The size of a community of faith

[prophet]

The size of a church is not designated in the Bible.
There are large churches, small churches...there are no one person churches.

The effectiveness of the church and it's size, in my experience, depends greatly on the under-shepherd(s0 of that church.
Some can effectively lead and organize thousands, hundreds, dozens....
Others can effectively lead and organize those who fit around a kitchen table.

Honestly curious. How can there be intimacy,  accountability,  and effective discipline in a group of hundreds,  especially thousands?

From what I have experienced in larger churches,  the functioning church is actually at the Sunday school / home group level,  and corporate meeting is basically an add-on. 

Yeah, but the megachurch corporate meeting add-on is where the big bucks are made.

Big bucks are made?
What does that even mean?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the $250,000 offfice carpet Jack Schaap had installed in his 4th office....

So, pee, you and mater believe that any church which receives an offering in a corporate,/public worship service is the moral and spiritual equivalent to Schaap and FBH under his leadership?

Gee, Mr., did you put the fat night crawler in the water just for me?
It sure looks yummy!

 

[Mathew Ward]

So who are we meeting together with in this one place?

I repeat: Want to prove me wrong? Prove my definitions are wrong.

I repeat for the third time. You claimed that a church had to have elders, deacons and church discipline in order to be a church and if it didn't then it wasn't a church. When Jesus started the church he had none of these in place or if you hold to the church starting at Pentecost he only had church discipline that he had taught to the apostles..

When Jesus started the church was it not a church or was it a church? How could it be a church and not meet your criteria?

 

[Ransom]

I repeat for the third time.

I repeat for the third time: Want to prove me wrong? Prove my definitions are wrong.

Everything else is nothing but misdirection and filibustering from someone who thinks one person constitutes an "assembly."

 

[Mathew Ward]

I repeat for the third time.

I repeat for the third time: Want to prove me wrong? Prove my definitions are wrong.

Everything else is nothing but misdirection and filibustering from someone who thinks one person constitutes an "assembly."

I did. I appealed to Christ starting the church, I guess that isn't good enough for you.

When Christ started the church how many deacons were there? Zero. But you said there had to be deacons in order for it to be a church. Strike One.

When Christ started the church how many elders were there? Zero. But you said a church had to have elders in order to be a church. Strike Two.

When Christ set the Apostles (which I believe is when the church started) church discipline had not been given. But you said a church had to be able to exercise church discipline in order to be a church. Strike Three...Ransome is out.

Now if it is your position that when Christ started the church is irrelevant then filibuster on. However if the start of the church has meaning then your prerequisites for the church are a little off.

I guess when a small country church loses its bi-vocational elder it then ceases to be a church, because it doesn't meet your definition at that point.

 

[subllibrm]

There was a church in Jerusalem that met in many houses. Small groups you might say.

 

[prophet]

There was a church in Jerusalem that met in many houses. Small groups you might say.

Several times in Acts, you have the church in a particular city being gathered together.

Apparently, except for those special evrnts, like Paul showing up, they met in houses in small groups.  They obviously communicated, gave to each other's need, etc., but it seems that they only gathered the whole church for the above mentioned reason.

There was a church in Jerusalem that met in many houses. Small groups you might say.

 

[Ransom]

When Christ started the church how many deacons were there? Zero. But you said there had to be deacons in order for it to be a church. Strike One.

Strike whatever. Since you cluelessly believe you can have a local assembly consisting of a single individual, you're not even playing the right sport.

And given your continual distraction rather than defending that point in any manner, you lost the argument before you even started. Have a good one.

 

[Mathew Ward]

When Christ started the church how many deacons were there? Zero. But you said there had to be deacons in order for it to be a church. Strike One.

Strike whatever. Since you cluelessly believe you can have a local assembly consisting of a single individual, you're not even playing the right sport.

And given your continual distraction rather than defending that point in any manner, you lost the argument before you even started. Have a good one.

You keep asking me to debunk your definitions, I do, you ignore. Go figure.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Ransom, if a small country church loses its bi-vocational elder does it cease to be a church?

Ransom, if a small country church doesn't have any men qualified to be deacons does it cease to be a church?

Ransom, if a small country church doesn't have the minimum number of people attending does it cease to be a church?

 

[Ransom]

Here's what goes on in Mathew Ward's little fantasy world:

Ward: You can have a church of one person.
Me: No, "church" means "assembly," which by definition comprises more than one person.
Ward: Does it cease to be a church if it has no elders? Refuted!
Me: Pay attention to what I'm saying. "Church" means "assembly," which by definition comprises more than one person.
Ward: Does it cease to be a church if it has no deacons? Refuted!
Me: No, that's not what I said either. "Church" means "assembly," which by definition comprises more than one person.
Ward: Does it cease to be a church if it doesn't have the minimum number of people attending? Refuted!
Me: Read my lips. "Church" means "assembly," which by definition comprises more than one person.
Ward: Does it cease to be a church if blah blah blah having nothing to do with my incorrect definitiion of church that admits an "assembly" of one person? Refuted!
Me: Hello, McFly? Anyone in there? No? Obviously reason is wasted on you. Have a day.
Ward: See, I was right all along! I told you you were refuted!

 

[Mathew Ward]

Here's what goes on in Mathew Ward's little fantasy world:

Ward: You can have a church of one person.
Me: No, "church" means "assembly," which by definition comprises more than one person.
Ward: Does it cease to be a church if it has no elders? Refuted!
Me: Pay attention to what I'm saying. "Church" means "assembly," which by definition comprises more than one person.
Ward: Does it cease to be a church if it has no deacons? Refuted!
Me: No, that's not what I said either. "Church" means "assembly," which by definition comprises more than one person.
Ward: Does it cease to be a church if it doesn't have the minimum number of people attending? Refuted!
Me: Read my lips. "Church" means "assembly," which by definition comprises more than one person.
Ward: Does it cease to be a church if blah blah blah having nothing to do with my incorrect definitiion of church that admits an "assembly" of one person? Refuted!
Me: Hello, McFly? Anyone in there? No? Obviously reason is wasted on you. Have a day.
Ward: See, I was right all along! I told you you were refuted!

Here is your first post "Little difficult to appoint elders and deacons, engage in corporate worship, administer the ordinances, and perform church discipline in an "assembly" of one, wouldn't you agree?

Those are the functions that define a New Testament church. And the answer to both questions, when is a church too small or too large, is the same: when it can no longer effectively perform those scriptural functions."

Now care to address this Biff?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The size of a church is not designated in the Bible.
There are large churches, small churches...there are no one person churches.

The effectiveness of the church and it's size, in my experience, depends greatly on the under-shepherd(s0 of that church.
Some can effectively lead and organize thousands, hundreds, dozens....
Others can effectively lead and organize those who fit around a kitchen table.

Honestly curious. How can there be intimacy,  accountability,  and effective discipline in a group of hundreds,  especially thousands?

From what I have experienced in larger churches,  the functioning church is actually at the Sunday school / home group level,  and corporate meeting is basically an add-on. 

Yeah, but the megachurch corporate meeting add-on is where the big bucks are made.

Big bucks are made?
What does that even mean?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the $250,000 offfice carpet Jack Schaap had installed in his 4th office....

So, pee, you and mater believe that any church which receives an offering in a corporate,/public worship service is the moral and spiritual equivalent to Schaap and FBH under his leadership?

Gee, Mr., did you put the fat night crawler in the water just for me?
It sure looks yummy!

So, that a yes?
ANY pastor or church?

 

[Izdaari]

I don't think there is a minimum number except maybe 2-3, or a maximum number, though I don't care for megachurches. But personally I like the size of my church, with maybe 100 at our main Sunday service. I make no claim that it's biblically superior or anything, it's just what I like.  8)

 

[Ransom]

Now care to address this Biff?

Whether or not an assembly appoints officers is not my point. Whether a so-called "church" consisting of a single person is even capable of doing so, is the point. You have done nothing but dance around the real issue, and continue to do so.

The topic of this thread is "the size of a community of faith," not, as you seem so keen on trying to argue, "whether a community of faith is obedient or prompt in performing the biblical functions of a church" - as if, somehow, magically, finding a church that does not function perfectly validates your ridiculous notion that a single person constitutes a church! Your argument has every bit as much validity as those that argue in favour of gay "marriage" because traditional heterosexual marriage is so often dysfunctional.

A church can be disobedient. One person cannot even be a church. Can you deal with that reality, or do you want to continue living in your fantasy that you have "refuted" me when you haven't even addressed what I was actually saying? Your choice.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Now care to address this Biff?

Whether or not an assembly appoints officers is not my point. Whether a so-called "church" consisting of a single person is even capable of doing so, is the point. You have done nothing but dance around the real issue, and continue to do so.

The topic of this thread is "the size of a community of faith," not, as you seem so keen on trying to argue, "whether a community of faith is obedient or prompt in performing the biblical functions of a church" - as if, somehow, magically, finding a church that does not function perfectly validates your ridiculous notion that a single person constitutes a church! Your argument has every bit as much validity as those that argue in favour of gay "marriage" because traditional heterosexual marriage is so often dysfunctional.

A church can be disobedient. One person cannot even be a church. Can you deal with that reality, or do you want to continue living in your fantasy that you have "refuted" me when you haven't even addressed what I was actually saying? Your choice.

YOU...remember YOU brought up as your first post what the functions were and if a church did not function this way it wasn't a church.

I pointed out that when Jesus started the church, that none of these functions existed. Now if you want to argue that it wasn't a church, go ahead. But don't pretend I brought up the function when you clearly did.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Now care to address this Biff?

Whether or not an assembly appoints officers is not my point. Whether a so-called "church" consisting of a single person is even capable of doing so, is the point. You have done nothing but dance around the real issue, and continue to do so.

The topic of this thread is "the size of a community of faith," not, as you seem so keen on trying to argue, "whether a community of faith is obedient or prompt in performing the biblical functions of a church" - as if, somehow, magically, finding a church that does not function perfectly validates your ridiculous notion that a single person constitutes a church! Your argument has every bit as much validity as those that argue in favour of gay "marriage" because traditional heterosexual marriage is so often dysfunctional.

A church can be disobedient. One person cannot even be a church. Can you deal with that reality, or do you want to continue living in your fantasy that you have "refuted" me when you haven't even addressed what I was actually saying? Your choice.

YOU...remember YOU brought up as your first post what the functions were and if a church did not function this way it wasn't a church.

I pointed out that when Jesus started the church, that none of these functions existed. Now if you want to argue that it wasn't a church, go ahead. But don't pretend I brought up the function when you clearly did.

Matthew, are you arguing that one...1...uno...person can constitute a local church?
If so, you should stop...

 

[Ransom]

YOU...remember YOU brought up as your first post what the functions were and if a church did not function this way it wasn't a church.

Yes, well, now the topic is your definition of a church . . . which you seem bound and determined not to defend. So be it. It's crap.

I pointed out that when Jesus started the church, that none of these functions existed.

And how many of them were there, at that time? I seem to remember there being more than just Jesus ministering to himself. Right?

 

[prophet]

The size of a church is not designated in the Bible.
There are large churches, small churches...there are no one person churches.

The effectiveness of the church and it's size, in my experience, depends greatly on the under-shepherd(s0 of that church.
Some can effectively lead and organize thousands, hundreds, dozens....
Others can effectively lead and organize those who fit around a kitchen table.

Honestly curious. How can there be intimacy,  accountability,  and effective discipline in a group of hundreds,  especially thousands?

From what I have experienced in larger churches,  the functioning church is actually at the Sunday school / home group level,  and corporate meeting is basically an add-on. 

Yeah, but the megachurch corporate meeting add-on is where the big bucks are made.

Big bucks are made?
What does that even mean?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the $250,000 offfice carpet Jack Schaap had installed in his 4th office....

So, pee, you and mater believe that any church which receives an offering in a corporate,/public worship service is the moral and spiritual equivalent to Schaap and FBH under his leadership?

Gee, Mr., did you put the fat night crawler in the water just for me?
It sure looks yummy!

So, that a yes?
ANY pastor or church?

Luk 7:31-32
31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?
32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

 

[Mathew Ward]

YOU...remember YOU brought up as your first post what the functions were and if a church did not function this way it wasn't a church.

Yes, well, now the topic is your definition of a church . . . which you seem bound and determined not to defend. So be it. It's crap.

I pointed out that when Jesus started the church, that none of these functions existed.

And how many of them were there, at that time? I seem to remember there being more than just Jesus ministering to himself. Right?

I see you concede your function point.


The people or individual do reach out and evangelize people. The people or individual do build each other up. The people or individual do love God and love others. The people or individual are created for God's honor and glory. It is not difficult.


Can a single person start a church? YES.

If a single person can start a church then what is the minimum number that can be in a church? Obviously one.


If you would like a biblical example of one person starting a church, look no further than Jesus. It started with Him and He went and called the disciples one by one.


Now if you think Him starting the church is irrelevant to the discussion then maybe you should put a second coat of wax on the car. 

 

[rsc2a]

The individual do build each other up?

And to claim that Jesus is part of the Church is really terrible theology.