Romans 13 too...

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

Like we are unashamed of being "official"?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

If you mean the evil will only go after incorporated churches, then you are mistaken.

Haklo

If a church meets in a house or in a corporately owned building is no different then if they are traditional or contemporary in style.

I believe your head is in the sand here.

The difference between the 2 is bills, and who pays em.

Corporately owned buildings must be insured to higher levels, are targets for the new age mafia lmnopq , must conform to handi-reqs, etc, etc, ad inf.
And the middle class worker, with enough to care for his own and an occasional neighbor or Saint, gets handed a bill sandwich made of false Scriptural claims and guilt trips.

A house, that has a head, can easily swallow a few extra bucks a month for the utilities that the extra people use for a few hours.

There is a HUGE difference.

And it isn't preference, it is doctrine.

Haklo

No, your post simply reflects your past experience, mostly bad, I assume.
It's your Peerophet made doctrine of the local church.
Kind of depressing that you haven't experienced a thriving, local New Testament church that could thrive once it passed the meet in a living room of a house stage.

My post reflects the desire to be Scriptural, not traditional.

You have no idea what my background is, but it includes 16 church plants, 14 of which you would find familiar.

You think that I am somehow jaded?

I'm not, I forsee evil, and I'm hiding in what we should have done all along.

Try answering the question:

Where in Scripture do you find a mandate to purchase corporately owned property which perpetually burdens the members?

Once we get past this simple answer, then we find we are back on equal ground, and our ideas are closer to Scripture than yours.

BTW, I'm not saying that the American model never worked, just that it expired.

Try to keep up, it is getting crazy out here.

The Bible belt fell around America's ankles, in Adultery, phornography, murder, and Sodomy.

Keep pretending that all is well, like some Monty Python spoof, but your grandkids will be sacrificed on the altars you built.

Haklo

I do find your attitude jaded, and experience tells me that is based on your experience.

Try answering this question...where in Scripture do you find a prohibition on corporately owned buildings? And again, your "burden on the members" is a jaded and false assumption...based on your bad experience, I assume.


You are right, I don't know any more about you than you do about me....therefore I go on your posts here....and that is the assumption I make reading your posts!

If my attitude was jaded, I would be out of the church planting "business", which I am not.

Burden.  It is a legal term. Since you aren't a KJV fan, you'll need that explained to you. 

If there is a power bill, by definition, it is a burden.  The ones who pay it, by definition, bear the burden.
I know you are in the South, where men get all emotional in their thinking, so hear this:
No matter the weight, anything that must be born, is a burden.
Jesus said that His was light.

Because you think that your view is right, you don't grasp what I'm saying, and have to assume something bad pushed me over the edge, or that I suffer from PTSD, or etc.

Let's try one more time:

Since you won't find an example of corporately held real estate holdings with recurring regular expense, in the NT,  the burden of proof lies on those who would change, not those who would adhere to original ideals.
In other words, there has to be a reason to burden the church with debt, other than simply the lack of a ban on doing so.

Although there was a time, in the Western Countries, especially the USA, where this was easy, due to favorable tax laws , prior to municiple utilities, that time has expired.

Now we have a system that is hostile to the church.
Wages have stagnated for 2 generations, while C.O.L. has skyrocketed.
Several attempts to rescind the property tax laws have been made, and ,no doubt, soon one will succeed.

But the biggest reason is the forest that can't be seen for the trees:
Our #1 financial responsibility, in the Family of God, is to distribute to the physical needs of the Saints.

Most church goers today deposit all that they can spare, or want to share, in a collection that is primarily dedicated to debt resolution, or as we call it : "budget items".
Yes, some pittance of a percentage is used for the actual original purpose, and yes, we use some to evangelize.

But, if it isn't true at your congregation, than look around, there are people going w/o, while others who would give to them, have given all they could in the " offering plate".

Your generation isn't going to fix this, it is too comfortable.
Mine will.

I will continue to post about the church planting we do, and the continual spread of the Gospel, as long as the Lord gives me strength and liberty to do so.

Guerilla warfare won our independence.....

Haklo

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

I did not know you needed to be a home owner to be ministering. Why should the burden fall on one individual?

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

As there are for a home church.

Why burden the people of God with this?

Shouldn't the people of God bear the expense where they meet?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Is it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

You mean a lawyer could not target a home?

Why incorporate at all?

Render unto Caesar comes to mind. Romans 13 too...

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

Like we are unashamed of being "official"?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

If you mean the evil will only go after incorporated churches, then you are mistaken.

Haklo

If a church meets in a house or in a corporately owned building is no different then if they are traditional or contemporary in style.

I believe your head is in the sand here.

The difference between the 2 is bills, and who pays em.

Corporately owned buildings must be insured to higher levels, are targets for the new age mafia lmnopq , must conform to handi-reqs, etc, etc, ad inf.
And the middle class worker, with enough to care for his own and an occasional neighbor or Saint, gets handed a bill sandwich made of false Scriptural claims and guilt trips.

A house, that has a head, can easily swallow a few extra bucks a month for the utilities that the extra people use for a few hours.

There is a HUGE difference.

And it isn't preference, it is doctrine.

Haklo

No, your post simply reflects your past experience, mostly bad, I assume.
It's your Peerophet made doctrine of the local church.
Kind of depressing that you haven't experienced a thriving, local New Testament church that could thrive once it passed the meet in a living room of a house stage.

My post reflects the desire to be Scriptural, not traditional.

You have no idea what my background is, but it includes 16 church plants, 14 of which you would find familiar.

You think that I am somehow jaded?

I'm not, I forsee evil, and I'm hiding in what we should have done all along.

Try answering the question:

Where in Scripture do you find a mandate to purchase corporately owned property which perpetually burdens the members?

Once we get past this simple answer, then we find we are back on equal ground, and our ideas are closer to Scripture than yours.

BTW, I'm not saying that the American model never worked, just that it expired.

Try to keep up, it is getting crazy out here.

The Bible belt fell around America's ankles, in Adultery, phornography, murder, and Sodomy.

Keep pretending that all is well, like some Monty Python spoof, but your grandkids will be sacrificed on the altars you built.

Haklo

I do find your attitude jaded, and experience tells me that is based on your experience.

Try answering this question...where in Scripture do you find a prohibition on corporately owned buildings? And again, your "burden on the members" is a jaded and false assumption...based on your bad experience, I assume.


You are right, I don't know any more about you than you do about me....therefore I go on your posts here....and that is the assumption I make reading your posts!

If my attitude was jaded, I would be out of the church planting "business", which I am not.

Burden.  It is a legal term. Since you aren't a KJV fan, you'll need that explained to you. 

If there is a power bill, by definition, it is a burden.  The ones who pay it, by definition, bear the burden.
I know you are in the South, where men get all emotional in their thinking, so hear this:
No matter the weight, anything that must be born, is a burden.
Jesus said that His was light.

Because you think that your view is right, you don't grasp what I'm saying, and have to assume something bad pushed me over the edge, or that I suffer from PTSD, or etc.

Let's try one more time:

Since you won't find an example of corporately held real estate holdings with recurring regular expense, in the NT,  the burden of proof lies on those who would change, not those who would adhere to original ideals.
In other words, there has to be a reason to burden the church with debt, other than simply the lack of a ban on doing so.

Although there was a time, in the Western Countries, especially the USA, where this was easy, due to favorable tax laws , prior to municiple utilities, that time has expired.

Now we have a system that is hostile to the church.
Wages have stagnated for 2 generations, while C.O.L. has skyrocketed.
Several attempts to rescind the property tax laws have been made, and ,no doubt, soon one will succeed.

But the biggest reason is the forest that can't be seen for the trees:
Our #1 financial responsibility, in the Family of God, is to distribute to the physical needs of the Saints.

Most church goers today deposit all that they can spare, or want to share, in a collection that is primarily dedicated to debt resolution, or as we call it : "budget items".
Yes, some pittance of a percentage is used for the actual original purpose, and yes, we use some to evangelize.

But, if it isn't true at your congregation, than look around, there are people going w/o, while others who would give to them, have given all they could in the " offering plate".

Your generation isn't going to fix this, it is too comfortable.
Mine will.

I will continue to post about the church planting we do, and the continual spread of the Gospel, as long as the Lord gives me strength and liberty to do so.

Guerilla warfare won our independence.....

Haklo

Your bloviating aside, there is NO scripture to back up your experience formed misconception about the local church.

As to your assertion that the main function of the church is inter body welfare, I'd say that's as accurate as your church buildings are of the debil claim.

If you want the needs of the body to be met, if you want missionaries to be supported, if you want churches to be planted then the vast majority of that is done bigger, better and more effectively by larger church bodies.

Our church benevolence spending approaches 6 figures.
We stock food, clothes and furniture warehouses to meet the needs of our churc family first, and then to others in our community.

I obviously have no problem with your church planting ministry... My wife and I planted the church we still serve today. Our church has been. A part of planting 23 other churches and are in the process of launching another church plant on Easter 2016. Many of the churches we started began in a house...none of them still meet in a house. They evangelized, disciples and the church grew...outgrew the original building.
IMO, that's what healthy church plants do....

 

[Smellin Coffee]

...or that I suffer from PTSD...

:-*

 

[prophet]

You mean, in a corporately shared debit.

Haklo

Debt or debit?

Assuming debit, are you saying there is zero cost to meeting in a home?

If you meant debt, why must there be debt?

The home owner, one who was gifted by God with ministering, pay his normal bills,  no debit.

I did not know you needed to be a home owner to be ministering. Why should the burden fall on one individual?

Even if a "ministry building" is owned, still there are regular monthly expenditures such as utilities.

As there are for a home church.

Why burden the people of God with this?

Shouldn't the people of God bear the expense where they meet?

It is enough to minister to the poor Saints, isn't it?

Is it?

Why have corporate holdings, that a lawyer can target?

You mean a lawyer could not target a home?

Why incorporate at all?

Render unto Caesar comes to mind. Romans 13 too...

Why not make it all unofficial, a gathering of friends in a house?

Like we are unashamed of being "official"?

A prudent man foresees the evil, and hides....

If you mean the evil will only go after incorporated churches, then you are mistaken.

Haklo

If a church meets in a house or in a corporately owned building is no different then if they are traditional or contemporary in style.

I believe your head is in the sand here.

The difference between the 2 is bills, and who pays em.

Corporately owned buildings must be insured to higher levels, are targets for the new age mafia lmnopq , must conform to handi-reqs, etc, etc, ad inf.
And the middle class worker, with enough to care for his own and an occasional neighbor or Saint, gets handed a bill sandwich made of false Scriptural claims and guilt trips.

A house, that has a head, can easily swallow a few extra bucks a month for the utilities that the extra people use for a few hours.

There is a HUGE difference.

And it isn't preference, it is doctrine.

Haklo

No, your post simply reflects your past experience, mostly bad, I assume.
It's your Peerophet made doctrine of the local church.
Kind of depressing that you haven't experienced a thriving, local New Testament church that could thrive once it passed the meet in a living room of a house stage.

My post reflects the desire to be Scriptural, not traditional.

You have no idea what my background is, but it includes 16 church plants, 14 of which you would find familiar.

You think that I am somehow jaded?

I'm not, I forsee evil, and I'm hiding in what we should have done all along.

Try answering the question:

Where in Scripture do you find a mandate to purchase corporately owned property which perpetually burdens the members?

Once we get past this simple answer, then we find we are back on equal ground, and our ideas are closer to Scripture than yours.

BTW, I'm not saying that the American model never worked, just that it expired.

Try to keep up, it is getting crazy out here.

The Bible belt fell around America's ankles, in Adultery, phornography, murder, and Sodomy.

Keep pretending that all is well, like some Monty Python spoof, but your grandkids will be sacrificed on the altars you built.

Haklo

I do find your attitude jaded, and experience tells me that is based on your experience.

Try answering this question...where in Scripture do you find a prohibition on corporately owned buildings? And again, your "burden on the members" is a jaded and false assumption...based on your bad experience, I assume.


You are right, I don't know any more about you than you do about me....therefore I go on your posts here....and that is the assumption I make reading your posts!

If my attitude was jaded, I would be out of the church planting "business", which I am not.

Burden.  It is a legal term. Since you aren't a KJV fan, you'll need that explained to you. 

If there is a power bill, by definition, it is a burden.  The ones who pay it, by definition, bear the burden.
I know you are in the South, where men get all emotional in their thinking, so hear this:
No matter the weight, anything that must be born, is a burden.
Jesus said that His was light.

Because you think that your view is right, you don't grasp what I'm saying, and have to assume something bad pushed me over the edge, or that I suffer from PTSD, or etc.

Let's try one more time:

Since you won't find an example of corporately held real estate holdings with recurring regular expense, in the NT,  the burden of proof lies on those who would change, not those who would adhere to original ideals.
In other words, there has to be a reason to burden the church with debt, other than simply the lack of a ban on doing so.

Although there was a time, in the Western Countries, especially the USA, where this was easy, due to favorable tax laws , prior to municiple utilities, that time has expired.

Now we have a system that is hostile to the church.
Wages have stagnated for 2 generations, while C.O.L. has skyrocketed.
Several attempts to rescind the property tax laws have been made, and ,no doubt, soon one will succeed.

But the biggest reason is the forest that can't be seen for the trees:
Our #1 financial responsibility, in the Family of God, is to distribute to the physical needs of the Saints.

Most church goers today deposit all that they can spare, or want to share, in a collection that is primarily dedicated to debt resolution, or as we call it : "budget items".
Yes, some pittance of a percentage is used for the actual original purpose, and yes, we use some to evangelize.

But, if it isn't true at your congregation, than look around, there are people going w/o, while others who would give to them, have given all they could in the " offering plate".

Your generation isn't going to fix this, it is too comfortable.
Mine will.

I will continue to post about the church planting we do, and the continual spread of the Gospel, as long as the Lord gives me strength and liberty to do so.

Guerilla warfare won our independence.....

Haklo

Your bloviating aside, there is NO scripture to back up your experience formed misconception about the local church.

As to your assertion that the main function of the church is inter body welfare, I'd say that's as accurate as your church buildings are of the debil claim.

If you want the needs of the body to be met, if you want missionaries to be supported, if you want churches to be planted then the vast majority of that is done bigger, better and more effectively by larger church bodies.

Our church benevolence spending approaches 6 figures.
We stock food, clothes and furniture warehouses to meet the needs of our churc family first, and then to others in our community.

I obviously have no problem with your church planting ministry... My wife and I planted the church we still serve today. Our church has been. A part of planting 23 other churches and are in the process of launching another church plant on Easter 2016. Many of the churches we started began in a house...none of them still meet in a house. They evangelized, disciples and the church grew...outgrew the original building.
IMO, that's what healthy church plants do....

You read with eyes closed sometime.

I made no such assertion.

I said that what your church has done isn't wrong, it is just expired.

Check the history of your State, and see how it went in the 18th Century.

The extra-Biblical practices, of corporately held real estate and consequently: expense, were a product of the industrial revolution. 
That time is gone.
You have to be a ninny to think that you should continue to place a bullseye on the new church plants.
Do you honestly think that 10 years from now, our religion will even be legal?

I'm not condemning your way, and, Lord willing, you get to continue til the time of your departure.
My generation can't take that path.

You are giddy with success. Your church has been successful.
Your Convention has fielded a couple of U.S. Presidents: Clinton, Carter.
The SBC has done much good worldwide.
Enjoy it.

We have to prepare for the World we have inherited, which isn't the same place you did.



Haklo